Howard's garden cities targeted a density of about 10K people per square mile. That's approximately the density of a UK or Japanese suburb but 3x a Canadian suburb & 4x an American suburb.
-
-
-
Specific targeted density numbers are very context-dependent! London at that time had over 100k/sqmi; Howard's idea was to greatly reduce that density by spreading people out into planned communities. Suburban densities in UK, Japan, Canada, USA all vary enormously too
-
True, just saying that Howard's vision was not all that sprawly, at worst, at the upper end of sprawl. We would have to build more densely today, but the concept of a network of new towns with innovative land tenure is still useful.
-
And 19th century suburbs in America are relatively dense compared to 20th century ones--regardless, they come from the same mentality of "cities bad, let's spread out"
-
There's nothing wrong with preferring a town or village to a city. The problem is optimizing the spatial form for cars, which basically mandates sprawl as we know it.
-
Right, nothing wrong with preferring small-town life, everything wrong with requiring it
-
We don't require it now; we destroy the possibility of both small-town and city life in favour of automobile sprawl. Agree that Howard's vision fed into the postwar suburban planning ideology, but it wasn't the same thing, nor did it have to lead there.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Misapplication of garden city concept doesn’t mean it mandates sprawl. Those suburbs were supposed to be self-sufficient with the right densities/varieties for housing. Unlike sprawls, they were not designed to depend on main cities. So no, Howard’s concept =/= sprawl
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.