The one time I wish Mr. Wright had been wrong


Source: en.wikipedia.org

I thoroughly enjoy the magnificence and elegance of Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture and design. A tour I tour took of the Robie House in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood this summer highlighted many innovative and artistic features that make him America’s premiere architect. Four stunning homes here in Greater Lansing also bear his design.

On the urban planning side of things, many of Mr. Wright’s visions of the future that were depicted in the Broadacre City turned out to be spot on. However, that is also where he and I diverge paths. While no one, including me, can dispute the fact that he accurately predicted our sprawling, low-density future, one can certainly differ with its anticipated benefits, actual implementation, and its degree of success.

Broadacre City - Source: mediaarchitecture.at

When the concept of the Broadacre City was first visualized,  the Earth appeared to have  boundless reserves of oil to power such a design.  But, that begs the follow-up question, should Mr. Wright and fellow futurists have also recognized the adverse impacts that the Broadacre City could bring to our society, the potential for accelerating the depletion of fossil fuels, and the subsequent warming of the atmosphere?

Certainly, depletion of resources was nothing new in Frank Lloyd Wright’s heyday.  One only need look at the rapidly depleted timber forests of Michigan as a case study from the 19th century. Similarly, the polluting effects of fossil fuels were well-known – just ask residents of cities like Pittsburgh or Birmingham.

The Broadacre City concept of one-acre lots for each family sounds bucolic, but it is the very antithesis of today’s smart growth, walkable community, or new urbanism tenets. The question begs, could the negative impacts of such a sprawling urban form (partially listed below) have been foreseen, advocated against, and thus avoided?

  • losses of productive farmland
  • greater infrastructure expenses
  • abandonment, decline, and decay of the central city, the midtown and older suburban locations
  • greater carbon footprint
  • increased obesity and diabetes rates
  • longer and more expensive commutes
  • loss of environmentally sensitive features

At the very least, the loss of productive farmland and greater infrastructure costs should have been very evident to those advocating the Broadacre City format. It would have been an inherent result of spreading a city over an enormous geographic area. However, in an ironic twist, the very failure of some urban settings have led to renewed gardening and farming in abandoned sections of cities like Detroit and Youngstown. This may have not be the intended design outcome as seen by Mr. Wright, but it sure lends further credence to his visionary focus.

While some of the negative environmental impacts such as global warming would have been difficult to predict, I believe a number of the potential socio-economic impacts could have been foreseen. Granted, in 2011 we have the benefit of hindsight, so it is unfair to play Monday morning quarterback. Instead, perhaps the best lesson is that we should be spending spend more of our planning efforts considering the potential impacts of our decisions than we currently do. This is not to say that every possible negative impact can be foretold to us in our magic planning crystal ball, but if more questions had been raised about the Broadacre City concept, we might not be spending so much time, money, and effort today trying to reverse our course.

This entry was posted in architecture, art, cities, climate change, density, energy, environment, food systems, health, history, land use, new urbanism, planning, transportation and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The one time I wish Mr. Wright had been wrong

  1. Jessica says:

    So, then are we faced with a chicken & egg quandry? As surely as form follows from function, functionality also evolves from form. Thus the “bucolic” Broadacre form brings us wasteful inefficiency – of land, fuel and other resources- as well as a loss of community and civic mindfulness. Linear, dogmatic thinking has clarity, supports action, and avoids the chaos and circuitous repetiveness of the traditonal planning cycle, but does so at the expense of or failure to capture secondary (and perhaps primary) impacts. The clean up of our impaired coastal waters is a success story tainted by the failure to consider that all that wastewater we wanted to pump into the ocean first had to be clean water pumped from some source. Unfortunalely onthe east coast that was ground water in confined aquifers — which are at grave risk over being overdrawn (mined) and subject to “contamination” from salt water intrusion. Hind sight is usually 20-20. Best thing we can do is not repeat the same mistakes. (There’ll be a whole set of new ones to discover!)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s