Le Corbusier’s plan for organizing cities and their different mechanisms was ambitious, and would be an excellent template to follow for city planning in theory. However, in practice I believe that it fails to account for the different variables that are posed by different types of cities. As he said himself, a flat geographical area would be ideal for his model. However, there is no adaptation for a city that exists in a less than ideal location. For instance, I see issues with his plan to add layered road ways in cities with rolling hills or mountain ranges, which would make it extremely difficult to develop efficient highways and roadways. Despite these issues, I do believe his ideas revolving around opening up the cities does have some merit. Expanding cities in a way that avoids enclaves deprived of light is very important for mobility, as well as general public health. However, I do disagree with his exact figures for density within/surrounding commercial and residential building. Again, this set model does not account for issues such as population displacement. It would be much easier to enforce density codes in a place like Bridgeport, Connecticut in contrast to a place like New York City.
Gropius in my opinion had a stronger plan for designing/developing cities and other architectural projects. He understood that different environments and architectural styles around the world posed their own unique set of problems, and that planning for these places needed to be on a case by case basis rather than being conformed to a set of rules. This allows for changes and adaptation for unforeseen issues, which Corbusier’s planning methods lack. Gropius’s plans for adaptation stretched beyond planning and into the dynamics he wanted his students/architectural groups to have. He encouraged a group of individuals with different ideas to convene and bring different methods to the table, rather than having a group try and follow a strict set of guidelines. Again, I believe this mindset makes it easier to deal with problems that arise during architectural design. Gropius focuses on giving his architects the tools to rise to any challenges they may face, and gives them room to creatively problem solve, which I believe is the most effective way of dealing with architectural issues.