Given the problems of density, transportation, sanitation and the lack of civic structures that faced Chicago at the time of the plan, to say Burnham’s claim that the city should look far into the future was justified presents a difficult question. I do not think his claims were justified, but that does not mean I believe them unjustified. I believe he looked too far into the future and so neglected important issues of the present, such as addressing housing more in the plan.
But I do not want to say that his claim is unjustified because I believe it was admirable to create such an elaborate and detailed plan in an attempt to create a feeling of community in an otherwise disjointed and isolated city. As I said in last week’s blog, I feel that Chicago is a collection of smaller cities that creates one large city, but this also creates a sense of loneliness that I believe Burnham wanted to address. It also does not hurt to look far into the future, just as long as you don’t lose sight of what is important today.
The challenges facing Chicago today are, like I said, similar to those it faced 100 years ago; transportation, though not as dangerous as is demonstrated on page 37 of Carl Smith’s The Plan of Chicago, is still a major issue, with congestion and parking considered two of the most pressing matters in our class discussion last week.
This image demonstrates the extent to which transportation and traffic were an issue at the time of the plan (The Plan of Chicago page 37)
I like your point about how the problems that Chicago faces today are very similar to the problems of the past. I find it odd that even after all these years, we still cannot find a solution to them.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases the plan focused too much on the future, and in some places it didn't focus enough on the future. Maybe if we stop looking into different time zones, we could actually get something done that would benefit us all.