I feel that we focus too much on segregating the natural and human world; preferring high density housing to avoid habitat destruction rather than housing that exists amongst that habitat; the concept of greenbelt when many back gardens are richer in wildlife than the original fields.
It seems to be that the strength of wild Britain is based on its diverse range of habitats. Why can’t we follow the same model in our construction, interleaving the built and natural environment to promote green corridors and improve the lives of all species?
We would need to change our lifestyle to some degree, and there is the problem that distributed living may feed our commuting habit. Given that Clare sees a wide range of species on her trip to work, through housing development and industrial estates, why can’t our species extend the idea of being part of the natural world instead of dominating it?
Enter the Eco–Town as proposed by the Government in 2007. These would use brownfield sites to provide the extra housing we’re assured we need with minimal environmental impact. The shortlist for 15 towns was released early in 2008, and the reception was cool.
Many people are now unhappy about the wholesale construction of more new towns, eco or otherwise. Concerns include the use of greenfield sites, doubts about the provision of sustainable transport solutions, and the destruction of existing wildlife habitat. In its Summer 2008 issue of Naturalworld The Wildlife Trusts point out that
…8 of the 15 proposals listed for closer examination would either damage or destroy wildlife sites, including a SSSI and two Wildlife Trust reserves…
Meanwhile, Bill Dunster, the designer BedZED in South London, may be missing a trick in this quote from the Times:
Dunster understands the concerns, however. “We’ve had 20 years of poor development on greenfield sites,” he says. There are enough disused airfields, old quarry sites and ‘damaged’ countryside we can use before we start on the green fields.”
Many of these brownfield sites have become havens for wildlife; several Wildlife Trust reserves are old quarries. The distinction is not that clear, and I think this is the most valid argument against the Eco–Town initiative. The manner in which they are planned cuts across the normal process and politically driven haste has a reputation for horrible mistakes.
Personally I like the concept of better integration between our home and working existence, both of which should have nature as an implicit ingredient. The Wildlife Trusts “A Living Landscape” initiative makes a lot of sense to me. We should focus on making all urban space green space as well. Does the distinction between greenbelt, brownfield, residential, and commercial space need to be more considered and possibly a little more blurred? I think so.