Wright argues that urban design was strategically used as a tool to make colonialism more tolerable for colonized and more popular among colonizers. Analyzing three cities in French colonized North Africa: Indochina, Madagascar, and Morocco, she argues that urban culture was used in political endeavor.
She argues that the French modernized certain sections of the city like public health, industries, and supported certain other aspects (like building and maintaining opulent palaces for Sultans) so that the traditional values are preserved.
Main argument: French used the colonies as laboratories where they could experiment urban planning strategies that could be eventually implemented in the metropole: Paris, Lyon etc. They saw the colonies as tabula rasa. As administrators were seeking to maintain colonies without having to use military, they used architects, urban planners, geographers etc to introduce urban planning measures in the colonies. Through this they hoped that the colonized people would become loyal and appreciative of the French, and the French planners could test planning methods.
Contradictory methods were suggested in doing this. The early 19 century method called "assimilation" which was more heavy handed and hegemonic. French planners introduced standardized buildings, simplified geometric forms, and the city was imagined as a unified whole rather than as haphazard organic growth. French predominance in language, laws, and military dominance by destroying indigenous cities. As this process came under attack, primarily for moral reaons in the early 20th century, a second process called "association", that tried to respect indigenous traditions and architecture, and aimed to maintain a balance between modernization and preservation was introduced -- "laboratory for colonial life and conservatory for oriental life".
Morocco: Herbert Luatey - association - dual city - preserving the indigenous city with mosques and winding streets, and constructing an outer neighborhood for colonial officials. There was a no-construction zone between the two settlements - "sanitary corridor". The French quarters had large roads, sanitation, zoning guidelines but used Moroccan motifs in design and used to indigenous climatological design solutions. Habous districts were newly created as harmonious districts to accommodate growing population. These provided some facilities that old Arab cities lacked like sanitation and thoroughfares, but were still inherently Moroccan in cultural form. This became the western setting for tourism.
Indochina (Vietnam): Here too they wanted to strike a balance between modernization and preserving local architecture and culture. But the architects and planners only had superficial knowledge of the cultural differences. Herbard outlined a zoning plan that restricted uses for different districts in the city. But here the restriction and segregation was not not based on military dominance but relied on modern industry, financial development, cultural tolerance.
Madagascar: This island had resisted colonization for 100 years by refusing to built inland roads. But French abolished slavery, and forcibly put former slaves who migrated to cities to build roads. Seeing the success of Morocco and Indochina they wanted to follow a balanced model without disturbing local traditions unnecessarily. But since malaria and plague were major concerns they built wide roads outside the native city - cordon sanitaire - to segregate the population. But this separation did not help prevent mosquitoes, and the next governor general implemented standardized building with concrete, and uniform buildings were built for both Madagascar workers and French officials in place of old indigenous buildings.
Comments: Local voice is lost as Wright only narrates the story of French colonial urbanism and politics using references from French architects and planners. Were the lessons learnt in the colonies used in the metropole? What was the fate of these colonial designs post the nations' independence? How did the dual city model affect the natives' lives?
She argues that the French modernized certain sections of the city like public health, industries, and supported certain other aspects (like building and maintaining opulent palaces for Sultans) so that the traditional values are preserved.
Main argument: French used the colonies as laboratories where they could experiment urban planning strategies that could be eventually implemented in the metropole: Paris, Lyon etc. They saw the colonies as tabula rasa. As administrators were seeking to maintain colonies without having to use military, they used architects, urban planners, geographers etc to introduce urban planning measures in the colonies. Through this they hoped that the colonized people would become loyal and appreciative of the French, and the French planners could test planning methods.
Contradictory methods were suggested in doing this. The early 19 century method called "assimilation" which was more heavy handed and hegemonic. French planners introduced standardized buildings, simplified geometric forms, and the city was imagined as a unified whole rather than as haphazard organic growth. French predominance in language, laws, and military dominance by destroying indigenous cities. As this process came under attack, primarily for moral reaons in the early 20th century, a second process called "association", that tried to respect indigenous traditions and architecture, and aimed to maintain a balance between modernization and preservation was introduced -- "laboratory for colonial life and conservatory for oriental life".
Morocco: Herbert Luatey - association - dual city - preserving the indigenous city with mosques and winding streets, and constructing an outer neighborhood for colonial officials. There was a no-construction zone between the two settlements - "sanitary corridor". The French quarters had large roads, sanitation, zoning guidelines but used Moroccan motifs in design and used to indigenous climatological design solutions. Habous districts were newly created as harmonious districts to accommodate growing population. These provided some facilities that old Arab cities lacked like sanitation and thoroughfares, but were still inherently Moroccan in cultural form. This became the western setting for tourism.
Indochina (Vietnam): Here too they wanted to strike a balance between modernization and preserving local architecture and culture. But the architects and planners only had superficial knowledge of the cultural differences. Herbard outlined a zoning plan that restricted uses for different districts in the city. But here the restriction and segregation was not not based on military dominance but relied on modern industry, financial development, cultural tolerance.
Madagascar: This island had resisted colonization for 100 years by refusing to built inland roads. But French abolished slavery, and forcibly put former slaves who migrated to cities to build roads. Seeing the success of Morocco and Indochina they wanted to follow a balanced model without disturbing local traditions unnecessarily. But since malaria and plague were major concerns they built wide roads outside the native city - cordon sanitaire - to segregate the population. But this separation did not help prevent mosquitoes, and the next governor general implemented standardized building with concrete, and uniform buildings were built for both Madagascar workers and French officials in place of old indigenous buildings.
Comments: Local voice is lost as Wright only narrates the story of French colonial urbanism and politics using references from French architects and planners. Were the lessons learnt in the colonies used in the metropole? What was the fate of these colonial designs post the nations' independence? How did the dual city model affect the natives' lives?
