As always, however, the longer historical view is useful.

Theories of architecture, likewise theories of society, psychology and indeed philosophy itself, have not always been committed to the assumption that social interaction is desirable, let alone that it should be considered the defining aspect of a person’s life, health and happiness. From Plato and Alberti through to Descartes, Pascal, Rousseau, Fourier, Jung, Camus, Riesman and Le Corbusier, we see arguments that there are real dangers - social, psychological, and medical - in allowing people to mix together freely. Large gatherings of people might become unruly and radically politicized, they might engage in immoral and sinful behaviours, and they would certainly swap their germs. ‘Contagion’ has been a word used to describe the spread of all these things, not just disease. 

In their various ways – from the ‘Idealism’ of Plato through to the ‘Existentialism’ of Camus – these and other figures argued that the proper conduct of life must include substantial amounts of time in personal isolation so that people could figure out their truths and values for themselves, away from social norms, expectations and censure. Camus referred to this as 'our places of exile': a crucial, rebellious withdrawal from society.

Architecturally this required the design of the right kind of spaces to sustain it. For Le Corbusier this involved ‘the death of the street’, the elimination of café culture and germ-ridden concert halls, and residential architecture that was modelled after monasteries. For Fourier it involved the carefully managed antisocial residential unit, the 'phalanstery'. Indeed, under Foucault's analysis, the professions of architecture and planning owe their very origins to the need to control contagion during times of social upheaval and plague.

In historical terms the social city is little more than a recent fashion. The antisocial city is the old normal. 

SR140520