ABSTRACT
Tracing Geddes’ urban plan for over 30 years has shown that it remained constant throughout the years, reflecting mainly his fixed worldview and inflexible practice. 1 Arriving in India and in Palestine with a preconceived, embracing and meticulous scheme, Geddes’ notions could hardly change to accommodate reality, a failure which is all the more apparent in light of his honest intentions of being loyal to his clients. As a result, he also failed to relate successfully to planning challenges which were set before him. 2 Going back to look for the ideals beyond long-forgotten traditions, Geddes chose those which suited his purposes, sometimes distorting them in the process. 3 Many elements received concrete shape only following practical use, accumulating diverse meanings in the process. For example, Geddes’ use of urban parks revealed the uniformity of his theory, reflecting in the process differences of appreciation and utilization of the landscape by the British, Indians, Arabs, and Jews.
