Jeff Risom MSc. City Design and Social Science LSE 2009 (Distinction). Associate at Gehl Architects, Copenhagen Faculty Danish Institute for Study Abroad jeff@gehlarchitects.dk

Maria Sisternas MSc. City Design and Social Science LSE 2009 Urban Development Project Manager at MedCities, Barcelona Lecturer University of Barcelona mariasisternas@gmail.com

Revisiting London’s first Garden Cities: failed utopian vision or a sustainable 21st century model?

1. Compare and Contrast Garden City Vision and Compact City Policy

2. Critical Examination of the Compact City Policy (Urban Renaissance)

a) The redevelopment of Brownfield sites

b) Density targets: regional focus versus local context

3. The myth of polycentricity

a) difficulty in creating a ‘centre’ in a suburban context

4. Garden City 100 years on

Assessing the Leaf proposal for the Arcadia site in Ealing

How to recapture the Garden City ideal within Compact City Policy?

a) Socially

b) Physically economically

5. Conclusion

1898 – Response to congested, dirty central London

1999 – Response to urban decay at the National Level

THE BEST OF TOWN AND COUNTRY -

•

•

•

•

•

The Urban Renaissance through

A regional metropolitan plan

'compact city':

socially

economically

environmentally

Designates

areas for growth

areas for intensification

•

•

•

”Slumless and Smokeless”

Ealing built density 1903

The ’leaf’ site under regional planning guidance

The redevelopment of Brownfield sites

London 2007-2017: + 326 000 homes (of which 182 000 affordable)

BUT:

Restricting available land increases housing prices (Green Belt)

People value open space and underdeveloped land more than greenbelt outside the city (social costs)

Employment growth is not necessarily coinciding with the location of available brownfield land (more pressure on car use, contradicts the compact city)

Brownfields tend not to be easily accessible by foot

'maximizing the potential of the

site'

… in places that have a high level of

Public Transport Accessibility

Level (PTAL)

Density matrix:

Central

Urban

Suburban

Does not adequately take burden on services, cost of housing, access

to green space, etc. into consideration

•

•

Arguments in favour for high density:

Economies of scale

London's competitive advantage for knowledge economy

BUT:

… leads to smaller (undesirable) units:

… conflicts with integrity of existing places

... Pressure on local services

... Uncomfortable density

•

•

•

•

•

•

Polycentricity

A market response to a congested Central London

Public sector trying to optimise physical expansion of the city

'pseudo suburbia': the suburban model is vastly degenerated

How sub - urban are London's suburbs?

What makes them less urban?

The geography of London for the highly

skilled is decidedly more polycentric than for the low-skilled (GLA

Economics, 2009, p. 4).

Polycentrism is crucial in terms of

social justice: as soon as a centre is defined, another zone becomes

peripheral

T

To

T

To

Only one Unitary

Development Plan

(6 years-old)

It is not ONLY a matter of

judgment 1) suburban landscapes as a problematic market-

driven form of urban expansion

2) compact city is only a myth: people's preference

diverge

3) economic growth argument: the welfare state trusts

market to come up with the best solution

4) local communities: aesthetic and other hidden

prejudices (protect their property values)

The Queen of the

Suburbs today

number of migrants has increased

by 50%.

Ealing borough is increasingly

polarised (average income in

Ealing Broadway is £40,000 per

annum, the Southall Green and

Southall Broadway wards have an

average income lower than

£27,500 per annum)

Lack of affordability of the housing

stock (due to ‘Right-to-Buy’

programmes, the Council looses

around 50 properties per year, out

of a stock of 13 400 tenanted units)

19% of Ealing households (32% of

Southall Broadway) were estimated

to be overcrowded in 2001.

Ironically, there are around 2500

vacant properties in the borough

Interestingly, in Ealing, an already

low median density of 55 residents/

Ha gives place to a congested

urban atmosphere.

Empower those who are deprived from public life participation through the analysis of a broader informational basis

Land values were high Implementation of the London Plan successful in terms of stimulating the market.

Ealing has excellent qualities as a low dense suburb. Hence, this built environment should help ensure a prosperous future, instead of contributing to suburban blight.

Removing barriers to development and physical interventions

barriers to housing aesthetic prejudices overcoming the obsession with

density

Removing barriers to development and physical interventions

infill strategy a more durable built

environment

Removing barriers to development and physical interventions

boundaries of open spaces lack of services and amenities

Additional criteria for identifying similar characteristics – local

Contribute to a more place based complementary policy to regional guidance

New tools to facilitate cooperation between non-competing local areas

Facilitate more beneficial ‘inter-local’ relationships (areas where we live, work and play)

SUSTAINABILITY LIVABILITY

LOCAL

QUALITY OF LIFE

GLOBAL

SUSTAINABILITY

SUSTAINABILITY LIVABILITY

LOCAL

QUALITY OF LIFE

GLOBAL

FEAR OF DISASTER

Jeff Risom jeff@gehlarchitects.dk

Maria Sisternas mariasisternas@gmail.com