A big society or power to the NIMBY

With the much anticipated localism Bill expected anytime, the BBC  have an interesting piece today looking at the potential impacts of the expected Planning Reforms. 

The major issue is regarding house building targets, which have being scrapped, with local authorities expected to be given greater control over how much new housing they accept, while being rewarded with cash bonuses if they do choose to accept new homes.  

Will this secure enough new homes, where it is most needed? That remains to be seen, but with house prices  in may rural districts now above what most professionals can afford. Will the reforms further widen the gap between the has and has nots. Particularly as the local authorities which need the homes will have less need for the cash bonuses. 

According to Tetlow King just over 200,000 planned homes are now not going ahead across England, this could prove disastrous for those wishing to get onto the property ladder. 

Despite this, The coalition claim there reforms will get Britain building again with local people able to shape the future of there towns and villages, The basis of the Big society or a NIMBY charter. I hope the former yet sadly... feel the latter.

Building Tall

Any retrospective look at the past decade in planning and development terms cannot fail to ignore that the UK saw a significant re-emergence of the tall building. The first tall building boom in the 1960s was down to 2 main factors, the first largely a ‘panic solution’ (HOC 01) in meeting social housing demand following the clearances of the high density victorian slums in the inner cities.  The second prompting factor for tall office development was a result of site shortages in the inner cores of British cities and the difficulties in assembling large sites. (DTLR). 

Unfortunately as a result of the swiftness upon which many such developments were constructed meant many such schemes were of both of a poor quality, and of a poor design which led to high crime rates and unsatisfactory living conditions, coupled alongside high profile incidents such as the collapse of Ronan point; the 1970s and 1980s saw an inevitable decline in the number of tall buildings erected.

The revival has its origins in the developer led economies of the late 1980s, which saw the construction of One Canada square, at Canary Wharf, yet this building famously stood on its own for much of the 1990s, and was not fully unoccupied until the start of the 21st Century.

The Shard under construction (June 2010)

Ken Livingston, the former Mayor of London; in particular can claim to be at the forefront of the revival and his pro-tall building policies saw dramatic changes to the skyline of both the City of London and Canary Wharf, despite the present mayor been considerably less enthusiastic for tall buildings as the economy begins to show small signs of improvement; we are still seeing a number of new super tall structures which were given permission in the Livingston era, under construction.  The most notable addition is the tallest of them all The Shard, which when complete will not only be the tallest in the UK but also Europe. The Shard is also notable because it is outside of the two recognised clusters of Canary Wharf and the City,  lying instead within the borough of Southwark incidentally keen supporters of Livingston’s policies. It is highly unlikely this tower would have seen the light of day, if it wasn’t for the proactive policies that were encouraged.  

The success of London in developing high quality tall buildings saw other cities notably Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool attempt to copy the formula that the capital had developed, with mixed results.

Leeds in particular saw a number of student housing led developments which now  scar the northern edge of the city centre. 'Sky plaza' incidentally when constructed the tallest student housing scheme in Europe, acting as nothing but a breeze brick wall between the city centre and the inner city suburb of little london.

Manchester fared slightly better, with the high quality Beetham 'Hilton' Tower a successful new icon for the city

What is particularly interesting through is that there is no national tall buildings policy framework, with local authorities free to develop their own policy; an approach which in many areas has led to a developer led system. Interestingly both Manchester and Leeds have taken different strategies here.

Manchester city council does not believe a dedicated tall buildings policy would add any value (Short 2006), with the council reasoning due to the limited number of sites in the city centre in which tall buildings could actually be built.         

This is perhaps a  short sighted way of looking at things, by designating areas for clusters, when over time as sites come up for redevelopment ; the city council could dictate to developers that tall buildings would be preferable. A tall buildings policy also prevents developers wasting time and money submitting applications in unsuitable locations, or developers being granted permission in unsuitable locations after appeal, due to a lack of policy to back up the local planning authority’s decision for refusal.  It could also dictate other things such as ensuring only suitable materials are used.

A lack of policy has also led to overbearing developments such as the great northern tower, constructed between two well used public spaces,  leaving both permanently in the shade.

 Leeds City Council has implemented what could be described as reactive policy measures to the development pressures. The primary document, the ‘Tall buildings design guide’ was published in 2008 as a supplementary planning document following consultation in 2007. Its purpose is ‘to establish clear principles and advice to steer them to appropriate locations and to ensure they are well designed’ (Tall buildings design guide 2008) the guide establishes 7 key principles.    
                                                      

The document supports the idea of constructing tall buildings in clearly defined clusters, which it states can draw attention to an area and handle the environment better (Tall building guide 2007 pg 58), It therefore identifies 2 areas of opportunity for tall building clusters; these are located at key gateway points into the city centre, to the north and to the south of the historic core. The northern cluster aims to re-enforce upon a number of tall buildings constructed in this area during the tall building boom of the 1960s.

The document is very conscious about creating a positive skyline, which follows policy SA1 of the cities unitary development plan, which states ‘The design and sitting of new buildings should complement and, where possible, enhance existing vistas, skylines and landmark’. The guide suggests that the skyline could be broken, with a restricted number of taller ‘iconic’ buildings.

The ‘Tall buildings design  guide’ though has been criticised, Rachel Unsworth in Punter (ed) Urban design and the British urban renaissance argues it simply attempts to justify the sighting and visual impact of structures, when in reality there locations are the product of private developers finding sites,  a key example of this is ‘the super tower zone’ which when the plan was produced featured planning consent for 2 landmark towers (Lumiere and Criterion place (now both abandoned with low rise replacements proposed on both sites), the attempt to retrofit these towers into policy, according to Unsworth is in direct contravention of the cities only policy of clustering towers.

As a result of the economic uncertainty between 2008 and 2010, many schemes in Leeds have subsequently been either abandoned or mothballed on site, with few new schemes coming forward; the question of whether a tall buildings guide is really necessary in a provincial city such as Leeds is being asked by critics (Unsworth 2010. The document has therefore proved too much as a reactive document and too late to really influence anything. 

So what is the way forward?

I have two key recommendations that could go some way to ensuring all new tall developments are constructed to a high specification.

The first is that the current CABE/ English Heritage advice document on the matter should be developed into a dedicated planning policy statement. This is important to ensure the guidance which says the right things is not ignored.

The City of London 

The second recommendation is to make it compulsory for the countries major cities to develop tall buildings policies, as supplementary planning documents, that are updated regularly. This would ensure that any new documents are not produced as a response to emerging proposals but can have real influence in directing tall buildings to the right locations. 

Tall buildings can dominate streets and even cities and may often be responsible for helping to shape people’s opinions of a place, those done well such as St Marys Axe (Above) in London help create the impression of a modern, forward thinking and dynamic city to residents and visitors alike. Cities such as New York, Shanghai, Dubai can build poor buildings, with the expectation that they will help develop the skyline from a distance but be clouded out by nearby better quality structures. Cities such as Leeds, Manchester and London cannot do this, our skylines are not as developed and it is unlikely they will ever be. Bad buildings stand out.  

It could be argued that it is a failure of the planning system that we have not put the proper policy in place to protect the integrity of our cities.

Britain's changing High Street

The BBC reports today (Link) how retailers in the UK are still feeling the effects of the recession and changing consumer trends have both helped changed the face of many High streets. 


The report notes the major growth has being through supermarkets, including convenience divisions, which has seen a 12% growth between 2009-2010, discount stores and hair and beauty salons, have a 11% growth over the same period. Off licenses perhaps as a result of the aggressive pricing of the supermarkets and travel agents; perhaps as online competition has increased saw the only year on year drops of 19 and 1% respectively.


I was intrigued to see that my own region of Yorkshire has the highest number of vacant shops in Britain at 18.1%, all 3 northern regions occupy the top 3 spots and interestingly Wales and Scotland have the least number of vacant units at 9.6% and 10.6% respectively.


The Sun newspaper have drawn up a 10 point charter 'to save our local shops, for local authorities', which can be viewed here. This contains many valid and not necessarily ground breaking points, such as ensuring affordable rates and grants for shopkeepers to improve the appearance of there stores. Unfortunately the article misses the point by blaming local authorities rather than changing consumer trends for the mess that many high streets are in, it is also rather hypocritical of The Apprentice Winner Michelle Dewberry to be advocating the high street before  shamelessly plugging her own online retail offering. 

Much blame is also given over to the large supermarket chains, for forcing smaller businesses out with aggressive pricing policies, but yet again is this not down to consumer trends; after all nobody is forcing anybody Tesco. Convenience and lifestyles dictate that people will. 


The Times (Here) point to the contrast between the city centre and traditional high street, making the point that only large centres and new retail developments can offer the sort of space that the major retailers desire. 


Shed retailing can fill a demand in some cases, but is more often than not located away from the traditional centre and is bland and uninspiring in terms of design, while discouraging of linked trips. 


So what is the answer to our High street woes?


Of course there is no simple solution and perhaps some may argue, why try and preserve something that is increasingly  un-viable. 


 More effort should be made to utilise town centre space for a wider range of uses, encouraging more residential and office space on upper levels should ensure a range of constant passing trade for local businesses. 


Local authorities should encourage a greater variety of ground floor uses, perhaps art, music or community space. A singular mass of bars and takeaways should be discouraged. 

With regards to locating major retailers back into town centres, future 'shed' style retail schemes should face onto main roads, perhaps locating car parking on the upper levels. These schemes should compliment the town centre not detract from them.

Councils should also look at car parking and public transport strategies. Perhaps developing free buses from local housing estates is an one option as well as making high streets bike friendly with a decent supply of storage racks and developing localised cycle routes is another possibility  . 

Chongqing: The New Chinese Super-City

Question;

Which city in China, could be described as the worlds largest municipality by population (over 32 million) and area (over 31,000,0 sq mi) as well as the worlds fastest growing city?

Shanghai, Beijing? 

The answer Chongqing, a city which more than any other represents the efforts of China to try and open up its once rural centre.

There are two main reasons why the last 10 years have resulted in the creation of the worlds newest and least well known super-city.

The first is the cities location on the Yangtze River, one of the worlds greatest and one that has seen major changes with the creation of the 3 gorges dam. The dam is another Chinese super project and is the largest hydro-electric power station in the world. 


The 3 gorges dam as well as providing the city with the power it needs has also opened up the Yangtze  to larger ships, making Chongqing much more more accessible to Shanghai and the rich east coast. Huge swathes of land were flooded as a result of the construction of  its construction, including the 3 gorges themselves and a number of settlements resulting in  the forced re-housing of around 60 million people;  Chongqing has played a major role in this re-accommodation process. 

The second reason for the cities staggering growth, happened in 1997 when the Chinese government handed the city direct control over the surrounding area, and making the area one of only 4 municipalities in the country, the other 3 are Shanghai, Beijing and Tianjin. 

The big question of course is one of sustainability, Chongqing already has massive air pollution problems, a massive amount of new rail lines have being completed but in a nation where car ownership is growing like no other, huge questions remain as to the negative environmental effects that such growth in a previously remote area can have. 


Despite  this a sense of perspective is also called for, China it could be argued is experiencing its industrial revolution and the first stages of urbanisation, much like the UK and United States did in the victorian era; a time which saw the formation of our own metropolitan regions. What we are seeing isn't pretty, but perhaps a new super city is better than unplanned expansion of the existing already crowded urban areas, such as is happening in many developing nations.

I suggest going on google earth and using the time slider bar to see for yourself the creation of the worlds largest and newest super-city, below is a taster of some before and after shots of the same area within a short period of time, while this article is also quite interesting http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/15/china.china

2002 >2009: A Rural landscape to an Urban one  (Google earth)

2002 > 2009: Traditional low rise housing to commercial centre (Google earth)

2005 >2009: Construction Site to Le-Corbusier's Dream (Google earth)

A Critique of Urban Expansion and New Towns in the Future Development of Amsterdam

The FITs Scheme: The way forward in renewable energy ?

While out Cycling today, I passed what appeared to be a whole street having Solar Panels installed. Intrigued, I  had a Closer look and noticed a sign for a company offering any householder in the right location, I.E a South facing roof, free Solar Panels.


The company A Shade Greener (http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/) is basically taking advantage of the marmite like Feed in Tariffs (FITS) scheme, introduced in April this year, which requires the electricity companies to pay householders who install Solar panels a whopping 43p per KW produced for 25 years. Critics such as George Mombiat argue this simply rewards the rich at the expense of everyone else who will pay for it through higher electricity bills.


So how does the business model of a company giving away a product worth around £15000 to £20000 work, Basically the panels will still be owned by the fitting company for the first 25 years, who will thus receive the FIT scheme payments. Ownership will transfer to the homeowner after this point. The homeowner will receive any electricity produced by the panels free of charge.

So is it worth it, the answer is Yes, if you have a spare £20000 make the most of it and essentially be paid for producing electricity, if you don't, then  take advantage of receiving a product worth thousands for nowt , which will add value to the property and cut you electricity bills.

But where does such a scheme leave us in wider planning terms, and can small scale renewable schemes actually have any purposeful impact in reducing climate change? probably not, but like a well known Supermarket states 'Every Little Helps'.

Personally I would rather see every south facing roof in the developed world, producing at least some electricity, than no electricity at all, what is the harm? While I and im sure many will agree, small scale schemes have less of an environmental footprint than large Wind Farms or Nuclear power stations. 

But as non-renewable sources run out or become two expensive to be viable, I cannot help but feel, the Fits scheme is nothing but something for the politicians to be doing something. When in reality all it does is cost those unlucky enough not to own a South facing roof a hefty amount,  while only meeting a tiny % of the electricity we need to generate. The Government needs to be brave, avoid short term thinking and fund something radical  unfortunately this is not going to happen, only last Monday (18th October) the government announced that the Severn Barrage project was to be abandoned  in favour of developing 8 new nuclear power stations. The Lib-dems incidentally opposed nuclear power in opposition, isnt power a wonderful thing! 

Further Information 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff

http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/faqs/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8070468/Plan-to-build-green-barrage-across-Severn-estuary-abandoned.html

The Studentification of our Cities

Studentification: The  growth of large numbers of Students living in concentrated areas, close to Universities

With huge numbers of Students either starting or returning to Universities, in towns and cities up and down the country, one of the big questions is where should they all be housed. Is it the Universities responsibility to re-invest in accommodation or should it be left to private enterprise or even the state. The effects of large numbers of students on a community can be devastating . The following is a conclusion from a topic paper I produced on Student Housing  analysing possible solutions in aiming to prevent the further Studentification of large areas of our major cities and open up these areas back to local communities. 

In one sense it could be argued there lay an ironic paradox between on one hand New Labours vision of sustainable communities and on the other there desire for mass participation in higher education and the geographical effects this is having on neighbourhoods and housing supply. While the Housing in Multiple Occupation Lobby also state that they fully recognise Higher educational institutes and their students can be an asset to their town. There is great concern where the in migration of students has resulted in a demographic imbalance, which is far too common. 

It is vital that local authorities, community groups, Universities and the Student Unions work together to develop effective management schemes, perhaps localism is very much key here with different areas of the country experiencing slightly different problems, which a single piece of national legislation may not be able to tackle effectively.

It is important that communities recognise the benefits that students can bring, most notably the public transport improvements and the fact the majority will spend locally. And that too stringent regulation can shift the balance too far as to force students out completely again going against the governments wish for balanced and sustainable communities.

There is also a need to plan for the effects that the displacement of students may have on other areas and ensure there remains a constant supply of housing for low income earners.

Opal Court (Fallowfield Manchester) Opal are one of the largest providers of managed student accommodation, 
Photo is my own 

The role of purpose built managed accommodation looks set to increase especially as it becomes more difficult for private landlords to develop Houses in Multiple Occupation in established student areas. Although with schemes of new purpose built accommodation there lays a need for good design and improved interaction with the community in which they are situated as well as local infrastructure improvements if they are needed.  The recent Recession may also have a short term impact in reducing the number of new landlords and investment in HMOs, as credit becomes harder to find.

A high number of students can distort local markets to the extent where the indigenous population is forced to lie elsewhere. There therefore is now more need than ever before to tackle this issue as if not we run the risk of turning our University towns and cities into the UKs equivalent of the Spanish tourist resort; characterised by a seasonal and constantly changing population. 

Leeds: Eastgate Quarter Development Proposal

The long awaited revised proposals for the Eastgate Quarter in Leeds were revealed to the public last week, and I for one was hugely disappointed with what is currently proposed for this prominent North Eastern corner site of the City Centre.

I have a number of concerns with the scheme, which will transform a huge area of the city and because of its scale, could come to define perceptions of Leeds, perhaps as the Victoria Quarter did, but not as in that case  in a positive way.

 My main concern is the loss of the Bookends at the End of Eastgate, these buildings offer a distinct and grand gateway to the shopping core, which would be a shame to lose. The replacement of one bookend with a John Lewis (JL) store driven by Commercial greed. I also worry about the rear  of the JL store backing onto George Street, which will I fear will make this street more depressing and will not offer a great first impression for visitors coming into the city by bus or coach.

The retention of the ugliest  building on Eastgate is Inexcusable if the Southern Bookend has to go, while the drawings of the Templar arcade do not fill me with confidence.

The Templar arcade building will be massive and involve the destruction of a number of Historical structures, which if renovated could provide a handsome district, instead there are two token refurbishments, both patronizingly incorporated into the mammoth structure. 

The scheme is also amazingly one dimensional, and despite the advice of planning policy incorporates little more than retail units, which will only ensure the area dies after 6pm.

Where is the City Centre park that is so desperately needed? perhaps Liverpool is the example here with the excellent Liverpool One scheme, which through good design has managed to incorporate a Park, with car parking provided below, this scheme also includes a hotel, Open streets, a mixture of architects leading to a mix of styles and a new transport interchange. The location of the Eastgate Quarter to the Bus and Coach station and even the markets makes me wonder why it could not have included improvements to these areas, as the Bullring scheme in Birmingham does so with the markets so magnificently. 

The reasons for much of this is of course commercially driven and the need to accommodate so much retail floor-space in order for the developer to get a maximum return and the need to accommodate the JL empire, while the lack of architects on the scheme is worrying cost cutting as we come out of the recession.

Although short term investment would surely be welcomed, I feel a long term approach needs to be taken here, and if that means telling the developer where to go, than so be it. Cities are primarily for living in, they should be unique amongst each other, all this scheme offers is a ubiquitous shopping centre at the expense of a real City district. Is this really progress? 

Further Information:

The Masterplan can be viewed at:

http://www.eastgateleeds.co.uk/assets/downloads/eastgatemasterplan.pdf

The website for the development, including details on how to give your views:
http://www.eastgateleeds.co.uk/