Category Archives: landscape planning

Loampit Vale Redevelopment in Lewisham


Its ugly and its un-London.

Its ugly and its un-London.


The UK Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) was launched in ill-omened year: 1914. But it was founded by idealists and played an honourable role, until another year of destiny: 1947. Effectively, it then split. One portion became an arm of government, forever beholden to the ugliness of local government in the UK. The other portion, which has grown in size, became an arm of the property development industry. The idealists left.

The above image of a ‘regeneration’ proposal in Lewisham, South London, shows the result. There is a lot of patter about sustainability etc but the design is 1930s Corbusian with a sprinkling of rancid green sauce. The developers get a fat profit; the local council gets more tax income; the people get an ugly and badly designed project: 98% of respondents to a consultation were against the proposal. If Steen Eiler Rasmussen, author of London the unique city, could give an opinion he would surely sign it ‘Disappointed, Disgusted and Revolted of Copenhagen’. He believed London unique among world cities because such a high proportion of its residents have their own gardens and do NOT live in flats. Rasmussen also loved London’s parks and would be horrified the social uselessness of the proposed ground level space in Lewisham. The design is context-insensitive to a high degree. Poor old Lewisham. Poor old London. Poor old England.

UK organic farming and government

Industrial factory farming and organic farming

Industrial factory farming and organic farming: which would rather consume? (left image courtesy farmsanctuary.org)

For reasons of unblinking short-sighted dumb stupidity, the UK government continues to support science-based agri-business  – and to do its best to kill off organic farming. The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned a group of researchers to collate the research of other people who had  found that organic beef , for example, has few nutritional advantages over  inorganic beef. If they can’t tell the difference between the two approaches shown above, the fault lies with their researchers and their taste buds. Future government report is expected to prove that haute couture clothing has no medical advantages over bargain basement clothing and expensive perfumes do no more for your sex appeal than cheap perfumes. Then we will have reports to establish that the differences in flying time London to New York, business class and economy class on the same plane are ‘statistically insignificant’  and that Dyson vacuum cleaners are no better than Hoovers.

The  DEFRA blockheads should remember how their friends in government wrecked  the UK’s car producers: they poured in government money to support cheap, shoddy, rust-prone ‘volume’ car producers. In fact, the only hope for a country with expensive land and labour was to concentrate on low-volume high-quality cars. That is why the racing car end of the industry is the only remaining fragment of UK-owned car production. The best long-term policy for UK agriculture is to become a producer of high-quality organic produce with superb animal welfare standards and a glorious reputation. The UK is an island with a very beautiful agricultural landscape. We should become an organic-only food producer, banning all use of GM products. Still trying to ‘beat the world’ one suspects DEFRA of not having noticed that the UK is a group of islands which CAN remain GM-free and which COULD charge a substantial premium for higher quality products. If the UK could also be a low-cost producer, so much the better. But the emphasis should be producing the highest quality food: no factory farming, no GM crops, minimal pesticides, minimal antibiotics, minimal inorganic fertilizers.  Hilary Benn should be kept in a veal cage and fed with the cheapest burgers on the market until he repents and recants – or resigns.

Note Hilary Benn became Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA in June 2007 and spoke in favour of what the UK press calls Frankenstein Foods (ie genetically modified GM foods) in August 2009. Never mind the science: look at the business opportunity!


Vegetated architecture

somis-hay-barn1

Somis Hay Barn by Studio Pali Fekete Architects in California is a great example of low tech vegetated architecture of unsurpassed elegance and poetic beauty;

The peeling away of the hale bales creates temporal change and constant evolution: “At the end of the fall when it is stacked, the hay is freshly cut and green in color. Over the following months and after the hay has dried and adopted a yellowish color, it is removed and used to feed the cattle.”

According to Architecture Week the architects drew on the philosophy of wabi-sabi – “the Japanese concept of beauty in imperfection.”

The barn’s steel structure is unchanging and modern while the cladding is traditional and constantly changing according to the seasons and use.

Source: http://landscapeandurbanism.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html also http://www.spfa.com/main.html and http://www.architectureweek.com/2005/0223/news_1-2.html

Windpower and sustainable landscape planning

Are the wind turbines a welcome addition to the landscape scenery?

Are the wind turbines a welcome addition to the landscape scenery? Do they make a useful contribution to sustainable energy policy? No and No. They are more like space invaders - and this example is mere tokenism.

I know of one excellent publication on the physics of sustainable energy David MacKay’s Sustainable energy without hot air (though his website suggests he lacks expertise in graphic design!). He calculates that ‘If we covered the windiest 10% of the country with windmills (delivering 2 W/m2), we would be able to generate 20 kWh/day per person, which is half of the power used by driving an average fossil-fuel car 50 km per day.’ Current energy consumption is about 125 kWh/day and MacKay calculates that, because of wind-speed variation, if the entire UK was covered with wind turbines it would be possible to generate 200KWh/day.  I do not think we should do this. The sensible steps towards more-sustainable energy use are (1) plan cities for cycle commuting (2) insulate buildings properly (3) tax bottled mineral water as heavily as alcoholic drinks.

But how can air conditioning costs be reduced in hot countries? Ideas welcome! Here are some suggestions (1) We used to have a refrigerator which was operated by dripping water onto a porous outer casing. The latent heat of evaporation cooled the inside.  Could this work for buildings? (2) In West Asia windcatchers (Persian: بادگیر Bâdgir, Arabic: بارجيل Baarjiil) have long been used for sustainable air conditioning. This is now the part of world with the best supplies of oil, but the technology could be exported  (3) apply even higher insulation standards than in cold countries, to keep the heat out (4) use heat pumps to refrigerate buildings – and generate electricity from the waste heat (5) use vegetation to shield the building from direct solar radiation