IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajecsc/v75y2016i1p116-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building the Planning Consensus: The Plan of Chicago, Civic Boosterism, and Urban Reform in Chicago, 1893 to 1915

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew P. McCabe

Abstract

Since its publication in 1909, Daniel Burnham's Plan of Chicago has been criticized for its lack of attention to social issues and for the failure of subsequent reconstruction projects to live up to the ambition of the plan. These criticisms assume that the Plan of Chicago was insufficiently progressive, or they evaluate the Plan by reference to the successes and failures of subsequent decades of urban reconstruction in Chicago. This article argues that the key to understanding the Plan of Chicago is to place it in its historical context. Burnham's Plan of Chicago was an expression of the tradition of Chicago civic boosterism and earlier city-building practices as much as it was of the nascent profession of city planning. Finally, while the Plan did neglect housing, poverty, and other social questions, it did possess a social vision based on civic inclusivity, rather than economic inclusivity. The Plan can be read as a reform document based on the assumption that physical environment shapes individual character and social relationships. It assumed the creation of a unified and harmonious physical city would produce a contented and productive citizenry. In short, the Plan of Chicago deployed a transformative vision in the service of conservative goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew P. McCabe, 2016. "Building the Planning Consensus: The Plan of Chicago, Civic Boosterism, and Urban Reform in Chicago, 1893 to 1915," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 116-148, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:75:y:2016:i:1:p:116-148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ajes.12133
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:75:y:2016:i:1:p:116-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0002-9246 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.