Urban Renewal in European Countries: Its Emergence and Potentials [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9781512816396

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
I. Urban Renewal in European Countries: Its Emergence and Potentials
II. Pressures for City Renewal in Europe
III. Status of National Programs
IV. The Individual and the State in Urban Renewal
V. Reflections on Planning Problems
VI. Notes on the New Scale
Index of Cities

Citation preview

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: ITS E M E R G E N C E A N D P O T E N T I A L S

Publications

in the City Planning

Series

Institute for Urban Studies University of Pennsylvania Robert B. Mitchell, Director

T H E P L A C E OF T H E IDEAL C O M M U N I T Y IN CITY PLANNING

Thomas A. Reiner HOUSING M A R K E T S AND P U B L I C POLICY

William G. Grigsby

E X P L O R A T I O N S INTO URBAN

STRUCTURE

M. M. Webber, J . W. Dyckman, D. L. Foley, A. Z. Guttenberg, W. L. C. Wheaton, C. B. Wurster

STRUCTURING T H E J O U R N E Y TO WORK

Howard S. Lapin

URBAN

R E N E W A L IN E U R O P E A N

and Potentials Leo Grebler

COUNTRIES:

Its Emergence

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: ITS EMERGENCE AND POTENTIALS

LEO GREBLER

PHILADELPHIA

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS

© 1964 by the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

Published in Great Britain, India, and Pakistan by the Oxford University Press London, Bombay, and Karachi

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 63-81714

STORAGE

7/1-

/

7427 Printed in the United States of America

PREFACE

T h e field tour for this study was undertaken in the period July, 1961, to January, 1962, and included the following countries: Denmark, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and West Germany including Berlin. In France, Greece, and Poland, only the capitals were visited to obtain basic information on national policies and trends and to look into local renewal or reconstruction projects. In each of the other countries, the tour was extended to several other citics and towns of varying size. A total of thirty-one cities was included. Documentary materials were obtained for additional countries and cities. Also, some of the results of the author's 1954 field investigation of the reconstruction of war-destroyed European cities, covering twenty-eight cities in five countries, were useful to the present study. 1 A l l of these five countries and eight cities were revisited in 1961-1962. T h e field tour was made possible by a sabbatical leave from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a travel grant from the Ford Foundation, which was administered by the Institute of International Education. Both kinds of assistance are gratefully acknowledged. T h e staff of the United Nations, and especially of the Economic Commission for Europe, which had held an Urban Renewal Symposium in J u n e , 1961, were helpful in establishing contacts and providing orientation, and so was the 1 Leo Grebler, Europe's Reborn Cities (Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., Technical Bulletin 28, 1956).

5

6

PREFACE

Division of International Affairs of the Housing and H o m e Finance A g e n c y . In addition, I am greatly indebted to the many European government officials and the nongovernmental specialists w h o made themselves generously available for interviews and tours of projects and provided me with study materials. However, they must be exonerated of any responsibility for the facts and interpretations in this report. I wish to express my gratitude to colleagues who read and c o m m e n t e d on drafts of the report: Professors James Gillies and L e l a n d S. Burns of the University of California, Los Angeles; and Professor Leo H. Klaassen of the Netherlands Economic Institute and the Netherlands School of Economics, w h o spent the spring semester of 1962 at U C L A . Special thanks are due to Dr. Nathaniel Lichfield of L o n d o n w h o saved me from errors in dealing with the c o m p l e x British programs and offered incisive criticism and suggestions. Mrs. Rose Altman provided invaluable secretarial service, and the careful editing by Mrs. Grace M i l g r a m of the Institute for Urban Studies at the University of Pennsylvania did a great deal to improve the quality of the monograph. Several portions of the monograph were published in the f o r m of articles in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners (November, 1962), Land Economics (November, 1962), The Appraisal Journal (January, 1963), Progressive Architecture (February, 1963), and The Town Planning Review (April, 1963). I am indebted to these journals for permission to use adapted versions of the articles in the present study. L . G.

CONTENTS Chapter I. I n t r o d u c t i o n S c o p e of U r b a n R e n e w a l T h e A m e r i c a n Lead and the E u r o p e a n L a g II. Pressures f o r C i t y R e n e w a l i n E u r o p e Traffic Problems and "Solutions" Renewal for Central Area Functions A Digression: Berlin W i t h o u t a Center Expansion of Existing Centers E m e r g e n c e of N e w C e n t e r s Conservation and Rehabilitation O t h e r F o r c e s in U r b a n R e n e w a l I I I . S t a t u s of N a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s France Denmark Netherlands Great Britain Sweden West Germany Italy IV. T h e I n d i v i d u a l a n d the State in U r b a n R e n e w a l L a n d Assembly and Disposition Relocation V. Reflections on P l a n n i n g Problems T h e C o m e b a c k of M u l t i p l e L a n d Uses P e d e s t r i a n S h o p p i n g in C i t y C e n t e r s Is the B l o c k - F r o n t D o o m e d ? Related Problems: Greenbelts and New T o w n s T h e S e a r c h f o r R e n e w a l O b j e c t i v e s a n d Strategy VI. N o t e s o n the N e w S c a l e T h e S c a l e of T h r e e - D i m e n s i o n a l P l a n n i n g T h e Size of E n t e r p r i s e s Building Dimensions T i m e Dimensions T h e N e w S c a l e in U r b a n R e n e w a l C r i t i c i s m of the N e w S c a l e

Page 11 12 17 23 23 32 32 34 39 42 47 51 52 56 58 60 67 68 73 76 77 84 89 90 94 97 100 103 111 112 116 119 123 125 128

ILLUSTRATIONS The

following

illustrations

appear

as a group

after

page

64.

T h e Pirelli office building, near the Milan railroad station. T h e Centro Direzionale, a new business district in Milan. T h e Lijnbaan pedestrian shopping area in Rotterdam. Partial view of Warsaw's reconstructed Old Town. Partial view of the new government office center in Warsaw, before and after reconstruction. Model of the Barbican scheme in London. T h e Castrol House in London. Commercial redevelopment along the ring road in Birmingham. Expansion of Birmingham's central business district. Partial view of the Nedre Norrmalm urban renewal project in Stockholm. Models of Hamburg's new central business district. T h e Thyssen office building in Duesseldorf. Hamburg's Grindelberg project, an example of the "new scale" of urban redevelopment. An u r b a n expressway in Hannover. Example of changed layout and street pattern in a residential section of Hamburg.

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: ITS E M E R G E N C E A N D P O T E N T I A L S

I INTRODUCTION

For many decades the United States looked to the advanced European countries for models and guidance in the development of housing policies and the improvement of city planning. In the case of urban renewal, the shoe is on the other foot. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the evolution of an articulate national program for the renewal of its cities and towns since 1949 has placed the United States in a position of leadership. Most of the Western countries on the European Continent are only now on the threshold of national renewal programs. A few have adopted legislation in the past few years, and others are busily engaged in drafting new statutes. But more is involved than mere precedence in time. T h e legal and financial tools of our program have set a pattern for adaptation in other nations and are under intensive study by European specialists and governments. Our experience is being keenly watched. Although much more needs to be done to make our program better known and more widely understood abroad, the stream of influence has been reversed. Instead of American experts traveling to Europe for inspiration and instruction on housing policies, the Europeans now come to our shores to look into American problems and policies in city renewal. While the development of specific national programs 11

12

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

in Europe is lagging behind that of the United States, a great deal of urban renewal activity can be observed. First, a special kind of urban renewal, on a scale far exceeding the American program, has been executed in the rebuilding of war-damaged European cities and towns. Second, several countries, most notably Great Britain, whose overage housing stock is one of the worst legacies of the early industrial revolution, have resumed their traditional slumclearance schemes that were interrupted by war and urgent reconstruction tasks. Third, substantial renewal is going forward in many localities without the benefit of national programs, though often with the assistance of planning, housing, and road-building measures or ad hoc legislation for individual undertakings. Finally, the replacement of old buildings by new ones, the conventional form in which cities have always renewed themselves, is in abundant evidence, visible especially in office skyscrapers from Manchester to Naples. This activity is but one manifestation of the great real estate boom that has developed in Western Europe in response to strong urban growth, new technology, prosperity, and long-deferred demands. SCOPE OF URBAN

RENEWAL

Obviously, then, the United States' lead in developing an urban renewal program pertains to a highly specific activity that requires definition. T h e term "urban renewal" has come to be used so loosely that its meaning is often blurred, especially in international comparisons, where it is essential to distinguish city renewal from conventional slum clearance for the improvement of housing. In fact, the very concept is so recent that it has called for coining new words not only in our own language but in

INTRODUCTION

others as w e l l — f o r Stadternenerung.

example,

renovation

13

urbaine

and

In the context of this volume, urban renewal refers to a deliberate effort to change the urban environment through planned, large-scale adjustment of existing city areas to present and future requirements for urban living and working. It extends to nonresidential as well as residential land uses. T h e process involves the replanning and comprehensive redevelopment of land or the conservation and rehabilitation of areas w h i c h are threatened by blight or are to be preserved because of their historical setting and cultural values—all in the framework of an over-all plan for a city's development. Because public as well as private improvements are required and because of the common difficulties of large-scale land assembly in built-up areas, urban renewal is usually characterized by substantial government action as well as by new private investment. T h e existence of a national program, accompanied by financial and other assistance by the central government, manifests a nation-wide interest in urban problems by far exceeding the earlier concern with poor housing. 1 T h e ingredients of governmental initiative and financial support, planning, and large-scale enterprise distinguish urban renewal from the piecemeal replacement of structures, building by building, that has been going on for centuries. T h e close association with an over-all city plan, the inclusion of nonresidential as well as residential land uses, and greater reliance on private investment distin1 T h i s definition obviously docs not a t t e m p t to c o m e to grips w i t h imp o r t a n t operational p r o b l e m s in u r b a n renewal. W h a t are the present and f u t u r e requirements for l i v i n g a n d w o r k i n g in cities? H o w can the most u s e f u l land uses be d e t e r m i n e d and relative utilities be measured? T h e definition is merely designed to distinguish u r b a n r e n e w a l f r o m o t h e r activities; it is not intended to solve o p e r a t i o n a l problems. Also, the definition is couched in terms of economic systems characterized by p r i v a t e and p u b l i c sectors.

14

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

guish urban renewal from the conventional slum-clearance and housing programs in which many European countries have played the role of pioneers. 2 When other aspects of urban renewal than the adoption of a national program are considered, the American lead is much less clear. As was indicated earlier, urban renewal in European countries sometimes proceeds without the benefit of national programs specifically designed to assist in this process. T h e rebuilding of war-damaged cities and towns is the most gigantic process of urban renewal in history, compressed in one generation. T h e problems of rebuilding the cities that fell victim to the war and those of peacetime renewal are largely similar. Both processes involve a measure of urban land reform and pose essentially identical planning questions. For example, what means should be employed to consolidate or merge the typically small parcels that militate against an efficient layout for a city area? Should existing street patterns be changed in spite of the vast amount of underground capital invested in utilities along the street lines? Should new land uses replace the old ones and, if so, which ones? What density patterns should be considered? Should land uses be finely segregated or boldly mixed? Should new principles (or, rather, revised ancient ones), such as pedestrian shopping areas in city centers, be incorporated in the scheme? Should the "corridor" street lined with buildings be given up in favor of orienting structures to maximum light, air, and sun, in "open planning" fashion? 2 Despite its initial emphasis on residential redevelopment, the United States urban renewal program from its inception departed from the exclusive housing orientation of earlier slum-clearance schemes in Europe as well as in this country. T h e 1949 Act merely required that an area designated for clearance must be predominantly residential either before or after redevelopment. Later amendments have enacted exceptions from this rule, allowing nonresidential redevelopment in nonresidential clearance areas within progressively expanded limitations.

INTRODUCTION

15

Moreover, as the reconstruction of war-damaged areas approaches its final stage, it often merges imperceptibly into regular renewal projects. T h e completion of Coventry's new center, for example, requires considerable demolition of buildings spared by the bombs and a new layout rounding out the rebuilding plan. T h e r e are numerous similar cases. Finally, the process of rebuilding has had significant implications for peacetime renewal activity. In many European countries, it has made people more aware of the obsolescence of real estate facilities that were left untouched by the war, and of the potentials of concerted action to deal with it. T h e legal and financial methods that were used to accomplish reconstruction are leaving their mark on the techniques to be applied to regular renewal. Another related phenomenon is privately initiated redevelopment, especially of central city areas. This activity has gained impressive momentum in some of the European countries. Here, as well as in urban renewal under public auspices, one can observe a new scale of operations, and sometimes a new intensity of private planning, that blur the definitional distinction between urban renewal initiated and specifically controlled by public agencies and urban renewal by private investors under general cityplanning regulation. And there are hybrid projects where it is difficult to find a clear demarcation between public and private enterprise. Nowhere is the evidence of privately initiated renewal so startling as in Great Britain, the country par excellence of governmental urban planning, and especially in London, whose skyline is being transformed through a series of widely dispersed tall office buildings. T h e r e has been a veritable burst of investment interest in the redevelopment of centrally located property; and the resulting pressures have become so acute that the ponderous planning ma-

l6

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

chinery of postwar Britain has found it difficult to cope with them. Preoccupied with general development plans and, in some cases, the rebuilding of blitzed areas, the local planning authorities seem to have been inadequately prepared for what turned out to be the most pressing planning need of recent years: the redevelopment of the central areas of cities ranging from London to quite small places. T h e planning staff of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, burdened not only with the approval of local development plans and "compulsory purchase" orders but also with the reconstruction of bombed areas, the building of new towns, a large volume of appeals against local planning decisions (planning referrals), and other functions, has apparently been operating under similar handicaps. 3 As a consequence, large real estate concerns have taken over much of the picking and choosing among urban-renewal areas, as well as the detailed planning for projects, and local authorities must deal with planning applications without having prepared detailed area plans for the "comprehensive development" envisaged in British legislation. T h e bitter debate on the proposed redevelopment of the Monico site at London's Picadilly Circus epitomizes the conflict between the pressures of private enterprise for piecemeal change and the comprehensive planning approach which, in this instance, argues for an over-all traffic as well as building solution for London's famous landmark. 4 T h e problem is by no means limited to London. 8 As for the slow approval of general development plans, the case of Manchester may be cited. T h e city submitted its plan to the Ministry in 1952. In the fall of 1961, when about half the twenty-year period of the development plan had passed, the plan had not yet been approved, as it had to be coordinated with the plans of the numerous other towns and communities in the Manchester region. Further, the Ministry in one recent year had to process 120,000 referrals on planning matters including questions of compensation. 4 See the Report of the Public Inquiry concerning this case in The Town Planning Review (Liverpool University Press), January, 1961, and William

INTRODUCTION

17

Some of Britain's provincial towns are experiencing a metamorphosis of their centers that seems to take them right out of the Victorian age to the present era of tall office buildings, spacious shops, and, at long last, a few modern hotels. Even in the relatively small Yorkshire city of Wakefield, 100 stores have been demolished in the past twelve years and 115 new ones have been built. In contrast, only three stores had been constructed in the entire period from W o r l d W a r I to 1950. 5 Unfortunately, quantitative measures of urban renewal activity, no matter how defined, are unavailable. Neither in the United States nor in other countries are national accounts so organized that investment associated with urban renewal can be estimated in any reliable fashion. For the purposes of this report, however, the absence of comparable figures is of no great import. T o sum up, in order to give an adequate impression of the extent and variety of urban renewal work in European countries and convey the full flavor of their emerging renewal problems, it is necessary to go beyond the existence or absence of national programs. Consequently, the present volume concerns itself with a n u m b e r of phenomena and policies bearing on urban renewal, as well as activities representing or approximating urban renewal as previously defined. THE AMERICAN LEAD AND T H E EUROPEAN LAG

T h e European lag in developing articulate, national urban renewal programs can largely be attributed to the Holford, "Picadilly Circus," ibid., April, 1961. One of the issues in this case was the possibility of carrying out comprehensive redevelopment without prior public purchase of the site. 5 "Wakefield's New Look," The Economist, June 30, 1962.

l8

U R B A N R E N E W A L IN E U R O P E A N COUNTRIES

hard facts of war devastation and the need for economic reconstruction in the broadest sense. In the countries which suffered from physical damage to their cities, towns, and villages, as well as their industrial and transport systems, the task of rebuilding had first claim on resources. In many cases, this task included the costly restoration of religious or secular buildings of historical and cultural value. In all of these countries, but also in neutral nations and those where war damage was slight, new housing to relieve the quantitative shortage was another high-priority activity. T h e pressures on building resources resulting from the housing shortage and need for general reconstruction in practically all of the West European countries, and some of the Eastern nations as well, have continued to this day. For example, the Netherlands still maintains national control over construction activity—the only West European country to do so—and Denmark some time ago reintroduced controls for her largest cities. It is only in recent years that the end of the housing shortage (which was probably magnified by prolonged rent control) has come into sight in an increasing number of West European countries. In West Germany and elsewhere, a start on urban renewal is now being considered not only on its own merits but also as a device to maintain the volume of construction when the backlog of housing demand is met. Other countries, such as Spain, Poland, and East Germany, are still many years away from such a situation. In fact, circumstances if not wisdom have forced European countries to adopt a strategy recommended by some generally sympathetic critics of urban renewal, notably Catherine Bauer, for the United States as well. 6 In this 6 Catherine Bauer, "Redevelopment: A Misfit in the Fifties." in Coleman Woodbury (ed.), The Future of Cities and Urban Redevelopment, (University of Chicago Press, 1953).

INTRODUCTION

ig

view, the pioneer effort in the United States was premature in starting, as it did, at a time of severe shortages of housing and other real estate facilities which made site acquisition expensive and relocation extremely painful. T h e more proper strategy would have been to concentrate after the war on soundly planned suburban construction and the building of new towns beyond the pale of existing urban agglomerations. Such a policy would not only have accommodated growth most rapidly but would also have provided "reception stations" for the people and activities to be dislocated later by urban renewal. Moreover, the exodus from built-up areas induced in this fashion would have held down central property values and made a later renewal program much less costly. By initiating urban renewal as early as 1949, we were trying "to do the right thing at the wrong time." T h e European lag in commencing urban renewal has come close to meeting this prescription. In recent years, however, the pressures for central area redevelopment and traffic improvements have become so acute that this neat strategy is finally being defeated in European countries as well. Considering Europe as a whole, poverty, lags in city planning as such, and administrative disabilities will delay urban renewal in many countries for many years to come. In some of the Greek, Italian, and Spanish cities, for example, as simple an operation as the proper maintenance or installation of sidewalks would constitute a great improvement and reduce the hazards of urban living. In Italy, the discrepancy between intellectual ferment in city planning or artistic accomplishment in the best of her new architecture, on the one hand, and administrative or executive ability in public offices, on the other, is so great that one wonders whether the country is ready for so complicated a program as urban renewal. Spain's meager re-

20

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

sources are now being devoted, probably correctly, to regional development designed to bridge the colossal gap in income between her agricultural and industrial areas, rather than to planned urban redevelopment. Poland's poverty is visible even in such a splendid accomplishment as the rebuilding of Warsaw, the one large European city that was almost totally destroyed in World War II. While the tempo of Warsaw's rebuilding and much of its planning command respect (except for the urge to express power by monumental layout and street fronts), the quality of construction is generally poor; acre upon acre of roughbricked façades of apartment houses built in the early postwar years are yet to be finished with plaster. In East Berlin, real estate of all kinds that was saved from the bombs is in such poor state of repair that the reintroduction of ordinary maintenance alone would constitute a merciful act of urban renewal, not to speak of the often noted physical decay of relatively new buildings on that quasi-baroque splendor of "socialist realism," Stalin Allee. 7 Under such circumstances, urban renewal programs are a luxury these countries can hardly afford. Enough has been said to indicate how difficult, if not meaningless, it is to speak of urban renewal in Europe or even Western Europe as a whole. We must differentiate between countries and sometimes even between regions and cities, which often vary in wealth, energy, growth, and use of the opportunities offered in national programs, as they do in the United States. But even the more prosperous countries which would be capable of undertaking so costly a task as urban renewal have until recently been under less pressure to do so than the United States; and the European lag is indeed partly explained by the absence or delayed emergence of some of the political, social, and 7

Now renamed Karl M a r x Allee.

INTRODUCTION

21

economic forces that gave rise to our own urban-renewal program. In this country, the déconcentration and suburbanization of residences—especially for higher income groups—and of retail trade and industry had already progressed before World War II to the point where it appeared to undermine the economic and tax base of cities and especially of city centers. Business groups and real estate interests in the centers were aroused over declining sales and property values and searched for a slum-clearance program without public housing. Municipal governments looked for a way to protect their dwindling tax base. Also, urban renewal was considered to be a potent pump-priming device for dealing with the generally anticipated depression of the early postwar period. Thus, support for a national program came from important municipal and business interests as well as the civic groups which were concerned with slum clearance and better housing and sought means of broadening and adapting the embattled public housing program of 1 9 3 7 — a powerful combination in American politics. In contrast, the economic position of central cities in the urban complex of practically all European countries has until recently remained impressively strong, with no apparent need for rescue operations. Even now, for example, in all of Europe the number of regional shopping centers along the urban fringe can be counted on the fingers of two hands, including projects under construction as well as those already completed. In many nations on the Continent, moreover, cities have few and entirely insignificant taxing powers of their own. T h e i r main revenue comes from a share in national income taxes that is based on population and in national real estate taxes (the latter being usually much lighter than in the United States). Consequently, they do not rely so directly as their Ameri-

22

URBAN R E N E W A L IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

can counterparts on independent revenues to meet their growing responsibilities, and they are less concerned over any erosion of their tax base. As for the slum-clearance aspects of urban renewal, conventional slum-clearance and social-housing programs in the advanced West European countries were so firmly embedded long before World War II that no new device seemed necessary on this score. T h e obvious need for reconstruction served to allay fears of large-scale unemployment. Thus, the particular constellation of forces propelling the United States into an early, perhaps even premature, urban renewal effort was not duplicated. Only in Great Britain did a similarly powerful, though quite differently constituted, combination of forces produce the "blitz and blight" provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, which established a national policy for city renewal as well as for the reconstruction of war-destroyed areas and which was, of course, the forerunner of the far-reaching postwar planning legislation of that country.

Il PRESSURES F O R C I T Y RENEWAL IN EUROPE

While pressures for urban renewal in Europe until recently were weak in comparison with those in the United States, and restrained by more urgent tasks, they have become exceedingly acute in the past few years. This almost explosive development was triggered mainly by two forces. One is the extraordinary invasion of European cities by the automobile. Even in countries without a national program, many projects for large-scale renewal are associated directly with attempts to cope with increasing traffic problems. T h e other factor is the pressing need for expanded or new "downtowns" to perform central area functions. T h e demand for projects of this type is so acute that urban renewal is often undertaken in the absence of national programs. In addition, the conservation and rehabilitation of city areas of great historic and cultural value is receiving growing attention. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND "SOLUTIONS"

It is unnecessary here to trace the spectacular increase in automobile ownership in most West European countries during the postwar period. Statistically, it appears that this 23

24

URBAN R E N E W A L IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

increase to date has brought automobile density (the number of passenger cars per 1,000 population) in major European cities to the level experienced by United States cities some time during the 1920's. 1 But the statistics do not tell the whole story. Street patterns in most European cities, and especially in their old centers, are even less adapted to the motor vehicle, in motion or parked, than those of American cities. Consequently, the frustrations and the blight caused by a much smaller volume of vehicular traffic can be as great as our own, if not greater. T h e rush hour holds even worse terrors in Rome than in New York or Washington, and, since many white-collar workers still eat their midday meal at home, they must contend with four rather than two rush periods each working day. Moreover, traffic discipline and the enforcement of rules are poor by current American standards. In some countries cars are allowed to park on sidewalks, without apparent penalty. Even as well organized a city as Amsterdam seems to permit parking on the lovely narrow streets along its canals, a practice as damaging to the flow of traffic as it is to the visual enjoyment of one of the finest urban scenes. Practically all of Europe's beautiful urban plazas today are huge parking lots. Thus, while the automobile has as yet failed to produce extensive suburban spread of popula1 In i960, the n u m b e r of passenger cars per 1,000 population ranged from about 100 to about 200 in major cities in Western Europe (500,000 population or more). I n United States cities of the same size, the number of passenger cars per 1,000 population varied between about 100 and 400 in 1930. Of the 18 U.S. cities for which data are available for 1930, seven showed ratios in the 100-200 range, 10 fell in the 200-300 range, and one (Los Angeles County with its several cities) had a ratio exceeding 400. It appears that the current ratios in major European cities approximate those reached in their U.S. counterparts some time in the 1920's. An exact comparison is made difficult by classification problems, such as the inclusion or exclusion of taxis and buses, and by the smaller average size of European cars. Besides, the large number of motorcycles and bicycles in many European cities, which had no parallel in the U.S. cities of the 1920's, creates traffic problems not reflected in data on passenger cars.

PRESSURES F O R C I T Y R E N E W A L IN E U R O P E

25

tion and retail business on the American model, it has already created congestion in built-up areas that matches and sometimes surpasses our own. Apart from the usual measures to alleviate traffic congestion, such as one-way streets and parking meters, the European response to the invasion of its cities by the automobile has taken two main forms, both of which involve a great deal of urban renewal. One is to adjust the street pattern, the other to expand mass transit facilities. Changing the street pattern includes many familiar measures: widening existing city streets, laying out parallel streets, enlarging plazas, designing or redesigning traffic circles, building urban expressways with more or less limited access, and finally, the apparent darling of European traffic planners, developing ring roads. Ring roads encircle or will encircle the downtown areas to deflect traffic from the centers, the built-up areas to deflect through traffic from the city, and often the equivalent of the metropolitan areas to connect freeways. Sometimes there is even an intermediate ring road between the circle around the center and the circle around the city. T h e "ring" is, of course, an ideal conception and is adjusted to topography, land uses, and varying engineering and traffic-flow concepts. Together with radial or feeder streets connecting the several ring roads with each other and with the local street system, and in combination with other street adjustments, this represents a very considerable effort and investment. T h e probable effectiveness of this approach will engage our attention later. Here it suffices to say that the slumclearance and urban-renewal activity associated with it ranges all the way from mere demolition of structures for the road to the deliberate use of the building of ring roads, especially those surrounding the city center, for redeveloping large adjoining areas, as in Birmingham (with rela-

26

U R B A N R E N E W A L IN E U R O P E A N C O U N T R I E S

tively slight war damage) and Hannover (with large-scale war destruction). Substantial changes in the street system and especially the construction of ring roads have often been facilitated by demolition through bombs, but the activity is by no means limited to cities that suffered war damage. Thus, Stockholm and Amsterdam are in the process of constructing ring roads around their centers, and Athens and Barcelona are engaged in building multiple ring roads. Much of this is still under construction, and the final shape is visible only on the drafting boards. Meanwhile, circulation suffers a great deal. According to a common joke in Hamburg, that city is no longer situated on the river Elbe but rather on Umleitung, or detour. T h e other main approach to traffic solutions in European cities, and one perhaps more directly relevant to American problems, is the strengthening of public mass transit facilities. New and extended subway systems—completed, under construction, or definitely planned—are among the most impressive manifestations of an earnest effort in European cities to come to grips with the onslaught of the automobile and to maintain the urban center's accessibility. Stockholm has a new subway system started at the end of the war and still being expanded from its present length of about 65 miles; its design and execution have been linked directly with one of the largest cases of European downtown redevelopment, the Nedre Norrmalm project, as well as with the building of Stockholm's noted planned suburbs, especially Vallingby and Farsta. Rotterdam, barely emerging from the reconstruction of its center, began the building of its first subway line in i960, with completion scheduled for 1966. Milan's first 19 miles of subway, started in 1957, are to be opened in 1963 and extended ultimately to 36 miles. Helsinki is on the verge of initiating construction. West Berlin's older system is

PRESSURES FOR CITY R E N E W A L IN EUROPE

27

b e i n g e x p a n d e d o n a b r e a t h - t a k i n g scale, as o n e of t h e great, heavily s u b s i d i z e d p u b l i c w o r k s t h a t h e l p to s u p p o r t the artificial e c o n o m y of t h e isolated city. U l t i m a t e l y , t h e l e n g t h of t h e system is t o b e i n c r e a s e d f r o m less t h a n 50 miles in 1953 t o 1 2 5 miles. O s l o is s t a r t i n g a system l i n k e d to its e x i s t i n g s u b u r b a n r a i l r o a d n e t . I n H a m b u r g , R o m e , M a d r i d , B a r c e l o n a , a n d L i s b o n , s u b w a y e x t e n s i o n s a r e in various stages of c o m p l e t i o n o r p l a n n i n g . T h e a d d i t i o n of a Victoria l i n e to L o n d o n ' s u n d e r g r o u n d system is a u t h o r ized for c o n s t r u c t i o n . P a r i s is b e g i n n i n g w o r k o n i n s t a l l i n g a n express s u b w a y i n a n e w East-West t u b e b e n e a t h t h e p r e s e n t o n e f r o m t h e city c e n t e r to t h e P o n t d e N e u i l l y , w i t h an e x t e n s i o n to a n u r b a n r e n e w a l p r o j e c t at t h e R o n d P o i n t d e la D é f e n s e . A f r u s t r a t e d case of s u b w a y c o n s t r u c t i o n is t h a t of W a r saw, t h e o n e a d m i t t e d d e f e a t i n t h e r e m a r k a b l e r e b u i l d i n g of t h a t city. A start was m a d e , b u t costs a n d p e r h a p s also steel r e q u i r e m e n t s t u r n e d o u t t o b e m u c h g r e a t e r t h a n a n t i c i p a t e d a n d c e r t a i n l y g r e a t e r t h a n P o l a n d , heavily engaged in i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , c o u l d a f f o r d . T h e p r o j e c t was scrapped. Since t h e p l a n f o r t h e city's r e c o n s t r u c t i o n was based o n a n e w s u b w a y system, t h e a v a i l a b l e s t r e e t c a r a n d b u s lines are i n c r e d i b l y i n a d e q u a t e . I n m a n y of t h e W e s t G e r m a n cities i n t h e 500,000 to 1 m i l l i o n p o p u l a t i o n r a n g e , s u c h as D u e s s e l d o r f , C o l o g n e , F r a n k f u r t , H a n n o v e r , a n d S t u t t g a r t , m o r e o r less i n t e n sive p l a n n i n g p r e p a r a t i o n s h a v e b e e n m a d e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r variety of mass t r a n s i t facility g e a r e d to e x i s t i n g streetcar systems, t h e Unterstrassen-Pfiasterbahn. T h i s is a shallow s u b s u r f a c e l i n e d i r e c t l y b e n e a t h t h e streets i n t h e c e n t e r a n d elevated t o street level o u t s i d e of it. C o n s e q u e n t l y , it m i n i m i z e s t h e n e e d o r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r u r b a n r e n e w a l . Precisely for this r e a s o n , a n d b e c a u s e it p e r m i t s t h e use of

28

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

existing rolling stock, this kind of system is held to be less costly than the installation of genuine subways. In several cases, existing suburban railroads or those of the "metro" or ring type will be improved or extended. Thus, the plan for Copenhagen provides for linking its system of suburban railways with new subways in the center. In other instances, the relocation of terminal railroad stations has offered remarkable opportunities for urban redevelopment on newly available, centrally located sites. War destruction made it possible to relocate the main station of Rotterdam and a secondary station in Milan (Porte Garibaldi); the latter had been an obstacle to full development of the Centro Direzionale, Milan's new business center on a site of partial war damage rounded out by deliberate urban renewal. In T h e Hague, too, the projected rebuilding of the destroyed Bezuidenhout district as a secondary administrative and business center rests on a recent agreement with the Netherlands railroad system to relocate a minor station. In Tours, the abandonment of a destroyed station and its adjoining railroad tracks has released an area of about 250 acres, the largest single site available in the city. There are even a few cases of urbanrenewal projects on abandoned railroad sites without war damage. A modern extension of Heidelberg's center, now largely completed, was made possible by moving the city's main station. Ludwigshafen is a similar case. T h e master plan for Madrid provides for removal of a secondary station to make way for expansion of its center. In Copenhagen, a major extension of the downtown area has been brought about through moving surface railroad tracks underground and demolishing slums in the manner of Park Avenue in New York. Although the general layout was planned by the city, the area thus made available for office huildings, hotels, and shops has been redeveloped

PRESSURES FOR C I T Y R E N E W A L IN E U R O P E

29

privately. T h e same is true for the projected re-use of a Paris site becoming vacant through consolidation of the Montparnasse and Maine stations.2 T h e painful relocation of railroad stations in central city areas offers perhaps a general moral. In the age of railroad building, the equivalent of the present-day traffic engineer was not content unless he pushed terminals into the heart of the city, nor was any attention given to the need for connecting links between the several stations in the same city that resulted often from the existence of competing railway companies. (This latter mistake is only now being corrected in a few cases by the building or planning of expensive underground connections, as in Brussels, Madrid, Munich, and Liverpool.) Are today's traffic engineers and city planners, while taking a broader view than the railway builders, committing a similar error by pushing expressways and parking structures too close to the urban centers? Although the gigantic effort of many European cities to improve their public transportation systems provides many opportunities for urban renewal, the larger question is whether it will be warranted by results. Will European cities succeed where ours largely failed? There are indeed some reasons for believing that they have at least a fair chance of doing so. European city traffic still does not depend so much as ours on the automobile. Mass transit systems have not been allowed to deteriorate so badly as some of ours or to disappear altogether, like the suburban 2 In contrast, the war damage to some of London's railroad stations was not used as an opportunity for relocation and consolidation of terminal facilities, although plans along this line had been discussed even before World War II. In fact, the nationalized British Transport Commission is now cashing in on the real estate boom by rebuilding existing railroad stations as parts of large projects, similar to the attempts of American railway companies to use their stations and related holdings for real estate development.

JO

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

railroad net in the Los Angeles area; and new or extended subways, all with at least operating if not capital subsidies, testify to much greater willingness in Europe to treat mass transit as a public service than has been evident in the United States. Streetcar and bus service are often poor, but in most cases because of crowding due to the great demands made on it and not—or not yet—because people are turning away in droves from mass transit to the private car. In the wealthier countries, of course, this danger point is closer than in the others, especially since the automobile in Europe has become a status symbol (much more so than in the United States) as well as a means of transportation. In Great Britain, for example, complaints over curtailment of unprofitable railway commuter services by the nationalized Transport Commission, regardless of the implications of such action for the whole transportation system, are reminiscent of American developments. Even if the effectiveness of wider or new streets and plazas is discounted, the viability and improvement of public transit systems alone, for which there are few counterparts (though many as yet unrealized plans) in the United States, warrant the expectation that the general outcome will be better than here. When American cities reached the automobile density experienced now in Europe, few specialists, and certainly not the general public, realized what was in store. When the realization came, largely after World War II, automobile density was much greater still, and so was the cost of restoring and improving mass transit systems suffering from anemia and disuse. Because European cities have the American example before them, they know what the future holds and have taken earlier and more energetic steps to cope with it. Master plans for all means of transportation are frequently more advanced than were ours in a comparable stage of private

PRESSURES FOR CITY RENEWAL IN EUROPE

31

car ownership. T h e building of parking structures in strategic locations, till recently often an afterthought in our case, is practically everywhere included in these over-all plans. 3 Because of a longer tradition of municipal ownership and subsidized operation of mass transit facilities, the question of direct profitability of extensions and improvements looms less large than in the United States, while the belief in indirect civic benefits of strong transit systems is unshaken. Finally, the form in which European cities have expanded in the postwar period makes reliance on the automobile for commuting less necessary. Europe's new suburbs are for the most part seas of apartment houses built to higher density standards than our typical singlefamily house developments, with the result that there are concentrations of people sufficient to make mass transportation feasible if not profitable. Here again, the outcome will differ greatly from country to country and even from city to city. Some communities seem to be doomed to share our traffic failures. Others have a considerable chance to do better. T h e race is close, and some of the brave efforts of recent years may have come too late.

3 Policies concerning the ownership and operation of p a r k i n g structures vary not only f r o m c o u n t r y to country b u t often between cities in the same country. In some cases, only the sites are acquired by t h e m u n i c i pality a n d leased to private operators for the erection of buildings. In others the municipality b u i l d s the structures as well and leases the land and improvements to entrepreneurs. I n still o t h e r cases, parking structures are operated as well as developed by the city. I n these instances, the schedule of parking fees is sometimes designed to maximize indirect benefits to the downtown business c o m m u n i t y r a t h e r than revenues. F o r e x a m p l e , fees may be h e l d low so as to encourage short-period p a r k i n g for shopping a n d similar purposes, with high fees f o r all-day use of t h e facility. G e n e r a l l y speaking, however, policies on parking fees in relation to the functions of parking in central areas need to be m o r e fully developed in E u r o p e a n countries as well as in the U n i t e d States.

32

URBAN RENEWAL IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES R E N E W A L FOR C E N T R A L A R E A FUNCTIONS

Another major impetus to urban renewal in Europeam cities has come from greatly increased demand for facilitiess in which to perform central area functions: private ancd public offices, modern stores and places of entertainmentt, and educational and other cultural institutions. Much o)f this expansion occurs, of course, in the usual form o)f supersession of land use through private initiative or pub)lic building. However, there are also many projects of thte genuine urban-renewal type, and some of these are of 3'

BRITAIN

Birmingham, 25, 37, 38, 39, 48, 63, 93, 107, 115, 124 Cambridge, 110 Canterbury, 46 Coventry, 15, 46, 91, 94, 96, 97. 1 »3 Exeter, 94 Liverpool, 29 London, 15, 16, 27, 29, 35, 36, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49> 63, 90, 98, 100, 101, 110, 114, 115 Manchester, 16, 63, 110 Newcastle, 66 Norwich, 66 Sheffield, 47-48, 117 Wakefield, 17, 46 GREECE

Athens, 26, 49 I R E L A N D (EIRE)

Dublin, 75 ITALY

Bologna, 74 Genoa, 74 Milan, 26, 28, 39, 74 Naples, 12, 74 Rome, 24, 27, 40, 42, 109 Siena, 74 Venice, 74

INDEX OF CITIES NETHERLANDS

Amersfort, 43, 101 Amsterdam, 24, 26, 41, 49, 58, 59, 60, 82, 95, 101 Delft, 43, 96 Dodrecht, 43 Hilversum, 43 Hoogvliet, 1 1 3 Maastricht, 43 Rotterdan, 26, 28, 38, 43, 59, 72, 81, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, n o , 114 T h e Hague, 28, 41, 42, 82, 116, 124 Vlaardingen, 38, 95, 1 1 3 NORWAY

Oslo, 27 POLAND

Warsaw, 20, 27, 45, 46, 49, 91, 98, 101

PORTUGAL

Lisbon, 27 SOVIET UNION

Leningrad, 45 SPAIN

Barcelona, 26, 27, 102, 1 1 3 Madrid, 27, 28, 29, 41, 49, 116 Santiago de Campobello, 44 SWEDEN

Farsta, 26, 112, 114, 119 Gavle, 38, 68 Orebro, 38, 68 Stockholm, 26, 37, 40, 44, 67, 68, 78, 90, 95, 106, 112, 114, 124 Vallingby, 26, 112, 114, 1 1 9