From Concept to Completion a Critical Analysis of the Urban Village

Liverpool University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Town Planning Review.

http://www.jstor.org

From Concept to Completion: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Village Author(s): Michael Biddulph, Bridget Franklin and Malcolm Tait Source: The Town Planning Review, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 165-193Published by: Liverpool University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40112551Accessed: 30-04-2015 16:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 2.87.13.64 on Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:37:27 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

From concept to completion A critical analysis of the urban village

TPR, 74 (2) 2003

MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND

MALCOLM TAIT

This paper provides a critical review of the 'life' of a planning concept - the urban village. Initially it considers the process whereby the concept has become discursively fixed into something seemingly homogeneous, and located carefully in relation to both established and emerging debates about, for example, community, design and sustainability. The paper then moves on to consider the value and utility of the concept as it has been implemented and then subsequently as it became a lived experience. This process of implementing the concept has resulted in it becoming unfixed. This resulted from - an intensification in debates relating to urban policy; changes in the institution that owns the concept; tensions from the competing professional agendas; tensions between urban village design and development principles and the local circumstances; and contradictions between the concept as a product of professional discourse and the experiences and aspirations of residents.

A number of development concepts have emerged recently in Britain whose proponents claim that, if achieved, they would deliver more sustainable urban environments. Specifically these concepts seek to transcend typical patterns of development and instead capture and promote a different vision. Such concepts apply to a range of scales, but include the compact city (Jenks et al., 1996), the poly centric city (Frey, 1999), the urban quarter (Krier, 1998), the sustainable urban neighbourhood (Rudlin and Falk, 1999), the urban village (Aldous, 1997), the eco- village (Barton, 1999), and the millennium village (DETR, 2000). These concepts have become important in legitimising and coordinating more finite

Michael Biddulph and Bridget Franklin are lecturers at the Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Cardiff, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WA; email: [email protected], [email protected]. Malcolm Tait is a lecturer in the Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Geopraphy and Planning Building, Winter Street, Sheffield S3 7ND; [email protected]

Paper submitted May 2002; revised paper received October 2002 and accepted November 2002.

165


166 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT elements of an underlying development strategy and in some cases providing a perceived deeper legitimacy to the act of planning. Gaining acceptance for these concepts and translating them into practice has, however, proved more difficult, and the only one that might claim to have resulted in any significant number of planned or built examples is the urban village.

Using the urban village as an example, this paper aims to consider what might be called the 'life' of such a concept in planning. In particular it considers a number of transformations which together constitute the processes involved in conceptualising, developing and finally living in the urban village concept. Central to this approach is an understanding of how various actors have taken multifarious strands of thinking and 'fixed' them into a seemingly homogeneous concept, and then how and why this concept has been progressively 'unfixed' as it has been transformed into 'paper' planning schemes, transformed again into built products, and finally realised as a lived experience.

Despite the proliferation of developments under the urban village rubric, little academic research has been conducted into the phenomenon. Biddulph (2000) argued that the urban village concept is largely derived from traditional notions of neighbourhood planning updated with reference to more recent urban design concepts. Thompson-Fawcett (1996; 1998a; 1998b; 2000) investigated the background and philosophy of the urban village and compared it to the similar New Urbanist or Traditional Neighbourhood Development (TND) movement in the USA. Her empirical work of the British experience is limited to two case studies, the location of one of which is also the subject of a less critical paper by Me Arthur (2000). Both Thompson-Fawcett and commentators on the TND argue that the thinking behind the respective concepts is Utopian, nostalgic and deterministic, as well as based on a flawed premise about contemporary constructions of community (Audirac and Shermyen, 1994; Thompson- Fawcett, 1996; South worth, 1997). Built examples too do not always match the vision, since in addition to giving substance to a 'cloudy paradigm' (Thompson-Fawcett, 2000, 278), they are also subject to the whims of developers, the proclivities of residents, and the reality of economic and social forces (Leung, 1995; South worth and Parthasarathy, 1997).

Initially this paper provides an understanding of the processes and forces that have led to the articulation of the urban village concept. In particular it elucidates the influence of both structural and human agency factors which have influenced its constituent attributes, as well as how the urban village concept has evolved and been justified. Interviews with 22 key players and a review of relevant literature showed how the urban village concept was formed and articulated, and how it relates to other discourses in planning, policy and development.

After this the paper moves on to appraise the processes and forces that have impacted on the adoption, interpretation, application and implementation of the urban village concept in specific locations, and in particular to analyse the extent to which urban village design principles have been adopted and the reasons for any departure from them. A questionnaire survey of all UK local authorities (not County Councils) produced information about 55 schemes and showed the


FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION 167

variety of forms that urban villages assume in different localities. Following this, research into three specific case studies revealed some of the detailed processes by which the urban village concept has been implemented in greatly differing locations. The case studies selected were Bordesley Urban Village, Birmingham, Garston-under-the-Bridge Urban Village, Liverpool and West Silvertown Urban Village, Royal Victoria Docks, London. These are three contrasting schemes in contrasting locations, affected by differing local development conditions. This part of the work involved interviews with key professionals (11 in Bordesley, 13 in Garston-under-the-Bridge and 17 in West Silvertown) regarding the adoption of the concept, the development process and the resultant outcomes.

Finally the paper investigates both the patterns of life within urban villages and the variety of values and meanings ascribed to developments informed by the urban village concept, on the part of all those individuals involved. In particular the paper assesses the extent to which the urban village, as a lived experience, accords with the intentions and perceptions of those who promote and use it and whether the principles of development accord with user aspirations. The results of surveys of residents (131 returns), and in-depth interviews or focus groups with 38 residents in the three case study locations revealed how residents experience, use and attach meaning to so-called urban villages and have allowed conclusions to be drawn about the extent to which there is a correspondence with the intentions of urban village promoters.

Fixing the urban village: the derivation and definition of the concept

The urban village concept was first developed and promoted by the Urban Villages Group (UVG) in the late 1980s, following a challenge from the Prince of Wales. The concept was guided by a philosophy and a set of principles that called for well designed, mixed use and sustainable urban areas, with a sense of place and community commitment (Aldous, 1992). The credibility of the concept appears to derive not only from the legitimacy established by the Prince of Wales and the UVG (later the Urban Villages Forum (UVF)), but also from its initial endorsement by the Government (DOE, 1997; Urban Villages Forum/ English Partnerships, undated). More recently, however, it has been superseded in government discourse by different concepts, notably the notion of a more general urban 'renaissance' and more specifically 'millennium villages' (DETR, 2000; Urban Task Force, 1999).

The context for the concept was one of increasing concern with the quality of modern development, especially when compared with older, more traditional areas. In addition, the property recession of the late 1980s/early 1990s also meant that development professionals were willing to reconsider their approaches to development. The promotion of the concept was undertaken specifically by a small group of developers, investors, architects and planners brought together by the Prince of Wales to form the UVG. The Prince, driven by his widely publicised thinking on architecture, human values and community


168 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT (Jencks, 1988), led the call for a return to more human scale and aesthetic development, based on an analysis of how 'good' places were designed:

there were many places that we'd all visited and we had all seen and had all admired which shone out as examples of mixed-use places where communities could flourish. And since there were such good examples, why was our generation stubbornly resisting or ignoring them and instead creating places that didn't achieve those high ideals? (property developer/ Urban Villages Forum member)

In addition, legitimacy for the concept was derived through adoption of a variety of discourses which resonated with both old and new orthodoxies:

Neighbourhood Planning Concepts of proximity and locality central to the urban village reflect neighbourhood planning ideals originating in the 1920s (Biddulph, 2000; Madanipour, 2001).

Urban Geography and Sociology Village-like characteristics in cities have been identified for decades (Gans, 1962; Taylor, 1974). Particularly important to many proponents of the urban village has been the work of Jane Jacobs (1961) with her concerns for diversity and mixing uses ('everything she said about urban areas was true' [representative of the business community /Urban Villages Forum member]).

Community Involvement Work to involve communities and give them a stake in their neighbourhoods was already popular in the field of urban design, and promoters of the urban village found a receptive audience for this approach.

Urban Design Promotion of urban design by the British Government was apparent through the Quality in Town and Country Initiative and the Urban Design Campaign (Biddulph, 1997). The urban village concept reflects this, emphasising design quality as defined, for example, by Jacobs (1961), Cullen (1961), Lynch (1981), Bentley et al. (1985) and Gehl (1996). Similar development concepts were also endorsed inter- nationally, for example, Transit Orientated Development, Pedestrian Pockets (Kelbaugh, 1989; Calthorpe, 1993) and Traditional Neighbour- hood Development (Krieger and Lennertz, 1991).

Sustainability The late 1980s/early 1990s saw an increased interest in sustainability, and the urban village concept also drew, albeit rather vaguely on this - 'the twin objectives must therefore be to ensure a sustainable global environment; and to provide local environments that are . . . more sustainable' (Aldous, 1992, 25).

Work to identify key principles and to 'fix' the concept in the early 1990s was based on the model of new-build schemes. To fix or agree the nature of the concept the various professionals produced a book which set out the group's aspirations, defined what an urban village would be (Box 1), and provided a rationale for the development form (Aldous, 1992; 1995). Much of the interest by the private- sector housebuilders at the time was premised on the belief that they could be involved in the wholesale development of urban villages on greenfield sites.



3,000-5,000 people '[I]nclude such adjoining land as is needed for its maximum protection

. . . maximum possible self sufficiency' (p. 24) Focal village square Small enough for everything to be in walking distance Mix of housing tenures, ages and social groups Retail mixed with other uses throughout the scheme Primary school within the scheme Pattern of open spaces should be considered Connected street network Traffic calming Locality will set the prevailing architectural style Architectural focal points, street corners, building lines, visual incidents,

enclosure Mix of uses within neighbourhoods, street blocks, streets, and within

individual buildings Permeable, pedestrian friendly, cul-de-sacs to be avoided Social mix and consultation Legible, focal points, strong street corners Variety of buildings and spaces that change and adapt over time Bring life to the buildings and the spaces in front of them

Box 1 Urban village design and development principles (from Aldous 1992; 1995)

To widen awareness and interest in the concept the UVF sought the endorsement of two of the most powerful forces in development in Britain. First, the UVF, through contacts in Government, lobbied for the urban village to be acknowledged as a preferred development form in national planning policy guidance which local planning authorities use to guide the content of their planning policy. They were so successful in this that the urban village concept was explicitly referred to as a preferred form of development in the opening pages of its advice on general policy and principles. More specifically the government guidance states:

The planning system can be used to deliver high quality, mixed-use developments, such as 'urban villages'. Built on large sites, usually within urban areas, they are characterised by - compactness, a mixture of uses and dwelling types, including affordable housing, a range of employment, leisure and community facilities, appropriate infrastructure and services, high standards of urban design, access to public open space and green spaces; and ready access to public transport. (DOE, 1997, 3-4)

The UVF's success in getting the urban village referred to in such an explicit and high profile manner meant that where large-scale residential development was being considered every local planning authority in the UK should be rejecting developments in the form of housing estates, and instead pursing the


170 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT pattern of development suggested in the urban village book. In addition, however, the guidance also suggested that 'this approach might also help to improve an existing residential area of poor quality through the gradual introduction of some or all of the urban village characteristics mentioned above' (DOE, 1997, 4). The urban village idea was also, therefore, regarded as relevant in an urban renewal context.

In response to such endorsement the UVF, via personal and professional networks, also sought the involvement and endorsement of the concept by English Partnerships (EP), the government's renewal agency which funds appropriate forms of development. This step was successful and was publicised via a joint UVF and EP publication promoting mixed-use development (UVF/ EP, no date) and by the fact that UVF members were subsequently retained by EP to act as advisers on a wide range of projects seeking renewal funds from the agency. EP, for its part, subsequently preferred to fund neighbourhood renewal schemes which provided some evidence of conformity with the urban village concept or its attributes.

During the mid- to late 1990s the focus shifted from only promoting the urban village as a suitable form of development for greenfield sites to it also becoming a more public concept that could be used within a regeneration context. The UVF therefore moved the emphasis of its activities from searching for greenfield sites where a prototype urban village could be built to advising on and endorsing urban renewal developments that adequately reflected urban village design and development principles.

This period demonstrates how disparate 'good' planning ideas and themes were brought together and characterised as a particular development concept which then became fixed in meaning, initially in a book that was seen to represent the views of the UVG and subsequent UVF, and which then were disseminated into wider practice via two most powerful means: national government planning guidance and the agency set up by that government to fund urban renewal in England.

Unfixing the concept I: examining the contested meanings Despite an impression of consensus in planning discourse about the meaning and relevance of the urban village concept, an analysis of the language used in professional interviews by those most closely involved with defining and subsequently promoting the concept demonstrates that the consensus was not actually real. Instead the concept has been continually confronted by competing professional agendas, perspectives and motivations. As such we can see how this planning and development concept was discursively constructed and recon- structed by agents with a vested interest in its future.

A series of 22 interviews was completed with individuals associated with the urban village concept and who represented the housing development industry, local authority planners, urban design consultancies, agencies of urban renewal, social housing providers and also planning and development interest groups. The discourse and language of the transcriptions were scrutinised to assess ways


FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION 171 in which the concept was socially constructed. The interviews sought to elucidate information and perceptions on - the interviewee's involvement with the urban villages movement; the UVG/UVF; the history of the urban village concept; the characteristics of the urban village; development principles for an urban village; the application of the concept to specific developments; and the relationship between this and other concepts.

The impression conveyed in the interviews was one of uncertainty - about past, present and future representations of the urban village, and in regard to its validity as either a concept or reality. This was equally the case whether the interviewee was supportive or sceptical of the merits of the concept. When asked to define an urban village, most interviewees fell back, whether consciously or not, on the list of attributes from the Urban Villages Report, although some went on to extend the applicability of the urban village idea into the more recent agendas of urban renaissance and sustainability:

It's a flagship example of the kind of projects which can . . . bring areas back to life or retro fit tired areas in a way which not only works for them but has a sort of presentational value and communicates the positive sense of urban development in cities. (Council for the Protection of Rural England/Urban Villages Forum member)

A main tension emerged between people who felt that the concept was only relevant to new-build situations and those who also thought that it could find relevance in regeneration scenarios. The former felt that house builders in particular could not deliver the concept without special circumstances and, in particular, strict control of land and its value over about 20 years:

Here we come to the fundamental problem. There is no way the private sector is capable of undertaking urban development on the true Urban Village basis and that realisation came over the developers although it hadn't come over all sorts of other people ... So the little group of developers disappeared because they accepted that they couldn't deliver - that it was a charade, (planning consultant/Urban Villages Forum member)

The latter, in contrast, sought to bring the concept to the attention of regeneration agencies, and both developers and planners working within a regeneration context, thus seeking to apply the concept within this new context despite the housing developers' doubts:

Our role has been to assemble and advise project partnerships in regeneration areas on the approach that can hopefully deliver some of the outcomes that not just the Urban Villages Forum think are viable, [. . .] now it seems to be pretty mainstream really, to try and persuade others to pursue these sorts of approaches. (Princes Foundation/Urban Villages Forum member)

The majority believed that places called urban villages could be identified, although it was accepted that few would be endorsed as such by the Urban Villages Forum, since most so called urban villages were in fact ordinary estates


172 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT adopting the urban village label for marketing purposes or existing areas called urban villages by local authorities keen to raise the profile of their areas:

The great danger is that you get [house builders] sort of re-branding what are essentially housing estates with a couple of shops under the name of Urban Villages and then all it becomes is a brand identity rather than anything meaningful in terms of design ... I mean you've still got the Councils who almost all prefer to use the Urban Village concept to re-badge pretty dire housing estates and out of town retail development, (senior member of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment)

Such badging was considered a particular feature of the house building industry's approach to gaining local planning authority favour for larger housing developments, especially since the concept had been so heavily endorsed in Government guidance.

There was also an acknowledged tension between the extent to which such an ambitious concept can or should be fixed in stone, and the need to make it flexible enough to be applicable in different development situations - whilst also not lapsing into meaninglessness. To some extent the semantics were seen to capture this:

It puts two words together that don't really fit together, the word urban and the word village, and the meaning of the word village counteracts the meaning of the word urban, and therefore in one sense it doesn't mean a great deal. On the other hand it's a very attractive phrase for people to use to describe something that might otherwise be unattractive, (planning and urban design consultant, URBED)

To many the very contradiction and fuzziness of the concept were seen as carrying an implicit value, not least because they ensure a resonance with a varied audience, from policy makers to the ordinary public. At the same time, the inherent contradictions of the concept and its perceived dilution in practice, together with perceptions of the personalities involved in promoting the concept, resulted in a certain amount of doubt about the utility of the concept. Its impact and momentum were seen by some to have waned ('the idea is past its sell by date'), while others believed that it might need to be 'reinvented'.

Overall the interviews revealed that different interests constructed the urban village concept differently, with little shared or immutable meaning, and to different degrees of refinement. Thus, both meaning and application were contested, resulting in a fluidity of interpretation.

Unfixing the concept II: planning the concept in localities A second stage of unfixing the concept was observed as its application was undertaken in specific local places, in the policy contexts of local development agendas and as it was interpreted by local actors. The questionnaire survey of UK local authorities identified 55 developments termed 'urban villages' which demonstrated how the concept has been loosely applied. The questionnaire


FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION 173 resulted in an exceptionally high return rate of 60 per cent, suggesting that even though this list of schemes is not exhaustive it would be representative. The locations of the urban villages referred to here are presented in Figure 1 . The results of the questionnaire allowed comparison of schemes both with one another and with the principles of urban village development endorsed by the UVF. Analysis of planning briefs, masterplans and development frameworks sent by local authorities also facilitated a more detailed understanding of how development principles were being interpreted.

Fig. 1 The location of UK urban villages identified as a result of the questionnaire survey


174 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT

JUSTIFYING THE URBAN VILLAGE FOCUS For the most part the local planning documentation used language drawing on discourses that already had salience to their anticipated audiences, with urban village claims legitimised by reference to institutionalised structures and practices - such as Government agendas, the orthodoxy of the UVF, the cultural image of the mythologised English Village, or the post-industrial icon of the heritage rich historic quarter. A few elaborated in some detail on the concept, often accompanied by prescriptive urban design language, while others focused more on generic 'village' qualities, seeking to capture an essence of 'villageness' by reference, for example, to provision of a 'village green'. For the most part, attempts to formalise an urban village ideology were tentative, and frequently the words 'village' and 'urban village' were used interchangeably, or in a state of ambiguity (' "village" and "urban" are rather loosely defined and not mutually exclusive' (Lincoln City Council, Long Leys Urban Village Planning Brief, 1999, 2). LOCATION Urban villages are mostly located in urban areas and generally in inner urban areas. They have been built (or are planned) on a range of previous land uses - most commonly on mixed-use inner-urban sites, for example old railway sidings, ex-industrial sites and older residential areas. Other previous uses include former large industrial and Ministry of Defence sites and hospitals, while a number (notably in the South East of England) are proposed for greenfield sites. SIZE Urban villages are ideally portrayed as distinctive neighbourhood units with a population of between 3,000 and 5,000 built with a range of densities on sites of approximately 100 hectares. However, the research suggested that planned developments vary greatly in size from just over one hectare (Attercliffe in Sheffield) to nearly 300 hectares (Swanpool in Lincoln), and with projected populations ranging from 160 to 15,000 (see Table 1). A large proportion were roughly aiming for the desired size, but it must also be noted that an equally

Table 1 The population, size and density characteristics of planned urban villages The average density of

The population of The size of planned dwellings (per hectare) planned urban villages urban villages (hectares) in planned urban villages

0-2,499 15 0-49 26 20-39 19 2,500-4,999 12 50-99 6 40-59 5 5,000-9,999 9 100-149 5 60-79 3

10,000-14,999 1 150-199 2 80-99 1 15,000-19,999 1 200-249 2 100-119 1 20,000-25,000 1 250-299 1 120-140 1

300-350 2



large number were significantly smaller, suggesting that even though suitably sized sites were not available the concept was still considered appropriate.

RANGE OF FACILITIES One of the defining characteristics of urban villages is said to be their mixed uses. Most schemes reported on in the survey included food and grocery shops, play facilities and often a community hall. Fewer developments (especially the smaller examples) have post offices and a pharmacy. Most have some form of employment provision, although often minimal. Only two (Ancoats, Manchester and Buckshaw Village, Lancashire) stated that they planned to provide as many jobs as there were residents. However, many developments are close to existing or proposed large employment sites and therefore aim to provide only housing.

VARIETY AND DENSITY OF HOUSING A wide variety of housing mixes are proposed in urban villages. The provision of affordable housing ranges from 10 per cent (in inner-urban areas) to virtually nil (in suburban and free-standing development). Housing density also varies considerably (see Table 1). The majority of developments fall in the planned range of 25-40 units per hectare. Some inner-city locations attain densities of 100 units per hectare, while suburban and free-standing developments are often 20-30 units per hectare - roughly the same as the average density for new development in England. Interestingly, many plans could not indicate intended densities, suggesting that such matters were being left to housing developers to determine as a result of market conditions, rather than being regarded as a policy objective of public interest. TRANSPORT Reducing car dependence and allowing people to choose more environmentally sustainable modes of transport are considered to be a primary goal of urban village developments. To this end bus services are either provided or planned for most urban villages, although little detail of the level of service was provided. Eleven developments also take advantage of existing train links, while eight referred to the planned provision of light rail systems.

FUNDING The developments are largely privately funded, with only four having a greater input of public money.

DESIGN GUIDES Of the 55 schemes received only 13 included design guidelines, development frameworks or masterplans which attempted to convey something of how urban village principles might be encouraged. These documents also varied considerably in extent and degree of prescription. The fact that 42 schemes could make no clear reference to any such site-specific guidance beyond statements of general aspiration shows how local authorities in particular have not always


176 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT wanted to influence the typical pattern of development that the private sector might deliver.

The survey information confirms that developments defined as 'urban villages' vary markedly throughout the UK. This variety highlights how the discursively constructed urban village concept also becomes 'unfixed' when applied to a specific development context. This reflects the amorphous nature of the urban village concept itself, the difficulty of applying such a concept uniformly in different localities, and the variety of motivations for adoption of the urban village rubric.

Unfixing the concept III: implementing the concept in localities The analysis of three case studies allowed us to examine how the urban village concept had informed the implementation of particular schemes. A case study approach was chosen in order to analyse the detailed processes of decision making and explore 'urban village' outcomes in contrasting localities. The developments also had to have established populations who could be

Fig. 2 Features of the Bordesley urban village (not to scale)



subsequently surveyed about the relevance of the concept to their localities and their patterns of life (see below).

Bordesley is an inner-city area of Birmingham, which by the mid-1980s exhibited serious decline with high unemployment, vacant land and poor housing - much of it council housing (81 per cent). Within the area measures of poverty and deprivation were high with 20 per cent of eligible people on income support, only 36 per cent of those aged between 16-59 were economically active and one out of five households owned a car (data derived from the 1991 UK Census). The area was included in a plan to regenerate East Birmingham through an Urban Development Agency, which in 1987 became the Birming- ham Heartlands Development Company. The public/private partnership included the private house builders Wimpey and Bryant as the developers for Bordesley. The regeneration work was virtually complete at the time of the

Fig. 3 Features of the Garston urban village (not to scale)


178 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT research, with much already well established. See Figure 2 for a map summarising the Bordesley initiative.

Garston-under-the-Bridge is a deprived, run-down community located six miles south-east of Liverpool city centre consisting largely of nineteenth- century terraced housing, with some post-war council and private-sector development. Within Garston 23 per cent of households are single parent, 21 per cent of the eligible population claim income support and 77 per cent of residents have an annual income below 10,000 (the UK average is approximately 23,000) (GUVP, 1999). In 1994 a successful Single Regenera- tion Budget bid led to the establishment of the Speke Garston Partnership (SGP) to devise and implement a renewal strategy for the area. In 1996 the Speke Garston Development Company was formed, which also had an influence on developments in Garston. Work began in the late 1990s and a number of community facilities have been provided, but a comprehensive housing renewal programme remains to be completed. See Figure 3 for a map summarising the Garston-under-the-Bridge initiative.

West Silvertown lies on the edge of Royal Victoria Dock, East London, and consisted mostly of derelict land with a small residential population in two tower blocks. No specific social data could be found for the existing small residential

Fig. 4 Features of the West Silvertown urban village (not to scale)



population. The area was developed as an urban village following a competition organised by the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) in 1994, which was won by Wimpey Homes in association with the Peabody Trust. Work began in the mid-1990s, with the first phase of 1,000 houses completed at the time of the research. See Figure 4 for a map summarising the West Silvertown initiative.

ADOPTION OF THE URBAN VILLAGE NAME AND CONCEPT In each location adoption of the urban village idea stemmed from different considerations, and there was not always a unity of opinion among interviewees. In Bordesley adoption of the urban village name was felt to confer what the key members of the regeneration partnership saw as an appropriate image for what they wanted to achieve, at a time when the concept itself had not yet been fully worked up by the UVG. However, precisely who coined the term and why was 'lost in the mists of time' (development officer Birmingham City Council). Subsequently some principles from the urban village repertoire were appro- priated as the concept gained currency, thus illustrating the inherent adaptability of the concept. However, to the UVF, Bordesley was never a 'real' urban village. In West Silvertown the precise origin of the idea is contested. Regeneration plans were already afoot before the Secretary of State for the Environment used the expression 'urban village' in relation to the development in 1992/93. This followed discussions with the UVF (which was actively looking for places that could be so designated), and was picked up by the LDDC as encapsulating but also legitimising its development ambitions. At the same time, and independently, the Director of Development for the Peabody Trust also suggested that the isolated nature of the site made it an ideal location for an urban village. In Garston-under-the-Bridge the urban village designation seems more clear cut. It came about as the result of the close relationship between individuals in the UVF, EP and the Speke Garston Development Company. The existing regeneration initiative (led by the SGP) was seen to have urban village potential and therefore could be conveniently 'badged' with the title to gain profile and in the hope of attracting resources from EP. However, when EP did not respond as anticipated due to a regional overspend the urban village aspect was diluted.

KEY AGENTS IN THE CASE STUDY URBAN VILLAGES In each case study the involvement of regeneration agencies was the catalyst for development activities, especially in regard to attracting the confidence of private house builders. Individuals within those agencies then actively negotiated the urban village idea for reasons of image or pragmatism or both. In Garston-under- the-Bridge and West Silvertown this process was assisted by the UVF, which was following an agenda of its own in its efforts to ensure the reality of urban villages. Also of fundamental importance in terms of mediating ideas into development outcomes were the planning and design professionals (including Tibbalds Munro in West Silvertown, Roger Tym and Partners in Bordesley, and Liverpool Architecture and Design Trust in Garston-under-the-Bridge), local planning


180 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT authorities, and philanthropic housing trusts (Bourneville Village Trust and Peabody) without whose involvement the social and community objectives in Bordesley and West Silvertown would not have been achieved. In both Garston- under-the-Bridge and Bordesley private house builders were uninterested in the urban village status, beyond the subsidised development opportunities they brought, and their powerful position in the process meant that they were able effectively to disregard urban village design ideas. This is despite the fact that nationally some of the companies had formally endorsed the concept, or elsewhere were planning to develop schemes more in line with the principles. ADOPTION OF URBAN VILLAGE Application of any 'fixed' notion of an urban village within the different contexts has been partial. In particular the rhetoric (for example mixed use, mixed tenure, sustainable) has been adopted by particular actors, at particular times and in relation to particular tasks, although often more to support an existing position than as a solution to specific development issues.

The following highlights some main points in regard to the extent to which urban village principles were applied in the three case studies.

Urban design The urban village concept was strongly premised on the view that good urban design would create more interesting and stimulating forms of development suitable to the context, that adoption of neo-traditional design principles would allow residents to choose more sustainable lifestyles, and that a well-designed scheme would create a community focus and allow social integration. In West Silvertown a master plan was produced which guided the urban design characteristics of the area. This responded well to the waterfront context, created a coherent pattern of accessibility and townscape, allowed for integration of mixed uses, and allowed some control over the integration of tenures through the scheme while also reducing the distinction between social and private housing. In Garston-under-the-Bridge a design guide was produced for the renewal agencies, but it became clear that the guide contradicted both local authority and resident expectations for the area and little effort was made by professionals to argue for the project. As a result the urban design features of the urban village were shelved and a number of separate and very standard housing schemes have, to date, resulted (Fig. 5). In Bordesley a strategy and subsequent development framework were produced which identified broad features of the planned area, including elements such as the location of the village centre, sites for housing and the location of a park. Individual developments were, however, subject to minimum intervention, leading to little coherency in the townscape.

High-density development In an urban village higher-density development should provide more people locally to sustain shops and other facilities and services within walking distances. New developments in Bordesley and Garston-under-the-Bridge have typical



Fig. 5 Standard housing development contradicting urban village design ideas in Garston-under-the-Bridge

UK densities which are lower than those thought necessary to achieve this potentiality. This is essentially because private-sector house builders were building their standard houses without any regard to the impact of this on the viability of community services such as the provision of shops. Prior to the development both locations were also unattractive to private-sector developers, and so any introduction of new housing was regarded as a significant success whatever its form, while in Garston-under-the-Bridge the new housing was seen to be supporting existing services. In West Silvertown, just a few miles from the city of London, the development context was totally different. Despite the fact that the established community was relatively deprived, and the dockside context was initially unattractive, there would always be considerable scope for higher-density development in apartments, made attractive to city workers (Fig. 6). In addition, residents of London typically have to consider living at higher densities when compared with other regional cities due to historic precedent. As a result there is a greater depth of experience of living in such a way and a greater tolerance of the form. As a result higher-density forms of housing were considered both more acceptable and viable.

Identity and place making Urban villages would typically have a distinct architectural character which it is thought should contribute to residents' sense of attachment to the place. In West Silvertown the location, isolation and new urban form give a clear identity to the



Fig. 6 Higher-density housing development in West Silvertown



Fig. 7 The village entrance sign in Bordesley

area. Bordesley makes some attempts at place making, giving some sense of identity for 'Bordesley Village' residents. This is typically a little contrived and achieved through the use of 'village' entrance signs (Fig. 7) and distinct street furniture. Garston-under-the-Bridge retains the strong sense of identity it already possessed because of its distinct history, physical isolation and resulting from the life-long friendships and relationships that have formed between people in the area.

Community involvement The UVF has always endorsed community involvement as an appropriate means of ensuring that any urban village plan matches residents' aspirations. A planning weekend was held at West Silvertown, but unfortunately had little influence on development outcomes. In Bordesley the public have been involved in minor decisions such as traffic calming, the community hall, and road naming, while in Garston-under-the-Bridge extensive efforts have been made to involve the community, principally because there is a large, established population.

Environmentally friendly design Although an interest in environmentally benign forms of development has emerged in parallel to attempts to promote urban villages, the UVF has also made claims that its form of development is environmentally sustainable. In all


184 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT of the case studies, however, any argument for the sustainability of the schemes has tended to focus on the extent to which economic and social sustainability goals have been achieved as a result of initiatives to reuse brownfield land, introduce private housing and hopefully therefore sustain both pre-existing and new community facilities and services. Issues of environmental sustainability have received less attention, with only one development for Peabody Housing Association containing any specific features to reduce the environmental impacts of the particular housing scheme.

Pattern of open space The UVF's emphasis on urban design encompasses the view that well-designed places should accommodate open spaces into a plan, be they focal spaces of an urban character, or green spaces for recreation. Bordesley gave high priority to the provision and improvement of green space and landscaping. This was regarded as a mechanism for attracting private-sector house builders, but the outcome has also been the creation of a valued open space in the resulting scheme. The scheme also established a new village centre, although the existing pattern of streets means that the space is not a focal space in the area (Fig. 8). West Silvertown focused on hard landscaping and creating access to the waterfront, although it also produced a focal space in front of the small arcade of shops. In Garston-under-the-Bridge an open green space is planned, while the

Fig. 8 The Bordesley village centre



neighbouring retailing centre has seen a 'face lift' creating a new focus. In general such initiatives have been successful, although the more urban focal spaces typically fall short of the 'market square' image encouraged in urban village literature.

Mixed use Achieving both horizontal and vertical mixing of uses is regarded as a mechanism for creating vitality for longer periods of the day, while it is also thought that it might reduce the need to travel and subsequently foster greater attachment to a place. In particular the urban village concept suggests that people should have the opportunity both to live and to work in a locality. In relation to employment in particular there are minimal opportunities in all the schemes. Bordesley has most employment use, through retained small industries. West Silvertown has some live/work units, although the majority of the development is residential. Both Garston-under-the-Bridge and Bordesley are also close to major employment sites, which encouraged the planners to focus more exclusively on housing development and the provision of a wider range of neighbourhood facilities. The achievement of vertical mixing has also been rather low key, with only small areas in both Bordesley and West Silvertown seeing the provision of residential uses above shops. This is generally attributable to a lack of interest in this form of development by house building companies, which have dominated development in all three areas, and also a concern about the viability of smaller retail units in areas served by larger supermarkets.

Mixed tenure Mixing tenures is associated with the provision of a more balanced community, and the urban village concept seeks to encourage a fine mixing within streets, rather than a coarse mixing of social and private housing in different areas. A mixture of tenures was achieved in all three areas although not the fine mix endorsed by the concept. In both Bordesley and Garston new private and social housing schemes have been created quite separately from either the traditional community or social housing, and there is virtually no reason for either the private and social housing or new and old residents to mix. In both areas, however, the provision of private homes has been regarded as a mechanism for achieving a more 'balanced' community, although this is a functional rather than a social goal, as the supposedly more affluent private residents might be able to assist the viability of the community facilities. In West Silvertown there is no design distinction between social and private, but true 'pepperpotting' has also not been achieved. The interviews with residents also determined that new private and social tenants do not mix in any of the locations.

Facilities Many of the urban village planning and design concepts are premised on the view that their achievement will assist in providing and maintaining a wider range of facilities within the neighbourhoods. This was a reason why the concept



Fig. 9 Window Lane in Garston, formerly the centre of the community containing a rich mix of shops, pubs and other facilities. Realistically the level of provision in this area will be rationalised to match contemporary patterns of shopping and service use.

was regarded as useful for Garston-under-the-Bridge where existing local services have been suffering from long-term decline, and it was hoped that adoption of urban village design and development principles would reverse this trend. To date there is little evidence that this has been successful, and it is more likely that the existing provision will be further rationalised to a more sustainable level (Fig. 9). Bordesley has provided the limited 'village centre' with convenience shops and a health centre and West Silvertown has a small parade of shops. All schemes have provided community halls, with the assistance of philanthropic support or gap funding, although the hall in Garston already has an uncertain future due to low levels of use and an unwillingness of residents to pay for activities. In general the urban village vision of a vibrant mix of small shops and facilities along an attractive 'high street' seems to be quite far from the development reality where those smaller shops are typically in a state of decline as a result of contemporary shopping habits.

Public transport In addition to sustaining a range of community facilities an urban village would also be able to sustain an effective public transport system to neighbouring areas. Public transport in both Garston-under-the-Bridge and Bordesley was already deemed to be relatively good (but Bordesley residents regret that it has not been improved). In West Silvertown considerable effort has been put into transport



links, from a low base. Unfortunately, however, between the areas and many neighbouring facilities car travel remains the most attractive option in all cases for people with access to a car.

Self-sufficiency Some have suggested (Biddulph, 2000) that one of the defining characteristics of an urban village is the view that development should lead to a degree of self- sufficiency and a localisation of life to within the village's boundaries. Such a plan was not seen as particularly relevant in both Garston-under-the-Bridge and Bordesley where the communities rely on accessibility to facilities in adjacent areas. Garston in particular actually suffers from its isolation and resulting stigma. Interviewees suggested that residents' poverty has actually limited the extent to which some people feel confident about travelling beyond the boundary of the community, while some residents from neighbouring areas don't choose to drink in the Garston-under-the-Bridge pubs or use the limited shops because of the area's reputation or its isolation. In West Silvertown self-sufficiency would have been more achievable given the isolated position of the development, but the population is currently not large enough to sustain a diverse range of uses and residents are forced to use facilities at a distance, with many of the private residents finding it convenient to use facilities close to their employment. All in all, the goal of achieving greater self-sufficiency seems profoundly misplaced when such areas are embedded within wider urban networks and when confronted by contemporary aspirations and the specific circumstances of communities.

Social sustainability Enhancing social relationships between members of the community and developing community capacity is also a goal of urban village development, with residents working with professionals in the planning of the scheme, managing aspects of the resulting development and, through community associations, forming types of interest groups commonly associated with village life. The aim in Garston-under-the-Bridge and Bordesley has been to stem the loss of people from the areas, and it is certainly felt that retention of existing populations has been achieved while some newcomers have also arrived. In Bordesley these newcomers already show commitment to staying in Bordesley but, despite the reinvigorated community, there has been only limited success in efforts to engage the community and a Community Forum initiative has failed. Garston-under-the-Bridge already had a range of active and established community groups, but the pre-existing urban-village-like characteristics of close social ties and local service use are becoming diluted. In West Silvertown the majority are new residents who do not expect to stay long term. Here a Trust has been formed to assist in community development, but social integration is weak. In Bordesley the retention and expansion of the school, and in Garston- under-the-Bridge and West Silvertown the provision of new schools, have had important community impacts.



Unfixing the concept IV: life in an urban village PATTERNS OF LIFE IN THE URBAN VILLAGES The so-called localisation of life is regarded by promoters of the concept as one of the potential positive consequences of the creation of urban villages, as people can realise most of their daily needs within the direct vicinity of their homes. Our analysis of the use of facilities and services in the case studies found that where possible people would use local shops for items such as bread and milk, and that they would also tend to use a local newsagent, chemist or post office. However, general shopping for food would occur beyond the developments and where people owned cars they would exercise greater choice about which supermarkets to use. In development terms these trends seem to have been accepted with little attempt to create anything other than very limited local shopping opportunities within schemes. In all cases the community facilities were used little by responding residents, while in Garston-under-the-Bridge people were also not attending the local churches. As stated previously the local schools were well used by residents with children, and the schools were seen as having a cohesive effect on community relations.

In West Silvertown many of the more affluent people would tend to be more mobile and take advantage of the opportunities that London offers. In sharp contrast Garston-under-the-Bridge had a very localised life, but for many people engaged in social renewal of the community this was regarded as an economic imperative created by poverty, rather than being a desirable preference or a lifestyle choice.

RESIDENT SATISFACTION AND AWARENESS OF THE URBAN VILLAGE CONCEPT Residents were not greatly concerned by the urban village status of the places where they lived, nor particularly aware that such concepts were being either seriously or loosely applied. In both Garston-under-the-Bridge and Bordesley people were generally satisfied with what had been achieved, although they had concerns or reservations about certain facilities. In Garston-under-the-Bridge in particular some urban village attributes would not be accepted locally (higher density and mixed use), and in neither Garston-under-the-Bridge nor Bordesley would urban design be regarded as significant. In West Silvertown residents felt that the scheme had few physical or social village attributes, although they commented positively on the design. OTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE CASE STUDIES In all three locations, the work of the regeneration agencies was fundamental to achieving improvements - environmentally, socially and economically. Those involved in the agencies in West Silvertown and Bordesley were unanimous in feeling that such achievements were substantial and had assured the future for the areas. Residents who lived with the end results were less wholehearted on these points. To both the agencies and the residents, however, it was these broader achievements that were important, rather than those specifically



according with urban village principles. In each location regeneration plans existed prior to, and independently of, urban village associations, and subsequently elements of the urban village concept were explicitly or implicitly abstracted and reinterpreted to fit

(a) the strategy or vision for the area; (b) the agendas of the organisations and individuals involved; and (c) the local context of the site characteristics, populations and facilities.

West Silvertown, with almost a tabula rasa, strong design leadership, and general commitment to the urban village concept, comes closest to the idealised urban village - although it is still some way short. However, it does meet the aims of its development brief. In Bordesley, urban village claims were less institutionalised, there was less to lose, and the activation of principles was more by accident than by design, driven by a development brief that was firmly rooted in the needs of the locality. Here the nature of the process and the commitment of key actors, rather than idealised principles, were seen as the key to success. In Garston-under-the-Bridge, attempts to adhere to urban village principles were minimised when they no longer seemed to bring strategic benefit. Indeed, the effort to seek classification as an urban village part way through the process of renewal when an accepted strategy had been established seemed to confuse the issue as some actors sought to repackage and re-present plans with a greater emphasis on urban village qualities, rather than emphasising matters previously considered a priority. In none of the locations was the title urban village used much in practice. Bordesley was 'Bordesley Village', West Silvertown was referred to either as such or as 'Britannia Village' - the name given by Wimpey, and Garston (with the exception of a few urban village brochures specifically produced for EP) continued to be referred to as 'Garston-under-the-Bridge', to distinguish it from the adjacent and established Garston Village.

Conclusions The purpose of this paper has been to consider the life of a concept in planning such as the urban village. In particular it has been concerned with highlighting a number of transformations that constitute the processes involved in conceptualising, developing and finally living in the urban village concept. Central to this task has been an understanding of how multifarious strands of thinking have become fixed into a seemingly homogeneous concept, how and why this thinking has then been progressively unfixed as actors have tried to transform the concept into both paper planning schemes and built products and finally how the concept has been confronted by contradictory lived experiences. 'FIXING' THE CONCEPT Attempts to fix the urban village concept were driven by a variety of interests, and may be viewed as a process of mediation between individuals (such as the


190 MICHAEL BIDDULPH, BRIDGET FRANKLIN AND MALCOLM TAIT Prince of Wales) and wider (reproduced) social structures. This process of mediation was largely discursive, in that defining and agreeing on the concept meant drawing on different discourses, albeit with an elitist and traditionalist emphasis, which served first to define the urban village and second to position it within wider, and increasingly urgent, debates on contemporary cities and urban form. Such work, led by the UVG and exemplified by its report (Aldous, 1992), established not only a set of generic development principles, but combined these to set out a particular vision of a locality - 'the urban village'. However, a prescriptive version of the urban village remains elusive and the concept represents a loose, fuzzy and ambiguous set of ideas and associations. This allows for a wide degree of flexibility among those who claim to support, or indeed refute, the concept, while notions of what the concept might mean remain contested.

'UNFIXING' THE CONCEPT The urban village concept is one that encapsulates a tension between the need to define and stabilise itself as a set of ideas and the redefinition, destabilisation and unfixing of the concept as it gets implemented (and therefore collides with other discourses, local structures and actors). This is exemplified by the fact that the concept has undergone changes over time, first as the surrounding discourses about cities have intensified, and second as the institution that owns the concept (the UVF) has changed, both in personnel and organisational structure. In addition, and crucial to this research, is what occurs in the process of implementing the urban village concept in localities. This has more obviously led to an unfixing of the concept, and the questionnaire survey highlighted the varied characteristics of urban villages. The results of the survey also showed how the process of naming a development an urban village lends it apparent coherence and therefore a deeper legitimacy within the discourse of planning, regardless of its characteristics. The three case studies reinforced these findings, providing details of the processes by which urban villages were mediated on the ground and how these processes were informed by aspects of the urban village ideal. The extent to which the urban village concept was drawn upon and modified in each case study location varied according to the historical and topographical context, the local structures (development industry, planning regimes, community/social structures) and the commitment of the agents (developers, architects and so forth). In this way, the urban village concept as an idealised notion is transformed through the process of alignment by agents working within local areas, structures and regimes. REALISING THE DESIGN IDEAL Much of the urban village ideal is expressed with reference to urban design ideas that would need to be realised through the British planning and land development systems. The interviews undertaken in the study highlighted the contrasting views of the UVF members about whether these design ideas could be achieved, with the group divided between members convinced that an organisation promoting the concept would need to control the land and its value


FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION 191 over a long period of time and, on the other hand, those holding to the view that incentives via funding for urban regeneration work would be enough to provide an adequate framework. The former group, in particular, never realised their ideal as the requisite circumstances were never in place. Answers to the questionnaire exposed how misplaced was the confidence of the second group, with many so-called urban village schemes only able to provide reference to some general urban village aspirations. Few have adopted specific master plans or guidance to influence the development form, while sites were sometimes too small, the planned populations were too varied or issues such as density or mixed use were only expressed in quite vague terms. Such a lack of conformity with the concept is explained by the limited relevance of the concept to many localities or their circumstances. In particular the case studies highlighted how councils sometimes had contrary views about what would work in their locality, while house builders tended to be given a high degree of freedom to determine for themselves the form of development that would be appropriate, especially where the market for development was weak. In such a case, house builders would tend to have less interest in the complicated development scenario that an urban village represents, while some of the objectives such as finely mixing tenures and providing connected street networks through deprived areas would not be entertained.

THE URBAN VILLAGE IN USE The urban village encapsulates not only a vision of a particular outcome of the development process, but also a vision of a particular form of social activity (largely based around localism). Through interviews and questionnaire surveys with residents of 'urban villages' it was possible to ascertain the extent to which the use of localities was influenced by urban village developments. Research found that patterns of use of space and facilities were not merely influenced by the largely physical intervention of the urban village, but also by numerous social and economic structures. In addition, while residents appreciated certain attributes of the schemes, they did not generally identify with the urban village concept as one that was important in shaping their area, indicating the extent to which the concept is an artefact of professional discourses.

In particular the value of localisation was often contradictory when real communities were considered. Certain professionals were prepared to regard the choice of a localisation of life within a defined urban village community as an unquestionably positive idea, characterised by wide ranging social relations forming within a small geographic area. However, members of deprived communities within the case studies had such relationships, and often renewal efforts of any type were trying to broaden their horizons and (re)introduce them into the opportunities provided by the wider urban milieu, even if this only extended to using facilities within neighbouring areas. This defining character- istic of life in an urban village expressed as a pattern of physical development and then transposed onto an ideal of social relations therefore appears to be particularly misplaced.



REFERENCES ALDOUS, T. (1992), Urban Villages: A

Concept for Creating Mixed-use Urban Devel- opments on a Sustainable Scale, London, Urban Villages Group.

ALDOUS, T. (1995), Economics of Urban Villages, London, Urban Villages Group.

ALDOUS, T. (1997), Urban Villages: A Concept for Creating Mixed-use Urban Devel- opments on a Sustainable Scale (second edition), London, Urban Villages Forum.

AUDIRAC, I. and SHERMYEN, A. (1994), 'An evaluation of neotraditional design's social prescription: postmodern placebo or remedy for social malaise?', Journal of Planning Educa- tion and Research, 13, 171-3.

BARTON, H. (ed.) (1999), Sustainable Communities: the Potential of Eco-villages, London, Earthscan.

BENTLEY, I., ALCOCK, A., MURRAIN, P. and McGLYNN, S. (1985), Responsive Environments: A Guide for Planners, Designers and Developers, Luton, Local Government Management Board.

BIDDULPH, M. (1997), 'Lessons from the Urban Design Campaign', Urban Design Inter- national, 2, 199-209.

BIDDULPH, M. (2000), 'Villages don't make a city', Journal of Urban Design, 5, 65-82.

CALTHORPE, P. (1993), The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

CULLEN, G. (1961), The Concise Town- scape, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

DETR (DEPARTMENT OF THE EN- VIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS) (2000), Millennium Villages and Sustainable Communities, London, DETR.

DOE (DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIR- ONMENT) (1997), PPG1: General Policy and Principles, London, DOE.

FREY, H. (1999), Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form, London, E & F N Spon.

GANS, H. (1962), The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian- Amer- icans, New York, Free Press.

GEHL, J. (1996), Life Between Buildings, Copenhagen, Arkitektens Forlag.

GUVP (GARSTON URBAN VILLAGE PARTNERSHIP) (1999), Garston Neighbour- hood Strategy, Liverpool, GUVP.

JACOBS, J. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Harmonds worth, Penguin.

JENCKS, C. (1988), The Prince, the Archi- tects and New Wave Monarchy, London, Academy Editions.

JENKS, M., BURTON, E. and WILLIAMS, K. (1996), The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, London, E & F N Spon.

KELBAUGH, D. (1989), The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

KRIEGER, A. and LENNERTZ, W. (1991), Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk: Towns and Town Making Principles, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Graduate School of Design.

KRIER, L. (1998), Architecture: Choice or Fate, Windsor, Andreas Papadakis.

LEUNG, H. (1995), 'A new kind of sprawl', Plan Canada, September, 4-5.

LYNCH, K. (1981), Theory of Good City Form, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

McARTHUR, A. (2000), 'Rebuilding Sus- tainable Communities: Assessing Glasgow's Urban Village Experiment', Town Planning Review, 71, 51-69.

MADANIPOUR, A. (2001), 'How relevant is "planning by neighbourhoods" today?', Town Planning Review, 72, 171-91.

RUDLIN, D. and FALK, N. (1999), Building the Twenty-first Century Home, Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.

SOUTHWORTH, M. (1997), 'Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge', Journal of Urban Design, 2, 9-34.

SOUTHWORTH, M. and PARTHASAR- ATHAY, B. (1997), 'The suburban public realm II: Eurourbanism, new urbanism and the implication for urban design in the American metropolis', Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 28-44.

TAYLOR, N. (1974), The Village in the City, London, Maurice Temple Smith.

THOMPSON-FAWCETT, M. (1996), 'The urbanist revision of development', Urban Design International, 1, 301-22.

THOMPSON-FAWCETT, M. (1998a), 'Leon Krier and the organic revival within


FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION 193 urban policy and practice', Planning Perspec- tives. 13, 167-94.

THOMPSON-FAWCETT, M. (1998b)5 'Envisioning urban villages: a critique of a movement and two urban transformations' (un- published PhD thesis), University of Oxford.

THOMPSON-FAWCETT, M. (2000), 'The contribution of urban villages to sustainable development' in K. Williams, E. Burton

and M. Jenks (eds), Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, London, E & F N Soon, 275-87.

UVF/EP (URBAN VILLAGES FORUM/ ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS) (undated), Making Places: A Guide to Good Practice in Undertaking Mixed Development Schemes, London, UVF/EP.

URBAN TASK FORCE (1999), Towards an Urban Renaissance, London, E & F N Spon.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research from which this paper is derived was kindly supported by the Economic and Social Research Council grant no. R 000 22 3284.


Article Contentsp. 165p. 166p. 167p. 168p. 169p. 170p. 171p. 172p. 173p. 174p. 175p. 176p. 177p. 178p. 179p. 180p. 181p. 182p. 183p. 184p. 185p. 186p. 187p. 188p. 189p. 190p. 191p. 192p. 193

Issue Table of ContentsThe Town Planning Review, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. i-vii, 143-252Front MatterViewpoint: The Nature of Planning: Economy versus Society? [pp. iii-vii]The Impact of Environmental Improvements on Town Centre Regeneration [pp. 143-164]From Concept to Completion: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Village [pp. 165-193]Shouting Very Loudly: Economics, Planning and Politics [pp. 195-212]Tokyo before the Next Earthquake: Agglomeration-Related Risks, Town Planning and Disaster Prevention [pp. 213-238]Commentary: Sustainable Development and the Aims of Planning, La Franaise [pp. 239-245]Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 247-248]Review: untitled [pp. 248-249]Review: untitled [pp. 249-250]Review: untitled [pp. 250-252]

Back Matter

Documents

From Concept to Completion a Critical Analysis of the Urban Village