Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta The Guardian. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta The Guardian. Mostrar todas as mensagens

Street fighter: how Jane Jacobs saved New York from Bulldozer Bob

‘She picked up things no one else could see’ … Jane Jacobs holding a petition.
Photograph: Phil Stanziola/World Telegram & Sun/Library of Congress
"Robert Moses was the despotic planner hellbent on building four-lane highways through neighbourhoods. She was the cyclist who stopped him. A new film, Citizen Jane, revisits their David and Goliath struggle for the soul of New York

“There is nobody against this,” insisted a flustered Robert Moses at the hearing for his plan to drive a four-lane highway through New York’s Washington Square Park in 1958. “Nobody, nobody, nobody but a bunch of ... a bunch of mothers.”

The despotic city planner hadn’t counted on the determination of the mothers in question, or the ferocity of their leader – an owlish stenographer and freelance journalist by the name of Jane Jacobs. As part of his insatiable hunger for grand public works, Moses wanted to extend Fifth Avenue through the square, ostensibly to ease congestion, but with the real motive of rewarding developers and raising property values south of the park, where he had already razed a swath of Greenwich Village for redevelopment.

Jacobs, who lived in the West Village and knew how much her neighbourhood valued the park, mobilised a vocal coalition of campaigners, residents and politicians, who eventually halted the project. “It is very discouraging to do our best to make the city more habitable,” Jacobs wrote to the mayor, “and then to learn that the city is thinking up schemes to make it uninhabitable.”

That hearing was the only time Jacobs and Moses ever crossed paths, the single meeting in an oft-recounted, years-long David and Goliath saga of the saintly protector of the streets fighting the villainous master builder. Their duel, which came to symbolise the struggle of “bottom-up” versus “top-down”, is the focus of a new documentary, Citizen Jane: Battle for the City, made to commemorate her centenary last year.

Now arriving in the UK, the film brings home the enduring relevance of her ideas. Three years after her Washington Square victory, the inquisitive self-taught journalist published a book that would change urban planning for ever. The Death and Life of Great American Cities was a rallying cry against the destruction the broad brush of postwar urban renewal was wreaking on the fine grain of the city.With startling precision and sensitivity, Jacobs detailed how streets and spaces are actually used by people, as opposed to how they are perceived from above on the politician’s grand plan. Jacobs deployed her training in zoology, geology and political science to look at the city through an anthropologist’s eye, using ecological metaphors to describe urban life as a complex and fragile ecosystem. As one of the talking heads in the documentary puts it: “She was the hypersensitive antennae, picking up on things no one else could see.”

To her, the success of a vibrant city came from the “intricacy of pavement use, bringing with it a constant succession of eyes”. This daily “street ballet” of public interaction that unfolded outside her house is depicted with archive footage of bustling Manhattan dating from the early to mid 20th century. “There must be eyes upon the street,” she wrote, “eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle strangers, and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind.

It all sounds like common sense now, but to the postwar planners – infected with the modernist dogma of sweeping the slate clean to make way for tower blocks in wide open spaces – this was an affront to everything they had been taught. Jacobs had witnessed at first hand the failures of urban renewal in Philadelphia, where a zoning masterplan siloed different functions – housing, industry, offices, shops –into towers, separated by yawning public spaces lined with retail units that were soon lying empty. People weren’t behaving as they should, the planners said, refusing to accept that their brave new concrete vision wasn’t tuned to how citizens actually behave.

The documentary forcefully charts Jacobs’ battles and the level of destruction power-hungry Moses inflicted on existing communities in the name of improving New York for the greater public good. We see the carnage inflicted by the Cross Bronx Expressway, the country’s first major urban highway, which carved a ravine through the borough, fatally separating north and south Bronx in a piece of vandalism described by writer Mike Davis as “the single most destructive act in the history of US cities”.

The Lower Manhattan Expressway, which Jacobs and her allies halted, would have inflicted a similar fate on Soho and Little Italy – conveniently framed by Moses as a crime-ridden “hell’s hundred acres”, to be swept clean by gleaming new arteries topped with futuristic mega-structures. Old TV clips show “Big Bob the Builder” oozing arrogance and reptilian cunning, as he condemns whole areas, describing a low-income part of Harlem as “a cancerous growth that has to be carved out” and scoffing at the idea of compensating landowners who stand in his way: “Do you think anything would ever be built if we did that?” All that’s missing is footage of him being chauffeur-driven around the city in his stretch limo with pigskin seats.

By contrast, Jacobs is the indomitable champion of the people, gliding around town on her bicycle, corralling campaigns into action. She was a master of popular media, choreographing stunts like mock funerals for neighbourhoods and staging colourful protests with snappy badges and banners. Proclaimed Queen Jane by Vogue and photographed by Diane Arbus for Esquire, she counted Eleanor Roosevelt and Susan Sontag among her supporters.

If it all sounds a little black and white, that’s because it is. Told, retold and even produced as a children’s story, the pantomime goody-baddy narrative has become drastically oversimplified, a problem that this film does little to address. Yes, Moses was a bullying megalomaniac, but he also built 13 bridges, two tunnels, 637 miles of highways, 658 playgrounds, 10 giant public swimming pools, 17 state parks, not to mention dozens of housing projects and city parks.

Neither should Jacobs’ theories and her influence on contemporary “good practice” go totally unquestioned. “Jacobs romanticised social conditions that were already becoming obsolete,” says urban sociologist Sharon Zukin, while Deyan Sudjic, director of the Design Museum in London, believes her “underlying message is of unblinking paranoia”.

Jacobs’ writings have led to a collective received wisdom – driven by the spurious discipline of “placemaking” – that decrees every street frontage should be “active”, every public space should bustle with civic life, every bit of the city should be configured around clear “desire lines” from A to B, with citizens’ movement intricately choreographed. It is a world in which narrow alleyways and quiet corners are banished in favour of 24-hour curated vibrancy.

Ironically, in an echo of Big Bob’s hunger for demolition, Jacobs’ arguments are now being deployed to raze postwar council estates across the world, her principles mobilised to lambast “sink estates”, conflating social problems and lack of maintenance with a particular style of architecture. They are the new cancer to be carved out. At the same time, the kinds of historic districts Jacobs helped to save now often feel like open-air museums, places as soulless and devoid of real life as the high-rises she so despised.

A hint of this would have added a welcome cautionary tone to the film. Instead it ends with Saskia Sassen, the Dutch sociologist, railing against China’s new megacities as “Moses on steroids”, over footage shot from a speeding car. If urbanists got out and looked more closely, as Jacobs herself did, they’d find that urban life continues to flourish in unexpected places. As critic Paul Goldberger concludes, Jacobs’ finest quality was “a willingness to doubt the received wisdom and trust our eyes instead”.”

INGLESES CADA VEZ MAIS PREOCUPADOS COM DIVÓRCIO ENTRE CRIANÇAS E NATUREZA

Por Inês Sequeira, 17.02.2016

"Um estudo financiado pelo Governo britânico concluiu que 12% das crianças inglesas não tinham visitado um ambiente natural no espaço de 12 meses consecutivos, pelo menos. Os resultados confirmam também a forte importância dos progenitores para a relação com a Natureza.
O inquérito prolongou-se entre Março de 2013 e Fevereiro de 2015, realizado pela Natural England, junto de mais de 10.000 crianças com menos de 16 anos. As famílias eram questionadas todos os meses.Os resultados indicam que 12% dessas crianças não tinham visitado jardins, parques, praias, florestas ou outros ambientes naturais ao longo do último ano.
Os mais distanciados do mundo natural são crianças de famílias com baixos rendimentos e de etnia negra, asiática e outras minorias.
Os resultados do estudo apontam também para uma divisão entre o Norte e o Sul. No Nordeste do país, 78% dos mais novos visitam espaços naturais pelo menos uma vez por semana, enquanto que em Londres, por exemplo, isso sucede apenas com 62%.
O inquérito indica também que o interesse dos pais pela Natureza tem uma forte influência nas visitas dos mais novos aos espaços verdes: nas casas onde os adultos são visitantes frequentes, a maioria das crianças também o são (82%).
Já quando acontece o contrário, apenas 39% dos menores de 16 anos passeiam frequentemente na Natureza.
Aliás, a grande maioria dos passeios no mundo natural realizam-se em conjunto com os pais ou outros adultos que vivem na mesma casa (75%).
“Os adultos são extremamente importantes como mediadores das visitas das crianças aos espaços naturais”, sublinham os autores do estudo, que chamam também a atenção para “as claras desigualdades sociais” na forma como os mais novos acedem aos espaços verdes.
“Os problemas relacionam-se com o medo, o espaço, a tecnologia e o tempo, e variam muito ao longo do país”, disse Natalie Johnson, da organização não governamental Wild Network, ao jornal britânico The Guardian.
“Nos subúrbios de classe média, [o problema] são os pais: como é que dizemos aos pais que o tempo para as crianças brincarem lá fora à vontade é tão importante como as aulas de francês, ballet e mandarim?”
Os resultados deste inquérito vão servir de base ao desenvolvimento de um indicador para medir a interacção de crianças e jovens com ambientes naturais, em Inglaterra. Vão ainda ser utilizados na definição de estratégias de intervenção para a saúde pública e o bem-estar."

I belong on the road as much as any man. Male rage won’t scare me off my bike

 ‘As a female cyclist, you are all too often the target of a particularly
unsavoury male aggression.’ Photograph: Steve Vidler/Alamy
26.08.2015
Video of a woman being pushed off her bicycle by an angry pedestrian has inflamed social media. But while the abuse female cyclists get is real, the freedom bikes offer more than makes up for it

“Please don’t try and knock me off.” It’s not exactly the rallying cry of Henry V. And yet, a video released yesterday by London Metropolitan police showing a woman getting pushed off her bike by a pedestrian in a grey hoodie after uttering these words has acted as a balefire to cyclists and their would-be murderers across the internet.
“Not justifying violence but as a London pedestrian who sees ignorant cyclists like this every day, I understand the rage,” commented @OffencePolice on Twitter. “I would have bitten her finger off,” added @yermastinks. “Most of you cyclist have no no respect to drivers that has to work and look after their family’s,” [sic] added @kelkoca, helpfully.
To watch a woman get pushed from her bike, into oncoming traffic, to hear her body hit the ground and her cry of fear as she slams against the road, is awful. So imagine then taking to Twitter to write: “Let us know if you catch him so I can buy him a pint,” like “Millwall supporter and general nice bloke” @BermondseyGB did. The fact that the light was red, that the cyclist had right of way, that to push someone into the path of an oncoming car is wilfully dangerous and that giving the finger (as the attacker accuses) is hardly grounds for assault, seems so obvious as to barely be worth saying. And yet it is worth saying. We deserve better than this. We all deserve better than this.
As a female cyclist, you are all too often the target of a particularly unsavoury male aggression. Whether that’s the violent sexual threats shouted from passing vehicles, the passive aggressive “tutoring” by older men at traffic lights who tell you how to hold your own handlebars, being slowly and wilfully pushed off the road by City boys in their shiny black cars who cannot bear to have the throbbing power of their engine compromised by a woman on a bicycle, or the subtle patronising aggression you can feel from men in bike shops, we’re too often made to feel unwelcome, in the way, out of our depth or unworthy.
“I hope you die, you cunt,” shouted a cab driver at one female friend after almost killing her on a back street in Angel. “Stupid little whore” shouted a middle-aged white man in an estate car at another, before adding “fucking cyclist scum,” as she dared to turn right at a junction. These sexual threats say: “You don’t deserve to be on the road. You don’t know what you’re doing. You’re indecent, depraved, ignorant and dangerous.” Which, of course, is pure pedal-powered bullshit.
I have been cycling through cities and across countries since I was nine years old. My first bike – a hand-painted, two-tone purple Raleigh – was more than just an unexpected Prince tribute. It was freedom. I never have to worry about night buses, don’t have to catch a last train, am at liberty to go wherever I want, whenever I want, and at speed.
The first time I cycled from my front door to the sea (a ride of about 65 miles thanks to a particularly poor map) I stood on the beach, looked out at a bending blue horizon and realised that I had reached the very edge of the country using nothing more than my thighs, sweat and gears. I felt like Tessie Reynolds, the 16-year-old girl who shocked 19th-century England by cycling from London to Brighton and back in eight hours, wearing knee-length breeches. I felt like Sylvia and Christabel Pankhurst cycling around Manchester and London agitating their female comrades. I remembered the words of the American suffrage campaigner Susan B Anthony: “Let me tell you what I think of bicycling: I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. I stand and rejoice every time I see a woman ride by on a wheel.”
From suffragettes to midwives, Olympians to resistance fighters, commuters to campaigners, the history of the bicycle runs like a dual carriageway alongside the history of feminism. Cycling put us in trousers, let us pass messages behind the frontline, stood us on podiums, helped us mobilise in the streets, took us out of our conscribed domestic sphere and taught us the thrill of having the wind in our eyes. Despite the warnings from AD Shadwell published in 1897, our wombs did not fall out, we did not suffer dementia and we avoided the “bulging eyes” and “tightened mandible” that characterised the dreaded (and entirely fictional) “bike face”.
And we are good cyclists. Many of those victim-blaming on Twitter were keen to point out that cyclists jump red lights, cycle on pavements or hog the road. To which I say yes, sometimes, we do. The mayor of London does, the prime minister does and probably I have too. Primarily because I don’t want to be accidentally crushed by an HGV – one of the few road casualties that disproportionately affects women, too timid to overtake on the right or pull ahead, out of a driver’s blind spot. But the urge to push a woman off her bike while calling her a mug and shouting in her face has very little, if anything, to do with road hogs and red lights.
Of course, this video is news precisely because it is out of the ordinary; shocking, unpleasant and unexpected. It caused controversy because this isn’t the sort of thing we see every day. As a woman on a bike, you may occasionally feel bullied on and off of the road, but don’t let one furious man colour your view of cycling altogether. Yes, you may sometimes get strangers commenting on your legs, you may get taxi drivers pushing you into parked cars, you may be laughed out of a bike shop for asking about panniers, you may have a door opened on to your oncoming knees, you might get a middle-aged, lycra-clad bore asking “is that’s your dad’s bike, love?”, you might nearly get hit by pedestrians tapping away on their phones and you might get heckled by people outside pubs. But, my god, it’s worth it.
The world and its roads are there for the taking; we can chase the wind and conquer the weather, we can get anywhere at any time without spending a penny or relying on anyone. A bike is a two-wheeled instrument of freedom, emancipation and power. And most of us don’t even have to worry about crushing our testicles on the crossbar. So go on, put some fun between your legs. Get back in the saddle. You can give a man a fish, but you should give a woman a bicycle."

Give us a garden and we can cultivate our own hope and wellbeing

The therapeutic benefits of gardening have been recognised by charities
such as Freedom from Torture, which use it to help rehabilitate
victims. Photograph: Alexey Stiop/Alamy
por in The Guardian, 01.07.2014

"Working my patch of soil brings me a lot more than just veg. The mental health benefits of gardening should be nurtured


This is the season of abundance, when the garden is at its fullest. Flowers are in bloom and the grass is pushing through so fast that half an hour after mowing it you seem to be back where you started.


This year, for the first time, I am attempting to grow my own veg. An attempt that has so far proved wildly successful, which is to say that the beds have gone wild with an almost indecent profusion of lettuce and kale and spinach and some red leafed thing – I can't now remember what it was, nor whether you're meant to cook it.
I am a total horticultural novice but you cannot plant so much as a plug of curly leaved parsley without feeling a connection not only to the earth but to the countless generations who have worked the land before you. To plant and to tend and to harvest what you grow is to feel an elemental sense of belonging that is deeply therapeutic.
My friend and gardening mentor agrees. Originally from Malaysia, Tash has lived in the UK for more than 25 years since he first arrived, aged 16. His ancestors were also immigrants, travelling from the rice fields of south-eastern China to settle in what was then Malaya. "It's quite literally about putting down roots," he tells me. "It's no coincidence that so many people who have allotments in London originally come from somewhere else, from Turkey for example, or Bangladesh."
The charity Freedom From Torture (formerly the Medical Foundation for the Care of the Victims of Torture) has been using gardening as a form of therapy and rehabilitation for more than 20 years. Mary Raphaely, co ordinator of its Natural Growth Project says that clients can find "an initial spark of hope" in nature.
A project client, Suleyman, agrees, "To begin with I tried antidepressants. But nothing seemed to keep the memories away. Everything was darkness – and I hated the city, where I felt confined and unable to speak or do anything. Then I came here and everything seemed familiar. I am always at one with the earth. If the garden looks good, I feel good. When the soil sleeps, I sleep. Apart from these things you have, these snails and slugs which were new to me, there is no evil in the garden".
The mental health charity Mind is also attempting to harness the therapeutic power of nature with its EcoMinds programme. Between 2009 and 2013, EcoMinds funded 130 projects across England with activities including gardening, food growing and environmental conservation. Over 12,000 people participated and more than seven out of 10 reported a "significant increase" in mental wellbeing. Last October, it launched Ecotherapy Works, a national campaign targeting health and wellbeing boards with evidence of the effectiveness of ecotherapy.
I think such schemes have tremendous potential for improving the mental and physical wellbeing of participants. When I think of the 18 months I spent sitting in the common room of an inner-city day hospital, with a dead plant in the corner, smoking and drinking tea; and imagine instead spending them outside, not shut off from the world but an active part of it, feeling the rhythms of the earth, at one with the seasons, hands covered in soil, it does seem to me a more promising environment in which to seek to recover. An environment that can wordlessly offer activity, community, a sense of purpose, hope.
Because if gardening links us into the past, to those who have dug the earth before, inevitably it points to the future too. Again and again, in that simple act of planting, I express my belief in the promise of tomorrow."

The great garden swindle: how developers are hiding behind shrubbery, por Oliver Wainwright

A High Line for London? What the Braithwaite viaduct in Shoreditch might
look like. Photograph: Bishopsgate Goodsyard
16.04.2015

"From trees on bridges to magical parks, London’s most damaging developments are using green garnish as a decoy to distract from what’s really going on

Spring has sprung and developers are getting green-fingered. Across London, their planning applications are sprouting leaves and bursting into bloom. They’re promising trees on bridges and jungles in the clouds, sky-gardens and life-giving linear parks, along with a whole network of green ribbons weaving through town.
Who could say no to this fecund vision for London? What mean-spirited planning committee would stand in the way of this pastoral dream? Very few can resist the lure of a good garden. That is precisely the problem.
Developers have got wise to the power of a few plants in easing their bloated schemes through the planning system. They’ve realised that a little green garnish can mask a multitude of sins. A clutch of 40-storey luxury apartment towers in a conservation area, you say? But check out that lovely lawn! A bridge-shaped tourist attraction for a stretch of the Thames that doesn’t need another crossing,to be built at vast expense to the taxpayer? But what nice shrubs it has! The word “garden” has never been misused as such a damaging decoy.
If ever evidence were needed that the promised planting of a CGI mirage might not be as good in reality, it can be found 150 metres up in the air at No 20 Fenchurch Street. The 37-storey Walkie-Talkie tower was given planning permission in an area never intended for tall buildings – way outside the City’s planned “cluster” – on the sole basis that it would come with a majestic “sky garden”.
The Walkie Talkie 'Sky Garden' … vision vs reality.
Pinterest
 The Walkie-Talkie ‘Sky Garden’ … vision vs reality. Image: 20 Fenchurch Street
The planning application featured a storyboard of seductive images, from pensioners mingling among the cherry blossom to visitors staring out in awe at the neighbouring towers, all from the vantage point of this fairytale bower in the sky. Policies could be breached and all would be forgiven for the joy this Babylonian utopia would bring.
The reality, as documented in these pages, is more like a couple of rockeries and a few trees in pots. It has all the sylvan charm of an office lobby – a public space for which you must book in advance and go through airport-style security to savour.
It is an underwhelming precedent that makes the proposed garden bridge seem all the more unlikely to deliver the promised dream of a floating forest across the Thames. Joanna Lumley’s plan, that people will be able to “walk through woodlands over one of the greatest rivers in the world,” is more likely to end up seeing crowds shuffling across a windswept deck, picking their way between a few shrubs that are clinging on for dear life.
A closer look at the planning application reveals what the feted bridge will actually look like from the south bank. Buried in the Environmental Statement, Volume 8, Appendix 15, page 27, lurks a verified view of the reality of this great chunk of engineering. It will be a copper-clad aircraft carrier, topped with a meagre green sprinkle – what my colleague Rowan Moore so elegantly described as “urban parsley”. A judicial review has been launched against the planning permission.
The garden bridge … vision vs reality?
Pinterest
 The garden bridge … vision vs reality? Image: Garden Bridge Trust
It’s easy to giggle at the folly of the garden bridge, but this wilting parsley has become a scourge. Across London, this green dressing is being used to soften the blow of steroidal overdevelopment, with slivers of park threaded between bulging apartment blocks. On the Greenwich Peninsula, where the developer Knight Dragon has almost halved its affordable housing commitment, the flats are currently being marketed with “views of Central Park”. They must be jolly high.
Some of the apartment blocks already built there have tried the “vertical garden” trick too, with forlorn patches of green wall hanging off the facade like sticking plasters trying to hide the bin store. As one Twitter wit put it when I posted a photo of the wretched thing: “Certainly sir, a two-bed maisonette. And would you like salad with that?”
The former Heygate estate in Elephant and Castle is being recast as “Elephant Park”, because there will be some greenery in the middle of the development – to be planted long after Lend Lease’s elephant of regeneration has charged through and trampled the council flats to dust. Further west, among the thicket of towers currently sprouting between Vauxhall and Nine Elms, will one day weave a kilometre-long linear park, or “a sustainable green backbone” as the developer Ballymore has it.
“This extraordinary green channel will be entirely open to the public and a focal point for shopping, sports, leisure and recreation, outdoor events and all forms of community life,” they coo. “Its edges will be lined with homes, shops, cafes, leisure venues and other attractions to draw people in and activate the space.”
The 'sustainable green backbone' proposed to weave through Nine Elms.
Pinterest
 The ‘sustainable green backbone’ proposed to weave through Nine Elms. Image: Nine Elms Vauxhall Partnership
But with most of the development being marketed to overseas investors, who are unlikely to ever set foot here, it’s hard to imagine what kind of community life will occur on the great green carpet. Still, at least it will provide a “visual amenity” for those looking down from their £9m penthouses, if they ever bother to collect the keys.
The other side of town, at Bishopsgate Goodsyard in Shoreditch, the same developer is using a similar strategy of Potemkin planting to distract attention away from what they’re really doing on the other side of the hedge. London will be gifted with a spectacular new High Line, they trumpet, with a pocket park perched atop the crumbling remains of the old Victorian railway arches. Having suffered decades of neglectful vandalism, the Braithwaite viaduct – one of the oldest rail structures in the world – will be reincarnated as a “rich multi-layered three-dimensional landscape concept,” complete with bountiful retail pavilions and something that looks like a Swiss chalet.
Views of the new park are, as ever, carefully choreographed so as not to show the seven towers of luxury flats that will loom over your head as you and the rest of Tech City guzzle your lunch on a small patch of grass. There may only be 10% affordable housing in the £800 m development – in boroughs where policy aims for up to 50% – but oh! How about that lovely multi-layered landscape concept? Just look at those bushes ..."

Britain’s housing crisis: are garden cities the answer?

An aerial view of Ebbsfleet showing the quarry and valley
developments with Swanscombe to the rear – and London
in the distance at top left. Photograph: Commission Air Ltd
The Guardian

"They’re billed as an idyllic alternative to generic commuter towns. But the first of a new generation of garden cities, in Ebbsfleet, Kent, has run into controversy. Will the end result be bog-standard suburban housing blighting the green belt?

Beyond the shops – a Co-op, a cafe, a tattoo studio called Demon Inkorporation – are narrow terraced streets where doors open on to the pavement. A newer red-brick estate has been erected on an old slurry pit, and in the distance are wind turbines, pylons, the roar of the A2 and the surreal sight of container ships the size of tower blocks slipping down the Thames.
Welcome to Britain’s newest garden city. Ebbsfleet, the name of the high-speed Eurostar railway station squeezed on to waste ground between Dartford and Gravesend, is the first of the government’s new generation of garden cities: low-density communities with generous green spaces and good local facilities. Garden cities are an idea whose time has come (again), enjoying the support of George Osborne, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. They are seen as a way to persuade not-in-my-backyarders to tolerate urgently needed new housing estates. Are garden cities the solution to Britain’s housing crisis? Or are they a sham – the same-old suburbs smothering precious green belt?
This debate was ignited by David Rudlin, an urban designer who last month won the £250,000 Wolfson Economics prize for arguing we must “take a confident bite out of the green belt” and build new garden city extensions to around 40 existing provincial cities and towns, including Oxford, Taunton, Ipswich and Carlisle.
Politicians, architects and planners all say that the housing crisis – which means all but the seriously rich are priced out of booming cities and all but the super-rich are priced out of London – is only going to get worse: demographic trends suggest that 6m new homes are required over the next 30 years. That means 200,000 each year, and in England we have struggled to build half that – just 112,630 new homes – in the 12 months to March 2014.
Garden cities were the vision of a shorthand typist called Ebenezer Howard who worked in parliament and, in 1898, outlined his utopian alternative to industrial slums, combining the best of town and country. Howard’s vision of self-sufficient local communities of affordable homes built at a low density with green spaces and jobs nearby was realised through first Letchworth and then Welwyn Garden City. Letchworth offered affordable renting and home ownership (a three-bedroom house cost £175 in 1906), leisure facilities such as a nine-hole golf course and innovations including Britain’s first roundabout. Lenin is rumoured to have stayed the night in the town in 1907 and the garden city ideals were exported abroad, to Soviet cities including Stalingrad, and other new cities such as Canberra, Australia.
Workmen's cottage in Letchworth in 1912.
Workmen’s cottage in Letchworth in 1912. Photograph: Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City’s generous public spaces and green, low-density avenues are still so popular that Lord Wolfson, the funder of the Wolfson prize and a generous Tory donor, believes they could solve the conundrum of how to construct thousands of new homes without alienating greenbelt-loving locals. But the idea of building on green belt – as advocated by Rudlin – is still toxic to top Tories: it has been sharply dismissed by the Conservatives’ housing minister and also criticised by the architect Lord Rogers, a champion of urban renewal through brownfield development. George Osborne, the chancellor, has stuck to Tory-friendly territory by earmarking brownfield land around Ebbsfleet for the first of the new garden cities. Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister,has invited local authorities to bid for funding of up to £2.4bn for three more.
The desolate picture glimpsed from a high-speed train rushing through Ebbsfleet might confirm sceptics’ suspicions that garden cities are a hollow rebranding exercise. “To call this a garden city is satire,” wrote Simon Jenkins earlier this year. But a closer look at the new – and old – communities in this part of Kent reveals a more complicated picture.
Ebbsfleet is promising on paper. There is probably no better place to build a sizeable new town in south-east England. It has an underused high-speed railway station. A canyon-sized disused quarry already has outline planning permission for 10,000 new homes; more have been approved on adjacent brownfield sites. On marshy industrial land by the Thames, Paramount wants to build a £2bn attraction, bigger than the Olympic Park, which will create 27,000 local jobs. To the west is Bluewater shopping centre. Its malls can be linked up by a “Fastrack” bus system already partly in place. Osborne has promised £200m to help and, more significantly, an urban development corporation to speed up planning consent and cooperation between the two borough councils – Labour-controlled Gravesham and Conservative Dartford. Crucially, both councils also support the garden city.
In the cavernous Eastern Quarry, the first residents will move into their homes this month. Ebbsfleet may not currently look particularly scenic but it doesn’t take much imagination to see that this quarry community could be rather lovely. The developer, Land Securities, has spent more than £100m buying and landscaping the site, creating a south-facing slope down to natural lakes. Wooded quarry walls hide the A2 and most of the old industry. Land Securities has already adopted garden city-style principles: 6,000 homes will be arranged in three “villages” with central squares featuring local shops and schools. There will be safe footpaths for children and a green boulevard along which buses will whisk residents to the station, Bluewater or the Paramount development.
Jeremy Kite, leader of Dartford borough council, is confident that Ebbsfleet won’t become another commuter dormitory. “There’s nothing better than a village, whether it’s an urban village or something in the Cotswolds,” he says. “We’ve got local shops – they happen to be Bluewater – we’ve got a local railway station that happens to be 17 minutes from central London and we’ve got a playground which we happen to call Paramount theme park. If we get this right, it should be a really good model community. The notion that a resident would say, ‘My dream is to commute back and forth to Canary Wharf’ is nonsense. It shouldn’t be a dorm, it should be an importer rather than an exporter of people during the day.”
There is one problem with Ebbsfleet garden city: there is already a town here. It is called Swanscombe. The 14,000 residents of Swanscombe and Greenhithe are not the usual Nimbys – I cannot find anyone who is opposed to the new garden city – but many feel like they are being erased from the map.
“The development is not the problem – the problem is everyone is telling us what we need instead of asking us what we want,” says Bryan Read, leader of Swanscombe and Greenhithe town council. “Swanscombe has a lot of history,” he explains as he takes me on a grand tour of the immaculate town hall, community centre and national nature reserve. This became the first geological reserve in the country after a south-London dentist called Alvin Marston found a skull here in 1935. “Swanscombe Man” (now thought to be a woman) was 400,000 years old and lived alongside tigers, cave lions and elephants. Now, her descendants are furious about their disappearing heritage.
Sign at Ebbsfleet
A sign shows the names of potential development areas in Ebbsfleet. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

“The people of Swanscombe are up in arms about the name ‘Ebbsfleet’, which is a name made up by Eurostar,” says Jeff Harvey, another town councillor. “They are not opposed to the development but to the erasing of our identity. Swanscombe is so steeped in history I don’t know why they want to disregard us. Over the years, people have suffered from the ‘regeneration’ building work and they haven’t had anything back. We’re just not even thought about.”
Developers are alert to community feeling – concerns over the Ebbsfleet name are “a proxy for wider concerns about being left behind”, acknowledges a spokesperson for Land Securities – but it is no wonder local residents feel excluded: the map of the proposed area covered by Ebbsfleet’s urban development corporation includes land all around Swanscombe but misses out the entire existing community. Locals fear the garden city will flourish, leaving Swanscombe its impoverished middle. “It looks like there’ll be a fence around us, or probably a wall,” laughs Harvey, half-joking. “It’s a nice estate, the quarry, but it’s going to spruce up the area and leave Swanscombe looking like a ghetto – it’s a them-and-us type situation.”
Read is desperate to see the necessary road, rail and bus improvements to link old and new communities and stop garden city gridlock. And it is on these infrastructural questions (rather than aesthetics – there is no reason why a garden city can’t be built on brownfield land) that Ebbsfleet falls short of the garden city ideal. It may receive some government subsidies but Ebbsfleet is being built in a largely standard way – with developers compelled to fund modest infrastructural improvements. Rudlin’s prize-winning vision of a new generation of garden cities is much more radical, and based on reviving the garden-city economic model last used for postwar new towns in Britain.
Is Ebbsfleet a garden city? “I wouldn’t say so,” says Rudlin. “It’s a housing estate styled as a garden city. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but the aspirations of a garden city can be higher than that.”
At the core of the housing crisis, says Rudlin, are crazy prices – of homes and land. The big winners are landowners. The value of land can rise 200-fold once it has planning permission; this bonanza means that landowners pay huge fees to planning professionals to get planning permission; together, they pocket the huge uplift in the value of the land. Developers are forced to pay so much for land that they can only afford to build cheap standardised homes. “This awful suburbia around our cities is the result of this dysfunctionality of our planning system,” thinks Rudlin.
His big idea is to revive the legislation that created new towns, with a revived “garden cities act” enabling the government to buy land at its “real” pre-planning permission price, as occurs in Germany and the Netherlands. When this land is sold for construction, the money made is used by each new “garden city foundation” to fund proper infrastructure. This more centrally planned model enables plots with infrastructure to be offered to people to build their own homes (or commission a local builder to do so). The popularity of Grand Designs suggests we would love this. And “the number of self-builds in Italy, Austria and France is huge”, says Rudlin. A “plot passport” would prevent the construction of ugly monstrosities, and self-builders, alongside the familiar high-volume house-builders would help hit the annual 200,000 new homes target.
Unfortunately, the politicians who have been quick to apparently embrace garden cities don’t seem to be seriously considering reviving their economic and legislative underpinning. Is there a danger Osborne and Clegg’s adoption of garden cities is just a way to rebadge the same old bog-standard suburban house-building? “Of course there is,” admits Rudlin. “That’s what happened with the original garden cities. Many of them are a pale shadow of what Ebenezer Howard suggested they would be. That’s the downside of an idea that gets traction – people will always take it and water it down and use it as branding rather than content.”
Houses in Welwyn Garden City
Houses in Welwyn Garden City, the epitome of Ebenezer Howard’s idea of new housing. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

For critics of garden cities, however, they are not the solution but part of the problem. Lord Rogers and the Campaign to Protect of Rural Englandhave both argued we must build on brownfield land before biting into the green belt as Rudlin suggests. Rogers says at least 1.3m fairly low-density dwellings could be built on suitable brownfield land; there are also 400,000 homes with planning permission not yet built. The influential architect fears Rudlin’s garden cities would become car-dependent suburbs that risk emptying existing cities. In response, Rudlin argues that brownfield is not always available where houses are needed. “You can’t just build a load of houses in a northern mill town,” says Rudlin. “If you’re going to accept you don’t grow Oxford – where there are few brownfields and huge pressure for growth – but you do grow Burnley then you’ve got to have a national policy [to tackle geographical economic imbalances].” From an ecological perspective, brownfield is sometimes far more precious than arable green belt, as demonstrated by the controversy over 5,000 homes planned for an old Ministry of Defence site at Lodge Hill, not far from Ebbsfleet. This overgrown barracks is now the best site in the country for endangered nightingales.
Other planning experts fear that garden cities will only worsen the housing crisis. Each morning, Adrian Jones, a town planner and author of Towns in Britain, watches trains from Welwyn Garden City, packed with commuters, pass his London home. “Garden cities were to be self-sufficient communities, not dormitory suburbs,” he says. “There’s a huge nexus of planning and transport issues around the concentration of jobs, power and investment in London. A few more garden cities doesn’t solve the problem, it exacerbates it.” According to Jones, the housing crisis was caused by selling off public housing; it can be solved by building it again. Far better to rent from a public agency than a private one, argues Jones, not least because the public body can borrow money more cheaply than a private landlord.
Given the drastic forecast that we need 6m new homes over the next three decades, is a more radical rethink required? Frances Holliss, anarchitect and academic at London Metropolitan University, identifies garden cities as part of the source of the housing crisis. Victorian social reformers were horrified by urban slums where home-workers were appallingly exploited. Alongside the provision of new social housing, Howard’s garden cities helped establish a principle still embedded in planning regulations today: the separation of work and home. Many social housing tenancy agreements, for example, still prohibit running a business from home. This has created what Holliss sees as “an enormous amount of wastage in our building stock”: homes are empty in the day; huge offices are desolate at night (to say nothing of the money and energy wasted on commuting between them). If more people were allowed to work from home, and offices and industrial spaces were not prohibited as places to live, argues Holliss, we wouldn’t need to construct so many new buildings on green or brown fields. “We need to be more flexible about how we inhabit buildings. Home-based work has a role in terms of making building stock more efficient. We have the potential to inhabit a very wide range of buildings as combined dwellings and workplaces if we can only loosen up the rules. I really don’t believe we need to build more; we need to inhabit what we’ve got in a far more imaginative way.”