TRANSIT

It is clear, of course, that a skilled city planner or a skilled urban scientist is able to read a combination of a land-use and a density map to mean dynamic relations among populations at different places, just as askilled architect can visualize a building in use by reading the plans;but these relations are indiriectly implied rather than explicitly stated. When supplemented by origin-destination information about person and goods movements, especially if further supplemented by data showing information flow through space, the picture would be considerably clearer; for these latter do specifically deal with interaction. But with the exception of travel information (very little is known about the spatial message communications patterns), most city planners deal with the city with essentially static concepts; and, if we may judge by the kinds of land-use maps and plans they prepare, they tend to view the city as a static arrangement of physical objects.
Our traditional emphasis has been upon the physical city, conceived as artifact; upon the spatial arrangement of activity locations, conceived as land-use pattern; and upon the urban settlement, conceived as a unitary place. We have sought to influence the forms of each of these, with the purpose of improving certain behavioral aspects of the society. yet we have neglected the conception of the city as asocial system in action.

Melvin M. Webber , 1964 , Urban Place and Nonplace Urban Realm, University of Pennsylvania Press, Seite 92