CREW's Poundbury Visit: Some comments and responses

Following our recent site seminar at Poundbury we have received some comments from Jonathan Bevan who took part in the seminar. These are his personal views and do not reflect any opinion held by his employer.  In the spirit of debate we have also attached a response from Noel Isherwood who made a presentation about Poundbury at the site seminar.  CREW is very pleased to have this dialogue and encourages others to add their opinion in this blog.  Whether you were part of the site seminar or have general views about Poundbury please join the discussion. The views expressed here are not endorsed by CREW.  Unfortunately,  photographs used in Jonathan's comments can't be viewed within the blog, however if you wish to receive his full contribution please email dave.adamson@regenwales.org

1.  Jonathan's Comment

Site Visit, Presentations and Walkabout at
Poundbury, Dorchester, Dorset

1.   Introduction

The purpose of the site visit, walkabouts and presentations was to see first-hand an example of recent and ongoing urban regeneration and to discuss the lessons learnt during the process.

Figures 1 and 2: Good examples of street spaces - non-adopted with a distinct lack of people and lack of life.

Presentations were made by;-

Bob Croydon of the Prince’s Foundation on ‘Tradition and Sustainability in Wales; good and bad urbanism’ – this covered a brief history of urban development in Wales citing traditional and natural growth of villages and towns as good examples of organic mixed-use settlements against the lessons that should have been learnt against ‘zoning’, out of town and single use developments as unsustainable and ultimately damaging to the social, environmental and economic fabric of our towns.

Simon Conibear of the Duchy of Cornwall on ‘The Development Economics of the Poundbury Project’ – how the economics of the design and construction of 250 homes (including 55 social housing units) on 7.5 Hectares of Prince Charles’ land was made to work economically and socially.

Noel Isherwood, architect/urban designer to the Prince’s Foundation on ‘Transferrable Principles; Poundbury to Penrhiwceiber’ – posed the question; Is it possible to transfer the principles of Poundbury (green-field, flat, wealthy, rural village form) to Penrhiwceiber (brown-field, valley, post-industrial, ‘ribbon’ form)?

These presentations were followed by an hour long walkabout of Phase 1 starting at the Brownsword Community Hall through streets, parking courts, out to the edge of the development area and return.

2.   Key Findings

All 3 speakers made claims that Poundbury is a useful model for economically viable, high density, mixed-use, and sustainable urban development. Unfortunately, the evidence to support these claims was not made apparent during the walkabouts or the presentations.

i)         Firstly, and significantly, the size, shape and style of this development is severely distorted by the wealth and land/ housing values in this part of rural England (typically ~£350k for a modest 3-bed home). This factor has allowed for the use of traditional building techniques and detailing such as hardwood windows and doors, the use of natural stone throughout, leading for canopies and Welsh slate for roofs.

ii)       At 33 homes/ hectare the claims that it is ‘high density’ are misleading. This figure is only relatively high when compared to the very low densities of most privately developed housing (~20/Ha) but this figure is not particularly high when compared with the real high densities of sustainable towns. Significantly, this makes Poundbury “sub-urban” rather than urban, as is claimed.

Figure 3: Compare the new development layout with that of the existing neighbourhood on the right of the image.

Figure 4: Rear parking courtyard.

iii)      Neither is Poundbury’s layout/structure ‘traditional’ as is claimed; only the look of the buildings is traditional, (but ultimately fake/pastiche). In fact in terms of its layout, Poundbury is “counter-traditional” and not dissimilar to the difficult and problematic, modernist, post-war social housing estates where cars are segregated by putting them into back courtyards.

iv)      The ‘housing blocks’ are punctured with routes to car storage areas behind homes. This leads to a number of serious problems;
- the neighbourhood is riddled with unsafe, poorly lit and non-overlooked back and side alleyways,
- the public are encouraged to enter unsafe rear parking courtyards,
- The public can therefore easily access the backs of homes and cars hidden in the rear courtyards,
- gardens are very small for the type of properties,
- the backs of homes and back gardens have severely compromised levels of privacy and safety,
- the streets are dead spaces as most residents use their back doors to access their homes,

Figures 5 and 6: Back lanes to car park courts – a safe place for pedestrians?

v)       The rear courtyards and back alleyways are not adoptable and so residents are asked to pay a maintenance fee.

vi)      These rear courtyards and back alleyways represent a duplication of circulation space for vehicles and therefore an inefficient use of land.

vii)     Poundbury is not as well connected to the rest of Dorchester as is claimed and does not appear to have grown organically from the town – in fact it feels distinctly separated with few through roads and a completely different layout and levels of accessibility to the rest of the town. (Despite the claim that there are no culs-de-sac I came across three).

Figure 7: A dead-end street that should have been connected to the main road

viii)   Poundbury’s sustainability credentials are also relatively modest with only 11 ‘eco-homes’ (only 3 of which have photovoltaics) out of 252 units. More damaging is the revelation that the design code for the development allows for 2 – 3 car parking spaces per property. This encourages car ownership and car use, and discourages walking cycling and the use of public transport.

3.   Conclusion

The main achievement of Poundbury has been to recreate the atmosphere of a mock English village with lightly trafficked streets, lined with quaint homes.

But by creating this nostalgic throwback to a by-gone age - when the streets were quiet (in traffic terms, because no-one had a car), comes with a very heavy price-tag, namely; -
- unsafe homes and gardens, vulnerable to break-ins from the rear,
- unsafe, unsupervised, rear parking courtyard spaces,
- unsafe, unsupervised maze of back alleyways,
- inactive and potentially unsafe street-spaces,
- vulnerable property and ultimately unsafe places for residents.

This fake English-village vernacular is at best twee - ‘Disneyland for wealthy pensioners’ perhaps, but in reality the way the streets and homes are laid out results in an unsafe, unsustainable, and a fundamentally flawed project rather than a model housing development.

The most important lesson here must be: not to try this approach anywhere else as it’s doubtful that it can even be made to work here.

2. Noel Isherwood's response

1          General: The speakers, while referring to the principles behind Poundbury made it clear that Poundbury should not be reproduced elsewhere but should be adapted to suit local conditions, socially, economically and environmentally, a point that does not seem to have been grasped. I said that Poundbury doesn't necessarily provide all the answers, but asks a lot of pertinent questions in relation to recent development practices.  

2          Key finding:  

1. The demographics of Dorset are similar to many other parts of the UK and the development values are reflective of the location. Of course the demographics are very different to many parts of Wales and this has to be taken into account when applying similar principles elsewhere. The fact that the property values are approximately 18% higher in Poundbury than the immediate surrounding area is not a distortion but a testimony to the added value that creating a sense of place brings with it over and above standard development models. This is a principle that should be applied elsewhere even when the cost base is much lower. If fact in such places, finding ways to add value is even more pertinent given the more stringent local economy. A lot of recent development detracts from a good sense of place and tends to cause devaluation as a result.  
2. No one claims that Poundbury is high density, just that it is higher than previous forms of suburban development, particularly the form of the 1960's and 70's housing estates on the doorstep of Poundbury. As such Poundbury, started 20 years ago when these ideas were not even on the agenda, was forging a new direction in housing settlements using principles that are now becoming main stream. Such principles demonstrated at Poundbury are now incorporated in 'Manual for Streets' and other government publications. Poundbury was cited as a key step in 'The development of Housing in Britain 1870 - 2008' at the 11th International Architecture Exhibition' at the Venice Biennale. 
3. it is important to distinguish between post war 'Radburn Plan' inspired housing types and the more traditionally inspired perimeter block system used at Poundbury. The Radburn plan has had a huge influence on UK post war housing, causing confusion between public and private space. Modernism is also beset by 'fake' these days to the extent that 'Neo-modernism' is now being used to describe cheap versions of modernism being parried as cool developments but in danger of repeating many of the planning mistakes of the past referred to. Such schemes usually depreciate in value with time due to poor weathering of the buildings, unlike the vernacular tradition of building which matches our climate and gets more attractive with age. 
4. It is wrong to say that there are serious problems at Poundbury with the design for the reasons cited. In another social or economic context it is quite likely that this particular arrangement could exasperate existing social problems and that is where you have to make adaptions to the particular context as we keep trying to point out. When the Prince's Foundation developed the master-plan at Upton in Northampton, a more challenging social context than at Poundbury, taking some of these issues into consideration, the blocks were made more regular with less entry points to the rear court yards and with the added precaution that entry to the rear courts would be gated. This latter point is considered a temporary measure until social integration is achieved at which point the gates will become redundant and can be taken away. The parking courts are not unsafe at Poundbury due to the high level of natural surveillance provided unlike post war housing schemes. 
5. To conform to LA Highway standards can produce monotony if rigidly adhered too. The higher than average values at Poundbury are not impaired by residents having to pay a maintenance charge. They like the results. 
6. The car allocation at Poundbury is generous and probably in todays climate, the amount of parking space would be less. However it was felt in the early design stages that it would be unlikely (20 years ago!) to force people to stop using their cars, but at the very least you could provide a very walkable place due to the mixed uses, permeability and quality of public space. In the event that oil prices make driving a luxury, Poundbury will still be a very liveable place. Regarding parking; n fact the rear parking splits the overall parking allocation in two so that while there is on street parking available, the place does not feel dominated by cars. 
7. The Poundbury plan makes every effort to link with the existing settlement. Phase 1 is specifically only half a neighbourhood grafted onto an existing housing development with the necessary links to the new neighbourhood centre. Also when the scheme is completed, Phase 4 will connect with another part of Dorchester housing on the other side of the Bridport road. 
8. Poundburys sustainability credentials are calculated at the scale of the neighbourhood and are not all expected to be squeezed out of the individual properties. That's why mixed-uses and neighbourhood centres are taken into consideration which encourages walking and cycling. The new phases will have a Combined Heat and Power plant powered by an anaerobic digester. The experimental eco-homes built by the Duchy of Cornwall have forced them to conclude that photovoltaics are not yet efficient or cost effective and Poundbury is a commercial development. Once they become so, they may be more widely used. Likewise once further phases of Poundbury are complete, improved public transport will become viable. 

3          Conclusion:  Like most residential areas in the UK, the residents are usually out to work in the middle part of the day when your group made the walk around. If you take a walk around Poundbury around 4 - 5pm  you will see infants being picked up from the nursery, children returning from school, stopping off at the store in Pummery Square, before wandering along the street to their homes. From 5.00pm to 6.00pm the Factory workers leave for home and then other residents start returning home from work  further afield. The Pub opens at 7.00pm for drinkers and for meals. The whole thing goes in reverse in the morning except for the pub for good reason which opens at lunch time. All this with only a half completed project!  I feel the writer has jumped to conclusions rather than take into consideration all the facts, which can have unfortunate consequences. Perhaps we should invite him to spend a couple of days in the hotel on Perverell avenue, preferably when phase 4 is complete so that he can get the full picture!

Figure 8: Project architect/urban planner Leon Krier’s sketch of built form which shows how public access ‘leaks’ all around homes.