9928117

In what ways did urban planners

Word Count: 2497

By submitting my course I declare that the work submitted is my own, that the work I submit
online is identical to the work I submit on hard copy and that I understand the University's
Policy on Academic Malpractice.

pg. 1
9928117

Introduction:

It is now clear that humans have been amending their environment, and attempting to organise
their settlements for thousands of years. The time period between 1945 and 1975 is arguably
one of the most experimental times for planners when thinking about housing. The Second
World War had just ended, and Britain was faced with destruction left from heavy bombing,
as well as a huge housing shortage. It is vital to appreciate the magnitude of deprivation created
by WW2-not only to appreciate the urgency of the problem, but also the true extent for
reconstruction- 750,000 new homes were estimated to be obligatory in England and Wales to
afford all families accommodation (Bullock, 2002). The initial response to this crisis was to
undergo a programme of short term fixes to existing housing (Temporary Housing Programme)
as well as the rapid construction of prefabricated properties, these were temporary bungalows
that were made in a factory (Bullock, 2002). "Despite the construction of 156,622 prefabs the
country still faced an acute housing shortage” (Bullock, 2002)- waiting lists in urban areas rose
as this is where the highest demand was.

Initial Response:

While these ‘prefab’ bungalows were most-likely valuable to many, it did not alleviate the
overwhelming shortage of housing relatively. The country was still burdened with vast areas
of slum housing, many said to be unfit to live in- additionally there was also many more people
living in below standard conditions. Inner city populations were growing exponentially, paired
with the aggressive rise in inner city housing shortages and inner city unoccupied and
dilapidated sites left by the war created a break for modernisers. They decided to promote a
new urban vision.

By this point, the main problems with traditional housing were: overpopulation; poor
infrastructure; spread of disease; slums; derelict buildings; poverty; and congestion in the inner
city. In attempts to save the country, numerous planners took on unique approaches to try
eradicate these problems. It was challenging to turn housing visions into a reality, there was
little land, labour, money or building materials. From these approaches, two prominent efforts
are the most notable- the act of building new ‘overspill’ towns, as well as the construction of
high density tower blocks. It was a time of experimentation and trial and error- 1945 marks the
decline of the traditional semidetached house.

By 1946 architects and planners regarded themselves as ‘social engineers’ - they felt a sense
of mission to create beauty and a sense of community. Their first influence was the belief that
society and the economy should be rationally organised to benefit all. Second being social
democracy- using planning as an essential tool but rooted in working-class politics and more
generally shared ideas of equality which prevailed (Osborn et al., 1978). Planning at this time
was generally run by “Labour-dominated councils which…tried to deliver ambitious housing
policies and local strategies for economic regeneration” (Shapely, 2004). They wanted to
absorb civic pride into their value system ‘to build a city that will be worthy of the ancient
traditions’- most importantly, they were to aim high (Hasegawa, 1992). Soon 10 year plans
were put into place in order to improve housing conditions.

pg. 2
9928117

Overspill Towns:

Overspill towns were built all over the country to try ease the congestion and overpopulation
in the inner cities. Like many planning theories and attempts, they have been criticized heavily.

One example of where overspill towns have been built in order to lift housing conditions is in
Glasgow. Post-war Glasgow was highly overpopulated, it processed the highest population
density, with the “most overcrowded with a quarter of its population living at densities in
excess of two persons per room” in Britain (Farmer and Smith, 1975). This lead to abnormally
high infant mortality rates, congestion, disease, damp, mould and anti-social behaviour (Platt
et al. 1989). In 1965, a total of 85 per cent of Glasgow's housing stock was tenemental
(Robertson, 1989), and something needed to change…

To relieve the city of its complications, an overspill policy was implemented. Targeting to
reduce the inner city population in Glasgow, and relocated these inhabitants to new towns
beyond the green belt. It was necessary for the outmigration of the population beyond the green
belt, as planners believed that the area in the municipal boundary would soon be exhausted.
Thus, it was seen as curtail to relocate the population beyond this boundary (Farmer and Smith,
1975).

Furthermore, responses to the programme were rather extensive- overall population density
reduced immensely, reduced to a “mean number of persons per dwelling from 3 .3 to 3 .0”
(Farmer and Smith, 1975). Congestion and overcrowding in the inner city largely improved,
so it can be assumed that the programme was a success.

However, although slum clearance has reduced significantly by this point, overspill targets had
not been achieved, and “despite an extensive volume of population leaving Glasgow, planned
targets have fallen short of expectation” (Farmer and Smith, 1975).

It is believed that the overspill policies accepted around Glasgow are responsible for the
political disparities present in said suburbs. The ‘Stalinist’ approach planners took on during
the 1950’s may have been an outcome of this. Housing was a major political issue for the city
throughout most of the twentieth century- so it is unsurprising that it was under such debate.
The most popular point being that the investment in new towns meant that people were taken
from their previous houses and relocated. The complete removal of previous social connections
was very distressing for some, leaving people unsatisfied with their new life. People felt lost,
stranded on windswept, mysterious acres far different from the life they knew and deprived of
any sense of neighbourhood (Hanley, 2007).

The most unfortunate thing about the approach taken by council planners in most of the
overspill towns was the fact that the planning solutions were largely short sighted and fixated
in entirely different directions. Failure to see the ‘bigger picture’ meant that social and
economic factors were ignored- this lead to many problems in the longer run.

New towns don’t actually appease housing problems when looking at the bigger picture. As
stated before, those who did escape the deprivation of the post-war inner city housing crisis
were generally enjoying better quality housing, employment opportunities, and a higher
standard of living. However, those who did not afford this opportunity still faced the problem.
New towns ‘skim the cream off the top’ of a downhill running city. Developments built should
consider planning for the larger extent of social amendment.

pg. 3
9928117

While in many new towns, the transfer of people and industry “was so well coordinated that as
high as 85 percent of the new town residents (e.g. in Harlow) work at jobs inside the new town
itself” (Downie, 1971). However, it was this very success that morphed many new towns into
single class communities. White collar workers/skilled workers were disproportionately
dominant over the other classes- this meant that there were little to no low income families,
immigrants, or wealthy people. Not only is this ‘sameness’ a major drawback to a town as
everyone is segregated socially from the other classes, but it leaves the town with lower
touristic opportunities- tourists are bored by the economic stratification and subsequent sterility
of the town.

Additionally, another social and economic disadvantage existing in Glasgow was due to the
presence of single class communities. “The lack of opportunities for unskilled and lower
income workers does leave real problems back in the central cities” (Downie, 1971). This
usually meant that low income people (usually immigrants) were trapped in a worsening slum-
like conditions. In this sense, British new towns intensified the issue of poor living conditions,
rather than eased it. Housing conditions may have been improved for some, but the residual
people were left worse off.

It can be said that New Towns’ masterplans dictated large amounts of open space, low density
development and housing segregated from jobs/shopping/business services. Because of this
attribute, there was an overwhelming dependency for cars (or functional public transport)- this
is unsustainable. (Office and Commons, 2002).

There are many ways in which New Towns are viewed disadvantageously as a method.
Nevertheless, it is vital to appreciate the ways in which it was successful in some locations.

Tower Blocks:

Secondly, another route in which planners took was the construction of high rise tower blocks.
Unlike building New Towns, tower blocks don’t remove people from the area, but
accommodate them locally. High rises were inspired by ideals taken from the 1930s modernism
movement, during this time there were many young architects who wanted to improve/change
the nation’s housing for the better. They seemed like exactly what post-war Britain needed:
they were a vision of miniature communities, it stopped overspill (preserved the countryside),
flats gave high density 140 persons/acre, and were much cheaper to build and maintain.

In Manchester, Lord Attlee released the first tower block apartments in 1956, reinforcing the
idea that this was a “beginning of a new era” (Shapely, 2004)- in this sense, it was new and
exciting, for post-war Britain. This not only gave locals what they need in terms of their
housing needs and pressures, but it further became part of local traditions- the association to
‘modernisation’ and ‘progress’ (Shapely, 2004).

However, due to the large dependence on these new tower blocks, the pressures of higher
completion rates was increasing. This meant that Manchester was pushed to adopt new
‘industrial’ building techniques like ‘system built’ tower blocks- this was due to the
contemporary nature of it, as well as the fact it was cheap (Shapely, 2004). One example of a
tower block in Manchester was the Hulme Crescents.

pg. 4
9928117

By 1964 55% of the housing built by local authorities were flats (Burnett and Powell, 1986),
and problems soon arose due to the poor construction of the design. “The design meant that if
one piece of glass went we had to replace the whole panel because it was a fixed unit” (Shapely,
2004). There were further problems too…

The construction did not meet the aim of supporting social betterment through environmental
progress. There were numerous social problems with the building itself. One being the
continuous occurrence of broken lifts, resulting in large quantities of stairs people had to use
to get in and out the building. High levels of stressed caused by the poor living standards
resulted in suicide, and divorce. Poor lighting (leading to crime), stairwells smelling like urine,
inadequate refuse disposal (resulting in rubbish left on landings), litter, animal excrement, and
noise echoing through stairwells were just some of the other issues with the buildings. As Kaye
renders it: ‘town planning became town cramming’ (Kay, 1993).

Other problems associated to the tower blocks were the disease and physical deterioration
experienced by the tenants. One example is the tendency for the tower blocks to have damp:
“damp and mouldy living conditions have an adverse effect on symptomatic health, particularly
among children” ((Platt et al. 1989). Notable illnesses also relate to psychotic, neurotic and
gastro-intestinal sicknesses. The main issues were poor maintenance, nuisance neighbours,
expensive communal heating, gangs, drug use, vandalism, ‘problem families’ and the
destruction of core facilities (Burnett and Powell, 1986)

They were not suitable for families- architects became disillusioned with the way flats were
being used by local authorities- essentially, they were building slums for the future, this is
because some high rises were used for problematic tenants (as they were unpopular with
families).

Ultimately, it is clear that with this many negatives associated to the tower blocks, one has to
acknowledge the overwhelming disadvantageous aspect of the construction of one. Eventually,
in 1967 the subsidies for building Tower blocks was abolished (Franzen and Ambrose, 1996).
This abolishment continued even quicker after the 1968 The Ronan Point disaster- a gas
explosion, which subsequently led to a tower block to collapse; highlighted to the mainstream
media how unfortunate tower blocks were as a housing strategy.

Mixed Schemes:

So far, both tower blocks and overspill new towns have been analysed separately as individuals.
However, some argue that an arrangement of various different planning attempts used in
conjunction to each other gives the best results.

One example is Harlow, a new town built in 1947 for the overspill population of central London
(Bailey et al., 1990). London was congested and overpopulated, overspill towns were perfect
in reducing this. While it was a new town, it also incorporated other strategies in order to
alleviate housing problems (Gibberd, 1982). The first tower block in the UK was built in
Harlow, the 10 storey high rise was built in 1951 by the founder: Frederick Gibberd (Gibberd,
1982), was called ‘The Lawn’. It is thought to be one of the, most successful overspill towns
in the UK.

pg. 5
9928117

Not only was the tower block and new town strategy utilised here, but many other planning
policies were used to improve the standard of housing in the area. Lady Russel, one of
the Development Corporation boards’ first associates, explains how its members:
“Most of us were having the chance to put into practice ideals we had held all our lives, but
never really expected to see carried out.” (Furlong, 1960).

This distinctive outlook on planning afforded the towns ability to cater towards different groups
of people: “in this village green setting, the houses of the white-collar man and the factory
worker stand side by side’ – there was to be ‘no wrong side of the track in Harlow’ (East
Anglian Film Archive, 2011). With many types of accommodation, there was a home for
everyone.

Conclusion/Evaluation:

When looking at the addressed schemes for improvement over the years, it is apparent that
there were defiantly problems with each attempt. While this is quite a critical approach to
historic planning schemes, it can’t be looked at too harshly. Without mistakes committed in
past examples, planners would not be able to learn and develop as a collective. Additionally,
in the mid 20th Century, knowledge was more limited, and the quality of housing materials
were inferior.

Ultimately, it can be said that the one scheme that stands out is the Mixed development scheme.
Mixed schemes are generally more successful, this is because they can cater specifically to the
areas individual issue- making it a unique and more directed solution. Rather than applying
one scheme to a location, you must treat each area subjectively as no two locations can be
treated exactly identically. When looking at New Towns and Tower Blocks in the 21st Century,
knowing the destruction and despair some of the projects caused- I would still say they were
both successful in their own rights. The tower block was successful in the post-war housing of
people- quickly, cheaply, and on a mass scale). Additionally, Overspill towns were effective
in de-congesting city centres, and relocating inhabitants. These strategies may not have been a
long term solution by any means, but planners did they best they could with the materials,
resources and time.

They were short term emergency solution to a problem that bought for time for later planners
to identify better solutions.

pg. 6
9928117

Works Cited:

Bailey, C. Attfield, J., Kirkham P., Fry, T. and Walker J.A. (1990) “A view from the interior:
Feminism, woman, and design,” Design Issues, 7(1), p. 71.

Bullock, N. (2002) “Building the post-war world: Modern architecture and reconstruction in
Britain”. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Burnett, J. and Powell, C. (1986) “A social history of housing,” 1815-1985. 2nd edn. New
York. Routledge.

Cullen, G. (1953) “Prairie planning in the new towns,” The Architectural Review, 114,
pp.33-36.

Downie, L. (1971) “The disappointing new towns of Great Britain,” Available at:
http://aliciapatterson.org/stories/disapointing-new-towns-of-great-britain (Accessed: 26
March 2017)

East Anglian film archive (2011) “Transatlantic Teleview: New towns in Britain,” 1956.
Available at: http://www.eafa.org.uk/catalogue/249 (Accessed: 24 March 2017)

Farmer, E. and Smith, R. (1975) “Overspill theory: A metropolitan case study”, Urban
Studies, 12(2), pp. 151-168.

Franzen, M. and Ambrose, P. (1996) “Urban process and power,” Geografiska Annaler.
Series B, Human Geography, 78(1), p. 60

Furlong, M. (1960) “Harlow: New Town,” The Spectator, 30 September, pp. 11-13.

Gibberd, F. (1982) “Harlow: The design of a new town,” Town Planning Review, 53(1), p.
29

Hanley, L. (2007) “Estates: An intimate history,” London: Granta Books.

Hasegawa, J. (1992) “Replanning the blitzed city centre: A comparative study of Bristol,
Coventry, and Southampton 1941-1950,” United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Office, T. C. and Commons, H. of (2002) House of commons- transport, local government

Osborn, F. J., Whittick, A., Mumford, L., and Osborn, S. F. (1978) “New towns: their origins,
achievements, and progress,” 3rd edn. London: Blackie Academic & Professional (an Imprint
of Chapman & Hall).

Platt, S. D., Martin, C. J., Hunt, S. M., and Lewis, C. W. (1989) “Damp housing, mould
growth, and symptomatic health state,” BMJ, 298(6689), pp. 1673-1678.

pg. 7
9928117

Robertson, D. S. (1989) “The regeneration of Glasgow: the contribution of community-based

Robertson, D. S. (1998) “Pulling in opposite directions: The failure of post war planning to
regenerate Glasgow,” Planning Perspectives, 13(1), pp. 53-67.

Shapely, P. (2004) “Civic culture and housing policy in Manchester, 1945-79,” Twentieth
Century British History, 15(4), pp. 410-434.

pg. 8