Bombed Cities of Europe Following World War II: Differences In Planning and Reconstruction Under

Capitalism and Communism

Daniel Kindya

December 19, 2010

Econ 145: Urban Economics

Professor Charles Becker

I. Introduction

For a second, imagine the following scenario. There is an existing population that refers to a set area as ‘home’, but there are no longer businesses, factories, or houses in this area. The task of building up a city in this barren post-destruction land is presented to a community and a nation as a whole. The only question is… how to rebuild? The previous scenario was a reality to hundreds of European cities following the heavy bombardments of World War II. Most areas saw this as an opportunity to build the ideal city, one with a strong infrastructure and a higher standard of living, a sort of ‘city of the future’. The cities were diverse and distinct, occurring in a wide variety of countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Soviet Union to name a few. Also, there were different ideologies set in place in these regions at the time, whether it be a Democratic or Utilitarianism government, or a Capitalist or Communist economy. In this paper, the term ‘Communism’ will be used interchangeably with ‘Socialism’ when referring to an economy. Communism is used to emphasize the combination of politics with economics in these cities. This paper’s goal is to dissect the economic differences and similarities in reconstruction between Capitalism and Communism in this post World War II era. Although there were many theories pertaining to reconstruction that these ideologies shared, the differences is what made them unique, and what made certain cities thrive under reconstruction and others fail. Although there are hundreds of aspects of city planning that could be focused upon, a select and most important few will be touched upon. These include the ideas behind Modernism that these cities drew upon, how and by whom the cities were planned, spacing of the urban areas, housing issues, the functions of local businesses, factory layouts, traffic and transportation difficulties, how to set up and use parks, the maintenance of historical monuments, and in general what drove these plans to succeed or

fail. Overall, we see that different aspects of city planning fared better under Capitalism, and others fared better under Communism. The underlying differences of these conflicting ideologies can be seen as the reasons for the successes and failures, and the application of these principles can improve and make further efficient city reconstruction that will inevitably occur in the future.

II. Modernism

In order to get a basic understanding of the plans for reconstruction, one must first understand the principal school of thought of city structure at the time. Although not to the same scale of destruction as in World War II, city bombings had already occurred during the First World War. Cities were maimed, but not destroyed. People wanted to move on from the terrible war and continue their day to day lives. For this reason as well as economic troubles, cities bombed during World War I were predominantly reconstructed to as they were previous to the bombings (Soane 72, Grebler 463). These city layouts had been in place, in some cases, for centuries. They were inefficient, with densely populated city centers which usually lacked in hygiene and infrastructure (Grebler 463). Ideology at the time was not as focused on the idea of the ‘city of the future’, but instead on moving forward from the Great War and continuing normal day-to-day life.

The idea of rebuilding cities as they were and moving forward with life did not survive the Second World War. By the 1940s, the principal ideology of the time for the ideal construction of cities was that of Modernism (Soane 74, Grebler 467-8, Larkham 742). Modernism, in the sense of architecture and city planning of the 1940s, is a complex term that must be understood in order to fully comprehend the ideas put forth by those in charge of the massive reconstruction. Modernism pertains to constructing a more efficient city that utilizes all of the newest and most innovative technology at the time. The word ‘modern’ can be applied to

almost all aspects of city life under Modernism: modern technology, modern architecture, modern street plans, and modern housing just to name a few. The overall goal of Modernism is to create an efficient society in which all benefit from city planning using the newest and best ideas of the time, in this case the early to mid 1940s.

It is simple to see why Communists were in love with the theology of Modernism in city planning. Obsessed with efficiency in all aspects of life (Lamet 349, Borisov 315-6, A.B. 97), Communists would want to apply the efficiency ideas behind Modernism into their new, futuristic cities being constructed. There was no use in wasting time and money waiting in traffic, in transporting costs, or in luxuries in residential housing. Communist city planners saw Modernism as the tool to eliminate all this useless waste, and instead produce a city that thrived economically through efficiency. For these reasons, Modernism was more prevalent in cities rebuilt under Communism such as Dresden in East Germany and Minsk and Stalingrad rebuilt in the USSR (Soane 74, A.B. 98).

Although Modernism was used more heavily in Soviet city reconstruction, this does not mean the idea was unpopular in Capitalist states. In fact, it is quite the contrary. Capitalist cities, especially those in the United Kingdom, were also infatuated with the idea of Modernism (Hasegawa 138, Larkham 742). Cities such as Coventry were planned and reconstructed strictly following Modernist ideology (Hasegawa 160), and other United Kingdom cities considered rebuilding not only the bombed areas but also unaffected areas using Modernist theory, but the plans never went into action (Larkham 742). England’s obsession with Modernism can be attributed to how old and unorganized the cities were. Most of the cities had been in existence for hundreds of years, and as modern innovations come along the cities adapted, but never completely accommodated. Roads were not planned for the automobile, leading to traffic nightmares in most cities, and cities were not built for the large populations of the day, leading

to overpopulated, dense living in city centers (Hasegawa 139). The people had wanted city improvement for a long time, saw the destruction of these cities as an opportunity to improve, and Modernism was the tool for the improvement. As an official in charge of British reconstruction in the Bournville Trust said in 1940 following the earlier bombings “the problem of clearing [for redevelopment was] somewhat simplified, and the importance of a plan, and the urgency of proper planning, greatly increased.” (Hasegawa 141)

III. Who Plans, Who Builds, and Who Pays?

Before city reconstruction can actually begin, there needs to be planning, contractors must be signed to build the plans, and financiers must be available to pay for the contractors. There existed a stark contrast between the members of the community who performed each of the above tasks following World War II under Communism and Capitalism.

In Communist Soviet states, the role of city planner was presented to a Government official (Soane 73). This official drew out the plans and made sure that they were put into action exactly as how they had been made. Since the city planner was always a government official, the main problem with the Communist city planner was that they were not always qualified for the job. Take Dresden for example, where the main city planner role was given to the first Dresden Mayor following World War II, Walter Weidauer (Soane 73). Weidauer was a former carpenter prior to the war, but due to his longstanding Communist sympathies was given the role of Mayor of Dresden, and therefore eventually head city planner (Soane 73). As a former carpenter, Weidauer was in no way qualified or prepared for the massive role of reconstructing an entire city with a population of around 600,000. (Soane 71) His 1945 plan for rebuilding was, unsurprisingly, unsuccessful, and had to be replaced with a completely new plan for Dresden in 1950 (Soane 76). Although this failure was not seen in every Communist city, the

fact that the city planner was a government official, who was often unqualified, hurt Communist city reconstruction.

The city planner was a relatively new role following the bombings of World War II in Capitalist cities (Larkham 743). Unlike under Communism, however, the role rarely went to government officials. Instead, highly qualified individuals were sought out and given the honor of rebuilding these destroyed cities to their former glory. Instead, the role was granted to well known-professionals, professors, and engineers (Larkham 743). For instance, the role of planning for cities such as Exeter, Oxford, Salisbury, Durham and more was given to Thomas Sharp, the president of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the president of the Institute of Landscape Architects (Larkham 744). Patrick Abercrombie, a professor of town planning at the University of London, was put in charge of plans for Plymouth, London, and Hull (Larkham 745). Clearly these men were qualified for the job set before them, and the outcomes in the cities they planned reflect their qualifications.

As for who builds the plans set forth by the city planner, here we start to see similarities between cities built under Communism and Capitalism. Under both, career bricklayers, plasterers, painters, and construction workers fulfilled the job of rebuilding (Borisov 316, Grebler 464-5). The workers were qualified for their jobs and for the most part did them well. The only real difference that can be found is the authority figure for the workers. In an apartment building crew under both systems, for example, the bricklayers lay the brick, the plasterers then plaster over the brick to form walls, and the painters paint over the plaster to make the apartment more aesthetically pleasing. In Capitalism, these workers each report to their respected foreman. Each individual error is then seen by the foreman, and the work corrected. Under Communism, however, the workers report to a government official in charge of overseeing the entire apartment complex’s construction, who often only saw the finished product of the

painted wall (Borisov 315). A crooked wall then, for example, was not known whether to be blamed on the bricklayer or the plasterer. In order to maximize efficiency, the workers developed a system of ‘mutual inspection’, where each worker checked the job done by the previous worker (i.e. the plasterer checked the bricklayer’s work, the painter the plasterer’s work, etc.) (Borisov 316). Both systems, although different in design, produced efficient outcomes in work done over all aspects of building.

Finally let us review who paid for the reconstruction of the cities under the two economic ideologies. Under Communism, building was completely financed by the government. As is the theory behind Communism, the state will provide housing and goods as rebuilding as the people do their work. In Dresden, for example, private owners were denied loans on purpose, so the government could construct all buildings as desired (Soane 73). When funds ran low, the government found ways to work around the problems. In the USSR, when costs were seen as too high, the Soviets declared a decree in 1950 that all building costs must be reduced by 25% without reducing production (Dobrinin 340). Although most builders cheated around the system by not reporting all numbers, most were able to cut costs and produce buildings of slightly lower quality (Dobrinin 342).

By definition of Capitalism, individuals paid for the reconstruction. Since the costs were so high, the government tried to help out, but the effects were minimal. In 1948 when the British Minister of Town and Country Planning convinced the government to aid in the cost for steel, the government was only able to supply .047% of all steel needed for reconstruction due to lack of funds (Hasegawa 152). The remainder of the steel came from investors and the public. Funds were an issue in the Capitalist cities, showing perhaps the Soviet structure for payment was a more productive method.

IV. Spatial Design

In order to completely understand spacing in post World War II reconstructed cities, again one must understand the mind state of people in the mid 1940s. They had just witnessed the heaviest destruction of hundreds of cities ever witnessed in the history of mankind, where up to 80% of some of the cities laid in waste (Soane 71). The image of completely destroyed urban areas was clear in the minds of the city planners, and a way to construct cities to avoid such total devastation was a top priority. The solution to preventing such large scale destruction was shared by both Communism and Capitalism, and is the theory put forth by Le Corbusier, who in 1941 stated, “The threat of attack from the air demands urban changes. Great cities sprawling open to the sky, their congested areas at the mercy of bombs hurtling down out of space, are invitations to destruction. They are practically indefensible as now constituted, and it is now becoming clear that the best means of defending them is by the construction, on the one hand, of great vertical concentrations which offer a minimum surface to the bomber and, on the other hand, by the laying out of extensive, free, open spaces.” (Graham 175)

In Communist cities, the theory behind Le Corbusier’s high, spaced out structures was put into mass effect. Cities such as Stalingrad and Minsk in the USSR saw the construction of tall apartment buildings, each fitting 54 or 124 flats, and the leaving of open space in between the buildings (A.B. 99). The open spaces served a dual purpose, both as parks (whose function will be reviewed in section IX), and as spaces protecting buildings by making bomb targeting more difficult. In Dresden, the application of Le Corbusier’s theorem was even more prevalent. Huge apartment complexes were constructed to the sky, with large enough spaces in between to make targeting difficult and serve as parks. These apartments were then grouped into neighborhoods, each consisting of around 5,000 people, and neighborhoods would be grouped into sectors with other neighborhoods

spaced even farther apart, each sector consisting of around 30,000 people (Soane 76). Not only did this spacing help in opening free space and making bombing more difficult, but the Dresden government also theorized the people would be easier to manage efficiently in spread out, but high dense areas (Soane 85).

(A plan for a Dresden sector (Soane 75))

The idea of building more spaced out housing to protect from bombings was also popular in Capitalist cities, but not to the same degree as most Communist cities. The main train of thought in these cities was moving housing away from the city centers, and spreading out housing on the outskirts of town (Graham 175-6, Larkham 753). In Hamburg, West Germany, full scale de-urbanization to spread out housing was put into effect. The inhabitants of the destroyed city center following the 1943 bombings broke up into smaller, more spread out towns where the bombing

threat was minimal (Graham 176). In Worcester, as well as many other English cities, the crowded city center slums were cleared out for business and government space instead. It was deemed more efficient under the Modernist belief that businesses should be built in the centers of cities. Housing was relocated to the outskirts of town, where it could be less crowded and more spread out, both solving the problems of overcrowding and spreading out to reduce bombing threats (Larkham 753).

It is impossible to tell which system for spacing proved more affective against bombing, as none of these cities have seen large scale bombing since the end of World War II. However, due to later failures in cities like Dresden and other Soviet cities, we can assume from a strictly economic standpoint that the cities of England overall fared better.

V. Housing

Before World War II, city centers served most needs for the population. The city center, across most European cities, consisted of businesses, factories, government buildings, as well as housing (Grebler 463). So during the strategic air raids of World War II, whether the target was factories producing munitions or vehicles, or government buildings, housing was often destroyed as well. Take Dresden, for example, where 39% of the housing was completely destroyed, and another 36% was severely damaged and needed drastic repair (Soane 71). Before the population could return and the city could begin to thrive once again, the issue of housing had to be solved in each of these cities.

The Communist solution to city housing was simple; the government will pay to construct massive housing complexes which the population will inhabit. In the USSR, between 1946 and 1950 alone, more than 100,000,000 square meters of housing space was rebuilt, with another 105,000,000 to come in the next 5 years (A.B. 96). For reasons mentioned in Section IV, these massive apartment complexes were built tall and spaced apart,

leaving large open spaces in between. In Minsk, these tall apartment buildings would usually fit around 500 people each, in rooms designed to be identical (A.B. 99). Although the design was for identical apartments, they did not always receive the same reviews from inhabitants. In the early stages of Soviet construction, prior to ‘mutual inspection’ mentioned in Section III, apartments would sometimes come with faults such as cracked walls or ceilings, and the inhabitant wouldn’t know who to blame or ask for a repair (Borisov 315). Also, many preferred their old apartments, which although they resided in during Soviet rule, were not built during Soviet rule (Borisov 316). These apartments at least had some individuality amongst them, as opposed to those built following the Second World War. In the construction of these Modernist apartment complexes, the apartments were all designed to be the exact same, then furnishers would go room to room giving each the same luxuries and amenities (Borisov 316). This lack of creativity or individuality is truly frightening when one really thinks about it. 124 flats in a Minsk apartment complex, each the exact same. Every floor, every apartment.

Also, the location of the Communist housing is of special interest. One must remember that the Soviets were obsessed with efficiency and cutting any unnecessary cost. This includes transportation costs, whether with goods or with people commuting to work at factories. For this reason, the tall apartment complexes for workers were constructed very close to the factories, especially in the USSR (Dobrinin 342, Miroshnichenko 445). All the people who worked in, say, the coal factory, would then all live in one of the adjacent apartment complexes with the rest of the coal workers. This policy allowed for high dense, spaced out living areas as was desired under Soviet spatial design (see Section IV), to serve as reducing bombing threats, as well as reducing costs for workers going to and from work.

Capitalism, on the other hand, went about a much different approach for solving housing issues. Remember that before World War II, housing in

these cities was extremely dense and focused in the city center. The people saw these bombings as an opportunity to fix the overpopulated living conditions of the time. Therefore, the main movement of the time was to keep the government and businesses located in the city center along with a little bit of housing, but to move most housing out more towards the outskirts of the city with a more spread out design (Grebler 467). Under the Modernist ideas of the time, efficient houses and road designs would be built along the outside of town, and the plans for these cities reflected this thought. However, due to monetary issues, the plan and the actuality of housing were extremely different. Since the government was not paying for the houses and apartment buildings, the free market would determine in these cities how quickly and well the houses were built. While Modernist city planners drew up plans that reflected efficiency, acquiring all the land for these plans proved impossible (Hasegawa 144). In time wasted trying to acquire land to fulfill the Modernist plans, people were returning and just wanted a home, whether Modernist or not. In England, the demand for housing grew so high, that people were willing to buy housing of lower quality than what they lived in prior to the bombings (Hasegawa 148). Therefore, although most housing built continued to be away from the city center, the full scale Modernist plans for these English cities were eventually abandoned in order to accommodate a returning population that just needed a place to live, regardless of efficiency (Hasegawa 156).

Again, it is difficult to say whether Communism of Capitalism had a more successful solution to housing, as both focused on different goals. Communism focused heavily on efficiency in their housing, and accomplished the goal, but with a lack of quality and individuality. Capitalism focused on utility, and although the Modernist plans failed, people were still happy with getting any home, and most housing still managed to move away from city centers.

VI. Local Businesses

The role of the local business could not have been more different than under Communism and Capitalism. Mostly, this is due to the local business not really existing under Communist rule. The state controlled almost all of the economy, including retail goods. However, it is necessary to go over the effects of this difference between cities built under Communism and Capitalism.

Prior to the World War II bombings, the location of almost all local businesses in Capitalist cities was the city center (Hasegawa 140). Under Modernist thought, the most efficient location for the local business was the city center, and for this reason the main goal in reconstructing local business was to restore these businesses as they were (Hasegawa 140). The aspect of the local business, along with government building location, are the only aspects of Modernist planning that matched the pre World War II English urban layouts. Overall, Capitalist cities’ rebuilding local businesses was rather simple, as the most efficient plan of action was restoration.

Although the local business, as defined today, did not truly exist in Communist states, people still needed to get retail goods, and there were still stores in place to fulfill these needs. Each neighborhood or district under Communist rule would be designated its own retail stores, i.e. a supermarket, a clothing store, etc. Each person would be allocated a certain amount of goods from these stores (Soane 77). Take, for example, Dresden, where each neighborhood (usually containing around 5,000 people), would be serviced by about 2 shops of each type (Soane 77). These stores would be located within the neighborhoods, again to increase efficiency through reducing transportation costs (Soane 77).

The role of shopping and local businesses was clearly distinct between Communism and Capitalism. Which system was better, however, is safe to say was Capitalism. People were able to allocate their own resources to maximize their own utilities, and the locations of businesses were that

which the people preferred, were used to, and were efficient. Under Communist rule, the people were all allocated the same goods, and although the businesses were located in the most efficient locations possible, this alone does not make up for the lack of utility maximization.

VII. Factories

There existed a stark contrast between Communism and Capitalism for city structure with regard to factories. Although both knew factories were integral to a city’s economic success, the location, structure, and function of these factories within the cities strongly differed between these two economic ideologies.

For Communism, the factory was the heart of the economy. The working class would work in the factories, producing the goods to be used by the entire population. Since the factory was so important under Soviet economic theory, it makes sense that they would want the factory to be in the city centers. Such was the case in USSR cities, the factory was built and the city was built around the factory to accommodate the workers (Miroshnichenko 445). Also, Soviet factories did not always produce completed goods. For example, an automobile plant would have a factory that produced the engines, a factory that produced the body, another factory to produce everything else, and then a factory to assemble all these together. So, in order to increase efficiency and reduce transportation costs, all these factories would be built together, with housing for the workers of all the factories built in close proximity (Miroshnichenko 445). Products that required complex construction is what led to some of the largest Soviet factory cities, as housing all the workers gave birth to a community.

Capitalism did not like having the factory in the heart of the city. The ‘city of the future’ would not have an ugly factory emitting toxins in the air right next to parks or government complexes. The Modernist Capitalist thought of the 1940s was that factories should be relocated to just outside

of the cities, therefore improving welfare in the city without having drastic increases in transportation costs. This transition in factory location was seen throughout England, Poland, and Italy (Grebler 463, 467). These plans were carried through, and by the late 1940s and 1950s factories in these Capitalist countries were almost always located just outside city limits.

The structure and function of the factories within Capitalism and Communism must also be evaluated for a more complete understanding of the differences of factory purpose under these systems. First, Communist factories were almost always larger and more important to the economy than Capitalist factories (Lamet 343). The products of these factories would drive the entire economy of the city and a region as a whole under Communism, and without their products the nation would not be able to survive. True, the same could be said about Capitalist cities, but not to the same extent. A failure in a factory would just lead to a temporary increase in imports. The 1950 25% building cost cut in the USSR (see part III) also greatly affected factory size in Soviet cities. As mentioned above, these factories often produced parts which would later be combined to form complete products. However, with the mandatory cut in costs, most factories under construction found it cost ineffective to build four factories that produce four parts of a final good. Instead, Soviets determined it would be more efficient to produce a much larger factory that produces and assembles all parts (Dobrinin 342). This led to massive Communist factories located in city centers, substantially larger than their Capitalist counterparts, which as of 1954 were able to sometimes produce over 50x their production levels from 1928 (Lamet 335).

VIII. Roads, Traffic, and Transportation

As the railroad had previously revolutionized transportation, the automobile continued to change the way people got around in the 1940s. When these European cities were built, however, they were not designed to

accommodate all the cars and therefore the traffic that came with them. The bombings of certain cities during the World War II air raids gave these cities the chance to adjust, to change how their roads were designed and to try to find a way to improve moving around within the city.

One theory on roads was shared by both cities under Communism and Capitalism; roads needed to be wider (Larkham 751, Dobrinin 341). The roads which were initially built for pedestrians and people riding horses were not wide enough to accommodate the steadily increasing number of automobiles using these streets (Larkham 751). The plan in many English cities was to increase the size of roads, especially those in busy areas, to a width of 100 feet (Hasegawa 146). Wider roads would lead to a decrease in traffic, and the only real opposition to these plans came from store owners who believed denser streets produced more sales in their shops (Hasegawa 146). Therefore, for the most part these roads were reconstructed to the designed width. In Communist cities, main roads were made wider than previous, although the 1950 25% construction cost decree meant that secondary streets remained a similar width (Dobrinin 341). Also, to reduce the costs to what the government mandated, many Soviet cities had to construct their roads using cheaper gravel instead of the higher quality asphalt (Dobrinin 341). Although initially intended to be more efficient by cutting costs, this measure later proved a failure due to poor road quality leading to inefficiency in transportation.

Roads built with no plans for automobiles led to extraordinary amounts of traffic in cities prior to the Second World War (Hasegawa 146). Communist and Capitalist cities combated the traffic issue in different ways. Communists, again obsessed with efficiency, saw that the best way to eliminate traffic was to minimize distances traveled (Miroshnichenko 447, Soane 76-7). By building apartment complexes with close proximity to the factories, and shops, parks, and all other daily essentials close to houses, the need for travel was minimal. Most people were able to get around on

foot, and those who traveled by automobile usually had short distances to go, reducing inefficiencies caused by traffic (Soane 77). Capitalist cities, influenced by Modernism, went about reducing traffic in a whole different way. With housing being built farther away from city centers, getting around a city using an automobile was becoming more of a necessity. The solution to getting rid of traffic problems was therefore a better designed street grid. In Worcester, England, for example, the entire street layout was reevaluated and redone. Streets were redesigned to improve efficiency, while rails were put into place at the edges of roads to separate pedestrians from automobiles. More ring roads were put into place, because the Modernist ideas of the time believed ring roads would be ideal at diverting traffic. (Larkham 753). Similar changes could be seen in many other European Capitalist cities, especially in the United Kingdom, and they can still be seen today with the prevalence of ring roads in certain cities.

IX. Parks

As explained in Section IV, the spatial design for reconstructed cities using the Modernist ideas for air raid protection left vast open expanses within cities. Cities built both under Communist and Capitalist rule knew that these open spaces could be put to great public use, but the manner to which they were used varied under each approach, as well as the public’s response to the open spaces. Each ideology’s plan reflected their underlying beliefs, and in turn led to the eventual success or failure of the open spaces within the urban areas.

Under Communist reconstruction in cities such as Dresden, the large spacing between high density living areas gave way to open expanses

(Soane 75). The government city planners were in charge of determining the most efficient use of these open areas. They determined such a solution was using the open areas as parks designated for leisure for the inhabitants of each neighborhood (Soane 77). Inhabitants of each apartment complex could use the parks to take a relaxing walk, play a sport, exercise, or anything else one does in a city park. Useful as this is, the city planners managed to find another use of the parks: political demonstrations (Soane 76). Under Utilitarian rule, maintaining high morale and support for the government was a top priority for government officials. To accomplish this, they often had rallies or parades to keep morale up. In the reconstructed bombed cities, the optimal place for these demonstrations was determined to be the park areas. In many Soviet cities, such as Dresden, attendance to these demonstrations was mandatory, and would be conducted for each sector or neighborhood (Soane 76). How much people enjoyed these rallies depended upon their political preference, but overall the use of public park spaces in these cities for forced political support is unsettling.

Drawing heavily from Modernist theory, cities rebuilt under Capitalism, especially those in England, also left vast open spaces designated as parks. These parks served similar purposes as those in Communist cities, except without the political demonstrations. The main difference being that these parks were almost universally despised by residents by the 1950s (Hasegawa 156). Recall from Section V that by the 1950s all the Modernist plans in English cities were becoming unpopular due to the delay in the supply of housing coming from these plans. People needed homes and they needed them now, whether built following a Modernist pattern or not. The open park spaces were seen as the symbol of slow acting Modernist plans (Hasegawa 156). The parks were seen as prime land that could be turned into housing, and therefore resolve the gigantic demand for housing. By the mid 1950s, English city authorities began to cave in and draw back from their Modernist park plans, and instead turn

some designated parks into housing (Hasegawa 156). Housing was more popular than leisure space at the time, so the population approved of the change.

For what each city set out to accomplish with park space, Communism was more effective. Both beliefs saw parks as a way to space out higher density areas, making bombing more difficult. Both also sought to use these areas for leisure, which cities under Communism enjoyed while those under Capitalism preferred that the land be put to different use as housing. Communism also wanted a dual usage of the urban planning of these parks for political purposes, and successfully achieved their goal, regardless of the morality of forced political rallies.

X. Maintaining Historical Monuments

Although never truly targets of the strategic World War II air raids, historical monuments within cities were often destroyed. The historical monument is an important image within the city; the inhabitants identify themselves with the monument, it can be a symbol of hope, peace or art, and it differentiates cities from each other. From the previous description, it would make sense that cities rebuilt under Capitalism would care more about restoring destroyed monuments than Communism, and history shows us this is precisely the case.

Cities rebuilt under Capitalism almost always restored destroyed public monuments or buildings of importance (Grebler 466). The inhabitants missed the images that the identified with, and rushed to restore their city’s monument. Not only were such monuments restored, but they were almost always restored in the same spot and in the same style (Grebler 465-6). This can be attributed to the fact that the public had more of a voice in cities rebuilt under Capitalism. The population missed their monument, so rushed to rebuild it to raise morale. Even if the government saw investing precious

money and resources into what Communists would call ‘inefficient restoration’, the will of the free market would drive its restoration.

As for cities rebuilt under a Communist economy, we again see the trend of an obsession with efficiency. Communist governments saw an allocation of funds for restoration of a monument that does not increase production as a waste (Soane 79-84). Why spend funds improving a destroyed monument when the resources could instead be spent on improving technology or efficiency? And as for morale, Communists saw demonstrations and parades as a proper channel for accomplishing higher morale within a city.

The prime example for the differences in policy towards destroyed city monuments is the Frauenkirche in Dresden, East Germany. Since 1739 the Frauenkirche stood in the heart of Dresden, a beautiful church which became the image of the city. During the 1945 bombings of Dresden, however, the Frauenkirche was destroyed, resulting in devastation amongst the residents of Dresden. The city planners for Dresden knew they lacked the funds to rebuild the Frauenkirche; in fact they were so low on resources they determined it inefficient to clear the rubble from the spot of the Frauenkirche. They decided to plant some roses over and around the rubble and declare it as a memorial so it could stand as a reminder of the outcome of the anti-Fascist War (Nadler 91-2, Clayton 16). And so the Frauenkirche ruble stood, until the fall of Communism in East Germany in 1990 and the rebirth of East German Capitalism. Almost immediately residents of Dresden suggested rebuilding the Frauenkirche, and reconstruction officially began in 1992. Construction finished 13 years later in 2005, and since then the inhabitants of Dresden have had their symbol back (DeafVision). Rebuilding the Frauenkirche was always a popular idea important to the residents of Dresden. Through 55 years of Communist construction, there was never any progress made. It took less than two

years for Capitalist construction to follow the will of the people, and the Frauenkirche was thus rebuilt.

XI. Successes and Failures in Following Plans

Perhaps the whole spirit of post World War II reconstruction is summed up best in the words of Lord Reith, Minister of Works and Buildings in Britain, who in his famous 1940 speech following the first bombings urged city planners, architects, and engineers to “plan boldly” in their reconstruction ideas (Hasegawa 145). However, perhaps the plans were too bold, as for varying reasons cities all across Europe failed to complete their city plans. Reasons for incompletely followed plans varied from city to city and from Capitalism to Communism, but a few major reasons should be mentioned to completely understand 1940s and 1950s urban reconstruction.

In general, Communist plans were finished more to completion than Capitalist plans (Hasegawa 156). This can be attributed to the nature of Communism, where the same people who plan the city’s reconstruction are the same people who are in charge of financing the reconstruction, namely government officials. Also the Communist Soviet cities had much greater factory capability, making them much more capable of producing all the tools needed for reconstruction. Acquiring land was also easier in Communist cities, where any land could be confiscated and declared for government use in the reconstruction efforts (Soane 73). And finally, when funds were running low for reconstruction, Communist states like the USSR were able to cut costs using approaches like the 1950 decree which cut all building expenses by 25%. In a Capitalist, free market city, these methods would not be available, and following the plans proved much more difficult, bar a few exceptions. Cities such as Coventry in England strictly followed the city plan, resulting in a bold, Modernist redesigned city center

(Hasegawa 160). Generally speaking, however, Communist cities were able to better and more completely follow the city plans.

There were many reasons for incomplete Capitalist city plans. Money, for one, was short. So much had been spent on the war efforts that the government was unable to help with enough of the reconstruction efforts as would be needed to finish construction plans (Hasegawa 152). A lack of resources is another cause. So much steel and other building material had been used during the war that there simply was not enough available in English cities to finish reconstruction plans (Hasegawa 152). And lastly, eventual public disapproval for the Modernist plans drove most to being halted. In Worcester, England, for example, the radical Modernist plans to completely remake the city received so much universal backlash that only a few moderations were made from the pre-war layout (Larkham 753). Overall, it is accurate to draw the conclusion that Communist cities followed and completed the city plans for reconstruction more rigorously than Capitalist European cities.

XII. Conclusion

Destruction of urban areas during the air raids gave cities all across Europe the opportunity to build the ‘city of the future’. This concept drew heavily from the popular ideas of Modernism at the time and the plans for reconstruction were drawn out by intellectuals under Capitalism and government officials under Communism. The plans included radical new ideas in all aspects of city life, all with the underlying idea of increased efficiency in all cities, with Communism focusing on this concept heavily, and with Capitalism combining this with utility for city inhabitants. There were successes and failures in cities all across Europe, with the remnants of the plans clearly visible in the cities, even today. But the question still remains: Which system, Communism or Capitalism, did a better job in the reconstruction of the destroyed cities? The overall goal in city planning

must be longevity and sustainability, and in this case it is clear to see that cities reconstructed under Capitalism were superior to those reconstructed under Communism. This can be seen that cities in Capitalism almost never adopted city changes following Communist reconstructed cities, while Communist cities, such as Dresden, started following Capitalist city plans in a final effort to improve cities leading up to their collapse, and much more so once the will of the people gained control of these cities following the collapse of the Soviet Union (Soane 89-90). Even today, former Soviet cities are still trying to correct the mistakes of Communist city planning. The failure of Communist designed cities can be represented by the following quote about Dresden, “the utter lack of any social animation and the unremitting ugliness of these massive mono-class residential ghettos made them totally inadequate for the emerging more individualistic life-styles of their occupants:” (Soane 87) Overall, the differences between the reconstruction of destroyed cities following World War II were drastic between Communist and Capitalist cities, but due to greater economic success, higher utility and morale of inhabitants, and longevity of the Capitalist cities, it is clear that Capitalism was the favorable economic ideology for reconstructing the destroyed cities of Europe.

Sources Cited

Soane, John. “Dresden: its Destruction and Rebuilding, 1945-1985”. Dresden: A City Reborn. 1st. New York, NY: Berg, 1999. 71-90. Print.

Nadler, Hans. “The Battle to Conserve- Securing the Ruins of the Frauenkirche.” Dresden: A City Reborn. 1st. New York, NY: Berg, 1999. 91-2. Print.

Clayton, Anthony. “Dresden, 1206-1918.” Dresden: A City Reborn. 1st. New York, NY: Berg, 1999. 9-26. Print.

Larkham, PJ. “Remaking Cities: Images, Control, and Postwar Replanning in the United Kingdom.” Environment & Planning B. 1st. 24. London, England: Pion Unlimited, 1997. Print.

Hasegawa, Junichi. “The Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction in 1940s Britain.” Twentieth Century British History 10.2 (1999): 137-61. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

Graham, Stephen. “Postmortem City: Towards an Urban Geopolitics.” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action. 8.2 (2004) 165-96. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

Grebler, Leo. “Continuity in the Rebuilding of Bombed Cities in Western Europe.” The American Journal of Sociology 61.5 (1956) 463-9. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

Dobrinin, F. Kvitnitsky, L. “Effect of the Decree on Building Costs.” Soviet Studies 3.3 (1952) 340-3. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

A. B. “The Stalingrad and Minsk Building Contest.” Soviet Studies 5.1 (1953) 96-9. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

Borisov. “An Agitator Amongst the Building Workers.” Soviet Studies 2.3 (1951) 314-7. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

Miroshnichenko, B. Smekhov, B. “The Planning of Industry and Investment.” Soviet Studies 3.4 (1952) 431-58. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

Lamet, Stefan. “A Survey of the Soviet Engineering Industries.” Soviet Studies 5.4 (1954) 335-56. Web. 2 Dec 2010.

DeafVision. < http://www.deafvision.de/nachrichten/politik/7-mio-besucher-dresdner-frauenkirche>. Web. 2 Dec 2010.