Talk:Campaign to Protect Rural England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Seems very PoV to me. Andy Mabbett 17:27, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) While I agree with the sentiment of this article, I too think it is a little PoV. Giano 20:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-urbanist?

Shouldn't that be anti-suburbanist? If people want to save the countryside, we need more urb (and less suburbs). If this organisation is too muddled to see the distinction, is there some why the issue can be put across in the article? Merchbow 08:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about tranquillity in our day to day life - not just when the animals escape from the zoo?

This is just a PoV - It seems to me that, by fighting hard to preserve the "tranquility" of the countryside, pushing for increased brownfield development, and for higher density housing within existing communities before "spreading" into the countryside, this organisation seeks to sweep all of the "unpleasant" reality of people's need to live in decent housing into cordoned areas, generally known globally as ghettoes, so that we end up spending most of our lives in these highly tense (or the antithesis of tranquil if somebody has a better word)zones, relieved only when we escape to their jealously guarded tranquil countryside. I would suggest that the human need is for greater tranquility throughout our normal day to day existence, not only when we're let out of the zoo. This would surely be best achieved by reducing the density in our communities, and thus increasing the tranquility within those communities. Of course, this is at the cost of spread of housing developments into existing protected tranquil areas so beloved of this organisation. Countryside does not necessarily become unpleasant just because residential housing is introduced - how else did the traditional English village come into existence? Providing development is tasteful and harmonious, it can enhance the attractiveness, and so provide areas to LIVE in tranquility, not just visit tranquility. If planning processes concentrated more on ensuring such good taste and harmony, rather than simply prohibiting, we may have a far more sustainable approach to future housing development, and to preservation of rural harmony. It's interesting to note that green belts were introduced to preserve towns, not to protect countryside. In the extreme, which current and future housing demand is pushing us toward, preservation of the towns is creation of the ghettoes, which entirely supports my view that the cost of a "tranquil" countryside is the transition from communities to ghettoes. Let's all of a share of that tranquility in our day to day lives please, stop this insane preservation of the myth that tranquility is only for weekends and holidays.