|
Below is Poundbury, the New Urbanist extension to Dorchester in Dorset. It's superb in many ways, and is by far one of the best volume build developments in the country - mainly due to the flexibility provided to the developers by the landowner who was determined to show it was possible to do better - yet so far in transport terms it's proving itself almost entirely unsustainable (barring an electric car revolution fuelled entirely by renewable energy taking place within the next few years, which seems unlikely).
What is telling about the slide below is that it contrasts the very low modal share shown by the Oxford Brookes study with the cartoon sketched out prior to the site's development by the project's main architect and masterplanner, Leon Krier. Mr Krier was well aware of this problem of "suburban mortar fire" and his response, based on his experience as a masterplanner, was to design a new village centre adjoining Dorchester based on the assumption that poly-centric urban areas create more walkable neighbourhoods: a great idea in theory, but evidently in practice entirely insufficient to reduce car use much below the worst levels in the country. The Farrell Review is currently causing a great stir amongst design and planning professionals who've been sidelined recently in the pursuit of growth to the single bottom line. We need to heed the lessons of the past and recognise that architects and other design professionals (like me) do have an important role to play, but are only a small part of a very big picture that requires not only eco-literate landowners and developers, but also an organic approach to development and regeneration that works within the limits of existing infrastructure, with sustainable lifestyles made a core part of the development process through cooperation and shared ownership. Below I use four photos to illustrate the paradox in quality assurance, namely that regulation is both an obstacle and a solution.
The top two photos are of the facade and interior of the same building: the DZ Bank in Pariser Platz, Berlin, designed by world-renowned architect, Frank Gehry. The strict city design codes around eave height and 'punctuation of fenestration' (i.e. rhythm of windows) mean that the city centre is uniform and ordered, arguably bringing up the overall quality, but it also means that the delightful outputs of creative mavericks like Gehry are hidden away from public view; a great loss to the city. On the bottom left is Hanham Hall, a Code 6 ("zero carbon") development in between Bristol and Bath, which is almost as delightful as the original artists' impressions, but was funded by around a 1/3 of total capital cost through the public purse. On the right is a faceless aberration in a new housing estate in north Bristol. Together these illustrate to me the need for flexibility for people with the experience, talent and drive to create exemplars, and regulation for those who can't or won't. In the current UK context, where red-tape is being cut left and right, this means quality of individuals is more important than ever, starting with the landlord and its procurement mechanisms - see below blog - but also the expertise available. It’s an exciting time to be living in Bristol. I just spent two hours in a room packed full at the RIBA event “Can Bristol Build the Best Homes in the UK?” and it was a genuine delight to hear - beyond the usual impotent waffle about quality of design that consultants like me work ourselves up about - many people start talking seriously about how good design actually gets delivered. Well done to RIBA for getting a good mix of speakers that had interesting developers sat alongside a grass roots self-builder and representative of the Bristol Community Land Trust. Well done to the audience for asking such insightful questions. Conversations ran over much of the same ground that the Bristol Green Capital event last year touched on, but then went beyond to really get at the roots of the issue: landownership, long-term governance structures, procurement, public-private partnerships, the importance of community and alternative forms of delivery like the custom-build movement, on which so many hopes now seem to rest having all but given up on the volume builders. (A notable omission from the conversation was housing associations, despite their long-term revenue models, suggesting the jury’s out on their capacity to deliver.) Bristol has a reputation for poor quality education, but it feels to me like there has been a gradual, informal and collective up-skilling going on here. People with relatively little power or influence, but with inquisitive minds and a prodigious supply of passion, determination and patience, have been asking time and again over many years how their City can be improved, and tonight it felt as if the good people of Bristol were clustering, if not around, then at least near the solution. It helps that, after years of stagnant frustration, we now have, and for precious few years in development terms, a self-described “bloody-minded” Mayor, who has not only experience, but also that same passion and determination to drive the change in our City in every way that he can. More power to him and his trousers, I say. Only one of the panellists was brave enough to say that he thought it unlikely Bristol could build the best homes in the UK, which I silently applauded, but with this kind of sea change I can see possibility through the low cloud of my innate pessimism. And when you consider just how depressingly awful the vast majority of our urban environments are in this country, you wonder: why stop at the UK? Bristol needs to be setting the global standard for quality of place, and right now is the only time it’s ever going to happen. Get involved. 4 slides illustrating impotence of consultants, relative to landowner control, alongside typical inverse levels of eco-literacyTwelve years ago I was introduced by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) to the term ‘externality’, which refers to costs that economists don’t factor in to the global standard, Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The example NEF gave was that of a doctor treating someone who is obese: specifically, that we count the doctor’s salary as a benefit, but we don’t count obesity as a cost. Over the last few years I have been compiling a growing list, which I set out below with references to their source. If anyone else has any others, I’d be very glad to hear of them. Perhaps I/we could create an open access Wikipedia page so that people can upload any costs they are aware of with an automatic counter to show total costs. Please note that, while they are to my knowledge correct, they have not been ‘officially’ verified. I would welcome any further evidence either for or against. [1] Chief Medical Officer (2004) At least five a week: evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health. Department of Health.
[2] GOV.UK (2013) Helping more people survive cancer. UK Government webpage. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-more-people-survive-cancer [3] DEFRA/EA (2010) Delivering benefits through evidence. Bristol, EA. Available from: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/scho1109brja-e-e.pdf [4] Ibid. [5] Association of British Insurers (2013) Massive rise in Britain’s flood damage bill highlights the need for more help for flood vulnerable communities says the ABI. Webpage. Available from: https://www.abi.org.uk/News/News-releases/2010/11/massive-rise-in-britains-flood-damage-bill-highlights-the-need-for-more-help-for-flood-vulnerable-communities-says-the-abi.aspx [6] National Audit Office (2009) The health of livestock and honeybees in England. DEFRA, London. Available from: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/0809288.pdf [7] National Audit Office (2009) The health of livestock and honeybees in England. DEFRA, London. Available from: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/0809288.pdf [8] Natural England (2009) No Charge? Valuing the natural environment. Available from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/36019 [9] Natural England (2009) No Charge? Valuing the natural environment. Available from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/36019 [10] DEFRA (2012) Summary of the Key Findings from the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012; UK Climate Change Risk Assessment. London. Since c.1900, the rate of oil consumption has grown around two billion times faster than population growth globally. In other words: over-population is far less of a problem than fossil fuel-based lifestyles. This is good news, because while the former we’re stuck with, the latter we can change…should we wish.
In 2010, the UK Government called climate change “one of the greatest public health threats of the 21st century”. It’s first national Climate Change Risk Assessment (2012) reveals that impacts are expected across all sectors: 1) disruption of transport networks and communications; 2) increased competition for water, energy and materials; and 3) flooding and coastal erosion. The Environment Agency estimated that the 2007 floods cost £3.2bn, and the 2012 floods £1bn. How about 2014? These losses are not external; they are an extravagance we cannot afford. One of the primary issues faced by flood victims in the 2007 floods was lack of drinking water, requiring military assistance for distribution. At the same time, DEFRA reported that farming fell 14% (£800m) in 2011-12 due to ‘unusual’ weather, a particular issue for a nation with only 60% food self-sufficiency. We do not know for certain whether these extreme events are a result of man-made climate change, but we do know that five of the wettest years in the last half-century have been post-2000 and the global scientific community are united. As southern England emerges from yet more eye watering flooding, one hopes that the ‘man on the street’ is waking up to this and that politicians can finally start making lasting change. Most planners know that 21st century industrialised world lifestyles are unsustainable – three planets for the average European and five for the average American according to the WWF - yet most consultants still spend their working lives planning settlements built to that specification. Why? Because they have no choice. The fundamental decisions are made by those in control of the equity, mainly the landowner in its choice of developer (influenced by local accountability, or lack of), and subsequently the developer in their vision and choice of planning and delivery team. On the other side of the fence sit the local authority planners whose biggest weapon is (fast-dwindling) red-tape aimed at the lowest common denominator: ecologically illiterate developers responsible to locally unaccountable shareholders. Local authority planners apply these policy mechanisms, but it does nothing to alter developers’ approach, and in fact is counter-productive when applied to eco-literate developers. ‘Eco-literacy’ is a simple yet profound concept coined by David Orr and Fritjof Capra in the 1990s, which draws a parallel between the need for the knowledge of natural systems with the widely accepted need for the ability to communicate. We must strive to communicate, and now we must strive to ensure we have enough fresh air, water and food. In the UK we now have so many impact assessment methods that “impact assessment fatigue” is recognised by Public Health England as a genuine problem; I wonder if Big Pharma will produce a drug for it. The limitations of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - a mechanism that mitigates against a single very large-scale development proposal (e.g. nuclear power station or motorway) - have long been recognised, hence the legal evolution of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA), created to consider options strategically ‘upstream’. As far back as 2000 the UK Government acknowledged that a particular weakness of EIA is the lack of stakeholder engagement, particularly with the public, but also with non-statutory stakeholders (e.g. Third Sector). It’s been recognised more recently that SA/SEA suffers from similar issues: a 2010 Government report acknowledged the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of SA/SEA citing lack of: skills, wider stakeholder participation and “clear spatial focus”. Perversely, particularly with regards to neighbourhood-scale planning, public consultation is only mandatory at the end of each process. And what about those major or super-major housing schemes that fall under the EIA threshold? These legal and policy drivers provide consultants like me with work, but their impact on the health of people and the planet is marginal: they are reactionary add-ons, and external to a system directed solely by reductionist quantification: pounds and pence. So, here are two proposals that I think could reduce the need for red-tape, while increasing quality of life. I’d be interested in readers’ opinions on whether you think they would work or not: 1) place a ‘Duty of local responsibility’ on landowners and developers to ensure their assets are used with the long-term future of that area and its people as a primary concern; 2) include ‘ecological literacy’ as a central part of every curriculum, particularly on those courses that lead on to the control and development of land. The Town and Country Planning Association set up the PCCC prompted by concern that there is no national response from government to forecast impacts from climate change, particularly along the east coast and Somerset Levels. This is an open letter to the PM signed by all the members of the PCCC including db+a.
Please click on below for our 2-page response to the government's new draft planning guidance.
We set out why the continued lack of integration between health, sustainability and stakeholder involvement in neighbourhood planning and masterplanning is such a serious oversight and how it may be addressed. This response was written by db+a with the full support of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Healthy Urban Environments at the University West of England.  Charles foster radical 2016 national history narrative exploring what it might be like to be an animal (being a beast, 2016) Animal nature, productivity and mental health
|
