Should new communities be based around new industry, using data centres to power communities along with the benefits of the 15 minute neighbourhood?
by Nigel Booen, Director of Design, Boyer
Bournville was not just a factory village. It was a radical expression of belief in the potential for masterplanning to improve people’s lives. Built from the 1890s by George Cadbury to house workers at the new Cadbury chocolate factory in Birmingham, it set a new precedent: that employers and masterplanners could create places that were not only functional but health-giving, beautiful and morally improving.
Cadbury’s motivation came from both Quaker values and practical observation. Industrial cities were overcrowded, unsanitary and often brutal. He believed people would be more productive, more loyal and more fulfilled if they were well housed and able to enjoy green space and fresh air. With his brother Richard, George purchased 120 acres of land outside Birmingham to build a ‘garden village’ with generously sized houses, wide tree-lined roads and parks. The development also included schools, open-air swimming baths and a community hall and crucially, provided people to live close to their place of work in an environment which was ‘sustainable’ on many levels.
Should that concept be retained in the 21st century, as the Industrial Strategy, the Infrastructure Strategy and the emerging new towns take effect?
Why a 15-minute city is more than a buzzword
The echoes of Bournville’s holistic approach to community-making resonate strongly in today’s 15-minute city concept. Popularised by Paris’s mayor Anne Hidalgo, the 15-minute city proposes that work, shops, schools, healthcare and leisure should all be accessible within 15 minutes by foot or bike. This idea has gained international traction as planners and developers look to reimagine settlement patterns.
The 15-minute city is more than an urban design fad. It is a principle that offers tangible social and environmental benefits. By restoring the value of local life, it reduces dependence on cars and encourages walking and cycling, improving public health and air quality. Social cohesion is fostered by encouraging face-to-face interaction in schools, cafes, parks, shops and places of work. Local economies benefit as independent shops and services enjoy steady footfall and local jobs reduce commuter stress and carbon emissions.
Environmentally, compact neighbourhoods make efficient use of land and infrastructure, easing pressure on roads and utilities. Green infrastructure – parks, street trees, active travel corridors – contributes to climate resilience and wellbeing, becoming essential in an era of extreme weather.
For architects and masterplanners, the 15-minute city is a toolkit for designing at human scale. It supports density, connectivity and liveability as fundamental measures of success. While not every place can be a perfect 15-minute city, the principle guides the creation of adaptable, resilient communities fit for future challenges.
The enduring link between jobs and homes
The relationship between jobs and homes has always shaped places. From Roman trade routes to Britain’s mill towns, settlements grew around employment. Today’s economy is more mobile and digitised, but proximity remains key to functional, productive communities and the collaboration that is so crucial to the science and technology sectors.
This isn’t just convenience; it is about economic resilience, sustainability and social fabric. When people live far from work, long commutes sap productivity and wellbeing, increase car dependency and deepen inequalities as lower-income workers are priced out of the areas they serve.
Masterplanning for proximity creates mixed-economy communities where travel time is reduced, disposable income rises, workforce participation improves and local retail and services thrive. This aligns with policy goals to decarbonise transport and reduce regional disparities.
Mono-functional places – dormitory suburbs or business parks – have largely failed. Placemaking which prioritises mixed use – for example at Cambridge Science Park or London’s Knowledge Quarter – prove more adaptable, bringing footfall, fostering innovation and strengthening high streets and local centres.
New industry as a masterplanning anchor
High-tech sectors – data centres, gigafactories, life sciences hubs – offer new industrial anchors for settlements. These industries are geographically rooted; a gigafactory cannot be offshored, a data centre must be where power and connectivity are abundant, life sciences clusters thrive near universities.
Such ‘sticky’ industries enable homes, schools and shops to follow. Co-location supports sustainable travel patterns, shorter commutes and multi-functional neighbourhoods. Aligning new towns with national industrial priorities can unlock funding and political support, blending regeneration and housebuilding with productivity and energy transition.
But this approach is not without risk. Tech jobs are often highly skilled and location of tech companies must be carefully matched to local demographics. Data centres and gigafactories demand vast land and energy, but the numbers of staff required varies considerably to that of an 19th century chocolate factory. Furthermore, economic resilience means avoiding over-dependence on a single sector – places must be adaptable to future change.
When done well, tech-led new towns can be economic and social successes. But this requires considerable research and considered masterplanning.
Homes and innovation districts: a symbiotic relationship
Science and technology clusters have previously suffered from a spatial mismatch between jobs and housing. Workers have faced long commutes or housing unaffordability, weakening the broader benefits of innovation hubs.
Co-locating housing with science parks and R&D campuses reduces car dependence, encourages active travel and fosters social interaction. Clusters such as Harwell in Oxfordshire and Cambridge Biomedical Campus show the advantages of integrated homes, schools and community facilities.
Proximity aids talent retention, vital in competitive tech sectors. It also supports diverse local workforces by expanding apprenticeship and education catchments. Informal interactions between workers and residents create knowledge spillovers that boost innovation ecosystems.
Planning innovation districts alongside housing is complex but increasingly persuasive. They can become economically dynamic and socially resilient places, sending a signal that the UK values inclusive, long-term growth.
Can this approach give the UK a competitive edge?
Absolutely. International investors and high-growth firms seek not only research excellence but quality of life and talent pipelines. Our world-class academic institutions must be matched by liveable innovation ecosystems, just as Silicon Valley has.
Embedding homes, schools and transport within innovation districts reduces friction, supports collaboration and attracts people and capital. If our government is bold enough to masterplan this vision, it can secure a distinct competitive advantage in the global tech economy.
Making tech towns places to live, not just work
Locating new towns around high tech industry is bold but necessary. Such settlements can underpin national productivity and energy goals while addressing housing shortages. Yet success depends on masterplanning for inclusion, infrastructure and adaptability.
We must avoid enclaves of affluence or places that hollow out after work hours. Instead, tech towns should foster vibrant, mixed-use communities where people can live well, work locally and connect easily. This approach will ensure that the next wave of new towns are places where both companies and communities thrive.
Leave a Reply