Is it time to rethink Britain's green belt?

[M II A II R II K]

Is it time to rethink Britain's green belt?


18 October 2014



Read More: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...the-green-belt

.....

London is indeed surrounded by a green belt, as are 13 other urban areas in England and 10 in Scotland, zones that forbid new development, except, as the policy wording has it, in “very special circumstances”. They occupy 13% the total land area of England, compared with the 10% that is urbanised.

- Almost anyone you talk to on the subject agrees that the green belt is one of the great successes of planning, anywhere in the world. It has prevented the interminable exurbia, the light smearing of development over landscape that you get in the United States and many other countries.

- But it also has costs. It stops cities expanding, which had previously done so for centuries. It contributes to the scarcity and cost of decent homes in large parts of the country. It encourages bizarre and wasteful patterns of commuting. It often fails in its original aim of providing accessible recreational space for city dwellers. It is enforced with a rigidity that makes little sense, except as a sign of mistrust.

- It would be naive to think that the country’s housing problems would solved just by handing tracts of the green belt to developers. Something more is required, which is the ability to plan positively, to create new places as well as protect old ones, a skill this country had until relatively recently.

- It is not a small thing to rediscover this art, but then neither is the green belt, nor the current issues of housing. The green belt arouses strong passions, but the debates around it are about something still larger, which is the ability of a country to act together in a shared endeavour, or to subdivide into competing interests.

- The libertarian thinktank the Adam Smith Institute has argued that, if a strip merely half a mile wide were shaved off the London green belt, 800,000 new homes could be built. Defenders of the green belts, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), are accused of ignoring “those who are marginalised and condemned to poor housing”.

- The London Society, the group to which Aston Webb told his dream and which was instrumental in creating the green belt, has commissioned research from the commercial real estate company Colliers International, which says that we “need to move away from the idea that the countryside is a sacrosanct patchwork of medieval hedgerows” and towards the recognition of “housing as a need to be met in locations with appropriate environmental capacity”.

- A particularly vocal critic, Professor Paul Cheshire of the London School of Economics, has written that “the unstoppable damage they do to societal fairness, housing affordability, the economic efficiency of our cities, even the environment, is devastating”. He argues that new houses in Britain are 40% more expensive than the Netherlands, which is more densely populated, and that the green belt is at least partly to blame.

- It is said that green belts are not fulfilling their original aims of providing recreation for city dwellers. Dwellers of Toxteth or Hackney are not especially likely to make the journey to their nearest green belts, rather than Sefton or Victoria Park, or to countryside further afield. Rather, says Cheshire, the idea has been “used as a form of exclusionary zoning by the more affluent residents who had got there already”.

- It is a device, in this view, for rich dwellers of green belts, who enjoy proximity to both cities and countryside, to stop anyone else sharing their idyll. He argues that green belts force commuters to live outside them, and jump over them daily, some travelling from as far away as Norwich to work in London.

- Paul Cheshire questions the environmental quality of the intensive agriculture that is the largest single use of green belt land, and cites the National Ecosystem Assessment of 2011 as saying that such land “has no environmental benefits at all”. Suburban gardens contribute much more biodiversity. It is argued, finally, that other designations, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and sites of special scientific interest do some of the job of protecting what is really important about the countryside, which makes green belts less vital.

.....

England’s green belts. Graphic by Pete Guest for the Observer New Review







Urbed’s snowflake-shaped concept for a garden city which it applied to Oxford. Photograph: PR

[nito]

It is a widely understood fact that the UK has a housing problem relative to other advanced economies. Take London as an example, between 2011 and 2021 around 800,000 new homes will need to be built (to accommodate future population growth and the lack of supply from previous years), but it is expected that only 250,000 will actually be built.

Is the Green Belt partially responsible for this predicament? Yes, it has stopped British cities developing similar urban sprawl strategies that emerged in North American cities, but there is a glaring omission in the article. The Green Belt has existed since before WW2, but its presence didn’t prevent the development of hundreds of thousands of new homes. Back in the 1960’s, nearly 3 times as many homes were built compared to the present day despite the smaller market, weaker population growth, and the aforementioned presence of the Green Belt.

So why has property completions taken a nose dive and property prices spiralled out of control over the last 20-30 years?

The answer is that there has been a substantial decline in public sector completions, and an inability (or perhaps unwillingness to increase margins) of the private sector to pick up the slack. Yet even private sector levels of construction are down on 1960’s levels as developers sit on land banks and smaller developers struggle to secure finance. Onerous planning regulations doesn’t help, but nor does poor utilisation of land: the number of detached homes accounted for some 36% of new housing stock built after 1980, compared to 10% built between 1945 and 1964.

In summary, concreting over the Green Belt is unlikely to see a dramatic rise in more homes being built or create a suppression effect on house price growth, but it will boost the coffers of developers.

[hipster duck]

Commentators usually point to the fact that cities with expensive housing prices are those that restrict growth through regulation: London, San Francisco, Boston, Vancouver, etc.

But are prices high because these places are restrictive, or are prices high because those places are good, and their quality attracts people with money? The strict regulations on land development may actually be symptomatic of the fact that those cities value a certain quality of life, and the wealthy people who are attracted to these places are also the kind to place restrictions on how and where land should be developed.

For these reasons, I think that suggesting that the Green Belt should be 'lifted' so that house prices will decline is kind of missing the point.

[mhays]

Both. A city that expensive with 1,000,000 housing units would tend to be substantially cheaper with 1,100,000 housing units. The best units might have similar demand regardless, but the rest would compete for each other on price etc.

[ardecila]

I wonder if London could adopt a Portland-style urban growth boundary? Instead of being fixed in stone, the boundary is periodically adjusted to allow a controlled level of outward growth. Of course, this process is ripe for corruption... but it does keep growth more compact and controlled, instead of cancerous sunbelt-style sprawl which overtaxes the existing infrastructure and wastes precious resources.

[llamaorama]

Defenders of the green belts, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

But are prices high because these places are restrictive, or are prices high because those places are good, and their quality attracts people with money? The strict regulations on land development may actually be symptomatic of the fact that those cities value a certain quality of life, and the wealthy people who are attracted to these places are also the kind to place restrictions on how and where land should be developed.

But then where will the characters from all of John Le Carre's novels live?

They need lots of land for their horsey lifestyle, I hear that bank fraud and plundering third world countries is really exhausting.

http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/commen...world_problem/
credit: imgur link; posted to reddit by user Ryno3639, no other details available.

[M II A II R II K]

Green belts probably work out better and needed more in larger land masses where there's plenty of a supply of land to build on, as well as to ensure that much of that large piece of land doesn't get swallowed up by asphalt.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by nito

It is a widely understood fact that the UK has a housing problem relative to other advanced economies. Take London as an example, between 2011 and 2021 around 800,000 new homes will need to be built (to accommodate future population growth and the lack of supply from previous years), but it is expected that only 250,000 will actually be built.

Is the Green Belt partially responsible for this predicament? Yes, it has stopped British cities developing similar urban sprawl strategies that emerged in North American cities, but there is a glaring omission in the article. The Green Belt has existed since before WW2, but its presence didn’t prevent the development of hundreds of thousands of new homes. Back in the 1960’s, nearly 3 times as many homes were built compared to the present day despite the smaller market, weaker population growth, and the aforementioned presence of the Green Belt.

So why has property completions taken a nose dive and property prices spiralled out of control over the last 20-30 years?

The answer is that there has been a substantial decline in public sector completions, and an inability (or perhaps unwillingness to increase margins) of the private sector to pick up the slack. Yet even private sector levels of construction are down on 1960’s levels as developers sit on land banks and smaller developers struggle to secure finance. Onerous planning regulations doesn’t help, but nor does poor utilisation of land: the number of detached homes accounted for some 36% of new housing stock built after 1980, compared to 10% built between 1945 and 1964.

In summary, concreting over the Green Belt is unlikely to see a dramatic rise in more homes being built or create a suppression effect on house price growth, but it will boost the coffers of developers.

Could it be that there was more land available inside the green belt in the 1960s? Most of the land has now been built out and there is only a marginal amount to build?

I really don't know much about London, but it seems the core could be a lot more dense in theory, before opening up the greenbelt. London lacks the core density of NYC or Paris.

Of course in practice, that mean either 1) Lots of Toronto-style high rises in concentrated areas 2) wholesale redevelopment from townhouses to Parisian style apartments. Seems too hard to practically do the later, and not sure if there is enough infill room left to make much of a dent with the former.

[Centropolis]

until 2012, minneapolis had a taller skyline than london...

i'm not a huge skyscraper nerd, but obviously there is a massive gap between what is and what could reasonably be.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I wonder if London could adopt a Portland-style urban growth boundary? Instead of being fixed in stone, the boundary is periodically adjusted to allow a controlled level of outward growth. Of course, this process is ripe for corruption... but it does keep growth more compact and controlled, instead of cancerous sunbelt-style sprawl which overtaxes the existing infrastructure and wastes precious resources.

I'm not an expert, but I think the UK does that to a large extent with its discretionary planning system.

Basically any new land development is subject to a rigorous (some say onerous) review of the plan based on its merits. It's quite a bit different from your usual subdivision review, and a whole lot different from building to zoning bylaws (which are nonexistent in the UK). I think councils also decide on how much land should be released every year for greenfield development. There's a certain amount of flexibility and responsiveness to the British system, it's just that some people (like the author) don't think its flexible or repsonsive enough.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

[llamaorama]

Of course in practice, that mean either 1) Lots of Toronto-style high rises in concentrated areas 2) wholesale redevelopment from townhouses to Parisian style apartments. Seems too hard to practically do the later, and not sure if there is enough infill room left to make much of a dent with the former.

i'm not a huge skyscraper nerd, but obviously there is a massive gap between what is and what could reasonably be.

Practically speaking, can concrete and steel high construction ever be cheap relative to wood and brick single story houses(perhaps arranged in a terrace)?

[JonathanGRR]

All this really depends on where the demand for people to live is at. If people are moving to London in hopes of having a true urban experience (whether that be in a skyscraper or a townhouse), the need will not be filled by building greenfield developments.

[dc_denizen]

The green belt is great, and not to blame for London's high prices (that would be international capital inflows mostly). Keep the green belt, and rebuild more of south London. Although I think more development within the M25 would be fine under certain circumstances.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

I really don't know much about London, but it seems the core could be a lot more dense in theory, before opening up the greenbelt. London lacks the core density of NYC or Paris.

Of course in practice, that mean either 1) Lots of Toronto-style high rises in concentrated areas 2) wholesale redevelopment from townhouses to Parisian style apartments. Seems too hard to practically do the later, and not sure if there is enough infill room left to make much of a dent with the former.

This. For a city of it's magnitude and it being in Europe, it's shockingly adverse to residential density. I can understand not wanting Hong Kong style highrises everywhere but even just 8-10 floor infill like what's happening all over Washington DC would be huge. The UK's "housing shortage" is a failure on two fronts: 1) Basically, the UK has made London it's bread and butter economically and has allowed just about every other mid level city other than perhaps Edinburgh go to pot. 2) Greater London's resistance to mid or high level density, which would work wonders especially if oriented around the tube network.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Qubert

This. For a city of it's magnitude and it being in Europe, it's shockingly adverse to residential density. I can understand not wanting Hong Kong style highrises everywhere but even just 8-10 floor infill like what's happening all over Washington DC would be huge. The UK's "housing shortage" is a failure on two fronts: 1) Basically, the UK has made London it's bread and butter economically and has allowed just about every other mid level city other than perhaps Edinburgh go to pot. 2) Greater London's resistance to mid or high level density, which would work wonders especially if oriented around the tube network.

London is more consistently dense than ANYWHERE in the US and Canada apart from Manhattan and Brooklyn. "Toronto style high rises" were mentioned earlier, while London is more dense than Toronto to begin with!

London has more skyscrapers and high rises u/c and proposed than anywhere else in Europe, apart from maybe Moscow.

As for other UK cities, they have been experiencing a revival earlier and more prominent than the revival of US Rust Belt cities.

[Jasonhouse]

Mark, you gotta post less of the article please, so as not to violate Fair Use.

You should be shooting for 100 words or less in your quotes from articles.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

London is more consistently dense than ANYWHERE in the US and Canada apart from Manhattan and Brooklyn. "Toronto style high rises" were mentioned earlier, while London is more dense than Toronto to begin with!

London has more skyscrapers and high rises u/c and proposed than anywhere else in Europe, apart from maybe Moscow.

As for other UK cities, they have been experiencing a revival earlier and more prominent than the revival of US Rust Belt cities.

yes, london is about the same size as houston (area wise) but is pretty much the same density through out.

[johnnypd]

Originally Posted by Qubert

This. For a city of it's magnitude and it being in Europe, it's shockingly adverse to residential density. I can understand not wanting Hong Kong style highrises everywhere but even just 8-10 floor infill like what's happening all over Washington DC would be huge. The UK's "housing shortage" is a failure on two fronts: 1) Basically, the UK has made London it's bread and butter economically and has allowed just about every other mid level city other than perhaps Edinburgh go to pot. 2) Greater London's resistance to mid or high level density, which would work wonders especially if oriented around the tube network.

The other mid-level cities have not gone to pot. Manchester in particular is roaring at the minute and attracting a tonne of investment in development and infrastructure. Leeds has also done very well building on its specialism in the financial and legal sectors, while Glasgow is always going to be strong because it is a beast of a city. Then you have cities like Edinburgh, Aberdeen & Bristol which never really struggled in the first place.

Birmingham, the 2nd city, has some issues due to its dependance on manufacturing and export-industries, but being the new HS2 hub will help. Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle have also turned around to an extent.

The places in the UK that have continued to suffer from neglect tend to be the cities further down the food chain - Sunderland & Bradford for instance live in the shadow of bigger neighbours who grab the lion's share of regional investment. Then there's the "crap towns" - places like Southend, Grimsby, Stoke, Scunthorpe etc which are just grim.

[mhays]

If being denser than US cities is a defense, the bar is pretty low!

London has a lot of four story buildings where some cities would have much larger ones. It also has mammoth parks. The highrises tend to be outside the best areas.

There's no easy answer. While I'd like to downsize some parks it's never going to happen. Nobody will be tearing down blocks in Soho to build denser. The West End is nice in part because it doesn't have badly-done highrises of the 60s and 70s.

Much of the crunch can be handled by making good use of infill sites all over town. I'm not concerned about people wanting houses instead of flats. If infill sites aren't available enough or get too expensive (the price would be high if even a sizeable fraction are in demand), then maybe some very minimal areas of the greenbelt would be ok to use, if done in a dense, transit-accessible format. The same might apply to some of the commuter towns outside the greenbelt. Maybe some of the pastures 1/4 mile from train stations would be good sites.