City Planning and Population Impact

361 Words2 Pages
City Planning and its Impact on the Population It seems clear to me that in that case of many “symbolic” cities, the cities are built with a very specific goal of making a certain kind of impression – both to the world, and to the people living in and around the city. This was illustrated in the book by a few major cities that evolved after World War II: New York, Moscow, and London. In each instance, the government was in a very interesting position in which they could vastly affect the layout of the cities. In New York, there was a huge cash inflow because of the economic boom, allowing expansion. In Moscow and London, there was widespread destruction from the war, allowing for large amounts of reshaping and planning for wide expanses of city that had otherwise just been slowly built up. In each of these situations, the cities were built up with a very specific goal in mind. For instance, Moscow was meant to be a center of not only the USSR, but a shining beacon on success for emerging communist countries everywhere. This great city was meant to show that communism could really work, and almost an act of defiance against cities like New York, in the way that it was purposefully built to not look like New York at all, aiming to be much more open aired and spread out. This presents the question; did the plans of these cities really have the effect that they wanted, by being a shining symbol of their respective countries and almost a propaganda tool that the whole world could see? This is one of those questions that will never have a definitive answer, as it cannot be measured in any specific way. But after all the planning and money spent to make these cities great, what difference did it really make to the population, besides being proud of their great new city. Did the type of layout make them extra patriotic, or just new construction? This will
Open Document