Abstract
Images of good organic urban and regional physical form vary from extreme decentralization to mile-high megastructures-and almost everything in between. The problem with this disparity is that organic spatial theory appears so flexible as to be meaningless. This in turn undermines its authority as a basis for setting reliable planning standards and its usefulness as a basis for practical action. This article describes the major concepts of organic philosophy and organic planning theory. It then investigates, compares, and contrasts eleven American theorists in order to find the causes of the wide variety. It concludes with a summary interpretation of these causes and introduces options for changing the situation.

This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit: