Hi
apart from being [only] narrow minded
I feel here is a broader issue here, and there is a pertient issue about
space ownership.
best
D
>>> Margo Huxley <[log in to unmask]> 03/12/07 6:47 PM >>>
Well said, David,
Some people grow edibles in their gardens, and some even keep 'chooks' -
or
at least they do in Australia.
Remember the 'Good Life'? Maybe we should be encouraging more
productive
use of gardens rather than paving them over and increasing hard surface
run
off,
Margo
________________________________
Dr. Margo Huxley
Senior Lecturer, Research Degrees Admissions Tutor
Department of Town and Regional Planning
University of Sheffield, Winter Street
Sheffield S10 2TN
England
Tel: +44 (0)114 222 6929
Fax: +44 (0)114 272 2199
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Crouch" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: gardens for housing?
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
|