I recently wrote about several progressive transportation
initiatives being taken by the Conservative – I repeat, Conservative - government in the UK (here).
One initiative
I didn’t mention (it’s not strictly transportation) is a new round of garden
towns and garden villages that are being advanced as a way to ease a housing
shortage. These new developments,
which are descendants of the century-old garden city movement, are supposed to
be more or less freestanding and self-sufficient rather than add-on or
infill. In theory, at least, they
will be environmentally friendly, with lots of green spaces.
The garden “villages” are smaller-scale than garden “towns”
and can fit into smaller footprints.
To get an idea of what they have in mind, take a look at Dissington
Garden Village in Northumberland (news story here, concept plan here). This particular development hasn’t
gotten planning approval yet, but it showcases some of the features that an
ideal garden village should have: walkable/bikeable layout, community
facilities, retail shops, employment opportunities (ratio of one job per
household), range of housing options built to high environmental standards,
internal and external green spaces, and high-quality infrastructure, including
fast broadband.
Many of these garden village plans, including Dissington,
have attracted local opposition for various reasons (Dissington takes a bite
out of a preserved green belt), and each should of course be reviewed on its own
merits. And I understand that the British
planning and regulatory regime is much different than that in the US. But really, we should be doing a much
better job of rural planning than we do in this country. Contrast the garden village concept
with the sprawl development that is still so prevalent here. I think there is much to learn from
watching Dissington and its cousins.
No comments:
Post a Comment