lifestyle, indiscriminately situated on agriculturally productive land. This squan-
dering of a rural asset to satisfy an attachment to mock-ruralism has proceeded
largely unchecked because there is no economic force (or Old World village pro-
tection lobby) to oppose a neither-town-nor-country commodification of the rural
landscape. Effective ‘growth management’ of greenfield villages offers hope for a
sustainably balanced alternative. This is optimal settlement living (approximating
the European village model) in a New World greenfield setting, ideally as eco-
villages – capturing the ambience and efficiency of sustainable town-with-country
living.
What, then, characterizes an eco-village? First, they incorporate a mixture of the
best design practices listed earlier and previously profiled in box 5.1 as Urban
social arrangement and style. These design practices were further elaborated in
box 5.2 as Basic residential componentry. For eco-villages a net density of 30-plus
households per hectare is the ideal. Eco-villages also espouse a high degree of self-
sufficiency of food production and water harvesting: are green canopied and
pleasant to live in, are village sized, are largely self-reliant in the meeting of
within-settlement food fibre and energy needs, and set out to
recycle or reuse their waste. They are, for their inhabitants, safe,
pleasant and interesting places in which to live – but they do not
come cheap. In other words new urbanist settlements are not
likely to provide any ‘affordable housing’ for low-income house-
holds, although moving in the direction of such a household
balance is an objective.
Michelle Thompson-Fawcett (1996: 316) identified and col-
lated, from several sources, the following set of recommendations
relative to ‘new-urbanism’ principles. Rephrased, and recom-
bined, these are as follows:
1 Personal vehicle mobility should not hold the status of a basic
right.
2 Large houses on large lots is not an acceptable aspiration.
3 Diversity of residents in a community is enriching.
4 Lower land costs per unit can be achieved at relatively
high densities while also ensuring an abundance of public
spaces.
5 New urbanism’s market is broader than is typical in conven-
tional suburbia because of the diversity of accessible urban
attractions.
6 Incorporation of a diversity of uses broadens the tax base for
local authorities.
7 Higher-density development reduces set-up and maintenance
costs of public infrastructure.
8 Neighbourhood shops do not require the extensive shared-cost furbishment
which is common in malls.
Urban Growth Management 225From the UK
Department of the
Environment,Regeneration
Research Summary(2000).
Sustainable Community:
Broad Themes:
1 Resource consumption
should be minimised;
2 Local environmental
capital should be
protected;
3 Design quality should
be high;
4 Residents should enjoy
a high quality of life;
5 Equity and social
inclusion should be
increased;
6 Participation in
governance should be
broad;
7 The community should
be commercially viable;
8 Integration of
environmental and
quality-of-life
objectives.