The British “New Towns task force” has published a report (here) recommending that the government launch twelve “new town” initiatives in England to help address the nation’s housing shortage. Those of us in the US interested in urbanism and the connection between transportation and land use should take note.
Britain has a history of government-supported new town creation, mostly post World War II, and it seemed a natural fit for the new Labour government to give the old mechanism a try in the 21st century.
The twelve sites chosen are very diverse, and not all are really “new.” They range from genuinely new sites on greenfields (Adlington in Cheshire) to transit oriented development in already urbanized settings (Manchester Victoria North) to urban “extensions” (Marlcombe, Exeter) to revitalization of an earlier new town (Milton Keynes). Target sizes range from 10,000 to 40,000 homes (roughly 25,000 to 100,00 people).
The task force makes a number of recommendations on how to make these new towns happen, but critics are skeptical given the current government’s lack of cash, the orientation of many of the sites toward areas with relatively weak market forces, and the proposed rule that 40 percent of the new housing should be affordable. (See the comments by British urbanist Nicholas Boys Smith here).
For US observers, however, the main interest lies in the task force’s forceful endorsement of “new urbanist” standards. Chapter 3 of the report – “Placemaking principles for new towns” – lays out an excellent prescription for urban development, most of which work well on both sides of the Atlantic.
Some of the key principles:
Vision-led – “Each new town should have a clear long-term vision for creating a well-designed and distinctive place, supported by a town-wide strategic masterplan and design code to ensure placemaking quality.”
“Ambitious” density – The report calls for designing towns with enough density “to enable residents to walk to local amenities, support public transport, unlock better social infrastructure, and create active and liveable neighbourhoods.” The authors make clear that they are not talking about high-rise development, but rather what is often called “gentle density.”
Housing – The task force calls for building a variety of housing types, with a 40 percent minimum of affordable housing.
Other key principles include planning for “social” infrastructure (access to schools, cultural, sporting and healthcare facilities, etc.), parks and green spaces, environmental sustainability (low-carbon buildings, climate resilience, biodiversity), business and employment opportunities, long-term maintainability, and community engagement.
And – of course – transport connectivity. New towns should have “high quality public transport,walking and cycling networks within each town and convenient connections into wider transport networks.” The report notes that “a bold transport vision that promotes a range of transport options and reduces car dependency is critical to ensuring the success of new towns.” In fact, many of the thumbnail sketches of the 12 candidate new town sites emphasize that those plans won’t be viable without significant public investment in transportation infrastructure – an investment that will be difficult to find within current British budgetary limitations.
Are King Charles’ ideas on town planning finally being translated into public policy? Perhaps (see BBC story here), although the report has nothing to say on architecture in general or on the use of vernacular materials, one of the King’s main preoccupations, in particular.
Although planning and building new towns is probably not in the cards in the US any time soon, we should watch carefully and be prepared to learn from the UK experience. As I mentioned in an earlier post (here), the new Labour government is long on ideas but short on cash. I wish them well.
