Introduction
Urban growth or sprawl is the process of cities spreading outwards into the surrounding countryside (Drake and Lee, 2000.) This essay aims to; a) Examine the problems and reasons for urban sprawl and why it needs to be contained.b) Look at some of the ways planners have tried to address these problems and discuss how successful they have been.Urban Growth and its effectsIn Britain the development of a cheap and effective public transport system has greatly influenced the spatial organisation of cities. It has allowed people to live further away from their place of work, and is one of the factors that have facilitated urban growth. The map below demonstrates this: Population growth and the subsequent need for new housing also contributes to urban spread. The development of land at the fringe of cities can lead to the availability of higher quality housing at a lower density than could be built in the city. For those who want and can afford it, this suburban housing, spacious and close to the countryside is very desirable. However, urban growth can also have negative impacts. These include the loss of the countryside and rural habitats. This land could otherwise have a recreational use, or it may be valuable agricultural land. By the mid 1930's some 60,000 acres per year were being taken from agriculture in England and Wales. 'The suburban spread of London took much of the finest market gardening land in all England.' (Hall, 2002 p23) Urban spread can also lead to the swallowing up of villages and the loss of character of urban areas as they merge into each other. As quoted by a campaigner for the protection of the countryside, 'without open spaces between communities it is extremely difficult...to create communities and they become soulless and lost.' (Ollie Stone-Lee, 2004).In some cases, urban sprawl may contribute to inner city decline, if the wealthier move into the new suburbs and those who are left behind become 'trapped' in inner cities. As a result of these concerns a growing movement campaigning against urban sprawl developed and planners introduced measures to try and control it. The Green BeltIn 1955, a green belt policy was introduced in the UK; to try to limit urban growth. A green belt is 'an area of land encircling an urban area within which it is very difficult to obtain planning permission for new developments' (Drake and Lee, 2000, p60). Green belts are designated by local planning authorities, and now cover 13% of England (Ollie Stone-Lee, 2004). Green belts have been a useful tool for planners and, as a planning official commented, 'probably no planning circular has ever been so popular with the public.'(Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002) However, they are not without their critics. One of the criticisms if green belts are that development may simply 'leap frog' the green belt. People may commute through it to the town centre, resulting in increased traffic, congestion and inefficiency. The type of countryside found in green belt may not be particularly attractive or environmentally important. The vice-president of the RTPI is quoted as saying 'a lot of it is "awful land" containing quarries or landfill sites' (Ollie Stone-Lee, 2004). Given the enormous pressures on land for housing and other developments it is questionable whether such a blanket approach is still appropriate. The Barker report (2004) says that 140,000 new homes need to be built each year. Limited housing stock can lead to reduced labour mobility and to increased house prices, making home ownership out of the reach for an increasing proportion of society. Another possible way to safe guard areas of countryside and to allow certain amount of development could be the introduction of 'green wedges' as an alternative to the green belt. New TownsAnother measure used by planners to contain urban growth was the development of new or satellite towns. These were built to take overspill populations from large cities and 'used as a conscious strategy for metropolitan de-centralisation' (Purdom, 1925) cited in (Ward, 1994, p52.) In 1946 the New Towns Act was passed into law. The first new town was Stevenage, which was designated in 1946. By 1980 there were 28 New Towns in Britain accounting for over one million people. New Towns were planned to be 'self contained communities for living and working.' (Hall, 2002, p64) They were sometimes developed in conjunction with green belts; as shown below around London: It was reasoned that the width of the green belt would put commuting to London far beyond the means of most people at the time, encouraging self - containment. As discussed by Nicholson (1961) providing an adequate volume or balance of employment for the different sectors of the community proved difficult. He also stated that 'the principle of self containment should not be pressed too far' as 'at Hatfield, over half the dwellings are occupied by workers for one firm; a recession in that industry would hit the town hard.' New Towns often incorporated existing settlements in the area; 'Basildon had to link up the two widely separated settlements and their populations and to absorb, as well as re-house, those displaced by the demolitions' (Nicholson, 1961). The lives of the original populations were greatly affected by the new developments. This sometimes led to problems integrating old and new residents and to tensions between them especially initially. New towns achieved the aim of establishing new settlements, providing housing, jobs and facilities for people in a very short time, helping somewhat to relieve the pressure of urban sprawl. Their development did result in some conflicts; for example there were objections to some of the land designated for use, e.g. in Stevenage where the land included some good quality farm land. There is currently resurgence in interest in the potential of new towns for development .A 2004 report commissioned by the Government recommends that 'the government promotes further expansion in the existing new towns to help meet its housing targets, particularly where new towns have not meet their critical mass.' (Government Report, 2004) The new towns may have a role in the future for helping accommodate the growing population. Urban RegenerationAnother measure to help reduce the pressure on greenfield sites at the urban fringe is to encourage urban regeneration. The government currently has a target of building 60% of new dwellings on previously developed land (Urban Task force, 1999) and is encouraging the idea of an urban renaissance. This involves having high density cities which have mixed uses, good transport links and that are desirable places to live: For those people that want to live in the cities, these would once again provide attractive places for them to live and work and reduce pressure for housing at the urban fringes. Compact cities that have good public transport links would help reduce adverse environmental effects In the 1960's during a phase of urban renewal, slums were cleared and replaced with high density housing, namely tower blocks. Due to bad design and low structural quality inhabitants were rarely happy and the schemes were not a success. This demonstrates that a key part of making cities places where people want to live, especially where high densities are being encouraged is good quality design. Although city centre renewal may be way of providing housing for many people, not everyone wants to live in city centres; families often want to move to the suburbs, especially those with children, so that they are close to countryside and have space for gardens etc. So no matter how successful the urban renaissance is, some people may always want to live in the suburbs. ConclusionThe problem of urban sprawl is an ongoing one. Different measures have been taken by planners both at the local and national level. They have had a varying degree of success; whilst they may reduce urban sprawl, all schemes have costs and benefits to different sectors of the population, the environment and the economy. The continuing growth of the population and the demand for affordable housing means this is an issue that faces planners both currently and in the future. As stated by Martin Wolf 'we cannot have a rising population, spacious housing for each household and an unchanged quantity of un-developed countryside.' (Cited in Barker, 2004) 