Forgive me if this is overly academic and/or incoherent, but these thoughts have stuck in my head like a particularly catchy tune for most of today, and I need to think aloud. This is the result both of having studied an obscene amount of twentieth-century history and of being in the habit of drawing connections between historical events and extrapolating wider themes. I also feel strange writing about this topic from the comfort of my student flat, but here goes. I hope you find it at least somewhat interesting.
This afternoon I was engaged in a universal Sunday activity: eating a very, very late breakfast at this awesome cafe called The Pink Olive, which sounds like it should be in the Castro but is actually quite Scottish, and dissecting and perusing the Sunday paper. As I sipped my Americano (which is what the Brits call house coffee, and always makes me feel slightly self-conscious when I order it), I read about a fire which had happened in a tower block in Camberwell, a neighborhood in southeast London. Six people died, including three very little kids. Allegedly the residents had complained about fire hazards in the block to people higher up, but had been told that because the building had been one of the first public housing projects built in south-east London, it had protected status. The local government denied that they had said this. I suddenly remembered something that my supervisor had told me: apparently, a tower block in Leith (a fairly low-rent part of Edinburgh, famous for being where most of Trainspotting is set) was also about to be given protected status because of its importance to design history.
The title of this post comes from the combination of two different parts of my historical education. Chapters from The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1963) were required reading in History 7B this last spring. The book’s author, Jane Jacobs, lamented the breakdown of the sense of community and trust in cities, which she blamed on urban planning theorists who ignored social dynamics in favor of dreams of integrating nature into cities. These took the form of parklands surrounded with, you guessed it, tower blocks. In practice, these open grassy areas were not urban idylls but dangerous places, simply because there’s a lack of foot traffic. Put another way, it’s bloody hard (if not impossible) to supervise your child playing outside if you’re up on on the tenth floor of a high-rise building, or even to trust that there will be other relatively trustworthy adults around who can help if something goes wrong. As a result, people withdraw into the safety of their apartments.
When I read this in Berkeley, it made a lot of sense when put into the context of my experiences in Edinburgh. I have walked home from friends’ flats late at night by myself fairly frequently, and never felt particularly unsafe. This is because the areas I walk through have a large number of pubs, and there’s always a small overflow of people standing around outside, having a smoke or otherwise hanging around. Ordinary people like you or me, who wouldn’t accost anyone deliberately, but who would help someone in a sticky situation. The only time I have ever felt that I was in trouble going home was when I was walking on the edge of the Meadows, a huge park just south of campus. A group of neds (young male degenerates, basically the Scottish urban equivalent of white trash) wandered over to me and asked me for change to make a phone call. There was no one else around. I made apologetic excuses and tried to extricate myself. Thankfully, just when I thought things were taking a turn for the worse, a police car rolled by and the neds cleared out. It seems counter-intuitive, but a huge open space can be just as dangerous as a dark alleyway. So yes, I do very much agree with Jacobs.
The urban planning theory that Jacobs argued against took hold in Europe as well as in the States, although the locations were reversed. Here, the city centers are generally the wealthier parts of town, and old buildings have been restored, renovated, and generally preserved. I’m lucky enough to live in a nineteenth-century tenement flat in Marchmont, which despite being a student neighborhood (or possibly because of that) is fairly well-off. In contrast, beaten-up-looking tower blocks from the early 1960s dot the outskirts of Paris and London, of Glasgow and Edinburgh. In the UK, these public housing blocks were the result of the comprehensive welfare state, the New Jerusalem, that the British Labour party had planned during World War II, and brought to fruition after their landslide election victory in 1945. The buildings, like the one in Camberwell, tended to be of shoddy construction and questionable safety. At one point, a tower block in London called Ronan Point partially collapsed after a natural gas explosion. In the present, the blocks have the exact problem that Jacobs describes; I was friendly with someone who lived in a tower block in Sighthill, and she said that she always kept the the deadbolt on and didn’t leave her flat at night. I found it very hard to imagine what life would be like, to have that kind of fear.
Speaking as a trainee historian of postwar Britain, the tower blocks are definitely important to the whole picture of economic and social history after 1945. I also think historical preservation in general is a good thing. But there is something utterly ludicrous about making a monument out of an urban planning disaster while it’s still needed to serve its original purpose.