Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy
 

Fraser sees red over Edinburgh greenbelt encroachment

November 4 2010

Fraser sees red over Edinburgh greenbelt encroachment
Malcolm Fraser, in a piece penned for yesterday’s Scotsman, has spoken out against plans for a ‘garden district’ on Edinburgh’s greenbelt.

Describing the ongoing “consultation circus” as an effort to “browbeat us into consensuals” Fraser grapples to comprehend the inherent contradictions in building on virgin land when dereliction and decay still stalk our city streets.

The full text proceeds below.


“Garden District” or Motorway Suburb?

Whether you like the human bustle of a compact city or the heritage of a traditional place, or are concerned about the impact of transport and the built environment on climate change, Edinburgh’s a good place.

In fact, in relation to climate change, any city, town or village is a good place.  Our existing settlements are our “renewable resources”.  They already contain the infrastructure necessary to make a community work, from schools and shops, and places to work, down to roads and sewers.  They already have postal addresses and broadband, political representation and potential friends round the corner.

And they contain gap-sites, from wee forgotten pockets through to huge swathes of “brownfield” – ex-industrial land.  Redeveloping them brings new life to our old settlements:  new kids to support the local school, new business in the local shops and bars and a general renewal of purpose for an old community.

So the most “sustainable”, “eco-friendly” or “low-carbon” places (all the usual phrases) to build in, are in our existing settlements.  But the value of our cities, towns and villages lies not just in some need to huddle together against rising sea levels, for our essential creativity and conviviality depends on our human genius for communal living.

I met someone who I’d been at school with.  I’d not seen him for 30 years, but his first question to me was not about kids or jobs, but “What’s your commute like?”  I answered, honestly, that it was a nice, 10 minute cycle across city parks.  My old pal stared at me.  “Bloody Green Nonsense!” he exclaimed.  Startled, I listed what was less-than-nonsense about it:  it was quicker than any other method, kept me reasonably-fit, was cheap and – yes – it used-up a minimum of the world’s resources.

But, later, I realised that those reasons were only part of the bigger story.  At breakfast, with 3 kids, there’s much panic, shouting, flying porridge and mad hunts for dinner money.  My office is, I’m afraid, much the same.  The cycle – the open air and exercise, the trees and the Old Town skyline – is a welcome oasis of calm;  but it’s also nice, and useful, to meet friends on the way, or builders and developers I work with and clients or colleagues.   I might learn something from them.

In other words such social places are good for business, and creative interaction and the like.  And Edinburgh is especially-good at those sort of chance, creative bumpings-into, an exemplar of such a social city.  It has a compact, civilised, integrative 3-dimensionall dynamo of a city centre, a peerless urban forum whose history of social and intellectual interaction is manifest in an urban environment that is itself an extraordinary drama.  It’s no accident that it provided the principal arena for that most sociable, creative and radical of moments, the Scottish Enlightenment.

And it’s also full of empty buildings, vacant sites and huge swathes of brownfield – and not just along the foreshore, but right into Princes Street.  So you would expect that successive Governments, full of talk about smart, successful, creative and-so-on Scotlands, and making very bold commitments towards fighting climate change, would do all they can to encourage such sensible and sustainable development, and discourage motorway sprawl.

Well, yes and no.  The City Council is trying hard to raise finance to assist investment in the city, through new “Tax Increment Finance” schemes.  But times is hard.  Looking at the financial disaster we have suffered in the last few years, one sure lesson we should draw is that, in our attitude towards the built environment, we should be less reckless – demolish less, take more care and, crucially, make sure to fortify existing settlements.

But Big Business tells us the opposite:  times is hard, so let’s try and do things a bit cheaper, a bit worser.  And, yes, we all know that the greenbelt is there to fortify our existing settlements, and avoid the placeless sprawl that devalues our nation and forces us all into the traffic… but didn’t we say that times is hard, so give up your greenbelt or nice farmland for us to build on, it saves us all the hassle of dealing with existing sites, and we can market some nice “green-living, but next to the motorway” line.

A week of planning and “community engagement”, on Sir David Murray’s vastly-ambitious plans for greenbelt, and farmland land round the M8, ends tonight, with a presentation at the Edinburgh College of Art.  The aerial image describes the proposals well:  a “T” shape of development, with the top of the T stretching north-south along the ring road from the Glasgow Road up towards the Lanark Road, and a long tail sprawling out west along the motorway, towards West Lothian.

This is the development magnet:  housing, business parks and entertainment features, all handy for the motorway.  A new, shared ground for Hearts and Edinburgh Rugby (though neither seem to want it) and a new big garden feature called “The Calyx” – neither of which might be fundable, but both of which will act as Trojan horses for the suburbs and retail and business-parks that will bring-in the money.  Behind, in the shadow of all this, languishes Edinburgh, with its hills and foreshore.  Edinburgh is the “brand” that “adds value” to Murray’s site; but this development would dilute the value of that brand – string out and disperse our dense, walkable, liveable place – and suck new investment out of it, out past the ring road.

Defending against such a prospect is, definitevely, what the greenbelt is for.  Greenbelt legislation is not a perfect instrument, but it is incredibly important.  There is no reason to expect that Ediburgh’s Councillors, and their Planning officials, would be fooled into forgetting this – and, indeed, yesterday’s Scotsman reports had significant Edinburgh politicians being remarkably-forthright about its dangers.

But the “Edinburgh Garden District” website, and the week-long public-engagement circus, makes you think that it’s a done-deal, with the public generously-invited to admire its pizzazz, and consult on its details.  Leading the band is international “New Urbanist” superstar Andrés Duany, loved and used by all from Prince Charles to the Scottish Government (and very generously renumerated out our taxes), who’s philosophy and design “charette” methods are used to justify building on farmland, woods and watermeadows from Ballater to Lochgelly.

The money being ploughed-into all this utterly dwarfs the tiny squibs Edinburgh has, to conduct similar exercises in proper brownfield sites within the City.  It’s a considerable investment; but if Murray gets his way the returns from this development will be vast.

We should trust our politicians and planners to apply policies evolved to defend the integrity of the City.  But Murray’s great coup has been to have the Scottish Government’s Chief Planner, Jim Mackinnon, launch the week-long engagement process – seeming, to many observers, to present the spectable of the national planner undermining the integrity of national policy, and the freedom of local democracy to properly examine and determine major local initiatives.  Such centralisation runs counter to off-repeated concerns for local democracy, or the “big society”.  But it mirrors the sort of centralised-prodding that has characterised developments in and around Aberdeen, at Donald Trump’s golf development and with the proposed infilling of Union Square, Aberdeen’s version of Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens.

Would that Sir David Murray team-up with Forth Ports and turn his attention – and money and initiatives, and the undoubted talents of his huge team – to our languishing-but-full-of-potential foreshore.  Until then the City shold hold its nerve:  apply policy, send this packing.

28 Comments

tony malley
#1 Posted by tony malley on 4 Nov 2010 at 10:53 AM
I agree with all of these points, the Greenbelt should be exactly that and the Compact City is the most economically efficient use of resources.Brownfield sites should be infilled using economic incentives to Developers.
James M
#2 Posted by James M on 4 Nov 2010 at 11:11 AM
What is worrying is that Duany has been telling all who will listen that Scotland has plenty of green land so can build on its greenbelts.

It's starting now to sound as though he was involved with this scheme all along (he's being paid to do a job, remember, he's not impartial) and softening up the government to accept Murray's scheme.
James M
#3 Posted by James M on 4 Nov 2010 at 11:55 AM
"The scheme will be built on farmland which Duany advocates building on where necessary after previously telling Urban Realm: "I’ve flown all over, you’re full of green land and most of your fields aren’t even greenbelt. The only thing that is sustainable is if you can walk to things. Everyone’s moaning about Greenfield but not properly contesting if it’s walkable, it’s palpably ridiculous.”

http://www.urbanrealm.com/news/2466/_Duany_returns_to_Scotland_for_Elsick_masterplan.html


Richard Heggie
#4 Posted by Richard Heggie on 4 Nov 2010 at 15:43 PM
If this event produced a well designed scheme with support from local people would that make it acceptable? If so, would other landowners and developers then want their own charette and proposal? Would these be acceptable? We need to decide what kind of city we want and guide development accordingly. This article contains a stack of good reasons to see Edinburgh as a Green Compact City - it's good enough for Stockholm, so why not here?
James M
#5 Posted by James M on 4 Nov 2010 at 16:52 PM
No it would not make it acceptable, not here, although that isn't to say greenfield sites should never be built on IF that will bring genuine regeneration and community benefits, but only after a great deal of thought and consultation and on a place by place basis.

However, this particular proposal does not seem to come from community need and desire but from the fact David Murray has the land and bought it cheaply in 1989 waiting for the day he could cash in.

It is against national and local planning policy and it appears to be trying to push the boundaries of those (as well as the boundaries of Edinburgh development).

The involvement of Duany is giving a 'respectability' it doesn't deserve in my view. He's hired to do a job, for whoever hires him.

The council is not happy to have this landed in its lap either.
Richard Heggie
#6 Posted by Richard Heggie on 4 Nov 2010 at 22:10 PM
Much more reaction to this story here http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Fury-as-chief-planner-39backs39.6612344.jp
mickey
#7 Posted by mickey on 6 Nov 2010 at 15:47 PM
He is not my cup of tea, always the best self publicist great for his profile but id do AGREE with him totally particularly when the goverment wants to build duanesque new greenfield towns call is sustainable and all the happy civil servants follow this, and leave us with horrible little places and do not question the poor suburban crap legacy that they will deliver. Someone must be wanting a OBE somewhere ofr this! But to be honest not everyone in edinburgh can afford a happy cycle to work through the park unles you are well off that is why folk live in the suburbs
Malcolm Fraser
#8 Posted by Malcolm Fraser on 7 Nov 2010 at 13:38 PM
"Mickey" do you want me to speak up or shut up? Or maybe you want me to speak up, then agree with me totally, then sneer at me as a self-publicist? I'm only here to make you happy...
Jay Walker
#9 Posted by Jay Walker on 7 Nov 2010 at 14:33 PM
Someone has to say these things Malcolm. At least you say it in style and with some effort at being literate. It makes things easier to understand that way.

Dave and Andres and Jim won't be knocking at your door after this to offer you work on their Green Machine so not so sure how you are gaining from all this self-publicity mickey says you crave. Possibly mickey isn't your mug of Tetley either.

Me, I think that photie doesn't do anything for your profile at all.
mickey
#10 Posted by mickey on 7 Nov 2010 at 19:53 PM
Malcom, I could not agree with you more. When I meant my cup of tea, I meant that as much as I like most of your work some other projects are not my taste but not you as an architect. I think in Scottish Architeture you are one of the best voices that speaks the truth that the establishment does not want to hear and also a very talented architect.
I also think that when architects write they make publicity of themselves, that is not specifically aimed at you or anyone else. I also think you create some kind of debate which is needed,never mind we always do not have to agree or not. But this time your article is spot on, well written and fantastic so congratulations and please make sure you write more, not for making me or anyone happy but for the very poor and sad times of this crisis to be a voice that make architecture debate worth it.
Regarding the article I don't think that the political class cares about the destruction of the countryside, they see brownfield sites as expensive for development, and my question (without taking the mickey) is how can we make sure that this debate has any effect on the current way things are going at the moment in Scotland (new towns in greenfield land, golf courses in Aberdeen etc)?
Jay Walker
#11 Posted by Jay Walker on 7 Nov 2010 at 22:49 PM
Oh, suddenly mickey learns punctuation and realises a wider truth.

Do the words 'apology for past nastiness' also come into mickey's thoughts?

http://www.urbanrealm.com/news/2521/_What_Sort_of_Edinburgh_Do_We_Need_To_Build%3F.html
Malcolm's Mum
#12 Posted by Malcolm's Mum on 8 Nov 2010 at 09:27 AM
Thank you Jay. I've already complained to the headmaster. This abuse has to stop.
Malcolm Fraser
#13 Posted by Malcolm Fraser on 8 Nov 2010 at 09:55 AM
Thanks Mum, but it's fine - as is Mickey, so no need for his Mum to intervene. Please all keep making the above "Garden District" points, wherever you can.
Michael's Mum
#14 Posted by Michael's Mum on 8 Nov 2010 at 12:33 PM
It's Michael, not Mickey
Savethorpewoodlands
#15 Posted by Savethorpewoodlands on 8 Nov 2010 at 14:37 PM
Andres Duany has carried out a charrette in Norfolk, to enable owners to raze a valued area of woodland and build a large housing estate.

http://savethorpewoodlands.blogspot.com/p/charrette-or-charade-can-we-save.html
Nobody's Mum
#16 Posted by Nobody's Mum on 9 Nov 2010 at 10:35 AM
And before it was mickey it was fiona wasn't it?
Michael's Mum
#17 Posted by Michael's Mum on 9 Nov 2010 at 13:03 PM
No, many have thought so because of his because of his interest in show tunes but that was Joseph.
Nobody's Mum
#18 Posted by Nobody's Mum on 9 Nov 2010 at 13:20 PM
I thought it was because fiona said similar things to mickey with an abundance of !!!!!! but as his/her Mum you must know.
Anyhow it seems mickey now hearts Malcy so there's a happy ending and all just a storm in a teacup.
mickey
#19 Posted by mickey on 10 Nov 2010 at 00:13 AM
Well I do not get all this mum non-sense in a forum debate. Surely Mickey like everyone else is entitled to his opinion. I might agree or disagree with whoever I want. it is a free democratic country after all where we are entitled to our opinions, never mind happy or unhappy endings.

Some good architects can do great architecture, write great books but also do horrible architecture and write horrible books.

You can take Corb, plan Voisin for Paris and think if it was good for the city of Paris.As you can take the failed project of the lovely tower in Haymarket or the Calton great gate masterplan and think if this is good for Edinburgh. The communities were not happy at all, and cities are for citizens. Have a look at recent architecture in the city George the IV new lovely italian hotel, a few buildings on the Royal Mile and to be honest you wonder why too many architects sell their soul to the dark side of the force and that is when you become critical of too much bad architecture around you. And the garden city, well how many people can afford to live in the centre of Edinburgh? just a few priviledge folk unfortunately not everyone can cycle to work as most people have to commute in a car or go through the Bridge of the Forth but honestly I thought the debate was serious really.

But you can take other good examples from local architects which are very good. I never intend to offend anyone's mums to be honest so let's have a happy ending.
mickey
#20 Posted by mickey on 10 Nov 2010 at 00:13 AM
Well I do not get all this mum non-sense in a forum debate. Surely Mickey like everyone else is entitled to his opinion. I might agree or disagree with whoever I want. it is a free democratic country after all where we are entitled to our opinions, never mind happy or unhappy endings.

Some good architects can do great architecture, write great books but also do horrible architecture and write horrible books.

You can take Corb, plan Voisin for Paris and think if it was good for the city of Paris.As you can take the failed project of the lovely tower in Haymarket or the Calton great gate masterplan and think if this is good for Edinburgh. The communities were not happy at all, and cities are for citizens. Have a look at recent architecture in the city George the IV new lovely italian hotel, a few buildings on the Royal Mile and to be honest you wonder why too many architects sell their soul to the dark side of the force and that is when you become critical of too much bad architecture around you. And the garden city, well how many people can afford to live in the centre of Edinburgh? just a few priviledge folk unfortunately not everyone can cycle to work as most people have to commute in a car or go through the Bridge of the Forth but honestly I thought the debate was serious really.

But you can take other good examples from local architects which are very good. I never intend to offend anyone's mums to be honest so let's have a happy ending.
mickey
#21 Posted by mickey on 10 Nov 2010 at 00:14 AM
Well I do not get all this mum non-sense in a forum debate. Surely Mickey like everyone else is entitled to his opinion. I might agree or disagree with whoever I want. it is a free democratic country after all where we are entitled to our opinions, never mind happy or unhappy endings.

Some good architects can do great architecture, write great books but also do horrible architecture and write horrible books.

You can take Corb, plan Voisin for Paris and think if it was good for the city of Paris.As you can take the failed project of the lovely tower in Haymarket or the Calton great gate masterplan and think if this is good for Edinburgh. The communities were not happy at all, and cities are for citizens. Have a look at recent architecture in the city George the IV new lovely italian hotel, a few buildings on the Royal Mile and to be honest you wonder why too many architects sell their soul to the dark side of the force and that is when you become critical of too much bad architecture around you. And the garden city, well how many people can afford to live in the centre of Edinburgh? just a few priviledge folk unfortunately not everyone can cycle to work as most people have to commute in a car or go through the Bridge of the Forth but honestly I thought the debate was serious really.

But you can take other good examples from local architects which are very good. I never intend to offend anyone's mums to be honest so let's have a happy ending.
Job
#22 Posted by Job on 10 Nov 2010 at 10:56 AM
I'm sure you can express an opinion mickey, within the law and the bounds of courtesy and decency (though once was possibly enough, it didn't require saying thrice) as the really unpleasant comments you have made about Malcolm Fraser in the past were below the belt (of his colourful trousers you wrote sneeringly about in a past comment?). I wonder why you feel you need to be so personal?

Stick to the issues. That way there can be serious debate (with a little humour to lighten it).

Otherwise it begins to sound like a personal grudge.
Malcolm's Trousers
#23 Posted by Malcolm's Trousers on 10 Nov 2010 at 11:10 AM
Absolutely, that was bang out of order!
Malcolm's kilt
#24 Posted by Malcolm's kilt on 10 Nov 2010 at 11:15 AM
Do I get a mention?
Malcolm's Trousers
#25 Posted by Malcolm's Trousers on 10 Nov 2010 at 11:36 AM
Sadly, you have little support
Malcolm's kilt
#26 Posted by Malcolm's kilt on 10 Nov 2010 at 11:41 AM
I was once mentioned in Building Design.
Green Belt
#27 Posted by Green Belt on 10 Nov 2010 at 11:50 AM
Malcolm, you have my full support.

No doubt Jock Strapp will be happy to offer his also.
mickey
#28 Posted by mickey on 10 Nov 2010 at 20:41 PM
to be honest sense of humour is not a bad thing, but all of you including all these mums seems to get upset and a wee bit too much like you need mummy to protect our wee boys, even mickey's mum was mentioned. I wonder if you are all members of malcom's fan club, or appreciation society. Maybe I could ask for membership? but as Groucho Marx said "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members".

Post your comments

 

All comments are pre-moderated and
must obey our house rules.

 

Back to November 2010

Search News
Subscribe to Urban Realm Magazine
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.