Author
Abstract
This article explores the changing modes and mechanisms of the transatlantic dialogue between urban planners from the perspective of US urbanists. During the early post-war period, this dialogue intensified quickly. US planners were involved in their country's broad efforts to provide assistance to and build strong political ties with Western European nations. Accordingly, they assumed the role of tutors vis-à-vis their European peers. Due to urban America's apparent flaws and the success of European planning projects, however, their interest in Europe broadened considerably during the 1950s. Initially, the initiative of individuals remained crucial for the flow of planning information from Europe to the USA, and European immigrants and émigrés helped facilitate transatlantic transfers. Looking at Europe, American planners sought to address the shortcomings of the domestic practice of planning as they perceived them. Europe served as an argumentative tool for US experts who were eager to change the socio-political framework that limited their impact on urban development in their home country. Information about European planning was transmitted through a diverse set of channels and the biographies of many of the experts involved with transatlantic exchange remind us of the complex international planning networks that existed throughout the twentieth century. American planners' interest in Europe remained biased towards specific regions and topics. Nevertheless, US planners negotiated the way in which they brought their limited influence to bear on American urban environments in a transnational context. The framework that supported their integration into international planning discussions became increasingly institutionalized towards the end of the research period.
Suggested Citation
Andreas Joch, 2014.
"'Must our cities remain ugly?' - America's urban crisis and the European city: transatlantic perspectives on urban development, 1945-1970,"
Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 165-187, April.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rppexx:v:29:y:2014:i:2:p:165-187
DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2013.873732
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rppexx:v:29:y:2014:i:2:p:165-187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rppe20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.