Barry Munday on The Value of Design

 

01.07

Barry Munday

The house building industry has taken a fair share of criticism over recent years for its standard products set within unimaginative layouts. Naturally housebuilders are keen to minimise costs but I would argue that cutting corners on design is bad business in today’s market.

Investing in good quality design from an architect that really understands housing can make all the difference when it comes to marketing a scheme. Properties are more desirable so move faster and achieve better prices. Furthermore, by following current good practice on densities, developers can lever more profit out of a site.

Until recently housebuilders could build schemes cheaply using traditional low tech methods on green or greenish field sites and have little problem in selling them because of the overall shortage of homes.

All this began to change with the advent of the Urban Renaissance report closely followed by PPG3 and the general push for higher densities and better design standards. Developers were forced to look at more tailored solutions to meet the welter of design guidance which has followed in the wake of these top down initiatives.

Whilst many developers have been and still are sceptical, we maintain a belief that PPG3 is not a burden but should be viewed as a key to success in the market place and a route to better profits. But by this we do not mean architectural extravagance or elaborate materials or detailing. We do mean marrying good place making with a logical and realistic approach to home design. This is a highly specialised skill and one which too few architects possess or are interested in.

If we look at places that are popular they generally exhibit some quite simple characteristics which are based around safe streets, a lack of dominance by the car and a consistent architectural language. They are well served by schools, shops and public transport and have a variety of open spaces which may not be large but are visually attractive. They may be city centre or suburban or even rural but they are in most cases built at a reasonably high density. It is often the density and mix of uses which provides the character and distinctiveness of place. Unfortunately, the PPG3 agenda is often interpreted as meaning a Poundbury style of architecture which is now being rolled out across the land in often inappropriate circumstances.

Historical towns and villages are not easy or cheap to reproduce. The originals grew up over time and were built by individuals for their own needs in a variety of styles and materials. There is clearly a contradiction if we try to replicate the past at a time when craft skills are in short supply and we want to bring down costs and achieve economies of scale.

The periods of high housebuilding activity throughout our history have been characterised by a finely honed approach to typology and construction, used repetitively with minor variations. Think of Georgian Bath, Victorian London or 1930’s suburbia - each of these models has proven to be enduringly popular with homebuyers up to the present day.

We would argue that the fundamentals of mass market housing have not shifted significantly for many decades. There are basic ergonomic factors which shape our homes and result in a surprisingly limited range of basic house forms. These can be divided into narrow medium and wide frontage (i.e double –fronted) types. They tend to vary by only a few centimetres. We have analysed these forms and have concluded that they offer an opportunity for standardisation on a scale similar to that enjoyed by our forebears, except that this time we have an opportunity to use technology on an unprecedented scale.

We are not arguing for uniformity of appearance. or internal layout. Within certain prescribed limitations these can offer a wide range of variety and choice. We are arguing for fixing those elements where there is no good reason to vary and maximising the economies of scale. In doing so we can then concentrate on those areas which add value. such as the quality of kitchens, bathrooms and external works.

We have tested this approach on a number of real and theoretical sites and we are satisfied that they can offer attractive layout opportunities at PPG3 densities with many different options for car parking. We have established to our own satisfaction that on the right sites wide frontage types can offer as high a density as narrow and medium types because they can be built closer back to back without loss of privacy.

We believe that by learning from the past, using sound urban design principles and rigorous application of production planning we can secure well designed homes for customers and profitable future for housebuilders. Who knows, we may even keep the planners happy.