Density is Not a Dirty Word

 

17.10

Barry Munday

Imagine an area just smaller than the size of two football pitches; how many homes do you think should be built on it?

The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, seems to believe it should not be less than 30 homes on one hectare, but with the pressures on land and the need to create lively and vibrant places to live, I believe we can and should build at much higher densities.

In the only specific reference to density in his recent housing statement to the House of Commons, Prescott signalled that he would be calling in planning applications for schemes below the threshold of 30 dwellings per hectare. This is a strengthening of the government’s existing policy set out in the planning guidance PPG3, which only advises developers to provide 30 to 50 dwellings for new housing developments. In fact the whole of the housing statement was high on aspiration, but low on detail and he said almost nothing that could be construed as a policy steer. However the spirit of the speech is to be welcomed, as it does signal that housing is at last moving up the government agenda.

Reacting to demand

This recommended range is easily obtainable if developers are prepared to move away from detached and semi-detached solutions. In London and the south east, where demand is extremely high, most developers already accept these norms and are working to them. Further north the picture is less clear, and in many areas housing demand is so low that it could be argued that higher densities are unnecessary.

But the real case for higher densities needs to be made in more subtle ways than in crude numerical terms. Most of the world’s towns and cities are built to higher densities. They are vibrant because they are highly populated, and they work because they support the range of facilities – such as shops, schools, transport, entertainment venues and workplaces – that are needed for sustainable communities.

Recent talks with social housing providers have revealed real concerns about the implications of high density for the tenants – more flats rather than houses, reduced parking standards and unorthodox arrangements such as underground parking. All of these have been tried previously and found wanting. Indeed the very estates that have failed are often those that we are trying to regenerate at the same or increased density.

Designers, developers and social landlords are grappling with the issue of how to create new versions of the vibrant city, but it is a far from simple task. It relies partly on sensitive design and requires intensive management and a willingness to meet future running costs as well as initial construction fees. Most recent inner-city high density schemes have been built by private developers and rely on medium to high-rise flat-based developments. Their access to retail, entertainment and social activities make high-rise living desirable and exciting. The properties are aimed at young, affluent couples or older people whose children have left home. Families can and do live in cities, but there are few examples of modern family-based urban housing design.

Mixed communities in Europe

Excellent research into this field was commissioned by the London Housing Federation, which represents social landlords in the capital, and published last year. PRP Architects is working on a follow-up study into European high density examples. It has emerged that making high density projects work requires more expenditure on buildings, open spaces, and on-going management than we have traditionally been prepared to accept. Throughout Europe there is a move away from concentrated social housing provision towards communities of varying income groups.

In the UK our experience is that genuinely mixed tenure at higher densities is rare. The more successful examples have been generated by registered social landlords whose objectives are to achieve balanced communities, rather than by commercial developers obliged to include a social housing element as part of a section 106 agreement. We have recently been working with a large inner-city authority, advising how genuine mixed use and mixed tenure can be achieved.

From our own experience, mixed communities within city centres can be successful with careful design. Differing user groups can co-exist happily if large family units are kept close to the ground, and secure vertical circulation cores, bay windows, balconies and small courtyards are provided. Strong local management and support, plus good building maintenance can help to ensure that projects do not deteriorate and enter into a spiral of decline.

The 'D' word

Perhaps the biggest barrier to achieving higher densities is winning the hearts and minds of the public. In all our work with existing communities density quickly becomes a difficult issue and we have learned that it is more constructive to talk about what makes good places. The best examples are frequently from historic cities with higher densities than London. It is hoped that some of the money available for speeding up the planning process will be aimed at education about urban design quality.

Our experience of recent planning applications is that some high density applications are failing despite support from planning officers. Apparently committees are too frightened of public reactions to support high density design with low car parking ratios near good public transport. An additional problem is that under-resourced council planning departments do not have enough time to understand complex projects that do not conform to simple rulebooks.

Public awareness of good practice

If people are to be convinced, there is a need for much more publicity for good practice from the UK and Europe. On a recent trip to Amsterdam to look at examples of successful high density schemes, I was amazed by the amount and sophistication of detail surrounding housing and design that is publicly available and actively promoted by the city housing department. Annual publications provide full details of every new housing project in the city and a regularly updated public exhibition in the city centre informs the public about current schemes.

It is also doubtful whether the present process for selecting social landlords under stock transfer or private finance and investment (PFI) arrangements will lead to sensible decisions about the future of existing communities. Competitions do not, by their nature, allow for open and honest consultations about what communities want and need. Instead, undeliverable or unworkable assumptions may be made about density in order to make the financial equation work.

It is our experience that careful ground-level work with communities is the best way to engender support and ensure success. Local people should be led through the design process and given an understanding of housing design issues and how to create a sense of place. Above all we need to review the process for community regeneration, including successful case studies that can be used as a guide to good practice.

Notes:

The LHF research entitles Making High Density Housing Work in London is available by telephoning 020 7843 2219.

The PRP Architects research will be published in October.