ervices in central cities, while failing to maintain an dequate tax base;

limited choice for many people as to where they can live and the types of housing and environment in which they can live; and

increased distances between the places people live, where they work and where they find recreation.

Third, traditionally housing had been a small-scale, ighly fragmented industry. Several factors, though, conerged, to change the structure of the industry and to reate a new industry of land developers.

During the 1950's, developers moved farther out rom urban centers into areas where larger parcels of ndeveloped land were available. This was the inevitable onsequence of four factors: the lack of buildable or heap land in existing urban areas; the continued rapid rowth of metropolitan populations; the increase in autoobile ownership, permitting ready access to outlying reas; and zoning regulations and consumer preferences or single-family, detached homes. Thus by the late 950's, developers were working in areas where there ere opportunities to acquire and develop large parcels of nd.

HUD Secretary George Romney, chairman, (center) Samuel Jackson General Manager, (second row right) and other Board members of the HUD-based New Community Development Corporation, join officials of Cedar/Riverside, the Minneapolis "new-town-in-town," in dedication ceremonies for Cedar Square West, the first stage of development for the HUDguaranteed new community. The dedication was a highlight in the NCDC Board's two-day tour of new communities which also included Jonathan, near Minneapolis, and Park Forest South, near Chicago. Other members of the NCDC Board (not shown) are: Floyd M. Hyde, HUD Assistant Secretary for Community Development, and James M. Beggs, Under Secretary, Department of Transportation.

Additionally, the large post-war demand for housing in mass suburban areas encouraged the growth of larger, more efficient organizations, many with the stability to withstand the cyclic variations in the homebuilding industry, which had created a highly speculative image of real estate investment. Further, there was some belief that Government policies would dampen these variations in the business cycle.

Fourth, the prospects of comparatively high profits accompanied by this new-found security in the real estate market further encouraged the growth of large developers, induced the entry of large land holders and large corporations from other fields into the business, and facilitated financing of large ventures. By mid-decade, more than 40 large private developments and balanced new communities were being planned across the United States for populations of 25,000 or more.

From Concept to Reality

It was against this background that the Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970 was passed to provide additional Federal assistance for new town development. This legislation sets new communities directly within the context of an emerging urban growth policy, discussions of which have become more insistent with the passage of time.

Under the earlier Title IV of the Housing Act of 1968, HUD was authorized to issue loan guarantees to private developers of large-scale new communities. With their obligations backed by the Federal Government, developers could then borrow long-term private capital, through either private debt placements or public offerings of debentures, at considerably lower interest rates than would otherwise be available. The guarantee under the 1968 act could be as much as $25 million for a single project, with a total of $250 million for all loan guarantees. Title IV also authorized supplemental grants to local governments for the acquisition of land for open space and for installation of water and sewer lines in HUD-guaranteed new towns.

Title VII of the Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970 (signed December 31) doubled the ceiling on total loan guarantees to $500 million, and extended the loan guarantee to public agencies, such as New York State's Urban Development Corporation. It also authorized HUD to issue loan guarantees covering all costs of acquiring and developing land incurred by government authorities for projects they sponsor, and 85 percent of the costs in the case of private developers.

Title VII also created the New Community Development Corporation (NCDC) to aid in the development of new communities, to guide future urban growth, to carry out a program of grants and loans and loan guarantees, and to assist in the development of well-planned, diversified new communities, subject to the direction of the HUD Secretary. Under the Act, the Secretary is authorized to guarantee the financial obligations of private new community developers and State land development agencies to encourage development of new community proj

ects.

The General Manager of New Community Develop ment Corporation functions in close cooperation with the CDC Board of Directors, headed by Secretary Romney a Chairman. Other members of the Board, appointed by Secretary Romney are: Floyd H. Hyde, HUD Assistan Secretary for Community Development; James M. Begge Under Secretary, Department of Transportation; and Joh C. Heimann, financial consultant with the New York City firm of Warburg, Pincus and Company, Inc.

HUD now has approved 10 new communities fo Federal guarantee assistance exceeding $226 million, ar has under consideration more than 70 applications an pre-applications for new communities across the Nation Those under active consideration are requesting more the $330 million, and pre-application requests are averagin $20-25 million each.

Thus within three years of operation under the N Communities program, the United States has moved in a position where developers, in partnership with varies levels of government, can double the number of ne communities initiated in England during the last 25 year In terms of total current population growth, this achiev ment is modest, but it is a significant beginning. At th pace, there is no reason why the United States could r accommodate 15 to 20 percent of projected nation population growth in new communities.

Objectives of the Program

The Urban Growth and New Community Devel ment Act calls for different kinds of new communit and each must satisfy a broad range of economic, soc environmental, and governmental objectives. The n communities that HUD is supporting and will contin to support all seek to achieve the following objective

Urban Growth-New communities must contrib to orderly national growth, by encouraging full use of economic potential of smaller towns and rural com nities, or by strengthening metropolitan areas thro revitalization of existing older cities and orderly grow in undeveloped suburban areas.

• Equal Opportunity-New communities must red economic and racial polarization in the Nation by offe choices for living and working to the fullest range people and families of different composition and incor they must be open to all people, regardless of religion, sex, or ethnic origin.

• Environmental Quality-New communities n preserve and enhance both natural and urban envir ments. They must be designed with a sensitivity natural environmental constraints and opportunities; ti must seek to minimize air, water, noise, and soil p tion, and they must promote the highest standard urban, architectural, and landscape design quality. E applicant for New Community assistance is required submit an environmental impact statement indicating acteristics of the environment and the probable effect proposed development.

Strengthen State and Local Government-An important part of the new Federalism and national urban growth strategy is increasing the capacity of State and local governments to deal effectively with their own growth problems. HUD planning assistance provides resources for planning authorities at State and local levels to better plan for growth. The New Communities program requires that proposed new communities be consistent with State and local governmental plans for the affected regions. The New Community legislation also authorizes assistance to governments to develop new communities, and HUD now has under review three projects proposed by the only State development corporation in the Nation, he Urban Development Corporation of New York State. More States and other governmental bodies are likely to play active roles in guiding and actually participating in he development of future new communities.

Innovation-New communities are to be laboraories for testing desirable physical, social, and economic nnovations aimed at meeting domestic problems. Many new communities are exploring transportation systems, olid waste management methods, pollution control and batement technologies, as well as advanced design and echnology in land utilization, materials, and methods of

downtown Minneapolis

10 mi. S. of Rochester

20 mi. N.W. of

San Antonio

30 mi. N. of Houston

12 mi. E. of Rochester

construction. Especially significant are innovations in the design of social service delivery systems and forms of government. Innovative educational approaches and health care systems are being proposed, and new relationships between the private and public sectors are being explored for the provision of community services.

Within these guidelines, a new generation of communities is emerging. They are communities whose creators are sensitive not only to the need for diversity and innovation in the physical planning sense, but in social planning as well. This is as it should and must be; in the final analysis, social questions are the really important ones, for the final measure of new communities is not convenience or reduction of urban sprawl for their own sake but the quality of life they sustain.

Our nation certainly is not lacking for innovative urban ideas. What it has lacked is the opportunity to put a series of ideas together in a systematic manner, then actually implement them in an integrated, experimental setting designed to prove our best thinking on urban needs. New communities provide such a setting; they offer opportunities for major advances in every facet of urban design, social and physical, and a chance to test and prove new concepts in living. They are setting new standards of excellence for future urban growth.

In the past three years, HUD has opened a new chapter in urban development in the United States by guaranteeing private loans for development of 10 new communities with a total planned population of 687,000 people. Several additional projects are near commitmen and budget projections show an even larger number projects likely to be guaranteed during FY 1973.

Virtually every aspect of community life is con sidered in plans for these large developments, ranging from 25,000 to 150,000 peak populations. The plant must relate all urban functions, do so in a manne providing access to the community for all persons regard less of race or class, and with minimum damage to the environment.

The present, improved planning for new communitie is a logical historical development. In the 1950's and early 60's private industry and cities did a better job tha before in development and control of individual industria parks, residential subdivisions, shopping centers, and ope space. A few pilot new communities were even under taken. But, generally speaking, cities did a poor job o relating one urban function to another and an even wors job of insuring equal opportunity in housing by incom and race. Paper plans were plentiful. But neither in the city nor in the country did we as a Nation translate man of the grand aspirations of social, physical, and environ mental planning into action.

As presently planned, new communities are a power ful tool for fulfilling these aspirations. They have beg to bind the various urban functions into a harmoniou whole at the community scale. Now they must be related to the regional or "Real City" as defined by Secretan Romney, and on a national scale to national growt policy.

Lessons Learned

This broader approach stems from several basic le sons learned from difficulties and setbacks of our housing urban development, and redevelopment programs. On lesson is that we cannot solve urban or rural problems b concentrating in an uncoordinated manner on single fun. tion areas. A second lesson is that these problems canno be solved by operating in one political jurisdiction independently of the surrounding jurisdictions.

The fate of large cities and small towns alike hinge on the region that sustains them. The large cities rooted in the resources and manpower of the suburbs an countryside. As cities grow, their centers merge with suburbs and the country beyond, and they become giar urban regions with interrelated problems and potentia for solving these problems.

Rural problems, conversely, often arise out of decli ing population and employment. For example, as agricu ture and mining have been mechanized, job opportunitie have been drastically cut, young people have left, an once prosperous and proud small towns, many of whic have existed for more than a century, have becom demoralized and destitute.

Regional Approach

Attacking urban and rural problems on a regional or arger scale has long been a goal of public policy. We have indeed done so in some functional areas such as control of air and water pollution and development of park systems. But it is not enough to approach regional problems with single functional programs. A successful broader attack must interrelate a whole series of programs. Transportation has traditionally been approached on a multi-jurisdictional basis, but transportation systems are often developed as ends in themselves, without being carefully coordinated with broad goals of community development. It is often said the "tail" of transportation planning "wags the dog" of comprehensive planning. Transportation should help build man's cities and regions, not serve merely to transport him.

A regional approach has also been our national policy n comprehensive planning for some time. However, sucessful "carry-through" has thus far invaded us. Typically, our planning has not treated in a comprehensive fashion undamental social, fiscal, and economic problems so entral to the life of American cities. An effective reional approach must have within it the seeds of its own ompletion, involving the private as well as the public ector, and must deal with social and economic as well as hysical planning problems.

Several proposals have been considered, though not dopted, to apply a comprehensive regional approach to olving urban problems. Pending acceptance of such an pproach, which involves massive expenditures, we can

proceed on a more modest scale on a region by region basis, operating through informal arrangements with Federal agencies on what amounts to a demonstration basis. The pragmatic approach should form some basis for a more comprehensive and sweeping policy in the future.

Legislation Proposed

A series of concrete actions could be taken to link new communities with regional strategies through existing, pending, and proposed legislation of a relatively modest scale.

Several bills before Congress would establish preconditions to a strong regional approach involving new communities. An important precondition should be that Federal, State, and sub-State levels possess the breadth of mission, tools of implementation, and geographic coverage to tackle broad urban and rural problems on a multijurisdictional basis.

One bill calls for a Department of Community Development which would embrace HUD, urban transit, rural development, and other functions. This would provide in a single agency a unified, total approach to urban and rural community development, permitting a unified strategy on a broad basis without awkward, often stifling interagency negotiations. A second bill would provide impetus for strong State policies and programs to plan and control urban growth and rural development. These bills could be usefully supplemented by new or amended legislation which would provide greater encouragement to State land development agencies than provided under the