Twentieth-century planned utopia v
In what ways did twentieth-century planners consider that their new utopia was better than the Victorian urban inheritance ?The official involvement in housing dates back to a mid-Victorian concern with slum properties as breeding grounds for epidemic disease, vice and lawlessness . This left Britain housing its population in a crumbling Victorian legacy in the first half of the twentieth-century, which was now widely regarded as one of the sharpest indictments against laissez-faire society . Before 1914 only ten per cent of homes were owner-occupied , almost all the rest being privately rented from land lords; small property-owners with either no intention or little resources to maintain or improve their houses. Nearly half of all households lacked the sole use of a bathroom, two in every five households lacked a bath at all, and nearly a quarter had no exclusive use of a toilet . Slum conditions were uneven but widespread, in 1911 almost a third of the population of Newcastle and Sunderland, and over a half of Glasgow, lived in the overcrowded conditions of the one
Planning was seen as the antidote to laissez-faire and seen as a means of distributing scarce or even plentiful resources on a more equitable and efficient basis . Social planning and the export of inner-city populations to the modern version of " Garden Cities " was carried out on a grand scale ( 28 New Towns in the United Kingdom as a whole, of which 6 were destined for Scotland ) . Therefore the reconstruction of Britain's housing under the control of town planners striving for a contemporary reformed utopia had to be superior to the overcrowded Victorian slum ? " Make no small plans: they have no power to stir the hearts of men "-motto of city planners . The shared ethos of " New Town " and " Garden City " planning was they were both limited in size-suburban in scale, with the optimistic offers of new lifestyles and the organised intentions of self sufficiency. Labour's pledge is firm and direct-it will proceed with a housing programme with the maximum practical speed until every family in this island has a good standard of accommodation " . But did this " modern " way of planning and design compliment traditional family living, or was it the catalyst that destroyed the close knit communities of urban city life ? The original idea for " New Towns " to be self sufficient was not completely followed through, families with new accommodation and " children enjoying fresh air " were stranded without amenities or regular public transport . Just as the Victorian urban tenement aged and was found to be unacceptable, the twentieth-century architecture and design with its walls, walkways and protection from the elements has fallen the same fate. Governments and local authorities soon turned the crusade against poor housing into a battle field of policy and politics, elections were fought over the amount of new properties built and planned . This demand and the desperate need for new housing was met head on with development plans for each individual city and region, with the emphasis lying on " modernity " . There was complete two party agreement about the need to initiate a substantial house building programme after many years of neglect.
Common topics in this essay:
Garden City,
,
Modern Movement,
John Richards,
Planning Overcrowding,
Post-war Britain,
Labour Party,
Ballantyne Report,
World War,
United Kingdom,
victorian urban,
town planners,
households lacked,
streets sky,
|
Acceptance Essays
