Urbane Matters

WELCOME TO THE ‘HOOD
‘City-centre’ living, tellingly perceived as a new phenomena, has been welcomed as a fundamental part of the regeneration of towns and cities. Whilst the image of the urbane couple living the vibrant city lifestyle is seductive, it does not necessarily represent an holistic regeneration, despite the physical improvements to these areas.

Whether an area remains a run-down ‘inner-city’ neighbourhood lacking inward investment and community adoption or has been regenerated (often displacing the former), without a mixture of social sectors and household types with the appropriate infrastructure (not just physical) and amenities in place, neither can be deemed to be sustainable. To be sustainable it would need to be an integrated neighbourhood, which would include, or have access to, homes, jobs, schools, post offices, buses, parks, shops, cafes, libraries - places of social exchange and interaction.

‘If the city's resurgence is to be more than just a fad, cities will have to look to the everyday creativity of the way people live, rather than top-down policy making and master plans. Self-build cities looks to how street level intelligence can improve enterprise, governance and public life in our towns and cities.’ - (a)

The reasons cities came into existence are still valid, even if they are evolving. Denser living, an inevitability of urban environments, may not yet be endemically hard wired in the UK, as perhaps it is with mainland European counterparts, and does not suit sensibilities across all sectors of society. However, it is undeniable that Britain is a relatively mixed culture, and if we are to capitalise on that strength, we need to provide dwellings and neighbourhoods that fully acknowledge and celebrate that diversity.

PACKING THEM IN
Merely providing higher density developments, with none of the concomitant notions that go with integrated living environments, constitutes a sanitised take on urban design.

' “In Merton we are getting applications for much higher density than planning policy demands because developers need to pack them in to make a return because of the cost of land.” Paul Garrett, the borough’s urban designer… “If this progression continues it will create a new class of people trapped in housing that they don’t want to live in.” ' Neil Johnson RICS Parliamentary Policy Officer’ - (b)

Many new housing schemes are not providing an appropriate balance of accommodation. Core to this is a lack of provision of a full range of size and type of dwellings.

‘The ideal often cited by designers would be to build Continental style three and four bedroom family sized flats in the same blocks as one and two bedroom properties and ensure there is a wide range of local amenities nearby. But they acknowledge that in the UK the idea is not as simple as it sounds in many areas. Planning authorities are unable to demand it, and housebuilders are often better rewarded by building smaller homes.’ - (b)

To be holistically sustainable, a regenerated area must draw life from the capital funding of the initial regeneration. An integrated, successful ‘living’ neighbourhood, with ‘critical mass’ achieved, must include and fully cater for a good range of evolving household types. This goes beyond a relatively short-lived trend, and achieves a genuinely successful and sustainable area with a balanced integration of people and cultures.

JOINING THE DOTS
The delivery of sustainable communities seems stymied by a vicious circle between planners, housebuilders and house buyers. Planning authorities claim lack of power to enforce better quality schemes, and lack proper resources, including attracting better staff. Housebuilders tend to build less than high quality schemes when proposals go unchallenged. People, generally, have little basis on which to be able to demand better homes, politically, culturally or economically, so planners and developers are given little impetus for improvement.

‘What is clear is that developers are perfectly able to produce better-quality schemes when these are required of them, but will revert to poorer quality and standardised schemes where design expectations are seen to be lower. Equally, it would seem that local authorities are prepared to accept poor-quality design in some locations that they would not be prepared to accept in others.’ - (c)

Recent years have seen governmental thinking becoming increasingly short-term and significantly more commercial, which seems to have become synonymous with efficiency, which may not be an appropriate objective across the board.

‘By contrast, the stronger planning powers and control over services, such as transport, that Continental authorities enjoy mean that flats in European developments are often designed to be places families aspire to live.’ - (b)

Continuing regeneration with government encouragement, but without their full engagement in terms of integrated investment, can only lead to a divergence between actual developments and objectives that have been set out to achieve. This not only results in neighbourhoods that are not sustainable, it is also storing up further problems for the future.

ITS GOOD TO TALK
Commercial developers are often held to be substantially responsible for inappropriate development. Whilst there is no shortage of examples that could be considered in this light, market forces left un-trammelled will, understandably, tend to spiral in an uncontrolled manner. It should remain the responsibility of governments to put in place appropriate parameters (not necessarily limits), guidance and regulation backed by provision of proper resources and leadership, to ensure that fully resourced sustainable communities are delivered, to the benefit of all citizens.

‘Increasing density’ as a mantra is too blunt a tool; varying and mixed densities appropriate to an area can be achieved as part of a process involving local partners and stakeholders to ascertain what each area wants and needs. This is more likely to ensure that developments are appropriate for their proposed area. Even well worked out schemes in the wrong location cannot be expected to integrate well. Whilst guidance can prove useful as reference, there are no generic solutions.

There are two distinct sustainability issues: higher environmental standards for individual homes, and more holistic sustainability considerations for neighbourhoods. The former can reduce emissions and deliver personal advantages such as lower bills. The latter can integrate social and cultural issues within neighbourhoods, as well as achieve practical requirements such as easier access to transport and amenities. Only by addressing both aspects of sustainability can the overall quality of life of all residents be raised, and genuinely integrated communities achieved.

ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU
A number of possibilities to address these issues have emerged:

- Development frameworks produced by pro-active planning authorities in conjunction with stakeholders. Evolving planning systems show that this is possible, although planning authorities need to genuinely engage. There are examples of authorities (Ashford Borough Council and Essex County Council in the UK) that have shown what is possible even within current policies. Although, this shows that it is not just a question of good policies or well organised programmes, it is as much about peoples attitude and commitment to achieve better integrated schemes and implementation processes.

‘Andy von Bradsky, director of PRP Architects singled out the Hammarby Sjostad development near Stockholm, where 9,000 new homes are being built on former industrial land, as an example of how new high density developments should be designed. Notable lessons for the UK included the very consensual approach which was taken towards design with architects, developers, housing associations and government working closely together to ensure that the place will meet the requirements of residents and be commercially practical. Design codes were then policed by the local authority.’ - (b)

- Engaging with volume housebuilders, whom we have to accept build significant parts of our towns and cities. Through two way dialogue, within a broader framework of consensus, there can be a better understanding of the different stakeholders' perspectives. Voluntary codes have shown that they will not cause greater uptake of building higher quality schemes.

‘The reality must surely be that the effectiveness of the levels and standards set out in the code become increasingly diminished if the code itself can be largely ignored by the private sector, the sector directly responsible for the vast majority of new builds in England, because it is voluntary.’ - (d)

- Fiscal incentives for sustainably developing brownfield sites and dis-incentives for developing greenfield sites. Measures such as funding for land reclamation and implementing policies through mechanisms such as lowering tax on brownfield and renovation developments, and taxing value uplift on greenfield development. Also, to encourage the public to buy more appropriate and better quality homes through education and incentives.

‘Fiscal measures which offer either real savings or significant penalties have to be introduced… [such as] reducing Stamp Duty and Council Tax for those homes built to high environmental standards’. - (d)

- Ensuring that as first phase housing developments become completed or established areas gain new in-fill housing developments, they are accompanied by necessary infrastructure and amenities, so that the new balance of residents is properly catered for.

‘What we find reprehensible is the clear signal from Government that it really does not matter that these homes are going to be built before supporting infrastructure is in place. And we reject the implication that the people for whom these new communities are intended will be so grateful to have a home that they will be prepared to put up with substandard communities rather than sustainable communities.’ - (d)

THAT’S ALL FOLKS
Whilst clear objectives, key criteria and risk assessment has become a major part of implementation processes, we are increasingly seeing something akin to statistical self-fulfilment, where the focus is on satisfying the monitoring criteria itself, rather than the actual considerations.

Our tacit responsibilities as designers: considering the broader impact and implications of what we design and specify and their effect on the cultural and social exchanges that will take place in those spaces, should empower us to address this 'risk aversion'. We should be prepared to more confidently manage our risk, so as not to tend towards the lowest common denominator with all sense of diversity and joy removed. This extends to continual delivery of appropriate places and buildings, programmed for a changing living and working environment. This can only be possible from within a framework of appropriate protections of stakeholders and broad investment from government, in line with properly implementing those objectives so visibly laid out.

It is already apparent that well integrated communities that achieve social inclusiveness and continue to prosper without further capital regeneration funding will not be possible if higher density residential developments are not well designed and reflect the profile of existing and emerging household types, which are complemented with proper infrastructure and amenities at local, city and regional scales. It is inappropriate to assume the private sector will achieve this of its own accord.

References
a) - Demos initiative: Self-build cities; putting people first in urban renewal
b) - James Dark on the recent Rudi-sponsored Building for 21st Century Living conference
c) - CABE housing audit: Assessing the design quality of new homes in the North East, North West and Yorkshire & Humber, 2005
d) - House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee: Sustainable housing, a follow-up report, 21 March 2006