Hello Hilary and everybody!
Couldnt disagree more with 1-7.
yes, gardens may be imperfect [is perfectoin our goal as radical
criticals?]
sorry, you`ve hit on a raw nerve here.
who with sense thinks in the western world that rurals are so good?
fifty years of agri-bads... etc?
is perfection there? or even in the global transport of food [miles]?
no, these are crucial spaces, mistakenly ignorantly muddled with false
idylls of th o-called rural- what does that mean and not a little
elitist cultural capital lurking in the 7 if only we realised.
best productive gardens often those not leafy suburban!
UK mistake was th ignorant Rogers report that sensed [sic] high density
citis as void of green, soft, only hard stuff.
the opportunitis acros cities, from Greenwich Uk to San Francisco SF
league of urban gardens, slug] and more, are crucially-er than leafless
rural.
are we really still playing antedluvian mytholgoies? cant believe it
look at the work of cities, city community gardens, etc.
simplistic divisions really dont work [hopefully] any more
difficult to believe one is reading this email, Hilary!
best
David
>>> Dr Hillary Shaw <[log in to unmask]> 03/09/07 8:47 PM >>>
Recent media article, bemoaning the classification of suburban gardens
as
brownfield sites and consequent use for infill housing. We hear a lot
about how
bad this is, but are there any good points to this? e.g.
1) avoids urban sprawl over food producing, or recreational,
countryside.
2) Increased density of housing, reduces transport needs, and makes
public
transport more viable.
3) Gardens may be pretty, but we really mean those nice front gardens,
they
create a positive externality, the big back ones are private, we don't
see
them, nobody's considering building on the former sort.
4) The sort of prroperty the developers want, is big old oversized
properties, that take up too much space for their current level of
occupiership, so
are wasteful of scarce urban space, better used as smaller housing
units.
5) OK, turning gardens into housing may imperil some scarce species, but
most gardens aren't the eco-friendly sort, at least 95% of gardens
contain
species imported via a garden centre, are replaceable, and have their
fair share
of pesticides and fertilisers. Wildlife in cities may be catered for by
provision of public parks, woods, canals, railway embankments, and many
other
non-garden areas it colonises - even old factory sites. A multitude of
smaller
gardens can also harbour birds and insects, as can the rural hedgerows
that we
won't build over if we avoid rural sprawl.
6) Building housing on 'true' brownfield sites may endanger the health
of
the householder (remember Love Canal), maybe such sites are better
re-used for
industrial, commercial purposes, where children won't be digging in the
garden
or Dad growing vegetables, whilst we keep housing in residential areas.
Also
endangers the wealth of the householder, as UK law is that the current
landowner must pay for cleaning up any past pollution discovered on
their land.
7) The really valuable gardens (ecological, visual, architectural) can
and
often have been preserved by the National Trust etc
What do other crit-geoggers think to using gardens for infill housing?
Hillary Shaw, Newport, Shropshire
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
|