Much has been written in the last decades about the progressive atomization and specialization of disciplines in the late 20th century. Architecture took, it seems, what was most particular to its field i.e. design, and concentrated on its contribution. Planning took what was most exclusively its domain, i.e. management of the urban environment, and concentrated on its advancement. As noted by a number of authors herein, this direction has almost certainly strengthened both disciplines, defining their roles more clearly and empowering them within the confines of these circumspect definitions.
But has this shift been beneficial for the city? Has it enabled our culture to produce more coherent, more nurturing, more vital, more beautiful urban environments? Has our disciplinary focus obstructed our ability to see and address the real holistic problems of our cities? In addressing these and other questions, this journal attempts no singular answers and few decisive conclusions. These questions are too big and their appropriate responses too diverse. The intention here is to explore the territory, not to conquer it. The aim is consciousness-raising and a reminder that it is, in the end, the city to whom we are ultimately responsible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CURRENT URBAN CLIMATE
Architecture, Planning and Public Policy, by Henry G. Cisneros
Public-Private Development: Dealmaking in the Public Interest, by Bernard J. Frieden
Erected Against the City: The Contemporary Discourses of Architecture and Planning, by M. Christine Boyer
Architecture Vs. Planning: Collision and Collaboration and the Design of American Cities, by Terry D. Kahn
The Contrasting Characteristics of Planning and Design: The Educational Implications, by Gerald M. McCue
Urban Design: A Victim of American Academic Tastes, by Alan Kreditor
Collaboration and Context in Urban Design, by Gary Hack and Mitsy Canto
What Architecture Can Do, by Rodolfo Machado
"Vacant Lottery" Revisited, by Barton Myers
Susan R. Hoover