Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Rubin, Noah Hysler]On: 28 June 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912450157]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Planning PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713706718
The changing appreciation of Patrick Geddes: a case study in planning historyNoah Hysler Rubin a
a The Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Online Publication Date: 01 July 2009
To cite this Article Rubin, Noah Hysler(2009)'The changing appreciation of Patrick Geddes: a case study in planning history',PlanningPerspectives,24:3,349 — 366
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02665430902933986
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665430902933986
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Planning Perspectives
Vol. 24, No. 3, July 2009, 349–366
ISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02665430902933986http://www.informaworld.com
The changing appreciation of Patrick Geddes: a case study inplanning history
Noah Hysler Rubin*
The Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Taylor and FrancisRPPE_A_393570.sgm
(
Received 24 June 2008; final version received 7 September 2008
)
10.1080/02665430902933986Planning Perspectives0266-5433 (print)/1466-4518 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis2430000002009Noah [email protected]
This paper analyses the seemingly unified perception of Patrick Geddes, an importantmember of the Town Planning Movement and a profound founding father of the discipline.A critical reading into the appreciation of Geddes as a planner shows that it neverthelessaltered considerably over the years. Identifying four major periods in which ‘Geddesappreciation’ changed considerably, I claim that these periods reflect an agreedperiodization of modern urban planning, and that variations in the way Geddes has beenappreciated over the years mirror changing notions in planning in general. Tracing changesin the perception of Geddes as a planner further raises questions regarding the history ofplanning itself: Who tells planning history? How do planners interpret past achievementsand failures? What do planners today think about their predecessors, and why does it changealong the years? By providing a thorough review of Geddes’ planning historiography, I thuspresent his ongoing investigation as a case study of planning history. I claim that readingGeddes’ history through the changing context of town planning reflects most of all theperiodical disciplinary agenda within which histories were written, finally advocating acontemporary, critical discussion of the historiography of town planning itself.
Keywords:
Patrick Geddes; planning history; postcolonial critique; India; Palestine;planning theory
The problematic appreciation of Patrick Geddes
Patrick Geddes (1854–1932) is considered today to be one of the forefathers of town planning,his place as one of its pioneers guaranteed through ongoing research, discussing his theoriesregarding city and society and analysing consequential plans. Geddes worked in various citiesin Britain and across the British Empire, mainly India and Palestine, producing over 45 reportsand plans for Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Dublin, Calcutta, Madras, Indore, Jerusalem, Tel Avivand Haifa, as well as Cyprus, Aden, Ceylon and many others. In contrast to Geddes’ planningendeavours, which in the large part were not carried out, Geddes’ accomplished successesinclude his Outlook Tower in Edinburgh, the Regional Survey and the Conservative Surgerytechniques as well as such analytical diagrams as the Valley Section.
1
Over the years, Geddes’name has become synonymous with Planning’s best intentions, even if not with its greatestaccomplishments.
However, in spite of Geddes’ recognition as an important member of the Town PlanningMovement and of his great influence upon it, he has also always been considered to be an outsiderto it. Over the years, Geddes’ writings and diagrams have been accused of ambiguity, describedas incomprehensible, confusing and always in need of personal explanation or mediation.
2
His
*Email: [email protected]
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
350
N.H. Rubin
tendency to rely on intuition, it is said, turned him into an optimistic dreamer.
3
Geddes’ incon-gruity and controversial ideas isolated him both socially and intellectually; he tended to remainoutside conventional frameworks,
4
finally detaching himself by being physically absent fromEurope during the critical years of the formation of Town Planning.
5
Another set of apologeticexplanations for Geddes’ absence from contemporaneous planning discourse relies on the claimthat he was well ahead of his day. Thus, over the years, Geddes’ work has thus been accusedof being idiosyncratic or too original,
6
too scientific and empirical but also too dynamic andtheoretical.
7
As a result of the ambiguity of Geddes’ place in the history of planning, his contribution toplanning theory and practice is still debated, as even the originality and validity of his mostfamous lasting impact, the Survey and the Region, are continuously contested.
8
Thus, in spiteof general praise for it over the years, periodical criticism has pointed to substantial flaws inGeddes’ planning philosophy.
9
As a result, it is widely agreed that the uncertainty regardingGeddes’ contribution to planning over the years unfortunately lead to the misinterpretation andthe trivializing of his work.
10
The ongoing perception of Geddes’ work as ambiguous and the disputed appreciation ofhim as a planner inevitably raise doubts regarding his importance today. However, such enquiriesraise also important questions relating to the history of planning as a whole. For example, howdo planners interpret past achievements and failures? What do planners today think about theirpredecessors? What place do we give our planning heroes, and why does this place change alongthe years?
In this paper I discuss the ongoing investigation of Geddes as a case study of planninghistory, based on a thorough review of his planning historiography, encompassing writings byGeddes’ contemporaries through to current research. I identify four major periods in which‘Geddes appreciation’ has changed considerably, claiming that these periods reflect an agreedperiodization of modern urban planning.
11
On this basis I claim that variations in the wayGeddes has been appreciated over the years mirror changing notions in planning in general.Relying on current critical notions in historical research today, I assert that reading Geddes’history through the changing context of town planning reflects most of all the periodicalplanning disciplinary agenda within which they were written, advocating a contemporary,critical discussion of Geddes’ theory and work as a planner, as well as of planning itself.
The disputed historiography of town planning
The subfield of Planning History holds great significance for the discipline, its developmentand its aims. Emerging in the past 30 years, planning history has concentrated mainly on insti-tutional, statutory town planning which has developed since the beginning of the twentiethcentury, being described by Leonie Sandercock as chronicling ‘the rise of the profession, itsinstitutionalization, and its achievements’.
12
The disciplinary reading had thus beencondemned as unified and canonical, the historical studies inevitably emphasizing success overfailure, finally resulting in selective reading and a careful compilation of facts.
13
In theprocess, various planners have gained exceptional importance, their innovative contributionseventually becoming points of reference and orientation to the profession.
14
Moulded around memories of past struggles and triumphs, the contemporary culture of thediscipline is inevitably shaped by its history, the present – as claimed by John Muller – easily
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives
351
conceived as the creator of the past.
15
As such, the history of planning (as any other history)can no longer be held to be the exact reflection of events or as Sandercock claims, ‘successivegenerations of scholars do not so much rewrite history as revisit and re-present it, investing itwith contemporary meaning’.
16
Planners’ biographies are subsequently suspected as present-ing two selves, where the author reveals as much about himself than he does about the plannerwhose life he is describing.
17
The object of the following analysis is to trace the changing appreciation of Patrick Geddesas a planner through four different periods of planning, highlighting periodical trends whichinfluenced his perception, critically reflecting upon the creation of the Geddesian myth, andfinally suggesting current discourses through which to discuss him today.
Patrick Geddes, 1854–1932: a magnificent failure
The hesitant acceptance of Geddes as a planner
Geddes’ urban work followed his training as a biologist and later coincided with his contribu-tion to Sociology. However, during his time, his affiliation to planning was not clear. Geddes’early work and related activities in Edinburgh and in London were described as part of a localsocial, cultural and physical revival.
18
His first official task in planning for a civic garden inDunfermline was apparently misunderstood.
19
The Town Planning exhibition which waspresented at the inaugurating International Town Planning Conference held by The RoyalInstitute of British Architects in 1910 grew out of Geddes’ particular interest in developingmuseums and exhibitions as educational tools and followed previous experiences in Englandand in France. It marked Geddes’ emergence into public,
20
but his approach was consideredambivalent and somewhat problematic. In a frequently quoted passage Patrick Abercrombieaccused Geddes of torturing his crowds in ‘that nightmare of complexity, the EdinburghRoom’.
21
Following the Conference, Geddes’ exhibition was displayed in Edinburgh, inBelfast and finally in Dublin, where it inspired an international planning competition whichGeddes organized. This was closely followed by the Town Planning Review, but Geddes’ partin its success was considered small.
22
Describing the loss of the exhibition at sea later on,Amelia Defries, Geddes’ disciple and earliest biographer, wrote: ‘His name was so little knownto the general public that it had never occurred to me that he had any real following’.
23
In 1914 Geddes was invited by the Governor of Madras and an old friend to exhibit inIndia. The tour, which was accompanied by lectures, received wide press coverage. Geddesand his subsequent planning endeavours were hailed as representing the newly establishedscience of planning.
24
But, in Britain, where new planning magazines excitedly describedcolonial town plans, neither Geddes nor his work, were mentioned.
In 1918 Geddes employed his Zionist connections to claim a commission to plan the HebrewUniversity in Jerusalem and later for the city itself. His work in Palestine, where he was lateremployed also by the British, was similarly celebrated by local magazines for bringing modernideas into the building of the old-new homeland.
25
This time it drew attention in Britain as well,as Geddes’ task was described as ‘to plan toward the development of Palestine as a land flowingonce more with milk and honey’. His various plans (which were soon to be discarded) weredepicted as model manifestations of modern planning ideals.
26
The opening ceremony of theUniversity was reported as an event arousing interest ‘among all civilised people’.
27
Neverthe-less, by the time he returned to Europe, Geddes’ practical failures were obvious.
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
352
N.H. Rubin
Debated reception of Geddes’ planning theory and constituting legacy
Geddes presented his ideas through courses as well as numerous journal articles and books.His urban theories, which came out of his work as a sociologist, were received with muchambivalence, as portrayed by the response to his overall notion of ‘Applied Sociology’presented in the first issues of
The Sociological Review
(1905–1907). This was called incon-clusive on one hand, and an overwhelming burden, on the other. The diagrams which followedproved to be even more problematic.
28
Geddes’ book
Cities in Evolution
, published in 1915,was not considered a useful contribution to planning.
29
Making of the Future
, a series of editedbooks describing Geddes’ ideas as tools for peaceful social reconstruction, and
The ComingPolity
, which came out in 1920, were not discussed in relation to town planning at all.
30
WhileAbercrombie, in 1927, acknowledged Geddes – ‘the magician of the enchanted EdinburghTower’ – as a founder of town-planning,
31
concurrent discussions regarding his regionalapproach and the Survey were quite restricted.
32
Numerous obituaries were published after Geddes’ death, painting again a picture of a muchloved and admired person yet whose accomplishments are far from clear. In more than onecase, Geddes’ lamenters, wishing to praise, turn to count his failures. Geddes is thus describedas bold and ambitious, a practical genius, a precise observer of penetrating insight andacclaimed as a social reformer, a Messiah and a prophet, a dreamer, the true interpreter of hisage;
33
even his physical appearance was that of a spiritual guru.
34
Unfortunately, though, it wasalso agreed that his ideas were very hard to follow, Geddes thus depriving himself of the publicapproval he deserved.
35
Numerous of Geddes’ planning endeavours were crowned bycolleagues in Britain, in India and in Palestine ‘magnificent failures’
36
and
The Times of Ceylon
boldly claimed Geddes’ main accomplishment as ‘ringing the bell and running away’.
37
Thiswas actually a common notion, as was finding various reasons for Geddes’ failure. His admir-ers nevertheless expressed the hope that some day his work would be recognized and his plansimplemented.
38
Thus, although Geddes was identified with urban and regional work, hiscontribution could not be defined and agreed upon. Frank Mears’ obituary, rationalizing thewhole of Geddes’ activities, reads like one final attempt to bring about reconciliation.
39
1940s–1960s: Geddes’ forgotten legacy
Immediately after Geddes’ death, his son Arthur and his son-in-law Frank Mears lectured andpublished papers calling to adhere to his advice.
40
A second biography was published yetlacking in historical documentation it was personal and quite poetic, discussing such themes asunity of nature, community, nation and regionalism.
41
Altogether, discussion of Geddes’ workalmost died with him. In 20 years there were very few mentions of Geddes and very littleresearch. The seldom discussions, always anecdotal and superficial, were held either by hisearlier followers or concurrent with specific occasions.
Using Geddes in support of reconstruction
In 1947 Geddes’ work was examined briefly on account of the constitution of the Town andCountry Planning Acts. Also, Arthur Geddes became the president of the Outlook Tower Asso-ciation which was revived ‘as an active center of thought, visual education, planning and socialactivity’,
42
housing Geddes’ Cities and Town Planning Exhibition which returned to Britain.
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives
353
Together with Jacqueline Tyrwhitt of the Association for Planning and Regional Reconstruc-tion, Geddes published an edited volume of his father’s Indian reports:
Town Planning inIndia
, stressing their current practical application by raising post-imperial planning concerns,including the importance of rural surroundings, problems of overcrowding and social segrega-tion, finally celebrating Geddes’ ability to identify ‘with the mental outlook of varying socialand racial types’.
43
Reviews acclaimed the book, which was illustrated by contemporaryphotos, with recognizing the unique elements of Indian living such as family sense, tradition-alism and ample supplies of fruit and vegetables.
44
The Outlook Tower Association furthercommissioned a revised edition of
Cities in Evolution
, claiming it was originally overlookeddue to Geddes’ methods being too far in advance of the then current thought.
45
A symposium held in Edinburgh upon Geddes’ centenary (1954) allowed planners a firstnostalgic perspective of his legacy, generally concluding his work is ‘going on and going onmost nobly’.
46
A special radio broadcast and several published articles considered Geddes’handling of congestion and suburban planning.
47
Enabled by the discovery of new material, anew biography was commissioned, stressing the contemporary nature of Geddes’ work inEdinburgh, the regional reconstruction in Cyprus and the Dunfermline report which allegedlygrasped working-class needs. Jerusalem was described as epitomizing Geddes’ harmonizationof social customs with the work of modern reconstruction.
48
In the earliest history of modernplanning published in the same year, William Ashworth also described Geddes as a leadingfigure whose suggestions were yet unfulfilled.
49
Several of Geddes’ plans throughout the former colonies were reviewed at this time uponnew planning endeavours. The Jerusalem plan was acclaimed by the last British planner as wellas by later Israeli planners, preparing a master plan in 1968, for determining the city’s spatialdevelopment.
50
Geddes’ report for the city of Lahore was incorporated in the new town planof 1965, serving to demonstrate modern application of his Conservative Surgery for oldersections of the city and viewed as an alternative to grandiose clearance schemes.
51
Geddes’ regionalism contested
The most direct application of Geddes’ thought to planning was probably the concept ofRegionalism, yet its true essence, it was claimed, was still greatly overlooked.
52
Variousinterpretations of Geddes’ idea of ‘conurbations’ were discussed.
53
Mears’
Regional Plan andSurvey for Central and South East Scotland,
prepared in 1949, was regarded as symbolic ofGeddes’ methods, yet these were not examined.
54
A somewhat different discussion of Geddes’ work was carried out within Modernistdiscourse, led in Britain by the Association for Planning and Regional Reconstruction andJacqueline Tyrwhitt in particular.
55
Geddes’ diagrams were analysed along with those of LeCorbusier and described as a practical framework encompassing the totality of urban prob-lems.
56
Whereas at the eighth congress of Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne in1951 integration and synthesis were main strategic themes, several suggestions to improveCIAM administration in 1956 were based on the hierarchy suggested in Geddes’ ValleySection.
57
Planners developed Geddes-style diagrams, relating to planning as reflecting thetotality of mankind’s environment, nevertheless changing basic themes in Geddes’ diagramsin order to suit social and professional developments and eliminating some of their maincharacteristics.
58
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
354
N.H. Rubin
Examining Geddes’ role in the formation of social urbanism, Ruth Glass claimed that‘Regional planning’ was, after all, an ambivalent term, accusing Geddes of actually restrainingthe development of the sub-discipline by taking little notice of other traditions and develop-ments in the social sciences.
59
The humanist perspective: Geddes’ return, 1970s onwards
Since the 1970s and the emergence of Planning History writings about Patrick Geddes havebeen accumulating rapidly, ranging in genre, place of origin and disciplinary attribution. Thesewritings generally present a unified perception of a displaced prophet whose work was neverfully appreciated, leaving subsequent generations puzzled as to its importance; but today, it isalmost unanimously agreed, Geddes is more relevant than ever, having dealt in his career withmany subjects and questions which are finally being answered today.
Administration, participation, culture and environmentalism in Geddes’ work
Both Peter Green (1970) and Giovanni Ferraro (1998) examined Geddes’ work in India in searchof an alternative planning paradigm, crediting Geddes with practicing early Public Participationin planning by freeing himself of sectarian interests and by advocating alternative planning objec-tives. Ferraro describes Geddes’ planning process as a planning game which can only be wonby avoiding excessive authority and exposing the planner to critique.
60
The greatest contributionof
Cities in Evolution,
published again in 1970, was accordingly considered to be the prominenceof the relationship between planner and community, Geddes’ planning tools being mainly usedto involve as many people as possible in decision making.
61
At the same time, the Outlook Towerwas revived as a Community Forum bringing together the planners and the planned.
62
Green also celebrated Geddes’ planning theories as capturing ‘the essence of the place, itsraison d’etre’,
63
emphasizing specific characteristics of community, morphology or design aswell as enhancing the quality of the visual environment. But it is Helen Meller’s ongoing analysisof Geddes’ theory which has been most influential in the search for his cultural appreciationof the city. Meller claims that Geddes’ celebration of the uniqueness of people and place allowedhim to offer a philosophical as well as practical understanding of the complexity of moderncity life, indicating the crucial connection between local culture, social endeavour and nationalidentity, finally advocating people’s history and culture as the main elements which were todetermine the city’s organic growth.
64
Discussing Geddes’ work in various places, Mellerdemonstrated Geddes’ successful combination of modern techniques and local culture.
65
Onsimilar lines, Geddes’ communal pageants were claimed as the impetus for Jane Jacobs’ currentplea for diversity of people and occupations on the city street;
66
the Conservative Surgery wasconsidered to be a protector of inner city urban communities and their local environment fromdissolution.
67
Finally, the starting point for one of the latest discussions of Geddes’ life and work,
ThinkGlobal, Act Local
(2004) was environmental, as it was found that Geddes’ original phrase wasmainly being used by those concerned with sustainable development.
68
Geddes is thusacclaimed today as a forerunner of present day environmental activists, and is crowned theintellectual link connecting Darwin to today’s ‘green’ movement.
69
The Valley Section issimilarly discussed for its environmental qualities.
70
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives
355
New spiritual themes were also discovered in Geddes’ theory, as Ferraro claimed the meta-physical origins of Geddes’ theories were amplified in India, where his work found supportthrough religion and tradition,
71
Meller earlier discussing artistic symbolism and Greekmythology as part of Geddes’ holistic approach to life.
Local embracing interpretations of Geddes’ plans
Current examinations of Geddes’ plans amplify the themes discussed above. Geddes’ work inEdinburgh, ‘galvanising his neighbours into individual and community action‘
72
seems toresemble a contemporary key planning problem: renovating and rejuvenating historic citycentres.
73
Geddes’ work in Chelsea was merited for raising communal consciousness,
74
andthe museums planned for Dunfermline, had they been built, would allegedly have done thesame.
75
In a series of works examining the genesis of modern planning in Ireland, MichaelBannon described Geddes’ sympathetic social and environmental improvements in Dublin.
76
While India is considered to be best revealing Geddes’ theories and practice, Geddes’Indian accomplishments are described as model manifestations of planning ideals of thetime.77 At the same time, Geddes’ unique approach is described as standing outside all majortrends and concepts: understanding and appreciating the spirit of the place, his was much closerto the indigenous experience than that of imperial planners.78 The conservative surgery aspracticed in India demonstrated the compatibility of traditional methods with contemporarychallenges;79 Geddes’ nurture of India’s built environment was even given a role in its nationalrevival.80 Resonance was also found between the Hindu cycle of life and Geddes’ theme ofpreservation and renewal.81
Geddes’ work in Palestine still receives great attention in the writing of Israeli history andgeography, celebrating the planning of the cities of a newly born state. Here too, a ‘first classman’,82 Geddes assumingly complied with the Zionist project as his holistic philosophy andunique planning ideals matched notions of rural reclamation as well as progressive planning.83
Having offered ‘clues to the returning Zionists on how to resettle their homeland and to returnto the essence of their culture’84 Geddes is considered the ideal planner for Tel-Aviv, the firstplanned Jewish city in Palestine, promoting a great sense of community and supporting anactive civic life through a locally adapted layout of a garden city.85
Geddes’ plan for Jerusalem is generally discussed as part of the overall British effort toconserve the city and to develop it.86The plan allegedly secured environmental control andproper rehabilitation, the green belt around the old City preserving its special character87 whilethe city was developed as a cultural and regional centre.88 The symbolic architecture of theHebrew University is interpreted as a direct manifestation of Geddes’ sensitivity to the GeniusLoci of Jerusalem, the neglected plans lamented as a lost extension of the city.89 Thus, whileGeddes’ few successful endeavours in Palestine are attributed to his personal and professionaltraits, his overall failure is generally accounted for mainly by objective, technical reasons,which had nothing to do with Geddes himself.90
The critical turn
Many current discussions in Geddes’ work, led by Volker Welter, highlight its spiritual originsand meanings, exposing modernist metaphysics and mystic elements in his urban theory.91 More
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
356 N.H. Rubin
importantly, though, since the 1990s, and paralleling the prevailing humanist discussion, a morecritical approach towards Geddes is apparent, mainly within disciplines related to planning suchas geography and architecture. Thus, while planners’ appreciation of Geddes generally remainsthe same, others draw on contemporary cultural and post-colonial theories, examining his workon a more critical basis and casting a different light altogether on his planning heritage.
Geographical assessment: the imperial implications
Geddes is regularly mentioned in the contemporary scrutiny of Geography as an imperialscience, describing its power and authority as a regulating discipline. Thus, Geddes’ Tower isdescribed by Christine Boyer as a political optical instrument ‘through which the world/citycould be gazed upon, penetrated, analyzed, recorded, ordered and classified, and laid down forproposed changes’.92 Historical geographers especially discuss Geddes within the discursivefield connecting the study of the environment with direct social and political imperatives. TheRegional Survey, the Museum and the Exhibitions are studied as effective tools of data collec-tion as well as important educational forms of visual display.93 An example of the use ofGeddes’ Valley Section as a form of moral geographical ordering is the study of the RegionalSurvey Movement in Latin America, the authors claiming that surveying and further planningwere done mainly for purposes of economical exploitation.94
Studies of modern mapping and planning as manifestations of power provide clues to theways Geddes incorporated geographical tools as buttresses of the new discipline. Studying thework of Patrick Abercrombie, Michael Dehaene analyses the connection Geddes establishedbetween planning as a practice and a pedagogical project.95 Ola Söderström discussed thedevelopment of the town plan as a complex visual device allowing construction and recon-struction of the city, and identified Geddes as an important early British example.96
The post-colonial critique: the role of the town planner
Post-colonial themes are also starting to influence the analysis of Geddes’ work as writersacross the former empire examine his role as a representative of the colonial British rule.Martin Beattie presents Geddes’ ‘hybrid visions of health and hygiene’ for Calcutta as part ofthe British project of modernization and internationalization, resulting in the production ofambivalent and often contradictory plans.97 Ron Fuchs and Gilbert Herbert describe Geddes’plans for Jerusalem as manifestations of colonial Regionalism, celebrating the indigenous andthe traditional through a paternalistic conception of the colonial power.98 Another theme is therole of the planner as an involved foreigner who often resorts to taking sides within the colonialsituation. On these lines, Mark LeVine describes Geddes’ role in the one-sided, Zionistplanning of Tel Aviv and its vicinity99 while Nihal Perera condemns Geddes’ misinterpretationof Sri Lanka and its local plan.100
Conclusions
The changing appreciation of Patrick Geddes: in service of the discipline
Reviewing the writing about Geddes as a planner over more than a century reveals a variety ofwriters of diverse disciplines and geographical locations, representing various perspectives and
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives 357
highlighting different themes. The result is an uneven picture of Geddes’ life and work, whichexposes the ambivalence still surrounding his myth and his actual contribution to planning.Nevertheless, the correlation between Geddes’ fractured history and the established periodiza-tion of Town Planning is clear, as Geddes’ life story mirrors the turbulent history of the disciplineitself.
While planning was a constituting discipline, Geddes’ name was hardly known and his roleas a planner unresolved. Several of his grasped ideals were eventually incorporated within theprofessional vocabulary, but their meanings apparently altered. Only in the colonies wasGeddes received as a representative planner, yet even as such his failures were evident.
The dismantling of the empire alongside important milestones in the planning professionprovided early chances for reflective discussion of Geddes’ work. And yet, while Regionalismand the Survey were given contemporaneous meanings, Geddes’ amorphous planningapproach was generally cast aside at this time of comprehensive reconstruction. Its eventualincorporation within modernist planning discourse attests to the ambiguity of his theory andthe broad interpretations it gained,101 and exemplifying once more the way Geddes wasrecruited for various and even contradicting disciplinary aims.
Geddes’ revival in the 1970s and his identification with planning merits echoed the need toreclaim and to recover the discipline. The long humanist period can be divided according to itsthematic development, as Geddes’ planning concepts are still being used to promote currentissues in planning; however, the discussion eventually stagnated, as today Geddes’ interpreta-tions are continuously repeated, being mainly descriptive as well as selective.102
Retrospectively, then, it seems as though planners found in Geddes’ periodical inspirationand corroboration for their own work, as his appreciation over the years reflects mainly contem-poraneous disciplinary notions. Recent critical discussions of Geddes, however, reveal a post-modern turn, enabling critics to discuss components of his work with a renewed interdisciplinaryapproach which is influenced by the questioning of the variety of research materials, theirproducers and their accessibility, as well as the choice of narrators and narratives.103
Yet even today, Geddes’ work is not critically analysed as a whole, as components of hiswork are used only as examples for larger issues. Furthermore, these readings are done almostcompletely outside of planning, reflecting the fact that the monolithic reading of Geddes’ oeuvresanctified both his goals and his means, shielding him from a more in-depth comprehensivescrutiny while casting aside temporary criticism, finally protecting his status as a flawlessrepresentative of the positive practice of planning.
Reading Geddes today: calling for a critical historiography in planning
As the ongoing Geddes’ research demonstrates, planning history has been generally slow toembrace critical approach regarding its heroes as well as its overall development, thus neglectingto follow upon contemporary notions promoting critical historiographies. For example, in herbook quoted above, Leonie Sandercock generally demands to ‘demythologize the heroic imageof planning’, calling for a broader and more inclusive disciplinary view.104 More specifically,realising ‘planning history’s mistakes’ demands the incorporation of actors and voices whichhave been so far excluded from the main narrative105 or more generally, again, the deconstruc-tion of historical texts altogether.106 By studying components of personal myths (such as thatof Geddes) it is hoped to disband them, revealing the true motives of individual planners.107
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
358 N.H. Rubin
Finally, realising that the objective reading of history is apparently impossible, assortedtheoretical perspectives are recommended.108
In this paper I demonstrated how the perception of Geddes as a planner changed accordingto the prevailing needs and notions of planning, obstructing an in-depth, critical study of hiswork. As I had shown elsewhere, a more comprehensive study of Geddes’ work and plans,deconstructing his heroic image and re-evaluating his goals and his accomplishments as aplanner, offers a somewhat different narrative: A more inclusive and critical analysis of Geddes’writings and work casts a different light altogether on his ambivalent theories as well as on hiscontroversialist plans.109 Finally I claim that re-examining Geddes’ undisputed place in thepantheon of visionary planners allows a more conscious study of the discipline as a whole,reflecting critically upon the origins of the discipline, its aims, its tools and its developmentover time, thus examining the historiography of planning itself as an established hero.
Notes on contributorNoah Hysler Rubin is a Junior Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Hebrew University ofJerusalem, Israel. She is a qualified Town Planner and a Geography graduate of the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem. Her PhD examined the work of Patrick Geddes in Britain, India and Palestine, constitut-ing a critical investigation of the emerging practice of planning and its colonial expressions. Her mainresearch interests include the history and theory of urban planning, cultural and historical geography,post-colonial geographies in Britain, India and Palestine, and current planning in Israeli cities.
Notes1. Latest works about Geddes include: V.M. Welter and J. Lawson, eds., The City After Patrick
Geddes (Bern: Peter Lang, 2000); G. Ferraro, Rieducazione alla Speranza: Patrick Geddes Plannerin India, 1914–1924 [Rehabilitating Hope: Patrick Geddes, Planner in India, 1914–1924] (Milano:Jaca Books, 1998); V.M. Welter, Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2002); F. Fowle and B. Thomson, eds., Patrick Geddes: The French Connection(Oxford: White Cockade, 2004); W. Stephen, ed., Think Global, Act Local: The Life and Legacyof Patrick Geddes (Edinburgh: Luath Press, 2004).
2. H. Meller, Patrick Geddes: Social Evolutionist and City Planner (London: Routledge, 1990), 2, 50,68; idem, ‘Cities and Evolution: Patrick Geddes As an International Prophet of Town Planning Before1914’, in British Town Planning: The Formative Years, ed. A. Sutcliffe (Leicester: Leicester Univer-sity Press, 1981), 199–219; J.P. Reilly, ‘The Early Social Thought of Patrick Geddes’ (PhD diss.,Columbia University, 1972), 49; H.G. Simmons, ‘Patrick Geddes: Prophet without Politics’, Studiesin Modern European History and Culture II (1976): 159–91 (163); Ferraro, Patrick Geddes, 26.
3. Meller, Patrick Geddes, 45, 317; B.T. Robson, ‘Geography and Social Science: The Role of PatrickGeddes’, in Geography, Ideology and Social Concern, ed. D.R. Stoddart (London: Blackwell,1981); W. Lesser, ‘Patrick Geddes: The Practical Visionary’, Town Planning Review 45, no. 3(1977): 311–27; Ferraro, Patrick Geddes, 153.
4. Meller, Patrick Geddes, 7, 49, 56, 103; idem, Towns, Plans and Society in Modern Britain(Prepared for the Economic History Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 53;Welter, Biopolis, 1–2; P. Searby, ‘A Dreamer of Dreams’: Patrick Geddes 1854–1932 (the WoodMemorial Lecture 1985, delivered in Hughes Hall, Cambridge, on Saturday, October 5, 1985), 11;M. Hebbert, ‘Retrospect on the Outlook Tower’, Patrick Geddes: A Symposium, March 1, 1982,Special Occasional Paper in Town and Regional Planning, Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art/University of Dundee (An event organized by the Department of Town and Regional Planning tocelebrate the Centenary of the foundation of the University) 49–63 (50); idem, ‘Patrick Geddesreconsidered’, Town and Country Planning (January 1980) 17; P. Boardman, The Worlds of
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives 359
Patrick Geddes: Biologist, Town planner, Re-educator, Peace-Warrior (London: Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1978), 233.
5. Meller, Patrick Geddes, 203, 317; Ferraro, Patrick Geddes, 26; S. Leonard, ‘Finding GeddesAbroad’, Think Global, Act Local, 41–60.
6. H. Meller, ‘Patrick Geddes 1854–1932’, in Pioneers in British Planning, ed. G. Cherry (London:Architectural Press, 1981), 46–71; Reilly, ‘Early Social Thought’, 48; Robson, Geography, Ideologyand Social Concern, 203; Lesser, Town Planning Review, 311.
7. Meller, Patrick Geddes, 56; S.G. Leonard, ‘The Context and Legacy of Patrick Geddes in Europe’,in The City After Patrick Geddes, 71–87; P. Green, ‘Patrick Geddes: Pioneer of Social Planning(1854–1932)’, Journal of Indian History, Golden Jubilee Vol. (1973), Department of History,University of Kerala, 847–62 (861); D. Shillan, ‘Biotechnics: The Practice of Synthesis in theWork of Patrick Geddes’, New Atlantis Foundation, 16th Foundation Lecture, Surrey 1972, 1–20(19); Searby, ‘A Dreamer of Dreams’ 2; P. Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History ofUrban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century (Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell,1988), 136–45; Robson, Geography, Ideology and Social Concern, 203; Ferraro, Patrick Geddes,269; C. Ward, ‘Old Prophets of New City-Regions’, Town & Country Planning (December 1990):329.
8. Simmons, Studies in Modern European History and Culture, 171; J. Muller, ‘From Survey toStrategy: Twentieth Century Developments in Western Planning Method’, Planning Perspectives7, no. 2 (1992): 125–55; Hebbert, Patrick Geddes, 58; Breheny, The Planner 75, no. 6 (1989): 21,23; Hebbert, Town and Country Planning, 16; M. Dehaene, ‘Urban Lessons for the ModernPlanner: Patrick Abercrombie and the Study of Urban Development’, Town Planning Review 75,no. 1 (2004): 1–30.
9. A forgotten criticism albeit its seriousness has been raised by Geddes’ most devout follower,Lewis Mumford; Mumford on Geddes, Architectural Review, special number (July 1950): 81–7;idem, ‘The Disciple’s Rebellion: A Memoir of Patrick Geddes’, Encounter XXVII, no. 3 (1966):11–21; ‘The Geddesian Gambit’, in Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes: The Correspondence,ed. G. Novak, Jr. (London: Routledge, 1995), 353–70. Mumford’s criticism is neverthelessechoed by others; see different contributions to Patrick Geddes: A Symposium, 1982; Welter,Biopolis, 111–2; idem, ‘The Return of the Muses: Edinburgh as a Museion’, in The Architectureof the Museum: Symbolic Structures, Urban Contexts, ed. M. Giebelhausen (Manchester:Manchester University Press, 1993), 144–59. Geddes’ accumulating and substantial criticismundoubtedly merits a separate discussion.
10. Ferraro, Patrick Geddes, 26; P. Clavel, Ebenezer Howard, and Patrick Geddes, ‘TwoApproaches to City Development’, in From Garden City to Green City: The Legacy of EbenezerHoward, ed. K.C. Parsons and D. Schuyler (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002),54; R. Cowan, ‘Planners, Gardeners and Patrick Geddes’, Town and Country Planning 45, no.7–8 (1977): 348–51; Robson, Geography, Ideology and Social Concern, 188; Green, PatrickGeddes, 318; Hebbert, Patrick Geddes, 61; W.I. Stevenson, ‘Patrick Geddes and Geography:Biobibliographical Study’, Occasional Papers, no. 27 (1975), Department of Geography,University College London.
11. P. Burgess, ‘Should planning history hit the road? An examination of the state of planning historyin the United States’, Planning Perspectives 11 (1996): 201–24; A. Sutcliffe, ‘Why PlanningHistory?’ Built Environment 7, no. 1 (1981): 65–7; G.E. Cherry, ‘Today’s issues in a 20th centuryperspective’, Planner (11 January 1991): 7–11; P. Hall, ‘The Centenary of Modern Planning’, inUrban Planning in a Changing World: The Twentieth Century Experience, ed. R. Freestone(London: E&FN Spon, 2000), 20–39.
12. L. Sandercock, ‘Introduction: Framing Insurgent Historiographies for Planning’, in Making theInvisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning History (Berkeley: University of California Press,1998), 1–36; see also R. Freestone, ‘Learning from Planning’s Histories’, in Urban Planning in aChanging World (London: Taylor & Francis), 1–19.
13. J. Muller, ‘Although God Cannot Alter the Past, Historians Can: Reflections on the Writing ofPlanning Histories’, Planning History 21, no. 2 (1999): 11–19; C. Abbott and S. Adler, ‘HistoricalAnalysis As a Planning Tool’, Journal of the American Planning Association 55, no. 4 (1984):
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
360 N.H. Rubin
467–73; C. Silver, ‘American Planning and Planners: A Review of Two Books in PlanningHistory’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 3, no. 2 (1984): 129.
14. E.H. Carr ‘The Great Man Theory of History’, in What is History? (Harmondsworth: Penguin,1965), 107, in Muller (ibid), 14; D.A. Krueckeberg, ‘Between Self and Culture or What AreBiographies of Planners About? Journal of the American Planning Association 59, no. 2 (1993):217–21.
15. R.A. Beauregard, ‘Subversive Histories: Texts from South Africa’, in Making the Invisible Visible,ed. Sandercock (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 184–97; Muller, Planning History11, 13.
16. Sandercock, Making the Invisible Visible, 6, 1, 20. See also: M.C. Sies and C. Silver, ‘Introduc-tion’, in Planning the 20th Century American City, ed. Sies and Silver (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1996), 9–12; see also J. Holston, ‘Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship’, in Making theInvisible Visible, ed. Sandercock (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 37–56.
17. D. Krueckeberg, ‘Planning History’s Mistakes’, Planning Perspectives 12 (1997): 269–79.18. H. Carter, ‘The Garden of Geddes’, Forum LIV (October 1915): 455–71, (November 1915): 588–
95; G. Gardiner, Pillars of Society (London: James Nisbet, 1913), 183, 185; J. Mavor, in MyWindows on The Street of the World, vol. 1 (London: J.M. Dent, 1923), 213–216; A. Defries, TheInterpreter Geddes: The Man and his Gospel. Foreword by Rabindranath Tagore, Introduction byIsrael Zangwill. (London: George Routledge, 1927), 104, and various contributions there.
19. C. Booth, ‘Discussion’, in P. Geddes, Civics: As Applied Sociology, Part I, Sociological Papers I,Published for the Sociological Society (London: Macmillan, 1905), 127–9; W. Crane, ibid, 131; T.Barclay, Ibid, 124–5. Meller discusses similar remarks by T.C. Horsfall and Ebenezer Howard;Patrick Geddes, 168.
20. P. Abercrombie, ‘Geddes as Town Planner’, in The Interpreter Geddes, 323; Town PlanningConference of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Town Planning Review 1, no. 3 (1910): 180,182; P. Boardman, Patrick Geddes: Maker of the Future (Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1944), 251.
21. Abercrombie, The Interpreter Geddes, 323.22. ‘A Town Plan for Dublin’, Town Planning Review 5, no. 1 (1914): 68; Dublin Competition and
Exhibition, Town Planning Review 5, no. 2 (1914), 172–73; Civic Exhibition, Dublin, TownPlanning Review 5, no. 3 (1914): 249.
23. Defries, The Interpreter Geddes, 87.24. Numerous articles across India described how ‘Professor Geddes unravels the town-planning
mysteries to an admiring audience’; Editorial Notes, The Advocate (1916); Professor Geddes onTown-Planning in India, an Interview, ibid, March 1, 1916; ibid, March 2, 1916; a series of articlesreporting on Geddes’ exhibition and lectures in Calcutta, The Statesman, November 1915; TownPlanning, Bengalee, November 25, 1915; The Town-Planning Exhibition, The Empire, November27, 1915; Town Planning Exhibition, Nagpur, Nagpur & Berar Times, January 22, 1916; The CivicExhibition of Cities and Town Planning, Indian Daily Telegraph, February 24, 1916; CivicExhibition, ibid, March 15, 1916, and others.
25. A ‘Special Town Planning Number’ of The Palestine Weekly 1, no. 39 (1920) was devoted todiscussing Geddes’ Town Planning Exhibition and to support his contributions.
26. S. Branford, ‘The New Jerusalem’ (n.d.) Strathclyde University Archives (SUA) T-GED 1/7/25;For example, Professor Patrick Geddes’ Report on the Possibility of Improvement of Jerusalem,submitted to the Chief Administrator of Palestine, Town Planning Review 11, no. 8 (1921): 190;‘Jewish Settlements in Palestine’, Garden Cities and Town Planning 11, no. 8 (1921): 190–91;Professor P. Geddes, ‘The City of Jerusalem’, ibid 11 (1921): 251–54; ‘Haifa’s Future, Vision ofthe Town Beautiful: Interview with Professor Geddes’, The Egyptian Gazette (September 15,1921?), Central Zionist Archives, L18/80-11. See also: C. Zueblin to Geddes (April 17, 1920), NLSMS10546/135-7; T. Adams to Geddes (Septembere 5, 1921), National Library of Scotland (NLS),MS10547/43.
27. ‘Proposed Hebrew University’, The Architect, November 6, 1920; see also S. Branford, ‘TheHebrew University in Jerusalem’, Nature 115, no. 2897 (1925): 681–82; ‘The New University atJerusalem’, Graphic 16, no. 2884 (1925) [London]; ‘The New University at Jerusalem’, The
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives 361
Observer, March 1, 1925; ‘Industries of the University: Further Talk with Professor Geddes’, ThePalestine Weekly, April 10, 1925; ‘Professor Patrick Geddes on the Site and Design’, The Scotsman,May 1925; The Zionist University, Sociological Review 17 (1925): 223–24.
28. Various responses to Sociological Papers I, 124–31; Civics: As Concrete and Applied Sociology,Part II, Sociological Papers II (1906): 113–17; A Suggested Plan for a Civic Museum (or CivicExhibition) and its Associated studies, read at a Research Meeting of the Sociological Society, atthe School of Economics and Political Science (University of London) March 19, 1906, JamesOliphant, Esq., in the Chair. Sociological Papers III (1907): 199–240. Booth and Howard, claimsMeller, completely misunderstood it; Patrick Geddes, 143.
29. G.G.C., ‘Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study ofCivics’ (book review), Geographical Journal 47, no. 4 (1916): 309–11.
30. F.K. Teggart, ‘Science and Politics: The Coming Polity. A Study in Reconstruction’ (book review).Geographical Review 9, no. 4 (1920): 366.
31. Abercrombie, The Interpreter Geddes, 324.32. R. Unwin, Town Planning in Practice (London: T. Fisher, 1911, 1913), 141; P. Abercrombie, Town
and Country Planning (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1933), 22, 130. See lengthy discussion atMeller, Patrick Geddes, 136, 155–7, 293–304.
33. G. Slater, ‘Illuminations … as by Flashes of Lightning’, Sociological Review 24 (1932): 372–73; S.K. Ratcliffe, ‘A Light that Lighted over Minds’, ibid: 366–67; A. Thomson, ‘Obituary: SirPatrick Geddes’, The Times, April 19, 1932; Charles R. Ashbee, ‘Patrick Geddes’, The Times,April 21, 1932; ‘One who Loved his Fellow-Men: Sir Patrick Geddes, A Long Life of DoingGood for Each and All’, Children’s Newspaper, April 27, 1932; ‘“ARTIFEX”, Sir PatrickGeddes: Town Planner, Scientist, and Social Reformer’, The Irish Builder and Engineer, May7, 1932.
34. D. Price, ‘At Montpellier’, Sociological Review, 379.35. ‘Humanity and Town Planning’, The Birmingham Post, quoted in Notes and News, Garden Cities
and Town Planning 12, no. 4 (1932): 113; E. McGegan, ‘Geddes as a Man of Action’, SociologicalReview, 355–57; Ratcliffe, ibid, 366–67; C.R.A., The Times.
36. McGegan, Sociological Review, 355–57; M. Pentland, ‘An Ideal Rising from the Real’, ibid, 368–69; R. Mukerjee, ‘In India’, ibid, 374–75; Lanchester, ‘Town Planning in India’, ibid, 370–71;D.M. Stevenson, ‘The Social Reformer’, ibid, 353–54; Slater, ibid, 372–73; The Irish Builder andEngineer; ‘Better Indian Cities: Sir P. Geddes Dead’, Times of India, April 19, 1932; GlasgowHerald; C.R.A., The Times.
37. The Late Sir Patrick Geddes: ‘Report on Town Planning in Colombo’, Times of Ceylon, April 25,1932.
38. Slater, Sociological Review, 372–73; C.R.A, The Times: The Irish Builder and Engineer; and others.39. Frank Mears, Architectural Review (n.d.) NLS MS10652/55.40. A. Geddes, ‘Patrick Geddes as a Sociologist’ (from a lecture given at the Outlook Tower to the
Sociological Group in December 1933, edited by Mrs. J. Geddes from a single manuscript) in J.J.Ferreira and S.S. Jha, ed. The Outlook Tower: Essays on Urbanization in memory of PatrickGeddes (Department of Sociology, University of Bombay, upon the Golden Jubilee of the Depart-ment of Sociology, 1969) (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1976), 14–19; E. McGegan, ‘The Life andWork of Professor Sir Patrick Geddes: Biographical’, Journal of the Town Planning Institute 26(1940): 189–91; A. Geddes, ‘The Life and Work of Professor Sir Patrick Geddes: His IndianReports and their Influence’, Ibid, 191–94; F. Mears, ‘The Life and Work of Professor Sir PatrickGeddes: Geddes’ Contribution to Planning in Evolution’, Ibid, 194–5.
41. Boardman, Patrick Geddes: Maker of the Future. Boardman wrote an earlier monograph aboutGeddes describing him as an educationalist: Esquisse de l’Oeuver educatrice de Patrick Geddes(Montpellier: Imprimerie de la Charite, 1936); H.W. Odum, ‘Patrick Geddes’ Heritage to “TheMaking of the Future”’, Social Forces 22, no. 3 (1944): 275, 278.
42. P. Boardman, ‘Not Housing But Home-Building: The Life-Centered Approach of Patrick Geddes’,reprinted from Teknisk Ukeblad (no. 30), Kronprinsensgt 17, Oslo, Norway, 1948, 8 [ref. 1]; V.Welter, ‘Stages of an Exhibition: The Cities and Town Planning Exhibition of Patrick Geddes’,Planning History 20, no. 1 (1998): 25–35.
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
362 N.H. Rubin
43. J. Tyrwhitt, Editor’s Note, Patrick Geddes in India, Edited by Jacqueline Tyrwhitt, with anIntroduction by Lewis Mumford and a Preface by H.V. Lanchaster (London: Lund Humphries,1947), 6; B. Lasker, ‘Patrick Geddes in India’ (book review) Pacific Affairs 21, no. 1 (1948): 74–5.
44. C.B. Fawcett, ‘Patrick Geddes in India’ (book review, ed. Jacqueline Tyrwhitt), Geographical Jour-nal VCX, no. 1–3 (1947): 115–16; Boardman, Teknisk Ukeblad, 1–15; Lasker, Pacific Affairs, 74–5.
45. J. Tyrwhitt, ‘Preface’, in Cities in Evolution by Patrick Geddes, rev. ed., ed. Outlook TowerAssociation Edinburgh and the Association for Planning and Regional Reconstruction (London:Williams & Norgate, 1949), 9–10. It was an edited edition, omitting such descriptions as Geddes’visits to German cities.
46. University of Edinburgh, Sir Patrick Geddes Centenary Celebrations: report of a symposium heldin the Edinburgh College of Art on Friday, 1st October 1954 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh College ofArt, 1954), 450; see also Sir W. Holford, ‘Foreword’, Pioneer of Sociology 12; H.J. Fleure, PatrickGeddes (1854–1932), Sociological Review New Series (1953): 5–13.
47. ‘The Father of Modern Town Planning: A Centenary Tribute To a Practical Visionary’, BBC, Novem-ber, 1954, NLS MS10608/62-89; Three articles of sponsored research conducted at the OutlookTower were published in Journal of the Town Planning Institute 11 (1954); M.J.E., ‘The Evolutionof Patrick Geddes’ (no. 5): 117–19; T.F.L., Outlook Towers (no. 6): 145–46; F.R.S., ‘The Relevanceof Geddes To-day’ (no. 8): 209–11; G. Pepler, ‘Geddes’ Contribution to Town Planning’, TownPlanning Review 26 (1955–1956): 19–24; ‘Geddes on Letchworth’ (1905); Geddes on Dispersal(1906); ‘Geddes on Suburbs’ (1906), all quoted in Town & Country Planning 23, no. 126 (October1954): 518, 524, 526. The Tower itself did not retain much evidence from Geddes’ era anymore,as described by J. Earley, ‘Sorting in Patrick Geddes’ Outlook Tower’, Places 7, no. 3 (1991): 64–71.
48. P. Mairet, Pioneer of Sociology: The Life and Letters of Patrick Geddes (London: LundHumphries, 1957).
49. W. Ashworth, The Genesis of Modern British Town Planning: A Study in Economic and SocialHistory of the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954), 175–6.
50. H. Kendall, Jerusalem the City Plan: Preservation and Development During the British Mandate1918–1948 (London: His Majesty’s Stationary Press Office, 1948); Jerusalem Master Plan, 1968,(Jerusalem: Municipality, 1972).
51. A.T.A. Learmonth, ‘Urban Improvements: A Strategy for Urban Works. Observations of SirPatrick Geddes with reference to Old Lahore’ (book review), Geographical Journal 132, no. 4(1966): 538, commenting on: Urban Improvements: A Strategy for Urban Works. Government ofPakistan Planning Commission (Physical Planning & Housing Section), Study no. P.P. & H. no.21, June 1965; K.L. Gillion, Ahmedabad: A Study in Indian Urban History (Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 1968).
52. R.N. Rudnose Brown, ‘Scotland and some Trends in Geography: John Murray, Patrick Geddes andAndrew Herbertson’ (abridged from The Herbertson Memorial Lecture delivered to the RoyalScottish Geographical Society and the Edinburgh Branch of the Association on March 5, 1948),Geography 33 (1948): 110.
53. P. Turnbull, ‘Patrick Geddes and the Planning Unit Today’, reprinted from Quarterly Journal ofthe R.I.A.S. (1947) SUA T-GED 1/6/45.
54. G.B. Barker, ‘Plan for Central and South East Scotland’, Town and Country Planning 17, no. 65(1949): 40–3.
55. Eric Mumford, The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960, (Cambridge: The MIT Press,2000), 332; S. Leonard, The City After Patrick Geddes, 83.
56. G. Bell and J. Tyrwhitt, eds., Human Identity in the Urban Environment (Baltimore: Penguin,1972), 15–28; Ian Boyd Whyte, ‘Introduction’, The City After Patrick Geddes, 19.
57. CIAM 8, London/Hoddesdon, 1951. Commission 2 (Giedion, Rogers, Batista, Roth, Bakema),‘Reunion of the Arts at the Core’, working paper. Ove Arup Collection, Churchill ArchivesCentre, Cambridge, file 5/17, in I.B. Whyte, ‘The Spirit of the City’, The City After PatrickGeddes, 30–31; Mumford, The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 238–241, 251.
58. A. Glikson, Regional Planning and Development. Six Lectures delivered at the Institute of SocialStudies, at the Hague (Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1953), 63, quoted in V.M.Welter, Arthur Glikson, ‘Thinking-Machines, and the Planning of Israel’, The City After Patrick
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives 363
Geddes, 212, 226; Bell and Tyrwhitt, Human Identity in the Urban Environment, 15–28; Whyte,The City After Patrick Geddes, 15–32.
59. R. Glass, ‘Urban Sociology in Great Britain: A Trend Report’, Current Sociology (La SociologieContemporaine) 4, no. 4 (1955): 5–19; idem, ‘The Evaluation of Planning: Some SociologicalConsiderations’, UNESCO International Social Science Journal 11, no. 3 (1959): 393–409.
60. G. Ferraro, Patrick Geddes Planner in India; idem, Il gioco del piano. Patrick Geddes in India1914–1924, Urbanistica 103 (1995): 136–52; idem, Patrick Geddes, Cities in Evolution, Urbanis-tica 108 (1997): 157–161; P. Green, Patrick Geddes (PhD diss., University of Strathclyde, 1970);idem, Journal of Indian History.
61. Reilly, ‘The Early Social Thought of Patrick Geddes’, 49; Simmons, Studies in Modern EuropeanHistory and Culture, 159; Searby, ‘The Wood Memorial Lecture’, 20; K. Wheeler, a note on theValley Section of Patrick Geddes, Bulletin of Environmental Education 33 (1974): 127; Robson,Geography, Ideology and Social Concern, 196; Ward, Town & Country Planning, 329; Leonard,Think Global, Act Local, 60.
62. In June 1985 the Patrick Geddes Centre was opened by the University of Edinburgh as ‘a Centrefor Planning Studies’, its roles including to cooperate with Edinburgh Conservation and Renewalcommittee. S. Leonard, ‘Patrick Geddes Centre For Planning Studies’, Planning History 10, no. 1(1988): 26. See also: C. Mercer, ‘Geographies for the Present: Patrick Geddes, Urban Planning andthe Human Sciences’, Economy and Society 26, no. 2 (1997): 211–24; C. Ward, ‘The OutlookTower, Edinburgh: Prototype for an Urban Studies Centre’, Bulletin of Environmental Education32 (1973); Stevenson, Occasional Papers no. 27 (1975): 7.
63. Green, Patrick Geddes, 85.64. H. Meller, ‘Patrick Geddes: An Analysis of his Theory of Civics, 1880–1914’, Victorian Studies
16, no. 3 (1973): 291–315; idem, ‘Introduction and Note to Civics: As Applied Sociology’, in TheIdeal City, ed. (with an Introduction by) Helen E. Meller (Leicester: Leicester University Press,1979), 9–46, 67–74; idem, British Town Planning: The Formative Years 199–219; idem, Pioneersin British Planning, 46–71; idem, Patrick Geddes; idem, ‘Understanding the European City around1900: The Contribution of Patrick Geddes’, The City After Patrick Geddes, 35–54; idem, Towns,Plans and Society in Modern Britain, prepared for the Economic History Society (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997).
65. H.E. Meller, ‘Urbanization and the Introduction of Modern Town Planning Ideas in India, 1900–1925’, in Economy and Society Essays in Indian Economic and Social History, ed. K.N. Chaudhuriand C.J. Dewey (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1979), 330–50; idem, ‘Geddes and his IndianReports’, in Patrick Geddes: A Symposium, 4–21; idem, ‘Conservation and Evolution: The PioneeringWork of Sir Patrick Geddes in Jerusalem, 1919–1925’, Planning History Bulletin 9 (1987): 42–49.
66. Wheeler, Bulletin of Environmental Education 27; Jacobs herself gives Geddes no such credit; TheDeath and Life of Great American Cities (Great Britain: Penguin, in association with JonathanCape, 1994 (1961)). See also McGee, in The Outlook Tower, 269.
67. P.D. Goist, ‘Patrick Geddes and the City’, Journal of American Institute of Planners 40, no. 1 (1974):31–32; Wheeler, Bulletin of Environmental Education 27; P. Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intel-lectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1988), 242; see also Robson, Geography, Ideology and Social Concern, 195–6.
68. W. Stephen, ‘Think Global, Act Local: The Life and Legacy of Patrick Geddes’, in Think Global,Act Local 13.
69. Goist, JAIP, 32; Robson, Geography, Ideology and Social Concern, 198; ‘Happy birthday, PatrickGeddes’, Town and Country Planning (September 1979), 181; B. Edwards, ‘Edinburgh debatesMumford’s distortion of Geddes’ ideas’, Architects’ Journal (November 16, 1995): 16.
70. M. Cuthbert, ‘The Concept of the Outlook Tower in the Work of Patrick Geddes’ (M. Phil. diss.,St. Andrews University, 1987), 190; Wheeler, Bulletin of Environmental Education 128. Leonard,The City After Patrick Geddes, 79–81.
71. Ferraro, Patrick Geddes, 223; idem, Urbanistica (1997): 157–161.72. Leonard, Planning History, 33–47; the university halls were described on similar lines. R. Pinkerton,
Patrick Geddes Hall: Scotland’s First Hall of Residence [n.p., n.p.] 1978; J. Brine, Ramsay Gardens,Patrick Geddes Centre, Planning History 11 no. 3 (1989): 25.
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
364 N.H. Rubin
73. Meller, Patrick Geddes, 157.74. A. Saint, ‘Ashbee, Geddes, Lethaby and the rebuilding of Crosby Hall’, Architectural History 34
(1991): 206–17.75. A. Ponte, ‘Arte civica o sociologia applicata? P. Geddes e T.H. Mawson: due progetti per Dunfer-
mline’ [Civic Art or Applied Sociology? P. Geddes and T.H. Mawson: Two Plans for Dunfermline]Lotus International 30 (1981): 91–98.
76. M.J. Bannon, ed., ‘The Genesis of Modern Irish Planning’, in A Hundred Years of Irish Planning,vol. 1, The Emergence of Irish Planning 1880–1920 (Dublin: Turoe Press, 1985), 189–265; seealso idem, ‘The Making of Irish Geography, III: Patrick Geddes and the Emergence of ModernTown Planning in Dublin’, Irish Geography 11 (1978): 141–49; idem, ‘Dublin Town PlanningCompetition: Ashbee and Chettle’s “New Dublin – A Study in Civics”’, Planning Perspectives 14(1999): 145–62.
77. Meller, Pioneers in British Planning, 58–60; idem, Patrick Geddes, 203; idem, Patrick Geddes: ASymposium, 81; idem, Essays in Indian Economic and Social History, 342; D. Goodfriend, ‘NagarYoga: The Culturally Informed Town Planning of Patrick Geddes in India, 1914–1924’, HumanOrganization 38, no. 4 (1979): 343–55; A. Petruccioli, ‘Patrick Geddes in Indore: Alcune questionidi metodo’ [Some questions of method], Lotus International 34 (1982): 106–15 (109; 113); J.Toppin, ‘History of Working Abroad’, Architects’ Journal (1982): 28–35 (31); Ferraro, Urbanistica(1997), 151. Visiting Lahore in 1998, Leonard described its garden suburbs as suiting any Europeancity. Think Global, Act Local, 56.
78. It is generally agreed that in order to fully appreciate Geddes’ work in India it is necessary tocompare and mainly to contrast it with those of his colleagues. Goodfriend, Human Organization,343; Petruccioli, Lotus International, 109, 113; Meller, Patrick Geddes, 211–2; Ferraro, PatrickGeddes, 210; T.G. McGee, ‘Planning the Asian City: The Relevance of “Conservative Surgery”and the Concept of Dualism’, The Outlook Tower, 266, and others.
79. Petruccioli, Lotus International, 109; Goodfriend, Human Organization, 352; Meller, PatrickGeddes: A Symposium, 13–6; McGee, The Outlook Tower, 269.
80. ‘If Geddes had not happened to India, we would have had little sense today of the old Indiandiscourse on architecture and planning’. N. Gupta, ‘A Letter from India’, Think Global, Act Local118–9; See also: N. Gupta, ‘Twelve Years On: Urban History in India’, Urban History Yearbook1981, 76–79.
81. Goodfriend, Human Organization, 346–7; Meller, Patrick Geddes, 240; Toppin, Architects’ Journal,31; Petruccioli, Lotus International, 109; N. Gupta, ‘Delhi between Two Empires, 1803–1931:Society, Government and Urban Growth’ (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981), 182.
82. G. Herbert and S. Sosnovsky, Bauhaus on the Carmel and the Crossroads of Empire: Architectureand Planning in Haifa during the British Mandate (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1993), 73;N.I. Payton, ‘The Machine in the Garden City: Patrick Geddes’ Plan for Tel Aviv’, PlanningPerspectives 19, no. 4 (1995): 359–81 (363); G. Biger, ‘A Scotsman in the First Hebrew City:Patrick Geddes and the 1926 Town Plan for Tel Aviv’, Scottish Geographical Magazine 108(1992): 4–8.
83. B. Hyman, ‘British Planners in Palestine, 1918–1936’ (PhD thesis, London School of Economicsand Political Science, 1994) – a most thorough account of Geddes’ work throughout the countryand possibly elsewhere. Herbert and Sosnovsky, Bauhaus on the Carmel, 75–6; R. Kallus, ‘PatrickGeddes and the Evolution of a Housing Type in Tel-Aviv’, Planning Perspectives 12 (1997): 290;Payton, Planning Perspectives 364, 372, 375–6; Meller, Planning History Bulletin, 44; idem,Patrick Geddes, 278.
84. Payton, Planning Perspectives, 363.85. Kallus, Planning Perspectives, 290; Payton, Planning Perspectives, 359, 361. The garden suburb
plans in Haifa received similar analysis; Herbert and Sosnovsky, Bauhaus on the Carmel.86. S. Shapiro, ‘Planning Jerusalem: The First Generation, 1917–1968’, in Urban Geography of
Jerusalem: A Companion Volume to the Atlas of Jerusalem, ed. D. Amiran, A. Shachar, and I.Kimhi (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1973); E. Efrat, ‘British Town Planning Perspectives ofJerusalem in Transition’, Planning Perspectives 8 (1993): 377–93; Y. Ben-Arieh, ‘The Planningand Conservation of Jerusalem during the Mandate Period in Israel, 1917–1926: A Land
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
Planning Perspectives 365
Reflected in Its Past’, in Studies in [the] Historical Geography of Israel, ed. R. Aharonsohn andH. Lavsky (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2001), 441–93 [Hebrew].
87. S.E. Cohen, ‘Greenbelts in London and Jerusalem’, Geographical Review 84, no. 1 (1994): 74–89.88. Peter Green’s regional analysis of Geddes’ work in Palestine is based on reports which are today
missing. Patrick Geddes, 276, 282, 284.89. M. Shapira, ‘The University and the City: Patrick Geddes and the First Master Plan for the Hebrew
University, 1919’, in The History of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: Roots and Beginnings,ed. S. Katz and M. Head (Jerusalem: Magnes Publishers, 1997), 201–35 [Hebrew]; D. Dolev, ‘TheArchitectural Master Plans of the Hebrew University, 1918–1948’, ibid, 264; see also idem,‘Architecture and Nationalist Ideology: The Case of the Architectural Master Plans for the HebrewUniversity in Jerusalem (1919–1974) and their Connections with Nationalist Ideology’ (PhD diss.,University College London, 2001); Meller, Planning History Bulletin, 46; idem, Patrick Geddes,267–75.
90. Hyman, British Planners in Palestine, 297–308.91. Welter, Biopolis; idem, ‘The Geddes Vision of the Region as City: Palestine as a “Polis”’, in Social
Utopias of the Twenties: Bauhaus, Kibbutz and the Dream of the New Man, Ed. Jeannine Fiedler(Published for the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation and the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation, Tel Aviv)(Germany: Muller+Busmann Press, 1995), 71–79; idem, ‘History, Biology and City Design:Patrick Geddes in Edinburgh’, Architectural Heritage 6 (1995): 61–82; Whyte, The City AfterPatrick Geddes, 19–21; I. Abalos, ‘Osservatori’ [Observatories], Domus October (2004) : 12–13;G. King, ‘Town Planning, Information Technology and the Art of Memory – Part One: PatrickGeddes and the Art of Memory’, Planner February, 1990: 13–14; idem, ‘Town Planning, Informa-tion Technology and the Art of Memory – Part Two: The Meaning of Patrick Geddes’, PlannerMarch, 1990: 12.
92. M.C. Boyer, The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertain-ments (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994), 210–14.
93. D. Matless, ‘Ordering the Land: The “Preservation” of the English Countryside, 1918–1939’, vol. 1(PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, 1990); idem, ‘Regional Surveys and Local Knowledges:The Geographical Imagination in Britain, 1918–1939’, Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers New Series 17 (1992): 464–80; idem, ‘Visual Culture and Geographical Citizenship:England in the 1940s’, Journal of Historical Geography 22, no. 4 (1996): 424–39; idem, ‘Formsof Knowledge and Forms of Belonging: Regional Survey and Geographical Citizenship’, in TheCity After Patrick Geddes, 91–112; M. Bell, ‘Reshaping Boundaries: International Ethics andEnvironmental Consciousness in the Early Twentieth Century’, Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Geographers 23 (1998): 151–75; M. Bell, R. Butlin, and M. Heffernan, ‘Introduction’, inGeography and Imperialism 1830–1940, ed. M. Bell, R. Butlin, and M. Heffernan (Manchester:Manchester University Press, 1995), 1–7; T. Ploszajska, ‘Historiographies of Geography andEmpire’, in Modern Historical Geographies, ed. C. Nash and B. Graham (Essex: Pearson Education,2002), 121–42; D. Haraway, Primate Visions (London: Verso, 1989). Many others discussgeographical devices which were extensively developed by Geddes yet fail to connect him with theircritical conclusions; see, for example, James R. Ryan, ‘Visualizing Imperial Geography: HalfordMackinder and the Colonial Office Visual Instruction Committee, 1911’, Ecumene 1, no. 2 (1994):157–76; T. Mitchell, Colonising Egypt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 8–12, andmany others.
94. S. Naylor and G. A. Jones, ‘Writing Orderly Geographies of Distant Places: The Regional SurveyMovement and Latin America’, Ecumene 4, no. 3 (1997): 273–99.
95. M. Dehaene, ‘Survey and the Assimilation of a Modernist Narrative in Urbanism’, Journal ofArchitecture 7 (2002): 33–55; idem, Town Planning Review, 1–30. See also: D. Matless, ‘VisualCulture and Geographical Citizenship: England in the 1940’s’, Journal of Historical Geography22, no. 4 (1996): 424–39.
96. O. Söderström, ‘Paper Cities: Visual Thinking in Urban Planning’, Ecumene 3, no. 3 (1996):249–81.
97. M. Beattie, ‘Sir Patrick Geddes and Barra Bazaar: Competing Visions, Ambivalence andContradiction’, Journal of Architecture 9 (2004): 131–50.
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
366 N.H. Rubin
98. R. Fuchs and G. Herbert, ‘A Colonial Portrait of Jerusalem: British Architecture in Mandate-EraPalestine’, in Hybrid Urbanism: On the Identity Discourse and the Built Environment, ed.AlSayyad (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001), 83–108.
99. M. Levine, ‘Conquest Through Town Planning: The Case of Tel Aviv, 1921–1948’, Journal ofPalestine Studies 27, no. 4 (1998): 36–52; idem, Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and theStruggle for Palestine 1880–1948 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005): 171–2.
100. N. Perera, ‘Indigenising the Colonial City: Late 19th-Century Colombo and Its Landscape’, UrbanStudies 39, no. 9 (2002): 1703–21; idem, ‘The Planners’ City: The Construction of a TownPlanning Perception of Colombo’, Environment and Planning A 40 (2008): 57–73.
101. Hebbert, Patrick Geddes: A Symposium, 61.102. Welter, Biopolis, 1.103. J.S. Duncan, ‘Notes from the Archive’, Historical Geography 27 (1999): 119–28; J. Nasr and M.
Volait, ‘Introduction’, in Urbanism: Imported or Exported? (Chichester: Wiley-Academy, 2003),11–38; A. King, ‘Introductory Comments: The Dialectics of Dual Development’, City and Society12, no. 1 (2000): 9, quoted above, xxiii; B.S.A. Yeoh, Contesting Space: Power Relations and theUrban Built Environment in Colonial Singapore (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1996),18–20.
104. L. Sandercock, ‘Framing Insurgent Historiographies for Planning’, Making the Invisible Visible,1–36.
105. Krueckeberg, Planning Perspectives, 269–79.106. O. Kramsch, ‘Tropics of Planning Discourse: Stalking the “Constructive Imaginary” of Selected
Urban Planning Histories’, in Making the Invisible Visible, ed. Leonie Sandercock (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1998), 163–83 (164).
107. Krueckeberg, Journal of the American Planning Association, 217–21.108. I. Borden, J. Rendell, and H. Thomas, ‘Knowing Different Cities: Reflections on Recent European
Writings on Cities and Planning History’, in Making the Invisible Visible, ed. Sandercock (Berke-ley: University of California Press, 1998), 135–49 (135).
109. N. Hysler-Rubin, ‘Patrick Geddes, Town Planner in the Colonies: A Comparative Study of hisWork in Britain, India and Palestine’ (PhD Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006). Thestudy includes plans which have so far been overlooked and local response to Geddes’ work, thusincorporating depressed, cast aside and otherwise missing voices from its appraisal. Geddes’geographical planning tools as well as his role in shaping colonial spaces are studied against currentpost-colonial theories, which are claimed to be most appropriate for a critical study of his work.
Downloaded By: [Rubin, Noah Hysler] At: 11:14 28 June 2009
