Comparison of Greater London Plan by Sir Patrick Abercrombie (1945) and the London Plan of 2004 - Term Paper Example

Greater London Plan by Sir Patrick Abercrombie (1945) and London Plan of 2004 Compared Strategic development plans for the London urban environments over the years may be similar yet different in many ways. Such is the case of Sir Patrick Abercrombie’s Greater London Plan (GLP) published in 1945 and the London Plan in 2004, two urban space planning documents being prepared across England that offer valuable insights into the challenges facing urban planners at different points in time and how planning theories and practices have evolved over years. The major ways by which these two plans may be compared are as follows – 1) Objectives: Abercrombie’s GLP contemplates decentralization of people and industries from the congested London areas, limitation of city growth, and the national control of the location of industry; by contrast, the open space plan of 2004 aims to realize otherwise, and since it expects to develop London as a leading world city, its mayor Ken Livingston (2004) said London has to become more densely populated, capable of handling sustainable growth such that its communities are supported, strengthened and recreated within the city’s boundaries and without encroaching on London’s own green spaces. 2) Background and Challenges: The 1945 open space plan was conceived to be London’s boldest attempt since the Industrial Revolution to come to terms with London’s inordinate problems (multiple deprivation such as unemployment, destructions, overcrowding in London, etc.) brought about by the war in its aftermath, while in the case of the London Plan of 2004 that has suffered from almost three decades of under-investment, it then has to make sure to cope with other pressures such as globalization, accommodating substantial growth in economy and population at the same that as ensuring that the national heritage and environment are protected. 3) Participants: It was the Minister of Works and Building in 1941 who asked the London County Council to prepare a plan which became the County of London Plan and the Greater London Plan in 1944. Meanwhile, for the London Plan 2004, key participants include the city Mayor whose main role is in strategic planning and the London boroughs for local planning and implementation. The Mayor together with the boroughs and other stakeholders will prepare Sub-Regional Development Frameworks. 4) Documentation: The so called “the Abercrombie Plan” is made up of the Country of London Plan published in 1942 with co-author John Henry Forshaw and the Greater London Plan in 1944, while the London Plan of 2004 was published by the Greater London Authority and the city’s mayor. 5) Development Strategy: Abercrombie’s urban space pattern indicated a concentric form structure mentioned in the GLC sec. 13 (four distinguishable rings from the centre outwards, each with a lessening degree of urbanization and broadly defined based on population numbers and density, industrial location and use of open land for agriculture and recreation.), while the London Plan of 2004’s structure is supportive of integrated, polycentric approach that emphasizes on providing coherent planning frameworks for development at the sub-regional level (at a national level and economic advancement of the UK’s major provincial cities). 6) Area Distribution Structures: The Abercrombie-formulated structure suggests zoning or identification of four rings that comprise the spreading out of London beyond its county boundary, namely— a) Inner Urban Ring: This zone that is not strictly annular and consisting of urbanized portions adjoining or near the LCC boundary, is characteristically densely populated but lack sufficient open space which makes decentralization an inevitable and practical approach. Abercrombie adopted two maximum net population densities of 75 and 100 persons per acre for the different parts of this zone, which in equation will require 415,000 persons to be decentralized. Notably too since it was a war-torn zone, some Boroughs will require detailed plans for rebuilding. The following are the administrative areas included in part or in whole in this category: Walthamstow (part), Leyton (part), West Ham, East Ham, Barking (part), Ilford (part), Penge, Croydon (part), Mitcham (part), Wimbledon (part), Barnes, Brentford and Chiswick (part), Acton (part), Ealing (part), Tottenham and Edmonton (part). These places all form part of the largely built-up mass which extends outwards over the confines of the County of London. At the same time there are marked individualities among them and clearly discernible focal points where the original settlements stood surrounded by the countryside; b) Suburban Ring: Also referred to as the second ring, this section represents London’s sprawl especially to the general public which makes a much clearer showing on its outer periphery but on the inner, it merges on the south-east, imperceptibly into the LCC area. Regarding population and industry, this area was described as a static zone partly because decentralization is not much necessary except for some overcrowding that exists in it. The plan suggests that the second ring should not be encouraged to increase population. Moreover, 50 persons per acre should be aimed at within this ring as a maximum net residential density, while in newer parts, exhibit few of the major requirements of town planning. c) Greenbelt Ring: An area with significant importance to the city of London, because it provides the first stretches of open country, and where larger number of communities are to be found in this area, it is in this zone that the deficiency of the County of London will be chiefly made up; where organised large-scale games can be played, wide areas of park and woodlands enjoyed and footpaths used through the farmland. Abercrombie proposed that absolute purchase of land that are suitable for playing fields or those with beautiful natural or artificial landscape be acquired for public use. Agricultural land should be safeguarded as well as the limitation of expansion of existing communities, and non-establishment of new centres are hoped also. Exceptions should be applied in principle to certain important manufacturing centres and for certain immediate post-war housing purposes. d) Outer Country Ring: This section, aptly described as the chief reception area for overcrowded London, contains distinct communities situated in land which is open in character and in prevailing farming use. Under the Abercrombie plan generous expansions of existing centres will be encouraged as well as the establishment of new satellites. This means that old and new growths will be expanded and will be occasioned by the decentralised population and industry from inner London. Quiet areas will be preserved in the interests of those in London as a whole. This is an area where the best and the word kinds of satellite growth in the London region are to be found, and that some communities received too much attention to the purely industrial aspect than housing aspects. Decentralized population is proposed beyond and within this section and no longer adding to London’s populous area if the same grow. Meanwhile, the London Plan of 2004 identifies sub-regions to be the focus of their implementation of the plan, and these are— a) Central London: London Plan will bank on the city’s diverse, dynamic and innovative qualities to improve its capacity in order to accommodate much of the projected economic and population growth. While environmental protection and enhancement will be prime priority, the plan further aims to boost the world city as one of the most livable and attractive international places, as well as in business and finance. Strategic development will entail the development of national transport node to facilitate wider south-east and for the nation as well. It is projected that London will be able to generate 239,000 new jobs by 2016 and that 107,000 new homes could be added. While there are significant concentrations of deprivation in this section, thorough planning should be undertaken to enable Central London residents to benefit from the growth in the nearby Opportunity Areas and the Central Activities Zone. b) North London: In this part of London, the London Plan of 2004 recognized the need to significantly modernise estates, new business growth, educational, residential and transport development that will also require the need to identify growth opportunities in terms of housing and employment. In addition, full coordination of the development skills, transport and planning will have to be undertaken to improve job access to some impoverished communities. The Plan entails that North London be capable of generating 26,000 new jobs by 2016 and it will be able to accommodate additional 47,000 homes. c) West London: Encouraged to be pursued in this area, well-known for its clusters of worldwide enterprises, top knowledge economy and several manufacturing establishments, was to exploit the sub-region’s dynamic and potential in addressing poverty problems in its inner areas. Under the Plan, the area must prioritize finding key benefits for its local constituents derived from and around the Heathrow area’s growth potential without endangering the environment. In 2016, West London should be able to appropriate 86,000 new jobs for its residents and accommodate 45,000 additional homes. d) South London: While growth opportunities are concentrated in the town centres, progress is mostly small scale, but can nonetheless contribute to accommodating future economic stability. Under the Plan, South London in 2016 should be able to accommodate 42,000 new homes and around 36,000 new jobs. Transport schemes (Croydon Tramlink extension, Thameslink 2000, Crossrail, and the southern extension of the East London Line) should be addressed to help give better local access to town centres and employment settings, and boost economic attractiveness of the area for future investments. e) East London and Thames Gateway: As the Mayor’s priority area for development, recognized in part because of its potential to be London’s gateway to mainland Europe, regeneration and infrastructure improvement, East London experience both the capital’s widest development sites in spite of a very large number of areas facing multiple deprivation. Given this scenario, it is indicated that plans to accommodate up to a minimum of 104,000 additional homes and 249,000 jobs by 2016 be readied. The Mayor is positive that sub-regional development is well and achievable beyond targets, as the area reap the benefits of significant transport infrastructure and land assembly programmes, alongside environmental progress. It would also be of help that that Mayor, together with the government and the British Olympics Association, are leading London’s bid for 2012 Olympics that was focused primarily on East London. This monumental and much-anticipated worldwide event can provide a major stimulus for change and regeneration in this land section, and can further help leverage resources, mobilize the timely completion of infrastructure investment programmes, and the legacy that the sports activities will leave that will be valued by future generations. The London Plan also places strong need for coordinated planning in several areas that are found close together and form zones of change, and sub-regional locations that require huge improvements in the quality of services and the environment. Aside from these, the Plan identifies that efforts by major stakeholders should help in raising the bar in the quality of education, health services, public facilities, and training opportunities. In the Thames Gateway, large environmental improvements must be undertaken as well. 7) Transport and Communication Structures: Abercrombie’s scheme for the transport and communications in all its forms will closely follow the zoning pattern it adopted, and will particularly be complementary to work together. Among them are: a) the separation of long distance from local road traffic, b) the air transport will be kept outside the London Country area, c) a close review of the whole passenger transport system, d) adopt an extremely simplified system of “arterial roads” and all others, and e) transport planning for a Capital City. The 2004 London Plan suggests on the other hand the integration of transport planning and spatial development. The scheme provides standards for good public transport access: a) dependence on the private car need to be reduced, b) public transport is to be provided where activity is intense, c) necessary improvements in airports, international stations and the Channel Tunnel to match growth of the city, d) mitigate new runways and terminals, port expansion, new roads and railways which has effect in the environment, and e) airport capacity development should be sustainable and balanced. 8) Open Space Structures: In the Abercrombie prescription to open space planning, he proposed the development of a coordinated Park System for the regions in greater London. Defining the connecting links in the system as ‘parkways’ and placing them in seven categories, he thus identified them as: linear strips of open space; riverside walks; footpaths through farmland; bridle tracks and green lanes; bicycle tracks; motor parkways; express arterial roads. The dual use of open space for agriculture and recreation suggest that the recreational use of land will have to interfere as little as possible with the operations of farm. Meanwhile, the London Plan of 2004’s open space plan suggests a ‘structure choice’ approach that will ensure that supply of retail and leisure facilities and other services are accessible and spread out between central London, town centres and development areas such as the Thames Gateway, that will underpin a balanced ‘polycentric’ strategy. Apart from this, cultural provisions will also be developed for local and sub-regional areas in town centres, and together with other town centre renewal proposal, the aim is to rejuvenate suburban centres. The plan will also underscore the strategic importance to promote and protect the city’s biodiversity. Lessons Learned and some recommendations In the final analysis, both urban space environment plans are similar in that they both aimed to make the city of London among the most livable cities worldwide, under the universal aims they carry: growth, equity and sustainable development; emphasis on parks development; and, the subject: the city of London, which is incomparable for its physical structure, natural climate or a garden-made population with equal enthusiasm for the task. Meanwhile, they differ firstly in background and challenges (Abercrombie’s was in response to the aftermath of war and destruction while London Plan of 2004 was made more in coping with the pressures of poverty, globalization and ensuring that London make it among the world’s livable urban environments). It is also noteworthy to note that in terms of structure plans in area distribution, the Abercrombie plan differ in that it implements zoning while London Plan of 2004 approaches sub-regional division of areas to be developed. The two plans also differ in relation to development strategy (Abercrombie’s concentric form structure and London Plan of 2004 aims a more integrated, polycentric approach). Additionally in terms of theme, Abercrombie’s plan is geared toward the movement of the population in the city into a number of district and making self-sufficient communities connected by an improved network of roads while London Plan of 2004 encourages the accommodation of more housing in the key sub-regions and generating wide employment for the residents therein. Unlike the 2004 London Plan for open space which aimed at transforming the City of London into a Garden and Landscape Capital among the world’s great cities, Abercrombie’s open space plans is confined toward making “adequate open space for both recreation and rest” for the improvement of people’s health. Finally, certain obstacles are present in the 21st Century history of landscape planning in London, namely: 1) reluctance to devolve power from central government to its constituent local stakeholders and would-be partners such as municipalities, park users and managers; 2) lack of expertise in open space planning by key town planning departments; and, 3) weak landscape architecture profession and progress. Monocle’s Tyler Brule (2007) wrote that the said London is likely to face its biggest lost opportunities in the history of urban civilization unless it constantly capitalizes on its present prosperity and starts making the necessary investments in infrastructure, the built environment and essential services. Some recommendations by theorists and experienced urban landscape planners have identified that urban experience planning must consider: 1) new emphasis on multipurpose greenways that will supplement development of parks; 2) Specialisation and expertise is necessary and must be required of urban planning professionals such as architects, planners, and not only by people who only have qualifications in the field of town planning, architecture, surveying and engineering; 3) The democratization of the landscape planning field, or one that will involve the open space users, etc.; and lastly, 4) urban environment planning will always be required for any good landscape design. Open space planning’s simple aim is to improve the urban experience, but a tricky enough task for forward-thinking local governments to tackle and engage politicians, developers, architects, financiers and anyone else who has influence or an opinion about city-life to become active players in raising the bar in open spaces. References "Abercrombie, Sir Patrick." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 8 Feb. 2008 . Brule, Tyler. “Urban Manifesto-The World.” Monocle Magazine. 9 Feb.2008 “Now We Must Rebuild: The Greater London Plan, 1944.” Haroldhill.org. 9 Feb. 2008 “Patrick Abercrombie’s Greater London Plan 1944: Preamble.” Xoomer.Alice.It. 9 Feb. 2008 < http://xoomer.alice.it/fabrizio.bottini/testi/glp_web_en/glp_001_en.html> The London Plan: A Summary: Highlights from the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Mayor of London. 11 Feb. 2008 “The 1943/44 Abercrombie plans.” Gardenvisit.com. 8 Feb. 2008 “The 1943/44 Abercrombie plans.” Londonlandscape.gre.ac.uk. 8 Feb. 2008 “The Greater London Authority's 2004 London Plan.” Gardenvisit.com. 8 Feb. 2008. Read More