Planning under Fascism - Nazi Germany (by Timothy Ho)

It is such a controversy to address any constructive influence of town planning in the Nazi period on the postwar reconstruction plan in Germany, yet it is true that prewar planning models helped shaped later propositions (Diefendorf 1993:151). Many of the ideas and principles suggested during the Nazi period retained on later city planning. It is interesting to investigate how the planning ideas and principles evolved during the Nazi period under the influence of internal factors and external factors and how the ideas subsequently shaped the planning during the Nazi period and after the war.

 Urban Planning before Nazi influence

 When the population growth and migration into the city became an issue in the late 19th century due to industrialization of the country, modern urban planning begins as an effort to control the negative impact of the growth to the city (Diefendorf 1993:152). While the German ideas on town extension planning and zoning developed as a response to dealt with the problem in their cities (Diefendorf 1993:153), the idea of the garden city originated from the Britain heavily influence the planning principles of German planners. The ideal of garden city ideals is implemented successfully in some cities, in particular the city of Cologne during the years 1920-1923 by the Germanic town planner Fritz Schumacher. He planned the city’s green belt and also made plans of transforming the city to a radial city contrast to the traditional form of urban expansion in concentric rings (Diefendorf 1993:156).

However, the implementation of the garden city was more generally directed towards the creation of garden suburb, due to the difficulty of having regional planning under the political conditions before Nazi, where local governments obstructed effective regional planning (Diefendorf 1993:154). The garden city movement has also little impact on the existing inner city as people did not expected any changes in those area (Diefendorf 1993:154). Moreover, the economic crisis and the political instability at the end of the 1920s hindered the progress of urban planning (Diefendorf 1993:157). The subsequent Nazi reign starting from 1933, however, changed the entire situation.

 

Urban Planning during the Third Reich

Urban planners were busy under the Nazis ruling. They worked on the implementation of the proposed urban renewal programs prior to 1933 which was suspended due to economic and political conditions as well as creating new residential suburbs and industrial cities. The planning were more than just Nazi planning, though the Nazis do have a significant influence on the planning. The most attractive features during the Nazi regime for planner was that total planning is firmly supported by the state, both financially and politically. As a result, most planners were willing to work under the Nazis.

Regional planning was also supported by the new government. The creation of a Reich Office for Regional Planning allowed the expansion of major cities. These regional planning was also intermixed with Nazi political aim. For instance, the justification of Hamburg’s expansion was based on the assurance that new space for housing would hinder Marxism and Bolshevism.

There were also other kinds of planning activities apart from regional planning, such as the planning suggested by Gottfried Feder that building of small garden cities of 20000 inhabitants with the various facilities rationally planned was favourable as it encouraged the people to maintain the ties to the land and the nature (Diefendorf 1993: 159).

However, these planning activities were far less important than Neugestaltung, the nationwide program to redesign the existing cities as representative Nazi cities or as urban centres which manifested Nazi power and ideals (Diefendorf 1993:160). The program prioritized at the most important cities, Berlin, Nuremberg, Hamberg, Munich and Linz, which high rank bureaucrats were appointed to redesign the cities. As for other cities, local planning offices were responsible of the replanning.

The program dictated that all cities have a broad long avenue that end in a forum or large square, a huge hall that allowed assemblies of 50000 to 100000 people and massive party buildings. Hotels, recreational facilities, offices and transportation facilities were also need to be built near the central buildings. All these buildings have to be built in a monumental scale to convince them of the overwhelming power of the third Reich.

In these plans, some allowed the retaining of existing historic element, such as the case in Hamburg or Stettin. But for other cities such as Colonge, new forum and party buildings just sit on the old city centre. The implementation of these sweeping plans demanded the purchase or confiscation of the city’s valuable land, demolishing many existing buildings and relocating thousands of people. This is made possible with the powerful backing up of the regime and planners can draw up their design as if the city were a blank tablet (Diefendorf 1993:162).

From Representative cities to reconstruction

The plan to build monumental building stopped when the prolonged war with Britain and Soviet Union make the building of monumental building a far less urgent issue. Wihelm Wortmann’s work in Bremen was a good example of the comprehensive regional planning during the years before German planners were forced to work on reconstruction plan. He suggested the relocation of population to smaller cities, with around 50000-10000 each, which provide protection against air raids.

There were also planning and guidelines for planning for the conquered territories. A planning ordinance issued by Heinrich Volkstums provided guidelines of planning for German conquered region in the east. It suggested a network of small cities of 15000 to 20000, with a few medium and large cities. It also suggested the integration of the urban planning with the regional planning guided by the Reich, which is essentially completely razing cities that was considered not Germanic to make way for redesigned “German” cities.

Reconstruction Planning

When the air raid began to destroy German cities, planners began to apply concept originally used for town extensions and new cities to reconstruction. They agreed that the cities should not be rebuilt as the way they had been. By definition, reconstruction planning meant planning largely new inner cities.

There were many plans drawn up between the spring of 1942 and the end of the war. There were radical plans like Gerhard Graubner’s plan of putting all major transport facilities underground and Max Schwarz’s plan of temporarily return bombed area to nature before reconstruction of the area. However, these plans were too radical and the effort of the Arbeitsstab ultimately had the greatest influence on the eventual reconstruction.

The Arbeitsstab was organized to make preparation for planning the reconstruction of the destroyed cities. The core of the Arbeitsstab consisted of about 20 architects and planners. Their planning was no longer the earlier Nazi planning which consisted of building grand axis, but rather using the existing street system efficiently and economically to retain the function of urban life, particularly traffic. Their work consisted of developing a uniform system to evaluate bomb damage, preparing a set of generally applicable standard and guidelines for future planning and drawing up actual plans for the 42 cities designated for initial reconstruction (Diefendorf 1993:173).

It was difficult to assess the direct influence of the planning activities of Arbeitsstab on the postwar reconstruction. At a minimum, Nazi axis and monumental buildings had to be removed and the planning language that smacked of Nazism had to be changed, but pieces of wartime reconstruction do reappear after 1945 (Diefendorf 1993:175).

Closing Remark

It was interesting and with mixed feelings to address the influence of the Nazi Germany on planning in Germany. Some elements of Nazi planning, such as Neugestaltung, were impractical and not constructive and serve mostly on extending the influence of the Nazi party on Germany. However, other ideas, such as the implementation of regional planning, and using the new ideas of urban planning on existing inner cities, were unseen from the previous period. And these influence, ultimately, have positive impact on post war urban planning.

 

20th Century Planning under Communism (by Bessie Liu)

 

Background

When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) came into power in 1922, not only were the political leaders faced with threats of internal and external attacks, they were also faced with the responsibility of re-planning and developing rural towns and urbanized areas which aligned with the socialist way of life. Due to the civil war period, prior to 1922, no practical planning and development could be completed. However, there was already an attitude to raise rural standards to meet the living standards of urban areas. On August 20th 1918, all land was decreed, which meant that all land from then on belonged to the state and local governments. During that time, all large houses were turned into apartments and rooms for the public, improving public living standards almost immediately. It is by no surprise, that the architects and planners who later help develop the new society, experimented with new concepts and techniques which would reflect the political, social and economic ideals of communism. One of the greatest influences on socialist planning prior to the revolution was Garden City movement driven by Ebenezer Howard, with many garden city plans created even prior to the revolution. His belief was that the garden city would unify the town and country, creating a new urbanized environment which would bring psychological and health benefits to the residents. Post revolution, efforts to build garden cities were noted in various places, including a city for 500 people in Moscow.

Competitions

Many competitions were created for different architectural buildings for communal living. The development of new technology greatly excited the planners and architects of the time, as they believed that it would release them from their constraints, this may have been one of the reasons why there were large amount of entries for the competitions. One of the notable buildings was the Central Trade Union Building, won by le Corbusier, as he had actually witnessed the construction of his design.

Urbanist vs Dis-urbanist

Despite having a common foundation of inspiration in planning, architects and planners had extremely different opinions on how the execute the actual development. During 1922-1923, there was a debate on how to execute the design of the “Green City” between the urbanists and the dis-urbanists. The dis-urbanist perspective could be described with the catchphrase “Not greenery in the town, but the town in green plantations” (French, 1995, p.37). They wanted to develop small towns, with less than 32 000 people, which embraced the natural beauty of its surroundings, rejecting orderly shapes patterns. Extremists of the dis-urbanist ideals, wanted to completely abolish the ideal of having towns, an example of this would be Okhitivich’s concept where the city would be designed in small triangles, with factories at the tips of the triangles, residential areas and parks along the side of the triangles and agricultural land in the center. On the other side of the debate, were the urbanists, who embraced the idea towns and developing communal housing, with all amenities such as, kindergartens, schools, age care centers all within the neighborhood. The Linear City Plan, had been seen as a midway between the urbanists and dis-urbanists. Milyutin, a Russian urban planner, had come up with the idea of creating parallel strips for residential areas and factories, which were separated by a green strip. The linear plan embraced the idea of the socialist city being a production line and the center of all production. It allowed workers to easily commute to work and other facilities, and houses were hoped to be built facing water or forests and on the up wind of factories to minimize exposure to pollution.

However…

Despite the linear plan being a good balance between the urbanists and dis-urbanists, by the time it was being designed, there had already been many rapid changes that had occurred in the socialist city. Various existing towns and factories had begun to experience population growth from rural migrants, and many small settlements began to populate by areas with new resources. Furthermore, Stalin concerned himself with other political matters, including building up the strength of his army and had little time to concern himself with matters such as architectural planning and development. Architects were criticized heavily as their plans did not take into consideration any “economic and social” (French, 1995, p.42) considerations. Finally on the 14th of July in 1923, a decree was passed for separate family apartments to be built, and the various architectural and planning groups were united as a controlled union of arts.

1920’s planning

Although not many actual buildings were constructed in the post-revolutionary period, it was a time were many great theories were discovered and created through the development of new technology and access to greater resources. Although city plans had not been fully implemented, there were some key areas that were taken into consideration, such as the idea of having a close space between work and residential areas, a cap on city sizes and having a central city or square. These were all ideas that were generated through the post-revolutionary period for a socialist city.

Urban System in Communist China

The communist revolution in China was pioneered in rural areas due to the increasing disparities between the rich and the poor in urban and rural areas respectively. Therefore, unlike the USSR who aimed to improve rural living standards to urban living standards, The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) focused more heavily on migrating the urban population into rural areas. The CCP aimed to industrialize the Western Regions of the country, which were away from the East Coast through the building of new railroad networks. In many ways, this was a great success, as many smaller provinces were able to develop as they became regional rail centers. In 1958 Mao introduced the “Household Registration System” Otherwise known as the Hu Kou system, which separated the rural and urban citizens by birth, this controlled the amount of migrants which were allowed to freely move around China, thus, stagnating the growth of urban populations. In order to create greater security, Mao introduced the idea of the “Third Front Project” in the mountainous areas of China. This project was aimed to relocate resources for the military away from the coastal areas. Many of the Chinese urban population was thus, relocated into these areas for military and industrial redevelopment. However, despite all the efforts to relocate large proportions of the population to the Western Regions in China in the 50’s and 60’s, economic growth was relatively uneven, with majority of growth centralized in urbanized areas. It is by no surprise that in the 1970’s after Mao’s death, more resources were placed on the urbanized cities of China to lead the rest of the country in economic development.

Closing Remarks

I personally found it very interesting comparing how the two communist countries approached urban planning and architecture in the 20th Century. From the readings themselves, it felt as if the Soviet Union had placed a greater emphasis on actually re-planning and reconstructing the towns than the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP, seemed to focus more on the relocation of the urban population into rural areas with little focus on actually planning and designing a socialist society.



References

French, R.A. (1995). The City of Socialist Man. Plans, Pragmatism and People: the Legacy of Soviet Planning for Today’s Cities. (pp.29-49). London, UCL Press.

Wu, W., & Gaubatz, P. (2013). The Urban System since 1949. The Chinese City. (pp.71-92). London, New York Routledge.

Garden Cities: The Cornerstone of Modern Planning (by Timothy Mallis)

 (Figure 1) The Garden City, 1898 (Source: Howard, 1898)

 

The turn of the twentieth century was something of a global revolution in urban history. A countermovement began to form as a reaction against the suburban boom of the eighteenth century (Mumford, 1989). This was a time when social change began to take shape in the form of social liberalism which sought to respond to ‘a second industrial revolution, social dislocation, agricultural decline, unemployment, and mounting discontent [which] exerted a persistent and accelerating pressure upon traditional social theory’ (Soffer, 1970). Ebenezer Howard then went on to propose the notion of the garden city which, in turn, influenced modern planning throughout the Western and parts of the Eastern world to this day (Ward, 2002).

 

Before the Garden City

The Russian geographer Peter Kropotkin was effectively the fortune-teller prior to the conception of the Garden City. As a prominent economic theorist, he wrote a book entitled ‘Fields, Factories, and Workshops’. Within this text, Kropotkin outlines his concerns about the then-current state of industry specialisation in both cities and nations. As a reactionary solution, Kropotkin suggests the decentralisation of industry. What he means by this is that industry would not just be centred on the production of coal to fuel the city and it would need to take advantage of smaller, self-contained settlements in order to thrive. He saw the big city as an excessive conglomerate of residences and industries that would not be able to support its own weight from constant expansion (Kropotkin, 1899).

 

Imagining the Garden City

English urban planner Ebenezer Howard was the man responsible for conceiving the idea of the garden city. Heavily influenced by Kropotkin, Howard wished to take his ideas further in the creation of a scheme outlined in his landmark book entitled ‘To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform’. Howard’s scheme involved the juxtaposition of urban and rural environments to bring the best of both worlds together (see Figure 1).

(Figure 2) The Three Magnets, 1898 (Source: Howard, 1898)

  

Howard stated many of his sources of inspiration including the ancient Greek concept of a ‘natural limit to the growth of any organism or organisation’ (Mumford, 1989). Once again, the limitations of the cities of the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century stood out as a looming threat during the early twentieth century.

Howard emphasised the creation of a community that, at the same time, would be protecting nature (Ward, 2002). Howard achieved this by envisaging a classless residential blueprint with wide public spaces between (Bratnz & Dümpelmann, 2011) (Ward & Hall, 2014). Howard achieved this by dividing cities with agricultural greenbelt. This greenbelt would both encourage the close proximity of the rural landscape as well as providing distance between other urban communities (Mumford, 1989).

 

The Birth of the Garden City

The first establishment of the garden city was the city of Letchworth in 1903. Situated in Hertfordshire in Southern England, this garden city was first and foremost a prototype which, according to Stephen V. Ward, ‘compromised his original ideas on land and governance’. Nevertheless, it was the first realisation of Howard’s imagined utopian city. Progress of the construction of Letchworth was also very slow which temporarily squandered Howard’s plans to move on to other cities (Ward, 2002).

 

(Figure 3) Letchworth: Garden Cities by Ebenezer Howard

 

Howard therefore decided to move on to existing cities rather than creating new ones from scratch (Ward, 2002). This notion of modifying existing cities gave birth to the concept of the garden suburb. By applying the same principals as garden cities, garden suburbs meant that time would be saved and practicality increased with similar results.

The most famous example of this is the Hampstead Garden Suburb. Planned by Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker in 1907 (Ward & Hall, 2014). Hampstead specifically sought to achieve the values of the garden suburb: classless low-density housing, wide, green spaces for roads and greenbelts and the accessibility of public areas for all who inhabited (Gayler, 1996).

 

The Legacy of the Garden City

Howard’s garden city was soon exemplified in cities outside England – especially across the English Channel in mainland Europe. The ideals were recognised overseas as a result of the social liberalist reforms of the early twentieth century and were therefore attractive to foreign urban planners.

In Germany, a relationship between German town planning ideas and English ideas soon emerged and proved fruitful (Ward, 2002). Translated as the Gartenstädte, twentieth-century planning in Dresden, Frankfurt and Berlin followed Howard’s example. They should not, however, be considered pure garden cities. These cities were still being planned as large metropolises but with elements of garden city ideals (Ward & Hall 2014).

France’s Cités-Jardins were a part of Georges Benoȋt-Levy’s introduction of the garden city from the English-speaking world. The Musée Social movement that resulted, led by Tony Garnier, showed important similarities with Howard’s garden city and ‘was an attempt to develop the idea of reform and spread it more widely’ (Ward, 2002). Examples of garden suburbs in France include Petit Groslay, in the eastern suburbs of Paris, and Draveil, in the southern suburbs of Paris (Ward, 2002).

 

Conclusion

Howard’s ground-breaking ideas of the garden city sparked the emergence of modern planning as we know it today. From its humble beginnings in Letchworth to sprawling metropolises across the world, garden cities and garden suburbs have established a foothold in urban life. Although sparked from the social change of the early twentieth century, its social implications still resonate in the development of the twenty-first century.

 

 

 

 

 

Reference List:

Brantz, D., & Dümpelmann, S. (2011). Greening the city: urban landscapes in the twentieth century. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

Gaylor, H. J. (1996). Georgraphical excursions in London. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Howard, E. (1898). To-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform. London, England: Swan Sonnenschein.

Kropotkin, P. A. (1899). Fields, factories and workshops. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Mumford, L. (1989). The city in history: its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Co.

Soffer, R. N. (1970). The revolution in English social thought, 1880-1914. The American Historical Review, (7).

Ward, S. (2002). The emergence of modern planning. In Planning the Twentieth Century. Chichester: John Wiliey & Sons.

Ward, S., & Hall, P. G. (2014). Sociable cities: the 21st-century reinvention of the garden city (2nd Ed.). Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.

11 Things I learnt from doing my readings… for once (by Fahrudin Hajdarevic)

1.     A new capital wasn’t really everyone’s cup of tea

Uniting colonies brought with it a vast array of economic, political and cultural issues. Specific matters ranging from the formation of a central government to a central economical body were on the main agenda; therefore, a specific seat for parliament was not necessarily seen as a key concern at the time. However, the reservation of a site for the US Constitution inspired the Australian architects to ensure national government could have its own home. (p.3)

2.     People really, really wanted the capital to be theirs

Up until a compromise was negotiated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, there were intense debates between Melbourne and Sydney regarding location (p.3). It was decided that the capital would be no further than one hundred miles from Sydney; Melbourne would provide a seat for Parliament until its new home was ready. As a result, many rural townships in NSW began petitioning the Government to become the future capital, as it would bring many economic and social benefits. That is, until Yass-Canberra district was chosen in December 1908 based on several aspects of climatic conditions, water supply and land area. (p.4)

3.     …And others really didn’t care where it would be

The reality was that most wouldn’t really gain anything from the development of a new capital. For most of the general public it didn’t matter if the ‘taxation factory’ was located hundred kilometres closer or further from them, it would make little difference (p.5). Similarly, WA was so far away that the location or the design of the capital was thoroughly disinteresting (p.15)

 
4.   Many craved an amazing capital

Figures such as DH Souter and George  Sydney Jones, spoke of creating a capital that would be a beauty of the modern world (however, acknowledging size limitations), a city made for the future and beyond, rather than just for today (p.6). In order to do so, the design would need to be “stately, artistic, commodious, sanitary, picturesque and regal” (p.6). The general notion was that the city required an elevated position and views, with an evolutionary design resembling a new ‘Eden’, a city that should be ‘the city beautiful of our dreams’ (p.8).

5.   … others weren’t so enthusiastic

There was also the notion that the federal capital would just end up being a ‘bush capital’ (p.7), believing that it would doing nothing more than serve as a seat for government; thus, it was highlighted that both the costs and size of the building should be limited. Others, like King O’Malley for example, questioned whether or not people would even want to leave cities like Melbourne where “rents are low, and the people are healthy and intelligent.” Moreover, the media, specifically The Bulletin, was extremely critical of the developments before and after the location and design was chosen. Issues of extensive size and costs were identified, as well as the need for an alternative to the Yass-Canberra location, with propositions that seemed almost ‘hysterical’ at the time (p.7).

 
6.   Melbourne and Sydney was apparently boring

Many felt that Melbourne and Sydney weren’t anything particularly special (p.5), with Melbourne being referred to as being boring and clean, lacking views, spaces and strength (p.6). Therefore, it was a necessity to create something truly unique and amazing in order to set Canberra apart from the rest and place it into the global spotlight.

 

7.   A healthy city has specific criteria…

It was deduced through various reports that the location had to provide a variation in topography, have some form of river with the “possibility for ornamental waters.” (p.10). Surveyor Charles Scrivener exclaimed that the Yass-Canberra district provided satisfied all of these needs and more (p.11). Thereafter, associations like the Congress of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors outlined some of the desirable features a federal city should encompass (p.13), for example:

 
    o   Building Design – Uniformity of design
    o   Infrastructure – Moving platforms, elevated sidewalks
    o   Land use – residential and general land use zoning

    o   Landscaping – open space and gardens

8.     Higgins was ahead of his time

George Higgins’ address to the Congress of Engineers, Architects, Surveyors, and Members of Allied Professions was significant because he “illustrates the fair distance local planning still had to travel” and outlined the most desirable features of a federal capital (p.11). From appropriate traffic and drainage to pavements that prevent the formation of mud and dust, he addressed almost every detail of development, which was exceptionally progressive for his time (p.11). Moreover, it is important to note that at this period of time that the idea of the ‘Town Planner’ profession was only just emerging.

9.     There were a lot of different early plans for the federal city

For a significant period of time there was no substantial agreement regarding the layout of the city. As a result, from 1901-09 there were varying ideas and concepts of what the appropriate layout were to be (p.19), with the key being:

           o David – Polygonal spiders web
           o Oliver – Radial-concentric
           o Cardew – 170o radial-concentric
           o Sulman – Octagonal spiders web and an-shaped variation of the spider-web plan
           o Hargrave – Utilitarian gridiron street plan for economy

It is also interesting to note that since the profession of Town Planner was yet to exist, these plans were submitted to the government by engineers, architects, lawyers, surveyors and even inventors.

10.  Davis’ little venture around the world proved to be key

Most of the early plans and layouts proposed weren’t really up to the standard necessary to create a beautiful city that could compare to the greatest cities in the world. This occurred as a result of the plans coming from within Australia where “Australian professionals were not yet fully engaged with evolving and already quite sophisticated modern planning discourse in other countries” (p.29). Thus, Joseph David, in 1906, was sent to cities such as Paris, London, Washington and Ottawa to engage in foreign developments and ensure the federal city wasn’t left out of touch. He deduced from his travels that a multiple centred radial-spoked layout was recommended, with the provision of substantial park spaces and areas in case expansion occurred (p.29).

11.  The competition was the pinnacle

The international competition not only allowed for Australia to be influenced by the globe (p.30) for the very first time, but was necessary as the nation was still relatively inexperienced in regards to the science of planning (p.29). This international involvement and the hype surrounding the competition was the highlight of the entire planning of the federal city. Things became relatively sour as Griffin began to have disagreements with stakeholders (p.30). Later, Sulman took over the planning and the ideas of a grand city were virtually lost. There was a significant shift towards a practical and economic city, rather than one that was the ‘fantastical child of our imagination’ (p.30). 

 

 

 

 

 

References: 

 

R.Freestone, The Federal Capital of Australia: A Virtual Planning History Canberra, Urban Research Program, 1997 pp.2-30


* Note, all page numbers listed in blog come only from the Firestone reading.

Haussmann, Sitte and the Streetscape (by Louis Wyatt)

 

This weeks lectures and readings focused on two opposing thinkers behind early urban planning, that of Georges-Eugene Haussmann (1809-1891), and Camillo Sitte (1843-1903). While the former believed that the foundation of a modern city lay in grand boulevards and streetscapes, the latter held juxtaposing opinions, finding that true urban planning lay in the winding and seemingly organic streets which had been the framework for many European towns and cities. Each system processed different benefits and failings, and it is these that I hope to address in this essay.

 

Under Baron Haussmann, a “systematic recreation of Paris” was undertaken (Van Zanten 1994), whereby the old warrens of medieval streets were demolished, to make way for the grand boulevards that have come to define modern day Paris. While the overall concept of splendid boulevards dominating the capital of France had not been the sole idea of Haussmann, with Louis Napoleon commissioning and drawing up the scheme, it was Haussmann who governed and oversaw the cities transformation. Haussmann had “a remarkably complete vision” of what the new Paris was to be, and thus was comfortable to demolish large tracts of housing and existing streets in the name of modernity and progress (Van Zanten, 1994).

 

The benefits of this undertaking were immense, with the city transformed into a modern metropolis. The wide streets allowed for better movement of vehicles and services across the city, promoting improved communication, as well as economic benefits to the inhabitants (Harvey, 2005). People could navigate through the city more easily, which had particular benefits for the large number of tourists who flocked to Paris every year. Likewise, the grand boulevards helped prevent blockades and barricades being erected by riotous individuals hoping to spark civil decent. In 1848 there had been a wave of riots in Europe and across Paris, sparking Napoleon to consider how best to defend the city. With wider boulevards, blockading the streets became near impossible, due to the sheer size, and indeed amount of recourses required for the blockade to cross the street (Robb, 2010). Likewise, the extension of the Municipal Boards control to include a greater number of surrounding suburbs, meant that the railways were extended so to take in a larger proportion of the population, doubling the area of the city in the process (Van Zanten, 1994).  In turn this allowed a greater percentage of the population to access infrastructure that had previously been limited to the inner city. While the benefits of Haussmann’s expansion are many, they are summed up best by the then Archbishop of Paris, François-Nicholas-Madeleine Morlot when he wrote to Haussmann:

 

“Your mission supports mine. In broad, straight streets that are bathed in light, people do not behave in the same slovenly fashion as in streets that are narrow, twisted and dark. To bring air, light and water to the pauper’s hovel not only restores physical health, it promotes good housekeeping and cleanliness, and thus improves morality” (Robb, 2010).

 

Haussmann’s grand scheme however did not go ahead without creating concern, displacing residents and turning Paris into a “construction site” (Van Zanten, 1994). The construction of large boulevards through previously dense housing resulted in the major displacement of people. In 1866 alone, 848 houses were condemned as part of the cities expansion (Van Zanten, 1994). Likewise, such grand schemes came at a financial cost, with Haussmann forced to acquire hundreds of millions of francs worth of loans to fund the projects, with this immense financial toll inevitably being one of the factors which defined his downfall (Van Zanten, 1994). Such financial strains are evident in the opening of new boulevards and the fanfare that surrounded them. While the earlier openings hosted grand military parades, by the end of Haussmann’s governance, the roads were being quietly opened, the government unable to afford the frivolities it had previously been accustomed too. Thus while the advantages of Haussmann’s designs are unquestionable in creating the modern Paris, it must be noted that the grand schemes of constructions placed a considerable toll on the cites population, particularly its poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

 

In comparison to the extensive work carried out by Hussmann, Sitte’s work remained largely hypothetical and philosophical, as it was never constructed. Thus while critiquing it is challenging, I will attempt to do so, based on the general principals he believed important, those of an organic, irregular city. The organic city proliferated medieval towns of Europe, having arisen from the slow population growth, and the ad hoc expansion of towns. While easy to navigate for the local resident, winding warrens of narrow streets could be difficult for tourists to navigate. Likewise, wind flow was curtailed, traffic found it difficult to move, and policing was a challenge. The vistas however that emerged from these cities, Sitte believed were far more aesthetically pleasing than those of a grand boulevard. For Sitte, the city, like the individual buildings, needed to be considered as a whole, from “architecture, sculpture, painting and other decoration” (Collins and Collins, 1965).  For when Sitte conceived his notions of what a city should look like, he imagined it from the perspective of the average citizen walking through the streets; where they would find new and pleasant views to admire along his journey.

 

To compare the works of Haussmann and Sitte, are to compare two juxtaposing notions of what urban centres should be. While both the gridded city and the organic town have existed within the urban context for thousands of years, benefits and criticisms exist for each. Thus while the grand boulevards of Paris created a beautiful, functional city, they also caused huge population displacement and cost the French government hundreds of millions of francs. In contrast however, the organic city that Sitte promoted, was disorganised and irrational, but provided the average citizen with a beautiful city to wander through, new views and vistas available from each turn. I imagine the discourse on the benefits and failures of each design principal will never end, as neither can offer the answers to all a cities problems.

 

 

References:

Collins, George and Collin, Christiane. (1965), Camillo Sitte’s Background, Life, and Interests. In Collins and Collins Camillo Sitte and the Birth of the Modern City. New York, America: Random House.

 

Harvey, D.  Paris, Capital of Modernity. London, England: Routledge, 2003.

 

Robb, G. Parisians an Adventure History. London, England: Picador, 2010.

 

Van Zanten. (1994). Haussmann, Baltard and Municipal Architecture. In Building Paris: Architectural Institutions and Transformations of the French Capital, 1830-1870 (pp. 198-213). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Racial Segregation in 19th century US cities (by Mary Jamison)

 

Racial Segregation manifested itself physically as well as socially in the 19^th Century US city.  This way this racial segregation manifested itself shifted near the end of the 19^th Century and the beginning of the 20^th century.  This article will focus on the city of Chicago, as this city was affected socially and spatially by racial segregation. Chicago is also an interesting city to study in relation to segregations influence on the city because of the effect of the Great Migration. Chicago’s African American population was largely located in one densely populated area, resulting in interesting cultural and social impacts.

 

Population Increase

There was a shift as a movement of African Americans from the south to the North, known as The Great Migration (Baldwin, 2007). An example is given by Baldwin (p. 23. 2007), stating that there were 44 thousand African Americans living in the area of Chicago known as the ‘Black belt’ , in 1910. This increased to 233 thousand people in 1930. Whilst the population increased massively there was little room for the ‘Black Belt’ to increase.  Real estate was restricted, not officially, as segregation was illegal, but through contracts, meaning that only certain people could buy houses in certain areas.  For those who ignore this unofficial segregation there were consequences. Almost 60 homes were fire bombed between 1917 and 1921, most of these being African American families who had moved away into ‘white’ neighbourhoods. (Baldwin, p.25. 2007) Due to these restrictions the area was forced to densify, as shown by this image this only caused already existing racial tension to increase, and areas that were previously mixed to become more fully segregated into different communities.

 

 

 

Old vs New Settlers

With the increase of the African American population in Chicago the group was split into the old Settlers and the new settlers. The Old Settlers, those living in Chicago before the Great Migration, whilst segregated, were not segregated to the same extent as there was after the influx of people from the southern states. The New settlers from the south brought a new culture with them. This culture was one that was in many ways disapproved of by the ‘old settlers’. The old settlers saw the new immigrants as causing unnecessary tension and connected them with various vices. The Old Settlers valued the idea of respectability and saw the new settlers, as diminishing their image.  The new settlers brought elements of culture from southern cities such as New Orleans, that were seen as “foreign”  The Chicago Tribute actually described one area as “African Central” (Baldwin, pp. 26, 2007) The old settlers believed in the importance respectability and restraint.

New settlers brought with them many opposing ideas to those of the Old Settlers. There was an emphasis with culture and the leisure industries as well as the popular arts such as theatre and film. Many of these ideas the old settlers as well as other parts of the community connected with vice. Old settlers blamed many of the new issues with whites, on the new settlers, believing they were ruing the image they worked hard to present. The 1919 riots were blamed by some on the “vulgar behaviours and southern ways migrants brought with them.”

 

The Stroll

The Stroll was an area in the South side, or the “black belt” that was famous, or infamous for its displays of culture. It demonstrated what the new settlers or the ’New Negroes’ brought to Chicago’s culture. The Stroll was described as “The Blackman’s Broadway and Wall street.” (Baldwin, pp.25. 2007) In particular the stroll was famous for its Jazz and Gambling culture.  A quote from one musician, Eddie Condon was “If you held up a trumpet in the night air of The Stroll, it would play itself, “(Moos, M, 2010).

However not everyone was particularly enthusiastic about the stroll. Some saw it as a “Peril to Health”(Baldwin, 2007) During the day it was a place for the Old Settlers with what was seen as respectable, manly professions such as banking and insurance. (Baldwin, 2010). Despite this The Stroll was a necessary part of the African American part of the city being able to function, largely independent form the rest of Chicago. A lot of the money that was used for charities and to set up businesses and all ‘black’ sporting clubs came from the Gambling Industry. It was seen as important for there to be separate institutions for African Americans, such as separate sports teams, churches and even a separate YMCA.

 

Women

African American Women influenced and were influenced by the segregation and by the influx of new migrants. Many more African American women worked than women from white families. Before the Great Migration most of this work was domestic. However there was a great reluctance from the New Settler women to work in a domestic situation.

Old Settler women valued respectability and this could be seen by the many clubs that were set up for women.  These clubs emphasised taking part in leisure activities such as sewing or playing cards rather than going to the Stroll. The Old settlers wanted to ensure the image of the African American women was more one of “Victorian femininity” (Baldwin, pp.31, 2007), valuing morality and nurturing, with a focus on domestic work.

New Settler Women however had very different desires when it came to working. Many saw domestic work as little better than slavery.  One African American women, working as a prostitute said “When I see the word maid- why, girl, let me tell you, it just runs through me! I think I’d sooner starve.” (Baldwin, pp.40. 2007)The leisure industries offered in the Stroll gave women another option for work.

 

Conclusion

There was clear racial segregation in cities such as Chicago. The African American Population was forced to live in highly dense, derelict buildings. However, through this, in many ways forced closeness, a unique culture and community was formed.  The popular arts were encouraged in this atmosphere with musical movements such as Jazz and blues, as well as opportunities for women.

 

 

References:

Baldwin, D. L,(2007). Chicago’s New Negroes.(Mapping the Black Metropolis). Chapel Hill. University of North Carolina Press

Moos, M.(2010) Swinging on the South side: The Heartbeat of Chicago Jazz. Retrieved from http://riverwalkjazz.stanford.edu/program/swinging-south-side-heartbeat-chicago-jazz

Figure 1: Library of Congress. The African- American Mosaic. Retrieved from:   http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam011.html