Topic 10A: Heritage and Gentrification

Heritage and Gentrification

Kar Yue Gabrielle Leung

Gentrification is the process of demographic changes in a specific area. It is defined as the process of the wealthier moving in to an existing urban area causing a related increase in monetary items, such as rents and property values and changes the district’s culture and character (Grant, 2003).

There is a general idea where gentrification causes undesirable outcomes, such as demolish current heritage and causes the poor to leave the districts since the rent no longer is affordable. It can be seen as negative or causing a destruction to the original community.  However, is it just a general impression of gentrification?

Before gentrification took place, Howe, Nichol, and Davison mentioned that Christian describes Subiaco is a party suburb, where the living environment is poor, crowded, however; the community was close to each other, a lot of bits and pieces were happening here and there (2014). After gentrification, Christian describes that the dormitory part is less lively, but neater (Howe, Nichol, & Davison, 2014). From the readings, it makes me wonder whether it is a gentrification or trendification. In this paper, I would like to discuss whether gentrification or trendification took place and the relationship between these two terms and how effective that the solutions regarding to gentrification.

Trendification emphasizes on the social and cultural factors rather than the movement of demographic changes (Howe et al., 2014). Discussion below will be using Carlton, one of the inner suburbs in Melbourne as an example.

Carlton was a socially diverse community with a mixture of social classes, where the wealthier family moved in during the 1890s and a scale of demolition and redevelopment took during the early twentieth century (Yule, 2004). The social profile change leads to a rise in the prices of property and the forms of property. According to the definition mentioned above, it is an evidence of gentrification. However, Logan argued that it is more of a global phenomenon of trendification where new and young renting population and its daily spending habit and styles in household decoration (1985).

The changes in Carlton can be assessed in two aspects including demographically and socially.

From a demographical aspect, referring to Yule, it was the higher income group from the Yarra side took place and replaced the working class in terms of housing (2004). It is an undeniable historical fact. The higher income group is mostly well educated with a steady, from medium to high income. The reason why they move to Carlton is due to the proximity to the city, where it is near to their workplace. However, the fact also shows that there is a trend where the population is made up of a younger age group. According to City of Melbourne, the median age is 25, which is mostly young adults.  Since the inner city often being presented with a trendy image where all the old houses being abandoned with graffiti on, which young adult like to stay around and enjoy the atmosphere in it. Thus, Logan’s argument is partially sound.

Figure 1. Showing the street views of Carlton (Google Map, 2015)

In terms of social, Carlton has always been a mixed culture community till now. However, can it be argued that it is the local daily spending habit and styles in household that took place instead of gentrification? Carlton was once manufacturing based, however, till a later time, it has established its own iconic serving industry by opening restaurants and cafes. The distinctive locality has been shown through these businesses, such as, Lygon Street.  The immigrants have injected these localities to the community from the Western Europe. This changes the local daily spending, from manufacturing or grocery to mainly servicing. However, without gentrification, there is no way that the café can stand the high rent and the customers will be the working class instead of the wealthier ones, which allow the industry to survive till now.

There is no absolute answer to whether Carlton went through either gentrification or trendification. From the above analysis, we can arrive to a conclusion that trendification did took place, however, gentrification serves as a base to allow trendification to carry on.

Gentrification often takes place in the inner suburbs where it forces the poor to move out, an absurd rose in property price and causes a loss of distinctive locality characteristics. It is undeniably that all the above has been proved as fact, however, are there any solutions to fix the issues stated above and to what extent are they effective?

Take Hong Kong as an example, Wan Chai is an inner city area where it is located right next to the Central Business District. Due to its proximity to the city and government’s redevelopment project being implemented in this area, where tenement buildings are being forced to pull down and replaced with high-rise residential apartments. This does not only force the elderly to leave the area but causes destruction towards the locality. However, can compensation to be made and how effective are these measurements?

In terms of households, for the elderly who lost their home, compensation is made by the developers or government in order to assist them with finding a new home. Public housing is another option to provide for families who have difficulties in purchasing property.  To a smaller extent that is effective as elderlies not only consider Wan Chai as their home but also emotionally attached to the surroundings, where money or another shelter can only solve their basic needs as a shelter.

In terms of local characteristics, within the area, Lee Tung Street which is originally famous for its printing business in wedding invitation cards was being forced to clear out due to development of high rise residential buildings. In order to keep the local characteristics and also allowing the tenants to continue their business, the government identified another street near to Lee Tung Street to keep the distinctive characteristics and allow the tenants to continue the business where the rent is slightly cheaper than the market price. To a large extent that it is effective since the locality and traditional business can be carried on and also the tenants can actually afford to pay the rent despite how high is the market price.

Figure 2. Showing the street view of Lee Tung Street(Wedding Invitation Street) before relocation (Lee Tung Street/ McGregor Street Project, n.d.)

 

Figure 3.  Showing the site after relocation of Wedding Invitation Street (Bluebalu, 2015)

These are the possible compensation, where it allows the local characteristics being sustained and replacement of houses being provided to the one who lost them due to gentrification.

In conclusion, this paper has analyzed the relationship between gentrification and trendification where it can be found that gentrification is the base for trendification and the recompense to the community that is being affected by gentrification.

Reference

Bluebalu. (2015). Sunny Days in Hong Kong. Retrieved 14 May, 2015, from http://bluebalu.com/2015/04/30/sunny-days-in-hong-kong/

City of Melbourne (2015). Carlton, Small Area Profile A Snapshot. Retrieved 13 May 2015, from http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutMelbourne/Statistics/Documents/Demographic_population_Infographic_carlton.pdf

Google Earth (2015). Interactive map. Retrieved 14 May, 2015, from https://www.google.com/earth/explore/products/plugin.html

Grant, B. (2015). What is Gentrification?. Retrieved 13 May 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/special_gentrification.php

Howe, R., Nichols, D. & Davison, G. (2014). Gentrification and Trendification. Trendyville: the Battle for Australian Inner Cities. Clayton: Monash Univeristy Publishing.

Logan, W. (1985). The gentrification of Inner Melbourne: a political geography of inner city housing. St. Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press.

URA Project Photos (n.d.). Lee Tung Street/ McGregor Street Project. Retrieved 13 May 2015, from http://webacademy.urec.org.hk/en/7/7_3_wc_3.html

Yule, P. (2004). Carlton: A History. Carlton VIC: Melbourne University Publishing.

Topic 9B: Suburban Heaven and Hell

The Menzian Dream and Reality

Beverly Chow 

While the Pascoe reading contrasts Carlton and North Balwyn as heaven and hell, this essay will contrast two paths to a suburban heaven, one where the vision is dictated from above, by the government and other planning authorities. The other path is represented by post-war Lalor, where the residents looked toward their ideal of a suburban heaven, and tried to build toward it. This essay found that in post-war Melbourne, by the time that the top-down governmental vision trickled down through the hierarchy of power, it was diluted each step of the way, and when the lukewarm reality finally reached home owners, the original vision was broken and incomplete. It also found that while the Lalor residents were at least partially successful in building their own vision of a good community, they were successful despite the governmental planning, not because of it. It points toward a need for a more vertically integrated planning scheme, which can combine the best of these top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Robert Menzies, in his dramatic 1942 "Forgotten People" speech, acknowledged and intensified the Australian desire for what Pascoe terms a distinctly "middle-class, Anglo-Australian" model of home ownership- the detached suburban home. He called the home 'the foundation of sanity and sobriety,' and claimed that the health of the home 'determines the health of the nation as a whole' (Brett, 2007).

Sydney psychologist Henry Lovell agreed, stating in a report to the Commonwealth Housing Commission that 'a man deprived of space is reduced in stature' (Harris & Larkham, 2003). Menzie described low-density housing as 'one little piece of earth with a house and a garden which is ours', which was seen as the ideal. By the 1950s, the Menzian dream was exploding, with over half a million homes constructed between 1945 and 1955. From 1910-1940, around 50% of homes were occupied by their owners. By 1961, however, despite a dramatic population increase, 70% of homes were owner-occupied (Harris & Larkham, 2003).

There were a number of factors contributed to the dramatic increase in home ownership. In the 1950s, only 10-12% of household expenditure was spent on housing, half that of the pre-war levels (Harris & Larkham, 2003), and Government policies such as the War Service Homes scheme subsidized housing to former military personnel. This scheme alone financed almost 18% of all housing in the housing boom between 1945 and 1955 (Harris & Larkham, 2003).

The desire to own 'one little piece of earth' helped foster an enormous housing shortage. There were plans to overcome this housing shortage, with the Victorian Government announcing that they would finance half of all accommodation. However, by the mid-1950s, only about 15% of Victorian houses were publicly financed (Harris & Larkham, 2003). Home buyers therefore took matters into their own hands, and the number of owner-built houses reached historic highs, comprising a staggering 40% of homes built in 1954 (Pascoe, 2011).

The unusually high effort that residents put into owning their own homes reflected the importance Victorians placed on the Menzian dream, but the government, caught by surprise at the demand for housing, could not keep up with infrastructural demands. Old subdivisions of small, outer suburban councils that were perhaps unsuitable for residential development were opened to owner-builders, who enjoyed the lack of regulatory control the councils placed on these areas (Hamnett & Freestone, 2000). Infrastructure lagged the construction of homes for years, with many homes only connected with electricity and sewage years after the initial construction (Scollay, 2012).

Many developments were extremely far from the ideals of the Commonwealth Housing Commission, which recommended homes shall be "well serviced, located in neighbourhood units in reach of schools, by-passed by traffic on main traffic arteries and with local shops and baby clinics within walking distance.” It recommended that “the main bread winner's place of employment should be located nearby and there should be outdoor recreation and open space for the family." (Hamnett & Freestone, 2000)

Despite the failure to accomplish the ideals of the Commonwealth Housing Commission, in many areas, some of the spirit of this neighbourhood ideal was attained, in an unlikely location on the outskirts of Melbourne in Lalor.

Lalor began as a soldier settlement, and the first houses there were exceptional in their isolation. Instead of submitting to this isolation however, the residents of Lalor, particularly the women, set about building a close community. Their efforts centred on the construction of a kindergarten /community hall, and their efforts to obtain governmental funding for this project were rebuffed by the conservative incumbents. (Scollay, 2012)

Figure 1 - Street view of Cyprus Street in Lalor in 1960 (Museum Victoria, 2013)

Undeterred, the Lalor Women's social club set about funding the project directly from the community. The fundraising efforts helped build a close community, with the LWSC organising "dances, balls, picture nights, fetes, children's fancy dress parties, card nights, fashion parades and gymkhanas". (Scollay, 2012)These activities continued regularly for years, which undoubtedly contributed to close friendships that developed within Lalor.

Unfortunately, the factors that drove the development of Lalor's unusually close and well-organized community seemed to be a shared adversity. Those who were first connected with services like hot water and electricity shared it with those that didn't have it yet: "Corrie came around and she says to me, 'bring your towel and have a bath. We've got the hot water out'". (Scollay, 2012) Lalor women reached out to new families and ensured that they were integrated into the community precisely because they were aware of the isolation of the area.

Figure 2 - House construction in Lalor in 1959 (Museum Victoria, 2013)

The construction of the kinderhall was driven by a small number of determined individuals who were unusual in their altruism- they did not have young children, and so would not benefit directly from the construction they advocated for. The close-knit Lalor community seems more like a product of a rare combination of factors, many of them undesirable, rather than a template to be followed.

The Lalor community was born out of an incomplete realization of the Menzian dream, a dream where the nuclear family retreats into their private, fenced sanctuary to live in a safe environment. The dream of this private sanctuary drove people to the outskirts of Melbourne, but the failure of this dream, and the collective struggle toward it, was the impetus for the development of a true community. The people of Lalor demonstrated the incompleteness of the Menzian vision, which leaves little room for fostering a community, and the need for another path that better balances the need for privacy and community.

References

Brett, J. (2007). Robert Menzies' Forgotten People. Melbourne University Press.

Hamnett, S., & Freestone, R. (2000). The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History. Taylor & Francis.

Harris, R., & Larkham, P. (2003). Changing Suburbs: Foundation, Form and Function. Routledge.

Museum Victoria. (2013). Digital Photograph - House Construction, John & Barbara Woods, Lalor, 1959. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from http://museumvictoria.com.au/collections/items/2002107/digital-photograph-house-construction-john-barbara-woods-lalor-1959

Museum Victoria. (2013). Digital Photograph - Street View, Cyprus Street, Lalor, 1960. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from http://museumvictoria.com.au/collections/items/2026060/digital-photograph-street-view-cyprus-street-lalor-1960

Pascoe, C. (2011). Spaces Imagined, Places Remembered: Childhood in 1950s Australia. New Castle Upon Tyne Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Scollay, M. (2012). Lalor. Sydney: UNSW Press.

 /

Topic 9A: Slum Clearance

Slum Villages - An Exploration

Sunny Sun

‘Slum’ is a term one might come across often. But what exactly is a slum? To answer this question, an understanding of what slums are is needed. Definitions vary across different faculties; the Oxford Dictionary of Human Geography (2013) refers to a slum as “…an urban area where there is a concentration of poor-quality housing…” whilst the corresponding entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Environment and Conservation (2013) defines a slum as “…an area in a city that has poor-quality living conditions and marked poverty”. These are very broad definitions; the UN-HABITAT (2006) report of Millennium Development goals and Urban Sustainability provides a more elaborate definition, including a listing of criteria:

“…a slum household (is) a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following:

1.       Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions.

2.       Sufficient living space (which means not more than three people sharing the same room.

3.       Easy access to safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price.

4.       Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private or public toilet shared by a reasonable number of people.

5.       Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions.”

A slum goes further than all physical representations of itself. It exudes a visage, one that has a detrimental effect on it and places around it, a visage of dirtiness, squalor, and general unpleasantness. But what does the presence of a slum in a city say, both about the city and about the needs of it?

Taking into account the aforementioned definitions of slums, it is important to understand that usage of the term does not mean all slums share the same characteristics. There is great variance within slums of the world, from Dharavi, right in the center of Mumbai, to the former Walled City of Kowloon, an exceedingly small, freestanding cube of multi-use buildings, the mountainside favelas of Brazil, and the undulating topography of Neza-Chalco-Izta, in Mexico. 

One popular model for demarcating slums is looking at population figures, namely population density. Because slums are made up of predominately informal houses, it can be hard to gather population data on residents; Dharavi’s population, for example, has been estimated to be anywhere between 300,000  (Risbud, 2003) and 1,000,000, (Yardley, 2014) at a difference of more than 200%. When one considers its dimensions of little over 1.6 sq. kilometres, this puts its population density at a point between approximately 187,500 people per square kilometre (at a population of 300,000), to 650,000 people per square kilometre (at a population of 1,000,000).  In Brazil, numbers vary depending on whether one examines official data, or asks the locals: Fabricius (2008) outlines an instance where an individual favela (Maré) had set up its own, independent, information-gathering centre, taking what she described as  “…unofficial but probably more accurate” census data. According to a Hong Kong government survey in 1987, the official population of Kowloon Walled City was 33,000 (Harter, 2000). On a site to the size of 2.7 hectares (0.027 sq. kilometres), this equated to a population density of approximately 1,200,000 people per sq. kilometre. As a comparison, Melbourne’s most densely populated area as of 2013 (defined as SA2) was Inner Melbourne, with a density of 12,400 people per sq. kilometre (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). The difference in population per sq. kilometre between Melbourne and the aforementioned locations is vast, from its lowest point, at 24x, to its highest, at 96x.

Is there a particular reason for such a concentration of low-income earners and informal housing to gather in such large concentrations? Edward Glaeser (2011) provides a compelling analysis of the possible reasons behind such population movements. He understands slums to represent a stepping stone, almost as if a tool from which impoverished people can make a better living for themselves. Glaeser provides a statistic of the varying poverty rate in America between cities and suburbs; 17.7% and 9.8%, respectively. He states, however, that there is a higher rate of poverty within cities not because they create poverty, but rather because they attract poor people who have the determination and nous to “…improve their lot in life”. Khan and Kraemer (2014) underline the same reasoning, with rather more pragmatic sentiment; they understand that migration is “…a complex process and… driven by demographic, economic, social, political and environmental factors”. Migration is instead driven by “…either push or pull factors”, occurring hand-in-hand with the advancement of an economy from agrarian-based to service-based, and increasing urbanization and industrialisation. To examine the extent of rural-urban migration amongst slum dwellers of a developing city, three surveys were conducted in the City of Dhaka, Bangladesh, across three years , with a total sample size of 5,148 (Khan & Kraemer, 2014). Of four possible migration scenarios (urban-urban, rural-rural, urban-rural and rural-urban), the largest of all was rural-urban, with 3,552 (69%) of people surveyed making a rural to urban migration, reflecting Glaeser’s opinion that slums are needed to provide for these people. Another example of large-scale population shifts from rural to urban locations is China. China’s rapid economic development over the past 30-40 years (Zhang and Song, 2006) has seen one of the largest rural-urban migration streams in history. “Between 1978 and 1998, about 174 million people… have moved from rural areas to cities,” a number that is …”more than (the) total population of many large countries (at the time), such as Brazil… and Russia.” It is clear that people are making such population shifts for these push and pull factors; whether they are being pushed away by rural isolation, poor access to infrastructure, or being pulled towards cities by the attraction of better wages, easier access to healthcare or higher quality of life, is situational; however, this does not make slum housing any less important.

Topic 8B: 20th Century Middle Eastern Cities

Paul Hanley

Islamic Architecture and Design

One of the most interesting subjects that arise in Bianca’s paper is the different perception of architecture and design in Islamic compared to western society. . Throughout the article Bianca mentions the holistic nature of Islamic society, firstly noting the distinction between Christianity and Islam as he argues that there has always existed a “duality of material and spiritual realms” in Christian societies, with the Kings and Nobility representing the governmental side of civilization, while the pope or head of the Church represented the spiritual side. This is in contrast to the Islamic way of thinking, which emphasised the integration and interaction of both the material and spiritual realms within a universal social order. Another Islamic architectural Academic, Elaraby (1996) says that the way of life in Islamic culture concerns both the spiritual and the physical. That reason is because of the two key sources for Islamic cultures is the holy Quaran – the literal word of god, and the Sunna - a set of traditions and practices created by the Prophet Muhammed. These two sources contain many verses and references as to how human beings should relate to their surrounding environment, a concept known as the ‘indivisible whole’ (Nasr, 1990). This concept focuses on the spatial environment and how its purpose is to provide satisfaction of human needs, as in Islamic tradition humans are the centre of all things and the highest of all creations. A great deal of attention is paid to how the activities of inhabitants affects a larger physical area than what a single person occupies, and the relationship of Muslims to the physical environment is set out in a detailed way. This seems almost perplexing as a westerner and only after being introduced to some basic architectural theory have I ever considered my relation to physical space, let alone gone about my life knowing how the physical environment around me can be related to my culture or beliefs.

Figure 1 - A complex geometric mosaic pattern known as a Girih

Actual Elements of Islamic Design:

While there are reoccurring elements in Islamic design that can be categorised into forms, styles or materials that are used dominantly, it is really the architectural ideology that drives the distinctness of built environment. For example, domes, mosaics, courtyards, geometric patterns and calligraphy are heavily featured but it’s the architectural qualities of unity, openness of space, simplicity of form, simplicity of structural expression, scale, harmony, compbatability, balance and privacy that define Islamic design (Ellarby, 1996)

Landscape design is an important aspect of Islamic architecture. The use of water is illustrative of how the surrounding physical environment is designed for the satisfaction of people. Water-ways and fountains are designed with extreme symmetry and serve the purpose of irrigation, noise abatement, reflecting the colours of the geography and providing a soothing psychological benefit that has long been known but has also recently been established by psychologists, as humans have a predisposition for environments that contain evolutionary beneficial features such as water, changes in elevation, or large trees, that would of helped us survive in pre-civilised times (Ulrich, 1986).

Gardens and the surrounding vegetation had a large role to play in Islamic design as it provided climate control, enjoyment and relaxation, and provided food sources as Bianca states that most Islamic cities “perpetuated semi-rural patterns of living and production”(Bianca, 2000). Inspiration often came in the form of nature as can be seen in the above photo of a Girih, which resembles the perfect geometric pattern of a flower.

Figure 2 -Water as a design element at Al-Hambra Palace gardens Granada, Spain

Bianca (2000) argues that socio-economic changes created by the rapidly technologically advancing industrial age bought radical transformation to historic middle-eastern cities in a physical and an ideological way that broke from the natural evolutionary process that had always been in place. Physically, cities were being built extremely fast, but the ideological shift was more important, as the holistic Islamic concept of life where spiritual, material and social concerns were expressed and lived through the built fabric no longer existed. Bianca describes the change as a fading of a “concentrated, all-inclusive sense of presence” from the lives of these people. Here he says that the present has been emptied of many of its essential qualities as people only focus on the past and the future. Bianca argues that it is the informal development patterns in historic cities that are regenerating the authentic and homogenous cultural expressions of Islamic design. However, there are architects and urban designers who subscribe to the “Neo-Islamic” school that follows the holistic ideology of blending the life of the individual with society and using modern technology and materials with the qualities of unity, openness and balance, that is also contributing to preserving the cultural expressions of Islam by bridging the gap between tradition and modernity as Bianca was imploring for.

References:

Biana, S 2000 ‘The Impact of Western models of development on the contemporary development patterns of historic Muslim cities’, in Urban Form in the Arab World: Past and Present, London: Thames and Hudson, 2000, pp. 161-184

Ellaraby, K.M.G 1996 ‘Neo-Islamic Architecture and Urban Design in the Middle East: From Threshold to Adaptive design, Islamic Architecture and Urbanism, Vol. 22, Issue 2, pp. 138-150

Nasr, S.H 1990 ‘The contemporary Muslim and the architectural transformation of the urban environment’, Alam Al-Binaa, vol. 110, pp. 1-14

Ulrich, R 1986 ‘Human response to vegetation and landscapes’, Landscapes and Urban Planning, vol. 13, pp. 29-44

Topic 8A: Urban Japan

Perry Athanasopoulos

Housing and Planning in Post-war Urban Japan 

Dealing with the ramifications of World War II, Japan was confronted with an incredibly difficult task of rebuilding the country on multiple levels including economically, politically and most importantly, physically. The task of physically reconstructing the war torn cities of the nation from rubble was twofold, with the pressing need for housing its surviving residents and the essential, yet somewhat less pressing, need of local infrastructure. Hiroshima and Tokyo both present interesting cases on how a large scale disaster and the destruction it causes can change the priorities in cities in regards to planning, in particular, the priorities of its citizens and their well-being.

Since even before the war ravaged Tokyo, “the housing needs of the Japanese urban population during the period of industrialisation and urban growth have never been adequately met” (Dore, 1958, p. 40). This issue came to the forefront of the Government and planners thoughts in the 1930’s, after the rapid growth of the urban population highlighted the need for a larger quantity of housing and an overall increase in the quality of accommodation. This led to the first intervention of  the government in relation to housing with the introduction of schemes and provisions, in order to boost the rate of production, which unfortunately had little effect in providing the grand scale construction program which was required (Dore, 1958).

The housing problems that Tokyo faced were further exacerbated during the war in 1944-45, with “more than 2 million” houses destroyed by bombing and a further 500,000 destroyed by authorities to create crucial fire-breaks, culminating in the loss of approximately a sixth of the nation’s houses (Dore, 1958). Supplies to reconstruct these lost houses were economically unavailable, therefore residents were forced to fend for themselves creating their own informal housing. Despite the lack of funding, the houses were eventually built by 1952, with over 50% of the then-current dwellings built since the end of the war 7 years earlier (Dore, 1958). However, the effects of the war certainly showed, with estimates suggesting that only 76% of housing met the Japanese Governments minimum requirements (Dore, 1958). The struggles of restoring the lost houses from the war, with the continuing need to provide new dwellings for the swelling urban population accentuates the problem of the housing shortages in Tokyo. Dore (1958) states that 53% of households in Shitayama-cho area are overcrowded, however also claims that the Japanese population considered crowded sleeping to be “more pleasant than isolation in separate rooms” and hence was not seen as a primary priority by authorities (Dore, 1958, p. 49).

Pre-war Hiroshima had a population of about 400,000 inhabitants by 1939, and was largely characterised as a military, academic and industrial city (Norioki, 2003). Urban Planning had already been contrived in Hiroshima following the City Planning Act 1919 with particular regard to roads, forming a road network in grid pattern of east-west and north-south streets (Norioki, 2003). This all changed on the fateful morning of August 1945 when a “major part of the city was reduced to ashes”, becoming one of the 200 cities affected by American bombs (Norioki, 2003, p. 87). Norioki (2003) claims that within two kilometres of the hypocentre of the blast, all buildings apart from a few reinforced concrete buildings were destroyed completely and ultimately 90% of the city area was affected by the blast in one way or another.

Hiroshima’s damage was not only contained to a small radius around the hypocentre, with the effects of the blast destroying houses fairly distant from the centre. Approximately 60,000 of the 76,000 houses were damaged or destroyed by the atomic bomb resulting in a housing and planning crisis (Norioki, 2003).

Plans and proposals to reconstruct the city came from both planning officials and members of the general public, however due to fiscal constraints in the war-ravaged country only those backed by official planners and the aforementioned Planning Act of 1919 materialised (Norioki, 2003). Furthermore, it was decided that Hiroshima would install three big parks, four green areas, a large new cemetery (for the bombing casualties) and 32 smaller parks into the open spaces created by the destruction of houses (Norioki, 2003). Whilst it was incredibly progressive of planners to incorporate goals for parks and green areas, it was “difficult to keep this land free at times when large numbers of people were looking for space to erect new houses” (Norioki, 2003, p. 94).

Much like what was occurring in Tokyo at the same time, despite their world being dramatically altered “the citizens began reconstruction as quickly as possible” by building small informal houses
 where their old house may have been or in new cleared locations, without legal authorisation (Norioki, 2003, p. 90). The plans for big parks ultimately had a large impact on households that reconstructed in the allotted area, with the government proceeding to compensate owners by mandating a land readjustment scheme before acquiring the land, however the complete removal of houses did not eventuate until 1959 (Norioki, 2003).

Ultimately, the Second World War and the destruction it caused placed a great strain on the natural order of life in Japan, leaving its cities in chaos and ruins. All planning problems that were perceived before the outbreak of war were greatly exacerbated by the end of fighting in 1945, with the large scale destruction of infrastructure and housing impacting quality of life for residents. Moreover, Japan was forced to rebuild its cities as well as cope with the long lingering effects of the war simultaneously, providing headaches for governments and planners particularly with prioritising and the allocations of already scarce funds.

References

Dore, R. P. (1958). Houses and Apartment Blocks. In City Life in Japan: A Study of a Tokyo Ward (pp. 40-52). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Norioki, I. (2003). Reconstructing Hiroshima and Preserving the Reconstructed City. In C. Hein, J. M. Diefendorf, & Y. Ishida (Eds.), Rebuilding Urban Japan After 1945 (pp. 87-107). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

terorvictims.com (2012) Hiroshima Before and After the atomic bomb blast. Retrieved on 1/5/2015 from http://www.teror-victims.com/uploaded_files/151421/1/1a.jpg

Encyclopedia of Safety (2010) Houses are being reconstructed in Hiroshima amongst the rubble of destroyed houses. Retrieved on 1/5/2015 from http://survincity.com/2010/07/2nd-world-war-the-period-after-the-war/

Topic 7B: Planning Under Fascism

Alastair Robbins

Hitler vs. Schumacher

In this paper I aim to illustrate the different planning undergone by Fritz Schumacher followed by the planning done through Adolf Hitler.  Then I will compare both men’s planning methodology and evaluate which method holds greater resonance in today’s age.

Fritz Schumacher was born in 1869 in Bremen, Germany however, spent his childhood in Bogota, Columbia before moving to New York, USA. He returned to Germany to study and eventually became an architect, urban designer and planner.  He had a high focus on creating cities with a new awareness of tradition and landscape (Colquhoun 2002). Thus he designs depicted not singly the aesthetic properties but also included other disciplines into his plans such as topography, demographics, social trends, transportation, industry and trade. By doing this resulted in a greater blend of urban form with the surrounding landscape, thus resulting in designs catering for a greater audience.  Venturi, Brown and Izenour (1972) refer to the ability to learn from a landscape as being revolutionary of an architect in 1970, emphasizing Schumacher’s innovation at the time. Additionally, Schumacher had a great interest in the blend of nature and urban form and he believed that nature should flourish within the city. The garden city movement adopted by Germany in the beginning of the 20^th century from Great Britain stoked his interest of nature within cities. This is illustrated in his plans for Cologne in 1923 where he introduced green belts amongst the urban form (Diefendorf 1993).  Today these belts still exist and are a legacy of what he created (refer to fig. 1).

Figure 1 Schumacher's Green Belt Legacy

Further, presenting Schumacher’s brilliance was his ability to plan for future needs. Diefendorf (1993) illustrates this, highlighting how Schumacher anticipated the population growth of Stubben, Germany and aimed this growth to be located around the radial arms of the transportation network. Today in Melbourne, there is this aim of guiding development around public transport (Victorian Government 2014), highlighting how innovative Schumacher was. Overall, we can evaluate Schumacher’s urban planning, design and architecture style as innovative and ahead of his time.

Adolf Hitler was born in 1889 in Braunau am Inn, Austria but moved to Germany at a young age. At an early age Hitler gained an interest in fine arts, which grew to his interest in architecture, and in particular the baroque architectural style in which he favored.  This was seen with his love of Berlin Cathedral a grand baroque style architected building. Another influence that shaped the architecture and urban planning throughout Hitler’s period of power was his German nationalist mindset. This mindset was prevalent throughout most of his life however; it grew more radical and bias as he aged.

Throughout Hitler’s period of power he dictated that the cities of Germany all required certain traits in each highlighting, his want for uniformity (Diefendorf 1993).  In particular, he demanded buildings of monumental scale across the cities to express the German power over the world illustrating his radical German nationalist mindset.  His designs were often created to be the biggest in the world; some of these designs were Munich train station, Berlin Hall and Hamburg skyscraper. Hitler aimed these structures to rival and outdo their precedents from other nations to reinforce the power of the Third Reich (refer to fig 2 & 3).

Figure 2 St Peter's, Italy (Trinity 2014)

Figure 3 Berlin's planned domed assembly hall (Pergher 2007)

Often smaller traditional homes and business were being destroyed to make way for these monumental buildings. Not only was his aim to be express the Third Reich power but also aimed to make building confronting and intimidating to foreign visitors.  

Hitler himself did not design a great number of buildings however, he had a great influence over what was built. For example, Hitler had final say in the in which architectural design would be used for his buildings.  Always the architectural plan that won were designs that foster his ideas of German power, usually through monumental size, whilst also fostering his passion for baroque style buildings.  Albert Speer designs frequently won these competitions as he designs meticulously followed Hitler ideals.  Overall, what is identifiable is the unorthodox planning done by Hitler. Less did he focus on the needs of the people instead rather focusing on reinforcing his radical notion and ideals.

Hitler and Schumacher were eminently different, which can be express through the different plans and development controlled by each. Schumacher had a large focus of blending landscape with urban form whereas Hitler, with his aim to express German Power, created monumental buildings that protruded out of the landscape, often replacing the previous landscape. Hence, it is shown as Schumacher having a more contemporary style of planning whilst Hitler having a similar opinion to Le Corbusier who said “tear down Paris and start again”, which holds as ill practice in contemporary age.

Further difference can be identified through the different use of precedents for each of the men’s designs.  The British Garden City movement influenced many of Schumacher’s designs. He aimed to learn from Garden Cities and implement aspect into his designs. He did this with the aim to improve urban form and urban life within German cities. In contrast to Hitler, who used precedents from other countries to create urban form in Germany that are more impressive and monumental to illustrate his idea of German dominance over the world. Here instead of learning from the precedent he aimed to create something that dominated it and make it regarded as inferior to his designs. Kenny and Brophy (2011) suggest that precedents can be used to create a correct idea of what is good for the environment. This notion is similar to what Schumacher did with the precedent of Garden cities and how he applied it to Cologne illustrating innovative methodology. However, nowhere in contemporary design guidelines is using precedents as structures to make inferior with your design, emphasizing Hitler’s unorthodox designs plans.

Overall, what are prevalent are the innovative ideas and designs that Schumacher did. This compared to Hitler was vastly different with Hitler having less focus on surrounding environment and instead only the building in design.  This meant that designs by Schumacher accommodated more people’s needs and the surrounding environment whereas Hitler designs only catered for the notion of German prowess over the world.  I believe planners can learn from Schumacher as his ideas are innovative and many still feature in plan for cities today even in plan Melbourne. In addition, much can be learnt from the planning during Hitler Third Reich period however, Hitler ideas often teach us what not to do rather than applying his ideas into todays planning.

Reference List:

Colquhoun, A 2002, Modern architecture, Oxford University Press.

Diefendorf, JM 1993, In the wake of war: the reconstruction of German cities after World War II, Oxford University Press.

Kenny, P & Brophy, V 2011, 'A Methodology to Develop Judgment Skills in Sustainable Architectural Education', in World Sustainable Building Conference, 18-21 October, 2011 Helsinki, Finland.

Pergher, R 2007, Order from Stone, Sitemaker, viewed 24 April 2015, <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/artunderfascism/architecture%3E.

Trinity, IBIasdH 2014, St Peters Basilica, Wordpress, viewed 24 April 2015, <http://italianoht.global2.vic.edu.au/famous-italians/st-peters-basilica/%3E.

Venturi, R, Brown, DS & Izenour, S 1972, Learning from Las Vegas, vol. 102, MIT press Cambridge, MA.

Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure 2014, Plan Melbourne, by Victorian Government, Victorian Government.