This article contains much of value, but the author overstates his case. He says that by "slums" Corbusier and Gropius referred to "the harmonious classical streets of affordable houses, seeded with local industries, corner shops, schools, and places of worship, that had made it possible for real communities to flourish in the center of our towns." That wasn't their definition, much less the definition of those who actively - if often counterproductively - engaged in "slum clearance." In fact, most of the urban renewalists would have been very happy with Jane Jacobs's definition of "slum" - an area of a city where more people want to move out than move in.

Jacobs, as the author points out, had a better handle on what to do about slums, and how to recognize them. But why make the controversy seem more unbridgeable than it needs to be?

Scruton should cut the anti-socialist crap. I'm a socialist and every socialist I know hates modern architecture and would agree wholeheartedly with his critique. The truth he does not want to admit is that modernist architecture is a bourgeois phenomenon. Architects and their ghastly productions are bought and paid for by the very rich.

Ordinary people do not have built 40-story glass and cement towers. If Scruton wants to label the stuff politically, he should call it Fascist. That is what it is: Fascism in architecture. Otherwise, this is a terrific article.

Thank you for your article. I completely agree with your vision of the city. I have lived in Europe long enough to know how much stupendously ill-conceived North American cities can be. But your attack on left-wingers is misguided. The real cause of the death of the city is the conservative mentality that every citizen has a god-given right to have a McMansion in the suburbs with a big lot and two cars. The downtown core then becomes a space for work, not living. Investing in making the city aesthetically pleasant and liveable becomes a challenge in that context. For example, it took downtown Ottawa residents years to get the suburban-dominated city council to accept a foot bridge over the historic Rideau canal, near the city's center. Cost of the bridge: a mere $5 million, the price of any medium-size road intersection in a suburb. No one ever questions the building of the intersection...The foot bridge project was viewed as "elitist" by the conservative press. That mentality, not left-wing architects, is killing our cities.

Bravo, bravo, bravissimo!