York
doesn't get much coverage in the national press for some reason –
probably because it's pretty nice and not much happens here. So I was
surprised to find a feature on the Guardian's Northerner blog about housing problems in the city. The posts can be found here:
I got a
bit carried away in the comments section under the name Stupidpuma
(how I love Don Cabellero references). Anyway, it turned into a
little essay so I thought I'd put a slightly amended version on here.
I'm interested in the big picture here – the general problems faced
in the city and the type of solution needed. This is off the top of
my head and not the product of research. I will probably produce some
in-depth pieces on planning and architecture in specific parts of the
city but it's important to have a eutopian vision of a possible
future.
The
situation in York is simple: demand outstrips supply and this
inflates the price of renting across the board, though that's not to
say that the cost of buying isn't prohibitive. York simply needs more
housing, particularly more affordable housing and a radical solution
is required. There are two key issues: firstly, the more important
one of people being forced to live in unsuitable conditions and
simply being unable to afford the rents anywhere in the city;
secondly, there is the question of maintaining the city's identity
and the problem of new developments. However, to me it seems that
finding a solution of the second issue will help solve the first.
If we
look to what has happened within the city within the last ten years
then it's been shiny new developments aimed primarily, it would
seem, at young professionals. Given the cost of land and a free
market then this is not surprising. The problem is that most of these
developments have been poorly designed and planned – anyone who
does not believe me should take a walk down Skeldergate (a couple of
buildings still indicate what a beautiful street this was, although
admittedly much of the damage was done over 50 years ago). Quite
simply, most new developments in the city are architecturally
bankrupt but this of course has been the case for the last 50 years.
A city with such beautiful medieval, early modern, Georgian, and
Victorian architecture needs modern architecture of the highest
standard. Given York's reliance on the tourist industry, it is vital
to maintain the integrity of the city.
Part of
what makes York special is its size – it lacks suburban sprawl and
one can easily walk to the city's edge from the centre. This means
that the population density is already high – building up and
building out are not viable options. There are definitely pockets of
deprivation in the city and any local can tell you where these are,
but of course they are not visible to the tourist, nor are they
visible from the main routes in and out of the city. York's a
wonderful place to visit and it's a wonderful place to live if you
have the money, but as the Guardian article highlights, it's far less
idyllic for those struggling to get by. I'm appalled by suggestions
(in the comments section of that blog) that people should be forced
to leave the city and move elsewhere. It may well be cheaper to live
in Hull, Leeds, Selby, Bradford, Doncaster, or Scarborough but do
people really imagine that 'economic cleansing' is justifiable? Plus
how would the low-paid residents of York benefit from moving away
from the city in which they work? I find it hard to believe that
anyone would seriously suggest such measures. Only I don't find it
that surprising given that it would seem to be government policy.
The
solution I propose solution is hardly my own and relies on some
neglected and misunderstood ideas about urban planning. York already
boasts a garden village in New Earswick and needs to further embrace
the principles of Ebenezer Howard. I would suggest a new settlement
built just beyond the city's greenbelt with a good proportion of the
properties being either classed affordable or social housing, but it
must provide a mixture of accommodation and appeal across the
economic spectrum – it also must be provided with the appropriate
infrastructure to become a viable community in itself. Such a
settlement should, like the city, be contained in size and I'd
suggest a maximum of 30,000 in line with Howard's thinking. But it
must also be a place where people chose to live and want to bring up
their families – I suspect that the prospect of more space and
cheaper prices will tempt plenty of people from the city itself. The
design of settlement must be of the highest quality in terms of
layout, architecture, and environmental impact – it should be a
model for new developments. Building outside of the city would also
ease congestion and a rail link must be built, or it must be situated
close to existing lines.
I
realise that I may be accused of hypocrisy given I'm suggesting that
people will have to leave the city centre and move elsewhere.
However, this solution is in no way intended to create a ghetto for
those who can't afford to live in the city – rather an alternative
for those who seek better living conditions or those who want a
bigger house for their families. It would also allow people to remain
within reach of their extended families if their roots are in the
city. It may well be possible to meet some demand by building
affordable housing in the city – both the 'teardrop' site near the
station and Bootham Crescent are possible locations. However, I doubt
these would be long-term solutions as they are very limited in size.
I would propose strict limits on new building within the walls (and
other limits without) and an end to the ugly and inappropriate
developments that blight the city. Put simply, the population of the
city cannot continue to increase continually without the integrity of
the city being undermined, either through becoming a sprawling
conurbation or by being overwhelmed by yet more blocks of flats.
I
recognise that my suggestions involve watering down the principles of
the garden city ideal, but (unfortunately) Howard's views on
ownership would be derided as extreme socialis. Of course, I
recognise how unlikely it is that such a project could ever come to
fruition but I cannot see the situation described in the article
improving unless drastic steps are taken. You have to ask yourself:
what would Lewis Mumford do?
No comments:
Post a Comment