The Progressive City: Planning and Participation, 1969-1984

During the 1960s, planners and politicians, usually based in uni versity-dominated communities, began to formulate a new approach to acquiring political power. Often espousing no more than rehashed Marxism, these individuals characterized their ideas on allocation and redistribution of resources as advocacy or radical planning. Pierre Clavel, professor of Planning at Cornell Univer sity, has written a book which follows up on the later exploits of these individuals and ideas. Five declining or stagnant but pro gressive cities, Hartford, Connecticut; Cleveland, Ohio; Berke ley and Santa Monica, California; and Burlington, Vermont, all elected radical governments during the 1970s and 1980s. This list probably represents the total universe of all progressive cities in America, with the possible exception of Madison, Wisconsin. Now that the baby boomers are reaching forty and following in the vein of movies such as The Big Chill, Clavel has fashioned a where they are now book based on interviews and case studies. What exactly is the definition of a progressive city? Clavel answers this question by evaluating these five cities through the use of two criteria: administrative style and citizen participation. The most progressive city would have the most responsive political administration with the fully institutionalized participation of all segments of society. Not surprisingly, this ideal is never reached, although the smaller cities in his sample, such as Berkeley and Burlington, are closest to reaching this goal. Perhaps this reflects a continuing involvement by university personnel to foster innova tion in their community. Basically, however, progressive government seems to involve a variation of interest group liberalism in which those without any choices are given a chance by planners and politicians to influence events. Unfortunately for devotees of this movement, including