If we just let things go on as they are now, new towns are not going to solve any of our problems. If we really decide to make a commitment, then they might do something. My response here again is, "Let's try it." Let's experiment with some few instances in depth, rather than saying we are either for the policy as a whole as a nation and will go all out for it, or we will merely go out and spread the benefits all over the landscape at a shallow depth. Let's try it in one place, where we really have a profound depth in that one place. Then the total cost will be much lower and we will find out whether it works or not. Senator RIBICOFF. I would like to place in the record at this point, several references to the "experimental city" concept. (The information referred to follows:)

[The New York Times, Monday, Feb. 6, 1967]

EXHIBIT 227

A NEW EXPERIMENTAL CITY MAY RISE IN THE MIDWEST

(By Robert B. Semple, Jr.)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5.-The Federal Government and the University of Minnesota are about to embark on an experimental project that could lead to the construction in the Minnesota farmlands of a new city with a population of a quarter of a million persons.

High officials here confirmed today that only a few minor details remained before final approval was given for total grants of $248,000 from three different Government agencies. The money will help to finance the planning phase of the project.

The project, which has the strong backing of Vice President Humphrey, the Cowles publishing interests in Minneapolis and some elements of big business in Minnesota, is unusual in that it does not contemplate the construction of another suburban community, or even a satellite "new town" such as Reston, Va., or Columbia, Md.

Rather, the projects' planners are seeking a self-contained urban center that would be built at least 100 miles from any existing center.

The project is based on the assumption that the nation cannot now comfortably accommodate the three million more persons who must be housed each yearthe equivalent of 12 cities with 250,000 persons living in each-simply by cramming them into existing metropolitan areas.

AIM CALLED EXPERIMENTAL

Its purpose, however, is frankly experimental. It does not seek to solve the urban problem overnight. Its aim is to test the proposition that by judicious planning and experimentation the nation can preserve the advantages of highdensity living and yet avoid its disadvantages-ugliness, pollution, noise and congestion.

The staff director of the project is Walter N. Vivrett, professor of architecture and planning at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Vivrett, interviewed by telephone today, told a reporter that the university's applications for Federal funds "had been generally agreed on." He said he expected final approval before March 1.

Officials here, conceding that final Federal approval is imminent, are not at all certain what will come of the project but are willing to make a bet of $248,000 on it.

The three Government agencies contributing to the project are the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Department of Commerce. The man who is said to have put the whole "Federal package" together is Neil Peterson, one of Mr. Humphrey's top aides.

The cost of the first phase of the investigation-known as the "project definition phase"-is estimated at $330,000. The difference between the Federal share

and the total cost will be made up by the University of Minnesota and local companies.

Although formal staff work cannot begin until the grant application is approved, much thought has gone into the project. In addition, the university has named a top-level steering committee to oversee the project and to lend guidance. Among its members are:

Walter W. Heller, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and now professor of economics at the University of Minnesota.

Dr. James C. Gain, a Mayo Clinic surgeon, who is President Johnson's personal physician.

Gen. Bernard Schriever, former chief, systems command, United States Air Force.

R. Buckminster Fuller, designer and engineer from the University of Southern Illinois.

William L. C. Wheaton, director of the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California at Berkeley.

Paul N. Ylvisakr, director of Public Affairs for the Ford Foundation.

TOTAL COST UNKNOWN

No one has tried to estimate the cost of constructing a new city. Nor has a site been chosen, although given the Minnesota cast of the project's directors and backers, there will doubtless be strong preferences for building the city in that state. But Dr. Vivrett emphasizes that the question of investment is "the sort of thing we will be trying to answer in the early stages," and the question of precise site is "a long way off."

The origins of the idea are obscure, but much credit is given to Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus, Professor in the School of Physics at the University of Minnesota. In a recent interview here, Dr. Spilhaus said he had first become interested in the notion of an experimental city while working on a pollution study for the National Academy of Sciences.

"If the 100 million people that represent half the population of the United States today lived in the same high density as they do now but were distributed in 400 dispersed small concentrations of 250,000 apiece, there would probably be no serious pollution problems," he says. "What we need is urban dispersal-not urban renewal."

Dr. Spilhaus's conception of the things that might be tried in an experimental city is tentative but energetic. Among other components, he visualizes:

An urban environment with a transportation system eliminating or reducing the need for automobiles, new communications systems, industries that either re-use waste products through processes of “industrial symbiosis" or bury them in "fume sewers," and a system of land management in which schools, homes, shopping centers and the like would be grouped so as to lessen the impact of the cost of commuting. The objective, he says is to bring about "a full mating of the city and current technologies."

These and other ideas will be considered during Phase One of the project. According to Dr. Vivrett, the basic objectives of the first phase are to identify city problems, examine the possible components of an experimental city, analyze its social implications, assess the role of the private sector and how to mobilize its interest and support and discuss the fundamental values-"in a humanist sense"-that should govern the design of the city.

The second stage would involve further and more concentrated study leading to eventual construction of test models, a design for the city and construction. Dr. Vivrett's staff will consist initially of himself and six colleagues from the University of Minnesota but he plans to draw as much as possible on the talent and insights of other experts here and abroad.

EXHIBIT 228

STATEMENT BY ROBERT E. SIMON, JR., PRESIDENT OF RESTON VIRGINIA, INC., BEFORE THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON RURAL POVERTY, FEBRUARY 16, 1967

My name is Robert E. Simon, Jr., and I am president of Reston, Va., Inc., developers of the new town of Reston, which is located about 18 miles west of Washington, D.C., in Fairfax County, Va.

First, let me define what we at Reston mean by a new town. It is a planned community with an economic base of its own, where people may both live and work, which offers a variety of housing suited to the needs and incomes of all who work there, and contains educational, recreational, and community facilities as an integral part of the community development from the beginning.

The kind of community we are building is directly related to and part of the overall plan for the Washington metropolitan area. It is quite possible, however. that the planning principles under which Reston is being developed are applicable both to the creation of wholly new communities not related to a large Metropolitan area and the large older central cities which serve as the urban core of our metropolitan areas.

There is a difference, however, between building a satellite community in a metropolitan area and building a new city in the more rural areas. The first consideration is size. A large number of people is required to support the social, educational, and cultural institutions necessary for a modern community. Most of the new towns under development in this country today are preparing for populations in the 50,000 to 100,000 range. Larger populations for these satellite new towns are not required only because these towns will be part of highly populated metropolitan areas and can thus share many of the expensive and unique facilities already in these urban areas. These facilities range, in the case of Reston, from a mass transit system to the National Gallery of Art, from an interceptor sewage system to five universities.

New towns constructed in rural areas would require much larger populations in order to support the educational, cultural, and social institutions modern Americans expect of their communities. It is difficult to set a pat figure for what the population of a new town in a rural area should be, but I would suggest that 250,000 people is a minimum.

Assuming that 250,000 people is a feasible number of people around which to plan the new community, the second consideration is the economic base for the community-the provision of jobs. Enough employment must be available in the community to support the entire population. Whereas in the satellite community enough industry must locate in the town to provide an economic base for the development, it is unlikely that all the people who live in the town will work there, or vice versa, though we assume a large percentage of the people will choose to do both. In a rural area, employment opportunities will have to exist for all those who wish to live in the new town. Additionally, manpower retraining, the education for new skills for new jobs, will also be much more important in order to enable the people coming to the new town to work in the new industries estab lished there.

While employment in the service industries is rising at a more rapid rate than in manufacturing industries, it seems doubtful to me that service industries can provide the jobs that will be needed for a whole community. A mix of industries at the outset also insure that the community did not become a company town.

In my definition of a new town, I noted that the community facilities must be developed from the outset. There are two basic reasons for this. First, I believe that the facilities in a community are at least as important, and perhaps more important than the housing-and this, incidentally, applies to communities new and old. Second, the introduction of facilities at an early stage of development is a dynamic influence on the community which permits the residents themselves to participate in the later planning of additional facilities, and to give shape and definition to the kind of community they want.

Reston has already shown that, given appropriate facilities, the residents of the community will develop institutions and programs for their use. The inclusion of a multipurpose auditorium in our pilot project, for example, led to the founding of a drama group, a chorale, a children's choir, and other institutions which have made continual use of the hall. These institutions may not have developed at all, were the auditorium omitted from the planning, or they may have come into being only after many years.

The Riis Houses in New York City illustrate the same principle applied in a culturally deprived area. An amphitheater included in that low-income project receives constant use. Had it not been included in the planning, many of the residents who presently enjoy its active use might be spending their leisure time passively watching their television sets or otherwise whiling away their time. Americans have more time to spend as they like than ever before. This increased free time is often called a problem. Some housewives complain of bore

dom because they have nothing to do when they finish the day's chores. Some husbands spend their evenings in bars because no other social institutions serve their neighborhood. Some teenagers get into trouble because making mischief seems more interesting than doing nothing.

But free time also represents a great opportunity. For the housewife, it can mean time to continue her education. For the husband, it can mean time to bring out an old trombone and join an amateur jazz band. For the teenager, it can mean time for active participation in sports.

The difference between free time as a problem and free time as an opportunity depends on the availability of opportunity-creating facilities. And anticipating what facilities are needed is a matter of social planning. This does not mean telling people how to spend their time, but rather providing a multitude of facilities, social institutions and programs to make possible interesting and worthwhile alternatives for the use of leisure time.

What kind of institutions and programs? Institutions and programs which are designed to meet the social and intellectual needs of modern urban residentseducational, health, and welfare, and cultural programs which people want in a modern city.

The use of community facilities illustrates and reinforces the view that the individual must be the basic planning module of any community, regardless of whether it is new or old, in or out of a major metropolitan area. It is easier than it may appear to lose sight of the fact that we are planning for people, and that the individual human being in his dignity is the focal point for all that is done. It is worth noting that at the same time we must be careful to avoid confusing the planning of a community with the planning of people's lives. When we speak of community planning, we are speaking of the rational use of the land, or our economic and social resources, of the intelligent use of our skills and talents. We are not talking about planning anyone's way of living. The objective is a community where opportunities and options abound and individual choice is paramount.

Variety and choice have historically been the hallmarks of the city; and of democracy. The American new town is an attempt to combine the assets of the city and a democratic society in an environment specifically planning to make the most of those advantages. The object of the exercise is to foster individuality and provide a setting where creativity can flourish, and people can enjoy a fuller and richer life. We have failed to do this very successfully in either our small or large towns, and now it seems to me we have very little time and little choice but to go about the job of doing it.

The experience of Reston to date, will, I believe, be instructive in this regard, and I would like to take a moment to recount it.

The comprehensive plan for Reston sets approximately 1,000 acres aside for industrial development, approximately 1,500 acres for functional open space that is, lakes, golf courses, parks, riding trails, and so forth-sites for 35 churches, 22 public schools, 1 post-graduate facility and 7 village centers which will include facilities of various kinds, including commercial shopping space.

It is expected that by the early 1980's more than 75,000 people will live in, and perhaps 35,000 people will work in Reston. The comprehensive plan for this 7,000-acre community was worked out jointly with the government of Fairfax County, and provides a number of innovations without which new town planning would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.

Among these are residential zoning by population density rather than the conventional zoning by land use. Thus, so-called mixed use, that is the mixture of residential, commercial, and community facilities in the same area in a truly urban way is permitted. In addition, the developer is given a great deal of flexibility with regard to the kinds of housing to be built in any given area. This makes it possible to cluster housing, thereby preserving open space for social use; and to vary the types of housing from single family detached dwellings through garden apartments, townhouses, high rise apartments, and others.

In keeping with the philosophy of the new town and the comprehensive plan for Reston, the pilot project of this new community consisted of 227 townhouses, 113 garden and high rise apartments, shops and commercial facilities, a nurserykindergarten school, a manmade lake, golf course, swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, ball fields, riding center, a community hall, Rathskeller for young people, fountains, sculpture, street furniture, and so forth, and the first of the seven village centers. Simultaneously the industrial center for government and

industry was being developed. The first of the Reston-based companies, Air Survey Corp., occupied 13,000 square feet of the group facilities complex before the first residents moved in.

Today Reston is a community of approximately 1,500 people occupying more than 200 townhouses, more than 100 single family detached homes and over 100 apartments. More than 100 additional families have rented or purchased housing units of all kinds now under construction. Six companies employing over 700 people are operating in Reston. Six more are committed or under construction, including the new headquarters of the U.S. Geological Survey. By summer of 1967. 1,500 people will work in Reston and by the summer of 1970 more than 5,000 people should be working there.

The first of the 16 elementary schools opened in January, 1967. The first of the churches to build a house of worship opened for Christmas, 1966.

Houses have been available for sale in Reston starting about $23,000; and apartments for rent starting about $135.00. We have in various stages of study, design and planning cooperative sale housing under section 213 of the Federal Housing Act which we expect to build this year and offer for sale in a price bracket from $16,000 to $20,000. In late 1967 or early 1968, we expect to have available garden apartment rental housing under section 221(d) (3) of the Federal Housing Act which will include units starting from less than $100.00 a month for a onebedroom apartment. In November, 1966, the nonprofit Reston Virginia Foundation for Community Programs, Inc. was awarded a $200,000 grant to study and demonstrate the design and feasibility of low cost housing using the latest technological advances in home construction. Assuming that we can develop plans for the production of low cost housing-which can be built at low cost as opposed to the $15,000 or so per unit that subsidized housing costs today-we could proceed under the 221(d) (3) program or the rent supplement program (if funds are appropriated by the Congress for that purpose) and build such housing in Reston.

What we are attempting to do at Reston is create a civilized urban environment which respects the land, provides new opportunities and experiences for the people of the community, and sets an example of the kind of planning appropriate for meeting the challenge of urbanization and population growth in a 20th century society.

We do not have, and do not pretend to have, all the answers to the problems of our urban crisis. We believe we are creating a model from which we can learn by doing, and from which what is learned can be made available for the creation of other civilized urban environments in new and old communities. We began the development of Reston with a number of preconceptions which we now believe to have been sufficiently tested to have been proven valid:

A great increase in the amount of land that can be made available for social and community purposes is achieved by the use of cluster housing. Cluster housing, when properly designed, is marketable.

All other things being equal, enlightened business prefers a community attrac tive to its employees.

Community facilities must be included in the very early states of the develop

ment.

There are a great many people who hunger for a better environment than they can find in our cities and suburbs; and such people are willing to participate actively in building a community closer to their hearts' desire.

It is important, in my opinion, to point out that the development of a new town is a very expensive undertaking, and that a gap today exists between what any developer can reasonably be expected to do in the context of private enterprise, and what government makes available for the creation of adequate community facilities and programs.

The particular standards of architecture and design employed at Reston have led some people to confuse what is fundamental at Reston with what is merely the icing on the cake. We are delighted with the encomiums which have resulted from Reston's architecture and design, but even more important than how a new town looks is what it does; what it does for people, what it does for the land. what it does for the area or region.

The social institutions that can be developed in a new town can make a more important contribution to a civilized community in the long run than the style or kind of architecture. As I see it, the basic ingredients for a successful new town development are:

1. A sound comprehensive plan.

2. A strong economic base.