100712 risom sisternas - compact city

Uploaded on

Jeff Risoms and Maria Sisternas presentation for the 2nd Annual International Conference on Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development, held in Amman, Jordan, July 2010.

Jeff Risoms and Maria Sisternas presentation for the 2nd Annual International Conference on Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development, held in Amman, Jordan, July 2010.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Revisiting London’s first Garden Cities: failed utopian vision or a sustainable 21st century model? Jeff Risom MSc. City Design and Social Science LSE 2009 (Distinction). Associate at Gehl Architects, Copenhagen Faculty Danish Institute for Study Abroad jeff@gehlarchitects.dk Maria Sisternas MSc. City Design and Social Science LSE 2009 Urban Development Project Manager at MedCities, Barcelona Lecturer University of Barcelona mariasisternas@gmail.com
  • 2. 1. Compare and Contrast Garden City Vision and Compact City Policy 2. Critical Examination of the Compact City Policy (Urban Renaissance) a) The redevelopment of Brownfield sites b) Density targets: regional focus versus local context 3. The myth of polycentricity a) difficulty in creating a ‘centre’ in a suburban context 4. Garden City 100 years on Assessing the Leaf proposal for the Arcadia site in Ealing How to recapture the Garden City ideal within Compact City Policy? a) Socially b) Physically economically 5. Conclusion
  • 3. 1898 – Response to congested, 1999 – Response to urban decay dirty central London at the National Level
  • 5. • • •
  • 6. The Urban Renaissance through A regional metropolitan plan 'compact city': socially economically environmentally Designates areas for growth areas for intensification
  • 7. • • •
  • 8. ”Slumless and Smokeless”
  • 9. Ealing built The ’leaf’ density site under 1903 regional planning guidance
  • 10. The redevelopment of Brownfield sites London 2007-2017: + 326 000 homes (of which 182 000 affordable) BUT: Restricting available land Employment growth is not increases housing prices (Green necessarily coinciding with the Belt) location of available brownfield land (more pressure on car use, People value open space and contradicts the compact city) underdeveloped land more than greenbelt outside the city (social Brownfields tend not to be easily costs) accessible by foot
  • 11. 'maximizing the potential of the site' … in places that have a high level of Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) Density matrix: Central Urban Suburban Does not adequately take burden on services, cost of housing, access to green space, etc. into consideration
  • 12. • •
  • 13. Arguments in favour for high density: Economies of scale London's competitive advantage for knowledge economy BUT: … leads to smaller (undesirable) units: … conflicts with integrity of existing places ... Pressure on local services ... Uncomfortable density
  • 14. • • • • • •
  • 15. Polycentricity A market response to a congested Central London Public sector trying to optimise physical expansion of the city 'pseudo suburbia': the suburban model is vastly degenerated How sub - urban are London's suburbs? What makes them less urban?
  • 16. The geography of London for the highly Polycentrism is crucial in terms of skilled is decidedly more polycentric social justice: as soon as a centre is than for the low-skilled (GLA defined, another zone becomes Economics, 2009, p. 4). peripheral
  • 17. T T o
  • 18. T T o
  • 19. Only one Unitary Development Plan (6 years-old)
  • 20. It is not ONLY a matter of judgment 1) suburban landscapes as a problematic market- driven form of urban expansion 2) compact city is only a myth: people's preference diverge 3) economic growth argument: the welfare state trusts market to come up with the best solution 4) local communities: aesthetic and other hidden prejudices (protect their property values)
  • 21. The Queen of the Suburbs today number of migrants has increased by 50%. Ealing borough is increasingly polarised (average income in Ealing Broadway is £40,000 per annum, the Southall Green and Southall Broadway wards have an average income lower than £27,500 per annum)
  • 22. Lack of affordability of the housing stock (due to ‘Right-to-Buy’ programmes, the Council looses around 50 properties per year, out of a stock of 13 400 tenanted units) 19% of Ealing households (32% of Southall Broadway) were estimated to be overcrowded in 2001. Ironically, there are around 2500 vacant properties in the borough Interestingly, in Ealing, an already low median density of 55 residents/ Ha gives place to a congested urban atmosphere.
  • 23. Empower those who are deprived from public life participation through the analysis of a broader informational basis Land values were high Implementation of the London Plan successful in terms of stimulating the market. Ealing has excellent qualities as a low dense suburb. Hence, this built environment should help ensure a prosperous future, instead of contributing to suburban blight.
  • 24. Removing barriers to development and physical interventions barriers to housing aesthetic prejudices overcoming the obsession with density
  • 25. Removing barriers to development and physical interventions infill strategy a more durable built environment
  • 26. Removing barriers to development and physical interventions boundaries of open spaces lack of services and amenities
  • 27. Additional criteria for identifying similar characteristics – local Contribute to a more place based complementary policy to regional guidance New tools to facilitate cooperation between non-competing local areas Facilitate more beneficial ‘inter- local’ relationships (areas where we live, work and play)
  • 30. Jeff Risom jeff@gehlarchitects.dk Maria Sisternas mariasisternas@gmail.com