K?D HISTORY

IINTERIM MEMO April 8th, 1964

TO: JWR, V/EF, & MH

FROM: W.H.

SUBJECT: The Work Group

Note: This is a general history of the origins and functions of•che work group, without special reference to tho specificdiscussionssand conclusions which members of the work groupreached on various topics * This topical material is coveredor will be covered in various topical interim mimcso

J-i4-'.Urtri-tr

0.-;© statement of the purposes of the work group was made byj'tVR long before an acre of Howard County Icr.d had been acquired*As president of ACTION, JV/R addressed the Newark conferencein May of 19595 and at the conclusion of his cpocch., caid this:

J'0ur cities are for people and unless they work wellfor people they are not working well at all* Wo shouldthink and plan and program not in te..ms of schools,highways, streets? stores;1 offices or even dwelling unitsbut we should begin our -'.'.real plan ar.c! program with thefirst and fundamental purpose of making a city into neigh-bourhoods where a man., hie wife and family can live andwork and above all else grov; - grow in character, inpersonality;, in love of God ar.d neighbour, and in thecapacity for joyous livingo"

£y the time JVJR became involved in the planning of both CrossKeys and the HRD project in the summer of 1953 he was morespecific about his concerns

"For nany years 1 have lived uncomfortably with thebelief that most planning and architectural design suffersfrom lack of real and basic purpo^Oo' Even the mostadvanced and sophisticated discussion and writing revolvesaround ideas of "space", "urbanity"; c:scalot!s "continuity",and other labels which describe tho relationship ofbuildings to one another, to ctraets, to coacjS;,SeldcD5 however., (really,, novor? I believej clo J. hearthe question "What is the basic purpose of a community?5'and hov.' do you plan for that purpose? * 0 0 Before- trulythoughtful planning can proceed, there must be £ -.eagreement on theso objectives and then a working backwardfrom an uhderstandinc of ultimate r,uroose«l:

HRD HISTORY Interim Memo - The V.'ork Group - April 8th, 19&4page 2

Ey September, 1953, :'±::i some sort of work gi ip idea was very muchon JWR*s mindo IP. a speech on metropolitan growth, Delivered inBerkeley California, ji'/R asked about urban dwellers -

"What are their needs -.their real ncods? V/ho's askingwhom - and who's studying the answers? Mo one I Ho one,that is, who is doing anything about planning, designing,developing the community in which thece places and busidirgsand people a:ce going to fight it out togof.. *"

jT'R'-s disquiet about the situation was chared by his staff on theKRD project and in particular by the senior planner i.'.orton KoppenfeldWhen Hoppenfeld joined the staff in May of 1963, his first memoon working procedures had this to say -

,'

"To ny knowledge, noone has ever set about to plan acommunity or even a project with a complete statement ofnon-physical objectives to guide in programming anddesign. The social objectives are usually implied. Itwill be our first job to make the;:: oxplicitr>:1

MH called for a programming temmcompioe-d of a sociologist, aindustrial labor economist, a poliCicbal scienus> an educator,and experts in health and recreation to work with the projectstaff, and set forth a time schedule to have a sketch plandeveloped and approved by both the programming team and agroup of t;wise men" by November 15th.]i. 19630

An intensive period of discussion, revision of ths memo onworking procedures, and personnel search ensuc-cU The timeschedule was extended well into 1964. There was a questionabout whether the programming team should consist of olderexperts with an extensive body of written work, or youngerexperts who might be more amenable to broad now ideas withoutany previous committment. There was a question whether asingle individual should bo assigned to write a descriptionof the Good Life, and then have others criticise it, or whetherit should bo a team approach. And finally there-was discussiona'bout such very broad concepts ac "God-centeredness% "nationalethos", and "communal mix in a pluralistic society"*

in the meantime, during the early summer of 1963, HRD. w§shunting people who could serve on the programming team. OverSO .r.mes were considered in the fields that MH had identifiedin his original memo0 MeIcon Foote, a sociologist with GeneralElectric, was recommended by JV.'R0 MH got in touch with PaulV0 Lc-mkau and Herbert Cans* Both MH and 17EF had known HenryBain and Robert Gladstone during the previous experience inWashington. All those men were enlisted0

Despite those enlistments, the team r. so dec! a leader who couldcoordinate the activities. MH got in touch with Hat Glazer, r.:::!a University of California sociologist, who recommended DonaldN« Michai-a who at that time was director of the Peace Research

KRD HISTORY Interim M£mo -The V/crk Group - Aoril 8th, 1964Page 3

' .

Institute in Washington. Michael, aged 40 ? had a PhD in SocialPsychology from. Harvard and had been associated with the Departmentof Defense1., the National Science Foundation, the Nitiona'1. ResearchCouncil, and the Brcokings Institute* His particular interestwas future social evolution in American society and had writtentwo studies for the Fund for the Republic,, One- was on Cybernation,the other on '"'The KToxt Twenty Years"<> Both studios emphaisedsocial problems arising from the intensive concentration ofhigher vocational skills in for/or people $ the increase of leisure,and the technological impact of cybernation en democraticinstitutions* Both through an academic background :',n physicsand his v;ork with government operationss Michaol had becomeproficent in the "systems approach" toward planning.,;

MH met with Michael in Washington £5 ear^y Juna of 1963 and bada general discussion of the problems arising from planning a newcommunity9 and the ro.lcm that the projected work group couiMplay in the planning proccos0

(

To round out the spectrum of skills in the work groupsrecommended Christopher Jencks on education arid Stephen B0VJithey of the University of Michigan on communications inthe new community«, Since all the work group members so farconsidered wore all male, andthe community would be at leasthalf female, it was felt that someone should be brought in enthe distaff side* Michael recommended Mrs* Ar.tonia Chayos ofWashington DCC0 (See note at bottom of page)

On July 24th Michael met with KRD officials for a discussionof details on the work group operation and objectives and methodsof procedures During the summer DM prepared some working paperswhich were revised after subsequent discussion and on Bept 30than agreement was signed botv/oen K?D and the Institute for PolicyStudies (with which DM was then affiliated) outlining the scopeof DM's participation in the work group process.

The first meeting of the Work Group was called for: Mov 14-16 inBaltimore o In preparation for this meeting,, members of thework group received papers from JWR, MH5 and DM0 JVJR's memoenclosed the California speech and foDuseu the mac-ting onobjectives ~ what they ought to bio Recognising that perhapsaMevelopors first responsibility is to define his objectives>JWR nevertheless pointed out that there was "seme non-agreementwithin our own staff" on objectives,, and sought discussion fromthe work group 021 how to define objectives<>

Community Development' (preliminary}t!(

TIOTHi I have omitted bio material on members of the Work- Groupin this interim memo because it is readily accessible in the fi3.esfor final drafting*,

I-PD HISTORY Interim nemo -"'The Work Group - April 8th, 1954Page 4

The Hoppenfeld paper described the objectives as being to "promotehealth, security;, dignity, independence, opportunity, choice, growth,mobility, comfort, stimulation, and pleasure'"o A statement thatindicated some difference of emphasis with j.'JL* s idea of growth"in character, in personality, in love of G^d and neighbour, andin the capacity for joyous living,"

D.M also prepared a preliminary paper for the work group - acheck list "of questions for exploring "potential characteristicscr.d feasibility of modifications in subsystems1'

V/ith these preliminaries, the V/ork Group wont into operation withits first Baltimore meeting on objectives

The second meeting was held on Nov 29~CiOth and v:as conceriu^d withhealth arrangements and education,,

The third meeting,, held Dec 13-14-15 dealt v::.th possible formsof government, recreation, and communications

At tho fourth moating, held Jan 3-4, two ruoot consultants wereparticipant* Herbert Striner of the Upjohn linotituto, Washington,spoko on jobs and vocational training, and at an informal eveni gsession Mr. Castagna of the Pratt Library spoko on library facilities,In addition there were sessions on education end general cityplanning0

The fifth mooting took place at Cherry Hill? New Jersey on Jan 24-25,;It was primarily concerned with adult education and recreation,,

Thoce were the five bscic meetings of the work group* Each followeda reasonably consistent pattern and c_""i:zn had a reasonably consistentattendance* Michael presided at the sessions, which were taperecorded* One of the participants would make £ presentation onhis specialty, and the other participants would ccmrnent. Becauseit was a multidisciplined group, no sin-jl^ participant to get toofar off into the jargon cf his particular specialty, but thorewere times when the semantic problem became forraiable, not justin establishing what Michael had in mind v.hen he -said "systemsa-pproach" or what Lcmkau meciat by "multiphc.sic etiology", butwhat JV/R and Nelson Foots meant by that very simple word t!love"c

The five meetings of the work gro;;p were focused on the ultimatepreparations of a series of recommendations from each of thespecialists involved^ written i:'. consultation with Don Michael*Theso papers, seme running to almost a hundred pages in length,wero submitted in oarly February*

On February 19th began a series cf four meetings of the t:innercoro" work group, including Michael, Bain, Gladstone, and Jencks(in part) to go over the work paporo and abstract from those papersrecommendations that would be immediately useful either in thephyoinnl planning of the community, or in relationships withstat^ and local officials in getting an' over-all plan approved*The most complo::: of these l!ir:;;.;r core" sessions was held withBain on the problems of governmental arrangement wit-ivjvb'.wm'.:':;?wii:;jin-the nev7.vccmrnunity0

HISTORY Interim Memo '."The- V/orlc Group - iprii'Sth, 1964Page 5

[' The work group papers ere nov; being reviev;od by Michael and aconcise statement of the recommendations of the jGroup is beingprepared for the guidance of the planners and H71D officialso

V.'as it all worth it?

The question will undoubtedly be debated from come years to come.But from this very early vantage poiijt, a number of preliminarycucjgoctlorjo con bo r.iaoo0

Firsts the work group sessions had 6h vgj.n r • -^^"\y in mindand their recommendations tended to be made ::.:: terms of physicalpi-:-}0 Although the social dynamics of the nov/ cc..r.runity wasdiscussed at length, this area of discussion was a good deal moretentative and &~3 hypotheticalo

Second, none of the suggestions of the work group seemed to breakwith traditional or current consensus c;1::;.:) in thoir respectiveareas of specialty. The village idea, and the suggestion ofsmaller high schools were both important;, but not distinctive.^or radicalo Other ideas put forth in the course of the meetingsmay turn out to be of immense importance 5. L-ut their importanceis not clearly evident in these early stages« Ac JVJR. noted ata staff meeting in late March, a smaller group or perhaps evenan individual could have come up with the sa;.;jj, or similarrocomraondationSs but after the work group studies; "I feel morecomfortablo about ite"

j.'.;.'.--