9 min read

History of Urban Planning & NASA

An interesting and rarely discussed history exists between NASA and the field of urban planning. I am grateful to Nicholas de Monchaux, Head of Architecture at MIT, for reviving this history in his book, Spacesuit: Fashioning Apollo, a highly compelling read with a tremendous collection of Apollo-era photographs. In particular, I was fascinated to learn about the three-week brainstorming session that was jointly organized by NASA and the Department of Urban Housing and Development in 1966. The outcome was a report that advocated for the use of “urban control systems” – perhaps believing that a technical and surgical approach to urban planning as guided by NASA might quell the tension and civil unrest that was bubbling over in American cities during this particular snapshot in time. In fact, it seems to me that this particular moment in American history was accompanied by an obsession with control – a need to engineer our way out of turmoil and discomfort. 

A Cure for Chaos?

There was even a very interesting book, A Cure for Chaos, written by Simon Ramo that essentially prescribes a thoughtful, albeit unrealistic path for solving the many social problems facing our country at the time through a systems approach. A short and compelling review of Ramo’s book can be found here, authored by Roger G. Noll, Professor of Economics Emeritus at Stanford University. It is decidedly dated (1969) although still quite relevant and surprisingly one of the few reviews I could find of A Cure for Chaos – perhaps I’ll attempt an updated review in a future post! Noll makes the point that social issues have a degree of complexity that is not easily addressed by a purely technical approach especially when the proper inputs might not be fully developed or understood as yet. I appreciate the creative ideas that Ramo put forth, but agree with Noll in his assessment that social concerns could not be swiftly eradicated through the application of an engineering mindset. I would also think most systems engineers would agree that part of their job is incorporating experts across all the relevant disciplines to take ownership of their particular area of expertise – so why not urban planners for space cities? In many ways, urban planners are social systems engineers – yet there has been very little cross-pollination of these fields since the Apollo Era. And somewhat ironically, despite efforts to “engineer” cities to behave in a fashion deemed desirable by the powers that be, or perhaps because of them, the root cause of the social and political tension was not treated and so here we are at the end of 2020 – and we all know how that’s gone.

Transition from Space to Place

Nevertheless, as de Monchaux points out, the latter portion of the 1960s saw a “choreographed exodus” of NASA engineers “from the frontiers of space to the urban frontier.” Demonstrating a commitment to this notion of a systems approach to solving urban issues, in 1971, the Department of Housing and Urban Development even provided funding to UC Berkeley and MIT in order to “retrain aerospace employees in techniques of urban management.” So, if you are interested in learning more about this rich history between these seemingly disparate fields, I highly recommend checking out de Monchaux’s work on the topic. After gaining a new perspective on how NASA engineers were brought into urban planning to essentially save the day with their technical acumen – it is no longer that surprising to me that there has not been the same two-way exchange of ideas. During the Apollo-era, urban planning was not at its finest moment in history and was viewed as needing to be fixed. Could this have contributed to the exclusion of planners in NASA’s space exploration and settlement objectives going forward? Anecdotally, I think there is still a popular perception that exists today that anything in space can be solved by an engineer, but the human considerations are vast and deserving of attention from specialists in those fields that have the skillset to specifically address them. 

“Learning Ecology”

Personally, I’m a big fan of the philosophy of urban planner and longtime MIT Professor of City Planning, Kevin Lynch, who suggested that a certain amount of disorder was essential to good urban planning which he described as a “learning ecology” – as compared to the mechanized approach laid out by Ramo and others. Lynch trained under Frank Lloyd Wright in his early years, but the two diverged notably on their handling of social issues, as Lynch was an early advocate of greater participatory methods to involve the public in city planning. To read more about Lynch, his contributions, and unique planning style check out this book co-authored by USC Professor Tridib Banerjee and UC Berkeley Professor Michael Southworth. Lynch suggested in Good City Form that, “Since an unstable ecology risks disaster as well as enrichment, flexibility is important, and also the ability to learn and adapt rapidly. Conflict, stress, and uncertainty are not excluded, nor are those very human emotions of hate and fear, which accompany stress. But love and caring would certainly be there.” Perhaps we need to embrace humanity a little more – and all its shortcomings – if we are to realize some of the technological feats and societal innovation we seek in the future. It is society’s ability to learn and adapt that will dictate its future success and survival – not its aptitude for feigning order and some flawed notion of urban utopia.

“Since an unstable ecology risks disaster as well as enrichment, flexibility is important, and also the ability to learn and adapt rapidly. Conflict, stress, and uncertainty are not excluded, nor are those very human emotions of hate and fear, which accompany stress. But love and caring would certainly be there.”

Advantages of Space Urban Planning

Yet, even still, there seems to be this implicit notion that the flow of knowledge runs in one direction. NASA seems to believe or at least has historically, that it can add great value to the field of urban planning, and certainly this is true. Yet, I would argue that the space sector has just as much to learn from planners. At the 2015 Meeting of the Minds conference, Rosalind Grymes, then a deputy director of NASA Ames Partnership Directorate, provided an update that highlighted the ways in which NASA could be helpful to urban planners. And she was absolutely right – there is an incredible amount of value in the global perspective gained from working in and around the space industry, as well as, leveraging dual-use technologies that support a more sustainable way of living on Earth. Furthermore, NASA’s “failure is not an option” mentality is something that we all need to embrace heading into 2021 and the manifold challenges we will encounter. Although as per my earlier commentary on Lynch’s “learning ecology,” I would adapt this phrase to “prolonged failure is not an option.” Still, it occurs to me that many urban planners have not been vocal enough about how urban planning can help space exploration through the following:

1. Planning for broader public participation through the solicitation of general input for future science and exploration mission objectives. Allowing the public to have more of a seat at the table when it comes to setting priorities and objectives, and not just through the opaque channels of constituent representation. Demonstrating a public interest in and support for certain missions might even help scientists and engineers make a stronger case for their projects. Increasing direct interactions between the public and both space agencies and private space companies is essential to empowering citizens of Earth to ask questions and voice opinions.

2. Democratizing access to space science and research. How can we make sure that the general public is kept more aware and up-to-date on happenings within the space industry? How do we make sure that this information is approachable to those without a doctoral degree? How can infographics be designed to convey scientific data in a more easily digestible way?

3. Greater inclusion and diversity in STEM fields. This is not just a pipeline problem, and although we should be encouraging a future generation of space scientists and engineers, there are plenty of adults looking to either advance their careers currently in the field or pivot into a STEM field. Let’s support all those who want to be involved. And let’s make sure that representation exists across all branches, so that our future in space is no longer created with an inherent design bias toward a particular race and gender.

4. Facilitating discussion and organizing global town halls that seek to break down barriers and arrive at some commonality of human purpose beyond Earth.

5. Guide the planning process for future spaceports and mediate opposing interests as needed, especially in the case of those that are going to be located within an urban setting. Check out this really interesting short video linked here or watch below, to see some of the plans and considerations for the future Houston Spaceport.

6. Plan and design both the physical and intangible institutions and infrastructure that will comprise a future city in space, standing on the shoulders of terrestrial planning efforts.

Have I convinced you yet on the significance of bringing an urban planning framework to the space industry? Let me know why or why not.

As always, share your voice and comment on Medium or Twitter @CelestialCitzn!

And for updates and the upcoming newsletter, sign up here.