The City of Today is a Dying Thing

by Des Fitzgerald

We are living in one of the greatest periods of urbanisation in human history, with more cities in the world today than ever before. But is this definitely a positive thing? Are cities actually good for us? And what would the city of the future look like if we tried to make one that definitely was - would anyone want to live there?This book is about the fascinating and sometimes strange world of the people asking these questions - people trying to remake our cities from the literal ground up. It's the story of an attempt to get a hold of what the city of the future might look like according to some of the most influential and far-sighted people working to change it; to figure out when and how it was, exactly, that we all became convinced that city life was so bad for us. It's also a book about trees.

Genres: Nonfiction, Architecture, Society

Hardcover

Published January 18, 2024

Reviews

[Ellen O’Donnell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some really interesting points on urban design and mental health but then it just sort of descended into a diatribe about trees. Read like an extended uni essay with the odd bit of colloquial language thrown in for ‘accessibility’ but then didn’t really reach a clear conclusion? Would’ve got a low 2:1 at best.

[Richy Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compelling analysis and critique of where modern day cities are and what they could end up being. Intellectually challenging.

[Donaldinho14 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book, but not sure I agree with all of the conclusions. Written with humour as well as strong analysis however, and it's always good to be presented with viewpoints different from your own x

[Ana Mayne · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sorry to Des but this was so annoying. Amongst its many irritants the incessant comma splicing tops the charts. The cute lil paperclip Word grammar assistant would have improved this book so much. Close second to the dismissal of literally everyone else’s architectural ideals as fascist/conservative/dehumanising with no basis other than vibes. I’m here for a version of this book that wants to argue “neoclassical architecture is inextricably linked with neocolonialism”, or “20th century architecture is the best of all the architectures”. But he doesn’t make any of these arguments with a convincing through line, it’s just a random assortment of stuff he hates with no suggestion of what a better alternative might be. Kinda reminds me of uni when you didn’t do the reading, panic skimmed a few papers, then pretended to disagree with them for 3000 words.

[Will Dawson · Rating 2 out of 5]

He says he wasn’t writing a book about ‘why trees are bad’, but it’s hard to know what this book is. Some interesting commentary on things he disagrees with - anything which can lazily be dismissed as conservative, capitalist or colonialist - but a near total failure to present an argument or point of view with which he does agree.

[Patrick J-O'B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought-provoking in a genuine way, and compellingly snobbish and funny.

ah, nice try, but I have already depicted your perspective as symptomic of psycho-sexual anxieties!

[Alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

An odd book. There's a germ of an idea at the core, about his wariness of urban planners/architects/public policy people wanting to push "more trees" as a solution to all of the ills of society as being, at best, naive, and at worst, an active attempt to divert from the actual work of helping people and tackling structural inequality and poverty, but it gets very blurred. He makes some not entirely convincing links between some of the proto-fascist and eugenicist thinking of the early advocates for garden cities and other types of planned urban spaces and contemporary efforts to "re-wild" cities where really it just seems like he finds the latter a bit silly and wanted the chance to rant at the hippies who creep him out. I don't think this is any clearer than when he frequently simply describes things, people and ideas as "weird" without any real reflection; it's a collection of impressions and suspicions, which fine, but I don't think there's any grand thesis here worth that much of anyone's time or really worth dedicating a whole book toward.

If I had to draw any real conclusion it seems to be that those involved in city management should stop attaching grand ideological narratives aimed at shaping the "character"/"moral fibre" of their residents or "returning" city dwellers to some anachronistic idea of "nature", when making plans for their cities and instead focus on making interventions which tangibly improve people's lives in simple, practical, ways, but he doesn't even spell this out, that's just my inference based on the extending grumbling throughout the book.

[F · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fitzgerald amusingly punctures the pieties of the ‘back to nature’ crowd, in a study that synthesises a wealth of scholarly work on the history of urban planning, aesthetics, environmental psychology and public health. There are lots of fascinating case studies here — the Garden City movement, Lord Lever’s Port Sunlight, Poundbury. The over-arching aim is to reveal the ideologies that underpin contemporary fantasies of ordered, healthy, regulated space. Like many studies in this vein, it is better at deflating the scientistic certainties of others than in offering its own positive thesis about the future of the city — so those hoping for a simple manifesto will be disappointed. An enjoyably caustic read nonetheless.

[Loren · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5. Some engaging commentary and interesting opinions in here and overall I enjoyed reading a sociological piece for the first time in a long time.

However, for the most part, Fitzgerald’s core argument gets lost amongst complaints, irrelevant hot takes and, ultimately, a long tirade about trees with no real conclusion.

I understand that just putting in the work in this field isn’t necessarily going to get you any attention. And I begin to wonder if some of the loftier statements in this book are the result of a perceived need to bring divisive opinions to the table, in order for your voice to be heard.

That said, I do think the conversational and informal writing style is refreshing to see and it kept me reading even when I wasn’t sure where the narrative was going.

[Stefan · Rating 2 out of 5]

An example of why urban designers often struggle to be taken seriously, especially compared to architects who tend to command more influence. Fitzgerald’s book is unfocused—its core concepts are diluted, buried beneath utopian musings and an overreliance on anecdotal evidence. If there is a central thesis, it leans toward a romanticized vision of rewilding and a return to an idealized rural past. However, the absence of even a rudimentary roadmap for achieving such a vision makes the book ultimately unconvincing. A few hours spent with recent urban development podcasts (99% Invisible, Talking Headways, The Urbanist) might offer a more insightful and grounded perspective.

[Lindsay Nier · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an urban design student learning about rewilding and the urban forest, it was an interesting read . I definitely appreciated the humor which is seemingly non-existent in architectural academic spaces. It was great to read a critique of the idea of the urban forest, in school it is inherently seen as good without questioning where the idea came from. Despite the read, I’m still a fan of more nature in cities! I agree that some parts were meandering and a bit far reaching, if not supported at all-but it raised some new questions for me when thinking about the motivations for including nature in design.

[Leisnic · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this am entertaining, albeit not fully elucidating read. Maybe that was just because of my own naivety, thinking (hoping?) that Fitzgerald would provide more conclusiveness to the downsides of planned future green cities and to the reasons for joy about current 'unnatural' ones. Instead, he delivers an admittedly interesting dive into the history of currently prevalent ideas about the green 'cities of tomorrow', always raising good questions, yet never fully answering them. Nevertheless, it was entertainingly written and definitely providing good food for thought.

[Conni Dawson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some very interesting anecdotes and, buried under all the vitriol, some actually interesting ideas. But everything is presented in such weighted, preloaded sentences and the author frequently admits that although there is plenty of evidence for something, he still doesn't believe it, which makes it very hard to take any of it seriously.

[Tay · Rating 2 out of 5]

Readable with some interesting ideas, though I wasn’t fully convinced by his thinking. Still, it’s good to hear someone challenging the usual anti-modernity rhetoric in urban planning, even if a bit flimsy in places.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure what percentage of this book was an excuse for the author to publish his feet pics (p.148 if you're curious) but something tells me it wasn't 0%.

Also contains one of the filthiest reads on a monarch you'll ever see so I love it for that

[Phoebe Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 interesting ideas presenting but not in the juiciest ways

[Aqil Ersa · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a great book as a reminder that cities should heal. Come back to nature. Come back to how the world once was.