TO?...the Schema Directeur in 1965. This plan designated certain It metropoles dlequilibre" from...

c, i

NE?J TO?*" DEVZLOPME"

IN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES

Francoi se Chas saing

Junior Fellow Center for Metropolitan Planning

The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland 21218 June, 1973

and Research

?

I. RECENT CONCERNS TWFH TOVNS IN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES

The recent new towns development i n both France and the

United States can best be understood within the context of concerns

facing both countries.

urban growth should take i n both countrfes and the formulation of

national urban growth policy. Second, and more spec i f ica l ly , i s

the planning f o r housing needs and the types of human sett lement

patterns most appropriate for urban regions i n both countries.

New town developments have emerged as components of planning i n

both cases.

First i s the concern with what course

A . Concern with National Urban Growth Policy

France now has an e x p l i c i t nat ional growth policy. This

policy formulated i n 1965 i s a r e s u l t of a long-term concern with

the growth of the Paris region and i t s economic and p o l i t i c a l

dominance over tha t of the rest of the country.'

States, the question of the need of a nat ional urban zrowth pol icy

i s only now being widely debated, and there is not yet unanimity

tha t the federal government should adopt such a policy.

of such a policy are i n the main those concerned with reducing

economic inequities within and between different regions of the

country and those concerned with environmental preservation.

no one metropolitan area dominates i n the United S ta t e s as does

Paris i n France, there is s t i l l increasing pressure upon the

federal government t o provide guidelines for orderly metropolitan

growth. There is, however, l i t t l e evidence that there i s support

f o r such a far reaching nat ional po l icy as has been o f f i c i a l l y

formulated i n France.

I n the United

Advocates

?Yhile

-2-

1. Urban Growth Policy i n France

From the middle of the 19th century t o the time of the entry

of France in to ?!orld Var I1 the population of France remained

roug2il.y s ta t ionary. During t h i s period, however, the urban popu-

lation nearly doubled and that of the Paris region grew by three-

fold. Since Yorld ?Jar 11, France% t o t a l population has increased

both as a result of a rise i n the birth rate and from immigration,

and the proportion l i v ing i n urban areas has continued to rise.

In terms of population, the Paris region continues t o maintain

i t s dominanoe, although it is not a t the present increasing in

population as much as cer tain other regional centers i n the country.

Recent population proJections indicate growth i n population through-

out the rest of this .century, with the Faris region adding six

millions during th is period.

Total Population, Urban Population, and Population of Paris M s t r i c t , 1946, 1962, 1972

Year Total Population of France

Urban Paris Popufat ion Dis t r ic t of France Pop ula t i on

1946 1962

40.1 46.2

Projected: 1985 60.0 2000 '75.0

22.0 29.5

44 58

6.6 8.4

11.6 14.

- ~- ~ _ _

Source: "Schema Directeur". Table 2, page 24.

-3-

The economic and political dominance o f Parts has

long-standing controversy in France and became a topic

p o l l t i ca l discus sion

lhereas fomer ly the

other regions o f the

been a

of intense 3 L in the period immediately following TJorld War 11.

debate had centered on the disadvantages t o

country-loss o f manpower, political strength

and obsolescense of economic vital i ty- the postwar controversy

focused a s well on the ability of the P a r i s region t o absorb

Increasing population.

wisdom of a modern economy, increasingly dependent upon tertiary

industries, t o concentrate economic a c t i v i t i e s i n one location.

The question vas also raised as t o the

Prior t o this period, the growth of the Paris region had occupied

local officials.

cqllapse i n 1927 of Thier 's fortifications, the wall separating

Paris and its growing suburbs. A t that time, Raymond Poincaire,

President of the Council, created a committee t o consider the

organization of the Paris Dis t r i c t . A t this time, ehe District

was defined as a c i r c l e with a radius of 35 km around Notre Dane

i n Paris. This area was extended i n 1941 t o the Paris Region and

included the three d i s t r i c t s of the Seine, and i n 1943 a Committe

d'amenagement de l a Region Parisienne was created with t h e respon-

s i b i l i t y of planning for the P a P i s . Re$%on.

The expansion of P a r i s was dramatized by the

Planning f o r the Paris region was interrupted by 1-forld ??ar XI

By 1958 a general organi- but was resumed i n the post-war per iod.

zation plan, Plan dlmenaGement e t d'organisation generale de la

Region Parisienne (P.A . G. 0 . D. ) had been developed and was Formally

approved i n zg60. A t the same t i m e the Planning Institute (I.A.U.R.P.)

for the ParSs region was also established.

over some three o r fou r decades pZans and administrative arrange-

ments for a comprehensive town and country scheme for the Paris

region. These have subsequently been incorporated as a part of

the natiomal urban planning scheme i n France,

Thus, there had evolved

The formulation of a national urban growth policy began with

the Schema Directeur i n 1965. This plan designated certain I t metropoles

dlequilibre"* from among the metropolitan Pegions of France as

urban areas as alternate growth centers t o the Paris Region.

Included among these were Lyon-Saint Etienne

Robaix-Tourcoing, Nancy, Metz-Thionville, Strasbourg-Mantes, Saint

Nazaire-Bordeaux and Toulouse

taken action t o place certain controls over industrial building in

the Paris area, b u t is at the same time providing inducements to

industries and providing ce r t a in additional services t o the selected

Marseille-Aix, L i l l e -

The French government has accordingly

metropoles d'equilibre". The aim is t o stimulate their growth 11

and t o restrict the growth of the Paris region. In addition to the plans f o r the I1 metropoles d'equilibre", a

corrolary par t of the Schema Directeur is the plan f o r the Growth

of the Paris Region. Under this plan new urban centers are being

created with the hope of channeling future urban growth within the

region away from the present radial concentric pat te rn to one along

a double axis--one north and one sou%lz--from Paris towards Rouen,

Le. Havre and Caen,

*See Appendix, Map I

-5-

Accordingly, nevi t o m development has become an integral

part of the plan f o r the Paris region.

02' neiq towns would limit t he growth of shapeless dormitory suburbs

such as have developed in the suburbs in the post-war period. U p

t o now, plans have been developed for five new towns in the Paris

region:

Melun-Senart-Evry; and some others in suburbs of LarZe other c i t i e s ,

as Fos. Etang De Berre near MarseilZe, L'Isle D'Abeau near Lyon,

Le Vaudrieu near Rouen, Lille-Est near L i l l e . 3 5

HopeTully, also, the creation

Cergy-Pointoise; Mame-La Vallee; St. Quentin en Yvelines,

2. The Debate Concerning a National Urban Growth Policy in the United Sta t e s

Recently, several o f f i c i a l and semi-official groups in t h e

United States have concerned themselves with the question of

whether there should be a national policy t o zuide urban growth.

These include the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

(1968) , 3 the Douglas Commission on Urban Problems (1969) ,4 the National Committee on Urban Growth Pol icy (1g69),5 the National

Goals Staff (1970),

the American Future (1972) .7 A l l . have made recommendations for

the development of national goal obJectives and c r i t e r i a for

shaping t he pattern of national growth.

f o r federal guidelines to serve as a framework For regional, state,

and local planning.

6 and the Commission on Population Growth and

All point t o the need

Advocates of a national urban growth policy come from

several sources. They include those concerned with the economically

-

*See Appendix Map IIa, I I b .

depressed areas of the country, both rural and urban. Those

favoring a "growth center" strategy have been concerned primarily

with the laGging rural regions of the country and .cvould favor

governmental support t o regional metropolitan centers with the

potential to provide employment to those l e f t behind In economically

depressed rural areas.

depressed central c i t i e s have favored extensive rebuilding and

rehabi l i ta t ion of cen t r a l c i t y areas with federal government

support and governmental incentives t o provide poor central city

residents with access t o jobs and housing i n the suburbs of metro-

po l i t an areas.

Those concerned with the problems of the

Other advocates of a national urban policy are not so much

concerned with the problems of pa r t i cu la r "places", depressed

rural areas and central- ' -c i t ies , b u t believe that pat te rns of

metropolitan growth tha t have prevailed in the United States are

self-limiting with respect t o an improved quality of life for a

national population which i s now heavily concentrated i n metro-

politan areas.

of the environment, the inequi t ies between different sewen t s of

the population, and the inability of l o c a l governments t o handle

problems for which they have been vested with responsibi l i ty .

They emphasize the need of strong federal government act ion in

providing guidelines t o state and l o c a l governments.

They emphasize, i n particular, the desecration

As yet,, new town development has not received much support

as a component of nat ional urban growth policy, for reasons which

will be apparent i n the next chapter. However, the role which

-7-

new towns might play in future metropolitan growth is being

considered with increasing frequency. Though not generally

regarded as feasible on a large scale, support is often recommended

for governmental support for experimental efforts . Political support for a national urban growth policy was

never great buC advocates surfaced when poverty was receiving

national attention and with the racial confrontations in central

cities.

growth was high.

.by those opposed to direct measures for helping particular areas

in distinction t o programs for par t i cu la r individuals.

urban growth policy has now encountered p : o l i t i c a l oblivion.

ever interest develops in new towns w i l l most likely not develop

as a part of national po l i cy but obtain support primarily as an

innovation in housing arrangements.

It seemed more urgent, also, when the rate of population

What interest existed in the top ic was countered

A national

What-

B. Housing and Settlement Patterns

Housing shortages were acute in both France and in the

United States following World War IT.

l a r ly acute i n France immediately following the war due to war

destruction. It was acute in both countries because little new

housing had been built in the 1930's and during the per iod of

World War 11.

in the metropolitan areas of both countries, and i nc rease beyond

that anticipated and one which assured population growth in

metropol i tan areas f o r several decades to come.

This shortage was particu-

The situation was aggravated by popula t ion increase

New housing

-8-

had to be b u i l t r a p i d l y and the decade of the 1950's was one of

unprecedented mass housing construction i n the suburban sections

of' metropolitan areas in both coun.t;ries,

housing demand, most of the construction was done without

planning with respect t o land use and t o the provis ion of needed

services

Owing to the "emergency"

Economic p r o s p e r i t y i n the 1960's i n both countries and

higher family incomes assured the continuation of a large volume

of new housing construction. Since the end of World War 11, and

more exactly since 1953, ?5O,OOO new dwelling uni ts have been

built i n France. I n f a c t , in 1965, in the Paris Region more

than 2.5 million people, o r roughly 25 percent of the t o t a l

population of the Region were living i n housing l e s s than 10

years old.$ I n the United States, i n 1970, over half of the

population l i v i n g i n metropolitan areas were l i v i n g i n dwelling

units built since 1950. 9

The pat te rn of suburban development and housing construct-

ion has been the subjec t of intense c r i t i c i sm i n both countries

since the ea r ly 196ors, but i n both of these countries the

i n i t i a t i v e s taken f o r planning t o avoid ''suburban sprawl" has

been slower than i n ce r t a in European countries, notably Britain,

Sweden and the Netherlands . However, the Schema Directeur,

aimed at the development of the Paris Region, represents a com-

prehensive attempt to guide t h e pa t te rn of r e s iden t i a l settle-

ment i n the Region as a whole. Under this plan it is hoped to

divert much of the new re s iden t i a l construction i n suburbs t o

the new towns being planned f o r the Paris Region,

9

-9-

I n the United S ta tes , with the exception of the New York

S t a t e Urban Development Corporation*- orgcnized t o plan f o r the

development of urban growth i n the New York region, there are

no comprehensive governments1 o r quasi-governmental p l a n s f o r

the r e s iden t i a l s e t t l emmt pa t t e rns of e n t i r e metropolitan

regions a s i n the c w e of the Paris Region.

organizations, created under the auspices of s t a t e governments,

have l imi ted objec t ives i n most cases and a r e without the

p o l i t i c a l power and f inanc ia l resources t o forge p l a n s f o r

r e s iden t i a l growth pa t t e rns . New town developmmt, as w i l l be

seen i n the next chapter, has been pr imar i ly the i n i t i a t i v e of

p r iva t e developers. U n k r the New Communities Act of 1970, the

federa l government i s giving some support i n the i n i t i a l phases

of planning t o developers of new communities, and i t hopes t o

enlist the s t a t e s i n more of these ventures. New towns-in town

a r e more recent ventures than the new town developmen$, and a r e

primarily the successors t o o lde r and of ten l imi ted experiments

with var ious forms of urban renewal i n the cen t r a l c i t i e s .

Regional planning

*The New York Urban Development Corporation was created i n 1968 with the mandate t o combine the e f f o r t s of the publ ic and p r iva t e sectors t o help i n the renewal of the c i t i e s of the S ta t e and t o insure the o rde r ly growth of urban areas . I ts powers enable it t o override municipal boundaries and au tho r i t i e s , furthermore i t has the power t o expropriate land, t o a c t as a developer, t o raise loans and t o establ ish subs id ia r ies . I t s program f o r 1972 includes the construct ion of l5,OOO new dwelling uni t s i n urban areas of the s t a t e , numerous o ther types o f f a c i l i t i e s , and continuing work on three- new towns: Welfare Island, Lysander, and Amhurst Welfare Island, in East River i n New York City, has been leased t o the Corporation f o r 99 years by the c i t y , and is expected t o eventual ly have 20,000 res idents . Lysander, outs ide of Buffalo, will cover 2,700 and i s s la ted t o eccomod%te 18,000 persons. Amhurst , near Buffalo, is s t i l l i n the planning s tage. In these new towns the Corporation plans t o recover in f r a s t ruc tu re cos ts by land sa les .

c -10-

11, PRIVATE VS, PUBLIC SECTOR'S ROLE I N NEX7 TOW DEVELOPMENT IN THE U N I T E D STATES AND FRANCE

A. The United S ta t e s

I n the United S t a t e s the f ede ra l government has made no

large sca l e commitment t o the bu i ld ing of new communities.

This i s primarily t he province o f p r iva t e developers.

a r e a number of h i s t o r i c a l examples t o illustrate t he i n t e r e s t

of federal government i n new community development

l e g i s l a t i o n has been passed t o stimulate and assist the p r i v a t e

sec to r i n new town building. There e x i s t , however, strains and

ambiguities in r e l a t i o n s h i p between the public and p r i v a t e sectors.

Yet, there

Recently the

1. Some His to r i ca l Precedents f o r Governmental Pa r t i c ipa t ion

Perhaps the f i r s t involvement of the federal government i n

new community development was dur ing ITorld ?Jar I when the nation

was faced with a severe housing shortage i n a reas with war

industries.

Council of National Defense recommended f ede ra l a s s i s t ance f o r

comprehensively planned residential communities.

the Congress appropriated $175 m i l l i o n t o c rea t e permanent homes

i n new communities b u t the war ended before the communities were

built .

In October 1917, the Advisory Commission of the

In March 1918

When'tnterest i n the new town movement, stemming from the

Garden C i ty movement i n England, surfaced i n the United States

i n the 1920% and 1930!s, the f e d e r a l government became involved.

-11-

Under the leadership of Clarence Ste in , a planner f o r the New

York Commission on Housing and Regional Planning Association of

America, f o u r new Garden communities were established with

mortgage money provided by the Fede ra l Housing Administration

insurance guarantees:

(1924-28)

Hillside, New York and Baldwin H i l l s Village i n Los Angeles

County (1941).

itself financed and b u i l t t h ree new Greenbelt towns.:

Maryland (near ITashington, D.C.>, Greenhills, Ohio (near Cinncinnati),

and Greendale, TsTisconsin (near Milr.laukee) B u i l t by %he

Resettlement Administration i n 1935, control of the management

of these towns was gradual ly relinquished.

mental holdings had been l iqu ida ted , and the P u b l i c Housing

Administration so ld a l l undeveloped land to non-profit veberan's

associations.

Sunnyside Garden Apartments in New York

Radburn (now called Fairlawn), New Jersey (1928) ,,

During the depression the f e d e r a l government

Greenbelt,

By 1953 all govern-

The large scale power and reclamation projec ts sponsored by

the federal government i n the 1930's also en ta i led the c rea t ion

of some new communities.

Boulder City, Nevada and Norris, Tennessee.

Two examples of such communities are

In the pe r iod following lqorld Var 11, the large developers

of new t o m s were i n d i r e c t l y a s s i s t e d by the Federal Housing

Administration of the federa l government through its backinz

of FHA mortgages of buyers. The post-war communities such as

Park Forest, Illinois and the Levittowns i n New Jersey, Mew York

and Pennsylvania might not have been built without t h i s assistance.

4 -12-

2. Private Developments

The e a r l i e s t new towns were company towns, b u i l t t o accommo-

date the needs of i n d u s t r y and generally without the features

of experimental planning.

the country, examples of which inc lude Pullman, Illinois and

Kingsport, Tennessee

These are widely scattered throughout

!The r e a l e s t a t e communities b u i l t by p r i v a t e developers

were, however, intended t o demonstrate t ha t comprehensively

planned new communities could be p r o f i t a b l e bus iness ventures .

Riverside, Illinois, b u i l t i n 1869 idas the f i r s t of such

a f f l u e n t suburban communities Among those subsequently built

were Roland Park i n Baltimore e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1891, the Country

Club district of Kansas City, and Fores t Hills Gardens on Long

I s l and , New York.

I n the recent new communities development the investors

and developers may be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o the following ca tegor ies :

(1) t h e traditional developer-builder, such as P h i l l i p Kentrick

who built Park Forest , Illinois through t he American Communities

Ventures, the Rossmoor Corporation, one of t he nation's l a r g e s t

home-building corporations, and James Rouse, t he developer o f

Columbia, Maryland; ( 2 ) large nat iona l corpora t ions with avail-

able capital, such as Westinghouse and General E l e c t r i c Corporation;

(3) corporate groups within the o i l i ndus t ry , such as the

Sunset International Petroleum ivhich has b u i l t th ree new communities

i n Cal i forn ia ; (4 ) l a r g e land owners who have decided to develop

r a t h e r than s e l l t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s , such as Goodyear which built

c -13-

Lf tch f i e ld Park, Arizona or the Newhall Land Company which

developed "Valencia" on 4,300 ac res of i t s 40,000 ac re holdings,

and, finally (4) mortgage lenders , including banks and insurance

companies, such as the Connecticut General L i f e Insurance

Company, one of the l a rge lenders both f o r Coral Ridge, Florida

and f o r Columbia, Maryland.

With the exception of the new communities development i n

New York Sta t e , a l l new communities outs ide of cen t r a l c i t i e s

are being b u i l t as pr iva t e ventures.'

is a special and unique one i n the sense tha t i t i s the only

instance i n which a s t a t e has es tab l i shed a po l i cy and plan

f o r urban development i n both rural and urban areas and one

which includes a long-term s t r a t egy f o r new community development.

The New York Sta t e case

New community development requi res vas t o rganiza t iona l

effort and financial r i s k f o r the p r iva t e sec tor .

t he speed of development i s a c ruc ia l f a c t o r . New communities

requi re huge f r o n t end investments t o acquire large land s i t e s ,

t o b u i l d houses and t o i n s t a l l f a c i l i t i e s and improvements before

people begin moving i n t o the community.

the bui ld ing of Columbia, Maryland, the Rouse Company was paying

i n t e r e s t a t the r a t e of $5,000 a day on money borrowed t o buy

the land only, and even before there was assurance that a new

town would o r could be b u i l t on the land s i t e .

c i a l risks involved l i m i t , therefore , the i n i t i k t i v e which

p r i v a t e inves to r s may be wi l l i ng t o take with respect t o l a rge

sca l e land assembly, provis ion of low-income housing, long-term

planning, and innovations of var ious sorts

In such e f f o r t s ,

I n the ear ly s t a s e s of

The large finan-

3. Ent ry of Governmental Participation

A s a r e s u l t of the limits -Lo new community development

which can be a n t i c i p a t e d under the auspices of the private

sec to r , the f e d e r a l government has become i n c r e a s i n z l y involved

i n the hopes of i nc reas ing the scope of long-term planning of

housing and o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s i n the s a t e l l i t e new tovms bein:

built by p r i v a t e i n v e s t o r s and developers. Through l e g i s l a t i o n

and admin i s t r a t ive arrangements, t he federal government hopes

that by f a c i l i t a t i n g the e f f o r t s of t h e p r i v a t e s ec to r t o wed

some of its o m interests and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n planning y l i t h

that of the p r i v a t e s ec to r .

The f e d e r a l government had, through the Urban Growth and

NeTq Community Act of 1970, provided support for p r i v a t e developers

f o r f e a s i b i l i t y planning of some new t o m s - f o r example:

Johnathan, Minnesota, St. Charles, Maryland, Park Forest South,

Illinois, Maumell, Arkansas, Flower Mound, Texas, Riverton,

YOrk:. and r e c e n t l y t h e r e have been others .

This e f f o r t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e Department o f

Housing and Urban Development where there have been s t rong

advocates f o r new town development.

that elsewhere i n the f e d e r a l government t h e r e is strong support

for sovernment support of new towns o r agreement that t h i s

should occupy a c e n t r a l concern i n the Department of Housing and

Urban Development.

i ng i n the i n i t i a l planning of iiev towns has c a l l e d t o a t t e n t i o n

the importance o f compehensive planning i n the bu i ld ing of nei7

It i s not c l e a r , howeurer,

The p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f s o v e m e n t i n assist-

-15-

towns and t h e limits t o which t h i s can be achieved when i t i s

i n the sphere o f t he p r i v a t e s e c t o r only.

f e d e r a l government i s developing guide l ines for new town develop-

ment which may be broadly appl ied . The s p e c i f i c role o f t h e

f e d e r a l government and the i n t e n t of L e z i s l a t i o n i s more fully

considered i n a subsequent s ec t ion .

In the process , the

4. nTew Towns-in-Town. A Special Case

The new t o m s - i n - town a r e a recent develcqinent which have

t o be considered a p a r t from the new towns being built as

s a t e l l i t e communities. They have e s s e n t i a l l y been considered as

~ u c c e s s o r s t o t h e e a r l i e r urban renewal prozrams i n t he d e t e r i o r a -

t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l areas of c e n t r a l c i t i e s .

launched by t h e Johnson admin i s t r a t ion i n 1967, as a reaction

t o t h e c i t y r i o t s i n bhe 1g60t~, was t o cons t ruc t r a p i d l y

q u a n t i t i e s of' housing f o r the poor. This was t o be done on

f e d e r a l l y owned s i t e s not involving demolit ion o f e x i s t i n g homes

o r displacement of slum dwellers . The f i r s t such s i t e s e l e c t e d

was For t Lincoln i n Vashington, D. C. Under s u i d e l i n e s drawn

up by the planners o f t h e Department of Hausins and Urban Develop-

ment, the new towns-in-town program was converted i n t o a k ind

of model community development program with s t ress of economic

and racial balance, comprehensive urban s e r v i c e s , innovat ive

a r c h i t e c t u r e . Fo r t Lincoln, i n the n a t i o n ' s c a p i t o l , would

provide the prototype f o r t h e new town-in-town development in

o the r c i t i e s .

The program f i r s t

2

I n i t i a l l y , seven c i t i e s were e n l i s t e d i n the program, b u t

three years l a t e r plans f o r new towns-in-town had been abandoned

i n three c i t i e s (San Antonio, New BedTord and S a n Francisco) , and

was s t a l l e d i n Lou i sv i l l e . Cedar Riverside i n Minneapolis vas

b ins built, and p l a n s were still under cons idera t ion f o r Fort

Lincoln and f o r t h e new town-in-toms i n Cl inton Township ad jacan t

t o De t ro i t , and in At lan ta .

supported e f f o r t s , t he new t o m - i n - t o m s have met the obs tac l e s

of intragovernmental p o l i t i c s a t almost every junc tu re .

r e c e n t l y plans are a l s o underway f o r Coldspring i n Baltimore and

the f e d e r a l government has provided support f o r t h e acquisition

of l and for its s i t e . T h i s new town-in-town, a t t h i s writ ing,

appears t o have some likelihood or" being b u i l t as i s presently

being planned i f local government can f l o a t t he necessary bond

issues However, unl ike its predecessors , Coldspring i s no t

intended t o serve pA.mari ly t h a t po r t ion of t h e p p u l a t i o n

or ig ina l ly considered f o r new towns-in- tom i n the f e d e r a l

government's e a r l y program. Pforeover, t he plans c a l l for f a c i l i -

t a t i n g arrangements vhicli w i l l more a c t i v e l y involve the p r i v a t e

sec tor

Conceived of as zovernriientally

More

5. Legislation

Severa l recent l e z i s l a t i v e acts have e s t a b l i s h e d the involve-

ment of t h e f e d e r a l government i i i net! t o m development.

I V of t he Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and T i t l e

T i t l e

V I 1 of t h e Urban Growth and New Development Act o f 1970 3 have

broadly d e f i n e d the framework wi th in which the f e d e r a l sovernment

vi11 work i n r&t ionship t o o t h e r l e v e l s of’ government.

The e a r l i e s t l e g i s l a t i o n gave formal recogni t ion t o the

basic d e s i r a b i l i t y o f new town development for the nation.

has also s p e l l e d o u t t h e workin2 r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Tederal

government and the p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n t he planning and development

of new towns. The l e g i s l a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e s c r i t e r i a which p r i v a t e

developers m u s t s a t i s f y i n o r d e r t o ob ta in f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e

from t h e f e d e r a l government .

It

Developers m u s t p re sen t s t rong evidence t h a t the bu i ld ing

of’ t h e new town w i l l con t r ibu te t o the economic wel fare o f t h e

genera l geographic a r e a i n which it would be s i t u a t e d . They

must show t h a t t he p r i n c i p l e s of comprehensive planning w i l l

be appl ied i n land use, and i n the provis ion of housing and

o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s and se rv ices as we l l .

t he use o f advances i n design and technology.

housing u n i t s must c o n s t i t u t e a p o r t i o n of the r e s i d e n t i a l

u n i t s b u i l t .

They m u s t a l s o demonstrate

Low income

If p r i v a t e developers s a t i s f y these requirements, f i n a n c i a l

a s s i s t a n c e of var ious forms a r e a v a i l a b l e tothem a t d i f f e r e n t

stages.

p r i v a t e developer may be covered by f e d e r a l planning g ran t s .

The federal government i s prepared t o guarantee backing of debt

o b l i g a t i o n s incur red by developers i n acqu i r ing land f o r t h e

new town s i t e , f o r developing t h e land and f o r i n s t a l l i n g

u t i l i t i e s . It w i l l a l s o cover i n t e r e s t payments on money

borrowed by developers for t h e s e purpases and w i l l r e q u i r e no

Upwards t o two-thirds of’ a l l planning c o s t s t o the

-18-

repayments on these amounts during the f i r s t years of the new

town's construct ion. On A p r i l 20, 1972 a set of draft rezula t ions 4 supplementing

the o r i g i n a l T i t l e V I 1 and covering var ious aspec ts of a s s i s t ance

t o new communities was issued by Secre ta ry Romney.

was a statement covering the human needs o f new communities

and an expanded sec t ion on hea l th and s o c i a l s e rv i ces t o be

included. Deta i l s were spec i f i ed on the provis ion of se rv ices

and f a c i l i t i e s f o r po r t ions of the pro jec ted population, includ-

ing loti income persons and the e lde r ly .

s ec t ion spe l l i ng out t he environmental f a c t o r s t o be considered.5

General c r i t e r i a f o r new towns were also t o include innovations

not only i n phys ica l planning b u t i n o the r aspec ts of new

community development as wel l . Fina l ly , a sec t ion was added concerning new towns-in-town

Included

Also added was a new

which has been published i n another s e t of draft r e so lu t ions i n

August 1972. This provides for the use of urban renewal funds

i n a reas with land o r space that i s vacant o r inappropr ia te ly

used. Under t h i s sec t ion , new community programs and urban

renewal programs can be coordinated t o develop new community

p ro jec t s , e spec ia l ly i n cen t r a l c i t y a reas .

G

6. Problems

The f ede ra l l e g i s l a t i o n regarding new towns i n intended

t o provide the framevorlr f o r f ede ra l pa r t i c ipa t ion i n the develop-

ment of new communities and t o spec i fy the coordination between

-1g-

the publ ic and p r iva t e sec to r s i n t h i s e f f o r t .

beginnin6 l e g i s l a t i v e e f f o r t s , t he re a r e a number of problems

i n t h i s respec t .

First, t he re i s not yet asreement on the goals f o r which

Despite the

new towns a r e t o be es tab l i shed even within the f ede ra l zovem-

ment . ment has been advocated pr imar i ly f o r providing higher qua l i t y

of housing o r f o r demonstrating t h a t comprehensive planning be

implemented. The Department of Housinz and Urban Development,

on the o the r hand, has tended t o view the new community as a

model f o r t e s t i n g a g rea t range of technological innovations.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has been p r i -

marily responsible for s e t t i n g the guidel ines f o r new towns

which have followed the broad l e g i s l a t i v e e f f o r t s of t he Congress,

and within the f ede ra l government the re i s considerable objec t -

i on t o the broad i n i t i a t i v e s taken by t h i s Department.

Vi th in severa l governmental agencies new town develop-

Second, t he r o l e and r e spons ib i l i t y a t d i f f e ren t govern-

mental l e v e l s i s not ye t wel l defined by the l e g i s l a t i o n o r

spec i f i ed i n the guidel ines wlzich a re being developed.

c ruc ia l po in t i s the ro l e which the s t a t e government w i l l have

i n new t o m developinent.

on mat te rs r e l a t i n g t o land use cont ro l and w i l l need t o be

involved i n the decision-making process i n new town planning

with the f ede ra l government and the p r iva t e developers. The

l e v e l of r e spons ib i l i t y a t the s t a t e l e v e l i s not adequately

define.d i n the present l e g i s l a t i o n , and the ro l e of the s t a t e

A

States c l e a r l y have the r e spons ib i l i t y

- 20-

government i n nevr town development i s i n f a c t very weak. The

l e g i s l a t i o n deals more s p e c i f i c a l l y with r e l a t ionsh ips betireen

the f ede ra l g o v e r m n t , l o c a l o f f i c i a l s and the p r iva t e developers

Third, inherent i n the new t o m development i s a c o n f l i c t

of bas ic i n t e r e s t s of t he publ ic and p r iva t e sec to r s which i s

not l i k e l y t o be overcome by l e g i s l a t i o n . Even i f the p r iva t e

sector i s compelled t o demonstrate some degree of a l t r u i s m .

i n order

making.

ob jec t ives believed t o be i n the publ ic i n t e r e s t , such as com-

prehensive planning, the provis ion of low income housing, s o c i a l

i n t eg ra t ion of' communities--matters which may impede p r o f i t

making.

ment can of fe r incent ives s u f f i c i e n t t o the p r iva t e sec to r t o

e n l i s t t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n some of the a l t r u i s t i c goals t o which

government must address i t s e l f .

t o do business p ro f i t ab ly , i t s main objec t ive i s p r o f i t

Government, on the o ther hand, w i l l need t o push those

The quest ion remains as t o whether the f ede ra l Sovern-

Fourth, a new kind of opposi t ion i s emerging on the American

scene with increas ing frequency t o impede the e f f o r t s of both

government and the p r i v a t e s ec to r i n large sca l e e f f o r t s , of

which new town development i s only one.

e f f o r t of publ ic groups which ge t cons t i t u t ed t o oppose a given

p ro jec t , o r spec ia l i n t e r e s t groups3 such as those concerned wi.th

environmental mat ters , who a r e a l ready cons t i t u t ed t o be v ig i -

l a n t when var ious new p ro jec t s a r e being considered.

case, the groups a r e concerned v i th ' *he broad consequences which

the new p ro jec t s m u l d b r i n s t o the people and the na tu ra l

This i s the organized

I n e i t h e r

-21-

environment of' new developments. I n shor t , a t h i r d sec to r has

emerzed and with which both the publ ic and pr iva t e sec to r must

reckon, This

urban renewal

of government

e a r l i e r urban

sector has already been vocal with respect t o

programs and i s no doubt a f a c t o r i n the decis ion

t o consider new towns-in-town as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o

renewal plans, s ince the nev toims-in- tom F J o U l d

keep d i s loca t ion of the e x i s t i n s population a t a minimum.

Present ly , a l so , t he re a re ins tances where publ ic groups a re

mobilizing t o oppose the development of new towns because of

environmental consequences, and perhaps f o r l e s s a l t r u i s t i c

reasons as wel l .

B. Prance

NeyJ tor.?n development i n France i s a recent venture.

Unlilce i n the Uiiited S ta t e s and i n most of the Vestern European

countr ies , t he re i s no h i s t o r i c a l precedent f o r e i t h e r publ ic

o r p r iva t e bui ld ing of new towns. New towns a re , however, a

p a r t of a l a rge r comprehensive p lan f o r stemming the growth of

the c i t y of P a r i s anf f o r r a t iona l i z inz the type of growth which

takes place within the Paris Region.

is being encouraged t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the bui ld ing of some

of' the housing i n the new tovms, the planning and bui ld ing of

new towns i s p r imar i ly the r e spons ib i l f ty of zovernment. The

i n i t i a l concern has been ~ i t h evolving an organiza t iona l s t ruc tu re

and the necessary adminis t ra t ive arrangements a t d i f f e ren t l e v e l s

of government i n order t o accomplish the task.

Although the p r i v a t e sec to r

c

-22-

1. Governmental S t ruc tu re f o r Planning o f New Towns

TThen the Schema Directeur vas first s e t f o r t h i n 1965, the

decision vas made that t h e planning and b u i l d i n g 02 the nev

t o m s i n the Paris Region would have t a be done within the exis t -

inG organiza t iona l and adminis t ra t ive s t ruc tu re of' government.

This decis ion meant tha t the a i m o f the Zovernment rJould be t o

incorporate a s t ruc tu re for planning vi t l i in the a l ready e x i s t -

ing framework o f sovernrnent . Involved would be c e r t a i n min i s t e r i e s

of the c e n t r a l Government, a l ready responsible f o r c e r t a i n

serv ices , and the l o c a l government a t the commune l eve l , with

other r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and p re rosa t ives for decisbn making.

The Schema Directeur vas a p a r t na t iona l program promulgated

v f t h i n the min i s t r i e s o r Public Tjorlcs and Construction, i n

exis tence as separate min i s t r i e s from 1945 and combined i n

1966 as the Ministry of Public Yorlrs and Housin?;.

of' t he 1966 reorganizat ion P J ~ S t o coordinate the e f f o r t s of

~ Y J O min i s t r i e s i n urban planning on a comprehensive basis.

Under the one new minis t ry -tim separate un i t s were es tab l i shed;

(1) Direction de l'amenagement Facies e t de VUrbanisme ( D . A . F . U . )

and (2) Direct ion de l e Construction.'

the r e spons ib i l i t y f o r urban develoi2ment and included spec ia l

d iv is ions f o r planning research, proZrams, organizat ion, f inance,

and adminis t ra t ive and legal affairs. The l a t t e r ' s r e spons ib i l i t y

vas with housing, p r imar i ly v i t h the planning % o r low and moderate

income housing (H.L.14. ) b u t also with cont ro l and supervision

of the p r iva t e sec to r i n matters of bu i ld ing regulat ions, r en t , e t c .

The purpose

The former vas t o have

-23-

At the commune level, the government has traditionally had

the responsibility for a l l building operations and for the provi-

sion of local services, even when the monies were supp l i ed by

the French central government Because the commune zealously

guards these perogatives from infringement by the central govern-

ment, it was recognized that arrangements with local government

was crucial to the success of new town developments. The question

was not then whether the commune government should be involved in

the enterprise, but whether some sort of administrative and finan-

cial extra-territoriality could be evolved as well. New towns

would be large scale enterprises and administratively unwieldy and

impossible if in the case of each new town it was necessary to

deal with the various administrative units within each of the

communes separately.

The organizational structure which has evolved was intended

to overcome the massive proliferation of administrative details

which would ensue without some change in traditional bureaucratic

relationships between government at different levels.

A major step in this direction was the creation of an inter-

ministerial working party at the central level of government to

oversee new town development in France. Since most new towns are

as yet confined to the Paris region, this group was to be headed

by the delegate of the Paris region, but was to include as well

representatives from various ministries and the prefects of districts

adjoining the Paris region which might be affected by any new town

-24-

development . The group would have the respons ib i l i ty f o r seeing

that new town developments were consistent with nat ional policy.

It was also the agency within the cent ra l government which would

function t o work with other bodies and loca l government involved

with new towns . The same l eg i s l a t ion which established the in te r -minis te r ia l

working par ty f o r new towns a t the cent ra l l eve l , a l s o prescribed

tha t a Research and Planning Commission should be established i n

each case when a new town was designated by cent ra l government.

The Director of the Commission i n each new town was t o be designated

by the Prime Minister. This Commission i s i n e f f ec t f o r a given

period only, and i s f i r s t under the d i rec t authori ty of the regional

Prefect . A s soon as possible, however, the Commission i s supposed

t o locate i n the area where the new town i s t o be b u i l t i n order

t o f a c i l i t a t e the closest contact possible with l o c a l conditions

and with loca l o f f i c i a l s . Local off ic ia ls--adminis t ra t ive and sa l e s

personnel, technical personnel, and town planning s ta f f - -a re then

recrui ted f o r development of plans f o r the new town.

increasingly evident with experience that the cent ra l government

would be unable t o supply the needed personnel f o r the planning

e f fo r t s , nor does it f e e l t ha t i t would be advisable t o do so.

It has become

After considerable deliberation, the public development

corporation has evolved as the most acceptable model f o r under-

taking the building of new towns, replacing the Research and

Planning Commission as soon as the development i s underway. Three

. -25-

of the f ive new towns i n the P a r i s region have already reached t h a t

stage i n which the public development corporation has been created.

The New Town Act of 1970 spe l l s out i n d e t a i l how a new

governmental s t ruc ture f o r the new town i s achieved.

urbanization l i m i t s of the new town i s f i r s t submitted by the

cent ra l government t o the loca l o f f i c i a l s i n those communes where

the new town would be s i tua ted . If the boundaries a re approved,

the new town i s granted o f f i c i a l status by decree i n the Conseil

d ' E t a t .

a r e approved by the various communes, there i s then the need t o

create a governmental s t ruc ture which transcends that of the ind i -

vidual communes.

council of nine members, including representatives of the relevant

communes.

t o municipal council and no l a t e r than three years from t h i s elec-

t ion, the new town acquires the status of a f u l l y operative munici-

p a l i t y .

The proposed

Following t h i s , once the geographic l i m i t s of the new towns

The u s u a l municipal council i s replaced by a

New inhabitants as soon as possible e l e c t representatives

Provision f o r the financing of new towns was included i n the

F i f t h Plan i n 1965, and the Budget of the Ministry of Economic

Affairs f o r 1966 earmarked a grant o f Frs . l5O mill ion i n a "reserve"

chapter designated as " a i d f o r new towns".

scale developments such as new towns require enormous f inanc ia l

outlays, i t was recognized t h a t cap i t a l avai lable f o r new towns

must be kept i n c i rcu la t ion t o meet the costs of l a n d acquis i t ion

and community inf ras t ruc tures i n the new towns. It was important,

However, since la rge

. -26-

also, t o control insofar as possible land speculation and prevent

pr ice escalat ion of land values i n the areas selected f o r new town

s i t e s . Accordingly, a number of act ions have been taken t o b u i l d

up land reserves and t o implement a land development policy, under

a chapter created within the Ministry of Public Works and Housing.

Under the land w e control program, i t i s also possible f o r

public au tho r i t i e s t o acquire control over land and f o r preemption

over land transactions i n the so-called "Deferred Development Zones.

A s i t has worked out, it i s often the public development cor-

poration which acquires the land and undertakes the building of

the community inf ras t ruc ture . Loans f o r these purposes for new

towns i n the Paris region a re obtained from L'Agence Fonciere e t

Technique de l e region Parisienne, and a re backed by the Paris

Di s t r i c t . The r e s iden t i a l sections of new towns a re generally b u i l t by

pr iva te developers, o r by the public sector i n the case of public

housing, b u t under plans agreed upon i n advance between the govern-

ment and the developers. In the "concerted development zones'' o f

new towns, both the pr ivate and public developers a re constrained

t o conform t o plans established i n advance.

These r e s t r a i n t s do not, however, discourage the par t ic ipa t ion

of pr ivate developers i n new towns, since other advantages,

including the presence of an already ex is t ing community in f r a -

s t ructure , minimizes both t h e i r f inanc ia l obligations and t h e i r

f inanc ia l risks.

-27-

2. Problems Connected wi th New Town Developments i n France

A s would be expected, governmental direct ion i n the building

of new towns i n France has met w i t h considerable conf l ic t a t the

cent ra l l eve l , between d i f fe ren t leve ls of government and between

the public and pr ivate sectors . There a re a l s o problems associated

with launching such a large scale experiment i n a country such as

France which tends t o be r e s i s t an t t o large scale change.

1. Conflicts and reactions against new towns

The new town program i n France was i n i t i a t e d a t the cent ra l

l eve l of government as a p a r t of the nat ional urban growth policy,

and a " theore t ica l b a t t l e " has been i n evidence from the very

beginning among government au thor i t ies , both with respect t o the

nat ional pol icy and the new town program as well .

ments used against the building of new towns center on the great

risks being assumed by the cent ra l government, the scale of the

development being undertaken, and the length of time which develop-

ment and construction of new towns w i l l take.

The main argu-

The achievement of continuity i n the new town development

depends very much on continued support by highly placed governmental

o f f i c i a l s i n the cent ra l government.

Directeur was f i r s t presented, the Prime Minister, the Minister of

Public Works and Housing, and the Prefect of the Paris Region, a l l

key persons, have been succeeded by others. It remains t o be seen

whether support f o r the new town venture w i l l continue.

Minister of Public Works and Housing has raised the question of

Since 1965 when the Schema

The new

-28-

whether the Schema Directeur should continue t o be pursued. Up

u n t i l now the majority of o f f i c i a l s have responded i n the posi t ive,

b u t theore t ica l debates are emerging on such i ssues as the s i ze and

scope of new town development which should be undertaken. There

seems t o be l i t t l e reason t o suspect t h a t o r ig ina l objectives w i l l

not be a l t e r ed as new o f f i c i a l s gain p o l i t i c a l ascendancy and as

experience with new towns create new controversies.

Strong opposition t o the new town development i s most apparent

among ce r t a in loca l o f f i c i a l s , frequently the mayors. This opposi-

t i o n derives generally not so much over the theore t ica l issues of

how problems or" urban growth a re t o be met, b u t over administrative

arrangements. For example, i n the Etang de Berre area i n the

south region, where new town pro jec ts had been decided upon, the

mayors have refused t o form themselves i n t o one intercommunal body and have decided instead t o create f ive intercommunal syndicates. 3

On the other hand, many of the mayors a re of the opinion tha t

l oca l o f f i c i a l s have an ins igni f icant ro le i n the planning f o r new

towns i n t h e i r areas . It i s t rue that while l o c a l o f f i c i a l s a re

represented,about half of the members of the public development

corporation a re from governmental agencies, and the Di s t r i c t

representative i s elected by government. The dominance of the

cent ra l government, they maintain, has possible adverse conse-

quences on the budget of the communes. While the communes do

obtain loans f o r public works i n new towns and have l i b e r a l repay-

ment options, the cent ra l government i s responsible f o r cos t ly

-29-

items such as highways, subways, and other cos t ly expenditures.

Should the cent ra l government f a i l t o l i v e up t o i t s obligations,

the communes may be faced w i t h repayment of loans before t h e i r

returns from housing and taxes a re proportional t o t h e i r expendi-

tu res . The land use pol icy adopted i n connection with the new town

development, en t a i l i ng as it does control of land speculation, has

not resul ted i n the amount of conf l ic t with the pr iva te sector that

might have been expected. Neither have the constraints placed

upon the developers who b u i l d i n new towns. Presumably, p r iva te

developers have seen advantages i n working i n concert with govern-

ment i n the new towns.

Certain d i f f i c u l t i e s have, however, a r i sen i n connection with

developers who b u i l d i n areas near the new towns. T h i s a r i s e s

because while the government has created too ls t o control what i s

happening within the defined l i m i t s of the new towns, i t has less

control over developments i n adjacent surroundings. Many developers

see it t o t h e i r advantage t o b u i l d houses i n proximity t o the new

town l i m i t s i n order t ha t res idents Kay have access t o the f a c i l i t i e s

and services which a re being offered i n the new towns.

re l ieves the pr iva te developers of ce r t a in costs and responsibil-

i t i e s , b u t p u t s an overload on the new towns.

This

The new towns a re a l so i n competition with other new residen-

t i a l developments f o r a t t r a c t i n g residents . Private developers,

a s has been indicated, may provide housing a t l e s s cost because

-30-

they do not provide the community inf ras t ruc ture and the f a c i l i t i e s

and services which a re p a r t and parcel of new town development.

Also, a t l e a s t i n the short run, some of the innovations being

attempted i n the new town experiments may as yet not be acceptable

t o the public. The public sector, on the other hand, can ca t e r t o

conventional t a s t e s , which may bring residents more readily. This

problem i s i n f a c t one aspect of a broader one.

2. New experiments i n a conservative and

t r ad i t i ona l count r,y

Paris i s an old h i s t o r i c c i t y with many advocates f o r maintain-

ing i t s "old" t r a d i t i o n a l atmosphere. Much opposition has been

voiced i n regard t o government's public pro jec ts i n housing and

commercial development involving '' skyscrapers" and high r i s e con-

s t ruc t ion i n general . I n urban renewal programs, the government

has been compelled by the force of public opinion, t o r e s t r i c t

innovations i n order that the character of areas w i l l not be

d ra s t i ca l ly changed.

Even among those who accept the reasons why the new town

ventures a re being undertaken and support t h i s ac t iv i ty , many

would not choose t o be I'victims" of the experiment. A survey con-

cerning the publ ic ' s a t t i t u d e s towards new towns i s s ign i f icant i n

t h i s connection.

experiments were a good thing, only 50 percent would themselves

choose t o l i v e i n a new town.

Among those surveyed who agreed that the new town

Such a reaction i s probably not special with regard t o the

-31-

new town developments, b u t would apply t o most experiments,

especial ly i f the experiment was i n i t i a t e d by government., There

i s probably a ra ther general consensus tha t whatever government

undertakes w i l l be t a s t e l e s s and t o some extent unsatisfactory f o r

those who would be able t o exercise choice i n the matter,

t o e n l i s t the i n t e r e s t of c i t i zens i n new ventures i s not yet

common prac t ice i n France. Yet the general skepticism which pre-

va i l s among the public with regard t o new towns i n France does

r a i se the question of whether c i t i z e n involvement may not be desire-

able and even necessary i n gaining i n t e r e s t and acceptance f o r new

towns .

Attempts

Another point appl ies t o government i n both countries, The

s t ruc ture of government i s such t h a t the various l eve l s of govern-

ment a re unable t o function i n concert f o r the solut ion o f important

problems.

inadequate t o the scale of problems which present themselves.

Metropolitan problems, f o r example, cut across governmental j u r i s -

dictions. Regional government has been more completely achieved

i n the Paris region than i n any la rge metropolitan area i n the

United States , b u t i n France e f f o r t s t o coordinate the e f f o r t s of

l oca l government outside of the Paris Region have not met with

much success.

It has evolved over a considerable period and simply i s

The new town development i s , therefore, a kind of experiment

i n modification of the present archiac s t ruc ture of government.

This i s more so the case i n France than i n the United States , since

-32-

the scale of new towns being built is larger and transverse more

governmental jursidictions, and since the r o l e of government in

building new towns is greater. However, even in the United States,

new towns represent an experiment requiring considerable modifica-

tion in government structure. A case in point is the practical

necessity of making land acquisitions sufficiently large for the

site of a new town.

some initiative on the part of the state governments, or on the

part of a quasi public-private body (as in the case of the New York

Development Corporation) created for this purpose and with legisla-

tive sanction to actually determine land use. Clearly, also, if

new towns are to be built on any scale and to provide housing that

competes with other housing being built, local governments will

have to submit to some standardization in building regulations to

attract developers who will want to take advantage of technological

innovations in the building industry. This will, of course, require

initiative beyond the local governmental level. So, also, will

the provision for a great range of services, important among which

is transportation.

Clearly, in the United States this will require

-33-

111. SOME REFLEXTIONS ON THE ROLE OF NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOLUTION OF NATIONAL PROBLEMS

The previous discussion conveys the notion of large differences

in the new town development in the United States and France.

the United States, support for new towns has surfaced from time

to time, some new towns have been built, and there is obviously

considerable ideological support f o r new towns among certain

segments of the public at the present time. In France new towns

are being planned without historical precedents and without much

interest o r ideological support from the public as a whole. In

France, new towns are part of an explicit national urban growth

policy which now has governmental sanction. In the United States,

no such policy has as yet been made explicit, although advocates

of new town development have emerged as such a policy is being

debated on the national scene. In France, it is the government

which has initiated the new town development, while in the

United States the stimulus has currently been provided chiefly

by the public sector.

In

These differences are sufficient to indicate that there are

wide differences in the context within which new town development

is taking place within the two countries. Emphasis on the differences,

however, may have shortcomings in terms of' the analysis of new

town development and the questions which should be addressed in

connection with that development . To concentrate on differences

is likely t o raise primarily polemical questions as to whether

the route which France is proceeding with regard to new town

-34-

development i s b e t t e r than i n the United States , o r vice versa?

It w i l l tend t o focus the concerns on such questions as whether

government should i n i t i a t e new town development, seek t o f a c i l i -

t a t e i t s development, o r remain aloof a l toge the r? .

Questions of t h i s order, and polemical f o r the most p a r t ,

a r e probably not the c ruc ia l ones.

the constraints presented by the economic, p o l i t i c a l and soc ia l

struct.ures, which t o a large extent w i l l shape spec i f ic courses

In both co.untries, there a re

taken a t the beginning.

new towns tha t a re now being b u i l t a re experiments on a considerable

scale i n both countries, and t h a t much llsoclal learning" i s needed

t o assess t h e i r possible significance from a number of points of

view .

B u t a major point i s that the kinds of

A. S imi l a r i t i e s i n the Type of Problems t o Which New Towns Have Been Addressed

Viewed from t h i s perspective, it i s useful t o consider the

s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the objectives t o which new town development has

been addressed i n both countries. There a re s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the

objectives, e x p l i c i t o r implici t , s e t f o r t h i n the l i t e r a t u r e ,

and these may be c l a s s i f i ed i n ce r t a in broad categories. ?irst,

there i s the i n t e r e s t i n e f fec t ing changes i n the pa t te rn of the

d is t r ibu t ion of population and economic a c t i v i t i e s , Second, there

i s concern with increasing the supply and qua l i ty of housing and

other amenities of the e n v i r o m t . Th i rd , there i s need t o balance

the ro le of d i f fe ren t leve ls of government i n meeting problems i n

the public i n t e r e s t . Fourth, there i s the need t o devise a

-35-

modus operandi f o r the cooperation of the public and pr iva te

sectors i n the solution of problems.

All of these problems are pe r s i s t en t problems of a broad

scale and not amenable t o easy solution.

awareness of the types of solutions which emerge from time t o

time as a means f o r solution of these problems w i l l probably

view the "new towns movement" as an addi t ional attempt t o solve

complicated problems with r e l a t ive ly l imited means.

problems a re complex i n t h e i r or igins and incremental programs

emerge as solutions, generally t o be replaced by other programs

a t a l a t e r time which e i t h e r seem more relevant o r generate more

public support .

One accustomed t o

Enduring

The above i s mentioned only as a caution. Too much i s

probably expected from new town development, and from th i s point

of view, whatever i t s achievements are, the assessments a re l i k e l y

t o f a l l short of success.

siderable cer ta in ty .

s t i l l be prof i tab le t o examine the new town development i n both

countries from the point of view of the broad nat ional problems t o

which i t i s qui te obviously viewed as a t l e a s t one means of

solution .

This much can be expected with con-

However, w i th t h i s caution i n mind, i t may

B.

I n both the United States and France, the present d i s t r ibu t ion

Distribution of Population and Economic Ac t iv i t i e s

of pop'ulation and economic a c t i v i t i e s have been viewed by many

as a s igni f icant nat ional problem. On a nat ional scale, the

-36-

concern has been that the people i n one area a re a t some advantage

or disadvantage r e l a t ive t o those i n other areas.

scale, the concern has been w i t h the seeming disorder of the

location of sett lements and new construction, the mismatch

between residences and jobs, the diseconomies associated with provid-

ing f a c i l i t i e s and services, environmental deter iorat ion-al l

On a l o c a l

variously characterized as the r e su l t s of 1 1 urban sprawl".

There i s , however, considerable controversy as t o the mag-

nitude of t h i s problem and the extent t o which i t may be a l t e r ed by

governmental intervention.

pa t te rns of d i s t r ibu t ion of population

Many would argue tha t the present

and economic activit ies

There- merely r e f l e c t the balance of 1 1 benefi ts" over I 1 costs" .

fo re , any attempts t o a l t e r present d i s t r ibu t iona l pa t te rns a re

l i k e l y t o have cost consequences which a re i n excess of benefi t

consequences, o r w i l l be attempts t o a l t e r the hierarchy of

choice which has been operating i n the present d i s t r ibu t iona l

pa t te rns .

a d i f fe ren t d i s t r ibu t ion of population and economic a c t i v i t i e s

i s , i f not r isky, l i k e l y t o meet with only l imited success. Such

i s the posi t ion taken by those concerned primarily with the

I n the main, they would argue tha t attempts t o e f f ec t

efficiency' ' of the economic system. 11

Others, however, would argue t h a t other c r i t e r i a need t o be

applied i n assessing the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the present d i s t r ibu t ion

of population and economic a c t i v i t i e s and whether o r not govern-

mental intervention i s desirable. Their arguments hinge on con-

s iderat ion of social equity f o r d i f fe ren t segments of the population,

-37-

obligations of the government t o maintain public and l imited resources

and t o provide services and f a c i l i t i e s , and the need t o provide

a greater range of l i v ing and working environment than i s now

avai lable . The posi t ions taken with respect t o new town development as

a solut ion t o problems of d i s t r ibu t ion of population and economic

a c t i v i t i e s r e f l e c t the c r i t e r i a used i n assessing the present

d i s t r ibu t ion pa t te rns . They a l so r e f l e c t the extent t o which

it i s believed tha t intervention would e f f ec t change i n these

pat terns . Those who adhere t o efficiency" as the important

determinant tend t o be skept ical of the accomplishments which

may be achieved by new towns. They point t o the d i f f i c u l t i e s

which can be expected i n providing an economic base f o r employment

of the new town population, the enormous costs involved i n pro-

viding not only a l l new housing b u t a new community inf ras t ruc ture

as well . Generally, they a re of the opinion that economic forces

a re far more important i n determining how d i s t r ibu t ion pa t te rns

w i l l evolve, and that that intervention i s extremely unlikely t o

counteract these forces. And, f ina l ly , they a re of the opinion

t h a t given the choice of vast expenditures of the scope that would

be required t o change d is t r ibu t ion pat terns t h a t the money would

be b e t t e r spent i n increasing the options of those with l imited

choice i n the economic system. This i s e s sen t i a l ly the point of

view that has prevailed i n the Unitedstates and has kept govern-

ment from developing a national, urban growth policy which would

focus a t t en t ion on pa r t i cu la r "places" e In France, efficiency' '

11

11

c

-38-

considerations probably predominate t o a l e s s e r extent. France

i s more of a welfare s t a t e than the United S ta tes , and there i s

a longer and more accepted t r ad i t i on f o r government intervention

i n the i n t e r e s t s of soc ia l equity.

I n both countries, however, there i s an ascendancy of groups

with an ideology f o r planning i n the public i n t e r e s t .

of professional planners, soc ia l s c i e n t i s t s , and other groups i n

new types of environments have undoubtedly forged the i n t e r e s t

of new town development as a l te rna t ives t o present types of

settlement pa t te rns .

has prevailed i n both countries and has given r i s e t o the notion

that a l t e rna t ive choices i n l i v ing environments i s i n the public

i n t e r e s t . This i s a relevant point i n connection with concern with

housing i n both countries.

The i n t e r e s t

So a l so has the economic affluence which

C . The Problem of the Supp1.y and Qua1it .y o f Housing

Housing tends t o be defined as a pe r s i s t en t problem i n both

France and the United States , and i n most countries as well .

It i s perhaps worthwhile t o explore t o what extent it has been

and i s a problem i n order t o throw some l i g h t on how the new

towns a re expected t o serve as solutions t o t h i s problem.

The focus tends often t o be upon the supply of housing.

Whether o r not a housing supply i s adequate or inadequate i s

often d i f f i c u l t t o determine. In ce r t a in periods, such as the

post PJorld War I1 period i n both countries, there- was c l ea r ly

a housing shortage, since there had been l i t t l e housing

-39-

construct ion

increasing.

during the per iod of t he war and the populat ion was

Housing shortages a r e also more l i k e l y t o p r e v a i l

a t most times f o r the poorer segments of t he population, s ince

p a r t i c u l a r types of housing a r e needed: cheap housing and

r e n t a l dwellings. A shortage of low income housing i s therefore

l i k e l y t o Be a p e r s i s t e n t problem.

l i k e l y t o be one o:P a supply of housing which meets c e r t a i n

standards. I n ne i the r country a r e the poor expected t o l i v e i n

substandard housing, and i n both count r ies the q u a l i t y of low

income housing has been upgraded cons i s t en t ly .

Even here the problem i s

Since government i n both count r ies must be concerned with

housing f o r low income groups, some i n t e r e s t i n new towns a t t aches

t o the p o s s i b i l i t i e s seen f o r providing low income housing i n the

new towns. This i s c l e a r l y the case i n the United S ta t e s where

the Department of Housing and Urban Development has attempted,

b u t not very successful ly , t o make the provis ion of low income

housing a condi t ion f o r publ ic support of p r iva t e developers of

new towns. I n addi t ion, low income groups have problems i n

addi t ion t o housing, and governments o rd ina r i ly have been

unsuccessful i n demonstrating tha t they can ma te r i a l ly improve

conditions for the poor, as evidenced by the l imi t ed success of

urban renewal programs and a host of o ther publ ic programs. The

oppor tuni t ies of removing the poor from t h e i r u s u a l environments

i n a new town environment has obviously been of considerable

appeal t o many concerned with the p l i g h t of the disadvantaged

sec t ions of t he population.

. -40-

There i s l i t t l e t o demonstrate, however, that i n e i t h e r

France o r t he United S ta t e s t ha t &ow income housing w i l l be a

major achievement of new town development withiii t he near fu tu re .

New housing i s more expensive than o l d housing, and the poor

would have t o be heavi ly subsidized i n t h e i r housing i f they

l i v e d i n new towns. It i s unl ike ly t h a t i n e i t h e r the case of

France or t he United S ta t e s w i l l such heavy government support

be given.

Improvements i n the qua l i t y of housing and the housing

environment f o r the non-poor have, however, been advanced as

s t rong po in t s i n favor of new towns. Here, as i n the case of

o ther arguments i n support of new towns, t he evidence i s not ye t

ava i l ab le t o show that new towns w i l l a t t r a c t r e s iden t s t o the

ex ten t the proponents of new towns argue, or that r e s iden t s of

new towns w i l l peyceive of their housing zqd housing environment

as super ior t o t ha t which they might have commanded. elsewhere.

For example, some re s i s t ance i s l i k e l y a t $he i n L t i a l s tages of t he

bui ld ing of new t o m s when r e s iden t s are needed b u t before all

amenities a r e provided, and before the charac te r of t he new town

can be known. 11 Cer ta in ly considerable soc ia l l earn ing" i s needed about the

importance of housing and the housing environment i n comparison

with o ther requirements of fami l ies . To what ex ten t a r e those

seeking housing wi l l i ng o r ab le t o forego o the r th ings i n order

t o achieve a c e r t a i n l e v e l of housing m d environmental amenity.

.

W i l l people choose t o l i v e i n a new town ra ther than i n an

unplanned suburban development i f they have t o pay more for the

house? To what extent a re the amenities other than housing

cruc ia l i n t h e i r decisions as t o where they choose t o l i v e ? IS

housing l e s s important than other things? What types of people a r e

most l i k e l y t o be a t t r ac t ed t o new towns and whzt types a re not?

Does the newness o f the community a c t as a deterrent f o r those

already s i tua ted i n s tab le environments?

These and other questions a re relevant t o the a t t r a c t i o n s

which new towns may have f a n po ten t i a l res idents .

of course, not known f o r the most pa r t . It i s l i ke ly , however,

that one of the strong points f o r the new towns i s tha t i t pro-

vides yet another type of a l t e rna t ive i n l i v i n g environment.

Whether o r not, the new town environment can s a t i s f y the claims

of i t s advocates remains another question. For example, i n the

United S ta tes new toxns a re generally advanced as providing the

opportunity f o r more d ivers i ty with respect t o res idents and a

greater sense of commitment than i s present ly the case i n suburban

developments and within c i t i e s . The evidence f o r these contentions

i s generally lacking and sometimes contrary.

The hnswers are ,

-42-

D. Bal-qncing the, role^ of Government at Different Levels i n . Problems of -Public. 1nte.rest

It i s generally recognized that government i n France i s mare ’

central ized than i n the U.S. In both countries, however, there i s

the problem of a l loca t ing the functions of government a t the

vario,us leve ls and working out the relat ionships which mus t be

obtained between d i f fe ren t sectors of the government i n the

solution of problems. A s France has discovered i n i t s new town

program, the cent ra l government i s not prepared t o undertake the

ac tua l building of new towns nor does it consider i t desirable

tha t the cent ra l government should assume full respons ib i l i ty

f o r t h i s en terpr i se . Furthermore, the extent t o which the solution

of a nat ional problem i s assumed t o be the domain of the cent ra l

government w i l l depend upon the extent of public concern w i t l i the

pa r t i cu la r matter. I n the United States , many problems have

become the concern of the federal government, because s t a t e and

loca l governments have e i t h e r been unwilling o r unable t o assume

respons ib i l i ty f o r these problems. A case i n point i s the entry

of the federal government i n the provision of public housing.

Increasingly, i n both countries the cent ra l governments have

assumed respons ib i l i ty f o r problems nat ional i n scope. B u t i n

both countries, there a re l i m i t s t o which the cen t r a l government

i s wil l ing t o diminish the role of other leve ls of government.

Increasingly, i t appears that l oca l governments i n the

United S ta t e s mus t relinquish some control. i f new towns a r e t o

be b u i l t , and tha t i n i t i a t i v e s w i l l need t o be taken a t higher

-43-

l e v e l s of government as i s the case i n France. T h i s does not

mean, however, thak the feueral- government in the United S ta t e s

will necessa r i ly ever be sznctioned -Lo b u i l d new towns on a

l a rge sca le , ~r that i t W i l l f i r 1 i.t poss ib le t 3 increase g rea t ly

the resources which it makes avai1abl.e t o p r iva t e developers who

do so. There is i.n the United S tz t e s , and i n France, a l so , a

widespread i n t e r e s t on the p a r t of t he publ ic t o take pos i t i ons

with regard t o publ ic p ro jec t s being plaiined i n the a reas i n

which they l i v e . Up t o now, t h i s has c h i e f l y taken the form of

r e s i s t ance ac t iv i i ;y i n regard t o highway construct ion, urban

renewal programs and o ther governmental a c t i v i t i e s . Such groups

w e l i k e l y t o become both pzvkaganists and an tagonis t s i n regard

t o governmental ventures in t h e i r own communities, m d government

a t a11 l e v e l s w i l l be required t o be responsive t o t h e i r concerns.

E a r l i e r these cons t i tuenc ies opei-&ec! p r i m a r i l y t o achieve i n t e r -

vention a t the federa l l e v e l ; j n c r e s s i n g l ~ they m e attempting

t o achieve t h e i r o b j e c t i w s a t the l o c a l l e v e l of government.

TO t he ex ten t t h a t t h i s i s the case, l o c a l governments may gain

leverage with respect t o the f ede ra l government.

development becomes the3 oaly m o t h e r type of development i n

which the responsibility cf d i f f e ren t l e v e l s of government i s

The new town

under t e s t .

A s i n the czse of' cGopena.tion of d i f f e ren t l e v e l s of govern-

ment, the cooperation o f publ ic and p r iva t e sec to r s i n mat ters

c

-44-

of the publ ic i n t e r e s t i s always a problem. I n France, the

range of a c t i v i t i e s assumed by goverment has been g rea t e r than

i n the United S ta t e s . Yet, i n the United S ta t e s t he re has been

increas ing pressure for government t o assume the ro l e once con-

s idered the domain of p r iva t e en te rp r i se . Again, housing,

p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r low income groups, i s a case i n po in t . I n both

countr ies , t he re a r e l i m i t s t o which government can mobilize the

f inanc ia l resources and the t a l e n t s t o provide goods and serv ices .

I n some cases, also, the p r iva t e sec to r may be ab le t o render the

goods and serv ices more e f f i c i e n t l y . The p r iva t e sec tor , however,

cannot be expected t o operate a l t r u i s t i c l y i n respect t o those

problems of concern of government. It must f i nd incent ives i f i t

i s t o 'cooperate wi th the government i n f ind ing so lu t ions t o na t iona l

problems . Again, the new towns development i s a kind o f experiment t o

determine the ex ten t of cooperation which may be achieved between

the two sec to r s . Here i t i s of i n t e r e s t t o po in t out examples

which demonstrate how t h i s cooperation can be maximized.

I n France where the government has assumed the i n i t i a t i v e i n

new town development, the incent ives t o the p r iva t e sec to r a r e

obvious. The p r iva t e sec to r takes r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e f i nanc ia l

r i s k for new town developrent. Government assumes the respon-

s i b i l i t y f o r land acqu i s i t i on and planning ane the front-end cos t s

i n the i n i t i a l s tages of new town development. I n bui ld ing

residences, i t incurs no f inanc ia l r e spons ib i l i t y f o r the community

in f r a s t ruc tu re . I n sum, the p r iva t e sec to r has l - l t t l e r i sk and

-45-

good prospects f o r a t l e a s t l imi t ed p r o f i t s f o r cooperation with

the government i n new town ventures. It m u s t , i n re turn , however,

comply with government p l ans f o r the new town development . I n the United S ta t e s , the incent ives f o r the p r iva t e sec to r

i n new town ventures involve more f inanc ia l r i s k but may involve

g rea t e r f i nanc ia l gains i n the long run f o r developers. The r i s k -

taking, however, i s g rea t and i s impossible without l a rge amounts

of c a p i t a l which a r e d i f f i c u l t t o ob ta in f o r t he extended per iod

required. Where t h i s r i s k i s assumed by the p r iva t e sec to r , t he

developers may be unable o r unwill ing t o inves t s u f f i c i e n t l y i n

a community in f r a s t ruc tu re , t o p lan adequately i n mat ters of long

term consequence of the new community, and t o provide for matters

such as low income housing.

One of the funct ions of the recent new towns l e g i s l a t i o n i s

therefore t o minimize some of the r i sk- tak ing of p r iva t e developers

i n t h e bui ld ing of' new towns and i n r e tu rn t o a t t a c h some requirements

t o t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The planning grants ava i l ab le t o p r iva t e developers a re a

case i n po in t . These gran ts provide f ron t end money f o r f e a s i -

b i l i t y planning. I n re turn , the f ede ra l government i s assured,

f o r example, t h a t s u f f i c i e n t planning has been undertaken t o

assure that the new town has some l ike l ihood of economic v i a b i l i t y

i f b u i l t . Similar ly , t he risks and cos t s t o developers of new towns

would be considerably reduced i f t he means can be found by govern-

ment t o exerc ise some cont ro l over land acqu i s i t j on f o r new town

c

-46-

development. A s t he s i t u a t i o n new e x i s t s , developers run the r i s k

of l a rge e sca l a t ions i n l ane values vhen i t becomes known that

they wish t o acquire the lam<. They a l s o run the risk t ha t they

may not be ab le t o acquire *he rzxessary land for t he new town

s i t e , even a f t e r they have a l ready made la rge capi-hl ou t lays for

land acqu i s i t i on and planni-ng.

New towns have a l s o been c i t e d as providing unusua l oppor-

t u n i t i e s f o r r a c i a l and socio-economic in t eg ra t ion , f o r achieving

soc ia l goals which a re not poss ib le i n nlready e s t ab l i shed communities.

I n general , however, p r iva t e developers may be unwilling t o under-

take innovations of t h i s type unless they can be assured that they

have something t o gain and unless spec ia l incent ives a r e provided.

P r iva t e developers may see some advantages i n accepting members

o f minori ty groups i n t h a t they w i l ? a l s o a t t r a c t r e s iden t s who

a r e favorable t o having minori ty groups a s r e s iden t s .

o the r hand, the presence of minori ty group members l i m i t s t h e i r

prospects f o r a t t r a c t i n g new re s iden t s t o the new town, they w i l l

undoubtedly be l e s s hospi table i n the acceptance of minori ty

fami l ies .

w i l l be more favorable t o the s o c i a l goals of government i f they

f e e l t h a t they do not ca r ry undue burden as compared w i t h those

developers outs ide of new towns. Government i s therefore more

l i k e l y t o achieve the cooperation of new town developers i n t h i s

area i f i t enforces housing desegregation outs ide of new towns

as well as within them.

I f , on the

I n mat tem such a s racial . In tegra t ion , p r iva t e developers

4

-47-

Socio-economic in t eg ra t ion i s a s o c i a l goal i n many ways more

d i f f i c u l t f o r the p r iva t e developer t o assume than r a c i a l i n t eg ra t ion .

Outside of new towns r a c i a l i n t eg ra t ion has been achieved t o some

extent i n many l o c a l i t i e s ; socio-economic in t eg ra t ion only i n f r e -

quently. P r iva t e developers i n new towns seem t o show no g rea t amount

of re luctance t o accept a c e r t a i n proport ion 09 low income re s iden t s

( a l b e i t i t small perhaps) , b u t only i f t he housing i s subsidized

by government. A s outs ide of new towns, low income housing i s

not a p r o f i t a b l e venture f o r t he publ ic s ec to r . It w i l l be b u i l t

i n new towns only i f r e l i a b l e subs id ies a r e ava i l ab le from gcvern-

ment, o r i f non-profi t organizat ions take the i n i t i a t i v e f o r

obtaining government or o the r support for such ventures . Low-

income housing i s l i k e l y t o be more expensive i n the context of

new towns, because i t w i l l be new housing and because the added

amenities a r e g rea t e r i n the new town than i n the a reas which

low income fami l ies now occupy. For t h i s reason, the government

has e i t h e r not seen f i t , or has not mobilized s u f f i c i e n t support,

t o provide the necessary subs id iza t ion f o r low-income housing on

any sca le i n new towns i n the United S ta t e s . Exceptions a r e i n

the new towns-in-tmwn such as Fort Lincoln where the new community

i s e s s e n t i a l l y being planned f o r low income people. Some new

towns-in-town have, however, abandoned plans f o r providing low-

income housing because the subsidies cannot be obtained. A case

i n po in t i s Coldspring i n Baltimore, where the present plans a r e

f o r housing f o r middle income and lower middle income people, b u t

not f o r that po r t ion of t he population who cannot a f fo rd t o

purchase o r r en t t h e i r housing a t market p r i ces .

-48-

APPENDIX

A Brief Description of New Towns i n the Paris Region

The following i s a brief description of the new towns under construction i n the Paris Region.

. -49-

Cergy-Pointoise

Cergy-Pointoise i s located about 25 km northwest of P a r i s

around two loops of' the Seine River on a ro l l i ng h i l l t e r r a in .

The center of the new town w i l l comprise the i n t e r i o r of the

loops and will be landscaped t o the waterfront.

The t o t a l area of the new town w i l l cover sixteen ex is t ing

communes and i s expected t o include 70,000 inhabi tants by 1968,

170,000 by 1975, and 330,000 by 1985. In order t o achieve these

goals, a housing program of 30,000 new dwelling uni t s i s planned

f o r the period of the VIe Plan, 90,000 by 1985, and 120,000 by

2000. Construction of dwelling units a re already underway, as a re

schools and other f a c i l i t i e s .

l e i s u r e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be avai lable using the Seine loops.

cinemas are already open, and a cu l tu ra l center covering 20,000 m2

and including a museum, thea te r and l i b r a r y w i l l be completed soon.

An urban park and recreat ional and

Two

P a r t of the shopping center, under construction since 1971, i s already open and an addi t ional 50,000 m2 w i l l be completed t h i s

year with a 2,000 parking f a c i l i t y f o r cars.

w i l l eventually be doubled,

a l s o be opened l a t e r .

The parking f a c i l i t i e s

Other smaller shopping centers w i l l

It i s planned tha t jobs i n the new town w i l l be provided f o r

15,000 persons by 1975, 45,000 by 1985, and 49,000 by 2000.

of f ice constructioii i s expected t o bring jobs.

12,000 o f f i ces w i l l be avai lable by 1975, 28,000 by 1980, and

60,000 by the end of the century.

New

It i s planned tha t

-50-

Fina l ly , a new kind of t ranspor ta t ion system, the Aerotrain,

w i l l provide the l i n k between Paris and the new community, along

with six thoroughfares and a new highway t o be opened i n 1975-76.

Located about 30 km from

l a t i o n of Evry i s expected t o

Paris and 12 km from Orly, the popu-

be eventual ly 450,000 inhabi tan ts ,

and the a rea included t o cover 14 ex i s t ing communes with an a rea

of 9,300 hec tares .

The plans c a l l f o r considerable e f f o r t i n the in tegra t ion

of community f a c i l i t i e s . Playgrounds used by school ch i ldren

during the day w i l l be ava i lab le f o r publ ic use a t o ther times.

C u l t u r a l and commercial f a c i l i t i e s i n the center of the c i t y w i l l

a l s o be combined.

Neighborhoods a r e being constructed both t o have access t o

major urban boulevards and t o have the advantages of qu ie t a reas

as wel l . The access t o urban boulevards %s t o f a c i l i t a t e access

t o services , shopping f a c i l i t i e s , and t o the " s t r e e t " with the

advantage of " l i f e " and human exchange. Included i n the quie t

a reas a r e f a c i l i t i e s f o r spor t s , parks, publ ic squares, and

walking a l l e y s . and c u l t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s , i s an the name implies, a center f o r soc ia l

exchanges and the l i v e l y a reas i n the hear t of the new town.

The "Agore", a multipurpose center with shopping

The cen t r a l zone has the shape of a star, and each branch of

buildings i s separated by an urban park,

by landscape a r c h i t e c t s and includes h i l l s , much r e l i e f , a lake and

a l e i s u r e park.

The zone has been designed

-51-

Marne l a Vallee

Located 10 km from Paris, Marne l a Vallee w i l l cover an area

of 20 km and w i l l eventually include a population of around

5OO,OOO inhabi tants . Included i n the area a re 33 ex is t ing communes

with an area of 148,000 hectares.

town a re cas t l e s and t h e i r parks which w i l l be retained.

Special features of t h i s new

On the Marne side w i l l be b u i l t "The City of Television".

Here the O.R.T.F., the French radio and te lev is ion organization

plans t o create i t s center f o r professional t ra in ing . Here the

plans are f o r employment of some 1,000 persons.

expected t o be the s i t e f o r various movie firms and s t u d i e s .

The c i t y i s a l so

Melun-Senart

Melun-Senart i.s located about 35 km from Paris near the

town of Melun. The population i s projected t o reach about

350,000 inhabitants and t o include the area now occupied by 19 communes, an area of around 12,000 hectares.

This community i s conceived of as a regional center for the

Melun region and represents an extension of the ex is t ing town of

Melun, ra ther than a completely new town.

Saint Quentin En Yvelines

Located near Versail les, Saint Quentin En Yvelines had a

. -52-

population of 65,000 i n 1968 and i s projected t o increase t o

190,000 by 1975. During the V I e Plan, construction on 45,000

dwelling units w i l l be completed. By 1975 a commercial area

covering 480 hectares w i l l be completed, including 600,000 m2

of o f f i ce space.

from the 12th century w i l l be used as the locat ion f o r a c u l t u r a l

and a r t i s t i c center.

‘TbJithin the new town l i m i t s , an h i s t o r i c a l s i t e

The above mentioned new towns comprise those which have been

developed around the Paris area. Some addi t ional new towns a re

also being b u i l t i n the areas adjacent t o other large c i t i e s with

many points in common with the new towns i n the Paris area.

Included a r e Fos. EtagDe Berre near Marseil le, LIIs le D’Abeau

near Lyon, Le Vaudrieu near Rouen, Lille-Est near L i l l e .

L

References

Chapter I

1.

2 .

3.

4.

5.

6 .

7.

80

9.

10 .

11 0

Chapter

1.

2.

Schema Directeur D'Amenagement e t D'Urbanisme de l a Region de Paris, 1965, I . A . U . R . P . , 21.23. rue Miollis Paris . Ibid, p . :Lg

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Washington, D. C. 20575, A p r i l 1968 . U. s . Government Pr int ing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

National Cornmission on Urban Problems, 1969. U. S. Government; Pr int ing Office, Washington, D. C . 20402.

National Committee on Urban Growth Policy, 1969. U.S. Government; Pr int ing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402.

Toward Balanced Growth Quantity with Qual i ty , Washington, D.C., July 1970. U.S. Government Pr int ing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402 . Commission on Population Growth and tk American Future Report 1972, U. S . Government Pr int ing Office.

Schema Directeur, op.ci t . p . 48.

U.S. Bureau of Census, Metropolitan Housing Characterist ics: U.S. and Regions, 1970 Census of Housing, MC (2)-1, Idashington, D. C. , September 1972.

Cahiers de l f I . A . U . R . P . Volume No. '8 Vi l les Newelles en Grande Brehague Volume No. 9 Vi l les Nowelles en Scandinavie

Urbanisme a Copenhague - Stocklom Helsinski.

I .A .U.R .P . 21.23. rue Miollis Paris l5e.

H(TD Internat ional Information Series 19, Department of HUD, Office of Internat ional Affairs, Nov. 20, 1972.

I1 - A I t New Community Systems f o r Planning", Decision Sciences Corporation, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA. 22151. ( L i s t of any new community development, location, e t c . )

Defeat on Fort Lincoln", Public In t e re s t , Nov. 1971. .I 1

-2-

3.

4.

5. 6 .

Chapter

1.

2 .

3.

Urban Grciwth and New Community Development Act of 1970, Public Law 91-609-84 STAT 1770, Dec. 31, 1970, HUD.

Memorandum - U . S . Housing and Urban Development, A p r i l 1972. Interim Instruct ion. Modification t o T i t l e VII.

I b i d . Section 4. Community Development Corporation , August, PART 120. Assistance f o r New Communities, Housing and Urban Development . I1 - B

1972, 24. CRR Department of

Structures administratives e t po l i t iques de l a France - Documentation Francaise, 2 1 . 31. Q u a i Voltaire Paris Te . " l o i s u r l e s v i l l e s nouvelles 1970" Textes o f f i c i e l s . Ministere de l'equipement e t du logement Au. du Parc de Passy, Paris 1 - 6 ~ .

I! Numero Special - "Habitation", Nov. 71. les v i l l e s nouvellesinnovent - e l l e s ? "

- . ...

- _. . . .. - . . ._

. - - . . . .. .

PREMIER MINISTRE Dhl&GATfON A L'AMeNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET A L'ACTIBN ReGloNALE

" . . - . -..-_

. . _.. - .. .---

. . I . _. -

. -.

. . - . . . ^._ . . . .-

... .

. .

fig. 1

PERgPECTIVES DE O€VElOPPEh?ENT OES McTROPOLES D'CQUltlBRE ET LEUR INSERTION OANS LA TRAME DES GRANOES LlALSOhlS PRIMAIRZS 1 . ,

"Sch4ma OIsbti &ut la base dcs dtudes pournuivies par le minister8

des Trrvaux publics et des Transports"

.. . .~ -. . . _ _ _ - . . *..-.. : . I

.. . -. .

c

.

LES VILLES NOUVELLES de la

REGION PARISIENNE

.

! !

M#?- z b. MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE TOWN AND COUNTRY

PLANNlNG SCHEME OF THE PARIS DfSTRtCT

Main port area ~lllllllll E 3 Important airfield with forbidden

or restricted area Urban centre

Admlnistretive centre (Paris snd preitctures) tmportont culturrti or universitv m-=m

E Wooded urban stretches centre-faculty, resesrch statioii m Predominating ;.. high densitl, .' area in rural sector

ree en beit and recreation

rn u r b n sector 'J~fll~~~ " ,

forest , residential 1 medium density

Area devoled to qw urb& development (rough draft 'of a defined

Urban development are& (localize- tion y@t lo be decided)

m a ' .~lr?seki for extensive equip.

Main iffdustiiel zom .

I area ( low density

-?- main motorwsy

A ' bdiZ8fiWl) ! freight toad terminal 0 main passenger lines

land covered by railways

Secondary main line 0

t,df . + 4 Transwon gem to b~ organized 111 11

.?A i

, f d l W 8 y

i station

i . i menf ,

* ' * . .. , .. ma

- ' I

f

.c.

. .

F

.

. .

t

Date post:	03-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

TO?*...the Schema Directeur in 1965. This plan designated certain It metropoles dlequilibre"* from...

Documents

TO?...the Schema Directeur in 1965. This plan designated certain It metropoles dlequilibre" from...