architecture as “machines for living” in many of his writings. Similarly, he has the same strong
faith on mathematics for proper urban solutions. In The City of Tomorrow and Planning Le
Corbusier uses the idea of use-zoning, which says that the centre of a city should often be
occupied by commercial centers and flanked by two belts of residential areas, which according to
Le Corbusier minimizes the importance of diversity within the neighborhood. Moreover, he
thinks that all buildings should be built as geometrical blocks and repeated strictly according to
mathematical formulas, because he thinks that only mathematics can bring us a sufficient and
efficient way of living in modern cities.
However, I believe that urban space grows dynamically which cannot be held by pure
mathematics, in this case I just think that mathematics is too cold which does not allow enough
variability during the dynamic change of cities. I believe that a city grows more spontaneously
like a human body rather than a machine ran by precise calculations. As Bucher and Weber have
described, the sociological aspect of a city’s growth is defined in the process of expansion,
metabolism, and mobility. The city in many cases radiates out from the business centre and
leaves no room for our pre-assumed precise calculation, and such the growth spins in a circle
which often exceeds our utopian expectation with the growth of population, violence, crime,
divorce, abandoned infants etc. It is like the process of our human metabolism process which
takes place with anabolic and katabolic process, the efficient and inefficient distribution of
population encourages such growth. Therefore, Ernest W. Burgess describes that the city growth
happens in organization and disorganization.
In this paper I will further explain the disadvantage and limitation of applying Le
Corbusier’s mathematical way in urban planning by studying real examples around the world.