The National Infrastructure Commission makes the case for improving intra-city transport

A Transpennine Express train leaves Manchester Piccadilly. Image: MattBuck/Wikimedia Commons.

It is a fact of life that the debate about big infrastructure projects in the UK is often focused on major inter-city connections that make it easier for people to travel between major conurbations. Projects such as High Speed 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail regularly hit the headlines – usually with much celebration of their purported productivity impacts.

But in a recent speech to the UK Infrastructure Show in Birmingham, National Infrastructure Commission chief executive Phil Graham pointed to intra-city transport as an area of major underinvestment for cities outside of London. Drawing a contrast with the “genuine devolution and long-term funding” of London’s transport system, Graham highlighted the “fragmented and piecemeal system of funding” that other cities are subjected to as a key obstacle in the way of achieving their economic potential.

The Centre for Cities endorses his call for a three-part approach to redressing this skew towards inter-city and international transport infrastructure. It consists of proper funding devolution with long-term settlements, a significant increase in capital funding for infrastructure in cities, and new powers and duties for city authorities to make the most of this funding.


These reforms must come as a package, with any one alone not sufficient to achieve the infrastructure that cities need. Provided these powers and funds are devolved to genuine economic areas, then Graham is right in suggesting that cities of all sizes should have the opportunity to benefit.

Our support for this course of action is based on our previous work on this topic. Our research into the Northern Powerhouse, based on comparisons with European urban agglomerations, highlighted that commuting overwhelmingly occurs within city regions, rather than between them, and indicated that poor city economic performance is more likely to be caused by weak intra-city connectivity than weak inter-city connectivity. Our earlier work on making transport work for cities outlined a plan for improving urban transport, including devolution of regulatory powers, long-term capital settlements for cities, devolution of fundraising powers, integrated management of urban transport networks, and targeting transport interventions where they will support economic growth.

Pushing for a greater focus on intra-urban journeys for infrastructure is not about defunding committed inter-city schemes, or suggesting that inter-city journeys do not matter. Improving inter-city connectivity is popular, and indeed, helps workers moving to agglomeration economies to remain connected to their friends and families.

But the problem is that, for too long, intra-city improvements outside of London have not been prioritised in national infrastructure planning. And ultimately, it is in intra-urban contexts where transport can make a real difference to productivity. In eroding the barriers between workers and jobs in agglomeration economies, intra-city infrastructure improvements can help to ensure that workers are matched to jobs as efficiently as possible, and in doing so, drive productivity growth.

Matt Whearty is a researcher at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

 
 
 
 

Jane Jacobs and Le Corbusier would agree on one thing: we need more social housing

Unite d’Habitation, Marseille. Image: Iantomferry/Wikimedia Commons.

Much has been written in CityMetric and beyond about the urban planning debates of the 1950s and ‘60s, that came to be characterised as a battle between master-planning and preservation. One side of the debate was personified by the father of modernist architecture, Le Corbusier, whilst the counter-argument was advanced by writer and journalist Jane Jacobs.

But when it comes to London’s housing crisis, aren’t there a few things that these two would actually agree on?

Jane Jacobs’ writing about the organic nature of self-organising communities, demonstrated, in her words, by the “intricate sidewalk ballet” of inner city neighbourhoods, should be required reading for anyone interested in how cities function. But today, Jacobs is increasingly invoked in attempts to oppose new developments of any kind. Her role in conceiving Manhattan’s West Village Houses, a low cost rented housing scheme built through New York State’s Mitchell-Lama Program, is unfortunately much less well known. It’s been suggested that if Jacobs were around today, she’d be working with New York’s housing activists. When her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities was written, there were almost 2 million rent-controlled or rent-stabilised apartments in New York City; nowadays, there are fewer than half that number.

Le Corbusier, on the other hand, is too often blamed for drab high-rise blocks. But regardless of how well his followers across Europe interpreted his ideas, Le Corbusier’s vision for cities was about high quality residential blocks that also contained shops and leisure amenities and were surrounded by parkland – the original mixed use development if you like. His most famous building, Marseille’s Unite d’Habitation, consisted of 337 apartments with views of the mountains and the sea together with shops, a restaurant and a nursery school. The building was originally intended to be public housing, but the French government eventually sold off the flats to recoup costs. Alton West Estate in Roehampton and Park Hill in Sheffield are just some of the examples of Le Corbusier’s influence on the design of post-war council housing here in the UK.

Building homes for a serious business in post-war Britain. Under Attlee’s 1945 Labour Government, 700,000 new council homes were completed. In 1952, the largest architectural practice in the World was at London County Council, with 1,577 staff including 350 professional architects and trainees. These were the days of consensus, and very quickly Tory governments were actually competing with Labour governments about who could built the most council homes.

Some of the council homes built post-war have stood the test of time better than others. But what’s not in doubt is that building council homes on such a scale immeasurably changed the lives of so many families in desperate need of a decent, secure and affordable home. And so many of the post-war modernist high-rise blocks so despised by Jacobs quickly took on the organic self-organising traits that she held in such high regard and have become some of the most enduring and closely-knit communities in London.

Fast forward to 2019 and Right To Buy continues to decimate council housing stock, but perversely home ownership seems more out of reach than ever for so many. An entire generation is being forced to embrace long term private ting in a country that has some weakest protections for private tenants in Europe. Meanwhile, government spending on building new homes fell from £11.4bn in 2009 to just £5.3bn in 2015 – from 0.7 per cent to 0.2 per cent of GDP – and since then, the housing minister’s desk has been occupied by no fewer than six people.


So what would a comprehensive drive for new council and social housing on the scale of the 1945 government’s efforts look like in 2019?

Lubetkin, the architect responsible for Islington’s Spa Green Estate and Bevin Court, summed up the spirit of post-war council home building with his maxim that “nothing is too good for ordinary people”. It’s a vision that we’re trying to recreate through our own council home building programme in Islington.

One of the best opportunities for small council home building schemes is to expand upon existing communities. The vast majority of Islington’s new council housing takes the form of infill, construction on existing estates; in unloved spaces, in old garages, and in old undercrofts. These projects often involve landscaping and new amenities to enhance rather than reinvent local communities. We have built community centres and even rebuilt a library as part of council housing schemes. One Tenants’ and Residents’ Association had an idea for a new specialist over 55s block for the older residents of the estate who wanted to stay in their community.

But there’s a place for large-scale place making as well. When the Ministry of Justice closed Holloway Prison and announced that the site would be sold, Islington Council published a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the site. We had one aim – to send a clear signal to the market that anyone who was looking at buying the site needed to be aware of their planning obligations. Most importantly, any development on the site needed to include at least 50 per cent genuinely affordable homes. The speculation around the site came to an end on 8 March this year when Peabody Housing Association announced that it had bought it. It has committed to going well above and beyond our planning requirements, by making 600 out of a total 1000 homes genuinely affordable homes, including 420 homes for social rent. We need to see more detail on what they are proposing but this is potentially brilliant for the borough. A local grassroots group, Community Plan for Holloway, have been instrumental in ensuring that the community’s voice is heard since the site was sold.

To recreate the scale of the massive post-war council home building programmes would require a Jane Jacobs inspired level of community activism combined with the architectural idealism of Le Corbusier. But it would also need the political will from central government to help local authorities get council housing built. And that, sadly, feels as far away as ever.

Diarmaid Ward is a Labour councillor and the executive member for housing & development at the London Borough of Islington.