About-Britain.com
A thematic guide to the United Kingdom
About-Britain.com
- Academic
Urban Villages: the best of both worlds?
Andrew
Rossiter, Université de Franche Comté
From
a paper presented at the International Symposium on Urban and Rural
Britain at the University of Valenciennes, France, 2002.
It was in June 1992 that an
unusual architectural manifesto was launched in Great Britain.
For the next ten years or more, the manifesto
entitled "
Urban
Villages, a concept for creating mixed-use urban developments on
a sustainable scale" continued to make waves, and
was much commented and criticised - often unfavourably - in
the specialist and general media.
View of Poundbury in 2001,
during phase 1 of the project
In the language of contemporary British
town planning, the expression "urban village" has for many people come
to be synonymous with the name "Poundbury", the neo-traditionalist
suburban development on the fringes of the rural town of Dorchester,
piloted and largely masterminded by the Prince of Wales. Yet although
Poundbury is certainly the most extensively developed of Britain's
urban village projects, there are many others throughout Britain, and
the expression "urban villages" is also used in other English speaking
countries to describe modern suburban developments - and in some cases
rural developments - that conform (or more or les conform) to certain
holistic principles of planning that run against the grain of accepted
modern practices in suburban development.
This article takes a concise look at the
origins of the "urban village" concept, and its definition,
before
studying the situation of urban village development in the UK today,
looking at Poundbury and the other projects throughout the
country that were in 2001 affiliated to the
Urban Villages Forum,
the think tank
set up under the patronage of the Prince of Wales.
Indeed, no discussion of "urban
villages" in a British context can begin without reference to the role
of the Prince of Wales who, long dissatisfied by much of the dreary
suburban development that has occurred in Britain during his lifetime,
has used his position to spearhead the development of socially and
architecturally successful sustainable communities designed to avoid
the failures of the recent past.
The much-used expression
"neo-traditionalist", imported from the United States, clearly
establishes the conceptual framework that underlies the urban village
movement; urban villages are seen as not just an architectural or
planning concept, but one predicated on a form of social organisation
that has its roots in a long-established model that has stood the test
of time. In Britain, as in the United States, the aim of the proponents
of urban villages is not just to design modern living environments that
reflect those of a previous and supposedly more stable rural society,
but to rediscover the forms of living environment that engendered the
stability of such traditional rural communities. In this respect, the
"urban village" is a concept that takes its place in a historic British
- and notably English - paradigm that has previously been illustrated
in the model towns of Lever, Cadbury and others, the garden cities of
the first half of the twentieth century, and, in community terms at
least, in late twentieth century developments such as Newcastle's Byker
village.
The expression "urban village" seems
however to be an American invention. The earliest bibliographical
reference to the phrase would seem to be a book entitled
Urban Village: Population,
Community, and Family Structure in Germantown, Pennsylvania, 1683-1800,
by Stephanie Grauman, published in 1980. Yet early usages of the
expression do not refer to any specific planning concept, but are a
more a convenient pairing of words used to describe certain types of
close-knit urban communities whose structures reflected traditional
rural models. The phrase was even used as a rendering of the Spanish
expression "barrio". It was in the early eighties, however, that the
first references to the "urban village" as a planning concept began to
appear, in the writings of Christopher Leinberger, a Los Angeles based
urban affairs consultant (
Urban
Villages: The Locational Lessons. Wall Street Journal. New York.
November 13, 1984) and Charles Lockwood (
The Arrival of the Urban Village
in
Princeton Alumni
Weekly November 1986). Leinberger used the phrase "urban
villages" to describe what he saw as a new tendency towards mixed-use
development in suburban America, resulting from the fact that in
post-industrial America, there was no longer any need to separate
business and residential areas for environmental reasons (pollution,
noise, etc.).
More recently, and notably in the 1990's, the
phrase has been used
sporadically in discussions of the American "new urbanism"
movement, often by and with reference to neotraditionalist planners
Leon Krier and the Andres Duany / Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk partnership;
yet generally speaking, American writers and planners - until recently
- have made considerably more use of the expression "new urbanism",
rather than "urban village". The idea of the "village", with its
notions of "community", seems to be particularly English, and it was
only in the late 1990's, following the international interest aroused
by the first of England's "urban villages", Poundbury, that the
expression really began to become popular in the United States and
Australia.
It was the Prince of Wales who
introduced the concept of the "urban village" into the vocabulary of
British planning; the expression is used briefly in his 1989 book
A Vision of Britain
(the follow up to a 1988 television documentary), though not at the
time directly in conjunction with the Poundbury project, which is
mentioned. It was also this book that clearly established the dual
parentage of the urban village concept in the English acceptance of the
phrase; on the one hand, the historic English village tradition, on the
other hand the American neotraditionalist architectural planners,
notably Krier and Duany. In the final pages of
A Vision of Britain,
a presentation of Krier's archetypal neotraditionalist development in
Florida, the town of Seaside, covers a full five pages, compared to
just two covering the development of "
model villages" in
the U.K. from Saltaire to the garden cities.
Yet clearly, however great the influence
of Krier on Prince Charles has been, it is the historic
English concept of
the village, and the idealised view of village life, that form the
theoretical models that the British proponents of the "
urban village" have
sought to translate into a modern idiom.
One may speculate as to whether Prince
Charles, while thinking over the possibility of creating a planned
modern urban village at Poundbury, on the outskirts of Dorchester, had
read P.H.Ditchfield's 1908 book
The
Charm of the English Village, which had recently been
reprinted (1985); there is a lot in this book, most notably
perhaps
its preoccupation with the small details, the use of materials, and the
stylistic and functional variety that characterise traditional English
villages, that prefigures the Prince's view of the model community.
Along with many other publications, both Prince Charles's and
Ditchfield's books are also woven on the loom of nostalgia for a
supposed almost utopian past, common to the proponents of New Urbanism,
and anathema to many modernists.
In an article in
Harvard
Design Magazine in 1997, marxist geographer David Harvey,
professor at Johns Hopkins university wrote :
"The New Urbanism in fact connects
to a facile contemporary attempt to transform large and teeming cities,
so seemingly out of control, into an interlinked series of 'urban
villages', where, it is believed, everyone can relate in a civil and
urbane fashion to everyone else."
Harvey, however was looking
on new urbanism in the fundamentally North American idiom; and
although, historically, many earlier settlers in the United States -
notably in New England - transposed onto north American soil social
models imitated from those of the English village, on the whole the
American model was, by definition, different. Early American villages
may not have been subject to the rectilinear grid planning of 19th
century American towns and villages, but neither did they evolve slowly
over time in the manner of the historic English village. In addition,
America's "New Urbanism", as exemplified by Seaside, is rather
different from the English "urban village" as first exemplified at
Poundbury.
Ditchfield (1908) more than once
stresses the particular nature of English villages, even as opposed to
villages in other parts of Europe, referring to the particular social
structure of the English village as the "village commonwealth", a
structure that would more normally be referred to in modern terms as
the "village community". It should be noted that the notion of
"community" is a fundamental building block in the societies of modern
English speaking countries, and is considerably more deeply rooted in
the English tradition (and more broadly speaking the Germanic
traditions) than in that of any newer country, or even of other
European countries in which the structures of pre-industrial society
had evolved out of Roman law.
Since the departure of the Romans, the
village has been the core community unit in the British Isles. Though
England long boasted, in London, Europe's largest city, and though
Britain was the first European nation to undergo major population drift
to the towns, the village has always survived - in thought, literature
or art - as the ideal, and often idealised, social unit. In Roman
times, cities became the nuclei of life in Britain; but after the
Romans left, most of their great cities, with the exception of London,
were largely abandoned, the British populations moving out to occupy
new village sites outside the city walls or further afield; and whilst
in continental western Europe the great cities of Roman times remained
great cities after the Romans left, and in many cases remain so to this
day, the same was not true in the British Isles.
In mediaeval Britain, the extensive
devolution of power and authority under the Anglo-Norman feudal system
- inherited from the Anglo Saxon period - and the territorial
representation that existed in English parliaments from the late
thirteenth century onwards, played their role in formulating, in the
national psyche, an image of England as being a nation represented
emblematically by its
villages,
rather than by its capital city. In the English mind, London has never
been the nexus of national identity in the way that Paris has long been
the symbol of France and French life. In Shakespeare, the
quintessential images of English life are not those of Henry IV and
Bolingbroke at court or on the battle field; they are those of Justice
Shallow in his orchard in rural Gloucestershire.
The Industrial Revolution completed, by
the mid nineteenth century, a process that had been set in motion by
the Enclosures Acts of the eighteenth, precipitating Europe's first
massive rural exodus, and with it a further pauperisation of the former
rural labourers. It was during this period that poets, artists and
novelists, from Blake to Constable to William Morris or Thomas Hardy,
began to place rural England at the heart of English art and writing,
often in an idealised manner that helped give a new impetus to the
longstanding perception of the superiority of English rural society
over urban society. The apparent immortality of the BBC's classic radio
soap opera, the Archers, set in its fictitious village of Ambridge, is
just another more modern illustration of the same point.
It is perhaps significant that Trevor
Osborne, chairman of the Urban Villages Group, notes, in the
introduction to
Urban
Villages, that "
the
term 'urban village' will not be readily understood in mainland Europe;
when exported to other EC member states, it will need a different label."
One might even add : "
or
to the USA".
It is clearly by another quirk of
coincidence that the first English "Urban Village", Poundbury, should
have been located on the outskirts of Dorchester, the town immortalised
under the name of Casterbridge, in the novels of Thomas Hardy.
Proposals for a major expansion of
Dorchester were first debated in 1987, and two years later outline
planning permission for the westward extension of the town was granted
by West Dorset District Council, for a mixed-use residential suburb
that will eventually stretch over 400 acres (about 190 hectares). The
initial development was to cover 35 acres of land.
Prince Charles was involved in the
project from the start; the greenfield site on the outskirts of
Dorchester was in effect his land, agricultural leasehold land
belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall. When the Dorchester council applied
to the Duchy to purchase the land for development, the answer they
received was more favourable than they had imagined possible. Not only
would the Duchy make the land available for development, but Prince
Charles himself would oversee the operation, with the aim of
establishing an attractive mixed-use and socially mixed suburban
development; Britain's first "urban village".
For many in the UK architectural and
planning establishment, news that the Prince of Wales was to take
charge of a major suburban development project was like a red rag to a
bull. Relations between the Prince and many of Britain's leading
architects and planners had been, to say the least, tense ever since
the Prince had begun airing in public his none-too-complimentary
opinions on the architecture and planning of the sixties and seventies.
His famous description of Birmingham's new library as looking more like
an incinerator than a place of learning, or his much quoted speech to
the Royal Institute of British Architects, in 1984, when he described
the proposed extension to London's National Gallery as being like a
"monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend",
had done little to endear him to the modernists in British
architecture.
Consequently, and unsurprisingly,
reactions to the initial proposals for Poundbury were not favourable,
neither in the specialised reviews nor in the architectural columns of
the British broadsheets. The project was decried variously as an
exercise in retrophilia, a pastiche, an irrelevance, or worse.
That was in 1989; and it is true that
Leon Krier's bird's-eye sketch of what Poundbury might look like,
published at the time in
A
Vision of Britain (p138), does look more like a
heteroclite exercise in nostalgia than a serious plan for a late
twentieth century suburban development.
The reality of Poundbury has been
somewhat different: with the first phase of building now complete, the
earliest streets have already had time to mellow, and as an urban
environment, the general consensus among both residents and the press
is that this new "urban village" is a success. After its early hostile
coverage, the British mainstream press - including the Guardian, the
Telegraph, the Mirror and the Mail - has now changed tack, and since
1998 press coverage of the ever-evolving project has been largely
positive.
Among the common complaints voiced by
residents now is that Poundbury is a victim of its success, with large
numbers of tourists and visiting architects and town planners who
invade their space, sometimes in coachloads, turning their residential
quarter into an unintended tourist attraction.
So why do they come? What is it that has
established Poundbury as a stopping point on the architect's and town
planner's tour of Britain in the early twenty-first century? Firstly,
of course, there is its curiosity value - an unusual - some would still
say eccentric - act of royal patronage, an experiment in suburban
architecture and planning, masterminded by an amateur planner who is
due to become the next King of England. Secondly they come to see how
the ten point theory of the "urban village", laid out in the
Vision of Britain,
transforms into reality.
Over 22 pages, the book sets out a list
of "ten principles we can build upon" in order to create a successful
modern urban living environment. These are as follows:
1. Place. That planners should understand the local environment, and
design their projects to blend with it.
2. Hierarchy. That the design of
buildings should always reflect their hierarchical position in the
community, that "public buildings ought to proclaim themselves with
pride", and others be designed in function of their value in society.
3. Scale.
That buildings should bear relation to the human scale, and the scale
of other buildings in an area.
4.
Harmony. That buildings should blend harmoniously with others in the
vicinity.
5.
Enclosure. That spatial identity is of major importance, and that new
developments should incorporate such public spaces as squares and
courtyards
6.
Materials. that building materials used should reflect the diversity of
local traditions, and not conform to any national or international
standard.
7.
Decoration. That decorative craftsmanship should still be, as it always
has been, a major feature of the urban environment.
8. Art.
That artistic decoration has a major and a symbolic role to play in the
enhancement of the urban environment, and that artists as well as
architects should have a role to play in the designing of new living
environments.
9. Signs
and lighting. That these also contribute to the success of the built
environment, not detract from it, and should therefore be put up with
care and attention.
10.
Community. That a successful community is a place where residents feel
involved, and contribute to the planning and running of their
environment.
While points 1 - 9 can be - and in the
case of Poundbury, are being - ensured through the masterplan, point 10
cannot. A successful community can only be brought about by the people
who live in it; and so far, in spite of the fact that Poundbury is
still very much an ongoing project, those who live there are happy with
their environment and, on the whole, consider it to be a successful
community.
Besides the above ten points, which
essentially concern the architectural and visual aspects of the
environment in urban villages, there are other fundamental aspects that
distinguish the urban village from other suburban or rural housing
projects, aspects that are perhaps rather more fundamental than
aesthetics. These are social mixity, and mixed use - together seen as
preconditions for the creation of new sustainable communities.
As well as reflecting the ten
principles, the masterplan for Poundbury was for a housing development
that would include a seamless and indistinguishable mixture of
owner-occupied dwellings and social housing. The mixed-use plan also
called for the inclusion, within easy walking distance of the
residential streets, of shops, workshops and factories, enabling
residents to live and work in the community without the need for
commuting.
In many details, the masterplan for
Poundbury went against conventional planning orthodoxy. Its fundamental
tenet, mixed use, ran counter to accepted zoning theory,
which prefers to concentrate business in business parks, housing in
housing estates, and shops in shopping centers.
As for social diversity, critics of the
Poundbury plan argued that the type of home buyers wanting to buy in
Poundbury would not wish to buy houses that shared a dividing wall with
social housing units; it was also suggested that the densely-packed
housing environment was out of keeping with the tastes and expectations
of modern middle-class British house-buyers, more usually attracted by
the ideal of detached houses in wrap-around gardens.
Others predicted that industry would not
want to relocate in the middle, or even on the edge, of a residential
area, and that in the end, Poundbury would end up as no more than a
"glorified council estate".
So far at least, this has not been the
case - which is exactly what its planners expected. Having conceived
Poundbury as a carefully planned (or, in its critics' opinions,
contrived) recreation of a traditional organically developed village,
they did not expect to encounter the problems facing many other
suburban developments.
Like the village, the urban village is
conceived as a community of mixed housing, catering for all ages and
income groups. At Poundbury, the first phase of housing consisted of 55
units of social housing, administered by a housing association, the
Guinness Trust, and 141 freehold owner-occupier homes, as well as
retail and commercial premises. By the time the development is
completed, towards the year 2020, Poundbury will have between 2,000 and
3,000 housing units, with social housing accounting for about 20% of
the total, in line with the national average.
The question that remains, however, is
whether the model of Poundbury can be transposed into other settings,
or whether the success of this rather middle-class development on the
edge of a rather trouble-free county town in the heart of the
Westcountry, can be replicated in other areas?
Following the media coverage - both
positive and negative - given to the Poundbury project when it was
first mooted in the late 1980's, a forum known as the Urban Villages
Group was founded in 1989, at the Prince of Wales's behest, under the
wing of Business in the Community, an organisation whose purpose is "to
tackle economic, social and environmental issues affecting local
communities" (Aldous, p8).
Among the founder members of the Group
were Leon Krier, plus the chief executives of a number of property
development companies, housing corporations, and the Managing Director
of the Cooperative Bank. The aim of the Group was to encourage councils
and property developers to take the urban village concept nationwide,
as a viable - if slightly more costly - alternative to the monotonous
standardized run-of-the-mill developments, the "edge cities" that have
mushroomed, and will continue to mushroom, on the outskirts of most
British urban areas.
As of January 2002, eighteen development
projects across England are being carried out in partnership with the
Prince's Foundation, according to "urban village" principles; none
however is as advanced as Poundbury, and some, such as the Westoe
Colliery project at South Shields and the Northwich city centre
project, are still on the drawing board. Yet as the location of these
two projects shows - one in the heart of the depressed northeast, and
the other in the rundown centre of a Cheshire town - the "urban
village" concept can be, and is being, applied in areas that are very
different from semi-rural Dorset.
Only two other projects are listed, like
Poundbury, as "urban extensions" on greenfield sites, one in Basdildon
Essex, the other in Northampton; by far the majority of projects are
"urban regeneration" projects on brownfield sites.
Some of these are in fact far removed
from the "urban village" concept as illustrated by Poundbury. In
particular, the Ancoats project in Manchester, the Jewellery quarter in
Birmingham and the Little Germany redevelopment in the centre of
Bradford appear more like classic industrial heritage preservation
programmes, along the lines of the Albert Dock regeneration scheme in
Liverpool, or the redevelopment of Butler's Wharf on the South Bank in
London.
They are, however, different, inasmuch
as these three projects, though they will never become villages in the
sense that Poundbury can call itself a large village, have been
conceived with the ethos of the urban village concept in mind, and not
as just three more chic urban residential areas for the upwardly mobile.
Little Germany and the Jewelry Quarter
are interesting cases, both being central urban areas which, in the
past, had a clear spatial and social identity, the former as the
fiefdom of Bradford's German cloth merchants, the latter as the densely
populated network of small streets which housed both the homes and the
workshops of Birmingham's hundreds of jewelers and watchmakers - a
classic historic example of both mixed usage and a clearly defined
urban quarter.
A hundred years ago, Birmingham's
Jewellery Quarter provided employment for some 70,000 people
– many of whom lived and worked in the quarter. Since then,
the number of jobs in the sector has fallen by over 90%, and the
residential population has all but disappeared. In 2000, the quarter
harboured some 1,200 business, but only about 700 residents. The aim of
the project is to redress this imbalance, and rekindle the vibrant
community that existed at the start of the twentieth century.
The Ancoats Urban Village, in
Manchester, is different - so different indeed that although Ancoats
announces itself as an "urban village", the project's development
manager herself is not convinced that it really is one.
"I
feel uneasy about offering Ancoats as representative of the Urban
Villages movement, as it does not conform to many of the criteria that
the Urban Villages movement sets out, and although we are still members
of the Prince's Foundation, I don't think they would suggest Ancoats as
an example of their philosophy; we seem to spend most time
disagreeing!" (Lyn
Fenton, private letter of 02/01/02).
Ancoats prides itself for its place in
urban history, as the world's first industrial suburb – an
area in which 13,000 people once lived and worked; the targets of the
Urban Village project are to bring people back to live in this historic
industrial site, close to the centre of Manchester, through a programme
of mixed use residential and business development. Classed as a
conservation area in 1989, it is on the UK's short list for designation
as a UNESCO world heritage site. In spite of the reservations of the
developers, the targets set out in the Ancoats Supplementary Planning
Guidance reflect the same principles as those adopted for Poundbury;
the fact that this, as some other urban village sites, are not totally
new-build areas, does not fundamentally change the perspective.
Naturally perhaps, it is not in
Britain's great urban centres that other urban village projects closer
to the Poundbury model can be found, but on the edges of Britain's
smaller towns and cities, as the following two examples illustrate. The
Westoe site in South Shields is being developed by Wimpey on the 17
hectare site of a disused colliery, as a high-density mixed-use and
socially mixed suburb with up to 800 homes, its own school, shops and
office premises. In Lancashire, the Luneside development at Lancaster,
albeit smaller - 6 hectares - is being developed along
similar lines.
Finally, although only 18 projects are
affiliated to the Prince's Trust as recognised "urban village"
developments, neither the Prince nor the trust has exclusive rights to
the expression, and other new housing development projects elsewhere in
Britain, are taking up the label in order to give themselves a certain
cachet.
Indeed, the "urban village" approach to
the design and planning of residential areas has now found its way into
official UK government guidelines, a new guide from the Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions showing among its primary
inspirations:
" the 'Urban Villages'
movement in the UK and neo-traditional design generally. Indeed, the
design philosophy promoted is essentially one of working with context,
promoting pedestrian friendly environments, returning to traditional
perimeter block systems, and - where possible - mixing uses." (DETR
Website 2002)
The current popularity of the notion of
the "urban village" in contemporary UK planning would tend to indicate
that a sea change in planning theory has taken place in the UK since
Prince Charles first launched his vision of Britain in 1989. Whether or
not this will result in the recreation of something resembling the
types of close-knit communities that existed in nineteenth century, or
pre-Enclosures English villages, or even in twentieth century
industrial villages, and whether "mixed usage" will really have any
serious impact on the social habits of the British in the 21st century,
other than reducing car usage, are different matters.
And in the end, it is perhaps of little
matter in the context of this paper, in which I have set out to show
the peculiarly high value attached to the word village in England, and
the particularly strong belief that runs through English thought and
culture, that the village - and notably the idealised village with its
green spaces, flowered gardens, and friendly folk, is the finest
possible form of spatial and social organisation - even in the
resolutely urban society of the start of the third millennium. In this
respect, the phrase "urban village" has readily come to be seen not as
a contradiction in terms, but as a means of having one's cake and
eating it, or at least getting the best of both worlds.
Bibliography
Aldous,
Tony. Urban
Villages, a concept for creating mixed-use urban
developments on a sustainable scale, London, The Urban Villages Group
1992.
Ditchfield, P.H. The
Charm of the English Village, 1908, reprinted London,
Bracken Books, 1985,
Harvey, David. The New
Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap, in Harvard Design
Magazine, Winter/Spring 1997, no. 1.
Miller, Anthony. The
role of Landscape Architecture in fostering community; Byker, a case
study, in L'Espace Urbain Européen, Cahiers du
Créhu 6. Annales littéraires de
l'Université de Franche Comté 1996
Mumford, Lewis. T, The
City in History, Secker & Warburg 1961, reprinted
Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1973 &&.
Rossiter, Andrew. Retour
à l'Utopie? Poundbury; redéfinir la banlieue en
village urbain. In Ville et Utopie, Cahiers du
Créhu no. 10, actes du Colloque. Presses Universitaires de
Franche Comté, 2001.
Wales, Charles, Prince of. A
Vision of Britain, a personal view of architecture.
London, Doubleday, 1989
Webography:
Thandani, Diriu A. New Urbanism Bibliography, published by the
Architectural Resources Network
http://periferia.org/publications/cnubibliography.html
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:
http://www.planning.detr.gov.uk/livingplaces/02/03.htm
Copyright
:
About-Britain academic : texts © Authors and About-Britain.com