latest feedback
Here is a selection of your comments on Eco-Towns
page 1 of 8
Eco towns are a great idea. I'm currently studying modern prefabricated homes which can provide carbon neutral dwellings delivered and erected on-site in a matter of days. By constructing homes within a factory environment minimal waste is achieved. In addition to this, faster construction times have minimal impact on the local environment. Wouldn't this type of construction be perfect for new eco-town settlements?
They are a great idea as long as all housing is made with local ecological materials in a way that makes them self sufficient or nearly so.
To me one of the most important aspects is for the residents to have a clear voice on how it is run. I would have a community space on each block where people can come together and celebrate, discuss, debate, support each other … so that no-one need be alone without help.
Ecotowns sound good on paper, but whether they can be truly green we won't know until they have started functioning. The right sort of people need to live in eco-towns, there's no point building carbon neutral houses and then someone buys five TVs. They have to live the right way of life, and be fully committed to a green lifestyle.
Creating new settlements simply exacerbates traffic on the roads to an extent whereby all the 'Eco' achievements of the new settlement are nullified. Existing cities and towns have reasonable public transport infrastructures which minimize this effect.
I noticed in your video that you claim eco towns are carbon neutral, I mean this to be a constructive criticism but what are you planning to make them out of that is carbon neutral?
Why not instead of eco towns you update (or subsidise the updating of) existing houses that would [be] far more effective at reducing CO2 in the long run.
Eco towns should be sited where there is an actual need or purpose for a new town and where they can be truly self sufficient and not as commuter towns for larger settlements. Some sites appear to be proposed for pure commercial gain and not clear planning principles.
…By introducing LOTS more housing in our centres we provide opportunities for local business, reduce travel to work/food shopping etc. The investment in creating new green spaces would be welcome in most 'failing' towns/cities and would naturally attract families to move closer to the centre. The densification of existing centres makes environmental sense too, most of the infrastructure is already in place and so we do not need to dig new pipes or create new road/rail routes. The argument that new towns will provide new jobs and investments is valid but so would densifying existing urban centres with the added benefit that 'failing' communities receive investment and we do not simply create new suburban landscape.
Eco-towns are an untested concept in the way the government plans them. It is too early to plan large scale eco towns - new housing cannot be totally zero carbon at present. Need to raise standards in insulation of all new homes in preference, and encourage small scale pilot projects on greener communities and way of life.
I think eco towns are a great idea as they provide everything that people need in one place so there is less fuel consumption when people use cars every day. There is at least one job per household in the town so no need for travelling long distances. I have always believed that public transport should be used more often and I like the fact that eco towns encourage people to find other means of getting [to] places e.g. cycling, walking. It also promotes healthier lifestyles. I would love to live in an Eco-town, I think it would benefit the way we live hugely, just by reducing the consumption of things we could sometimes do without.
What will the street lighting be like? Will it be environmentally friendly and not produce any upward shining wasted light to blot out our view of the starry night sky? Will all forms of outdoor lighting not produce any light pollution?
The environment is under threat today more than it ever has been, and action must be taken now to move settlement development into the 21st Century and encourage people to live differently. Otherwise the consequences could be catastrophic. Development of brownfield sites must be made more of a priority so less of rural Britain is placed under concrete in an attempt to meet demands for new homes. It is a great opportunity to make such development more environmentally friendly to help revitalise urban areas and improve peoples living and working environments.
Civil liberties must however still be maintained in new development[s], with local people having a proper say on future development.
Eco-towns are essential for [a] better future.
Eco towns need to be provided as an alternative to traditional towns without changing the way people live in their household and community, this could be achieved by using eco friendly houses.
Most people would love [to live] in an 'Eco-town' or even simply an 'Eco-neighbourhood' or even more simply an 'Eco-home'. I think it's also very important to consider the aesthetics of an 'Eco-town', we want it to look attractive. It is important to consider the local environment and that it takes its design from nature. We want it to look like what is more in-tune with natural resources, nature and the environment.
We cannot, no matter how tempting it might seem, improve our environment by building housing on green space. While it avoids upsetting existing homeowners and may appear politically more palatable, developments on green land cannot be called eco-towns. How about incentives for green development on brownfield sites?
I guess it is in simple terms that we have to develop eco-towns, if we fail then we will not have any towns or any life in the world as we know it. We cannot survive without a new kind of sustainable economy. We must act before it is too late, there is no alternative but to develop our economy to that of a bio diverse economy without the same we will have no economy!! Think about it!!
I think the priority for housing is to ensure there is enough affordable housing for everyone. There is every reason that new builds - no matter where the location - should have renewable energy technology as standard, along with excellent insulation of course. In this current economic climate, the government should be encouraging and supporting self-build and providing affordable housing through "sweat-equity," which would also enhance the skill-set of those involved. These skills could then be used in the renovation of existing housing. Reducing fossil fuel based energy use and heat loss in existing housing would move the government far along the path to meeting the 80% greenhouse gas reduction target. Two thirds of existing housing will still be in use in 2050 according to the 40% House Report. Next in importance is that existing public transport is maximised and extended where necessary. Bike lanes need to be extensively increased and made safe for users. Building new settlements will only increase private car use.
Dropping 6000+ new homes into the countryside isn't the answer. 6000+ new jobs (one per dwelling) is guaranteed BUT the jobs cannot be guaranteed to go to the residents of the eco-town. Therefore you have the prospect of 6000 heading out of the eco-town each morning to work and 6000 heading in. How eco sustainable is this in reality?
Many buildings that are being built today aren't part of Eco-Towns, they should have new building regulations such as "Each and every new home must have at least 20+% of the roof covered in solar panels". Eco-Towns are good but must be built on brown zones (Areas of old development) not on freshly acquired land and fields, needed for wild life and farming.
