I recently ventured to BCIT in Burnaby. The architecture of the campus was modernism at its worst. In every direction you walked there was a dilapidated concrete building accented by cold metal and glass. Finding my way through the campus was hellish, nothing separated one building’s appearance from the next. On frequent occasion I entered the incorrect building, I have never had to ask for directions so often. Those students roaming the campus seemed well versed in directing people through their concrete maze.

The architecture may have been functional or in vogue at some point. Alas in 2013 it epitomized the concept of bleak. I never believed that something as fundamentally secondary, in my books, such as aesthetics could have such a profound effect on me. From the moment I stepped on campus a depressive cloud set over me. That experience instigated an epiphany in me, I can only speculate how living in a world bedecked by cold steel and blank concrete could effect a person, could effect a society.

Those unlucky enough to inhabit those infamous prefab concrete housing complexes in post war Europe must have been adversely affected by their bleak surroundings. I am not the least surprised by the multitude of social issues, which arose in that atmosphere, a surrounding void of visual stimulus.

I count myself blessed to live in a time and location, which embraces diversity in architecture.

I definitely agree with Jane Jacobs’ belief in the self-policing nature of a city, she essentially had faith in the safety of a crowded street of strangers. When walking late at night vulnerable in the darkness it is a relief to be in the company of a crowd of strangers. What turns me off of Jane Jacobs is her utter disdain for urban planners, more specifically Ebenezer Howard. Her ideas are more the product of common sense and empirical observation, not of any particular urban theorist brilliance.

Jane Jacobs’ attacks on Ebenezer Howard are based on misguided opinions of him and a general dislike for city planners. In her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs claims that Howard “hated the city.” I completely disagree with that sentiment. Howard did not hate the city, he simply acknowledged the squalor that eroded London, squalor resulting from the dense urban slums. He did not hate the city he sought to heal it. He sought to save it from the cancerous slums that were destroying it from the inside out.

Jane Jacobs also chastised Howard for his ignorance regarding the self-policing that she obsessed about. But her judgements of Howard’s city planning priorities are based on nothing more than her own urban experiences, she had no legitimate education or experience in the field of urban planning. Had she experienced 19th century London perhaps she would have looked more kindly at Howard’s Garden City urban scheme.

Jane Jacobs’ greatest gift regarding urban theory was her distinct ability to chronicle seemingly mundane urban happenings and make them significant to her readers. She could articulate herself very well. I just wish she could have put herself in the shoes of Howard, then she could have understand his motivations.

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.