Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which cities had their historic neighborhoods destroyed the most by the "Garden City" movement in urban planning?
The "Garden City" movement was a concept designed by Ebenezer Howard in Europe that influenced many cities in the U.S. to destroy their historic neighborhoods and build suburban cities outside city limits with massive open space and garden's. Some cities razed many slum area's in their city propers to build these neighborhoods in city limits. Many historic neighborhoods were loss to the highway's which also played a part in "Garden Cities".
I think you're about half a century off...the "Garden City" movement and Ebenezer Howard's models were intended for areas outside existing cities. The later "City Beautiful" movement that began the interest in razing downtowns to create grand promenades and civic architecture, inspired by a completely fake city made out of plaster staff (the Chicago Columbian Exposition.) But, aside from a few examples, there wasn't money to level whole neighborhoods for "civic improvement" until the post-WWII era and the advent of redevelopment. I'm not that familiar with any of those cities so couldn't tell you which was more affected by redevelopment.
So while Howard's school of urban planning ideas did influence the direction of city design, I don't think you can blame the "Garden City" school of thought for leveling any of those cities' downtown neighborhoods. Howard's works were well before the advent of highways--his garden city plans included systems of railways and canals, since he was working before automobiles and public roads were commonplace--and well before the modern highway.
I think you're about half a century off...the "Garden City" movement and Ebenezer Howard's models were intended for areas outside existing cities. The later "City Beautiful" movement that began the interest in razing downtowns to create grand promenades and civic architecture, inspired by a completely fake city made out of plaster staff (the Chicago Columbian Exposition.) But, aside from a few examples, there wasn't money to level whole neighborhoods for "civic improvement" until the post-WWII era and the advent of redevelopment. I'm not that familiar with any of those cities so couldn't tell you which was more affected by redevelopment.
So while Howard's school of urban planning ideas did influence the direction of city design, I don't think you can blame the "Garden City" school of thought for leveling any of those cities' downtown neighborhoods. Howard's works were well before the advent of highways--his garden city plans included systems of railways and canals, since he was working before automobiles and public roads were commonplace--and well before the modern highway.
Ebenezer Howard influenced many after him though. There are examples of this style of development in many cities. The city beautiful movement didn't really inspire the de-centrification and redevelopment of many neighborhoods into suburban looking designs. I do agree that the building style's have a lot to do with the city beautiful movement but the open development in sunbelt cities has a lot to do with the garden style development of the garden city movement. Compare the design of northeastern cities with sunbelt cites to see the difference in development style.
It's a bit like trying to argue that Gustav Stickley is responsible for Modernism because Atrts + Crafts architecture was simpler in a reaction to Victorian era styles. The linkage is indirect. West coast cities didn't demolish their cores to create new suburban-style neighborhoods, they did so to create modernist monuments or grand plazas: for the most part, the cities were so small and open space so abundant that it was far less troubleto build on greenfield.
Ebenezer Howard was also a socialist, and his city plans were intended to express that economic philosophy. Are suburbs of these later eras examples of what you would describe as socialism?
I always liked the City Beautiful movement anyway, but I do have to admit that I'm glad they stopped at the Civic Center in San Francisco instead of rebuilding much of the city.
I have to admit, I've never really lived in an American city old enough to really have a chance to be destroyed by any Garden City Movement with the exception of San Francisco which was unique in that it was destroyed at the time anyway. Seattle's Pioneer Square was certainly never threatened by Garden Cities... its biggest threat came from redevelopment that wanted to bull doze the entire area to build parking garages for downtown. I don't see how Houston or Dallas would have been, but then I really don't know what they looked like during that era. My knowledge of slum raising came later when they were razed to make room for housing projects which were then razed because they were even worse than the slums that replaced them.
I'm going to say ''none''. I've never seen a city that was at all hurt or damaged by the garden city movement. I guess there was some countryside ruined when they built some of the garden cities over them, but as they tended to earlier, smaller, and all in all more pleasant and walkable exurban communities than most today, I find it hard to find much ill in them.
Same with the City Beautiful movement. In fact I see the influence the City Beautiful movement as something rather positive overall.
Post-WWII suburban sprawl, on the other hand, I have little love for. Also, some of the ill-thought-out post-Blitz redevelopment that still blights much of the UK.
I have to admit, I've never really lived in an American city old enough to really have a chance to be destroyed by any Garden City Movement with the exception of San Francisco which was unique in that it was destroyed at the time anyway. Seattle's Pioneer Square was certainly never threatened by Garden Cities... its biggest threat came from redevelopment that wanted to bull doze the entire area to build parking garages for downtown.
San Francisco has been destroyed?
I noticed Seattle's had a LOT of parking garages; it seemed like almost every office building had a large parking garages. It wasn't very good for the streetscape, but otherwise Seattle's downtown seemed decently lively.
I noticed Seattle's had a LOT of parking garages; it seemed like almost every office building had a large parking garages. It wasn't very good for the streetscape, but otherwise Seattle's downtown seemed decently lively.
Yes, a huge amount of it was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fires. So it's not like what is now the Civic Center area was destroyed by the City Beautiful movement. It was destroyed by a natural disaster and rebuilt with those principles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
