- Permanent Link:
- New towns in Israel understanding their development and speculations on their importance
- Rubinstein, Gordon S
- Publication Date:
- Physical Description:
- 70 unnumbered leaves : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm
- Subjects / Keywords:
- New towns -- Israel ( lcsh )
City planning -- Israel ( lcsh )
City planning ( fast )
New towns ( fast )
Israel ( fast )
- bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
- Includes bibliographical references (leaves 67-70).
- General Note:
- At head of title: The University of Colorado at Denver, College of Environmental Design.
- General Note:
- Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
- Statement of Responsibility:
- by Gordon S. Rubinstein.
- Source Institution:
- University of Colorado Denver
- Holding Location:
- Auraria Library
- Rights Management:
- All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
- Resource Identifier:
- 09008027 ( OCLC )
- LD1190.A78 1980 .R825 ( lcc )
NEW TOWNS IN ISRAEL
1190 A 78 1980 R825
GORDON S. RUBINSTEIN
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEST0N
NEW TOWNS IN ISRAEL:
UNDERSTANDING THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND SPECULATIONS ON THEIR IMPORTANCE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GORDON S. RUBINSTEIN DENVER, COLORADO
:ST OF ILLUSTRATIONS INTRODUCTION .... Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW TOWNS: PHYSICAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEST
Introduction Physical Context
Historical Context: Early Zionist World War I
British Mandate Period Post World War II Independence
NEW TOWNS AND BRITISH REGIONAL TRADITION .
Town Planning Ordinance
Eminent Domain and Expropriation Compensation and Betterment
NEW TOWN PHYSICAL DESIGN.......................35
British Model Israeli Model
"THE PLAN" ISRAELI NATIONAL MASTER PLAN ,
Settlement Patterns Regionalism Development Strategy The Ilierarchial Model Location of New Towns
A Sample Regional Plan--The Lakhish Region
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Cultivation and Irrigation 1948-1966 .......... 6
2. Topography of Israel .......................... 8
4. Pet ah Tikva 1883 ............................ 11
5. Israel before and after partition ............ 16
6. Invasion Routes................................19
7. Armistice Lines................................19
8. Moshav Beit Yosef..............................21
9. Kibbutz Nahalal................................22
10. Defense features of early settlement .... 22
11. Israeli Planning Organization ................ 27
12. Landownership 1947 and 1960 .................. 30
13. Town of Arad...................................40
14. First neighborhood of Arad.....................40
15. First neighborhood of Karmiel ................ 41
16. Location of some New Towns.....................50
17. Lakhish Regional Plan..........................52
18. Schematic Model of Lakhish Plan................52
The purpose of this thesis is twofold: To examine and evaluate the Israeli style of new town planning and secondly the motivating forces behind tiiat new town planning into a valuable tool in her
total growth management strategy. Israel is a small democratic/socialist country with a planned economy, encouraging the acceptance of planning strategies as a part of growth management.
As a nation that recognizes the importance of new town planning there is little doubt that there are valuable lessons to be learned. Planning is still used as a tool, even though Israel has been at various levels of war for over 30 years, or perhaps because of it, or because of the lack of natural resources, or because of her small size. Whatever the motivations (to be explored in this thesis) they have helped contribute to the uniqueness of Israeli new town planning.
It is important to remember that planning does not just extend over space but through time also. To understand Israeli New Town Planning it is necessary to study not only the form of the New Towns in Israel
but also the various interrelationships involving an entire society. This is not easy but necessary if one is to understand how and why Israeli new towns became what they are today.
The existing state of data in the field of Israeli New Town Planning is in one sense very limit ed. There are basically two different problems when it comes to the data. First is the problem of avail ability of data here in Denver. (There is a large body of information in the bibliographies, however getting to these sources here in Denver is rather a problem). Second, what sources are available (not only in Denver but also through inter-library loans) tend to be merely descriptive. Descriptive literature is of course very valuable but just not enough. Not only do I want to know what the Israelis did but also why it was done in the way it was and how.
This secondary question of the why is more important in the long run than the what. However, to answer the why it is necessary on the student's part to not only read the existing literature but to also be able to extrapolate motives from it.
I have approached my topic in a rather orthodox manner. First is the task of reading and
studying the available literature on the topic. Second, to attempt to analyze the data not only for
any patterns that may occur but also to see if any of the motivations pop up; and finally, to combine all this book data with my own experiences in living in an Israeli new town for more than a year. The basic solution is to take all this data, extrapulations and experiences and combine them into a unified whole.
The importance of this thesis goes beyond mere academic curiosity. The true importance is that Israel manages to use master planning in a "worst case" situation. After more than 30 years of intermittent war, little water, few natural resources, no energy reserves, and a small population, Israel still manages to have a concept of national planning as a viable part of national life.
If a country with all these problems manages to use planning successfully in the process of development, what then are the implications for a nation not beset with this magnitude of problems?
More simply stated, if new town planning can be carried out and used in a "worst case" situation, what are the implications for planning in a "best case" situation.'
This thesis is organized in a fairly conventional manner. First background information on climate and geography through the historical data, then to the new towns themselves and their legal
basis both in British and Israeli law. From the legal basis this thesis moves on to evaluating of the new towns themselves and possible uses of the new town concept in contexts other than Israel.
The most surprising finding of this thesis concerns new uses for new towns. Traditionally new towns in Israel have a strong defensive use.
A quick look at new towns would indicate that this is a major component of Israeli new town strategy.
However, a closer examination reveals more subtle uses in population dispersion and economic develop-ment in general. In this thesis I will explore not only the obvious uses but also some of the other uses for new towns not only in Israel but in other
third world countries in the midst of economic
New Towns: Physical and Historical Context Introduction
To understand Israel's planning policies on new towns it is vital to look at not only the planning itself, but also to look at other factors such as climate, location, geograpiiy, mineral and water resources, and the political climate in which Israel was born and lives.
Nearly one-half of Israel is arid desert receiving less than 1 inch of rain per year. Even if all water available to Israel was used, and used efficiently, only 40% of the country's cultivatable land could be irrigated. Thus irrigation is the key to Israeli agriculture.^ (Fig. 1)
Israel is located on the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, and is bordered by Lebanon 0)i the North, Syria and Jordan on the East, and Egypt on the South. Prior to the 1067 Six-day war Israel encompassed approximately 8,000 square miles or roughly the size of New Jersey. Israel has a population of
CULTIVATION & IRRIGATION 1948-66
1948/43 1952/53 1956/57
3.5 million, 3 million of whom are Jewish. Israel is 260 miles long from the Lebanese border to the gulf of Elat. The width of Israel varies from 3 miles near Elat in the south to 70 miles at Beersheva in the center.
Geographically Israel is divided into three parts, the coastal plain, the mountain spine, and the Jordan rift. The coastal plain is an average of 10 miles wide and breaches the mountains in the Jezreel valley near Haifa. This area traditionally has been the most attractive to settlers. The mountain spine is a rugged mountain clavin running the length of the country from Lebanon all the way to Elat. In the upper Galilee; in the north, the maximum height of the mountains is 3,600 feet and 3,000 feet in the southern Negev. The Jordan rift runs from the lead-waters of the Jordan river in the Northern mountains to the gulf of Elat. The Jordan river rises in the upper Galilee 635 feet below sea level and drops to the Dead sea; the lowest spot on earth, to 1,292 feet below sea level. (Fig. 2) The Jordan rift then forms the Arava valley in the Negev, and continues to Elat, then under the gulf and continues into Africa as the Kenya rift ending at Victoria Falls.
As large a variety of land types found in Israel, an even larger variety of climates is also
found. The coastal plain has long, hot and humid summers but relatively mild winters with periodic rains. The mountains of Samaria, Judea, and the Galilee are not only cooler than the coast but also much drier. The mountains in the valley of the Arava in the Negev desert are extremely hot and dry in the summer with an average high being 105 degrees F. (Fig. 3). There is little or no rainfall in this area. Average rainfall in the area is only 2 centi- I meters per year or less than 1 inch per year. This tends to make agriculture a bit difficult.
Historical Context: Early Zionest
The history of Jewish settlement in Palestine/Israel is as varied as the administrations under which the settlements took place. Turkish,
British, and Israeli all had their own styles and patterns of settlement which reflected their own times.
In the modern history of Israel the first Jewish settlement in Palestine after the Diasporia (72 A.D.) was founded in 1878. The settlement was named Petah Tikva or Gateway to Hope in linglish. (Fig. 4) Petah Tikva was designed to be a small agricultural village. This was before the ideological rational for such villages was laid down by the Zionist thinkers
Safed V *
Z&Z No. of ramy days Rainfall region mo Annual rainfall lin mm.) Hi!?. Snowfall region
o 20 40
Fig. 3 Rainfall
Petah Tikva, the first moshava, in its early days: the moshava was finally founded in 1883. After an earlier attempt at settlement (in 1878) had failed.
In fact from the founding of Petah Tikva in 1878 to the first Zionist congress in 1897, four new villages were established in Palestine. By the end of 1897 there were 19 new Jewish settlements in Palestine covering 45,000 acres with a population of 4,350.
Tliis period has been referred to as the 1st Aliyah or immigration (Aliyah literally means to ascend). The 1st Aliyah and even more so the second Aliyah (starting in 1904) did a tremendous amount in establishing settlement patterns that are still visible today as the Kibbutz and Moshave movement. (kibbutz--a collective agricultural village; moshave--a cooperative agricultural village).
With the coming of the second Aliyah also came to Pal stine the Zionist philosophy of redemption of the land. Zionism is a mixture of Biblical philosophy (the return to the home land) and British Labour/Socialism. The early Zionist philosophies were influenced by Marx as well as Moses. The basic premise of Zionism is as old as the Diasporia itself. Every year every Jew in the world prays for "next year in Jerusalem." Religion provides the what and Labour/Socialism provides the how. Underlying Zionism
is the idea that a Jewish home land can and should be redeemed. But it is to be done "by the sweat of our b^ows." All must work; even better, all must work with their hands in the soil. One of the goals of Zionism was to convert urbanized liuropean Jews into middle-eastern agricultural peasants.
This growth of Jewish Nationalism unfortunately came at the same time as incipient Arab Nationalism. Naturally there had to be a clash. There was, and still is.
The Zionists believed that the agricultural collective, i.e. the Kibbutz, was not only the proper way to build a Jewish homeland but also the proper way to live. The early settlers of the second Aliyah were young, vigorous, and determined. They were also highly ideologically motivated. They were "true believers."
The Kibbutz pattern of settlement was interrupted by the founding of Tel Aviv (Hill of Spring) in 1908. Tel Aviv today is a modern city of 300,000, but it was to be just a small Jewish suburb of Jaffa (the ancient sight of Perseus and Andromeda) for just 60 families. It was to be at least partially supported by agriculture.
World War I
Up to the first World War the pattern remained the same. The Jewish organizations and private philanthropists like the Jewish National Fund, the World Zionist Organization, Baron Rothchild, and Moses Monti four just to name a few, bought land from the Turkish Pasha for Jewish settlements. The Turkish pasha welcomed his new Jewish subjects with open
arms and palms. Unfortunately the Pasha's Arab
subjects did not.
The majority of the Arab population had been engaged in sharecropping for absentee landlords for generations, they saw; not unreasonably, the Jewish newcomers as not only strangers with strange laws and customs, but more importantly as land theives. But, as long as the Jews had gold, the Pasha welcomed them and Arab resentment grew. By the end of W.W. I in 1917 the Jewish population was approximately 56,000.
British Mandate Period
The Third Aliyah began approximately in 1919. These settlers were not only highly ideologically motivated but had the pre W.W. I experience of Jewish settlers to draw upon. They naturally followed the same settlement patterns of small collective agricultural settlements. These settlements were designed
to be easily defensible and included such features as barbed wire and guard towers. From 1919 to 1924, 50,000 new immigrants arrived and established 27 new Kibbutzim in Palestine and in 1925, 34,386 new Jewish settlers arrived. By the end of 1925 Tel Aviv grew to 40,000 people.^
Tel Aviv absorbed almost two thirds of all immigration in 1925. There were two reasons for breaking away from the country to the city. First, the coming world-wide depression caused a cutback of financial support for settlements in Palestine. Secondly, the establishment of industry and its jobs in Tel Aviv. The first industry was a power plant on the Yarcon river in Tel Aviv.
After W.W. I Palestine passed on to the British to rule. (Fig. 5). The Arabs, if they resented the Jews immigration before the war certainly hated the increased immigration after the war. They responded in the traditional manner; that is, with violence. After a decade of rioting, general strikes, night time insurrection, the British gave in and imposed more restrictive quotas on Jewish immigration.
The new British immigration policy was seen by the Jews as a violation of the Balfour Declaration
Israel before and after partition
which stated Palestine was to be a "Jewish Homeland." All the British managed to do with this policy was stir up the Jews while being unable to pacify the Arabs. The Arabs also felt betrayed. They viewed British policy as running counter to British promises made during W.W. I of Palestine as an "Arab homeland. The contradictory promises and claims for a "homeland in Palestine for both the Jews and Arabs was not only
a bone of contention then, but remains so today.
While the immigration quotas cut down on legal immigration, there were always illegal methods to bring in people. In fact in the four years preceeding World War II there were 86,094 illegals immigrating into Palestine. As these 86,000 immigrants were in Palestine illegally they of course did not have any papers or visas, thus staying in the cities was a very dangerous thing to do. The danger in the cities was British capture and interment in Cyprus or return to Hitler's Europe.
This fear of deportation reinforced the rural settlement patterns of the Jews in Palestine.
As hiding from the British Army was too risky in the cities, most illegals were "disappeared" into the rural countryside and hidden in Kibbutzim.
Post World War II
From 1945 to 1948 there was an undeclared war against the British for independence carried on by both the Jews and the Arabs. They fought not only the British but each other. In 1948, the year of Israeli independence, there were 650,000 Jews versus 1.2 million Arabs.
During the 1948 War of Independence, the Arabs were encouraged to leave Palestine by Arab Political leaders like the Kings of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and religious leaders like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. As a result almost 1 million Arabs left Israel thinking it would be destroyed at birth by the invading Arab armies.
(Fig. 6). Unfortunately for the Arab Palestonians the Israelis won. (Fig. 7). These fleeing
Palestonians, encouraged by their own leaders, made
up the core of what is now the populations of the Palestine Refugee Camps.^
In 1948, the first year of Israeli independence, Israel received over 100,000 immigrants. These people had to be clothed, fed, given jobs and housing. Unwittingly the Arabs provided some measure of help. Many deserted Arab villages and towns were recycled for use
The War of Independence and Armistice Lines
V > #
. $ > ~ Tr
T) Qj Haifa.^ r J l > J I ^ 1 T benas
'srael on eve
Arab invasion^ A'3b city -ewish city
*ted Jewish *. ement *
-ewsh settlement :onquered by Arabs
settlement conquered by Arabs ,
Jewish settlement *. Area m
Israeli hands at the** time of Declaration of Independence.
14 5 1948 Area liberated in military operations Area added through armistice agreements 1949 30
ig* 6 Invasion Routes
Fig- 7 Armistice Lines
by the new immigrants, i.e. Lod. There was however, a second style of settlement that was used very effectively.
This second style; which had been used effectively throughout the 20s and 30's, of settlements which could be referred to as "instant Kibbutz." (Fig. 8). The entire settlement was prefabricated and then trucked at night to the prospective sight (usually on a sensitive border area) and erected overnight. These were very basic settlements consisting of a dining hall, dormitories, storage sheds, watch towers, and of course lots of barbed wire. They laid out in imitation of the Baroque fort. The object of these villages was as much defense as it was settlement. The basic form and style of Israeli planning in the early years was strictly defense orientated. The idea of settlements as being key to defending military is still prevalent in Israel.
Attempts to try other design form did take place. A goad example is Kibbutz Nahalal, which was built in immitation of a British new town.
(Fig. 9). Nahalal features broad green belts, ring roads, with a basic circular design with a central and activity oriented core. However, the realities of constant warfare soon took precedence
Moshav Beit Yosef, in the Jordan Valley one of the many isolated "stockade and tower" settlements established during t Arab disturbances of 1936-1939.
i l, c
to the design of settlements. Defense criteria were used not only for site location but also physical design. (Fig. 10). Even today more than 30 years after independence the building codes still reflect this awareness of war. For example, all windows on all buildings must have steel shutters that can withstand a hand grenade blast.
There was however, some attempt at planning based on other than defense criteria made from 1948-1955. The most noteable and perhaps the only success was the town of Ashquelon. Ashquelon was planned and settled privately, primarily by South African Jews. They built an imitation of a British style new town, complete with low densities, open spaces, green belts and gardens on the site of ancient Ashquelon. The ancient city of Ashquelon was a Philistine capitol destroyed by Kind David in biblical times.
But for the most part this type of British-influenced planning is inappropriate for the middle-east. There were just too many problems in translating a style of settlement designed for a cool, temperate climate with lots of water to a hot, dry environment. Some of the problems encountered were waste of scarce urban land, high cost of water, too much open space and sunshine, lack of variety in
housing, gardens being almost impossible to maintain, green belts turning brown, lack of shade trees to name just a few.^
From 1948 to 1955 the settlement policy was uncoordinated and almost random in quality. New settlements were built and located according to defense and expedience criteria, totally pragmatic solution to the problems of defense and the need to settle large numbers of people quickly.
It was not until 1955 that there was a real and major break in the settlement patterns in Israel. It is important at this point to remember that Israel did not lack either the imagination or desire to try something new, but rather was a captive of her own history and political situation. But, by 1955 things had settled down enough, slower immigration and if not peace at least a truce with the Arabs provided the Israelis with the breathing space needed to reconsider their entire settlement policy. It is in 1955 that the first Israeli National Plan was drawn up. This, then, was the first attempt to integrate some planning into national settlement policies.
New Towns and British Regional Tradition Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is simple. Without an understanding of British Colonial Palestine and its' legal system regarding planning it is impossible to understand the present legal background for Israeli planning. Pre-independence Palestine as a British mandate naturally had its' laws made and administered for it by the British Mandatory Government! It is thus natural that the planning laws be British in style.
The most basic piece of planning legislation was the "Town Planning Ordinance of 1921." This ordinance was modified in 1936 and has been a basis for Israeli planning legislation since. The office of town planning advisor was created in 1935 in order to provide planning guidance to local authorities. This office was filled by the British architect Ilenery Kendall from 1935 until independence in 1948. It is thus no surprise that Israeli planning reflected British points of view.
Town Planning Ordinance
The Town Planning Ordinance enabled the minister of the Interior (under the Britisli Mandatory Government, the British High Commissioner) to proclaim either urban or rural areas "Town Planning Areas." In each of the town planning areas a local town planning commission is established. In the urban areas commission nominees come from the various municipalities, in the rural areas from the local councils. A district Planning Commission, composed of mainly government officials, are appointed to not only review the local commission's plans but to also serve as boards of appeal for the decisions of the local planning commission. (Fig. 11).
From 1938 onward, the Town Planning Ordinance was applied to all lands outside the boundaries of the individual town planning area. These areas would be comparable to unincorporated areas in the U.S. It is from this point that almost all land in Israel was made legally subject to planning.
However, there was a glaring exclusion from the legal umbrella of the planning law. The legal system of planning in no way applied to the building activities of the government itself. The ordinance of 1936 followed the British principles of planning dating back to the Liberal Era of Victorian England.
ISRAPLI PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Plan Prepared By Approved By Appealed To
National Master Plan National Planning Council The National Government
District Master Plan District Commission National Planning Council
Local Plan Master Local Commission District Commission (after notice to minister of Interior) National Planning Council 1) By local commission or member of National Planning Council after rej ection; 2) By member of District Commission after approval.
Lo cal Plan Detailed Local Commission, landowner, or district commissioner District Commiss ion National Planning Council 1) By local commissioner or member of National Planning Council after rej ection; 2) By objector; under statute after approval
New T Plan own Special Commission Minister of Interior (with recommendation of Minister of IIous ing)
New T Detai own led Plan Special Commission Special Commission
At that time government building activities were very limited and had little effect in the public welfare, therefore government building activities were exempted from having to comply with any planning ordinances.
The Israeli planners have used the British legal pattern for their own. In fact the Town Planning Ordinance of 1938 is still the basis for Israeli legislation today. There are a couple of uniquely Israeli features to Israeli planning law. These are due to the ramifications of landownership patterns and the Israeli concept of eminent domain.
Public ownership of land has been the key to Israeli planning. As 92 percent of all land in Israel is in the public domain, the government has been able to choose its' sites for development in accordance with economic and social goals, without being concerned by land speculation.* Public land-ownership, however, is limited in and around the urban areas. Thus, Israel has been less successful in plan implication in these areas.
Israel's public lands arc owned by the national government, the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayameth Leisrael) and to a lesser extent the local governments. It is official government policy reinforced by religious
beliefs not to sell any public land to private parties. The Torah says "And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine."2 The private individual is seen only as a custodian of the land
rather than its' owner. (Fig. 12).
Public land ownership derives from three sources. First, from the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. (P.J.C.A.). The P.J.C.A. purchased land in Palestine largely before the end of the 19th century with Rothchild funds. Second, the Jewish National Fund which was founded in 1901. The J.N.F. saw all land purchased as the "inalienable property of the Jewish people." And thirdly, Arab land relinquished in 1948 and held in trusteeship.-^
Rather than sell land the government leases land for 49 years with provisions not only for renewal but also hereditary rights. But, there are exceptions to the prohibitions on selling public lands. These exceptions relate to specific urban development situations, the restoration of abandoned property to the previous owners, and obligations that pre-date the planning law.
"As is true in most countries of Western Europe, but not in the United States, a landowner does not have the right to develop his land other than as such right is created by an official plan. For example, a plan may place land in a
JEWISH OwrcRSHiP JEWISH NATIONAL FUND STATE LA NO OTHER mo*fly Aral)
primitive agricultural district.
The fact that the owner could make considerably more money from the land by developing it is simply not relevant to the validity or enforceability of the, plan."**
Eminent Domain and Expropriation
In Israel eminent domain is called expropriation, and offers opportunities not found in this process in the United States. The plan must designate that the land to be expropriated must be for public use, e.g., roads, parks, nature reserves, parking areas, airports, harbors, rail or bus stations, markets, public institutions, water or sewage plants. This gives the Israeli government a fairly free hand in the expropriation of land for public use. There is, however, no provision in the law for expropriation for re-development or public housing. However, the courts can and do often interpret these uses as falling under the non-specific use clause in the law which permits expropriation for "any other public purpose certified by the Minister of the Interior.
The Planning and Building Law goes further than anything found in the United States as it permits the expropriation of land without compensation for the landowner. Up to 40 percent of a tract of land may be taken by the government without compensation, if the land is to be used for developing roads, parks,
playgrounds, or buildings for educational, cultural, religious, or health purposes. This partial expropriation, with or without compensation is forbidden if the remainder of the tract would decline in valued
Compensation and Betterment
In the U.S. the standard procedure is to have developers dedicate land for the construction of roads in a subdivision. In Israel the land is simply taken by the government. Payment is made to the owner without any consideration of any increase in value to the land due to that road or any other government building activity. The object of the expropriation of land is to in some measure recapture for the public some of the increase in land values that was created by public planning and expenditures. It is a rough way of balancing the loss in land against the increase in value of the remaining land.
Often the expropriation process can be completely avoided by the local commission. "Generally an agreement is reached with regard to the layout of the estate or development project and the developer readily agrees to surrender 40 percent or even 50 percent of his land to the local commission, knowing that his estate cannot exist without roads, parks, schools, and other public ammenities and that their provision will
enormously enhance the value of his project."
As early planning laws were drawn up by the British Mandatory Government the law's basis is firmly rooted in British jurisprudence. Included in the British planning for Palestine was the concept of betterment. The theory this concept is based on is simple: "that substantial losses in private land
values caused by a plan should be publicly compensated for, while conversly, the public should recover substantial gains attributed to the plans.This concept has been thoroughly accepted by Israeli law.
Under Israeli law a landowner has one year from the adoption of a plan to file a claim with the local commission stating the "land is injuriously affected" by the plan and is entitled to compensation. Rejected claim can be appealed to the courts.
If compensation is awarded it is payable when the claim is established not when the loss occured. This lias created problems as to how to calculate the amount payable.
Anytime within two years of adoption of a plan the local commission can demand payment of a sum equal to 50 percent of the increase in land value due to the plan as a betterment tax. Again calculating the amount of increased value of the land is a problem. What portion of increased value is due to
tie plan and how much is due to other factors?
"Tel Aviv received 2 million IL ($667,000 at the exchange rate at that time) from betterment tax in
At this time land va were rising 2001 per year, realized by betterment tax i a country where 921 of all 1 sector anyway these are not
lues In th s sma and i espe c
in central Tel Aviv is context the amount 11 indeed. But in s in the public ially critical issues.
New Town Physical Design
The physical design of planned settlements in Israel prc-1955 were generally based on what had been done by the British of the Mandatory Government period. The British were the first in Palestine to introduce the concept of total planning. Their designs for new agricultural communities not only considered the agricultural perimeters but also such diverse issues as soil conservation, health, social effectiveness, architectural appearance and security.
The first real achievement in integrated planning was by the pioneer town planner in Palestine, Richard Kaufman. Kaufman's design for Kibbutz Nahalal in 1921 served as a model for agricultural settlements for years. Nahalal was laid out as an ellipse employing the communal dining hall as the focus of the Kibbutz.1 The residential and institutional quarters were generally placed to the West (the prevailing wind direction) with cattle sheds, poultry houses, and farm structures, repair and work shops placed downwind to
During the entire Mandatory period and into the early years of the State each rural settlement was planned as a totally separate entity with no consideration given to the regional point of view. This type of planning procedure continued up until
1955. This is probably the most outstanding
! | .
deficiency in early Israeli planning.
There were other problems with planning of tlis period. Almost all towns built before 1955 siow distinct British influence. The garden city type model was well received as it fit the ideological prejudices of the early Zionist settlers. The early pioneers liked several features, especially those of limited size and the garden in the city. These ideologues found the concept of all having land to grow at least some of their own food very attractive. Many of the early cities display the features of the "good" garden city such as:
1) series of neighborhoods;
2) neighborhoods separated by green belts penetrating into the town center;
3) lots of open spaces ;
4) ring roads in large areas with service roads branching off;
5) the center as the heart of the town, surrounded by a ring road and green belts to offset it from the rest of the town;
6) each neighborhood with its own center with a bank, post office, clinic, shops, schools and youth clubs ;
7) each neighborhood as self-sufficient as possible;
8) low densities; 4-12 dwelling units (d.u.) acre.^
A most successful example of s Asquelon. It was originally built swish immigrants from South Africa, eneral pattern in use until 1955.
type of town settled by was the
type of design towns designed ment might not hast. Several
, by 1955 the deficiencies in this were noted. It was realized that for a wet, Western European environ-be the best design for the Middle-of the problems that became apparent
1) wasteful of urban land;
2) high costs to develop and maintain roads;
3) high costs of water, drainage and electricity;
4) loss of variety and atmosphere;
5) too much open space in sun;
6) tlie building of the same house over and over was recognized as a way to build tenements;
7) "gardens" in mid-East too expensive and labor intensive to maintain.1^
In the 50's Israeli planning took a more "Israeli" turn. The change from low to high densities was a real turning point in Israeli planning. Three and four story apartments now became the rule yield-ind densities of 24 to 28 d.u./acre. The apartment buildings were built on stilts to provide ventalia-tion, shade, storage for bicycles, and for the residents a certain distance from noise and dirt from the street. Excessive repetition of design was consciously avoided and an emphasis on color and details were used to provide some variety to the urban-scape .
In general before the 50's there was little vertical movement in Israeli housing as high rises were very expensive to build. In areas where there is a varied topography the results have been better. The topography itself being incorporated into the design to provide much of the needed visual variety.
The use of covered balconies, winding streets, inner courtyards, slit windows, east/west street orientations are all used to modify climatic problems.
However, this in itself caused problems initially with the settlers who wanted European style houses and not an Eastern or oriental design. The practicality of such designs, however, soon demonstrated itself to these settlers.
The "neighborhood center" type of design was traded in for a "core" type of design. This was, though, a core that was axial or linear irough the town. The linear center concept met a lot of the Israeli problem of access to services.
"If the residential quarters were being arranged to the right and left of the central axis-given sufficient density it should be within pedestrian reach even from the peripheral areas--sub and main center could be largely combined, thus increasing the social and economic potential of the actual core. If a certain flexibility in the use of public buildings is guaranteed, administrative, and community services can move in line with the expansion of the town hall till they reach their ultimate destination in the very center of the center--and yet have always been in the focus of the successive stages of development.
Both Arad (Fig. 13 and Fig. 14) and Karimiel (Fig. 15) utilize this design principal.
Residential area Main and sub-centres Industry Hotels and recreation Public buildings
Central bus station
3. General clinic
4. Youth club
6. Nursery school
7. Mother's guidance clin:
Mu 11 i s t o ry b ui 1 d ii
Arad first sub-unit (scale 1:4000) Arch. D. Best, A. Eyal
The Israeli National Master Plan
The first planning effort of the Israeli government after independence almost exclusively concerned itself with "coordinating and combining the functional requirements of various sectors on the piiysical level."1 The disadvantages of sucli p lysical biases became apparent due to difficulties of attempgint to coordinate the various government agencies. The planning department was further handicapped by the lack of long-term economic plan-
The integration of settlement policies with planning on a national level was an imperative decision for Israel. The necessity of population distribution became recognized by the government as absolutely necessary, if only from the military point of view. Empty land is always difficult to defend.
Settlement patterns, historically, have fallen into two broad categories, polar and hicr rchial. The polar model is found in sparccly
populated rural areas and densely populated urban areas, small and medium sized towns being an exception.
The hierarchial pattern is a middle-European model. This settlement pattern consists of a grading of settlements according to size and services ; going from the minor rural market place, to the small town, through medium and large towns to the metropolis. All these settlements in sequence being interlocked and providing each other with goods and services.
During the British mandatory period the polar form was followed. This was due not only to the general laws covering settlements but also to political, social, and ideological considerations. The Kibbutz and Moshav movements which had a great deal of power and influence viewed with some animosity the very concept of creating urban areas. As the Kibbutz and Moshav movements were founded on agricultural precepts this animosity was natural on their part.
The concept of regionalism was very difficult to establish at first. The planning aimed to not only settle new immigrants to pre-determined areas, but to also change the established settlement patterns. This concept of planning met with extreme public hostility.
However, the essential to Accor the concept o
concept of regionalism was viewed as Israeli planning.
ding to the Israeli Physical Master f regionalism was meant:
a) To attain a larger density of population in the outlying districts so as to reduce the relative proporation of population in the major cities along the coastal plain.
b) To diminish the exclusive
dependence of the rural regions on the three major cities, by transferring their service functions to regional and district centers.
c) To foster regional community
life by encouraging cooperation between new centers and their rural environment.2
The existing situation was one o economic activity outside of the heavily urban areas. Other parts of the country in the Northern and Southern regions are populated and are naturally not very att new settlers. Thus the division of the
f little populated especially sparsely ractive to country
into priority areas for development. This was meant to insure a more balanced development throughout the entire country.
The country was divided into six regions or
priority areas for development. "A region of first priority requires the maximum incentives for development and public incentive, whereas the other regions demand different degrees of attention."^ The boundaries defining the different priority regions are designed to take in account such diverse functions as security requirements, proximity to borders, physical obstacles (mountains and deserts), and the large distances from the main corridors.
These divisions are meant to be only guidelines for government policy makers. The plan also ignores the nature of the incentives to be used.
These matters are left to the various relevant government departments and the appropriate agencies. Also the plan itself is not a legally binding document as such plans are in the United States.
The first priority system plan was proposed in 1955. It has since served as a guideline, especially to the various economic ministries.
The Hierarchial Model
In 1955 with the creation of the first compre hensivc master plan for Israel the decision was made to switch from the "polar" to the "hierarchial" model An essential part of the move to regionalism was this hierarchial model. As a system it was designed as a
model for building new towns in development regions. The Israeli hierarchial model is a five layer system. This model is based on size and function of the settlement. The model contains:
A--center: village (also Kibbutz or Moshav)
B--center: rural center
C--center: rural/urban center
D--center: medium size city
E--center: large city
Up to 500 population 500-2,000 population
6.000- 12,000 population
40.000- 60,000 population 100,000+ population
A-centers; are the basic agricultural community. For the A-center ownership of the resources are not relevant to classification. (This is due to the inclusion of Kibbutzim and Moshavim along with the private ownership village.)
-centers; designed to serve three to five villages
as economic, social and cultural centers. Planned to have not only schools, clinics, infront clinics, but also larger shops, small work shops, repair and service for Agricultural machinery, refrigeration and storage plants.
C-centers ; to serve approximately 30 villages with a total population of 15,000 within seven to twelve miles. The C-center would have secondary and voca-
tional schools, service industry, and industry based on regional produce or minerals.
-centers; are meant to be main centers for regional
integration and have higher government offices, banks,
hospitals and national based industries.
Due to the la.rge influx of population the medium size cities and regional centers (the C and I) centers) were built first. It is now felt 30,000 is the optimal size for towns. By 1963 there were twelve of this size, even though the planning of tie 50's only envisioned seven.
The very important component of population re-distribution is present at a glance at the hier-archial model. Population distribution had it's own important objectives to fulfill. The three main objectives mesh very well with the hierarchial model.
Tley are :
1) To serve as a framework and starting point for fixing the demographic targets of master plans for separate towns.
2) To guide the location and size of various institutions and public services as far as they are dependent on population numbers.
3) To guide such policy measures which decisively affect the actual dis-
tribution of population, like firing quotas for housing of immigrants, or location of government subsidized enterprises.
This policy of population distribution aimed at construction of a minimum of housing in the coastal strip urbanized areas such as Tel Aviv and Haifa.
From November 1948 to January of 1963 the coastal
zone percentage of population dropped from 79.5% to
70.9%. Thus proving the old saw "if you don't build houses, people can't live there."
Location of New Towns
The "new town" in Israel has three different origins. The first were the large private agricultural colonies. They generally were on the coastal plain in the so called orange belt. These were very early settlements that were privately financed by such
philanthropists as Moses Montifour and the Baron
Rothchild. Examples of this type of settlement include Madera, Kefar-Saba, Petah-Tikva and Rehoboth. During the mandatory period these settlements started showing signs of urbanization. This process was sped up during the early period of mass immigration.
A second type of town was the historical town. Many of these towns go back to biblical times. Excepting Tiberias and Safed the towns were mostly inhabited
by Arabs prior to 1948. These towns however, were abandoned during the war of independence in 1948.
These towns were then resettled by Jewish immigrants. Many of these towns did retain an Arab population in their core areas.
And, lastly entirely new urban centers were built when these new towns were built near ancient towns the old names were revived i.e. Hazor, Ashdod, Ashquelon, and Elat. From 1948 to 1964, 20 new towns were built. The first was Kiryat-Shamona in 1950. It was built to be the regional center for the Hula district. In 1952 three new towns were built; one in the upper Galilee, one in the lower Galilee, and one in the center. From 1953 to 1956 four new towns in South Central and two in the Western Galilee. In 1955 two new towns in the Negev including Mizpe-Rimon as an industrial center. In 1956 two seaports were built, one in the Southern Negev, Elat, and one on the coastal plain, Ashdod. And 1961 two more new towns, one in the Judean desert near the Dead Sea and one in the Central Galilee. (Fig. 16)
In building new towns the central coastal plain was deliberately ignored. The towns built as regional centers also served double duty by becoming absorbtion centers for new immigrants.
LOCATIONS OF SOME NEW TOWNS
1. Qir Shemona
9. Migdal Ha Emeq
10. Nazerat Illit
11. A fu1 a
12. Or Aqiya
13. Bet Shean
14. Tel Aviv
17. Rami a
19. Qir Malakhi
20. Bet Shemcsh
23. Qir Gat
28. Beer Sheva
31. Mizpe Ramon
Adapted from: New Towns in Israel, E. Spiegel
After 1953 a secondary objective of Israeli planning became soil conservation for agriculture. In fact after 1953 all plans had to be checked by the committee for the "Preservation of Agricultural Soil."^ Actually the avoidance of fertile agriculturally suitable valleys became the only true constraint on Israeli new town site location. Generally these towns are built on marginal or worst lands.^
A Sample Regional Plan--The Xakhish Region
The Lakhish region lies between the Hebron mountains and the Judean Hills halfway between Tel Aviv and Beersheva. One third of the land is fit for intensive agriculture with the remaining two thirds as natural grazing land.
The Lakhish regional plan dates back to 1955 Before 1955 tlie general practice was to establish settlements on isolated spots especially prepared for settlement, but with no particular relationship to the surrounding area. The Lakhish plan was the first attempt at comprehensive regional planning. (Fig. 17 and Fig. 18).
liach individual village is designed for 80-100 families. Social and economic institutions
Lakhish Regional Plan
C CENTER CNOWD CENTER ) B CENTER A CENTER B CENTER AMBIT PROPOSED CENTERS
0 1 2 3 4 5 KM
Fig. 17 From: New Towns in Israel by E. Spiegel
Schematic Model of Town and Rural Settlements in the Lakhish Region.
ig. 18 From: Israeli
include clinics, kindergartens, first grade, cooperative
shops, clubs, and synagogues. The rural center serves a group of 4-5 villages that average one mile from the rural center. The rural center will have elementary schools, youth centers, larger clinics, cooperative stores, municipal institutions, a mechanical equipment station and a central agricultural marketing agency.
The urban center, a county town with a population of several thousand will have rural service industries, living quarters at urban densities. It will also serve as an administrative and service center.
The Lakhish project includes eight moshavim, five Kibbutzim, two cooperative moshavim, and four private farms. Also two rural centers, Nahora and Evan, with Qiryat Gat founded as the urban center.
Thus we see that the Lakhish regional plan makes a real attempt to embody the theory of the hierarchial model. In general this plan has been very successful. The Lakhish plan demonstrates many of the advantages of integrated regional planning.
The advantages of such planning can be said to be:
a) a greater economy may be achieved on the supply of services, easing the tax burden of the individual settler;
b) members of the professions e.g. physicians and teachers, may be less reluctant to live in the country if they are given the amenities of an urban center;
c) the structure of the villages may be better adapted to the social needs of new settlers, family groups are kept together in one village and need not carry the entire burden of the services which they receive at the rural centers.
d) the regional set-up provides greater security through mutual aid. ^
The concept of integrated national master planning was a difficult one for Israeli planners to accept at first. But once accepted the Israelis were willing to examine the previous planning efforts without being afraid to disregard what was irrelevant to an integrated national planning effort.
National master planning required the Israelis to review policies on settlement patterns, the concept of regionalism, development policies, and the inter-relationships between towns. The hicrarchial plan goes far to express this new thinking about planning among Israeli decision makers.
Reviewing the Causes of Israeli New Towns and Speculations on Their Importance
The motivation of Israeli New Town Planning goes beyond the so called normal considerations of tne general planning process. To understand Israeli planning some knowledge of Zionist ideology and the historical imperatives of the modern Israeli state is important. Both the ideology and history of Israeli support not only the planning process, but also new towns as a concept.
In the basic political ideology of Israel
ionism) there is a built in anti-urban bias.
Zionism represents a combination of naturalism and "back to the earth" movement. These two concepts
and especially the latter support an alternative
approach to settlement patterns.
The sudden influx of immigrants to Palestine and then Israel after the second world war until the mj.d-50's placed the new state in. a difficult position, The infant state was presented with the problem of settling of tens of thousands of newcomers with ex-
tremely limited resources.
The traditional method of settlement was for newcomers to rush to the cities to look for jobs and housing. As a result the three metropolitan areas of Israel (Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem) grew very rapidly. This was unacceptable to not only the planners but also to the ideologues in the government and the various ministries. An alternative approach was to be the hierarchial new town model of 1955.
In this model a series of towns would be built in a previously sparsely or unsettled regions of the country. These new towns would range in size from small agricultural villages up to the large city. This series of towns, as size increased, would provide more and more housing, jobs, and governmental services. The important concept here is that Israeli new town planning aimed at not just building houses but also economic bases for the new towns to rest upon Not only is each individual town to have an economic base but the economic bases of each town in a given region were designed to interlock and support each other. This concept of economic development tied to traditional planning values give Israeli new town planning a regional, comprehcnsive thrust.
Another and maybe more important reason for
new town planning in Israel was national security. As a nation with a very small population facing hostile neighbors on all borders security is very important.
A very real goal of the planning effort was to settle people in unoccupied areas along the borders and in strategically important areas. Not only would these settlers provide an early warning of invasion, but would also be a cadre of fighters to help repulse any military adventurism on the part of Israel's neighbors *
So, the basic motives for new town planning in Israel are: the traditional anti-urban philosophy of Zionism, the sudden growth of population after World War II, the need for economic development, and the very real security problems of the state.
While understanding the Israeli motives for New Town's is important it is not the issue. Even more important is the question if this has been a successful venture on Israeli's part. To evaluate the Israeli successes we must first see if Israel has achieved their own stated goals.
The first goal that was to be satisfied was an understated but never the less important one. This is the satisfaction of built-in anti urban biases of Zionism. Traditionally in an underdeveloped nation
there are only two choices of where to live. The big city or the village. In such a conflict the village loses. The Israeli hierarchial system provides an intermediate level of settlement--the new town. Thus, the village is reinforced by providing an urban type of experience and opportunities to local people without them having to go to the big city.
Another goal of Israeli new town planning was the settlement of large numbers of immigrants. Certainly here Israel was successful. The housing might not have been much compared to housing in the United States but people had roofs over their heads.
In 1948 alone Israel settled over 100,000 immigrants.
The realization of economic goals is not as easily achieved. The built-in economic activities of the new towns is an important factor here. As
each town is designed to be part of a regional economic base, before a town was built there was an economic justification for its size, location, and relationship with its neighboring towns. Thus, when complete the town would have its own economic base to grow and provide jobs from.
The security aspects of Israeli new towns must not be forgotten. There are innumerable examples
(unfortunately) of Kibbutzim being in the path of war. The border Kibbutzim have provided valuable time for the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) to respond. Places like Yad Mordichi and Tel Ilai to just name two have sustained and inflicted heavy losses in warfare. The border Kibbutz is absolutely essential to the security of the state. Not only is the Kibbutz a necessary element of Israel's defense strategy but is as successful in its' own way as the Army or Air Force.
There arc several other advantages to the planning of neiv towns, at least in Israel. I don't know if these lessons learned by the Israeli experience are transferable to other developing nations but as a concept it does work and is advantageous in Israel. One of the primary advantages of new town planning is the gradual development aspects. This gradual development helps avoid the mistakes of too rapid development that is so common to underdeveloped nations. These problems include the overcrowding of existing cities (usually taking the form of shanty town around the capitol city) This overcrowding creates its' own problems of strain on municipal services such as energy delivery systems, water and sewer systems, streets and roads, and educational
facilities, to name just a few. Another very real problem of this overcrowding is an overcentralization of population, economic systems, and government. With this overcentralization those members of the society, not in the city, get shortchanged in essential governmental services.
Another advantage of the new town planning model is flexibility. As the new town model is hierarchial and has provisions for large and small settlements it can be applied to individual cases as needed. Depending on the circumstances the plan can be easily modified. Not only is this model very flexible but also presents a certain economy of size. It is fairly obvious that for a developing nation it would be cheaper to build one or even several small settlements, than to attempt to build a large metropolitan settlement area.
Another very positive aspect of Israeli new town planning is the economic development functions that are built into it. A major thrust of Israeli planning is that the planners do not just see themselves as building houses but also economic units. These economic units of new towns arc designed to be interlocking and to provide mutual assistance. There is a creation of jobs up and down the hierarchy of the new towns.
The last two advantages of this system as I see it are an increase in decentralization and an ability to provide a greater amount of services to a larger percentage of the population. These two concepts go hand in hand and are natural partners. A spin off benefit of these tivo concepts is an increase in the amount of power that is placed in the hands of the local councils and villages. This provides a widening of a democratic power base.
While Israeli new towns have many advantages to the development of Israel and lias been a positive force, another question is "Has Israeli new town planning furthered planning theory?" More simply stated was there an original contribution to planning theory by Israeli new town planners.
The ansiver to this question of originality is
yes. Yes, the Israeli new town planning effort lias produced original theory. The conversion of the concept of the British new toivn to the Israeli new town was a truly an original contribution.
The classic British neiv town was designed for wet, oak tree forested northern Europe. To take this concept and adapt it for use in the dry, arid mid-East is nothing short of remarkable, tated an entire rethinking and
This change neccssi-redesign of the physical
form of that classic British new town. The British new town was changed so much that it ceased to be British but something else altogether--Israeli.
While the literature is uniformly positive, common sense would suggest that as no system is perfect there are also negative aspects to Israeli new town planning. It does in fact have its' problems and disadvantages. Historically (at least for the last 2,000 years) the Jewish people have been an urban people. To get people to move into the outlying areas can sometimes be difficult and expensive. As a result the government has needed to resort to incentive programs for settlers in new towns.
Another problem is heterogeneity of population or rather lack thereof. The more affluent Western European members of Israeli society invariably choose to live in one of the three large metropolitan areas. Thus the new towns are heavily populated by poor non-Europeans and new immigrants. The Israeli governments' policy of building immigrant absorption centers in new towns is a ploy to encourage newcomers to stay in these new town areas.^
A more serious problem is the time lag between the building of the new town by the government and the arrival of private sector jobs. The most successful
of the new towns all have a large percentage of private sector jobs.
And, lastly as Israel is a socialist country and any action by the central government adds another layer of bureaucracy. I think the dangers of an over bureaucratized society are fairly obvious.
While no means perfect Israeli new town planning has been and will continue to be a "good" policy for the state to follow. I feel that this is the only logical way for the Israeli government to settle and develop the nation in a cohesive comprehensive manner. Israel is too small and too poor to use the hit or miss method that was used so effectively in the United States.
There are also areas worthy of further study. If in fact, Israeli new town planning is as successful as claimed, what are the implications for other developing nations? Can Israeli techniques be transferred to other developing nations or is it a process that is uniquely Israeli? If these techniques are transferable how can that be done? If they can't, why not? These are just a few of the questions that might be concerns of future research.
The possible transferability or non-transferability of Israeli new town strategies and tech-
niques is a question of great interest. In the process of accessing this problem we run into another more basic question. Is Israel a third world nation?
The problem here is that Israel does not fit into a normal profile of an underdeveloped third world nation. But, neither does it fit into the profile of a western developed nation. While Israel docs share characteristics of both the underdeveloped world and the developed world it is really neither. It is because of this set of dual characteristics that Israel possesses that defies classification. And,
it is because of these shared characteristics that
it is difficult to say with any certainty that the Israeli experience is transferable to other countries.
However, the goals and objectives of Israeli new town planning arc fairly common. Israel shares many problems of the third world. The problems of overcentralization of population, provision of essential services, economic development, housing of populations, etc., are all issues that are directly confronted by Israeli new town planning.
Traditionally new towns have been built in the industrially developed western nations. These new towns have been used to either control suburban sprawl or to create new suburbs i.e. Rcston Va., and
Columbia, Md. in the United States. These experiments while treated as "new towns" arc in fact nothing more than suburbs. A great deal of lip service was paid to the concepts of industralization of these areas and mixing of economic groups. The reality is very differ ent. There is little or no employment opportunities in these areas and fewer low to mid-income families living in these so called new towns. These "new towns have become nothing more than white collar bedroom suburbs and have not helped to control suburban sprawl but rather have contributed to it.
The real use of new towns as a developmental technique seems to me not to be in the developed west, but rather in the third world. It is as an economic tool that I feel new town strategics can make their greatest contribution.
The coordinated use of new towns to develop not only industrial areas but also agricultural areas can make a great contribution to the orderly controlled growth of underdeveloped areas. It seems that developmental strategies always focus on the indus-tralization problems to the exclusion of the agricultural ones. This type of strategy can be deadly to a developing nation. Because before anything else, a population must be fed.
It is precisely this aspect of new towns, x.e. as a development strategy for the third world that needs more study and research. It is just this type of logical, organized, flexible development technique that the third world needs if there is ever to be controlled orderly growth and peace in these regions. At least this is a hypothesis that needs further research.
FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I
L. Strong, ress, 1971)
Planned Urban Environments,
, The Jews in Their Homeland,
(Double day, 1966).
^M. Begin, Revolt, Tel Aviv.
3E. Spiegel, New Town in Israel, (F. Prager lisher, 1967). p. 5$
*A. L. Strong, Planned Urban Environments. 2Leviticus 5:23.
3E. Sp icgcl, New Town in Israel.
^A. L. Strong, Planned Urban Environments ^Planning and Building Law, see 188 ^Planning and Building Law, see 190(a)(1) ?M. D. Goldman, Legal Aspects of Town Plann
^A. L. Strong, Planned Urban Environments, yM. D. Goldman, Legal Aspects of Planning,
(John Pub -
p 165 p. 74
^Even today the dining hall fills the foie of town hall also.
JE. Spiegel, New Towns m Israel, p. 58 4 Ibid.
5Ibid., p. 64
armiel is Denvers sister city.
1J. Dash and E. Efrat, The Israeli Physical Master Plan p. 2 8
^Ibid., p. 23 ^Ibid. p'. 26
^Eliezer Brutzkus, Physical Planning in Israel--Problems and Achievements
5Ibid., p. 31
^E. Spiegel, New Towns in Israel.
7 J. Dasli and E. Efrat, The Israeli Physical Master Plan, p. 53
This provides some explanation for Isreals policies today toward the new settlements in Judea and Samaria, (the "West Bank").
2'1he immigrant absorption centers in Aslulod and Arad are perfect examples of this practice.
Alder, L. and Kaufman, L., Israel Garden Cities and Collective Settlements^ Housing and Town anU Country Planning Bulletin, No. 5, United Nations, Ap. 1950, pp. 7-15.
Akzin, B. and Yithizkel, D. Israel High Pressure Planning, Syracuse University Press, 1966.
Barutii, K. Ii., Tnc Physical Planning in Israel--The Legal and tluT Technical Basis Shindelcn and Co lonib^ London, 1949.
Bein, A., The Return to the Soil A History of Jewish Settlement m lsrael7 [1952)
Brutzkus, L., Physical Planning in Israel --Problems and Achievements, Jerusalem, 1964.
Darin, H., Public Housing in Israel, (1959)
Dash, J. and Efrat, E., The Israeli Physical Master Plan, (1964)
Dash, J. and Efrat, E., The Israeli Physical Master
Plan, Ministry of Interior, Planning Department, T96T
BenDavid, J., Agricultural Planning and Village Community.
Glikson, A., Regional Planning and Development, (1955)
Glikson, A., Physical Regional Planning, Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1961
Goldman, M.D., Legal Aspects of Town Planning in Israel
BenGurion, D., The Jews in Their Homeland, Doubleday and Co., copyright 1966
Klienberger, A., Society, Schools and Progress.
laron A., Physical Planning in Israel, Government Printer, Tel-Aviv, 1950.
jiegcl, E. New Towns in Israel, (1967)
Planning in Israel, Town and Country VolTT9,Ho. 84, Ap. 1951, pp. 182-18 Plan- ts.
[., Israel's New Towns --A Strategy for their
The Agricultural Colonization of the Zionist
zation in Palestine, (1926) Physical Planning in Israel, (1952)