Poundbury - The model for rural development?

[Octoman]

Back to the Future
Times online - 21st July 08

Charles was right: we like where we live to feel familiar

You've got to see this place! The neighbourly shops! The al fresco dining! The ancient (looking) colonnades. The intimate public spaces. The traditional housing, all walking distance from the friendly local schools. The pond!

This, roughly, is what Matthew Taylor MP is telling Government about Poundbury, on the edge of Dorchester, designed 15 years ago by Leon Krier to a rough specification from Prince Charles that it be liveable.

Poundbury has been mocked since, by architects, town planners, professional sneerers and others who have never seen it but object to the idea of a dynast taking it upon himself to build a village. What sweet vindication for the Prince, then, that Mr Taylor has singled out his village in a review commissioned by Gordon Brown as a model for future rural development.

There is said to be room on the edges of other market towns for 2.5 million new homes in lookalike Poundburys. Yet if imitation is flattery, the Prince's head should be swollen already.

“You've got to see this place!” is in fact an official slogan of Celebration, Florida, a town designed and built by the Walt Disney Company as if to a Duchy of Cornwall blueprint.

Celebration has everything Poundbury has. Unlike Poundbury, it even has the pond. And every square foot of it has been oversubscribed since it went on sale in 1996, not as a theme park but a place to live.

And why not? Poundbury and Celebration are merely copying the end point of ten thousand years of evolution of the built environment, where not wrecked by bombs or brutalists. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it - replicate it.

[Octoman]

Damn, typo on the header. Should be Poundbury. Anyone know if I can edit it?

[Leeds No.1]

I've seen some of Poundbury before. It looks alright; some of the buildings look fake though. Some do look genuine- but in that picture you can tell the red brick one nearest to the photographer is just not old. It looks like a modern red brick semi built out of poorer quality bricks with some cheap windows and doors. None of the chimneys look right either. They need to get these details sorted if they're going to do this.

I personally don't think it's the right way to go ahead. I would prefer to see architects look at how we can make Grand Designs style housing affordable so we can build more of that to contrast with the buildings of the past.

Why are we trying to build buildings that do not represent us as people or our century? People will look back on our generation and see buildings like those in Poundbury and it won't say anything about us.

[Octoman]

I have never been myself but from the pictures it seems okay. Personally if I wanted to live in an olde worldy village I would go for the real thing, there are plenty of them and they are no more expensive than Poundbury.

That said, if the countryside really has to have millions more houses built in it then I think there is a place for developments similar to this which will at least maintain the character of the existing villages. I agree with you though that if it needs to be done well to work otherwise it just looks naff. Some estate developments in my area where they have made a half hearted effort to create inividual character in each house look awful.

I'm surprised that the government are leaning this way at all though given their environmental agenda. the one thing these type of developments will be poor at is incorporating the new wave of green technology. I wonder how they will equate the two? My gut feeling though is that new building in the countryside should be limited as much as possible but if done in a sympathetic way if it has to be.

[Leeds No.1]

I don't think rural development is needed. These sorts of Poundbury developments can be limited for people wanting that niche. But to solve the housing shortage, why not just build houses in exisiting cities. There are plenty of spaces where they can be crammed in. In doing so, our cities will become denser and public transport can improve. More money can be put into the same area (rather than having to make money go further by spreading it across sprawling estates in semi rural areas).

All our cities have endless brownfield sites to build on, but not just brownfield sites. What about all the 1950 social housing blocks that make up a massive part of most UK cities- these generally have endless areas of wasteland/grass/car park around them where houses can be built on. I know that Leeds City Council are building houses inbetween many of them in Little London and parts of Gipton.

This increased density will make a better argument to improve transport for these areas too. Many people are against the proposed eco-towns for Leeds City Region because they won't be providing decent public transport; one near Micklefield will straddle a rail line but there will be no station, and even if there was, it would be on one of the most congested lines in and out of the city.

That is another reason why we cant rely on Poundbury style developments in the future. If no-one is willing to pay for decent transport linking these semi rural areas up to the cities and economic centres, theres no chance of them being succesful on a large scale, and no chance of the UK meeting its emissions targets.

[dronkula]

Whilst I think something as 'twee' as Poundbury is over the top, as someone who grew up in a rough suburban housing estate, the general model for it is a good idea.

The problem with these estates is that there really is no sense of community. Any community facilities (church, shops, schools) were scattered across the estate meaning that it had no focus. And, with the attitude of 'the car is king' the developers and planners didn't care too much anyway because everyone could drive whereever they wanted to go. The problem with that is that why drive to the little corner shop, when you can drive to the huge supermarket?

The little villages that Poundbury was based on have developed over 100's of years to reach an 'optimal configuration' so it does make sense to try and replicate that rather than just tear up the rule book and try and do something else.

[gothicform]

i think charles has been on to something here with suburban development and how we can use the past to create places that feel "nice" to live in rather than bland barratt housing estates. some of it doesnt work architecturally and it can feel a little too twee but the simple idea of varying the houses individually does. in not building row after row of identikit housing and in some cases avoiding pavements so people walk down the street and cars have to be considerate of them, i think there's a lot we can learn from with this. id rather have poundbury than your usual shitty new build housing estate.

[crusty_bint]

Nothing new though really, this follows the same lines that Rhind's feuing plan of 1849 for Pollokshields did - Pollokshields (Glasgow) being the first planned garden suburb in the world.

I like what's being done at Pundbury but I don't really like the whole pastiche Disneyland aspect particularly. Though it does have its charms.

[DarJoLe]

I think it's bloody awful and sums up everything that's wrong with British middle class taste.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

I think it's bloody awful and sums up everything that's wrong with British middle class taste.

I can't disagree more. As said above, it is just part of thousands of years of development. I don't see why we need to experiment with new ways of living rather than tweak what we have already. The only thing I wish to improve with Poundbury is TRANSPORT. Stick a Rail Station in the middle linking it to the centre or Dorchester and the rest of the National Rail network, then provide a bus service around Poundbury when it grows to large for OAPs and Disabled residents to get to the station with ease.

Good Points about Poundbury:
- Character, don't say it hasn't because it has.
- Variation, extra care has been taken with Poundbury to ensure each house is different from the next, no identikit going on.
- Family Friendly, it has the village green and pedestrian orientated feel of a village.
- Community, local shops and services anyone? That is how Poundbury has been designed from the start. I will not deny that many of the locals take the car to the Tesco in Dorchester but that is a social issue, Poundbury gives them the alternative but it is up to the residents if they use it.

Bad Points about Poundbury:
- Transport, where is Poundbury Rail Station?
- Density, not really an issue this one considering it is not an urban area, but this may be an issue in say 30 years time.
- Sustainability, Suburbanisation is NOT the most sustainable way of building, but the Houses at Poundbury are well insulated, use proper double glazing and are designed to minimise energy use. Just as all modern developments are expected to.

Talking about sustainability, who is to say residents (and developers) cannot put Photovoltic Cells on the roof to generate their electricity, or Solar Tubing to heat water. Just because the houses are not of a modern architectural style, does not mean they are not/can not be of modern design.

[Leeds No.1]

All its character is fake though.

The image that starts this thread shows a rather carelessly built part of Poundbury. Those houses are so obviously fake. If they didn't have the chimneys they would be better, but the red brick building looks worse than a Barratt home.

The thing that annoys me most about Poundbury is the name. To start with, its like Poundland. Additionally, it has the word pound in. It's so cringey and British its awful. You can tell Prince Charles was involved in it.

[logosen]

Have you seen the plans for Sherford? Sherford is to be a town on the eastern edge of Plymouth, forming part of the city all but politically. The money behind it is from Red Tree LLP, whoever they are, but the masterplan was produced by The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment. All councils involved resolved to grant planning permission, and soon enough they shall surely build it (late 2008/early 2009 is the reckoning). There seems to have been no mention of Sherford on here, but it is a fairly established project, and is almost certain to actually happen.

I mention it because it takes similar themes from Poundbury, but is applying them differently. Sherford is an expansion of Plymouth, but unlike Plympton to the north and Plymstock to the south, it is not suburban. It is a dense south Devon town, designed for walking. I quite like it. It has a traditional look to it, and will lack the organic quirkiness you expect to find in a town. Everyone who will live there, will, I imagine, have been to Totnes, Darmouth, Looe etc and will feel the difference, but this really is the next best thing. The more central parts of Plymouth are gradually becoming more dense, and in addition, large parts of Devonport, Stonehouse and Coxside will be home to many people where previously they were home to military, industry or nothing at all. So Sherford will be anomalously dense for a town on the edge of Plymouth, but will still be proximate to a far denser urban centre.

[Octoman]

I had read about them. I think it should be pretty good. As Gothic said, certainly a lot better than your bog standard Barratt housing estate. In light of this recent report and peoples general dissatisfaction with urban planning in recent decades I expect we will see a lot more of this type of thing.

This is a picture of Sherfords main square taken from The Guardian. It may not be to everybodys taste but there is no denying it is pleasant to look at. I still think there is a place for modern design but I would be happy to see this type of thing replace the identikit housing estates popping up all over the country.

[Bob]

Sherford's main square seems to be a six lane road. Do we learn anything? There is adapting old towns to modern vehicles and there is plain stupidity building replicas of this unsatisfactory impass. Will there be a pedestrianisation campaign in future Sherford?

I can't think of a single decent sized modern design town in the UK. Some modern design of architectural merit creeps into high density developments. Never though, do architects get design a 2 floor housing community. It's Barratt, Poundbury or nothing. We should be brave and at least give it a go.

[b4mmy]

I've always been a fan of Poundbury

[Rational Plan]

[QUOTE=Bob;22941652]Sherford's main square seems to be a six lane road. Do we learn anything? There is adapting old towns to modern vehicles and there is plain stupidity building replicas of this unsatisfactory impass. Will there be a pedestrianisation campaign in future Sherford?[QUOTE]

Thats because it follows a typical market town design. Most main streets in a market town are very wide because they accomadated the old live-stock market. This dates from when these were all local affairs held in each rural town before the development of seperate cattle market buildings.

Many a small market town today looks the same with cars parked in the middle with local shops all around. Come market day then the space is taken over by market stalls and parking in town that day is chaotic to say the least. This design is more geometric than most british market towns with varying widths. It looks more European to me, but with a British architectual vernacular.

[lasdun]

While I am not a huge fan of the architecture, I like the planning - small roads, pedestrian friendly, designing out crime etc...

But I think that good architects can achieve all these things, and more (transport, environment) without a style that is ashamed of it's modernity.

[Leeds No.1]

You're right. These designs for Poundbury and Sherford are pretty European, but they've gone and made it cringey by putting in ridiculously British architecture and names. Like Poundbury. Who thought of that...

[Octoman]

The Sherford main square reminds me of Reigate in Surrey.
It just makes such a difference to have a variety of styles and sizes of house. It is also far denser than the average housing estate where each house is what I call pseudo detached - basically about a foot away from its neighbours. And yet despite being effectively terraced houses the individuality of each one has a greater appeal than a bog standard estate detached.

[paulmat]

Originally Posted by Octoman

I had read about them. I think it should be pretty good. As Gothic said, certainly a lot better than your bog standard Barratt housing estate. In light of this recent report and peoples general dissatisfaction with urban planning in recent decades I expect we will see a lot more of this type of thing.

This is a picture of Sherfords main square taken from The Guardian. It may not be to everybodys taste but there is no denying it is pleasant to look at. I still think there is a place for modern design but I would be happy to see this type of thing replace the identikit housing estates popping up all over the country.

Looks like a pretty decent idea. The density to make it sustainable would be there and the design - although a copy of old styles - is tried and tested at least.

It actually looks reasonably similar to a development/distrct in the works for Sheffield:




And a possibly more modern style, but technically similar development:





http://www.waverleycommunity.org/