Rebecca C. Glasscock

     Ebenezer Howard was a doer, with a dream. His life is a testament to the power of high-minded ideals. His legacy is a testament to the ease with which such ideals can be corrupted.

     Often, in reading the biographies of great men and women, one sees words such as precocious, brilliant, star pupil, and the like. These characteristics were not attributed to Howard, either as a youth or as an adult. He was born a rather ordinary child into a rather ordinary, but happy, English family. His father owned several bakeries around London. His mother was a farmer's daughter. Though the father worked exceedingly long hours, the family never seemed to have much more than the absolute necessities.

     Howard's life seemed to be laid out for him. When he reached the age of eighteen, he began his professional life as a stenographer. After working for a few years in London, he and two friends decided to try their hands at farming in the United States. Howard was not much of a farmer and, so after a year of effort, he moved on to Chicago. After four years honing his stenographic skills there, he returned to London to resume his profession. A few years later, he married. He and his wife raised a family of six children. As his family was growing, his reputation as a court stenographer grew as well. He became one of the best (if not the best) court stenographer in all of London.

     Up to this point, Howard's biography would only be interesting as an example of how the average Londoner lived in the late 1800s. But then, in 1898, he did something that had a phenomenal impact. He wrote a little book entitled To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. Four years later, the second edition came out under the title of Garden Cities of To-morrow.

     The book outlined his vision of social reform. He was concerned about the depopulation of the countryside and the poor quality of life in the cities. In his mind, "garden cities" were the answers to these two problems. Garden cities, which would meld the best qualities of the city with the best of the country, would provide everyone, poor and rich alike, with a healthy and beautiful place in which to work, raise families, socialize, and fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship. They would be places that would draw out the best in humans and allow the evolution of social consciousness and cooperation.

     His basic idea was to plan and build new towns. Each would have about 6,000 or so acres and be able to accommodate about 30,000 citizens. In the middle of the acreage would be a cluster of residences, businesses, public buildings, and parks. Residences would be constructed for people in all the income brackets. The neighborhoods would be mixed, with the well-to-do and not so well-to-do living near one another. No one would own the land upon which his or her home or apartment lay. The ground rents would cover the costs of public services, infrastructure and the land. After the debt was retired, the rent monies would be reinvested in the community.

     For potential business people, there were to be a series of steps that would have to be followed. First, it would be determined how many of what kinds of businesses were needed, then franchises for those businesses would be awarded to potential shopkeepers. Since there was a need for only one of many kinds of businesses, these businesses would be monopolistic. They would stay that way as long as their customers were satisfied with the services provided.

     A place of prominence would be reserved for the government buildings. Interspersed throughout the urban area would be vegetable and flower gardens, wooded areas, and green parks. Surrounding the urban area and encompassing about eighty percent of the total acreage would be farmland. The farms would provide food to the citizens of the garden city. Because of the proximity of rail lines, the farms could also easily ship foodstuffs to further away markets. Howard envisioned a network of these garden cities throughout England. Whenever the population of a city expanded beyond the optimal 30,000 people, a new city would be built. The nasty, big cities from which the people had originally fled would die and, out of their ashes, the garden city "phoenix" would rise.

     Why did the ideas in this book have a phenomenal impact? At first glance, it is hard to discern exactly why. He seemed to be a fairly ordinary person. He had no reputation as a scholar; his views were not held in high esteem by others. Many of the ideas he put forth in his book were really nothing new. Much of the inspiration for the book came from such men as Thomas Spence (the land reformer, who favored the nationalization of land); Henry George (who related land ownership to poverty and slums); Edward Bellamy (who published Looking Backward, a utopian view of the year 2000); James Buckingham (whose plan for a model industrial town was published in 1848); Edward Gibbon Wakefield (who stressed the need for a systematic colonization plan); Petr Kropotkin (who advocated decentralization into "industrial villages") and even to the 1515 publication of More's Utopia.

     When probing a bit deeper, one finds several reasons why the ideas struck a chord in England and, indeed, around the world. During the late 1800s, the downsides of the industrial revolution and capitalism were becoming all too apparent to some. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals meant that those whose labor allowed that wealth were doomed to live in small, crowded, improperly ventilated homes breathing dirty air and eating food that was more like scraps. The middle and aristocratic classes of people who were concerned about the plight of the poor were forming groups throughout the country as the century drew to a close. These "radicals" eagerly read all the utopian schemes, hoping to find the solution to humanity's misery. Many ideas were latched onto, worked eagerly on for awhile, and then fell by the wayside as the fatal flaws reared their unhappy heads. Thus, the social climate was eagerly awaiting an implementable idea such as Howard's.

     The writing and publishing of his book represented the budding of Howard's life; however, in the aftermath of the publication, he bloomed. He was also one of the radicals who was deeply concerned about social issues. He was convinced that he had discovered a better way of living and, thus, he gave his heart and soul to making his vision a reality. He became an extremely effective promoter of his ideas, speaking eloquently to any group that would listen. For a less committed person, it would have been a grueling schedule (since he was still working as a court stenographer) but he happily spread the word. Of course, he could have probably gone around speaking to these little groups for the rest of his life and not seen the realization of his dreams.

     Howard might well have been characterized as one of those people who had his head in the clouds but his feet on the earth. He was practical enough to know that his idea needed some powerful people behind it if anything was to come of it. The first person of great power and influence to endorse the vision was Ralph Neville, who was later to become Judge of His Majesty's High Court. Mr. Neville, unlike Howard, was not a social reformer. Rather, he appreciated Howard's garden city idea on more utilitarian grounds. Industry and housing were becoming decentralized in England. Unfortunately, industries were often sited without available housing and vice versa. The garden city idea, through advance and careful planning, would put housing and industry together in the same place. Neville lent the credibility to Howard's idea that was so critically needed. From that point, the blocks (almost literally) began to fall into place. The owners of Cadbury chocolate and Lever soaps came on board. With them came the ability to leverage funds and a heightened credibility. Powerful people began to flock to the fold. Under Howard's leadership, the Garden City Association was established with the express purpose of actually building a garden city. And, almost miraculously, the city became reality.

     Farmland in North Hertfordshire, near London, came on the market in 1903. Since the more conservative individuals in this area had yet to embrace the garden city idea (if they had even heard about it), several members of the Association purchased parcels of the farm separately to avoid their knowing what was to be the fate of the property. Wisely, Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker were chosen as the planners of the garden city. It was to be named Letchworth.

     As with any endeavor in which so many are involved, the translation of a dream into reality carried with it a number of problems. Should the ground leases be seven years or 99 years or 999 years? Might future administrators appropriate the houses sitting on the land when the leases expired? Should industries be able to purchase land for their factories? Should there be only one large store for shopping or should many be allowed? How could houses of the desired quality be built for low income workers, especially without help from the government? How could Parker and Unwin maintain "quality control" over the homes being built? What if the needed 30,000 people did not move to Letchworth? Decisions were made in answer to the quandaries; however, as the garden city moved from the clouds to the ground, its focus shifted from being aimed at social improvement to being an experiment in good city planning. If Howard felt "...the tragedy of the idealist - the distance between the bright vision of the possible and the drab appearance of an actual which looks like its poor relation," he never let on. His vision was all about making better lives for people. If realizing that vision meant that capitalists, judges, and planners must put their own spin on it, so be it.

     In retrospect it is almost comical but, in the early days, Letchworth had a group of unhappy critics with which to contend. Those critics peopled the nearby town of Hitchin. The people of Hitchin were conservative and used to living life in a certain way. They viewed the new residents of Letchworth as nuts with sandals, people who would corrupt the Hitchin way of life. Anything that could be done to denigrate Letchworth and its people was gleefully done. Soon, however, the fun of their mean-spiritness evaporated as the Letchworthians did not return the barbs. They soon found only one person in a toga and sandals. Factories, which paid good wages, were coming on line in Letchworth. And, they soon saw, the garden city was well-built and actually beautiful. The people of Hitchin became converts.

     Letchworth was never able to provide good housing for low income workers but, all in all, Howard must have been pleased with the result. While Howard never lived to see a population of 30,000 at Letchworth, he did see a stable population of 15,000. Up to twelve homes were built per acre, each with its own flower garden. Trees had been worked around in the construction phase so the town had the appearance of being mature long before it actually was. It is said that, particularly in the early days, the residents of Letchworth were so attuned to social issues that
there was one organization for each resident. Arbor Day and May Day festivities, poetry readings and plays, serious discussions and lectures were common fare.

     Not to sit on the Letchworth laurels, however, Howard set about planning a second garden city. It look him several years but, in 1919, he found a suitable piece of property. Uncharacteristically, he did not consult the other Association members. He scraped up enough for a ten percent down payment and purchased a lovely piece of property between Letchworth and London. It was called Welwyn. Finances were tight as work began on this second garden city and one of Howard's cardinal rules was broken. A loan was accepted from the government! This money came as the result of July 1921 legislation that was passed to allow the State to assist in the development of garden cities in England. An application for a loan to construct Welwyn was the first received under this first law. While some say that Welwyn is not as architecturally interesting as is Letchworth, some new experiments were tried out at Welwyn. For one, with government funding, there was an ability to provide good housing for lower income people. In particular, one large commune type dwelling was built with common areas such as for dining and laundry. Welwyn grew rapidly, drawing industry and families. The second garden city, as the first, was a success.

     England thanked and recognized Howard for his contribution to city form and planning by knighting him in 1927. He died one year later, on May Day, at his home in Welwyn.

     By the time of his death, the garden city idea had spread far and wide. In the aftermath of World War I, many European countries were rebuilding their cities based upon their various conceptions of garden cities. The garden city idea diffused to the United States as well. Radburn, which was built between Patterson and Hackensack in New Jersey, remains a notable example of the garden city concept applied to address the needs of commuters. Surprisingly, however, it was the U.S. government that most strongly embraced the idea of garden cities. Dr. Rexford G. Tugwell, head of the Suburban Resettlement Division, was greatly enamored with the idea of the government building and owning towns throughout America. He envisioned the creation of 3,000 towns, all built based upon Howard's garden city concept. To circumvent a perception by U.S. legislators that the garden city was, at base, socialistic or communistic, he renamed his vision "greenbelt towns". He convinced President Franklin Roosevelt that his greenbelt towns building project should be a hallmark of the New Deal. Roosevelt was quite concerned about the "back-to-the-land" movement and saw this idea as incorporating both urban and rural elements, making it quite appealing to him.

     The money to fund Tugwell's housing project came in 1935 with the passage of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act. Under the Act, the building of twenty-five new "Tugwelltowns" was authorized. Philosophical and financial problems plagued the project from the beginning. In the end, only three "greenbelt" towns were built in the United States: Greenhills, Ohio; Greenbelt, Maryland; and Greendale, Wisconsin. In the towns, the homes and apartments were owned by the federal government. Outside the town lay farmland, parcels of which were rented to farmers. The towns, unfortunately, never attracted many businesses or industries and, therefore, became yet another example of commuter towns ruled by the private vehicle. The public was never particularly supportive of the government-built greenbelt towns. After World War II, the farmland was sold off to private interests. The government then divested itself of the homes and apartments. Only Greenhills, Ohio (just north of Cincinnati) remains an incorporated village today.

     While not Howard's intention, the application of the garden cities concept to planning in the United States has just fueled suburbanization. The idea of natural areas and living areas removed from large cities has translated into larger lawns, larger homes, and longer commutes, all associated with higher levels of consumption. Most ironically, Howard envisioned the garden city as a place of cooperation. Instead, one could argue that the stepchild of the garden city, suburbia, represents almost the antithesis of Howard's dream. Rather than a place of cooperation and sociability, the modern suburb is all too often a place of inward-focused individuals with no particular commitment to the community beyond the maintenance of property values.

     Pascal wrote, "Man was both lost and saved in a garden." Such may be the case with Howard's garden.

Arnold, Joseph L., 1971, The New Deal in the Suburbs: A History of the Greenbelt Town Program, 1935-1954. Ohio: The Ohio State University Press.

Fishman, Robert, 1982, Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Howard, Ebenezer, 1965, Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. With introduction by Lewis Mumford.

Howard, Ebenezer, 1902, Garden Cities of To-Morrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd.

MacFadyen, Dugald, 1933, Sir Ebenezer Howard and the Town Planning Movement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Moss-Eccardt, John, 1973, Ebenezer Howard: An Illustrated Life of Sir Ebenezer Howard: 1850-1928. Bucks, United Kingdom: Shire Publications, Ltd.

Mumford, Lewis, 1938, The Culture of Cities. New York, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Rome, Adam W., 1994, "Building on the Land: Toward an Environmental History of Residential Development in American Cities and Suburbs, 1870-1990," Journal of Urban History. 20(3):407-434.

Stein, C. S., 1966, Toward New Towns for America, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.