Richard Rogers comment in the Guardian

December 2, 2006

Interesting comment from Richard Rogers in The Guardian online on ‘How to build intelligent suburbs‘. Noteworthy is his comments about subrub:

“Urban renaissance needs to spread out beyond our city centres. Most of our city-centre population growth consists of young and single people. To draw families back to cities, we need to create beautiful and family-friendly suburbs too. Architects and planners have often neglected, or even derided, suburbs. They may lack the urban vitality and mix many of us enjoy, but they provide a quieter, greener environment for families and can enhance the mix of housing that a city can offer. The best suburbs – linked to the city by good public transport – already offer a model for a different style of environmentally sustainable urban living. We need to bring all of them up to this standard, through intensification and new infrastructure.

But to make our suburbs work, you need intelligent and design led planning. One only has to look at the dreadful suburban strip that stretches along the Mediterranean coast from the south of France to Spain and Italy, let alone the sprawl outside our own cities, to realise how important it is to use our planning laws intelligently, not to let rip.”

Other comments in the piece are (not surprisingly) emphasising the importance of the built environment. Also, some of the comments on the page discuss some perceptions on the suburbs and what should be done with them.

Advertisements

One Response to “Richard Rogers comment in the Guardian”

  1. SG Says:

    In the ‘6 years on’ report of the Urban Taskforce ‘Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance’ (2004?) Rogers points out that “Despite some successes, neighbourhood shopping and community centres are failing in many places and need a much more creative approach” Even in the original Final Report of the Urban Taskforce (1998?) he says that “Quality of design is not just about creating new developments. It is also about how we make the best of our existing urban environments, from historical urban districts, to low density suburbs.”

    Was the UTF as anti-suburban we commonly suppose – or has it simply been that the emphasis in the first instance was on core city centres?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: