Question

The passage below discusses several paradigms in the history of urban planning.

During the mid-twentieth century, urban planning was largely guided by a paradigm known as High Modernism. Its proponents conceptualized the city as a 'machine for living,' arguing that the rigid spatial segregation of residential, commercial, and industrial functions was essential to maximize civic efficiency and sanitation. By the 1960s, this approach faced fierce pushback from a faction of critics known as Organicists. These critics argued that cities are emergent ecosystems rather than machines; they contended that imposing top-down, single-use zoning actively destroyed the spontaneous street life and mixed-use diversity required for a neighborhood to genuinely thrive.

In recent decades, a movement termed New Urbanism has attempted to bridge this historical divide. New Urbanists advocate for rationally planned developments that are deliberately engineered to mimic the architectural density and walkability of organic, traditional neighborhoods. However, this attempted synthesis is fundamentally misguided. While High Modernists and Organicists fiercely debated the proper spatial configuration of the city, both factions operated under the flawed assumption that physical design primarily dictates social outcomes. What both historical paradigms overlook—and what New Urbanism actively obscures with its nostalgic facades—is that the true driver of urban vitality is the underlying flow of economic capital. Without addressing broader patterns of investment and capital flight, altering a neighborhood's geometry remains a purely superficial exercise.

Based exclusively on the passage, match each of the following groups or individuals with the theoretical stance attributed to them by the text.