Responses to the manifest social and environmental problems in the towns and cities of Victorian Britain took different forms, in different places and at different times. But in general, ‘The second half of the [nineteenth] century was devoted to containing or reversing the environmental consequences of uncontrolled development since the pragmatic decisions by individuals and institutions alike had produced unfavourable consequences for others.’ In broad terms it can be said that, over time, attention shifted from the narrow public health considerations discussed in Chapter 2, focused on water and sanitation, to a wider view, embracing the moral and social wellbeing of the community, leading to calls for the provision of libraries, galleries, swimming baths and public parks. One influential strand of thinking placed considerable emphasis on a kind of civilising mission to the demoralised poor of the cities, led by activists such as Octavia Hill (the granddaughter of Thomas Southwood Smith, one of the leading public health reformers of the 1830s) and Canon Samuel Barnett (who was born in Bristol but made his name in social work in the East End of London). This was essentially a top-down project in which moral entrepreneurs like Hill sought to inculcate middle-class values and behavioural patterns among the ‘deserving poor’, a group she defined as those who were willing to make an effort to improve themselves. The emphasis was on behavioural modification through personal outreach by middle-class individuals, and in Hill's case she was strongly opposed to the creation of formal organisations to carry out the work. This approach may be contrasted with what became known as the ‘civic gospel’, or municipal socialism, which placed the emphasis on the local council as the leading agency of urban improvement. The chief exponent of this idea was Joseph Chamberlain, who, as mayor of Birmingham in the 1870s, ‘reached the conclusion that the only way a city could effectively shape the destinies of its citizens was through the actions of its municipal authority. The moral purpose of the city lay in its council.’

These two approaches shared a rhetorical interest in helping the less well off through the provision of cultural and recreational facilities, including public open spaces (Octavia Hill, despite her opposition to formal organisations, was one of the founders of the National Trust).