fresh and first-hand survey in detail is obviously necessary. In this
class of literature, Mr. Booth's monumental Survey of London, followed
by others, such as Mr. Rowntree's of York, have already been so widely
stimulating and suggestive that it may safely be predicted that before
many years the Social Survey of any given city will be as easily and
naturally obtainable as is at present its guide-book; and the
rationalised census of the present condition of its people, their
occupation and real wages, their family budget and culture-level, should
be as readily ascertainable from the one, as their antecedents
understood or their monuments visited by help of the other.

But these two volumes--"The City: Past and Present,"--are not enough. Is
not a third volume imaginable and possible, that of the opening Civic
Future? Having taken full note of places as they were and are, of things
as they have come about, and of people as they are--of their
occupations, families, and institutions, their ideas and ideals--may we
not to some extent discern, then patiently plan out, at length boldly
suggest, something of [Page: 117] their actual or potential development?
And may not, must not, such discernment, such planning, while primarily,
of course, for the immediate future, also take account of the remoter
and higher issues which a city's indefinitely long life and
correspondingly needed foresight and statesmanship involve? Such a
volume would thus differ widely from the traditional and contemporary
"literature of Utopias" in being regional instead of non-regional,
indeed ir-regional and so realisable, instead of being unrealisable and
unattainable altogether. The theme of such a volume would thus be to
indicate the practicable alternatives, and to select and to define from
these the lines of development of the legitimate _Eu-topia_ possible in
the given city, and characteristic of it; obviously, therefore, a very
different thing from a vague _Ou-topia_, concretely realisable nowhere.