sign in sign up
<<
Home , Grid plan, Planned community, Town square

Journal ofUrban Design,Vol. 5, No. 3, 237± 265, 2000

Hexagonal Planningin Theoryand Practice

ERANBEN-JOSEPH& DAVIDGORDON

ABSTRACT Residentialneighbourhood designs with patterns basedupon hexagonal blockswere proposedby several planners in theearly 20th century. Urban designerssuch asCharles Lamb, Noulan Cauchon and Barry Parker demonstrated the economic advan- tagesand ef® cient landuse generatedby hexagonal plans. By 1930, hexagonal was aleadingtheoretical alternative to therectangular gridfor residential subdivisions, but itwas displacedby the loop and cul-de-sac modeldeveloped in Radburn, New Jersey, byClarence Stein andHenry Wright.The paper chronologically reviews the various hexagonalplanning schemes andtheir designers. It considersthe advantages and disad- vantagesof hexagons, using their designers’ own wordsand drawings.

Introduction In the realmof , hexagonalplanning istoday virtually an unknown phenomenon, amere oddityamong a vastarray of ideologies, theories and methods.It regularly goesunnoticed by studentsof planning andurban history.Yet, for a period ofalmost 30 years, between 1904and 1934, it caught the attentionof variousplanners, engineers andarchitects who saw in ita promisingpanacea for the city’splanning illsand a replacement forthe uniform rectangularstreet grid. Striving toestablish visionary and idealistic schemes for aperfect physicalenvironment that would also improve social conditions, these individualsadvocated their ideasin papers andprofessional presentations for overa quarterof acentury.Yet none were able tobuild their planson a large scale.Why wasthis so? Was it because in reality,as on paper, hexagonslooked toofar-fetched tobe aworkablesolution? What about the theory’ssuggested cost-effectivenessand ef® cient landuse pattern;were notthey anincentive for ? Such idealizedgeometrical schemes for city design often remainedtheoretical. There havebeen manymore ideal on paper thanon the ground.When they were built, these idealcommunities were often short-livedin their pure state.They were overtakenby the realityof the wayin whichpeople behave under normalconditions. As Lynch (1984,p. 48)suggested, ªSettlement formis the spatialarrangement of persons doing things,the resulting spatial¯ owsof persons,goods, and information, and the physicalfeatures which modify space in someway signi® cantto those actions, including enclosures,surfaces, chan- nels,ambience, andobjectsº .

Eran Ben-Joseph,Department of Urban Studiesand Planning, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology,77 Massachusetts Ave,Cambridge, MA 02139,USA. Email:[email protected]. DavidGordon, Schoolof Urban andRegional Planning, Queen’s University,Ontario, .

1357± 4809 Print/1469± 9664 Online/00/030237-29 Ó 2000 Taylor &Francis Ltd DOI:10.1080/ 13574800020006653 238 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Geometricplans emerged througha rationalprocess unrelated toideal-city concepts.While we mightview hexagonalplanning asone of thosefanciful approachesto city design, we shouldnot dismiss it entirely. The conceptual frameworkthat delineates hexagonalplanning anddesign isoutlined in this paper througha review ofprofessional publications, historical precedents and archivalresearch. The articlemainly hexagonal planning atthe neighbourhood andmetropolitan scale, and largely ignoresother interesting hexagonalschemes in (Bijlmermeer, ;Le Mirail,Tou- louse) ortraf® c engineering (Buchanan,1963). Hexagonal planning’ skey advo- catesand its historical context are describe chronologicallybelow. Geometricapproaches to the planning oftowns and have many precedents in the formof ancient cities (Castagnoli, 1971). The rectangulargrid wasby farthe mostprevalent design, withexamples in ,India, and Greece (Kostof,1991). Octagonal layouts were alsopopular forideal cities such asPalmanova, (1593), and , (1723)(Johnston, 1983). Wren’s proposalfor rebuilding Londonafter the GreatFire (1666)combined gridswith octagonaland hexagonal geometry, but itwas not built (Figure 1).A small portionof Woodward’s1807 hexagonal/ rectangulargrid plan forDetroit was built before the townabandoned the ideain the 1820s(Figure 2).The New (1795) and Goderich, Ontario (1829), successfully incorporateda rectangulargrid andoctagonal squares. These elegant diagramswere often the exceptionsto the rule ofthe rectangulargrid. The gridironplan wasmandated by ordinancesin the Spanish Lawsof the Indies, the French Bastilletowns, the UKbylawhousing estatesand the 19th-centuryNorth American land surveys. In NorthAmerica, most from to were laidout in someform of rectangulargrid (Reps, 1969).When the modernurban planning movementbegan aroundthe turnof the 20thcentury, thisgrid wasan obvious targetfor reform, since itwas regarded as monotonous, excessively paved and open tothrough traf® c (Southworth& Ben-Joseph, 1997).

GardenCities andGarden as Alternatives for Residential Neighbour- hoods (1899±1930) ’sin¯uential book Tomorrow:A PeacefulPath to RealReform (1898)contained now-famous diagrams proposing garden cities in acircular form.Even Howardregarded these drawingsas theoretical illustrations of his concept.The designers ofLetchworth (1903), the ®rstgarden city,were given a free hand.The winning design in the limited competitionfor was prepared by RaymondUnwin andBarry Parker, two architects deeply involved in socialreform. Miller (1989)suggests that the semi-octagonaldesign ofthe proposedtown centre (Figure 3)seems inspired by Wren’sproposalfor the business districtof .However, Unwin andParker’s smallhouse group- ings became farmore in¯ uential. They experimented withsmall crescents and cul-de-sacsfor inexpensive cottagesin Letchworth’sresidentialareas. Unwin andParker’s design forHampstead Garden (1907±1910) ex- tended thistheme ofinformally planned residentialareas with detailed site planning formiddle-class homes, based upon smallcrescents and cul-de-sacs. Frederick LawOlmsted, Jr, took a similarapproach for an early US garden suburb in ForestHills Garden, (1911). He combined smallgroups withthe graceful curvilineardesigns pioneered by hisfather in 1869at River- HexagonalPlanning 239 . ) 9 0 9 1 ( n i w n U : e c r u o S . 6 6 6 1 , n o d n o L g n i d l i u b e r r o f n a l p s ’ n e r W r e h p o t s i r h C . 1 e r u g i F 240 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 2. Woodward’shexagonal/rectangulargrid plan forDetroit, 1807. Source: Cauchon(1927). side,near . The OlmstedBros. ® rmproduced scoresof curvilinear subdivisionsin the USA andCanada in the early20th century.

TheCity Beautifuland the Grid (1904±1920) One ofthe principal disadvantagesof the rectangulargrid isthe dif® cultyof diagonalmovements, which make up alargeproportion of urban trips.Urban designers often attemptedto combine diagonalboulevards with a background grid,following the example ofL’Enfant’ splan forWashington, DC (1793),or CerdaÂ’s plan forthe BarcelonaEnsanche (1864). The diagonalParisian boule- vardscreated by BaronHaussmann in the late19th century were particularly in¯uential, perhaps because the Ecoledes Beaux Arts was the dominantarchitec- turalschool of the day.The classicalarchitectural and urban design idealsof the Ecolewere reintroducedto North America in the World’sColumbian Exposition atChicagoin 1893.The fair’splan, coordinated by ,had a strong in¯uence upon urban design practicefor the next 20years. Its vision of immense,white neo-classicalbuildings facing naturalisticlandscapes and lagoonscreated a powerful imagewhich was widely reproduced in early photographicsouvenirs. Attemptsto recreate the fair’simagebecame knownas the CityBeautiful movement(Wilson, 1989). Burnham and Edward Bennett’ splansfor San Fran- cisco(1904) and Chicago (1909) combined the existingcity grids with neo-classi- calcivic centres at the focusof the new diagonalavenues. Washington, DC, revived L’Enfant’splan in 1903,and inserteda majordiagonal avenue, the FairmountParkway, into Penn’ s1692grid plan.However, few other citieswere able tofollow Haussmann’s lead in cuttingnew diagonalboulevards though anexisting urban fabric.They often lackedthe ®nancialresources and expropriationpowers required tomatch ’s programme. By 1910,the City Beautiful wasunder attackfor its impracticality and overly aesthetic approach HexagonalPlanning 241

Figure 3. HampsteadGarden Suburb’s courtsand cul-de-sacs, Unwin andParker, 1905. Source:Unwin (1909). toplanning (Olmsted,1911), although diagonal were important elements ofplans for national capitals on vacant sites, like Grif®n’s (1912)(Figure 4),and Lutyens andBaker’s (1913)(Figure 5).

In aGrandyet PrudentManner: Charles Lamb and Rudolf MuÈller,Hexagonal Plans(1904± 1910) Cityplanning anddesign became asubject ofinterest in manycircles of engineers, sociologists,artists and craftsmen. Hexagonal plans were advocated by aNew Yorkarchitect and a Viennese engineer during the ®rstdecade of the 20thcentury. The New Yorkarchitect and art historian Charles Lamb prepared ahexagonalplan in 1904.Lamb specialized in ecclesiasticaland memorial architecture,designing the MadisonSquare Archas well asthe courtof honour ofthe Hudson±Fulton Celebration in 1909.Lamb believed thatarts and crafts were anintegralpart of architecture and city planning. He frequently addressed the need tobeautify New YorkCity through sculptures, fountains and statues as well asthrough the planning anddesign ofstreets and city blocks (Gilmartin, 1995). 242 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 4. Canberra,Walter Burley Grif®n, 1912. Source:Courtesyof Cityof Canberra.

In 1904,Lamb used hisin¯ uential standingin the ®ne artcircles of New York Cityto introduce city planning intothe realmof arts and crafts. He published anarticle with the title` Cityplan’ in the Craftsman (Lamb,1904). Lamb argued, fromboth artistic and economic perspectives, for the utilizationof hexagonal planning forfuture citiesand neighbourhoods. The sourceof inspiration for the hexagonalcon® guration of city and blocksthat Lamb advocated is unknown. He wasa greatadmirer of L’ Enfant’s diagonalstreets in the originalplan forWashington, DC. Lamb was also critical ofthe grid system,in particularthat of . He wrote:

In counter-distinctionto the plan ofWashington,the gridironsystem of New York,also the outcomeof acommission,can be shownas possibly the mostunsatisfactory of all forms of street arrangement, if the convenience ofthe citizenbe considered,while the artisticpossibilities havebeen ignored by havingthe rectilinearplan driven throughtons andtons of natural rock to the destructionof the naturalcontours, and tothe greatexpense ofthe communityat large as well asof individual -builders. Itis ageometricaxiom that the distanceof two sides of arightangle triangleis greater than the third,and that, therefore, any systemof transit through streets of right-angled plan,north or south, eastor west, must necessarily increase the distanceto be travelled,as againstthe diagonalstreets leading fromone quarterof the cityto another.Broadway, the one greatdiagonal through New York,proves howessential such diagonals are, and it is but recently thata serious attempthas been madeto suggest modi® cations and improvements in HexagonalPlanning 243

Figure 5. New Delhi, Lutyens andBaker, 1913. Source:Courtesyof LarryVale and Saif-ul Haq.

the present plan of New York,so as to rectify manyof the dif® culties andadjust the changesto the inevitably increasingcongestion of the growingmetropolis. (Lamb, 1904, p. 5)

Lambadvocated his hexagonal city plan asapracticalyet artisticsolution to the illsof the moderncity. He claimedthat such a systemwould not only allowfor the creationof beautiful European-style boulevardssuch as the ChampsElyse Âes andBerlin’ sUnter den Linden, but alsoallow for planned growthand healthy living. ªThe morethis plan isstudiedº , Lambwrote,

the moreit will be found toapproach the ideaof practicability, primarilyin regardto shorter distances that a personwould have to walkor drive fromany one pointto another. The sub-divisionof the interestsinto groups by adivisionof the parkarea, is to be distinctly commendedfrom its sanitary point of view,as these interruptionsof naturalfoliage give the greatestadvantage to the inhabitantsof each quarter.Aesthetically, the grouping ofthe public, semi-public and privatebuildings aroundcommon centers largely increasesthe archi- tecturaland artistic possibilities over the accidentalopportunities of- fered by the ordinaryplan ofthe city;while the anglescaused by the 244 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 6. Hexagonalplan, Charles Lamb, 1904. Source:Triggs(1909).

hexagonpermit interesting varietyin the treatmentof the streetfacades overthat developed by anystraight or continuously curved street. (Lamb,1904, p. 7)

Lamb’sargument for practical and aesthetic solutions to city planning in hexagonalschemes re¯ ects the dilemmaof many designers atthe turnof the 20thcentury. The idealof adisciplined technologicalcity with perfect spatial orderstood against the backdropof chaoticcity life, congestionand social unrest.Science andtechnology were seen asa vehicle forchange, based on the premise thatphysical remedies couldresolve social problems and upgrade living conditions.Salvation could come through the employment ofexperts and technocratswho could recommend policies and administer scienti® c solutions (Figure 6).Rationality inspired afresh approachto planning, notablythe adoptionof the Germanconcept of and transportation systems, and the English comprehensive plan. An Austrianengineer, RudolfMu Èller, tookup the challenge of devising a practicalcity plan. In hisarticle ` The cityof the future: hexagonalbuilding conceptfor a new division’,Mu Èller (1908)claims that his inspiration arose from apragmaticprospect of devising anef® cient plan forwater and sewer distri- bution.He writes:

So farthe ideaof the hexagonalbuilding concepthad pleased me,not asa citydweller, but asa systemof water engineering andsewage engineering andespecially stillas a hygienic andnature-friendly sys- temfor public andprivate gardens in the city.(Mu Èller, 1908) HexagonalPlanning 245

MuÈller drewa diagramof typical hexagonal city blocks and streets and laid out asystemof utilities to prove hispoint. Through geometricalcon® gurations and measurementshe pointed tothe potentialsavings in the length ofthe waterlines aswell asthose for the sewersystem. Fewer ®re hydrantsand water mains couldserve a largernumber ofbuildings, andshorter service lines couldbe laid between the mainsand the (Figure 7). MuÈller alsopoints to other aesthetic advantages:

All housing hasa frontwidth which is determined by the length ofthe courtyardand, of course, the streettracts running throughthe public ,when eachhexagonal block issurrounded by six public courtyardsthe interiorcourtyards will stillhave reasonable dimensionsrelative to the housing tracts.For public , fountains,and objects of beauty suf® cient sizesof areasare thus given. The formof the streetbecomes stable by designing the streetas a straightline, giving ita delightful view.With this kind ofimage of formsof and tree groupings aconstructedart is created. (MuÈller, 1908)

MuÈller, like otheradvocates of inner cityimprovement in histime, drew a plan forthe complete renovationof the Schmelz Districtin Vienna. Through his suggested plan he arguesthat the hexagonalconcept ® tswell intoan existing fabricand its offer better living conditionsthan does the typicalcity grid.Since MuÈller’s schemesutilize parallelstreets, creating triangles rather than full hexagonalblocks, the transitionto the existinggrid ismore easily achieved (Figure 8). While MuÈller’s ideasof a hexagonalcity plan havenever materialized,the radialstar associated with such triangular/ hexagonalgeometry cameto be seen by manyplanners in the early20th century asone ofthe bestforms for cities. WalterBurley Grif®n’ sdesign of1912for the Australiancapital city of Canberra includes thisapproach. In the plan,two axes related to the topographyare intersectedand joined togetherby aseriesof concentric streets of hexagonsand octagons.Grif® n’ splan,though notfully realised,had one hexagonalblock that wasbuilt andtwo others that were reshaped intocircles (Figure 4).

ARegional Perspective:Arthur Comey(1923) and Walter Christaller (1933) The onsetof in 1914and the destructionof parts of European cities sentmany city reformers to the drawingtable. Physical changes like those proposedby Lamband Mu Èller tocity blocks and streets did not provide the panaceafor the city’sills.As the cityboundaries expanded in anunrestrained fashion,a new apparatusof planning tobridge the gap between the city,the suburbs andthe open region wassought. The UKmodelsof andthe garden cityideals were takingroot in planning circles world-wide. The RegionalPlanning Associationof America (RPAA) wasestablished in 1923by 20planners andarchitects, among them , LewisMumford, Henry Wright,Frederick Ackermanand Clarence Perry. They developed princi- ples forcommunity planning tobetter design the metropolisand the region 246 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 7. Hexagonalplan, Rudolph MuÈller, 1908.Annotations by NoulanCauchon, 1911.ª Nobuildings facing eachotherÐ no good for big streets.No point where morethan 2 streetsintersect.º Source:Triggs(1909).

(Parsons,1998). Arthur Comey was one of the greatsupporters of effortsat the time.A landscapearchitect trained by Frederick Law Olmsted,Jr, Comey was involved in manycity planning efforts,including those HexagonalPlanning 247

Figure 8. Schmelz Districtin Vienna, Rudolph MuÈller, 1908. Source:MuÈller (1908).

ofHouston and . While designing numerousnew neighbourhoodsand districts,Comey shifted hisinterest to regional planning andtaught the subject atthe newly establishedDepartment of Regional Planning atHarvard. In 1923he published anintriguing scheme advocatinga policy of multi- directionalcity growth along radial transportation lines laidout in hexagonal patterns.In RegionalPlanning Theory: A Replyto theBritish Challenge , Comey (1923)proposes that the garden cityideal as practised in England will collapse asthose cities and towns grow beyond their expected populationlimits. Comey accuratelypredicted that,as population grew, congestion would increase and open spaceand agricultural land on the periphery wouldbe consumed.He suggested thatgrowth and sprawl would destroy the balanceof country and city.Comey’s solutionwas a physicalplan fora city-statewhere networksof hexagonaland diagonal streets and prescribed landuses correspond to forcesof growth.He suggested thatthe hexagonand the triangleused throughouthis diagramsª [provide] the mostserviceable andeconomical network of traf®c routesº(Comey, 1923,p. 10).The systemwas progressive in scale:small towns were connectedto large ones and large ones to the majormetropolitan areas, creatinga carpetof hexagonal cells. The nationwas divided intocity-regions or `states’represented by hexagonsof 1000± 5000 square miles (Figure 9).Comey (1923,p. 12)wrote:

Citizenswill bene® tby the economicsand superior results of living and workingin awell-;and if sucha cityever does growlarge the earlyplanning shouldafford adequate ground work. 248 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon . ) 3 2 9 1 ( y e m o C : e c r u o S . 3 2 9 1 , y e m o C r u h t r A , y t i c l a n o g a x e h e v i s s e r g o r P . 9 e r u g i F HexagonalPlanning 249

Although Comey’sregionalplan fora city-stateremained anoveltyin the US planning realm,the president of the AmericanCity Planning Institutepro- claimed:ª Mr Comey’s suggestionsare ingenious, cleverly shownby hisdia- grams,and basically soundº (Comey, 1923,p. 1). Interestingly, adecadelater, Walter Christaller published his Diezentralen Orte inSu Èddeutschland (1933)(Christaller, 1966), where he utilizedalmost identicaldiagrams to explain hispopular centralplace theory.Whether this wasa mere coincidence,or an actual cross-continental inspiration by Arthur Comey’soriginalideas, remains unknown. Christaller’stheorybecame afoun- dationof 20th-century regional in andNorth America (Yeates,1998).

The`City Scienti® c’and Hexagonal Planning: NoulanCauchon (1926± 1935) The backlashagainst aesthetically based plans in the CityBeautiful stylewas well under wayby 1910,led by ThomasAdams and Frederick LawOlmsted, Jr. Adamswas pivotal in makingurban planning aseparateprofession and in codifying residentialdesign practice.In the UK, he wasthe secretaryof the GardenCity Association and founding president ofthe TownPlanning Institute. In 1914,he wassummoned to Canada as the federal government’s town planning advisor,where he prepared afew residentialdesigns in the garden suburb style(Simpson, 1985). Adams’smain work was accomplished as an organizer and publicist for planning basedon legal andscienti® c principles andpublic health.As the founding president ofboth the TownPlanning Instituteof Canada (TPIC) and the CivicImprovement League, he wasinstrumental in getting planning legis- lationadopted in mostCanadian provinces (Simpson, 1985).Adams found a sympatheticcolleague in ’sengineer/ planner, NoulanCauchon. They madecommon cause against the CityBeautiful plan forOttawa prepared by EdwardBennett forthe Federal PlanCommission and succeeded in getting it shelved (Gordon,1998). Cauchon followed Adams as president of the TPIC (1921±1923) and founding chairmanof the OttawaTown Planning Commission (1921±1935), where he prepared zoningbylaws and small plans in the City Scienti® cmanner(Coutts, 1982). Like thatof many early 20th-century planners, Cauchon’ sscienti®c approach toplanning wasbased upon histraining as a railwayengineer, attendanceat numerousconferences andstudy of the earlytextbooks of the day(Robinson, 1904;Triggs, 1909; Unwin, 1909).Cauchon’ swritings,which are preserved in Ottawa,have a strongemphasis on civic design, which he combined withhis engineering experience todevelop hisown theory of hexagonalplanning. Triggs (1909),for example, gavea detailedreview ofMu Èller’s andLamb’s hexagonal plans,which Cauchon carefully annotated.Cauchon notes that Mu Èller’s plan (Figure 7)has ª nobuildings facing eachother; no good for big streetsºand approvedof the landuse zonesin Lamb’splan. However, Cauchon’ sbest insightmay have emerged fromhis study of Eugene HeÂnard’straf® c diagrams, reprinted bothin Triggs(1909) and in anarticle he savedby Frederick Law Olmsted,Jr (1910).A three-way intersectionis theoretically greatly superior to a four-wayintersection because the 120 ° angle hasimproved sight lines compared withthe rightangle. The three-legged intersectionhas only three potential collisionpoints (closed circles on Figure 10),compared with 16 in the other. 250 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 10. Traf®c collisionpoints for intersection types. Source:Triggs(1909).

Cauchon(1925) noted that a pure hexagonalstreet network would only contain three-legged intersections,whereas the elaboratetriangular network in other hexagonalplans such as those of Lamb,Mu Èller andComey contained many intersectionswhich were even morecomplex than the rectangulargrid. Cauchonunveiled hisbasic hexagonal plan (Figure 11)at the 1925Inter- nationalTown, City and Regional Planning Conference in New York.He added agrade-separated`interceptor’ roadwayfor fast through traf® c, and a detailed comparisonof similarly sized rectangular and hexagonal blocks. The lotand building layoutappear to be in¯uenced by diagramsfrom Raymond Unwin’s Town Planningin Practice: An Introduction to theArt ofDesigningCities and Suburbs (1909).The hexagonrequired 10%less length ofroads and utilities and allowed asubstantialcentral green spacein eachblock (Figure 12). Cauchon’sproposal was well received andreprinted in numeroustechnical journals(Cauchon, 1925, 1926a,b). He elaboratedupon the design witheach publication,adding diagrams and detailed calculations which demonstrated the hexagon’ssuperiority over the rectangulargrid forresidential servicing and traf®c ¯ow.By 1927,Cauchon had expanded histheory into a complete plan for Hexagonopolis(Figure 13)on a scalewhose boldness rivals that of Le Corbus- ier’s VilleContemporaine (1922).Cauchon promoted his ideas widely, arranging forHexagonopolis to be featured in Canada’slargest-circulationmagazine (Cauchon,1927), speaking tonumerous professional groups and distributing reprintsof his articles to hundreds ofplanning activistsin the 1920s. In additionto engineering andplanning bene® ts,Cauchon also suggested that the hexagonalsystem had public healthbene® ts.If the hexagonalgrid was orientedso that it pointed due north,there wouldnever be buildings witha northernexposure, andall rooms in the block wouldreceive directsunlight every day.Direct sunlight wasidenti® ed asa possible cure fortuberculosis in HexagonalPlanning 251

Figure 11. Hexagonalplan, Noulan Cauchon, 1925. Source:Cauchon(1925). the 1920sand adequate daytime lighting wasa strongconcern of housing reformersthroughout the decade.Lawrence Veiller, the in¯uential secretaryof the (US) NationalHousing Association (NHA) invited Cauchonto the NHA’s conference andpromoted his work (Cauchon, 1929a; Kitchen, 1929). NoulanCauchon’ splanswere alsoreprinted in Europe in the 1920s.Georges Benoit-Levy (1928,1929) promoted Hexagonopolis in ,even presenting a hexagonalhouse tocomplement it (Figure 14).However, despite Cauchon’s scienti®c analysisand vigorous promotion of hisplan, not a single hexagonhad been built in NorthAmerica by 1930.Another powerful alternativeto the grid hademerged in New Jersey.

Radburnas a NewSuburban Prototype (1928±1934) Radburnwas designed by ClarenceStein andHenry Wrightfor a green® eld site in New Jersey, 24km fromManhattan. It combined ClarencePerry’ sneighbour- hoodunit concept(Perry, 1929)with a radicallynew streetlayout. Stein hadrecently returned froma tripto England, where he studiedthe designs of Letchworthand Hampstead Garden Suburb (Parsons,1992). The Radburnplan adoptedUnwin andParker’s cul-de-sac asthe exclusive method ofresidential layout for houses (Figure 15)but combined themin superblocks of 30±50 (Stein, 1957).The residentialcul-de-sacs were separatedby narrow pedestrianpaths, which connected to a centralpark, a anda school site.The cul-de-sacseliminated the grid’sproblem ofthrough traf® c onlocal streets,and underpasses ensured thatchildren did nothave to cross astreetto reach the parksor school (Stein, 1957).Perry’ sneighbourhood unit wasupdated forthe motorage. The Radburnproject collapsed in the 1930sdepression, but itsplan became 252 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 12. Hexagonalblock, Noulan Cauchon, 1925. Source:Cauchon(1925). widely knowndue toextensive promotionby variousplanning groups(Birch, 1980;Silver, 1985)., now heading the New YorkRegional Plan, featured itin the backgroundreports of the New YorkRegional Plan Associ- ation,even before its® rstphase wascomplete (Adams,1927). However, this New Jersey fragmentwas the only built example ofthe plan in 1928,when Barry Parkerbuilt the ®rsthexagonal residential community.

Hexagonsin Practice:Barry Parker and Wythenshawe (1928) BarryParker met Noulan Cauchon at the 1925International Town, City and RegionalPlanning Conference in New Yorkcity. He andUnwin hadsplit by then, withParker’s practiceincluding moresite planning andless policy work thanUnwin’ s(Miller, 1992).Cauchon pressed hishexagonal plans upon bothUK planners,but only Parkerresponded. Parker had become immersedin whathe often referred toas ` the present motorage’ and`economy of develop- ment’.In 1928,he attemptedto combine NoulanCauchon’s hexagonal schemes HexagonalPlanning 253

Figure 13. Hexagonopolis,Noulan Cauchon, 1927. Source:Davidson(1927). 254 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 14. Hexagonalvilla, Wilhelm Ulrich,ca. 1927. Source:Benoit-Levy (1929). withthe Radburnplan, ® rstin atheoreticalpaper andthen onthe ground at Wythenshawe(Parker, 1928a). BothParker and Unwin were advocatesof the cul-de-sac.Yet Parker was eager tocombine thisapproach with the USneighbourhood unit principle demonstratedin Radburn.In `Economyin estatedevelopment’ (Parker, 1928b) he tookhis own cul-de-sac design, framedit with a Cauchonhexagon and then put itin the Radburnversion of the superblock. The hexagonwas particularly attractivefor local streets because ofits 10% reduction in the length ofroad per house.Parker reiterated Cauchon’s arguments of economicsavings and safety of travel.Parker added a seriesof diagramsadjusting Cauchon’ soriginalhexag- onalplan tothe superblock conceptand argued forfurther savings(Figure 16):

If we increasethe number of housesfor which given lengths of roads andservices suf® ce,the costsof maintaining,lighting, supervising, scavengingand draining, our roads will be lessand we shortenthe roundsof the rentcollector, the policeman,the dustman,the postman, the milkman,the banker, the watercart, the doctorand the road surveyor,and the distanceswe haveto go to centres of amusementand recreation,to shop, to the stationand to visit our friends. (Parker, 1928b,p. 185)

The implementationof Parker’s theoreticaldiagrams proved to be dif® cult.The Wythenshawesatellite town near Manchester was designed by Parkerin 1927± HexagonalPlanning 255

1928.In hismind it was the perfect example of agardencity as envisioned by Ebenezer Howard(Creese, 1966).Parker designed the 5500acre site-plan around three USplanning principles: the neighbourhood unit,or the superblock; the Radburncul-de-sac, with separation of and ; and the parkway. He designateda centralizedtown square, minor shopping centresand primary schoolsas the coresof hisneighbourhoods. He alsoallocated more than 1000 acresof open spacein anagricultural belt whichseparated the townfrom the cityand provided a pedestriannetwork. Following the neighbourhood planning principle, Parkerdivided the siteinto large sectors for housing purposes,each sectorbeing bounded by traf®c routesand having a schoolnear the centre.As in Radburn,children going toand from school have no major traf® c roadsto crossand the traveldistances are reduced toa minimum. Even though the Wythenshaweplan wasconsidered revolutionary at the time, Parkerwas unable to® thishexagon design intomost of the plan.The political andeconomic structure of the development, the factthat the cityof Manchester didnot obtain full controlof the landuntil 1930,the onsetof World War II and aneconomicdepression interfered withits systematic realization (Derick, 1989). While Parker’sthree conceptsare evident in the Wythenshawemaster plan, only one hexagonalblock in modi®ed formwas included in the ®nalsite plan (Figure 17). Although only one hexagonalblock wasbuilt atWythenshawe, Parker ensured thatthe conceptwould receive world-widepublicity by publishing his plansand analysis in the Journal ofthe Town PlanningInstitute and TheAmerican City (Parker, 1928b,c;Dougill, 1935)and presenting themat conferences. Cauchoncontinued to promote hexagonal planning onboth sides of the Atlantic (Cauchon,1929a,b; Kitchen, 1929)so that,by the end ofthe decade,Radburn and the hexagonwere tworival alternatives to the rectangulargrid forresidential areas.Cauchon’s colleague fromOttawa, Thomas Adams, was instrumental in the choiceof one design asthe standardfor US practice.

Subdivision Planning andRegulation: ThomasAdams and President Hoover’s Conferenceon HomeBuilding andHome Ownership, 1932 After the release ofthe New YorkRegional Plan in 1929,Thomas Adams moved toHarvard University to undertake researchand write planning textbooks (Simpson, 1985).Like Parkerand Cauchon, Adams was concerned withthe prevailing methodsof city planning anddesign. He wasparticularly concerned withinef® cient andwasteful practices of design. In hisbook, Neighborhoodsof SmallHomes: Economic Densityof Low-cost Housingin America and England (Whitten &Adams,1931, p. 87),Adams wrote: In connectionwith both the problem ofbuilding new housesand improvingold houses there isa need ofmore knowledge ofunderlying economicconditions. This is particularly so in regardto the costof andthe necessityor otherwiseof the unhealthful densities ofbuildings thatare allowed to prevail in largecities. Adams,together with Robert Whitten, the president ofthe AmericanCity Planning Institute,conducted an economicstudy which compared and analysed different residentialdesigns. Their analysisconcentrated on ratios and costs associatedwith different physicalfactors such as densities, lot layouts, utilities, streetwidths and landscaping. 256 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 15. Cul-de-sacsat Radburn, New Jersey, Stein andWright, 1929. Source: CourtesyKroch Library, Cornell University.

Adamsclearly favoured the Radburnplan, placing aphotographof one ofits cul-de-sacsin the frontispiece ofthe text.However, the hexagonalplan couldnot be rejected oneconomic or ef® ciency groundssince Barry Parker’ shexagonal layoutactually proved to be the mostef® cient onthese criteria(Figure 18). Adamsand Whitten dealt with this dif® culty by changing Cauchon’sand Parker’sdesignsinto the modi®ed hexagonscheme (Figure 19)which afforded ªlargervistas and a morerestful pattern;it relieves the rigidity andunpleasant- nessof the streetº(Adams, 1934, p. 214).The modi®ed design alsohad more open space,and development costswhich were 4%higher thanthose of the favouredcul-de-sac andloops scheme (Figure 20). Tomakeabsolutely certain that the cul-de-sac andloops scheme wasregarded asthe mosteconomically ef® cient,higher-density building types,including townhousesand , were addedto make the modelneighbourhood unit (Figure 21).This denser design wasdramatically more cost-ef® cient, almost 38%cheaper thanParker’s hexagonallayout. Faced with a graph like Figure 18, nobuilder wouldhesitate in selecting the modelneighbourhood unit. By the early1930s, Adams had attained such a prominentstanding as an expert in townplanning andsubdivision development thatmany of his writings were adoptedas recommended practices by governmentand professional insti- tutions.In 1932,President Hoover’sConference onHome Building andHome HexagonalPlanning 257

Figure 16. Hexagonalneighbourhood unit,Barry Parker, 1928. Source: Parker (1928b).

Ownership used Adams’ssuggestions from the draftof his forthcoming book, TheDesign of Residential Areas (Adams,1934), as part of its recommended practices.President Hoover’sconference wasthe largestever held by the federal governmentup tothat time. More than3700 experts onvarious aspects of home ®nance,taxation and the planning ofresidentialdistricts formed committees and put forwarda multitude ofrecommendations that shaped the built landscapefor generationsto come. 258 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 17. Hexagonalblock, Wythenshawe, Barry Parker, 1929. Source: Courtesy ofthe Cityof Manchester.

The callfor such an extensive conference wasrooted in the harshrealities of the economicdepression, which crippled USmunicipal authorities.Limited by depleted localrevenues andsoaring unemployment rates,many reached® scalcrisis and approached bankruptcy (Boyer, 1983).Uncontrolled subdivisionplanning resulted in bothunruly layoutsand chaotic marketing. As the Committeeon Planning forResidential Districts describes:

Toomuch currentpractice in municipal development isbased upon habit,insuf® cient vision,excessive speculation in land,and overempha- sisof new growthupon the outskirtsto the detrimentof oldersections, whichtoo often become blighted ¼Individual actionand individual decisionson mattersof concernto the whole communityhave been the rule of communitydevelopment. Shanty-towns,houses off gradeand askewwith the street,unsanitary conditions, and unsightly develop- mentshave resulted. Suburban slumareas have been created.Subdiv- isionpractices and the contributionof municipalities to subdivision development arein need ofreview andof regulation.(Gries & Ford, 1932,pp. 1±2)

The conference’s subdivisionlayout subcommittee was established to set new standardsand regulations. In itsadaptation of Adams’streatise,the committee calledfor the reductionof subdivision costs through ª thoughtful planning and functionallayoutº (Gries & Ford,1932, p. 124).Using Adams’scomparative diagramsand charts, it endorsed the neighbourhood unit principle andthe interiorcul-de-sac asthe mosteconomical con® guration for residential design. Although the committeeput forwardthe modi®ed hexagonalpattern as one of HexagonalPlanning 259

Figure 18. Costsof neighbourhood design types,1931± 1934. Note that Parker’s hexagonalplan (extreme right) hasthe lowestper unit cost. Source:Adams(1934, ® gure 46). the mostattractive schemes, it also criticized the regular hexagonblock asan unfavourable pattern(Figure 19).The committeewrote:

Although there isno doubt that the hexagonmay be used in certain caseswith advantage, the practicaldif® culty ofits application for low-costdevelopments isthat it produces a largenumber ofodd- shapedlots ¼ Acomparisonof a squareand hexagonal block which 260 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 19. Modi®ed hexagonalplan used by Adamsand Whitten foranalysis. Source:Adams(1934, ® gure 41).

providescomparable amenities for the samenumber oflots,shows that the gainin hexagonalblock isby fartoo little to outweigh the obvious disadvantagesin regardto streets and lot shapes. The factthat the hexagonalblock hasalways been comparedonly withthe gridiron block hascreated the impressionthat it is economically superior to any otherlayout. The hexagonand the orbitas a basisfor the general patternof the citystill has its merits, but itsusefulness in applications tosmaller units does not compare favorably with other schemes. (Gries &Ford,1932, p. 115)

TheDemise of HexagonalPlanning President Hoover’sconference discreditedhexagonal layouts, and the model neighbourhood unit ofcul-de-sacs and loops was subsequently adaptedin governmentsite planning manualsin NorthAmerica. Stein andAdams’s tri- umph wascomplete. The depression-eragreenbelt plansand the wartime HexagonalPlanning 261

Figure 20. Cul-de-sac andloops scheme preferred by Adamsand Whitten. Source: Adams(1934, ® gure 42).

housing projectswere almostall built using the new neighbourhood unit principles (Stein, 1957).Cauchon’s death in 1935and the turmoilof World War IIpracticallyput anend tothe esotericpursuit ofhexagonal planning. Radburnwas in¯ uential, but Adams’sregulatory efforts proved to have the greatesteffect. The incorporationof the cul-de-sacsand loops design asthe alternativeto gridirons in federal regulatorydocuments in the 1930seventually ensured thatthe USprivatebuilding industryadopted this design concept. In 1935,for example, the Federal HousingAuthority (FHA) initiateda series oftechnical publications which included `Minimum requirements anddesirable standards’(FHA, 1935).These standardsrequired notonly adherence toset dimensionsand con® gurations, but alsorecommendations for development layoutwhich rejected the grid patternfor residential neighbourhoods. The 1936 262 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Figure 21. Model neighbourhood unit withincreased density addedto achieve the per unit savingsshown in Figure 18. Source:Adams(1934, ® gure 47).

bulletin, PlanningNeighborhoods for Small Houses (FHA, 1936), demonstratedthe FHA preference forthe townand neighbourhood planning conceptsof Perry, Stein andAdams. Using plansand diagrams borrowed directly from previous publicationsby these authors,the bulletin illustratedhow to build anideal ªwell-balanced, carefully planned subdivisionº, declaring:

The gridironplan whichhas been souniversally adoptedin mostof our citieshas several very decided disadvantageswhen applied toresiden- tialareas. In the ®rstplace, it creates waste by providing agreater paved areathan necessarily adequate to servea residentialcommunity. Secondly, itcauses the installationof a moreexpensive type ofpaving by dispersing the traf®c equally throughthe area,which in turncreates anincreased traf® c hazard.In additionto these disadvantages,it createsa monotonousuninteresting architecturaleffect andfails to createa communityaspect. (FHA, 1936,p. 12) HexagonalPlanning 263

The FHA advocatedthree basicforms of residential street layouts: curvilinear, cul-de-sacsand courts. Their design wasguided by descriptiveand prescriptive standards. The post-warbuilding boomwas partially fuelled by new long-term,low- interestmortgages granted ® rstto veterans and then tothe general public (Fishman,1987). Access to federal mortgagesor mortgage insurance was con- ditionalupon adoptingthe new federal standardsin the USA andCanada. Millionsof homes were built onloops and cul-de-sacs in the four decadesafter the war.This residential design modelbecame conventionalpractice, with little understandingtoday of the alternativesthat were consideredat the timeit was adopted. In reality,as well asonpaper, hexagonalblocks may have looked too unusual tobe aworkablesolution. How would streets be namedor dwellings numbered in ahexagonplan like thatin Figure 13?How would strangers navigate the streetsof Hexagonopolis? Perhaps moreseriously, residential developers and homebuyers did notlike the triangularlots caused by the inside cornersof hexagonalblocks. One-quarter ofthe lotsin Parker’sdesign (Figure 16)had triangularback yards, which are the principal privateopen spacesin North Americansuburbs. By contrast,the cornerlots in acul-de-sac (Figure 15)were allthe wedge-shaped `pie-lots’ valued by homeowners,because they hada small (public) frontyard and a large(private) backyard. The advantagesof hexagonal planning couldalso be obtainedin the cul-de- sacsand loops scheme, through careful design. Three-way intersectionswere possible between acul-de-sac anda collectorroad, while four-wayconnections between collectorand arterial roads could be controlledby traf®c signals.The modelToronto community of madethis approach standard practice in Canadafor many years (Sewell, 1993).A wide angle ofview atintersections couldbe providedby zoningregulations which required largercorner lots with sighttriangles. Sunlight accessin low-densitydevelopments couldbe protected withside yardregulations in zoningbylaws. Interior accessible to pedes- trianswere providedin the Radburnlayout. On the costof infrastructure, the analystsshowed that the twooptions were close,fudged the numbers abit and statedthat the urban design disadvantageswere notworth the marginal improvementsin economicef® ciency. Perhaps they were right,but we cannotbe sure,since there isno hexagonal subdivision to study. The regulators’triumph wastoo complete. Whathappened tohexagonal planning illustratesthe futility ofstreet and block planning asthe soleconcept behind cityplanning. While itmight be commendablefor its symmetry on paper, thatsame virtue mightbe afaultin practicalapplication. Adams, in Recent Advancesin Town Planning (Adams,1932, p. 158),warned that:

An architecturalconception which embraces a combined streetlay-out andgrouping ofproposed buildings forpart of a townmay not be a complete orsatisfactory town plan andmay be ineffective in securing even the orderlyaesthetic result that is the chief aimof limited design.

Adams’swarningis particularly signi® canttoday, as urban designers explore alternativesto the residentialcul-de-sac andloop plans that he madeinto conventionalsuburban practice. 264 E.Ben-Joseph& D.Gordon

Acknowledgements The authorwishes to thank Dr Mervyn Miller fortimely adviceand drawings forBarry Parker’s andRaymond Unwin’s hexagonalplans; Dr RobertHodder forhis comments on anearlydraft; and two anonymous reviewers. The Noulan Cauchonresearch was assisted by Daniel Toveyand Miguel Tremblay,with guidance fromJohn Taylorand Sally Coutts.Financial support was provided by the SocialSciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada, Queen’s University’sAdvisoryResearch Council and the RichardsonFund. The paper wasoriginally presented by EranBen-Joseph atthe 1997Association of Colle- giateSchools of Planning (ACSP) Conference.

References Adams,T. (Ed.)(1906) Guideto theGarden City (London,First GardenCity Ltd), reprinted bythe Letchworth Public Library,1986. Adams,T. (1921)Editorial: town planningis ascience, Journal of theTown PlanningInstitute of Canada , 1(3),pp. 1±3. Adams,T. (1927) Planningthe New York Region:An Outline of theOrganization, Scopeand Progress of theRegional Plan (New York,NY, New YorkRegional Plan Association). Adams,T. (1932) RecentAdvances in Town Planning (New York,Macmillan). Adams,T. (1934) TheDesign of ResidentialAreas (Cambridge,MA, HarvardUniversity Press). Benoit-Levy, G.(1928)Hexagonopolis, La Techniquedu Traveaux ,May,pp. 316±318. Benoit-Levy, G.(1929)L’habitation hexagonal, La Techniquedu Traveaux ,August, pp. 417±421. Birch, E.L.L.(1980) Radburn and the American planningmovement: the persistence ofan idea , Journal of theAmerican PlanningAssociation ,47(4),pp. 424±439. Boyer,C. (1983) Dreaming theRational City:The Myth of American CityPlanning (Cambridge,MA, MIT Press). Buchanan,C. (1963) Traf® cinTowns (London,Penguin). Castagnoli,F. (1971) Orthogonal Town Planningin Antiquity (Cambridge,MA, MIT Press). Cauchon,N. (1925)Hexagonal blocks forresidential districts, TheAmerican City ,17,pp. 145±146. Cauchon,N. (1926a)Hexagonal planning, traf® c intercepter, andorbit, paper presented atthe meeting of the CityPlanning Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,New YorkCity, 21 January. Cauchon,N. (1926b)Hexagonal planning: health properties, TheNation’s Health ,January,p. 40. Copy annotatedby N. Cauchonin Cauchonpapers, National Archives ofCanada,Ottawa, MG 30C105. Cauchon,N. (1927)Planning organic cities to obviate congestion: orbiting traf®c byhexagonal planningand intercepters, Planningfor CityTraf® cÐThe Annals of theAmerican Academyof Political andSocial Sciences ,133,pp. 241±246. Cauchon,N. (1929a)Hexagonal planning and housing, Proceedingsof theTenth National Conferenceon Housing,Philadelphia, January 1929 (New York,NHA). Cauchon,N. (1929b)The six-sided block, National Real Estate Journal ,18March, pp. 42±46. Christaller, W.(1966) Central Placesin Southern ,translatedfrom Die zentralen Orte in SuÈddeutschland (1933)by Carlisle W.Baskin(Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice-Hall). Comey,A. (1923) RegionalPlanning Theory: A Replyto theBritish Challenge (Augusta,ME, C.E. Nash). Coutts,S. (1982)Science andsentiment: the planningcareer of NoulonCauchon, unpublished MA thesis, Department of History,Carleton University. Creese,W. (1966) TheSearch for New Environment:The Garden CityBefore andAfter (New Haven,CT, Yale University Press). Davidson, M.(1927)Six cylinder cities, TheToronto Star Weekly ,18June, p. 21. Derick, D. (Ed.)(1989) Wythenshawe:The Story of aGarden City (Chichester, Phillimore). Dougill, W.(1935)Wythenshawe: a modernsatellite town, TheTown PlanningReview , 16(3), pp. 209±215. FederalHousing Administration (FHA)(1935) SubdivisionDevelopment, Circular No. 5 , January 10 (Washington,DC, FHA). FederalHousing Administration (FHA)(1936) PlanningNeighbourhoods for Small Houses, Technical BulletinNo. 5 ,July 1(Washington,DC, FHA). HexagonalPlanning 265

Fishman,R. (1987) Bourgeois : TheRise andFall of Suburbia (New York,Basic Books). Gilmartin, G.(1995) Shapingthe City (New York,Clarkson Potter). Gordon,D.L.A. (1998) A CityBeautiful planfor Canada’s capital: EdwardBennett andthe 1915plan forOttawa andHull, PlanningPerspectives ,13,pp. 275±300. Gries, J.&Ford,J. (Eds)(1932) PlanningResidential Districts: City Planning Subdivisions, Utilities, LandscapePlanning (Washington,DC, National Capitol Press). Howard,E. (1898) Tomorrow: APeacefulPath to Real Reform (London,Swan Sonnenschein). Johnston,N.J. (1983) Cities inthe Round (, WA, University of WashingtonPress). Kitchen, J.(1929)Hexagonal planning, Proceedingsof theTenth National Conferenceon Housing, Philadelphia,January (New York,NHA). Kostof, S.(1991) TheCity Shaped: Urban Patterns andMeanings through History (London,Bul® nch Press). Lamb,C. (1904)City plan, TheCraftsman ,6,pp. 3±13. Miller, M.(1989) Letchworth:The First Garden City (Chichester, Phillimore). Miller, M.(1992) RaymondUnwin: Garden Cities andTown Planning (Leicester, Leicester University Press). MuÈller, R.(1908)The city of the future: hexagonalbuilding concept fora new division, OÈ sterreichische Wochenschriftfu Èrdeno ÈffentlichBaudienst ,14.Available online (30June 1999)at http:/ / www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/muller.htm. Olmsted, F.L.,Jr (1910) Street± traf®c studies, LandscapeArchitecture ,1(1),pp. 1±8. Copy annotated by N.Cauchonin NoulanCauchon papers, National Archives of Canada,Ottawa, MG 30C105. Olmsted, F.L.,Jr (1911)The City Beautiful, The Builder,101,7 July,pp. 15±17. Parker,B. (1928a) Report to theWythenshawe Committee of theCorporation of Manchester , May. Copy annotatedby N. Cauchonin NoulanCauchon papers, National Archives of Canada,Ottawa, MG 30 C105. Parker,B. (1928b)Economy in estate development, Journal of theTown PlanningInstitute, 14 (8), pp. 177±186. Parker,B. (1928c)Economy, charm and safety of the cul-de-sac street, TheAmerican City , 20, pp. 104±106. Parsons,K.C. (1992) British andAmerican community design:Clarence Stein’s Manhattantransfer, 1924± 74, PlanningPerspectives ,7,pp. 191±210. Parsons,K.C. (Ed.) (1998) TheWritings of ClarenceS. Stein:Architect of thePlanned Community (, MD, JohnsHopkins University Press). Perry,C.A. (1929) The neighborhood unit, in:T. Adams(Ed.) Neighborhoodand Community Planning , RegionalPlan of New Yorkand the Environs,Vol. VII(New York,New YorkRegional Plan Association). Reps, J.W.(1969) Town Planningin Frontier America (Princeton, NJ,Princeton University Press). Robinson,C.M. (1904) ModernCivic Art; Or TheCity Made Beautiful (New York,Putman). Copy annotatedby Noulan Cauchon in Libraryof the NationalCapital Commission, Ottawa. Sewell, J.(1993) TheShape of theCity: Struggleswith Modern Planning (Toronto,University of TorontoPress). Silver, C.(1985),Neighborhood planning in historical perspective, Journal of theAmerican Planning Association ,52(2),pp. 161±174. Simpson,M. (1985) Thomas Adams andthe Modern Planning Movement: Britain, Canada andthe , 1900±1940 (London,Alexandrine Press). Stein, C.S.(1957) Toward New Towns for America (New York,Reinhold Pub.Corp.). Triggs,I. (1909) Town PlanningPast Present andPossible (London,Methuen). Copy annotated by NoulanCauchon in Libraryof the NationalCapital Commission, Ottawa. Unwin, R.(1909) Town Planningin Practice; An Introduction to theArt of DesigningCities andSuburbs (London,T. Fisher Unwin). Copyannotated by NoulanCauchon in Libraryof the NationalCapital Commission,Ottawa. Whitten, R.&Adams,T. (1931) Neighbourhoodsof Small Homes: EconomicDensity of Low-cost Housing inAmerica andEngland (Cambridge,MA, HarvardUniversity Press). Wilson, W.H.(1989) TheCity Beautiful Movement (Baltimore, MD, JohnsHopkins University Press). Yeates,M.A. (1998) TheNorth American City (New York,Longman).