Urban sprawl UK vs the rest of Europe
Discussion
I read on a different thread that UK cities are more spread-out than is typical for Europe and I must admit that I do find that hard to believe. Obviously if this is the case there would appear to be room for inner-city expansion by increasing density - but is it actually a good idea to do this? What would the benefits be to increase urban density (obviously more greenery outside the urban areas) but would this increase social issues?
Complicated.
Perhaps the starting point is to determine what a city is, moving forward?
Cities have traditionally been centres of industry and employment with associated living, recreation, services and infrastructure built up to support it. It is efficient and sustainable to invest in infrastructure where most people use it. There's therefore an efficiency in encouraging people to move to it as well.
However as people mature and move up the ladder, they demand more space, hence the sprawl/suburbs etc.
Industries have since left, hollowing out large swathes of cities. Some have been fortunate enough to diversify and find new employment, a lot haven't. Increased out of town retail/office has only reinforced this decline with people understandably prioritising employment and investment over sustainability and 'cities'.
But that has changed again. Post covid, there is far less requirement for city centre employment with people working from home. Plus Amazon of course.
The original rationale for the city as we knew it has largely disappeared. You could argue that cities are an anachronism in the modern world (an extreme position to make a point for debate)
So can you encourage more people to live in cities given the lack of employment? Perhaps coffee shop working is the way forward?
If people are working from home, does that home need to fulfil more than being a home? Will people demand more than having to work at their breakfast bar/dining room table?
Do we require more hybrid live/work space? How do we create better amenity (out door space) in dense urban environments to make better, more desirable and sustainable housing for people? What needs to change to enable that?
Here's a nice example (that I'm in the process of copying!): https://www.pakt-antwerpen.be/en/our-story
Perhaps the starting point is to determine what a city is, moving forward?
Cities have traditionally been centres of industry and employment with associated living, recreation, services and infrastructure built up to support it. It is efficient and sustainable to invest in infrastructure where most people use it. There's therefore an efficiency in encouraging people to move to it as well.
However as people mature and move up the ladder, they demand more space, hence the sprawl/suburbs etc.
Industries have since left, hollowing out large swathes of cities. Some have been fortunate enough to diversify and find new employment, a lot haven't. Increased out of town retail/office has only reinforced this decline with people understandably prioritising employment and investment over sustainability and 'cities'.
But that has changed again. Post covid, there is far less requirement for city centre employment with people working from home. Plus Amazon of course.
The original rationale for the city as we knew it has largely disappeared. You could argue that cities are an anachronism in the modern world (an extreme position to make a point for debate)
So can you encourage more people to live in cities given the lack of employment? Perhaps coffee shop working is the way forward?
If people are working from home, does that home need to fulfil more than being a home? Will people demand more than having to work at their breakfast bar/dining room table?
Do we require more hybrid live/work space? How do we create better amenity (out door space) in dense urban environments to make better, more desirable and sustainable housing for people? What needs to change to enable that?
Here's a nice example (that I'm in the process of copying!): https://www.pakt-antwerpen.be/en/our-story
It's quite believable, I've noticed in Europe generally that even medium sized towns are built more densely and its more common for people - families not just singles/couples - to live in town-based apartments instead of suburban houses. An obvious comparison to highlight would be comparing London to Paris. Capital cities in two similarly developed countries, similar populations etc. yet the country with far more land built the far denser city.
Ive visited most countries in Western Europe and the Scandinavian region and a few in Eastern Europe. It's true, they do have a lot more city living, with a lot of 3 or 4 story apartment buildings, cramming in a lot more people into a lot less space.
In the UK, the average family would aspire to be homeowners. In the rest of Europe, many families, even ones who earn a decent income, seem content or perhaps consigned to living in apartment blocks.
In the UK, the average family would aspire to be homeowners. In the rest of Europe, many families, even ones who earn a decent income, seem content or perhaps consigned to living in apartment blocks.
Many people don't care too much where they live, as long as they've got a roof over their heads and can get to work.
Personally I think we should increasingly cater for these kind of people and that the towns and cities be used much more than they are for accommodation.
Most of the space above high street shops is empty, now the shops themselves are becoming increasingly empty, yet we're ignoring that and building on green belt or other useful land instead.
I moved (felt forced) out from the place I was brought up in because the green field and brown field was largely all gone. The place was nothing but a housing estate.
Personally I think we should increasingly cater for these kind of people and that the towns and cities be used much more than they are for accommodation.
Most of the space above high street shops is empty, now the shops themselves are becoming increasingly empty, yet we're ignoring that and building on green belt or other useful land instead.
I moved (felt forced) out from the place I was brought up in because the green field and brown field was largely all gone. The place was nothing but a housing estate.
RizzoTheRat said:
The Randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, etc) is generally considered to be one of the biggest urban sprawls in Europe, with about 8.5M people in 11,000 km^2. Meanwhile Greater London has about 9M people in 1,500 km^2
I like looking at Google Maps traffic of the various cities around Europe at 5-6pm. The Randstad is nearly always red as is the whole of central Paris like a red cartwheel. London has its issues mainly around the M25 and Dartford Crossing. Germany and Italy seem far worse than the UK for rush hour traffic.Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 25th October 10:04
RizzoTheRat said:
The Randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, etc) is generally considered to be one of the biggest urban sprawls in Europe, with about 8.5M people in 11,000 km^2. Meanwhile Greater London has about 9M people in 1,500 km^2
How much of that Randstad area is farmland compared to Greater London?Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 25th October 10:04
spikeyhead said:
RizzoTheRat said:
The Randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, etc) is generally considered to be one of the biggest urban sprawls in Europe, with about 8.5M people in 11,000 km^2. Meanwhile Greater London has about 9M people in 1,500 km^2
How much of that Randstad area is farmland compared to Greater London?Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 25th October 10:04
However I suspect in terms of local population densities, the highest will be in cities built on rock rather than ones build on sand
The densest arrondissement in Paris appears to be about 42k, but only for an area about 1/4 the size of Islington.
SimonTheSailor said:
Fancy living here ? 18,000 people live here in St Petersburg.
Must be horrid.
Ok, bit extreme I know but don't think increasing density helps anybody.
All the social problems it brings with it, didn't they admit that the building of the tower blocks in the 60's/70's wasn't a success ?
But those tower block developments were not, by and large, high density. For various reasons - regulatory, architectural, practical, as well as deliberately trying to avoid the Eastern Bloc 'cliff-face with windows' you get if you try to go truly high density - they usually had similar, or lower, density than a typical Victorian suburban housing district built around terraces, semis and close-sited villas. Must be horrid.
Ok, bit extreme I know but don't think increasing density helps anybody.
All the social problems it brings with it, didn't they admit that the building of the tower blocks in the 60's/70's wasn't a success ?
To generalise, European cities tend towards dense low-rise developments (large areas of three/four/five-storey flats and apartments) while the UK has areas of low density single-family houses and areas of high-rise multi-family blocks. As with so much, we have a greater variety and greater extremes than on the continent.
Density is only one factor though, and while sprawl is itself a terrible use of limited space and resources, it is especially damaging in its American form where various political, social and economic restrictions lead to the mile after mile of "Little Boxes On The Hillside", all near-identical residential tract housing with minimal service provision and scattered commercial and leisure sites, all of which are dependent on car use to get to and from. That's just as socially damaging (and much more ecologically ruinous than) as the marching rows of concrete 'Brezhnevkas'.
The Randstad - to use an example already given - is relatively low-density but is also mixed use, consisting of discrete and largely self-serving districts, towns and suburbs of the main cities. Each with the variety of services and amenities that their residents need and good multi-modal transport links to elsewhere for if they need or choose to go there.
The zeitgeist in modern urban planning is very much heading back to the mid-density '15 Minute Neighbourhood' which is what predominated in the era before private car ownership - the theory being that all your daily needs will be within a 15-minute walk. That requires a return to mixed-use and non-hierarchical land use, as opposed to the very hierarchical planning system that Britain has had for the past 40-ish years which groups areas into discrete functions.
^ wot he said
Here's a link to some better photos of that PAKT scheme I mentioned above.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pakt+antwerpen&a...
It does ^ on brownfield land with a mix of uses in refurb industrial and new build. It provides community, urban spaces and amenity. Three traits that are typically lost in dense urban housing.
It is a condensed version/microcosm of what makes cities. The point of my earlier post was that on a wider city scale, a lot of this mix of uses has disappeared (city centre retail/employment) and without them, our cities are at risk of become monocultural. Obviously more so if you ram a load of high density resi in to them.
TL:DR That's all a poncy way of saying you can't just build high density housing in urban areas to get rid of sprawl/solve the housing crisis.
Here's a link to some better photos of that PAKT scheme I mentioned above.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pakt+antwerpen&a...
It does ^ on brownfield land with a mix of uses in refurb industrial and new build. It provides community, urban spaces and amenity. Three traits that are typically lost in dense urban housing.
It is a condensed version/microcosm of what makes cities. The point of my earlier post was that on a wider city scale, a lot of this mix of uses has disappeared (city centre retail/employment) and without them, our cities are at risk of become monocultural. Obviously more so if you ram a load of high density resi in to them.
TL:DR That's all a poncy way of saying you can't just build high density housing in urban areas to get rid of sprawl/solve the housing crisis.
I’ve read a few articles that say to reduce the impact of climate change we should move into more densely populated areas to avoid unnecessary resource consumption. I.e. reduce the use of personal cars to get around and rely on more effective public transport systems that serve all areas equally given population density.
I can see the merit in this idea, but not sure it’s necessarily the right outcome. Does seem to be pointing towards the example of Communist housing shown above.
I can see the merit in this idea, but not sure it’s necessarily the right outcome. Does seem to be pointing towards the example of Communist housing shown above.
SlowcoachIII said:
I’ve read a few articles that say to reduce the impact of climate change we should move into more densely populated areas to avoid unnecessary resource consumption. I.e. reduce the use of personal cars to get around and rely on more effective public transport systems that serve all areas equally given population density.
I can see the merit in this idea, but not sure it’s necessarily the right outcome. Does seem to be pointing towards the example of Communist housing shown above.
There's a huge scope towards 'more dense' (sub)urban areas before you hit the 'East German Housing Estate' level. And it's quite possible to have that level of density without it being so soul-crushingly austere, grey and cheap. The stereotypical communist housing area was just that - a stereotype - and while you can find it in abundance it represented the absolute bottom tier of communist urban planning. I can see the merit in this idea, but not sure it’s necessarily the right outcome. Does seem to be pointing towards the example of Communist housing shown above.
Also be aware that a lot of articles and commentary about the need to move to 'densely populated areas' are coming out of America where they generally have an incredibly low base-line population/housing density. Even moving to mid-20th century British suburban planning model would be incredibly 'high' density by a lot of American mid-western and west-coast standards. Never mind a Victorian Britain/European mid-rise model.
2xChevrons said:
The zeitgeist in modern urban planning is very much heading back to the mid-density '15 Minute Neighbourhood' which is what predominated in the era before private car ownership - the theory being that all your daily needs will be within a 15-minute walk. That requires a return to mixed-use and non-hierarchical land use, as opposed to the very hierarchical planning system that Britain has had for the past 40-ish years which groups areas into discrete functions.
That would be a nice idea. Every time I go past a modern housing estate, acres and acres of nothing but houses, no shops, restaurants, bars, no centre point, it makes me want to nuke everything from orbit and start again.CrutyRammers said:
That would be a nice idea. Every time I go past a modern housing estate, acres and acres of nothing but houses, no shops, restaurants, bars, no centre point, it makes me want to nuke everything from orbit and start again.
As a house builder (no not one of those ones), I couldn't agree more.CrutyRammers said:
That would be a nice idea. Every time I go past a modern housing estate, acres and acres of nothing but houses, no shops, restaurants, bars, no centre point, it makes me want to nuke everything from orbit and start again.
Do the bigger estates not tend to include other stuff? Elvetham Heath (Fleet, Hampshire) for example is about 2000 houses but also has a supermarket, school, spots centre and pub. Still somewhat impersonal but better than just a load of houses with no facilities.RizzoTheRat said:
CrutyRammers said:
That would be a nice idea. Every time I go past a modern housing estate, acres and acres of nothing but houses, no shops, restaurants, bars, no centre point, it makes me want to nuke everything from orbit and start again.
Do the bigger estates not tend to include other stuff? Elvetham Heath (Fleet, Hampshire) for example is about 2000 houses but also has a supermarket, school, spots centre and pub. Still somewhat impersonal but better than just a load of houses with no facilities.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff