Some thoughts on McHarg’s views

Zhufeng Pan
2 min readAug 31, 2020

Obviously, Mcharg was right about the idea that the biophysical processes of natural landscapes should be used to determine the form and location of towns and cities, and that nature should be at the top of the planning agenda. However, I think that this concept is facing certain contradictions in today’s world. Looking back at the development process of many cities in history, we will find that it is actually very difficult to achieve it.

First of all, in today’s rapidly developing underdeveloped areas (where the natural landscape has not been damaged too much by urban development), the government’s primary goal must be to develop the economy and the infrastructure. Because in their current state, the natural landscape can not bring them any intuitive benefits. In fact, in these underdeveloped areas, people are living in a very primitive natural landscape. In this case, people tend to yearn for super cities like Shanghai or New York with complete infrastructure and high-rise buildings. On the contrary, we who put forward that nature should be the first priority tend to come from those cities that have developed by destroying the natural landscape. This is an interesting phenomenon.

It is certainly right to take nature as the primary mode of development. But is it really just when we live in a city developed at the cost of large-scale development and destruction of natural landscapes, and require the developing regions to sacrifice a certain speed and scale of development to put nature as the primary goal? That’s what I think the difficulty of Mcharg’s view in developing countries and less developed regions. Because the natural landscape can not bring direct benefits to the backward areas, which is exactly what they need urgently.

So it seems to me that in today’s world, it’s much easier to implement this idea in the small, developing towns of developed countries, which have already gone beyond the development model that needs to be done at the expense of the environment.

Hopefully we can discuss about it!!!

--

--