Advertisement

The compact city: Theory versus practice—The case of Cambridge

  • Nicola Morrison
Article

Abstract

Urban compaction has become a policy direction which has been followed in a number of European countries throughout the 1990s. Although this policy direction may have both theoretical and political appeal, there is concern over the likelihood of being able to concentrate the majority of future development within existing urban areas. Most analysis would suggest that urban decentralisation is set to continue. Reversing these established patterns, as well as past policies which have encouraged dispersal, is likely to be a tall order. The aim of this article is to provide a closer examination of a particular city-region to assess whether national policy, which promotes compact cities, is feasible at the local level. The Cambridge subregion, within the UK, has been chosen as it has a tradition of policies which have encouraged dispersal and are in direct contrast to Government's new policy direction. Past spatial planning policies within the sub-region have left a legacy of dispersed settlement patterns, separating homes from workplace and encouraging inward commuting into Cambridge. The effects of this past policy stance are so ingrained that it will be hard to reverse such trends and accommodate additional development, particularly housing, within Cambridge's existing boundaries.

Keywords

House Price County Council Green Paper Green Belt Land Economy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blowers, A. (ed.) (1993)Planning for Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  2. Breheny, M. (1996) “Centrists, Decentrists and Compromisers: Views on the Future of Urban Form” in Jenks, M., E. Burton, and K. Williams (eds.),Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, London: E. & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  3. Breheny, M., and P. Hall (eds.) (1996)The People—Where Will They Go?, London: Town and Country Planning Associations.Google Scholar
  4. Cambridge City Council (1995)Cambridge Local Plan: Annual Monitoring Report 1995, Cambridge City Council.Google Scholar
  5. Cambridge City Council (1996a)Cambridge Local Plan: Annual Monitoring Report 1996, Cambridge City Council.Google Scholar
  6. Cambridge City Council (1996b)Economic Development Strategy for Cambridge 1996/1997, Cambridge City Council.Google Scholar
  7. Cambridge City Council (1997)Cambridge Local Plan: Annual Monitoring Report 1996, Cambridge City Council.Google Scholar
  8. Cambridge County Council (1977)Cambridge Structure Plan: Consultation Report on Cambridge Sub-Area, Cambridge County Council.Google Scholar
  9. Cambridge County Council (1980)Cambridgeshire Structure Plan, Cambridge County Council.Google Scholar
  10. Cambridge County Council (1995a)Cambridgeshire Structure Plan, Cambridge County Council.Google Scholar
  11. Cambridge County Council (1995b)Replacement Structure Plan, 1991–2006, Examination in Public: Report of the Panel, Cambridge County Council.Google Scholar
  12. Cambridge County Council (1996)Cambridgeshire House price data, Cambridge County Council.Google Scholar
  13. Commission of European Communities (1990)Green Paper on the Urban Environment, Brussels: Commission of European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Environment and Department of Transport (1993)Reducing Transport Emissions through Planning, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Environment (1992a).PPG2: Green Belts, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  16. Department of Environment (1992b)PPG3: Housing, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  17. Department of Environment (1994)PPG13: Transport, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  18. Department of Land Economy (1992)Cambridge sub-region in recession, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  19. Drummond, P., and C. Swain (1996) “Environmental Capacity of a Historic City” in Jenks, M., E. Burton, and K. Williams (eds.)Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  20. Elson, M., S. Walker, and R. McDonald (1993)The effectiveness of Green Belts, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  21. Garnsey E. (1994) “Employment implications of science-based industry; a regional case study for Cambridgeshire, UK” in Massey, J., and J. Harrison (ed.)Employment, Growth and SMEs, London: Plessey.Google Scholar
  22. Gerald Eve and Department of Land Economy (1992)The Relationship between House Prices and Land Supply, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  23. Holford, W., and H. Wright (1950)Cambridge Planning Proposals: A report to the Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Holmans, A. (1995)Housing Demand and Need in England 1991–2011, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Holt-Jensen A., G. Aase, and A. Hauge (1997)Is it possible to plan environmentally sustainable settlements? The Norwegian NAMIT project, its critics and influence on local planning in the city of Bergen, unpublished paper at Association of European School of Planning (AESOP).Google Scholar
  26. Jenks, A., E. Burton, and K. Williams (1996)Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  27. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1994)Inquiry into Planning for Housing, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Kreukels, T. and E. Polle (1997) “Urbanisation and spatial planning in an international perspective”,Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (12), no. 1, pp. 135–163.Google Scholar
  29. Llewelyn-Davies, (1994)Providing More Homes in Urban Areas, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Lock, D. (1995) “Room for More Within City Limits?”,Town and Country Planning (64), no. 7, pp. 173–176.Google Scholar
  31. Monk, S., C. Royce, and C. Whitehead (1995)Planning for Housing: Lessons from Recent Research, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge Discussion Paper 47.Google Scholar
  32. Needham, B., and T. Zwanikken (1997) “The current urbanization policy evaluated”,Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (12), no. 1, pp. 37–55.Google Scholar
  33. Nijkamp, P., and A. Perrel (1994)Sustainable Cities in Europe, London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  34. Priemus, H. (1997) “Spatial planning and housing policy: On the ties that bind”,Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, (12), no. 1. pp. 77–90.Google Scholar
  35. Studdert, P. (1995) “Historic Cities: the management of success”,Town and County Planning Associations Annual Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  36. Welbank, M. (1996) “The search for a sustainable urban form” in Jenks, M., E. Burton, and K. Williams (eds.),Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  37. UK Government (1994)Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy.Google Scholar
  38. UK Government (1996)Household Growth: Where shall we Live?, London: Cmd 3471.Google Scholar
  39. UK Roundtable (1997)Assessing Urban Capacity, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deft University Press 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Morrison

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations