Green Belts Cure Sprawl, Cause Problems

A traveler out of London passes miles of suburbs that give way to rolling meadows, hedgerows, country churches, and sheep. This happens fairly quickly. The U.K. has remained relatively light on sprawl due to the green belts around its major cities, great swaths of classic countryside kept free from new development “except in very special circumstances.”

Despite its advantages, the green belt comes with some nasty side effects. As Rowan Moore observes, the green belt contributes to a lack of quality housing, lengthens commutes, and provides little access to city residents. The green belt is too close to the city to preserve the character of rural Britain, and not finely-tuned enough to serve citizens as a park. Its residents are seen as affluent gentry who rig the real estate market in their favor.

Continuing policy protects green belt status unilaterally. From the article: “[The green belt is] part of English, if not British, national identity, protected by the shade of William Blake. It is brandished at party conferences and makes tabloid headlines, with frequent references to the ‘concreting over’ of a green and pleasant land.”

Moore outlines an ongoing debate between green belt supporters and its detractors, some of whom desire large-scale development of the land in question. The article advocates a middle road between wholesale development and the current protectionist policy. Of calls to rescind the green belt, Moore writes, “Something more is required, which is the ability to plan positively, to create new places as well as protect old ones, a skill this country had until relatively recently.”