'Planning' isn't working. If it were, the built environment would be better than it is: An application is submitted, fees paid, sometimes amendments agreed and permission granted or declined. This often produces an urban environment that is a variation on something like the above photograph. Something is wrong, for the time, investment and aggregate learning of all the professionals involved, surely the end result should be better and more humane. This is not a matter of lack of funds: £25,000 was spent installing seats, one of which can be seen in this photo – but, would you want to sit there? It could have been useful as a waiting area, only there are yellow line restrictions and concrete bollards to prevent this. The pavement was extended, only it uses the same surface as the road and with the bollards and yellow lines this has the effect of simply creating a dead zone. This is no accident, someone planned it, authorized the expenditure and instructed someone else to carry out the works and all of this was done with your money. When you are told there is no funding for essential services, think about the waste that removes funding from where it is needed most. £10,000 was spent on installing the metal polls with empty flower baskets - also in the photograph. If there had been plants in those baskets, they would be supposed to survive suspended next to a traffic intersection with no water supply. I am being unfair, there is a water supply: more money is spent on a van that travels around watering the plants – most of which drains onto the floor around the seat. This means that the plants die and yet more money is spent regularly replacing them. I am not a fan of the phrase 'less is more', but in this case it really does apply. Those seats, plant polls and tarmac required minerals and power to make the steel that is sprayed with some polluting polymer coating. They required petrol and diesel and created traffic for their installation, all of which contributes to the degradation of the environment. How was this environment created? Because somebody delegated, to somebody who delegated, to somebody who picked a spot on a map – not because something was required, but because “there seemed to be space and it wouldn't get in anyone's way”. What you see, your urban environment, is not the result of lack of money, it is the result of a lack of care, of lack of thought, and everybody suffers as a result. The businesses are closing as there are no customers and this is hardly surprising as the environment that has been created is uninviting. If the businesses close, they will no longer pay the business rates that provide the money for the street clutter that has been sprinkled in front of their windows and it doesn't have to be like this.
With a little bit of thought, planters could have been built on the ground so that the plants could be where they would naturally be and so require less upkeep. This would protect the pavement area making a more humane pedestrian environment. Short stay spaces could be provided in the 'dead zone' so that cars can pull over and access the businesses whose trade forms a large part of the economy. Sustainability includes economic sustainability, it is a fundamental part of that ecosystem.
As it is, the tar-mac pavement is a false economy as metal barriers are then needed to differentiate between pavement and road and signs are required to direct traffic towards parking areas, that are not near the shops. Surely this is where 'planners' are desperately needed, not just on impressive master-plans, but on the small scale, everyday local environment. For all the talk of 'enhancement', local area plans, conservation areas and the importance of 'scale and mass', this is the actual result. Would not planning be of better use to Society, not as a judge of individual designs, but as a visionary act that is concerned with the spaces around the buildings as an aid to a better urban environment?
You might have thought that in a time of austerity such wasteful practices would end. Well, think again: Oak posts have recently been placed at the end of each parking space in the local car parks and as this might damage the cars, signs have appeared stating that the Council cannot be held responsible for damage to the cars. To pay for this terrible waste of trees, the parking charges have increased. To avoid the increased charges people park in the surrounding streets, causing congestion and pollution as they cruise around looking for a space. Those that would tax you on the basis of your carbon footprint seem to be ensuring that it remains high.
Instead of chopping down trees to stick in the ground at the end of each parking bay, would it not have been better to plant them? Planting trees is good for the environment both ecologically and visibly. If we breathe in our environment with all our senses we should not dismiss the importance that such small actions can make. I would suggest that planning departments might have their focus re-directed as curators of the street-scape with access to the funds that are currently used to litter the place with street junk. This is a different kind of occupy movement, one that is concerned with the space you already occupy, but which nobody seems too concerned about.
With a little thought and care, the funding that Council's currently waste could be used to create a more attractive, more enjoyable, more ecologically sustainable urban environment. This will attract people and help the economy. All it requires is a little care and attention, is that too much to ask?
Alex King is an architect and his design 'Santiago Townhouse' won the British Homes Awards in 2011 - Alex King Design / Designalexable, examples of his latest work can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yGQhlRz8mc
