CITIZEN VERSUS IDEAL CITY

In The City in History, Lewis Mumford explores the evolution of

cities across time and their impact on human civilization.
In the chapter "Citizen versus Ideal City" of the book "City in
History," Lewis Mumford explores the tension between the
individual citizen and the collective ideal of the city. He argues
that the city has historically been a place where these two
factors have clashed that is, with the ideal of the city often
taking precedence over the needs and desires of its citizens.
The chapter discusses how urban planning has historically oscillated between creating cities that prioritize the needs and
participation of actual citizens and the pursuit of an idealized city based on rigid, often authoritarian principles. Mumford
critiques how some planners, philosophers, and rulers have designed cities based on idealized geometrical patterns, believing THE CITY IN HISTORY
LEWIS MUMFORD
that physical order and symmetry inherently lead to social harmony. These "ideal" cities, while visually appealing and
theoretically perfect, often fail to accommodate the complexities of human life, leading to sterile, disconnected urban
environments.Mumford contrasts this with cities that evolved organically, where the needs of the citizens shaped the city’s
form and structure. In these cases, the urban environment is more flexible, responsive, and attuned to human activities,
fostering a sense of community and civic engagement.

MAIN CONTENTS IN CHAPTER

THE UTOPIAN IDEAL IN THE GEOMETRICAL THE ORGANIC CITY CITIZEN-CENTERED THE CONFLICT THE FAILURE OF
CITY PLANNING CITY URBANISM BETWEEN ORDER AND UTOPIAN CITIES
FREEDOM

-| SHARON RHYTHIMA | 200101601024 | IX SEM-A SECTION | B.ARCH(2020-2025) | CRESCENT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE |

MAIN ARGUMENT THE UTOPIAN IDEAL IN CITY PLANNING
Mumford discusses how the idea of a perfect city has been a persistent
Mumford argues that the focus on
theme throughout history. Thinkers like Plato and Thomas More envisioned
creating utopian or geometrically perfect
cities based on ideal forms, where every element was designed to achieve
cities is fundamentally flawed because it
harmony and order. These utopian models typically emphasized strict
prioritizes aesthetics and theoretical
geometric layouts, uniformity, and control over every aspect of life.
ideals over the lived experiences and
However, Mumford argues that this approach often overlooks the
social needs of people. He contends that
complexity and unpredictability of human society.
cities should be designed with the
citizens at the center—responding to
their needs, encouraging participation, Mumford examines historical attempts to impose geometric
and fostering a vibrant social fabric. The precision in urban design, citing examples such as the gridiron
"ideal city" approach, which often plans of ancient Roman camps and the Renaissance city plans of
emphasizes rigid control and order, theorists like Leon Battista Alberti. While these designs aimed for
disregards the organic, dynamic nature perfect order and efficiency, Mumford critiques them for being
of human society, leading to urban overly rigid, disconnected from the needs and desires of citizens,
spaces that are alienating and and for creating cities that are more like machines than living
oppressive. communities.
The left side represents the rigid, geometric layout of an ideal city, while the right side illustrates the
more flexible, organic development centered around the needs and activities of citizens. THE GEOMETRICAL CITY

REVIEW THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ORDER AND FREEDOM CITIZEN-CENTERED URBANISM THE ORGANIC CITY
A central tension in urban design, according to Mumford, is the conflict Mumford argues that the best cities prioritize the needs, well-
Mumford’s critique is compelling as it highlights the In contrast to geometric cities,
between the desire for order (embodied in the ideal city) and the need for being, and participation of their citizens. A city should be flexible,
dangers of prioritizing abstract ideals over practical Mumford highlights cities that have
freedom and spontaneity (represented by the citizen-focused city). While accommodating different ways of life and promoting social
human needs in urban design. His analysis emphasizes grown organically over time,
order can provide structure, excessive control stifles creativity, diversity, interaction. He discusses how cities that evolved naturally—rather
the importance of community and adaptability in creating adapting to the needs of their
and the organic growth that makes cities vibrant. Mumford advocates for a than being designed top-down according to utopian principles—
vibrant cities. By contrasting ideal cities with organically inhabitants. Examples include
balance where cities are organized enough to function but still allow room better serve the dynamic, everyday needs of people.
developed ones, he demonstrates how overly medieval European towns that
for individual expression and community life.
prescriptive designs can lead to social dysfunction. His developed with winding streets,
argument is particularly relevant today, as cities continue irregular plots, and a diversity of
to grapple with balancing planning principles with the THE FAILURE OF UTOPIAN CITIES buildings. These cities, shaped by
unpredictability of human behavior. the interaction of people and their
Mumford concludes by discussing how many attempts at building ideal
However, Mumford’s idealization of organic urban growth environment, fostered a sense of
cities have failed because they prioritized theoretical ideals over the
can overlook the benefits that structured planning brings, community and civic engagement,
messy realities of human society. Utopian designs often ignore the
such as improved infrastructure, efficiency, and equity. something often absent in rigid, pre-
diversity of human experience, resulting in cities that are visually striking
While his disdain for overly rigid planning is valid, there planned environments.
but socially sterile. He emphasizes that a city’s success is not determined
are instances where structured design—especially when
by its aesthetic perfection but by its ability to foster a thriving, engaged
combined with citizen participation—can lead to highly
community.
functional and socially cohesive environments.

-| SHARON RHYTHIMA | 200101601024 | IX SEM-A SECTION | B.ARCH(2020-2025) | CRESCENT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE |