A Scandinavian Approach to Social Housing in the UK

When it was announced  that Swedish practice ‘White Arkitekter’ had won RIBA’s international design competition ‘House 4 Life’ in April last year for their proposal in the English town of Salford, it represented a fundamental departure from the traditional attitude toward social housing design in the UK.

The Scandinavian firm’s landscape-led proposal has now entered the first phase of what is officially known as the Greengate Residential Development.

In winning the RIBA award and gaining the Greengate contract, White Arkitekter were one of a number of competing practices working to a unique competition brief for this type of development. The main requirements of Salford City Council and the NHS (the two main clients for the project) were for an architect fronted masterplan to provide sustainable and affordable family housing and have a positive long-term effect on the local community whilst maintaining an environmentally friendly foundation to the plan.

Ultimately, the brief centred around long-term sustainability and the promotion of creating good places and communities in the local area for the future.

It may come as little surprise therefore, that a Scandinavian practice won the competition. After all, the Nordic countries have long been renowned as global leaders in forward-thinking liberal attitudes to both social inequality and tackling environmental issues as well as exemplifying high standards of living, with Sweden currently in third place in the UN’s Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index and Norway taking the top spot.

The design of the scheme relies heavily upon the architecture of the landscape with a centralised open space forming the focal point of the scheme and acting as a meeting area for the surrounding residential development. The quality of the public realm on the site sits very near the top of the agenda for the plan with a biodiverse courtyard in phase one and a tennis court area situated among fruit trees in phase two of the development known as ‘The Orchard’.

Indeed, this promotion of open space and legibility is continued in the approach currently being undertaken by White Arkitekter in addressing the issue of gated entrances to the  central courtyards of each residential area – there are none. Rather than this traditional and distinctly British method of enclosure, the landscape architect for the practice has suggested ‘greenhouse’ style areas to act as gateways to the courtyards. This is another distinctly Scandinavian approach to the permeability and ‘openness’ of the scheme. In an interview with Architects Journal, an international director for White Arkitekter, Geoff Denton, reinforced the differences between the two countries and the need for a breakaway from traditionally private, confined and defensible spaces in favour of an open plan and accessible approach to these areas “We don’t do Secured by Design in Sweden, because crime is less of a problem here”. Therefore ut remains to be seen how well, in terms of site security at least, this idea will export to the UK (where crime and anti-social behaviour are as Denton states, simply much higher than is the case in Sweden.)

The Greengate scheme proposes greenhouse style 'gateways' to centralised courtyard areas of the site.

Greengate can be viewed as an experiment. Some would argue that the scheme is an experiment in social engineering, importing a liberalised, open and sustainable model of affordable housing from a country reflecting and currently championing the same ideals. Those in this category may believe that good places change people and society for the better. There will however, also be those who will view the development as naive folly, placing too much trust in the underlying tendencies of certain elements of society to ensure safety and make the area work, this group would argue that people ultimately make (or break) places.

Personally, I believe that neither view is mutually exclusive. I am in favour of the design, which I think reflects both positive aesthetic qualities as well as the fundamental foundations required for the creation of a long-lasting, sustainable scheme. Too often has social housing represented a form of development which has served a function (to house) rather than looking to its impact on those living there and externally, on the surrounding environment and community. It will remain to be seen how such a radical departure from previous forms of this development type will work out and will be received, however, change of this sort can only be a step in the right direction.

UK Government Widens ‘City Deals’ Proposal

When one talks of ‘City Deals’ today, most people immediately see red at the thought of huge payouts in the financial services sector. However, in this case at least, the term refers to the latest incarnation of the government’s continued drive for economic growth and regeneration in another engine room of Britain – the growth of cities outside of London.

This week, it was announced that starting this spring, the government will continue to expand upon its plans – initially announced last month in its paper ‘Unlocking Growth in Cities’ – to begin releasing centralised controls previously held in Whitehall to selected individual cities in England. This change will provide cities with more localised powers than before in an effort to attract private sector investment, aid job creation, and ultimately, stimulate economic growth.

By freeing up cities from some of the traditional constraints of governmental control, it is hoped that this adaptation of policy will provide the opportunity for fostering a bespoke arrangement between central government and city authorities, allowing the latter to have greater autonomy in decision-making and in doing so, act as a prime driving force for rebalancing the local economy and encouraging regeneration.

This latest move by the government states in its objectives that it hopes to effectively introduce a two-way dialogue between government and those cities currently selected under the proposal, but of course, this also has the double effect of reinforcing the coalition’s ambition for a localist approach to such matters and a shift of state responsibility to the lower tier.

These City Deals which initially lined up the eight largest urban conurbations outside of London as candidates, have now therefore been extended to other cities, and represent the next step in the government’s plans to grow local economies through the delegation of power.

The Department for Communities and Local Government state as a caveat to the proposals that “In return [for increased power], cities must guarantee that they can provide strong and accountable leadership, improve efficiency and outcomes, and be innovative in their approach.”

In addressing issues in some of the cities desperately in need of transformation, it will be interesting to see just how innovative they will be in rising to meet the challenge.

Peaks and Troughs – The Unsettling Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Impending Financial Turmoil.

In the latest iteration of an annual report by researchers at Barclays Capital last week, it has been suggested that historically, an ‘unhealthy correlation’ has tended to exist between the construction of the worlds ‘tallest’ skyscrapers and an approaching financial crash.

In an interview with the BBC, the author of the report, Andrew Lawrence spoke of the precedents for this trend as an indicator of imminent economic collapse, and how they may serve as an early warning signal to economists today. The Skyscraper Index as the yearly report is known,  reflects among others, on previous examples such as the construction of the Empire State Building (dubbed the ‘Empty State Building’ atthe time) in the 1930’s during the Great Depression and the Petronas Towers, the world’s then tallest building in Kuala Lumpur, the completion of which in 1997 coincided with the Asian financial crisis.

Effectively the index suggests that high-rise, prestige development is the result of excess capital chasing too few genuine investment opportunities.

Having recently returned from a business-trip to Shanghai with a major property company where I witnessed first-hand the frenetic pace of development taking place, it’s easy to believe the news in the report that China is currently responsible for building 53% of major skyscrapers currently under construction around the world. This is a fact reflected in the expansion in credit the country experienced in 08-09 and a likely indicator of the talked about property bubble many believe is soon to burst.

More than half of the 124 mega-towers currently under construction around the world are being built in China.

The correlation between two seemingly related events does not however, confirm an undeniable relationship and could purely be borne out of unhappy coincidence. Besides which, there are clearly many examples throughout recent history of such buildings being constructed in economically favourable times.

One need not look any further for example than to the excessive yet impressive Stalinist-Gothic architecture present in the Soviet Union of the late 1940’s, reminiscent of the New York skyline of the early 20th century, and which whilst representing totalitarian dominance, did not coincide with any economic crisis or act as a demonstration of capitalist exhuberance preluding a fall.

Indeed, when one looks at the recent picture, the argument of the ‘biggest and tallest’ indicating a crash doesnt always hold water either. This is apparent when you consider more recent market-driven examples of skyscraper construction, such as that of 101 Taipei in Taiwan, which for 6 years following its completion in 2004 was the tallest building in the world – well before the economic collapse of recent years.

The truth of course probably lies somewhere in the middle.

There is no doubt that the skyscraper in its current form (look no further than the Burj Khalifa in Dubai) has, and will continue to be largely an overblown symbol of status and prestige.

Although many people see the recent spate of high-rise construction as a demonstration of hubris, it is worth remembering the cyclical nature of the economy in which all development takes place. Bust follows boom as sure as night follows day, and given the timeframe in which development of such buildings takes place (often 5-10 years), it is not unusual for the process to get underway during the good times, only to complete when the market is toast.

I do however feel that the Index will prove to be right on the money in its predictions for the explosion of development in China. With so much in this market about prestige and ego, little exists in regards to properly calculated rental yields as the rate (and height) of construction continues to race ever upwards.

New Year, Old Problems and (some) New Solutions.

The first week of 2012 is over. Having now consolidated resolutions which almost certainly won’t be maintained, it seemed like a good time to reflect on the previous year and also make some predictions and observations on the issues likely to impact the industry in the year ahead.

With the possible exception of the world ending in 12 months time, 2012 is set to be an exciting year for the development scene. Nowhere is this more relevant than in London, which will see the completion of the Olympic Park and ongoing regeneration of the Stratford area of East London for the games in the summer supported by a host of transport projects such as the new station facelifts at Blackfriars and London Bridge both coming online during the year. Couple this with a diamond jubilee celebrating the 60^th year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign and the hangover from last years royal wedding, and it will be interesting to see just how well the city and its infrastructure hold-up to a heavy year in the spotlight.

The completion of landmark schemes currently in the pipeline such as the Shard at London Bridge later in the year will mark an end in the trend of high-rise development in London with the City’s head of planning Peter Rees stating in October last year that a move away from the recent skyscraper boom will prelude a change in direction in development which will be “moving towards refurbishment of older buildings”. In an age where austerity is the watchword, this would certainly seem to be the logical move, however it still seems to feel a little like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. That said, this move may prove preferable to developers given the risk, expense, funding issues and long turnaround associated with new high-end schemes and will hopefully encourage utilising the existing building stock in a more sustainable way.

With continuing financial uncertainties underpinning both government and private sector spending, last year also brought sharply into focus the restrictions which are increasingly imposed by market conditions on ideology in matters of planning, and those effecting attitudes to regeneration. Given the current nature of the political and economic climate, it is likely in my opinion that the balance of responsibility for promoting and delivering successful and meaningful urban regeneration will inevitably begin to shift away from being solely the role of the public sector, as governments cut spending and funding, resulting in an increasing involvement in the process by private business.

So what’s changed? It certainly seems apparent that this year will have little choice but to follow in much the same vein as the previous one, as the economic situation continues to develop, so too will the reaction from both the market and governement to issues within the industry (although hopefully not at the expense of design and environmental considerations).

In London on the other hand, things appear on the face of it to be getting into full swing. However to stretch the metaphor further, 2012 may just turn out to be like the last big New Year’s party before the dreaded start of a new job the next day – lets just hope the headache isn’t too bad in the morning.

Industrial Plight – How One Midwest Town may Hold the Answer to the Regeneration of Industrial Small Town America.

As an outsider visiting the town of Holyoke, a small town in Western Massachusetts recently, my first impressions of the town weren’t initially of its underlying socio-economic problems, but rather, of the impressive but now derelict and gradually decaying shells of its former mills lining the western bank of the Connecticut river. It is these structures, commanding a view over the river, which reflect the area’s once proud, but now long faded industrial past and as such, I also couldn’t help wondering, “Why haven’t they been redeveloped yet?”

Once a thriving paper and textile milling centre in the north east of the country, the town of 40,000 now serves as an accurate representation of changing fortunes in the U.S. with nearly one-third of the city’s residents falling below the poverty line and an unemployment rate, crime rate, and high school dropout rate all hovering above the national average.

The story of Holyoke is increasingly an all too familiar one, and one that is currently being echoed by many similar post-industrial, blue collar towns across America also suffering from the departure of manufacturing which has amplified the chill of an already ravaging economic slowdown.

It was upon further research into these similarly afflicted industrial towns that I came across Dubuque.

In 1984, following a rapid decline in its base of manufacturing and mill working, the town of Dubuque, Iowa had an unemployment rate of 24%, the highest in the U.S. Since then, the town has turned around its fortunes, embracing a philosophy of sustainability, redeveloping the brownfield land left behind following the departure of industry and reinventing its identity as an urban area and business destination.

Dubuque now has an unemployment rate of 4.6%.

During its rise, the city has actively pursued a policy of sustainable redevelopment and the regeneration of unused areas previously associated with its industrial past in order to encourage the growth of business and bring people back into the historic centre of the town. This has been achieved through the continuing success of initiatives such as ‘Sustainable Dubuque’, which through a number of programs, aims to promote the organic regeneration and recognition of the city’s heritage.

One such scheme is the redevelopment of the Warehouse District, a mixed use transformation of former warehouse space into a combination of affordable apartments and ground floor retail space with sustainable design features, energy conservation systems, a redefined public realm and the preservation of art and heritage.

It has been through this use of sustainable regeneration and place-making, that Dubuque is leading the way in this form of experiment, successfully engaging with the architecture of its past, and in doing so, realigning the growth of the local economy in a way which has had marked results for the residents of the city.

Therefore the question remains, is this model the tonic required to provide the much needed regenerative cure for similar historical industrial centres such as Holyoke, and more importantly, can it be exported to those suffering most from the effects of years of neglect and in the grip of increasing economic hardship?

The short answer is maybe.

In an interview with the BBC, the mayor of Dubuque stated that he felt the regenerative results of his city could be replicated in any other with a population under 200,000, making towns such as Holyoke prime candidates for the Dubuque-treatment.

However it is still worth remembering, the timescale in which this redevelopment and change of life has taken place spans more than 20 years and continues to this day. While this may not provide the immediate quick-fix so desperately needed by post-industrial America, perhaps a slower more natural, community-led model for redevelopment such as this is what is actually needed. After all, the results of the scheme in Dubuque, where long-term sustainability and regeneration are concerned, appear to speak for themselves.

The Problems With Reform…

When is streamlining not a good thing? Apparently, when doing so means editing a 1300 page planning policy document down to just 52.

Following the publication of its review of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the general consensus from the group of cross-party MPs comprising the Communities and Local Government committee has concluded that the document be fundamentally changed in certain areas, particularly those relating to the environment, and more specifically, those regarding where development can occur.

The crux of the findings is that essentially, the reforms currently in place by the Coalition government still strongly favour developers, and as a result, will lead to an “inevitable” risk of development in those greener areas considered by many to be out of bounds.

The original framework document draft, which cut thousands of planning policy guidance pages down to fewer than 60, was the source of widespread condemnation and initially prompted calls for an investigation of the document by the committee.

In an earlier post on this blog, I spoke of the potential challenges facing the government’s fledgling localism bill. Many of the issues regarding the success of this legislation were touched upon in this report, and some of the more resonant topics, particularly those involving the potential for conflict between economic and environmental sustainability considerations, have indeed subsequently been raised in the findings of this latest NPPF review.

The chairman of the committee, Labour MP Clive Betts, stated that the framework is currently balanced in a way that throws more weight behind planning decisions promoting economic growth and that in doing so, “This undermines the equally important environmental and social elements of the planning system”. This of course, as discussed earlier, is the current catch-22 faced by the government – whether to protect the environment and promote the continued drive for localism and sustainability or whether to focus upon the recovery of the economy in its equally delicate state.

Similarly, another finding of the report was that the draft as it currently stands, whilst attempting to remedy the issue, still remains decidedly absent of that most sought after of goals, a clear and concise definition of what exactly constitutes ‘sustainable development’.

Gregg Clark, the current planning minister, has stated that the NPPF will, “put power into the hands of local people, through a simpler, clearer system, which safeguards our natural and historic environment while allowing the jobs and homes to be created that our country needs.” This rhetoric of course, brings us back to the precarious balancing act between ideology and the usually less appealing but often more realistic outcome which we often face and will continue to do in the coming months. Which side of the scale will in fact benefit most however, will not be known until the final version of the NPPF is implemented early next year.

Pulling the Plug – The Uncertain Future of Battersea Power Station.

Iconic benchmark of British industrial architecture or an archaic throwback occupying prime Central London development land? Whatever your views of the site at Battersea, although its coal-fired turbines stopped producing electricity over 25 years ago, the now derelict, Grade-II* listed power station in the Nine Elms area of London continues to generate both controversy and interest in equal measure.

Today, those bankrolling the latest and most promising in a line of bids to redevelop the 40 acre site, are set to secure Ernst & Young as the administrators to take over control of the scheme.

Does this news signal the end of current proposals for the site?  Many, including myself are now asking what lies in store for the area, and whether the benefits of regenerating the land with the structure as a focal point actually now outweigh alternative options such as clearing the site entirely and starting afresh.

The driver behind the most recent scheme to regenerate the site and presently in the spotlight, is Irish developer Real Estate Opportunities who, since 2006, had proposed the £5.5 billion redevelopment of Battersea into a mixed-use showcase with the landmark power station at its core. The site would incorporate the provision of 3,400 new homes, over 10 million square foot of commercial space and an extension to the Northern line with a new station at Nine Elms, all as the keystone for larger regeneration of the surrounding area.

Having been beset with funding issues since the start of the project, REO have been struggling to repay the debt accrued on the project to the tune of a cool £502 million. Now in the hands of the administrators, the assets will be once more up for grabs by a developer with a healthier balance sheet than that of the current incumbent.

Whatever fate ends up befalling the scheme and whoever eventually picks up the tab, the site will remain part of the larger designated development zone dubbed the ‘Battersea Opportunity Area’ by the Mayor of London. This area, stretching east as far as Vauxhall, would be anchored by a number of high-profile projects such as the new site of the U.S embassy building by Philadelphia architects Kieran Timberlake which has secured planning permission and another major area earmarked for regeneration adjacent to New Covent Garden Market masterplanned by Foster and Partners. If successfully executed, the combination of these sites could usher in a new urban renaissance for this overlooked and under invested area of south-west London, improving the quality of the public realm whilst creating jobs and providing housing.  However, if plans for the power station continue to stall as has been the pattern to date, it runs the risk of creating a vacuum in which regeneration fails to materialise and surrounding schemes will almost certainly suffer as a result.

While it remains to be seen how close to the original spec (with secured planning permission) the resulting scheme will be, it is a certainty that the site will be redeveloped. What is not so certain on the other hand, is the future of the plant itself.

Since its initial completion, Battersea has stood as an instantly recognisable landmark on the London skyline and provides an echo to its former life among similar structures along the Thames where it was once referred to as a ‘Temple of Power’. Indeed, a survey conducted in 1939 showed that it was the second most admired modern building in London. If handled correctly, the refurbishment of the building could both remain sympathetic to its surroundings while forming a strong ‘magnetic’ centre of focus for surrounding regeneration and development as a monument to the area’s industrial past. This after all has been successfully achieved by a contemporary of the site, with the runaway success of the Bankside power station redevelopment into the Tate Modern gallery and the subsequent regeneration of the surrounding area that continues to this day.

Another alternative of course, comes in the form of clearing the site completely. To many, this would seem the most logical and economically viable solution given the troubled past of the building and the ‘curse’ of developers with visions of grandeur in reviving the site and the allure of its riverside aspect, a cleared site would provide space for thousands of new homes – a much needed tonic given the present market conditions.

Perhaps however, the eventual destiny of the site lies in a happy, recession-proof, medium, somewhere between the two.

A third alternative was proposed last week by Terry Farrell & Partners hot on the tail of news of the impending fall into the administrators arms of the current scheme. Farrell’s solution is a simple one; retain the structure with the exception of the side walls which would be replaced with colonnades, give the remainder of the building a facelift whilst transforming the interior and surroundings into parkland and allowing for mixed-use development surrounding the site.

It is uncertain how things will progress in the coming months, however in my opinion it is this latest pitch which may provide the most realistic conclusion to this drawn-out affair. In retaining the heritage of the site whilst acknowledging the current realities of the economic climate both physically, and through addressing viability and funding issues in the potential to phase the level of development surrounding the scheme, it may be that this now run-down, yet once great monument can again power growth in the surrounding area.

Localism and the Market – An Unsustainable Balancing Act or a Match Made in Heaven?

To those of us who have been following the progress of the government’s new localism bill passed last month, it comes as little surprise to discover that as is so often the case with all things planning related, ambiguity rules, and the only thing continually certain, is continual uncertainty.

Since its inception following the end of the Second World War, the role of the planning system in England and Wales has always ultimately been twofold; the promotion of economic growth through the control of development on the one hand, with the constraint and guided direction of land use by the state on the other. It is these two, overarching directives of our current system that have traditionally brought developers, local authorities and other stakeholders involved in the planning and development process into conflict. Arguably however, these two themes are now becoming increasingly polarised by the unprecedented behaviour of the market as well as an increasingly prevalent driving force behind national planning policy – Sustainable Development.

The idea of sustainability in the development process is not a particularly new one; after all, as we were constantly reminded at university, as far back as 1987, the Brundtland Commission stated that in order to be sustainable, development must “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This sounded pretty straightforward at the time, and is surely a clear cut way to address the issue now?

Unfortunately not.

Rarely on the rough swell of planning related issues is it plain sailing when it comes to aligning the interests of those involved in the development process, but this task has been further confounded by the fact that there is still no clear official definition of what actually constitutes sustainable development in Britain – a fact which often leaves developers, and indeed the general public, feeling left largely in the dark on the issue.

The role played by the last Labour government in the system is often viewed by many as having been slanted toward a centralised approach to planning, in which the level of external, public participation was sidelined in favour of the pursuit of state controlled, targeted economic growth and sustainable development. Upon taking power last year, the Coalition government stated that it would shift policy away from this centralism, in favour of an ‘open source’ approach to planning, fundamental to which would be more public involvement in the process.

All sounds good. In a rising market, after all, this progressive approach to planning would make perfect sense – more involvement of the public in consultation with developers would surely lead to more agreement (and compromises), and ultimately, successful applications by developers.

However, the market can be an unruly entity and does not need to comply with the aspirations of politicians and as such we have not been allowed this privilege. Indeed, we’re constantly made aware that the current malaise in the economy and its recovery remain at the top of the Coalition government’s agenda, yet couple this with the fact that house building targets continue to remain at their lowest peacetime levels since 1924, and it soon becomes clear that something is definitely amiss. An increase in approvals for residential schemes would address both the chronic shortfall of housing currently available as well as generating much needed jobs in the construction industry and thus, promote economic growth.  In an inefficient planning system which many developers feel is partly to blame for the deficit in residential development, schemes such as the government’s ‘new homes bonus’ are certainly a step in the right direction.

Looking back to the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development, it seems apparent that the needs of the present are not currently being met, whether you’re a developer seeking a viable direction through often unclear policy and in gaining approvals, or on a wider scale, one of those currently locked out of the housing market. As for the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? Without a clear definition of how it intends for developers to achieve its aims of sustainability whilst still remaining economically viable and increasingly involving the public along the way, the government runs the risk of neither having any cake nor eating it.

Both local authorities and developers alike clearly face new pressures following the introduction of the Act. It remains to be seen whether localism and open source planning can co-exist in a symbiotic relationship alongside the arguably more pressing need for growth and recovery, however having viewed recent changes to the system, it is my opinion that unless more clarity is provided as to how this can be achieved in a measurable way which remains economically viable for developers, then a damaging stalemate will inevitably ensue.

It is this potential paradox which I believe will prove much more troublesome in the coming years. The overall success of the Act will ultimately depend on the active support of all parties involved in the process, whether or not this is presently a realistic expectation given the contrasting objectives and challenges faced by stakeholders however, will be apparent soon enough.

When all is said and done though, I could be wrong. After all, I’m not claiming to be an expert on planning policy, but then again, in these times of market uncertainty, hazy policy direction and the still elusively undefined quest for sustainable development, who really is?