Planmönstren och det urbana - en kommentar til Björn Klarqvists "Staden som helhet"

Abstract

The concept of city was long considered unequivocal, even though it slowly evolved. Polis; urbs and civitas. A political center, a place for trade, the favored city of commerce. Then the industrial city, the garden city, and the modern city. Today, the word "city" is used so broadly as to be virtually meaningless. Consequently, phrases such as "urban design" and "city planning" have also lost much of their significance. Our understanding of the city derives from a first phase of agricultural society and a second phase of mechanized industrial society. There is as yet no consensus as to the role of the city in the third phase, infotmation society. Is it then meaningful to speak of these three archetypal patterns: the grid, the park, and the neighborhood city? Or do we thereby merely transfer the conceptual problems to another level without improving our ability to orient ourselves in urban issues?