See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281838963

Garden Cities to the World! The International Propagation of the Garden City
Idea 1913-1926

Conference Paper · March 2008

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1850.6728

CITATION READS

1 2,078

1 author:

Michel Geertse

14 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michel Geertse on 17 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Garden cities to the world!
The international propagation of the garden city idea 1913-1926.

Michel Geertse
VU University

Keywords: planning history, garden city, regional planning, public administration, housing,
transnationalism, ngo’s

I. Introduction
In the second part of the nineteenth century new elites challenged the culture of laissez faire of
authorities. They sought new approaches to the increasing interrelated problems that infested urban
life. These new elites formed a diverse community: architects, engineers, planners, social reformers,
scientists, administrators, politicians and interested laymen. Although each group had its own
programme, they found each other in a mutual enemy, the nineteenth century city.

From the outset the campaign for improved cities had an international outlook. Protagonists of the
urban reform movement across the globe followed each other’s publications and experiences and
met at international congresses. Initially, variations in housing conditions and public policies greatly
hampered the international debate on housing. However, this soon changed as Howard’s garden city
idea swept the urbanized world. It provided a common ground that had been severely missed. Soon
it became evident that it was impossible to regard housing problems isolated and the housing
discussion ventured into adjoining fields. In the ever branching international urban debate the notion
of town planning increasingly occupied the minds of participants.1

The Garden Cities and Town Planning Association (the British Association), established in 1902 by
Howard to propagate his ideas and ultimately to launch the first garden cities, took part in this
international exchange. It provided an obvious international focal point for anyone interested in
garden cities. Although the garden city concept had made it to the agenda of several international
housing and town planning organisations by the early twentieth century, the British Association
chose not to join an existing body, but launch its own International Garden Cities and Town Planning
Association (the International Association), instead.2

This article surveys the interaction of protagonists of the urban reform movement in the
International Association in its formative years (roughly 1913-1926). Formally an international body
to unite the garden city workers across the world, in reality the International Association was nothing
more than an international branch of the British Association, an operation abroad to impose British
housing and town planning doctrine and exorcise false interpretations of the garden city gospel. This
article wants to reconstruct how the British Association exerted its international pendant as a vehicle
to broaden its position from national elite to international elite and how other participating parties
reacted to this British paternalism. But, for a better understanding I will first briefly discuss the
garden city idea and the early years of the British Association.

II. The Garden City gospel

One of the most influential planning concepts in the twentieth century was not the brainchild of a
professional planner, but a shorthand writer. His name was Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928). In 1898
he published his vision of a reconstructed society of garden cities in a small booklet entitled
Tomorrow. A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. Only after the republication under the catchy title
Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1902) did the garden city idea really take off. Ironically, it was the very

1
success of the garden city itself that led to the demise of its underlying program. After the realisation
of Letchworth (1903), the first garden city, the physical appearance of this model settlement was
increasingly perceived as the essence of the garden city idea at the expense of Howard’s original
teachings.

What then did Howard originally propose? He adequately pointed out that the large-scale exodus of
rural population to the industrializing cities was to blame for most evils in both urban and rural life.
The city, although overcrowded and unhealthy, offered plenty of economic and social opportunities,
whereas the countryside only offered fresh air and nature. But did people really have to choose
between the city and the country side? Howard offered a superior alternative: Town-Country,
combining the advantages of both urban and country life. This concept of Town-Country would be
internationally known as the garden city concept. A self-sustaining new town, combining all the
merits of urban life and the countryside was to arise in the countryside on an estate, secured at
dead-cheap agricultural land values. The necessary capital was to have been raised on mortgage
debentures by a Garden City Company that held the estate in trust for the future community of the
town, so that after the construction of a town on the farmland, the increased land value could be
passed to the community chest. Howard at length discussed the organisation and exploitation of his
city and only briefly touched its physical appearance. Basically he only gave a diagrammatic
representation of a circular town. Centrally placed was a public garden, surrounded by public
buildings. Moving outwards we then cross a ring formed by the central park, followed by four
concentric zones reserved for houses and gardens, separated from each other by avenues. The outer
ring of the town was attributed to local industries and businesses. A circle railway surrounding the
town connected the town to the main railways. The whole town only occupied one sixth of the
estate. The rest was reserved for agricultural use and functioned as a permanent greenbelt. Howard
was quick to state that his diagram was intended suggestive. Howard’s proposal was essentially a
paper exercise in community-building, to be perfected through experimentation.

Howard aimed higher than the mere realisation of his garden city experiment. He wanted to make
the garden city experiment “the stepping stone to a higher and better form of industrial life generally
throughout the country”.3 To avoid the trappings of overpopulation he drew a firm maximum of
about 32,000 inhabitants. Once this number was met, a new garden city had to be founded. An
inter-municipal railway would connect the garden cities to each other and the old city, effectively
creating a growing chain of garden cities in the countryside. This regional urbanisation model, which
Howard called Social City, not only touched the urbanisation of the countryside, but also the existing
old cities. In the long run the old cities would have to counterbalance the growing magnetism of the
garden cities and would transform in garden cities as well. Slums would be demolished and
converted into parks.

III. The British Garden City Movement

Howard was not just another dreamer. He quickly rallied some sympathizers to propagate his ideas
and consequently the Garden Cities Association (1899) was formed. Howard became President and
two members of the reformist Land Nationalisation Society (LNS) took up posts as Secretary and
Treasurer. The LNS also provided office space for the new Association. Although the early years of
the Association were characterised by a continuous reappraisal of priorities, the initial aims were
clear enough: spreading an awareness of Howard’s ideas and ultimately initiating the first garden city
experiment. Reformers flocked to the new Association in the firm belief that this new organisation
would make their utopian dreams reality. However, the fresh organisation was still unable to bear
the heavy financial burden of a garden city experiment and first had to concentrate on recruiting
members and strengthening its (financial) basis.4

By 1901 the ranks of the Association had grown substantially and the time was considered just to
make a next step. A new Chairman, Ralph Neville, was chosen. Neville was a charismatic personality,

2
who advocated a more businesslike course of action. The rather naive and introvert Howard was no
match for Neville and consequently Howard’s ideological outlook was submerged by Neville’s
businesslike approach. Under Neville, the warm nest of the reformist LNS was traded in for an
independent office and additionally a paid secretary, Thomas Adams, was engaged. It was Adams
who came up with the idea to affiliate the garden city concept with the successful industrial model
settlements of Bournville and Port Sunlight, thus making Howard’s paper garden city more tangible.
At these industrial villages two important conferences were organised, culminating in the registration
of the First Garden City Pioneer Company in July 1902. The news of the Company’s formation
received overwhelming exposure in the media and reactions were generally enthusiastic. A wide
variety of groups identified with the garden city for different reasons. This warm welcome largely
accounted for the successful start of the Company. Two permanent officers were attracted, including
a young C.B. Purdom, and the search for a suitable estate in the countryside was on. In the spring of
1903 the Letchworth estate was secured and the erection of what was to be Britain’s first garden city
could be taken to hand. Later that year the First Garden City Ltd was founded, and, subsequently, the
Pioneer Company was dissolved.5

The erection of Letchworth Garden City marked the next step in the Association’s campaign.
Letchworth not only offered the fulfilment of a quintessential objective, but also provided a
formidable propagandistic tool for the furthering of the garden city cause. Even before one single
brick was laid, orchestrated visits to Letchworth became a regular routine for the press. The advance
of the garden city operation was monitored meticulously and every step forwards was disseminated
to an international audience through the Association’s journal. Adams played a vital role in the
cultivating of the first garden city as a propagandistic tool. He lifted the reports on Letchworth from a
mere account of a site development to an appealing image that was to become a figurehead of social
reform. Strategically, various groups were entertained at Letchworth. Thus, Adams could spread the
garden city gospel, and, simultaneously, help the garden city movement to become part of the wider
reformist movement. However, he also saw the dangers of the exertion of Letchworth for
propagation. The New Jerusalem threatened to outshine its parent. The new town by no means was
a precise translation of Howard’s ideas. The original principles were sacrificed along the way to what
seemed to be a cocktail of pragmatism and Neville’s preferred sound commercial approach. The
Association could either accept these changes or reject Letchworth as a diluted offspring. It chose to
embrace Letchworth and consequently Letchworth increasingly replaced Howard’s original tract as
the embodiment of the garden city concept.6

Despite the carefully constructed utopian vision of Letchworth, it was not an instant success. The
new town grew very slowly and it had a hard time attracting local industry. Therefore, the practically
orientated Company’s board wanted to crush “the nonsense of the idealists”. In 1906 Adams was
dismissed as first General Manager of the town and replaced by a seasoned estate agent, who almost
immediately fell foul with Raymond Unwin, for he wanted none of Unwin’s “picturesque cottage
building, declaring with no beating about the bush his intention of building square boxes with lids for
workers.”7 So Unwin fled to Hampstead Garden Suburb, just started by the Barnetts, and Letchworth
hardly saw him again.

Although the Association had nothing to do with Hampstead, this garden suburb would have a
tremendous influence on the future of the garden city movement. Although considered a prominent
exponent of the garden city movement, Hampstead actually represented a considerable departure
from Howard’s guidelines. It did retain the higher social purposes of the garden city movement.
However, it was not an independent town, but a suburb openly depending on London. It
acknowledged and glossed over the outward spread of the giant city which Howard had fiercely
opposed. In terms of design and layout Hampstead clearly revealed that Unwin by now was heavily
influenced by his wanderings in Germany and Camillo Sitte’s influential book Der Städtebau nach
seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen. But Hampstead was about more than a British reinterpretation

3
of old romantic German towns. It featured a state-of-the-art differentiated road net, designed to
keep unwanted traffic out. Most importantly, Unwin demonstrated in situ what a few years later he
would propagate in his enormously influential pamphlet Nothing Gained by Overcrowding! (1912): a
proper planning scheme could create far more space, without using more land. The trick was to make
a distinction between residential streets and thoroughfares, enabling a significant cut in the land
needed for infrastructure, land that could be reserved for green open spaces.8

Initially the Garden City Association firmly believed in self-reliance and Letchworth was held up as
the perfect example of what could be achieved without governmental interference. However, this
fundamental position was to be tested. Hardy distinguishes two considerations. Firstly, with the
formation of a new Liberal Administration in 1906, the basic belief in voluntary action was seriously
challenged by a more directive approach. Secondly, the garden city adepts could not fail to notice
that most housing developments bore little resemblance to their cherished garden city, causing many
of the Association’s members to wonder whether the potential of State intervention could not be
called upon to change this situation. The dilemma of State intervention sowed a seed of discordance,
but in the end a majority in the Association supported qualified forms of governmental support.
Protagonists of State intervention pleaded that compulsory legislation prescribing some of the
garden city principles was what they needed. If the realization of new settlements was not feasible
on a short term, the application of basic principles of layout and design as witnessed at Letchworth
and later modified at Hampstead, was to be preferred above the existing practice.9 The purist
minority saw yet another of their precious principles sacrificed.

As self-proclaimed champion of town planning, the Association immediately set to work and
launched an intensive propaganda campaign. Things seemed to proceed as planned and in June 1909
Parliament passed the Town Planning Act. The Association was quick to claim the act as a direct
result of its efforts, although this was not entirely corresponding with the actual events leading to
the 1909 act. The act did not mark the end of the campaign. Local authorities had to be instructed
how to use their newly acquire powers. Already in 1909 the Association organised yet another
conference under the telling motto The Practical Application of Town Planning Powers. Practical
publications of prominent members, such as Unwin’s enormously influential Town Planning in
Practice (1909) and Ewart Culpin’s The Practical Application of Town Planning Powers (1910), showed
what was within reach if modern town planning principles were adhered to.

To celebrate the passing of the town planning act the Association re-baptized itself Garden Cities and
Town Planning Association. This change of name coincided with a reassessment of its aims. The
propagation of town planning became the primary target – a distinct change of course that
underlined that the Association saw itself as prime mover in town planning affairs and that it
intended to uphold this position. Inevitably, this change prompted the question about the relation
between the treasured garden city and other types of development. By now the garden village and
garden suburb were also formally embraced, much to the disliking of the purist members. The
Association was quick to assure its members that the creation of garden cities was still the ultimate
goal. Garden villages and garden suburbs, although formally adopted, were only a temporary
bandage to stop the worst bleeding. They offered no lasting remedies for the urban evils the
Association sought to eradicate.

Armed with a new moniker and a new set of aims the Association ventured into different aspects of
town planning, getting more and more removed from the original garden city concept. In 1913 Ewart
Culpin, Adams successor as Secretary, proudly reported on the advance of the garden city movement
in his The Garden City Movement Up-to-date. Developments on garden city lines were popping up
across the nation. “On garden city lines” was a popular term to describe a wide variety of
developments, the majority of them being garden suburbs. Some leaders within the garden city
movement no longer clearly saw the difference between garden cities and garden suburbs and

4
treated them about the same. Despite the propagation of garden suburbs, the Association still
presented the true garden city as its most important aim. Letchworth was continuously referred to as
the shining star of British housing and town planning experience, but active steps towards a second
garden city were not taken.10

The outbreak of the First World War threatened to pose a suspension of the activities of the
Association. However, there is ample evidence that it largely managed to continue business as usual.
Due to the very success of the garden city idea it increasingly became necessary to protect the
integrity of the garden city concept. Mostly this was a matter of clearly distinguishing the real thing
from the sprawl of (commercial) garden suburbs that too often bore little resemblance to
Letchworth, but were publicly identified as garden cities. By 1916 a new issue surfaced that was to
dominate the housing and planning discussions for the years to come: reconstruction. Suddenly,
pressure groups like the Association saw an opportunity to draw attention to their reformist ideas in
official circles, ideas that previously had been dismissed as too radical or impracticable. The debate
brought the role of the State once more to the fore, advocating a kind of unprecedented
interventionism. Another outcome of the debate was the importance attributed to housing policy
and land settlement, two issues that were very dear to the Association. How did the Association try
to take advantage of the reconstruction discussion? It could continue its broad-based campaign or it
could move the true garden city concept forwards to make it the point of departure for the
reconstruction after the war. The Association chose the former, dividing its members in the
process.11

Unsatisfied with this situation, C.B Purdom made an alliance with Howard and formed the National
garden Cities Committee to return to the roots of the garden city concept. Purdom trapped F.J.
Osborn into writing their manifesto. This manifesto, New Towns After the War, written under the
pseudonym The New townsmen, was published in 1918. It presented a reaffirmation and updating
of Howard’s original tract. The central message was the advocating of State-sponsored new towns
after the war. Despite the unequivocal role attributed to the State, most of Howard’s principles were
upheld. New Towns After the War was well received, putting the Association in an awkward position.
It saw its policies contested by a new splinter group that claimed to uphold the principles it had lost.
Naturally, the Association could not put up with this and every attempt was made to get the rogues
back in line. After some negotiations the Committee was absorbed by the Association. As a token of
reconciliation Purdom was appointed Assistant-Secretary, to become Secretary after Culpin’s
departure in 1919. However, despite the ideological infusion, the Association did not make
immediate steps towards a second garden city. Rather, it focussed on post-war housing legislation,
hoping that garden cities would somehow follow along the way.12

Howard did not want to wait any longer and took matters into his own hands. Ignoring the
Association’s policy, he simply went off and purchased the estate on which Welwyn would rise.
October 1919 saw the formation of the Second Garden City Ltd. The arrival of this new player forced
the Association into splits. On the one hand, although some of its leading members were involved in
the Welwyn scheme, the Association itself had never directly propagated Welwyn. However, on the
other hand, the scheme was totally consistent with its general aims, and as a propagandistic body it
must have seen the potential of promoting the experiment. Establishing a second garden city had not
been a primary concern of the Association’s mind at that time, but now that Welwyn was underway
it had to make the best of it. Thus the Association started to promote Welwyn garden city. It was put
forward as a model settlement for the government and local authorities in finding ways to
implement the new 1919 Housing and Town Planning Act. Additionally, Welwyn was presented as a
direct contribution to Purdom’s proposed belt of satellite towns for London. As a demonstration
project, Welwyn showcased most of the garden city principles; it was to be a self-contained town of
40,000 to 50,000 inhabitants with an open layout in a green, healthy environment, surrounded by a
permanent greenbelt. Successful aspects of the first garden city were upheld and supplemented and

5
adjusted based on the practical experiences of Letchworth and the possibilities that the new housing
legislation offered.

Welwyn explicitly put the garden city movement on the map again and the Association was in no
doubt that its future was tied up with the achievements at Welwyn. It displayed a remarkable
transformation in claiming credit for the whole enterprise. Although, the first steps were largely the
work of Howard alone, in 1920 the Association claimed that it had actually promoted the formation
of the Second Garden City Ltd. A year later, history was completely rewritten as the Association
proudly boasted that it had been directly responsible for the Welwyn initiative. Retrospectively, the
timing of the Welwyn campaign at a time when so much else was going on at a national level was
badly chosen. The development of Welwyn consumed all the energy of some of the most active and
prominent members, energy that otherwise might have benefitted the Association. The Association
failed to make much of an impression in the national housing campaign between 1919 and 1921 and
then rather seemed to slip into a somnolent phase in the middle 1920s. There was plenty happening
at Welwyn, but, probably not without coincidence, far less at the headquarters of the Association.13

IV. Contacts abroad

Howard’s revelation not only received critical acclaim at home, but also beyond. Abroad the garden
city idea was also only picked up after the re-publication of Howard’s booklet in 1902. Undoubtedly
the formation of the Garden City Association and the first steps at Letchworth greatly contributed to
this sudden interest. In 1904 Georges Benoît Lévy provided a French translation of the Howardian
gospel, followed by translations in German (1907), Russian (1911) and Spanish (1912). These
translations not only reflected the growing international interest, but also contributed to the growth
of this interest. Back in the early twentieth century English was not the universally accepted language
for international communication outside the Anglo-Saxon world. Following the British example,
garden city associations sprang up in France (1903) and Germany (1902). Belgium followed in 1905,
but this association was more a commercial venture than a propagandistic body. Dutchman J.
Bruinwold Riedel claimed a Dutch Garden City Association was established by 1906, but this body has
hardly given physical proof of its existence. Garden city adapts in the United States of America
established a short-lived garden city association in 1906. In Norway the Norsk Forening for
Boligreformer was formated in 1913. Although not explicitly named a garden city association, there
really is no doubt which foreign example was followed by the Norwegians. Even in a far-flung country
as Japan a garden city association was established by 1918.14

The Garden City Association provided an obvious focus for enquiries to all who wanted to learn more
about the garden city movement. Soon correspondence, foreign visitors, international conferences
and overseas lecture tours claimed an important part of the Association’s programme. An important
step for the welding of individual foreign contacts into an international network was made with the
organisation of the Association’s first International Garden City Congress in July 1904. Albers credits
this international gathering as the first genuine international town planning conference. Although it
was a rather modest affair, much international zeal was generated. This first international gathering
of garden city workers paved the way for a series of such international garden cities conferences.15

At the London conference contact was established with the recently formed German
Gartenstadtgesellschaft (1902). In the following years this contact was cultivated to become the
important Germanic-Anglosaxon axis, the pinnacle of the Association’s international network.
However, not all its members were satisfied with the international path the Association had chosen.
Some followed the foreign interest with suspicious eyes. Many saw a direct relation between garden
cities and national vitality and feared that Britain would be outstripped in the practical application of
its own remedy. Despite these reservations, international contacts, especially with Germany,
continued to flourish. The British were guilty of the same crime they attributed to the Germans, for
they were trying to extract the secret of German industrial domination. They thought to have found

6
(part of) this secret in German Städtebau. The efficacy of German town plans and building codes was
frequently cited and provided welcome ammunition for the town planning campaign at home. The
Germans in their turn were eager to learn more from Anglo-Saxon cottage design and the first
experiences of residential planning on garden city lines. 16

Taken together, the success of the Association’s international campaign and the appeal of the
message produced a constant flow of correspondence seeking advice and reporting developments in
every corner of the world. By 1913 a staggering total of 21,799 postal parcels were sent out to all
parts of the world, effectively distributing the gospel on a global scale. The establishment of a
separate international branch was a logical next step to accommodate the ever-expanding
international network. This happened in 1913 with the establishment of the International Garden
Cities and Town Planning Association. This formalisation of the international network very much was
the brainchild of Ewart Culpin, aided by some garden city enthusiasts from Germany and France.
According to Hardy it was intended to serve “as a means of supporting the growing volume of
overseas activities, particularly those initiatives otherwise isolated”. It was to strengthen the garden
city movement by uniting the various national garden cities and town planning movements under
one international banner. However, Uyttenhove hints at other motivations. He suggests that the
British initiators had an international purification of the garden city gospel on their minds, for also
abroad the garden suburb had pushed the genuine garden city aside. Both authors agree that the
International Association initially operated under strict British supervision. According to Purdom the
British executive of the International Association “wanted to keep the International Association as a
mere extension of its activities, to be conducted for its advantage.”17

The motivation suggested by Uyttenhove is rather tempting, especially if we consider the behaviour
of the International Association as described in the following paragraphs. However, purification was
never an explicit aim. The International Association used more neutral terms to describe its aims: “to
promote garden cities and town planning”. It seems unlikely that the International Association was
explicitly intended as a vehicle to impose British town planning experience on an international
audience, especially if we consider the aid of German and French garden city workers. Its behaviour
more resembled that of a strict but caring parent, continuously guiding its offspring. Initially,
propagation of Howard’s teachings was the primary aim, but as garden suburbs popped up
everywhere, the aim increasingly shifted to the distinguishing of the true garden city from its
watered down adaptations. However, the offspring more and more regarded this well-intended
guidance as paternalistic.

The (British) Association must have felt it filled a need on the international scene with the formation
of the International Association. The launch of this new body was inspired by a conviction that it was
only natural for the Association to take the lead in the international dissemination of the garden city
idea. The desire to propagate the garden city idea, to unite otherwise isolated initiatives and even to
lead garden city workers gone astray back to the true Howardian path explain why the British
Association chose to become internationally active, but it does not adequately explain the
establishment of the International Association. It also could have exported its ideas through existing
international bodies. The existence of an extensive international network for the international
dissemination of theory and practice was a characteristic feature of twentieth century housing and
planning. This infrastructure for the transnational trade of ideas, models and designs was part of a
larger picture that Saunier has labelled the ‘Urban Internationale’, an international network for the
discussion of all urban issues. In Towards the Planned City (1981) Sutcliffe gives a comprehensive
survey of this Urban Internationale from the 1850s to the outbreak of World War I. This account
clearly shows that there were already international bodies active in the working sphere of the
International Association, most notably the International Housing Congresses and the International
Union of Towns.18 Apparently, the British Association did not want to entrust the international
propagation of garden cities to these organisations. Reports on the founding meeting of the

7
International Association reveal that its initiators wanted to take a more pragmatic line than those of
the existing bodies. Also, the formation of a new international organisation could well have been fed
by a desire to have control over international garden cities propaganda, rather than be dependant of
other parties.

V. Garden City workers and Town planners, unite!

The International Association was formally launched at a meeting in London on August 22nd 1913.This
gathering was a rather modest affair compared to the Ghent congress of the same year that spawned
the International Union of Towns. Centrally placed at this meeting was the question whether the new
international organisation should be devoted to the promotion of garden cities or to the wider field
of civics. From the outset civics, as propagated by town planning pioneer Patrick Geddes, had a far
broader outlook than the garden city concept. It regarded the city and the countryside as a
continuum. Civics not only regarded the technical dimensions of town planning, but also beheld its
social and spatial dimensions. It was saturated with a regional thinking, borrowed from French social
geographers, and handed the method of Civic Survey, to map the body of knowledge necessary for
town planning to act as a supervisory science on a regional scale. Some delegates pointed out that
the wider scope of civics was already covered by existing bodies such as the International Housing
Congresses and the International Union of Towns.

Despite this international competition, H.V. Lanchester pleaded to follow the wider path of civics.
However, this stance was challenged by a more pragmatic approach. Alderman Thompson, Chairman
of the National Housing and Town Planning Council, thought specialisation was called for. “It was
much better to go to work and make one good solid brick, upon which perhaps in future time a
bigger edifice should be reared, rather than to waste time in building castles in the air.” Thompson
knew the garden city as the best example of modern town planning, so he concluded that the
International Association should be solely dedicated to this town planning method. Adolf Otto of the
German Gartenstadtgesellschaft seconded this proposal, although his motivation was totally
different. He argued that the garden city idea could not be allied with the wider scope, referring to
some prominent housing reformers in Germany who advocated contradictory methods of
development. In the end it was resolved to form an International Garden Cities and Town Planning
Association, rather than to get sidetracked in the field of civics.

After the working sphere of the International Association was agreed upon, organisational matters
were taken into hand. Howard and Culpin were chosen as respectively President and Secretary. At
the motion of French architect Augustin Rey, it was agreed that the International Association should
find shelter at the office of the British Association. 19 These resolutions effectively put the British
Association in total control, free to model the international body after their own image. The British
leadership used this carte blanche to make the International Association an international tool to
propagate garden cities, reflecting the silently agreed demarcation of the British Association as
propagandist body and the recently established Town Planning Institute (1913) as institution of
technical knowledge.

During the first weekend of February 1914 the embryonic International Association descended on
Paris. On the programme was a series of meetings of the aforementioned Committee,
complemented by sessions open to all members. At the meetings of the Committee the constitution
was finally agreed upon and the team of officers was strengthened with Frederick Litchfield of the
Co-partnership Tenants Limited, who became treasurer. It was reported that the International
Association by now was fairly launched. Already thirty-two societies had joined and it was hoped “to
bring into line the whole of organisations in the world dealing with Town Planning and Garden City
Work.”20

8
Paris posed an overture to the First International Garden Cities and Town planning Congress held
later that year in England. The British organisers made the first congress a grand tour, a visual
companion to Culpin’s The Garden City Movement Up-to-date (1913), with some meetings and
lectures thrown in. A closer look at the programme learns that the British hosts aimed higher than
merely disseminating the garden city principles of design and lay-out. The higher aims of community-
building and social reform were not forgotten. Co-partnership housing was featured prominently
throughout the congress. The venue attracted 146 foreign and colonial delegates. America (20),
France (27), Germany (43) and Russia (32) provided the largest foreign factions. The conference was
also the occasion to staff the International Association’s organs, created by the approved
constitution in Paris. Firstly, all British officers were re-elected and joined by G. Montahu Harris as
Chairman of the General Committee. Subsequently, the participating national societies were entitled
to name their representatives for the General Committee. Finally, representatives for the Executive
Committee were chosen. In this Committee the British officers were joined by representatives from
France (1), Germany (1), England (5), Poland (1), Russia (1) and Spain (1). Apparently only the larger
national factions were represented, America excluded. The Spanish and Polish representatives were
the only representatives of smaller factions and must probably be regarded as representatives of the
minor factions combined.21

VI. Garden Cities and Reconstruction

The International Association might well have called it quits, at least for the duration of the conflict,
for any attempt to build confidence and contacts between the warring nations was destined to be in
vain. The close ties between British and German housing and planning reformers that were at the
very heart of the International Association were severed. The old order had changed and the War
posed new circumstances the International Association had to adapt to. In these darkest days the
International Association greatly benefited from the fact that is was run by the British Association.
The financial reserves shrunk dramatically and it could not have survived on its own. Despite the
obvious restrictions, the international body nevertheless largely managed to continue its routine
tasks. However, the international Association aimed higher than just handling its correspondence. It
actually embarked in a new campaign that would arouse widespread international interest and
support.22

This new campaign was devoted to the reconstruction of Belgium.. To many the ravaged country of
Belgium symbolized the necessity of international collaboration. A genuine desire to help the
Belgians was but one motivation to initiate the reconstruction campaign. There were other
considerations as well. The garden city movement had never gathered substantial backing in
Belgium, and the campaign offered an opportunity to give the garden city idea sounder footing in
Belgium. Additionally, the tabula rasa in the ravished country must have had a tremendous appeal on
town planners and housing reformers. At home the British Association had failed to make immediate
steps towards a second garden city. On the other side of the canal the ruined towns and fields of
Belgium offered excellent opportunities for the large-scale application of the garden city concept. A
new Belgium, designed as a model country with model (garden) cities would be a powerful example
to be followed at home and abroad. More generally, this international effort was exactly the kind of
quest needed to get the International Association through the darkest days of the war. It kept
members actively involved and made it clear that the International Association was not a dormant
body, but the undisputed champion of the garden city movement actively working towards the
fulfilment of its aims.23

The reconstruction campaign took the International Association far beyond the scope of a voluntary
association, which it basically was. The activities were not primarily aimed at its members, nor were
the actions exclusively executed by its members. It was a deliberate attempt at influencing the
behaviour of external parties, in this case a whole nation. Although international in name, the
reconstruction campaign really was a British operation, schemed by the British leadership of the

9
International Association. The International Association would handle the propaganda and the Town
Planning Institute was called upon to deal with the technical issues.24 The Belgians were not entirely
happy with the British initiative, fearing a British take-over of the reconstruction of their country. The
whole effort made it painfully clear that the export of the garden city idea under British guidance had
its limits. The Belgians, and the rest of continental Europe, were not interested in true garden cities.
They embraced garden suburbs and garden villages as the more practical remedy. The proposed
cooperative organisation of garden cities was dismissed as laborious and impracticable.

Oblivious to the continental sentiments and the specific situation of Belgium the British leadership of
the International Association organised a Town Planning Conference in London in February 1915 as
the first step of its reconstruction campaign. Despite the overwhelming Belgian participation, the
British ruled the show. The principal British papers all stressed the necessity to resort to the garden
city concept for the Belgian reconstruction. Even at the tour at the end of the conference, the
Belgians were given no respite. At Letchworth Howard addressed the Belgians himself. He launched
the idea of an International Garden City, to be erected in Belgium after the war. This International
Garden City was to be an updated international counterpart of Letchworth. Although literature
frequently dismisses the International Garden City as a mere old man’s dream, there was more to it.
Culpin suggested the same idea in his paper. Could this international garden city have been a secret
item on the agenda of the British leadership, to be mentioned in passing? The International
Association must have seen the propagandist potential of an international garden city, to be erected
under its guidance. Exciting though it was, the International Garden City was not featured in the
resolutions of the conference. On the other hand, the International Association did not abandon the
idea and continued to pursue it in the years to come.25

At the end of the conference the gathered body of knowledge was summarized in “six resolutions for
modernity”. These resolutions echoed some of the recommendations of the British principal papers
and subsequently the vision of a new Belgium was claimed to be quintessentially British. The
resolution recommending the principles of the (British) Garden Cities and Town Planning Association
was British enough, but the other resolutions were drenched in the spirit of German Städtebau.
Evidently, the lessons of German town plans and building codes were taken to the heart. Thus, even
in their absence, it was the Germans that were able to shine. The ‘British’ resolutions did not just
echo German influences. Uyttenhove draws attention to the fact that out of the six resolutions, half
were of French origin. But then, French town planners had been inspired by British and German town
planning experience. Whether the resolutions were of British or French origin, or perhaps ultimately
a French-English interpretation of good German town planning practice, in the end it was the
International Association that took credit for them. As the year 1915 moved on, the exiled Belgian
government passed interim legislation, the Besluitwet, which embraced some of the
recommendations of the resolutions. Although this act fell short of what the resolutions had
envisioned, the International Association nevertheless claimed the Belgian act as a direct result of its
efforts.26

The reconstruction campaign did not stop at the 1915 Town Planning Conference. In the wake of the
conference the Belgium Town Planning Committee was formed. This committee was a vehicle to
initiate the Belgian debutants in the realm of British town planning. This committee employed three
methods: the formation of Belgian study groups, the organisation of a reconstruction exhibition and
the organisation of lectures. The active training of Belgian professionals that would take the actual
reconstruction at hands must have had a profound influence, although this influence is hard to
measure exactly. We know for sure that prominent Belgian planner Raphael Verwilghen, who only
joined the training at a later stage, gained a substantial understanding of British town planning that
he would later actively use for the reconstruction task.

10
Already in April 1915, barely two months after the Town Planning Conference, the Reconstruction
Exhibition opened its doors. It was well-received, both by (British) professional periodicals and the
intended Belgian audience. Besides this exhibition, three series of lectures were organised from 1915
until spring 1916. The final pillar of the educational programme, the study groups, consisted
exclusively of Belgian members. It was in these study groups that the Belgians developed a special
interest in the town planning method of Civic Survey as proposed by town planning pioneer Patrick
Geddes. They saw civic survey as an appropriate method to move town planning to a more rational
and scientific approach. It is ironical to see that the International Association which on its foundation
had decided to concentrate on garden city work and dismiss the wider scope of civics was asked by
the Belgians to disseminate civics rather than the garden city idea.27

Almost a year after the efforts for Belgium had officially started in Britain, the Belgians decided to
join the French for their Exposition de la Cité Reconstituée (1916). Subsequently, the focal point of
the Belgian endeavours moved to France and the British lost their lead in the Belgian reconstruction
campaign. Besides the Belgian entry for the exhibition, the establishment of the Ecole Supérieure
d’Art Public in 1917 was one of the tangible results of the Belgian-French collaboration. Although the
International Association was not actively involved in the foundation of this professional town
planning education project, it did claim the Ecole as a direct outcome of its work.28

After four dark years the battlefields were abandoned and the focus turned to the task at hand. The
building production, for years simmering under a wartime economy, had to be intensified to alleviate
the housing shortages. The new focus on mass housing was coupled by a new-found interest in the
design and layout of the individual dwelling. But the post-war task was about more than just housing.
The ever-advancing urbanisation called for a comprehensive, coordinating town planning regime
with a far broader outlook than the garden city concept. By 1918 it became increasingly clear that
town planning had to be more than merely building houses in garden cities: infrastructural planning,
urban renewal, industrial allocation, securing adequate food supplies for the growing urban
population, etc. In this new town planning concept, governmental intervention became more
accepted and was increasingly called upon. The complexity and sheer size of the expanding town
planning profession called for professionalization and scientifically formulated foundations. These
post-war trends were topical for most European nations, including the neutral countries. The
situation in Belgium and France Even more pressing was the countries hit by the war where entire
regions had to be more or less totally reconstructed.

The International Association was quick to resume its international meetings after the War. Already
in 1919 it held a conference in Brussels dedicated to the reconstruction of Belgium, which
undoubtedly served to reclaim the international initiative on this front. At the first real congress after
the War, in London in 1920, the reconstruction theme was taken up once more. Although the scope
had expanded to include Northern France, there was now only one session reserved for
reconstruction. More importantly, this time the countries involved reported on the reconstruction of
their countries themselves, rather than be told how to execute their reconstruction task. Apparently
the British leadership had lost interest and had simply handed the issue over to the countries
involved. The papers clearly revealed that Belgium and France preferred garden suburbs and garden
villages, rather than genuine garden cities.

The reconstruction discussion was also placed into position to keep the Germans outside. After the
War the British leadership of the International Association favoured an early return of the Germans,
but the Belgian and French members opposed this. They felt uneasy discussing the reconstruction of
their countries with a German presence. However, the reconstruction theme would not return. Had
the British leadership lost interest in its reconstruction campaign after it had become painfully clear
once more that the Belgians and French were reluctant to follow the British lead? Had it decided
that the discussions in the reconstruction session resembled the discussions in the other sessions and

11
that therefore there was no cause to treat reconstruction independently? Or perhaps, did the silent
removal of the reconstruction theme ultimately serve to pave the way for a return of the Germans?29

VII. Garden Cities and Housing

It was housing, rather than reconstruction, that highlighted the 1920 international congress of the
International Association in London. This shift was only natural, considering the importance
attributed to housing at the previous Brussels gathering. The proceedings clearly revealed that to the
majority of the delegates town planning was primarily about houses, to be situated in city extensions
on garden city lines. Apparently, by 1920 the city extension was still the dominant frame of mind for
town planners in the international Association.30

Although the British leadership must have been pleased to see the garden city idea embraced by
most participating countries, it must have been less content to note that the majority of the foreign
interpretations adhered to garden suburbs and villages. Two British heavyweights were programmed
to show the just way: Raymond Unwin and C.B. Purdom. This time not the cooperative organisation
of the garden city idea was stressed, but its supposed independency. Industrial decentralisation was
to secure this autonomy. The motivation for establishing new towns no longer was primarily found in
a better quality of life; increasingly the supposed economic advantages of new towns were moved to
the fore.31

Despite the overwhelming support for the garden city idea in most conference papers, the British
garden city experience was scrutinised in London. This had nothing to do with the touchy distinction
between the true garden city and the garden suburb and garden village. It was primarily British
cottage design, a cornerstone of the British garden city gospel, that was criticized. Foreign delegates
concluded that British cottage design had not improved, neither architecturally or technically, and
above all, that the cost price of recent British dwellings was rather high compared to continental
Europe. 32

After a successful conference in London in 1920, the international Association failed to hold a next
conference in the following year to expand its post-war advance. This conference was intended to be
collaboration with the International Housing Congresses, a clear indication that housing still had a
high priority on the International Association’s agenda. The year 1922 saw two conferences. The first
conference of the year, held in March 1922 in London, offered no spectacular new insights. The only
noteworthy feature was a mini-conference dedicated to the reduction of building costs, which
undoubtedly served to address the previous criticisms about the rather high cost-price of recent
British dwellings.33

VIII. Garden Cities and Regional planning

At first sight, the second gathering in 1922 in Paris offered no innovative contributions. However,
afterwards Hudig referred to this conference as the first true attempt to separate the garden city
concept from its original British framework. It was the new Organising Secretary Harry Chapman who
piped a different tune. To the familiar arguments of Unwin and Purdom he added distinctly new
ones. It had been stated before that the garden city concept would have to adapt to local
circumstances, but with Chapman this no longer was an empty gesture followed by insistency on
following the examples of Letchworth and Welwyn. Secondly, he sought support for the garden city
idea outside the housing and town planning circles. Referring to an interview with Henry Ford,
pioneering motorcars manufacturer, he stated that the captains of industry acknowledged the
economical unfitness of giant cities and favoured industrial decentralisation. Thirdly, he plugged
notions borrowed from the broader civic science into the garden city idea. He argued that the
question of re-planning or extending the old cities or ultimately establishing new towns demanded
basic knowledge of the town, the region, the economics of the proposition and the social effects.34

12
The first steps towards a broader garden city framework were taken up once more at the next 1923
congress in Gothenburg. The thematic innovation was nothing drastic, but it did lay the foundation
for a new course, moving away from the cherished garden city. The thematic renewal was
concentrated in the final session of the congress with the rather lengthy title ‘the development of
new towns and industrial centres with special reference to regional planning, growth of new
industries and development of railways and waterways’. Although this title did not refer to garden
cities, everybody knew what was meant with new towns and industrial centres. Undoubtedly, the
International Federation once and for all wanted to break the narrow interpretation of the garden
city idea as mere residential site development method and move to the regional urbanisation model
envisioned by Howard.

Although Unwin’s paper for the session largely was a reiteration of previous contributions, there was
one striking difference: the naturalness of the garden city concept was set aside to address growing
criticisms that before had been persistently ignored. Unwin lashed out against American planner
Arthur. C. Comey who had just published Regional Planning Theory (1923). He categorically denied
Comey’s claim that the establishment of new self-contained nuclei was unnatural and contrary to
economic forces. He concluded that Comey’s plea for continuous growth of existing cities primarily
rested on the fact that cities continued to grow and contained few real arguments. He stated that the
establishment of new nuclei was not unnatural. Even in America, every year new towns sprang up
showing a far larger proportionate growth than to be witnessed in the existing cities. Moreover, the
garden city movement had not embraced new towns at the exclusion of everything else. It
acknowledged that existing cities would continue to grow for some time and subsequently had also
adopted planned dormitories and well-equipped industrial suburbs. Comey’s argument that is was
impossible to limit the size of a town also was easily dismissed. The size of vast numbers of cities
would automatically limit itself due to various causes. Moreover, historical fortified towns showed
that artificial limits had already been maintained in the past. Even in the matter of transportation
innovations, especially the arrival of the motorcar, which Unwin admitted needed to be technically
studied in connection with the garden city movement more thoroughly, he saw evidence that
favoured the principle of adequate nuclei of population surrounding definite centres of
transportation, linked together by rapid transport facilities.

The German and American papers largely supported Unwin’s views. Gustav Langen, who presented
the first German paper contribution after the War, stressed the importance of community-building
and sincerely hoped that the social sciences would be called upon for the next conference. But
Langen’s paper was about more than the social dimension of town planning. He advocated “ a
supervisory science, which looks to all the vital conditions of the town and justly weighs all conflicting
interests, which obtains its knowledge of the interdependence of all the parts from the geography of
economics and population, which is acquainted with the centres and movements of trade and
industry and which (...) aims at a creative system, an economic equilibrium and ideal in which the
development of all businesses shall be able to be carried on without friction like a well-oiled
machine.” This German plea for an all-embracing town planning discipline sounded an awful lot like
the teachings of Patrick Geddes, that were sporadically brought up before and that had proved to
hold a major attraction for the Belgian study groups in 1915-1916.

American reporter Nolen referred to Henry Ford’s policy to diffuse his motorcar production to minor
industrial communities at favourable locations. Other large manufacturers had followed Ford’s lead.
Nolen found additional decisive factors in the writings of pioneering business statistician Roger W.
Babson. Babson, looking for real estate conditions in and around large cities, predicted the greatest
shifting in population since the institution of the railroad. Within the next decade the building of
suburban homes should rival the growth of the automobile, good roads, the movies, the phonograph
and radio. These spectacular innovations had opened up the countryside and enabled the rise of a
phenomenal suburban movement. Nolen thought the inevitable exodus from the large cities had to

13
be rightly prepared and organised, posing an exciting challenge for town planners, thus sharing
notions of town planning as a supervising science with Langen.

Although the discussed papers primarily explored the conditions of new towns in a regional
constellation, rather than defining a regional planning framework, the die was cast. The regional
planning theme was well-received and the region was acknowledged as the basic town planning unit.
The arrival of the region clearly revealed the limitations of the garden city concept. The social
(reform) aspect had always been an important part of the garden city idea. Pragmatic proposals of
re-establishing organic communal life at the micro-level of the individual garden city had been a
recurring feature of previous conferences, but now the social framework was upgraded to the
macro-level of the city and its surroundings. When planning new towns, the planner had to
coordinate and facilitate the exodus of population from the old overcrowded cities and account for
social effects. This called for sound scientific survey, rather than for Howard’s pragmatic deduction.

As a regional urbanisation model, the garden city concept also failed to address necessary economic
requirements. Garden city advocates had repeatedly stressed the supposed economic superiority of
satellites, but despite this superiority it had proved to be very hard to attract local industries for
Letchworth. Therefore, after the War the garden cities campaign increasingly was linked up with the
subject of industrial decentralisation. This choice only bore fruit by 1922-1923, when the economic
servitude of new industrial settlements was acknowledged within the realm of economics. However,
Howard’s regional urbanisation model, although instrumental, was inadequate to facilitate industrial
decentralisation. Viable local industries demanded more than the availability of cheap farmland near
existing cities, to be opened up by an inter-municipal railway. Strategic allocation was of the utmost
importance to secure accessibility and the availability of (natural) resources. Unwin himself had to
confess that they had spent too little attention to transportation and that further scientific study was
necessary. Howard’s notion of an inter-municipal railroad was not elaborate and it did not behold the
revolutionary innovations in the field of communication and transportation.

The introduction of regional planning was intended to liberate the garden city concept from a
restricted interpretation as mere residential site development method, but ironically it initiated the
end of the garden city concept as universal town planning method. A universal supervisory planning
method, on the lines of Geddes’ civics, was thought necessary to coordinate the urbanisation of the
countryside, and the garden city simply did not deliver this. The next conferences were dedicated to
the delineation of comprehensive regional planning methods and the garden city concept silently
faded into the background. In 1926 it was decided to strike the garden city from the moniker of the
International Federation. Clearly, the days of the International Federation as a vehicle to propagate
garden cities were gone.35

IX. Towards a more international outlook

The International Association fared well under the post-war resurgence of internationalism. To the
outside world the international congresses were the obvious sign that the International Association
had fully resumed its activities. The 1919 Brussels conference was the start of an impressive series of
congresses: London, February 1920; London, March 1922; Paris, October 1922; Gothenburg, August
1923; Amsterdam, July 1924; New York, April 1925; Vienna, September 1926. These congresses must
have had an irresistible appeal to housing reformers and town planners, for we see a steady increase
of participants throughout the years: almost 170 registered delegates for London 1920; more than
300 for Gothenburg 1923; more than 500 for Amsterdam 1924; over 1,000 for Vienna 1926. 36

Along with the congresses, other routines were taken up as well. The congresses provided the
background for meetings of the bodies of the International Association. Both the General Committee,
shortly after re-baptized Council, and the Executive Committee convened at the international
gatherings and also regularly held meetings in the intervals between conferences. Now that the

14
hostilities had ceased, all foreign members could again get actively involved in the organisation and
attend the meetings of the bodies of which they were chosen members. However, the normalization
of international contacts by no means meant that the diversity of the nationalities of its members
was reflected in the meetings of the bodies of the International Association.

As of old, all the offices were firmly held in British hands. The Britisht officers returned in their old
capacity. Litchfield, still treasurer in 1917, was succeeded by Raymond Unwin in 1919. However, a
more significant change concerning the officers was the decision to appoint two secretaries. Thus,
Culpin was joined by C.B. Purdom, a confessed garden city purist, in 1919.37 This addition was a very
important one. Obviously, the strengthening of the office of Secretary meant that the International
Association could handle more correspondence and practical organizing matters. More importantly,
the appointment of Purdom unavoidably brought a stricter interpretation of the garden city gospel.
In 1922 Culpin was succeeded by Harry Chapman, the librarian of the British Association. The British
officers were members of both the Executive Committee and the Council. On paper, these bodies
reflected the different nationalities of the members, but in reality they were British strongholds. The
oldest surviving minutes clearly reveal that the British ruled the show.38 However, these patterns
were about to change.

The year 1922 brought fundamental changes. It was French professor A. Bruggeman who aptly put
words to a growing resentment against the naturalness of British leadership. At a meeting of the
Council held at the office of the (International and British) Association in London in June 1922 he
found himself with Belgian senator Vinck against a British majority. He opened a discussion on the
future of the International Association. He suggested to open a second office on the Continent and to
acknowledge the influential French periodical La Vie Urbaine as an official organ of the International
Association besides Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, the periodical of the British
Association. Although Bruggeman did not get all he bargained for, he did get a lot. It was decided
that the International Association should establish its own, independent office, with its own staff.39
Thus the International Association took up its own office and Chapman and Purdom gave up their
employment by the British Association. Frenchman Henri Sellier was appointed as Chairman of the
Executive Committee and became the first non-British officer. The separation from the British
Association gained momentum at the 1922 congress in Paris where it was resolved to change the
name of the International Association to the International Garden Cities and Town planning
Federation. According to Albers, this change of name was intended to stress the fact that the
international body was a collaboration of countries, rather than individuals, but surely it also
intended to stress the distinction between the International Federation and its parent.40

The coup staged by Bruggeman was intensified by two other developments that also occurred in
1922. The first, and probable most important, was the re-admittance of the Germans and Austrians.
In October the repeated applications for membership from German and Austrian organisations were
finally approved, initiating a wave of membership applications from the Germanic territories. Of
course the Germans were entitled to a seat in the Executive Committee, which they got in the person
of Adolf Otto, Secretary of the Deutsche Gartenstadtgesellschaft.41 Thus the ‘continental side’ gained
a vote in the Executive Committee. But, more importantly, the Germans with their Städtebau and
coherent regional planning regimes, as initiated by Robert Schmidt in the Ruhrkohlenbezirk, could
easily rival British housing and planning experience. It was the intellectual baggage, rather than the
new votes that had the bigger impact on the power balance within the International Federation.

The re-admittance of the Germans more or less coincided with a reorganisation of the Dutch
delegation. Initially, the Dutch Society of Architects had been responsible for participation from
Holland. The Dutch architects had been loyal congress attendants, but they had never taken an active
interest in the organisation of the International Association. In 1922 the organisation of the Dutch
participation was taken over by the newly established Nederlandsch Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting

15
en Stedebouw (NIVS). Its Secretary General, Dirk Hudig, immediately set out to raise the efficiency of
the rather loose organisation of the Dutch delegation. Hudig and his NIVS became the undisputed
representative of the International Federation in the Netherlands. Under Hudig, the number of Dutch
delegates at the congresses steadily increased and he made certain that the Netherlands were
featured among the congress papers and exhibits of the adjoining exhibitions. But Hudig’s ambitions
reached further than just securing a prominent position for the Dutchmen at the congresses. He
wanted to have a say in the policy-making. He claimed the chairs in the bodies of the International
Association the Dutchmen were entitled to and he himself made it into the Executive Committee.
Once in a position of power, he joined the ‘continental block’ formed by prominent Belgian and
French members such as Vinck, Bruggeman and Sellier which he already knew through his
involvement in the International Housing Congresses.42

In the following year the English domination crumbled further. At the 1923 Gothenburg congress, at
the motion of Hudig, it was decided in the future to appoint chairmen (of the Council) from the
country that was hosting the conference, effectively preventing this office to fall back in British hands
on a permanent basis. As Amsterdam was chosen to be the next host, Hudig became Montahu
Harris’ successor. Also at the motion of Hudig, it was decided that in the future the hosting country
would be allowed to make propositions for the conference agenda, rather than be told by the British
staff in London what subjects were to be discussed.43

The Gothenburg gathering also had the positive effect of raising active membership in the Nordic
countries. So by late 1923 the British domination in the Executive Committee was counterbalanced
by active membership from Belgium, France, Germany, Holland and the Nordic countries. This active
membership inspired many other nations to get more actively involved and from the mid-1920s
onwards the diversity of the nationalities of the members was increasingly translated to the
composure of the Executive Committee. The membership of the Council displayed a similar pattern.44

X. Conclusion
In 1913 the British Garden Cities and Town Planning Association took the step to formalize its
network of foreign contacts by establishing the International Garden Cities and Town Planning
Association. In the beginning this international body served as an international extension of the
British Association to propagate its garden city ideal. Initially the British leadership was silently
accepted, but the indiscriminate support of the British lead soon crumbled. The outbreak of the War
offered an opportunity to place the garden city concept in the wider reconstruction debate, but the
new context posed by the War also clearly revealed that the garden city concept was unable to
address the advancing urbanisation. However, the British leadership stubbornly persisted in
exclusively propagating the garden city concept, initially as the best town planning model for
reconstruction, and later as universal housing and regional planning model. The continental
members increasingly resented the one-sided diktat of the congresses’ agenda and wanted to have a
say as well. Thus by 1922 they put pressure on the British leadership to adopt a more internationally
orientated outlook for the International Association. During the next years the British domination
was gradually pushed back. As in 1923 a regional framework was introduced for the garden city
concept, discontent members seized the opportunity to move regional planning forwards at the
expense of the propagation of garden cities. The next conferences were dedicated to the delineation
of comprehensive, supervisory regional planning methods and the garden city concept faded into the
background. After a decade, the role of the international body as mere international propagandist
extension of the British Association had come to an end.

16
 1
Sutcliffe, A., Towards the Planned City. Germany, Britain, the United States and France, 1780-1914, 1981, 168-169.
2
Hardy, D., From Garden Cities to New Towns. Campaiging for town and country planning, 1899-1946, 1991, 100.
3
Howard. E., Garden Cities of Tomorrow, [1902] 1965, 138.
4
Hardy 1991, 16-19, 46.
5
Ibid, 46-50.
6
Ibid, 50-55.
7
Purdom, C.B., Life over Again, 1951, 52-53.
8
Miller, M., ‘Raymond Unwin 1863-1940’ in G.E. Cherry (ed.), Pioneers in British Planning, 1981, 83-86.
9
Hardy 1991, 56.
10
Ibid, 56-65.
11
Ibid, 115-126.
12
Purdom 1951, 60-61; Hardy 1991, 127-129.
13
Hardy 1991, 150-157; Purdom 1951, 64-66.
14
Wallroth-Unterilp, M., Gartenstädte in Sicht, Jena, 1907; Bloch, A.U., Goroda Budushavo, 1911; Montolio, C., La Ciutad-Jardín, Barcelona,
1912 ; Bruinwold Riedel, J., Tuinsteden, Utrecht, 1906; Garden Cities, Vol. I, 1905, 12; Hardy 1991, 95; Albers. G., Zur Entwicklung der
Stadtplanung in Europa. Begegnungen, Einflüsse, Verflechtungen, 1997, 146.
15
Sutcliffe 1981, 169; Albers 1997, 154; Garden Cities, 1904-1905, 6.
16
Garden Cities, 1905, 12; Hardy 1991, 95-97.
17
Purdom 1951,62; Hardy 1991, 100; Uyttenhove, P., ‘ Internationale inspanningen voor een modern België’ in M. Smets (ed.),
RESURGAM. De Belgische wederopbouw na 1914,1985, 38.
18
Saunier, P.Y., “Reshaping the Urban Internationale: the US Foundations and International Organisation in Municipal Government,
Planning and Housing 1920s-1960s”, paper delivered at the conference Philantrophy and the City: an historical overview, September 2000;
Saunier, P.Y., “Sketches from the Urban Internationale, 1910-1950: voluntary associations, international institutions and US philanthropic
institutions”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25, 2001, 380-403; Saunier, P.Y., “Taking Up the Bet on Connections: a
Municipal Contribution”, Contemporary European History 11, 2002, 573-596; Sutcliffe 1981, 163-173.
19
Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, 1913, 224-226.
20
Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, 1914, 70-71.
21
Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, 1914, 178-179; Stuyt in Bouwkundig Weekblad, 1914, 409-412, 427-429, 442-449, 451-454;
Brown in Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, Vol. IV, 1914, 181-184; Vivian in Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, 1914,
192-195.
22
Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, 1916, 117; Hardy 1991, 130
23
Uyttenhove 1985
24
The Town Planning institute was not a member of the International Association. It would only join the international body in 1924, once
the propandist (garden city) nature was pushed back by continental members.
25
Uyttenhove 1985; Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, 1915, 41 onwards; Jos. Th. Cuypers in Architectura, 63; Garden Cities and
Town Planning Magazine, 1917, 38-39.
26
Uyttenhove 1985, 38-43; Garden Cities and town planning magazine, 1917, 39; Jos. Th. Cuypers in Architectura, 1915, 41-65; Albers 1997,
25-111.
27
Uyttenhove 1985, 36-38, 52-58; Garden Cities and town planning Magazine, 1915, 63-92; Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine,
1917, 39-40.
28
Uyttenhove 1985, 54-55; Garden Cities and Town Planning Magazine, 1917, 23.
29
Garden Cities and town Planning magazine, 1920, 66-68; Report of Conference and annual meeting, London, 1920, International Garden
Cities and Town Planning Association, 1920: Slothouwer in Bouwkundig Weekblad, 1920, 63-68; Paper cutting from a British newspaper
dated February 19th, 1920, located at Howard papers, DE/Ho/F28/5 at HALS study centre, Hertford.
30
Ibid.
31
Hardy 1991, 148-150.
32
Slothouwer in Bouwkundig Weekblad, 1920, 63-68; Keppler in Tijdschrift voor Volkshuisvesting, 1920, 30-32; Oud in Tijdschrift voor
Volkshuisvesting, 1920, 97-98; Van de Kloot-Meyburg in Bouwkundig Weekblad, 1920, 165-168.
33
Garden Cities and town planning magazine, 1922, 61-73; Programme of International Conference at the Daily Mail Ideal Home Exhibition,
IGCTPA, 1922; L’Habitation à Bon Marché, 1921, 284-285; TV, 1922,1-2.
34
Report of Conference, Paris, 1922, International Garden Cities and Town Planning Federation, 1922; Garden Cities and Town Planning
Magazine, 1922, 190-191; Tijdschrift voor Volkshuisvesting, 1922, 347-348.
35
Report of Conference at Gothenburg, 1923; Report of Conference at Amsterdam, 1924;Report of Conference at New York, 1925; Report of
Conference at Vienna, 1926.
36
International Federation for Housing and Planning 1913-1963. Golden Jubilee Conference, The Hague, 1963
37
Minutes of the Executive Committee, 26th November 1919, located at the IFHP-Archives, The Hague; Putdom 1951, 62.
38
Minutes of the Executive Committee and Council 1919-1922, located at the IFHP-Archives, The Hague.
39
Minutes of the Council, 10th June 1922, located at IFHP-Archives, The Hague.
40
Albers 1997,187; Hardy 1991, 197.
41
Minutes of the Council, 20th October, 1922, located at the IFHP-Archives, The Hague.
42
NIROV-Archives, no. a.22 to a.70, located at Netherlands Architecture Institute, Rotterdam.
43
Minutes of the Council, 6th August, 1923, located at IFHP-Archives, The Hague.
44
See attendance lists in Minutes of the Executive Committee, 1923-1928.

17

View publication stats