UK policy makers are pulled in two directions. On one hand, they want to provide affordable "working class" housing in a country where development is neither cheap nor easy. On the other hand, they can't be seen to hurt a single leaf on a single tree, or warm the planet by a billionth of a degree (either Fahrenheit or Celsius). The answer: "eco-towns." The government is championing 10 new developments of 5k – 20k homes per town and no, I repeat no, traffic within their center. The speed limits on "key roads" leading into the new towns' [I'm guessing here] pay-and-display car parks (owner garages? fuhgeddaboutit) would be set at 15mph. The Daily Express reports that "driver pressure groups fear the proposals could herald reduced speed limits across the country, branding them 'an excuse to bully motorists.'" The UK's Housing Minister is unapologetic, to say the least. "“These developments will be exemplars for the rest of the world, not just the rest of the country," Caroline Flint asserted. "It’s critical that we get it right and I make no apology for setting the bar as high [or in this case low] as possible.”
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I wonder if these eco-towns will serve meat. If so, they might as well pack it in now, as it’s an inconvenient truth that livestock and cattle produce more greenhouse gases than do cars.
Let the lunacy continue.
No traffic near the centre – I guess the shops and supermarkets will have to hire Sherpas to carry the produce into the town centre.
When there are plenty of brownfield sites on the edges of cities, that have existing infrastructure, it really would be greener (but not as profitable for the developers) to develop these before starting on pristine green field developments.
jkross22:
Just because some sources of CO2 are larger or smaller than others doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work at all of them (at least the feasible ones). Addressing some problems is far better than addressing none.
If they’re going to drastically modify their lifestyle to help the environment, they get nothing but respect from me.
Well, coupdetat, you’re probably welcome to go on over there and live in one of these new-towns and walk to the shops, and have the massive inconvenience of 15 miles per hour WHEN they “allow” you to drive, not to mention nearly triple the fuel prices that you currently have, if you live in the USA. Of course, when you call 999 on your “mobile” for the police when some yob tried to stove your head in on a street corner to steal your money or just harass you (while the bobbies watch via their omnipresent cameras) you’ll be wondering why you moved to the UK.
Or you could move to a city in the states and take your life into your own hands that way. Detroit has plenty of empty houses.
Maybe they should start with one or two, and see how it goes. Otherwise, they might want to plan for possible failure.
@menno:
Option 3 might be to move to a car-centric suburb where you can live in splendid isolation from the community and fear of the world at large, gain fifty pounds from lack of physical activity, and with the weight, a nice heapin’ helpin’ of health problems, and still produce huge amounts of waste since consuming lots stuff is the only thing that gives you the tiniest bit of pleasure in the barren consumer wasteland you inhabit. Choices abound!
K. I’m going with Option 3.
I think it’s a great idea. These towns will be great experiments. If people like them, there can be more; if not, little is lost in the grand scheme. I just think these towns’ existence should have no bearing whatsoever on speed limits elsewhere in the Mother Country. (And IMHO 15mph is a bit slow even for eco-towns.)
Isn’t 15mph faster than what actually occurs in center London?
BTW, Option 3 for me too. I’m being helpful here – think about all the people who can feel morally superior to me. /sarcasm
I suspect if Britain had a robust automotive industry, the Brits wouldn’t lay down so easily. Look at the Germans: Very eco-friendly (or conversely, eco-Nazi) nation that absolutely despises restrictions on their motoring “rights.”
And as for the comment about “exemplars for the rest of the world”…only if the world consists of tightly packed countries the size of Montana. For the rest of us, commercial and social connectivity may be a little more complex.
Maybe they should just go all the way and have “people free” towns, too.
BuckD Option 3 might be to move to a car-centric suburb where you can live in splendid isolation from the community and fear of the world at large, gain fifty pounds from lack of physical activity, and with the weight, a nice heapin’ helpin’ of health problems, and still produce huge amounts of waste since consuming lots stuff is the only thing that gives you the tiniest bit of pleasure in the barren consumer wasteland you inhabit. Choices abound!
Well, he could, if such a place existed, but those places only exist in the over-active imagination of people such as yourself. So he can’t…
What was that middle option again?
:p
There is no evidence that “greenhouse gasses” are a problem. AlGore saying there is does not count. This continual harping on the subject is just an excuse for the bureaucrats to exert more control over the populace.
Central planning on a large scale never works. It just doesn’t. People don’t like being told where to live, where to shop, how to drive, or what and when to drive. Good planning responds to the needs and preferences (yes, both of those) of the community.
About two years ago, a new development was completed in Glendale, WI called Bayshore Town Center. It is a “new urban” development with shopping, restaurants, and apartments of a higher density than would be “normal” for the area. It thrives not because the government decided it wanted such a development, but because the people like the idea. It was developed by a private party with no government subsidy; the government actually tried to stop it from being built! And yet it thrives.
Bureaucrats in general have a driving need to be in control of their domains, down to the last breath we take. They take what they want from us, and give it to their powerful/connected friends through no-bid contracts. And despite the continuance of this behavior, which is absolutely nothing new, there are still people that look to the government to solve problems, even if those problems were invented by the government to begin with. I just don’t understand.
Geeber – they do exist… I’ve seen them too.
Way back when I was still a romantic idealist about government, I picked a planning agency as a research subject. One of employees was a “transportation planner.” Now, considering that the Oklahoma City metropolitan area is one of the most sprawling, least densely populated and highest average vehicle mileage urban areas in the US, I was startled to learn the transportation planner had no car. (Well, actually, he had one–a classic old MG–but it was just an investment, in storage and never driven.) OKC’s sketchy bus system and rides bummed from friends got him to places too far for walking. In theory and in practice, he exemplified true dedication to public transit.
This experience taught me that planners can also exmplify something else: complete detachment from the opinions, habits and preferences of the people for whom they plan. And so, all over the globe, and time after time, as soon as people have gotten a little money and freedom, they abandon “eco-towns” and high-density housing for the pleasures of a house and yard; that is, what we call a typical suburb.
The UK’s planners should instead consider this question: why is it necessary to use piles of tax money to create “affordable housing”?
Maybe they should start with one or two, and see how it goes. Otherwise, they might want to plan for possible failure.
Failure is not an option or for that matter a possibility. I’m sure they’ve already discussed the possible scenarios with all their like-minded friends and reached the conclusion that this si the best of all possible worlds (though I doubt you’ll find many if any of them living in one of these communities) for all people. If they do “fail” that will only be by your unreasonable standards. They will declare the towns a success by all reasonable standards.
And as for the comment about “exemplars for the rest of the world”…only if the world consists of tightly packed countries the size of Montana.
That’s a bit too large if you ask me. I think we shove, I mean relocate, everybody in the US into NewJersey. We can allow the rest of the US to return to its natural harmonious nature. It would be the ost sensible use of space and would allow the elimination of cars entirely. That’ll show those Japanese, Chinese, etc. (our car industry is going to collapse anyway, so no damage to us). We’ll use diplomacy and good feelings to defend our country against foriegn powers, so there will be no need for any evil polluting manufacturing companies. I can’t wait, can you?
Busbodger: Geeber – they do exist… I’ve seen them too.
The idea that places – and people – exhibit these characteristics because the place is “car-centric” just doesn’t ring true, based on my experiences. Come to Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, and I’ll show you city neighborhoods – and people – with those very same characteristics, even though they are served by mass transit and feature very dense development.
If anything, around here the healthiest – not to mention the most open – people I see live in the suburbs.
The point about driving is sort of moot because obviously these towns are planned around walkability. Like towns should be. Leave your exurb and go to New York City, Portland, or any college town and you’ll see what I mean.
Lum,
What was I thinking? You are of course correct, they will never fail.
Besides, if anything at all goes wrong, it will be Bush’s fault.
UK policy makers are pulled in two directions.
You forgot the 3rd direction that is becoming stronger every day. That is finding more and more ways to extract revenue through fines, taxes, and fees.
Hmmm, this is probably the only headline that will use the words “Car” and “Free” together.