What exactly do we mean by ‘landscape led’?

We were recently working on a masterplan for a new settlement, one of the aims of which was that it should be “landscape led”. This is a term that comes up all the time in our world, either as part of briefs or in the way that schemes are sold. I therefore feel like I should know what it means, but I’m afraid I have no idea, and talking discreetly to other urban designers and landscape architects it seems that they don’t either.

This came to mind reading therecent reportby the New Economics Foundation (NEF) exposing the collapse in green space provision in England and Wales. They have put together three data sets to show that the amount of open space in housing development completed since 2000 has declined by a third, resulting in nine million fewer trips to green space. I can’t help thinking that this must be something to do with us not understanding what “landscape led” means.

该报告结合了英国国家统计局关于绿地的数据、住房平均年龄的数据以及自然英格兰对当地绿地态度的一项全国调查，得出了这一结论。报告显示，当地公园的平均面积从20世纪30年代的8.5个足球场减少到2000年后的5个足球场。

Over the same period the land area devoted to green space in new development has declined from 13% to 9%, with a similar trend for private gardens.

Landscape and open space is something that no one would argue against, which is why those questions about “landscape led” needed to be asked discreetly

Comparison with the 1930s is slightly unfair. That was a time when councils were planning huge suburban extensions and when they were able to set aside land for generous open space provision. The majority of housing sites today are a lot smaller than 8.5 football pitches and certainly not big enough to accommodate a new park.

然而，景观和开放空间是没有人会反对的，这就是为什么这些关于“景观导向”的问题需要谨慎地提出。新经济基金会的报告回顾了一些研究，这些研究令人信服地证明了开放空间对幸福、健康甚至教育成果的价值。它将新开发项目缺乏开放空间的原因归咎于规划者允许开发商将利润置于居民的长期福祉之上。

All of this is true, but it is also worth pointing out that 2000 was the year, following the Urban Task Force report, when the Labour government set out a new urban policy agenda. The aim was to reduce the amount of car-dependent sprawl, increase the density and walkability of new development and promote the re-use of brownfield land. These are also good things.

It is a policy that has been supported by subsequent governments and has been reasonably successful – in the first 10 years of the century the average density of new housing rose from 25dph to 45dph. It is not therefore surprising that the amount of open space fell. It is just that this was a result of policy rather than grasping developers.

Many councils continue to use what used to be called the National Playing Fields Association six-acre standard (now theFields in Trust Standard). This specifies six acres of open space per 1,000 population and was the standard used in all of those 1930s developments.

It sounds reasonable but, when you apply it to a site, you realise that it results in a huge amount of open space. Let’s assume an average household size of 2.4, meaning that a scheme of just over 400 homes would require 2.43ha of open space. If the scheme is low density (say 30dph) this means 17.5% of the site is open space, which is fine. However, if your density is 60dph, this rises to 35% and at 120dph it means that 70% of the site has to be green!

I have long advocated an alternative approach that focuses on the quality of open space rather than the quantity

The question is where the balance of good lies? Is the fact that open space has declined by a third a sufficiently bad thing to question the benefits of increased density and brownfield development? I would suggest not.

有时，“landscape lead”这个短语只是指尽可能多的景观。但这只会增加步行距离，降低公共交通和当地服务的可行性，当然还需要开发更多的绿地。

I have long advocated an alternative approach that focuses on the quality of open space rather than the quantity. This prioritises recreational value and biodiversity while creating landscape that is safe and overlooked.

因此，让我来给出一个“景观主导”的定义——我的建议是，它应该是指与景观相结合的紧凑发展，而不是指在新发展中拥有大面积的景观。