write:The dialectic of culture and function seen in play in the Casablanca housing projects reflects this dual strategy of imperial admin-istration. For Ecochard the logic of incremental

and dis-persed cultural sphere of the French imperial domain. Perpetuated in the name of protecting native populations from sudden influence of modernization
this dual approach allowed colonial administrators to take both a preservationist and transformative stance
emphasizing the dimension demanded by the cir-cumstances: preservationist if labor reserves were required
transformative if displacement was warranted. The dialectic of culture and function seen in play in the Casablanca housing projects reflects this dual strategy of imperial admin-istration. For Ecochard the logic of incremental organization employed in Casablanca was apt for the problem of refugees in Pakistan as well. Pakistan too needed a model of cultural custodianship built on a system of administrative manage-ment
one that was distant yet ever present
inclusive yet centralized. This mod-el had allowed the colonial government to maintain low investment in public welfare in the name of preserving existing cultural practices. It now allowed a third world government to maintain political and administrative control in the face of limited available resources
to fill the gap between what the government could provide and what it must plan to retain political legitimacy.Ecochard’s initial proposal for Karachi constituted of a series of independent satellite “cities” at Landhi
a site adjacent to Doxiadis’s future Korangi project.16 These cities were to be developed over time
along the main railway line that linked Karachi to the outlying industrial areas. This multiple-city approach
how-ever
quickly changed to a more centralized design
composed of a single large city with multiple subunits
or “neighborhoods” (figure 7.4). Although each of these units were to have a fixed periphery—and a fixed “framework” of roads
shopping centers dispensaries
schools
and gardens—they were meant to ac-commodate changing types and arrangements of housing. The commercial and community areas were to be located at the intersection of multiple housing sec-tors
leaving minimal restrictions for different possible organization of houses in large swaths of open green. What’s curious here is that Ecochard does not settle on a particular organi-zation scheme for the houses until the very end (figure 7.5). In fact
the possibil-ity of ever-new reorganization is presented as the main feature of the plan. Fol-lowing Casablanca
Ecochard expected the new city to grow from provisionary shelter to an intermediary stage of “hutments”—that could be arranged and rearranged in different conglomerations within open green space—to other housing types (medium- to high-rise blocks). As the economic and social profile of the inhabitants changed over time
Ecochard argued
the entire settlement would move toward lower densities and more open space. The city plan is here composed as an infrastructural field that forms both BOUNDARY GAMESThis content downloaded from 132.174.255.3 on Tue
17 Aug 2021 18:31:30 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms