Urban Utopias: Similarities and Differences in the Visions of Le Corbusier and Ebenezer Howard

Le Corbusier and Ebenezer Howard are staples of urban design theory. Both believed they were proposing solutions to the negative impact of industrialisation on cities, yet Howard – an Urban Planner – argued for moderate, low-density towns on the edges of city regions, and Le Corbusier – an Architect – proposed dense, city-centre living. But despite some differences, including in the intended manifestations of their visions, they shared many similarities.

Le Corbusier grew up in a Swiss town – the heart of the then-critical watchmaking industry – that was rebuilt on a grid plan after being partially destroyed by fire. Howard spent his early years in central London, studying in a boarding school in the surrounding countryside while his family remained in the city due to access to employment. Le Corbusier would go on to argue for grid-like cities which functioned like clockwork, and Howard would promote the benefits of developments on the fringes of a city.

Le Corbusier: Rebooting the City

Le Corbusier advocated building up not out, proposing cities of skyscrapers in support of a population density goal of 1,200 people per acre. He believed that existing city regions should be demolished and rebuilt in support of this approach, rebooting a city’s core while retaining the handful of built environment elements he endorsed.

Le Corbusier believed that cities should be fast-moving, connected spaces, ensuring people and goods could get from one place to another quickly and efficiently. Grid-like design elements in the street layout, transport infrastructure and building design represented his belief that nature should be overcome by the simplicity and efficiency of technology and modernity. He practiced a pro-car mindset, proposing wide highways alongside dedicated space for other modes.

Le Corbusier’s designs were provocative, something he was fully aware of. Enjoying the attention and profile generated by his provocations, many of his ideas were created merely as reputational boosts, something he saw as essential for ensuring the realisation of the more practical ideas he had planned for real-world adoption. Le Corbusier’s vision was that of a hyper-mobile, connected and efficient city – a city in an open-armed embrace of capitalism.

Considered by some to be a feminist, Le Corbusier designed for the provision of nurseries and argued for homes that were machines for living, supposedly motivated by freeing women from the responsibilities of managing the home. However, when considering his other values, it is more likely that a belief in capitalism and the role of urban citizens in facilitating economic growth was a bigger motivator.

Howard: The Anti-City

Howard believed in in the opportunities associated with building new developments outside existing city regions. He planned for towns where populations were capped at 32,000, seeing this as a method to overcome what he perceived to be issues related to density in general, not just density in industrialised cities. While not specifically against demolition, he saw it as unachievable, proposing moderate, low-density radial garden cities instead.

Howard’s aspiration was for regions which were self-sufficient in both food production and employment from industry, and considered rapid connections with other nearby areas to be of limited importance. He did, however, propose train-based travel connections to the inner city region. Howard believed that developments should mimic natural forms, deploying circular shapes and curved lines in street design. The prominent role of green space in his proposals reflected a belief in the importance of being close to nature. His developments were car free, expecting citizens to navigate the streets on foot, by bike, or by horse and cart. This, however, is likely to be based on the fact that private car ownership was not a major phenomenon at the time of his work.

Unlike Le Corbusier, Howard was primarily motivated by impact on the ground, and his proposals were socialism, rather than capitalism, orientated. His initial proposals for garden cities included co-operative ownership models, and he planned to provide housing and employment for everyone – with disabled people and those facing addiction challenges specifically accommodated.

Conceptual Similarities

Both Le Corbusier and Howard placed an emphasis on the role of green space in creating better futures, with Howard’s designs including large central parks, green belts between streets, and individual gardens for each home. Le Corbusier’s designs, perhaps best-known for skyscrapers and wide highways, planned for buildings to only take up 5% of land, with the spaces surrounding them including parks and leisure facilities.

Both practiced compartmentalisation, or zoning, in their methods. Howard planned towns with industrial areas located on the periphery, separate from housing. He proposed designated spaces for parks and retail. Le Corbusier also intended for industry to be separate from housing but went even further, advocating for zones within buildings. Ground floors were designed for parking, laundromats, and cleaning facilities, with kindergartens to be based on top floors (zoning out parental responsibilities). He proposed separate transit routes depending on whether someone was navigating the city by foot, bike, public transport or private vehicle.

Both Le Corbusier and Howard believed in the importance of horizontality in their projects, despite the differences in the urban forms they proposed. Le Corbusier saw the horizontal level in his skyscrapers as essential for the formation of communities, with ‘streets in the sky’ a famous goal associated with his vision. For Howard, his plan for car-free streets was as much about facilitating community-building as it was ensuring active travel, expecting neighbours to meet each other as they navigated his moderate towns.

Both also aimed for widespread adoption of their ideas. Howard’s designs were intended for repetition around a central city region, essentially forming numerous garden cities on the edges of a bigger city. Le Corbusier’s grid-like urban plan and box-like buildings were intended to be transplanted onto any city, regardless of their geographical form or culture. This top-down approach to urban planning, driven by a personal belief in what was right for society, was not as successful as either hoped for. Both saw projects completed where they were disappointed with the outcomes. Howard described Letchworth Garden City – the first realisation of his garden city concept – as a “poky experiment” and Le Corbusier considered Chandigarh – a new city in India built to his plans – to be a disappointment, undermined by compromise and collaboration with other stakeholders. This is unlikely to seem surprising to today’s readers. Engagement with the views of others, collaboration, and – crucially – compromise are all essential in urban planning, as they are in many professions. A lack of willingness to accept that reality was unlikely to result in satisfaction with the outcomes of their work.

Photo: Anthony Reungère