While I was doing my research for my term paper (my question is: How did the proponents of garden cities believe that their proposal would solve problems such as overcrowding and poverty? Were they right? And if not, why?) I discovered that there are actually very few cases of pure garden cities, and none that were realized in the manner that Ebenezer Howard hoped that they would be. I’m doing my essay based on a few of the cities that were described in Peter Hall’s chapter on garden cities: Letchworth (the closest realization to a pure garden city), and Praunheim, Romerstadt, and Nordwestadt (attempts at a garden city in Germany). It turns out that most of the cities that had influences from the garden city movement would actually be considered to be satellite cities.
Where garden cities are surrounded by a large and permanent green belt, satellite cities are separated from the city by only a narrow green belt, or even just a park. Howard envisioned the city to be self-sufficient and self-governing, but citizens of the satellite city are quite dependent on the giant city for jobs and most other necessities, besides immediate and basic shopping needs. An example of a local satellite city in Canada would be Abbotsford, which is a satellite of Vancouver.
The fact that there are no actual realizations of the garden city (with all of its initial elements) shows that the garden city was extremely difficult, if not impossible to create to Howard’s original standards, and repeated attempts have suggested that the true garden city (to Howard at any rate) is likely unrealizable.

Earlier today I stumbled across an interesting article in the Georgia Straight (a local Vancouver free newspaper), the article is about women transforming urban spaces.  After reading this article I did a bit of extra reading on the Women Transforming Cities International Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging women’s involvement in municipal politics in order to counteract the current form and structure of urban centers as mostly men have shaped them.  In my extra research I also came across an article written by Prabha Khosla “Gendered Cities: Built and Physical Environments.”  This article critiques city planning in terms of how its physical planning, provision of social services, and economic development, has failed to understand the intersection of the multiple forces of race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, religion, language, disability, etc. on city residents.  The inclusion of the excluded – women – in decision-making and physical planning will create healthy cities for all.  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Women Plan Toronto, a unique community based organization that worked tirelessly to demonstrate the gendered nature of the city and to enable women’s involvement and decision making in urban planning.  Its work focused on educating planners and councilors about women’s lives in the city, demonstrated how cities could look and be different if women also planned cities, and significantly, lobbied and won the right to bring women’s voices into Toronto’s Official Plans which resulted in changes to planning regulations and guidelines.  Women Plan Toronto raised specific concerns regarding the height of curbs, the difficulty of negotiating stairs in public spaces with wheelchairs and strollers, the need for safe, clean, and accessible public spaces, accessibility for mobility in shopping areas, and the need for proper lighting for women’s safety in the streets and in public spaces.

To relate this back to the course, women experience cities differently than men because traditionally they have assumed different roles and responsibilities.  Women, in all their diversity, have unique perspectives and insights on how to contribute to effective city planning and decision-making.  Using a gender equality lens is a way of looking at the work we do so as to identify ways of supporting the well being of women and men (boys and girls); taking special care to ensure inclusion of the full diversity of women.

I remember at the start of this semester I was asked to tell the class a little bit about myself, where I’m from and what I like about my hometown. I remember that I mentioned how much I missed the people back home, in Regina, Saskatchewan. It’s the feeling of being a part of a community the moment you arrive, a community that sticks with you wherever you go. I had never really given much thought to the physical layout of the city itself, but through our discussions in this course I’ve been realizing that it probably has much to do with the sense of community that has been created.

I’m writing my research paper on the development of Regina’s Wascana Park which is a pretty unique urban space. The construction of Wascana Lake (which now sits in the centre of the park) began in 1883 by damming the existing creek to create a functional watering hole for the eventual CPR. It very quickly became a site for recreational activities.

Another attempt to use the lake logistically, to cool machinery for the near by power plant, resulted in hot water being returned to the lake which pooled in a marsh area that remained unfrozen year round and over time developed into a bird sanctuary.

The old power plant is today the Saskatchewan Science Centre, the marsh is an official waterfowl sanctuary, and the park is also home to the provincial museum, provincial legislature building, art gallery, the university and other amenities. The park has earned the nickname of ‘the crown jewel of the Queen city’ and is loved and used year round by everyone.

Wascana Lake itself has also been a part of two urban revitalization projects. It was drained and deepened in the 1930s as part of a make work project and I remember the excitement surrounding the ‘big dig’ in the 2003-2004. The latest revitalization project involved making the lake bigger and deeper again, as well as improving water circulation by building a new waterfall island with the earth that was dug up. Regina then hosted the Canada Summer Games as well the Canadian Canoe Kayak National Championships.

I guess what I’m trying to sum up is that through my research I’m realizing just how much has gone into and come back out of this urban space in relation to community involvement. Any plan that was put forth for administrative or utilitarian reasons was eventually redirected by the actual community working on it. In recent history, the park is celebrated for being a community achievement and for its continued benefit and contribution to the city’s community.

It seems to me that Regina has successfully married the ideals of town and country and created a city that is thriving largely as a result of its community and its close relationship to urban planning.

I guess my views of my hometown are similar to what they initially were at the beginning of this course in that it is the people, and sense of community, that I miss most. I have changed my views in learning how this sense of community was created through the history of urban planning. Has anyone else reflected on their hometown since this course? Have your views or opinions changed at all?

Wascana Park in Winter – 2010

Hello Everyone,

My research paper is focused on answering whether or not the Garden City Movement has had a positive, reconnecting influence on the lost relationship between people and nature. I am arguing that despite his efforts to reconnect people to their environment through a number of natural incorporation’s, his plans were too idealistic and did not work within a capitalist framework of society; however, his ideas should not be discredited because they provided an alternative to existing paradigms and has had some success in reshaping the city planning process.

We spent a few classes discussing Howard and his ideas, so I believe some of you may be interested in learning a little more about his life, ideologies and accomplishments.

It is said that there were two major inventions in the beginning of the twentieth century; the invention of the airplane, and Ebenezer Howards’ creation of the Garden City. Howard was born in London in 1850 and was the son of a shopkeeper. He travelled to America at the age of twenty one, taking on 160 acres of land in Howard County, Nebraska to plant cucumbers, watermelon and potatoes. He returned to jolly old England five years later and invented the famous Remington typewriter. He married Elizabeth Ann Bills, had three sons, and one daughter.

Howard was intrigued by radical liberal thinkers, those desiring liberal reformation, and the benefits of socialism. He embraced spiritualism. With Charles Darwin’s publishing of Descent of Man, Howard found himself involved in a religious crisis and moved towards “Modern Spiritualism”.  Howard began to believe that he had acquired a God-given order of the world, and therefore, the path of humanity relied on his concept of city planning to reach a level of higher civility. Also, the enlightenment of individuals would lead humanity into accepting his grand design and its inherent existence in the order of the universe.

Influenced by the Garden City concept, the Garbatella neighborhood was designed to house railway and dock workers built by the Instituto per le Case Popolari (ICP). This neighborhood a low-income housing project aimed at providing for the lower working classes in Rome, and could easily be distinguished from other Roman cities built in the nineteen-twenties. The Garbatella was one of the most successful children of Howard’s ideas, mainly because the inhabitants aspired to his ideals. Nonetheless, the Garbatella failed to live up to its high expectations because of a rapid expansion and the resulting population density that were not characteristic of the model Garden City. In 1922, the city only had 3,400 citizens and four years later reached upwards of 24,000!  Although it did not meet its full potential, the Garbatella still exhibited signs of an extra communal neighborhood and distinctive Roman individuality. With the rise of Mussolini and his Fascist regime, the Garbatella was transformed the appearance, but its character and communal unity stayed intact.

What do you guys think about his Garden City concept? Are there any positive outcomes that come out of his planning, or is it all too idealistic and romantic of society? Does a natural landscape, and closeness of a ‘hinterland’ improve your living conditions?  Does Kelowna have any reminiscent traits of a Garden City? Exciting stuff…..I know your as intrigued as I am.