Forum topic: “Space, an ever-rarer commodity in our cities”

The green belt/housing issue is essentially all about space, an ever-rarer commodity in our cities. The lead motion for next weeks Council meeting (1 July) essentially is seeking to free up some space by removing some, or even all, cycle hangars; this being claimed to enhance road safety and traffic management. That thinking led me to a recent FT article. “About a century ago, when cars began invading urban areas en masse, many cities made a disastrous choice. They configured themselves to favour vehicles over people”.  It certainly is a view, but it then goes on to state that more space is now devoted to parking each car than housing each person. Ouch.

We are now on the cusp of a driverless vehicle world. Two scenarios are painted in the article:

Private ownership is discouraged, numbers of cars in cities collapses as anyone needing a ride (other than on foot, cycle or public transport) simply calls a driverless “uber”. Total numbers are regulated. Massive areas of tarmac are not needed, freeing up space for more useful things, such as housing. ” The cheapest and least space-consuming way to around cities will still be walking, cycling and public transport.” 

The other scenario – likened to the market driven Airbnb taking homes off the housing market or Amazon impacting high streets – is an unregulated market where people also have their own driverless vehicle, using them ever more for more trips because they can also sleep, read, work etc on the way. More follow this route so congestion becomes worse than ever. City sprawl worsens as people can commute further while still doing other things. Underused public transport loses funding and so deteriorates; cycles are used less meaning bike hangars are under pressure to be removed.

Google tells me that London has the equivalent of approximately 10 Palmers Green Wards dedicated to car parking space.

aBetter to think big and think ahead I concluded.

Only a couple of months into this administration, and already so many dim-witted decisions.  I'm dismayed that they are seeking to remove cycle hangars in the name of traffic management and road safety, given that (a) the space currently occupied by hangars will be replaced by cars (so no net gain in space, no better management, no greater safety), (b) it sends a message that cars are more important than active travel and (c) will take cyclists off the road.

I don't think I'd give much credence to an article in the FT.  However, the idea that the green belt / housing debate is about space has merit - those opposing strategic and long term planning for current and future generations and different ways of living will advocate meeting our need only on brownfield sites, but this inevitably asks questions about our acceptance of greater density, higher buildings, smaller gardens and amenity spaces, tighter spaces between buildings and reduced living spaces.  It also asks questions about our storage space for vehicles and whether these are within our homes (cycles), on our driveways (cars) or on our streets and in our public realm.

However, this misses the point.  We should be advocating places where personal motorised vehicles are not required at all.  Where everyday services are nearby, where public facilities can be cycled to, where bus and train services are a short walk away, where people can choose to work locally or get to work on a form of transport that doesn't clog the road, cause pollution, endanger life, guzzle energy.  For too long we've planned to accommodate the car; we need to plan for people.