3. A variety of community facilities-and particularly in the case of a rural new town, educational institutions designed to retrain farmworkers to work, and live, in an urban setting.

4. Innovations in the creation of new social institutions.

5. A very large capital investment which must be supported by outside agencies such as government, business, and foundations for the community to provide housing facilities and jobs for all people in all income groups. For the development of new towns to be an effective part of a program for improving the condition of life for people in rural America, then, active government involvement is essential. We are all aware that the success of the British new towns is in part at least the result of the British Government's industrial allocations policies. Obviously, I believe that the new town has something better to offer many Americans than we have achieved to date. I also believe that the planning principles being utilized at Reston are relevant wherever we deal with urban communities. It seems to me impossible, however, to generalize about the applicability of the new towns to our poorer rural regions without knowing specifically and in detail the facts, commitments, and public policies which will govern such developments.

I have left out of my list the most important ingredient of all, of course, the land.

Urban development in the last generation in the United States has consisted mostly of sprawl because we have been gobbling up the land and developing it in little pieces-here a subdivision, there a gas station; here a regional shopping center in a sea of parked cars, there a so-called garden apartment. At the same time, the governmental jurisdictions where these sprawling growths take place have been left to foot the bills for the schools, the roads, the sewage systems and the community facilities which make them possible. The small entrepreneur has flourished at the expense of the general taxpayer and of business; for while his piece of land increases in value as development spreads, that increment of value which he gains, frequently as a result of the governmental act of rezoning, is not returned to or shared with the public. He moves on when his subdivision is completed leaving to the people and the Government the expense of making some kind of community out of it.

Rational urban development, and especially in parcels the size required for whole new communities, requires the acquisition of large amounts of land. This is expensive, beyond the means of all but the very largest developers and corporations, and difficult for them as land continues to be fragmented by small holdings. It seems to me, therefore, that if we are to engage in a program of new town building in rural areas the highest priority is the selection of appropriate sites and the immediate acquisition of the land:

By acquiring land reserves now it will still be possible to assemble cohesive tracts. And the increment of value which accrues from the dedication to more intensive land use will be returned to the community for the provision of community facilities. There are a number of ways to do this-the Government has done it with urban renewal, we have had land bank programs, public-private corporations have been created for Comsat, for transit programs, for housing— but the way it is done is less important than the fact that it be done. For even the desirable land beyond the suburbs will become increasingly difficult and increasingly expensive to accumulate in tracts large enough for a new town development; and acquiring it later in development rather than earlier means the loss of the increment of value so important to the later development of facilities.

There is nothing to prevent local or State bodies from accumulating these land reserves we do it for open space, for scenic easements, for example-from acting as planner, and then wholesaling it, so to speak, to developers at the appropriate time; just as we do with urban renewal. The increased value of the land between the time it is purchased and the time it is turned over for private development will then go to the planning authority or government rather than to the developer, who will still make his own profit, of course. But the authority or government will then have a base on which to build community facilities. This time sequence and process will also, in my opinion, make it easier to attract the industry without which the project cannot be accomplished. It seems to me very unlikely that the Government will embark on a policy of industrial allocation such as is done in Britain to insure the success of the new town developments. Industry must, therefore, be induced to come to the area by the advantages inherent in the plan and the availability of community facilities.

It is anticipated that by the year 2000, some 280 million Americans will be living in urban areas. This is a trend that is, in my opinion, irreversible. And tales of the giant megalopolises stretching from Boston to Richmond, from Chicago to Detroit, from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border are familiar to all of us. Yet, I believe that there are a great many Americans who prefer to live in smaller cities, indeed in villages within smaller cities, and that if we plan properly and build them we may be surprised at how popular and successful they will be. The choice should be there for those who want it, and it is less and less available today. Certainly there is no reason why rural people who do not wish to live in huge urban centers, are not culturally prepared for what they find there, and do not have the requisite skills to make a decent living there should be forced through lack of alternatives to migrate to the big cities. This is wasteful and tragic, and not necessary.

We can build better communities everywhere in America if we really want to and it is encouraging to me that this Commission is taking the first steps to make sure that our rural areas are not left behind.

EXHIBIT 229

SPEECH BY OTTO A. SILHA, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE; CO-CHAIRMAN, STEERING COMMITTEE, EXPERIMENTAL CITY PROJECT, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BUSINESS SCHOOL DAY, MARCH 1, 1967

"BUSINESS LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CITY"

I'm delighted today to discuss a project which is about to begin its first stage at our University.

Some people will consider it "far out."

Some will consider it controversial.

Some will, I believe, consider it the beginning of one of the most significant far-reaching undertakings ever launched on the University of Minnesota campus. I'm speaking about an Experimental City for the United States.

In order to focus this project clearly in your mind I would like to deal briefly with the 1967 nomenclature of "the cities."

Many of you have heard of the Model City program. Formerly called the Demonstration City program, the Model City plan, as it was introduced in the last Congress and as it is under discussion in this Congress, is basically much-needed extension of what we have come to know as urban Renewal, a super coordination effort involving the many departments of government which deal with the problems of the city.

Let me emphasize that the Model Cities program basically involves tearing out slum areas, replacing them with new construction, and attempting to deal at the same time with the "people problems" which are overwhelming in these areas of dense urban population.

A second designation for urban development which has come into the vocabulary in the past three or four years is the New City. There are now in con struction or on drawing boards, more than 230 "New Cities" in the United States The two with which you are probably most familiar are Reston and Columbia, both of them in the greater Washington, D.C., area.

Actually, in oversmiplified terms, the New City is a real estate development. They are all primarily in the private sector and many of them are spearheaded by large corporations. In each case, the project usually begins with the acquisition or optioning of large acreage, ranging from 200 to 17,000 acres, and proceeds from there.

Interestingly enough, almost all of these planned "New Cities" are located around the "rims" of the United States. You can trace the concentration starting from the Boston area in New England down along the East Coast into Florida. across the Gulf Coast into Texas, through Arizona and then up the West Coast of California. Few, if any, of them are mapped out for the Midwest and as far as I know not a single one has been ear-marked for any of the Upper Midwest states.

I want to make the distinction now between the Model Cities, the New Cities and the subject to which I address myself today-the Experimental City. The key phrase which I prefer to use in describing the Experimental City is that it will comprise an overleap in research.

This research overleap would offer an opportunity, in some degree, to start anew rather than to have to deal with the entangling restrictions of every sortin power, transportation, sewer lines, to name a few-which are present when we attack the established city or even the environs of the established metropolitan area.

You might be interested in a brief resume of the genesis of the Experimental City.

First and foremost, of course, is Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus, our professor of geophysics. Dr. Spilhaus first proposed an Experimental City formally in a 1966 report made to the White House by the American Academy of Sciences Committee on pollution, of which he was chairman. That report indicated it was almost impossible to find the best solutions to urban pollution problems because the pollutants cannot be manipulated or controlled in a manner which would diminish them substantially or combine them for positive results.

The second generating spark for the city project came through Dr. John Clegg, president of North Star Research and Development Institute. Several years ago he suggested that North Star might do some research in the private sector on the subject of enclosure, dealing with an area as large as 200 acres. Investigations proved this commercially infeasible.

The third impetus came from California when Wayne Thompson resigned as city manager of Oakland to come to Daytony as a vice president. He had been working with the TEMPO Advanced Research Division of General Electric on a New City concept for the Oakland area and the TEMPO group in Santa Barbara had done considerable work on the enclosure idea and in the transportation field.

In brief, it was possible to bring all of these forces together and with President Wilson's strong and far-sighted encouragement, the University's proposal for the first phase of research was presented to the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), and Commerce in June, 1966.

The proposal calls for preparation of a plan for a systems engineering analysis and design of the Experimental City;

Investigation of the social implications dealing with the grave "people prob

lems";

Exploration of the possible techniques for implementing the whole plan. Phase I of the work should take about one year. The objective is to achieve a comprehensive definition of the project through a survey of the literature and experience and through delineation of the problem areas by convening a series of conferences and workshops, bringing together the top experts, the best brains in the world for each area of investigation.

You will be interested in the succeeding phases as outlined:

Phase II would evaluate untried concepts and systems in laboratory environment, experimentation with small scale models, and investigation of anticipated problems (Gestimate of cost: $3 to $4 million.)

Phase III would include construction of pilot model.

Phase IV-design for the actual city.

Phase V-construction and occupation—conceivably 10 years from the beginning of research.

Phase VI continuing evaluation, modification and development.

You will also be interested in a quick review of the 15 members of the steering committee.

In addition to Chairman Spilhaus, the University principals are:

Walter Vivrett, Professor of Architecture and Planning, who is serving as Project Director, and

Professor John Hanley of the Department of Civil Engineering and Hydraulics. Also serving, as leading national authorities in their fields, are:

Dr. Walter Heller, Department of Economics,

Dr. Gaylord Anderson, School of Public Health.

You will also recognize many of the rest of the names:

Walter M. Beattie, Jr., School of Social Work, Syracuse University, top ranking sociologist ;

Dr. James C. Cain of the Mayo Clinic ;

R. Buckminster Fuller, Engineer, Southern Illinois University;

Max L. Feldman, General Electric TEMPO (Center for Advanced Studies); Bernard Schriever, General, U.S. Air Force (retired);

William L. C. Wheaton, Director of the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California;

Paul N. Ylvisaker, Commissioner, Department of Community Affairs, State of New Jersey (formerly Director of Public Affairs, Ford Foundation);

Of course, O. Meredith Wilson, President, University of Minnesota ;

Finally, Wayne Thompson and your speaker.

Here are some of the subjects which will be under study in the first phase workshops and literature search:

In the areas of interest to HUD:

Location, initial size and eventual limits on size;

Population-rate of growth;

Cultural and recreational opportunities;

City Systems: transportation-people and things;
Interaction with regional systems;

Energy supply and communication;
Architecture and form of the city;

Building mix, locations and inter-relationships;

Land acquisition and ownership;

Private property and individual rights;

Enabling legislation at Federal, State and local level;

Relation to labor unions and code restrictions.

In the areas of interest to HEW:

Public Health;

Wastes management;

Organization and delivery of health and rehabilitation services;
Psychological problems of living in such a city;

Education: How can the total community best be co-ordinated in develop-
ing programs geared to accomplishment of educational objectives;
The Experimental City as an educational experiment as well as a laboratory
for experiments;

Adaptability of older people to new situations;

Special needs of the aged, the infirm and the handicapped.

In the areas of interest to Department of Commerce:

Economic ties between Experimental City and regional setting; interaction with agriculture;

Effects on nearby cities, towns, dispersed centers;

Role of private sector;

Drawing strengths of city;

How would firms be affected;

Economic bases of city;

Finance requirements and approaches;

Land improvements.

I might say a word about enclosure because this is a subject which intrigues most people.

Enclosure will be a part but only one portion of the experiment. It could be, however, an important part of the experiment.

One possibility would be to enclose a medical complex to secure maximum health administration benefits from a controlled climate.

In such a complex might be contained a general hospital, a specialized hospital like a Variety Club Heart Hospital, a so-called secondary care hospital, nursing homes, a motel-like structure with private housekeeping facilities, but some nursing care, and finally, individual homes for people who should live for a period near a major medical complex.

It is now technologically possible to enclose a diameter of two miles, more than 2,000 acres. This would be the Houston Astrodome multiplied by a factor of more than one hundred.

Such a procedure, however, would make it possible to create "Arizona" in Minnesota. And if you wished you could live in a structure which would have its front door in "Arizona" (or "Hawaii") and your back door in Minnesota so that you could ice skate or ski in the back and play golf in the front. This emphasizes, that enclosure would be experimentally desirable for a recreation area. There are many facets of current research being conducted throughout the country by businesses as well as by educational and scientific institutions which need a place for testing in actual use.

Transportation will, of course, be an important phase of the experiment. Possibly there will be no automobiles in the central city itself. Many of you may have seen a recent proposal to link the St. Paul and Minneapolis campuses of the University by a small-car automatic transport system. This would be an electrically powered continuous series of four-passenger vericles which would move people in an orderly manner between the campuses and between various parts of the campuses.

One of the reasons it will be extremely difficult to proceed promptly with this plan here in the Twin Cities is that it is a bit "far out" and there are a multitude of restrictions and hurdles which must be jumped in order to secure the rightof-way and all of the other approvals necessary, wholly apart from the expense factors involved. If such a system were operating in an Experimental City it would be much simpler to demonstrate to people the convenience and economic desirability of such a plan.

We desperately need an Experimental City to demonstrate the advantages of progress so we can enjoy those advantages, which are technically feasible and fiscally desirable in our lifetime.

As you can see from this brief overview, the private sector of the economy— the business community—has already played an extremely important role in the conception and development of this project. I mentioned earlier that each of the three Federal agencies involved will be provided a grant of $80,000.

I'm glad to be able to report here today that major Minnesota companies are joining the University in provding the additional funds needed for the first phase. The following have each agreed to contribute $10,000 toward this initial research:

The Dayton Company, The H. B. Fuller Company, Honeywell, Inc., Minneapolis Banks' Clearing House Association, Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Northern Natural Gas Company, Northern States Power Company and Northwestern Bell Telephone Company.

Ultimately, in the final stages involving construction of the Experimental City, major investments will have to be made by business leadership. Why will these investments be worthwhile?

In the first place, many American industrial firms are in the same position as our urban centers-research and the technology are far ahead of the ability of management to transform that research into reality through the construction of a new kind of plant or facility. In the same way that our cities face all of the impediments on the road to change, so, too, the industrial firm is confronted with regulations and restrictions and codes and customs and practices which make it almost impossible to try anything new, to break with the past, to really experiment with a new technique that might produce a breakthrough for a whole industry.

The Experimental City would offer the ideal location for such a new plant or facility where the "fresh start" could be pre-planned in concert with the surrounding other plants and service facilities so as to maximize the possibility of success.

What will be the ultimate cost of the Experimental City? All one can say today is that it will surely be a multi-billion dollar program and that much of the expense will be borne by American business and industry.

To put any numbers into context, it is well to remind ourselves that the supersonic transport, if it proceeds, will cost about $4 billion.

Thus far our nation has spent about $20 billion in our program aimed toward landing a man on the moon. The space program expenditures have been at the rate of about $5 billion a year.

It would seem sound and logical for business and labor to join with the Federal government and the citizens of the United States in an Experimental City project designed to produce a laboratory for urban living which might help us solve so many of the knotty problems we face right now in everyday life.

I would like now to point out the similarity between the Experimental City project and the development of taconite. More than 40 years ago on the campus of the University of Minnesota experiments began in the minds of men and in the laboratories which later developed into the iron ore processing procedure which has made taconite an important part of the world's steel industry.

The taconite research had Federal support and legislative support and University support, but in the final stages of its evolvement into its place in the economy, it required massive investment from the private sector along with