Years ago I was on a project visit to a housing estate on the outskirts of a large town. There were all sorts of problems, not helped by the fact that it was closed off. There was no way out other than the way you came in, closest to the town.
I remember being told in detail about a suggestion to open up a road in the direction of the next settlement a few miles further on. Residents vetoed it emphatically, and community development work at the time was not sufficiently advanced to open up the debate.
I was reminded of this when I read the judges' comments about the planners behind the winning entry for the 2008 RIBA Stirling Prize for Architecture:
'The site is organized straddling a broad avenue with just the one entrance for residents allowed to the site by the planners. In this they bowed to the wishes of local residents for whom objection appears to be a full time occupation.'
Keenly felt no doubt, but perhaps a little snide.
In an area like London's Kings Cross undergoing huge redevelopment it often feels like you are in permanent objection. The planning system leaves you little choice - if you don't object you have no sway in the process what so ever. Developers, patronising architects and council officials ignore you.
I once sat in a meeting with a developer now winning awards for his planned redevelopment of kings cross where he swore at me for 45 minutes at some volume without once repeating a single swear word. I only got in the room to be sworn at because i had led a well organised community objection to some plans the developer was dependent upon.
Developers and residents would both like a planning system that doesn't put you into this position and allowed for round table discussion in the very early stages as well as a less entrenched system once an application has gone in and more views are flushed out.
Posted by: william perrin | Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 06:19