Glasgow City Council leader Frank McAveety is concerned about "the issue of wealth distribution and the need for fair wages" (Revealed: How the 'Glasgow effect' on mortality rate is down to social engineering by Westminster, News, May 15). I hope he is concerned about more than the quote suggests. The world-wide question for city living is: how can infrastructure be built that provides for a healthy quality of life? That involves more than income level, production and consumption of material goods. It requires infrastructure that promotes health in radically different cities to the present. More biodiversity and living variety and less unhealthy commoditisation.
In Glasgow the trend is the other way. In Maryhill, Glasgow City Council officers want to sell a long-standing green open-space park land by using their delegated power to sell assets surplus to requirements. Understandably in times of austerity it seems an easy way to raise money that would help pay for council jobs. Sale of the building and land would realise £1.35m, but does selling a health-giving asset make sense? The community needs the green space for its health.
Given Councillor McAveety's primary concern, wealth and fair wages, I doubt retrospective analysis of 1970s infrastructure policies will result in change of council action. Rather, people should look at how the council is performing now and expect something to be done about it.
In Maryhill a "20s plenty" zone with traffic calming would reduce high-revving traffic noise and help to heal community severance caused by giving traffic priority. Such innovations are pursued in many cities but in Glasgow zones are put in the city centre and residential roads where speeding is not possible, giving the illusion of a traffic calming policy. A 1960s mentality of giving priority to vehicles predominates.
Radical improvement to infrastructure isn't basically about spending money – it is more about changing attitudes and skills. Glasgow, as the biggest city in Scotland, should be taking the lead.
Pat Toms
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here