the land fetish a suitable case for dr freud?
Post on 23-Jan-2016
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONTHE LAND FETISH A Suitable Case for Dr Freud?. Professor Sir Peter Hall UCL LSE Seminar 6 March 2006. Planning in Britain: A New Verdict (1). Andrew Gilg: Planning in Britain: Understanding and Evaluating the Post-War System (London: Sage 2005). Where Are We Now? Gilgs Verdict. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
THE LAND FETISHA Suitable Case for Dr Freud?Professor Sir Peter Hall UCL
LSE Seminar6 March 2006
Planning in Britain:A New Verdict (1)Andrew Gilg: Planning in Britain: Understanding and Evaluating the Post-War System (London: Sage 2005)
Where Are We Now?Gilgs VerdictMiddle-class biasNot always democraticBalances economic growth, conservation: a dilemmaIncreasingly market-drivenNo obvious alternative
Where Are We Now?Gilgs VerdictBig Achievement: urban containment; preservation of countrysideBig Failure: development not sustainable: work, homes separateAnother Failure: transport not integrated; transport system overloadedNeed: integrated development; New TownsCompare: Containment of Urban England (1973)!
Where Are We Now?Planning in UncertaintyValues and interestsEssentially politicalProducers versus consumersPublic action for private goodPolitical cultures: very deep
Where Are We Now?The Barker ChallengeNeed for massive increase in housing completionsWill need brownfield + greenfieldPolitical attack by shires unholy alliance with citiesThe architects crusade: Barcelonise our cities
A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test Housing Completions: 1999, 2004
A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test
Housebuilding: Houses v Flats1999, 2004
What do people want?Home Alone (Hooper et al 1998): only 10% want a flat; 33% wont consider a flatCPRE (Champion et al 1998): people want to live in/near countryHedges and Clemens (q. Breheny 1997): city dwellers least satisfiedConclusion: we hate cities!
Housing Preferences:MORI for CABE, 2005Over half the population want to live in a detached house22% prefer a bungalow14% a semi-detached house7% a terraced house Detached house most popular choice, regardless of social status or ethnicityPeriod properties (Edwardian, Victorian, Georgian) most desirable overall: 37%
Good and Bad ArgumentsBad: we must save farmlandGood: we should give people choice of access to public transport, shops, schoolsBy public transport as well as carSo: concentrate growth around transport interchangesAnd: raise densities there (pyramids of density)
Land Lying IdleEU Set-Aside: June 2004, 476,000 hectares, almost 5.0% of EnglandGreater SE: 100,270 hectares, 8.6% Essex 10.7%Hampshire 9.1%Oxfordshire 11.4%Bedfordshire 11.6%Far in excess of most generous estimates of land needed for housing!
New Households, New Homes80% one-personBut only about one-third single never marriedWill demand more space per household: Separate kitchens/bathrooms/loos, Spare rooms, Work spacesLand saving reduces as densities increase:30 dw/ha yields 60% of all potential gains, 40 dw/ha 70 per centSo biggest gains from minimising development below 20 dw/h, not increasing 40 dw/ha+So: go for 30-40 dw/ha with variations: higher close to transport services (Stockholm 1952!)But wont achieve same person densities as before!
Densification: Effects Land needed to accommodate 400 dwellingsDensityArea required, ha.Dws./ha. Net Gross (with local facilities)Land Saved% %Land Saved% %TotalCumu-TotalCumu-Saving lativeSaving lative1040.046.32020.020.050.0 50.025.321.045.4 45.43013.3 6.716.7 66.717.9 7.415.9 61.34010.0 3.3 8.3 75.0 14.3 3.6 7.8 69.150 8.0 2.0 5.0 80.012.1 2.2 4.8 73.960 6.6 1.4 3.5 83.510.6 1.5 3.2 77.1
Density Gradient (Rudlin+Falk)
Lessons from Land UsePublic Transport needs minimum density:Bus: 25 dw/haLRT: 60 dw/haExceed recent densitiesBig gain from 30-35 dw/haPlus pyramids up to 60 dw/ha round rail stationsUrban Task ForceTraditional Stockholm, 1952!Or Edwardian suburbs!
The ChallengeBuilding sustainable suburbsBut: can be Garden Cities too!New Towns: seldom just thatMore often: planned town expansionsThe need now: build sustainable urban places linked along transport corridorsA big challenge for us: equal to 1950s, 1960sThey did it so we can we!
Where Are We Now?A 3-Pronged National Spatial Strategy3 key needs:Grow SEE: Better connections on Sustainable Community Growth CorridorsShrinking the N-S Gap: Bring North, Midland Core Cities/City Regions closer to LondonGrow City Regions around Core Cities
Where Are We Now?A New Geography of EnglandTowards an English Spatial Strategy?
4 SE Growth Areas
Plus Northern Way
South East England:Global Mega-City-Region
Urban Clusters (Hall+Ward 1998)
Sustainable Communities Corridors:Growing the SE into the Midlands
The Infrastructure Gap:Roger Tym Report
The North: Managed Decline?The great Pathfinder rowHow much to keep? How much to demolish?Are incentives perverse?YES: SAVE Britains HeritageNO: ODPMFamily-Friendly Housing in CitiesHow much Greenfield?Issues: VAT, Infrastructure (Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool)
Shrinking the N-S Gap:Slowing Traffic, Speeding Trains
Shrinking the N-S Gap:A New High-Speed Line?
Shrinking the N-S Gap:From Core Cities to City RegionsEight city regions: key to faster economic growth in NorthBuild on renaissance of Core Cities90% of population, more than 90% of economic activity/assetsMost of Norths growth here50% higher per capita GVA growth than rest of North
City Regions:Accessing the Core City
London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly Outward Journey on Fri 2 Sep 2005 Option123Depart07:3508:0508:35Arrive09:4810:2410:48Duration2:132:192:13Changes000
City Regions:and Periphery (not quite, actually!)
London Euston to Oldham Mumps Outward Journey on Fri 2 Sep 2005 Option123Depart07:3508:0508:35Arrive10:4411:3511:44Duration3:093:303:09Changes222
Making it happen:The 2004 ActRadical change biggest for 35 yearsWorking through at regional strategic levelStill to work through at local levelPlanning Gain SupplementCan it solve the infrastructure deficit?The major issue in solving the housing crisis!But also: the NIMBY factor will get worse?
Planning Gain Supplement v. S106Planning Gain Supplement (i.e. development land tax) on windfall gains by developers Could vary locally: brownfield v. greenfieldCan it meet the infrastructure gap?Or are existing mechanisms as effective?MK, BedfordSo retain Section 106 as an alternative?Local versus regional investment: local gain for local pain (retention of PGS; higher proportion of Council Tax receipts from new housing)But problem of regional infrastructure: Bypasses v. new rail connectionsNeed for better integration ODPM/DfT! SE Orbirail, Manchester Metrolink, etc, etc
Summing Up:Key ChallengesDeliver the houses Defend the balanced portfolioDemonstrate its sustainability Resist vested interestsFund the infrastructureCoordinate development, transportCountryside for people!