Domestic futures and sustainable residential development

Futures 33 (2001) 817–836 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Domestic futures and sustainable residential development M. Clark

*

Department of Environmental Management, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, UK

Abstract Domestic ‘futures’ have been a long time coming. This paper questions the extent to which futuristic ‘vision’ linked to the rhetoric and sentiment of ‘sustainable development’ and the ‘livable city’ inform town and regional planning in England and Canada. Despite official commitment to ‘environmental’ objectives and media interest in ‘ecotech’ residential development, markets institutions and behaviour lag behind what is technically possible. Planning guidance encourages homes with less environmental impact. But this message has not reached most residential consumers. Is lack of mass markets in low impact housing a flaw in Government regulation, evidence of the cynical nature of official rhetoric, or proof of gradual product development as society redefines what is expected of living spaces? Or is it unwise to expect too much change in attitudes to property, or for innovation to come soon?  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Towards sustainable volume housebuilding? This paper explores the learning process associated with ‘sustainable’ forms of housing. It draws on UK and Canadian examples to question the assumption that market forces and official guidance will be sufficient to achieve developments that match contemporary aspirations, rhetoric, commitment or technical possibilities. Matters of Environmental Justice are also involved because access to property allocates social and economic goods. Better quality, better performing housing and places to live may be denied because they would change the existing social order. Any

* Tel.: +44-1772-893494; fax: +44-1772-892926. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Clark). 0016-3287/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 3 2 8 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 1 - 0

818

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

right of access to good quality, reasonably performing housing must be de-coupled from property speculation and wider competition within the economy. Affordable secure accommodation is a basic human need. Those without accommodation and those forced through lack of choice into inadequate or unaffordable housing lead diminished lives and can be socially excluded, unable to participate fully in the life of the community [1] But under competitive market conditions, the lot of disadvantaged people is aggravated by such factors as heat poverty (poor insulation leading to excessive fuel bills, high cost or dangerous forms of heating, cooking and lighting, need for supplementary heating or cooling), unsafe dwellings (unsound structures, fire risk, damp, mould, chemical contamination), poor storage facilities and inadequate security. To which must be added low amenity due to environmental factors such as noise and traffic levels, air pollution, lack of greenery and public open space, and a greater likelihood of localised health risk from industrial sources and contaminated land. Welfare programmes and Socialist initiatives have gone out of fashion, and although general standards have probably risen in the last couple of decades, expectations have risen faster. The alternative to direct action, using Environmental Regulation combined with market based Town Planning, can play a part in ameliorating the worst problems of slum dwellings, but only if sufficient resources and powers are made available. And there is a risk that such intervention will accentuate the very market trends which it is attempting to mollify. Emerging property market sensitivity to building performance and impact is frequently submerged by price inflation linked to excessive demand for social, economic and other benefits attached to property. This can be expressed in terms of ‘Lazy markets’, ‘Hotspots’ and ‘Non-discriminatory pricing (in the UK) @ 3×joint income’. Speculation and personal identification with house type and neighbourhood status fuel price rises if increasing cumulative purchasing power (mortgage calculations based on dual incomes, paid up loans, inheritance recycling earlier generations’ property based wealth, ‘windfalls’, bonuses etc.) is not matched by availability, either in the amount of a product or its quality. Such ‘sticky’ market conditions favour property industry conservatism, despite an informed construction industry, much official enthusiasm for ‘sustainable’ homes and lifestyles, and a certain amount of media interest. While high and rising property prices during much of the 1970s and 1980s were problematic for many UK consumers, their effect on speculative housebuilders was to favour forms of competition between firms that enabled them to benefit from house price inflation. Asibong and Barlow [2] suggest that success relied on “land acquisition and marketing skills rather than an ability to innovate in technical or design terms”. The ‘unprecedented slump’ in UK house prices in the early and mid1990s, combined with emergence of a ‘tighter planning and legislative environment’, undermined profit strategies based on land speculation and created a need, they argue, for strategies that include innovation in the building process (including off site pre-

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

819

fabrication and standardisation) and in building design. They also suggest a different approach to marketing, so purchasers influence on the design of their own properties.

2. Reluctant innovation? What, if any, lessons can be drawn from what some commentators see as frustratingly low uptake of more efficient, less damaging building practices? [3,4]. In the UK Volume housebuilders may be criticised for not testing the market for new domestic and commercial property. They have been slow to incorporate technologies which offer energy savings and other environmental benefits, or to improve the quality and specifications of their ‘standard’ product. Why should they break with a century old system of standard products that works to their advantage, and which benefits the makers and distributors of building materials, the subcontractors who do the building, and the land speculators, estate agents and other dealers in, mainly second-hand, domestic and commercial property who together dominate the supply and sale of housing and work space? Some ideal of the centralisation of housebuilding in the UK is given by the statistic that, in 1995, just nineteen large companies each built more than 1500 dwellings [5]. To them “The existence of a portfolio of proven designs enables developers to make a reasonably accurate estimate of costs and production time at short notice” [6], and perhaps explains why market testing innovations are so rare in the volume housing market. In contrast, the relatively small welfare and social housing sector in the UK, mainly made up of non-profit making housing associations, is more likely to employ architects for domestic property, and has been more willing to experiment with innovative, higher performing materials and designs. But the awful legacy of innovative, but often poorly designed, constructed or maintained, municipal housing in the 1960s and 1970s helps explain why the private property market is so reluctant to embrace new materials or designs. Are we still so wounded by the experience of post-war mass housing disasters that never again will architects and urban designers be allowed to suggest anything other than historical mimicry as suitable for living in [7]? How should we treat innovations and examples of new, ‘sustainable’ best practice which show what might be possible. Are these no more than exceptions that show the reasonableness of current behaviour? Perhaps unusual ‘green’ developments can be seen as leading edge or elite ‘luxury’ items, properly limited to the experimental and ‘executive’ end of the market and out of the reach of people on ordinary incomes. They hint at what is to come, but not yet. It is no accident that media associate them with celebrities, and with idealised lifestyles that sell newspapers and magazines. Technologies take time to ‘bed in’, markets are cautious, and we must heed the dangers of quick changes. Sceptics remind us of the fate of the De Lorien sports car, the RB211 turbo fan engine and British Rail’s “Advanced Passenger Train” [8]. Impatient proponents can show how industry and vested interest have stifled inno-

820

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

vation, such as Buckmaster Fuller’s 1920s ‘Dymaxion’ house and car which anticipated the hypercars of the 1990s and the ‘Factor Four’ case for technological innovation. Why wait for good new ideas, materials and processes to be incorporated within established products and ways of life when they have the ability, now, to outcompete most of what the market offers? Green development offers developers and owners such benefits as reduced operating costs of buildings and landscapes, improved sales or leasing rates, higher property values, increased absorption or occupancy rates, reduced liability risk, better health and higher productivity of workers, avoidance of regulatory delays during permitting processes, and even reduced capital costs yet “Developers and financiers often say there is no demand for green real estate”, finance is a major hurdle, and the learning curve for acquiring new skills and expertise is slow [9]. If the market cannot or will not deliver, intervention may be required: The inadequate and inequitable provision of housing in this country today is the result of inequalities in access to resources and of the inability of the free market to meet diverse housing needs. To eradicate these inequalities it is essential to bring housing policies under local participatory democratic control [10].

3. Rhetoric and progress Frustration with the way that we are ‘locked into’ old technologies and assumptions supports the criticism that sustainable development remains, at best, aspirational. At worst it is just the latest of a succession of restrictive, non-negotiable, politically correct expressions. Easily to give lip service, unwise to oppose or criticise, but safe as no one is going to check your ability to deliver what is often an impossible objective. The oxymoron that comes from combining sustainability with its greatest threat, development (at least as most politicians and consumers understand the term), is paralleled by calls to combat social exclusion. Both are liberal, weak or ‘wet’ in that a virtuous aspiration is not matched by the ideological commitment to provide the resources and powers necessary to change established practice and behaviour. Promoting sustainability and other ideologically charged goals is frequently rhetorical, so politicians and bureaucrats may adopt language and sentiment without the will or means to alter an unacceptable status quo at earlier stages in the policy process… symbolic gestures and rhetorical commitments are more likely to secure consensus [11] The Adelaide experience reveals a process of ‘ideological capture’ at work, where the rhetorics of sustainable development can be captured and used to promote

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

821

each set of distinctive positions, as each appeals to the need for social justice, consideration for future generations, and so on [12]. … green interests being re-enrolled into Sustainability networks - more efficient and aligned with national and international policy but also associated with rhetoric of Sustainable Development, together with its debatable assumptions and metafixes [13] Critical rhetoric moves beyond the art of persuasion into the realm of practical discourse, where humans deliberate about the standards, criteria, norms, and values that come into play in day-to-day living. But issues of force and power also come into play during such deliberations [14] Planners should try to be one step ahead of the community. If they’re one step ahead of the community they’re visionary. If they are two steps ahead of the community, they’re a nutter… [15]. What matters is the underlying process of political mobilisation and mass education that changes assumptions and behaviour. Under ideal conditions acquisition and incorporation of intelligence replaces rhetoric, informs policy and leads to a more measured approach to current anxieties. But most of the time we operate in a less scientific or certain world, where rhetoric and vision influence, and at times determine, priorities and choice of options. In this context, can planners encourage developers to improve building design, layout and land use mix? Might preference for sustainable development support ways of combating social exclusion, and restore a broader social and economic purpose to town and regional planning? Or is it unrealistic to expect effective intervention? Commercial pressure to maximise site occupancy and value favours market led outcomes which maintain the status quo, and give planners and politicians few opportunities to pursue wider objectives? For equity, sustainable development, social inclusiveness or other mission statement commitments to be more than aspirations, or fraudulent rhetoric, vision must be applied. It should promote progressive development, and discourage or reject applications that fail to make the most of site opportunities, or which exploit them by crude profiteering and by maintaining social injustice.

4. Vision and visioning While ‘vision’ has been commandeered by planners and others interested in a systematic approach to future alternatives, or to be seen to engage in public consultation, use does not guarantee the positive intervention or forward looking commitment which the term implies. Shipley and Newkirk’s analysis of planning texts and planners’ responses [16] indicates that use of vision or process of visioning in development of alternative futures, or scenarios, is just part of a range of applications.

822

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

Their, linguistically correct conclusion that “these words have simply been misappropriated in suspicious ways” is unfortunate. It overlooks how ambiguous and partially understood or contested meanings contribute to political aspects of decision-making, and so mistakenly treats politicians’ and officials’ use of words at face value. Vision must be seen in process and outcomes, not sentiment and terminology.

5. Planning guidance Residential design guidance has been offered by most English local planning departments since the mid-1990s, but has emphasised “contextual, visual and functional considerations” with less advice about “spatial, morphological, perceptual, social, sustainable and design process considerations”. Carmona reports that sustainable design and mixed-use policy are “a developing theme in policy and guidance, particularly in the emerging district-wide local plans and Unitary Development Plans” [17,18]. But it has been difficult to require developers to exceed building regulations, and planning authorities have been wary of costs being awarded against them if they oppose an unsatisfactory development, and loose: “fighting appeals on design is still a recourse to which many authorities are extremely reluctant to turn” [19]. Strong advice in the latest, Government issued, Planning Policy Guidance Note for Housing (PPG3) may return us to the situation Masser described in 1984: “British local authorities are permitted to consider each case on its merits, having regard to the requirements laid down in the plan, together with any other material considerations that may affect the case.” [20]. To Cullingworth and Nadine [21] this is little different from a ‘plan led’ presumption in favour of proposals which conform to an approved plan, which leaves the definition of ‘material considerations’ (which are the only acceptable basis for determining planning applications under English planning law) wide open. It may be too early, and perhaps too optimistic, to expect local authorities to intervene strongly in support of good design. They may just cram even more properties onto the few sites made available for development, but Government response to a Parliamentary committee report on PPG3 suggests that they should reject applications, which refuse to incorporate environmental or sustainable development objectives. In the following extract the committee’s report is printed in bold type, and is followed by the Government’s response: Guidance on how to create an attractive residential environment should be attached to PPG3. PPG3 states that account should be taken of guidance on design set out in Design in the Planning System. This document has not yet been published. It must be issued by the end of October [2000] at the latest, outlining how to combine good design with higher densities, and taking account of the recommendations of the Urban Task Force. The RTPI [Royal Town Planning Institute: the body which represents professional planners in the UK] stressed that the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State must support local authorities which reject developments on the grounds that they

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

823

are badly designed. We agree. The Department must give clear guidance to the Planning Inspectorate that bad designs and layouts are to be rejected. The Secretary of State must support this policy on appeal (paragraph 74). The Government agrees with the Committee that creating better-designed places where people will want to live is crucially important. It is therefore one of the main messages in the new PPG3. PPG3 makes clear that planning authorities should promote developments that bring together environmental, transport and planning best practice to create places with their own distinct identity and which are safe and attractive. Local planning authorities will be expected to reject poor design, particularly where their decisions are supported by clear plan policies and adopted supplementary planning guidance. Applicants for planning permission for housing development when applying for planning permission will have to demonstrate how they have taken the need for good layout and design into account [22]. This begs the question of what should be the criteria for good layout and design, and conceals rivalry between professionals in which architects, led by Lord Rogers, appear to be fighting for a new urbanism. The gulf between high architecture and common aspirations and preferences is enormous, and misses the market derived element of the housing problem. People compete for scarce ‘public goods’ such as above average health care, schools and local amenity, and lower levels of crime, by buying property in favoured areas. This excessive level of demand means that supply is exceeded, so prices rise until there is a rough match between ability to pay and the goods on offer. Unsuccessful bidders make do with less attractive property, public goods and convenience (generally defined by length and cost of commuting for the better off; disamenity, nuisance and threat, plus inconvenience and poor local services, for people lower down the property ladder). So while there are clear advantages to insisting on better quality new developments, the overall picture will be changed little by such ‘tweaking’, at least in the short term. This is not to dismiss the benefits of giving professional planners back the power to reject poor applications. Though it still leaves undecided what initial advice is appropriate, and how it should be varied to meet local circumstances and opportunities. For example, the following suggestions (Box 1) include many features found in prescriptions for middle to low density development:

Box 1. Factors to include in sustainable design guidance Building layout, orientation and siting to maximise: passive solar gain/shelter/natural shade habitats, wildlife and amenity: ecological corridors, landscaping and retention of existing vegetation accessibility by foot or cycle playspace and opportunities of informal recreation Design of individual buildings to achieve:

824

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

best use of site for passive solar gain/non-mechanical ventilation enhanced performance standards (e.g. energy, water consumption) flexibility, so use may be changed or expanded Choice and source of construction materials to minimise: environmental impact at source -avoid damaging or dangerous materials environmental impact during delivery -local sources of materials; low impact transport environmental harm during use -long lasting, high performance, low maintenance materials harm or hazard after use -reusable, recyclable or readily dismantled and disposed of (Based on Rockwood (1998), in Clark (2000))[23,24]

Decisions must be able to deal with widely differing situations, promote good quality development and refuse schemes that waste a site’s potential. Discrimination will have to weigh a variety of seen and less obvious impacts and development features, as illustrated by the case studies which follow. In higher density, urban situations reuse of difficult sites, reduced car dependency and maintenance of a balanced population are obvious targets. More suburban schemes may have better opportunities for passive solar gain, domestic food production and home working. All may benefit from sustainable drainage to keep the contents of ‘foul’ sewers separate from rainwater, even under the heaviest deluge. And sites chosen to minimise the need for pumping and for flood and sea defence may contribute more to energy saving and resource conservation than many ‘eco’ designs, though these deserve encouragement too. Commercial developers may welcome sustainable design guidance and green estate plans if they reduce planning uncertainty. Hooper and Nichol report that national firms dislike what they see as unnecessary or confusing local design advice and specifications [25]. Perhaps the most interesting, and encouraging, feature of recent new settlement proposals in the UK has been the willingness of some applicants to offer design briefs as part of the bidding process. Another feature is that many make or are defined in terms of very specific, sometimes ambitious, sustainable development objectives.

6. Cambourne: a new settlement in Cambridgeshire Aukett Associates’ master plan/design guide for the new settlement being built a few miles to the west of Cambridge, England, has its origins in the negotiations which led to the developer acquiring the site. This is perhaps a better type of influence than attempting to impose guidance, especially if it avoids slavish adherence

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

825

to what were intended as no more than indications of good practice, and if it allows genuine competition between rival interpretations of a site’s potential and requirements. Many of the features of sustainable design guidance suggested above are included in the developer’ advice to firms seeking to build in Cambourne. “Schemes which adopt low energy design measures will be encouraged” [26]. Natural daylighting is preferred, which for offices suggests an optimal plan depth of 12–15 m. This should be sufficient to allow buildings to have good thermal properties (mass, insulation) so natural ventilation and mass cooling make air-conditioning unnecessary. Good use of passive solar gain, shelter and compact building form, plus “buffer space and ventilation pre-heat” in unheated atrium space, will contribute to a ‘Low Energy Strategy’ intended to reduce winter peak demands. For housing the guidelines suggest 75% of glazing orientated to the south, enough mass and insulation to ensure good thermal properties, and materials chosen for their low environmental impact and low embodied energy. Domestic conservatories are expected to perform the same, pre-heat, function as atrium space in offices [27]. Brouwer’s comments on Terry Farrell’s 1995 Cambourne master plan and design guide confirm that, from the outset “Sustainability is quite clearly established as the primary aim” [28]. But he is unhappy about the integrity and quality of its village design, mainly on grounds of lost distinctiveness, failure to make the most of the site’s landscape features and the ‘Vicwardian’ style of housing which reflects popular taste in domestic architecture: a ‘kerb appeal’ which explains why none of the modernist designs in the business part will be permitted to spill over into residential areas. He attacks Cambourne as “a true child of the Thatcherite approach to planning — it is developer-led and therefore needs fiscal certainty above all else. Has this led to a conservatism beyond the bounds of reason?” And he puts part of the blame for these failings on the lack of a social dimension: “The future inhabitants of the hamlets will have no contribution to the initial process and nothing to do by way of communal effort to achieve a commonly agreed objective.” This contradicts any idea of ownership or responsible identification with the place from its future residents, and also goes against attempts to facilitate genuine local participation, as seen in the Village Design Groups which have been encouraged by the Countryside Commission and by campaigning groups such as Common Ground. Just as it is easy when writing sustainable design guides to forget important factors like Sustainable Urban Drainage and pumping costs, so future residents can easily be left out of the consultation process. Especially if they are treated as customers, rather than as a group of people who will come to share responsibility for many of the places and activities which will determine how successful the new settlement will become.

7. Southeast False Creek (SEFC), Vancouver Community focus has been central to this, very different, city centre scheme for a New Neighbourhood on 36 ha of former industrial and railway land, which was approved in 1999 following lengthy community involvement in the proposal. SEFC

826

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

will follow ‘environmentally sustainable development guidelines’ which, in conjunction with a more general Policy Statement, allow more control of development than provided by the usual building regulations and zoning ordinances. The scheme intends to show how Sustainable Development considerations can be incorporated in the planning process [29]. SEFC sustainable development guidelines follow design guidance and negotiations between city architects and planners, and architects representing the developers, on other sites in Vancouver. Their success led to the principle that means should be found to discriminate favour of good quality development. Whether this principle can be applied elsewhere depends on local circumstances. The City of Vancouver’s special powers under the City of Vancouver Act, plus a site largely owned by the local authority, give freedoms which may not be as readily found elsewhere. If the scheme succeeds it will make a strong case for release from rigid adherence to minimum building standards and maximum attainable property values.

•

• • • • •

•

• • • • • •

Box 2. Principles of Sustainable Development for SEFC Implementing Sustainability: implement sustainable development in an urban setting/improve mainstream urban development practices throughout region. Stewardship of Ecosystem Health: improve ecological health of False Creek basin. Economic Viability and Vitality: create adequate and diverse employment and investment opportunities. Priorities: economically viable achievement of social and environmental targets. Cultural Vitality: encourage vitality, diversity and cultural richness, and respect site’s history and context. Livability: promote livability, enhance social and natural environments and contribute to residents’ and visitors’ well being by creating a walkable, safe and green neighbourhood. Housing, Diversity and Equity: opportunities for housing a range of income groups; social and physical infrastructure accessible to whole community, especially children. Education: encourage awareness and understanding of the principles of sustainability and how these are implemented in SEFC. Participation: encourage public involvement in decision-making processes. Accountability: monitor impacts and outcomes: post-occupancy studies and community consultation. Adaptability: ensure SEFC can change, renew itself and adapt to new conditions and circumstances. Integration: with rest of city through planning, urban design, amenity provisions and community involvement. Spirit of the Place: guidelines which celebrate the unique natural, social

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

•

827

and historical context of SEFC. Complete Community: development of SEFC as a complete community, facilitating its residents’ ability to live, work, play and learn within a convenient walking, cycling or transit riding distance. (Adapted from Vancouver City Planning Department, 1999 [30].)

SEFC is to be built at the highest residential density which can be achieved with a significant amount of family housing: ‘a livable high density neighbourhood’. A range of income groups will be accommodated, with both ‘artists’ live/work’ and (more employment orientated, noisy) ‘work/live’ opportunities for homeworking, plus a range of commercial, retail and community developments. Guidance on built form mainly refers to building height and character, but also deals with environmental matters “including increasing energy and resource efficiency, ecosystem health and minimizing waste and pollution” [31]. Headings for the scheme’s environment goals are energy use, which proposes an energy plan for SEFC, water management, waste, recycling and composting, soils, air quality and urban agriculture. Other policies deal with more conventional planning matters, including open space, views, the water basin and shoreline, transportation, circulation, parking and loading, pedestrian access, economic development and the waterfront walkway/bikeway. A ten step form of Full Cost Accounting is also included: “a technique for assigning all costs and benefits, both internal and external, to all parties associated with or impacted by the SEFC project over the long term. The ‘internal’ costs are those for which there is a direct expenditure; ‘external’ costs are the social and environmental costs borne by third parties or society” [32]. The City has not adopted the performance targets recommended by SEFC’s consultants, but these are published as an appendix in the Policy Statement “to identify technologically feasible but generally aggressive levels of performance for discussion, during development planning” [33]. They include: 앫 good solar orientation for 75% of dwellings and commercial spaces; 앫 30% of building materials salvaged/reused or (partially) recycled, 앫 all dwellings within 350 m of transit facilities, basic shopping needs and personal services; 앫 at least 60% of street area for walking, cycling and transit use; 앫 12.5% of produce consumed by residents grown on site; 앫 individual potable water consumption below 100 l/day; 앫 no more than 200 kg solid waste or 80 kg organic waste to be disposed, per resident/year; 앫 district heating for 90% of buildings; 앫 a minimum of 5% of energy generated from renewable sources, on site. 앫 25% of total neighbourhood roof area should be designed to carry plant life. Swiss Building Regulations require 100% [34]. Overall. “SEFC should promote the implementation of sustainable development

828

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

principles in an urban setting, and thereby contribute to improving the mainstream practice of urban development throughout Vancouver and the region” [35] Critics resent loss of potential public open space near to disadvantaged neighbourhoods and have used False Creek’s water quality problems and contamination of the site to argue against the scheme. The former ‘Hobo Flats’ may be less easy to deal with than adjacent sites which were developed in the 1980s and 1990s. The latest, North East False Creek, is dominated by high rise condominium developments, though earlier sites to the west have a more domestic scale of architecture, and their residents provide some of the impetus and examples behind SEFC. The wider context for SEFC includes a scarcity of development opportunities which makes ‘densification’ the norm, especially in the older parts of Greater Vancouver. This uses rezoning to allow market forces to substitute town houses, apartment blocks and, exceptionally, residential towers for selected lower density commercial properties and single family homes. In Newman’s terms: Transit-oriented Development, with elements of New Urbanism. It follows strategies laid down by the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s Livable Region Strategic Plan, which was a response to concern in the 1970s about urban sprawl, escalating house prices, increased traffic congestion, lack of open space and the ineffectiveness of current strategies to direct population growth to what were though to be desirable locations [36]. The latest revision of this ‘livable region’ approach retains faith in a compact city with high levels of public transport use and self-contained communities.

•

• •

•

Box 3. Greater Vancouver Livable Region Strategic Plan, 1996 Key strategies: Protect the Green Zone: a long term boundary for urban growth which also contains natural assets such as major parks, watersheds, ecologically important areas and farmland. Build Complete Communities: focused on town centres; support alternatives to the car — locate jobs and services near where people live. Achieve compact metropolitan region: “Concentrating growth allows more people to live closer to their jobs, makes better use of public transit and slows the consumption of new land”. Increase transportation choices: increased use of public transit, modest road investment, transportation demand management. (Adapted from Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1999 [37].)

But population has grown rapidly since the 1970s, and the prospect of population doubling again, from 1.6 to 3.2 million by the 2030s, raises doubts about the effectiveness of collaborative attempts at regional planning in the Greater Vancouver area. SEFC has particular importance as one way of stemming this conurbation’s sprawling, congested and increasingly damaging growth. Others include the public education exercise Lower Fraser Basin QUEST [38], which invites the public to partici-

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

829

pate in a scenario based visioning exercise and makes clear the consequences of its current preference for car based, heavy energy use, low density urban lifestyles. Or it may be a matter of amelioration, and of relying on shifting economic fortunes to move jobs and people away from what has become one of the most popular cities in North America.

8. Royal ordnance Euxton — Buckshaw village, Chorley, Lancashire Another contrast, this time set in a region whose population shows little sign of overall growth, though there has been some redistribution from Manchester and Liverpool to the surrounding region. This ‘urban village’ scheme occupies 420 acres of contaminated brownfield land on the site of a factory complex which, from WWII to the Gulf War, filled ordnance and bombs with explosives. The site is well located for access to the main conurbations and industrial towns of North West England, but the local commercial and industrial property market has been sluggish in recent years, and housing sales may face resistance to continuing munitions work on an adjacent site. As much of the area’s local plan housing and employment allocations have been made to this site, development is likely to take place. But under relatively difficult commercial conditions it may be difficult to persuade developers to maximise sustainable design features. Despite these difficulties, the ‘Urban Village Forum’ input to ROF Chorley Masterplan, 1997, interpreted Sustainabile Development in terms of 앫 앫 앫 앫 앫

recycling land environmental quality mixed land uses transportation safety, security and energy efficiency [39]

and has numerous positive features, in particular Sustainable Urban Drainage and the fact that it is a major brownfield site, with its own railway station with commuter services to Central Manchester, Manchester Airport and several nearby towns. Reclamation will require few movements on or off site, despite shifting 1.7 million cubic metres of material. The scheme’s ‘key features’ include 앫 natural and cultural assets: trees retained wherever possible, alternative uses for listed buildings 앫 land reclamation/land remediation (reasonably self contained for 1.7 million cubic metres of material comprising 347,000 m3 brick and concrete rubble; 81,000 m3 ‘contaminated’ soil; 355,000 m3 ‘confidence strip’ material and 921,000 m3 ‘clean mound material’) 앫 recycling of derelict land 앫 use of existing infrastructure

830

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

앫 mixed landuses: complementary mix of activities which allows close links to develop between home, work and places of recreation 앫 open space and ecology network of green spaces and ecological corridors 앫 safety and security: defensible space and secure pedestrian and cycle ways 앫 energy efficiency: “reducing emissions from motor vehicles and promoting energy efficient buildings” ‘Urban village’ property sales depend on a favourable image, so development will be ecologically sensitive, at fairly high density and using good quality building materials. This reflects the local councils’ initial site development guidelines: …want to achieve development that creates an “urban village” … a full range of uses and facilities to serve a population attracted to the location, which is: 앫 앫 앫 앫

largely self supporting and self contained, provides minimal impact on other communities in the area, minimises trips by car to and from the site, maximises environmental benefits and overall minimises car dependency. The principles of mixed use and the range of land uses to reduce car commuting in the area are important considerations [40].

9. DEVON: new settlement proposals near Exeter and Plymouth The final examples are more contentious. ‘Cascaded down’ housing need and employment land totals cannot be accommodated within Devon’s major urban centres, so the (higher tier) county (structure plan) authority has proposed that by 2011 at least 2500 dwellings be built in a new settlement in South Hams, the district south and east of Plymouth. Another 2000 dwellings are to be in a new settlement east of Exeter, in East Devon District. The County Environment Director reports that South Hams proposals have the support of the District Council: the Council believes that a new settlement of 3,500 dwellings will be the best way to minimise the environmental and social impact of the new homes [41]. And anticipates infrastructure and transportation as major areas where the district and country councils will have to work together One of the key issues to be addressed will be how to achieve a truly sustainable pattern and form of development — how to best secure the provision of the whole range of supporting infrastructure and community facilities necessary to maximise the self sufficiency of both new and existing communities [42]

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

831

It is also considered essential, if the vision for the New Community is to be realised, to further identify what is required through the preparation of a detailed Design Brief and Code, covering all aspects — environmental, social and economic — and establishing indicators and targets [43]. It will be necessary to exceed Building Regulations standards, to create healthy and active communities, to include a broad cross-section of socio-economic groups and age ranges and to assist and encourage its occupants to live an increasingly sustainable lifestyle. Non-renewable resource use is to be minimised, with emphasis on conservation and reuse. Energy efficiency is to be increased by “using advanced designs of urban form”, insulation and local generation. Embodied energy is to be minimised, renewable energy encouraged and water use minimised. Sustainable Urban Drainage is specified and there are also polices for soil conservation, air quality, noise, waste, social cohesion and community development, bio-diversity, local economy and employment, and reuse of existing buildings [44]. In short, Devon ‘out-lists’ Vancouver and is a match for Cambourne. But this does not get round objections, at least to the site near Exeter. Guidance is very similar for South Hams and East Devon, and by specifying transport connections and areas to be avoided greatly reduces the possible area of search, something that East Devon Council has been unhappy about.

10. Structure plan guidance: the new community in South Hams/East Devon should be located where it will 앫 be assimilated into the landscape of the area; 앫 avoid, as far as possible, the use of significant areas of the best and most versatile agricultural land; 앫 be well related to but separate from existing settlements; 앫 be linked to Plymouth/Exeter in the first phase of its development by an effective high capacity/road based public transport system; 앫 (East Devon only) access the Exeter–Waterloo rail line; 앫 be accessible to the High Quality Road Network and the Local highway system; 앫 (South Hams only) avoid areas of known mineral deposits; 앫 (East Devon only) not adversely affect operation of Exeter Airport and not be affected by unacceptable levels of aircraft noise; 앫 be capable of accommodating further development beyond the current plan period. [45] Draft Revision to PPG3 ‘Housing’ issued in March 1999 on the subject of new settlements stipulates 앫 They are not acceptable if their principal function is as a dormitory of an existing larger settlement.

832

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

앫 They must be large enough to support a range of local services including schools, shops and employment. 앫 They should exploit existing or proposed public transport by locating in a good quality public transport corridor. 앫 Use can be made of previously developed land. 앫 There is no more sustainable alternative. 앫 All schemes will need to be agreed between the tiers of plan-making authorities. The Planning Officer’s Report for the Planning Committee meeting on 9 June 2000 advises Councillors that it may be possible that 3,000 dwellings could be provided in the new settlement within the Plan period. The advantages of this are: 앫 a new suburb to the City would not be required. 앫 there would be no further excessive development pressures upon the existing villages in the Exeter AEA. However… it has always been the Council’s view that a new settlement on this scale is too large to assimilate into the area 앫 a settlement of about 3,000 people (1,500 dwellings) is the maximum that will be acceptable [46].

11. Problems with new settlement policy Whether East Devon’s objections are upheld or not, this example exposes a flaw in UK New Settlement policy. Although Devon is most thorough in its initial principles and guidance, its schemes are little more than free standing adjuncts to existing, much larger urban areas. They have been proposed because there is insufficient building land in these places, and in nearby towns and villages. This breaches the Government’s ‘dormitory villages’ principle and raises questions about delivery of new development opportunities. In their defence, new settlement proposals provide an opportunity to experiment with ‘best practice’. They put into effect the sort of modern thinking on sustainable development that has generally been lacking in more conventional residential and commercial expansion of existing settlements. At the risk of introducing yet another list, their innovative developments address Built Form, Performance, Impact, Biodiversity, Trip Generation, Ecological Footprint, Community and Viability in the context of dissatisfaction with current practice as it applies to 앫 energy requirements — heat, light, cooling 앫 embodied energy — construction materials 앫 other material impacts — extraction/processing/transport/use/disposal

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

앫 앫 앫 앫

833

water requirements — supply, effects on drainage (run-off), sewage disposal ecology — biodiversity/productivity incidental effects — transport, food, ‘hidden costs’ — energy for pumping

12. Innovation and new technology By addressing these inadequacies through innovative, exceptional schemes, new settlement policy may provide influential exemplars: good examples that change practice in general and alter market expectations and consumer behaviour. But they also risk repeating previous mistakes, particularly those of municipal volume housebuilding and speculative office development in the 1960s and 1970s. Innovative material and designs are liable to fail, or be rejected. Social, behavioural and psychological factors are often overlooked, and are accentuated by competition for ‘social goods’ (education, health, amenity etc.) allocated via the property market. And utopian visions are suspect, while ‘planned’ schemes tend not to be ‘robust’: they meet old needs and aspirations, but rarely anticipate new circumstances well. This somewhat dismal assessment deserves a little optimistic modification. Firstly, technological change in the construction industry appears detached from more general developments in material science and industrial performance, and poorly linked to the Pareto gains that stem from greater efficiency and reduced impact. However, notions of ‘dematerialisation’ apply as well to bulky, labour and energy intensive activities such as housebuilding as they do to military aviation or Formula One motor racing: the examples usually given in discussion of new materials and control systems. Why not apply advanced materials to unexceptional situations, or at least explore their potential? Although the result may well just establish the superiority of traditional materials such as glass, brick and wood, there are situations where scarcity, cost and environmental impact may be reduced by substitution. Critical review of materials’ environmental and health implications may lead to reaction against use of plastics in cladding, windowframes, wiring and piping, just as asbestos has been eliminated. Enthusiasm for carbon fibre composites should not ignore their limitations, including questions about eventual disposal. However, it is important that domestic property is seen as no different from any other product or application of technology. At present innovation tends to be hidden or covert, perhaps for fear of scaring customer, or of worrying craft employees who risk losing work, especially those in the ‘wet’ trades. Subcontractors in small or medium sized building firms are notoriously conservative and prefer to deal with familiar products and routines. The big firms that employ them are increasingly constrained by environmental regulations and their own, internal, management systems. EMS, ISO14001, health and safety legislation and cost control all mitigate against the chaotic conditions found on traditional building sites. Improved technology is also necessary for improved performance, e.g. 앫 intelligent heating systems,

834

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

앫 better communications 앫 measures to minimise water use, manage run-off, limit pollution, etc. and so the ‘traditional’ product has become industrialised, even if there is a lag in (or reluctance to admit) the incorporation of ‘new’ materials.

13. Ecotech homes: a feasible future? While some prefabrication takes place in UK domestic construction, there is less than in other traditions (North America or Japan, for example), and its gradual introduction is part of developers’ attempts to overcome what are seen as high labour costs and unacceptable levels of delay and uncertainty (often due to weather) on building sites. The example of innovative ‘ecotech’ housing design and construction which has been most obvious in the UK in the last couple of years has been Integer: a futuristic combination of prefabrication and electronic technology, constructed as part of a Carol Vorderman (TV celebrity) hosted BBC2 series in the grounds of the Building Research Establishment campus near London [47]. This has aroused great media interest, and the welfare housing sector is using the integer approach in 100 dwellings already [48]. But the private sector remains cautious. As yet there is no sign of the volume housebuilders adding integer type high specification homes to the properties offered housebuyers on ordinary incomes. Perhaps they fear dissatisfaction with the quality of their existing product. It will be interesting to track its implications. That is, if consumers and politicians appreciate how far what is offered or demanded falls short of what is feasible. Or why.

References [1] UK Green Party, Manifesto, policy HO101, on line version, 12th August 1998a; http://www.brighton.co.uk/greenparty/housing.htm. [2] Asibong C, Barlow J. Barriers to innovation and change in the housebuilding industry — are they a housing policy problem? Paper presented to the Housing Studies Association Conference, 1997 Apr; York, http://www.wmin.ac.uk/Env/CHS/research/york.html. [3] Clark M. Mainstreaming environmental innovation. Town Country Plann 2000;69(7/8):218–21. [4] Wright M. The real ideal home show. Green Futures 2000;22:24–6. [5] Hooper A, Nichol C. The design and planning of residential development: standard house types in the speculative housebuilding industry. Environment Plann B: Plann Design 1999;26:793–805. [6] Leopold E, Bishop D. 1983. In: Hooper A, Nichol C. The design and planning of residential development: standard house types in the speculative housebuilding industry. Environment Plann B: Plann Design 1999;26:794. [7] Brouwer J. The new village. Urban Design Quarterly, 59, July 1996; http://rudi.herts.ac.uk/ej/ udq/59/newvill.html. [8] UK Advanced Passenger Train: an aero-engineering based project to construct and operate a low weight, high speed passenger train over existing lines. This was withdrawn from service in early 1982. De Lorien obtained considerable regional aid funding to construct a novel sports car in Northern Ireland for the US market (one appears in the film ‘Back to the Future’). Only a few were made before the project was abandoned. RB211, a Rolls Royce fan jet engine design which had to be

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

[9]

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

[30]

[31] [32] [33]

835

expensively modified late in its development because the innovative carbon fibre turbine blades were found to fracture under extreme conditions (reputedly unable to withstand impact from a ‘British Standard Pigeon’: a defrosted chicken fired into the blades to simulate bird strike). Rocky Mountain Institute, ‘The Market for Green Development’ and ‘What is Green Development’, on-line extracts from Green Development: Integrating Ecology and Real Estate, Snowmass, Colorado, USA, 1997; http://www.rmi.org/gds/Book/market.htm and http://www.rmi.org/gds/whatis.htm. UK Green Party, Manifesto, policy HO102, on line version, 12th August 1998; http://www.brighton.co.uk/greenparty/housing.htm. Jordan A. The implementation of EU environmental policy: a policy problem without a political solution? Environment Plann C: Government & Policy 1999;17:69–90. Haughton G. Searching for the sustainable city: competing philosophical rationales and processes of ‘Ideological Capture’ in Adelaide, South Australia. Urban Stud 1999;36(11):1891–906. Selamn P, Wragg A. Local sustainability planning: from interest driven networks to vision driven super-networks? Plann Pract Res 1999;14(3). Luks F. Post-normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: deconstructing normal science. Futures 1999;31(7):705–19. Haughton G. Searching for the sustainable city: competing philosophical rationales and processes of ‘Ideological Capture’ in Adelaide. South Australia. Urban Stud 1999;36(11):1891–906. Shipley R, Newkirk R. Vision and visioning in planning: what do these terms really mean? Environment Plann B: Plann Design 1999;26:573–91. Carmona M. Residential design policy and guidance: — content, analytical basis, prescription and regional emphasis. Plann Pract Res 1999;14(1):36. Carmona M. Controlling the design of private sector residential development: an agenda for improving practice. Environment Plann B: Plann Design 1999;26:807–33. Carmona M. Controlling the design of private sector residential development: an agenda for improving practice. Environment Plann B: Plann Design 1999;26:825. Masser I. Cross national comparative planning studies. Town Plann Rev 1984;55(2):146. Cullingworth JB, Nadine V. Town and country planning in the UK, 12th ed. London: Routledge, 1997 (p. 131). DETR (UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions), The Government’s Response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee’s Seventeenth Report — Housing, Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 3: Housing, Cm 4667, March 7, 2000, para. 29; http://www.planning.detr.gov.uk/response/ppg3/index. Rookwood R. Model design guide for sustainable housing, Draft TCPA document, 1998 (unpublished). Clark M. Mainstreaming environmental innovation. Town Country Plann 2000;69(7/8):218–21. Hooper A, Nichol C. The design and planning of residential development: standard house types in the speculative housebuilding industry. Environment Plann B: Plann Design 1999;26:802. Aukett Associates. Master plan/design guidance for Cambourne Business Park, 2000, Cambourne Business Park Ltd., p. 23 Aukett Associates. Main design guide for Cambourne, 2000, Cambourne Business Park Ltd, p. 46 Brouwer J. The New Village. Urban Design Quarterly, July, 1996, 59, July; http://rudi.herts.ac.uk/ej/udq/59/newvill.html. Vancouver City Planning Department, Southeast False Creek, Policy Statement: Towards a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Major Park In Southeast False Creek, July 1999, Vancouver, p. 5, 9 Adapted from Vancouver City Planning Department, Southeast False Creek, Policy Statement: Towards a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Major Park In Southeast False Creek, July 1999, Vancouver, Appendix A, p. 82–3. Vancouver City Planning Department, Southeast False Creek, Policy Statement: Towards a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Major Park In Southeast False Creek, July 1999, Vancouver p. 33 Holland M, Smith I. Urban sustainable development: Southeast False Creek. Vancouver: Vancouver City Planning Department, 1998 (p. 43–3). Vancouver City Planning Department, Southeast False Creek, Policy Statement: Towards a Sus-

836

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

[46] [47]

[48]

M. Clark / Futures 33 (2001) 817–836

tainable Urban Neighbourhood and Major Park In Southeast False Creek, July 1999, Vancouver Appendix B, p. 84–5. Holland M, Smith I. Urban sustainable development: Southeast False Creek. Vancouver: Vancouver City Planning Department, 1998 (p. 28). Vancouver City Planning Department, Southeast False Creek, Policy Statement: Towards a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Major Park In Southeast False Creek, July 1999, Vancouver p. 6. Greater Vancouver Regional District Planning Department, The Livable Region: from the 70s to the 80s, Burnaby, British Columbia, September 1980, p. 7–10. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Livable Region Strategic Plan, Annual Report, Burnaby, British Columbia, 1999, p. 4 ENVISION Sustainability Tools Inc. and Sustainable Development Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Lower Fraser Basin QUEST, CD, 1999, also www.envisiontools.com/lfbquest/. Cass Associates, Royal Ordnance, Chorley Regeneration Masterplan: Planning Assessment incorporating description of Masterplan Implementation and Phasing Non Technical Summary of the EIA, Liverpool, May 1997. Cass Associates, Royal Ordnance, Chorley: Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Statement, Liverpool, June 1997. Chorley Borough Council Planning Division and South Ribble Borough Council Planning Division, Royal Ordnance Site Development Guidelines, Appendix C, December 1995, para 1.3. Devon County Council, South Hams Local Plan Review — Issues Report, Report of the County Environment Director, Development Control Committee, 7th April 1999, para 4 Devon County Council, South Hams Local Plan Review - Issues Report, Report of the County Environment Director, Development Control Committee, 7th April 1999, para 5 Devon County Council, East Devon Local Plan: Issues Report, Report of the County Environment Director, Development Control Committee, 2nd February 2000, p. 4. Devon County Council, East Devon Local Plan: Issues Report, Report of the County Environment Director, Development Control Committee, 2nd February 2000, p. 17–9. Devon County Council, Devon Structure Plan First review — 1995 to 2011, Explanatory Memorandum (September 1999), Chapter 8 (iii) — New Communities (N Policies), Policies and Proposal adopted February 1999, p. 104. East Devon District Council, Local Plan Issues Report, 2000, http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/report.htm. Kell A. ‘the Integer Strategy’, Building Homes, January 1999, p. 33; The techno-house is closer than you think, Yahoo! News Unlimited, Personal Finance, December 11th 1999, Guardian copyright, refers to www.integerproject.co.uk. Integer, Frequently asked questions, 1999, http://www.integerproject.co.uk/faq.html.