Mumford, The City in History, Part 3

The final sections of Mumford's "The City in History" seemed slightly less useful, perhaps as he advanced beyond the time period that is my focus. There are still plenty of relevant and interesting points, however. One of Mumford's most insistent observations is that the so-called "Megalopolis" is actually no such thing, but in reality an "anti-city," a conurbation of ever-expanding suburbs with no centrality (505). In contrast to the doomed megalopolis and the suburban conurbation, Mumford praises Ebenzer Howard's garden cities (515-onward) asserting that they are far more successful than they have ever been given credit for, and that their true genius is lies not in their garden nature but in their ability to create a series of small urban centers which provide for a walkable life but also connect with one another to achieve cultural significance.

Some of Mumford's observations which seem useful for a chapter on Cowperwood are:
520 - Howard believes that a single public figure must hold the planning power. Is this what Cowperwood did, from a private standpoint?
534- Mumford mentions the power of bureaucracy, but notes that it's not a government creation but a business one, imported to a less extent by government
536 - the banker is the central figure in the modern city - this is the "financier" model that cowperwood ultimately found to be untrue
544 - the urban economy is an ever-expanding "Maw" - this is how Cowperwood makes his money, by banking on this ever-expanding Maw to consider expanding.