Two new town processes

Abstract

The philosophy behind new town building in the U.S. and Britain is basically a common philosophy. The commonality stems from the common origin of the idea, and the cross-relationship of experience between the two countries. The two countries have similiar goals for building new towns: (1) treating the problems of overcrowding in cities; (2) combating urban sprawl; (3) development of balanced communities; and (4) the inclusion of a full range of social and economic groups within a community. But the method for achieving these goals is different in the two countries. This thesis examines the two methods: development by government and development by private enterprise. The two methods are examined using the new town of Milton Keynes, thirty miles northwest of London, representing the public process in England, and Clear Lake City, eight miles southeast of Houston, representing the private process in the U.S. There are two main points for comparison: (1) The relationship of the product to the process; and (2) the, limitations of the process for achieving national and local goals. Topics for comparing the relationship of the product to the process are: (1) location of the new town; (2) the form of the new town; (3) transportation in the town; and (4) neighborhoods, or housing groups. Limitations of the processes are compared under three topics: (1) the goals of the process; (2) scope of the process; and (3) the controls of government on the process and controls of the developer on the process. The criteria for evaluating the two processes are common goals on the national level. Evaluation of the two processes leads to the conclusion that the public process in England is reflective of national goals while the private process in the U.S. is based on predominately local goals. The public process in England may not totally ignore local goals, but the centralized nature of the process organization and the multitude of controls wielded by the process combine to insure that the process responds more directly to national goals. The expectation in the U.S. that private enterprise nevi towns will accomplish many of the same national goals as the British public process has not fully recognized the conflict in achieving national goals through a private process geared to local goals which may be diametrically opposed to national goals. If we continue to ascribe to the philosophy that new towns are the solution to achieving the national goals, we must either redirect the private process by instituting controls sufficient to free the private process from a local goal orientation; or there must be an acceptance of the limitations which come with the private process, and a re-evaluation of expectations of what will be achieved toward the stated national goals.