Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Geddes resurrected: The legacy of Sir Patrick Geddes in contemporary

urban planning in Tel Aviv
Nir Mualam
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

• The 2015 plan is an adaptation of the

original 1925 plan compiled by Sir
Geddes.
• Although on a much larger scale, the
new plan adopts similar design prin-
ciples.
• The original Geddes plan still serves
as a relevant commodity for city plan-
ners.
• 21st century planners turned to Ged-
des for inspiration.
• It remains questionable whether
Geddes’ civic principles were fully
realized.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper examines Sir Geddes’ impact on contemporary city planning in Tel Aviv. In particular, whether
Received 6 July 2015 and in what way previous work by Geddes has influenced 21st century planners in Tel Aviv. The paper
Received in revised form 23 August 2016 reviews those issues by looking at one of the most ambitious plans the city of Tel Aviv has generated in
Accepted 3 September 2016
recent years—the 2015 “Northwestern Plan”.
Available online 16 September 2016
In the winter of 2015, the new plan was enacted. The plan aims to create a new residential quarter
on one of the last remaining sand dunes. This represents an attempt to create a mixed-use extension of
Keywords:
the 1925 Geddes Plan for Tel Aviv by establishing a new district filled with expansive boulevards, parks,
Tel Aviv
Geddes
and public spaces. While the municipal authorities regarded the recently enacted plan as a successful
Israel adaptation of Geddes’ urban vision, antagonists perceived it as a publicity stunt, designed to brand the
Garden cities new district. The article explores these arguments, analyzes the social, economic and morphological
Evolution principles embedded in the new plan, and compares them to those employed by Geddes 90 years ago.
Planmaking The analysis reveals that the original plan compiled by Geddes still serves as a relevant commodity for
city planners, and as an inspirational source. 21st century planners involved in enacting the new plan
turned to Geddes for inspiration however it remains questionable whether his ideology, civic principles,
and conceptual approach to the city were fully realized in the new plan.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

E-mail address: nirmualam@hotmail.com

In this paper I examine Sir Geddes’ impact on contemporary
city planning in Tel Aviv. In particular, whether and in what way
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.008
0169-2046/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
58 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70

Fig. 1. Southern parts of the elevated coastal sand dune where an urban park is to
be located.
(Source: the author)

Geddes’ previous work has influenced the work of 21st century

planners in Tel Aviv. I examine these issues by looking at one of the
most ambitious plans the city of Tel Aviv has produced in recent
years.
In the winter of 2015, the District Planning Commission (DPC)
of Tel Aviv enacted a new “Northwestern Plan” (also known as Plan
No. 3700). The plan is for a new residential quarter on one of the last
remaining sand dunes in Tel Aviv and it designs a walkable district
filled with landscaped parks and boulevards, public spaces, and a
hierarchical set of streets. Following a long process of consultations,
the new plan has become one of Tel Aviv’s most comprehensive
master plans to date.
While media reports regard this plan as an innovation inspired
by Sir Patrick Geddes’ 1925 Plan of Tel Aviv, (Halperin, & Ganor,
2012; Kedmi, 2004), those claims have not been thoroughly inves-
tigated.
In order to fill this gap, the paper focuses on the principles
embedded in the new so-called ‘Geddesian’ plan, and explores to
what extent it is indeed inspired by the legacy of Sir Geddes in that
it creates a mixed-use extension of the 1925 Geddes Plan. Notably,
objectors to the plan argued that the reference to Geddes in the Fig. 2. The study area.
plan-making process was a superficial attempt to embody Geddes’
principled work, and that the spirit of Geddes is not present in Plan
3700 (Regional Planning Committee, 2011). To its south, Plan 3700 borders with an area known as Sde-
The Tel Aviv Northwestern Plan presents a unique opportunity Dov—a local airport which is due to be cleared and replaced by
to study the relevance of Geddes’ work and its evolution into a 21st future residential development (Tel Aviv Strategic Plan, 2005).
century master plan for a contemporary city. The analysis focuses However, despite plans to move the airport to another location, it
on Geddes’ original 1925 plan for Tel Aviv as a possible commodity is still active and therefore imposes height limitations on the sur-
used by those developing the new plan. Thus the paper reinforces rounding built-up area. In fact, the area covered by the local airport
current literature which examines the re-discovery of Geddes by is still unplanned, and acts as a barrier between the area of Plan
city planners. 3700 and the city center (Fig. 2).
In order to compare the new plan with that of Geddes, I under-
line the key attributes of Geddes’, 1925 plan for Tel Aviv, which
1.1. The study area
covers most of what is known today as the city center. Fig. 2 com-
pares the geographic area of Plan 3700 (1900 dunams) and its
The new 2015 plan covers an area of 1900 metric dunams
neighboring Sde-Dov airport (1100 dunams) with the existing city
(approximately 470 acres), in the northwest of Tel Aviv. The pro-
center, planned by Geddes. The comparison illustrates that the two
posed area is situated in one of the last remaining sand dunes in the
sections of Tel Aviv (northwest and city center) are almost equal in
city, an area which is bordered by the Mediterranean in the West,
size: the total area of the unplanned northwest is approximately
and Namir Road in the East (Figs. 1 and 2).
3000 dunams (741 acres), which is almost equal to the approxi-
Fig. 2 displays the study area located north to the Yarkon (Auja)
mate area of 3030 dunams (based on GIS estimation) previously
River. Since the 1950s, the DPC made several local plans which
planned by Geddes.1 The ‘Geddesian’ area of the city center is bor-
extended Tel Aviv northwards. The resulting, relatively new, neigh-
borhoods include homogenous suburbs as primary forms of urban
development. In the process of development of these western parts
of the city, the area covered by Plan 3700, remained relatively 1
Biger (1992) notes that originally, Geddes was commissioned to plan an area of
untouched. 2640 dunams (Biger, 1992, p.5), an area which was later extended to 3269 dunams.
 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
Fig. 3. Map of Plan 3700: North-western Quarter for Tel Aviv.
dered by the Yarkon River to its north, Ibn Gabirol Street to its east,
and Bugrashov Street to its south.
Fig. 3 shows the details of the new plan (No. 3700), as enacted by
the planning authorities. The plan covers the area situated between
the Mediterranean to the west, Namir Road to the east, Propes
Street to the south and the northern border of the city.
2. Methods and materials
In evaluating the 2015 plan, I analyzed its statutory provisions
and design supplements. In addition, the article is based on notes
and transcripts from discussions leading to the plan’s approval;
in particular I searched the archives of Tel Aviv-Jaffa municipality
and the Ministry of Interior for transcripts of the hearing pro-
cess in which objections to the new plan were heard. The analysis
also draws on media coverage of the 2015 plan, as well as on 20
quasi-structured interviews I conducted with municipal planners,
district-level officials, project managers, objectors to the plan, and
key informants who took part in the process which led to the enact-
ment of the 2015 plan. I identified the interviewees following a
thorough analysis of transcripts of discussions leading to the Plan’s
enactment, and also through a snowball interview technique. Each
interview lasted 30–120 min. I obtained additional data directly
from the informants. These sources present a wide-angle view on
debates concerning the ‘correct’ interpretation of the work of Ged-
des and its impact on the new plan.
3. Previous knowledge: Geddes’ legacy for city planning
What does existing scholarship inform us about the legacy of
Geddes, and in particular his legacy pertaining to Tel Aviv? It is
59
safe to say that there is no single “legacy” of Sir Geddes; he left
his signature in many disciplines, including botany, city planning,
and sociology (Studholme, 2007). As a practitioner, Geddes expe-
rienced a high degree of scrutiny, some unappreciative colleagues,
and a failure, in his lifetime and beyond, to realize some of his plans
(Mairet, 1957). In addition his colleagues frequently regarded him
as an odd-ball eccentric, whose ideas were infeasible (Hall, 2002,
p.145–146).
Despite his critics, the recognition of the value of his ventures
began soon after his death in 1932, with fellow academics and prac-
titioners who were “able to appraise him more objectively and, in
consequence, more generously (Boardman, 1978, p.437). Geddes’
legacy is seen as one which embraces comprehensive city-planning
‘relating physical planning to the natural environment, integrating
it with sociology and economics and always taking into account
the people and their way of life’ (Caves, 2005, p.194). Meller (1990)
hails him for preventing wholesale demolitions and adopting a
holistic approach to planning which underscored the importance
of townsfolk’s health.
Boardman highlights Geddes’ commitment to people and places,
a commitment which explains Geddes’ critique of plan-making pro-
cesses which are “hypnotized by money” (Boardman, 1978, p.438).
Likewise, Meller (1990, p.299) stresses Geddes’ unique understand-
ing of the connection between social and personal development,
and the built environment. Talen (2005, p.198) links Geddes’ think-
ing to contemporary neo-urbanist principles. More particularly,
Talen views Geddes as one of the forefathers of smart growth, an
approach which emphasizes city form, compact neighborhoods and
self-contained planned communities.
As for previous studies pertaining to Tel Aviv, there is some
evidence that even before the initiation of Plan 3700, Geddes’ prin-
ciples had gained traction in Tel Aviv. In this respect, Mairet (1957)
notes that although Geddes’ plan for Tel Aviv has been altered
due to an unforeseen wave of immigration, his planning legacy
still lives on, as “one finds planners and administrators who know
what they owe to Geddes for the principles that he laid down. . .to
them. . .Geddes remains a historic figure who changes the concep-
tion of their craft” (p.213–214).
Like Mairet, Biger (1992) finds that Geddes’ original plan for Tel
Aviv continued to serve its spatial development and “to this day,
his ideas have continued to influence the high standard of build-
ing design in that area.” In a similar vein, Geddes was perceived
as “a planner who sensitively served the local, traditional com-
munity” (Hysler-Rubin, 2013, p.129). In fact, Baruch Yoscovitz, the
former city planner of Tel Aviv, regards Geddes as the greatest plan-
ner of the 20th century whose impact on Tel Aviv was critical in
establishing an orderly and comprehensive process for action, and
facilitating the city’s growth (Yoscovitz, 2001, p.36). Like Yoscovitz,
Payton’s analysis highlights the importance of Geddes’ model for
Tel Aviv which contributes to “a successful modernist urban land-
scape” predicated on pedestrian-friendly streets and orderly layout
which facilitates vibrant urban life (Payton, 1995, p.377).
In addition, Geddes’ plan, in its enacted form (Plan No. 58), is a
foundational statutory document which to this day serves the city
of Tel Aviv, its administration, and city planners. Discussions before
courts and planning tribunals often invoke the plan’s principles and
deliberate whether certain building projects are in accordance with
Geddes’ vision (Mualam, 2012). Legal databases indicate that Ged-
des’ plan has been the subject of at least 100 decisions made in a
variety of law cases.2
2
A search we conducted in Nevo (http://www.nevo.co.il, a case-law database)
produces over 100 results indicating that Geddes’ plan is often the subject of legal
controversy in Israeli jurisprudence. The controversy usually focuses on the proper
interpretation of the plan. For example, in Administrative Appeal No. 15456-05-
60 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
Fig. 4. Left to right: the 1925 plan by Geddes (a), and its 1931 version (b).
Source: Municipal archives.
On the other hand, several scholars adopt a more critical
approach to Geddes’ plan for Tel Aviv. Some note that Geddes’ idea
of a garden-city created confusion and havoc owing to Tel Aviv’s fast
growth (Weill-Rochant, 2003). Likewise, Hysler-Rubin (2013) finds
that Geddes’ legacy has been subject to constant re-interpretation
by city planners in Tel Aviv: While in some periods of history his
plan was considered a failure and the reason for Tel Aviv’s deteriora-
tion and its urban problems, since the 1970s, it has been portrayed
as a masterpiece that has helped to shape the future of the city’s
development.
Overall, existing accounts of the legacy of Geddes’ plan in Tel
Aviv are not systematic and most are not anchored in real life plan-
ning processes. Given these former accounts, the following sections
discuss the legacy of Sir Geddes in Tel Aviv in light of the new ini-
tiative of Plan No. 3700, enacted in 2015. I inquire whether Geddes’
20th century plan for Tel Aviv has had a meaningful impact on 21st
century planning, and if so, in what way.
4. Geddes’ philosophy and the 1925 plan for Tel Aviv
In order to compare the 2015 plan with the original 1925 plan,
I begin by outlining key components in Geddes’ approach to plan-
ning, with special emphasis on Tel Aviv as a site for their realization.
Geddes adopted several scientific, societal, and spatial principles
11 Ahuva Atlas vs. Tel Aviv’s Appeal Tribunal [2013] the court deliberated height
limitations imposed by Geddes.
which are fundamental for understanding his way of thinking.
These principles are present in his 1925 plan for Tel Aviv, yet it is
questionable whether they also underlie the initiative of planning
its new urban district.
Current research identifies Geddes’ work in Tel Aviv as embody-
ing humanistic (Marom, 2013) and rational principles. These ideas
led Geddes to envision a utopian garden suburb in which built form
and nature are married to create a livable environment where peo-
ple can thrive (Kallus, 1997; Mann, 2006). Geddes also portrayed
a societal utopia, where a cohesive community lives, works, and
recreates (Geddes, 1909, p.56). Scholars agree that in his pioneering
work, Geddes sought to embrace a mixture of city-scape and natu-
ral landscape (Weill-Rochant, 2003, 2009) although some question
whether his vision of a ‘city’ was intended to create a lively urban
environment or rather a ‘de-centrist’ and quiet suburban village
(Jacobs, 1992, p.20–21).
Throughout his career, Geddes often addressed the feasibility
and economics of development in his plans (Mercer, 1997). In Tel
Aviv, Geddes attempted to convince the City’s administration to
follow his plan by relying on social as well as economic arguments,
such as the low cost of urban gardens and their functional impor-
tance for the townsfolk’s health (Geddes, 1925).
While Geddes can be viewed as one of the forefathers of mod-
ern planning, his attempts to create a rationalized environment did
not ignore pre-modern elements (Geddes, 1909, p.58). In fact, he
believed in historic continuity, past experiences (Odum, 1944), and
the emergence of a new modern city—Tel Aviv- out of the older Jaffa.
Geddes therefore strived to follow a careful evolutionary process in
 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
Fig. 5. Nordau Boulevard, March 2015. The northernmost ‘green vein’ designated
by Geddes. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Source: The Author.
Fig. 6. Ben-Gurion Boulevard (formerly Keren Kayemet Boulevard), March 2009. A
typical ‘green vein’ designed by Sir Geddes. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Source: The Author.
which one part of the city grows from another (Geddes, 1925, p.1)
(Fig. 4).
Geddes’ rational approach to planning was realized in a struc-
tured method (Goist, 1974; Geddes 1915, p.339), which includes a
survey followed by analysis and a plan (hence the process is also
known as SAP—survey, analyze, plan). In Tel Aviv, the outcome of
this procedural approach was a ‘rationalized’ spatial form which
relied on a hierarchical set of streets and an intelligible built envi-
ronment, inclusive of repetitive patterns of city blocks, and inner
gardens (Payton, 1995). Some scholars, however, argue that Ged-
des failed to practice what he preached, and that his method for
planning was not very rational, but rather influenced by intuitive
thinking about the problems and tasks that lay ahead (Faludi, 1974;
Hyman, 1994).
Looking into Geddes’ Tel Aviv plan prescriptions, map, and
town planning report (Geddes, 1925), I propose that it is pos-
sible to dissect Geddes’ plan into 7 key features. These features
are inter-related and provide the physical backbone of his envi-
sioned city: First, a grid of intersecting streets. Primary streets were
designated as north-south arteries which were intersected by east-
west secondary streets leading to the sea. These secondary streets
included ‘green veins’, namely boulevards that functioned as elon-
gated urban parks and communal meeting places (Figs. 5 and 6). In
retrospect, however, most of those east-west arteries did not reach
61
the coastline but instead were blocked by main roads and other
man-made obstacles which diminished their functionality.
The Geddesian grid gave birth to a second morphological fea-
ture in Geddes’ plan—the urban block (also called the ‘home block’),
which functioned as a building block of the plan (Kallus, 1997).
Geddes’ block included narrower (minor) streets that gave access
to the dwellings and public spaces which were inserted inside the
block (Payton, 1995). These urban blocks were different from each
other and varied in size, but the ideology behind them was the
same; the creation of a walkable city inclusive of small-scale neigh-
borhood units which in turn would give birth to a cohesive urban
community.
A third feature of the plan is the inner public space. Generally,
in each urban block Geddes strived to include a small urban garden
or an open public space for communal purposes (Geddes, 1925).
At times this interior public space inside the block was dedicated
to a kindergarten or other public uses (also called in planning par-
lance ‘brown’ spaces, because of their brown coloring on the town
planning scheme).
A fourth identifiable feature of the plan was the mixture of resi-
dential units and commerce, which sought to integrate ‘town, folk,
and work’ (Hysler-Rubin, 2011). In the main arteries, the primary
streets that traverse the plan from south to north, Geddes allowed
for mixed use development; commercial uses on ground floors, and
residential units on upper levels. Some have recognized this fea-
ture as a ‘neo-urbanist’ component of the plan, which enabled the
creation of a compact and livable city.
A fifth component of the plan was low-density urbanism. Ged-
des planned a city of about 100,000 inhabitants (Biger, 1992), a less
dense city than that of Le Courbousier, but a much denser city than
the one envisioned by Ebenezer Howard. Accordingly, the city was
planned to accommodate low-rise development- up to 4 floors in
commercial areas and dwellings of up to 2 floors. Geddes arranged
these dwellings around a grid (Geddes, 1925, p.19). Those on pri-
mary or secondary streets were accessible from street-level and
enjoyed a proximity to the urban hustle-bustle. Dwellings which
faced the insides of the urban block enjoyed tranquility and were
somewhat removed from the cacophony of urban life. With this mix
of urban forms, Sir Geddes created diversity and afforded choice to
those living in the city.
A sixth feature, closely related to the inner public spaces, relates
to the mixture of city and nature. Geddes consciously introduced
elements of nature into the urban fabric with the intention of
creating an urban village, a highly landscaped built environment
(Payton, 1995). Thus, in addition to the creation of small-scale
inner city gardens, Geddes envisaged tree-lined boulevards (such
as Keren Kayemet Le’Yisrael), a coastal park, and dwellings that
included front yards and fruit trees. The city itself was to enjoy
uninterrupted views to the sea, the main natural resource of the
city.
A seventh feature was a careful consideration of the city’s design
in light of its topography. Geddes located grand civic buildings on
higher ground, and envisioned a ‘sea-shore drive’ that would ‘run
along the upper edge of the sands’ (Geddes, 1925, p. 29). He located
a large open park on a cliff overlooking the sea, and also highlighted
the importance of keeping ‘hills and hollows’ (p. 30). The topog-
raphy was therefore not a constraint but rather an opportunity to
enhance symbolic capital, to create legible spaces, and to maximize
climatic advantages.
Overall, all seven components of the 1925 plan for Tel Aviv have
influenced the city’s development in one way or another. However,
Geddes legacy for 21st century planners remains unclear. On this
basis, the next section moves on to explore an ongoing attempt to
decipher Geddes’ plan and analyze its DNA in order to implant it in
present plans.
62 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
5. Plan 3700 beginnings
In 2000 Tel Aviv’s municipal planners resolved that the time
was ripe for planning a new northwestern district for the city.
By then, the city had grown to 354,000 citizens and had become
a cultural and financial hub. The out-migration prevalent in the
1960’s–1980’s—had ceased and instead, newcomers were flocking
to the city. The head city planner, Mr. Danny Kaiser, together with
the head of a the municipal planning team Ms. Francine Davidi,
commissioned Kolker–Kolker–Epstein Architects (a private com-
pany) to work closely with the municipal planners on a new plan.
The plan was named “Tel Aviv Plan No. 3700—The Northwestern
District”.
When the resulting proposed plan was released to the public,
it quickly became a contentious document, spurring objections by
both landowners and environmental NGOs who battled the munic-
ipality and demanded changes to the plan.
A ‘steering committee’ was established which included the
municipal planners together with different stakeholders- including
government offices, landowners, and the Regional Planning Com-
mission – and headed by chief district planner Naomi Angel – who
coordinated the process. The team collected information about the
planned area including ownership rights and the statutory limi-
tations imposed by upper-level plans. A major concern was the
need to protect the coastline, and to create an urban park along-
side the western boundary of the plan. It soon became clear that an
elongated park, 250 m wide, would have to be formed in order to
comply with national-level requirements for protecting the coast-
line (Informant 15). In addition, the planners had to work through
height limitations imposed by the plan’s proximity to a local airport
(Sde-Dov airfield).
Thus, one planner notes:
Our hands were pretty tied. We had to ensure that landown-
ers get their share of building rights, and we also had several
constraints such as Sde-Dov airfield and the coastline park on
which nothing could be built (Informant 1).
The initial stages also included several internal workshops ini-
tiated by the City’s planning team. Their aim was to familiarize
the planning team with the statutory limitations, topography, and
natural values of the area (Informant 6). Following these work-
shops, several strategic planning alternatives were put forward.
One alternative was to continue the suburban pattern of develop-
ment, typical of north Tel Aviv, which does not include mixed uses
but rather relies on attracting families with children to homoge-
nous residential neighborhoods dotted with parks and commercial
centers. Another alternative placed emphasis on “a city open to the
sea,” but the planning team debated how this would be achieved.
In one meeting Mr. Kolker drew the silhouettes of a mixed use dis-
trict, based on the familiar Gedessian urban syntax. The municipal
planners were thrilled with the result:
In one of our early meetings Kolker came with a sketch, and we
soon said ‘yes! This is the future plan!’. It had a clear urban form,
with the continuation of Ibn Gabirol Street northwards, and
new boulevards that cross the urban fabric westwards into the
coast. The sketch put things right. Things became much clearer
afterwards (Informant 2).
As for the role played by the general public, one of the munic-
ipal planners noted that public participation included preliminary
meetings with strong groups of landowners who wished to max-
imize the building rights granted to them (Informant 2). Overall,
however, participation was limited to the processes spelled out by
the Israeli Planning and Building Act, which stipulates that objec-
tors may be heard, and landowners may appeal the decisions of the
planning institutions who, in turn, may appoint an “investigator”
to hear those objecting to the plan.
Indeed, an investigator was appointed who, over the course of
several meetings, heard landowners contesting the building rights
allocated to them, as well as environmental NGOs who argued that
the plan harms the coastline and would have detrimental impact
on natural resources that can be found in Tel Aviv’s remaining sand
dunes.
Throughout this process planners evoked Geddes’ ideas as a
starting point for the new planning initiative. The following analy-
sis therefore examines whether at the end of the planning process,
and throughout, Geddes’ visions about the city and its function,
were adhered to, and whether these visions have been impactful.
6. Findings
6.1. Analysis of key physical attributes of the 2015 plan:
evolution, not revolution
Interviews with Tel Aviv planners and others involved in the
process imply that the municipal planning team adopted an evo-
lutionary approach in planning the new residential quarter. Put
bluntly by Ms. Davidi: “This was about evolution, not revolution,
and we were looking at central Tel Aviv for inspiration” (Informant
1). In particular, like in the 1925 plan, the 2015 plan constructs
the city around a grid; three primary streets, aligned as north-
south arteries, interwoven with a network of six secondary streets,
aligned as east-west arteries leading to the coastline (Fig. 7). This
was an informed attempt inspired by Geddes’ grid:
It was the point of departure. . .an urban neighborhood, a city
linked to the sea, tilted toward the sea, with linear intersecting
routes. Inserting six arteries directed to the sea is a Geddesian
act (Informant 1).
In fact, one interviewee opined that the urban grid adopted
in the new plan (Fig. 7), very much resembles to that applied by
Geddes:
Had we resurrected Geddes, he would have recognized Plan
3700 as an offspring of his original plan. Part of it is the
“readability" of the urban fabric. This is a similar component
in both plans. There is an “inside world" arranged inside urban
blocks, a system, a repetitive order” (Informant 2).
Interestingly, the city planners sought to learn from past expe-
riences and therefore designed the streets leading to the sea in a
fashion which allowed openings and clear views of the coastline
(Informant 10). Unlike the Geddes plan, which left open the pos-
sibility of future development that would block the views to the
coast, the new plan directs the new boulevards towards the nat-
ural ravines situated in between the cliffs which overlook the sea
(Fig. 8). This act ensures that city-scape and natural landscape can
co-exist.
In between this network, the municipal planners designed
urban blocks, similar to those created by Sir Geddes, which include
an inner network of smaller streets (‘home ways’), designed to serve
the local population using or living in each block. According to Plan
3700, each urban unit, or block, includes a communal space- a local
garden or an area dedicated to public institutions such as schools
or kindergartens (Fig. 9).
The city planners realized that the layout established by Geddes
and the principles embedded in his plan have survived the passage
of time and have created a vibrant city. Therefore, the geographical
features of Geddes’ plan were to be replicated, although on a much
larger scale:
 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
Fig. 7. A network of six streets and boulevards leading west into the seashore.
Source: Author adaptation from Kolker, Kolker, and Epstein (2009).
It was an attempt to create a new Geddesian block. To do
good. To construct clear urban blocks. . .a safe environment
for children without harming the urban characteristics of a
Fig. 8. Landscape and the city: The design of a street network overlooking the seashore.
Source: Kolker et al. (2009).
63
Fig. 9. The main features of an urban block in Plan 3700.
Source: Author Adaptation from Kolker et al. (2009).
city which consists of major mixed-use thoroughfares, while
allowing ‘softer’ activities to be concentrated inside each block
(Informant 2).
In the new quarter, urban blocks function as a separate ‘neigh-
borhood unit’, a semi-independent residential area which adds to
a network of similar blocks (Fig. 10).
Besides the grid, the block, and inner spaces, the new plan is
comparable to the older one in other ways to. When looking at the
seven key features of the original plan, it is possible to reach addi-
tional comparative conclusions. The following table compares key
physical attributes of the new plan, with those applied by Geddes:
The comparison provides a snapshot analysis of similarities,
but also of some notable differences between the two plans in
question. On one hand, it is evident that the planners of the new
quarter strived to employ significant, and older, motifs in the new
plan (Informant 13) particularly those relating to the seven main
64 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
Fig. 10. The creation of a network of urban blocks that contain inner gardens and
public spaces.
physical features I have outlined above. This was therefore an evo-
lutionary process, not revolutionary, at least with respect to the
physical aspect of the plan.
The head of the municipal planning team explained how the
new plan intentionally sought to learn from the urban principles
embedded in central Tel Aviv, an area laid out by Sir Geddes:
We, together with Architect Ofer Kolker, decided to compile
a plan which would be an interpretation of the city center. It
was a conscious decision. . .it was not to become a suburban
neighborhood like the ones typical of northern Tel Aviv, such
as Ramat Aviv which is ‘anti-Geddes’ by definition. We wanted
to throw away the idea of ‘dormitory neighborhoods’. This was
the foundation. . .an urban neighborhood, and a city linked to
the sea, open to the sea (Informant 1).
This quote illuminates how city planners chose to move away
from the concept that plagued Tel Aviv for decades, a concept
which dictated a suburban typology, including random high-rises
placed next to commercial centers and parks. This pattern had cre-
ated homogenous neighborhoods where commerce was separated
from residential use. In fact, prior to Plan 3700, the municipality
attempted to plan these northwestern parts, adopting a pattern
of suburban and homogenous development, which until then had
characterized the development of most of the northern parts of the
city. Thus, the new plan was an attempt to mend past mistakes and
to create a newer, and better, urban fabric- a motivation which was
not alien to Geddes (Welter, 2012, p. 302).
The main Geddesian principle from which the new plan departs
is low-density urbanism; opting instead for much higher densities.
Architect Kolker explained that the simplicity of the plan led to its
rapid adoption by the planning authorities. His description of the
merits of the plan relates directly to Geddes, although – as Kolker
explains – low densities were not applied owing to changing needs
and population in the city:
This model is like a Eurovision song. You enter a room humming
it, and then everyone in the room ends up singing. This model
is easy to grasp, and its simplicity enters your heart. . .however
Geddes started with urban villas and 2-floor residential build-
ings, and [today] the city is filled [with people] and life is
gradually embroidered on it (Informant 14).
Despite this sense of confidence, critics raised doubts about the
design features of the new plan. Specifically, whether they will be
able to recreate the same civic engagement with the surrounding
and the communal feel that is so dominant in the older Geddesian
plan:
“I think the new quarter will be. . .fun to live in, by the sea, suit-
able for modern life, yet less intimate. . . but what can you do? In
the Geddes’ historical plan you find intimacy that people like. . .”
(Informant 4)
Another critic, who opposed the plan argued that “it looks lovely.
I’ve seen the illustrations, but the adjacent neighborhood is a sub-
urban one. . .so I do not understand how they will be able to insert
Plan 3700 right next to its suburban surrounding of Northern Tel
Aviv? How will things connect? I believe that at the end of the day it
will be another suburban neighborhood” (Informant 8). This argu-
ment questions a key rationale of the plan, namely the creation of
a legible urban syntax that would help the city avoid the creation
of another detached and suburban neighborhood of ‘towers in the
park’ (Halperin & Ganor, 2012).
In order to avoid presentation of the new plan in a rather reduc-
tive physical format, it is essential to go beyond the physique and
analyze the values ingrained in the two plans. Specifically, the Ged-
desian plan intended to generate a city with active urban life, and
active involvement of its citizens. For example, Geddes advocated
for a group of urban dwellers who grow fruit, harvest vegetables in
urban gardens, and engage in meaningful life surrounded by nature
and cultural venues. It is therefore essential to compare a range of
issues that characterize Geddes’ work and examine their evolution
into a 21st century master plan for a contemporary city.
6.2. Ideological comparison of other aspects of the new plan and
the original 1925 plan
Is there an ideological connection between the new plan and
that of Geddes or does the new plan only superficially mimic the
physical features of the older plan? In other words, does the rele-
vance of Geddes to 21st century planning transcends the physical
aspects of city-making?
Interviewees indicated that Geddes’ plan functioned as a com-
prehensive starting point, but one which could be adapted to future
urban trends, new building codes, and the daily routines of Tel
Aviv’s inhabitants in the 21st century (Informant 6). Table 1 com-
pares the two plans. The comparison is not comprehensive but
rather designed to give the reader a bird’s-eye view of several
components in both plans. The comparison highlights evident sim-
ilarities but also gross differences.
Notably, the ideas, issues, and principles that foreground the
older plan are also traceable in what appears to be an adaptation
 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70 65

Table 1
Comparative analysis of the physical attributes of both plans.

The original Geddes Plan (1925) The new Northwestern Plan (2015)

General Plan area Approximately 3000 dunams.
Population Geddes planned for a garden city of 100,000
inhabitants. Since the city already contained
34,000 people at the time of planning, Geddes
envisioned around 66,000 newcomers.
Physical design 1. THE GRID Morphology: The grid. Carefully crafted road layout; a hierarchy of
features streets which creates a distinct grid on a
north-south and east-west axis.
Geddes can be seen as one of the prophets of
‘physicalism’ (Batty & Marshall, 2009). In
planning Tel Aviv, Geddes therefore
emphasized utopian city form, which consists
of a distinct grid.
The grid: Boulevards Geddes planned ‘green veins’ which functioned
as places of recreation. 5 major boulevards
were planned: Keren Kayemet Leyisrael,
Nordau, Chen, Ben-Zion, and Rothschild
Boulevards).
The grid: Narrower road system which did not
Other Streets anticipate vehicular traffic.
2. BLOCK & 3. INNER Urban blocks and inner Roughly 300 m × 200 m blocks featuring inner
SPACES public gardens communal gardens or public spaces.
Lot size inside urban No more than 560 square meters per lot.
blocks
4. MIX Mixed use Geddes allowed a mixture of uses in main
arteries and in pre-designated areas.
5. URBAN DENSITY Population density Geddes regarded 12 people per dunam as an
appropriate maximum density in the new plan
(Geddes, 1925, p.15), although he accepted
lower densities following Unwin’s
prescriptions (Unwin, 1909).
Densities and Height To achieve low densities the plan typically
limitations adopts the view that buildings should not
exceed 2 floors, although in some areas up to 4
floors were allowed
6. CITY & NATURE City and Nature mixed Geddes envisioned a large urban park on a cliff
together facing the coastline.
Also, a mix of natural and built environments
in the form of boulevards.
7. TOPOGRAPHY Topography in the Topographic considerations are vital for city
service of the city building; Geddes emphasized the importance
of keeping a fine sea-view and protecting the
highest cliffs overlooking the beach (Geddes,
1925, p.30). Likewise he also conceived
topographical assets – “hills and hollows” – as
an essential consideration in the decision of
locating grand civic buildings, an open air
theatre (Geddes, 1925, p.32) as well as a road
(sea-shore drive) overlooking the sea.
1900 dunams (3000 dunams including the
adjoining area of the local airfield).
The plan anticipates 38,000 new inhabitants in
the new quarter (Informant 11, personal
communication, May 13, 2015).
A gridiron pattern of roads; a hierarchy of
primary and secondary streets oriented on a
north-south and east-west axis; creating a
network of 3 primary street and 6 secondary
arteries. Similar to the older plan, the new one
includes local, smaller ‘home ways’ inside the
blocks.
Similar concept.
The planners designed one major boulevard,
surrounded by 2 secondary boulevards, and 3
additional landscaped streets, all of which lead
westward to the coast (Fig. 7).
Wider roads and special lanes for bicycles.
Larger blocks: roughly 500 m × 300 m featuring
inner communal gardens or spaces dedicated
for other public use.
Lot size is still undetermined and subject to
detailed planning schemes. However, it is
expected that in comparison with plots in the
older plan, larger plots will be allocated to
owners.
Similar conception. Mixture of offices,
commerce, and residential uses on main
arteries and corner-plots (Section 9, Plan No.
3700).
Higher densities.
On average, 20 people per dunam. While this
density is considered to be relatively high,
some critics have expressed the opinion that
the new district will not be dense enough to
allow vibrant city life (Lerman, 2012).
To achieve higher densities, the new plan
allows much taller buildings and the average
height of residential buildings is expected to be
10–15 floors.
The plan designates a large-scale metropolitan
park on the cliffs overlooking the coast.
Also utilizes the idea of ‘green veins’
(boulevards) entering the urban fabric.
The planning team carefully studied
topographic features before laying out the
plan. Planners chose to protect the highest
cliffs overlooking the beach, leaving them as an
urban park (Fig. 1). Topography also played a
role in setting up East-West streets that end up
in natural ravines (Fig. 8). The plan’s legal
prescriptions also mandate the protection of
the natural topography in the coastal cliff area
(provision No. 11.8.5.1, Plan 3700). Like
Geddes’ ‘sea-shore drive’ the new plan
designates a street on the ridges of the sandy
cliff overlooking the sea.

of Geddes’ vision. The comparison also suggests that with respect answered, to a certain extent, by looking at the history of the plan,
to Geddes’ ideologies and key principles, similarities outweigh the and the perceptions of those involved in its enactment.
differences.
A question persists: can the similarities prove that Geddes’
6.3. Continuity: inspiration and adaptation or imitation?
vision has had an impact on 21st century planning, or perhaps the
similar features are only anecdotal, superficial, and coincidental?
The documents, plan-transcripts, and interviews I conducted
Central to this issue is the idea of continuity. As Geddes believed a
demonstrate that Geddes, as a prophetic figure, a forefather of Tel
city is continuously evolving in an evolutionary process, it becomes
Aviv’s city planning, was very much present in the plan-making
important to discuss whether the new master plan is a continu-
process. The reference to Geddes, however, does not necessarily
ous ideological extension of Geddes’ plan. This question may be
mean that Geddes’ vision fully shaped Plan 3700. The differences
depicted in Table 2, suggest that Geddes’ philosophy was not fully
66 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
Table 2
Comparative analysis of other aspects of the 1925 plan and the 2015 plan for Tel Aviv.
The original Geddes Plan (1925)
Philosophy Approach Evolutionary approach. Relying on past experiences
and the historical built fabric (Odum, 1944).
Utopia Social utopia in the service of a newly formed
Jewish-Zionist nationality (Geddes, 1925, p. 47).
Regional function A coastal city, a cultural, educational, and a center of
of Tel Aviv tourism and recreation (Hysler-Rubin, 2011, 86).
Geddes also envisioned Tel Aviv as a modern center for
science and laboratories (Geddes, 1925, p. 53).
Principles & objectives Notable objectives Creation of healthy environments, communal
intimacy, civic engagement of both physical and
spiritual lines (Hysler-Rubin, 2011), building of a
garden city, and creating a mixture of city and nature,
where “the simple child, the learner, and the Rabbi”
can have a meeting place (Geddes, 1925, p. 48).
Housing Geddes sought to provide dwellings for the ‘townsfolk’
Affordability including the working class (Geddes, 1925, p.18). This
would be achieved through ‘economical planning’ and
low rents (p. 4).
Humane scale Aspires to create intimate communities, accessible
amenities, small scaled development, and a
recognizable garden city where services are provided
close to home.
Active citizen Geddes envisioned a city-society in Tel Aviv where
involvement in people engage in meaningful activities that enable
urban life human flourishing through different means, including:
growing of fruit and vegetables (Geddes, 1925, p.48);
establishing a horticultural society and a sports club
(Geddes, 1925 p. 43–44) and making room for cultural
and educational institutions, such as a university
extension and a workers’ college.
Other notable elements Ecology and Geddes emphasized the importance of protecting
Preservation habitats in Tel Aviv and preventing pollution. In
particular, keeping the coastal cliff as a natural open
space “for the sake of childhood and youth” (Geddes,
1925, p.30). Nature preservation, according to Geddes,
is a sign of a progressive city.
The role of the sea Geddes regarded the sea as a major asset of the city,
calling Tel Aviv a “residential seaside town” (Geddes,
1925, p.9). This is why Geddes rejected attempts to
erect a large port on its coast. However, critics argue
that Geddes’ plan failed to harness the sea as an
important resource in the city (Kallus, 1997).
Monumentality Geddes did not plan a monumental city with many
landmarks. He created a place with few monuments,
but with impressive city-squares and one cultural
center which could be regarded as the most significant
monumental feature.
Relationship with Superior (Marom, 2013).
the surrounding The plan delineates the modern from the older. It
urban marks older neighborhoods as having inferior spatial
environment. order.
Economy: Geddes was cognizant of the need to explain the
Implementation feasibility of his plan and its economics. Thus, in
mechanisms planning Tel Aviv he emphasized the low cost of
planting trees (Geddes 1925, p.46), the reduced cost of
his urban block, and higher taxes that would be readily
available to pay for the development costs of the plan
(Geddes, 1925, p.60).
The new Northwestern Plan (2015)
Evolutionary but also adaptive-inspirational approach:
inspired by former ideas, street layout, and historic
precedence.
Urbanistic utopia in the service of landowners, and
future inhabitants.
A coastal city featuring regional recreation center
inclusive of an urban metropolitan park as well as
places of commerce.
High-standard urbanism; avoiding suburban patterns
of development; sustainable and healthy
environments; promotion of a compact extension of
the city; and an opportunity for a more intimate
organization around larger urban blocks. The plan also
advocated the creation of a city as a meeting place of
people from different backgrounds, through affording
different types of dwellings.
The new plan allocates about 2100 affordable housing
units most of which on government-owned land. In
addition, it designates smaller and thus cheaper units.
On several occasions, the mayor of Tel Aviv asserted
the importance of the plan in enabling young couples
and medium-income household to purchase
apartments in the city (Bosso, 2012).
Although on a much larger scale, the plan encourages
walkable urban blocks and streets in line with
neo-urban principles. Planners’ thought processes
involved looking at Jane Jacobs’ work (Informant 6).
Several critics, however, raised doubt as to whether
the plan can recreate an intimate communal feeling.
The plan aspires to create active living in the city
(informant 10). In particular, it makes room for
cultural institutions and recreational activities. The
plan, however, is not predicated on active citizen
involvement, nor does it make education or culture its
champion. In this line, it does not advocate, for
example, a ‘school of gardening and fruit growing’ nor
does it emphasize the importance of a ‘Fruit-Garden
City’ or an integration of educational institutions in the
urban fabric.
Planners sought to protect the coastal sand-dunes and
a stretch of land which extends as far as 250 m inland.
Objectors believed this protective belt was insufficient
to secure existing ecosystems (informant 5; informant
7). Other protective measures were applied also,
including specific guidelines for landscaping,
protection of specific trees, and a natural ‘winter pool’.
Boulevards and streets are oriented to the seaside. The
design strives to allow sea breeze to enter the city and
to tie together the coast to human activity by creating
multiple openings to the sea. The coast is perceived as
an important resource which has to be meticulously
protected.
The original plan included a cultural center on the
coastline. However, owing to environmental
considerations, the National Planning Board rejected
the initiative because it regarded the coastline as an
important natural resource.
Superior.
The new plan changed the routes of some roads and
redirected traffic to nearby suburban neighborhoods
which found themselves on the outskirts of a newly
planned extension of the city. Citizens living in those
suburban neighborhoods outside the boundaries of the
new plan argued that they should not be punished for
older planning conceptions that relied on suburban
patterns of development.
The planners inserted many tools to facilitate the
realization of the plan including, for example, the
ability to expropriate land for roads, without directly
compensating the landowners (Informant 10).
 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
realized. For instance, Geddes insisted that the city should be a hub
for civic engagement and it is unclear how the new plan caters to
that principle.
Was Geddes’ plan a source of inspiration or of superficial, even
partial, imitation? The interviewees noted that Geddes was a source
of inspiration and an example of good practice (Informant 1; Infor-
mant 2). However, planners involved in the making of the 2015 plan
argued that it should not be regarded as a ‘sister’ plan, but rather
as an adaptation of Geddes’ vision:
“Because of the size of the undeveloped neighborhood, there
was a chance to declare that we wanted an updated replica
for good old Tel Aviv, with its urbanism, its life. . .while think-
ing about other aspects such as sustainability, bicycle lanes,
updated densities. . .a city does not stop. It develops. . .all of
these issues led us to compile a plan which was a homage to
Geddes, a gesture, by creating a grid, but we had to make room
for improvements, such as diverting the East-West boulevards
straight onto the seashore. . .this is a historical lesson from the
existing city” (Informant 10).
The same argument brings to the fore the need for adaptation,
rather than mimicking of the older plan. Indeed, several exam-
ples can attest to the fact that planners strived to achieve physical
continuity between old and new Tel Aviv.
With respect to physical continuity, six out of seven physical fea-
tures of the older plan are apparent in Plan 3700. Thus the new plan
represents a physical embodiment of Geddes’ older plan, although
of a different sort, on a much grander scale. Additionally, the new
plan is physically linked to the older Tel Aviv; the town planning
report for Tel Aviv, compiled by Geddes, includes several visions for
the future, one of which is the extension of his ‘New Town’ beyond
the Auja (Yarkon) River, and into the northern sand dunes. In one
illuminating passage Geddes refers to the empty land in northern
Tel Aviv, noting that “if these northern sands can be acquired, a sin-
gle good road. . .may be bridged across the Auja, and thus become
an arterial connection of north and south” (Geddes, 1925, p. 15).
Geddes conceived Tel Aviv as continuously evolving, from south
to north, and indeed this process has been ongoing for several
decades now, with the establishment of new northern districts
in Tel Aviv. The above citation, however, is especially powerful
because it spells out the way forward, namely establishing an arte-
rial link between north and south. In this regard, it appears that
the planners involved in Plan 3700 did exactly that, by extend-
ing Ibn Gabirol street (which was laid out by Geddes) northwards.
Our interviewees referred to this linear connection as essential for
creating a link between the old fabric and the new.
In addition, and similarly to Geddes, who sought physical con-
nections beyond his plan area, the planners of the new quarter
were also minded to create linkage to areas bordering with the
plan in the North, specifically with smaller townships like Herzliya
and Ramat Hasharon. Thus, the new plan attempts to weave itself
to adjacent plans; not through juxtaposition, but through harmo-
nization with the nearby plans. Specifically, the new plan strives
to connect with surrounding streets and urban parks to its north
(Informant 6), while adopting a metropolitan approach (Informant
13). This emphasis on historical links is also apparent in Geddes’
planning, which sought continuation by linking ancient roads to
modern streets (Kallus, 1997, p. 293–294), or sometimes through
juxtaposition of the new blocks with older urban patterns in Man-
shiya, Neve Tzedek, and Jaffa.
Additionally, the analysis of plan documents and interviews
demonstrate that 21st century city planners in Tel Aviv sought not
just to rely on the physical attributes of the older plan, but also to
learn from its civic ideology, conceptual frame, and past failures.
67
For example, while Geddes’ plan failed “to see the full potential
of the sea as a generator of urban activity” (Kallus, 1997, p. 294)
and even allowed polluting industries on the seashore, the new
plan strived to place the sea at its epicenter, as a meeting point for
urban folk (informant 14).
However, while realizing that Geddes, as a historical figure, was
apparent in the process of enacting the new plan, both antago-
nists and protagonists of the plan raised several doubts concerning
the ability of the new plan to ensure both physical and concep-
tual continuity with the older plan. In other words, saying that the
new plan is all about continuity, does not necessarily make it so,
and it is surely not an indicator that Geddes’ ideas have filtered
into the new master-plan. One interviewee, a municipal planner,
admittedly argued that “I do not believe the new plan is a histori-
cal successor of Geddes” yet “there is something that builds on his
perception” (Informant 6). Several interviewees showed the same
dialectic relationship with Geddes; on one hand unsure about his-
torical continuity, and on the other hand asserting that Geddes
– had he been resurrected – would have recognized the physical
features in the new Plan as embodying his attitude toward city
planning.
Although there is room for healthy skepticism here, it is nev-
ertheless apparent that 21st century planners were consciously
thinking about the new plan as a continuation, in time and space,
of the older plan. Thus, as Table 2 illustrates, the new plan adapts to
new circumstance, yet appears to draw not only physical but also
conceptual connections with Geddes’ older plan.
This argument may be supported by several examples: The
new plan adopts Geddes’ vision that a progressive city “should
not disgrace itself by destroying the last, and finest little spot for
nature-lovers” (Geddes, 1925, p. 30) namely, the coastal cliff with
its surrounding sand-dunes. The same sense of urgency appears
to prevail in the new plan also, which designates a wide protected
zone for an urban coastal park. The interviewees also mention Ged-
des’ coastal park as one source of inspiration on the new plan and
a key feature in it (Informant 4).
In addition, the new plan purposefully seeks to recreate an urban
surrounding intended “not only for the rich” (Informant 2), where
townsfolk can ‘”live urban life to its fullest” (Regional Planning
Committee, 2011) and live in affordable housing. This resonates
the Geddessian objective to allow “ordinary and reasonable rentals”
(Geddes, 1925, p.4) as well as to create healthy, active, secure, and
least expensive urban surrounding (Geddes, 1925, p.6).
As one interviewee told us, the idea of evolutionary continuity
and linkage was influential in the new plan, in multiple aspects:
“This is a reparcellation plan that is minded to thinking about
urban matters, social matters, and the creation of an urban
community. . .it is obvious that the plan will utilize urban blocks
in an evolutionary manner, through interpretation. Even today
we interpret Geddes in the city center.” (Informant 1)
The creation of an urban community and adherence to social
matters are thus an underlying objective, which also resonates
Geddes’ goal of creating a progressive urban society, “and on all
levels, from those of health and domestic economy to the enhanced
happiness of the household. . .” (Geddes, 1925, p. 48).
As for ideological continuity, it is also possible to mention the
role of cultural venues. Both Geddes and 21st century planners were
mindful of a cultural city; like Geddes, the new plan also designated
a prominent spot, on the seashore, for a cultural venue (opera) sim-
ilar to cultural venues placed on a hill in the older Geddes plan
(today, Mann Auditorium and Habima Theatre). This initiative did
not bear fruit because of environmental opposition to the place-
ment of a huge structure on the coastline. Yet it was the continuum
68 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
of ideas about the city and its spaces that led to envisioning a promi-
nent cultural venue in the first place:
“Maybe sometime in the future the plan will change and we
would have a cultural center. We need urban symbols: Mann
Auditorium, Habima Theatre. . .these are all shared symbols
owing to their location. . .the city consists of meeting places,
and the sea is a meeting point, and so is a lobby of a theatre.”
(Informant 14)
Besides the conceptual connection which brings to the fore the
importance of cultural venues, the new plan also sought an inte-
gration of city life and nature. Notably, Geddes prescribed that
both extensive and intensive natural areas, both ‘wild’ and uninter-
rupted natural features (cliffs, sand-dunes), and more domesticated
open spaces were essential for the health of the city and its inhab-
itants, thus:
. . .”the artificial Park and Boulevard require this small Nature-
Park as their due contrast and complement: and to build on,
or otherwise transform this, would be a serious and irreparable
disaster to the higher interests of the town” (Geddes, 1925, p.
30).
The new plan, in a salute to those principles, highlighted the
importance of natural open spaces in the city. Specifically, several
provisions in the plan (Section 11.8) prescribe ways in which the
coastal park will be developed both extensively and intensively
while preserving the natural topography, local habitats, and flora.
Informants referred to the link between city and nature as deriving
from Geddes’ antecedent in central Tel Aviv, and evoked Geddes to
justify and explain the choices they had made:
I know the subject of public spaces well, and I was involved.
There was a need to learn from the past with respect to public
spaces as well as the unique Geddesian integration of city and
nature. Of course it was easier for us nowadays given increased
environmental awareness (Informant 3).
6.4. Geddes resurrected? The reinterpretation of the 1925 plan
according to local practitioners
In a retrospective analysis, Odum notes that Geddes’ ideas were
almost too novel for his time; “his frontier is still far away from
the people who he thought would catch up with him and become
a part of his new world. Although a pioneer and always assuming
that the people would understand and follow, he never lived to see
a vast company of followers. . .” (Odum, 1944, p.276).
Is this observation correct, given the new initiative to plan for
a new district in Tel Aviv? The findings demonstrate that Geddes’
visions for the city have been partially applied by a group of contem-
porary planners, which suggests that in the present, the followers
which Geddes never found in life, have woken up.
Indeed several planners raised doubts as to whether the new
2015 plan can be considered an ideological and physical extension
of the Geddes plan (e.g. Lerman, 2012). However, informants iden-
tified a clear attempt by the city administration to learn from the
past, and to replicate Geddes’ vision of a city:
They wanted to create a good neighborhood and this is why
they used Geddes, who is considered to be a good planner. They
chose to look at what is familiar and works well. This is the good
example that they have had. What else? Could they have relied
on suburban neighborhoods instead?! (Informant 4, personal
communication, May 3, 2015).
This view is expressed across the board, as most informants rec-
ognize that the new plan derives some features from the older plan.
Interviews and transcripts of discussions about the plan also show
that those involved regarded Geddes as a spiritual and inspirational
source for 21st century planning (Informant 10). Another informant
emphasized the interpretive move of the newer plan:
Geddes is present here, but the plan is a 21st century re-
interpretation of Geddes. Urban blocks were created, and the
plan relates to walking distances, the size of the block, the ori-
entation of the buildings and it opens up the future fabric to
allow sea-breeze to enter. The greatness of Geddes was conti-
nuity and his ability to connect to the existing urban network of
roads. 3700 is a plan which can connect. . .it is a Tel Avivian plan
which ‘talks’ in Tel Avivian terminology and adopts its values.
It is utopia, and it appears to me that no other mayor, but the
mayor of Tel Aviv, could have passed a similarly ambitious plan”
(Informant 6, personal communication, May 4, 2015).
Part of this re-interpretation process involved several improve-
ments, or adaptations, of the older plan, an act which positions
Geddes’, 1925 plan alongside a historic continuum. However, the
similarities highlighted both in Tables 1 and 2 do not necessarily
vouch for the plan being an extension of the older plan, nor do they
prove the relevance of Geddes’ work in the 21st century.
Despite this inspirational zest, it remains in question whether
the new plan really encapsulates the ideology of Geddes, or
whether it simply aspires to create a good neighborhood. In this
line, it is possible to view the new plan as a shell resembling Geddes’
principles of urbanism. But while similar morphological features
are employed, the new plan fails to create a significant shift to
cultured urban civics, and it remains questionable whether—when
implemented- it will encourage active involvement in urban life.
Indeed, several critics argued that the nostalgic embrace of Sir
Geddes was not a meaningful attempt to study his ideology and to
adapt it to the 21st century. According to these critics, there was
no real attempt to learn from Geddes’ earlier work:
The initiators of the plan did not go to the people who lived
in the older Geddesian fabric in central Tel Aviv. They did not
ask them what makes this built environment so precious and
successful, and so I do not know how the proposed scale would
influence the way people feel about this new place (Informant
4).
Other antagonists (Informant 19) argued that the plan is alto-
gether a far cry from the original 1925 plan, since it does not
incorporate the Garden City ideal, but rather ruins the natural
resources available to the city (its sand dunes and coastal cliffs).
Another interviewee stressed that the creation of the 2015 plan
was a form of a publicity stunt; utilizing Geddes’ ‘halo’ and reputa-
tion, but in effect having no historical connections to Geddes’ vision
(Informant 8).
The chief planner of Plan 3700, Mr. Kolker, although in several
occasions had referred to Geddes as a point of departure for the
creation of a good neighborhood (Moran, 2011), provided an inter-
esting account which emphasized a certain dialectic relationship
with Geddes; when asked about whether Geddes has had a real
impact on the formation of the new master-plan, he opined:
Geddes does not interest me. He was not an architect. He was an
ecologist. Why Geddes?. . .only because he was here. . .but per-
haps we are better than Geddes. Geddes’ planning does not suit
us today, because he has not provided enough public spaces. . .”
These accounts, as well as the comparative analysis of the two
plans, suggest that although planners had constantly referred to
Geddes, his principles, concepts, and urban syntax, were only par-
tially impactful in the creation of a new quarter in the city. Geddes
was a source of inspiration, however contemporary planners also
 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
sought to tweak his older planning ideologies, sometimes even
distancing themselves from Geddes altogether.
The dialectic approach to Geddes, can be attributed to the fact
that city planners were confident in their ability and knowledge
about the city and its strategic needs in the future. Consequently,
differences between the new and older plans derive from chang-
ing needs, different constraints, and skepticism over Geddes’ social
idealism- all of which leading to a conclusion by 21st century plan-
ners that Geddes’ older plan was partially obsolete.
7. Conclusion
Some informants attested to an evolutionary approach which is
ingrained in the new plan and was also advocated by Sir Geddes
(Informant 1; Informant 10). Under this paradigm, planners per-
ceive the city as composed of co-evolving parts, which gradually
grow inter-dependently (Batty & Marshall, 2009). This evolution-
ary process is open-ended and allows the planner to adapt the
plan to future needs (Marshall, 2009). In this regard, the findings
demonstrate that Tel Avivian planners sought evolution ‘with an
asterisk’, namely through adaptation of parts – not all – of Geddes’
visions. Indeed, critics doubted this kind of evolution, and several
informants reaffirmed this skepticism by suggesting that Geddes
was an inspirational point of departure, not necessarily a point of
reference.
Contemporary planners realized that Geddes’ legacy itself is
subject to interpretation and is not a sacred one, all the more so
in light of legal and economic constraints. Instead of being treated
as sacrosanct, his plan was hailed as a successful starting point. At
the same time, references to Geddes as progenitor of Plan 3700 and
planning in Tel Aviv in general, were not over-exaggerated. As one
informant puts it:
When you write history, you do so in the eyes of the beholder.
Today the beholder sees the ability to live active and meaning-
ful life in the city, in main streets, and also the ability to live
peacefully in a place inclusive of open spaces and public infras-
tructure which is situated in the insides of the neighborhood. So
let’s take it to the next level. What do artists and novelists do?
They interpret. This plan is an interpretation also. The techno-
logical absence in Geddes’ plan creates the opportunity today to
think about things in a different manner, at the street level, but
also while planning a single building. . .Geddes is not a prayer,
but we do see the unique qualities that stem from his plan, and
want to leverage those (Informant 10).
In that, the findings corroborate Hysler-Rubin’s argument that
Geddes’ plan “is often used as a beacon” and “offers guidance by
setting a good example for future planning” (Hysler-Rubin, 2013,
p.134). As our informants note, Geddes role was that of inspiration,
not a source for dedicated imitation. Thus, Geddes’ 21st century
followers resurrected Geddes, but also followed his forewarning:
At this stage City Improvement and Town Planning comprehen-
sively appear; yet in face of so much tradition of the past, so
many suggestions from the contemporary world, a new danger
arises, that of imitating what we admire, too irrespective of its
differences from our own place, time, or manner of life (Geddes,
1915, p.396).
Appendix. List of interviewees
Informant 1, Interview with Arch. Francine Davidi, head of Tel
Aviv-North planning team, April 21, 2015.
Informant 2, Interview with Arch. Yoav Rubisa, a former team-
member in Tel Aviv-North planning team, April 26, 2015.
69
Informant 3, Interview with Ms. Tammi Gavriely, a former head
of Tel Aviv’s municipal strategic team, April 27, 2015.
Informant 4, Interview with Ms. Hila Lubanov, team member
of Tel Aviv’s municipal strategic team, May 3, 2015.
Informant 5, Interview with Dr. Yael Kashtan who filed an
objection against the proposed plan. May 3, 2015.
Informant 6, Interview with Arch. Aviad Moore, a former team-
member in Tel Aviv-North planning team, May 4, 2015.
Informant 7, Interview with Ms. Hanna Bar-Romano, head of
the real-property department at Tel Aviv’s municipality. May 10,
2015.
Informant 8, Interview with Mr. Alon Sigler who filed an objec-
tion against the proposed plan. May 10, 2015.
Informant 9, Interview with Adv. Ora Bloom who filed an objec-
tion against the proposed plan. May 12, 2015.
Informant 10, Interview with Leor Dushnitsky, project manager
of plan 3700. May 12, 2015.
Informant 11, Interview with Planner Oded Ginosar, team
member of Tel Aviv’s strategic planning team. May 13, 2015.
Informant 12, Interview with Adv. Gideon Vitkon, an appointed
inspector and investigator into plan 3700. May 13, 2015.
Informant 13, Interview with Arch. Orly Cohen, district plan-
ning office. May 19, 2015.
Informant 14, Interview with Arch. Offer Kolker, head-planner
of plan 3700. May 19, 2015.
Informant 15, Interview with Adv. Remmy Manoach who filed
objections against the proposed plan. June 3, 2015.
Informant 16, Interview with Arch. Naomi Angel, Head district
planner of Tel Aviv, June 3. 2015, and August 24, 2015.
Informant 17, Interview with Arch. Tali Dotan, district planning
office of Tel Aviv. June 3, 2015, and August 24, 2015.
Informant 18, Interview with Michelle Bukatshin who filed an
objection against the proposed plan. July 6, 2015.
Informant 19, Interview with Alon Eliran who filed an objection
to the proposed plan. July 14, 2015.
Informant 20, Interview with Arch. Danny Kaiser, former Chief
City Planner of Tel Aviv and Jaffa. February 10, 2016.
References
Batty, M., & Marshall, S. (2009). The evolution of cities: Geddes, Abercrombie, and
the new physicalism. Town Planning Review, 80(6), 551–574.
Biger, G. (1992). A Scotsman in the first Hebrew city: Patrick Geddes and the 1926
town plan for Tel Aviv. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 108(1), 4–8.
Boardman, P. (1978). The worlds of Patrick Geddes: biologist, town planner,
re-educator, peace warrior. London: Routledge.
Bosso, N. (2012). A new plan for building 12 thousand residential units in
North-Western Tel Aviv. The Marker, 30(July) [in Hebrew]
Caves, R. W. (2005). Encyclopedia of the city. London: Routledge.
Faludi, A. (1974). Letter to the editor. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
40(5), 373–374.
Geddes, P. (1909). City deterioration and the need of city survey. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 34(1), 54–67.
Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in evolution: an introduction to the town planning movement
and to the study of civics. London: Williams and Norgate.
Geddes, P. (1925). Town planning report: Jaffa and Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv Municipal
Archives.
Goist, P. D. (1974). Patrick Geddes and the city. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 40(1), 31–37.
Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and
design in the twentieth century. London: Blackwell.
Halperin, N., & Ganor, O. (2012). Towers in the south, trendy neighborhoods in the
north. City Mouse, 6(January) [in Hebrew].
Hyman, B. (1994). British planners in Palestine, 1918–1936. In PhD thesis. London:
London School of Economics.
Hysler-Rubin, N. (2011). Patrick Geddes and town planning: a critical review.
London: Routledge.
Hysler-Rubin, N. (2013). The celebration, condemnation and interpretation of the
Geddes plan, 1925: The dynamic planning history of Tel Aviv. Urban History,
40(1), 114–135.
Jacobs, J. (1992). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Kallus, R. (1997). Patrick Geddes and the evolution of a housing type in Tel-Aviv.
Planning Perspectives, 12(3), 281–320.
70 N. Mualam / Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 57–70
Kedmi, S. (2004). Tel Aviv approves plan for 10,500 flats in the north-west. Globes,
30(May) [in Hebrew].
Kolker, O., Kolker, A., & Epstein, R. (2009). TA/3700: Explanatory notes. Tel Aviv:
Kolker, Kolker, Epstein Architects (in Hebrew).
Lerman, Y. (2012). A city overlooking the sea, or another suburban development? A
note on Plan 3700 (In Hebrew). http://tlv1.co.il/2012/
Mairet, P. (1957). Pioneer of sociology: the life and letters of Patrick Geddes. London:
Lund Humphries.
Mann, B. (2006). A place in history: modernism, Tel Aviv, and the creation of Jewish
urban space. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Marom, N. (2013). Planning as a principle of vision and division: A Bourdieusian
view of Tel Aviv’s urban development, 1920–1950s. Environment & Planning A,
46(8), 1908–1926.
Marshall, S. (2009). Cities, design and evolution. London: Routledge.
Meller, H. (1990). Patrick Geddes: social evolutionist and city planner. London:
Routledge.
Mercer, C. (1997). Geographics for the present: Patrick Geddes, urban planning and
the human sciences. Economy and Society, 26(2), 211–232.
Moran, M. (2011). Eating square meters like pigs. Globes, 6(November), 2011 [in
Hebrew].
Mualam, N. (2012). Conflicts over preservation of the built heritage: A
cross-national comparative analysis of the decisions of planning tribunals. In
PhD thesis. Haifa: The Technion.
Odum, H. W. (1944). Patrick Geddes’ heritage to the making of the future. Social
Forces, 22(3), 275–281.
Payton, N. I. (1995). The machine in the garden city: Patrick Geddes’ plan for Tel
Aviv. Planning Perspectives, 10, 359–381.
Plan No. 3700 (2015). The North-Western Quarter of Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv’s
Regional Planning Committee (in Hebrew).
Regional Planning Committee (2011). Plan No. 3700: Transcripts of the
investigation process (in Hebrew).
Studholme, M. (2007). Patrick geddes: Founder of environmental sociology. The
Sociological Review, 55(3), 441–459.
Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and American planning: the conflict of cultures.
London: Routledge.
Tel Aviv Strategic Plan. (2005). City vision: a strategic plan for Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Holon:
Meiri Publishing (in Hebrew).
Unwin, R. (1909). Town planning in practice: an introduction to the art of designing
cities and suburbs. London: Adelphi.
Weill-Rochant, C. (2003). Myths and buildings of tel aviv. Bulletin du Centre de
Recherche Français à Jérusalem, 12(2003), 152–163.
Weill-Rochant, C. (2009). The Tel Aviv school: A constrained rationalism.
Docomomo, 40, 65–69.
Welter, V. M. (2012). The 1925 master plan for Tel Aviv by Patrick Geddes. In M.
Azaryahu, & S. I. Troen (Eds.), Tel Aviv, the first century: Visions, designs,
actualities (pp. 299–326). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Yoscovitz, B. (2001). Directing urban design and planning in Tel Aviv: A profile of
Baruch Yoskovitz. In J. Forester, R. Fishler, & D. Shmueli (Eds.), Israeli planners
and designers (pp. 31–47). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.