Keir Starmer delivered an impressive speech to the Labour party conference that exuded the confidence and gravitas of a future prime minister. His oratory was filled with eloquent phrases, although short on concrete promises. However, there were two words in particular that failed to impress: “new towns.” Starmer mentioned the idea of “Labour new towns,” but it remains unclear what exactly they entail. Subsequent briefings referred to their location in the south, along the “M1 corridor,” without allowing any room for local opposition. The plan was described as equivalent to five Milton Keynes, suggesting that land would be acquired through compulsory purchase at a reduced price. This proposal has the potential to become the housing equivalent of HS2, causing concern.
An intriguing rumor emerged from Liverpool, suggesting that Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, is currently engrossed in reading Paul Johnson’s bestselling book, “Follow the Money.” Reeves would benefit from turning to page 231 and sharing its insights with Starmer. The book delves into the issue of Britain’s geographical inequality, shedding light on the significance of Boris Johnson’s “defining mission” of leveling up. Starmer scoffed at the concept of leveling up in his speech, but later regurgitated points that seemed to be influenced by a meeting with the construction lobby. His new town proposal entails sprawling five Milton Keyne-like developments across the southeast while eradicating local democracy in planning. This would effectively centralize housing policy in Westminster, leaving the north of England feeling neglected.
The notion of new towns allegedly came from a meeting with the long-standing Town and Country Planning Association, champions of such projects since the 19th century. Their founder, Ebenezer Howard, envisioned new garden cities that would completely replace squalid slums. These spacious communities would seamlessly blend into the landscape, prioritizing efficient traffic flow. It was a socialist utopia.
However, post-war new towns, totaling about two dozen, were rarely successful, except in cases where they attracted commuters from the home counties. These towns were artificial settlements planned by architects, lacking organic growth from existing communities. Some, like the divisive Cumbernauld and Thamesmead, were widely disliked and required significant demolition. The most successful new town, Milton Keynes, thrived due to its strategic location in the home counties and grid-based road design. It is doubtful whether such an approach would be widely accepted today.
Modern planning doctrines argue against the construction of new towns. Urbanists like Harvard’s Edward Glaeser contend that the “greenest” places to live are densely populated cities like Manhattan and central London. Cities offer short travel distances, usually achievable without cars, and already possess infrastructure that can be efficiently enhanced and shared. The key to low-carbon living lies in utilizing underutilized spaces and making use of vacant upper floors. Each London borough has untapped potential, akin to a dormant Milton Keynes. The focus should be on densification.
Moreover, we now recognize the importance of creative industries to a thriving modern economy. These industries flourish in the informal, vibrant backstreets that are integral to the very essence of a city. In the 1970s, planners were astonished to discover thousands of businesses operating in Covent Garden, which they were about to bulldoze. Similar stories emerged from Shoreditch in London, the Jewellery Quarter in Birmingham, and the Northern Quarter in Manchester.
Starmer’s new towns would necessitate vast amounts of land acquisition, leveling, and the installation of new infrastructure, including railways, roads, car parks, schools, hospitals, and various public services. Everything would need to be built from scratch, and thousands of people would have to commute to work or engage in recreational activities elsewhere. A new town is not an organic economic entity. It’s unfathomable that, in the age of achieving net-zero emissions, such an enormous undertaking is being considered.
Nonetheless, the lobby advocating for new towns persists. The Town and Country Planning Association successfully convinced Tony Blair, followed by Gordon Brown and David Cameron, to support this concept. George Osborne developed an infatuation with garden cities. His project in Ebbsfleet, situated along the Kent estuary, continues, although Eurostar no longer stops there. Ebbsfleet failed to captivate Osborne’s glamorous Anglo-Parisian elites.
As for Thamesmead, it remains a new town that dare not utter its name. This concrete ghost estate was initially developed in the 1960s as a modernist experiment. It was subsequently handed over to the Peabody Trust nine years ago, which asserted that restoring it would cost £1bn. Ironically, the trust has demolished more houses than it has managed to build. Before contemplating new towns, Starmer must resolve the existing scandal of Thamesmead.
Economists acknowledge, and Starmer seemingly agrees, that prosperity initially stems from “agglomeration” — building up an economy where talent, money, and success already exist. This reality is primarily concentrated in the southeast of Britain. However, there is a cost to this approach, as it leads to a continuous outflow of talent and enterprise from the rest of the country. The resulting impoverishment imposes a reported average cost of £4,000 per year on taxpayers in the southeast.
In other words, leveling up must form the core of regional policy over time. All efforts should be directed toward creatively regenerating Britain’s “second-tier” cities, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Newcastle. Instead of squandering vast sums on costly, environmentally taxing new towns in rural areas, the focus should be on these cities.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
