**3. British planning in Jerusalem (1917–1948)**

A short review of the mandate period in Palestine, especially in Jerusalem, would reveal rigorous and matchlessly more passionate political life than that during the Ottoman era. Hence, before focusing on the planning footprints British Mandate left in Jerusalem, a brief reflection on the historical background of the exceptional socio-political events during the British Mandate would be essential. As the WWI approached its end, the British Mandate (1917–1948) started and lasted for three decades in Palestine. In 1917, the British Prime Minister announced his declaration (Balfour Declaration) to reconstruct Palestine to be the Jewish homeland. As such, the British appointed a Zionist Jew as the first High Commissioner for Palestine in 1920. In 1922, the ratification of the Balfour Declaration was announced by the League of Nations, which by so, entrusted the United Kingdom to administer the "Mandate for Palestine", and to facilitate establishing a Jewish state in Palestine [10].

#### *Urban Planning and Land-Use Management in Jerusalem – Chronological Analysis: Urban… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112766*

Unlike what was proposed by the geopolitical agreement of Sykes-Picot in1916, the internationalization of Palestine, the mandate there was only British in order to fulfill the British governmental promise of Balfour [23]. And so, the British government issued a set of "White Papers" to determine the destiny of Palestine in 1922, 1930, and 1939, besides a division plan to split Palestine in 1937. As such, the future vision of Palestine and the destiny of Jerusalem, which for many times was planned to be controlled internationally, rendered critical questions. The British mandatory administration policies aimed at changing the natural demographic composition in Palestine to minimize the number of native Palestinian Arab populations. The Jewish community at an early stage of the British Mandate in Palestine constituted less than one-tenth of the total population. The mandate facilitated a massive influx of Jewish immigration [24], more than 425,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine including illegal immigrants, **Figure 4**. In a short period, Jews composed one-third of the total population, and the accuracy of these numbers was boosted by successive studies [26].

The constant influx of Jewish settlers forced Palestinian native peasants to get displaced from their land. Then the mandatory government allotted 'illegally' thousands of hectares of Palestinian cultivable land to the Jews [27]. As such, the mandatory government tried to control the absorptive capacity of the country [28]. This sudden change in the demographic composition in Palestine created tension between the Palestinian and the foreign Jewish immigrants which led to blood-stained riots mainly in the 1920s, then the eruption of the Arab revolution of 1936–1939. Instability continued to grow and reached the top as the British Mandate drew to a close [29, 30], while Arabs organized more and more riots to liberate their lands and protect their rights [31].

The British Mandate was headquartered in Jerusalem. By so, Jerusalem acquired a new political significance and became the capital of the whole country again for the first time since the Crusader days. This had fostered urban growth which rapidly accelerated after the WWI, and most of the official British buildings were erected there. Jerusalem expanded to the north, south, and west. In consequence, new and rapid building projects marked most spaces, in different building categories including residential quarters, commercial and office centers, industrial zones, luxurious hotels, sports and recreational facilities, and religious institutions. Accordingly, Jerusalem began its transformation from the provincial town of Ottoman times to a modern administrative, political, religious, and cultural hub.

#### **Figure 4.** *Jewish immigration into Palestine during 1919–1941 [25].*

 Jerusalem shaped a focal point for pioneer European planners and architects. The most famous architects and planners, such as Sir William McLean, Sir Patrick Geddes, Charles Ashbee, William McLean, and Henry Kendall were invited to Jerusalem to develop master plans and design buildings. They were inspired by the "garden city" concept which influenced their planning ideas. Their role in shaping the city image of the new extension of Jerusalem was substantial. A new page of 'conventional town planning' in Jerusalem was opened during the British Mandate.

 The British realized the need to preserve the old city's exclusive identity while transforming Jerusalem into a modern city. Hence, a preservative component was dominant in urban planning during the mandate period. Planners at that epoch balanced between two critical criteria, namely preservation, and urban renewal. Therefore, the British planning paradigm, specifically for the Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding, could be classified as a "Romantic Approach" [ 22 ].

 To maintain the authenticity of the Old City, the British Military Governor, in 1918, i.e., 4 months after the capture of the city, announced that no person shall destroy, improve, change, or repair the structure of any building in Jerusalem or its surroundings without first obtaining his written permit. Restrictions were also imposed for construction materials, using sheet metal and stucco for the building was forbidden, likewise, the use of beaten iron and stucco within the walls was prohibited. Those strict regulations show sensitivity towards the urban fabric, the resultant city image, and the conservation of its originality. Moreover, they shaped a conceptual foundation for the following plans that have formed Jerusalem to a large extent to date.

 During the mandate period, five master plans were developed for Jerusalem: three advisory plans and two statutory outline plans. The first master plan of Jerusalem was submitted in 1918, by Sir William McLean. This plan serves as a foundation for planning Jerusalem, its strategic principles are paramount to date. It reflects the garden city concept by offering a green belt all around the Old City as shown in **Figure 5** . The plan highlighted the architectural value of the historic city center with less focus on its functional role to serve the entire city. The development of the new city, 'Modern Jerusalem', was directed mainly towards the west and north. The plan was not detailed, however, it enhanced urban uniformity throughout the city and created harmony

 **Figure 5.**  *McLean Master Plan 1918 with the respective schematic outline (author).* 

#### *Urban Planning and Land-Use Management in Jerusalem – Chronological Analysis: Urban… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112766*

between all space components of the built environment by enforcing restrictions on types of building materials, as well as on building height to preserve the skyline. Thus, McLean offered an invaluable master plan that oriented the city development with great emphasis on preservation.

 A year later, the second master plan was submitted by Patrick Geddes. This master plan paid lower attention towards preservation, it had reduced magnificently the amount of land where the building was prohibited and controlled instead the development of adjacent zones of the Old City. The development wheel followed the orientation marked by McLean plan, whereas restrictions remained on the eastern and southern sides. One year later, an interesting collaboration between Patrick Geddes and architect Chareles Ashbee produced an advisory master plan (Geddes-Ashbee) which continued to develop until 1922. It introduced greater emphasis on neighborhood planning and established building criteria according to zones. The basic urban outline of Geddes-Ashbee plan was not changed from Geddes plan, however, it indicated, for the first time, clear designations of land use "Zoning". Hence, this plan is more integral than the previous ones, it allowed for wider expansion while considering the originality of Jerusalem historic Old City.

 In 1925, Clifford Holliday, the city planner of Jerusalem, proposed a new plan which was approved in 1930. It was the first legal outline plan of Jerusalem and served till 1944. Its detailed regulations defined land uses, building setbacks, building densities, heights, and building materials. In accordance with land use designations, special zones in the city were designated for commercial activities, e.g., along Jaffa Road which is considered up to date one of the most popular commercial roads in Jerusalem. Based upon Holiday's plan detailed local plans were derived and all parcellation and building plans followed it.

 The city of Jerusalem demanded additional ideas and more comprehensive details about its urban context and future physical development. As a result, even during WWII, specifically in 1944, Henry Kendall as a British Town Planning Adviser developed the last plan initiated by the British Mandate Authority, **Figure 6** . Kendall Plan represents twice the area of the preceding Plan. This responds to the population growth which recorded a huge increase, almost 2.6 times the population during the previous plan [ 32 ]. Kendall plan had significantly minimized the land-use marked as

 **Figure 6.**  *Kendal Master Plan 1944 with its schematic outline (author).* 


#### **Table 2.**

*British planning perception in Jerusalem (author).*

open spaces around the Old City of Jerusalem. In other words, Kendall encouraged development towards the west, north, and southern directions, and therefore allowed erecting new residential areas in the green park surrounding the Old Wall of the city. Kendal integrated multiple socio-economic planning criteria, and thus demonstrated separation of social strata by using a clever residential zoning approach. Two-thirds of those zones were designated in the western sector mainly, while the rest one-third was in the eastern part of the city.

The planning perception and the accompanying spatial reflection on Jerusalem during the British Mandate are shown in **Table 2**. The imperial administration of the British Mandate attempted to divide the city of Jerusalem into separate boroughs [23], but that failed as did the mandate. In 1947, the British government announced that the mandate in Palestine is not workable anymore. With the termination of the British Mandate in Palestine, the passionate and romantic planning fruitful days came to an end. Jerusalem, as a "Palestinian Capital" of the whole country turned into a question of hope.

### **4. Planning during the division of Jerusalem (1948–1967)**

After the dissolvement of the mandate in Palestine, the United Nations called for the partition of Palestine and the internationalization of Jerusalem in 1947–1948 [33]. Arabs rejected this plan; war broke out between Arab and Jews and ended with the proclamation of independence of Israel in 1948. This fact reflected a practical translation of the British commitment to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Israel fostered and supported by all means the Jewish immigration to Palestine. It introduced a lot of controversial laws, among which the Law of Return of 1950, which is an ethnic-based law that gives any Jew the default right to immigrate to Israel and automatically become a citizen. Along with this immigration policy, Israel spent every effort to own lands from Palestinians [34]. During that Arab-Israeli fighting, Israel occupied the new city of the western part of Jerusalem. While Arabs kept Jerusalem Old City and its eastern new edges. Practically, the division of Jerusalem took place

#### *Urban Planning and Land-Use Management in Jerusalem – Chronological Analysis: Urban… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112766*

addressing what is known as East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule, and on other hand West Jerusalem under Israeli occupation. This separation of Jerusalem, East, and West, lasted 19 years, extending from 1948 to 1967. Each part of the city was administered and developed separately.

East Jerusalem underwent economic stagnation, a slow growth rate, and a modest development pattern. During the Jordanian administration period, Jordanians did not produce any master plan for East Jerusalem. Instead, they made some changes by issuing new planning laws (Jordanian Planning Law (79) in 1966) that replaced and amended the British planning acts [35]. In East Jerusalem, the Jordanian administration used Kendall Plan of 1944, which was the sole reference to direct urban development there. However, Kendall's Master Plan was no more appropriate to serve as a master plan, due to the fact of physical and geopolitical separation of Jerusalem. Originally, it envisioned Jerusalem as one entity that shall grow in an integrated spatial system of development, in contrast to the divisional status.

During the division period, approximately 30,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes in the new city sectors. Local Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem suffered from severe economic and social losses. The city grew slowly, in a random, small-scale, and piecemeal pattern. Construction was initiated by families, or sometimes by limited developers. There was no harmony or consistency in the developed urban fabric, due to individual designs that were highly differentiated. The diverse forms of the single-family house were the predominant building type. In consequence, the Arabic sectors in East Jerusalem expanded fragmentary with limited speed and capacity. Likewise, infrastructure and public facilities deteriorated and lacked renovation and expansion.

On the other side, West Jerusalem was declared the capital of Israel. A new epoch of colonial administration has started. It represented for the city a period of major changes, rapid development, and speedy growth, the opposite scenario to the eastern part. The central government played a key role in accelerating the development wheel in the new city. Construction was public, and on large-scale. Housing units were a governmental priority. As such, repetitive standardized housing units characterized most neighborhoods in the western part during the 1950s and 1960s. To ensure high construction rhythm, the Israeli government overlooked the law of stone buildings, permits were issued to construct buildings in concrete or stucco.

Unlike the Jordanian administration in the eastern part, Israel produced two master plans for West Jerusalem. The first one was the Rau Plan, a conceptual plan formulated by architect Heinz Rau. It came out as a natural outcome of the new geopolitical situation which demanded establishing an urgent strategy for urban planning. Indeed, this plan took into consideration the spatial reflection of the whole city by neglecting the limits of armistice lines. Valleys besides the adjacent areas of the Old City encircling walls were designated as parks, the internal road network was much developed, and detailed zones for public and private development were carefully addressed. The Israeli government decided to prepare a legally binding plan for the city. Hence, Shaviv Plan, **Figure 7**, was introduced officially in 1955 and got approved in 1959.

Shaviv Plan shaped the major physical benchmarks of the new western city to date. It introduced different zoning criteria and multiple land use titles. Road networks and linkage to existing infrastructure and railways gained momentum in this plan. Unconventionally, the plan did not respect the preservation aspect. In consequence, it allowed the demolition of several traditional neighborhoods along commercial roads and the expansion of building rights in old neighborhoods. The focal objective of the plan was to direct the development westwards, to concentrate the Jewish population

**Figure 7.** *Shaviv Plan 1955–1959 with its schematic outline (author).*

there, and to improve the configuration of the built-up neighborhoods. This planning policy allowed population growth based on the existing infrastructure of roads and public buildings, without any large investments in new areas. Unlike the well-planned new quarters located in the western direction of the new city, the earlier existing old neighborhoods of the eastern sector got their land use titles and had been zoned in a rather general and monotonous way that did not fill the gap regarding the shortage of land for public amenities [36].
