# data[].attributes.body
In his article “the urban crisis of the world” (1965), Ernst Weissmann argues that governments have the responsibility to establish development plans to counteract the negative effects of rapid urbanisation. To reach economic and social goals, a national policy should first give the foundations for infrastructures and subcentres. A regional planning should then be adopted to account for the different local interests and to set the basis for implementation. Governments should also actively purchase land in still undeveloped areas to provide services at reasonable cost. One can ask oneself whether state land acquisition could be replaced by stronger policy of land reservation for public use. I find particularly interesting that Weissmann already establish a strong link between urban and environmental development, arguing that environment is the basis for economic and social goals. I find also very interesting that he advocates, at that time, for a strong state implication to counter the negative effects of liberalism. For my future work, I consider relevant his approach split in national and regional scales in order to first tackle efficiently national problems (climate, energy, transport, …) and then integrate the human/cultural dimension of regions.

# data[].attributes.body
Ernest Weissmann's main argument is that while overpopulation might seem like the driving factor for the problems of cities, the real challenge lies in how we as a society manage the interaction of population growth with industralisation, technology and urban planning. Rapid urban growth will only speed up in developing countries, which makes the "urban crisis" worse, leading to overcrowing, resource shortages, insufficient and inadequate housing and services, etc... But if people find a way to use these new technologies, they can use to find a solution to the problem.

One of the tings I found most interesting about his arguments, were how different they are to Jane Jacobs' perspective. Weissmann is firmly convinced that a top-down coordination is the most appropriate approach to this issue. He presents his theoretical plan, as a model that should not only work for the current situation, but one that can be applied to future conditions as well. This model should specify certain activities, the land locations and uses associated with it and the needed resources. Furthermore, this model should be coordinated by legislative, economic and excecutive forces. Even though, Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" and Ernest Weissmann's "The Urban Crisis in the World" were written in the same decade, they both present extremely different arguments. Jane Jacobs would argue that Weissmann's views are extremely utopic, and shouldn't be applied to real world scenarions, because in the end they are just theories. But while that remains true, I think it's important to aknowledge that both authors address different scales. Weissmann views this model in a global context, while Jacobs speaks of the American Cities, says they need individual observations and shouldn't be generalized.

# data[].attributes.body
It was really interesting how Weissman explained that the Urban Crisis is something that has been there already in the past, and will continue for a long time on. It's not something to overlook and its going to get worse. The movement of humans to cities is a very natural way of clustering together, but the cities are not build for that. Our infrastructure, job oppertunities, and housings are not made for such a big invasion. I also thought it was interesting how he raised the topic of migrants moving to Europe, in order to raise their income, and bring it back to their family after they got their paycheck. Which makes them feel isolated from the society, since they offer to do the less-likeable jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting to see how the author recognizes a big social issue, overpopulation, that has still been a relevant topic quite a bit later than in 1965. Although, this topic has been mostly left alone since then, as I believe the issue has been largely solved. Rather, I believe that a lot of the issues that we face today have to do with the problems stemming from the solutions to the problem of overpopulation. Nowadays we talk about trying to manage the density created as a solution to this problem. Thus, this might still be an important read. I did find interesting how the issues brought up in this book and in the one we read last week, which was also written around this time, are the ones I hear in my studies today. A lot of the issues we focus on today can be found mentioned in books from a long time ago. This makes me feel rather pessimistic seeing how we did not fully manage to solve them given how much time we have invested in it. I wonder how much power city planners actually have in influencing progress in city design, which is the field in which they are supposed to be the experts. (At the very least in academic terms.) My cynical view is that they share this power with other actors whose goals do not depend on these issues being solved.

# data[].attributes.body
I think one of Weissman's main points is that urban growth leads to a multiplicity of problems that need to be solved. In his approach to addressing these issues, I see a strong belief in their solvability through planning, which reflects a common ideology of his time. Nevertheless, he does not appear to believe in the absolute truth of a given plan, as he states:
"Physical planning consequently involves the development and continued adjustment and change of the physical environment […]."

One thing I would disagree with is not a specific argument, but rather a general tendency in his text: most of the strategies he outlines follow a logic of developmentalism. Even though he is critical of how development is often pursued—as when he states,
"But human progress is not an automatic consequence of economic development,"
—he still seems to accept certain circumstances and agendas as given. For example, the notion of economic growth as a necessary condition for human development remains unquestioned.

His statement that planning should take place on a regional scale to build a connection between country and community is, in my view, still relevant for contemporary planning practice. However, I would add that the term "region" has lost some of its traditional meaning due to processes such as digitalization. It needs to be redefined as the radius of action of a community—both spatially and virtually.

# data[].attributes.body
The text of Ernest Weissman „The Urban Crisis in the World” describes the ongoing urbanization of the world, and how and why it occurs. He points out specific arguments and possible solutions. As the underlying problem he states the overload of the cities and how they are not being adequately planned for the increasing number of people. How a city should be planned and layed out for growth is perhaps one of the biggest questions in architecture and urban planning and still as relevant or even more than it was 50 years ago. Personally, when I think about this question to me it feels like an unsolvable problem. This I think comes to mind very much, when I think about top down planned cities like Brasilia – a very unnatural and arguably badly functioning city. However when you hear about the examples like Stockholm (which I never have) and how they planned out their cities, suddenly I think it is a solvable problem. What It really needs, is educating the people and their participation in planning the city.

Another point, that I stupidly don’t think about, is how certain places in the world are living in worse conditions, so people can live better in other parts of the world. Therefore his proposal of an international regulation makes perfect sense. Also im sorry I didn’t study the text very thoroughly so I hope I didn’t just waste your time too much if you actually read this. Peace out

# data[].attributes.body
The text addresses the urgency of city planning to react to the rapid changes in the demands for cities due to rapid population growth and migration into the cities. Mass migration as, by numbers, being the largest wave of migration in history, as it acts not nationally, but globally. In numbers, “the population living in cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants increased [from 1800 to 1950] from 15 million to 314 million.” with a strongly ascending tendency. Germany or France had one million guest workers or one-and-a-half respectively.

Weissmann defines two different kinds of demands for cities, namely the ones of industrialised countries, and of developing countries, differing in their ability to address these demands, industrialised countries being slow to act and developing countries lacking resources (p. 69).

Weissmann is right in the perspective that the inequality of states is largely based on colonial history, with the European countries which have the strongest economies still influence the developing countries, making profit from their inequality. “The low levels of living of migrant laborers from pre-industrial areas working in affluent countries is possible only because of the very great discrepancy in the levels of income and standards of decency in the two groups of countries. But can they be justified in affluent Europe in the second half of the twentieth century?” (p. 69)

“For the sake of economy we are still accepting all kinds of restrictions to freedom and violations of human dignity.” (p. 81) How is this inequality morally justifiable for our countries?

Furthermore, he describes this inequality as the driving force of a prosperous economy, as there is always a migration from the marginal to the center, on international scale, as well as on a rural-city scale.

From my perspective, Weissmann is absolutely correct in proposing to strengthen the ability of city planners to take the lead in addressing these problems of urban planning, as it has the human condition as its agenda, in contrast to mere economic interest of private developers.

The decentralisation of the economy palette of cities, being the driving forces of a stable state economy, is something that has been very productive in European cities, especially Germany, that doesn’t concentrate on few economic centres, but rather a large field of production and economy that spreads over the whole country, with tech-firms acting far off the cities, yet still being profitable globally. Something I can see as a todays’ reaction to this proposal.

What I do criticise is that he frames global inequality as a problem, but still then focuses on the agendas of city planning in industrialised countries, presenting them as pioneering.

Another point I am critical about is the role of academia in developing visions for city planning, based on research and knowledge accumulation, as the distance from the sites of action can again lead to a more generalised proposal, in contrast to what he aims for, namely integrating the power of people to act on a regional level to improve their own life situations.

# data[].attributes.body
Weissmann presents the urban crisis as one of the defining global challenges of the twentieth century. Population growth and rural-to-urban migration are transforming societies at an unprecedented scale, especially in developing countries where economic growth cannot keep pace. The result is the rapid expansion of slums, overcrowding, poor sanitation and social disorganization. In industrial nations, the problems take different forms such as congestion, suburban sprawl and the struggles of integrating migrant labor. For Weissmann, this is not just a local or national problem but a global one, shaped by unequal resource distribution and the historical impact of colonialism.

He argues that piecemeal solutions will fail and that only large-scale, integrated planning can respond to these pressures. This means linking economic, social and environmental planning, investing in infrastructure, decentralizing industries, reforming urban land use, and strengthening research and professional training. International cooperation is also essential since resources and expertise are unevenly distributed.

Weissmann concludes that cities will remain central to human progress. The urgent task is to transform urbanization into a positive force for development and social improvement rather than allowing it to spiral into decay

# data[].attributes.body
For me, the most important ideas in Weissmann’s text are that planning should connect economic, social and environmental aspects, and that governments have to guide development at the regional scale. I find the example of Stockholm quit strong, where the city bought land in advance and used it to plan growth in a fair and rational way.

I don’t fully agree with how much Weissmann trusts state planning. It feels too top-down and leaves little space for local communities or more flexible solutions.

In its historical context, the text clearly reflects the 1960s, when many countries were optimistic that strong planning and investment could solve the urban crisis caused by migration and industrialization.

As an architecture student, I feel like architecture is always part of bigger regional and social systems, and land is not just private property but something something that must be managed for the common good.

# data[].attributes.body
When I read Weissmann's text, my first reaction was: surprising how much of it still resonates today. Migration, exploding cities, overstrained infrastructure, inequality. These are issues we still face today, just on an even larger scale I feel like.

What stuck with me most is his idea that urban problems are never purely local, they're always connected to global processes. If something goes wrong in a city, it's often tied to international capital flows, political dynamics, or migration across borders. Another strong point is his focus on infrastructure. The issue isn't simply "too many people", it's the lack of proper planning, functioning transport, water supply, and housing. Without the foundation , cities can't thrive. Finally I found his emphasis on marginalisation important where he speaks about those with the least resources being the first to be displaced or forced into insecure settlements. I strongly think that's something we still see everywhere today.

At the same time I also have to say that I was struck by how much Weissmann relies on state led planning and regulation. I get why, in 1965, the faith in top-down solutions was probably really strong. But today we know that many creative and resilient responses come from below, through communities, NGO's, self-organised initiatives. For me that's a dimension his text misses. I also think he's a bit idealistic about the capacity of governments. In reality, bureaucracy, corruption, and power struggles are often bigger obstacles than lack of knowledge.

For my own practice I thought it was interesting to think beyond the building in terms of infrastructure, politics and social realities and also dive further into my view on why Inclusion always matters. Also the need of adaptation a city has to embrace is an important part for me.

In the end his text somehow left me with the sense that much of his argument stays on a theoretical level. But for me the real challenge is how to translate those ideals into practice and how to really include everyone into a holistic approach in future cities.

# data[].attributes.body
When I read Ernest Weissmann’s text, the strongest argument that stood out to me was his emphasis on urbanization as a global challenge that cannot be solved by individual countries alone. He shows that international cooperation, fair resource distribution, and state planning are necessary to address the crisis. I found this convincing because it makes clear that cities are always connected to worldwide processes.

At the same time, I see his weakest argument in this very centralized perspective. Weissmann relies heavily on top-down planning and government control. Because of this, his approach sometimes feels too technocratic and distant from the everyday lives of people in cities. Here I was reminded of Jane Jacobs, who focuses on the life of streets and neighborhoods. She shows that large-scale structures only work if local life is taken into account.

The text itself was not easy for me to read, since it includes many broad connections. Still, I found it clear and logically structured. It is obvious that Weissmann was an architect and planner: his writing is factual, sometimes almost technical, and focused on structures and processes. This style feels rather dry, but it underlines how serious and large the problems of urbanization are.

Another problem I see in his argumentation is the possible result of gentrification. When planning is done from above without including the people who live in the city, it can lead to displacement instead of better living conditions. Because Weissmann thinks mostly in large-scale terms, he does not address this aspect—and for me, that weakens his overall argument.

# data[].attributes.body
My impression from the text is that the urban crisis is not a local exception but a global problem. What struck me most is how strongly population growth and rural-to-urban migration put cities under pressure. While industrial countries mainly struggle with traffic and infrastructure, developing countries face much harsher challenges with slums, poverty, and overwhelmed services. I took away that, despite all these issues, cities remain engines of progress, but their future depends on serious efforts in planning, land policy, and international cooperation. Without such action, chaos and social conflict are inevitable.

# data[].attributes.body
I am fascinated how Weissmann explains how rapid urban growth tends to concentrate in large cities, overloading their infrastructure and services while leaving smaller towns and rural areas behind. He argues that a national policy is needed to spread resources more evenly, by improving both the physical environment (housing, transport, utilities) and the social environment (education, health, equity). Only by addressing both sides can societies ease the pressures of urbanization and extend the benefits of development to those who need it most.

"He who needs it the most does not qualify for aid" is a brutal but true quote from the text that has touched me the most. I find it very inspiring how Ernest Weissmann describes the problems and difficulties of our exploding cities worldwide and then proposes solutions and strategies to improve the life of exactly those who need improvement. Even though we all, no matter the amount of money we earn or what kind of luxuries we enjoy, strive for an improvement—one step up from where we are. Maybe it would also be interesting to discuss the attitude one lives life with, and I wonder, while thinking about the current lifestyle, if there is a way of living where it is not about growth, expansion, and increasing capital. The question is whether endless expansion is the only way forward, or if we can imagine new forms of development that prioritize equity, sustainability, and human well-being above all.

# data[].attributes.body
I liked Weissmann’s approach to the problem. He has a very rational way of proceeding. First, he lists the current truths: facts about the density of cities, for example, to show us what the main problems are and where they originate. The urban explosion was something the world could not really prepare for. In a time of such rapid innovation and change, one thing led to another. Cities were not designed to accommodate so many people, nor were they engaged in constant planning and future-oriented thinking as they are today. They were simply overwhelmed.

This led to overpopulation in cities. The infrastructure became overloaded, and GDP could not keep pace with the rate of urbanization. Pollution increased. There were no buildings to meet the new housing demand, which resulted in a housing shortage and the rise of informal settlements.

One sentence really stood out to me:

"Indeed, it has been suggested that, in the broad sweep, our century will be chiefly remembered in future centuries not as an age of political conflicts or technical inventions, but as an age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practicable objective."

This makes me wonder: How will the 21st century be remembered?

# data[].attributes.body
Zum Inhalt wechseln

When reading Weissmann’s text, what struck me first was how massive the scale of his arguments is. He really sees the “urban crisis” as a global problem, not just something happening in one city or country. The key takeaway for me is his insistence that urbanization is unstoppable and that we can’t treat migration or squatter settlements as mistakes to be corrected, but as realities to be worked with. His solution is basically coordinated planning on a national and regional level.

There are parts where I’m not fully on board. Weissmann has a strong belief in top-down approaches, governments, experts, and international cooperation. While I see why he argued this way in the 60s, I’m skeptical of how effective top-down planning really is in practice. It can easily ignore the voices of local communities. Jane Jacobs’ criticism of these approaches comes to my mind here, because she focused on the small-scale, lived experience of the city that Weissmann seems to overlook.

For my future work as an architect, a few of his points really stand out. First, the idea that architects can’t just think about individual buildings, but need to connect their work to larger social and economic processes. Second, his call for training architects not just in design, but in broader skills like planning and administration, is something that feels especially relevant today.

# data[].attributes.body
What really struck me in Weissmann’s text is how early he identified challenges that we’re still dealing with today. The rapid urban growth, housing shortages, and uneven development. It seemed remarkable to me that he was already addressing these issues in the 60s, and yet cities around the world continue to face them more than half a century later.

Weissmann argued that construction activity would need to increase by around 40% to meet the demands of urbanization. At the time, that may have seemed like the only possible response. Today though, we know that simply building more can’t the answer especially in light of climate change, resource scarcity, and the need to curb urban sprawl.

What I find most problematic is his uncritical belief in suburban expansion and large-scale construction. He viewed growth mainly as a technical issue that can be solved through more housing and infrastructure, but overlooked the social and ecological dimensions that are as important today to current debates.

I think what I take away from his text that we should strive to design better, more thoughtful instead of just simply building more. We should especially focus on adaption, inclusivity and sustainability.

# data[].attributes.body
In The Urban Crisis in the World, Ernest Weissmann argues that cities are facing an unprecedented crisis driven by rapid population growth, industrialization, and massive rural-to-urban migration. While cities are engines of progress, they are also sites of congestion, slums, inequality, and social disorganization. For Weissmann, urbanization cannot be reversed; it must instead be harnessed as an instrument of progress through coordinated planning, cooperation, and investment in human welfare. He advocates large-scale interventions such as national and regional planning that integrate economic, social, and physical development, as well as the reallocation of military resources toward urban development. He also highlights the “Stockholm approach,” where land reform policies were used to curb speculation and promote land uses that benefit local communities.

Weissmann’s vision differs greatly from Jane Jacobs, who emphasized bottom-up, community-driven planning and dismissed utopian large-scale masterplans. Whereas Jacobs foregrounded the cultural and social vitality of neighborhoods, Weissmann tended to treat slums as problems to be eradicated rather than communities with their own value. I believe his global outlook and belief in rechanneling international resources toward urban development reflect a kind of postwar optimism, but they can also appear overly simplistic. I believe the complexity of international relations makes it difficult to imagine governments prioritizing global welfare over national interests.

I found that his discourse wasn’t very spatial which was quite surprising given the fact that he was an architect; to me it gave his argumentation a sort of vagueness. While Jacobs’s approach appears more adaptable to local conditions, Weissmann’s insistence on global cooperation and the integration of social welfare into urban planning remains relevant. And it's still very interesting to understand the tensions between these two perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
Ernest Weissmann addresses the oncoming urban crisis in his text through the lens of the mid 1960s on a global scale. He aids his beliefs and argumentation with several facts about rapid growth in population growth and urbanisation. He essentially states that cities are inevitable and necessary. Furthermore, he explains that this extreme expansion of the urban is only manageable through centralized, government-led and international action. I disagree with his reliance on such top-down heavy strategies. Such approaches often produce rigid, lifeless urban environments where no one truly WANTS to live but perhaps MUST live. What I find very significant, however, is Weissmann’s emphasis on resources. He suggests that we should plan buildings, neighborhoods, cities with the consciousness that resources are finite and not equally available, since architecture is, after all, also a way of distributing resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Ernest Weissmann supports a top-down approach form rapid urbanisation in sight of an overpopulation crisis in cities due to people seeking a better life, as rural areas at the time could not keep up with the rapid modernisation of the cities. He suggests shifting resources or funding from armoury to develop cities and this should happen on a global scale, as developing countries need help from industrialised countries. In the text it sounds like it should happen very fast, and I lack to see how it could ever be this simple to solve - especially in times of War.

Even today political affairs are far too complicated and far from the kindheartedness Weissmann hopes for. It is not as simple as creating a masterplan and then implementing it like the Stockholm approach. Today the approach of Jane Jacobs seems like a more fathomable way to me. Of course in a perfect world we would help developing countries more, instead of keeping them as our landfills and cheap labour forces. But that’s just a utopia - which Jacobs already dismissed - most countries act in their own benefit rather than a global view. Top-down approaches are often in danger of sacrificing cultural well-being of a neighbourhood, Weissmann precisely subjects slums to places needing improvement, even though Jacobs already suggested that these utopian theories are bound to fail, when theorising it in this kind of view.

# data[].attributes.body
Immediately upon starting with Weissmanns Text, one is hit by a vast amount if statistics and numbers. While all necessary and very relevant, his approach differs vastly from Jane Jacobs; Weissmann argues that the world is experiencing an unprecedented urban crisis driven by rapid population growth, industrialization, and massive rural-to-urban migration. Cities, while engines of progress, are also sites of congestion, slums, inequality, and social disorganization. Urbanization cannot be reversed; it must be harnessed as an instrument of progress through planning, cooperation, and investment in human welfare. Weissmann doesn‘t shy away from offering many solutions to these problems; amongst other policies he recommends national and regional planning that integrates economic, social and physical development. I was also quite interested in the „Stockholm approach“ of using the urban land reform method to curb speculation and promote land uses that benefit the surrounding communities. Another interesting proposal of Weissmann is the Reallocation of military spending to urban development. Contrary to Jacobs, Weissmann adopts a more global view, often embracing modernist views, while Jacobs heavily criticised this way of planning. Weissmann also writes in a much more technical, fact-oriented manner and stresses the importance of top-down interventions in matters of development.

# data[].attributes.body
Ernest Weissmann analyses in his text "The Urban Crisis In The World" (1965) the mass migration of the people to the city and the emerging problem of "over" population. His explanation appears to be matter of factly and tries to highlight methods in order to tackle the growing problem. His main suggestions are redirecting money from the armament industry to housing and to break out of the mindset "era of scarcity" and its restrictions. He refers to it as the "threshold of plenty". His suggestions are theoretical and don't seem to give the social aspect in urbanizing contexts the importance they ought to have.

Where Weissmann focusses on building more buildings I wouldn't see it as the number one solution because it exploits the environment and developing nations even more whereas the focus should be on renewal and restoring. His ideas might have been radical at his time but are nowadays partly outdated and his lack of taking the environment into account seems strange to us.

It fascinates me to see how current his analysis still is in our time despite the changes that have occurred.

# data[].attributes.body
In his text “The Urban Crisis in the World” (1965), Ernest Weissmann predicts a worldwide explosion of urban growth and discusses the consequences of this rapid expansion. Among other things, he argues that construction activity would need to increase by 40% in order to meet the demand created by urbanization. Even today, housing remains scarce and expensive in most cities. However, would we still respond to this challenge in the way Weissmann proposed — by simply building 40% more? Probably not. In light of resource scarcity, climate concerns, and land consumption, urban policy today focuses much more on densification and building within existing structures, rather than endless new construction on the periphery.

From today’s perspective, one of the main criticisms of Weissmann’s approach is its uncritical embrace of suburban expansion. In the decades following his text, many cities indeed tried to solve housing shortages by expanding outward into suburban areas. While this initially seemed like a practical solution, it has led to a range of problems: car dependency, urban sprawl, loss of agricultural land, higher infrastructure costs, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Weissmann did not foresee how suburbanization could undermine sustainable urban development by spreading cities ever thinner.

Moreover, Weissmann focused mainly on quantitative growth — infrastructure and construction — but paid less attention to social and ecological dimensions. Issues such as climate change, participatory planning, social inequality, and urban governance play a much more central role in today’s urban debates.

# data[].attributes.body
In his proposal, Weissmann states the challenges that the 1960s were faced with in terms of urban planning. In a very formal tone and supporting his argument with numerous data and statistics, he calls for a reform in the approach towards the practice of urbanism in order to better respond to the crisis of rapid growth of cities and the heavy migration of the rural population into urban environments.

Within his argument, Weissmann defines the "plan" as a model of future situations (population, activities, land use) that should direct a program of action and coordinate legislation, finance, and administration to achieve them.

Following his analysis, Weissmann concludes with eight principles that he believes should globally govern urban planning, like prioritising the regional scale, increasing research efforts and adapting each model to the city in question.

I find it interesting to notice how this argument dates from four years after Jane Jacobs' text, as I got the impression that it showed an outdated vision of urban planning which precisely matched what Jacobs seemed to criticize. Contrary to her, I find that he imposes a top-down, globally scaled formula that should work on any city, only with minor tweaks. He assumes is that urban growth can be modeled and mastered with the right data, systems, and coordinated state action, and that urban planners must impose large-scale theoretical models that ignore the specificities of human-scaled experience. On this point, I personally prefer Jacobs' attitude towards planning.

# data[].attributes.body
Along the text Ernest Weissmann is making an analyze of urban crisis in the world with specified examples cities. He takes as his subject the movement of populations towards cities, leaving rural life behind to work and live in the city. Many problems emerge from this shift – economic, politic, social marginalization, environmental – that cities and countries must deal with not to fall into a disastrous economic spiral.

This “over-population” that haunt the world quoted by Weissmann is fast and has become uncontrollable. That is why he insists on key points and rapid changes that must be made. As there is no universal program for socio-, spatial-, economic-growth, each country, region must find its own development. The Urban land reform he mentions could be a main strategy from the state, but this means the privatization of land by the state, which goes against the principles of a democratic state. However, if it is partially and well-organized it is a strong hand that could help control urbanization by framing it, but not its intensity. Today, architects must be concerned with the lack of housing and space in cities. The physical environment must be managed by the state to make space for architects focusing on one specific task.

# data[].attributes.body
The Urban Crisis in the World (1965), pp. 65-82

Published in: Urban Affairs Quarterly

# data[].attributes.body
Post your reading response to the text until 02.10.25 13:00 on this Padlet

Suggestions for the Reading Response:

-What are the most important arguments and suggestions that you can take away from the text?

-Which arguments would you disagree with the author on, and why?

-How do you evaluate the text in light of its historical context?

-Which arguments do you consider significant for your future work as an architect?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN1958_Report of the Tokyo Regional Planning Seminar