The Viable Economy … and Society

Steady State Manchester is pleased to announce the publication of the fully revised Viable Economy pamphlet, now The Viable Economy … and Society.

It will be of interest to anyone concerned about the dangers we face from the current unviable economic system and who would like to explore an approach that integrates economic, social and ecological well-being

It’s a revision, some 60% longer, of our Viable Economy pamphlet from 2014, thoroughly revised and updated with additional diagrams, explanations, references and with two new sections on Care and Caring and the Built Environment.

We’ll be producing a print edition, free to SSM members, and available at our events and stalls.

Posted in news, Reports, Viable Economy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Re-focussing the economy in times of climate emergency and economic exclusion

Re-focussing the economy in times of climate emergency and economic exclusion.

Mark H Burton
Based on a talk given to Manchester Labour Backbenchers’ Committee, 6 February, 2020.

Republished at and

   click for a pdf version

In addressing this overall question, I will set out what I see as some of the key challenges, identify the main contenders for resolving them and the problems with them, identify some additional ideas that might help, and then offer some potential polices and interventions at national, regional and city level.

Much of what I’ll say rests on the insights of the field of ecological economics. This sees the economy as embedded in the material world: energy and materials, once extracted, flow through the economy, becoming degraded, until they are ultimately deposited in the planets ecological “sinks” – air, soils, and water bodies. In our work we also draw on insights from other schools, notably feminist, Keynesian and Marxist political economy.

Our focus is on the unsustainability of the present model and of many current versions of “sustainability”. The key problem is economic growth on a finite planet – with critical limits at both the resources and the sinks end of the chain – in addition to the internal contradictions of the (can I say “capitalist”?) economy.

Adding aspirational adjectives to growth, “inclusive”, “green”, “smart” …. doesn’t change the basic reality. John McDonnell was very clear on this when he addressed the IPPR in 2017:

Every 1% added to global GDP over the last century has meant, on average, adding 0.5% to carbon dioxide emissions. As the size of the world economy has grown, so too has the pressure it places on our ecosystems. The consequences of that pressure are now becoming all too apparent.1

Green growth relies on a “decoupling” of economic growth and material flows through the economy. There is no evidence that this is achievable on a permanent basis and at the level required to decarbonise the economy. On the contrary, continued GDP growth makes the job harder, since until the economy (including its global connections) is 100% zero carbon, part of that growth will create increased emissions.

That’s the background but the consequences are difficult. That’s because ceasing growth, in a system dependent on expansion for its own economic viability and to redistribute its surplus, is going to mean severe challenges. It is likely that the present system would eventually collapse (although Japan has done rather well with decades of extremely low GDP growth). However, continuing the material expansion of the economy will also bring eventual collapse due to the increasing cost of energy exploitation and mineral extraction, ecosystem destruction, and pollution, transgressed planetary boundaries of which the carbon dioxide causing the climate emergency is just one very prominent aspect.

Can the necessary refocussing of the economy to keep within planetary limits also address the economic disadvantage and exclusion so endemic in parts of our city? Our work, is centred on the concept of the Viable Economy: ecologically, socially and economically viable. Unless all three are met, things fall apart. Our Viable Economy pamphlet (soon to appear in an expanded second edition) aims to set this out in concise terms, accessible to the interested general reader.

There are some helpful concepts that we can work with, already embraced here, or not far from here. But for each there is a critique that means they need adjusting to comply with the ecological reality.

  1. Community Wealth Building (CWB): adopted by Labour, promoted by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES), and implemented in a number of authorities. However, while it keeps more wealth local, it doesn’t make fundamental changes to the system, instead reliant on capturing the value produced by the destructive system.

  2. The Foundational Economy: promoted by colleagues at the University of Manchester Business School, and popular in South Wales, builds resilience in the local economy by focussing, as does CWB, on the place-based and not too glamorous bits of the bread and butter economy. But it is non-specific ecologically speaking.

  3. The Circular Economy is a great slogan, suggesting that resources can be recirculated thus reducing the impact on both resource sources and sinks. However, most descriptions of it argue that it promotes growth, while it still faces logistic and physical constraints, so any respite for the ecosystem would be temporary at best.

  4. Radical localisation, which we promote, along with the Transition Towns movement, Stir Magazine, and others, has things in common with CWB and FE and it also tackles the problem of dependence of long and complex supply chains. But it can become isolationist and vulnerable to co-option by the ecological right wing.

  5. Social realm interventions emphasise collective solutions, Universal Basic Services, some version of Universal Basic Income, the commons and public ownership. However, alone they do not tackle the problem of material flows and like the Green New Deal proposals, could increase them.

So these approaches, while sources of insights, need re-working under conditions of impending system disruption and potential collapse. Some of this is happening. For example, it is encouraging to see the Foundational Economy group acknowledging the ecological gap in their thinking, while CLES is working to integrate CWB with the idea of a local GND.

In the associated handout, there are policy proposals and interventions at the national, regional and local level, that should give an idea of what a more adequate approach to the dilemma might be. Elsewhere I have explored these ideas in relation to the competing traditions within the Labour movement.

At the local level the handout offers some outline examples in the fields of mobility, procurement and housing. From these I identified two key principles:

Principle 1: Emphasise use of locally available sources of finance:

For example, local budgets, captured financial flows, investments made by the local economy, revenue from local levies, fees and fines for carbon-intensive discretionary actions. These can be used to exert leverage on other financial flows. This approach contrasts with the dominant emphasis on inward investment which inevitably prioritises a return to take back out of the local economy.

Principle 2: Spend money in ways that while reducing carbon emissions, have co-benefits for health, liveability, and social and economic resilience.

Targets: Lower carbon mobility through increased public transport, active travel. Energy conservation. Local green and social economy. Lower tech solutions.

Co-benefits: urban liveability, health, air quality, reduced accidents, release of tied up money, time, local green and social economy, healthy temperatures, reduced expenditure and debt.

Emergent challenge: rebound emissions chiefly through the release of money towards ecologically higher impact activities and products.

In relation to emissions, specifically, a lot can be done by widening the focus. Carbon budgets for Manchester and Greater Manchester have been rigorously developed by the Tyndall Centre. They cover two dimensions of our the carbon footprint: the direct emissions from the territory of Manchester / Greater Manchester, as estimated from national data (known as “Scope 1”), and the emissions from the power system – basically the electricity and gas grid (“Scope 2”).

It is important that we focus on these. But there are two other kinds of carbon footprint that we need to consider.

  • The emissions attributable to our consumption of goods and services, where the emissions take place beyond Manchester’s borders (“Scope 3”).

  • Financial – based emissions, based on the way money is invested here, for example by our Pension Funds, or the council’s associated enterprises such as the Manchester Airport Group.

Both give significant opportunities otherwise missed. For example, via procurement strategies to reduce supply chain emissions, by driving changes in food consumption, or by retaining equipment for longer; or on the finance side, by redirecting investments in fossil fuel industries and the finance houses that support them, towards the clean and local economy.

We also need to focus more on adaptation, or what I call “shock-proofing”. Things are going to get nasty. Food supply and energy shocks are increasingly likely scenarios. Interestingly, many of the actions to reduce emissions (e.g. local production of energy and food) also help build resilience against the shocks that are caused by rising emissions and by geopolitical instability.

1J. McDonnell, ‘Speech: IPPR conference.’, 14-Nov-2017. [Online]. Available:

Posted in Climate Change, economics, Manchester | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A Green New Deal for Greater Manchester? Workshop report.

On 16 December we held a workshop to look at the prospects for a “Green New Deal” tailored to the needs and realities of Greater Manchester.  As is our usual style, the major part of the event was group discussion to explore and develop ideas.  That was preceded by four provocations covering the Labour for a Green New Deal proposals, The Green Party’s Green New Deal for the North West, the work of CLES on Community Wealth Building and Green New Deals, and a Sceptical, Degrowth view on Green Deals.

Read the Report by clicking this link.

We have put together summaries of the provocations with links to further reading, and key points from our discussions.  Some of the ideas will be valuable for our forthcoming work to refresh our Policies for the City Region, ahead of the elections for Metro Mayor and councils in May.  With a climate fudging, English nationalist conservative government in power, the focus of action for climate and social justice in the UK is likely to switch to the municipal and regional level, together with international solidarity campaigning.

Posted in cities, event reports, Greater Manchester City Region, key concepts | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doing Buses Differently. Our response to the consultation.

image from bus campaign

Campaign image from Better Buses GM

Here is our response to the Mayor and Transport for Greater Manchester proposals for bus system reform.

We strongly support these proposals as the best option available now for securing the urgent and massive shift away from private motorised transport that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, clear up air pollution, improve mobility and access for all, and make the city region more liveable.

We do note the following though.

1) The projections on bus usage are insufficiently ambitious.  We need this massive modal shift from private motors yet even with the proposed changes, TfGM still thinks there will be a longer term reduction in bus usage.  This is not good enough.

TfGM graph showing projected bus use decrease under all options

TfGM graph showing projected decrease in bus usage under all options. Is this good enough? From p 54 of the Bus Reform Proposal document (click for the document).

2) Franchising is not a silver bullet, just the best that the current pro-private capital law on buses allows.  We would prefer to see the eventual public ownership of buses.  This is the norm over much of continental Europe and was here before the thatcher government’s deregulation and privatisation offensive in the 1980s.  Areas such as Brighton, Edinburgh, Nottingham, that held onto their municipal operators have demonstrably better systems than the privatised market chaos elsewhere.

3) Because the powers for re-regulation are differentially available depending on which part of the UK’s incoherent local government system applies (Metropolitan mayors have greater powers), cross border services will still be problematic, requiring agreements with neighbouring operators and councils to secure effective change.

4) The incumbent companies, led by Stagecoach via OneBus, have proposed a voluntary partnership.  These companies have had decades to improve things and have failed, instead raking off excess profits. Why should we trust a system that leaves power in their hands?

5) We encourage TfGM to compliment the new arrangements with robust citizen and worker involvements, probably in a joint governance council to secure the maximum citizen influence over this “direction of travel”.

Read our detailed response here.  You have until 8 Jan to make your own views known.  Do show your support for the London-style franchising model, as a step on the way to a properly integrated public transport system. HERE is a link to a short handout explaining the proposal and how to respond.  And HERE is a link to Better Buses quick response form.  Or just send a short email to

Posted in Greater Manchester City Region, transport | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Event: A People’s Spatial Framework, January 23

A People’s Spatial Framework

Thursday, January 23, 2020 6:30 PM – 8:30

We’ll be imagining an alternative Spatial Framework that serves the people while protecting the green space.

Click for Venue and booking details via Eventbrite

For some years now, Greater Manchester has been trying to agree a grand plan for land use: the Spatial Framework. Seen by some as a “developers’ charter” and by others as a necessary framework to prevent a developers’ free for all, the debate has been characterised by a lack of good ideas about what the alternative might look like. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) has promoted a model based on highly specialised zones, for retail, commerce, warehousing and logistics, housing and amenity, the whole dependent on moving people around quickly via roads, motorways and public transport links, all assuming high levels of “economic growth”. Opposition has focused on the housing models and on the erosion of green space, in the green belt and elsewhere. We know what we are against, but do we know what we could have instead? How would we plan for a different kind of city?

Steady State Manchester has explored some different models, from the retrofit garden city and continuous productive urban landscapes, and “rurban” or urbal retrosuburbia”, to the “20 minute neighbourhood”. We’ve discussed the dilemmas of “densification– does it help to deliver low-carbon living or does it sacrifice the possibilities for urban food production that we might need in an energy-scarce, post-oil world?

This workshop will explore some of these issues. We think a Spatial Framework is needed but we desperately need a clear positive vision to answer the question that GMCA posed, but failed to answer: “What kind of place do you want Greater Manchester to be?”: A People’s Spatial Framework.

Posted in events, land use, Policies for the City Region | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Carbon budgets and footprints: a guide

World map showing transfers of emissions

Global emission transfers between countries in 2004 in millions of tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2), taken from Figure 1 in Davis and Caldeira 2010*. (via Carbon Brief)

Greater Manchester Climate Network, with Green Drinks, organised a session called “Carbon Jargon Buster Workshop”. It was addressed by Joe Blakey from the University of Manchester. Joe has specialised in understanding the various methods and tools of carbon accounting, with particular reference to the assumptions behind them. He gave a very comprehensive, clear and stimulating talk to climate activists who had asked for input on the topic. SLIDES

Key take-away messages were:

  • Our carbon footprint is a way of taking stock of our (collective) responsibility for emissions.
  • As many people have a hand in the production of emissions across the planet
    there is no ‘correct’ way of measuring them.
  • Typically it is ‘direct’ emissions and those from energy use that are estimated and presented.
  • Carbon budgets are a tool for planning what carbon we use when, to limit
    the build-up of carbon in the atmosphere over multiple years. A carbon diet
    plan or ration.
  • Carbon budgets depend on estimates of the safe level of global warming (an arbitrary figure, 1.5 or 2 degrees, for example) and the likelihood of the quantity of emissions in the budget keeping us within that level. They also differ in the assumptions they make about the possibility of taking carbon back out of the atmosphere in the future.
  • We need to focus on year-on-year emissions rather than just target dates.
  • By focussing on emissions beyond direct, or territorial ones (consumption, investment, travel, trade) more levers can be found for reducing our contribution to global
  • By continuing to “claim” a carbon budget of (for the city of Manchester) 15 Megatonnes (of Carbon Dioxide equivalent), we are actually reducing the emission space available for poorer countries, which unlike us have not made significant contributions to the climate problem. While making radical cuts is difficult, we should really be thinking of even more stringent targets.

See the slides from Joe’s talk, click HERE

There is also a video of Joe’s talk (Manchester Climate Emergency, thanks to Marc Hudson and Amy Baron).

* Link for the graphic on global emission transfers: Davis, S.J. & Caldeira, K. (2010) PNAS (open access) at,

Posted in cities, Climate Change, event reports, explainers, Greater Manchester, key concepts, videos | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Future is 20 minutes away? 20-minute neighbourhoods

The Future is 20 minutes away? 20-minute neighbourhoods.

By Carolyn Kagan

pdf version

As we move towards a future in urban areas where people travel less, buy locally and live more convivial lives, we need vital and liveable neighbourhoods. This means we have to think carefully about neighbourhoods and how they can be either built or ‘retrofitted’ to work well.

It is always good to see what is happening elsewhere and to learn what we can use for our own, usually quite different contexts. One such innovation in neighbourhood thinking is the 20 minute neighbourhood. This is a very simple idea, a neighbourhood in which we can all get the goods and services we need within a twenty minute walk of our house. But it’s an idea that has come into its own –Sustrans, for example, has included a call for Twenty Minute Neighbourhoods in their 2019 general election Manifesto.

The idea originated in Portland, Oregon, and has been taken up by Melbourne in Australia.

The Portland Plan was developed by a wide coalition of public sector agencies, businesses, residents and the not for profit sector. They say the Plan is about ‘boosting prosperity and educational outcomes, and helping to advance health and equity’. Indeed, vibrant 20 minute neighbourhoods, in which 90% of Portland’s residents can easily walk or bicycle to meet all basic daily, non-work needs, forms part of the city’s Climate Action Plan, and could be an important component of our own local authority plans.

Melbourne’s 20 minute neighbourhoods

The idea was taken up and adopted in Melbourne, in their Plan Melbourne 2017-50, and a summary can be found here. So, as in a previous blog on this site, where we were discussing ‘Retrofitting Suburbia’ we turn to Melbourne for a greater understanding of the 20-minute neighbourhood. It is Melbourne that has led the way in thinking about, and researching, not only the advantages of a 20-minute neighbourhood, but also what it will take to move from where we are now, with housing developments and urban infrastructure designed around the car, to where we would like to be.

Research undertaken by the Heart Foundation (Victoria) for the Victorian Government identified the following hallmarks of a 20-minute neighbourhood:

  • be safe, accessible and well connected for pedestrians and cyclists to optimise active transport

  • offer high-quality public realm and open spaces

  • provide services and destinations that support local living

  • facilitate access to quality public transport that connects people to jobs and higher-order services

  • deliver housing/population at densities that make local services and transport viable

  • facilitate thriving local economies

The following diagram, taken from Plan Melbourne, summarises the components of a 20 minute neighbourhood.

Diagram: 20 minute neighbourhood concept

20-Minute neighbourhoods are one way to underpin strong and sustainable communities, where people enjoy good access to local jobs, services, amenities, social infrastructure, green space, diversity of housing, safe walking and cycling networks, good public transport and a rich social and cultural life.

Of course, the built form of individual neighbourhoods will vary. However, a planning system based on the 20-minute neighbourhood, is a place-based design approach that has the potential to lead to improvements in public health and well-being as well as social cohesion, and a part of this is an increase in the efficiency of the transport and active travel network (public transport, walking and cycling). Let’s look at some of the requirements of a 20-minute neighbourhood. For more information see the projects that Plan Melbourne 2017-50 have in progress.

Attributes of a 20-minute Neighbourhood

Getting about (and transport)

The core of a 20-minute neighbourhood is its walkability and priority given to pedestrians.800 metres (about half a mile) is the distance of a 20-minute neighbourhood or 20 minutes in time (based on average walking times of healthy adult and taking into account waiting at junctions and meandering routes). It can be a bit tricky working out the walkability of an area, but there is a methodology, based on work carried out in Australia, known as a PEDSHED analysis. Look here for information about how to conduct a PEDSHED analysis. Whilst of course public transport is to be supported, these kinds of distances within a neighbourhood are not usually covered by public transport: it is more helpful to think of public transport linking neighbourhoods. Cycling might do, if there were good cycling infrastructure, but the idea of the 20-minute Neighbourhood is to give priority consideration to pedestrians and walkability. Moving towards pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods would certainly create more attractive places, and it has been argued they create more economically productive places. Furthermore, walkable neighbourhoods promote healthy lifestyles, while ensuring community facilities are accessible to people of all ages and abilities. Get access right for the least mobile, and we get it right for everyone.

So, pedestrian infrastructure, connections and streetscape design should be considered during any local planning process with priority given to pedestrians in neighbourhoods, particularly in community hub spaces (what, in Melbourne are called activity centres) – not always so easy now the car is king. Even the walking infrastructure we do have (pavements) is often blocked by cars parking on them – an issue raised persistently by Living Streets.


Diversity of housing, near to local facilities, such as shops and public amenities are needed for a 20-Minute Neighbourhood. Research underpinning Plan Melbourne has identified a number of different metrics that can be used in the establishment of 20-minute neighbourhoods. In terms of housing density, this work reckons that a minimum housing target of 25 dwellings per hectare is needed to support built form features that align with the 20-minute neighbourhood hallmarks. Our estimates of density in Manchester was 40 people per hectare – which sounds about right.

Community hubs and activity centres

Community hubs, known in Melbourne as neighbourhood activity centres are at the heart of the 20-minute neighbourhood. These are more than the local high street, about which there is much attention and interest in the UK, as if high streets can be divorced from other public services and amenities. In contrast, a neighbourhood activity centre is defined as any place that attracts people for shopping, working, studying, recreation or socializing. An activity centre is a mixed use centre where people work, shop, relax, meet friends and family and also live: it is a mixture of commercial and other land use, including recreation, learning and living. As such activity centres, or community hubs have the potential to be an integral part of community life and are certainly fundamental to the creation of 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Public realm space is, then a part of 20-minute neighbourhoods. Gone are the patterns of zonal development, separating housing, workplaces, retail opportunities, services, education and leisure. Gone are the out-of-place shopping centres, the leisure centre that is located on a busy commuter road but away from other amenities, the work places to which people have to travel. In many parts of Greater Manchester, what could be considered neighbourhood activity centres are incomplete, with shops being central, but with less consideration of nearby housing, health, leisure and work facilities – and of course many fail the walkability test. However, there is the potential to create cohesive community hubs, or activity centres, which will also serve to afford neighbourhoods a clear identity and residents a strong sense of pride in place, by building on facilities that already exist, but carefully targeting conversion of and creation of space to be more comprehensive and cohesive.

There is some support for this kind of neighbourhood place-making.

The UK Government’s future of the High Street Fund recognises the need to move to more integrated neighbourhood centres (without adopting all of the attributes of the 20-minute neighbourhood). The Government says ‘We want to encourage vibrant town centres where people live, shop, use services, and spend their leisure time’ . Although the Government is talking about Town Centres, rather than neighbourhoods, these initiatives could help us move towards neighbourhood activity centres, and this momentum is maybe something on which we can build.

Participation in planning

Local government has a role in supporting both the development and vibrancy of neighbourhood activity centres and also a network of neighbourhood activity centres within their jurisdiction, and ensuring that diverse housing and other facilities are all within 800m of the activity centres. 20-minute neighbourhoods may already exist in some places (see below for Melbourne’s approach to established and new neighbourhoods); in others they will have to be nurtured. They are unlikely to happen without a coordinated, collaborative community partnership approach, within which people living in those neighbourhoods play an important part. Both the Portland Plan and the Plan Melbourne, were developed through an extensive participatory planning approach.

Plan Melbourne’s Five-Year Implementation Plan argues that community participation is critical to the principle of living locally within 20-minute neighbourhoods. Action 52 of the Implementation Plan seeks to create resilient communities by increasing community participation early in the planning and development of urban renewal precincts. As it says, community participation and engagement can strengthen community resilience, increase knowledge and understanding of change, and empower local groups to be part of shaping the communities’ future. (Furthermore, Plan Melbourne points out in a way that we rarely see in the UK, that community participation in the planning process and creating a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods align with the Sustainable Development Goals: Goal 3 good health and wellbeing; and Goal 11 sustainable cities and communities)

A different approach for established and new ‘greenfield’ developments

The implementation of Plan Melbourne began with established neighbourhoods, and moved on to new ‘greenfield developments’

Established neighbourhoods

In some of Melbourne’s established neighbourhoods, the council collaborated with communities to identify strategies to create more healthy, vibrant and inclusive neighbourhoods. These strategies were discussed in a workshop with project partners, and informed the development of a Pedestrian report and Planning report for each neighbourhood.

The strategies in both reports reflected the Heart Foundation’s Healthy Active by Design (see above) guidelines and the relevant 20-minute neighbourhood attributes, and included:

  • Movement Network – Install safe school crossings

  • Housing Diversity – Review residential zoning

  • Destinations – Streetscape improvements

  • Public Open Space – Improve access to local parks

  • Community Infrastructure – Upgrade facilities

  • Sense of Place – Install public art with youth groups

  • Healthy Food – Investigate a community garden

Greenfield’ developments

The aim for Greenfield developments was to test, in 2018-19, 20-minute neighbourhoods in growth areas and showcase the benefits of community decision-making in these areas. The projects set out to deliver:

  •  An academic Literature Review of liveability outcomes in greenfield areas, based on the hallmarks (for example, general indicators and health and wellbeing indicators);

  •  Pedestrian Report assessing the pedestrian infrastructure in one area; and

  •  Social Infrastructure Report recommending stages for delivery of facilities in one area.

The sequencing of infrastructure development has been seen to be crucial in moving away from a car culture – for example if active travel and public transport infrastructure are not in place until after people have started to live in houses, then cars will predominate.

What is not to like about 20-minute neighbourhoods?

All the evidence, particularly from Melbourne and Portland, suggests that 20-minute neighbourhoods help us move towards more resilient, convivial and viable ways of living.

One commentator reminds us that young people increasingly choose to rent and live in 20-minute neighbourhoods. For all of us, they would be places that are inviting to walk or linger for a chat, indulge in people watching, and just ‘be’. Places where people can meet, become hives of creativity and the development of new ideas and industries – they are also enjoyable.


Are 20 minute neighbourhoods really accessible? Does the walkability test discriminate against older, mobility impaired or pram pushers? Key to achieving 20 minute neighbourhoods is their walkability. There is a methodology for assessing the accessibility of 20-minute neighbourhoods, and others have proposed using GIS to help in the assessment, concluding that higher levels of walking are linked to dwelling density, street connectivity, land-use mix, and net retail area.

Carolyn Whitzman, an urban researcher has reported a number of challenges that Melbourne has not yet overcome (although she still considers the 20-minute neighbourhood idea a worthy goal). Perhaps most importantly is a failure to list the essential social infrastructure or distance measurement methods to be used to create the 20-minute radius for each neighbourhood. In contrast, she says, Portland’s strategic plan for a 20-minute city requires four key pieces of social infrastructure located close to affordable residential housing. These are: public primary schools, grocery stores, green parks, and public transport stops with minimum travel frequency standards. (Although note the point made above about walkability surpassing public transport for within-neighbourhood mobility.)

Clearly one of the tasks for planning 20-minute neighbourhoods is to identify the key infrastructure requirements within and between neighbourhoods. In addition, proposals are needed to improve infrastructure in under-serviced areas (in recognition that the City and even the neighbourhood centre is often well-served) and introduce affordable housing to well serviced areas, rather than confine it to the periphery.

What should we do?

The first step is to map what already is – to get together with residents, businesses, services, and all those with an interest in a particular neighbourhood and look at existing public life, use of spaces and quality of public space infrastructure in our neighbourhoods and to ask how is public space performing for people? We need to use the People for Places thinking promoted by Jan Ghel, former city architect of Copenhagen. His approach stresses first life, then space, then buildings, rather than the other way round, which is often the way our urban space is developed. From there we can plan, in the knowledge that the future should only be 20 minutes away.

Read this as a pdf

Posted in cities, community, explainers, key concepts, re-localisation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Event: Green New Deals and Greater Manchester.

Green New Deals and Greater Manchester.
Monday 16 December: 6.30-8.30.

Whatever the result of the General Election, climate change and the actions needed to mitigate it will be major issues.  Both the Labour and Green parties, along with many civil society organisations and commentators are promoting the idea of a Green New Deal.  In this session we will look at what this could mean for Greater Manchester.  Maybe we will have a more supportive national government, maybe we won’t, but either way we need to look at what we want locally and how we can get it.  We have been constructively critical of some aspects of the Green New Deal approach, both from an ecological and an economic perspective, but we also recognise that a bold policy initiative of this sort will be absolutely crucial to staving off the worst of the climate and economic crisis.  The challenge is to make them happen and happen in a way that does not make matters worse.

The event will start with some short provocations and this will be followed by structured discussion to make the event as participative as possible.  So far we can confirm speakers from GM Labour for a Green New Deal, CLES, the Green Party and Steady State Manchester.

Friends Meeting House, Mount St: Please book HERE via eventbrite.


Posted in events, news | Tagged , , | Leave a comment