PLANNING THEORY AND PROCESS (AR60001)

LECTURE – 1: REACTIONS TO INDUSTRIALIZATION

French Revolution

A social movement starting in France in 1789 AD and lasting for 10 years

i.e. 1799 AD. It is marked by four distinctive phases namely,

i. Moderate stage (abolishment of feudalism)

ii. Radical stage (Declaration of republic)
iii. The directory (collapse of Directory by Napolean)
iv. Age of Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleonic wars, Napoleonic code)

This movement was seen as a movement against nobility or clergy

primarily by the peasant class.

French revolution has been regarded as the demise of absolute

monarchies and theocracies, and their replacement by republics and
democracies.

It strived to achieve ‘liberte, egalite and fraternite’ and abolish division

along lines of religion, societal hierarchies. It is believed to be the genesis
of liberalism, socialism, secularism and democracy which eventually
spread across the world
French Revolution (contd.)
French revolution also saw a parallel movement in the society with the
uprise of a movement known as Age of Enlightenment.

This movement lasted from 1790 – 1800 AD. This marked the era where
individualism and reasoning and analyses was encouraged. It challenged
the authorities of religious leaders and aristocratic class.

This movement was also coincided by the Scientific revolution spear

headed by Sir Isaac Newton.

This period was also overlapped by the Industrial Revolution which began
in 1760 and lasted till 1840 AD.
Modern Times (1936)
Industrial Cities – their plight and reactions (1880 to 1900)

Industrial revolution brought about major changes in cities and its dwellers. Pre-
industrial cities which were dominated by a central CBD which had a religious or
mercantile function (or both) were soon replaced.

The major changes observed were as follows –

 Control of production by aristocrats/bourgeoisie

 Shift from agriculture to manufacturing

 Increasing densities in cities

 Imperialism and depression

The deplorable living conditions in England

The deplorable conditions of the workers was

recognized first by Thomson in his verse called “City of
Dreadful Nights”

The deplorable living conditions in cities of London,

Liverpool and Manchester and the horrors of the
slums for the workers was brought to the limelight by
Pall Mall Gazette

Crime was prevalent and the Victorian middle class

were shocked to learn that a strong correlation was
established between poverty and crimes and crime
syndicates.

It highlighted issues like poor pay and long working

hours particularly, discriminating against women
labour

Finally Andrew Mearns, the clergyman who wrote for

Pall Mall, pointed that without state interference
nothing effectual can be done in a large scale.
The deplorable living conditions in England (contd.)

These industrial cities had ‘plague spots’ which were dens of disease, sin and crime.

Majority of the dwellers (mostly casual labour) were forced to put up in such
unsanitary conditions because of abject poverty – without affordability to access any
form of public transport forcing them to stay near place of work.

“ I might as well go to America as go to the suburb”

Philanthropic agencies working in such slums unsuccessfully attempted at removing

these rookeries with model tenement blocks.

The new model tenements were criticized for their overbuilding (akin to concrete
jungles), lack of greenery, grim appearance (reaction to such planning was the
concept of Garden City). Besides the rent charged for such an accommodation put it
beyond the affordability of casual labours.

Moreover, building of roads and railways was taking white collared urban dwellers
away from the CBD of London. The clearances for such mega projects led to
displacement of urban poor – 100,000 in between 1830 – 1880 and 76,000 in between
1853 – 1901. These urban infrastructure instead made the urban poor worse off.
British Royal Commission of 1885

The living conditions of urban poor found sympathetic resonance with the policy
makers and led to formation of the British Royal Commission in 1885. The
commission’s report on living conditions confirmed the nature of the problem
but a unanimous decision seeking remedial action could not be sought.

One family to a room was typical in these cities but each family had upto 8
members, which was worsened by the fact that each tenement was informally
sub divided to accommodate two families thus forcing them to share water
supply and closet meant for one (making them worse than jails).

Conditions further worsened because the rooms were at time used for noxious
activities like rag picking, sack making, match box making etc. Some social
reformers claimed that such deplorable living condition led to physical as well
as moral decay (high rate of STDs).

Mortality amongst children was highest and workers on an average lost 20 days
per year due to poor health and diseases.

Meanwhile rents were rising (demand – supply economics) but the wages were
not. More demolitions were carried out for new streets and London was
undergoing a mini Haussmannization.
British Royal Commission of 1885 (contd.)

The commission found that although legislative provisions were in place, the
corrupt local government were unwilling to move into implementation of such
policy.

There were no inspectors and those there were hardly competent. The
commissions main recommendation was to ensure that local authorities
utilized existing legislative powers to build dwelling for existing working class
and clear areas unfit for dwelling and re-house the original dwellers.

Financing of such activities would be carried out from money borrowed from
treasury at low interest rates. However, these recommendations were met with
a new Housing of the Working Class Act in 1885.

However, the local authorities did not budge and the commission finally
appealed to the working class to take matter into their own hands and fight
for their cause.
Violence, and threats of insurrection

Meanwhile, a depression struck through across the manufacturing sector in

England. The Royal Commission highlighted the structural weakness of British
industries when compared to its main competitor, Germany.

By mid 1880’s the spirit of urban poor was changing – there were at time violent
conflicts, strikes and riots. The prevalent emotion amongst urban bourgeoisie
was not guilt but fear – seeing the urban poor as threat to the civilized society.

Socialist reforms through gradual succession instead of bloody revolution was

sought after (the Fabian Society).

The modern society had created numerous gangs of ‘organized roughs’ who
show absolute disregard to the cause and other urban dwellers. However, it only
began to bother when respectable citizens in Liverpool began to complain of
terror inflicting gangs.

Occasionally, judgement to these gangs were meted out in the crudest form
(often through floggings) which hardly was a deterrent to these gangs.

The real fear amongst the middle class was rise in insurrection caused by the
urban poor backed by Socialist intellectuals (Trafalgar Square, 1886 and
Westminster Abbey, 1887). Authorities responded with sterner penal actions
leading to more fury amongst the masses.
Mainstream media had two clear lobbies:

The Times reported the bourgeoisie concerns –

“an advertisement to all anarchists, here and elsewhere, to flock to the only
great capital in the world where they would be tolerated”

Hyndman (leader of Social Democratic Foundation) wrote a different view

(proletariat concerns)
“Men and women will not starve any longer. That I, for one know. The present
situation is quite spontaneous and unorganized”
 The Booth Survey and its findings
Charles Booth carried out a social survey in the impoverished areas of East
London in 1887. A total of 35% of the entire population was surveyed which
translated (when extrapolated proportionally) to 1 million poor people in
London.

He identified four sub-groups among the urban poor, namely –

S. No. Sub-group Size (%) Characteristics

1 A 1.5 Laborers, Loafers, semi-criminals, etc
“render no useful service and create no wealth; they often
destroy it. They degrade whatever they touch, and as
individuals are almost incapable of improvement…it is
much to be hoped that this class may become less hereditary
(eugenics) in its character”
2 B 11 Raw material of mob, perpetual nightmare of
respectable class
“ these people are shiftless, hand to mouth, pleasure loving
and always poor…entire removal of this class out of the
daily struggle for existence since they are the burden of the
state.”
S. No. Sub-group Size (%) Characteristics
3 C 8 Pitiable class, largely struggling, suffering,
hopeless people. Their basic problem being
their irregular income.
4 D 14.5 Regular low income, hope for improvement
through their children
 Charles Booth’s Poverty Map

It interested planners like Patrick Geddes through such spatial interpretation. The
Fabians also took note of such a class distinction and contested Booth’s claim
that 65% of the population were not poor, they claimed one out of five
Londoner’s die in a workhouse, or a hospital, or lunatic asylum.

There was a wide difference in life expectancy between areas resided by

nobility and by impoverished population.
Pan European phenomenon – Paris, Berlin
In 1890, London housed a population of 5.6
million. As against Paris’s population of 4.1 million
and Berlin’s 1.6 million.

However density in Paris was twice that of London

County Council (LCC) area. Around 14% urban
poor lived in Paris where housing conditions were
worse than London.

The focus clearly was on building schools and the

Sorbonne (1880) and building of the Paris Metro
(Hector Guimard’s famous Art Nouveau designs
for Paris Metro) rather than public housing
projects.

Berlin’s population doubled between 1890 – 1910

(1.9 to 3.7 million). Berlin was a compact and
congested city.

The residential zones were compacted by five

storey rental barracks arranged around 15’ wide
courtyards.
This design was widely used across the city to increase social integration – by
making the rich and poor live in the same block. The same pattern was
extended in the suburban region as well, creating congestion there as well.

In 1891, the average number of inhabitants to a building in London was 7.6

whereas in Berlin it was 52.6!!!

The tram system although electrified by Berlin ahead of London did not help in
decreasing the congestion (as seen in LCC). However, in both these cities fear
emerged of poor public health leading to biologically unfit population.

Also deterioration of mental health was observed in Berlin where alcoholism,

suicide and venereal disease were on the rise.

After World War I, wider consensus developed across Europe and the
European Model of state housing subsidy was installed. The program soon
collapsed after failing to meet the qualitative and quantitative requirements
of returning soldiers and the economic crisis after war. However, the active
role of state in housing sector marked it’s beginning.
Mietskasernen, Berlin
The American experience
The American approach towards urbanization and urbanism was different from
the European attitude (which detested them). However, the Americans have also
associated moral degradation with urbanism. New York became the greatest city
for immigrants (receiving immigrants from Italy, Germany, Ireland and Poland).

Major issues affecting the American cities as raised by sociologist were poverty
and crime, socialism and corruption, immigration and Catholicism.

Moreover, the city was seen as a parasite on the body of the nation and the
immigrant as corrupter of American racial purity and social harmony.

The urban poor were housed in tenements which were overbuilt leading to large
building footprint. The residents were not only poor but also captive to such
tenements due to language and cultural barrier.

The tenements were popular amongst the urban poor because of their proximity
to the place of work as well as the rent structure. However, congestion levels
(density at some pockets was more than Mumbai ~247,000 person per sq. km).

The congestion was aggravated by so-called improved housing design

(developed in competition in 1879) – the notorious dumbbell shaped tenement
which housed 24 families in a lot of 25’×100’ gaining ventilation through a lightwell.
In 1900, 42,700 tenements in Manhattan housed 1.5 million population.

Finally in 1900, the Tenement Housing Commissions acknowledge the evils of

tenement housing and stalled the construction of any further dumbbell
tenements.

The problems faced in the US were similar to its counterparts in the Europe.
However, the solution generated was starkly different as they rejected the English
model of state sponsored housing program. Also they felt public housing could be
discouraging to the private sector, lead to political patronage and bureaucracy.

The answer was found through the physical restriction of the private developer.
Space standards, fire protection norms and provisions for services were codified.

This marked the beginning of a divergence in the approach to planned housing

and planned cities in US. Early American planning was dominated by the City
Beautiful Movement – i.e. Planning without social purpose (or with a regressive
purpose). The zoning movement which defined the development of suburbia in US
was socially exclusionary in purpose.

Regional plans like the New York Regional Plan, 1931 were largely concerned with
better housing for users who could afford them.
Tenements at Park Avenue, New York
Dumbbell Tenements at New York
Housing was seen as a major issue in planning because of externalities like fire and
disease, concern of social order and protection of real estate values (Marcuse).
The first two factors were rendered insignificant after 1910.

Henceforth, planning only depended on the alliance of real estate interests with
middle income home owning voters (who had no interest in housing for the poor).

This provided a sharp contrast to the European approach where consciousness of

the working class closely matched with the bureaucracy’s interventions.

A new approach emerged in the US which was led by voluntary movement for
bringing in Christian morality and clean habits to the people of the slum to
improve their living conditions.

Jane Addams led this endeavour (through her exposure to the living conditions in
London) to bring the immigrants and slum dwellers to the main frame of the
society.

Known as the Hull House program – this program was widely followed across the
US with objective to integrate the immigrants within the city – first by individual and
moral example, secondly (if first fails) by moral coercion and at times even
through segregation of the mischievous element – thirdly by systematic
upgradation of urban environment (building parks and playgrounds) – some
supporters went ahead with neighbourhood revival. Although Jane Addams
would have dissuaded from these ‘Geographical Salvations’.
This gave rise to the notion that a city itself can engender civic loyalty thus
guaranteeing a harmonious moral order – the cities physical appearance would
symbolize its moral purity. This became the cornerstone of the philosophy for City
Beautiful Movement.

An International Problem
The solutions to the problem were different but the inherent characteristics of the
problem were similar. A giant city – the perception of it as the source of social evil,
possible biological decline and potential political insurrection.

This created enough tremor amongst the bourgeoisie society, although

exaggerated at times.

Poverty has been endemic since the beginning of the society – it remained latent
in the countryside, the creation of city revealed it due to concentration of
population.

Rich and middle class population were brought in close proximity to millions of
poor and very poor. This new relationship was created due to industrialization and
urbanization (Marxist class differential).

It can be seen the urban bourgeoisie remained blissfully unaware of the horrific
fate of the proletarian counterparts (1883-85 in London, 1900 – 01 in Chicago).