Futures 33 (2001) 213–218www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Reflections

Urban fallow and the surface economy

Mike Clark *

Department of Environmental Management, LE115, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR12HE, UK

Of all the clues to class, status and power, the one that reaches most senses andoccupies much of our time and spending is oddly ignored. Science fiction ticklesour imagination with contrasting images: atomic scale cleanliness contrasting withaeons of accumulated, disgusting grot. But mainly we receive tactile and visual cluessubconsciously. We clean, paint, polish, dust, anoint, weed, shave, mow, vacuum,wash or abrade the exteriors and interiors for which we are responsible. Early social-isation is reinforced by the expectations and sanctions of friends, family, employersand anyone else who can set their own standards. Media constantly present idealisedimages, and negative connotations for the unclean and neglected. Working fromhome means telesales enquiries about your double glazing, and occasional offers toresurface the drive. Going to work usually requires appropriate dress. ‘Going out’even more so.

Lifestyle substitutes for religion or ideology, of is confused with both. And maga-zines tell us what to expect, prey on our anxieties, define acceptable behaviour orsubstitute one set of anxieties with another. Our skin, clothes, hair, homes, vehicles,gardens and artefacts are the more obvious parts of a surface economy that alsoincludes its workplace and public elements. An army of cleaners attack most office,shop and prestige surfaces relentlessly, before most of us are awake. Hygiene inhospitals and catering establishments warrants such attention, but use as a mark ofstatus and respectability is seen on every car showroom, and in the care we give ourpurchases before cruel depreciation sets in. The same applies to places of political,administrative, financial and corporate power, to shopping malls, air, rail and seaportterminals, hotels and leisure centres, even to new schools, prisons and motorwayservice stations. But once the newness has worn off, then we can judge.

Failure to achieve perfect surfaces means accountants write off shop interiors aftera few years; gutting and rebuilding the high street and more drastically reconstructing

* Tel.: +44-1772-893494; fax:+44-1772-892926.E-mail address:mclark@uclan.ac.uk (M. Clark).

0016-3287/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0016 -3287(00 )00067-7

214 M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 213–218

early ‘Arndale’ type shopping complexes. University buildings from the 1960s and70s face major programmes of repair and reconstruction, so do hospitals. Civic splen-dour is often more robust, as are banks and churches, but even here neglect, risingexpectations and cost may favour a quick, cosmetic fix. Architectural fashions areas fickle as those for clothes, shoes and cars, and new materials often come in apackage that includes more efficient heating, lighting and air-conditioning. Bettersurfaces are part of the new product. Design out the awkward corners and cracks.Avoid a patina building up by use of glass, stainless steel or natural materials, usuallypolished wood or stone, that will stand repeated rubbing down, or strong carpets andother textiles to be replaced before wear or stains become obvious. The client getsmultiple benefits: prestige, an appropriate setting for other elements of ‘social con-trol’ (CCTV, security guards) and contrast with less attractive environments. Thearchitect and other professionals get the satisfaction of creating something thatmatches the crisp lines and unblemished simplicity of most images in the design andlifestyle press. And someone has to work out how to keep these surfaces lookingnew, difficult when mirrors stretch to the ceiling above executive style washbasinsand the cleaner is only 5 feet 3 inches tall.

Public places and streets can easily appear neglected compared with shoppingmalls, the better airport and rail terminals, business complexes and various types ofcampus. Many town centres and resort areas have undergone major cosmetic sur-gery—new pavements, lighting, street furniture and planting—combined with ongo-ing commitment to cleansing and repair. The contrast is not so much with the privateplaces that these provide access to, but with the neglected streets, alleys and patchesof waste ground behind them. Just as the commercial centres attract, so these litterstrewn, dingy, dirty, dangerous places repel. They include public facilities such aslavatories ‘closed due to vandalism’, neglected bus stations, car parks and unwelcom-ing public open spaces. They reinforce differences in status and expectations betweendifferent groups of people. And they corral most customers, workers and touristsinto the safer, more ‘attractive’ environments, and provide the justification for invest-ment which may, eventually, redevelop the surrounding wastelands in their image.Or at least appropriate space for car parking and other services which support theirprimary function, to maximise throughput, revenue and property values.

International comparisons suggest that Britain does not suffer an extreme approachto surfaces, but we expect more careful, better quality, design, cleaning and mainte-nance in those places we volunteer to go to. University campuses have smartenedup in face of recruitment difficulties. Town centres’ competition with out of townshopping is reflected in numerous improvement schemes. But we acquiesce to lowerstandards for places that are less competitive or important. We have always tendedto abandon land and buildings that have become obsolescent. ‘Urban fallow’ haslasted decades in docklands, railway sidings, redundant factories, mills and works,defence establishments and airfields. Most find eventual reuse, sometimes after aworthwhile but untidy period of ‘temporary’ occupation. More often after being keptvacant but empty, unavailable and unimproved. If a greater proportion of new build-ing could take place on these ‘brownfield’ sites, less development would be neededelsewhere. Safeguarding countryside is part of a ‘green’ agenda which also reflects

215M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 213–218

the political and commercial difficulty of finding acceptable and affordable greenfielddevelopment sites. But it has other benefits, including the hope that higher densityurban living, and avoidance of suburban sprawl, might reverse the trend towardsgreater car use. New buildings should perform better than the existing stock, and will,hopefully, meet current expectations more effectively than older houses and flats.

Does this process short change the future? It does where land or buildings are leftderelict or dangerous, reasonable access is denied and unnecessary investment takesplace somewhere else. This can happen because of prejudice against places that givethe ‘wrong’ signals or because of institutional factors, for example big landownersthat won’t make sites available, or can’t cope with negative land values. Surfacesmatter, as seen in most recent docklands redevelopments, and where redevelopmentprojects have successfully competed for Lottery funding, European regional aid orthe Single Regeneration Budget. Their extravagant attention to detail tends to sacri-fice genuine history and replace dereliction with a tidiness that combines contempor-ary (false) notions of ‘heritage’ with standard paving and street architecture: a sterilebut safe setting for investment and public use.

To fully realise the potential of urban fallow we need to turn ‘brownfield’ sitesround more quickly. Cope with negative land values and inflated developers’ expec-tations, not sterilise sites with ‘book values’ that ignore the costs of cleaning up andmaking safe. Break up the big estates into viable plots. Allow immediate use withina systematic approach to the environment. Restore ecology. Work towards attractivelandscapes and public spaces, and accept that the process of renewal involves suc-cession. Parking lots, campsites, fairgrounds and warehouses will be replaced bymore intensive, permanent uses. But it’s better that the land be occupied for a fewdecades, and that the urban fabric of roads, landscaped green corridors, mains anddrains be installed as quickly as possible. The habit of access is an important partof the regeneration process, and while such sites are rarely either the low cost orhigh profit options that some assume, their opportunities for urban experimentationcan relieve other places that are less able to accommodate market forces or socialchange.

This approach seeks to realise the potential of all areas. While it may not givethe priority and massive investment necessary for redevelopment centred on a coreof immaculate buildings and spaces, the overall effect should produce far more usevalue. The trick is to deal appropriately with surfaces and materials. To be viable,extensive restoration requires these to be robust, ideally low cost, low energy, lowmaintenance... and preferably someone else’s responsibility. Work here for landscapeecologists, arboricultualists, community and private gardeners, allotment holders andcity farms, where pollution levels permit. But also opportunities for the full effectsof construction to be properly accounted for. Where will building material comefrom? What emissions and other undesirables result from their extraction, processing,transport and assembly? How well will they perform? Many UK local authoritydevelopment plans and other planning documents include environmental assessmentswhich consider impacts on Global Warming, resource quality and depletion, andconsequences for the local environment. These questions are also necessary at the

216 M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 213–218

design and commissioning stage, increasing scrutiny of materials and demandingadditional standards of performance.

Glossy magazines sell new, smart, clean surfaces to happy, shiny people... Wellperhaps not all the time. Minimalist architecture and interior design are impressive,and show up in the better class of shops, restaurants and galleries, but barely impacton our domestic lives. We may worship order and cleanliness, and even get some-where near at work, but our homes are mainly too small, too cluttered and too oldto accommodate the new orthodoxy. Despite orgies of house clearing and chintzchucking, most of us are surrounded by a comfortable, or suffocating, jumble ofthings. Sentiment and practicality, insecurity and convenience, aspirations versus lim-ited means... compromise and inertia rule what we keep in our homes, on, underand in our most familiar surfaces. The trend towards materials that retain less dustor grime favours wood, steel and glass over fitted carpets and plastic coated boardand tiles, and domestic filing systems and fitted cupboards over cluttered tops andshelves. What scope here for lifecycle assessment: a cradle to grave understandingof the consequences of our actions, as consumers, on the environment? Yet therationale of environmental assessment demands precisely this. We may not have tomake the decisions ourselves, or even notice. Phasing out of asbestos, PCBs, leadin paint and numerous ‘Red List’ type materials have been unexceptional, routine.Our choices are conditioned by plans and regulations, as much as by the marketsthrough which these operate, sometimes perversely. For example country cottagesand select developments in green belt villages are scarce and expensive, and so thatmuch more desirable, because of measures intended to limit the number of peoplewho live there. But while we probably won’t notice changes to the materials we buyor use, or be much aware of changes in their performance and environmental impact,it is odd that so little is made of improvements.

It’s as if the consumer must not be frightened into thinking about the effects oftheir choices. As for the potential gains from better products, conspiracy theoristscan have a field day. See the excellentWho Framed Roger Rabbit? for an indictmentof collusion between US auto, tyre, gasoline and real estate speculators, who, asothers have observed, killed off public transit so they could profit from mass carownership [1].

The Golden Threadhas a similar critique of uncompetitive behaviour as the turnof the 20th Century’s promising solar technology was displaced by fossil fuels [2].Hypercars, far more efficient than today’s, populate science fiction films such asDemolition Manand occasionally crop up as ‘concept cars’ at motor shows and inthe press, interesting analysed in Green Futures [3]. But their main promoter theRocky Mountain Institute faces industrial inertia and conservatism [4]. Maybe thesceptics are right, it is dangerous to try and introduce new technologies too fast. Butover ambitious failures such as Britain’s Advanced Passenger Train don’t excuseindustry from acting faster to incorporate the lessons of military aviation, FormulaOne racing cars or the space programme. All offer similar messages about materialweight and performance, though it appears necessary for such innovation to be intro-duced gradually, via rally cars and upmarket models. Otherwise the customer mightworry. Houses face even more consumer resistance. Nostalgia rules much of the UK

217M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 213–218

property market, while the architectural press appears obsessed with minimalism anda raw modernity which makes most of precisely the sort of surfaces and space thatare absent from most affordable or volume house building. Zandra Rhodes has moreto do with High Street fashion than coffee-table house designers have with the placesordinary people have a chance of occupying.

Perhaps this is because housing means far more than shelter. We buy status, neigh-bourhood, security and, above all, fix our lifestyle in our home. The commitment ofincome and time is massive, especially if the burden of commuting and other regularjourneys is added to the domestic chores. Many of these involve surfaces, an endlessround of cleaning, painting, vacuuming, weeding, DIY... Yet the subject of all thisattention is generally suspect. Space is usually limited, storage inadequate, heatingand ventilation inefficient and most of the design and materials innovations of thelast Century are missing, and not easy to retrofit. Sustainable development aspirationsdon’t yet achieve much routine use of passive solar gain for space or water heating,active ventilation systems with heat recovery, or hotovoltaics.

How long before these become the norm, or before today’s dwellings are as obsol-ete as 1960s and 70s office blocks with their inadequate wiring, telecommunicationslinks, access, floor loading, cladding, insulation, ventilation and space standards? TheInteger experimental house at the entrance to the Building Research Establishment inWatford, Britain, shows what ‘off the peg’ late 20th Century products and technologycan offer. A futures perspective must look further and be subject to new disciplinessuch as life cycle assessment, environmental management systems, total quality man-agement and ‘just in time’ stock minimisation. It should consider domestic appli-cations of recent materials innovation, as proved in defence aviation and FormulaOne motor racing, also new materials and surface treatments to enhance performanceand reduce cleaning requirements, safer and more reliable transport (despite risingprices) and enhanced computing and telecommunications capabilities. These in parti-cular facilitate and drive changes in how we spend our time, whether at work or atleisure. Combine these possibilities and the medium term value of existing propertybecomes suspect. Expect big changes in how and where we live.

This supposes a direct relationship between what is possible, and what happens.Later childbirth, smaller families, high rates of divorce and far less sharing withelderly relatives help fit ‘modern’ lives into accommodation designed before a pro-liferation of toys, clothes and gadgets. But it doesn’t explain why we are so readyto take a ‘satisficer’ approach to where we live. Sensitivity to the visual and tactilefeatures of our surroundings may be both a symptom and a causal factor, so fashioncould make a difference, if enough of us are persuaded to reject conventionalmaterials and designs and insist on ones which meet higher standards. Or it couldbe a fad, another spin of the product cycle, and an irrelevance to people largelyuninterested in and unaware of details of the places they inhabit. Why volunteer todo more cleaning, decorating, washing and ironing? There are far better things todo with our time. The catch with this dismissal of a surface economy is that it impliesrejection of the status quo. The future can do better, either by a return to traditionalmaterials and vernacular forms, or by applying new technologies in ways which

218 M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 213–218

ensure far higher standards of performance than so far achieved by ‘modern’ productsand architecture.

References

[1] Jones B. Sleepers, Wake! Technology and the future of work. Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1982.[2] Butti K, Perlin J. A golden thread: 2500 years of solar architecture and technology. London: Boy-

ars, 1980.[3] Tickell O. Hyper-car or hype? Green Futures 1998;Nov–Dec:28–37.[4] Lovins AB, Brylawski MM, Cramer D, Moore T. Hypercars: materials, manufacturing, and policy

implications, brochure advertising Hypercar Centre,