From Peter Mowbray
As a planner working in Greater Manchester, I was dismayed by Fred Pearce’s
article on conserving sites in urban areas
(This Week, 11 April, p 20). Let’s
put things into perspective. Regardless of whether or not 4.4 million homes will
really be needed by the year 2016, it is essential that cities build up
population so that jobs and services can be created for the people that live
there.
To achieve this, derelict sites must be developed. After years of urban
change, there is plenty of open land and the settlement pattern is low-density
and dispersed. Some residents live in areas that are just as isolated as rural
areas when it comes to access, while cities have seen their populations leaching
away into areas of sprawl that encroach on the countryside.
To suggest conserving what many view as eyesores is bogus in the extreme,
especially since the rare fauna and flora seen on some sites appeared as if from
nowhere. The implication is that any site left fallow could spontaneously
acquire interesting wildlife and should therefore be conserved.
Urban ecologists want to preserve sites of little importance to urban
communities, and their campaign will ultimately prove damaging to both cities
and the open land beyond.
Advertisement
Rochdale, Lancashire
