Planning Under Fascism

Hayden Noble 641195  

In the first half of the 20th Century the world saw the emergence of a new and dangerous political ideology that would come to be known as Fascism. Fascist regimes rose to power within Italy, Germany and Japan contributing to a long list of mounting tensions which ultimately led to the outbreak of a second world war (Passmore, 2014). These fascist regimes communicated their perceived strength to the rest of the world not only through violence and aggression, but through the careful design of their cities. Perhaps the most notable of which was Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich and its long list of plans for the complete remodelling of many of Germany’s largest cities (Diendorf, 1993). Under Hitler’s regime Architecture and Urban Planning became tools that were used to physically reflect the ideals of the Nazi party. In order to form a clearer understanding of the Nazi’s plans and what would be the future reconstruction of many cities it is important to understand the sentiments of the German people in the years preceding the war.

Between WWI and WWII the popular consensus in Germany was that cities were unpleasant, congested  and sinful places. There was much support for the idea of entirely new and self sufficient garden cities that were isolated from the already established urban centres (Diendorf, 1993).  Many planners attempted to integrate the ideals of the garden city plans into their work throughout the 1920’s, most notable of whom was Fritz Schumacher. Schumacher realised the importance of transportation, industry, social issues and trade rather than simply the aesthetic appeal of the city (Diendorf, 1993). Schumacher’s concerns regarding the unregulated growth of cities and lack of thought into how they function are still incredibly relevant to cities of the 21st century.  After the Nazi’s came to power, however, it became apparent that the anti urban sentiment under their rule was not so much about a dislike of cities themselves, but the conflicting ideologies that were thriving within them at the time -  specifically western materialism (Dietz, 2008). Planners who had little work during the Great Depression now had great opportunities to continue their work  provided that they were willing to co operate with the Nazi Regime.

Figure 1: The People’s Hall, Part of the plan for a redesigned Berlin (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/artunderfascism/architecture)

Decentralisation of the population through garden cities was still a focus of Adolf Hitler’s plans for Germany, but he also began commissioning planners to work on the redesign of many of the countries largest and most important cities (Diendorf, 1993). Hitler envisioned that each of Germany’s great cities would have their own role to play as part of the Nazi Regime. The national capital (Berlin), the party rally grounds (Nuremberg), the world’s largest shipping port (Hamburg), and a capital of art and culture (Linz) were all part of the plan to show the strength and superiority of the Nazi Regime (Diendorf, 1993). In many of these cities plans were drawn up for large boulevards to be used primarily for party marches. Decades earlier, Haussmann successfully redesigned the city of Paris through the use of large boulevards to improve both the functioning of the city and it’s aesthetic appeal (Van Zanten, 1994). Similarities in design can be drawn between the two plans, however the important distinction was that Haussmann’s plans were a product of a desire to make Paris more functional, whereas Hitler’s plans were driven by the sinister motives of the Nazi Regime. Another stark contrast between Fascist/Nazi planning and more democratic approaches lies within the concept of participatory planning. To planners under the Nazi regime it was seen as counterproductive to involve the ‘citizenry’ in the planning process, and as the party had the power to acquire whatever land it needed it was not necessary to garner support from the community (Diendorf, 1993). Today it is well established that involving community consultation in the planning process ensures that the right outcomes are achieved for both the people and the function of the city ( Kil et al, 2014). The Nazi regime allowed planners to treat already well established cities in Germany as blank slates, but it was not until towards the end of the war that planners quite literally had the opportunity to rebuild cities from the rubble.

Figure 2: Hamburg in ruins (http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/03_The-World-since-1900/08_Post-War-Problems/pictures/Hamburg-in-ruins_1945.jpg)

After the allied air raids over Germany, much of the country was in ruins. Official figures show that many cities sustained damage well in excess of 50% of their built up areas. Hamburg, Dresden, Nuremberg and Cologne were all extensively damaged while smaller cities such as Bochum and Mainz were nearly completely levelled (‘Graph to show Devastation of German Cities’, 2014). Konstanty Gutschow, a planner and architect who had been working for Hitler throughout the war began to alter the city redesign plans into city reconstruction plans. The concept of garden cities was again brought back into play, in the form of decentralising large urban areas in order to protect the population from any future air raids (Diendorf, 1993). In areas of the cities that were totally devastated, Gutschow had a blank slate in which to redesign and make improvements that may not have been feasible had the cities still been standing (Diendorf, 1993). No longer was there a need for massive party marching grounds or monumental structures, giving planners an opportunity to focus on issues such as the class divisions in housing that existed in many of the old cities (Diendorf, 1993). By the end of the war it had become clear that much time and many resources had been wasted on Hitler’s grandiose plans for the redesign of cities that would never come to fruition, but it also meant that the planners involved would be well equipped to handle to enormous task that was rebuilding Germany after the war (Diendorf, 1993).

  

References

Dietz, B. (2008). Countryside-versus-City in European Thought: German and British Anti-Urbanism between the Wars. European Legacy-Toward New Paradigms, 13(7), 801-814.

Diendorf, J M. (1993). ‘Town Planning to 1945’ in In the Wake of the War: the Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II. New York, Oxford: Oxford UP 1993 pp. 151 - 180.

Kil, N., Holland, S., & Stein, T. (2014). Place Meanings and Participatory Planning Intentions. Society & Natural Resources, 27(5), 475-491.

Passmore, K. (2014). Fascism : a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Zanten, D. (1994). “Haussmann, Baltard and Municipal Architecture’ in Building Paris: Architectural Institutions and the Transformation of the French Capital, 1830-1870. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 198-213.

‘Graph to show Devastation of German Cities’, National Government Archives UK (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/hamburg/sources/docs/6/