Policy Group - TrustNews Feb 2002
The development pressure described in Shione Carden's report, means that these are troubling times for all who are interested in the future of British towns and cities. If we are to avoid piecemeal dilution of the character of our city, the challenge must be accepted and managed by the City Council rather than left to take its course in the hands of the developers.
The present government commissioned the Urban Task Force, under the chairmanship of Lord Rogers, to advise it on urban policy. The Task Force produced its report in 1999. Good design is now government policy. In November 1999, Nick Raynsford, then Minister of Housing and Planning, addressing a planning conference, said that good design was probably the single most important economic lever that local authorities have. “if your council does not think that good design matters, tell them to go and look at Bilbao or Barcelona", he continued.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued PPG3 in March 2000. Besides demanding that local authorities use brown field sites in preference to green field ones where possible, it sought to increase the density of housing in our cities to between 30 and 50 'housing units' per hectare (from the post-war average of about 25 units per hectare). But it said little about how this should be achieved. Put in a nutshell, it is the Trust's contention that the right approach for Winchester is to return to "the traditional urban forms" of streets, squares, courtyards, terraces and open spaces, in place of the car based suburbia we have built since the war. This was set out in the Trust's discussion paper “The Future of Winchester: A Strategic Vision" published in January 2001 (copies available from the Heritage Centre). However, the Trust also recognises that it is much more difficult to design the denser traditional city successfully than it is to design suburbia, and we have little or no experience in the last fifty years of how to do this.
David Mackay and the ‘Good City Workshop’
Because of this the Trust invited David Mackay, an architect who practices in Barcelona and who is an advisor to the British government on urban design, to address the Trust's members after the AGM on the 5th November 2001 on the subject. A summary of his address follows this report. He also agreed to participate in a workshop, which was held the following morning on the subject of the 'Good City'.
The workshop tackled four topics each moderated by experts. The topics were: Living in the 'Good City'; Retail and Other Services; Transport, Access & Movement; and Periphery & Neighbourhoods.
Over sixty people attended the workshop, including members of the Trust and of the City and County Councils.
"On your Bike!"
David Mackay's inspirational address to the Trust was a real tonic. It high-lighted many lessons that we in this country need to learn if we are to achieve cities and large towns that are a delight to live in. This short summary tries to tease out the essence of his address.
The first lesson is that government at all levels, even in our 'democratic' society, can be the kiss of death when it comes to planning issues. Politicians and the public, with few exceptions, find the whole planning process boring and confusing. The officers who have to execute the planning decisions are so hedged about with rules and regulations that they may be forgiven for producing solutions that do not sit well in a particular location. He quoted the experience of Berliners who will tell you that the planners did more damage to the city than that inflicted by the war! Hard to imagine, but how terrible if true.
David Mackay suggests that we need to take a much more empiric approach to planning problems. Those responsible for making policy should quit their offices, leave the textbooks to gather dust and get out into the streets (on bicycles, we hope) and observe the real world. That is the one they are planning for - not some politically correct mirage that will not work.
One of the primary objectives of change, and change is inevitable and in some cases desirable, must be to retain the best elements of the past. By a process of renovation and repair change can be made acceptable.
But above all leadership must come from the politicians who will need a clear view of the way ahead. Added to that the architects of the scheme or schemes must be of proven ability. Matters must not be left to the architects directed by the developers, who are a pretty soulless breed, and generally only interested in getting the maximum return on the investment.
In essence what we need is a system that responds to the reality of situations. This will demand complicity of both public and private interests in a citizen friendly plan, using creative political objectives within a clear architectural structure.