Behind Blue Eyes

I am fascinated by the way people interact with the place they are in. In the city that means “the built environment”. Logically, it should not make a huge difference to our behaviour whether we are in a smart street or a run down area. Why would the same person act differently depending on the buildings and streets around him? It does seem to be true, though. People will feel more safe in a particular street than another a stone’s throw away. In purely utilitarian terms these two post-war inner city developments are identical: near the centre of London, very close to a tube station, shops right outside, the flats will be of similar size. Yet you can probably guess which flats are the more sought-after just by looking at the outside.

When I was flat hunting, I looked at quite a few flats in different places. I wasn’t tied to living in one particular area so I cast the net quite wide. My online search revealed an Erno Goldfinger flat right on top of Canada Water tube station. Goldfinger thought he had hit upon the ideal size and layout for living quarters. His flats are spacious, well laid-out, have plenty of light etc.. The photos of the flat showed it was in decent condition but the asking price for the flat was pitifully low. I could have bought two with my budget. I can only assume that people go out of their way to avoid that area. I understand why: it has a grim, desolate feel about it. There is no sense of community in that part of town at all, it feels more like East Berlin than South-East London. The thing which really attracted me to the place I bought was the cleanliness and good maintenance of the communal areas of my estate. There was no litter floating about in the wind, the stairs were clean, there was no graffiti. And there were a few local shops and a couple of decent-looking pubs. It makes all the difference.

I think many of our social problems persist because people feel little sense of “ownership” of their environment. Why bother finding a bin if you don’t feel like you belong here? Why bother behaving yourself if you don’t feel any responsibility towards your neighbours? But why are we apparently incapable of understanding what works and what doesn’t? After all, the human race has been building cities for thousands of years now. Britain has been doing town planning for many decades.

We should now know how to build communities that people feel part of. It should be relatively easy to avoid the mistakes of the past. We know, for example, that putting families into tower blocks doesn’t work. We know that if people are simply allocated a flat the chances are they won’t feel responsible for its maintenance. We know that building vast swathes of similar flats and houses without social facilities breeds – at best – soulless dormitory estates.

We know that narrow irregular streets with densely juxtaposed buildings give a sense of “character” whereas wide streets with blocks set back from them feel cold and lonely. And it’s no wonder that, in places where people feel isolated, there will be “anti-social behaviour” and general breakdown. The authorities have draconian powers to decide what gets built and what doesn’t. Why are we still building dross? Why are we not learning from our mistakes?