Why blueprints for the future of cities and towns matter

I recently attended a Design Review in Wakefield for an important site in the city centre. It’s a site which is the final piece in the jigsaw for the redevelopment of the city heart around Westgate Station and Merchantgate.

The review was convened by the local authority who were keen to hear our views, so that the site could be considered in a holistic manner when it was brought to the market.

We looked at the impact of development in terms of massing, impact on surrounding listed buildings, the impact of traffic, pedestrian circulation and the provision of public realm for the benefit of the wider community. Such planning should be the benchmark of all development within all towns, cities and villages to enable a cohesive vision to be implemented for all.

This approach used to lie with local authorities in implementing masterplans for areas for use as a framework for development.

This still happens to a degree, but has far from the rigour necessary to achieve a substantive blueprint for the future. Having such a blueprint allows thought to be given to the necessary infrastructure and enable cohesive development to follow.

This ideology is one I have written about before, particularly re Scandinavian countries, and I rue the fact that we don’t seem able to embrace such vision in this country.

I was reading about the Esher Report in York, a report by Viscount Esher some 50 plus years ago, which looked at the city of

York and identified areas for redevelopment which would benefit the city as a whole.

Then, as now, the city was thought to be congested and trafficridden but large parts of it were also poor, run-down, dull, drab and unattractive.

Central government was interested in doing something about this. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, first Richard Crossman and then Antony Greenwood, recognised that an historic city such as York deserved better and local government was also interested.

Labour and Conservative politicians on York City Council were united in wanting to make York a better place. All these objectives were based on a recognition that the old streets and buildings of York were an asset which should be treasured and conserved.

New development was to be encouraged in the right place, if it is of the highest architectural standard and worthy of becoming the heritage of tomorrow.

The report was a rallying cry which recognised that much good was already happening in York and which gave the developing conservation movement a solid platform on which to build.

It became a symbol and a tool, even though the Esher Report has been perhaps more referenced than read, it has united the city and prevented the worst excesses of heritage destruction.

With its emphasis on the positive economic value of conservation, it has served the city well. It would be great to see such vision being implemented across our region, so that towns, cities and villages can network together in terms of transport, energy use, housing and all relevant support facilities.

Such views demand far-sighted vision, not yo-yo of political change we currently have. We need the vison being encouraged by the likes of Wakefield Authority.