Every designer knows that urban living is by far the most energy efficient means of living, but the arcadian idea of being close to nature still persists as the most ecological. A new study from UK-based PRP Architects, urban designer Urbed, and Design for Homes, criticizing the British “eco-towns” initiative, reiterates this point. If you want to minimize your carbon footprint, or whatnot, then live in a city!
‘The cost of getting infrastructure into [eco-towns], and the carbon emissions in terms of transport to and from them, raise a whole series of questions around the locations,’ said von Bradsky [chairman of PRP Architects]. ‘If you have an urban extension you don’t have to pay for new everything.’ . . .
Von Bradsky also questioned the name of the initiative. ‘The term eco-towns is an unfortunate one, because you should be applying the same principles to any large-scale development,’ he said.
Report co-author and Urbed director Nicholas Falk said: ‘Successful European eco-towns are closely linked to thriving urban conurbations, where there is a demand for housing. None of the projects we looked at are standalone settlements.’
Eco-towns are in the wrong places, report claims, The Architects Journal
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment