Why Do Garden Cities Face Opposition - And What Are The Counterarguments?

By Author: Bradley Weiss
Total Articles: 272
Comment this article

Large-scale building might be an important part of increasing the UK housing stock if objections can be overcome. But investor-led homebuilding drives development now.


There is a growing movement to rapidly increase the supply of housing in the UK through the building of "garden cities." These are essentially large-scale developments of at least 15,000 homes, historically clustered around village greens and established with their own infrastructure and local government. Modern versions are designed to be environmentally sustainable, even sometimes qualifying as "eco-villages" that promote a lower dependence on fossil fuel use and which encourage more active lifestyles among residents.


But in the UK, protection of countryside lands and the official greenbelt areas have long been part of the culture and official government policy. Consequently, large-scale development of all types is appropriately met with a critical, sometimes sceptical eye. To the proposals being actively promoted by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, cries of opposition arose almost as quickly as his official announcements ...
... were made in support of garden cities in early 2014.


The alternatives to such large-scale developments are to build on brownfield land, or incrementally at the edges of cities where employers need workers who can afford the local housing. Joint venture land opportunity specialists currently work in tandem with homebuilders to create these communities; they accept responsibility for creating infrastructure to support the added population, usually without need for adding entire community support systems because this kind of growth is less impactful on municipal services.


Each complaint against garden cities stands on its own as a legitimate reaction to government-assisted, large-scale development. But for every argument there is a counter-argument. Here are the key points of this pro-con garden cities discussion:


NIMBYism - It's difficult to find anyone who wants big changes in their towns, particularly if it eats up adjacent countryside lands - hence, "not in my back yard." Ramping it up further, political parties may fear a shift in the types of voters who might land in their jurisdiction and effectively vote them out of office (as might occur in Buckinghamshire, Warwickshire and Oxfordshire if more Tories are overwhelmed with an influx of Labourites). NIMBYism is more likely to find proponents in the South East districts of England, less so in the areas north of London and in Wales where development is desired.


Sprawl - The primary motivator in establishing the UK's green belts in the earlier parts of the 20th century was to avoid American-style sprawl, where towns and cities would lose their identity with a melding of two or more municipalities and natural countryside beauty was lost. But one of the first garden cities, Letchworth, proved these things need not happen when properly planned and placed. By contrast, Stevenage and Milton Keynes were considered less successful in this regard and should serve as a lesson in planning for new garden cities.


Infrastructure overload/government spending - Schools, hospitals, roads, sewers and utilities all experience greater demand when the population goes up - particularly with new housing that typically accommodates growing families. With a garden city, those necessary community components need to be built alongside houses, of course, and the costs of those things are incorporated into the price of the homes - unless, of course, the Government provides assistance, as Mr. Cameron has offered to do (allocating £1 billion to new garden city infrastructure costs). With smaller-scale developments, homebuilders are obligated to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy or provide for new infrastructure by other means.


Design and density - Aesthetics are a core issue in housing development, particularly when it removes greenfield vistas and replaces them with roofs and roads. But Letchworth is renowned for achieving at least the appearance of somewhat utopian vision, and the Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust has established a £250,000 prize to planners and designers who can come up with the best design for a sustainable, 21st century garden city. With a rising population, that means 60 households per hectare, and far less dependency on auto transportation.


Given the crush of demand for housing, a variety of solutions should include garden cities as well as traditional development (at an accelerated pace). Private financial interests are actively pursuing the latter, as real estate investment trusts, property fund partners and institutional investors are assembling investors and homebuilders to establish homes where the needs are greatest. Individuals who consider such investments should always speak with an independent financial advisor to identify where real estate best fits their overall asset building strategies.