Discussion

Reviewing the writing about Geddes as a planner over more than a century yields an uneven picture of his work and his legacy. The appreciation of Geddes is ambivalent and in many cases there seems to be much left to explore, as many predicaments and contradictions remain to be settled. Moreover, many of Geddes’ periodical advocates neglect to fully explore dilemmas which their own assumptions arouse, holding on to their prescribed conclusions, sometimes even risking internal contradictions. ¹ Along the years, Geddes acquired many interpreters, and at times it is difficult to differentiate between his own thoughts, which were confused to begin with, and their explanations, sometimes claimed better than the original. ² In any case, it has often been claimed that it is hard to trace Geddes’ contribution, as much of his ideas have been adopted from others, his own creations having later received various interpretations. ³ As a result, it seems that several strands of descriptive genealogies have been established, in which Geddes’ early descriptions were incorporated into later writings; Helen Meller's convincing interpretation seems to satisfy many who use it today as a handy scheme to explain Geddes’ work. “As often in such cases,” claims Hebbert, “he is more referred to than read.” ⁴