1. The garden city as a sustainable community Stephen V. Ward Department of Planning Oxford Brookes University svward@brookes.ac.uk

2. Introduction The concept of sustainable development occupies a central position in planning of human settlements But not used when Ebenezer Howard invented garden city idea in 1890s Also Howard’s garden city vision not central to most UK and European thinking about what a sustainable urban community is Perceived negatively as inspiration for rigid single use zoning and soulless suburbs

3. Favoured European model is a medium-high density mixed-use pattern (eg EC Green Paper on Urban Environment, 1990; UK Rogers Report, 1999) Barcelona rather than Letchworth or Welwyn Garden City Garden City more favourably regarded in USA and some other countries Also may be set to become more significant in UK thinking within new Sustainable Communities programme (2003-) It is therefore particularly appropriate to evaluate the garden city in light of current thinking about what makes a sustainable community

4. Key characteristics of a sustainable community UK government now says these are: A flourishing local economy to provide jobs and wealth Strong leadership to respond positively to change Effective engagement and participation by local people, groups and businesses, especially in the planning, design and long term stewardship of their community, and an active voluntary and community sector A safe and healthy local environment with well-designed public and green space

5. Sufficient size, scale and density, and the right layout to support basic amenities in the neighbourhood and minimise use of resources (including land) Good public transport and other transport infrastructure both within the community and linking it to urban, rural and regional centres Buildings - both individually and collectively - that can meet different needs over time, and that minimise the use of resources A well-integrated mix of decent homes of different types and tenures to support a range of household sizes, ages and incomes

6. Good quality local public services, including education and training opportunities, health care and community facilities, especially for leisure A diverse, vibrant and creative local culture, encouraging pride in the community and cohesion within it A ‘sense of place’ The right links with the wider regional, national and international community

7. How far then does the garden city have these characteristics? Must be examined at several stages in the garden city’s evolution First: Howard’s original concept, as developed in his 1898 book, To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform Second: at the realities of the two garden cities, Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City, as they took shape from 1903 and 1920 Third at the way they function as settlements today

8. The vision The garden city based on co-operation Land bought at agricultural value Owned and managed collectively Business development both collectively and privately funded But citizens, not land speculators, would benefit Development carefully planned Limited to 30,000 population

9. Combined best features of town and country Nature preserved Private and public open spaces Agricultural belt protected around garden city Clean air, fresh water Public transport, walking, cycling Good quality affordable houses for everyone at moderately low densities Good social facilities

12. Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City during development Many aspects broadly followed the vision: All land was bought at agricultural values Garden city companies gave strong leadership, generally in public interest Operated on limited profit basis Beyond that financial benefit to go to community (but long delayed) Local employment (eventually) allowed high degree of self- containment

13. Walking, cycling and public transport, especially rail Development in both was very carefully planned Size of the garden cities was limited to roughly 30,000 Development combined best of town and country Nature was preserved in open spaces and agricultural belt Healthy, smoke-free, clean air Slightly lower densities than in original vision

16. Mixture of hosing types and wide social mix Housing quality high by contemporary standards Good collective facilities were provided from an early stage Strong and active sense of local community, especially in Letchworth

20. But there were some difficulties and weaknesses: Shortage of capital meant slow development Not easy to attract employers to the garden cities initially Eventually enough firms decentralising from London and new light manufacturing industries set up in Letchworth and Welwyn GC Both, especially Welwyn GC, adopted industrial marketing Some employers deterred by experimental nature of Howard’s vision

23. Slow growth of housing also severely limited the size of local workforce Shortage of working class housing also a factor in early days Significant commuting in early years - in and out - but using rail or cycle Some tensions between companies and local communities Companies sometimes too overpowering, especially in Welwyn GC No local community financial benefit until much later Segregation between richer and poorer areas in Welwyn GC

24. Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City in the long term Public corporations created (for Welwyn GC 1948; Letchworth 1963) Not-for-profit heritage foundation formed in Letchworth (1995) Only in Letchworth were funds ever transferred to local community Welwyn GC only gave a return to central funds In the long term both adapted well to economic changes In a very buoyant region of Britain Some original industries have provided basis for subsequent growth

25. New sources of employment eg office development in Letchworth More car-based commuting (in and out) Most housing popular and adaptable; little redevelopment needed Some cuts in local schools as population ages and densities decline Other services have survived well, especially in centres Remain popular places to live with strong though not very diverse communities Conservation policies help protect special qualities

28. Are the garden cities sustainable communities? Measured against the criteria indicated at the outset, they have succeeded in delivering: Flourishing local economies Strong leadership (especially Letchworth) Active communities with strong local participation (especially Letchworth) Safe and healthy local environments with many green spaces Sizes and layouts which support good range of local services in centres (in walkable distance for many residents)

29. Good rail links to London and neighbouring towns Buildings that have been adaptable A range of housing types and tenures Generally good public services Strong local culture (especially Letchworth) Strong sense of place Good links with the wider world

31. They have been less successful in: Maintaining non-central services, especially as population ages and household sizes decline Providing a high standard of local bus services Preventing a general shift to car-based travel Avoiding significant social class segregation in residential areas (especially Welwyn GC) Avoiding decline in some local public services Having a narrower local culture than in core city areas Sense of place may not appeal to everyone

32. Overall though, The successful outweigh the less successful aspects Both garden cities have a strong claim to be considered as sustainable communities But can the model be widely applied?