Let Cities Be Cities

Responding to the terrorism of September 11, historian Stephen Ambrose wrote in theWall Street Journal on October 1 that, in an electronic age, "it is no longer necessary to pack so many people and office[s] into such small space in lower Manhattan. They can be scattered in neighboring regions and states, where they can work just as efficiently and in far more security."

That these words come from so distinguished an American as Mr. Ambrose should give us pause. Should planners heed this advice and encourage investors, developers, businesses, and citizens to move out of our cities? If Americans did scatter across regions and states, would they really be more secure? Would they be as efficient? The evidence indicates that the answer to these questions is no.

Scattered development does not necessarily offer more security. Terrorism is a dynamic threat, not limited to tall buildings. As we have seen, terrorists are just as capable of attacking the Pentagon in suburban Virginia as the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan. We could scatter Manhattan's population to the winds and still offer the juicy target of a college football stadium packed with 100,000 people on a Saturday afternoon. The answer to terrorism is eradication of terrorism, not eradication of their targets.

Nor has the electronic age made major cities unnecessary. In recent years, technology firms have flocked to our greatest urban centers because they have found them to be fertile ground for the human resources they depend on. The concentration of talent and stimulation of face-to-face interaction in places like Manhattan is often exactly what information technology providers need in order to innovate and prosper. In the last five years, the importance of major cities to the growth of new technologies has been widely noticed.

No efficiency in scattering people, offices

Regional sprawl requires over-reliance on relatively inefficient internal combustion engines, with a resulting decline in environmental quality, escalating infrastructure costs, inefficient separation of land uses, and loss of social support. The smart growth movement that has taken hold in many states encourages the revitalization of cities as part of a more sustainable development pattern.

History teaches us that cities are crucial to civilization. That is why London, Berlin, Tokyo, and many other cities were rebuilt after World War II. Civilized people treasure the historic buildings, culture, creativity, and entrepreneurial drive found in cities. In the long term, a panicky retreat from our great cities would hand terrorists a victory they could never achieve without our help.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks, it is understandable that many people would shy away from flying, entering tall buildings, or even going into the city. These individuals should have everyone's understanding and support. And those directly affected by terrorism or its aftermath deserve our help in relocating if they chose to do so.

As long as terrorism remains a threat, precautions must be taken against future attacks. We must improve security at airports and high-rise office buildings. But terrorists would be just as happy to attack a suburban mall as they would to attack our cities, and the results would be just as unacceptable. That is why attempting to protect ourselves by dispersing urban development will not work.

Decentralizing the population and businesses of our great cities would be a long and expensive proposition, and one likely to fail. President Bush's policy of finding terrorists, bringing them to justice, destroying their global network, and denying them support may also be difficult, costly, and time-consuming to carry out. But it offers the best, and perhaps the only, hope of success.

Sam Casella, FAICP, is president of the American Institute of Certified Planners. This editorial will appear in the November 2001 issue ofPlanningmagazine, published by the American Planning Association.