https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0275-8598
![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Many believe that the first slum (settlement) upgrading projects were launched in the 1960s. In fact, arguably the world’s first began in Calcutta in 1876 and ran until 1910. It was sui generis. Like recent programmes, Calcutta’s prioritized sanitary infrastructure over dwelling repairs; unlike them, it lacked resident participation. Inspired by sanitary initiatives in Britain, it was motivated by public health concerns, especially for Europeans; unusually, it had precise geographical foci. It involved the extension of sewers; of water lines to standpipes, wash stations, and public latrines; the filling in of tanks (ponds) used for washing and cooking; the closing of domestic wells; street cleaning and street widening. It was modestly effective but had the unanticipated effect of encouraging piecemeal redevelopment at higher densities. Locally and internationally, it was soon forgotten so that similar programmes had to be reinvented. In that respect, it exemplifies a common pattern of policy amnesia.
Abbreviations: AR: Administration Reports of the Commissioners of Calcutta; Calcutta: The Municipal Press; BC: Bustee Committee, Minutes; BMP: Bengal. Municipal Proceedings; IOR: India Office Records, British Museum; SC: Report of the Commission Appointed under Section 28 of Act IV (B.C.) of 1876 to Enquire into Certain Matters Connected with the Sanitation of the Town of Calcutta; Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press, 1885 [Sanitation Commission].
Acknowledgements
This research was undertaken with Robert Lewis. I also thank Partho Datta for help, as well as Nick Lombardo and Geoff Rose for research assistance. Arnab Roy, Municipal Commissioner, facilitated access to the City Archives, Kolkata.
Notes on contributor
Richard Harris is a President of the Urban History Association (2017–2018). He is a Professor of Urban Geography at McMaster University. He has published several books and numerous articles about housing and urban development in North America and the British colonies from the 1870s to the present. He is currently writing a book about the history of neighbourhoods and neighbourhood planning in Canada.
ORCID
Richard Harris http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0275-8598
Notes
1 Juliman, “The World’s First.”
2 Datta, Planning the City, 127–70; Gupta, “Theory and Practice”; Klein, “Urban Development,” 184–90; Nair, Calcutta Corporation, ch.8; Roy, Calcutta Slums, 11–13; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” See also Furedy, “Interest Groups,” “Contrasting Models.”
3 BC; “Sanitary Condition … 1884”; Smith, “Sanitary Condition of the Bustees”; Gregg, Inspection Report; Goode, Municipal Calcutta; SC, Report; SC, Appendix I, Proceedings; SC, Appendix II, Evidence.
4 Gilbert, “Return of the Slum” and Mayne, “Slums.”
5 Cf. Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 26; Richards, The Condition, 262.
6 Harris, “Slums. Neglect, Clear or Improve?”
7 Harris, “Neighbourhood Improvement/Settlement Upgrading.”
8 E.g. Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organization, Bustee Improvement, 11; Moitra and Samajdar, “Evaluation of the Slum,” 72; Rosser, “Housing and Urban Change.”
9 Harris and Lewis, “Introduction,” xiv; Lanchester, “Calcutta Improvement Trust”; Geddes, “Barra Bazar.” Cf. Mayne, Slums, 152.
10 Nightingale, Segregation, 106; Chattopadhyhay, Representing Calcutta, 73; Datta, Planning the City, 149; Gupta, “Theory and Practice,” 53; Mayne, Slums, 152. Simpson, Principles of Hygiene, 294.
11 Home, Of Planting and Planning, 69–71; Nightingale, Segregation, 91; Datta, Planning the City, 28–57, 98–117; Gupta, “Theory and practice,” 41–5, 51.
12 Furedy, “Interest Groups”; “Contrasting Models”; “Whose Responsibility?” 25–6; Harrison, Public Health, 210–16; Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 31–5; Ray, Urban Roots, 9–10.
13 Strachey quoted in Smith, Report on the Drainage, 4.
14 Extract from a letter from the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, General Department, to the Secretary of the Government of India, Home Dept., No.2790, 21st August 1900. BMP No.1900. [IOR/P/5865]; Beverley, Report … 1881, 26, 39.
15 Strachey quoted in Smith, Report on the Drainage, 4; Kidwai, “Calcutta in 1901,” 35; Kipling, City of Dreadful Night; Rousselet, India, 36, 596; Chattopadhyay, “Blurring boundaries,” 157. See also Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 25; Gupta, “Theory and practice,” 32; Sinha, Calcutta, 17–30.
16 Datta, Planning the City, 28–57, 105; Harrison, Public Health, 76; Lewis and Harris, “Segregation,” 1–19.
17 India. Army Sanitary Commission, “Memorandum … 1871, 246; India. Army Sanitary Commission, “Memorandum … 1875,” 227; Proceedings … Bengal, Municipal Department, 1. See also Home, Planting and Planning, 133.
18 Datta, Planning the City, 146; Nightingale, Segregation, 128; Report of the Cholera Committee; Gover, Report … 1871–72, 168–70; Proceedings … Bengal, Municipal Department, 4. See also Hart, “Calcutta,” 27.
19 “The Cholera Outbreak,” 107; Proceedings … Bengal, Municipal Department, 1; Beverley, Report … 1876, 60, 63; SC, Report, 11; Clemow and Hossack, Report, 57.
20 SC, Appendix II, Evidence, xxvi; AR, 1889–90, Appendix A, 4; AR, 1894–5, Appendix E, 143; SC, Report, 25. Cf. Nightingale, Segregation, 128–9.
21 Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 172; SC, Report, 32; AR, 1894–5, Appendix E, 139; SC, Report, 33, 34, 35, 39.
22 Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 102; SC, Report, 43; cf. Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 34.
23 Gregg, “Inspection Report,” 1, 7; “Sanitary Condition … 1884,” 1,2; R. Wace and Others, “The humble memorial of the undersigned inhabitants of the Suburbs of Calcutta to the Hon. Sir A. R. Thompson, Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, 1 April 1985,” Bengal. Municipal Sanitation. Proceedings, February 1886, pp. 7–8 [West Bengal Archives].
24 Martin, Notes, 30; “The hygiene of Calcutta,” 50; Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 36; Stevens, “Memorandum” in “Sanitary Conditions,” 2.
25 Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 44n8; Beverley, Report … 1881, 23; India. Army Sanitary Commission, “Memorandum … 1875, 227; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 27; Datta, Planning the City, 139–40; Nightingale, Segregation, 95; Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 78; SC, Report, 40. For other estimates see Beverley, Report … 1876, Table XVI; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 27.
26 SC, Appendix II, Evidence, liv; Burrows, Abstract … 1876–7, 115; calculated from Beverley, Report … 1876, Table XVI; Clemow and Hossack, “Report … 1899,” 43; cf. Datta, Planning the City, 112.
27 Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 27; Datta, Planning the City, 142–4; Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 263–4; Klein, “Urban development,” 185; SC, Appendix II, Evidence, liii.
28 Harris, “Slums. Neglect, Clear or Improve?”
29 Cockburn, “Sanitary Progress,” 89, 93; Sanitation of Calcutta, 202 [handwritten numbering].
30 Gover, “Report on the Sanitary Department,” 168, 170; Madras, Report on the Administration, 140, 141; Burrows, “Abstract of Report”; Report on Sanitary Matters, 30–3.
31 Report on Sanitary Measures, 32, 33; Swati Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta, 73; Harrison, Public Health, 220; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” n 31.
32 Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 265–7.
33 Ibid., 27–31; India. Army Sanitary Commission, “Memorandum”; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 27.
34 “The Cholera Outbreak.”
35 India. Army Sanitary Commission, “Memorandum … 1871,” 228; Datta, Planning the City, 150.
36 Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 175, 272; Hart, “Calcutta,” 26–7.
37 Datta, Planning the City, 146, 149; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility,” 27, 35; SC, Appendix II, Evidence, xl, xliii–xliv, xlv, lviii, lxvii, lxviii, lxx; Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 175.
38 Furedy, “Whose Responsibility,” 30, 32; Datta, Planning the City, 150–1; Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 34–5, 268; SC, Report, 1.
39 SC, Appendix II, Evidence, li; Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 177, 272–3; Datta, Planning the City, 155–6.
40 Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 174, 175; SC, Appendix II, Evidence, xxiv; SC, Appendix I, Proceedings, vii, viii, xx, xii; Report, 34.
41 Smith, “Planning as Environmental Improvement,” 100; quoted in Mayne, Slums, 179, 180; Nightingale, Segregation, 129; Home, Of Planting and Planning, 47–8, 81–2, 134; Yeoh, Contesting Space, 85–135; Gover, “Report,” 169; Burrows, “Abstract,” 115; SC, Report, 51 (footnote); SC, Appendix II, Evidence, xcviv.
42 Smith, “Sanitary Condition of the Bustees … 1884,” 1, 2; SC, Appendix II, Evidence, xxxi–xxxii.
43 SC, Appendix II, Evidence, xlix, xxxi, xix; BC, Minutes, 18 February 1886, 1; 25 May 1991, 1; 6 July 1885, 2; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 30.
44 Clemow and Hossack, Report, 37, 44, 51.
45 Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 268–9.
46 Ibid., 35, 151; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility,” 34–5; SC, Appendix II, Evidence, lxxxix.
47 SC, Appendix II, Evidence, lxviii, xc.
48 MacLeod, The Sanitary Past, 23, 24.
49 SC, Appendix I, Proceedings, iv–v.
50 SC, Report, 3; Proceedings, iv, vii, viii; Furedy, “Whose Responsibility?” 36.
51 SC, Appendix I, Proceedings, vi–vii, xi, xii, xxviii.
52 SC, Report, 3, 8, 15, 21, 24, 25–30, 30–1, 32.
53 SC, Appendix II, Evidence, lxxvii, lxxxiv, lvi; SC, Report, 51, 52, 56–7.
54 Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 38, 39, 58, 79–80, 151; cf. Furedy, “Contrasting Models,” 164, 169.
55 Lieutenant-Governor’s Speech, 88; Letter from Chairman of Corporation, 107; Letter to the Chairman of the Corporation, 119; H. H. Risley, Secretary to Government of Bengal, to Secretary, Government of India, 7 March 1898. BMP, Monthly, April 1898, No.124 [IOR/P/5405]; cf. Furedy, “Lord Curzon.”
56 Lieutenant-Governor’s Speech, 89; BC, Minutes, 7 June 1897, 1; 19 July 1897, 185;
57 See, for example, BC, Minutes, 7 June 1897, 4.
58 Ibid., 5 July 1897; 7 February 1898; 27 November 1899.
59 Ibid., 19 November 1991, 3; 20 September 1897; 9 August 1897, 4.
60 AR, 1889–90, Appendix A, 10–11, 12, 17, 18.
61 Ibid., 14, 17; AR, 1894–5, 168.
62 See, for example, AR, 1894–5, Appendix E, 167; Simpson, Principles of Hygiene; AR, 1889–90, Appendix A, 13; AR, 1894–5, Appendix E, 166.
63 Bogle, Town Planning, 72; Reports and Notes by Dr. Banks, 32; Letter from Chairman of Corporation, 105.
64 Datta, Planning the City, 164; Ray, Urban Roots, 67–8; Kidwai, “Calcutta in 1901,” 35; Moitra and Samajdar, “Evaluation … ,” 70.
65 BC, 25 May 1891, 3; 25 January, 1892, 1; 24 August 1897, 4.
66 “Amendment of the Building Regulations, Calcutta Municipality,” 1907 BMP April 1908 [IOR/P/7862]; Corporation of Calcutta, Building and Bustee Manual.
67 Deane, “Mode of Entry,” 89; AR, 1906–7, 26; 1903–4, 56–9; 1905–6, 30–2; 1909–10, 38–40.
68 “Review of the Administration Report,” 559.