Chapter II: The theoretical basis

Environmental Standards

128

Environmental Standards. It is one thing to say that an area should be safe, free from noise, and generally agreeable, but quite another to define standards by which these qualities can be measured. Yet without standards it is difficult to reveal convincingly the state of affairs in any place, or to make comparisons. In quite a number of matters in town planning it seems that real progress has only been made when standards have been worked out and accepted, for then people have been able to see at once where things are wrong. We have been very much at a disadvantage because so little serious research has been carried out into environmental standards. The scale of the studies required was beyond anything we could become directly engaged in. We were aware of the dangers of proceeding without sufficient knowledge, but nevertheless we had to do our best to steer round the many imponderables. More is said in Chapter V about aspects that require further study, but meanwhile an indication can be given of the main factors involved.

127

To recapitulate, the several ways in which motor vehicles menace environment are through danger and intimidation, noise, fumes, vibration, severance, and visual intrusion. These effects are felt mainly by pedestrians and the occupants of buildings, though to varying degrees, but they may also be felt in part by the occupants of vehicles. They are largely experienced, of course, on account of the ubiquitous presence of the vehicular urban street, a form of development which now seems as though it were specially designed to produce these adverse effects. If we could get rid of such streets many of these problems would disappear. But we are likely to have them for a very long time, and much of the study of environmental standards must be concerned with the conditions under which the street can continue to play an effective role. It should not be difficult to form an objective judgment about some of the adverse effects of traffic in streets. If it were accepted, for example, as a standard, that people should be able to engage in normal conversation on the pavement without shouting then it should be possible to define an acceptable noise level from traffic. An acceptable level could in the same way be defined for the interior of buildings. Likewise an air pollution standard could be defined, and doubtless a standard for vibration could also be devised. It would then be possible in any street to secure these standards by regulating the number, speed or weight of the vehicles passing along. This much is comparatively simple. Danger, anxiety and intimidation, however, are far more difficult. Absolute safety for pedestrians could be secured only by preventing them crossing the carriageway on the level, and in some way excluding all possibility of a vehicle mounting the pavement. But if motor traffic in a street were to be progressively reduced in volume and speed there might come a point at which the risks to pedestrians were acceptable without physical alterations to the street. A number of other factors would influence the application of these standards—the width of the pavements, for example, and the functions of the buildings fronting the street, as well of course as the character of the traffic.

128

Even more difficult is the question of visual intrusion, because it is so much a matter of personal opinion. To someone interested in cars, for example, a historic square may seem a much more exciting place if it is used as a car park than if it is kept open. Yet the attitude we take to visual intrusion, or, to put it another way, the standards we choose with regard to it, is in many ways of crucial importance. The reason is that the space demands of motor vehicles are potentially enormous, and if we decide that intrusion does not matter then we must be prepared to see an ever greater loosening of urban structure, with more and more space devoted to open parking, until eventually the greater part of the external visible environment of towns would be devoted to the motor vehicle and its needs and the establishments which depend primarily upon it. One can go to Los Angeles now, and many other American towns, and see what the results are like. Society will have to choose which course to—the easy way based on the open parking lot, or the much more difficult course of either sacrificing some degree of accessibility or else undertaking extremely expensive works to accommodate the vehicle in a civilised way. As discussed previously, our assumption is that society, perhaps only after some bitter experience, will decide that visual intrusion is as deserving of the fixing of standards as are the more tangible aspects of danger, noise, fumes and vibration.