I respect the economic philosophy behind Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Concept. I also respect his sincere efforts to raise quality of life for the modern city’s struggling working class. However his Garden City concept ignores the true nature of a free market society. Howard stresses the importance of an organized and uniform society. However capitalism and uniformity simply do not work well together. In a society dominated by capitalism, the market above all else dictates the organization and evolution of a city. Howard’s Garden Cities inevitably fall victim to the market just as 19th century London did. The rampant squalor that accompanied life for the working class in 19th century London was largely due to the side effects of capitalism. Basically the onset of industrialization instigated rapid migration of rural people into the city seeking the promise of high wages. This migration led to extreme overcrowding and deterioration of modern London.
When Howard went to create the first Garden City, named Letchworth, he failed to gather investors from working class organizations and instead had to rely on wealthy investors that naturally demanded certain concessions. Howard had to eliminate his cooperative ownership scheme, which essentially made Letchworth a failure in regards to the Garden City economic philosophy. Without the cooperative ownership scheme Letchworth basically became a novel suburb for the affluent as real estate prices predictably soared, making it impossible for the blue collar working class to afford rent let alone ownership in this quasi-Garden City.
The aforementioned issues are why I believe Howard’s Garden City concept will never work. Finding significant capital from non-self-serving investors is a fool’s errand. Therefore Garden Cities may continue to be built aesthetically consistent with Howard’s scheme but they will never mirror his economic philosophies. For a true Garden City to manifest, it must include Howard’s rate rent system, and stabilization of rent. Otherwise the blue collar worker will never have the means necessary to live in a Garden City and that was Howard’s primary goal.
I quite agree with the idea that Howard’s idea cannot exist as a whole because it relies heavily on investors not pursuing self interest in the real estate market. I do believe though, that Howard’s concept of workers housing could exist in a Garden City if the idea was pursued using the outline of Howard’s ideologies but adapting them further to the Capitalist market. If the houses of Letchworth for example had been built to sell to the highest bidders and a portion of the housing was saved for subsidized housing for workers, the investors would make capital yet the idea of workers living in sufficient housing would have come to life. A modern example of the subsidized housing phenomenon had occurred in Vancouver, as select large building companies have created expensive properties downtown and then allocated certain apartments to subsidized housing in order to create a greater sense of equality in the housing market. Therefore, though the Garden City concept cannot be implemented as a whole, Howard was flexible with the different ways that equitable housing could be implemented and subsidized housing is a possible solution to this problem in capitalist society.
I don’t think Howard’s plan required “non self-seeking investors” in order to be successful. Howard original plan left the door open at every level and stage of the Garden City for investors wishing to make a profit. It did require that they make certain compromises, though, and allow the city’s administration to function along the communitarian, democratic, and interventionist (i.e. the ‘Crystal Palace’) lines that Howard had stipulated. Profit-minded investors had to also believe that these compromises served a useful moral purpose, and this is where Letchworth’s investors and apolitical bureaucrats betrayed Howard. And that’s also not to say that non self-seekers haven’t financed significant projects. Leo Tolstoy contributed immensely towards the Doukhobors’ immigration to Canada. Many communes have also been funded on the basis of similar unselfish impulses. So I don’t think Howard was so unreasonable to put faith in philanthropy or radicals.
I believe he was over zealous and idealistic in thinking there would be enough philanthropic donors to finance such an ambitious project. The amount of capital required to finance thousands living in grandiose circumstances is significant. I realize there would be returns to the investor, I just don’t think Howard was being realistic in his approach to the financing.
But although the capital required to initially buy the land was significant, the circumstances were not intended to be grandiose; Howard’s argument was that because of the cheap land, construction projects in the Garden City were actually far less expensive (and wasteful) than actual construction projects (“rehousing” projects for the poor, schools, new roads) taking place in the city, where the costs of land and legal fees were astronomical. This cheap land was supposed to be attractive to co-operative buildings societies who would pool their modest capital (instead of putting it in the banks of the rich who exploit them), using the same capital over and over to build many houses. Of course, in reality these building societies never got on board in any significant way, but I think his approach to financing was still copacetic and flexible, in that was designed to draw on many sources; regular capitalists, well-to-do radicals and philanthropists, co-op societies. I think it could have succeeded (or could still) in another place or time, or just under better “objective circumstances” (a saying of Lenin’s) that might include more powerful connections or a different social climate.
The benevolent “Building and Loan” bank that George Bailey works for in ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ comes to mind.