DISSERTATION - DONE

1
Milton Keynes: Issues of
Place and Identity in
New Town Suburbia
David Akam
Dissertation presented for the Honours degree of BA
School of Geography
University of Nottingham
2015
Word Count: 9,987

2
Abstract
Despite its short existence, Milton Keynes has already secured a household-name
status. Commentators and by-passers provide grandiose delusions of a modernist,
concrete-jungle, devoid of energy and culture, with more positive accounts often
accompanied with wry references to concrete cows and roundabouts. With previous
literature tending to focus on either the planning phase, the politics within Milton Keynes
Development Corporation, or forming judgements from an outside perspective, this
research is an on-the-ground, qualitative study aimed at gauging the sense of place,
attachment, identity, and community spirit levels in Milton Keynes from the perspective of
its populace. It also features a deprivation data comparison with ‘traditional’ settlements of
Oxford, Reading, Northampton and Luton in order to place Milton Keynes in the South
East’s levels of urban performance, and decide whether it is deserving of the apparent
stigma it seems to have attained. Key methodologies are surveys and ANOVA tests, with
analysis of place and community attachment drawing on Breakwell’s (1986, 1992) Identity
Process Theory.
Findings crown Milton Keynes as a clear winner in the data comparison; however it
fares less well in the qualitative results which ultimately give strength to many of its
preconceptions. Further discussion evaluates whether conventional culture is of
paramount importance in modern society, and suggests a paradigm of the status-quo in
Milton Keynes in line with Garreau’s (1991) ‘Edge Cities’. Contextually, the implications of
the results on the future of town planning are considered.
Preface
I declare that the following research idea, structure, collection and analysis of
surveys and data analysis are original and my own work, and all literature has been
correctly acknowledged. Online survey host SurveyMonkey.com was used, and Indices of
Multiple Deprivation (2010 edition) data was obtained from National Statistics.
Respondents were accessed mostly through social media and post-natal group emails,
with family-friend contacts also being used to some extent, to who I wish to extend my
gratitude, as well as all survey respondents.
I would like to take this chance to thank my dissertation tutor Professor Colin
Thorne for his advice and guidance, as well as my personal tutor Professor Georgina
Endfield. I would also like to thank my parents and the group of course friends who also
underwent the dissertation process with me.

3
Contents
1. Introduction 5
1.1. Geography and Background 6
2. Literature Review 8
2.1. Developments in British Post-War Town Planning 8
2.2. The 3rd
Generation and ‘Community without Propinquity’ 9
2.3. The Master Plan 10
2.4. Milton Keynes Reality 12
2.5. Milton Keynes Imagery 14
2.6. Linking Place with Individual Identity 16
3. Methodology 19
3.1. Indices of Multiple Deprivation Comparison 19
3.2. Questionnaires 20
3.3. Plans for Analysis 20
3.4. Other Efforts 21
4. Results and Analysis 22
4.1. Indices of Multiple Deprivation Comparison 23
4.2. Questionnaire Sample Attributes 25
4.2.2. Behaviour and Usage 26
4.2.3. Attitudes 27
4.2.4. Beliefs and Open-Ended Responses 29
5. Extended Discussion and Conclusion 34
5.1. What would Breakwell say? 34
5.2. Edge City Thesis 35
5.3. Conclusion 36
References 37
Appendix 41

4
List of Figures
1. Location of MK within the South East and the transport network 7
2. The plan for the grid system 10
3. The plan for land use in Milton Keynes 11
4. Planned neighbourhood layout and facility catchment areas 12
5. Descriptive statistics results 21
6. Post-hoc analysis results 21
7. Deprivation extremities 22
8. Age of respondents 23
9. Respondent time lived in Milton Keynes 23
10. Spatial distribution of sample 24
11. Behaviour and Usage of Milton Keynes 26
12. Average agreement with statements in Q5 26
13. Q6 rankings of personal importance 27
14. Selected responses from Q8 30
15. The fattest towns and cities in England 31

5
1. Introduction
“Our love is just a relic of the past,
You’d never recognise the old town now,
Somewhere behind the concrete and the glass,
The monuments of England’s sacred cow.
Where are all the human beings?
Have they been sent to Milton Keynes?”
(Kirsty MacColl – Still Life, 1989)
Milton Keynes (MK from here on in), although just one of a number of British post-
war New Towns, has become the most famous (or infamous) household name of them all.
After only twelve years of existence, Bishop (1986,1) talks of MK having a considerable
reputation, with a remarkable number of people knowing at least its name, yet little more
than it being a "New Town somewhere between London and Birmingham.” Its image is not
aided by its most famous landmarks; a family of concrete cows, and the local football
team MK Dons; branded a franchise by fans across the nation. Both could be considered
laughable microcosms of Milton Keynes. The avid public interest in this presupposed
concrete-jungle, grid-system, Mecca of roundabouts and its endemic sculpted farm
animals still exists today, with Clapson (2004,2) alikening living in MK with being viewed
as some kind of new specimen. He states:
Milton Keynes is visited by many people who feel the need to pass some sort of
critical judgement upon it. Accordingly, people who live in the city are peered at,
sneered at, puzzled over, laughed at, mis-understood and often subjected to the
tyranny of being judged by first impressions.
This peculiar interest is both demonstrated and reinvigorated by the appearance of MK in
an array of popular culture. Rock stars such as Kirsty McColl and Paul Weller have written
scathing lyrics about it. Perhaps the most noteworthy commentator is Bryson (1995), who,
in his humorous travel book “Notes from a Small Island” offered some of MK’s most
scornful judgements to date. Bryson described the architecture to be featureless like that
of an airport, the grassless strips along the boulevards gave a French air, the peripheral
industrial parks seemed German, and the gridded, numbered streets reminded him of
America; anything but quintessentially English. The car parks were full, yet he met only a
handful of pedestrians, with all signs of life behind “gaping office windows (131).” He

6
bemoaned the non-direct, “semi-subterranean world cut off from visible landmarks (132)”
that the pedestrian walkways provided, and the “lifeless core of office buildings (132)” that
occupied the centre during his unsuccessful attempt to find the mall. His experiences echo
Bishop’s (1986, 1) description of “that funny place you cannot find even when you are
there.” It must also be said that MK does have its fair share of positive and more balanced
observers. Even Bryson himself conceded that he “didn’t hate Milton Keynes immediately
(1995, 130).”
Growing up in the area, I have witnessed the town change and expand vastly, and
have enjoyed a more-than pleasant upbringing in it. The apparent stigmas attached to MK
have created a passion to investigate it in comparison with traditional English settlements
empirically, in terms of urban performance statistics, but also to un-earth its local
perceptions, sense of place and belongingness in attempt to assess whether its outside
perceptions are misinformed, or whether its inside perceptions match them.
Therefore, the aim of this research is to perform an on-the-ground, qualitative
study of MK’s sense of place and community from within, and an urban data-comparison
with similarly populated settlements in South East England. I intend not only to grasp the
strength of its identity (or lack thereof), but tease out just what sort of identity it is. This
investigation is a matter of the history and development of Milton Keynes and of place and
identity. More broadly, it is a story of the development of post-war town planning in Britain,
the integration of this into the English landscape, urban sociology, developing alternatives
to metropolis and suburbanisation, and questioning the authenticity possible in designed
urban areas.
1.1 Geography and Background of Milton Keynes
Designated a new town on the 23rd
January 1967 to ease housing congestion in
London, MK is (officially) a town and borough in North Buckinghamshire. An 89km2
plot of
land was chosen that was roughly equidistant from London, Birmingham, Oxford,
Cambridge and Leicester, (see fig.1) in the hope that it would become the major regional
centre to a prior area of undeveloped villages and farmland. Despite engulfing the towns
of Stony Stratford, Wolverton, and Bletchley, its name came from the small village of
Milton Keynes, so as not to favour existing town councils who wanted theirs to be the
namesake (Bendixson and Platt, 1992).
In 2013, its population was 255,700, having experienced a 20.2% increase (of
43,000) since 2001, making it an area of very high growth, compared to the national
average of 8.9% (Milton Keynes Council, n.d.). Demographically, the 2011 census
suggests a young and diverse population, with 12.1% being over 65, compared to a
national average of 17.3%, and 22.6% being under 16, compared to 19% nationwide.

7
26.1% are from black and ethnic minority groups compared to a 20.2% national average
(MK Council, n.d.). The area is one of the most successful economies in the South-East,
and boasts one of the highest business start-up rates, which even remained high during
the 2008 recession. 99.4% of businesses are Small/Medium Enterprises, with the techno-
science sector contributing the most business units, and the retail sector the largest
employer (MK Council, 2013).
Fig.1- Location of MK within the South East and the transport network. Source: Bendixson & Platt (1992)

8
2. Literature Review
2.1 Developments in British Post-War Town Planning
A Western crisis of inner-city decay, rising inequality and ghettoization brought
urban study to the fore in the 1960s, exposing gaps in its theory and practice. New
understandings were often neo-Marxist, initiated by Lefebvre (1967) and continued by the
likes of Harvey and Castells (1977). Urban planning was under attack, and viewed as
functioning to serve the needs of capital and the capitalist state. Scholars focused on the
Fordist-Keynesian metropolis, mass production and consumption, and stressed a need for
a better and more equal provision of centralised social welfare (Soja, 2000). Most relevant
to Milton Keynes was an emphasis on dealing with the contemporary issues of mass
suburbanization, the rise of a middle class and an automobile-based consumer culture.
Self (1972), explains that the influence behind New Towns actually dates back to
the true end of the Industrial Revolution, with origins in Ebenezer Howard’s (1902)
smaller-scale garden city experiments at Welwyn and Letchworth. New Towns, in
Howard’s mind, should serve three main purposes; offer an answer to megalopolis and
the concentration of people and activity within great conurbations, provide a structure for
inevitable vast development, and be balanced communities. However, since Stevenage in
1946, 35 New Towns have been initiated in the UK, and are both categorised and known
by their physical planning rather than Howard’s socioeconomic purposes (Bishop, 1986).
Most commentators identify three generations British of town-planning (Schaffer, 1972).
The first generation; the likes Crawley and Hemel Hempstead, can be
characterised by their limited size, division into neighbourhoods, obvious centre accessed
by radial roads, and distinct land use zones (Bishop, 1986). Neighbourhood units stem
from Howard’s (1902) concept of dividing a town into residential sections focused around
local community centres, with traffic kept away by the major roads. Critics focused on how
assumptions on friendship patterns and usage of services were not proven, and how the
closed nature of neighbourhoods discouraged inter-neighbourhood interaction.
Neighbourhoods created monopoly-like situations for facilities and created problems of
long-term availability of school intakes. Rapidly rising vehicle ownership posed a stress to
the road layout, and there was architectural concern that low-density residential layouts
would struggle to forge a formal sense of identity within communities (Self, 1972). The
second generation, starting with Cumbernauld in 1955, regarded 100% car ownership as
inevitable. The most noticeable changes in layout include high-density, larger centres,
with housing also more dense. Residential areas were more clearly divided by major

9
roads, yet neighbourhoods as a whole appear less obvious and more diverse, with land-
use still rather rigid (Bishop, 1986, Self, 1972). In terms of the third generation, MK is
unaccompanied as an example of a large and open entirely new town, with other projects
merely expanding exisiting towns.
2.2 The 3rd
Generation and ‘Community without Propinquity’
With the first two generations catering for the post-war urban crisis
aforementioned, the third generation faced a different set of circumstances. One of the
main MK planners, Llewelyn-Davies, explained that rapidly increasing national wealth and
the success of previous social policies and prior New Towns had created new problems
for planners that required new policies. He emphasised the inevitability of family incomes
doubling in 30 years, but also recognised that, for a minority, poverty will not disappear
despite the rising national wealth, welfare state, and redistribution of wealth policies.
Whilst declaring multiple-attack on poverty, pinpointing patterns of urban living, transport
and location, his main point is that social policy no longer needed to aim at providing an
adequate pattern of life for the majority, but at supplying alternatives and ability of choice
in housing, recreation and work (Llewelyn-Davies, 1972). With this in mind the MK
planners established six broad goals for contemporary town-planning in their master plan
(MKDC, 1970);
1. Opportunity and freedom of choice, with emphasis on rejecting neighbourhood units
and simple catchments for schools and facilities. Webber (1964) demonstrated how
modern communications could destroy local dependency. He describes this as
“community without propinquity” in the title of his preceding paper (Webber, 1963).
2. Easy movement, access, and communications; dependent on free and easy
movement in any direction, and a choice of mode of transport. The first of such plans
came from Buchanan (1966), calling for travel without congestion following his study
on traffic in towns.
3. Balance and variety to counteract the centrifuging of population by social class,
responding to the fears of 1960s urban theorists.
4. An economically and socially attractive city, offering clear advantages to compete with
other locations for population and industry. Gans (1969) aided this notion by praising
suburban life and slaying several urban versus suburban life myths.
5. Public participation and countering the planner as the behaviour modeller; finding out
how society would wish to be, rather than moulded by the planner. Theoretically this
was an attempt to avoid architectural determinism; the view that the built environment
is the core determinant of social behaviour (Lee, 1971).

10
6. Usage of resources to be efficient and imaginative, using cost-benefit analysis at all
stages.
In regards to architectural style at the time, diversity, complexity and detail had started to
emerge as preferable traits, with civilians and architects alike becoming frustrated with
post-war modernism (Lynch, 1960, Cullen, 1961). If high-rise blocks, gridded residential
streets, and flat-roofed, glass-tiled, university-style buildings can be equated to urban
romanticism, then this movement away from them that New Towns stood for could be
branded as classical or formal. However, as Bishop (1986,14) argues, neither of these
words can be used to label the rise of MK from the theory books, and thus “anti-urbanist”
is proposed.
2.3 The Master Plan
These six goals established were the definitive starting point for the planning
processes of MK, though implementing them on the ground was a much more difficult
procedure. Here, taken from the Master Plan for MK (MKDC, 1970), are some of the
specifics;
 A gridiron of main roads, all dual-carriageway, with junctions controlled by traffic
lights, on a 1km grid. They were to adapt to relief, and not to be straight, to soften
the set-square form.
 Existing strategic transport links were identified as the M1 and A5 roads, rail to
Birmingham and London, and the Grand Union Canal.
(See fig.2)
Fig.2- The plan for the grid system. Source: Bendixson & Platt (1992)

11
 A large, central city centre, home to regional commerce and leisure facilities. A
need for non-central facilities for local needs was also recognised, and these were
assigned plots next to major roads to maximise access from multiple grid squares,
but also to create landmarks along roads for orientation.
 Industry and areas of employment were to be scattered and located towards the
edges, breaking rigid land-use patterns, but a major band along the A5 road and
railway.
 Large community schools, distributed fairly equally but with no outright catchment
areas.
 A major linear park running north to south along the River Ouse and Grand Union
Canal.
(See fig.3)
The last point was a key theme in the planning, along with parkland between housing
estates. In fact, not much can be found on the physical form of housing at all in the master
plan, with Llewellyn-Davies (1972) stating that the landscape quality would have a critical
influence on the outcome of the new city, more so than architectural quality. What was
included in the plan was housing density, specifically ten houses per acre but eventually
Fig.3- The plan for land use in Milton Keynes. Source: Bendixson & Platt (1992)

12
dropping to six, and a range from close-knit urban flats to open, suburban-style detached
houses with large gardens (MKDC, 1970). This was aimed at attracting a variety of
income levels in the hope of diversity and socio-cultural non-uniformity (Beauchamp de
Moncaux, 1998). In terms of the housing estate layout, they were to straddle major grid
roads and lie across multiple grid squares. This was vital to avoid fragmentation into
inward-looking, single-function neighbourhoods within a grid square, by relating residential
and non-residential areas as well as helping to promote wider catchments for all facility
centres (Waterman, 1998) (see fig.4).
The word ‘city’ was used in the master plan to relate to the large target population of
250,000, as well as the freedom of choice being similar to that of a city, despite the overall
character being far from a traditional European city (Bishop, 1986).
2.4 Milton Keynes Reality
Perhaps the most important that literature can shed light on is what MK is actually
like, despite the master plan. Bishop’s (1986) text is a personal view of a 1979 project he
was involved in with MKDC at the ten-years-on stage. This text seems the most relevant
to this investigation; qualitative, survey-based, and targeting the opinions of the residents,
rather than those of the corporation, planners, and urban commentators. Here, Bishop
tries to answer questions that were already circulating after ten years about the residents
reactions to the built environment and overall image (if it even has one), as well as the
distribution of services, and the design and layout of the estates.
Fig.4- Planned neighbourhood layout and facility catchment areas. Source: Bishop (1986)

13
Bishop (1986) notes a number of alterations in reality to the plan, which lie at a
secondary level as the major land-use plan and layout was implemented almost exactly.
Facilities were not as widespread or evenly distributed as hoped, and were seen centrally,
peripherally, fragmented, or in fact anywhere in relation to grid squares. This reduces the
number of roadside landmarks, as well as the intended catchment areas, and therefore
decreases choice. Intentions of preventing the emergence of single neighbourhoods
seems to have also failed, with many grid squares being allocated to individual teams of
architects who had blank canvases free of traditional urbanist pressures; the result a
patchwork square-by-square image. Despite this, and again contrary to intentions,
housing density is more or less constant; the majority appealing to the middle classes,
with a few elite areas. Beauchamp de Moncaux (1998) suggests that a map that was less
emphatic of the road system was needed. In regard to the roads, the idea of local roads
transecting major grid squares is completely lost, and most roads are single carriageway,
but deal aptly with the volume of traffic MK faces. This may be due to roundabouts (not
traffic lights as planned) allowing continuous flow at crossings.
Waterman (1998) discusses the consequences of neighbourhood fragmentation.
Certain grid squares, in particular those built earliest and most central, became
undesirable (for example Fishermead, Netherfield and Beanhill), and an exodus of those
with higher incomes meant they contained a significant proportion of single-parent and
unemployed families, comparable to inner city areas. He blames technically deficient
architectural designs, such as terraces, that were poor attempts at providing quality
minority housing. On the contrary, Bishop’s (1986) surveys illustrate positive attitudes
towards the separated neighbourhoods. They provide a village feel in a spacious
environment, and the individual architecture provides identity. Bishop’s respondents
however bemoan a lack of cultural attractions and social life. Waterman (1998) develops
on this, explaining how a social development programme had to be formed to help
establish cooperation and social life. Originally intended as a catalyst, it ended up having
to act as a provider to ensure creation of voluntary services such as a library, citizen’s
advice bureau, churches, and drop in centres for the elderly, as the new city centre had no
brownfield, secondary zones that other towns have that lend themselves to these land
uses. Waterman (1998) however concludes that MK now has a rich infrastructure of social
institutions, with the majority of people enjoying the opportunity and choice provided by
the city and that a sense of place has been created with which many residents identify.
Clapson (1998, 106) also offers praise, writing that, “Variance in levels of sociability have
grown up within this rapidly expanding new city, designed to embrace higher levels of
home-based consumption and motorised mobility than ever before.”

14
Another useful text is by Walker (1981), who presents a series of qualitatively
constructed graphs comparing MK to London on a variety of criteria. For example, one
shows how although London has some excellent housing (more luxurious than MK will
ever have), MK shows a curve of household performance higher than that of London. In
all categories, the capital, “Monopolises the finest and the best, those qualities are
available for the most part to a minority, making London’s overall performance at a
pedestrian level less impressive than Milton Keynes (138).” This is a key point to
remember during analysis; that although MK may have less city-like assets than London,
its services are accessible to more of its population. He concludes that if an average
English family desired a suburban life devoid of noise, crowding and congestion, MK
should be encouraged to them based on its current and predicted performance in 1981.
He hopes that the overlays of amenity and cultural maturity will come soon and compound
MK’s bright start; something this study will assess.
2.5 Milton Keynes Imagery
The written history of MK almost entirely concerns its planning, development, and
the successes or failures of MKDC and the architects. In terms of the perceived imagery
of the new city, Cochrane (1998) describes two interpretations around which
commentators on MK cluster; celebrations and critiques of an American-style settlement
that appears to have been deposited amongst the rolling hills of North Buckinghamshire,
or attempts to locate it within traditional English suburbanisation, village life, and garden
cities.
With its drive-through restaurants, shopping malls, grid roads, open boulevards,
numbered names of streets, as well as Superman being filmed in the city and a California-
esque collection of high-market housing, few would debate MK’s debt to the American
dream (Cochrane, 1998). Mars (1992) goes as far as labelling MK a little Los Angeles,
drawing parallels between the parks of MK and the beaches of LA, as well as highlighting
that the equality and accessibility underpinning the city can be reinterpreted as drawing on
the American imagery of social mobility. Albeit in stark contrast to the rest of our nation,
this comparison with a city dubbed the “paradigm of the post-modern city” and “exemplary
of the new urbanisation” by Soja (1992, 296) can surely not be a negative.
However, MK has of course not been transplanted from the US to the South
Midlands, and Bendixson and Platt (1992) provide it with a more familiar, quasi-rural set of
imagery. They see the grid system as quintessentially English, depicting similarities with
the structured landscape designs of Capability Brown and Repton during the late 18th
century. In their visioning, the green sections along the sides of roads echo of country

15
lanes, with the Redway path network a post-modern form of village lanes. Also, the
roundabouts act as reminders of a British road system, rather than American traffic-light
gridlocks. Bishop (1986) and Bendixson and Platt (1992) both see MK as a quilt of inter-
connected, yet secluded villages in an urban system, and the concept of the village
remains very much a British image, with nostalgia for the countryside life of the old gentry
(Castells, 1996). In fact, Milton Keynes is home to the first thatched cottage built in
England since the 17th
century.
Cochrane (1998) offers an end to this debate by claiming that there is no
contradiction in borrowing from American futuristic imagery alongside reconstructions of
an English past. However, he does contest whether MK is actually unique within the UK,
insisting it has developed within a wider urban context; the South East. He points to the
master plan itself, which rooted the city between London and Birmingham, and
emphasizes how the entirety MK is not dissimilar to the urbanisation being tacked onto
smaller towns and villages across the South East and London. It could be likened to
Garreau’s (1991) descriptions of individual agglomerations of suburb that he names ‘Edge
Cities.’ In this sense, any sociocultural absences in MK could be attributed to the general
development style in the region since the 1960s, with homogenising shopping centres and
convenience stores beginning to overwhelm the evermore indistinguishable cores from
which place names are taken.
As a microcosm of contemporary MK, Degen et al. (2009) study the shopping mall,
which, at opening in 1979, was the largest covered mall in Europe; a modernist, glass
steel construction. Art works are integrated neatly into the space, with the intention of
elevating MK’s citizens by exposure to higher culture (MKDC, 1990). A reoccurring theme
in MK has been a division in perceptions, and the shopping centre is no anomaly to this.
Jewell (2001) brands it as typifying hedonist consumption, with dull monotony as a result,
and Bryson (1995:179) labels it “the world’s largest bus station.” More perceptively
perhaps, Aronovitch (2001) likens it to a Saxon Great Hall; noisy, crowded, bright, full of
entertainment, with consumption playing a much smaller role than post-industrialist
literature would suggest. He saw a place of hanging out and strolling; an indoor high
street. Degen et al. (2009) describe the space as exemplary of a totally designed
environment and of the rising significance of urban design in modern cities. Urban design
refers to the architecture and structuring of public space in cities (Moughtin, 1999); with
urban design codes becoming popular as a means of providing such areas with a clear
structure and coordinated look (Madanipour, 2006). Stevens and Dovey (2004) note the
existence of a global urban design formula shaping the (re)development of many Western

16
city centres, one which Boyer (1988, 54) claims is the “normal background for our mode of
consumption in the post-industrial city.” Degen et al. (2009) align with Cochrane (1998), in
affirming that the privatised public space of the shopping centre, instead of a traditional
city-centre, is a way in which MK is exemplary of wider urban trends, and not by any
means unique.
2.6 Linking Place with Individual Identity
Following the cultural turn, identity has become a contested term. It used to be
defined by class status, wealth and citizenship, but is now complicated by multiculturalism,
sexuality and gender, as well as a symbolic economy with high marketing of images
(Paasi, 2003). Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2001) suggest that the Western world is
moving towards forced individualization, with people’s lives and identities increasingly
being left as their own responsibility, rather than being categorized through traditional
groupings of nationality, region, and class. Castells (1997) and Kellner (2002) similarly
argue a post-structuralist approach, claiming that public awareness of being part of a
globalised, networked world has spawned attempts to identify with new points of
orientation, such as race and gender, as well as strengthening old borders of
urbanity/rurality, and creating new boundaries, for example political resistance to the
changes experienced. Critical and feminist geographers such as Keith and Pile (1993)
and Watts (1996) propose that people can have many contested identities, which do not
undermine but constitute each other. Paasi (2003) however maintains that personal
identity is still influenced by social processes, and that social actors are continuously
confronted by images which other individuals, such as the media, produce of them. This is
particularly interesting in the case of MK; are its sense of place and residents’ identities
partly constructed by the outside public opinion of MK and the media-based consensus?
There are very few theoretical explanations linking place and identity, and for how
and why places become important to the self-concept (Twigger-Ross & Uzzel, 1996).
Proshanky et al.’s (1983) model of place identity suggests identity is a social construct of
interactions with one’s physical surroundings and social groups, but this was criticised by
Korpela (1989) for attaching too much place to identity. Another method of linking place
and identity is by expressed identification (e.g. I am from Milton Keynes). This identifies
place by spatial location, yet Twigger-Ross and Uzzel (1996) claim this subsumes place
into social identity and ignores it as a constructive factor, and that there is no separate
part of identity linked to place, but all facets of identity will have place-related
implicationss. Perhaps most clear is that arguing whether identity is more social or more
place is not useful empirically.

17
Breakwell (1986, 1992), however, provides a theoretical framework of identity with
his Identity Process Theory. Whilst other work proposes that self-esteem alone is the
motivation behind identity (Abrams, 1992), Breakwell (1986) gives equal importance to
distinctiveness, continuity and self esteem, and later; self-efficacy (Breakwell, 1992). This
agrees with Korpela’s (1989) identity principles of a pleasure/pain balance, maintaining a
coherent conceptual system, and achieving self-esteem. Breakwell’s (1986, 1992) four
factors are explained below;
 Distinctiveness is the ability to give a place related self-reference to portray
difference, for example the uniqueness of being associated with being in a city, town,
or rural area (Feldman 1990). In Hummon’s (1986) study, urban people were adamant
of being city people, and positively compared this with negative aspects of suburbia
and countryside, summarizing a lifestyle as typicial of their relationship with their home
environment. Eyles (1968) found that aspirations to be in fashionable areas resulted in
a warping of perceived neighbourhood boundaries.
 Continuity of self-experience. This often takes the form of planting aids for memory in
the environment to provide a background against which to compare oneself (Korpela,
1989), and a reference for the past. Place helps construct identity here by
representing either continuity or change, with the self being threatened by disruptions
to emotionally connected spaces (Twigger-Ross & Uzzel, 1996). Consequently,
moving house can potentially signify self-concept change, with the old place becoming
a symbol of the old self (Hormuth, 1990).
 Self-esteem is a positive assessment of oneself or ones group, and a feeling of social
worth. Favoured environments can enhance this, for example living in an historic town
can boost pride by association (Lalli, 1992).
 Self-efficacy is having a belief in ones capabilities to meet any demands and
aspirations, and is important for pschological health. To achieve this, the environment
must not hinder everyday lifestyle and be manageable, and allow individuals to carry
out their activities of choice.

18
3. Methodology
3.1. IMD Data Comparison
To assess how well MK provides a living environment, a quality of life structure
was originally decided upon. Data was selected in the HDI framework of education, life-
expectancy, and income; however a pilot study failed to show noticeable differences;
probably due to the indices being too resource-focused for a country that has achieved
development to a high level.
Focus was shifted to deprivation; a state of disadvantage relative to the local
community or wider society, and applicable to specific socioeconomic conditions, rather
than resources and absolute poverty (Townsend, 1987). For instance, housing as a space
to fulfil social potentialities is more relevant to this study than housing as a shelter from
the elements. Deprivation analysis allows inclusion of any category generally held to be
undesirable by societal consensus, and is potentially more important than poverty to
analysing social condition in developed nations (Townsend, 1987).
Data was obtained from the UK government’s Indices of Deprivation, (National
Statistics, 2010), and was mostly collected in 2008. The following seven aspects of
deprivation are used, each with its own scores and ranks; income, employment, health
and disability, education, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment.
These are combined with weighting to generate an overall IMD measure. Greatest weight
is assigned to income and employment, and least to living environment and crime.
Statistics are available down to Lower-Super-Output-Areas, which lie within the census
ward system but are much smaller (mean population of 1519) and more consistent
(standard deviation of just 200) (Noble et al., 2006). It also provides direct measures of
deprivation, unlike census data which, for example, contains no measure of income.
Data for all categories was downloaded, and the LSAO statistics for MK, Oxford,
Reading, Northampton, and Luton were extracted; selected for being south-eastern, with
similar sized populations (160,000 - 260,000). An analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA)
was performed between all settlements for all indices and the overall IMDs. ANOVA was
chosen as it permits over two samples, different sample sizes and marginal deviations
from normal distributions (Spiegel, 1999). To establish differences between each sample,
Tukey post-hoc analysis was undertaken. End results included whether each settlement
was significantly different to MK in all indices, rankings of means, standard deviations, and
standard errors as measures of sample dispersion, and therefore measures of deprivation
inequality between whole towns and between their LSOAs.

19
3.2. Questionnaires
An internet-based questionnaire method was decided on, allowing infiltration of
MK’s relatively young population through social media. This was deemed appropriate in
the knowledge that MK is one of the least digitally excluded boroughs in the country, with
no communities classified as broadly digitally excluded (Local Government Association,
n.d.).
Sarantakos’ (2005) process of question development was used; identification of
key concepts from the literature review, establishment of the dimensions and indicators of
these concepts, and formulation of questions ensuring they relate to one or more aspects
of the research. Questions were divided equally into focusing on De Vaus’ (2002)
categories of content; attributes (characteristics), behaviour (habits, usage), attitudes
(judgements of desire, willingness) and beliefs (of true or falseness, preferations).
Attributes and behaviour were grasped through closed questions, and attitudes through
rankings and matrix questions relating to degrees of opinion. Beliefs and preferations
were gauged through questions with open answer text boxes to allow contex and alternate
opinions; aiding the co-constitution of knowledge (McGuirk & O'Neill, 2005).
An introductory page informed respondents of the nature of the study and assured
their anonymity, the optional nature of all questions, and their ability to contact me with
any queries regarding the usage of their information or the results.
A maximum sample size of 100 was established by the limits of the online survey
host. Initially a convenience sampling technique was used, and supplied a good range of
locations and times lived in the area, however a majority of 18 to 24 year old respondents
became quickly apparent. This was most likely due to the social-network distribution of the
questionnaire, and it seemed that despite MK’s youthful population, the current sample
could not be used to make any informed generalizations about the population as a whole.
The approach was then shifted to a less probabilistic method, quota sampling (Dodge,
2003), which involved the online link being emailed to post-natal groups to try and access
parents of young families, as well as to some more elderly family friends, in order to
increase the represention of older demographics in the sample.
3.3 Plans for Analysis
Questionnaire data was presented through quantifying the responses, constructing
charts and graphs, and sorting open-ended responses into themed categories, to give
numeric strength as evidence. However, it is important to remember that this is a largely
qualitative piece of research. Counting opinions is useful for display purposes, but
assumes that respondents share a common definition of the field in question (McGuirk &
O'Neill, 2005). Babbie and Moulton (2001) aliken qualitative research to the arts rather

20
than the sciences, and thus it should be critically reflexive; not reduced to a neat set of
techniques.
Creating links within the two major segments of research required textual and
discursive analysis. Aitken (2005) explains that discourse analysis is a wolly concept, with
no magic recipe for success, with the best way of grasping an understanding being to
read as much as possible about the field of interest before forming personal ideas. One
had to be aware of one’s situatuation as a researcher, and not make the assumption of
being the most-informed on the topics discussed. Crang (2005) raises the ethical issue of
analysing underlying structures during the analysis phase of the research. Structures
created do not necessarily operate outside of the populace’s knowledge, and one must
not “downplay the way people make sense of their own lives” (Crang, 2005, 226).
Where possible, Breakwell’s Identity Process Theory will be considered. Signs of
self-esteem, self-efficacy, distinction, and continuity from residents with reference to their
(non-)attachment to MK will be noted. This was influenced by Twigger-Ross and Uzzel’s
(1996) investigation of place attachment in London Docklands.
3.4 Other Efforts
Two other more avant-garde methodological paths were taken that proved
fruitless. The first was a media-based comparison of MK, using local and national news,
Twitter and Instagram. Items were rated positive, negative, or irrelevant. The majority of
Tweets and Instagrams concerning MK were irrelevant, and news articles everywhere
were found to be inherently negative. The second was a bibliographic study of the
concrete cows. Little literature was available in MK archives, and participant observation
of public interaction with the statues found that they now go largely unnoticed, cordoned
off in MK shopping centre.

21
Overall Income Employment Health Education Barriers to H&S Crime Environm.
Luton 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.115 0.000 0.371 0.000
Northampton 0.002 0.997 0.942 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.211 0.000
Oxford 0.029 0.751 0.054 0.000 0.995 0.000 0.100 0.000
Reading 0.039 0.988 0.338 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Milton Keynes
Tukey post-hoc test results of statistical significance between MK and other towns
*The mean difference is significant at 0.05 and below. Red = not significant.
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Indices of Multiple Deprivation Comparison
Mean SD SEM Mean SD SEM
1 MK Oxford MK 1 Oxford Oxford Reading
2 Reading Reading Oxford 2 Reading Reading Oxford
3 Oxford MK Reading 3 MK MK Luton
4 Nrthptn Luton Nrthmptn 4 Nrthmptn Nrthmptn MK
5 Luton Nrthmptn Luton 5 Luton Luton Nrthmptn
1 Oxford Oxford MK 1 MK Luton Luton
2 Reading Reading Reading 2 Oxford Reading MK
3 MK MK Nrthmptn 3 Reading MK Nrthmptn
4 Nrthmptn Nrthmptn Oxford 4 Nrthmptn Oxford Reading
5 Luton Luton Luton 5 Luton Nrthmptn Oxford
1 Oxford Luton Luton 1 Mk Reading Luton
2 Reading Reading MK 2 Nrthmptn Luton Reading
3 MK MK Reading 3 Reading Oxford Nrthmptn
4 Luton Oxford Nrthmptn 4 Luton Nrthmptn Oxford
5 Nrthmptn Nrthmptn Oxford 5 Oxford MK MK
1 MK Oxford Luton 1 MK MK MK
2 Luton Luton Oxford 2 Nrthmptn Oxford Oxford
3 Nrthmptn Reading Reading 3 Luton Nrthmptn Nrthmptn
4 Oxford MK MK 4 Oxford Luton Luton
5 Reading Nrthmptn Nrthmptn 5 Reading Reading Reading
Overall IMD Employment
Income Health and Disability
Education
Crime and Disord. Behav.
Barriers to Housing & Services
Living Environment
Fig.5 (top) - Descriptive statistics results
Fig.6 (bottom) - Post-hoc analysis results

22
Figure 5 ranks the selected settlements based on the least deprivation within their
neighbourhoods using descriptive statistics analysis. MK has the highest mean in health
and disability, barriers to housing and services, crime and disorderly behaviour and living
environment, as well as the best overall mean when the indices are weighted and
combined. MK outperforms Northampton and Luton in terms of the mean in all domains,
but is beaten by Oxford and Reading in employment, income, and education factors. The
results of the post-hoc analysis (fig.6) come to the rescue of MK somewhat in these
domains, deeming its differences between Oxford, Reading as not significant. They also
serve to solidify MK’s victories in the other categories; identifying MK to be significantly
different (and therefore significantly less deprived) to all other towns, in all remaining
categories other than crime. It should be mentioned that the general ANOVA results
proved that the difference between all towns was statistically significant in all domains.
MK fares worse in the standard deviation rankings, topping the chart in only the
living-environment category, and achieving no higher than third in all other categories. It
seems that Reading provides the most equality between its neighbourhoods when looking
at the seven indices individually; however the weighted overall standard deviation gives
Oxford this crown, and condemns Northampton to the wooden spoon. Standard error of
the mean analysis hints that the sample mean for MK is most likely to be inaccurate in the
crime domain (in which MK was not significantly different to any other town except
Reading), the education domain (in which it performed poorly), and the barriers to housing
and services domain in which it came last. However, the fact it still significantly
outperformed all others in this index gravitates towards the impression that the standard
errors are not sufficiently different to seriously influence the reading of the other
descriptive statistics and the computation of the ANOVAs.
Fig.7 – Deprivation Extremities
Settlement
Number of LSOAs
(sample size)
LSOAs in top 10% most
deprived in UK
LSOAs in top 10% least
deprived in UK
Milton Keynes 141 4 18
Oxford 87 1 0
Reading 95 0 8
Northampton 131 7 9
Luton 123 9 1
To gain wider context, LSOAs belonging to each settlement in the top and bottom
10 percent of national deprivation were identified (fig.7). Although being home to a couple
more deprived areas than Oxford and Reading, MK is unrivalled in the provision of top

23
Fig.8 - Age of Respondent (Years)
18-24 (44)
25-34 (12)
35-49 (10)
50-62 (11)
65+ (8)
Fig.9 -Time Lived in MK (Years)
Under 5 (9)
5 to 14 (25)
15 to 29 (39)
30+ (8)
10% areas of least deprivation. The worst LSOAs in MK hail from the Lakes Estate in
Bletchley, and some of the most central grid squares such as Netherfield, Coffee Hall and
Fishermead. Whilst the best LSOAs can be found in the peripheral town of Newport
Pagnell and the nearby village of Olney, the best ‘city’ LSOAs lie mostly outside the
central areas, and include Shenley Church End, Old Farm Brook, and the area around
Willen Lake. Some of these areas, both deprived and non-deprived, may be attributed to
probability due to MK having the largest sample size. That said, it is still reasonable to
state that MK does not provide as equal a standard of deprivation as Oxford and Reading,
with a couple of postcodes in the worst 10% in the nation, however for a large majority it
provides the best levels of deprivation, all indices considered, than the other settlements
of ‘natural birth’ in the study.
4.2.1 Questionnaire Sample Attributes
Figures 8 and 9 show the age and time lived in MK of all 86 participants. A total of
88 was reached, but 2 were discarded having been deemed to have adopted a negative-
participant role. As aforementioned, there is an age bias towards the younger generations
due to the internet based nature of the study, and despite the efforts made to counteract
this, it is still a resounding feature of the sample. However, MK does have a young
population, and although the sample will not be entirely representative, I do believe that it
does not detract from the validity of the study. Legitimacy is aided by the modal length of
time lived in the area being between 15 and 29 years, suggesting that a lot of the younger
portion of the sample will have grown up in the area, and thus have particularly relevant
opinions. Achieving a variety in time lived in MK would have been much more difficult than
age, but in fact the rapid growth of the population of MK towards the end of last century
could mean that the temporal sample is actually representative of the wider population,
with the majority moving in in the last 30 years, some older and feasibly original residents
of the area, and some within the last 5 years representing the ever-increasing population.

24
Figure 10 below maps the distribution of the sample across the borough of MK and
wider region. Most areas are represented in the sample, from the central neighbourhoods
to the peripheral, pre-existing towns. It is interesting that, despite clear instructions for
respondents to be exclusively from MK, there is such a large area represented by the
sample. It is unclear whether the respondents from the likes of Buckingham, Winslow and
Olney (16, 11, and 11km away from the supposed edge of MK respectively) make use of
MK frequently enough to regard themselves as Milton Keynesians, or whether they
consider themselves to be living within the area defined by ‘MK’. A possible interpretation
of these apparent blurred boundaries is that they signify MK’s status as a major regional
centre; what it was aimed to be.
Fig.10 – Spatial distribution of sample

25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Shopping
Work / education
Sport and activities
Nightlife, pubs, clubs
Entertainment
Local meeting places
Green spaces
Fig.11 - Facility Usage
%
4.2.2. Behaviour and Usage
Participants were asked to tick all available categories of facilities (fig.11) that they
make regular use of in MK. 81% of respondents use MK for recreational commerce, which
excludes groceries and other necessities. This, as well as day-time and night-time
entertainment constituting the top three scorers by a considerable margin of over 20%
would lend itself to revealing that MK is very much based around consumerism, as
anticipated of 3rd
generation New Towns. With the usage of green spaces, local meeting
places, and sports and activities all outscoring work and education, MK could be seen as
a very social and community-driven environment. The lack of people working and learning
in MK is not surprising, due to the excellent transport links to London and Birmingham for
easy commuting, as well as a lack of a traditional university and accompanying cohort of
students, and this may be placing an overemphasis on the usage of social facilities in
fig.9. That said, in a follow up text box, 28 respondents noted a sports club or organisation
in which they participate; depicting a healthy range of community activities and integration.
4.2.3. Attitudes
Figure 12 overleaf gauges participants’ agreement or disagreement with 21
statements, plotting the mean answer from a Likert scale. There is a general feeling of
safety from crime, although there is an interesting mismatch between attitudes towards
crime within and outside neighbourhoods, despite the sample representing most
neighbourhoods in MK. This may be a natural phenomenon related to feelings of
homeliness. There was a general disagreement that the grid system and the low density
nature of estates affect interaction within and with other neighbourhoods, and a general
agreement that neighbourhoods and the city as a whole contain a wide range of ages and
ethnicities. The planners would be pleased to see that the multi-centred approach is
working, with the agreement that residents use local facility centres for every-day

26
Fig.12–AverageAgreementwithBelowStatements

27
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Fig.13- Below Categories Average Rank of Personal Importance
HouseQuality
andSize
Greenareasand
gardensize
Entertainment
andCulture
Community
spirit
purchases instead of the major centre. A key finding to be considered in further discussion
is that friendship patterns are greatly considered to be city-wide, rather than confined to
the nearby community.
The road network is praised, with few experiencing traffic issues or troubles of
orientation around the grid, and because of this the Redways cycle paths are not
frequently used, despite an agreement that participants could survive without a car in MK.
It seems that the availability and affordability of public transport leaves much to be
desired.
In response to some of the more miscellaneous statements, there is a mixed
response to the sufficiency of restaurants, theatres, other cultural attractions and nightlife.
Although not many respondents would consider themselves a fan of MK Dons FC, there is
a consensus that the club has added community spirit to MK. Lastly, there is a relatively
strong agreement that MK is a good place to live, with the strongest disagreement being
against the notion of outsiders having positive opinions of MK.
Figure 13 highlights some other important attitudes for the discussion. House
quality and size beats both community spirit and entertainment facilities in terms of what
respondents view as the most important. Considering MK is excellent at housing
provision, but is thought of as having few cultural facets, this is good news for the city.
More worryingly however, what MK is arguably best at is providing a great living
environment, largely in the form of large gardens and green areas, and it is this factor that
is voted as the least important.

28
4.2.4. Beliefs and Open Responses
Respondents were asked whether they viewed MK as a city, and then to explain
their decision, as well as if a city status mattered to them. The results show an almost
even split, with 53.25% voting no, and 46.75% yes, from a total of 77 participants who
answered the question. 65 respondents opted to provide further information. Amongst the
‘no’ voters, two themes of discussion are tranquillity and the built environment, with 16
and 13 comments respectively. For instance;
As an original resident of MK village, the vast development around me doesn’t
seem to have altered the tranquillity in the village all that much.
Feels like a fairly peaceful suburbia with all the amenities one could need close by.
Lacks the hustle and bustle of a city, which is a bonus to young families.
I don’t feel it’s a city because you still have green areas, but it still has everything
you need from a city like area. I like the fact it doesn’t feel like a city. The traffic is
not as bad as a city too.
The above quotes provide evidence that the tranquillity and green nature of the built
environment are viewed positively in contributing a non-city feeling in MK. Despite this
quasi-rural impression attained, it is also apparent that there is a city-level of sufficient
amenities and facilities available. In fact it is this that forms the dominant theme amongst
the ‘yes’ voters, with 14 comments relating to how MK’s provision of services deem it a
city;
It’s large enough, has all the facilities (and more in some cases) of a city and feels
like a city, not a town.
I feel MK offers all the facilities you need for city living, combined with enough
green space to make it feel like an enjoyable environment in which to live. Love
the grid system!
It is interesting that the authors of these quotes consider MK a city, as they appear to
share similar beliefs with the prior ‘no’ voters. Both sets of participants hold the level of
amenities, the quality of the living environment, and the lack of congestion in high regard,
and labelling MK appears to come down to personal understandings of what constitutes a
city. It is this troublesome city label itself that forges opinions for, and mostly against MK’s
image of a city, with 8 ‘no’ respondents noting its unofficial city status as a definitive
reason. As exemplified below, this is generally viewed negatively, and despite the

29
consensus amongst the ‘no’ voters that the non-city feel is preferred, people still maintain
that they would like official city status;
Not [a city] in the sense that the queen has not designated it as such, but
recognition would be important to the people that run the town.
[I] would like a sense of importance to where I live – though MK is not officially a
city.
Residents preferring that MK does not feel like a city, but wanting to know that it is, are
rather contradictory. Perhaps this is the first hint towards a desired distinctiveness and
sense of importance to MK that is lacking and detracting from its city spirit. This is
complicated by the also-desirable factors that are boosting the quasi-rural feel, and maybe
this is where MKs identity issues partly lie. This will be discussed further later.
Equally, there were 7 comments of indifference or balance towards city status.
These tended to focused on either admiring the balance between urban and rural that MK
provides, or simply not deeming it important. The results are inconclusive as to whether
MK is viewed as a city or not by its residents, but it could be argued that the large divide is
conclusive that its residents certainly do not hold the image of a traditional city.
Another question asked if, and why, participants planned to stay in the area. As
can be seen in figure 14 below, 40% of respondents plan to stay, roughly 30% are
undecided, and the remaining 30% do not. With such positive views of MK expressed in
the previous question, it was surprising to see these low place-attachment figures. Many
of those undecided or set on leaving were students who, naturally, do not know where
their future lies; when considering the young sample these figures becomes more
expected. Some of the most central neighbourhoods, such as Fishermead and Downs
Barn, are heavily criticised by ‘no’ voters, with feedback specific to these areas often
containing expletives! More positively, the largest proportion does plan to stay, and
Breakwell’s place identity indicators were used here to analyse place-attachment.
Reasons that aid self-efficacy are the most numerous, followed by than those suggesting
continuity, with many drawing on both aspects. No feedback was able to be classified
under self-esteem or distinctiveness. In other words, residents that plan to stay do so
principally due to economic and convenience factors like accessibility and transport links,
facilities, employment opportunities and schools, rather than sociocultural and historical
reasons that could define MK as a significant place regionally or nationally and help
construct the self-concept in that regard.

30
% of
78
Attachment
Shown Example Quotes
"We love our house and area"
"It is home"
"I grew up here, I know the area, my children are settled, and it is a great place for kids to
grow up."
"Good for work and a nice area to bring up our child. Also good local schools."
"No reason to move. We have all amenities within 15 mins of the house and are able to get to
cities like London and Birmingham within an hour. Very well situated and good transport
links."
"Great place to raise a family, good schools, excellent entertainment facilities, great open
green spaces - we have everything, why go anywhere else?"
"Good links to London, family and friends."
"A continuously developing area with lots of employment prospects from global companies."
"Milton Keynes is easily accessible and convenient to get to other parts of the country. It is
large enough to be useful without feeling like a daunting place to be."
"Love the area - it's clean, has great facilities, good employment opportunities and my friends
and now my family all live here. It's my home."
"I have a nice house within a short driving distance of my every need. My sons have good
friends in the area and I am heavily involved in the youth football system."
"Do not know the area well enough yet, and am unsure of my job stability."
"I do wish to move to a nicer area further out of Milton Keynes."
"Student living in London, my career will be centred in London."
"I will get the hell out of Fishermead as soon as I can. It is the arse end of the earth."
(majority of 'no' and 'undecided' respondents did not provide an explanation)
No 31.17% (9)
Undecided 28.57%
(9)
Fig.14 - Selected responses to the Q: Do you plan to stay in the area, and why?
Both (10)
Self-Efficacy
(18)
Continuity (7)
Yes
40.26
%
The final question asked participants to choose one aspect to alter or improve in
MK. The two largest categories of feedback were culture and day-time entertainment, with
16 comments, and the nightlife, with 15. Respondents bemoan the lack of character,
shortage of cultural attractions such as galleries, and scarcity of high-quality brand and
independent shops. Comments criticising the nightlife are all short and simple, yet
numerous, and clarify that the youth of MK are not satisfied with the quality of their night-
time entertainment options, as well as older participants noting the lack of a club for the
40-plus age range. One participant stated;
[There is] A lack of culture due to it [MK] being a new town, this may come with
time. Entertainment is all confined to one small area of the city.
This possibly summarises the cultural situation in MK well, in that there is a clear shortage
in abundance and distribution, but it is hoped this is merely New Town sluggishness that
may ease with further maturity and development.

31
There were 10 comments concerning society and crime rates. 3 respondents
mentioned too much crime in the centre, but most notable were complaints about the
attitudes of the populace;
The people – MK is a great place, the residents need to realise that, respect it,
learn to use it properly and become part of its community. With the Redway
network and all the sports clubs we should be one of the healthiest towns in the
country, not amongst one of the unhealthiest and in the top 5 for obesity.
Chavs! Treating other people with respect and reducing the stereotyping of people
living in specific places, for example the Lakes Estate [Bletchley].
Research was undertaken to verify the
above obesity claim (fig.17). MK is the
most populated urban area in the top 10
for obesity in England. With its
consumption-based economy,
accessibility along gridded boulevards,
chain restaurants, and shopping malls,
these obesity findings (potentially a
result of those attributes) do not help
MK discard its Americanised image and
achieve a spot on the map of
quintessential Britain. These quotes
indicate that a proportion of residents do
not view certain areas, and MK more
generally, in a positive light. However, they also represent a proportion of residents that
do see the benefits of MK’s characteristics, suggesting that the internal public consensus
may be just as detrimental to the image and sense of place in MK as the external one,
although prior results highlight that those with negative views are in the minority.
Other commentators justify the low Redways usage, as well as raising other
transport related issues;
The red ways; they used to be safe and a good way to get around on foot or bikes
but now they are quite daunting, especially going under the under passes. They
are dark and covered with trees and bushes and lots of teenagers hanging around.
Fig.15 – The fattest towns and cities in England. Source: Donnelly (2014)

32
Major access roads from the west need improvement.
Public transport. For those of us not driving travel is a pain, red ways are
complicated and hard to navigate, buses overpriced and inefficient.
If Bryson (1995) was right about one thing, it was the cycle paths. Used by few and
praised by fewer; their indirect, subterranean nature has not provided any sort of
efficiency to purposeful travel, and are merely used for ambling around some of the more
green areas of MK. Another consistent negative is the availability and affordability of
public transport.
There are 8 requests for improvements in services. Only one theme has multiple
comments; schools, with residents criticising secondary schools in the north and calling
for a more equal distribution of quality. It is also noted that a university would contribute to
education as well as cultural activity. The MK planners will be pleased to see that the least
numerous categories of complaint are the architecture and layout (5), and employment
and finance (2). Nonetheless, these are important, with some respondents condemning
some of the central architecture as ugly and calling for more traditionally English buildings,
and also for more long-term professional jobs to stop students leaving the area.
Important features that speak loudly with their absence in the feedback are the
housing estates. This is amplified when recalling that house quality and size was voted
the most important factor in question 6, outscoring culture and entertainment, as well as
community issues, which together constitute some of the most numerous themes of
complaint. I feel this consents the results section to be sealed with a positive stamp;
We moved here 13 years ago and I had the image of a concrete jungle. I couldn’t
have been more wrong! Love the “city” and everything it offers.
-A resident who named no improvements to be had.

33
5. Extended Discussion & Conclusion
The MK discovered in this study is not dissimilar to the one envisaged by the
planners. Data and surveys combine in agreement that it excels in greenery, living
environment, and consumption, aided by accessibility made possible by motorised-
mobility, trumping a number of traditionally established settlements, including Oxford; one
of the most historic and quintessentially English. Another coup for the planners is that it
has become a major regional centre. The undesired fragmentation into closed
neighbourhoods within grid cells appears to not have impacted community activity and
integration; illustrated by a strong network of clubs and societies. As a single entity, MK
provides a very high standard of living, as well as some very prosperous; meeting the
intended availability of choice, which is exemplified by the excellent scores on barriers to
housing and services. On the contrary, a handful of central neighbourhoods have fallen
into economic deficiency and suffer social stigma as a result. This could be down to
architectural failure, or its expanse in size exposing it to the same urban forces seen in
cities worldwide. However, these areas remain very much the minority in MK.
Another shortcoming is its cultural identity. Artificial, chain, and franchise are
words frequently used to describe everything from the shopping centre to the football club.
Although this may be archetypal of additions to urban areas across the global north or
South East (Cochrane, 1988), or draw parallels with Soja’s (1992) LA, it is a problem in
MK as it consists entirely of this development. With over 250,000 inhabitants and almost
half a century of existence, one could be forgiven for expecting to discover signs of
cultural distinction by now. With a high concentration of middle class, MK may be feeling
the want of a higher cultural presence, or underclass cultures of resistance. These have
both been fundamental to culture creation historically, and it may be fair to say there is
little struggle amongst the quasi-rural neighbourhoods of MK. Instead, MK’s middle class
cultural-omnivores (Peterson & Kern, 1996) roam and graze across fields of fairly-priced,
inauthentic franchises; unlike their stony counterparts.
5.1 What would Breakwell say?
The applicability of Breakwell’s (1986, 1992) Identity Process Theory to the results
was more limited than intended, and if the reader considers the following to be far-fetched,
they can feel wholly justified. However, place-attachment and the significance of place to
the self-concept is an important factor in constructing a town’s collective identity and
community and thus must be discussed. Breakwell would note a strong notion of self-
efficacy in MK; it is very convenient and allows the achievement of social goals. Continuity

34
is also solid here, perhaps surprisingly so with many suggesting they are rooted here
already, even after such a short existence; they easily navigate the grid and demonstrate
sentiments of homeliness. The pitfall of MK is the lack of distinctiveness and self-esteem
demonstrated by the respondents. Its quasi-rural, post-suburban character offers itself to
no easy categorisation of being a city or a country person. Almost all attempts at
distinguishing MK were based on the uniqueness of its self-efficaciousness and
convenience, rather than through cultural and historical vectors. That said, it seems this
self-efficaciousness is enough to forge place attachment, and the lack of cultural
distinctiveness is more of a null-score, rather than a negative factor to the self-esteem of
the populace.
5.2 Edge City Thesis
Garreau’s (1991) Edge Cities were only touched upon in the literature review, but
arguably provide the best paradigm of the status quo in MK. These are settlements with
dispersed and decentralised socioeconomic activities, and all the functions a city ever
has, in low density formats that few have come to recognise for what they are. ‘Edge’
because they rise away from old inner-cities and downtowns. Garreau (1991) emphasises
the importance of the market, the developer, and the choice of consumers, whether for
malls or family housing. He notes the same problems as MK, too; the difficulty in placing
‘welcome’ signs due to judgement calls on where Edge Cities begin and end, as well as
the issue of their non-existent histories. They celebrate single-family detached dwellings
and gardens, and are not marked by penthouses of the old urban rich or the terraces of
the old urban poor. Their iconic monument is the atrium of the mall reaching into the sky,
not a spire or a Nelson’s column. Near-impossible to define, intellectuals have wrestled
between urban villages, superburbia, and alike.
Garreau (1991) identifies an expectation gap in edge cities that can be applied to
MK. At one end, traditional urbanites see an intimidating array of functions blown out to an
automobile scale. They see juxtaposed, spread out office buildings among malls and fast
food chains; not a city, and get physically and metaphorically lost. At the other end,
traditional suburbanites see glass reflections of multi-storey car parks. Edge Cities either
pleasantly surprise these groups, or leave a taste of characterlessness and soullessness.

35
5.3. Conclusion
Had this been a scientific report, the null hypothesis would have been semi-
accepted. The stereotype of MK’s lack of authentic culture is true; it is a mecca for
shopping and worships at the altar of consumerism. However, presuppositions concerning
its lack of community spirit, the quality of the area, or depicting a concrete jungle are
fallacious. Furthermore, the scathing judgements of MK along with wry remarks of
concrete cows and roundabouts will partly be coming from civilians unaware that they,
too, live in areas governed by the same consumerist structures, with every chance they
would find MK far more efficient than their current locus. Yes, MK is different, but why
should a New Town be trying to emulate the inefficient, socio-cultural and political
battlegrounds that traditional cities represent? It is clearly more than a suburb, but it must
be said it is difficult to look beyond the suburban imagery it presents. Bendixson and Platt
(1992, 179) state; “[MK is] a place for suburban living where the whole is greater than the
parts. It is a city.” If one wishes to label MK as a suburban nowhere, label it as the best
suburban nowhere around. It does have its imperfections, as the data shows, but the
people need to live somewhere, and MK provides this largely to a high standard.
The residents are, mostly, fond of MK and come to its defence, slating the opinions
of the wider public. While creating genuine culture and history in 50 years is virtually
impossible, something the survey technique perhaps failed to tease out are oddities,
ironies and juxtapositions that add soul and satirical energy. Take one of MKs most
noteable (yet for most; completely unnoteworthy) figures for example; long jumper Greg
Rutherford, jumping from a roundabout seemingly over a River Island warehouse in
metallic form. Take the great oak tree occupying the focal point of the shopping mall,
sheltering the concrete cows, that is dead from flu, and take the irony that the city of grids,
roundabouts and concrete is one of the greenest cities in existence. The best irony
though, is that the city is not technically a city at all (Masters, 2015).
On the vast divide in opinion that MK reveices, Bendixson and Platt (1992, viii)
write; “The rationalist in us admires its logic. The romantic in us in us fears its order.” If MK
is an Edge City, then it falls under Garreau’s description of a laboratory for future civilised
life. I believe that the third generational MK offers a solution for most post-metropolis
questions with its quasi-rural, post-suburban hinterland. The fourth generation should look
to dismantle the franchise, target the consumerist nature of 21st
century society, and set
about bringing socioeconomic authenticity back.

36
References
Abrams, D. (1992) Processes of social identification. In: G. Breakwell, ed. Social
Psychology of Identity and the Self Concept. Surrey: Surrey University Press, pp. 57-100.
Aitkin, S. (2005) Textual Analysis: Reading Culture and Content. In: D. Flowerdew & D.
Martin, eds. Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project.
New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Anon. (1970) The Plan for Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes: Milton Keynes Development
Corporation.
Aronovitch, D. (2001) Paddling to Jerusalem. London: Fourth Estate.
Babbie, E. & Moulton, J. (2001) The practice of social science research. Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Beauchamp de Moncaux, S. (1998) The Best Laid Plans. In: M. Clapson, M. Dobbin & P.
Waterman, eds. The Best Laid Plans: Milton Keynes since 1967. Luton: University of
Luton Press, pp. 73-77.
Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001) Individualization: institutionalized individualism and
its social and political consequences. London: Sage.
Bendixson, T. & Platt, J. (1992) Milton Keynes: image and reality. s.l.:Granta Editions.
Bishop, J. (1986) Milton Keynes - The Best of Both Worlds? Public and Professional
Views of a New City, Bristol: University of Bristol.
Boyer, M. (1988) The return of aesthetics to city planning. Society, Volume 25, pp. 49-56.
Breakwell, G. (1986) Coping With Threatened Identity. London: Methuen.
Breakwell, G. (1992) Social Psychology of Identity and the Self Concept. Surrey: Surrey
University Press.
Bryson, B. (1995) Notes from a Small Island. New York: HarperCollins.
Buchanan, C. (1966) South Hampshire study: report on the feasibility of major urban
growth (Vol.1). London: HM Stationery Office.
Castells, M. (1977) The urban question: a Marxist approach. London: Edward Arnold.
Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Clapson, M. (1998) Community and Association in Milton Keynes. In: M. Clapson, M.
Dobbin & P. Waterman, eds. The Best Laid Plans: Milton Keynes Since 1967. Luton:
Luton University Press, pp. 101-108.
Clapson, M. (2004) A Social History of Milton Keynes: Middle England/Edge City. London:
Frank Cass Publishers.
Cochrane, A. (1998) American Dreams and English Utopias: It all comes together in
Milton Keynes. In: M. Clapson, M. Dobbin & P. Waterman, eds. The Best Laid Plans:
Milton Keynes Since 1967. Luton: University of Luton Press, pp. 109-115.

37
Crang, P. (2005) Analysing Qualitative Materials. In: D. Martin & R. Flowerdew, eds.
Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project. New
Jersey: Pearson Education.
Cullen, G. (1961) The Concise Townscape. London: Architectural Press.
De Vaus, D. (2002) Surveys in social research. s.l.:Psychology Press.
Degen, M., DeSilvey, C. & Rose, G. (2009) Experiencing visualities in designed urban
environments: Learning from Milton Keynes. Environment and Planning, 40(A), pp. 1901-
1920.
Dodge, Y. (2003) The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Donnelly, L. (2014) Revealed: the fattest towns and cities in England. [Online]
Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10617126/Revealed-the-
fattest-towns-and-cities-in-England.html
[Accessed February 2014].
Eyles, J. (1968) The Inhabitants Images of Highgate Village. London: LSE.
Feldman, R. (1990) Settlement identity: psychological bonds with home places in a mobile
society. Environment and Behaviour, Volume 22, pp. 183-229.
Gans, H. (1969) The Levittowners. New York: Random House.
Garreau, J. (1991) Edge Cities: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday.
Hormuth, S. (1990) The Ecology of Self: Relocation and Self-concept Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howard, E. (1902) Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Faber and Faber.
Hummon, D. (1986) City mouse, country mouse: the persistence of community identity.
Qualitative Sociology, pp. 3-25.
Jewell, N. (2001) The fall and rise of the British mall. Journal of Architecture, Volume 6,
pp. 317-378.
Keith, M. & Pile, S. (1993) Place and the politics of identity. London: Routledge.
Kellner, D. (2002) Theorizing globalization. Sociological Theory, Volume 20, pp. 285-305.
Korpela, K. (1989) Place identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Volume 9, pp. 241-256.
Lalli, M. (1992) Urban related identity: theory, measurement and empirical findings.
Journal of environmental psychology, Volume 12, pp. 285-303.
Lee, T. (1971) Psychology and architectural determinism. Architects' J, pp. 253-263.
Lefebvre, H. (1967) Le Droit á la Ville. L'Homme et la société, 6(1), pp. 29-35.
Llewelyn-Davies, R. (1972) Changing Goals in Design: The Milton Keynes Example. In: P.
Self, ed. New Towns: The British Experience. London: Charles Knight, pp. 102-116.

38
Local Government Association, n.d. ESD: Digital Exclusion Heatmap - Milton Keynes.
[Online]
Available at:
http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/Communities/DigitalInclusion/heatmap.aspx?id=208
[Accessed January 2015].
Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Boston: MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. (2006) Roles and challenges of urban deisgn. Journal of Urban Design,
Volume 11, pp. 173-193.
Mars, T. (1992) Little Los Angeles in Bucks. Architectural Journal, Volume 195, pp. 22-6.
Masters, B. (2015) Living the dream in Milton Keynes - why its my kind of town. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/living-the-dream-in-
milton-keynes-why-its-my-kind-of-town
[Accessed February 2015].
McGuirk, P. M. & O'Neill, P. (2005) Using questionnaires in qualitative human geography.
In: I. Hay, ed. Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 147-162.
Milton Keynes Council, (2013) Milton Keynes: Local Economic Assessment Refresh,
March 2013. [Online]
Available at: http://www.milton-
keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/13924/Local_Economic_Assessment_Refresh_March_2013
_Final.pdf
[Accessed December 2014].
Milton Keynes Council, n.d. Population Statistics. [Online]
Available at: http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/your-council-and-
elections/statistics/population-statistics
Milton Keynes Council, n.d. SNA Population and Growth. [Online]
Available at: http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/social-care-and-health/health-and-
wellbeing-board/strategic-needs-assessment/population-people/1-population-and-growth
Milton Keynes Development Corporation, (1990) Art at work in Milton Keynes, Milton
Keynes: MKDC.
Moughtin, J. (1999) Urban Design: Method and Techniques. London: Architectural Press.
NationalStatistics, (2010) English Indices of Deprivation 2010. [Online]
Available at: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/index-of-multiple-deprivation
[Accessed August 2014].

39
Noble, M., Wright, G., Smith, G. & Dibben, C. (2006) Measuring multiple deprivation at the
small-area level. Environment and planning, 38(A), pp. 169-185.
Paasi, A., (2003) Region and place: regional identity in question. Progress in human
geography, 27(4), pp. 475-485.
Peterson, R. A. & Kern, R. M. (1996) Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore.
American sociological review, pp. 900-907.
Proshanky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. & Kaminoff, R. (1983) Place identity: physical world
socialisation of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 3, pp. 57-83.
Sarantakos, S. (2005) Social Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schaffer, F. (1972) The New Towns Story. London: Paladin.
Self, P. (1972) New Towns: The British Experience. London: Charles Knight.
Soja, E. (1992) Taking Los Angeles Apart. In: C. Jencks, ed. The Post-Modern Reader.
London: Academy Editions, pp. 277-298.
Soja, E. (2000) Postmetropolis: critical studies of cities and regions. Oxford: Blackwell.
Spiegel (1999) Theory and Problems of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stevens, Q. & Dovey, K. (2004) Appropriating the spectacle: play and politics in a leisure
landscape. Journal of urban design, 9(3), pp. 351-365.
Townsend, P. (1987) Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, Volume 16, pp. 125-146.
Twigger-Ross, C. L. & Uzzel, D. L. (1996) Place and identity processes. Journal of
environmental psychology, 16(3), pp. 205-220.
Walker, D. (1982) The Architecture and Planning of Milton Keynes. London: Architectural
Press.
Waterman, P. (1998) Social Development in Action. In: M. Clapson, M. Dobbin & P.
Waterman, eds. The Best Laid Plans: Milton Keynes Since 1967. Luton: University of
Luton Press, pp. 77-86.
Webber, M. (1963) Order in Diversity: Community Without Propinquity. In: L. Wingo Jr, ed.
Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, pp. 23-54.
Webber, M. (1964) The urban place and the non-place urban realm. In: M. Webber, et al.
eds. Explorations into urban structure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.
79-153.

40
Appendix
1. Online survey template:

42
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 16.0294 12.52295 1.06218 13.9291 18.1296 1.09 54.98
Luton 121 25.4676 12.58148 1.14377 23.2030 27.7322 5.69 62.62
Northampton 129 21.7094 13.83735 1.21831 19.2987 24.1200 2.84 61.72
Oxford 85 21.0261 10.29702 1.11687 18.8051 23.2471 6.68 45.23
Reading 93 20.7292 10.79752 1.11965 18.5055 22.9530 4.14 44.49
Total 619 20.5197 12.32039 .49520 19.5473 21.4922 1.09 62.62
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
6671.509 4 1334.302 9.387 .000
Within
Groups
87135.946 613 142.147
Total 93807.454 618
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 .1353 .09342 .00792 .1196 .1509 .02 .42
Luton 121 .1928 .10851 .00986 .1733 .2123 .03 .44
Nrthmptn 129 .1407 .09577 .00843 .1240 .1574 .02 .39
Oxford 85 .1182 .07958 .00863 .1011 .1354 .01 .34
Reading 93 .1274 .08100 .00840 .1107 .1441 .01 .33
Total 619 .1442 .09394 .00378 .1368 .1516 .01 .44
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
.385 4 .077 9.316 .000
Within
Groups
5.069 613 .008
Total 5.454 618
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 .0842 .05242 .00445 .0755 .0930 .02 .23
Luton 121 .1002 .04668 .00424 .0918 .1087 .03 .25
Nrthmptn 129 .0895 .05456 .00480 .0800 .0990 .02 .35
Oxford 85 .0661 .03833 .00416 .0578 .0744 .01 .17
Reading 93 .0717 .03711 .00385 .0641 .0794 .01 .16
Total 619 .0840 .04766 .00192 .0803 .0878 .01 .35
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
.077 4 .015 7.117 .000
Within
Groups
1.326 613 .002
Total 1.404 618
Maximum
ANOVA of Employment
ANOVA of Income
Employment N Mean
Std.
Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum
Income N Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Overall IMD
Score N Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
ANOVA of IMD Overall Score
2. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA

43
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 -.6327 .60067 .05095 -.7335 -.5320 -1.90 1.14
Luton 121 .2500 .53775 .04889 .1532 .3468 -1.07 2.04
Nrthmptn 129 .2291 .62306 .05486 .1206 .3377 -.94 2.35
Oxford 85 .0421 .61335 .06653 -.0902 .1744 -1.12 1.82
Reading 93 .1443 .59380 .06157 .0220 .2666 -1.15 1.22
Total 619 -.0403 .67657 .02719 -.0937 .0131 -1.90 2.35
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
74.734 4 14.947 44.017 .000
Within
Groups
208.156 613 .340
Total 282.891 618
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 20.6260 18.63669 1.58074 17.5004 23.7516 1.20 86.80
Luton 121 26.0379 12.66372 1.15125 23.7585 28.3172 4.02 54.15
Nrthmptn 129 28.4153 19.72734 1.73690 24.9785 31.8520 1.96 75.80
Oxford 85 19.3589 19.47948 2.11285 15.1573 23.5606 .02 72.80
Reading 93 20.4637 16.72022 1.73381 17.0202 23.9071 .30 73.44
Total 619 23.4287 17.44139 .70103 22.0520 24.8053 .02 86.80
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
7401.288 4 1480.258 5.024 .000
Within
Groups
180595.680 613 294.610
Total 187996.968 618
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 13.6615 7.93753 .67325 12.3303 14.9927 2.05 44.37
Luton 121 27.5864 5.29531 .48139 26.6333 28.5396 14.24 42.49
Nrthmptn 129 17.8367 6.33461 .55773 16.7331 18.9402 5.23 32.55
Oxford 85 35.5662 5.64231 .61199 34.3492 36.7833 25.24 53.60
Reading 93 23.1823 5.20136 .53936 22.1111 24.2535 9.45 38.78
Total 619 22.0027 9.67441 .38885 21.2391 22.7664 2.05 53.60
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
32569.542 4 6513.908 158.004 .000
Within
Groups
25271.689 613 41.226
Total 57841.231 618
ANOVA of Barriers to Housing and Services
Maximum
ANOVA of Education
Barriers to
Housing and
Services N Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
ANOVA of Health and Disability
Education N Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum
Health and
Disability N Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum

44
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 .3058 .72743 .06170 .1838 .4278 -1.26 2.06
Luton 121 .4687 .59443 .05404 .3617 .5757 -1.66 2.18
Nrthmptn 129 .4914 .81389 .07166 .3496 .6332 -1.48 2.04
Oxford 85 .5454 .55703 .06042 .4253 .6656 -.85 1.89
Reading 93 .7906 .59454 .06165 .6682 .9131 -.73 1.98
Total 619 .4615 .69508 .02794 .4066 .5163 -1.66 2.18
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
22.517 4 4.503 10.000 .000
Within
Groups
276.057 613 .450
Total 298.574 618
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
MK 139 6.7810 5.04433 .42785 5.9350 7.6270 .13 26.38
Luton 121 18.2574 13.67945 1.24359 15.7951 20.7196 1.87 59.00
Nrthmptn 129 15.4810 12.36225 1.08844 13.3274 17.6347 .56 50.61
Oxford 85 22.2860 9.38350 1.01778 20.2620 24.3100 2.51 52.24
Reading 93 22.3783 14.34914 1.48794 19.4231 25.3334 1.39 53.91
Total 619 15.4720 12.39779 .49831 14.4935 16.4506 .13 59.00
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
22197.559 4 4439.512 37.386 .000
Within
Groups
72792.312 613 118.748
Total 94989.871 618
ANOVA of Living Environment
Maximum
ANOVA of Crime and Disorderly Behaviour
Living
Environment N Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Crime and
Disorderly
Behaviour N Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum

45
% of 77 Topic Example quotes from a total of 65
"As an original resident of MK village, the vast development around me doesn't seem to have
altered the tranquility in the village all that much"
"Feels like a fairly peaceful suburbia with all the amenities one could need close by. Lacks the
hustle and bustle of a city, which is a bonus to young families."
"No because it gives it a more cosy and comfortable feeling."
"Cities are too built up, MK feels spread out, which I like"
"I don't feel it's a city because you still have green areas, but it still has everything you need
from a city like area. I like the fact it doesn't feel like a city. The traffic is not as bad as a city
too."
"I prefer that it doesn't feel like a city. It is due to the fact that there is more open green space
all around with no congested centre."
"Seems quiet for such a large population. Probably because it is so spread out."
"I can go shopping and bump into people I know, makes it feel like a town, less anonymous
than a city."
"Not in the sense that the queen has not designated it as such, but recognition would be
important to the people that run the town."
"Would like a sense of importance to where I live - though mk is not officially a city"
"Being a city might make government difference to our income and planning requirements."
"It's large enough, has all the facilities (and more in some cases) of a city and feels like a city,
not a town."
"Yes; availability of shops, entertainment and transport"
"Feel MK offers all the facilities you need for city living, combined with enough green space to
make it feel like an enjoyable environment in which to live. Love the grid system!"
"Yes, I feel the facilities are nearer to city standard and therefore I feel less need to travel."
City label (1) "We've always called it that."
"Milton Keynes is like no other place…its suburban heaven with the shopping ease of a city"
"I like the balance between city and countryside Milton Keynes provides."
"It's just not important, it's more about what there is to do and having friends and family in
the area"
"I would see no gain in my life either way"
Q: Do you feel like MK is a City?
No
53.25%
Yes
46.75%
Comments of
Indifference or Balance
(7)
Tranquility (16)
Built
Environment
(13)
Society (6)
City label (8)
Amenities (14
3. Selected responses to question 7.

46
Q9. Choose one thing you would change or improve in Milton Keynes
Topic Example Quotes
"Milton Keynes has a severe lack of smaller events venues other than the national bowl."
"More of a British culture more local British shops as opposed to non British stores."
"More character, cultural things; galleries etc."
"Need a club for 40 plus age range."
"More, better quality bars and clubs for evening entertainment."
"Nightlife! Wonderworld is bad!"
"Lighting on the redways so you feel safe using them, reduce the number of cars by making
the buses cheaper and more frequent."
"Major access roads from west need improvement."
"More traditionally English buildings in the centre"
"Stop building towards the villages. MK is big enough."
"Indoor athletics facility and a public swimming pool would be a valuable addition."
"More bins in areas such as Campbell park as there are NONE, and it hosts lots of community
events."
"More petrol stations and post offices as there are always queues."
"Crime in the centre."
"Better pay rates compared to same jobs in other citys, lower house hold costs."
"Love the open spaces and ability to run in non-built up areas. Great for brining up a young
family. The children can access any sport/pasttime that they want to."
"We moved here 13 years ago & I had the image of a concrete jungle. I couldn't have been
more wrong! Love the "city" & everything it offers."
No
improvement
(2)
Employment
and Finance (2)
Society and
Crime (10)
Service
Provision (8)
Architecture
and Layout (5)
Transport and
accessibility (7)
"More long-term professional jobs instead of anyone with a degree fleeing the area
completely."
"Chavs! Treating other people with respect and reducing the stereotyping of people living in
specific places. E.g. The Lakes Estate."
"The people - Milton Keynes is a great place, the residents need to realise that, respect it,
learn to use it properly and become part of its community. With the redway network and all
the sports clubs, we should be one of the healthiest towns in the country, not amongst one of
the unhealthiest and in the top 5 for obesity."
"Schools in north mk. Unfair that quality of schools varies so much and that all the 'good' ones
seem to be clustered in one area."
"Better equality in schools; no way in hell my coming child will be attending the local
secondary."
"A decent sized university would also contribute to education as well as cultural activity
here."
"Public Transport. For those of us not driving travel is a pain, red ways are complicated and
hard to navigate, buses overpriced and inefficient."
"The architecture in the city center, excluding the Hub and the Excape building, do leave a lot
to be desired. It looks dire especially after Autumn."
"A lack of culture due to it being a new town, this may come with time. Entertainment is all
confined to one small area of the city centre."
"More high quality brand and independent shops in either the MK centre or a separate area."
"The red ways. They used to be safe and a good way to get around on foot or bikes but now
they are quite daunting, especially going under the under passes. They are dark and covered
with trees and bushes and lots of teenagers hanging around."
Culture (16)
Nightlife (15)
4. Selected responses to question 9.

DISSERTATION - DONE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to DISSERTATION - DONE

Similar to DISSERTATION - DONE (20)

DISSERTATION - DONE