BRITAIN’S NEW TOWNS PLANNERS TURN ATTENTION TO OLDER CITY CENTRES

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33985, 28 October 1975, Page 16

BRITAIN’S NEW TOWNS PLANNERS TURN ATTENTION TO OLDER CITY CENTRES

(The "Economist." London. Reprinted by arrangement)

New towns in Britain were an inspired invention of the 19405. \\ ith population booming, and city centres bombed and decaying, they he ped relieve dangerous pressure, in 1946-50 the first generation of 14 included eight within 20 or 30 miles of London, designed to relieve its congestion. Others (such as Peteriee and Cwmbran) provided growth points for employment in depressed areas.

All those 14 new towns of 1946-50 had target populations of 25,000-60,000. The 15 launched since then are meant to be much bigger, the latest up to 250.000 people. Today, with the population static and the Government cutting back spending, the Expenditure Committe of the Commons has just indicated that it is not sure whether any more new towns should be started. The Planning Minister, Mr John Silkin, implied in his evidence to the committee that no more will be designated while he is in charge. Is he right? The difficulties are:

No money. At March. 1973, prices the average cost of new town housing for a family of 3.5 people was about $30,000. It will be much more now.

Fewer customers. In 1964 Britain’s population was expected to reach 74.7 million by the year 2000: the latest forecast is for 62.8 million, and there will probably be fewer. Also, the changing pattern of urban renewal, from the ruthless slum clearance of the 1960 s to today’s emphasis on rehabilitation

and piecemeal rebuilding, means that fewer people are being displaced from city centres. Originally, no family could move to a new town unless its breadwinner first had a job there. So the new towns drained talent from cities, leaving behind those who could not get jobs. Now some of Britain’s major metropolitan authorities are insisting that anv new towns should take their share of the disadvantaged and incompetent, i New town corporations have a reputation for behaving like marauding giants towards their reluctant host authorities. Labour coun-i cillors in particular rail against these undemocratic oligarchies, and Labour’s objections may grow. Some corporations hanker after the ability to finance more amenities, like golf courses and swimming pools, in the early stages of development. This would add to the profit they could make from private developers—and spend on the community. About 50 per cent of new towns’ houses: will in future be provided by I

private enterprise, as over half the shops already are. There is a good case for more new towns that help to finance themselves in this way. What is the alternative —more sprawl? But the towns should use any subsidy to aim for a different mix of population. There is a continuing trend in Britain towards smaller households (average size 3.34 in 1951 down to 2.9 in 1971). New towns can respond to this demand. Milton Keynes now takes elderly Londoners. The Commons committee is right to recommend that other new towns should take imore single parent families, and more of the mentally and physically handicapped. Most important: although reviled on the Left for being unaccountable, and on the Right for big-brother interference. new town corporations get things done. Are there any other planning situations in which similar bodies could be employed, with specific briefs? The com- . mittee thinks the idea is I worth considering in relation [to London docklands. Why (not for some inner city areas?