message

"The Education Bazaar", where he had insisted that since places of teaching and learning are an integral part of the structure of cities, "schools represent the future of cities", and "education , then, is urbansim". This was an idea evident in the design of Candilis, Josic, and Wood's Berlin Free University (1963), a project designed with Manfred Schiedhelm and Jonathan Greig, which proposed that the university be an open-ended web of pedestrian "stems" creating an urban place. Related ideas about weaving educational facilities into a dense existing urban pattern, given a completely different architectural form, can be seen in Team 10 member Giancarlo De Carlo's plan for Urbino of 1964. Here De Carlo called for both the preservation of the existing Italian hill town and renaissance Ducal Palace, and the carful integration of new academic buildings into the landscape.

The plans for Urbino and Berlin were in some ways the antithesis of earlier CIAM urbanism. Yet the urbanistic stance that generated these projects was a development of later CIAM and TEAM 10 ideas, and in terms of architectural approach they retained the combination of the vocabulary of modern architecture and thie direct expression of the materials to generate urban social improvement. Their architects had begun to find a new field of endeavor in the effort to link institution and city, one which began to replace the housing settlement as a focus of architectural energy.

These Team 10 efforts were soon overshadowed by the student upheavals of 1968, which began to problematize the relationship between architectural design and social transformation insisted upon by both CIAM and team 10. Woods had his work removed from the 1968 Milan Triennale in sympathy with the student radicals, and by 1970 De Carlo would criticize CIAM's urbanistic discourse as nothing more than "cultural alibis for the most ferocious economic speculation". Along the same lines, Manfredo Tafuri insisted a few years  later that "the entire cycle of modern architecture and of the new systems of visual communication" was the last, enormous attempt by bourgeois culture to resolve at the level of ideology the contradictions "characteristic of the capitalist reorganization of the world market".

These fundamental questionings of the legacy of CIAM were part of a questioning of the concept of master-planning itself. In the 1960's a variety of post-planning positions emerged, with Jane Jacob's and advocacy planning among the better known. Jacob's influential first-person critique of CIAM-like masterplanning has never-been surpassed, and a range of planning approaches have been derived from it. In a similar spirit, advocacy planners attempted to put their professional training in the service of community-based activism. Planners like Paul Davidoff and C. Richard Hatch organized to the slum clearance and highway projects being put forward by more mainstream planners trained in the CIAM principles of the Functional City.

Parallel to these directions, awareness increased among Western architects and critics of the often superior appropriateness of local building practices and methods in many part of the world. John F. C. Turner, inspired in the 1940's as an Architectural Association student by De Carlo, worked from 1957 to 1965 as a housing consultant in Peru.  He discovered that the masonry and concrete constrcution techniques being used in illegal barriadas there were "far more productive, and, in all senses economic than technologically sophisticated methods". He observed that what the "mass of the people have wrought with their own hands " was far superior to "supposedly" 'low-cost' housing projects built for them". His ideas were preceded by those of the Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy, who as early as 1945 had developed a vernacular-based approach to architecture which became internationally known with the publication of his Architecture for the Poor in 1973. In the succeeding decades the implications of the ideas of Tathy, turner, and others have altered the policies of international development agencies in favor of "self-build" approaches instead of earlier efforts at architectural master-planning that attempted to use the most advanced technologies available.

At the same time many critics have argued that the urban model proposed by the Athens Charter, which had become "dominant to the exclusion of all others" in the postwar period, was "in reality an anti-idea of the city", as Bernard Huet wrote in 1984. Its suppressions of the conventional urban elements of streets, squares, blocks, building plots, and monuments destroyed "any possibility of identification or recognition " for the inhabitants. Parts of this line of criticism can be traced back to the ideas of Bakema and to the Smithsons ' "Urban Reidentification" grid at CIAM 9, suggesting that even in Huet"s rejection of CIAM there was a continuation of faith in the social value of planning characteristic of Team 10. Although the kind of city Huet had in mind was more like the traditional city of building types evoked by Aldo Rossi's The Architecture of the City (1966) and analyzed by Giorgio Grassi, the purpose of its forms was intended to have much the same soci-psychological result as the "Smithsons' formally antithetical continuous slab blocks.

In both cases the envisioned role of the architect was similar, for in each he or she offered an architectural image at an urban scale of a socially healthier city to be brought into being by means of formal properties. A variety of urban interventions and models with similar premises were produced in the 1980's in an atmosphere that rejected CIAM and its doctrines. These included the housing project in France of Ricardo Bofill and others and the Internationale Bauausstellung (IBA) district in Berlin, which attempted to construct an entire urban fabric similar to that of the early twentieth-century Wester city, with its mixture of urban typologies. Similar ideas, with some important differences, have been put forward by the Congress for the New Urbansim aux Etats Unis dans les années 1990.

Recent criticism has tended to see  the professedly anti-CIAM urbnism of this type as fundamentally similar to the CIAM approach, and with some justification. In the broad sense suggested by these examples, urbanistic approaches deriving from CIAM can be seen as developing continuously since 1960. This is especially evident in areas outside en Europe et aux Etats-Unis, where the CIAM legacy since 1960 has not been so negatively interpredted. Les générations d'architectes en Inde have been trained in the methods introduced by  Balkrishna Doshi, Charles Correa, and others. There, as in much d'Amérique lagine, d'Afrique and the Middle East, CIAM ideas do not always have the negative connotations often ascribed to them by its mostly North American and European critics, some of whom were themselves former CIAM members. How its multiple legacies will be understood as CIAM recedes into history is still an open question.

Since its official ending in 1959-1960, much of the criticism of CIAM has concerned its specific formal strategies of urban recognition. These strategies of the "Functional City" were deliberately intended to break with all previous patterns of urban development to bring into being a more rational and collectivist society. By the 1950's, as this goal began to be realized with often dystopian resultas, some CIAM members began to advocate modifications of aspects of these strategies, without challenging the basic premises of CIAM's activities. As I have indicated in this chapter, CIAM's aftereffects continue in the world of architecture, which now operates in a global cultural and physical context profoundly different form that of midtwentieth century Europe. CIAM's internationalism and its efforts to therorize the architectural consequences of emerging patterns of social and technological transformation have now become commonplace in the field. Some of CIAM's efforts to promote certain patterns of urbanization at the metropolitan scale, in terms of both the creation of urban "core" elements and the organization of linear cities along transportation routes, once again seem relevant, even as the CIAM-type residential pattern of high-rise slab blocks remains justifiably discredited in many circumstances.

There remain issues of implementation and agency for architects who, like CIAM and its successors, attempt to propose new and presumably better patterns of urbanization. The bifurcation between profit-seeking and aesthetic experience characteristic of modern culture has meant that building have typically been conceptualized either as assets and equipment, with little concern for nonecoonomic factors, or as architectural monuments to be appreciated only by an informed and elite audience. Like the larger Mouvement Moderne of which it was a part, CIAM attempted to destroy this bifurcation by rejecting earlier architecutral approaches and by appropriating elements of utilitarian captialist building in the service of the masses. Arhictecutre was transformed, and despite some effort in recent decades there has been no widespread retourn to classical or other premodern design methods, although historical forms have been enthusistically reused as applied imagery. Yet the more egalitarian and rational society that CIAM hoped to bring into being through better design of the urban environment also did  not appear. The result has been in many cases only the rationalization of a utilitarian attitude to building, where the "architectural", modern or otherwise, remains frankly superficial.