Learning To Love Housing Development

 

08.10

Barry Munday

As a nation we are schizophrenic about housing development. We generally agree there is not enough of it but can’t agree where or how it should be built. The green lobby and the defenders of the countryside don’t want us to build outside existing urban areas, whilst those living in towns and cities are fearful of increasing densities. It is difficult to establish a rational debate. The housing development industry is saddled with a poor image, resulting in a widely-held view that all development is bad and should be resisted. Government, meanwhile, is trying to speed up the planning process in an effort to increase the supply of land and of housing whilst also setting stricter guidelines on building to higher density. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that even when planning officers support proposals, they can be overturned by their Committee because local politicians fear the reaction of the local community.

How can we break through this negative approach to development and engender popular support? PRP’s recent work for East Thames Housing Group, on behalf of the housing association sector,* has allowed us to look at European examples and to try to elicit some answers. Firstly, there needs to be far greater emphasis on education in design and, in particular, urban design. This needs to start at school and be carried right through into the adult population. In Europe we have been struck by the quality and amount of information that is made publicly available and promoted by municipal authorities. This is not aimed merely at a professional audience but at the house-buying or renting public. In Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen we visited exhibitions which set out in a clear and accessible way the major projects being undertaken and the benefits they would bring.

A second lesson from Europe is that generally local authorities, particularly on the larger projects, tend to take a much stronger lead in ensuring quality of design. Typically, they will commission a masterplan either from an external consultant or from their own in-house planning team. This will usually define very clearly the public realm and the disposition and height of blocks. Separate developers and RSLs each with their own architectural teams will then take forward parts of the scheme, which creates a rich and varied design within a strong overall concept. (Examples: Sankt Eriks, Stockholm; Scampi en Rose, Amsterdam.)

This strong local leadership contrasts strongly with the approach in the UK where developers are allowed to take the lead at a relatively early stage in the process and the design control is exercised through the normal development control route which only, if at all, curbs the worst design faults. The creation of strong three-dimensional planning frameworks are, in our view, essential to ensure the provision of appropriate amounts of open space and quality of public realm.

In PRP’s travels around Europe we have seen time and time again that attractive landscaped spaces are being well used by the residents and by the wider community and are accepted as a public benefit rather than the development itself being regarded as an intrusion. Of course, the argument about public open space in the UK is always about the cost of management. In the examples we saw the landscape was well maintained, with little in the way of vandalism or graffiti. This is partly due to care in design but also due to making proper allowance for maintenance. There is no easy answer to this. To create decent urban spaces does require an adequate budget both in initial cost and in ongoing maintenance.

Our third major lesson from Europe is really to confirm that the era of large-scale monolithic social housing is dead. In all the countries visited, the approach is to create popular developments which are mixed in terms of tenure and of use. In most of the schemes there is a mix of sale and rental which is undifferentiated in terms of design. Allocations are made mainly on the basis of a waiting list and ability to pay the rent. Subsidy is directed to people rather than bricks and mortar and tenants are prepared to wait for extensive periods to secure the home they want. People therefore exercise an element of choice as to location and size of home versus waiting period and cost of rent. The effect of this is that properties are frequently larger than the minimum required by the individual household, the only determining factor being ability to pay. There is therefore a greater equality of opportunity between the private sale sector and the social rented sector. A further effect is that communities are quite stable with little movement once occupied and there is a resulting sense of pride and ownership in the development and respect for neighbours.

Our overall conclusion is that whilst we have many developments in the UK of which we can be proud, we can learn significant lessons from Europe in both the design and management of housing which help to make it more popular and less contentious.

This work forms part of an ongoing programme of research by the housing association sector into what makes high-density housing successful. The London Housing Federation has recently published Capital Gains: making high-density housing work in London, which analyses successful high-density schemes, while East Thames Housing Group (ETHG) is leading a group of private- and public-sector sponsors to study high-density housing in northern Europe. This is due to be published in November 2002 and is sponsored by East Thames Housing Group, LB Newham, Chelsfield plc, Stanhope plc and Countryside Properties Ltd. Additional work includes a review of UK residents’ views on high-density living by the LSE, commissioned and funded by ETHG, and a compendium of examples of high-density housing being prepared by the Greater London Authority.