Young couples are getting trapped in their cars

ktache wrote:

When I was reading this earlier today the question that hit me was why only couples and why young ones at that?

Yeah, pretty much all the

Yeah, pretty much all the places local to me are going this way. I was (until a couple months ago) living in North Somerset, two large new housing estates were built/are being built (Yatton and Churchill for any locals!).

No supermarkets nearby, not many jobs nearby and no school particularly close. I’m now in South Soms and it’s the same story here…

Result is, everyone drives.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Mark B wrote:

The large developments, basically new villages, tend to be a little better, and do include pubs, shops, doctors surgeries and schools. The problem is more with the smaller ones where they put a hundred houses on the edge of an existing town, and then a few years later another hundred on the next field.

Even when they are well designed with facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the distances involved in going into the middle of town are often a bit far for a family with young children.

I agree that the article rather overstates the problem; most new estates either do have basic shops etc or they’re on the edge of an existing town at a distance which is an easy cycle or a slightly annoyingly long but perfectly possible walk. I can well believe there are some estates which are bad, I don’t know any of the ones mentioned in the article.

Cough, cough – Portishead! – cough, cough.

A small town, conveniently close to Bristol and the M5 motorway.  Build a few hundred houses.  Then a few hundred more.  Then fill in the gaps left.  “Doctor’s surgeries“, you say?  “Schools“, you say?  “How the f will I actually get in and out of the town since there are only two small A roads?” you say?

Just get the train.

You think that’ll actually ever happen?

(If so, would you like to buy a bridge I’ve got in the back of my van…   )

It’s as likely as Bristol getting a stadium.

Bristol or South Gloucestershire… 

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Mark B wrote:

The large developments, basically new villages, tend to be a little better, and do include pubs, shops, doctors surgeries and schools. The problem is more with the smaller ones where they put a hundred houses on the edge of an existing town, and then a few years later another hundred on the next field.

Even when they are well designed with facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the distances involved in going into the middle of town are often a bit far for a family with young children.

I agree that the article rather overstates the problem; most new estates either do have basic shops etc or they’re on the edge of an existing town at a distance which is an easy cycle or a slightly annoyingly long but perfectly possible walk. I can well believe there are some estates which are bad, I don’t know any of the ones mentioned in the article.

Cough, cough – Portishead! – cough, cough.

A small town, conveniently close to Bristol and the M5 motorway.  Build a few hundred houses.  Then a few hundred more.  Then fill in the gaps left.  “Doctor’s surgeries“, you say?  “Schools“, you say?  “How the f will I actually get in and out of the town since there are only two small A roads?” you say?

Just get the train.

You think that’ll actually ever happen?

(If so, would you like to buy a bridge I’ve got in the back of my van…   )

kil0ran wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Load of bollocks. I’m commuting from Salisbury through Amesbury at the moment, the new estate is right on NCN45 and has excellent cycle paths. In the rush hour it’s probably slightly quicker by bike than it is in a car

Mark B wrote:

The large developments, basically new villages, tend to be a little better, and do include pubs, shops, doctors surgeries and schools. The problem is more with the smaller ones where they put a hundred houses on the edge of an existing town, and then a few years later another hundred on the next field.

Even when they are well designed with facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the distances involved in going into the middle of town are often a bit far for a family with young children.

I agree that the article rather overstates the problem; most new estates either do have basic shops etc or they’re on the edge of an existing town at a distance which is an easy cycle or a slightly annoyingly long but perfectly possible walk. I can well believe there are some estates which are bad, I don’t know any of the ones mentioned in the article.

Cough, cough – Portishead! – cough, cough.

A small town, conveniently close to Bristol and the M5 motorway.  Build a few hundred houses.  Then a few hundred more.  Then fill in the gaps left.  “Doctor’s surgeries“, you say?  “Schools“, you say?  “How the f will I actually get in and out of the town since there are only two small A roads?” you say?

The large developments,

The large developments, basically new villages, tend to be a little better, and do include pubs, shops, doctors surgeries and schools. The problem is more with the smaller ones where they put a hundred houses on the edge of an existing town, and then a few years later another hundred on the next field.

Even when they are well designed with facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the distances involved in going into the middle of town are often a bit far for a family with young children.

I agree that the article rather overstates the problem; most new estates either do have basic shops etc or they’re on the edge of an existing town at a distance which is an easy cycle or a slightly annoyingly long but perfectly possible walk. I can well believe there are some estates which are bad, I don’t know any of the ones mentioned in the article.

kil0ran wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Load of bollocks. I’m commuting from Salisbury through Amesbury at the moment, the new estate is right on NCN45 and has excellent cycle paths. In the rush hour it’s probably slightly quicker by bike than it is in a car

Probably is: but then they’d have to ride a bike 

I think the article raises a more general point – that newbuild developments (“lets build a new town/district right here”) seem to be designed as monocultures: this area will be residential, this area will be commercial/retail, this area under the bridge next to the sewerage treatment works behind a really big wall will be affordable housing, that sort of thing.   Few developments seem to be designed with their own ‘additional stuff’ – they rely upon surrounding areas for shops, even for schools or doctor’s surgeries.   (And Poundbury, though it illustrates what could be done, is still really the Toytown of the Prince of Wales, isn’t it?)