The Inner Ring Road and Civic Democracy
---
History
The Glasgow Inner Ring Road was a plan designed to save Glasgow. Part of the proposed regeneration of Glasgow after the Second World War that fell under The Bruce Report, it would save the city from the curses of overcrowding and traffic. A series of 3 concentric motorway boxes that would encircle the city centre, the road would plow through historic neighbourhoods in geometric, traffic welcoming forms. The eastern side of the innermost ‘box’ would have been constructed stretching from the Townhead, along the High Street, and across the river to the modern day M74, destroying the historic city centre and all of Glasgow’s oldest buildings. Why was this ever proposed? And why is this a proposal that must be understood today, so we can better develop the urban fabric in the future?
To see what this would have looked like, all we need to do is look west to Charing Cross. The M8 here cuts a barrier between the city centre and west end, crossing the Clyde on vast stretches of concrete flyover and deep cuts under other roads. It was the western edge of the innermost ring-road, and the only part fully constructed. Charing Cross was a centre of city life1, with many grand buildings; now all that is left is Charing Cross Mansions and The Mitchell Library, separated by the trench of the M8. All along the edge of the motorway, buildings were devalued and eventually left to rot, abandoned and blighted, ruining the areas that it was built through.
So, we can imagine just what might have happened to The High Street and Glasgow Cross: perhaps, a great mass of motorway exits, roaring cars slingshotting into the centre of town at 70 mph, making the area impassable for all those not driving. Or maybe, an elevated concrete overpass, surrounded by crumbling buildings and empty lots. Luckily, local opposition was great enough to stop the proposed plans, from both residents and academics highlighting the historical importance of the area2. The same cannot be said for Charing Cross, where locals were ignored, and eventually moved out of their homes to new suburbs and high-rises, separating neighbours, friends and families.
The rationale behind the Bruce Report
Now, why was this a plan, and why is it important today? Well, at the time, this was not viewed as the destruction of the city, but as the creation of a new one, where cars were the future. When the plans were first proposed, the city’s small 18th and 19th century roads were heavily congested, with more cars forecast to pile onto the roads indefinitely (car ownership increased 7% each year during the 50’s and 60’s.)
Furthermore, the report by Robert Bruce drew on the radical ideas of modernism and attempted to create a city centre that ran like a well-oiled machine, with roads efficiently taking people from their new high-rise homes to commercial, public and industrial areas, all newly built and effectively segregated.3 Bruce was also influenced by the work of Robert Moses, who built urban freeways through “deprived” areas to ease congestion in New York City, similar the M8 destroying deprived areas like Cowcaddens or Anderston4. Bruce believed that the civic soul of the city would be improved when people lived in shining modern highrises and could commute everywhere by car with ease. In a time before climate change, these ideas were much more easily defensible and widely held, but with hindsight we know they are unsustainable and bad for those who have to live this way5
It’s importance today
The proposal is so important because it was made with the best intentions of a qualified urban planner6, using modern, forward-thinking philosophies. However, it shows the clear biases of its creator; a predilection for demolition over conservation, a lack of care or interest for the history of the city, a belief in the car above all else, and most crucially, an ignorance of the actual voices of residents. In attempting to save the city, he ignored that places like the High Street, or Charing Cross, are an important part of the city! So were Maryhill, Cowcaddens, The Gorbals, Townhead, and the many other neighbourhoods he was willing to destroy for the sake of motorists and traffic easing.
City planners for Glasgow were (and still are) mostly straight and white, mostly men, almost entirely able-bodied, and mostly lived in the middle-class commuter suburbs of Glasgow. The City Council to this day maintains a gender pay gap of over 7%, only 3.1% of infrastructure-related roles are filled by disabled people, only 4% filled by non-white people7. This lack of representation in the planning for our city means that when decisions are made the needs of everyone in the city will never be accurately considered or met. Our cities were and are designed in an undemocratic way.
The Inner Ring Road is the perfect example of the need for democratic process in the planning of our cities: urban planner Kevin Lynch said: “The city is not built for one person, but for great numbers of people, of widely varying backgrounds, temperaments, occupations, and class.”8 This great diversity is what makes cities exciting and vibrant, so why on earth should it be ignored, or as in the case of the Inner Ring Road, actively harmed, by our city plans? I argue that in the future we must learn from the mistakes of The Inner Ring Road and The Bruce Report, and plans made for the cities we live in must be made by those who live in them, in co-operation with urban planners and experts. Only then can our cities better evolve into places that serve diverse individuals as well as they serve the City in abstract.
---
History
The Glasgow Inner Ring Road was a plan designed to save Glasgow. Part of the proposed regeneration of Glasgow after the Second World War that fell under The Bruce Report, it would save the city from the curses of overcrowding and traffic. A series of 3 concentric motorway boxes that would encircle the city centre, the road would plow through historic neighbourhoods in geometric, traffic welcoming forms. The eastern side of the innermost ‘box’ would have been constructed stretching from the Townhead, along the High Street, and across the river to the modern day M74, destroying the historic city centre and all of Glasgow’s oldest buildings. Why was this ever proposed? And why is this a proposal that must be understood today, so we can better develop the urban fabric in the future?
To see what this would have looked like, all we need to do is look west to Charing Cross. The M8 here cuts a barrier between the city centre and west end, crossing the Clyde on vast stretches of concrete flyover and deep cuts under other roads. It was the western edge of the innermost ring-road, and the only part fully constructed. Charing Cross was a centre of city life1, with many grand buildings; now all that is left is Charing Cross Mansions and The Mitchell Library, separated by the trench of the M8. All along the edge of the motorway, buildings were devalued and eventually left to rot, abandoned and blighted, ruining the areas that it was built through.
So, we can imagine just what might have happened to The High Street and Glasgow Cross: perhaps, a great mass of motorway exits, roaring cars slingshotting into the centre of town at 70 mph, making the area impassable for all those not driving. Or maybe, an elevated concrete overpass, surrounded by crumbling buildings and empty lots. Luckily, local opposition was great enough to stop the proposed plans, from both residents and academics highlighting the historical importance of the area2. The same cannot be said for Charing Cross, where locals were ignored, and eventually moved out of their homes to new suburbs and high-rises, separating neighbours, friends and families.
The rationale behind the Bruce Report
Now, why was this a plan, and why is it important today? Well, at the time, this was not viewed as the destruction of the city, but as the creation of a new one, where cars were the future. When the plans were first proposed, the city’s small 18th and 19th century roads were heavily congested, with more cars forecast to pile onto the roads indefinitely (car ownership increased 7% each year during the 50’s and 60’s.)
Furthermore, the report by Robert Bruce drew on the radical ideas of modernism and attempted to create a city centre that ran like a well-oiled machine, with roads efficiently taking people from their new high-rise homes to commercial, public and industrial areas, all newly built and effectively segregated.3 Bruce was also influenced by the work of Robert Moses, who built urban freeways through “deprived” areas to ease congestion in New York City, similar the M8 destroying deprived areas like Cowcaddens or Anderston4. Bruce believed that the civic soul of the city would be improved when people lived in shining modern highrises and could commute everywhere by car with ease. In a time before climate change, these ideas were much more easily defensible and widely held, but with hindsight we know they are unsustainable and bad for those who have to live this way5
It’s importance today
The proposal is so important because it was made with the best intentions of a qualified urban planner6, using modern, forward-thinking philosophies. However, it shows the clear biases of its creator; a predilection for demolition over conservation, a lack of care or interest for the history of the city, a belief in the car above all else, and most crucially, an ignorance of the actual voices of residents. In attempting to save the city, he ignored that places like the High Street, or Charing Cross, are an important part of the city! So were Maryhill, Cowcaddens, The Gorbals, Townhead, and the many other neighbourhoods he was willing to destroy for the sake of motorists and traffic easing.
City planners for Glasgow were (and still are) mostly straight and white, mostly men, almost entirely able-bodied, and mostly lived in the middle-class commuter suburbs of Glasgow. The City Council to this day maintains a gender pay gap of over 7%, only 3.1% of infrastructure-related roles are filled by disabled people, only 4% filled by non-white people7. This lack of representation in the planning for our city means that when decisions are made the needs of everyone in the city will never be accurately considered or met. Our cities were and are designed in an undemocratic way.
The Inner Ring Road is the perfect example of the need for democratic process in the planning of our cities: urban planner Kevin Lynch said: “The city is not built for one person, but for great numbers of people, of widely varying backgrounds, temperaments, occupations, and class.”8 This great diversity is what makes cities exciting and vibrant, so why on earth should it be ignored, or as in the case of the Inner Ring Road, actively harmed, by our city plans? I argue that in the future we must learn from the mistakes of The Inner Ring Road and The Bruce Report, and plans made for the cities we live in must be made by those who live in them, in co-operation with urban planners and experts. Only then can our cities better evolve into places that serve diverse individuals as well as they serve the City in abstract.
---