The Idea of cooperation in the Garden City

Fernando Ernesto Pasquali, Architectural Association, UK / Unisinos University, Brazil,

fepasquali@gmail.com Abstract: This paper is about the idea of cooperation as a form of land tenure and housing development in the Garden City model as proposed by Ebenezer Howard, and how it relates to the principles of the cooperative movement. It concludes that the idea of cooperation was an important component of Ebenezer Howards proposals, but had limited expression on the disseminated Garden City developments around the globe. Keywords: Garden city; Cooperation; Land tenure. 1. INTRODUCTION Two main subjects are motivating and forming the basis for the hypothesis and argument of this essay. The first is the Garden City model. The second is the idea of cooperation as a form of land tenure and housing development. Ebenezer Howards proposals found in To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform are seen as the origin of the Garden City. These ideas had immense influence on various aspects of urban planning and practice, not just in the United Kingdom, but also worldwide. The idea of cooperation has also spread around the world. Its principles have formulated numerous associations with many different objectives. Its use as a form of land tenure and development of housing is, however, modest compared to the influence of the Garden City. The objective of this paper is to analyse the ideas of cooperation, especially regarding land tenure and housing development in the origins of the Garden City Movement, more precisely, in the proposal by Ebenezer Howard. 2. COOPERATION Cooperation is seen, for the purpose of this work, as the organisation of individuals according to certain principles originated from the experience of the Rochdale Pioneers. Since 1844, when the first cooperative shop was founded by the Rochdale Pioneers, many authors and organizations proposed changes in the original principles of cooperation. These resulted in some basic common agreements about the essence of a cooperative organization. Cooperative, as defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary is a farm, business, enterprise, etc. owned and run jointly by its members with profits or benefits shared among them. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1995). Cooperative can also be defined as in the Statement of the Cooperative Identity: A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. (The International Co-operative Alliance, 1996) To make the definition more precise, we could describe co-operative by emphasizing its main principles: Cooperatives are organizations open for everybody in which the association is voluntary. They have democratic control through the participation of all members with one vote, in which members contribute equally. They have limited return on the capital invested. Their objectives are meeting peoples economic needs, and the benefits are distributed among all members proportionally to their participation in the work. 3. EBENEZER HOWARD Howard was born in London, in 1850. He studied until the age of 15, and then started working as a clerk in the City of London. He grew up during the decades of optimism marked by the Great Exhibition of

1851. Not many years after start working, he was unsatisfied with his work and earnings. In 1871 after declining suggestions of considering a religious career, he emigrated to the United States. In Chicago, he met Cora Richmond, who was at this time, a celebrated trance medium in the United States. She grew up on a communitarian colony founded by Adin Ballou, called Hopedale, were all property was to be held in common. Attending Coras lectures on Spiritualism, Howard had contact with the social reform proposes by Cora. Communitarianism and cooperativism where between the aims. Howards predilection ...for communitarian schemes began in 1875 when he first heard Cora Richmond... (Buder, p.12) While he was in the United States, Howard cultivated ideas about social and urban problems. These issues became more important during the years following his return to the United Kingdom, where poverty was widespreading among farmers. The decade of the 1880s in England was a period of difficulties but also of radical thinking and proposals. During this period, Howard had contact or matured most of the concepts used in the Garden City Model. During this period, Land Nationalisation was in debate. Henry Georges book Progress and Poverty raised the debate about the inequalities created by the appropriation by landlords of the values of locality created socially. He proposes a system of taxation based on land values that would return to society, the increase in value generated by social investments, thus combating speculation on land. George saw speculation as one of the main factors of the growth of the nineteenth century cities. ...George denounced land speculation for its disastrous social consequences. It reduced living standards, exacerbated inequality of wealth, and created overcrowded cities and underutilized countryside. (Buder, p.16, 17) Alfred Russel Wallace was interested in the Land Question and had also been influenced by Georges Progress and Poverty. Wallace proposed that land should be nationalised. Differently from George, however, he said that the government should buy the land and rent to tenants. In 1881 The Land Nationalisation Society was founded in London to further Wallaces program. (Buder, p.20) Both George and Wallace were proposing that land, by being a limited resource, should be of common property. They also believed that basic services like telephones and gas should not be private. But apart from these, they believed in the market economy. By the end of the 1880s, Wallace was proposing the creation of home-colonies with government ownership of land and an economy based on collectivist principles. Alfred Marshall had a different view than George. Marshall argued that the housing question was caused by the growth of the great cities, by a concentration of too many people in compact areas. He said that the cause of this concentration was basically due to the industrial technologies at the time. This concentration had bad consequences for the economic life of the workers, raising rents and compressing wages. Marshall believed in the possibilities of new technologies to relocate certain industries outside the congested area, specially large-scale manufacturers. The problem of London, however, was more complicated. The main employment source was small workshops that, by not having the necessity of much space, wouldnt feel advantage in relocate. To solve the problem of London Marshall proposed the creation of a home colony with adequate houses for workers. He expected to convince companies to move to it relying in the argument that employees in such a salutary setting would prove more reliable and efficient. (Buder, p.19) In 1885 because of his own economic circumstances Howard proposed a sort of communitarian scheme for his family and his brothers. He planned to rent one big house for both families, sharing all the expenses. The proposal didnt go further but Howard kept alive the interest in associated or cooperative housing. The Cooperative Movement and cooperative enterprises at this time were very popular, specially in the area of distribution of goods, thus increasing the purchase capacity of the participants by eliminating the middleman. Although it was between the aims of the first cooperative shops to raise money to fund colonies, the achievements not just in this area but also in extending the principles to production were very low. Edward Bellamys utopian romance Looking Backward appeared in 1889. Howard was specially interested in Bellamys new social system, called Nationalism.

Bellamy proposes a society organised under a centralised state. Citizens would have guaranteed security, employment, leisure. The cities would look like parks with public laundries and central dining rooms. Bellamys combined state control of production and distribution with some individual initiatives in arts. The Nationalisation of Labour Society founded in 1890 was the counterpart to the American nationalist societies formed around this time to promote Bellamys vision. Howard became involved with the Society in the design of an experimental colony near London. In 1892, J Bruce Wallace organised a study group around Albert Kinsey Owens ideas for a planned American colony in Topolobampo, Mexico. The aim was to use the model of integral cooperation in a home colony. In Owens idea, means of production and distribution should be collectively owned to allow for economies of scale, (Buder, p. 43), while homes and residential lots were private, and some artisans were self-employed. Physically, the city was a combination of town and country. Wallace had developed a theory he called circle cooperation. This envisioned a gigantic network of interlinked producer and consumer cooperatives which, when combined with land nationalisation, would lead to a Cooperative Commonwealth, a fully socialist society. (Buder, p.56). Criticism of cooperative schemes at this time was strong, arguing that they were a form of combined individualism. In the eyes of Wallace, Owens integral cooperation solved the problem by having all community interests represented by a single company. Both looked at an individualistic form of socialism rather than a communist society, which still meant to them the older communitarian meaning of total sharing (Buder, p.56). A second important idea considered by Wallaces group was presented in Theodore Herzas utopian novel Freeland. He proposed a colony combining the freedom of individualism with the social justice of socialism. (Buder, p.56). Contrary to Owen, Herzas proposal allowed for private enterprise where the land and all the banks would be collectively owned. By the beginning of the 1890s, Howard was working as a stenographer with the Royal Commission of Labour. Following its discussions, Howard deepened his concerns and thoughts about unemployment, the problems of low wage workers, and the migration from countryside to the overcrowded cities. In 1892 he started to translate his thoughts into a concrete proposal for a new colony based on common ownership of land. His main objective was to show the social advantages of eliminating private landlordism. Howards first ideas were based on collective ownership of the economy and central management inspired by Bellamys Nationalism. With problems experienced by such experiments, like Owens Topolobampo colony, Howard shifted his position in alignment with that proposed by The Land Nationalisation Society, the idea that just the land would be held in common property. Howard became involved with Wallaces group, and formulated his Garden City scheme as an alternative to the original intention of a colony based on Owens integral cooperation.(Buder, p. 40) His proposal emphasises freedom and experimentation and thus was more in line with twentieth-century liberal thought. For the next few years Howard worked on his proposal as a book. He had the intention to regenerate society by setting out a model that, by its inspirational qualities, would be followed. After some frustrated attempts the book was published in 1898 under the title of To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. 4. THE GARDEN CITY PROPOSAL In the introduction to his book Howard presents the current consensus on the bad conditions of the cities in the end of the nineteenth century. He relates the problems to the overcrowding conditions caused by the migration from the country to the cities. Analysing the causes of this migration and aggregation of people in large cities he summarise cities as attractions. He concludes that whatever the solution to the question of overcrowding of the cities, it has to counterbalance these attractions, what means, it has to be attractive. He sees as necessary the return of people to the land, and raise this question as one of the main issues to solve the problems of society. Howard proposes the foundation of new cities that would combine the advantages of both, town and country, without the disadvantages of any of them. And calls it the town and country magnet. These cities would be the solution to the problem. Howard planned the foundation of the cities since the starting point

of formation of the company and acquisition of the land. The company would be held in the name of four gentlemen of responsible position and of undoubted probity and honour (Howard, p.13), representing the people of the Garden City. Ground rents would be paid to this trust, that would give the surplus to the Central Council of the new municipality. This revenue would be used not just to build and maintain all public infrastructure and services, but would also finance other benefits for the community, such as old-age pensions and accident or sickness insurances. For Howard, the objectives of this enterprise were to achieve better conditions to industrial workers, to agriculturists and also to enterprising manufactures and qualified professionals. The workers would have better living environment, more stable employment and receive salaries with increased purchasing power. The primary producers would have closer markets. The investors would have new and better employment for their capital and talents. (Howard, p.14. These objectives would be achieved by creating a healthy, natural and economic combination of town and country life, and this on land owned by the municipality. (Howard, p.14) The influences of cooperativist housekeeping principles in the Garden Cities proposal is easily identifiable. In describing the physical layout and organization of the city, Howard proposes, among other things, groups of houses with common gardens and co-operative kitchens. For Borden, Howards interest was ...concomitant with a well established nineteenth century tradition concerning social reform in general and co-operative housekeeping in particular. (Borden, p.2) These ideas were not just present in the first proposal, but continued to be develop and translated into architectural forms by the architects of the English Garden Cities. According to Borden both, the ideological content and the design of co-operative housing were given new form and substance by the Garden City architects Harold Clapham Lander and Raymond Unwin, transforming nineteenth century notions of co-operative living into architectural theory. (Borden, p.3) If the influences of cooperativist housekeeping principles in the Garden Cities proposal are clearly identifiable, the influences of cooperation in land tenure and organization of the building enterprises themselves are, however, not so transparent. First, the term cooperation is not used in direct association with land tenure. In trying to look at the principles behind the garden city proposal and comparing them to the cooperation principles, however, some connections can be made. The land ownership in the Garden City is property of the municipality, and not of a cooperative organizartion. But, the revenue generated by ground rent is to be applied in benefit of the same community. If we consider that the municipality is the institutional representation of its inhabitants, the concept is not far from that of cooperation. Or, the land is of common ownership and its revenue is to be reinvested in the community. It is probably worth saying here that, the difference between this model and other cities is that, by having private landlords, the public investments many times generate increase in values of the assets of these landlords, and thus, not being in benefit of the whole population. In the case of businesses, agricultural production, commerce and housing production, there are no fixed rules proposed by Howard. What appears in Garden Cities of To-morrow are some indications of possible ways, whit a good emphasis in cooperative schemes. In analysing separately each of the main cooperative principles, it can be said that: the principles of universality and voluntariness are met by Howards proposal. There were no particularly restraints or compromises for the move to and from the new city. Democratic control, or administration of the co-operatives is partly achieved in the Garden City. In theory, the actions of the municipal government should reflect the wishes of the population who elect their representatives or members of the board of management. This board would form the different departments of the municipal administration and the central council. But, the inhabitants would not participate directly in the decisions, what differs it from the co-operative systems. Regarding both principles, equally contribution among members and limited return to the capital invested, the Garden City is similar to cooperatives. The ground rents are related to the value of the land. The return on the initial capital invested is also limited. The surplus must be reinvested in the community like cooperative enterprises.

The last two basic principles of cooperatives, that the objectives are meeting peoples needs and the benefits must be distributed among all members, are probably the most important objectives of the Garden City as well. The path to achieving these aims is, however, not as direct as in the cooperatives where the profits can be distributed directly to the members. In the Garden City, most of the benefits are indirectly earned by the population. These can be in the form of reduced rents and taxes, better services, schools, hospitals. But it can also in some cases, be directly distributed in the form of retirement pensions, health insurances and so on. The move to the new city could be compared to the inscription as a member of a cooperative. Like coopeartives, the garden city proposal is not based uniquely in the economic needs of the members. It has also among its aims to provide better living environment, better employment conditions and increased purchase power. 5. CONCLUSION The relation between the ideas of cooperation and land tenure is not explicit in the Garden Cities of Tomorrow. However, the close analysis of the principles of both prove that they have much in common. More than that, both have characteristics that make them different from other proposals of the time, like communism or individualism, making them even closer. Regarding housing production and other enterprises, there was not one model to follow in Howards proposals, but some indications, were the idea of cooperation is explicitly relevant. Through the analyses of Howards influences during the maturing years of the Garden City proposal is even more clear this relation of his proposals to the cooperative principles and movement. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES: Bauer, Catherine. Modern Housing. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Beevers, Robert: The Garden City Utopia: A Critical Biography of Ebenezer Howard. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1988. Borden, Iain: Social Space and Co-operative Housekeeping in The English Garden City, article for the Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. London: Iain Borden, 1998. Buder, Stanley: Visionaries & Planners: The Garden City Movement and the Modern Community. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990. Howard, Ebenezer: Garden Cities of To-morrow. Powys: Attic Books, 1985. International Co-operative Alliance: Statement on the Co-operative Identity. Web page www.wisc.edu/uwcc/prin.htm/#pri, 27 jan 1998. Mercer, Thomas W.: Foundations of Co-operation: Rochdale Principles and Methods. Review of International Co-operation no.9 Sep 1931, in gropher://wiscinfo.wisc.edu:70/00/.infosource/.coop/.orgs/.ica/.pubs/.review/.vol-88-2/.5, 27 jan 1998. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.