• Architecture
• Masterplanning
• Urban Design
• Landscape Architecture
• Interior Design
• Town Planning
• Project Management
• Environmental Services

Are We Building a Sustainable Future?

24.10

Barry Munday

We seem to have reached some sort of tipping point when even the CPRE recognises the need to build more homes. However, quantity isn’t the only issue. Will current policies produce the kinds of homes in places that will be popular with homebuyers and renters both now and well into the future?

Higher density can create more vibrant streets with good amenities but heed the perils. In London in particular, the pressure to cross-subsidise affordable housing by building more private units results in raising densities based on economic imperatives instead of sound social and planning policy. We know from experience that high-rise apartments only work for certain groups of people and are expensive to manage and maintain. The failures of the 60’s and 70’s largely arose because landlords (mainly Local Authorities) had insufficient resources to manage their properties well. We addressed these issues in the 80’s and 90’s by reducing density, creating more individual units or flats in small clusters and allocating most of the open space to homeowners or renters. This resulted in less expensive management but frequently created poor environments with little sense of place. So how do we get the balance right?

The answer must surely lie within the planning system. A long-term view to creating ‘sustainable’ communities must be adopted - how buildings and places are to be managed should be a condition of planning consent, complete with fully costed management plans and clear definitions of responsibilities. Additionally, are we placing enough emphasis on affordability for the occupier in terms of rising fuel costs? Land values and building costs will obviously be impacted but to pretend that long-term success can be achieved at no extra cost is clearly unrealistic.

We also continue to build some of the smallest homes in the developed world. We at least have some regulation in the affordable sector through the Housing Corporation but in the private sector, we’re at the market’s mercy. Housing stock skewed towards small units simply isn’t healthy. An answer may be to look at forms of housing which can be combined or sub-divided according to economic circumstances. A good historic precedent would be the large Victorian terraced house which during its lifetime may have changed from a family home, to small flats and back again. Modern typologies allowing for similar flexibility would certainly enable us to avoid boxing ourselves into a corner.

Finally, location is key to popularity. It is self evident that to build large new housing developments remotely from existing conurbations is hugely expensive. Forcing people to commute over long distances to reach places of work makes no environmental sense. Truly sustainable models need to be built close to existing popular centres of population. Urban extensions are much more viable for creating homes and places with access jobs, shopping, schools and entertainment. This may mean relaxing some of our preconceptions about the Green Belt but not all Green Belt is of high amenity value. A more sophisticated approach to Green Belt evaluation is needed if we are to succeed in creating better quality homes and places for the many rather than the few.