| The weaknesses in current urban design practice have mostly been ascribed to its reliance on the urban utopian models developed in the West during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although there is a consensus on many of the limitations of these models, confusion prevails over the claim that they also embody a strong belief in architectural determinism, i.e. a belief that changes in the built environment will determine a new social order. Some critics argue that the limitation lies rather in architects' erroneous prediction of future social behavior. This dissertation resolves this confusion by re-evaluating the theories of six of the most influential urban utopians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Soriay Mata, Howard and Wright from the regressive utopian school of thought, and Garnier, Sant' Elia and Le Corbusier from the progressive utopian school of thought. The period of concern in the dissertation is from 1848 to 1947 because planning thought became separated from social thought following the failure of the 1848 Revolution in France while a new approach, as reflected in the sixth Congress of CIAM in 1947, developed in the post-Second World War era. Based on a content analysis of the writings of the selected utopians, this dissertation concludes that most of them have expressed varying degrees of a belief in architectural determinism. The conclusions are further supported by an analysis of the functioning of the theories of these utopians when they are put into practice, as in three contemporary new towns, Chandigarh, Brasilia, and Columbia, Maryland. These new towns reflect discrepancies between the expectations of their planners and the realities which have arisen from a belief in architectural determinism. By demonstrating the erroneous self-image of the urban utopians of 1848-1947, this dissertation lays the groundwork for a better understanding of the misconceptions present in contemporary urban design theory and practice. |
