• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

England's Green and Pleasant Land - BROADBAND RECOMMENDED

ablarc

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
713
Points
20


ENGLAND’S GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?






I have added illustrations and reflections (in regular italics) to this Los Angeles Times story partly about a nation honing its taste for the twee…My apologies to the author; his article is in there—complete-- among my barnacles.





True Love of Country in England

City dwellers are moving to villages in record numbers. Rural economies benefit, but some say at too high a cost to the locals.

By John Daniszewski, Los Angeles Times

.


.

Four Views in Kingham (pop. 969)

KINGHAM, England — When Chris Harvey walks out of his house, Wiggals Corner, and ambles around the streets of his adopted village, the retired postman and amateur cider-maker rarely gets too far.

That’s because Chris has to pass right by all the villagers’ yardless front doors. The ones who want to chat can just step out and greet him:



It's a "hullo" there, and "a bit of a chat" here, and once again he is convinced that he was right to move to Kingham, which he calls "the friendliest village in England." When he left his London suburb 32 years ago, his father said he was daft to head for the sticks, an hour and a half from the capital; he should buy a nice suburban semi-detached instead.


A nice semi-detached, but not suburban.

What seemed crazy at the time has turned out to be a trend. Britain is now believed to be the only country in Europe that has a net migration out of, rather than into, its cities.



Good rail connections[!], the high price of city homes, a quest for a better life, and Britons' inbred love of the countryside are some of the explanations offered for the exodus. But it is a double-edged sword.


The English all squawk about the rail system, which in fact is superb; they should experience Amtrak.

Although the newcomers may bring a needed dollop of vitality to the countryside and in some cases create businesses and jobs, they also push up real estate prices for longtime residents.

As longtime resident of a neighborhood where newcomers pushed up real estate prices, I must express heartfelt thanks to those who did this for me, and I’m sure my fellow oldtimers feel the same. I can refinance my house every few years for dizzying amounts and am made prosperous beyond my wildest dreams; my neighbor buys a new Corvette every now and then. I look forward to even more pushing up of real estate prices with grateful anticipation.



Some villages have ceased to be real communities; rather, they have become picture-book places inhabited by people who commute elsewhere for work and don't take an active role in local life.

This is a somewhat difficult phenomenon to illustrate, since it doesn’t show up much in photos; buildings look about the same whether the occupant is a commuter or not. On those rare occasions when new suburban development is allowed in England, however, the difference is evident from the air. Here the road separates an old village (far right) with its idiosyncratic development pattern, from the newer suburb with its looped spaghetti street pattern and its ritualized lots, reminiscent of suburbs everywhere, with their uniform setbacks and standardized fitting of house to lot. This is a pretty benign example, but Suburbia nonetheless:



Meanwhile, farming, the original activity of the village, hardly figures at all in the employment picture today. Only 1.8% of Britons now farm, the lowest percentage in the nation's history. (Since the advent of tractors, fewer farmers are needed to work the land.) Small holdings increasingly are being bought up by the incoming urbanites and often are kept up merely to look pretty, or leased out to existing farm concerns. (Efficient agribusiness also doesn’t require lots of farmers.)

Britain’s return to rural tenant farming recreates feudal business patterns in which the squire rents out his land for agriculture. This pattern has been in relative abeyance for centuries and is now surging back. It’s pretty common in the U.S. too, but in the U.S. even more farms have reverted to second growth forest (scrub). This is the main reason England’s countryside looks so much prettier, with those sweeping vistas and wide-open spaces. (Rural Pennsylvania and parts of Maine are among the American exceptions that somewhat resemble England; in a few places you might even find a genuine village, though they’re now very rare in North America.)


Farmland with manor house.


Vast vistas.


A squire’s house.


A prosperous yeoman’s comfy cottage. Does the yeoman commute?


This yeoman farms.

In Kingham, the bulldozer magnate Anthony Bamford has acquired much of the surrounding gentle hills and fields. For the last two years, his wife--(breaking ranks with those carpetbaggers who don’t get involved in local life)-- has added to the area's cachet with an eye-catching cafe and farm shop that sells prize-winning organic and gourmet foods, including artisan breads and cheeses, produce and sausages, mostly from the couple's own farms. (I’m sure the politely-amused oldtimers continue to shop where they always have.)


An establishment for yuppies.

It's so fancy that some locals have dubbed it the "Harrods of the Cotswolds." In their literature, the proprietors say they are particularly proud of the "dog parking" area fitted with watering bowls. Although the prices may be high for many locals, the shop draws a steady stream of connoisseurs and tourists, and their pounds sterling, to Kingham.


Pounds sterling are shipped principally on summer weekends in the pockets of (much too) brightly-colored clothing, and sometimes in shorts, which locals never wear. Pounds sterling are actually more attracted to towns than to villages.

This village of 700 (Kingham actually has 969, according to the census) people in Oxfordshire County, on the edge of England's famed Cotswolds region, has a history that dates at least to the Domesday Book of 1086. It was recently honored by Country Life magazine, the bible of the country set, as its favorite village in England, much to the amazement of some inhabitants.


A chocolate-box village.

"I'm a bit surprised, because it isn't a chocolate-box type of village," parish council Chairman Keith Hartley told reporters after the accolade. "It's more of a working village than a tourist village. But it's got a great all-round atmosphere."


A village is a very small but distinctly urban place surrounded by farmland (or, rarely, wilderness). It differs from Suburbia in that people walk. A frequent hallmark of a truly walkable small place is that there are no or few sidewalks. This is not an oversight or a hardship; you generally have the street to yourself when on foot. (Sure beats speed bumps.) This condition was noted and reproduced by the designers of Poundbury and Seaside, who are observers of the real rather than theoreticians of the abstract.















Unlike some villages that have lost all their indigenous life, Kingham still has a primary school, a small industrial area, a combined post office and shop, three pubs, a charming hotel built on the site of the town's medieval flour mill and a main-line railway station. Fairs and football on the village field are still part of the local scene.

.

A village school and (abandoned) industry (what a great house this would make for a yuppie).

.

Two village post office shops: Combe (left) and Evershot (right).

.

Village Inns with pubs: the drinkers arrive (and more importantly, leave on foot; the travelers arrive by car (find the car park access in both photos). If a drinker arrives by car and proposes to leave while tanked (the English word for this condition is “pissed”), the publican can suggest a nice upstairs room for the night.


Football in the Stroud Valley.

According to the Countryside Agency, a governmental body set up to attend to the concerns of rural residents, 14.1 million people — 28.5% of England's population — live in rural districts. The rural population has grown by 13.7% in the last two decades, with a quarter of the new arrivals settling in the southwestern countryside, an area that has remained bucolic despite its relative proximity to London.













.




Bucolic: wouldn’t it be nice if we could preserve a little more of that in our own poor, battered, abused, and sprawl-afflicted land? On every visit I marvel at how much better preserved and more scenic Europe’s countryside is (and don’t forget the cities.). We are said to inhabit “America the Beautiful”, but most of the beauty here has retreated to designated preserves; the National Parks are like ghettoes of beauty. And even these--as annual budget cuts begin to show effects-- grow increasingly threadbare.

The agency estimates that 115,000 people move to the country from urban areas each year. Since 2000, 352,000 more people have moved into England's rural areas than have left them; half of the migrants were between the ages of 25 and 44 — in other words, the prime working years.


A migrant or just a tourist?

As novelist John Lanchester put it in a recent essay for the Guardian newspaper, an elegy for the less-spoiled countryside he remembers, "In other words, every year a city slightly bigger than Exeter disappears, and reappears wearing green wellies and complaining about the bypass. This has been going on for a decade and a half."


A person “wearing green wellies” (rubber boots): a necessity in rural England’s moist climate.

At least you can walk in the British countryside without fear of being shot for trespass by an irate farmer. A system of country lanes allows you to hike (or even bike) from end to end of Britain without trespassing or using highways. Many take advantage of this fact to walk across fields, moors and downs as shortcuts from village to village.

Novelist Lanchester’s contention that the countryside was formerly less spoiled is technically somewhat true, but not by much; Britain’s virtual ban on rural development guarantees that. The novelist should visit the United States for a more dramatic view of what spoiling the countryside can mean.

The migrating “city slightly bigger than Exeter” has actually depopulated the northern cities containing the legendary mills. Their population is moving to the economically greener pastures of London, while wealthy Londoners are drifting into the idyllic countryside.


And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?


It means that urbanites moving to the countryside find that their neighbors are an awful lot like them.


Local or transplanted urbanite? Does it really make much difference?

"If my own experience is anything to go by, your neighbors in the sticks are more likely to be thirty- and fortysomething graphic designers, IT consultants and, of course, journalists, than smock-wearing yokels," said Hester Lacey, writing in the Guardian about her experience moving to the country.


Possibly a yokel, but missing the smock.

Digression: There is currently a great wringing of hands in Boston over the de-yokelization (or actually de-Italianization) of the North End, which urbotourists prize for its gaggles of elderly male Sicilians. These stand or sit around on sidewalks and comment in two languages on the passing scene. Their fadeout is commonly regretted on forums by epicures of the urban, but perhaps for selfish reasons; how many grousing middle-class habitues of the new North End Starbuck’s have considered that a picturesque Sicilian flaneur might actually be
grateful to retire to Son-the-Doctor’s suburban McMansion and its limitless television reruns sampled in air-conditioned comfort?

I myself regret having missed seeing the Chinese in Mao costumes, Turks in fezzes (I missed this one by eons), cowpokes in six-guns, and tennis players in white slacks, and I will probably miss Peruvian women in bowler hats; but I did manage to catch the Combat Zone and the line-up of floozies on the rue St. Honore before they moved to the Internet. And like many New Yorkers, I miss the three-card monte in Times Square.

Picturesque humanity as part of the ambiance: I agree that generally I find people like myself boring—at least in gaggles on the sidewalk, though not so much in one-on-one conversation, for which I prefer the like-minded. On the sidewalk I favor groupings of rap singers, turbaned Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, even juvenile delinquents (at a distance) or (best of all) pretty girls-- but
someone obviously likes all those Starbucks; how else do you explain their proliferation and success?

It is, however, fairly hypocritical of us to bleed our hearts over the preservation of lifestyles not our own and a “sense of community” we find hard to pin down. This is not, after all, the survival of species, and what do we really know about the merits of other ways of life?

Can we be so dead sure that “yokel” who sold his leaky cottage to the London stockbroker for two cool million did the wrong thing for himself and his family? Maybe he and his wife can be found today by the pool in Acapulco, margarita in hand.

We rue the passing of this or that community, but isn’t there also a Starbucks community (unexotic) fading in to replace it? As we get prosperously post-Industrial, sooner or later everyone turns into a yuppie. Are we perhaps anthropologists? And if we were…?

Ultimately, I think we just find
ourselves boring. Maybe we should start wearing fezzes.


A local shopper pauses in a country town to enjoy a cup of tea. Or perhaps: A shopping tourist pauses in a country town to enjoy a latte.


Could go either way on this crew, though locals generally don’t wear shorts. Still, the bicycle is kind of old-fashioned…


Standing at the very edge of the town of Shaftesbury, a man and his son (grandson?) survey the country beyond the (now-vanished) town walls. Are they tourists? Or could they be locals? Does it matter?

Land-use rules imposed by planners since the late 1940s have suppressed suburban sprawl in Britain. One result is that truly rural landscapes beckon just beyond city limits. Much of the countryside remains postcard perfect: a pastiche of green fields and small woodlands, dotted by neat villages and church steeples, and unmarred by malls, billboards, fast-food eateries or other eyesores.









According to the Countryside Agency, people say the country offers a better quality of life in a cleaner environment with less crime. Also, as mobility improves, more people are willing to live farther from work.


If you can afford it, why not?

Richard Wakeford, the agency's chief executive, is an example. He lives in Gloucestershire, 100 miles from London, and travels there three days a week. But with cellphones and broadband Internet access, he can stay on top of his job from almost any location, he says.



"This is the new paradigm," he said. "You don't need to be anywhere anymore. And that is the liberating factor."





In some areas, the arrival of city people bent on preservation is boosting the economy. There has been a revival in such trades as blacksmithing, thatching, dry stonewalling and woodworking: The "heritage building sector" has become a $4-billion-a-year industry, employing up to 500,000 people.

This turn of events was predicted decades ago by the prescient Leon Krier, who also knew that forecasting it was one way to help make it happen. (Best to prophesy those things that you would actually like to see transpire. An optimistic outlook generally helps improve the future.)

.

A new stone wall takes form, reviving long dormant skills. Would you rather build a stone wall in the country or work on Ford’s assembly line for the same money? There is also renewed interest in the trade of thatching.

"Crafts no longer exist to service agriculture and the traditional rural community but, instead, the lifestyle needs of … the new genus of country dweller," the agency said in a recent report.


A newly-built stone wall encloses a court to make a precinct for two houses. Are the occupants related? Could you imagine being able to do this under conventional American suburban zoning?

In addition, each self-employed migrant to rural areas creates an average of 2.4 jobs, said Aileen Stockdale, a professor of land economy at Aberdeen University who helped conduct a recent study on the subject for the Royal Geographical Society.


Down the hill, a quite newly-thatched roof or two. What do you bet some of the more beat-up tile roofs shortly follow suit, now that the cost of thatching is headed down?

Too often, she said in a telephone interview, the influx of city types is perceived in negative terms. But her research showed that many people who made the move were shifting to self-employment and launching new businesses. They present the potential for rural economic regeneration, she said.


Thatched roofs of varied vintage enhance rural cottages and probably yield a handsome return at resale time. A “cottage” in rural England is often a rowhouse.

“Community” and a little urbanity surrounded by countryside: isn’t that what we say we hope to get in the suburbs? So we make up zoning laws to bring it to us as surely as gasoline puts out fires.


In fact, it is something of a myth that all the migrants are commuting into the cities. "The vast majority" finds work within 12 to 15 miles of where they settle, she said.

.

Some seriously small residences. Have they heard of mandated minimum square footages?

Another professor, Anne Power of the London School of Economics, sounded an alarm this month that the rising migration from urban areas was disturbing the social balance, and urged the government to take steps to discourage it and regenerate cities. (Agree about regenerating cities; not sure about discouraging migration.)


A place where some forms of social balance are restored daily.

Urban "depopulation leads to depleted services, empty property, a growing sense of abandonment, decay and population polarization, with the poorer left behind," the professor of social policy told the BBC.

Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.


* * *

In Kingham, some people do commute to London — the 7:25 a.m. train gets to Paddington Station before 9. But others work in and around Oxford, the growing college town, which is half an hour away.



Simon Merton, a real estate agent in Moreton-in-Marsh, about 20 minutes from here, said the factors driving sales in Kingham were good schools and "the desire to get out of London."



"What starts as leaving London and renting a cottage for weekends becomes buying a house in the Cotswolds and selling out in London," he said.

.


In the current market, it takes 1 million pounds, nearly $2 million, to acquire a five-bedroom house in the area that includes a garden, tennis court and paddock for the children's ponies.

.


.


.


There is no dearth of demand, he said. "We have about 800 people on our list at the moment. They are a mixed bunch, some from town, some wanting to move within the area, but they all have over 500,000 pounds to spend."

.


.


One person who made the move in recent years is Derek Thomas, 64, a retired aerospace engineer who sold his suburban London house at a profit and bought a light-filled converted stable in Kingham. He joined the walkers club, and his wife signed up for the Women's Institute service organization nearby.





"My wife never stops telling me how much she enjoys it," he said of their new home. "Here you can look up and see the Milky Way. It's so beautiful at night."















Sometimes people find that country life falls short of expectations.



"A lot of people in England have an idealized picture of rural idyll and living in a thatched cottage surrounded by rose bushes without actually seeing the wider picture of being perhaps isolated from services," said Nigel Ellway, a spokesman for the Countryside Agency. "A number of journalists ask me if I have figures about the number who move back later after being disillusioned. The answer is, I don't know."



Wakeford, the agency's chief executive, said one ongoing concern was how to keep the countryside affordable for those who grew up or worked in rural areas.



In the Yorkshire Dales, a particularly beautiful part of England that has become a favorite destination for migrants, the area National Park Authority is considering a plan to mandate that all newly built housing be sold only to people who are local or take local jobs. With even small cottages now selling for more than $300,000, the aim is to prevent the area from becoming unaffordable to all but wealthy Londoners.





If the plan succeeds, other districts are likely to follow suit.



Kingham's novel response to the problem was to build 13 "dual-equity" houses in the village's traditional honey-colored limestone. People linked to the town, such as children of residents, could live in them and become part-owners at a reduced cost; the rest of the ownership would stay with the governing local council.


The construction quality of yore is—amazingly—matched. All that’s missing is 400 years of grime. That will come, because these houses will last that long.















John Parslow, owner of the Mill House Hotel, was a courier company executive before he decided to retire and buy the ultra-comfy hotel 10 years ago.


A comfy hotel.

The business has had its ups and downs, he said, sitting in front of a roaring fire in the bar area. But he enthused over the pleasant aspects of country life — knowing the neighbors, the scenery and walks, the celebrations on the village green and the peacefulness.


Another comfy hotel.

Harvey, too, has an almost infectious enthusiasm for Kingham. Whether pointing out the tomb of a Norman knight in the 14th century church, the wooden beams of the parish hall or the embroidered banner carried in 19th century marches, the retired postman is an unabashed salesman for the rural way of life.

VILLAGES IN CONTEXT:


A Cotswolds village.


Bere Regis.


Abbotsbury.


A very large village (or maybe really a small town): Bridport.

Two longtime residents, Derek Tyack, 67, and Frank Palmer, 78, welcome the village's more recent economic renaissance. But they also sound a little wistful about the past.

Before the carpetbaggers started buying homes, they came as tourists to gawk at the pcturesque scenes that included buildings, countryside and the locals. There were also a few bona fide tourist attractions. What would otherwise be the sleepy village of Cerne Abbas is overrun with tourists come to see The Giant:


Cerne Abbas.

The Giant adorns a hillside just outside the village. He’s evidence of how long people have lived hereabouts if you believe those who say he’s neolithic.


The Giant of Cerne Abbas.

Others think he’s a Seventeenth Century hoax; that’s when he was first mentioned in print.



He seems real enough to those who come to him to have their shortcomings mended:



You can imagine what the gift shops sell.

* * *

STREETSCAPE OF LARGE VILLAGES/SMALL TOWNS:

CERNE ABBAS: Three street scenes, the last featuring some medieval cottages.







CORFE:

An especially picturesque village:



Tourists come here to climb to the ruined castle:



Corfe really is somewhere between a large village and a small town. Most buildings touch throughout, and there is more commerce than just the usual village pub(s):




Abbottsbury has the population of a village (480) but something of the built-up look of a town.


You could say the same of Puncknowle (pop. 451; 1891 pop. 427).


Evershot.


Lyme Regis.


Shaftesbury, a market town with lots of commerce (pop. 6209).


New houses in the town of Dorchester (pop. 16,171).


Dorchester.


Dorchester.


Lyme Regis.


The town of Sherborne boasts three-story buildings, but the countryside is still…just over there.


A house in Sherborne that Sir Walter Raleigh might have known.


Christchurch: an attractive town.


Christchurch: Eighteenth Century New York must have resembled this.


Christchurch: somebody let in a little modernism. Could be worse, but it does introduce a certain machine order. Mass production in a run of three. Were they looking to save on architectural fees? Or is it just that modernist architects are
required to think this way?


Poole: an even more attractive town.


Poole.


Elsewhere in Poole, someone dropped the ball pretty badly. Not hard to see why regular folks hate modern architecture.


Nicely detailed, but who cares? London has now come to Poole. It’ll never be the same; a single out-of-scale building can do that, and it has nothing to do with height.

Because much of England’s countryside is so much more effectively protected than poor Poole, it is still an environment fit for a king, and indeed the future king works hard to keep it unspoiled, which to him (and maybe if we’re willing to set aside our theories, to us) means no modernist architecture.

Here he is: the arch-villain in person, the man you love to hate:



Not only does this shameless blackguard admire picturesque old towns (I guess we all do
that), but he actually has the brass to claim that you can still build like that today. Now!! In the twenty-first century!!!

Brazenly scorning the iron handcuffs of history—haughtily discounting the teutonic teachings of the sages of zeitgeist-- this benighted sleazeball actually proposes that we build faithful little replicas of English villages and towns—for all the world as though they had never fallen out of fashion. But worse than that—outrage!-- he has the pompous insolence to claim that people could actually enjoy
living in these tawdry hotbeds of kitsch!

But wait, there’s more: he then actually
builds one of these things against the advice of all the land’s experts and professionals! Builds it, mind you--doesn’t rest content with theorizing-- actually builds it!

And then he has the effrontery to preside over its financial success, populating it with the undeserving middle class. And finally –-airtight evidence of moral terpitude—this unscrupulous manipulator makes a handsome profit off the whole sorry business!

Somebody ought to pass a law against this kind of royal insolence. Oh…somebody already has—thank God for the impartial perspicacity of the great (Lord) Norman Foster. Reason triumphs.

But wait, there’s even more: the moral decay extends all the way to this forum and specifically to where the slimy poster has actually smuggled into this post photographs of Poundbury, somewhat secure in the belief that most readers won’t detect them on their first pass.

The architects and planners of Britain are, naturally, spearheading a movement to prevent this kind of thing in the future. This will doubtless be applauded by all true believers, ideologues, historical determinists and zeitgeist mavens on this forum. Those who believe history is, like a tsunami, an irresistible force indifferent to the influence of human will are working hard to keep this from becoming a trend, for this would not fit their learned theories (until they looked back upon it years from now, of course; then it would seem obvious and inevitable).

In fact the only ones who don’t hate Poundbury are the fools who actually live there, most of those who have visited and those who haven’t had their wisdom handed down from the intellectual press, planners and architects. In truth, many unsophisticates actually don’t notice Poundbury, so closely does it resemble the rest of the sleepy town of Dorchester (except a little cleaner). If you are among those who can’t positively identify the Poundbury pics in this post, you know exactly what this means.

For the real connoisseurs of kitsch, I have also sneaked in a picture or two of Portmeirion, a genuine counterfeit (this was actually a hotel masquerading as a town). In its dedication to craftsmanship, proportion and what its creator called “beauty” this was in some ways a spiritual forerunner of Poundbury; but here too the developer was aristocratic, and therefore of course his work deserves a priori condemnation. Inexplicably, Frank Lloyd Wright liked it.



Meanwhile, the slimy Prince plans to inflict further outrages upon the proponents of Modernism and zeitgeist theory, who will never be satisfied with anything less than total domination of all that is built (except perhaps for the genuinely awful subdivisions that here and there make their appearance but are too mousy to even take note of, much less hate. Wonder who designs these? Can it be architects?).

Even worse is what he must intend for his future subjects: this is all clearly just a Trojan horse for a wider scheme to thrust us back into the Middle Ages. Along with Poundbury, he no doubt plans to reintroduce serfdom, les droits du seigneur and cockfighting, at the very least.

Back to the LA Times:


Both [residents of Kingham] are former employees at the local agricultural machinery works that went bust in the 1980s. Palmer has turned to oil painting for income, while Tyack sells firewood and carves wooden sculptures on the side.



"When you are going back, life was quite a bit different," Palmer said. "People then never went out of the village, never even for a holiday. You played about on the village green, and later on, that magic morning arrived when you had children of your own and they played on the green too.





"Now, there are newer houses, incoming people, people on the move all the time…. Now you could say there are village people, and town people living in the village. It's a different style, not quite us and them, but a little bit of that."



I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.





* * *

BITS AND PIECES

Both the architectural and planning profession are saturated with received wisdom (received folly?). Here’s something you can expect to hear: “Yeah, but they built all that stuff in the past, when that was how they did things.” Do you see the historical determinism? Implicitly, you have to add in your mind: “And of course you can’t do that now.”


Can you imagine getting this past the wetlands regulations?

Really? Why not? Because the greybeards said so? Inculcated us with avant-gardism while we thought we were free-thinkers?


Or this one? Good thing it was done hundreds of years ago; they’d make you take it down if you tried doing it today.

The other side of the coin is: “Yeah, but they had thousands of years to screw things up, while we’ve only had hundreds. How come we’ve screwed up America so much worse?”



Population density: UK, 639 per square mile; US, 81 per square mile. Can you tell by the relative condition of the countryside?






BLAKE’S POEM:

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.



As mentioned, I smuggled in a couple of Poundbury pictures to see if you would catch them. Hint: they’re the ones that look freshly built. In about fifty years they will be nice and dirty (or weathered) like the older buildings. Otherwise, they’re indistinguishable. They’re not really replicas, any more than a Dorchester house of 1820 is a replica of one built in 1620, just because they’re hard to tell apart.

It’s just continuation of a tradition. Rudely interrupted perhaps for a few decades, but who can account for human folly?

*Yawn*

Makes me long for a couple of nice pictures of sprawl. Ok, here they are:





Back to reality. Oh… we never left it.

Just a different reality.

Different and better.

 
Last edited:

nuovorecord

Cyburbian
Messages
444
Points
13
Great post, Ablarc! I appreciated both the photos and your commentary. It always amazes me that people love to visit areas that have preserved the feel and style of what you've posted, yet somehow can't bring themselves to realize that we could still be building those sorts of places yet today. Love or hate him, I have to applaud Price Charles on his desire to perpetuate quality design and development.
 

boilerplater

Cyburbian
Messages
916
Points
21
Another fascinating set of pics! Have you ever seen Gordon Cullen's Townscape?
Its full of sketches of scenes like those. Its out of print now. One of my favorite books in college. Yeah, I should have been reading more theory and all, but I preferred pretty pictures.

In much of suburban America we have neither zeitgeist nor historic authenticity, just mindless sprawl. I'd take either one of the former.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
ablarc: I think you've outdone yourself again.

It is sad that a country "poorer" in many respects than us can clearly outdo us in the realm of the built environment.
 

Mud Princess

Cyburbian
Messages
4,898
Points
27
Beautiful! I'd live there if I could. There is more character in those communities than in entire regions of the U.S.
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
A very good post, really interesting and some great photographs. Thanks

Speaking as an English planner, I don't love or hate Prince Charles. His promnotion of good design and build is admirable, but equally, some of his comments over architecture I don't agree with.

From my point of view, Poundbury has some very good aspects, and has most importantly, raised the issue of good design in this country after decades of neglect. Poundbury was largely possible however because Prince Charles owned the land and thus was able to stipulate precisely the design and build in the project, and also importantly he is rich enough not to require maximum profits from his land.

One of the big issues here in the countryside now is the cost of housing. I am from a small village in Cambridgeshire where property values have rocketed due to the proximity to London (under an hour by train) and also the proliferation of the Cambridge economy throuigh bio-tech industries. Many of my friends still live in the area, and a fair number of them still live with their parents (at nearly 30); they simply can't afford to move out.

Affordable housing policies are becoming more and more stringent now - your post mentions the Yorkshire Dales; parts of Cornwall and Devon in the south west of the country have 100% affordable housing policies. All new housing developments in these areas have to be for local people at affordable prices, whether they be solely for rent or shared equity houses. This is also in response to the large number of second/holiday homes being built in these areas.

The photos made me wish that I knew Dorset better; I'm ashamed to say that its an area of the country I barely know. However, I am lucky enough to live in a beauitiful, working part of the country now.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,719
Points
58
BKM said:
It is sad that a country "poorer" in many respects than us can clearly outdo us in the realm of the built environment.
Well, England has about 1,000 years of precedent on the U.S., so that helps.
 

Breed

Cyburbian
Messages
592
Points
17
I know I give you alot of crap for your idealistic notions of what is possible in the United States, but this article was an enjoyable read.

ablarc said:
Along with Poundbury, he no doubt plans to reintroduce serfdom, les droits du seigneur and cockfighting, at the very least.

Cockfighting? Hot damn! That alone is reason enough to follow his lead. There was a pig fighting ring uncovered in a nearby county. Honestly, I know it's unscrupulous and distasteful... but I think I'd actually enjoy watching one.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
Breed said:
I know I give you alot of crap for your idealistic notions of what is possible in the United States, but this article was an enjoyable read.





Cockfighting? Hot damn! That alone is reason enough to follow his lead. There was a pig fighting ring uncovered in a nearby county. Honestly, I know it's unscrupulous and distasteful... but I think I'd actually enjoy watching one.

Edited by BKM due to uncalled for nastyness. Animal fighting does sicken me, though.
 

The One

Cyburbian
Messages
8,289
Points
30
Fantastic Post

I would like to nominate ablarc as the official Cyburbia Photographer/Artistic Image Producer.... :D

The thing with the UK for me is, where do all the people live.......For a place with 60 million people, they are well hidden......I'm sure this is just my "Americanized" sense of housing and sprawl..... ;-)

That 3rd picture looks exactly like a view south of Kelso Scotland into northern England......so nice........... :-o

This whole post makes me wish I still lived in a rural area...... :(
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
The One said:
I would like to nominate ablarc as the official Cyburbia Photographer/Artistic Image Producer.... :D

The thing with the UK for me is, where do all the people live.......For a place with 60 million people, they are well hidden......I'm sure this is just my "Americanized" sense of housing and sprawl..... ;-)

That 3rd picture looks exactly like a view south of Kelso Scotland into northern England......so nice........... :-o

This whole post makes me wish I still lived in a rural area...... :(


They probably live in crowded rowhouses and semi-detached?

As for the 100 years of history argument-true. But (and moving away from the point of the original post) much of the great urban and small city architecture in Britain dates from the Victorian era.
 

ablarc

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
713
Points
20
Thank you all for the kind words.

noj, can you provide some links for English architecture or planning forums?

There is so much to explore in England. I live in a state that has exactly the land area of England and has glorious mountain scenery, but I can hardly imagine anyone from this state saying they had much more yet to see. You can get a pretty thorough grasp in not too much time; for starters, most of the state's development is suburban, which means that it is ab ovo not worth seeing (or more accurately, you see one example you've seen them all; nothing is site specific because everything rolls full-formed out of the same [idiotic] regulations).

We have about a half-dozen municipalities that you might regard as cities because they have skylines, and we have exactly seven surviving towns that haven't melted into Suburbia.

The countryside features beautiful mountains in the west, a sporadically scenic seashore, and in between, hundreds of miles of dreary, second-growth abandoned farms interspersed with subdivsions and strips.

If you want to see it all in a week your biggest impediment will be the long drives from one sight to the next.
 

boilerplater

Cyburbian
Messages
916
Points
21
boilerplater said:
Another fascinating set of pics! Have you ever seen Gordon Cullen's Townscape?
Its full of sketches of scenes like those. Its out of print now. One of my favorite books in college. Yeah, I should have been reading more theory and all, but I preferred pretty pictures.

In much of suburban America we have neither zeitgeist nor historic authenticity, just mindless sprawl. I'd take either one of the former.

I've got to get in the habit of checking Amazon before I say anything about a book. There is a more recent edition of Concise Townscape that is still available new. I'd recommend it to anyone who appreciates the features of English villages like the above or who has been commissioned to design something reminiscent of an English village. Hey, it could happen! The American appetite for simulacra seems to know no bounds. There are developments in California and Florida that are supposed to resemble Italian hill towns. Look how popular those Thomas Kinkade (aka the "Painter of Light") paintings are. They're almost always scenes of cutesy cottages in lush gardens. Their buyers must imagine themselves in these homes, enjoying the country life, taking cuttings from the garden, sitting by the fire...
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
noj, can you provide some links for English architecture or planning forums? [A Blarc]

Unfortunately not; I don't believe any really exist. There is one at the main planning site for the UK (http://www.planningresource.co.uk/pp/home/index.cfm but it is rarely used and attracts about one post a month.

I am yet to find a more up to date forum. I am currently looking for any architecture sites for you - I'll let you know if I find any good ones.

And on the other questions about where we fit all the people, a lot of us are in terraced houses and semi detached houses (including myself). This form of housing is a necessity in such a massively crowded island! There is a lot of crap housing development here though; mostly build in the period from the 1960s through to late 1990s. The 1980s to 1990s in particular produced a lot of housing which used a profligate amount of land -you know the sort of thing - pseudo Tudor executive five bedroom houses with double garages on 'gated' estates. Thankfully these are becoming rarer and rarer as good design in combination with higher density development are becoming far more common (particularly since 2001, when the Government released new guidance on housing development). Of course, there is still a place for large houses but I think that most people now accept that we have to increase housing densities and that good design can make this possible whilst still creating desirable places to live.
 

ablarc

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
713
Points
20
noj, I checked out that English planning site you recommended and even joined it. Then I discovered there doesn't seem any way to post pictures. No wonder it has so little action.
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
19,069
Points
70
ablarc said:
noj, can you provide some links for English architecture or planning forums?

[ot]I'd like Cyburbia to be a forum where planners from the UKoGBaNI can feel welcome. You'll notice "UK development control" included in the description for the Zoning, Land Use and Current Planning subforum, for one thing.

Here's a draft of a form letter I plan on sending out to Cyburbians registering from *.uk addresses.



If you're a planner in the UK ...

Welcome to the Cyburbia Forums!

Even though the discussion found in the forums can seem North America/Australia-centric, we welcome and encourage participation from planners and others interested in the built environment from around the world.

There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg syndrome when it comes to participation by UK planners. "I don't want to post because there is nobody that can answer my question." We know the planning system in the UK is much different than the comprehensive plan/zoning system used in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and not many will be familiar with specific planning acts or processes. That doesn't mean we don't share the same challenges -- urban sprawl, transport problems, out-of-town retail development, the decline of our main/high streets, or a struggle to preserve a "sense of place" in our cities and towns. Don't let our accents stop you from discussing topics that may or may not be unique to your side off the pond.

Why not spread the word to your colleauges? We'd like to make this resource as useful to you as it is to planners elsewhere; that will only be possible with a critical mass of UK planners. Can you help out?

Cheers!

Dan
Cyburbia Webmaster
[/ot]
 

Journeymouse

Cyburbian
Messages
443
Points
13
noj said:
One of the big issues here in the countryside now is the cost of housing. I am from a small village in Cambridgeshire where property values have rocketed due to the proximity to London (under an hour by train) and also the proliferation of the Cambridge economy throuigh bio-tech industries. Many of my friends still live in the area, and a fair number of them still live with their parents (at nearly 30); they simply can't afford to move out.

Affordable housing policies are becoming more and more stringent now - your post mentions the Yorkshire Dales; parts of Cornwall and Devon in the south west of the country have 100% affordable housing policies. All new housing developments in these areas have to be for local people at affordable prices, whether they be solely for rent or shared equity houses. This is also in response to the large number of second/holiday homes being built in these areas.

Seconded, although I find the affordable relative ;-) I grew up in rural Humberside (East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire now). I probably won't be able to afford to buy a similar place for retirement never mind for raising my hypothetical children, unless I drop lucky with right combination of job, place and partner. This mainly arises because I moved out with University and so I am no longer classed as a local to where I grew up, nor for any of the areas I've lived in or wished to move to. On top of that, as someone who grew up in a relatively 'cheap' area, I have a different idea of 'affordable' than noj, who grew up in a 'richer' area.
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
Journeymouse said:
Seconded, although I find the affordable relative ;-) I grew up in rural Humberside (East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire now). I probably won't be able to afford to buy a similar place for retirement never mind for raising my hypothetical children, unless I drop lucky with right combination of job, place and partner. This mainly arises because I moved out with University and so I am no longer classed as a local to where I grew up, nor for any of the areas I've lived in or wished to move to. On top of that, as someone who grew up in a relatively 'cheap' area, I have a different idea of 'affordable' than noj, who grew up in a 'richer' area.

It varies obviously. And I think, as a planner generally there are becoming less and less areas which can be deemed as affordable. Despite growing up in Cambridgeshire, I never actually bought/rented a house there, as like you I effectively moved out when I went to University. I now rent a place and am also doubtful whether I'll be able to get back onto the 'property ladder' in the future. Think I'll just have to keep on moving further and further north.... ;)
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
Sounds about right - either there or Rockall :)

Mind you, I hear its a bit blowy up there at the moment. ;)
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
ablarc said:
Ok you limeys, give us your opinion of this in the context of England's overall environmental health. This topic also appears over at L'Urbanite, http://www.urbanphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96&start=0, where the doom-and-gloomers see this trend as very nearly the end of the world (the end of England, for sure).

LOL ablarc. We're just not all ready to live in The Shire yet :)

BKM. Whose dream is NOT a country cottage, depsite the charm thereof
 

Journeymouse

Cyburbian
Messages
443
Points
13
ablarc said:
Ok you limeys, give us your opinion of this in the context of England's overall environmental health. This topic also appears over at L'Urbanite, http://www.urbanphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96&start=0, where the doom-and-gloomers see this trend as very nearly the end of the world (the end of England, for sure).

My prediction (but I'm not a planner):
  • The 'Home Counties' (or 'Southern England') are likely to get settled more by the escaping townies, as the majority of British/English people live in the 'South East' (generally London, Kent, and the bits of Surrey and Essex close to London) and they will want to spread out. It won't be quite as crowded as 'suburbia', but the 'Home Counties' are laid out in such a way that villages are only very short distances from each other. The best example is the region known as the Weald in Kent and Sussex. You can walk down a country road (if you're brave enough to take on the car-drivers) and usually walk through about 3 villages in half an hour or so. They're that close together without expansion. The countryside will continue to exist, but there'll be no 'wide-open spaces' of any great significance. Other areas around the major cities in Wales (yes, they do have them :p ) and Scotland will also spread out.
  • The area usually described as 'Home Counties' will spread to include most of England, held back at the mountainous (ok, so it's only 300m, give us a break!)/remote regions, National Parks and 'Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty'. The mountainous/remote because of the logistics and the other two due to planning regs. But they all overlap, anyway, so it's a moot(sp?) point. There will probably be a similar expansion across South East Wales (i.e. Glamorgan), which was already fairly well populated for Wales, and around Edinburgh and Glasgow. There may be other areas, but I don't know enough about Scotland to suggest them.
It's not really a difficult to come up with any of the above. The UK has a big population and its getting bigger. It doesn't even have to be very depressing if it's done properly. But, from here on are the really depressing, probably bordering on paranoid predictions I have that will really screw things up:
  • This lowland 'Home Counties' is more than likely to get flooded within the next 20 to 50 years, due to the aggravated climate change and rising sea levels that we've brought on ourselves. This means people are going to have to move - but will they and can they? A lot of South Wales are also going to suffer from this, being a relatively low-lying area, which means the SE Wales expansion will flood, too.
  • I also predict (and this is just my opinion, I can't cite anything to prove it) that the Gulf Stream will probably be stopped in a similar length of time - maybe closer to 50 to 80 years. So Ireland and Britain will finally suffer the same weather as everywhere else on the same latitude and for a change, we'll actually have something to complain about as it will have got colder and there will probably be more riverine floods and more storms.
  • The 'South East' and increasingly the 'Home Counties' suffer highly elevated living costs in relation to the rest of Britain. At some point, these will crash. It will probably because the people who perform the 'menial', low wage jobs can no longer afford to live there, which they're pushing towards now. But if the 'South East' keeps it together long enough, it'll be above climate changes that kick the riots off. Other flooding areas may see similar action, but probably after the 'South East'.
  • Although we're regionalising to some degree, the main government functions are still in London. Unless they plan on moving, these functions are likely to be destroyed or at least forcibly removed when the above combine. The Welsh Assembly is probably going to suffer a similar fate in Cardiff (South Wales).

<puts foil back on head to protect self from the alien signals>
And yes, I am hoping to end up somewhere hilly and away from the sea before all this happens... ;-)
 

ablarc

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
713
Points
20
Journeymouse, have you been watching disaster movies?

First I've heard about the Gulf Stream's demise; is that your theory or did some scientist come up with that?
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,934
Points
37
ablarc said:
First I've heard about the Gulf Stream's demise; is that your theory or did some scientist come up with that?

No, it's quite possible - the rate of current has been slowing for some reason and I don't think anyone has figured out quite why or what will happen next. I seem to recall reading an article about a multi-national scientific study on this.

I think, for better or worse, we're going to see more skyscraper-type development in the UK in order to accommodate growth, at least within the urban centres. I just hope they do a better job of it than the last time it was seriously attempted. British high-rises from the 1960s have to be some of the worst buildings every put up.
 

Journeymouse

Cyburbian
Messages
443
Points
13
Continuing my earlier diversion:
I don't need to watch disaster movies - the office side of conservation work supplies all the doom and gloom for me. I know there have been scientific papers about the future global environmental changes, but for the life of me I can't tell you a good place to look. However, for a real depressing view on these things, just check out the 'prehistoric' geology, etc. I'm surprised those scentists don't get suicidally depressed, but maybe they concentrate on the past so much that they don't realise their statistics should also work in a forward direction...

With regard to high rise living, check out Park Hill, Sheffield:
Park Hill photie
Grade 2 listed
Background
It was intended to continue the street communities of the families that were moved there when it was built, but as you can imagine it didn't last long...
 

boilerplater

Cyburbian
Messages
916
Points
21
I thought it was supposed to be more of a re-routing of the gulf stream. It is glaciers calving on Greenland's west coast and floating south as icebergs that has caused the gulf stream to turn east as it hits the cold meltwater from the icebergs and head to the British Isles. With global warming, they predict, that there wont be as many icebergs heading south to have this turning effect on the gulf stream. A possible scenario is that the gulf stream would continue its northward flow along the North American coast. Presumably that would make the Maritimes warmer. Maybe some shivering limeys would want to move there. As Donk has shown us, real estate is very cheap up there now.
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
ablarc said:
Ok you limeys, give us your opinion of this in the context of England's overall environmental health. This topic also appears over at L'Urbanite, http://www.urbanphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96&start=0, where the doom-and-gloomers see this trend as very nearly the end of the world (the end of England, for sure).

Blimey! Fighting talk on that forum! For the record I don’t agree with many of the comments shown on that forum.

The trend of migration to the countryside has been happening in England for many years and will continue to do so. It is partly as a result of the vision of a rural idyll perpetuated by the media and the general public. I am from a village and have my own vision of a rural idyll (on my desk I have a calendar showing lovely pictures of my village, thatched cottages etc). In England, particularly, we have always had this idea of a bucolic stress free countryside life.

The major problem with this is the pushing up of house prices in these countryside areas. I don’t consider that this necessarily leads to building in the countryside however. In general planning policies governing building in the countryside are very strong, and exceptions can only be made for affordable housing for local people. Of course, it is a problem but it is recognised and policies are being used to help create this affordable housing.

The planning policies covering housing in this country were radically overhauled in 2001 and several new key items were introduced into national planning policy. The main effect of these policies were the increase of housing density, the promotion of building on previously developed land, and the promotion of good design.

Housing density is now a vital issue, with new developments expected to be at or above 30 houses to the hectare (and above 50 to the hectare in many urban areas with good transport links) with very few exceptions. The Government even has the power to ‘call in’ any applications in the South East which are at a density below 30 to the hectare.

New housing is now largely be sited on previously developed land (‘brownfield’ land). The targets for different regions and areas vary, but in general between 60-80% of new housing is expected to be built on brownfield, rather than greenfield land. This policy has helped lead to the regeneration of many urban areas and as the policy is nationwide it has led to a level playing field on land and land values have had to vary accordingly to take into account the possible effect of decontaminating land before building on it (I used to work for a housebuilder).

The combination of the two policies above and the promotion of good design, together with regeneration grants from central government and Europe has led to some big improvements in many cities across the country. Of course, there are still problems in most cities but generally the picture is far better, I believe, than it was 10 years ago.

The current government has also done a better job of sharing things around the country. Many regional cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds have experienced varying degrees of regeneration when previously much of the monies available may have spent in London. Some government departments have also moved out to regional areas to help the local economy and regenerate the cities.

The challenge now is to combine the twin policies of urban regeneration and high density living, without making the same mistakes of the Sixties in creating ‘high rise horrors’ (copyright some Tabloid newspaper)*. A lot of the schemes recently constructed and in the pipeline look pretty good and propose a mixed tenure, which is important. As always, good design will be paramount in making such schemes work. But then again, only time will tell….

What is for sure is that we need higher density living to work in this country. With the need for housing continuing to grow, due to population increase and primarily the increase in households, there is a big demand for housing. And we are a very crowded island. Inevitably some of this housing is going to have to be built in the countryside. My personal preference when countryside building is required is for new sustainable communities to be built from scratch. Cambourne, near Cambridge is a fairly good example of a recent such community. It has a few problems, such as a lack of a rail link, fairly low density and no pub (?!) but is a fairly good template IMHO.

I should point out here that I’m not a fan of Labour or many of their policies, but I feel that generally their planning policies have made good sense. There will probably be an election here this year (my guess May) and I dread to think what would happen if the Conservatives were to get in. They’re jumping on every NIMBY bandwagon going at the moment. :-{

*Incidentally, re Park Hill, and many other nasty tower blocks, I blame Le Corbusier. Okay, I know we were all involved (I’m using the royal ‘we’ here, I wasn’t born!); planners, architects, elected members etc. but you just know that the Park Hill planning application was accompanied with some architects impression drawing of how it would look. And this would involve the sunshine, smiling couples walking hand in hand, children playing and everybody generally looking extremely happy at their own lump of concrete. ‘Streets in the Sky’ has got a lot to answer for… :cool:
 

ablarc

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
713
Points
20
noj said:
Blimey! Fighting talk on that forum! For the record I don’t agree with many of the comments shown on that forum.

Nor do I, noj. Why don't you register over there and tell 'em what you think.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
noj said:
The current government has also done a better job of sharing things around the country. Many regional cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds have experienced varying degrees of regeneration when previously much of the monies available may have spent in London. Some government departments have also moved out to regional areas to help the local economy and regenerate the cities.

There was an excellent photo survey of Leeds posted on the city's site that makes that city, at least, look quite impressive. Some quite nice projects, with street scenes and quality of urban design and furnishings that almost any medium size American or Canadian city would envy. Is it simply that Britain has better craftsmanship? I've read that American construction quality is the worst in the developed world, with a get-it-done-cheaply-and-shoddily attitude that is reflected in our built environment. (More doom and gloom? Perhaps).

I'm a big fan of Satanic Mills-type cities as well (a willful ignorance of the social horrors in favor of the monumental arrogance of the red brick cityscape??) Manchester, I've read, is coming quite alive again, and I'm happy to read about the innovative reuse of the old mills.
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
Manchester is very vibrant at the moment, and has been for the last ten years or so. Urban Splash are one of the most prominent regeneration companies who have specialised in reusing mills, mostly in the North West.

If you're into satanic mills, then I actually live within the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site, no less. See Derby council site and also 'Derbyshire - the peak district site' (probably better) for details. Masson Mill has been converted into shopping, but actually has been done quite well; retains most original features including some floors, and has museum. The orginal Arkwright Mill is a two minute walk from my house and is slowly being done up sympathetically, after being virtually derelict in the 1970s.

ablarc - Nor do I, noj. Why don't you register over there and tell 'em what you think.
. Following your advice, I've done precisely that. :)
 

boiker

Cyburbian
Messages
3,889
Points
26
Tranplanner said:
No, it's quite possible - the rate of current has been slowing for some reason and I don't think anyone has figured out quite why or what will happen next. I seem to recall reading an article about a multi-national scientific study on this.

I think, for better or worse, we're going to see more skyscraper-type development in the UK in order to accommodate growth, at least within the urban centres. I just hope they do a better job of it than the last time it was seriously attempted. British high-rises from the 1960s have to be some of the worst buildings every put up.

Much of the gulf streams action is based on energy transfer..Actually, it's the only reason we have weather. With the Gulf Stream, the differential between ocean temps in the arctic and the tropics (along with the earths rotation) causes the clockwise circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. We appear to be in a phase of climate shift where the average global temperature is on the increase. Most noted are the impressive average temperature increases in the polar regions. Temperatures in the equatorial regions havn't increased as much and in some observations have declined.

As the differential narrows, the strength of the currents decline and the gulf stream energy conveyer system breaks down.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
noj said:
Manchester is very vibrant at the moment, and has been for the last ten years or so. Urban Splash are one of the most prominent regeneration companies who have specialised in reusing mills, mostly in the North West.

If you're into satanic mills, then I actually live within the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site, no less. See Derby council site and also 'Derbyshire - the peak district site' (probably better) for details. Masson Mill has been converted into shopping, but actually has been done quite well; retains most original features including some floors, and has museum. The orginal Arkwright Mill is a two minute walk from my house and is slowly being done up sympathetically, after being virtually derelict in the 1970s.

. Following your advice, I've done precisely that. :)

Awesome! I know that it's easy to romanticize the old mills. But, think-will future generations be rhapsodizing about concrete tilt up junk spread in our current industrial "parks"? I think not. (But then, maybe I'm wrong: "Live in the Historic Lofts at Bypass WalMart Distribution Center" :) )
 

ablarc

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
713
Points
20
As wealth gravitates upward, and as mobility increases and geographic location diminishes in its importance to work, the world's beauty spots are being snapped up by the mobile rich, mostly for second homes. Such diverse but charming places as New York's West Village, Charleston, Portofino, Carmel, San Francisco, Boston, Brooklyn et al. are all getting priced into the stratosphere for all but the super-rich, who often own half-a-dozen or more homes around the globe.

Supply and demand is at work here; to bring the prices down, we obviously need to build more beauty spots.
 

jimi_d

Cyburbian
Messages
93
Points
4
BKM said:
There was an excellent photo survey of Leeds posted on the city's site that makes that city, at least, look quite impressive. Some quite nice projects, with street scenes and quality of urban design and furnishings that almost any medium size American or Canadian city would envy. Is it simply that Britain has better craftsmanship? I've read that American construction quality is the worst in the developed world, with a get-it-done-cheaply-and-shoddily attitude that is reflected in our built environment. (More doom and gloom? Perhaps).

Leeds is a nice enough place. Totally weird in certain ways (like how most of the city is north of the city centre), but has some nice instances of real planning.

I'm a big fan of Satanic Mills-type cities as well (a willful ignorance of the social horrors in favor of the monumental arrogance of the red brick cityscape??) Manchester, I've read, is coming quite alive again, and I'm happy to read about the innovative reuse of the old mills.

I'm a fan of Satanic Mills-type cities too. I also happen to live in one (although it was more dark Satanic smithys and jewellers' round here).
 

jimi_d

Cyburbian
Messages
93
Points
4
noj said:
The trend of migration to the countryside has been happening in England for many years and will continue to do so. It is partly as a result of the vision of a rural idyll perpetuated by the media and the general public. I am from a village and have my own vision of a rural idyll (on my desk I have a calendar showing lovely pictures of my village, thatched cottages etc). In England, particularly, we have always had this idea of a bucolic stress free countryside life.

The major problem with this is the pushing up of house prices in these countryside areas. I don’t consider that this necessarily leads to building in the countryside however. In general planning policies governing building in the countryside are very strong, and exceptions can only be made for affordable housing for local people. Of course, it is a problem but it is recognised and policies are being used to help create this affordable housing.

The migration to the country is also caused by the price of houses in London and Birmingham. How long is it until someone realises that the green belt policy has not worked?

The planning policies covering housing in this country were radically overhauled in 2001 and several new key items were introduced into national planning policy. The main effect of these policies were the increase of housing density, the promotion of building on previously developed land, and the promotion of good design.

Not far enough. We need real local government before we can get anything done.

Housing density is now a vital issue, with new developments expected to be at or above 30 houses to the hectare (and above 50 to the hectare in many urban areas with good transport links) with very few exceptions. The Government even has the power to ‘call in’ any applications in the South East which are at a density below 30 to the hectare.

And our transport system may be better than Amtrak, but it's still not good enough. Nevertheless, the government don't seem to know what they're doing to sort it out. To date, we have no Brumderground and no King's Line.

New housing is now largely be sited on previously developed land (‘brownfield’ land). The targets for different regions and areas vary, but in general between 60-80% of new housing is expected to be built on brownfield, rather than greenfield land. This policy has helped lead to the regeneration of many urban areas and as the policy is nationwide it has led to a level playing field on land and land values have had to vary accordingly to take into account the possible effect of decontaminating land before building on it (I used to work for a housebuilder).

It's also led to some very silly developments. Look at the sites of the former mental hospitals in Epsom, Surrey, and you'll see that the developers have been allowed to develop the hospital sites, but not the wasteland alongside them. The other problem with this kind of redevelopment is thatr the little strips left for public transport infrastructure get built on, limiting our further capacity for development.

The current government has also done a better job of sharing things around the country. Many regional cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds have experienced varying degrees of regeneration when previously much of the monies available may have spent in London. Some government departments have also moved out to regional areas to help the local economy and regenerate the cities.

The current government doesn't care about Birmingham. They don't even care about real Londoners. Instead they waste taxpayers' money on schemes to benefit Canary Wharf SCAs trying to get to Airports. Then there's their diversion of billions of pounds to Defence, which really should be cut seeing as the only countries we border are also in the EU.

The challenge now is to combine the twin policies of urban regeneration and high density living, without making the same mistakes of the Sixties in creating ‘high rise horrors’ (copyright some Tabloid newspaper)*. A lot of the schemes recently constructed and in the pipeline look pretty good and propose a mixed tenure, which is important. As always, good design will be paramount in making such schemes work. But then again, only time will tell….

The problem with the 60s view of densification was the leap from 2 to 12 storeys. Without intermediate densities, it was bound to look strange. Also, someone seems to have forgotten what a street was about then.

What is for sure is that we need higher density living to work in this country. With the need for housing continuing to grow, due to population increase and primarily the increase in households, there is a big demand for housing. And we are a very crowded island. Inevitably some of this housing is going to have to be built in the countryside. My personal preference when countryside building is required is for new sustainable communities to be built from scratch. Cambourne, near Cambridge is a fairly good example of a recent such community. It has a few problems, such as a lack of a rail link, fairly low density and no pub (?!) but is a fairly good template IMHO.

Unfortunately, the lack of rail links is the key weakness in this country. With the Ministry of Transport's mandarins hell-bent on roads and the rail industry having been splintered to the extent of everyone billing eachother, costs escalating, and no effective leadership, planning seems to effectively ignore railways. This weakness goes back a long way. If you ever read any of Abercrombie's plans, it quickly becomes clear that he has no idea on railways.

I should point out here that I’m not a fan of Labour or many of their policies, but I feel that generally their planning policies have made good sense. There will probably be an election here this year (my guess May) and I dread to think what would happen if the Conservatives were to get in. They’re jumping on every NIMBY bandwagon going at the moment. :-{

I'm going to vote Lib Dem for the first time ever. The Tory bandwaggons have now gone too far - their immigration policy at least is sheer populism and contrary to all economic sense.

*Incidentally, re Park Hill, and many other nasty tower blocks, I blame Le Corbusier. Okay, I know we were all involved (I’m using the royal ‘we’ here, I wasn’t born!); planners, architects, elected members etc. but you just know that the Park Hill planning application was accompanied with some architects impression drawing of how it would look. And this would involve the sunshine, smiling couples walking hand in hand, children playing and everybody generally looking extremely happy at their own lump of concrete. ‘Streets in the Sky’ has got a lot to answer for… :cool:

We shouldn't demonise Jeanneret. There's a lot of good in his books, although you have to be nearly as mad as him to be able to read them.
 

jimi_d

Cyburbian
Messages
93
Points
4
Journeymouse said:
[*]The area usually described as 'Home Counties' will spread to include most of England,

At any sensible density, that is absurd. At the current density of Greater London, you could fit the population of the EU into the Thames basin. Remember that for each mile you get further away from the centre, the area of the circle you've extended by is larger.

It's not really a difficult to come up with any of the above. The UK has a big population and its getting bigger. It doesn't even have to be very depressing if it's done properly.

It's not growing at anything near worrying rates. In fact, a population rise is in our economic interests.

This lowland 'Home Counties' is more than likely to get flooded within the next 20 to 50 years, due to the aggravated climate change and rising sea levels that we've brought on ourselves. This means people are going to have to move - but will they and can they? A lot of South Wales are also going to suffer from this, being a relatively low-lying area, which means the SE Wales expansion will flood, too.

Have you any idea how mountainous South Wales is? Yes, there are valleys, but they are quite steep. You should look at the gradient profiles of some of the railways round there. GWR men used to joke about the geographical coincidence of one particular line ending by the Abergavenny Lunatic Asylum.

The 'South East' and increasingly the 'Home Counties' suffer highly elevated living costs in relation to the rest of Britain. At some point, these will crash. It will probably because the people who perform the 'menial', low wage jobs can no longer afford to live there, which they're pushing towards now.

That is a real fear. At the very least we'll end up very quickly in mediaeval levels of deprivation.

Although we're regionalising to some degree, the main government functions are still in London. Unless they plan on moving, these functions are likely to be destroyed or at least forcibly removed when the above combine. The Welsh Assembly is probably going to suffer a similar fate in Cardiff (South Wales).

I sure wouldn't mind taking power away from Whitehall.
 
Messages
1,580
Points
21
I'd like to point out that countryside in England (taken as an average) is far more dense than countryside here, hence the rail connections. It's almost a misnomer to call it rural. Things are quite structured and populous.
 

Journeymouse

Cyburbian
Messages
443
Points
13
jimi_d said:
Have you any idea how mountainous South Wales is? Yes, there are valleys, but they are quite steep. You should look at the gradient profiles of some of the railways round there. GWR men used to joke about the geographical coincidence of one particular line ending by the Abergavenny Lunatic Asylum.

I'd like to think I have a fair idea, having been out in it a time or two :-D . However, I bet the valleys themselves, where the majority of the development, is aren't over 50m above sea level and that is what it's going to need to be to survive a decent melt. A lot of the highground is scarcly useable because it is so steep.

What scares me most about the population spread into the British countryside is not the density. Or rather it is. If everyone wants their acre of the 'Good Life', then it's a pretty quick way of ending up in densities that make providing things public transport economically unviable. Much like the villages in the Home Counties that are only half miles apart, but have little transport beyond private cars between them. (Incidentally, the villages that I grew up in in Humberside were similar but seperated by several miles.) Also, in these villages, services such as shops, post offices and pubs are closing all the time, because they can't get enough money to stay open. From an economic point of view, this is a good thing. From a social and environmental point of view it is a minor disaster. The economic argument is not necessarily the only argument, it is just people tend to assume it is because it gives the immediate, short term benefits.

Finally, I agree, power from Whitehall is a good thing - we just need alternative power bases set up before the crash. :)

At this point, I would like to point out that I am not stockpiling food or weaponry, or for that matter building a shelter in a remote place, to escape/prepare myself for the bad times. I'm not sure I could say that if I had the money and the contacts, tho'... :-$
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
Originally quoted by jimid: The migration to the country is also caused by the price of houses in London and Birmingham. How long is it until someone realises that the green belt policy has not worked?

That’s a very big statement to make against what is probably the most popular planning policy around (in the minds of the general public anyway). There have been negative impacts of the Green Belt policy, but what would have happened without it? In one word, sprawl. I realise there is an argument which says that the sprawl has just happened on the outer edge of the circle, instead of on the edge of the city and has therefore increased journey times and car movements.

Not far enough. We need real local government before we can get anything done.

I agree, but credit where credit is due. The fact is that the planning system is still trying to recover from the virtual decimation of the profession during the Thatcher years. We’re getting there slowly, but surely. And unfortunately following the rejection of Regional Government in the North East, ‘real local government ‘ is further off now.

And our transport system may be better than Amtrak, but it's still not good enough. Nevertheless, the government don't seem to know what they're doing to sort it out. To date, we have no Brumderground and no King's Line.

I agree. We desperately need proper funding of public transport, and especially trains. Again, a lot of this stems from the privatisation of the railways by Thatcher.

It's also led to some very silly developments. Look at the sites of the former mental hospitals in Epsom, Surrey, and you'll see that the developers have been allowed to develop the hospital sites, but not the wasteland alongside them. The other problem with this kind of redevelopment is that the little strips left for public transport infrastructure get built on, limiting our further capacity for development.

There are always negative points to every policy and ‘bad’ development can always be found to cite to advance your cause. Generally, however, IMO it was and is a necessary policy.

The current government doesn't care about Birmingham. They don't even care about real Londoners. Instead they waste taxpayers' money on schemes to benefit Canary Wharf SCAs trying to get to Airports. Then there's their diversion of billions of pounds to Defence, which really should be cut seeing as the only countries we border are also in the EU.

I agree on the Defence issue. The current government, as all Government, cares about its power, and where its votes are going to come from.

I'm going to vote Lib Dem for the first time ever. The Tory bandwaggons have now gone too far - their immigration policy at least is sheer populism and contrary to all economic sense.

I’m going to vote tactically, as always. The Tories are not a viable alternative and there are too many remnants of the Thatcher years. Speaking professionally as a planner, and personally as someone who has a lot of family in the South Yorkshire coal fields, I simply cannot stomach voting Conservative because of these memories.

We shouldn't demonise Jeanneret. There's a lot of good in his books, although you have to be nearly as mad as him to be able to read them.

LOL. Very true. I just look at the pictures. :)
 

boilerplater

Cyburbian
Messages
916
Points
21
That development you linked, Cambourne, looks much nicer than the average developments we have here. Maybe they composed their photos of the houses carefully, but none of the views seemed to have identical houses. Another thing I noticed is that the houses look more settled and solid. Maybe its the heavy use of brick and other masonry. They also seem to use larger trees and shrubs. Most of the new developments in the US tend to look more raw. Is that considered an upper-income project?
 

jimi_d

Cyburbian
Messages
93
Points
4
noj said:
That’s a very big statement to make against what is probably the most popular planning policy around (in the minds of the general public anyway). There have been negative impacts of the Green Belt policy, but what would have happened without it? In one word, sprawl. I realise there is an argument which says that the sprawl has just happened on the outer edge of the circle, instead of on the edge of the city and has therefore increased journey times and car movements.

And each of those places beyond the greenbelt is totally car-dependent, has no decent local facilities, etc. Just the sort of place you'd want to stick the young, the old, and the poor. Then the other effect of the green belt policy is to discourage development, resulting in cities which are too expensive for the young and the poor to live in. Then prices rise, living standards fall, DIY doomsday kinda thing - it's well on the way to wrecking London and Birmingham. The effect is exactly the same as the mediaeval city wall - economically speaking, it's part of a poor-be-damned, closed-shop, low growth culture.

Green belts are popular as a policy simply because they are universally understood. They are overly simplistic as a concept. Furthermore, they are geometrically unsound. A far more efficient ratio of green frontier to surface area is to allow the green space to hold the inside of the geometrical figure and allow development around all sides of it. Of course the average city park, consisting of a field, three trees, and a dilapidated tennis court, is totally inadequate as a natural habitat as well as a recreation area. We should be looking to larger expanses of nature. Take, for instance, Sutton Park in Sutton Coldfield, north Birmingham. It is totally surrounded by town, but nevertheless it contains an SSSI, a whole range of natural habitats, and wild animals ranging from voles to horses. Not bad for 2,800 acres. A similar area stretched around Birmingham's would have very little depth and mainly consist of monocultural poor to medium quality agriculture.

If we look at the six objectives of green belt land use (PPG2 1.6), 2,000-acre plus packets of truly useful green space seem a far better idea than a belt of poor quality countryside. These are

1 - to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population;
2 - to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas;
3 - to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live;

All of which are equally fulfilled by large green spaces inside towns to a greater extent than a remote belt.

4 - to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;

Really contradicts the idea of the green belt - green belts allow wasteful dereliction as demand for agriculture falls and demand for urbanism increases.

5 - to secure nature conservation interest; and

Again, equally compatible with bringing the green space within the urban fabric.

6 - to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

This is bound to be a failure. If the demand is not there for agriculture, it won't be economic regardless. With British agriculture more efficient than ever, we are operating at a subsidised surplus. We need more urbanites to consume the farms' produce. You cannot buck the market, remember.

The designation of green belts is based on even more dubious criteria, however. The lack of relation to the lands fitness for purpose is really quite astounding. From PPG2 1.5:

1 - to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

This would be far better done by being descriptive about what may and may not be built in urban areas. Green belts merely direct the market to socially brutal ends.

2 - to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

This is a joke. The only sense in which Redditch is not part of Birmingham is that there are a few natty fields in between. Economically and socially, the metropolis shall prevail. Trying to halt development to preserve some "Deep England" is doomed - these guys should stick to sentimentalist fiction.

3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

Wow, descriptivism at its best. Yes, that's what a green belt does, but it isn't a reason. Also, note the emotive language. These guys would get a U in Philosophy.

4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

Special character as far as socio-economic distinctness has already gone. Otherwise, ever heard of listed buildings? As for setting, it is best to direct planners to use their artistic judgement sympathetically rather than tie their hands (tools such as conservation areas are more appropriate here). There are some beautiful mediaeval village settings within our towns - look at Yardley, Birmingham.

5 - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Sequential development does not require green belts. Sometimes a relocation onto green land will free up brown land for further development. Flexibility is a must.

I agree, but credit where credit is due. The fact is that the planning system is still trying to recover from the virtual decimation of the profession during the Thatcher years. We’re getting there slowly, but surely. And unfortunately following the rejection of Regional Government in the North East, ‘real local government ‘ is further off now.

Thatcher was dangerous. She had some very good ideas and more sensible people were very slow to hi-jack them and therefore her danger was left unchecked.

As for Labour's regions, they are a half-baked, one-size-fits-all approach to local government, typically based on higher electoral boundaries. I do not know the North-East well enough to comment, but the West Midland Region as proposed consists of at least four real regions (namely Birmingham, Coventry, Stoke, and the rural Welsh Marches), the combination of which neuters the prospective purpose of any of them. Nor does it look like any real power is in the deal. It seems to be more a matter of taking from the City Council than taking from Whitehall.

I agree. We desperately need proper funding of public transport, and especially trains. Again, a lot of this stems from the privatisation of the railways by Thatcher.

It was Major, but privatisation was definitely a bad thing - to think they didn't learn after the mess they made of the Corporation Buses.

(on crazy definition of brownfield sites)
There are always negative points to every policy and ‘bad’ development can always be found to cite to advance your cause. Generally, however, IMO it was and is a necessary policy.

It's definitely a policy improvement, but it needs tweaking to stop more silly applications of it.

I agree on the Defence issue. The current government, as all Government, cares about its power, and where its votes are going to come from.

Well, I didn't vote for them, so I suppose I'm no loss to them.

I’m going to vote tactically, as always. The Tories are not a viable alternative and there are too many remnants of the Thatcher years. Speaking professionally as a planner, and personally as someone who has a lot of family in the South Yorkshire coal fields, I simply cannot stomach voting Conservative because of these memories.

I can't forgive them for abolishing University College Cardiff. I mean, I wanted a Fellowship!!!! ;)

(on the unreadability of Le Corbusier)
LOL. Very true. I just look at the pictures. :)

He was quite an artist. Although he was totally barking, I found his writings very thought-provoking and, if nothing else, they improved my French. I often wonder what a Hegelian synthesis of Jeanneret and Kevin Lynch would be like!
 

jimi_d

Cyburbian
Messages
93
Points
4
noj said:
If you're into satanic mills, then I actually live within the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site, no less. See Derby council site and also 'Derbyshire - the peak district site' (probably better) for details. Masson Mill has been converted into shopping, but actually has been done quite well; retains most original features including some floors, and has museum. The orginal Arkwright Mill is a two minute walk from my house and is slowly being done up sympathetically, after being virtually derelict in the 1970s.

WOW!!! And there's a great bookshop in Cromford!!! (You lucky sod for living in such a great part of the country.)

Anyway, I've often wondered how they got away with Masson. It seems to fly in the face of Planning Policy (for instance, look at PPG6 1.8ff).
 

jimi_d

Cyburbian
Messages
93
Points
4
Journeymouse said:
I'd like to think I have a fair idea, having been out in it a time or two :-D . However, I bet the valleys themselves, where the majority of the development, is aren't over 50m above sea level and that is what it's going to need to be to survive a decent melt. A lot of the highground is scarcly useable because it is so steep.

Parts of Cwm Rhondda are over 200m above sea level. Of course, Cwm Nedd would be totally screwed (I can just imagine the denizens of Neath running up the Cimla)! You lose some, you draw some, as the Cardiff City fan said.

What scares me most about the population spread into the British countryside is not the density. Or rather it is. If everyone wants their acre of the 'Good Life', then it's a pretty quick way of ending up in densities that make providing things public transport economically unviable. Much like the villages in the Home Counties that are only half miles apart, but have little transport beyond private cars between them. (Incidentally, the villages that I grew up in in Humberside were similar but seperated by several miles.) Also, in these villages, services such as shops, post offices and pubs are closing all the time, because they can't get enough money to stay open. From an economic point of view, this is a good thing. From a social and environmental point of view it is a minor disaster. The economic argument is not necessarily the only argument, it is just people tend to assume it is because it gives the immediate, short term benefits.

Strictly speaking, economics isn't a matter of good or bad - it's amoral. You just have to guide society towards using the market as good citizens would.

At this point, I would like to point out that I am not stockpiling food or weaponry, or for that matter building a shelter in a remote place, to escape/prepare myself for the bad times. I'm not sure I could say that if I had the money and the contacts, tho'... :-$

Don't weirdoes do that kinda thing in the American West?
 

Journeymouse

Cyburbian
Messages
443
Points
13
jimi_d said:
Don't weirdoes do that kinda thing in the American West?

I claim societal osmosis - I spend waaaaaaaaaaay to much time escaping into online games. And World of Warcraft is better than the tv adverts...
 

noj

Cyburbian
Messages
517
Points
16
jimi_d said:
WOW!!! And there's a great bookshop in Cromford!!! (You lucky sod for living in such a great part of the country.)

Anyway, I've often wondered how they got away with Masson. It seems to fly in the face of Planning Policy (for instance, look at PPG6 1.8ff).

Thanks very much! My commute isn’t that nice, but it makes it all worthwhile coming home for the last 10 minutes through Crich etc. It is a very nice part of the country and the bookshop is very good too! Keep meaning to take some pictures of Cromford and put them up, I’ll get round to it soon.

I know what you mean about Masson; my main thoughts are that it was possibly granted permission prior to 1996 (quite possible, given the pace of many things around here), or alternatively that the benefits on restoring the listed building and returning it to a active and viable use outweighed the other planning considerations.

Arkwright/Cromford Mill is coming on slowly but surely. Suffered a big set back last year when some numbskull in a lorry ran into an attached cast iron aqueduct. The Grade I listed aqueduct was put up in 1821 to carry water to a water wheel driving the mill. As far as I know nothing happened to the lorry driver; there’s loads of signs warning of height restrictions etc, but he just walked away after destroying a piece of history :-@
 

jimi_d

Cyburbian
Messages
93
Points
4
noj said:
Thanks very much! My commute isn’t that nice,

Well you can't put decent roads through that scenery now... I shudder to think what it must've been like when the A6 was *the* main road from London (okay, Barnet) to Manchester.

but it makes it all worthwhile coming home for the last 10 minutes through Crich etc.

Ah, the trams!

It is a very nice part of the country and the bookshop is very good too! Keep meaning to take some pictures of Cromford and put them up, I’ll get round to it soon.

You should! And show everyone the bit of Masson they turned into a MSCP!

Arkwright/Cromford Mill is coming on slowly but surely. Suffered a big set back last year when some numbskull in a lorry ran into an attached cast iron aqueduct. The Grade I listed aqueduct was put up in 1821 to carry water to a water wheel driving the mill. As far as I know nothing happened to the lorry driver; there’s loads of signs warning of height restrictions etc, but he just walked away after destroying a piece of history :-@

Should be hanged, drawn, and quartered if you ask me... As for the signage there, there's rather a lot of it - ISTR that the street's even got two names!
 

Alaithea

Cyburbian
Messages
34
Points
2
Stepping in a bit late here... I want to thank ablarc for another beautiful post, as always. And it sounds crazy, but those photos started to bring me to tears somewhere in the middle of it. 8`-|

Gotta get out of this inhuman, sprawl-infested, unwalkable, community-less place.
 
Top