Coffee in the Square

Inbuilt Obsolescence

Wendy Shillam — 2012-02-25T18:00:19+00:00

We spotted this colourful artwork the other day in Hastings. I started to wonder how green is it to scrap cars habitually when they are only ten years old.
I understand the arguments about safety and emissions, but there must be a balance with the waste of metals that comes with dumping a vehicle that is still relatively new.
Anybody know the answer to that one?

What size is sustainable?

Wendy Shillam — 2012-02-15T12:26:55+00:00

Image courtesy gen.ecovillage.org

Yesterday I took part in an interesting debate at the Town and Country Planning Association, ( TCPA ) as a member of the Garden Cities and Suburbs Expert Group. There's a publication planned later in the year and I'll include a link in this blog as soon as the results are published. The aim of the exercise is to identify ways of bringing forward new 21st century garden cities, which are green, comprehensively planned and high quality.

The discussion got me thinking about the size of such settlements. Is there a sustainable size?

The eco-towns initiative selected 5,000 homes - about 12,000 population - as the minimum sustainable size. The programme also recommended that some settlements could be as large as 10,000 - 15,000 homes, which would equate to a maximum population of about 40,000 people - the same size as Canterbury. I understand that this scale was fixed becasue it was considered size enough to create the economies of scale needed to finance new infrastructure.

Similarly the New Towns Programme sought to develop new settelements of approximately 50,000 people over ten years. In spite of extraordinary powers of land assembly and development, and in spite of continuous large scale public funding through the recessions of the 70's, the final population growth attributable to the New Towns Programme was less than planned (and achieved more slowly than planned.) By 1991 the actual growth was about 1.4million as opposed to the target of 2m. ( Transferable Lessons from New Towns Programme)

However amongst the new towns generated by the programme are winners and losers. Failing estates in Cumbernauld near Glasgow have since been largely demolished, while Milton Keynes has expanded to become a successful city and a unitary authority with a population of over 200,000. There were about 50,000 population within the original 89km2 of designated land.

Looking back its easy to see why Milton Keynes, less than 50 miles from London, on a motorway and on main line rail link would do better at attracting development than Cumbernauld. Having said that Cumbernauld did continue to grow and now has almost reached the planned population of 50,000. In fact it's become quite succesful on its own terms, benfiting fin recent years from a surge of new businesses including Isola-Werke, OKI, Yaskawa Electronics and the worldwide HQ of AG Barr, who make the popular soft drink Irn-Bru.

So it would be too simplistic to conclude that size is the only thing that matters in developing sustainable locations.

It is often an accident of fate that creates the conditions for sustainable growth. Montpellier in France grew first as a result of an influx of North Africans, who were dispossessed by the Algerian wars. Instead of seeing this influx negatively, the city fathers of Montpellier started an ambitious growth programme which has seen the Agglomeration (the wider regional area) grow to a population of over 500,000. A city of this size is large enough to have developed a tram system, an opera house and can boast a glittering array of first division sports teams including League 1 football, rugby, hand-ball, ice hockey and even water polo. Sports are important for a young city like Montpellier.

In the 80's Montpellier was able to create a whole new central district with shops, offices, a swimming pool, mediatheque and a new 2000 seat opera house, funded on the back of its meteoric expansion. Designed mainly by RIcardo Bofil in a post modern style it has now blended well. The area is mainly pedestrianised, designed on a grand scale and fed by trams which form a web which now links all the suburbs to the centre. Photo Wendy Shillam

In considering the options, I can't think of many functions that are essential for an eco-development. Good communications are important - but there are hundreds of village railway stations all over the country, where expansions might take place. There are hundreds of suburbs with already good public transport that could be extended. There are hundreds of towns and villages which might link very well to a nearby centre of industry or commerce. In these locations a little ingenuity could improve the access with a bus, a water bus or even - as in Portland Oregon - with a cable car.

The futuristic cable car which connects an existing employment area on the hillside to Portland Oregon's new riverside development area. Photo Wendy Shillam

There are suggestions that district heating or vacuum recycling systems are essential elements and these rely not just on quantity, but also on density. But I would argue that they are not essential and do not form part of the critical considerations. In fact the more I look into the benefits of district wide systems them more concerned I am that they might not add to sustainability, but in fact reduce it.

Masdar, the Norman Foster designed eco-city in UAE is only going to be 40,000 population, we understand. (I'm not sure if that includesthe student population of the planned university.) They envisage a very high density walled city and underneath a mass of infrastructure. However the city is only 17 air conditioned tram miles away from Abu Dhabi, so the eco-city itself need not be self sustaining - it has a capital city on its doorstep.

Masdar city - courtesy of masdar city website
Something in this image reminds me of the miss guided pedestrian separated designs for Cumbernauld, where underpasses and streets in the sky had eventually to be demolished. Even in Milton Keynes the designers carefully separated cycles, cars and buses,making it now almost impossible to provide the city with an efficient public transport system.

The antithesis of these mega cities (in population but not in ambition) is the host of self starting eco-villages that have begun to grow up all over the world.

One of the new eco-houses in abundance Iowa. Courtesy abundance eco-village.com

The eco-village of Abundance is planned for a population, not of 70,000 but for barely 70 souls who have elected to live off grid and in much smaller houses, in the wilds of Iowa. "Their beer is cold; their showers are hot," says eco entrepreneur Ken Walton, who started the village. But these houses use a tenth of the fuel of conventional US housing. Abundance Eco-village

If you look on the internet, you will find hundreds of these small communities trying to do their own thing, all over the world. (Though few can boast such sophisticated house designs as Abundance.) LIke all early adopters they are fueled as much by religious or ecological fervour as by gas or electricity. But they are solving problems, designing solutions and living much more simply than the rest of us. International directory of eco-villages

So perhaps we should not become obsessed by relationships between size and sustainability. A small hamlet can survive off grid, on an agro-economy, a medium sized development can run a district heating system and survive on local businesses and its agricultural hinterland and larger towns, say over 50,000 can be more independent. But from my experience even the larger towns work better if there is already some local advantage, be it a rail link, a large existing employer some natural benefit, like availability of hydro-electricity, abundant sunshine or geo-thermal potential.

But there is another question more difficult to answer. Montpellier's example shows that continued growth is good for a local economy. So how fast should we develop and once commenced, is there a governing maximum size for a city? THat will be the subject of a future post, but in the mean time if you want more ideas I can recommend, http://gen.ecovillage.org/ecovillages/4pillarsofsustainability.html which has a very good article on the wider (social, cultural and economic) dimensions of an eco-village.

The High Street - Adapt or Die

Wendy Shillam — 2012-02-13T13:09:43+00:00

This is a picture of Lucca in Italy. It is one of the most perfect examples of a preserved medieval town centre. Urban planners love it because its almost archetypal in layout. There is a central square with a church, a tight network of (we hope) busy streets and a 'cordon sanitaire' of parkland around the edge, which was once protection against invaders and now demarcates very precisely the area that tourists visit.

Its still a charming town today - for tourists. But how economically successful is it?

I was reminded of Lucca when I read about the furore that has been caused by the recent suggestions, not least by TV guru, Mary Portas, that the High Street is dead. The suggestion is that the retail area should contract and the rest should be given over to housing - relaxing planning codes and getting life into the town centres. I don't wholly disagree with the suggestion. Portas recognises that Town Centres are about more than shopping. It is the prevailing assumption that town centre = retail, and nothing else, that worries me.

Mary Portas High Street Review

Traditionally town centres were the centre of all types of commerce, and I use that word in its widest sense. Commerce isn't just buying and selling goods. Commerce should also be about the exchange of ideas, cultures, rumours, favours and - most importantly - employment. That is why the out of town shopping centre, or even the town centre shopping mall is almost always a mind-numbingly dull experience. Yes you can buy clothes and shoes, but is there a place to sit and chat with your neighbours, is there a theatre or even a bookshop?

All the other town centre functions like civic management, offices, theatres, education - you name it - they've moved to the bypass. Even Cambridge University has been steadily developing out of town for the last twenty years, to such an extent that the bicycle clutter is disappearing. Students need cars, like everybody else now, if they are to get to their labs several miles outside town.

One of the reasons that I call my blog coffee in the square is because of a realisation that town centres are as much about meeting your friends and colleagues over coffee than they are about shopping. In fact, in a bid to reduce my consumption I rarely frequent the high street these days - even though I live five minutes from Oxford Street. I'd much prefer to mooch around Soho, with its independent shops, galleries, cafes and studios than slog through the crowds visiting the high street chains.

The simplification of high street commerce has got to such a point that very few towns have independant retailers anymore.Yet, all the great high street brands that we know and love started off somewhere as independants. It's a fact of life that the vast majority of our consumption is with the high street retailers. If you don't believe me just look at what you are wearing today - I'll bet most of you will be wearing high street brands, down to your socks!

But is it chicken or egg? Do we buy from the high street because they have pushed out all the other functions, or have we only got high street brands because we never shopped anywhere else?

A friend of mine went out for lunch is Phoenix the other day. He related his dismay when, instead of stopping at some down-town haunt their hosts car drew up at a mall. They were pleased to get a window seat at the restaurant, the food was excellent, the company stimulating. But what was the window view? It was the car park! (So much for cultural richness.)

Travelling everywhere by car isn't just costly in carbon terms. A car based society is socially divided. It is in walkable city centres that rich and poor, foreign and native meet on equal terms. I would maintain that the ability to meet your fellow citizens on equal terms is one of the tenets of civilisation. How else do ideas travel; how else do people learn to empathise with those less or more fortunate than themselves?

We all understand that a car based society excludes the underprivileged. But I would question whether this hatred of bankers, this suspicion of politicians isn't also because we just never meet them face to face. How often do we see snippets of TV news footage of the privileged speeding away from the camera inside a nice car? John Major is credited in winning the 1992 election because he got up on a soap box, to deliver his speeches. But the real benefit to his campaign was that he got down amongst ordinary people, who responded by believing in him as an ordinary human being and not a party grandee.

So I would advise town centres to be cautious of heeding Mary Portas's advice, to turn those secondary shopping streets into housing. I think, even though she mentions them in her report, she's forgotten all the other reasons for town centres to exist. Her twenty eight recommendations are very retailer focused. Of course we should be looking at widening the retail offer, but Local Authorities should be more pro-active in introducing offices, studies, cafes, pubs, theaters, libraries, colleges and civic centres. The real win would be for one of the favoured pilot towns to move its offices from the ring road, back into the town centre.

Bigness

Wendy Shillam — 2012-02-01T14:05:33+00:00

Old Oak Common - a big hole in London's infrastructure

Hats off to Terry Farrell for challenging some of the perceived truths about travel and communications and for questioning Foster's Thames island airport proposal.

In an article in Planning in London he argues that big ideas, like the new airport, are expensive and take a long while to come on-stream, while smaller projects can solve the problem in the short term, without compromising the big idea. He calls it incremental planning and I'm sure he's got a point.

He's also to be applauded for putting forward a very neat solution for increasing access to Heathrow by linking the check-ins to a new High Speed 1 and 2 interchange at Old Oak Common. When I was doing a masterplan for Swindon more than ten years ago we were told that there would soon be check-ins at Hayes to link Heathrow directly to the West Country Lines and to the Reading-Swindon Silicon Vale. That never happened. Though it was a condition of the construction of Terminal 5 to reduce car access to the airport I see no signs that this has worked.

But I think both Farrell and Foster are missing something in their future gazing. The premise of both schemes is that air travel will continue to grow. This assumption should be questioned.

I was advising the Gatwick Diamond Development team the other day. They almost fell off their chairs when I asked the question, "What if air travel decreases in the future?" But it's a question we should be asking.

Air travel is one of the most carbon extravagant things we can do. Just one trip to the USA every year will cancel out any benefit you gain from living in a state of the art eco-house (1). As carbon taxes kick-in then air travel will be hit more than most. As governments expand the high speed rail system around the UK and Europe, more and more people will (I hope) decide to go by train. That option just isn't here at the moment. It could well be that internal flights become prohibitively expensive. And I'm never convinced that a jerky flight between close locations isn't the mugs way of travelling anyway. Show me a comfy carriage and a view of the countryside any day and I'll show you a place where I can work, send emails and relax!

The assumptions are that everything will always get bigger. This is the sub-text of Terry Farrell's article. But I just don't think that an unfetteredincrease in air travel is either desireable or inevitable. If you work on policies to reduce air travel to the minimum and increase travel by other means (good old modal shift), then the projects that government needs to support would be quite different.

All that money could be spent on a series of smaller interventions, including the Old Oak Common interchange, and would mean spreading the benefitsto a wider public. Even though Mayor Boris Johnson supports the airport scheme, his opponent, Ken Livingstone does not. With mayoral elections coming up this spring, we may find that Farrells solutions will curry favour with a new administration.

The clincher for me is that it's easier to get twenty smaller schemes on the go than one big one. Given the history of developing airports in this country, anyone who puts all their regeneration eggs into an airport basket is in my view - just that - a basket case!

I think we can be pretty sure that world populations will continue to rise. The need for travel and communications will also rise, but whether that has to be linked to air travel is not definite. For starters lets try to encourage people not to take internal flights, but to travel by train instead.

1. BioRegional assessments of occupants in BedZed found that those who travelled by air cancelled out the benefits of the housing.

How are we going to do that?

Wendy Shillam — 2012-01-31T10:37:33+00:00

"As we have come to realise in recent years, we are running out. Materials are scarce, fuel is in short supply, and prices are escalating. To survive one is either going to have to be rich, or resourceful."

Guess who said that - and when...

It was Lloyd Kahn and the yearwas 1973. It's part of the opening salvo in a book entitled "Shelter" which was the must-have alternative publication for us at architecture school. The irony is that when I leaf through the book today it's all in there. Articles about conserving water; high levels of insulation; using solar power; growing your own. It's as if the truth was out there all along, but politicians just didn't see it. Most of my architect colleagues went on to design air conditioned offices, gas guzzling airports and houses with high levels of central heating and low levels of insulation! (I did too - I wasn't immune from the spirit of the times. It's what the clients wanted.)

The management consultants will tell you that there are two types of important and that all managers must pay attention to both types. We all get round somehow to dealing with the Import and Urgent - but we all have equal difficulty with the Important and Non-urgent. That never gets done. Though the consultants say that those who do pay attention to the long view will succeed.

Climate change is important and non-urgent and that's the problem. Back in the Seventies we had an oil crisis and the issue of dwindling stocks of hydrocarbons became urgent. So for a few short years scarce resources were Important and Urgent.

Now the scarcest resource on the planet seems to be money - strange because money - unlike fuel or other resources - can be printed at will!

Oh No! I Hear you cry. She's lost the plot! Money has a value which is linked to resources. And that is true, but there is one resource that we are not running out of - in fact we are pretty flush with it. That resource is human capital. As populations rise we need to find ways of utilising human resourcefulness to the full. There are a lot of social and politician implications for this one, but in terms of resources, humans are brilliant at taking a few resources and transforming them into objects of value. Seeds into food; clay into pots; wood into houses.

I think we are underestimating the value of hand made objects, which waste less resources, which generate more jobs and which can turn the means of production into a creative act. The 70's book Shelter is all about making your own home, about using recycled resources, being off grid and on message. I find the technical pages really interesting, they are full of early designs for solar power and windmills. There's an interview with Harold Hay, one of the first solar engineers which is worth reading. He talks about the superiority of micro generation. I think a lot of his argument still holds true today.

The message never got through in the 70's they were followed by the roaring 80's when we all wore shoulder pads and acted like Carrington in Dallas. But those people kept on working, and I'm sure their knowledge should be valued today. (Catch this rather poignant article about Harold Hay today http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/10/business/fi-haroldhay10)

I leave you with the poem that comes at the beginning of the book, and accompanies the illustration at the head of this article.

Fox was the only living man. There was no earth.
The water was everywhere. "What shall I do," Fox
asked himself. He began to sing in order to find out.
"I would like to meet somebody," he sang to the
sky.
The he met Coyote.
"I thought I was going to meet someone," FOx
said.
"Where are you going?" Coyote asked.
"I've been wandering all over trying to find some-
one. I was worried there for a while."
"Well, it's better for two people to go together...
that's what they always say."
"O.K. But what will we do?"
"I don't know."
"I got it! Let's try to make the world."

"And how are we going to do that?" Coyote asked.
"Sing!" said Fox.

Jamie de Angelo

Shelter Ed Lloyd Kahn 1973 ISBN 0-394-70991-8 (paper back)

The Cities Have It!

Wendy Shillam — 2012-01-23T10:42:59+00:00

The port of Cartagena Spain - a model for Sunderland's Regeneration?

I suppose it should be no surprise that The Centre for Cities has brought out some new research predicting that cities will be the life blood that surges through the veins of our new economy - whatever or whenever that emerges. I agree with their analysis. The Centre for Cities is an excellent organisation and should be applauded for trying to quantify the success or otherwise of different UK cities.

You can find their report at; Cities Outlook 2012 I tend to agree with the main aim of the results - that education is an important key to success. But I agree that we musts not fall into the trap of calling up-skilling a silver bullet. In my view there are no silver bullets in regeneration, where everything is connected to everything else. It's only through thoughtful and consistent resolution of complex problems that the fortunes of these places will improve. Bilbao is an excellent lesson in this. They did not do one thing - they did many things, all linked to growth and improvement of the lives of the people.

However, in looking at the the Centre for Cities top four and bottom four cities - those tipped to succeed and those tipped to decline - I couldn't help thinking about other factors that will set the future for these places.

Cities to watch from Centre for Cities report 2012

It is clear that London and Edinburgh have more chance than Aberdeen and Milton Keynes - or is it? (I'd say that's something to do with scale, access, mix of industries and location.) Similarly, if you look at the challenged cities you will see other disparities.

Cities with challenges from Centre for Cities report 2012

I am willing to bet that any of these challenged cities could prosper over the next ten years. So what will do it? I agree that education and retraining is vital, but access, facilities and development are also important. The study that I made of Bilbao in 2008 revealed that all these had been improved at the same time because of a dynamic set of circumstances that didn't all relate to finance.

It was political change, optimism and autonomy that did the trick for Bilbao I think. It's interesting to note that all the cities in the challenged list play second fiddle to somewhere nearby. This may indeed be a problem for Milton Keynes as well, which is too close for comfort to London and Northampton. The one is just really big and successful, the other has had tons of regeneration money pumped into it over the years and must be a competitor for land development.

The clincher for Bilbao was the designation of the Basque Region in 1978 as an autonomous region. Franco had died and there followed a political optimism which I have observed always occurs after a periods of political repression. In addition the city became a city region, which meant that it had control over its hinterland. (Something which the French have initiated as well in the development of the aglomerations.)

If you want to read more about Bilbao see Bilbao- The Redefinition of Tourism in my original essay of 2008. There is also a set of images of Bilbao in the photo library - top right of this blogpage.

So what one thing could the five challenged cities do to change their fortunes?

Doncaster
Doncaster is fantastically well connected by road and rail. It should take over all the land between the M62, M18 and the A1M and declare a sort of green UDI - linking its historic city, its manufacturing land with its very beautiful rural hinterland. Instead of high density, rather dour urban development, it should become a garden city. That would distinguish it suitably from its neighbours Sheffield and Leeds/Bradford.

Hull
Hull has always looked to the sea and should do so again. Imports from dynamic Denmark, Netherlands and Flanders should be cultural, social and economic.

Sunderland
Sunderland is a tricky one and should probably look at growth without increase. Demolish the redundant industrial zones and progressively clear underused suburban housing estates. It too, like Hull should look towards the use if its port - that fantastic inland sheltered harbour must have some new use whether it be sportive, touristic or industrial. It's success could also benefit from liaison with Newcastle (just as Gateshead has done.) I can see Sunderland becoming Newcastle on Sea - but then South Shields may have something to say about that!

The success of the North Eastern RDA, compared to some, may have some lessons here. The RDA was a well funded administration that covered all these close knit cities and towns. Their future success will comein forming a constellation of complimentary not competing places.

Swansea and Newport
I've linked Swansea and Newport together because they have both suffered from playing second and third fiddle to Cardiff. Sadly the Welsh autonomy had little effect upon the fortunes of these towns. I can't say whether that was because of their own ineffectiveness, or because they were not given the level of autonomy that Scotland possesses. South Wales, with it's sheltered Southern coastline and low housing costs should be a sinch for attracting the grey pound. But the towns have always been fiercely independent, a bit like Bilbao. Somehow that pride of place has not transformed into a welcoming atmosphere. Instead South Wales, despite its good road and rail connections to the rest of the UK seems isolated. So perhaps for South Wales there needs to be a cultural flowering. There needs to be a realisation of Wales' place in the UK and the world. I guess this will come from confidence in its own identity. These towns need to be truely welcoming to outsiders (in the way that Bilbao has been) whether they be tourists, new settlers, or businesses. For, as my article about Bilbao shows, today's tourists are tomorrows investors.

Stop Food Waste

Wendy Shillam — 2012-01-19T10:04:49+00:00

We spent an enjoyable evening with Dr Compost (a.k.a. Craig Benton) and his lovely partner Tina the other night. Craig told us that a third of the food we buy ends up in the bin. I can see for myself that this must be true. I'm starting a compost heap, and the sheer quantity of material that goes into the kitchen composter is unbelievable.

The Irish government has sponsored a wonderful website, written by Craig and friends called Stopfoodwaste.ie Government policy is based around prevention of waste. By not generating waste we eliminate the need to handle, transport, treat and dispose of waste. Encouraging people to reduce their food waste is a large part of the challenge.

The site has good ideas about reducing waste. For example it recommends serving food on platters and letting people help themselves, to reduce the amount of scraps on plates (also good for the waistline)

I think that we are conditioned by TV chefs to waste larger proportions of food than our mothers did. Most of these TV chefs have been trained in posh restaurants where every lettuce leaf needs to crinkle seductively and every tomato slice must be identical. However in the home we don't need to eat like that! For years I discarded the outer leaves of lettuces. Recently I've discovered that its those very leaves which have the most flavour! Our understanding of nutrition is changing too. I try not to peel fruit and I haven't peeled a potato in years. Even mashed potatoes can be made delicious with their skins left on. (The peel just disappears into the mash.)

However, even with those sorts of measures my compost pile is growing, so I consulted Craig for ideas. I live in a flat with a roof garden. There is no room up there for the wonderful row of large turnable heaps that you'd find in a country garden. Craig has recommended a wormery. I'm slightly concerned at the thought of more pets about the place, (can you take compost worms to the vet if they get sick?) but he's persuaded me that this is the best route. And the output - a fine till of worm casts - is caviar to pot plants!

So this weekend weather permitting I'm starting to make a series of stacking bins. Go to Build your own composter for all the info.

Contact Craig at doctorcompost@earthlink.net

Thanks to stopfoodwaste.com for permission to use the images.

The First Underground Railway in the World

Wendy Shillam — 2012-01-12T16:15:39+00:00

10th January was the 149th anniversary of London's first underground line, and the first time in the world that trains had gone underground in a city. I rode the route yesterday, with commuters and tourists who, of course, had no idea that they were riding into history.

The route went from Paddington Station to Farringdon, and was intended to be an extension of the Metropolitan Railway right into the city. Even today the route has three rails in some cases so that tube trains and commuter trains can arrive at the same platforms. (Tube trains are wider.)

In the week that government announces the HS2 high speed line to Birmingham, I wanted to remind myself of how 19th Century travellers might have felt with their new high speed line. Of course the old trains were steam trains and it seems that passengers did complain about the steamyness of the underground platforms. The engineers went to great efforts to design a series of ducts that would dispel the steam. They designed beautiful brick chutes at Baker Street (as well as Great Portland St and Euston Square) which let steam out and let sunlight in. These have been blocked up now, but the refurb at Baker Street did put lights into the chutes, which gives something of the impression of the original platforms.

Baker Street 2012

Baker Street 1863

However many passengers were content to travel on the new steamy route. In the first few months 26,000 people used the line and in an attempt to relieve overcrowding extra rolling stock had to be brought in from the Great Western Railway.

Tunelling skills were not so advanced in those days. The line was built with cut and cover. The old drawings showing clearly how a trench was constructed and then temporary timber supports would be placed until the brick arches could be built.

The problem with this method of construction was that it was very dissruptive to those on the surface. People compained that the New Road, now Euston/Marylebone Road, was out of use for months. But it was only the fact that this road existed which allowed the route to be built. It would have been far too expensive to pull down great swathes of London houses to bring the line into Farringdon.

As it was the engineers went to great efforts to disguise the ventilation shafts. Supposedly, a five foot thick facade was constructed in Leinster Gradens to simulate a house, but which in fact masked a ventialtion duct.

Baker Street Station still has many of the original features. It was sensitively refurbished in 1982 and a set of interesting panels were erected in the advertising spaces which illustrate the construction.

So we haven't changed very much in 150 years. Opponents to HS2 want fast and efficient transport systems - as long as we can't see or hear them! And they certainly don't want the construction work to disturb them in any way. The headline on the Ham and High, Camden's local newspaper this week said, "HS2 will cause ten years of chaos to Camden." I expect that they said the same thing about that pesky new underground railway in 1863!

Dig for Victory!

Wendy Shillam — 2012-01-09T13:12:17+00:00

I've been inspired by a fantastic old wartime leaflet encouraging everyone to get out there and plant out a veg plot. I haven't got an allotment but I have got a roof garden. I've spent a very pleasant few days designing the perfect rooftop veg plot.

The whole thing is based on a 600mm grid, which I reckon is large enough to grow any plant. Low growing salads and herbs will be planted in the centre of the plot - so that there is still room to sit out on sunny days.

When I lived in Petersfield I had a greenhouse and grew some wonderful things. I was pining for the greenhouse, when I realised that I have a wide south/west facing bay window here in Great Titchfield Street which gets light from a rooflight above as well as directly through the window.

I've started planting up salads, tomatoes and some greens. I've worked out that my shelf is larger than my greenhouse staging, so there should be loads of room for seedbeds and potting on. Here's a picture of what it looks like today.

I hope you spotted the lime tree resplendent with mature limes, which I reserve for G&T's!

The planting beds on the roof will add up to about 7m2 of planting area, and there is another 2m2 on this shelf. That's a lot less than the 300m2 recommended by the wartime leaflet, but enough to make a difference to my veg bill, I hope.

Download a copy of the leaflet here Download DigforVictory1_1-4 Download DigforVictory1_2-3

Communter Trains Fares in the UK - The Most Expensive in Europe

Wendy Shillam — 2012-01-02T13:52:57+00:00

Pity the poor commuters who's train fares will rise tomorrow by an average of 5.9%. And remember this is just an average and just for this year. The government has announced that fares will go up by RPI+3% next year and again RPI+3% in 2014 as well. If RPI is 3% for the next two years then that would mean a staggering 16% cost rise over three years.

This year the government has changed the rules.Some commuters, like those unfortunates who travel from Chester to Crew, will have to suffer an increase of 10.6% this year and heaven knows what that increase will be next year.

The rational is that government and the Association of Train Operating Companies both want to increase investment in our ailing railway system. We'd all agree with that. But government has decided to fund a few, very high costs schemes like Crossrail, Thameslink and the new High Speed Link. So the man who lives in Chester and works in Crew seems to be unfairly subsidising large and important schemes down south, rather that see his own train services improve.

This is a difficult connundrum for the government who can not be blamed for the mistakes of the past. All recent governments have failed to invest sufficiently in our rail system. The myth that private enterprise will do it is long dead - stopped in its tracks ('scuse the pun) - by the recession.

There is something we can do. The Campaign for Better Transport is hoping that tomorrow commuters will text, tweet or email the treasury to tell them how much their own fares have increased and say what that means to them personally. Check out the website FARE FARES NOW.

I think one of the problems the government have is that they are obsessed with speed, rather than regularity of service. Of course we don't want slow trains, but so often the cuts in any form of public transport lead to fewer services across a shorter working day. But the trend is for people to work more flexible hours. Commuter fares do encourage people to travel outside peak hours, but they do nothing to encourage other low carbon initiatives like tele-working once a week, for example. Also some enlightened employers consider train travel time to be work time. You can tap away on your lap-top as well on an Intercity train, as you can at your desk. Train travel should be recognised as part of the working day in the way that driving a car can not be.

The national need is not to shave a few minutes off any one particular train journey but to reduce traffic on the roads during peak hours and to reduce carbon emissions. Policies don't take that into consideration at the moment. For example it's cheaper to fly from London to Manchester or Scotland than take the train. That's just plain stupid!

Please don't stop using trains, but perhaps just get a bit better at finding the cheapest fare.

Here are my top ten tips for cheap train travel:

Become a student - a student card gives a third off even at peak times! (And London students get cheaper Oyster travel as well.)
National rail enquiries on the web now has a cheapest fare icon - which is worth checking out.
Book ahead. Use ticket bucket shops like megatrain.com (though you do sometimes find that the journey is by coach!) Train tickets booked well in advance on the slower trains cost as little as £1.
Take the coach instead of the train. The Oxford Tube is a very comfortable and often speedier way of getting between London and the Centre of Oxford.
Take the slower train or a different route - for example the walk on fare is £19.90 to take an afternoon train via London Midland Railways from London Marylebone to Birmingham but Virgin passengers at Euston can pay £79.00 standard single fare. The time difference is about half an hour.
Stay at home. Consider Scype'ing your colleague or holding a teleconference (many websites for this)
Take a heritage steam line. It might not be cheaper or quicker but it can be fun.
Go to the train company website and get on their marketing list so that you get to hear about special deals. (These do not get recorded by National Rail Enquiries)
When on holiday consider rover tickets which can provide very good savings if you are taking a number of journeys.
Take a friend and/or a family along with you. Many train companies offer family fares, especially at weekends, and you don't actually have to be related!

As always on matters of trains, my friend Mark Smith has an excellent cheap fares advice page on his wonderful website The Man at Seat 61