All the principles of Howard’s garden cities were applied and, pretty much everywhere, those principles failed. Britain’s new towns, for all that some are now OK, were without question a failure.
Any thoughts on the North American and Australian phenomenon of the large privately developed master planned community, some of which comprise several suburbs and a town centre, in effect being private new towns?
Thanks for this history lesson on how the UK's new towns were conceived and developed. I agree that there is a big gap between what town planners decide would be good for the little people and what the people themselves choose with their wallets.
Many years ago, I enjoyed reading "The Geography of Nowhere" which describes the soulless nature of American suburbia and how it ended up that way, as the unintended consequence of (mostly) good intentions. 19thC US cities had smoke-belching factories, abattoirs and the like cheek-by-jowl with the slum tenements where the workers lived. The zoning laws that were put in place to prevent this have ensured that American cities separate the dormitory suburbs from the factories and offices where people work, and a commercial district for shopping and leisure activities. The consequence is that everyone needs a car, and the resulting streets and buildings are on a scale to suit the driver and not the pedestrian.
We British have all seen films set in, say, New York City, where the urban dweller can find a bar, deli, restaurants and cafes, and shopping for daily needs all a short walk from his apartment. I had never realised that in most of America such convenience is completely lacking -- and would be illegal to build -- while the few neighbourhoods that are like this, in the oldest cities, are some of the most desirable places to live.
There was a great documentary a while back on Jane Jacobs, called Citizen Jane. It details a lot of arrogance and hubris which went into the belief in top-down solutions to urban planning. I managed to find a version on YouTube for free, provided you can bear the Spanish language subtitles:
Although I enjoyed your article, I note you haven't mention Milton Keynes in this examination of the new town programme, which is arguably a fairly significant ommission as it is widely considered a success not least by the some 300,000 who now choose to live here. Mostly they choose to live here due to readily available housing, but also because of the ample infrastructure, including bountiful cycling and walking infrastructure, which you seem to consider misjudged. I understand and acknowledge that plenty of new towns have proven to be mistakes, but failing to mention and indeed address Milton Keynes role in the new town programme in your remarks serves to weaken your argument that new towns have and would be if pursued again a flawed undertaking.
I have most of an article about why Milton Keynes worked by accident. The short version is that it is perfectly located, surrounded by wealthy places and great transport links.
You make a valid point, and there is no inherent problem with cycling and walking infrastructure, provided there is also ample facility for private road users and parking. Why? Because people are heterodox. They have individual needs. Buses don't generally cut it, but short-range rail can be better. Here's the thing. Cities aren't going to be the centre of the workplace anymore. All the evidence is there. The smart approach is to reinvent the city as a boutique shopping hub, a centre of leisure and culture. That means attracting people into the city by any means possible. Even a 14% loss in trade can kill the hospitality sector.
Norwich has been faring better than most, but the local council seems intent on driving it in the same direction as Bristol, recently featured in its very own episode of Turdtowns:
Letchworth looks better than average because Howard didn't micro-manage the designs for the housing. Instead, competitions were held for the best designs within a 'cheap cottage' budget.
Having travelled quite a bit, I can think of no place that gets visited because of its great zoning. Tourists instead flock to places built before the zoning ideology took hold, places with vibrant and diverse streets where you can feel the energy of the people and the beauty that comes from organic evolution over time. Even though the housing is often relatively poor quality because of its age and often shoddy modifications over time, prices would indicate that people prefer this to fully functional modern, planned mediocrity.
I agree, there has to be a balance between buses (public transport) and car use. And as you say, cars are generally the preferred mode of travel for most people. In part because public transport is poor, but also as you say, because individuals prefer to travel individually as it suits their needs best. It's a tricky one, as public transport use on the continent suggests that there is a demand in urban locations where the options are of sufficient quality (light rail as you say). In the UK, the options are poor hence the very strong preference for car.
Any thoughts on the North American and Australian phenomenon of the large privately developed master planned community, some of which comprise several suburbs and a town centre, in effect being private new towns?
Thanks for this history lesson on how the UK's new towns were conceived and developed. I agree that there is a big gap between what town planners decide would be good for the little people and what the people themselves choose with their wallets.
Many years ago, I enjoyed reading "The Geography of Nowhere" which describes the soulless nature of American suburbia and how it ended up that way, as the unintended consequence of (mostly) good intentions. 19thC US cities had smoke-belching factories, abattoirs and the like cheek-by-jowl with the slum tenements where the workers lived. The zoning laws that were put in place to prevent this have ensured that American cities separate the dormitory suburbs from the factories and offices where people work, and a commercial district for shopping and leisure activities. The consequence is that everyone needs a car, and the resulting streets and buildings are on a scale to suit the driver and not the pedestrian.
We British have all seen films set in, say, New York City, where the urban dweller can find a bar, deli, restaurants and cafes, and shopping for daily needs all a short walk from his apartment. I had never realised that in most of America such convenience is completely lacking -- and would be illegal to build -- while the few neighbourhoods that are like this, in the oldest cities, are some of the most desirable places to live.
There was a great documentary a while back on Jane Jacobs, called Citizen Jane. It details a lot of arrogance and hubris which went into the belief in top-down solutions to urban planning. I managed to find a version on YouTube for free, provided you can bear the Spanish language subtitles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdmhPUR-UI0&t=561s
Although I enjoyed your article, I note you haven't mention Milton Keynes in this examination of the new town programme, which is arguably a fairly significant ommission as it is widely considered a success not least by the some 300,000 who now choose to live here. Mostly they choose to live here due to readily available housing, but also because of the ample infrastructure, including bountiful cycling and walking infrastructure, which you seem to consider misjudged. I understand and acknowledge that plenty of new towns have proven to be mistakes, but failing to mention and indeed address Milton Keynes role in the new town programme in your remarks serves to weaken your argument that new towns have and would be if pursued again a flawed undertaking.
I have most of an article about why Milton Keynes worked by accident. The short version is that it is perfectly located, surrounded by wealthy places and great transport links.
Okay, I look forward to taking a look
You make a valid point, and there is no inherent problem with cycling and walking infrastructure, provided there is also ample facility for private road users and parking. Why? Because people are heterodox. They have individual needs. Buses don't generally cut it, but short-range rail can be better. Here's the thing. Cities aren't going to be the centre of the workplace anymore. All the evidence is there. The smart approach is to reinvent the city as a boutique shopping hub, a centre of leisure and culture. That means attracting people into the city by any means possible. Even a 14% loss in trade can kill the hospitality sector.
Norwich has been faring better than most, but the local council seems intent on driving it in the same direction as Bristol, recently featured in its very own episode of Turdtowns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbBrx3nQ4Jo&t=5s
Letchworth looks better than average because Howard didn't micro-manage the designs for the housing. Instead, competitions were held for the best designs within a 'cheap cottage' budget.
Having travelled quite a bit, I can think of no place that gets visited because of its great zoning. Tourists instead flock to places built before the zoning ideology took hold, places with vibrant and diverse streets where you can feel the energy of the people and the beauty that comes from organic evolution over time. Even though the housing is often relatively poor quality because of its age and often shoddy modifications over time, prices would indicate that people prefer this to fully functional modern, planned mediocrity.
I agree, there has to be a balance between buses (public transport) and car use. And as you say, cars are generally the preferred mode of travel for most people. In part because public transport is poor, but also as you say, because individuals prefer to travel individually as it suits their needs best. It's a tricky one, as public transport use on the continent suggests that there is a demand in urban locations where the options are of sufficient quality (light rail as you say). In the UK, the options are poor hence the very strong preference for car.