Communities in United Kingdom
Brantwood Park Residential District
GOOD PRACTICE TITLE: Brantwood Park Residential District
KIND OF PRACTICE: Community Building
DOCUMENT AUTHOR (ORGANIZATION AND AUTHOR NAME):
Mary Seacole Housing Association, Lennox Adams
PLACE: Luton
CONTEXT, FIELD OF INTERVENTION:
Brantwood Park Community as originally designed as a residential solution for a rapidly increasing urban polulation.
PERIOD:
Late 19th to early 20th century
POPULATION, PARTICIPANTS:
Approx 500 people
COORDINATORS:
Marquess of Bute Estates
METHODOLOGY (HOW THE PRACTICE WORKS):
The design of a “utopian-like” residential community surrounded by rural and urban areas. The community is arranged around a central park, was supposed to be a new type of suburb suitable for a developing town in the late 19th Century.
The practice requires the cooperation of low, middle and high income families living in particular zones around the park. The process was largely geared towards the growing middle class families of Luton.
The residences were arranged around the park as follow:
• Middle income residences (as villas) on the western side of the park
• Low income residences on the southern side of the park (not the lowest income workers but one level higher to include skilled workers, whose wives plaited straw to make hats at nearby factories.
• Low income residences on the northern side of the park, which also included the school and the hospital. Farther away were places of work
• Higher income residents, seen as large detached houses on the steeply rising ground on the southern side of the park
Away from the park, travelling westwards were residences for low income workers who worked in the nearby factories. All workers lived in walking distance of their workplaces.
PARTICIPATORY PROCESS:
The community was planned to accommodate low income, middle income and high income residents. Whoever lived in the district participated in the process.
TIME TO BE SUCCESFUL (HOW MANY TIME THE PRACTICE TAKE TO ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES):
The practice was successful form 1880 to 1950.
VALIDITY (IF THE PARTICIPANTS THINK THAT THE PRACTICE RESOLVED THE PROBLEMATIC):
From historical and anecdotal accounts, Brantwood Park was a very desirable place to live. It proved to be a good idea in allowing people from different income groups to live in the same district. This was a new concept in Luton at the time. It was an exercise in high density urban planning. This model is now repeated in a wide range of places in UK.
IMPACT:
The concept of residences around a park was not a new idea of UK, even in 1900. There were many elegant squares in London. In this example the park was not private, nor was it for the exclusive use of the people living around the park – it was a truly public area. The park terminated at streets parallel to each other, which carried the main traffic between work and residence. Consequently, the park was a quiet place. The impact of such a relationship was immediate and desirable. People preferred to give their properties names rather than numbers, the houses were called “villas”. Brantwood Park was clearly a desirable place to live.
INNOVATION:
The innovation was not unique. There were early utopian societies in the USA, e.g., Fruitlands and in UK, e.g., New Lanark, which covered the entire settlement. At Brantwood Park it was the development of a part of Luton owned by the Marquess of Bute and so the idea of a “utopian society” had to be blended into an existing society at a time when industrialization and urbanization were replacing old land uses, such as farm land. The main innovation was blending workplace, living space and recreation space.
RESOURCES OR CONDITIONS NEEDED FOR THE PRACTICE:
• People walking to their place of work
• A relatively small middle class population
• Residential location not far from the town centre
• Sufficient new space for building housing
LIMITATIONS:
• The success of the practices is limited by the degree of tolerance between rich and poor. Normally, the rich repel the poor. Although there is some sort of separation in the model, the separation may not be considered enough.
• The second limitation is the amount of space. The rich normally give up access to the town centre locations in favour of more space. In this model space is especially limited for aspiring middle class households, such as those owned by doctors and solicitors who want a large house with a large garden.
LEARNED LESSONS: :
Different income groups can living in the same setting as long as the number of low income residence is not great. This notion has been adopted by UK government – that in all urban development community housing must not exceed 15% of the total.
SUSTAINABILITY:
The practice/pattern was sustain for some 70 years. The Second World War influenced sustainability in a negative way.
REPLICABILITY:
The practice/model can be replicated but it is space-demanding.
CONCLUSION:
The project operated successfully until the Second World War. After the War the richer people began to move out to new, more spacious suburbs that were developing in North Luton. They were replaced by lower middle class workers. They in turn left the after 1960 for new garden suburbs and many of the villas were converted to rooming houses and flats. Some were demolished and rebuilt in a more modern style. Elsewhere large gardens were sold for building new houses and flats, in the 1960s and 1970s. In this period many industries closed and that land was used for housing, some as community housing. Since the 1970s Dallow Ward, in which Brantwood Park is located, has become mainly low income, despite the quality of some of the housing. The ward has become a reception area for immigrants.