City planning has been an important element for quite some time in the development of civilizations. By basic survival instinct, people move to be closer to natural resources, temperate climates, and more fertile grounds. Learning from ancestor's mistakes, in the more recent centuries, it has become much more common to choose a location where a population can flourish, and begin building a basis with the basic necessities of a city, and then gradually expand as the population grows. However, sometimes cities become overpopulated without the resources and without a carefully planned town or city. Occasionally, there is no structure, no basis, and a town will begin to sprawl unplanned and unannounced. This is generally due to a sudden change in a crucial environmental element, or occurrence. During the gold rush of 1949 in California, hoards of people flocked to the west coast and hastily constructed makeshift housing. No planning was involved and these cities were deserted shortly after the supplies of gold had been exhausted and are now ghost towns. It seems as though the cities that were not planned have a much more difficult time advancing and developing into successful entities. Therefore cities, like buildings, are much more likely to survive if they have structure. Two prime examples of cities that survived and prospered are the ones we're comparing, New Isfahan of Shah Abbas, and Rome of Pope Sixtus V. Neither Shah Abbas, nor Pope Sixtus V, were the originators of these cities. Each had already been established, but both became highly noted and renovated after falling into the hands of unmentioned rulers. Rome was a well-known ancient city that had seen its share of catastrophes and affluent times, and Isfahan was a recognized, but small commercial center with an ideal climate, both prime locations. Each of these rulers, using their own particular style and ideals, attempted to prefect both cities by reconst...