Hugh Bartling

     Murray Bookchin's position as a self-described "revolutionary anarchist" has made him susceptible to criticism from both progressives and traditional conservatives for his brand of ecological and social justice. While this position may be considered inadequate for addressing specific social problems in the eyes of these critics, nevertheless, Bookchin's vision for an ecologically-minded urbanism presents various provisions for livable cities based on the interconnectedness of social and environmental concerns. In the spirit of conceiving the city as a habitat shaped by people as a result of historical events, Bookchin does not engage in the game of utopian planning which marked the activities of urban designers like Ebeneezer Howard or Frank Lloyd Wright. Instead Bookchin presents guidelines which will allow the specificity of geographic and historical conditions to be considered within a general framework of ecological urbanism, insuring a respite from the inefficacious determinism which characterized the work of Howard and Wright. Bookchin has always been concerned with real social conditions. In the 1930s and 1940s he was involved with labor organizing as a member of the Young Communist league. By the 1950s and the proliferation of 'green technology' which characterized post-War industrial production in the United States, Bookchin began to consider the concomitant environmental problems of this nascent technology. He actively opposed nuclear testing and questioned the environmental safety of civilian nuclear programs by opposing programs such as Commonwealth Edison's desire to build a nuclear reactor in New York City in the early sixties

     In his theoretical work, he fused an acknowledgment of environmental degradation caused by capitalist enterprises with social and material problems emerging in the modern industrial city. Crisis in Our Cities (written under the pseudonym, Lewis Herber, to avoid the wrath of McCarthy's Communist hunters) marks an attempt to describe the deleterious environmental condition which marked United States cities in the sixties. Here he discusses the effects of air and water pollution as well as the geographic layout of modern cities to conclude that the result is an unhealthy populace, breathing unsanitary air and relegated to physical idleness because of automotive transportation and the elevated pace of modern life. Cities are marked by a chaotic trend towards, what he calls, 'urban gigantism' wherein urban areas have grown to unmanageable proportions and--because of their decadent nature--threaten the future of viable city life. In this text he sees both the use of alternative energy sources such as the sun and wind to decrease the reliance on noxious fossil fuels and increasing regionalism as possible cures to urban ills.

     Nearly a decade later Bookchin provides a deeper theoretic work on urbanity, which explores the historical roots of the city and offers a more substantial plan for urban sustenance than was articulated in Crisis in Our Cities. Limits of the City (1974) begins with distinguishing between 'urbanism' and 'city'. The former term refers to the urban gigantism introduced in Crisis in Our Cities. Urbanism implies a sprawl of development away from city centers towards the formerly rural environs. Automobiles and lack of concern for rebuilding inner-city areas account for the rise of urbanism. The term, 'city', for Bookchin connotes a concentrated amalgam of people within a space scaled for human interaction. Economic conditions and use of the automobile have resulted in the disappearance of cities. Their replacement has been the gigantic and suffocating tentacles of urbanism. Thus, for Bookchin, cities have grown past their limit and are on a path towards their own self-destruction or negation.

     To illuminate his contention, Bookchin provides an historical account of the rise of cities. The earliest urban concentrations of human populations were always done in a fashion which respected the need for a fertile adjoining landscape. In ancient cities such as Tenochtitlan the urban fabric and social relations revealed therein were characterized by a primacy of rural products and values. As means of production or distribution changed in certain contexts, the relationship between city and country also changed accordingly. Efforts by the Roman Empire, for example, to maintain its hegemony through exploitive extraction from its conquered areas were short-lived resulting in the destruction of the empire. During the feudal era which followed, however, a more-healthy relationship between city and country was forged which was to last until the coming of bourgeoisie capitalism.

     Essential to the sustenance of cities during the medieval period was the vibrant relationship between the urban populace and the surrounding land. Small-scale craft work was not performed to accumulate capital but rather to meet basic needs. As the prosperity which characterized this period began to spread throughout the European continent, an increasingly inequitable relationship emerged between urban and rural locales. Trade dominated by urban inhabitants necessitated the production of objects of value which could be exchanged. The urban centers thus sought the source for exchange wealth in the form of agricultural commodities. As agricultural products were traded for other goods, relations between urban and rural were no longer characterized in the feudal manner of complex social and material obligations; rather impersonal exchange relationships emerged whereby the products of the rural areas were considered only for their ability to produce surplus wealth. It is under the condition of rural subservience to urban industries that bourgeoisie capitalism proceeded.

     The condition of the modern city, for Bookchin, is the result of an irrational playing out of the contradictions of bourgeoise capitalism. A number of factors are evidence of this occurrence. First, capital relations lack notions of interpersonal dependence and are thus characterized by antagonistic and skeptical social interaction. No longer do people feel a common interest in the vitality of public life, for capitalist interaction privileges the assertion of private interests above civic interests. Thus areas of the city which are neglected become marginalized and destitute. Secondly, the decline of civic responsibility and the ethic of plunder which accompanies capitalism results the city's geographical boundaries to expand further in effort to distance themselves from the areas of decline. This allows people with the material resources to move to these new areas and ignore the dilapidated sections of town furthering their decadent condition. For

     Bookchin, therefore, this fundamental contradiction--its willing destruction versus its unbridled expansion--demarcates the "limit" of the city's existence. The irrationality of the current condition is such that exploitive exchange relationships will bloat cities to such an immense size that they will collapse under the weight of their own administrative responsibilities. Bookchin concludes Limits of the City by calling for a reconsideration of the nature and functions of the urban environment. First, the conception of urban problems as being best confronted with technical means should be abandoned. Conventional urban planning reifies the city as a static arrangement without realizing its dynamism and normative social context. As such, he secondly calls for cities to be conceived on human dimensions. Space should be the medium for human interaction and development. Aesthetic sensibility should be encouraged as opposed to a sterile receptor of technological prowess. Thirdly, cities should redevelop an understanding of their existence as being dependent upon flourishing non-urban areas and the use of technologies which do not contribute to environmental degradation. This can occur with an emphasis on decentralized communities able to develop within their own particular geographical, historical, and ecological context.

     Employment of these three criterion would create conditions for the (re)emergence of an invigorated civic sphere whereby the differences which provide cities with their distinct and sometimes conflicting characters would be considered a valuable resource for public understanding rather than the fodder for simplistic reactionary aggression. While Bookchin's suggestions for urban renewal have--for the most part--gone unheeded since the publication of Limits of the City in 1974, he has provided urban theorists with concrete formulations for change. Some of the images which follow may demonstrate the possibilities of Bookchin's conceptions. It must be emphasized, however, that Bookchin sees fundamental change occurring only when the social, economical, urban, and ecological discourses which have informed the current state of "urban gigantism" have been seriously disrupted. Cursory or piecemeal changes are not enough to effect tangible transformations.

     Hong Kong is one of the world's most densely populated cities. The absence of land for excess expansion as well as low incomes has required its inhabitants to develop individualized responses to their condition within the context of somewhat forced intensified social interaction. The facades which characterize many of Hong Kong's buildings exemplify this phenomenon. Behind the variegated verandas, balconies, and porches presented here lies an original structure with a uniform exterior. The material and social conditions which accompany the growth of a capitalist economy in Hong Kong has necessitated the various reactions manifested in the facades. In this particular picture the boundaries between work, private, and consumptive identities are blurred. The beige facade with the two air conditioners is an extension of a chiropractic clinic while the compartment to its right is part of a clothing workshop. Surrounding facades are probably residential. The fronts of many of these facades are rented out to businesses and used for advertising. Thus in this case we see a multiple utilization of the built environment for a variety of purposes. While fundamental problems of social inequality are not necessarily addressed in this type of construction, it nevertheless represents an outcome of individual struggles to make the urban behemoth of Hong Kong a livable place.

     Perhaps a better example of how a city can be constructed on human dimensions and maintain a healthy relationship with the countryside is the medieval hill town. The above illustration of Fribourg shows how the town is developed with a particular regard for the variegates of the local landscape. From a distanced view, the constructed buildings of the town mimic the grade of the hills on the horizon. Additionally, these buildings are concentrated in a particularly defined area thus allowing for the maintenance of green space which provides sustenance to the city in the form of agricultural provisions. The next illustration of the Transylvanian town of Schässburg shows how the town can be scaled to human dimensions. As the spiritual center of the city, the church is situated on the highest ground. The buildings and streets throughout the town have emerged as a result of the changing needs of the organic society. A block seems to have risen in the middle of the street at the bottom of the drawing. The tower is adaptable enough to serve as a town hall as well as the center of the market. These malleable characteristics of the city allow it to be a place which can acknowledge the difference inherent among urban inhabitants and their changing historical needs.

     While Bookchin's call for a decentralized city based on tangible social interaction may seem idealistic when faced with the seemingly intractable ubiquity of the contemporary urban megalopolis, it is evident that the processes which contribute to the functional contradictions of urban gigantism must someday reach their limit. In light of this dire diagnosis, it seems useful to take Bookchin's suggestions seriously while the opportunity to do so still exists.

Chase, Steve, ed. 1991, Defending the Earth: a Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman. Boston: South End Press.