16
Yona Friedmann questioned the causal relationship between
society and density and pleaded for a scientific approach to
urban planning in imitation of modern physics – not only with
regard to the spatial dimension, but also in consideration of
the time factor; above all, however, as a departure from
urban planning and design founded exclusively in artistic
intuition and personal preferences.
5
Conversely, the current
goal of creating an ecological city is surely unattainable with-
out densification and re-densification.
Living in a single-family house is not nearly as integrated as
the seamless transition between house and garden seems to
suggest. On the contrary, living in a single-family house out-
side of the city is invariably one-dimensional living. It adheres
to a purely linear order. It is true that the available outdoor
spaces are at ground level and privately owned. But it is
impossible to create a spatial context out of the legally
imposed dividing strips. The largest section of the garden
remains unused, a green space purely for show, a relic of the
“elegant villa,” while still requiring maintenance and care. The
German sociologist Hans-Paul Bahrdt was prompted to com-
ment laconically in 1961: “Suburban houses and single-family
homes, set precisely into the centre of very small lots as a
result of building regulations, are less responsive to the
desire for privacy than apartments.” The argument should
give us pause: never before have the stages for blissful home
ownership on the periphery been as restricted as they are
today. Even the Austrian Roland Rainer, one of the most pas-
sionate champions of high-density low-rise building, had to
admit in 1974: “The desire for privacy, which drives most
people to strive towards owning a ‘single-family home’ at
great personal cost and tremendous public expense, is not
satisfied by the contemporary form of these houses.” In addi-
tion to this, the enormous deficiencies of one-dimensional
living have to be compensated at the expense of individual
time and money in a manner that is questionable, both eco-
logically and economically. The only alternative is to tolerate
them by accepting a complete loss of cultural and social life.
The ability to choose freely among several options, on the
other hand, is a quality that differentiates life in high-density
housing in the city from the supposedly countrified lifestyle in
the periphery. The evil spectre of the apartment or “social
housing,” however, stood in the way of a clear-sighted view
of these dynamics. Ulrich Conrads, editor-in-chief of the jour-
nal Bauwelt for many years, unmasked the comparison of
apartment versus house as false and debunked the myth of
the majority of single-family homes by comparison to social
housing by coining the expression “social houses,” an
expression that, unfortunately, failed to take hold. The motto
of the “Society through Densification” or “Urbanity through
Densification” was full of negative connotations by compari-
son to the garden city idea of the turn of the last century. And
yet there was nothing wrong with it. What was wrong across
the board was the architectural response – on both sides of
the city wall. The slogan: “As many single-family homes as
possible, as few rental apartments as possible,” was espe-
cially wrong. For Le Corbusier’s apartment homes had long
been forgotten by then.
Integration
The Russian-born Serge Chermayeff, successor of Laszlo
Moholy-Nagy at the Institute of Design in Chicago, and the
Viennese Christopher Alexander, both trained in England,
composed their remarkable seminal work Community and
privacy: toward a new architecture of humanism chiefly with
a view to integration. This was an idea that was close to
Christopher Alexander’s heart, among other reasons
because he had studied mathematics as well as architecture:
“The pseudo country house sits uneasily in its shrunken
countryside, neither quite cheek by jowl with its neighbor nor
decently remote, its flanks unprotected from prying eyes and
penetrating sounds. It is a ridiculous anachronism. (…) The
bare unused islands of grass serve only the myth of inde-
pendence. This unordered space is neither town nor country;
behind its romantic façade, suburbia contains neither the
natural order of a great estate nor the man-made order of the
historic city. (…) The suburb fails to be countryside because
it is too dense. It fails to be city because it is not dense
enough. Countless scattered houses dropped like stones on
neat rows of development lots do not create an order, or gen-
erate community. Neighbor remains stranger and the real
friends are most often quite far away, as are school, shop-
ping and other facilities. (…) In spite of growing decentraliza-
tion, and the fact that more and more people with more and
more cars live in the never-never land of Suburbia, most of
the money continues to be earned and spent in the city
proper.”
6
It is remarkable how the arguments put forth in expert circles
around the globe converged without having the slightest
effect on the practice of urban planning, a few exceptions
aside. The practical solution proposed by Chermayeff and
Alexander was dense carpet development composed of
deep, single-storey buildings set around garden courtyards
with a network of narrow, labyrinthine connecting paths
closed off to traffic. For the United States, this was a revolu-
tionary, area-efficient approach in the spirit of Roland Rainer,
albeit not a constructive, long-term urban strategy by com-
parison to the far more complex model of the European city.
As Lewis Mumford stated, the city is justifiably regarded as
“the most precious invention of civilization, second only to
language in its role as a mediator of culture.”
7
It is the quin-
tessential repository of history. Nevertheless, the last fifty
years have been marked by the unfettered sprawl of sub-
divisions, all driven by the untouchable decree of home
owner ship. We have forgotten that the city experience begins
on the doorstep of one’s private home, fundamentally
in fluencing daily life with shopping and leisure, the route to
school and office, culture and communication: depending on
aesthetic stimuli and the free choice between entering into
contact or keeping a distance, this influence is experienced
as positive or negative. In their individual districts, large cities
should strive to emulate small towns and create a unique
space as a focal point, a “small, comfortably everyday public
sphere, which has, however, nothing in common with the
village linden tree of the pre-industrial village,”
8
as Hans-Paul
Bahrdt put it in 1968. Modern apartments in this varied
ensemble of functions and forms should not only declare
their modernity through advanced technology, but above all
by providing their residents with opportunities for cultural
growth in the immediate vicinity. Seen from this perspective,
the size of a largely autonomous urban quarter is defined by
the range one can comfortably cross on foot: ten minutes,
that is, 10 000 residents. “The degree of densification,” states
Bahrdt, “thus determines whether retail stores for daily use,
schools, pubs and churches are reachable on foot, whether
access by public transport is possible, or, conversely,