IELTS Reading 155: When the Corner Shop Moved Next Door

Adapted from MDPI / Reason Foundation (2026). IELTS Reading Section 3 difficulty, approximately 1,050 words. Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/7/3608/xml

🎧 音频朗读

🎧 Listen to the audio

🎧 Listen to the audio

🎧 Listen to the audio

Reading Passage

A. For most of the twentieth century, the planners who shaped the modern city divided it with the confidence of a chemist separating compounds. Residential streets were to contain homes and nothing else. Commerce was confined to designated strips. Factories were pushed to yet another district, reachable only by car. The doctrine, known as single-use zoning, was born of a genuine worry: that factories and dwellings, crowded together, bred disease, smoke and slum. For decades the remedy seemed self-evident. But by the 1980s a critique had gathered force. A generation of planners, writing under the banners of New Urbanism and smart growth, argued that the separation they had inherited was itself a cause of the problems people now blamed on the car. A neighbourhood of nothing but houses, they pointed out, empties of life during the working day; a strip of nothing but shops closes down at night. Only by mixing homes, workplaces, cafés and civic buildings within reach of one another could a street feel safe, busy and useful at every hour. The corner bakery, in their telling, belonged on the ground floor of the apartment block, not behind a belt of grass and a four-lane road. Their complaint was never that the separation was wicked; it was that, over a lifetime, it had quietly reshaped how people lived, forcing the car into trips that a short walk should have solved.

B. The city most often credited with turning this philosophy into law is Portland, in the American north-west. Beginning in the early 1990s, its council rewrote the zoning code that had enforced separation for half a century. The reforms did several things at once. They permitted apartment blocks above corner shops; they reduced the minimum number of parking spaces a developer had to build, on the theory that mandatory garages made dense, walkable places uneconomic; and they allowed greater height near corridors served by public transport. Around all of this sat an urban growth boundary, a drawn line beyond which suburban sprawl was discouraged, so that demand for housing was funnelled back into the existing city rather than spread outward over farms. The results were visible within a generation. Where once a developer could build only houses or only offices, the code now invited a building to do both — a clinic above a grocery, a workshop above a flat. The strategy was less an aesthetic preference than an economic one: by removing the legal walls between uses, the city hoped to shorten the journeys that its residents made each day.

C. The theory is persuasive, but researchers who studied new towns built on these principles soon found that mixing uses on a map is not the same as creating a neighbourhood people actually walk across. A recent study of five new urban extensions in England examined exactly this gap. Its authors concluded that walkability emerges not from any single design feature but from a tangle of conditions: how the streets connect, whether shops and homes are genuinely interleaved rather than merely placed nearby, how quickly services actually open, whether local jobs are provided, and who lives there. Crucially, they warned that permeability alone — a grid of small blocks connected by many streets — is not enough. It is possible to build a highly connected layout in which every shop lies clustered on a single parade at the entrance, leaving the interior blocks lifeless. Empty pavements, the study found, often signal not bad street geometry but land uses that were promised and then delayed, or services that never arrived because the developer had no obligation to open them. The map, in other words, can show a perfect mixture while the lived city remains a dormitory.

D. Public transport, however, has offered the clearest demonstration that reformed zoning can reshape a region. The American example of Arlington, across the river from Washington, is repeatedly cited. Before its metro arrived, the corridor through Ballston was a stagnant, low-density strip, its commercial buildings half-empty. When the rail line was planned, planners deliberately rewrote the zoning within a quarter-mile of each station, permitting taller, mixed-use buildings precisely where the trains stopped. Because the code had been made flexible in advance, the area could grow as demand arrived rather than waiting for piecemeal permission. Decades later the Ballston corridor is among the densest and most prosperous parts of the region, its station surrounded by apartments, offices and shops rather than by the parking lots that surround so many other commuter stops. The lesson planners drew was not that density is always good but that density and mixed use must be planned together, near transit, before the demand arrives.

E. The debate has since broadened from aesthetics to housing supply, and the result is awkward for both sides. Advocates argue that the old code is, above all, a mechanism for restricting how many homes a city can build, and that permitting apartments above shops is one of the few reforms with broad agreement behind it. Critics reply that mixed-use language is easily hijacked: that developers, delighted by higher densities, may deliver the apartments while quietly abandoning the affordable shops and public rooms that gave the idea its moral force. The honest reading of the evidence lies between the slogans. Mixing uses reliably shortens journeys and enlivens streets, but only where services actually open, streets genuinely connect, and the homes built are the homes people need. The corner shop, it turns out, cannot be legislated into existence simply by redrawing a boundary on a map; the zoning code can make it legal, but it is the slower work of phasing, management and local demand that decides whether it ever opens. The street, in the end, is only as mixed as the people who choose to use it.

Questions 1-4

Choose the correct heading for paragraphs B, C, D and E from the list of headings below.

List of Headings i. Why early single-use zoning separated homes from factories ii. Portland rewrites the rule book iii. Why mixing on a map is not the same as a walkable lived street iv. How a metro station and flexible zoning rebuilt a corridor v. The decline of public transport in American cities vi. The surprising truth about who really opens corner shops vii. A debate that has shifted onto housing supply

1. Paragraph B: ____
2. Paragraph C: ____
3. Paragraph D: ____
4. Paragraph E: ____

Questions 5-8

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

5. What was the original purpose of early single-use zoning? A. To make cities more beautiful than their rivals. B. To separate homes from factories believed to cause disease and smoke. C. To reduce the price of petrol. D. To encourage people to live in suburbs.

6. What did Portland's reforms do? A. It banned apartment blocks in the city centre. B. It permitted apartments above shops and reduced mandatory parking. C. It abolished all public transport fares. D. It encouraged outward urban sprawl.

7. What did the English study of new towns conclude? A. A connected street grid by itself guarantees walkability. B. Walkability depends on many interacting conditions, not just street layout. C. All new urban extensions were already highly walkable. D. Shops should always be clustered at one entrance.

8. What made Arlington's Ballston corridor successful? A. It kept its old low-density zoning unchanged. B. It permitted denser mixed-use development near the planned metro stations. C. It built the largest car park on the East Coast. D. It banned all offices from the area.

Questions 9-13

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer?

Write:

• TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
• FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
• NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

9. New Urbanism argued that strictly separated land uses left streets lifeless at certain hours.
10. Portland introduced its zoning reforms in the 1950s.
11. The English study found that street permeability alone is insufficient to create walkability.
12. The Ballston corridor was already the densest area in the region before the metro arrived.
13. Mixed-use zoning has proven to eliminate homelessness completely in reformed cities.

Questions 14-15

Complete the summary below using NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage.

The old approach forced residential, commercial and industrial uses into separate districts, whereas Portland's reforms allowed apartment blocks above (14) __________ and funnelled housing back within an urban growth (15) __________.

Answers & Explanations

← Previous | Back to IELTS Focus | Next →