re ur ban spatial structure and urban growth.
Accordingly, Chapin studies both differences and similarities between the various theories, which he examines, attempting not necessarily to favor one over the others. But rather, he ar rives at some sort of general perspective, which will be useful to both students of land use and urban growth, and to city planners themselves.
Chapin emphasizes that each theoretical system of planning with which he deals is either implicitly or explicitly involved "with the development of a framework which identifies and de scribes regularities in patterns of human interaction in space and explains their origins and transformations in time wherever population aggregates in urban areas . . . In describing
inter action patterns, most of these conceptual system make a dis tinction between patterns of intra place and inter place inter action, the former having importance for the adaptation of space and the latter involving communications between spaces" (Chapin, 1971, p.141-153).
Chapin goes on to explain that "space adaptation" and
"com munications" are "counterparts" for "land use" and
"circula tion", tenets which are of course vital to any understanding of land and urban structure. Still, whereas Chapin attempts to de vise an overall perspective on various theories, Bryant warns that:
It has proved extremely difficult to devise any general theory to cover (urban land use) ade quately (Bryant, 1972, p.171).
Bryant makes clear the obvious: that the city as we know it today in our society does not appear to Be conducive to the e cological realities of our time, nor does it appear to be
par ticularly viable in regard to its own survival:
(The city) cannot automatically renew its own diseased tissues, the slums, without direct intervention of public powers. It cannot auto matically arrange its expansion into surround ing areas in an efficient and orderly way wit ness the volu...