Above the City - Edward Atkins by Cambridge Design Research Studio

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil in Environmental Design in Architecture (Option B) 2014

Edward Atkins Wolfson College 14,938 words

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.

ABOVE THE CITY AN ALTERNATIVE HOUSING TYPOLOGY FOR BIRMINGHAM

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their support and guidance during the creation of this design thesis: Ingrid Schroder Alex Warnock-Smith Ying Jin Peter Clegg Joris Fach

TABLE OF CONTENTS Content

Page

Abstract

Chapter 01 Introduction

Housing Demand Land Availability Area of Study Methodology Chapter 02 Context Raising Density Suburban Urban Needs and Expectations Chapter 03 Exploration Birmingham Strategies for Infrastructure Bordesely Viaduct Design Strategy Chapter 04 Housing Housing Mix and Size House Types Chapter 05 Community Community Access

9 9 11 17

24 25 29 41 47

52 53 59 65 83

94 95 109

126 129 131

Conclusion

139

References

145

Bibliography

151

Appendix

158

Abstract This design research project explores the potential of a new residential development above Birmingham City Centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing railway viaducts to challenge the perceptions of increasing density in cities across the United Kingdom. In the contemporary context of rising house prices and decreasing land availability this paper discusses the social, political and economic advantages of creating a new urban housing typology to relieve the pressure on continual suburban development. It argues that the principles and aspirations of the United Kingdomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s suburban population are not restricted to traditional patterns of development and can be responded to within the setting of the twenty-first century city.

Figure 1 - Bordesely Viaduct, Birmingham

Acronyms BCC

Birmingham City Centre

BDP

Birmingham Development Plan

NPPF NR PDL UK

National Planning Policy Framework Network Rail Previously Developed Land United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Housing Demand The United Kingdom (UK) is experiencing a housing crisis. Over the last few decades not enough houses have been constructed despite rising demand, resulting in a massive shortfall of available housing. This shortage has contributed to the cost of living crisis as house prices and rents have increased dramatically making it impossible for younger generations to get on the property ladder. As a result Local Authority housing waiting lists have grown substantially, currently standing at over 1.6 million people in 2013 (Figure 2).1 It is estimated that a minimum of 250,000 new homes are required each year just to meet demand, however in 2013 only 135,400 were constructed and it is not since 1980 that numbers have reached over 250,000 (Figure 3).2 It is unsurprising therefore that addressing the housing shortage has been one of the primary concerns for successive governments. The Barker Review in 2004 and the Calcutt Review in 2007 were commissioned to examine housing supply and housebuilding delivery respectively. Despite this there has been little significant change in the rate of house building over the last ten years. In order to understand the reasons behind the housing shortage this study begins by exploring housing supply. In the UK this is dominated by speculative housebuildersi; the top ten housebuilders were responsible for 45% of all houses constructed in 2012/13.3 As a result, these companies have increasing power over how and where people live. Yet housebuilders have come under sustained criticism for failing to meet the rising demand for new homes, despite record house prices and profits.4 The response from housebuilders has been to blame an onerous planning system which limits the amount of land available and also the length of time needed to obtain planning permission.5 This is due to one of the most distinctive features of speculative housebuilding, that it requires not only the production of houses but also the land on which they stand.6 Land Availability Within the UK, developable land around urban areas is limited by planning controls; the most significant of which are Green Belts. Since becoming national policy in 1955, Green Belts have become arguably one of the most successful planning initiatives of the past half century.7 There are now fourteen Green Belts in England covering over 1.6 million hectares, equating to over 13% of the total land area.8 The intentions of the Green Belt are defined as limiting urban sprawl and preserving the character of the countryside, whilst simultaneously providing recreational space with environmental and ecological benefits near towns and cities.9

i. Speculative housebuilders build houses without an agreed end user, thus taking on maximum risk for the assumption of reward (i.e. profit).

Financial Crisis

2,000,000

£300,000

1,800,000 £250,000 1,600,000

1,400,000 £200,000 1,200,000

1,000,000

£150,000

800,000 £100,000 600,000 Housing Waiting List Average House Price

400,000

£50,000 200,000

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

0 2013

Figure 2 - Total number of people on Local Authorities’ social housing waiting lists & average house price Data Source: Department for Communities and Local Government

250,000

Calcutt Review 200,000

Barker Review

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 3 - Number of new dwellings constructed Data Source: Department for Communities and Local Government

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

It is clear that Green Belt policy has been instrumental in successfully curbing urban sprawl. This has allowed urban areas to remain relatively contained and concentrated (Figure 4). It is believed, for example, that London’s Green Belt has been essential in creating the density necessary to maintain London’s status as a global city. This is in comparison to cities such as New York and Paris which have more physical barriers such as Manhattan Island and Boulevard Périphérique to limit growth.10 Green Belts arose during the nineteenth century when the UK was experiencing the full effects of the industrial revolution and was growing at an unprecedented rate.11 Rural-urban migration was increasing the population size of towns and cities and the authorities were unprepared for this rapid growth. This led to poorly planned, inadequate housing and people were forced to live in cramped and unsanitary conditions.12 Keen to escape such conditions and emboldened by the expanding rail network, the growing middle classes soon began looking to build even further away from the city centre slums, creating fashionable green estates on the city fringe which became known as suburbs.13 The decline of agriculture meant land on the outskirts of the city was available cheaply and as the crowded city centre grew so too did the suburbs.14 This explosive growth of cities horrified critics and inspired utopian planners who believed that a radical reconstruction of cities could solve both the social and urban crises of the time.15 Most notable were Ebenezer Howard, Raymond Unwin and Patrick Abercrombie. Their work, combined with pressure groups such as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), laid the foundations of Green Belt policy in the UK.16 The establishment of the Green Belts, however, failed to properly address one of the central issues which contributed to their creation; the sprawling suburbs and suburban typologies themselves. Whilst suburban housing has many detractors it remains the dominant housing typology in the UK and over 80% of the population currently live in areas classed as suburban.17 It is due to this continued popularity that the majority of housebuilders persist with using this typology when creating modern residential developments despite having to build at greater densities. At the start of the twenty-first century government policy was focused on an ‘urban renaissance’ which attempted to curb the growth of suburbia by refocusing energies towards raising density and creating inner city residential development on previously developed land (PDL).18 Whilst this has undoubtedly been a success at regenerating inner city areas, it relied heavily on apartment buildings and failed to create a residential typology which could persuade people away from suburban areas. 11

Urban - Less Sparse Urban - Sparse Town & Fringe - Less Sparse Town & Fringe - Sparse Rural - Less Sparse Rural - Sparse

Figure 4 - Rural/Urban Map [Inset: Green Belts Map} Data Source: Office for National Statistics

Area of Study This paper has chosen the City of Birmingham as its area of study as it typifies the conditions mentioned previously. Along with the cities of Coventry and Wolverhampton it makes up the West Midlands Urban Area (WMUA), the largest urban area in the UK after Greater London.19 The WMUA is surrounded by the West Midlands Green Belt which has been crucial in ensuring the various elements have not merged to form one enormous conurbation. More recently, the scarcity of land available for housing in Birmingham is a major barrier to meeting the needs of its growing population, threatening the city’s economic growth. Much of Birmingham’s recent development has focused on reusing PDL across the city and 94% of new homes in 2013 were built on PDL.20 Whilst this percentage exceeds the national average, the amount of PDL available for development in the West Midlands has been slowly declining since 2002.21 A 2013 study by Birmingham City Council concluded that there was only space for an estimated 18,800 dwellings left within the City which falls short of the council’s 20 year target of 80,000 dwellings.22 Furthermore, as land supply decreases so too does the size of sites developed; 83% of sites currently with planning approval are smaller than one hectare which can significantly constrain the development potential.23 This decline in available land is occurring at the same time as current government policy is focusing on increasing the number of houses built by large, speculative housebuilders, seen as the only viable way to meet the growing amount of new houses required whilst simultaneously stimulating the struggling economy.24 For example, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012 was intended to simplify the planning system, making it more efficient and faster to secure planning approval.25 Many housebuilders, however, see this government support as an opportunity to move away from using PDL and return to traditional models of developing large greenfield sites at the urban fringe despite high levels of public opposition. In Birmingham, as a result of this policy change, the City Council are ‘exploring the release of land from the Green Belt for housing development’ to accommodate the shortfall in dwellings.26 In a recent Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), published by Birmingham City Council over 534 hectares of Green Belt land was highlighted across possible sites to build upon.27 It is clear that despite Birmingham becoming a postindustrial city, the same patterns of growth formed in the nineteenth century have remained as suburban living continues to be desirable. Now, having reached the edge of its boundary and facing a severe shortage

Wâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;hampton

Walsall

Sandwell Dudley

Birmingham

Solihul

Coventry

Figure 5 - West Midlands Urban Area

Figure 6 - West Midlands Green Belt

of available land, Birmingham is seeking to expand into the Green Belt. By recognising that housebuilders can achieve significant economies of scale on greenfield sites compared to small parcels of PDL dispersed across the city; this paper argues for the creation of a new form of PDL above transport infrastructure. Although there would be significant expense in realising this vision, it is argued that it would provide a large amount of continuous, developable space within Birmingham City Centre (BCC) which could reduce the pressure on outward suburban growth. Furthermore, by creating a residential development with a unique relationship to the city that responds to the principles and aspirations associated with suburban living, it may be possible to encourage movement back into the city which could bring positive social and economic benefits. This paper will address key issues such as the implications of increasing density to address the housing shortage, both on the physical environment of BCC and any resulting social consequences. It will furthermore seek to identify the qualities and spatial characteristics people look for when choosing a home, with the intention of proposing a design for an alternative housing typology which is both desirable and suitable for placement above existing transport infrastructure. It is hypothesized that it will be a hybrid, drawing on aspects from both suburban and urban typologies. This will be explored alongside a broader study of housebuilding and community.

“SOLVING THE HOUSING CRISIS IS ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN SIMPLY HOUSE BUILDING; IT IS ABOUT CREATING SUCCESSFUL PLACES AND COMMUNITIES IN WHICH PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE”

RTPI, 201328

Methodology This thesis uses design research as a process to explore the potential of a new urban housing typology to increase density in cities across the UK. The argument is constructed primarily through an understanding of academic research and current policy alongside original analysis of spatial and typological information. The architectural implications of this research are tested using a theoretical residential development in inner city Birmingham. It is important to note that designing in this manner is not a definitive solution and throughout the design process further questions are raised and explored and linked back to academic discourse. Over the development of this thesis, previous design explorations have resulted in the creation of a specific approach which concentrates less on the numerical aspects of raising density and instead investigates the qualities of the condition created and the advantages of this. In particular, understanding what makes different housing desirable and how this could be responded to in an urban environment is fundamental to the final design proposal. Central to achieving this has been a thorough and critical appraisal of the spatial qualities of suburban housing and lifestyle and how it has changed over time. Primary research to also understand the current urban situation was compiled through several field trips to Birmingham. During this time an analysis of residential buildings in the city centre was undertaken to compare with the studies of housing typologies. These were photographically documented and described through written and drawn analysis, informing my early design objective to offer an alternative to the established methods of inner city residential development. This thesis also draws on six months spent working at PRP Architects on several different housing projects, this time allowed me to observe the professional context in which this research is situated. Furthermore, conversations with industry and design professionals increased my understanding of the wider housebuilding industry and gave me an insight into different approaches to residential development and housing standards which were fundamental to developing the design proposal. It is intended that this study will contribute to a wider discussion on housing and density and that by imposing a particular set of conditions through an understanding of policy and a site specific approach it will result in a design which challenges the conventional understanding of how we live at high density. i. PRP Architects are one of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest residential architects and have won numerous awards for housing design.

Research Questions 1. How can unused space above transport infrastructure be developed to provide space for housing in an effort to increase the density of cities in the United Kingdom? What are the advantages of using this location over traditional sites and patterns of development? 2. What are the core values and characteristics associated with suburban housing, both historical and current, that make it so popular? Is it possible to provide a new form of housing that responds to these values in an urban environment?

Figure 7 - Initial Concept

Figure 8 - Suburban Birmingham

Figure 9 - Suburban development

Acronyms BCC

Birmingham City Centre

BDP

Birmingham Development Plan

NPPF NR PDL UK

National Planning Policy Framework Network Rail Previously Developed Land United Kingdom

CONTEXT

Raising Density - Literature Review In order to understand the potential effects of raising density in BCC this section will analyse the wide range of academic discourse and study which surrounds the complex issue of densities within cities and urban environments. It is widely accepted that in order to function successfully cities need to maintain a certain level of density; however the concept of high density is a matter of perception which changes between different countries and cultures.29 As a result, it is important to evaluate sources and studies to ensure they are relevant to the conditions in the UK. Much of the contemporary debate surrounding densification in the UK is concerned with creating sustainable cities and as such it has become both an architectural and environmental issue. Studies have been both numerous and comprehensive. Newman and Kenworthy’s much cited study proved there was a direct correlation between higher density cities and reduced vehicle energy consumption.30 Haughton and Hunter expand on this by explaining how, in compact cities, journey distances are shorter encouraging people to walk or cycle more, whilst public transport systems are also better developed.31 Furthermore, Vicky Cheng outlines how, if a population is concentrated on a smaller area, infrastructure such as roads, drainage and communications are used more efficiently and are therefore more economical.32 Critics of higher density have questioned the application of such theories, for example Marcial Echenique argues that, despite densification, people’s preference for travelling by car puts too much strain on existing infrastructure causing congestion and pollution.33 Cheng admits this is a potential problem and states that planning of high density should be intrinsically linked to the provision of infrastructure.34 This would support the view that there is not a singular architectural approach to densification. Authors such as Breheny, Rockwood, Haughton and Hunter are critical of single urban solutions and policies, instead advocating a tailored approach to individual circumstances.35 Nevertheless, it is important to define what constitutes high density and also to recommend appropriate levels. In his report, ‘housing for a compact city,’ Richard Rogers argues for recommended densities of 240 - 435 dwellings per hectare (dph) for central London and between 55 and 275 dph for town centres in outer London.36 The current government targets for new housing is between 30-55 dph, however new housing is currently being built on an average of just 27dph.37 It is clear that inner city densities would need to be significantly higher, around 100-300 dph. Despite the established environmental benefits of increasing density in urban environments, the public in general have a negative perception of high density

housing. Al-Kodmany and Ali describe how people view high density housing as a ‘threat’, leading to rising crime and lowering house prices.38 Rogers and Burdett dismiss this argument however, by stating that high density and high value neighbourhoods such as London’s Belgravia are up to ten times more developed than typical urban areas.39 The tendency to associate high density with highrise is a challenge for architectural thinkers. Richard Rogers believes that high rise in the UK deserves its reputation, citing the failures of the tower block estates in the 1960s as ‘social failures’.40 However, he blames poor design and construction rather than the number of units or people, stating that, “different spatial forms [...] have different social impacts on their surroundings and communities.”41 This is a view supported by Bryan Lawson who states that such high rise was often at lower densities than the terraced housing it replaced.42 Michael Jencks suggests that architects should be primarily concerned with the level of acceptability of densities. He argues that increasing density alone is not a solution and that “high densities may only work if good quality of life is achieved.”43 Paola Sassi is also critical of high density developments where social infrastructure isn’t considered. Sassi advocates smaller, self-sufficient neighbourhoods throughout the city, linked by public transport, which provide amenities such as shops, schools and leisure facilities required by the residents. She claims that this gives the advantages of low car dependency, more leisure time, stronger community feeling and a high quality of life stating, “the ultimate aim is to create communities where people will want to live in the longer term.”44 Whilst Jan Gehl states that in order to create a lively city there needs to be a certain critical mass of people, there are specific challenges to creating a socially cohesive dense environment.45 Foremost amongst these are the concept and perception of shared space between different social groups and communities and the psychological effects of living at high density. Opinion is divided about the effects on people and social relationships when living at density, Calhoun’s well known 1962 study of rats observed the complete breakdown of social behaviour when space was restricted and population increased.46 Subsequent studies have suggested that there is an upper limit of space in which an effective society can be maintained. When discussing Calhoun’s work, Lewis Mumford reflected that, “No small part of this ugly urban barbarization has been to due to sheer physical congestion; a diagnosis now partly confirmed with scientific experiments on rats - for when they are placed in equally congested quarters they exhibit the same symptoms of stress, alienation, hostility, sexual perversion, parental incompetence and rabid violence that we now find in Megalopolis.”47 26

Yet critics of Calhoun’s work argue how his experiment was a study into the effects of crowding, not density. William Meyer describes how it was also limited by the study of certain animal behaviour which has little relation to the human condition; humans are more able to limit their exposure rather than follow the displays of territorialisation more commonly shown in the experiments on animals thus making it ‘sociologically irrelevant’.48 Rene Dubos supports such an argument explaining how human adaptability ensures a person will instinctively adjust to the conditions of the surrounding environment.49 Despite this there is very little factual evidence concerning the effects of density on humans. In his book ‘the language of space’, Bryan Lawson states that it is tempting to draw parallels between crime, riots, racial confrontation and density.50 He goes on to say, however, that detailed analysis shows many interwoven factors and to claim simple territorial failure would trivialise the pattern of human complexity.51 It is essential to realise the cultural differences and traditions which can affect perceptions of space and privacy. Authors including Altman, Canter and Lawson use examples from around the world to explain how different cultures treat space in ways which would be considered unthinkable if implemented elsewhere. Whilst examples of cultural complexity highlight the difficulty in proposing architectural solutions it also proves the ability of human to live harmoniously with reduced privacy and personal space. Christopher Alexander describes this difference as ‘perceived density’ which can be further considered as spacial density and social density.52 Spatial density is a given number of people within different sized spaces whilst social density is created by different numbers of people within the same space and both are experienced differently.53 Jonathon Freedman conducted a series of experiments on the psychological effects of density and space per person concluding that, “density seemed to have no appreciable negative effect,” Freedman further established that pathology was not linked to density but with excessive social interaction or crowding.54 It is worth noting the frequent use of terms such as crowding and cramming when referring to conditions of high density. The negative connotations of these words are often utilised by critics and opponents of high density to manipulate public opinion despite Freedman and others stressing a clear difference between crowding and density. Nevertheless, psychologist Robin Dunbar proposes a limit on the number of people with whom a person can maintain stable social relationships which he gave as 150. If Dunbar’s number is surpassed it could increase stress levels and reduce social stability resulting in communities which cannot function effectively.55 It is universally accepted that social interaction can be controlled in the design and layout of a building.

The work of Freedman and Calhoun recognises the importance in avoiding social confrontation; therefore it is important not to create spaces where people feel crowded. Designs which force social contact with the intention of providing for community will likely have an adverse effect. Lawson is particularly critical of such an approach arguing how in an area of increased density meeting large numbers of people in the public domain would lead to an unwillingness to trust people and, as a result, support them as part of a community.56 Sherry Ahrentzen states that the central issue with shared space is that it is a rather ambiguous concept.57 Ahrentzen describes three main forms of sharing; copresence, affiliation and instrumental sharing. Copresence relates to the experience of living our lives within sight of each other, affiliation involves socially orientated interaction whilst instrumental sharing occurs when households share specialised amenities and equipment.58 However, Richard Sennett advises caution when considering co-presence using the analogy of the open plan office; this was designed with the intention of raising productivity by sharing ideas but this, as Sennett explains, actually decreases the sociability of the space and therefore the efficiency of the workers.59 This is a result of the ‘surveillance’ environment that emerges when everyone is observing one another and subsequently creating social isolation. Ralph Taylor states that the most important aspect of designing within communities is clear zones and order. 60Taylor is, however, principally talking about mediating conflict between different groups and as such may have alternative reasons for dividing up space in such a fashion. Bryan Lawson describes how a shared threat can strengthen a community instead of a shared facility or space which could propose an interesting design question.61 By exploring these issues it becomes clear that whilst increasing density within cities produces positive environmental, social and economic benefits, it is important to manage human aspirations and perceptions if densification is to become accepted. Essential to achieving this is promoting the idea that higher density does not necessarily have to mean high rise developments, whilst increasing the quality of design and construction in high density developments is also critical to creating desirable space. In exploiting the space above and along transport infrastructure there is greater opportunity for lateral development as opposed to high rise. Managing shared space and social interactions will also be critical to achieving a development which is able to remain socially cohesive.

“WE HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE LIVING IN CITIES AND UNDER DENSE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT JUST HABITABLE BUT PREFERABLE” Jacob van Rijs, 2008 62

Suburban “Is suburban more rural or urban? Is it an in-between situation or does it represent an entirely distinct set of characteristics demographically and socially?” David Thorns, 197263 One of the most challenging aspects of this research is defining what constitutes ‘suburban’. Suburban is broadly defined in terms of what it is not; not densely urban.64 Yet there are inevitable differences between one area and another and it is necessary to distinguish the factors which have influenced their creation in order to identify the characteristics which have made it the dominant lifestyle choice and housing form in the UK. Many people assume that the suburbs are defined by their geographical location. When suburbs were first developed for the urban population to escape the industrialised of towns and cities of the nineteenth century they were typically located at the city edge with views of the open countryside beyond.65 Yet many of these early suburbs have since been leapfrogged by further development leaving them hemmed in as inner suburbs, as can be seen in the case of Hampstead Garden Suburb (Figures 10 & 11). Despite no longer being on the rural-urban edge these inner suburbs can remain just as popular suggesting that there are additional variables to consider. In her paper, ‘Suburbanism as a Way of Life’ Sylvia Fleis Fava suggests that occupation is a necessary consideration. She offers a definition that suburban is, “outside of the legal limits of the city but within commuting distance.”66 Whilst this remains a broad definition it does highlight the important connection between suburban life and work which can be traced back to the earliest suburbs. Clapham in South London was labelled by Robert Fishman as the first true suburb. It was where Evangelicals sought to protect their families from the ‘evil influence of the city’ and was an important step in the separation of home and family from work and commerce.67 Fishman expands on this in, ‘Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia’ where he states that this was the most crucial of all the motives which inspired suburbia as this new form of family freed the residence from the traditional patterns of development to be redesigned as a wholly residential unit.68 We can now begin to understand the origins of the suburb as the residential domain of the middle-class. It allowed them to differentiate themselves from the upper and lower orders with a new type of housing which supplied the ideal environment for practising a lifestyle which matched their religious, moral and social aspirations.69 The rise of the detached and semi detached house with their own garden, synonymous with suburban housing, was a response to the importance attached to domestic privacy and social separation.

Figure 10 - Hampstead Garden Suburb c1920

Figure 11 - Hampstead Garden Suburb today

In order to understand the spatial and lifestyle qualities that early suburban housing offered, this study has analysed typical suburban detached and semi-detached dwellings from the early twentieth century (Appendix 2-10). This revealed the generosity of space, both internal and external, that suburban homes provide. Privacy is generated through large front gardens creating a buffer between the house and the street, whilst the intrinsic arrangement of the detached or semi-detached pair maintains separation. At this point it is important to recognise the main time periods of suburban house building which can be split into four different stages; each with their own distinctive characteristics (Figures 13-20 overleaf). The first is the early suburbs of the nineteenth century such as in Clapham. This was followed by mass suburbanisation during the inter-war years which reached record levels of housebuilding which have not been matched since. After the war there was much more pressure on urban containment to prevent the repetition of the continuous inter-war suburb.70 Town and Country Planning gained political momentum and led to the implementation of the Green Belts which significantly influenced the pattern of suburban development. The intention of this age of planning was to divert suburban growth into self-contained new towns and expanded towns beyond the Green Belts.71 Town and Country Planning was the creation of the Garden City Movement, led by Ebenezer Howard who was firmly against the “formless spread of towns into endless suburbia”.72 The Garden City Movement sought to offer a vision where town and country were combined and was illustrated in the Howard’s now famous ‘Three Magnets’ diagram which addressed the question ‘Where will the people go?’ (Figure 12). As a result the designs for the first developments led by the Garden City pioneers such as Lois de Soissons at Welwyn Garden City and Barry Parker and Raymond Unwin at New Earswick, Letchworth Garden City and Hampstead Garden City have had a lasting effect on twentieth century suburban planning.73 The fourth and final stage is that which currently exists. Suburban lives are now dominated by the car and developments have responded accordingly. Increased pressure on space has meant densities have also increased from the more generous allowances of the Garden Cities resulting in smaller plot sizes which are then decreased further as single and double garages are added.74 Professor Sir Peter Hall is critical of this stage stating that, “recent land use policies have perversely managed to produce really bad suburbs; the worst of all possible worlds.”75 He further explains that in car-dominated suburbs there is a lack of lifestyle choices and contrasts this with continental examples such as Freiberg in Germany which manage to produce a high quality of life for their residents at moderately high densities.76 This reinforces the opinion that there is more than one way to build a suburb.

i. 12 dwellings per acre (30dph) was seen as the ideal density for the Garden City

Figure 12 - Ebenezer Howardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Three Magnets

Figure 13 - Clapham c1870 Average Density: 5 dph Key Characteristics: • Very low density • Large individual villas set back from the street with substantial private gardens around public green space

Figure 14 - Clapham housing

Figure 15 - Harrow Weald c1930 Average Density: 20 dph Key Characteristics: • Medium density • One typology of semi-detached housing arranged in a repetitive layout • Large front and back gardens

Figure 16 - Harrow Weald housing

Figure 17 - Telford New Town c1960 Average Density: 30 dph Key Characteristics: • Garden City inspired density • Slightly more irregular layout and introduction of cul-de sacs • Simple semi-detached housing with generous back and front gardens

Figure 18 - Telford housing

Figure 19 - King’s Reach c2010 Average Density: 40 dph Key Characteristics: • Higher density • Complete mix of housing typologies and styles arranged in a very irregular layout • Reduced plot sizes resulting in smaller dwellings with much less garden space • Minimal set back from the street, car parking in rear-court areas Figure 20 - King’s Reach housing

It is possible to build a picture of the aspirations of those who have chosen to live in suburbia by exploring the marketing and promotion of suburbs and suburban housing. Whilst the earliest suburbs experienced only small scale marketing the advertising campaigns for the interwar suburbs were one of the largest advertising campaigns of their time.77 These initial campaigns are intrinsically linked to the improvements in urban transport and the rise of the commuter enabled by the separation of home and work. In London the urban railways were extending their lines to service the new and growing suburbs and it was in their interests to build up suburban traffic. Some railways, in particular the Metropolitan railway, even began to develop land themselves.78 As a result many of the campaigns were led by the rail companies who produced booklets and posters, including the prominent ‘metro-land’ campaign (Figure 21).79 Once the railways began to merge under public ownership in the early twentieth century the housebuilders began to take a growing role in marketing, however as Stephen Ward remarks, “all sellers of suburbia consistently upheld the same core ideals and signified them in very consistent ways.”80 The image of the suburb that was promoted included concepts such as domestic bliss and rural idyll that were at the heart of the ‘suburban dream’.81 Ward notes that most deeply embedded was that of the countryside. The aesthetics of suburban housing design was derived from the Garden City tradition and included embellishments and borrowings from traditional styles. The naming of streets and areas with words such as village, meadow, grove or park also served to reinforce this sense of rural living.82 The advertising images almost always tried to convey the non-urban qualities of the suburb and would show the suburban house surrounded by leafy trees and a mature garden such as in the poster for Golders Green (Figure 22). Other key concepts employed by advertisers were the notions that the suburb was healthier than the city, that there was a domestic order; where suburban men went to work and suburban women were mothers and housewives and the importance of home ownership.83 In a promotional effort to sell housing home ownership was the ‘achievable dream’, whilst renting became associated with older, meaner properties and neighbourhoods.84 Today, promotional practices have changed very little; rural imagery is still important and advertising contains the same vernacular and picturesque references (Figure 23).85 This has also become apparent in the modern image of the housebuilders themselves and can be seen in their corporate logos such as Barratt Homes using a tree or Countryside Properties a leaf. It is evident that, contrary to the stereotypical view, it is not possible to define suburbia as a single entity or to compare it directly to either the city or the countryside. Suburban is not just an in-between geographical

Figure 21 - Metro-Land brochure (c1920)

Figure 23 - Contemporary marketing image

Figure 22 - Poster for Golders Green (c1908)

location or a set of physical characteristics and it should be identified as a lifestyle choice. Robert Fishman describes it as the Bourgeois Utopia, “Suburbia is more than just a collection of residential buildings, it expresses values so deeply embedded in bourgeois culture that it might also be called the bourgeois utopia.”86 The creation of a private family life has remained the core suburban value since the beginning along with a desire for social standing and the benefits of green space. Yet suburban growth and suburban living have always attracted a great deal of criticism which has remained remarkably consistent over time. Writing in 1959 Ktsanes and Reissman describe the suburbs as “homogeneous and understandably so - the houses look alike, the people think alike.”87 This lack of individualism and the overemphasis on family life are key themes in the critique of suburban life, blamed for sheltering its occupants from the experiences and needs of the broader population.88 Both Lewis Mumford and Jane Jacobs have also commented on suburbia’s social isolation and its soulless nature. Although much of the criticism of suburbia has been directed towards its effects on the city and the countryside, restrictions on space and the urgent need for housing has focused recent attention on the changing nature of the suburbs. Dr. Vesna Goldsworthy, director of the Centre for Suburban Studies states that, “suburbs are being swallowed by their cities and losing the qualities that made them popular in the first place. The suburbs already have many of the same problems with transport, infrastructure, crime and grime as the city. More than urban living, suburban living is no longer associated with particular life stages - people go to school, study, work, retire and die in them.”89 Contemporary suburban housing has also been criticised for lacking in identity, for being too small and inflexible whilst failing to provide the secure and private environment desired to encourage family life and create strong communities.90 Due to the criticism of recent suburban development this study has undertaken an additional analysis of new-build suburban housing typologies (Appendix 12-24). This analysis found that newly built housing is much smaller than its original suburban counterparts and as a result is able to be built at greater densities. The implications of this, however, are that houses have considerably less internal living space and smaller gardens. Whilst the earlier examples of suburban housing studied had additional rooms for dining, utility or study, this is no longer evident in newer housing as internal space is sacrificed to maintain the requirement for even a small garden. Front gardens are also smaller bringing houses closer to the street and eroding the feeling of privacy. Although the land use analysis shows a high percentage of green space, much of this is underused and of little ecological value compared to the countryside it replaces. Furthermore, where previously it would have been unusual to see terraced houses

in suburbs, modern suburban developments have become a mix of styles and housing typologies in an effort to incorporate elements of individuality. Despite this effort to create individuality the facades of the houses have much less detail and features than earlier examples. The following section examines the nature of the speculative housebuilding process in order to understand why new-build housing takes the form it does. Speculative Housebuilders Speculative housebuilders can be traced back to the 1920s with the introduction of the 1923 Housing Act. The Act subsidised the construction cost of house building which encouraged private sector companies.91 When the subsidies ended by 1930 speculative housebuilders remained and continued to expand, reaching a peak in the mid-1930s. Building controls after World War II and a public sector house building programme resulted in little speculative activity, prompting diversification into alternative construction sectors. However, once these controls were removed in 1954, speculative housebuilders expanded rapidly to meet the growing demand for post-war housing.

i. Land options are conditional contracts which allow the housebuilder to buy the land at any time during the agreement. This allows the housebuilder to seek planning permission knowing the land can be acquired at an arranged price.

Between the 1920s and 30s housebuilders were local companies.92 By the 1960s there were a number of semi-national and one national housebuilder.93 Today, whilst there are still numerous small, local firms the biggest housebuilders are all national. This has resulted in a more standardised housing stock with less regional variations. There has also been a change in the corporate structure of the biggest housebuilders, from privately owned companies to publically limited companies. As with any publically limited company, investors expect the company to make a profit. This has resulted in concern for design quality, social sustainability and other public objectives featuring poorly in most managersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; priorities whilst financial performance and stock market profile feature much more highly.94 Speculative housebuilders build houses without an agreed end user, thus taking on maximum risk for the assumption of reward (i.e. profit). In this arrangement it is the responsibility of the housebuilder to find sites, either from their land banks or via land optionsi, employ an architect to design using standardised house types and make the necessary planning applications, before building the houses and marketing them themselves.95 As a result anything that increases risk, such as rising land prices, is opposed by housebuilders and anything that increases end reward, such as rising house prices is supported.96 Many authors have derided this system of housebuilding, claiming that companies prioritise financial performance over design quality.97 There is also criticism that the housebuilding industry has failed 38

to change over recent years; as Professor Michael Ball of the European Network for Housing Research states, “British housebuilding has an exceptionally poor record of innovation in designs and production methods.”98 An alternative view however, is that housebuilders deliberately adopt old-fashioned and mediocre housing designs as they know avoiding controversy will assist them through the planning process.99 As mentioned previously, the amount of land available for development within the UK is limited by the planning system and housebuilders also have to compete with other land users. As a result land with planning permission sells for an ever increasing amount and house prices rise in conjunction with this as housebuilders seek to maintain their profit margins.100 This has resulted in an enormous increase in house price; in 1970 the average price of a house was £4,975, in 2010 this had risen to £251,634.101 In his paper ‘A Right to Build’, Alastair Parvin comments on the irrational nature of house price inflation and the fact that in the UK rising house prices are seen as a form of economic growth and something that homeowners have come to expect.102 This consequence of this is that houses have come to be seen as assets to be traded, rather than family homes and demand has increased even further as people seek to become homeowners so they are able to take advantage of house price inflation. Housebuilders have therefore had little incentive to improve the size or quality of the homes they build as they are able to sell easily and for a high price. Furthermore, high land prices have meant housebuilders who have made expensive land purchases seek to economise in land use by building to higher densities and reducing other costs in the housing process.103 This leading to an overall reduction in quality, as this paper has observed. It is also important to housebuilders that houses are completed and sold on as quickly as possible; as a result housebuilders rely on a tried and tested formula which results in increasing standardisation of the individual dwellings.104 As speculative housebuilders benefit financially from planning gaini subsequent government policies have sought to take advantage of this through Section 106 agreements and, more recently, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). These are agreements between local authorities and developers which require the housebuilder to meet certain requirements such as building a certain percentage of affordable homes or financial payments in order to receive planning permission.105 In recent years this has become the primary method of social housing provision in the UK, however it leaves the entire housing supply over reliant on the large housebuilders. This was particularly evident after the 2008 financial crisis which saw housing supply drop to its lowest levels since the Second World War.106 As a result the government have offered incentives

i. Planning gain occurs when housebuilders purchase land cheaply and then profit from increases in the land value once it receives planning permission.

to housebuilders in an effort to increase supply and revitalise the economy. In addition to simplifying planning policy in the NPPF, the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 gave developers greater power to renegotiate onerous Section 106 agreements if the development became economically unviable.107 Furthermore government schemes such as ‘New Buy’ and ‘Help to Buy’ make it easier to obtain a mortgage and therefore faster for the housebuilders to sell their houses despite this indirectly rising demand and prices further.108 Yet housebuilders are keen to take greater advantage of their powerful position and claim that the only way to solve the housing crisis is by developing larger sites at the urban fringe.109 Although they can build more houses cheaply here, it is unlikely they would change from their standardised housing formula or sell at lower prices. It is clear that houses created in the suburbs today are not the product of the same idealism that inspired the earlier pioneers such as Ebenezer Howard. Suburban houses have instead become mere market commodities to be traded. It seems that a large proportion of this change is due to rising land prices as Sarah Payne states, “We must change the way in which developers buy land for residential development. We need to achieve a position where housebuilders secure their profits through the quality of their homes, rather than through the land market.”110 In proposing to create a new category of PDL above infrastructure this paper is suggesting a possible alternative to the usual, restricted land supply. Despite the criticism of housebuilding companies, this paper does not argue for a radical overhaul of housing provision; housebuilders have the financial means, technical knowledge and crucial supply chains to become a useful part of any proposal proposal for housing delivery. However it does suggest that too much pressure is put on housebuilders to provide the number of houses required. It is important that any proposal will work alongside current models of provision in an effort to produce the homes the UK needs. Furthermore, by creating desirable homes in BCC that respond to the aspirations of the suburban families discussed previously as an alternative, it is possible that it would compel the large housebuilders to seek to improve the houses they build.

Urban Historically cities were seen as the centres of civilisation, where arts, government and commerce thrived.111 The more status and power you had and the richer you were the closer to the centre you sought to live and work.112 Yet the industrial revolution put so much pressure on cities that it reversed the polarity of settlements to the extent that modern day urbanism in the UK is characterised by the outward movement of people from urban areas.113 In the modern AngloAmerican city status is now measured by the distance you can put between yourself and the perceived squalor of urban life.114 The subsequent decline of the city has been well documented and it is essential to understand perceptions of current urban living and identify why the majority still shun the city. Since the latter half of the twentieth century, cities in the UK have been subject to a continual process of development and have undergone significant spatial and social changes. The first major changes occurred after World War II during a period of urban reconstruction. This was, however, much more than simply rebuilding what had been destroyed during the war and was seen as an opportunity to promote a new and better society.115 The consequences of this period on inner city housing was the widespread introduction of local authority built tower blocks of flats inspired by the architecture of the Modern Movement (Figure 24).116 New concepts introduced included the notion of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;streets in the skyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, which was intended to replicate the pedestrian street within large tower blocks.117 At the time flats were a relatively new phenomenon in the UK and they were seen as an economical method of dealing with the scale of housing required.118 However, this purely physical approach failed to address the social inequalities of the time; the movement of the middle classes out of the city had resulted in only the poorest remaining confined to areas of poverty.119 These issues were further exacerbated by the poor quality of the post-war buildings themselves and tower blocks became symbols of social dystopia.120 Inner city conditions worsened as the steady decline of the UKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturing industry raised unemployment and heightened social tensions. In the 1980s the Thatcher government sought to combat these problems through a process of urban regeneration. Urban policy focused on a reduction of state intervention and increasing privatisation and deregulation through Urban Development Corporations and Enterprise Zones.121 This placed greater emphasis on privatesector led development of which the London Docklands is one of the most well-known examples (Figure 25). Whilst the Docklands were a predominantly officebased development, other areas were developed for residential buildings. Flats remained the dominant typology although they were now predominantly one and two bed flats in luxury developments,

Figure 24 - Post-war tower blocks and ‘streets in the sky’

Figure 25 - London Docklands

aimed at aimed at young professionals as opposed to the previous family flats in council estates.122 This method of market-orientated urban regeneration and gentrification has been criticised as being too focused on economic development whilst excluding local government and existing communities.123 In his review of Margret Thatcher’s urban policy Michael Parkinson states that it only brought regeneration to limited parts of the city, leaving other parts unimproved and delivering uneven benefits to different social groups.124 The next major change in urban policy arrived with the New Labour Government and the concept of ‘urban renaissance’. The Urban Task Force (UTF), chaired by Lord Richard Rogers was commissioned to investigate the causes of urban decline and to “establish a new vision for urban regeneration founded on the principles of design excellence, social well-being and environmental responsibility.”125 The urban renaissance was also intended to respond to the need for a projected 3.8 million additional households by 2021 as well as government targets for 60% of new housing to be built on PDL.126 The UTF’s key recommendations set out a vision of well-designed, compact and connected cities allowing people to live, work and play within a sustainable urban environment.127 Although the report was generally well received and praised for creating a strong urban vision it was also criticised for its excessive focus on design and failing to understand the complexities of existing inner city communities.128 Development in inner city areas continues to rely on gentrification to attract middle-class professionals into the city to instigate social mixing in an attempt to defeat social exclusion; however, the reality is that this process often leaves the existing communities priced out of these areas worsening the situation.129 Nevertheless, it can be argued that regeneration and renaissance policies have had a positive effect in mitigating urban decline. Cities have successfully transformed from industrial centres to ‘spaces of consumption’ dominated by housing, retail, tourism, cultural and leisure functions.130 Despite this, cities have failed to fully address the social and economic issues which have formed over the last half century and as a result have not managed to reverse the cycle of outward movement as Rudlin and Falk describe; “Today middle classes shun the city not because of industry and pollution but through a fear of crime and concerns about their children’s education.”131 In addition, Sarah Gaventa, director of CABE Space, states that, “The regeneration and densification of our urban centres has generally failed to provide adequately for children, families and older people.”132 It is obvious that the majority of the public, especially those with families, still do not consider cities desirable places to live, particularly when compared to the suburbs. Attracting families to an area is particularly vital as it can be argued that family life is essential

to creating community life and establishing a strong community is important for nurturing social interaction and shared identity within a place.133 It is unclear if this choice is made due to a lack of appropriate housing in the city centre compared to suburban examples , or if it is influenced purely by factors that cannot be controlled by design. As a result this study has undertaken an analysis of modern urban housing typologies in BCC to assess the current options available. (Appendix 26-36). Flats continue to dominate residential development in cities due to the increasing need to raise density as available land, including PDL, becomes scarcer. Despite this, there remains an aversion to living in flats in the UK where they are seen as particularly unsuitable for families with children.134 In the sample studied it was revealed that, although the external appearance of the development may vary, there is a distinct lack of individuality between the apartments inside. Size and range of property is also limited with the majority of apartments having just one or two bedrooms. Three bedroom apartments are often marketed as penthouses and as a result are more expensive. Whilst smaller flats may have appeal to young professionals or couples, this is an obvious restriction for families when compared to suburban houses with a number of bedrooms. Although the internal sizes of the apartments are generally quite small; they were found to have more generous living area than in the suburban typologies previously studied. There is a common approach towards creating open plan living spaces and whilst such arrangements can generate more space it also results in reduced internal privacy. The amount of outdoor space is definitely inadequate. Private outdoor space is limited to balconies (Figure 26 overleaf), where the size restricts much of its use. Communal space, gardens or green space is very rare and as such there are little or no opportunities for interaction between the residents. Furthermore, many of the apartments are sold as leasehold properties or available to rent; this type of ownership is seen as generating little control for the residents and results in a more transient population.135 Consequently, this impacts negatively on the chances of creating an urban community. Although this study has primarily explored the urban condition and typologies created in the latter half of the twentieth century it is also appropriate to study alternative urban housing typologies from the past (Appendix 28-52). Traditional urban housing in the UK has been dominated by the terraced house. In 1911 only 3% of all dwellings in England and Wales were flats, 10% were detached and semi-detached and the rest were terraced houses.136 Whilst they were built as low cost, high density housing, Georgian terraced houses are now considered the finest urban housing ever produced in the UK.137 The greatest advantage of historic housing typologies 44

is flexibility. This is accomplished by maximising space; the floor area to footprint ratio is much greater than in the suburban typologies, resulting in significantly more floors in buildings such as the Georgian Terrace. The room sizes and ceiling heights are also much greater, giving potential for a wider range of uses, whilst the circulation routes are clearly defined. This ability to adapt over time has ensured their permanence; this is particularly evident in the transformation of stable mews to homes. It has even become common for Georgian housing to be converted into flats or used as offices. Garden size can still be an issue; however, the majority of houses do have a garden provided unlike the other city centre typologies explored. Furthermore, as can be seen in the land use analysis, many Georgian terraces are arranged around private garden squares, further increasing the green space provided. By utilising the terrace typology with the building line close to the street, density is much greater and less space is wasted. The facades of many of the streets are uniform (Figure 27); nevertheless, this creates a sense of collective, rather than individual, identity. Separation from the street is achieved through use of low walls and railings. Cities generally have good public transport systems; therefore, as with the apartment typologies, there is less of a requirement for car parking. Additionally, these buildings were not designed with the car in mind; however they still function as well as areas that have been designed for cars. These studies have shown the contrast between two different urban housing typologies, highlighting the fact that high density in urban areas does not have to mean high-rise apartments and to create desirability it should even be discouraged. Although the declining amount of PDL within cities has meant upwards development is seen as the only option to increase density, by utilising PDL above transport infrastructure it will be possible to create high density but low-rise development. It would be inappropriate to suggest that the suburbs could be wholly recreated in an inner city environment as that would represent a paradox of the core suburban ideal; to be separate from the city. Yet it may be possible to respond to the aspirations of the suburban dweller by taking advantage of the space above transport infrastructure to create desirable homes. Urban living struggles to deal with the many negative perceptions which have become ingrained after years of decline. Nevertheless there are many advantages to living in the city that cannot be provided for in the suburbs such as access to goods, services and transport links. Furthermore the lack of idealism, inherent in modern suburban housing, is negated in the city as David Thorns describes, “The view of the suburb is contrasted with the city which is now seen in a much more favourable light as an environment which produces and preserves greater individualism and a ‘higher’ cultural content.”138 45

Figure 26 - City Centre living

Figure 27 - Georgian terraced street

Needs and Expectations In addition to exploring the urban and suburban conditions this study also analyses existing research undertaken into the needs and expectations of prospective house buyers. This information is brought together from two key reports; ‘The way we live now’ by the RIBA and ‘What home buyers want’ by CABE. ‘What home buyers want’ covers a broader range of topics including the wider neighbourhood whereas ‘The way we live now’ is much more focused on the spatial qualities of a home in relation to daily activities. Both reports are compiled from surveys and interviews representing a cross section of different groups and prospective house buyers. By using two separate sources it is assumed that a wider range of concerns will be recognised and that although there may be contradictory opinions, the most important issues will be easily identifiable. It is also necessary to recognise that reports such as these from professional organisations only set the minimum standards for housing design and should be understood as a base condition from which future design proposals can grow. Both reports are consistent in describing the main internal characteristics people look for when buying a home. These include natural light, space for both living and for storage, privacy and an adequate provision of outside space. Perhaps surprisingly natural light was ranked highest and this was considered more important for those living in urban areas where it was more likely to feel dark and enclosed.139 Common features found desirable to maximise the amount of natural light were large windows and high ceilings. In terms of space, larger, more flexible areas were ranked more highly than the total number of rooms and the main living space was considered to be the most important. Space is also considered to be the main drawback of new-build housing and 40% of second-hand home buyers said they were put off buying a new home by the lack of space.140 This has been further explored in a separate report by the RIBA entitled ‘The case for space,’ this report critically analyses current space standards in new build housing and describes the effects on living quality.141 Whilst not considered as important as living space, storage space was also seen as an essential quality. It was underlined how people required the storage space to be private and it was seen as most valuable in the kitchen. Garages and roof spaces are frequently used for additional storage areas and many would not be averse to losing their garages if more storage area was provided within the dwelling.142 The need for dedicated areas for domestic utilities such as washing machines, vacuum cleaners, rubbish bins and recycling was also highlighted, though it was not considered a primary concern.143 Privacy was regarded as desirable between different

CHOOSING A HOME...

63% 51%

49%

42% 43%

47%

RANK HIGH LEVELS OF NATURAL LIGHT AS IMPORTANT

1IN4 WOULD BUY A HOME BUILT IN THE LAST 25 YEARS

RANK STORAGE AS IMPORTANT

Figure 28 - Choosing a home Data Source: RIBA

RANK INTERNAL SPACE AS IMPORTANT

RANK SECURITY AS IMPORTANT

RANK PRIVACY FROM OUTSIDE AS IMPORTANT

RANK OUTSIDE SPACE AS IMPORTANT

spaces inside the house and was found to contribute to the wellbeing of those who lived inside.144 Outside space is seen as an essential requirement and is most strongly desired by those who live in urban areas. If the property has no outside space, easy access to public open space was considered just as important.145 An appropriate level of privacy is also necessary, particularly for families, with many considering their outside space to be an extension of their living area and a place for domestic tasks such as drying clothes.146 Yet again space is a deciding factor with the desire for a bigger garden often cited as the reason for moving house.147 Determining the spatial requirements of a home was considered by both reports to be extremely complex due to the varying differences created by life stage, family circumstance and affordability (Figure 29). This would often have an impact on the type of dwelling preferred. Families with children prefer detached houses with their own garden due to reasons such as privacy, ease of access and security. Older people also prefer detached properties for the same reasons. In a study of first time buyers, 68% prefer detached or semi detached properties but 49% were prepared to live in terraces and 30% in flats.148 In both studies it is commented how flats are considered less desirable and many associate them with noise and reduced privacy.149 This should be considered less of a typology problem however and more of a design and construction issue. The qualities of the overall neighbourhood design are no less important than those of the individual dwellings. Access to facilities such as shops, schools and local services, a sense of community, safety and security were all highlighted by CABE as key indicators of an areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quality, however 55% of people would be willing to forgo these amenities for exactly the right home.150 Of higher priority was a sense of community and security. The ability to walk through a neighbourhood with opportunities for casual social contact to generate a sense of community was described as important.151 Design features favoured to increase security on the street included better street lighting, overlooking and gated developments.152 Both studies reported that cul-de-sacs were valued by residents for providing a greater sense of security despite there being little research to support this. There are obvious tensions between the desires for security and the public and private realms within neighbourhoods and would need to be considered at the design stage. One example is that of the front garden; only 1% would accept no space between house and street and 20% would accept less than 1.8m.153 This desire for a buffer between house and street would need to be balanced with creating an active street frontage with overlooking windows. Transport links and car ownership are also discussed; public transport is considered to be important to

residents, although it is valued more for commuting and less for local transit. One report reveals that only London residents without families would be prepared to consider public transport as an alternative to car ownership.154 Car parking is seen as a frequent issue with new homes particularly on-street parking; however it was not a main concern for prospective buyers.155 The lowest priority was the external appearance of a home, particularly when compared to the overall appearance of an area which was ranked much higher. Individuality, architectural detailing and character are desired and 85% would consider the shape and proportion to be important.156 By analysing these studies we have been able to better understand the specific desires and expectations of house buyers. Although it will be essential to take these preferences into account when designing, it is important to recognise the limitations and understand that it may not be possible to meet every individual aspiration.

Households with children

UNIVERSAL NEEDS

• Safe, unsupervised play areas

FLEXIBLE ENTERTAINMENT AND PRIVATE SPACE SPACE TO ENTERTAIN FRIENDS AND SOCIALISE

• Homework area • Able to supervise children from the kitchen • Able to use the kitchen for family meals • Seperate work space for parents - closed off from children • Some private space for retreat

Households without children

Older residents

• Space to work at home

• Adaptations to reflect changing health requirements

• Private areas for older adult children to stay or entertain friends

Figure 29 - Changing needs during different life stages Data Source: RIBA

1IN5

68%

PREFER DETACHED OR SEMI-DETACHED

Figure 30 - First time buyer dwelling preferences Data Source: CABE

W O U L D CONSIDER A 3 STOREY HOUSE

49% WOULD LIVE IN A TERRACED HOUSE

30% WOULD LIVE IN AN APARTMENT

Acronyms BCC

Birmingham City Centre

BDP

Birmingham Development Plan

NPPF NR PDL UK

National Planning Policy Framework Network Rail Previously Developed Land United Kingdom

EXPLORATION

Figure 31 - Birmingham 1890

Figure 32 - Birmingham 1920

Birmingham These images chart the outward expansion of the City of Birmingham over the 20th Century where much of the growth can be attributed to typical patterns of suburban development. Birminghamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initial expansion in the nineteenth century was to the North and South East where several smaller towns such as Aston were absorbed. Between 1920 and 1950 Birmingham increased its size rapidly; growing approximately four times larger, however what distinguished Birmingham from other cities at the time such as London is that it was growing as a single entity rather than a collection of settlements.157 It is also possible to identify how the later development is much looser than the relatively compact urban form seen previously. The population of Birmingham also grew until 1951 when it peaked. Over the next 20 years the population declined and, as of the 2011 census, has yet to reach the population levels of the 1950s. As Birmingham continued its physical expansion until the establishment of the West Midlands Green Belt in 1975 this resulted in Birmingham becoming a paradox of a growing city with a declining population. Nevertheless this does show that Birmingham is capable of raising population density within its existing boundaries. Currently, Birmingham covers an area of 26,777 hectares and has a population of 1,073,000.158 Its population density is therefore approximately 40 people per hectare.

Figure 33 - Birmingham 1950

Figure 35 - Birmingham 2010

Figure 34 - Birmingham 1980

Birmingham contains 4,153 hectares of designated Green Belt land within its boundaries, just over 15% of its total area.159 It is in these areas that the city is planning its future development.

Figure 36 - Satellite of Birmingham

Natural Green Space Local Parks Leisure - Public & Private Green Corridor Small Open Spaces Cemetery or Churchyard N Green Belt

Figure 37 - Birmingham Green Space

Figure 38 - Birmingham Figure Ground

Figure 39 - Birmingham City Centre existing residential areas

Strategies for Transport Infrastructure Using data from the Office of National Statistics, an examination of land across BCC was undertaken and it was found that 34% of land area was buildings, 26% was dedicated to transport infrastructure, 25% was green spacei and 17% was classed as ‘other uses’ (Figure 41).160 Whilst roads make up the greatest share of transport infrastructure in BCC, their inherent characteristics make them difficult to develop as part of a proposal. Roads typically occupy narrow spaces between buildings which if modified in any way could cause issues regarding access, rights to light and privacy to the buildings. It is also important not to disrupt the existing activity at street level which due to the pavements running alongside the roads and the numerous turns and junctions would be hard to achieve. In contrast, railways, particularly viaducts which rise above the surrounding urban environment, have a unique relationship with the city which makes them ideal to develop. Railways are generally separated from the rest of the city for safety and this underused space either side of the tracks widens the potential space to develop. The Bordesley viaduct for example, occupies 5 hectares in a continuous strip in BCC. By virtue of its location, it has excellent transport links, access to infrastructure and the wider services of the rest of the city; if this area was undeveloped or PDL it would be of significant value to developers. This suggests a strong justification for exploring how this value could be realised. The role of infrastructure in cities, particularly transport infrastructure, is a topic of ever increasing importance for architects and urban planners. Cities in developing countries such as China and Taiwan are witnessing massive investment in new transport infrastructure as their urban areas grow, while developed countries are recognising the importance of the links between investment in infrastructure and urban regeneration.161 Transport infrastructure dominates and divides the urban environment, remaining relatively constant over time as the city changes and evolves around it. Yet the construction of infrastructure is no longer considered the ‘heroic adventure’ of the past where feats of engineering were celebrated. The recent design of infrastructure is, in most places, mundane, utilitarian and dominated by economics and efficiency.162 This leaves infrastructure further isolated from the surrounding city and consequently architects and planners have become concerned with regaining control of infrastructural design from engineers to explore its greater potential. In addition, architects have also started to exploit the potential of existing transport infrastructure in cities as sites for development. La Promenade Plantée in

i. Green space designation includes areas of water and domestic gardens.

Figure 40 - Birmingham City Centre main roads

Figure 41 - Birmingham City Centre land uses Data Source: Office for National Statistics

Paris, the High Line in New York and Spittelau Viaducts housing project in Vienna all make use of disused rail structures and viaducts within cities (Figures 42-44). Despite these recent examples, proposals by architects to develop above and around transport infrastructure are not new. Paul Rudolph proposed building over the planned Lower Manhattan Expressway (LOMEX) in the 1960s (Figure 45).163 This followed Edgar Chambless’ ‘RoadTown’ in 1910, a theoretical city arranged above a rail line.164 Despite neither scheme being constructed, pressures on space within cities and technological advances have reached a point where similar schemes are now considered viable. One example where this can be seen is at Hudson Yard in New York which is currently under construction. This consists of a mixed use development built over the existing West Side Train Yard which, unlike previous projects built, would remain an active piece of transport infrastructure.165 Similarly Foster + Partners ‘SkyCycle’ proposes an elevated platform for cyclists following active railway lines through London, though this is yet to be proven feasible.166 Whilst it may seem a radical proposal to build housing above Birmingham’s railway viaducts, in addition to creating a large area of developable land it also allows the project to take advantage of the transport route itself. One of the reasons people choose to locate themselves in the suburbs is because it allows them to easily access both city and countryside, however, by locating the project along this line of infrastructure it could enable the same access in and out of the city without needing to be on the periphery. This notion is similar to the principles established in Arturo Soria y Mata’s Linear City concept. His alternative design for cities challenged the established idea of a city with a centre, instead proposing parallel lines of building along a continuous transport link where growth is accommodated by simply extending the line.167 Kevin Lynch discuss the linear city in his book ‘Good City Form’ stating that although it has major flaws, particularly when implemented at a large scale, it does work at smaller scales.168 This would suggest that the form of the project should not be one continuous line but instead could form concentrated nodes of housing at different points along the viaduct.

Figure 42 - La Promenade PlantĂŠe, Paris

Figure 45 - Lower Manhatten Expressway

Figure 43 - High Line, New York

Figure 44 - Spittelau Viaducts, Vienna

CURRENT INFILL SITE

Figure 46 - Bordesley viaduct site comparison

PROPOSED SITE ABOVE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 47 - Bordesley viaduct

Figure 48 - Satellite of Bordesley Viaduct 67

Moor Street Station

Selfridges

Towards Centre

2 MINUTE WALK

5 MINUTE WALK

Police Station

Coach Station

KEY Key Buildings Listed Buildings

Figure 49 - Site Analysis 69

50m N

Creative Quarter

Bus Route

Out 70 of Centre

Moor Street Station Moor Street Station is the second busiest railway station in Birmingham with over 6 million passengers annually.169 It is operated by Chiltern Railways with an average of 18 trains per hour using the four platforms.170 This is a relatively low amount of traffic, particularly in comparison to Birmingham New Street which has an average usage of 48 trains per hour.171 Furthermore, all services using the Bordesley Viaduct are slowing to stop at Moor Street Station thereby reducing the potential amount of noise from this traffic. An observation of train movement along the Bordesley viaduct confirmed this as there was very little noticeable sound. Moor Street station also gives the opportunity to connect the residents of the proposed housing above the viaduct with quick and easy access out of Birmingham and into the countryside (Figure 50). This would provide one of the key desires of suburban living without having to build in the countryside itself. It is also argued that this would offer access to areas which are distinctly more rural and natural than those in the suburbs. As a result it will be important to create a clear link between the housing and the station in the design.

Birmingham Boundary

Birmingham Moor Street

Bordesley

Small Heath

Tyseley

Acocks Green

Olton

Solihull

Spring Road

Hall Green

Journey Time: 10 minutes

Journey Time: 18 minutes

Figure 50 - Birmingham Moor Street Train Route

Recognised Countryside

Widney Manor

Dorridge

Lapworth

Hatton

Warwick Parkway

Warwick

To London Marylebone

Yardley Wood

Shirley

Whitlocks End

Wythall

Earlswood

To Stratford Upon-Avon

Figure 51 - Photo Study 1

Figure 52 - Photo study 2

Low rise industrial and ex-industrial buildings

Figure 53 - Section through viaduct 1

+12m

Vacant plot adjacent to viaduct

Figure 54 - Section through viaduct 2

Rights and Ownership In order for the viaduct, or similar structures, to be developed it is necessary to understand the ownership and various rights associated with transport infrastructure. The Bordesley viaduct, along with the rest of Britain’s rail infrastructure, is owned and operated by Network Rail (NR). NR is a not-for-dividend company, limited by guaranteei.172 It was created by government statute in 2002 with the purpose of acquiring Railtrack plc.ii As a statutory corporation it has no shareholders but it is also not formally owned by the public; as a result the government has a certain degree of control over the company and the ability to make changes.173 The strategic direction of NR is decided by its board of directors under a framework set by the Office of Rail Regulation who operate within policy set by the Department for Transport.174 Significantly, in December 2013, the Office for National Statistics classed NR as a government body for the first time (it had previously been treated as a private company).175 Whilst there are no intentions to change the structure of NR this move gives the government greater control to make decisions which could include allowing alternative development along the rail network. When considering urban expansion along the railway it is common for NR to grant easements, wayleaves and licences to providers of utilities, pipes and cables. It also manages the activities of those who want to carry out works on or near the railway, or to build bridges under or over their land.176 NR states that, “Our priority is always to meet the operational and safety needs of the railway. We are very happy to accommodate our neighbours on terms that allow us to fulfil our commitments to the operational railway.”177 Nevertheless, this proposed use of the rail network is more complex than the average scheme NR has to deal with. When consulted regarding Foster + Partners ‘SkyCycle’ design which, if implemented, could have a significant impact on London’s rail infrastructure, NR responded by saying, “We welcome the proposals [...] we will continue to liaise with all involved as the aspiration for this innovative scheme develops.”178 Whilst this does not reveal any particular support for the plans, it indicates a willingness to discuss potential development on their infrastructure that is not just confined to rail. It is expected that any proposal elevated above the viaduct would create a heavy load requiring significant structural support and the viaduct, which is a load bearing masonry structure, would be unable to support this alone. Furthermore, to allow NR to continue their operations as normal with full control over the viaduct it is clear that the structure cannot interfere with train movement or the potential addition of new tracks. This results in a necessary structural zone between the viaduct and the existing buildings as well as a minimum height above the viaduct (Figure 55 & 57).

It is also necessary to consider the rights of surrounding properties in BCC, particularly when any proposal along the viaduct would be in close proximity to existing buildings. Whereas NR are unlikely to be concerned regarding any depreciation of the value of the viaduct itself; as infrastructure it serves a function and is not there to gain value, a typical property owner generally sees his building as an investment. As a result, they would likely be strongly opposed to any neighbouring development which would negatively impact on the value or rights of their property. As this paper is proposing to make use of the space above the viaduct and thus add considerable height to it, rights to light for the surrounding buildings become one of the most important factors to consider. The Rights of Light Act 1959 states that a right to light will come into existence if a building has had “the uninterrupted enjoyment of the access of light for twenty years.”179 This can often severely impact on the design of inner city developments. Nevertheless, recent changes to the rights to light easement are expected to come into effect in late 2014, these changes are intended to ensure that rights to light do not inhibit development in cities. The proposed changes advocate that, “for the future it should no longer be possible to acquire rights to light by prescription” and that “courts may order a person to pay damages instead of ordering that person to demolish or stop constructing a building that interferes with a right to light.”180 Whilst this is a benefit to increase the density of cities, any proposal should try to avoid incurring additional costs through damage settlements and it would be appropriate to find a design solution to work between the easements required by both NR and the rights of the surrounding buildings.

i. NR is accountable to a body of members (who do not receive dividends) rather than shareholders. The government guarantees the borrowing and debt of NR and any profits are reinvested within the company. ii. Railtrack was set up in 1994 under the Railways Act 1993 to manage the rail infrastructure. It was sold to the private sector in 1996 but was criticized for under-investing in the network whilst paying large dividends to shareholders. After a series of high-profile accidents it went into administration in 2001.

400

Centre Line

Figure 55 - Structural Zone

1440

605

Developable Area

4220

+17m

1645

400

+12m

Viaduct 1250

370 425 100

130

Rail Level

Figure 56 - Minimum permitted train clearance

Figure 57 - Minmum height above viaduct

Design Strategy Green space, both public and private, has been identified as one of the most important and desirable characteristics of suburban dwelling and is noticeably absent from current urban typologies and inner city developments. As a result recreating this quality in the development above the viaduct is a priority. Nevertheless, providing large gardens such as those in the early suburban typologies is difficult to achieve. As the study found, the larger gardens resulted in a much lower density which wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be acceptable or economically viable in this more constrained site above the viaduct. The proposed solution is to move this garden space above the dwelling (Figure 58). Whilst requires a more complicated construction it is a compromise between the suburban and urban. Furthermore, it is argued that these gardens, raised above overlooking windows, would be more private than the small gardens of modern suburban dwellings built at higher densities. The dwellings would still retain a buffer at ground floor level to maintain the privacy of the home and separation from the street; however by removing the gardens there would be more available space to create a better and greener public realm. This would provide a place of collective value and identity which would allow for and encourage greater interaction between the residents, strengthening the community.

Figure 58 - Garden concept diagram

“A MORE URBANE SUBURB COULD PROVIDE A SOLUTION FOR FAMILIES THAT IS MORE IN TUNE WITH 21ST CENTURY LIFESTYLES”

Sarah Gaventa, 2009 62

The initial massing of the development is determined by the structural zone and the minimum train clearances. The height above the tracks is increased slightly in order to reduce the impact of the train movement and maintain the flexibility of the rail network. The length is restricted in order to form a concentrated element which can be repeated at intervals, rather than a continuous linear development along the viaduct in response to the criticisms of the linear city concept.

Figure 59 - Strategy 1

The structural form is adjusted to minimise the impact of the development on the viaduct and its existing activities; routes through and access to the arches are both maintained by aligning the base of the structure with the openings of the viaduct. In addition, the triangular shape provides an ideal structure by distributing the load above efficiently down to the base whilst also creating lateral stability (Inset).

Figure 60 - Strategy 2

In order to generate the most useable space above the viaduct the form is divided orthogonally above the structural points rather than perpendicular to the viaduct (Inset). This draws on the influence of the terrace typologies to create greater density whilst also providing a clear and legible overall arrangement which can then be worked into. Aligning the load along the structure also increases the structural stability. Furthermore, by orientating the divisions in this manner it is making the most of the sunâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural movement to allow sunlight into the development as well as minimising shadowing on the buildings below (p. 91-92). Additionally the blocks will provide a barrier to the prevailing wind which is important as the development is exposed and elevated above the normal protection of the rest of the city.

Perpendicular

Orthogonal

Figure 61 - Strategy 3

Roofs become private garden spaces, also orientated towards the sun. This allows an appropriate density to be maintained in the limited space whilst also increasing the amount of public space at ground level along the development.

Figure 62 - Strategy 4

The blocks are further divided and modified to create individual houses whilst others are removed to create routes and open spaces through the development. The desire for detached and semi-detached suburban dwellings, even though they are at lower densities than terraced blocks, makes this a necessity.

Figure 63 - Strategy 5

Access to the development will be through dedicated buildings built on currently unused, adjacent plots next to the viaduct. There is an opportunity for these buildings to also contain community facilities and services for the residents. A cycle route is also proposed, linking the development to Moor Street station as well as providing an alternative method of commuting between home and work.

Figure 64 - Strategy 6

Birmingham, UK 52.4831oN 1.8936oW

Figure 65 - Shadow study 1: summer equinox [0900-1700]

Figure 66 - Shadow study 1: Winter equinox [0900-1700]

Figure 67 - Shadow study 2: Summer equinox [0900-1700]

Figure 68 - Shadow study 2: Winter equinox [0900-1700]

Acronyms BCC

Birmingham City Centre

BDP

Birmingham Development Plan

NPPF NR PDL UK

National Planning Policy Framework Network Rail Previously Developed Land United Kingdom

HOUSING

Housing Mix & Size The proposed housing mix of the development is determined by the requirements of Birmingham City Council, outlined in their Housing Targets paper which is produced in relation to the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP). This asks for each development to include; 14.6% one bed dwellings 20.8% two bed dwellings 26.3% three bed dwellings 28.1% four bed (and larger) dwellings Of which 37.8% would be affordable tenures.182 Mixing house size and tenure has become commonplace in residential development in the UK and forms a key part of national housing policy. Such developments are planned to encourage social integration and avoid segregating communities to social housing estates.183 Supporters point to evidence which shows these areas maintain a high desirability and demand whilst also describing how mixing tenures leads to a reduction of ‘postcode discrimination’ and can increase the aspirations of social housing tenants.184 On the other hand critics highlight evidence of stigma attached to mixed tenure developments making them less desirable, whilst claiming social housing tenants in such developments feel as though they are perceived as inferior to other residents.185 It is not obvious that mixing tenures has a significant impact, particularly if investment in social housing is such that the development becomes ‘tenure blind’ and there is little or no difference between social and private housing.186 Jim Bennett of the Institute for Public Policy and Research dismisses the importance of mixed tenures, stating that other factors such as creating a mix of household age and type, particularly in inner city areas, is more important.187 This view is consistent with the aims of this research and will remain the primary focus. It has been established that internal house size is incredibly important and modern developments have failed to produce the generosity of space that people desire and was provided in early suburban housing. Birmingham City Council does not have any minimum spatial requirements for new dwellings, however the London Design Guide produced by the London Development Agency sets out standards for design, including spatial standards, which can be applied to other cities (Figure 69).188 Despite this, these standards are still subject to criticism for being too small. In their report ‘The Case for Space’, the RIBA calls for approximately 15% to be added to these sizes which they say would allow for additional storage and circulation space or a study area all of which would benefit the occupant’s lifestyle.189 The qualities of the housing above the viaduct are fundamental to offering a plausible alternative to

suburban living. As a result it is proposed that the RIBA recommendations are exceeded and 25% is added to the GLA’s sizes for the maximum occupancy, i.e. the three bed houses will be based on sizes for a 3B6P dwelling rather than a 3B4P. This maintains the flexibility of houses to accommodate growing families or changing needs. It is difficult to determine the occupancy of a house and how it will be used once it has been sold. This makes estimating an established community size almost impossible at this stage. Nevertheless, due to the social consequences of raising density and the desires of suburban living discussed previously it is appropriate to aspire to create a certain level of community size. In this case the development will aim to create a community closely related to Dunbar’s number which is based on the optimum number of social connections.190 This would result in a community of approximately 150 people, from which it is possible to determine the amount of housing required (Figure 70). As the area the development would occupy is 0.57 hectares, this would result in a density of 70dph. It is recognised that whilst only being moderately high density by urban standards, this is significantly higher than previous suburban developments and the challenge will be in ensuring the design of the housing itself allows the desirable characteristics to prevail at this density.

Single storey dwelling

Two storey dwelling

Three storey dwelling

Dwelling type (bedrooms/ persons)

Essential GIA (m2)

1B2B

2B3P

2B4P

3B4P

3B5P

3B6P

4B5P

4B6P

2B4P

3B4P

3B5P

4B5P

100

4B6P

107

3B5P

102

4B5P

106

4B6P*

113

* For dwellings designed for more than 6 people, 10m2 gross internal area should be added for each additional person.

Figure 69 - LDG recommendations Data Source: London Development Agency Dwelling type

Occupancy (average)

Birmingham requirements (%)

Total

Essential GIA (m2) (LDG + 25%)

1 Bed

14.6

62.5

2 Bed

20.8

103.75

3 Bed

26.3

127.5

4 Bed +

28.1

141.25

40 Figure 70 - Requirements

100 dph 70-80 dph 70 dph 40-45 dph 20-30 dph

BCC target

Historic terraces

Proposed density

Modern Suburban Development

Early Suburbs

Figure 71 - Density comparison

This massing diagram indicates how the housing mix will be achieved through detached and semi-detached houses. Three storey dwellings are utilised to obtain the desired internal floor areas whilst minimising the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s footprint. Rather than creating a separate block for 1 bed flats, a common occurrence in developments, this scheme seeks to integrate them with the rest of the housing by creating a new house type within a semi-detached pair.

House Type 4 2 x 4 Bed

House Type 3 4 Bed

House Type 2 2 x 3 Bed 1 x 1 Bed

House Type 1 2 Bed

Figure 72 - House Types

Figure 73 - View along the viaduct

0 1

10m

Blank Wall

As the blocks are broken down privacy is maintained by ensuring that there are no windows in habitable rooms directly facing each other. Figure 74 - Division

0 1

10m

Access Point

Buffer

A buffer zone is established around the houses to further maintain privacy and security. The primary routes are then established through the development. Figure 75 - Routes

100

0 1

10m

Private

Semi-public Public

The external space is categorised as public, semipublic and private. Each house is given an amount of outside space at ground level, created by manipulating the edge of the platform. Figure 76 - Space

101

0 1

10m

Creating green public and private space is an essential quality and the design seeks to maximise the potential amount available. Figure 77 - Landscape

102

Figure 78 - Plan +22m

10m N

Figure 79 - Plan +32m

10m N

Access Building

+21m

+12m

Figure 80 - Section

Access Building

Figure 81 - 2 Bed detached

109

Ground Floor Living Room 22.5m2

ST.

Hall 10m2

Gross Internal Area: 100.4m2 (Target: 104m2) 0

Kitchen/ Dining 15.6m2

W.C. 1.5m2

First Floor

Bedroom 1 22.5m2

Landing 7.9m2 Bedroom 2 15.6m2 Bathroom 4.8m2

The external appearance of the housing seeks to combine the industrial architecture of the surrounding urban area with the sought-after traditional style and detail of rural housing. Design features such as the stair to the roof garden becoming the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;chimneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are created whilst detail focuses on the brickwork, emphasising craftwork not add-on imitations typical of modern suburban development. The roof garden is surrounded by perforated copper sheets; this provides a safe enclosure, maintaining privacy but also creating a light and open space. Climbing plants are able to weave in and out of these sheets, increasing the green appearance. With the more formal garden spaces above, there is an opportunity for the ground around the houses to have a more natural landscape. Large windows increase the amount of natural light into the building and the perforated copper is again used for shading and privacy on south facing windows, adding further interest to the facade.

Roof Garden

Garden 50.3m2

Figure 82 - Floor Plans

110

+27.075m

+23.775m

+21m

Recess creates semi enclosed outside space

Figure 83 - Section

111

Rooflight into stairwell

Deep window reveal creates shadow and interest on facade

Brickwork detail

Perforated copper for solar shading.

112

Figure 84 - 4 Bed detached

113

Ground Floor W.C. 3.6m2

Gross Internal Area: 155.4m2 (Target: 141.25m2) 0

Kitchen 27.4m2

Utility 4.4m2 ST.

Hall 6.2m2

Dining Room 11.2m2

First Floor

Living Room 24.7m2

Each of the houses incorporates different elements whilst maintaining the general appearance of the development. This is important for creating an overall identity but also responding to the desire for individuality. This floor plan for a four bed house seeks to maximise the amount of rooms, making the most of the generous internal area. There are dedicated spaces for dining and utility whilst large circulation spaces also offer opportunity for additional activity. By creating a number of different rooms it is easier to obtain privacy within the home. Whilst the garden size is not as large as suburban equivalents it is still ample and much more than is normally be available in urban typologies. Furthermore the occupants are able to take advantage of the green open space provided at ground level.

Bathroom 6.7m2 ST. Landing 8.3m2

Study/Bedroom 4 10.3m2

Second Floor Bedroom 1 12.4m2

Landing 9.3m2

Roof Garden

Bedroom 2 13.9m2

Bathroom 6.7m2

Garden 48.2m2

Bedroom 3 10.3m2

Figure 85 - Floor Plans

114

Garden â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;shedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; built into the stairwell

Hidden Gutter Detail +30.75m

+27.15m

+24.075m

+21m

Figure 86 - Section

Large floor to ceiling heights increase feel of space and light internally. This space is also allows for an opening above the entrance door to bring more natural light into the hallway

115

15 92

40 50 102.5

Insulation Insulation

Lightweight Steel Frame

Lightweight Steel Joists

Ventilated clear cavity

Projecting Brickwork

116

Figure 87 - 4 Bed semi-detached

117

Gross Internal Area: 158m2 (Target: 141.25m2) Ground Floor

Kitchen 24.3m2

Hall 9.3m2 ST.

Dining Room 11.4m2

Utility 4.4m2

W.C. 4.2m2

First Floor Living Room 24.3m2

Study/Bedroom 4 11.4m2

Landing 9.3m2

ST. Bathroom 6.7m2

Second Floor Bedroom 1 11.5m2

Bedroom 2 9.6m2 Landing 11.4m2

Bedroom 3 11.4m2

Bathroom 8.8m2

Roof Garden

Garden 50m2

Figure 88 - Floor Plans

118

Rising height increases privacy

+30.3m

+26.85m

Large rooms create flexible living spaces

+23.925m

+21m

Figure 89 - Section

Lightwell

Soil - Minimum 600mm to allow for tree planting Filter Drainage

Moisture Retention

Aeration Layer

Root Barrier

Insulation Floor Structure

Protection Course Waterproof Membrane

Floor to ceiling heights vary accross the development to create individuality and add interest to the skyline

Waffle slab provides addtional structural stability and sound attenuation

Primary structure (Ref. to Appendix p.55)

Secondary structure Sectional Cut

120

Figure 89 Bed/1Bedsemi-detached semi-detached 90 - 3 3Bed/1Bed

121

Gross Internal Area: 61.8m2 (Target: 62.5m2)

Bedroom 13.5m2

ST.

Hall 7.8m2

ST.

W.C. 2.1m2

Living/Dining Room 26.1m2

Gross Internal Area: 113.3m2 (Target: 127.5m2) 0

Hall 12.4m2 Bathroom 5m2

Kitchen 9.4m2 Ground Floor

Bathroom 6.2m2 Kitchen/ Dining Room 20.5m2

Living Room 23.7m2

First Floor

Bedroom 1 12.6m2

Bathroom 6.2m2 Landing 6.6m2

En Suite 4m2

Bedroom 2 9.3m2

Bedroom 3 9.7m2 Second Floor

Garden 45.8m2

Roof Garden Figure 91 - Floor Plans

122

Figure 92 - Section

123

124

Acronyms BCC

Birmingham City Centre

BDP

Birmingham Development Plan

NPPF NR PDL UK

National Planning Policy Framework Network Rail Previously Developed Land United Kingdom

125

126

COMMUNITY

Stucutre for housing above aligns with arch openings

Figure 93 - Plan +2m

TRY

TRE

CO V

STR

EET

Access Building 01

STR

EET

Potential spaces for additional shops or services

10m N

Arches beneath the viaduct are currenlty used for storage or light industrial such as garages or workshops

Pedestrian route is already created through the viaduct Public space

Space within access building for community facilities

Access Building 01

Community Creating a community is particularly important; communities share a common identity, support each other and are essential to creating a long-term, stable population in an area.191 There is, however, a difference between the communities which exist in urban areas and the suburbs. As a result it is important to understand how the development aims to encourage a community suitable for an inbetween condition. In a suburban sense, community has come to mean the small social networks, shared activities and groups which thrive in such areas. Suburban dwellers, in their pursuit of privacy, have been able to isolate themselves spatially and socially and as a result the community is closed and less welcoming to outsiders. Yet urban dwellers are unable to be as selective as their suburban counterparts and as a result have less concentrated social networks and a greater individualism due to the scale, density and diversity of the urban social system.192 Attempts to create different communities within urban environments often result in gated communities which deliberately isolate themselves and exclude any outsiders through fences and security systems. This has a negative impact on the city and should be avoided. However, the unique setting of the development above the viaduct means that a separation from the city already exists. This provides the sense of privacy and security considered necessary to make the area attractive and consequently the challenge is ensuring that the remaining design, particularly the relationship to the urban street level, does not further isolate the community. In suburbia, isolation and detachment is exacerbated by dependence on cars.193 It is common to use the car for even short journeys to access services such as shops or community facilities. This project is taking the position that car ownership will become unnecessary in the new urban typology created. It is recognised that although there would be a reluctance to give up on car ownership, the provision of services is much greater within the urban environment and more easily accessible, thus reducing the need for cars as the primary method of transport. Furthermore, the inherent characteristics of the development and its location above the viaduct make the traditional suburban arrangement of the car parked in front of the house implausible. Any arrangement to store them elsewhere would reduce the convenience of the car and raise concerns about security. In order to ensure that the provision of services is sufficient, it is proposed that the space beneath the viaduct becomes available for development [Figure 93]. This would occur gradually as the community above becomes more established and aware of their needs. Unlike the negative consequences of gentrification observed in urban regeneration schemes, the lack of an existing community to displace and the current

129

Figure 94 - Activity beneath the viaduct

130

condition of this post industrial area of the city centre means a community-based process is more likely to succeed. Creating an active street level is important in ensuring the development contributes to the city and does not become and purely residential area. Activity is encouraged around the viaduct with the provision of accessible public open space. Public spaces are key to the creation of community as they are accessible to all and people are able to interact and engage in activities as individuals or groups.194 It is anticipated that the development would attract similar types of people who would be prepared to live in the new urban typology above the viaduct, and as a result there would already be a collective identity. Despite this, communities need time to develop and it is important that there are spaces which encourage and create opportunity for social interaction. This is seen in the design of the upper level through the generous provision of public green space, including large open spaces which allow a range of activities to occur. Shared space encourages interaction and chance encounters whilst also creating a wider sense of ownership beyond the individual houses. The access buildings are also important as they form the threshold between the street and the development above. Although the focus of this study has concentrated on the design of the housing, the following drawings display an indicative massing and concept for the access buildings providing entry onto the new level. These buildings are constrained by the availability of plots adjacent to the viaduct and need to respond to the particular conditions at street level as well as the upper level. Consequently it is proposed that these become an extension of the communal space, moving from the ground level into the open space above and containing further facilities which can be shared between the development and the rest of the city.

131

This access building is on a large plot, as a result there is potential for further expansion of services and community facilities within the building. It is proposed that the services on the lower floors would be more public and shared with the surrounding city but as the journey moves up the building the facilities would become more community-based for the residents of the development. There is potential for this building to be under community ownership where any profits made from renting spaces within the building could be used to maintain the structure and public spaces. This has the potential to strengthen the community through collective action.

Figure 95 - Access building 1

132

This access building is on a much smaller plot and as a result it is merely used as a circulation route up to the development above. In addition to the circulation, it is proposed that this building would provide a way of transferring services such as water and electricity to the development and also forms a key part of the refuse strategy. There is a similar language between the two access buildings which derives from the main form of the structure over the viaduct. This common language makes the buildings easily identifiable as entry points and landmarks in the city.

Figure 96 - Access building 2

133

Refuse chutes - allows refuse collectors to empty bins at upper level to be collected at ground floor

Services Riser

Public Open Space

Figure 97- Access building plan + 22m

134

Figure 98 - View from Trent Street

135

136

Figure 99 - View from Coventry Street

137

138

CONCLUSION The thesis set out to challenge the perceptions of raising density in the city centre by responding to the popularity of suburban housing in an urban environment. It has explored how a lack of available land for residential development has adversely changed the quality of housing being developed in both suburban and urban areas which has limited the choices available to prospective buyers. Through a detailed study of suburban and urban typologies a number of important characteristics were identified as necessary qualities for the creation of desirable homes. These included generous space standards, greater flexibility, external amenity space and sufficient privacy. It was also revealed that the overwhelming preference was for detached and semidetached housing. There are no conventional sites within Birmingham City Centre that would be able to accommodate such a typology without compromising on these values. As a result the identification of transport infrastructure as developable space provided the necessary opportunity to explore this concept without conventional constraints. This design proposal has shown that it is possible to translate the principles and aspirations associated with suburban living into an urban environment whilst simultaneously raising density. Although this proposal alone will not create the required density needed to meet the future demands of Birminghamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth, this approach is intended to change the perception of urban living and, if implemented on a wider scale, could provide an alternative choice of family housing to relieve pressure on continual suburban expansion

139

Figure 100 - View from Milk Street

140

Figure 101 - Potential Expansion

141

142

143

REFERENCES

144

REFERENCES Department for Communities and Local Government, Table 600 Rents, lettings and tenancies: numbers of households on local authorities' housing waiting lists, by district: England 1997-2013 (December 2013) <https://www.gov. uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-rentslettings-and-tenancies> [accessed 7 January 2014] 1

Stephen Ward, Planning and Urban Change, 2nd edn. (London: SAGE, 2004), p. 25. 14

Robert Fishman, Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982) p. 4. 15

Michael Winter, Rural Politics: Policies for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment (London: Routledge, 1996), p.181. 16

Department for Communities and Local Government, Table 209 House building: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure and country (May 2014) <https://www.gov.uk/ government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-housebuilding> [accessed 30 May 2014] 2

Home Builders Federation, HBF Stats and Statistics: Key Stats (October 2013), <http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/factsstatistics/> [accessed 12 February 2014] 3

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), What home buyers want: Attitudes and decision making amongst consumers (2005), p. 22. <http:/www.cabe. org.uk/files/what-home-buyers-want.pdf> [accessed 28 December 2012] 17

Urban Task Force (UTF), Towards an Urban Renaissance, ed. by Richard Rogers (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 1999), p. 114. 18

Toby Lloyd, Don't bet the house on it (April 2009), p. 29. <http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/dont-betthe-house-on-it-no-turning-back-to-housing-boom-andbust/> [accessed 3 March 2014] 4

Laura Mark, ‘Bovis Homes Boss slams land hoarding claims as nonsense’ Architects Journal (August 2013)<http://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/news/bovis-homes-boss-slams-landhoarding-claims-as-nonsense/8652223.article> [accessed 13 March 2014]

Office for National Statistics, Population trends no. 117 Autumn 2004 (Norwich: TSO, 2004), p. 3. 19

Industrial Systems Research, Housebuilding and the New Homes Market: A Survey (Manchester: ISR, 2013) p. 1. 6

Birmingham City Council, Development in Birmingham 2012-13 (January 2014), p. 2. <http://www.birmingham.gov. uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=SystemAdmin%2F CFPageLayout&cid=1223092558655&packedargs=website %3D4&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FCFWr apper&rendermode=live> [accessed 13 March 2014] 20

Homes and Communities Agency, Table 5.2: Trends in previously developed land by Government Office Region: England 2002-2009 <http://www.homesandcommunities. co.uk/nlud-pdl-results-and-analysis.> [accessed 17 March 2014] 21

Landscape Institute, Landscape Institute response to Government plans for Green Belt development (2012) <http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/ GreenBeltposition_000.pdf> [accessed 24 November 2012] 7

Department for Communities and Local Government, Local Planning Authority Green Belt Statistics: England 2010/2011 (London: HMSO, April 2011), p. 1. 8

Birmingham City Council, Development in Birmingham 2012-13, p. 2. 22

Birmingham City Council, Development in Birmingham 2012-13, p. 1. 23

Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (London: HMSO, January 1995), p. 3. 9

Philipp Rode, ‘Strategic Planning for London: Integrating City Design and Urban Transportation’, in Megacities: Urban Form, Governance, and Sustainability, ed. by Andre Sorensen and Junichiro Okata (London: Springer, 2011), pp. 195-22 (p.208). 10

Gary Hawke, ‘Reinterpretations of the Industrial Revolution’, in The Industrial Revolution and British Society, ed. by Patrick O’Brein and Roland Quinault (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 54-78 (p. 56). 11

Jeffrey Williamson, Coping with City Growth during the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 220. 12

Alastair Parvin and others, A Right to Build (Sheffield: Sheffield School of Architecture, 2011), p. 7. <http://issuu.com/alastairpar vin/docs/2011_07_06_ arighttobuild> [accessed 18 November 2013] 24

Department for Communities and Local Government, ‘Making the planning system work more efficiently and effectively’ (2012) <https://www.gov.uk/government/ pol i ci es /m ak i ng-the-pl anni ng-s ys tem -work-m oreefficiently-and-effectively> [accessed 15 December 2012] 25

Birmingham City Council, Birmingham Development Plan: Options Consultation (October 2012), p. 16. <http://www. birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031> [accessed 21 December 2012] 26

Birmingham City Council, Strategic Land Availability Assessment 2011: Appendix 1-14 (2011), pp. 15-16. <http:// www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagena me=Development-Planning%2FPageLayout&cid=12233463 97007&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWrap per> [accessed 15 December 2012] 145 27

Mark Clapson, Invincible Green Suburbs, Brave New Towns: Social Change and Urban Dispersal (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), p. 25. 13

Richard Blyth and Joe Sarling, Delivering Large Scale Housing: Unlocking Schemes and Sites to Help Meet the UK's Housing Needs (Royal Town Planning Institute, 2013), p. 2. <http://rtpi.org.uk/media/630969/RTPI%20large%20 scale%20housing%20report.pdf> [accessed 13 February 2014] 28

Vicky Cheng, ‘An Understanding of High Density’, in Designing High-density Cities for Social and Environmental Sustainability, ed. by Edward Ng (London: Earthscan, 2010), pp. 3-17 (p. 16). 29

Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, Cities and Automobile Dependence: an International Sourcebook (Aldershot: Gower, 1989) 30

Sassi, p. 17.

Jan Gehl, Cities for People (Washington: Island Press, 2010) p. 68. 45

Edward Krupat, People in Cities: The Urban Environment and its Effects (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 99. 46

Lewis Mumford, The Urban Prospect (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968), p. 210. 47

William Meyer, The Environmental Advantages of Cities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013), p. 139. 48

Rene Dubos, Man Adapting (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1980), p. 271. 49

Graham Haughton and Colin Hunter, Sustainable Cities, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Routledge, 2003) p. 11. 31

Bryan Lawson, The Language of Space (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2001), p. 190. 50

Cheng, p. 15.

Marcial Echenique, ‘Forecasting the Sustainability of Alternative Plans: The Cambridge Futures Experience’, in Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities, ed. by Michael Jenks and Nicola Dempsey (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), pp. 113-134 (p. 116). 33

Lawson, The Language of Space, p. 190.

Handbook of Experimental Psychology (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002), p. 196. 52

Handbook of Experimental Psychology (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002), p. 196. 53

Cheng, p. 15.

Andre Sorensen and others, ‘Towards Sustainable Cities’, in Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions, ed. by Andre Sorensen and others (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004), pp. 3-23 (p. 9).

Richard Rogers, Housing for a Compact City (London: GLA, 2003) p. 27.

Paola Sassi, Strategies for Sustainable Architecture (Oxford: Taylor and Francis, 2006) p. 19.

Edmund Ramsden, ‘Travelling Facts about Crowded Rats: Rodent Experimentation and Human Sciences’ in How well do Facts Travel?: The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, ed. by Peter Howlett and Mary Morgan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 237. Robin Dunbar, How many friends does one person need?: Dunbar’s number and other evolutionary quirks (London: Faber and Faber, 2012), p. 28.

Kheir Al-Kodmany and Mir M. Ali, The Future of the City: Tall Buildings and Urban Design (Southampton: WIT Press, 2012) p. 210.

Lawson, ‘The Social and Psychological Issues of HighDensity City Space’, p. 287. 56

Richard Rogers and Richard Burdett, ‘Let’s Cram More into the City’, in Cities for the New Millenium, ed. by Marcial Echenique and Andrew Saint (London: Spon press, 2001), pp. 2-14 (p. 10). 39

Sherry Ahretzen, ‘Housing Alternatives for New Forms of Households’ in Under one roof: Issues and innovations in shared housing, ed. by George Hemmens and others (New York: State University of New York Press, 1996), p. 50. 57

Ahretzen, p. 50.

Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1974), p. 15. 59

Rogers, Housing for a Compact City, p. 21. Rogers, Housing for a Compact City, p. 21.

Bryan Lawson, ‘The Social and Psychological Issue of HighDensity City Space’, in Designing High-density Cities for Social and Environmental Sustainability, ed. by Edward Ng (London: Earthscan, 2010), pp. 285-292 (p. 291).

Ralph Taylor, Human Territorial Functioning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 148. 60

Michael Jenks and Nicola Dempsey, ‘The Language and Meaning of Density’, in Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities, ed. by Michael Jenks and Nicola Dempsey (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), pp. 287-310 (p. 307). 43

Lawson, The Language of Space, p. 191.

Darcy Frey, ‘Crowded House’, The Times Magazine 8 June 2008, <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/ magazine/08mvrdv-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> [accessed 5 April 2013] 62

146

REFERENCES CONTINUED David Thorns, Suburbia (London: MacGibbon & Kee Ltd., 1972), p. 21. 63

Marvell, p. 52.

Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia, p. 4. 86

Peter Hall, ‘Introduction’ in Housing and Growth in Suburbia, ed. by Paul Hackett (London: The Smith Institute July 2009), pp. 3-6 (p. 3). <http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/ file/HousingandGrowthinSuburbia.pdf> [accessed 27 June 2014] 64

Thomas Ktsanes and Leonard Reissman, ‘Suburbia. New homes for old values’, Social Problems 7 (1959-60), pp. 187195 (p. 187). 87

Francis Thompson (ed.), The rise of suburbia (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982), p. 15.

Sylvia Fleis Fava, ‘Suburbanism as a Way of Life’, American Sociological Review 21 (February 1956), 34-37 (p. 73).

David Rudlin and Nicholas Falk, Building the 21st Century Home (Oxford: Architectural Press, 1999), p. 15. 67

Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia (New York: Basic Books, 1987), p. 13. 68

Thompson, p. 13.

Stephen Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000 (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 138.

Becky Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese, The Suburb Reader (London: Routledge, 2006), p. 291. Vesna Goldsworthy, ‘Suburban Identity’ in Housing and Growth in Suburbia, ed. by Paul Hackett (London: The Smith Institute July 2009), pp. 8-14 (p. 11). <http://www.smithinstitute.org.uk/file/HousingandGrowthinSuburbia.pdf> [accessed 27 June 2014] Matthew Carmona and others, Delivering New Homes: Processes and Providers (London: Routledge, 2003), p. 43. 90

Fred Wellings, British Housebuilders: History and Analysis (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2006), p. 36. 91

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 138.

Wellings, p. 50.

Wellings, p. 66.

Carmona and others, p. 44.

Thorns, p. 21.

Parvin and others, p. 24.

Rudlin and Falk, p. 31.

Carmona and others, p. 39.

Carmona and others, p. 44.

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 139. 74

Michael Ball ‘Chasing a Snail: Innovation and Housebuilding Firms’ Strategies’, Housing Studies, 14 (1999), pp. 9-22 (p. 10). 98

Hall, p. 3.

Hall, p. 4.

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 83.

Industrial Systems Research, Political Barriers Housebuilding In Britain (Manchester: ISR, 1990), p. 17. 99

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 97.

Industrial Systems Research, Housebuilding and the New Homes Market: A Survey, p. 5. 100

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 98. 79

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 112. 80

Department for Communities and Local Government, Table 502: House prices from 1930, annual house price inflation, United Kingdom, from 1970 (Feb 2011) <https://www.gov. uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-housingmarket-and-house-prices#live-tables> [accessed 10 July 2014] 101

102

Alan Marvell, ‘Making the Meads: Suburban Development and identity’, Geography 89 (January 2004), pp. 50-57 (p. 5).

Parvin and others, p. 12.

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 114.

Industrial Systems Research, Housebuilding and the New Homes Market: A Survey, p. 6. 103

Marvell, p. 51.

Ward, Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000, p. 126. 84

104

Carmona and others, p. 46.

Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Obligations: Practice Guidance (July 2006) <https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/7770/151363.pdf> [accessed 20 December 2013] 147 105

Tom Aldred, Arrested Development (Centre for Cities, March 2010) <http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/ files/10-03-16%20Arrested%20Development.pdf> [accessed 14 December 2013]

126

127

UTF, p. 8.

Yvonne Rydin, The future of planning (Bristol: Policy Press, 2013), p. 46.

128

Punter, p. 5.

106

107

John Punter (ed.), Urban Design and the British Urban Renaissance, (London: Routledge, 2010), p. 4.

Loretta Lees and others, Gentrification (London: Routledge, 2008), p. 147. 129

Department for Communities and Local Government, The Help to Buy equity loan scheme (March 2014), p. 5. <http:// www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Help-toBuy-equity-loan-scheme-summary.pdf> [accessed 4 January 2014] 108

Phillip Inman and others, ‘Housebuilder Barratt calls for public land sales 'to overcome homes shortage' The Guardian 10 July 2013 <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/ jul/10/barratt-housebuilder-public-land-sales> [accessed 15 January 2014] 109

Sarah Payne ‘Barratt profits as houses shrink, but don’t blame the builder’, The Conversation (November 2013) <https://theconversation.com/barratt-profits-as-housesshrink-but-dont-blame-the-builder-20117> [accessed 12 January 2013]

130

Tallon, p. 276.

131

Rudlin and Falk, p. 6.

Sarah Gaventa, ‘Keep alive our lost Elysium: the importance of the suburban public realm’ in Housing and Growth in Suburbia, ed. by Paul Hackett (London: The Smith Institute July 2009), pp. 32-37 (p. 36). <http://www.smith-institute. org.uk/file/HousingandGrowthinSuburbia.pdf> [accessed 27 June 2014] 132

110

Cecil Burgess, Architecture, town planning and community, ed. by Donald Wetherell (Alberta: University of Alberta Press, 2005), p. 281. 133

134 111

Rudlin and Falk, p. 11.

112

Rudlin and Falk, p. 11.

113

Thorns, p. 11.

114

Rudlin and Falk p. 14.

CABE, p. 15.

Johnston Birchall, Building Communities: The co-operative way (London: Routledge, 1988), p. 190. 135

Stefan Muthesius, The English Terraced House (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 1. 136

The Architects Handbook, ed. by Quentin Pickard (London: Blackwell, 2002), p. 155. 147

Nicholas Bullock, Building the Post-War World (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 5. 115

138 116

Bullock p. 241.

Thorns, p.15

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), The way we live now (London: RIBA, 2012), p. 39. <http://www.architecture. com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/ HomeWise/ThewaywelivenowRIBAIpsosMORIMay2012.pdf> [accessed 28 May 2014] 139

Graham Towers, Shelter is Not Enough: Transforming Multistorey Housing (Bristol: Policy Press, 2000), p. 5. 117

Brenda Vale, Prefabs: The History of the UK Temporary Housing Program (London: Chapham & Hall, 1995), p. 32. 118

140

Andrew Tallon, Urban Regeneration in the UK (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 36.

CABE, p. 20.

119

Florian Urban, Tower and Slab (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 17. 120

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), The Case for Space (London: RIBA, 2011), p. <http://www.architecture. com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/ HomeWise/CaseforSpace.pdf> [accessed December 2012] 141

Michael Parkinson, ‘The Thatcher Government's Urban Policy, 1979-1989: A Review’, The Town Planning Review 60 (October 1989), pp. 421-440 (p. 422).

142

143

RIBA, The way we live now, p. 31.

122 Tim Hall, Urban Geography (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 159

144

RIBA, The way we live now, p. 43.

121

145 123

Tallon, p. 64.

124

Parkinson, p. 438.

125

UTF, p. 1.

CABE, p. 21.

RIBA, The way we live now, p. 50.

146

RIBA, The way we live now, p. 50.

147

CABE, p. 16. 148

REFERENCES CONTINUED 148

CABE, p. 14.

168

149

RIBA, The way we live now, p. 40.

169

150

CABE, p. 6.

151

CABE, p. 7.

152

CABE, p. 13.

Lynch, Good City Form, p. 377.

Office of Rail Regulation, Station usage 2012-13 data (April 2014) <http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/stationusage-estimates> [accessed 17 June 2014] ‘Birmingham Moor Street Trains’ <http://www.railsaver. co.uk/birmingham/moor_street/> [accessed 17 June 2014] 170

‘Birmingham New Street Train Station’ <http://www. railsaver.co.uk/birmingham/> [accessed 17 June 2014] 171

153

CABE, p. 17.

154

CABE, p. 11.

155

CABE, p. 10.

156

CABE, p. 18.

Jeremy Whitehand and Catherine Carr, Twentieth Century Suburbs: A morphological Approach (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 20. 157

Birmingham City Council, ‘Census 2011’ (2011) <http:// www.birmingham.gov.uk/2011-census> [accessed 02 January 2012] 158

Network Rail, ‘Our governance structure’ <http://www. networkrail.co.uk/about-us/governance/> [accessed 17 January 2014] 172

Robert Jupe, ‘Public (Interest) or Private (Gain)? The Curios Case of Network Rail’s Status’, Journal of Law and Society 34 (2007), 244-265 (p. 254). 173

House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, Office of Rail Regulation: Regulating Network Rail’s efficiency (London: TSO, 2011), p. 13. <http://www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1036/1036.pdf> [accessed 28 March 2014] 174

159

Birmingham City Council, Birmingham Development Plan: Green Belt Options Appendix (October 2012), p. 2. <http:// www.birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031> [accessed 21 December 2012]

175

Office for National Statistics, Land Use Statistics (Generalised Land use Database) (2001 - 2005) <http:// www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/ LeadDownNav.do?a=7&b=6275020&c=birmingham&d=1 3&e=8&g=6363493&i=1001x1003x1004&o=230&m=0&r =1&s=1395933519832&enc=1&sampleAreaId=6277129> [accessed 24 November 2012]

176

160

Gordon Dabinett, ‘Realising Regeneration Benefits from Urban Infrastructure Investment’, The Town Planning Review 69 (April 1998), pp. 171-189 (p. 187).

Department for Transport, ‘ONS decision on the classification of Network Rail’ (December 2013) <https:// www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ons-decision-on-theclassification-of-network-rail> [accessed 13 February 2014] Network Rail, ‘Network Interface’ <http://www.networkrail. co.uk/aspx/1538.aspx> [accessed 18 January 2014] Network Rail, ‘Easements, wayleaves and telecoms’ <http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1598.aspx> [accessed 18 January 2014] 177

178

Foster + Partners, ‘SkyCycle’

179

Rights of Light Act 1959, p. 1.

161

Law Commission, ‘Rights to Light’ (February 2013) <http:// lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/rights-to-light.htm> [accessed 23 March 2014] 180

Annalisa Meyboom, ‘Infrastructure as practice’, Journal of Architectural Education 64 (2009), pp. 72-81 (p. 73). 162

David Gissen, Subnature: Architecture’s Other Environments (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p. 74. 163

181

Gaventa, p. 36

Birmingham City Council, Housing Targets 2011-31: Technical Paper (September 2013), p. 13. <http://www. birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blob header=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Conte nt-Disposition&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&b lobwhere=1223540048332&ssbinary=true&blobheader value1=attachment%3B+filename%3D622375Housing_ TargetsTechnical_Paper.pdf> [accessed 5 January 2014] 182

Kevin Lynch, Good City Form, (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1984), p. 376. 164

Kohn Pederson Fox, ‘Hudson yards master plan’ (2014) <http://www.kpf.co.uk/project.asp?ID=125> [accessed 12 July 2014] 165

Foster + Partners, ‘SkyCycle’ (December 2013) <http:// www.fosterandpartners.com/news/skycycle-proposalsto-create-safe-new-cycle-routes-throughout-london/> [accessed 4 March 2014] 166

167

Lynch, Good City Form, p. 377.

Kathy Arthurson, Social Mix and the City: Challenging the Mixed Communities Consensus in Housing and Urban Planning Policies (Collingwood: CSIRO publishing, 2012) p .67. 183

149

Chris Allen and others, Mixed Tenure Twenty Years on - Nothing out of the Ordinary (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005), p. 5. 184

185

Arthurson, p. 67.

Jim Bennett and others, Would You Live Here?: Making the Growth Areas Communities of Choice (London: IPPR, 2006) p. 23. 186

187

Bennett and others, p. 21.

London Development Agency, London Design Guide (August 2010), p. 13. <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/ default/files/Interim%20London%20Housing%20Design%20 Guide.pdf> [accessed 29 April 2014] 188

189

RIBA, The case for space, p. 28.

190

Dunbar, p. 26.

191

Rudlin and Falk, p. 102.

192 Alan Berger, The City: Urban Communities and Their Problems (Dubuque: W. C. Brown Publishers, 1978), p. 171. 193

Gaventa, p. 34.

Iris Young, â&#x20AC;&#x2122;The ideal of Community and the Politics of Differenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in The Blackwell City Reader, ed. by Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), pp. 228-236 (p. 234). 194

150

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahretzen, Sherry, ‘Housing Alternatives for New Forms of Households’ in Under one roof: Issues and innovations in shared housing, ed. by Hemmens, George, and others, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1996) Aldred, Tom, Arrested Development (Centre for Cities, March 2010) <http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/ files/10-03-16%20Arrested%20Development.pdf> [accessed 14 December 2013] Allen, Chris, and others, Mixed Tenure Twenty Years on - Nothing out of the Ordinary (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005) Al-Kodmany, Kheir and Ali, Mir M., The Future of the City: Tall Buildings and Urban Design (Southampton: WIT Press, 2012) Arthurson, Kathy, Social Mix and the City: Challenging the Mixed Communities Consensus in Housing and Urban Planning Policies (Collingwood: CSIRO publishing, 2012) Ball, Michael, ‘Chasing a Snail: Innovation and Housebuilding Firms’ Strategies’, Housing Studies 14 (1999) 9-22 Bennett, Jim, and others, Would You Live Here?: Making the Growth Areas Communities of Choice (London: IPPR, 2006) Berger, Alan, The City: Urban Communities and Their Problems (Dubuque: W. C. Brown Publishers, 1978) Birchall, Johnston, Building Communities: The co-operative way (London: Routledge, 1988)

‘Birmingham Moor Street Trains’ <http://www.railsaver.co.uk/ birmingham/moor_street/> [accessed 17 June 2014] ‘Birmingham New Street Train Station’ <http://www.railsaver. co.uk/birmingham/> [accessed 17 June 2014] Blyth, Richard, and Sarling, Joe, Delivering Large Scale Housing: Unlocking Schemes and Sites to Help Meet the UK's Housing Needs (Royal Town Planning Institute, 2013), p. 2. <http://rtpi.org.uk/media/630969/RTPI%20large%20 scale%20housing%20report.pdf> [accessed 13 February 2014] Bullock, Nicholas, Building the Post-War World (London: Routledge, 2002) Burgess, Cecil, Architecture, town planning and community, ed. by Wetherell, Donald, (Alberta: University of Alberta Press, 2005) Carmona, Matthew, and others, Delivering New Homes: Processes and Providers (London: Routledge, 2003) Cheng, Vicky, ‘An Understanding of High Density’, in Designing High-density Cities for Social and Environmental Sustainability, ed. by Ng, Edward (London: Earthscan, 2010) 3-17 Clapson, Mark, Invincible Green Suburbs, Brave New Towns: Social Change and Urban Dispersal (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998)

Birmingham City Council, Birmingham Development Plan: Green Belt Options Appendix (October 2012) <http://www. birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031> [accessed 21 December 2012]

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), What home buyers want: Attitudes and decision making amongst consumers (2005) <http:/www.cabe.org.uk/ files/what-home-buyers-want.pdf> [accessed 28 December 2012]

---- Birmingham Development Plan: Options Consultation (October 2012) <http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031> [accessed 21 December 2012]

Dabinett, Gordon, ‘Realising Regeneration Benefits from Urban Infrastructure Investment’, The Town Planning Review 69 (April 1998) 171-189

----- ‘Census 2011’ (2011) <http://www.birmingham.gov. uk/2011-census> [accessed 02 January 2012]

Department for Communities and Local Government, Local Planning Authority Green Belt Statistics: England 2010/2011 (London: HMSO, April 2011)

----- Development in Birmingham 2012-13 (January 2014) <http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&chil dpagename=SystemAdmin%2FCFPageLayout&cid=122309 2558655&packedargs=website%3D4&pagename=BCC%2F Common%2FWrapper%2FCFWrapper&rendermode=live> [accessed 13 March 2014] ----- Housing Targets 2011-31: Technical Paper (September 2013) <http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?blobco l=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheaderna me1=Content-Disposition&blobkey=id&blobtable=Mung oBlobs&blobwhere=1223540048332&ssbinary=true&blob headervalue1=attachment%3B+filename%3D622375Hous ing_TargetsTechnical_Paper.pdf> [accessed 5 January 2014] ----- Strategic Land Availability Assessment 2011: Appendix 1-14 (2011) <http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c= Page&childpagename=Development-Planning%2FPageLayo ut&cid=1223346397007&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2F Wrapper%2FWrapper> [accessed 15 December 2012]

----- ‘Making the planning system work more efficiently and effectively’ (2012) <https://www.gov.uk/government/ pol i ci es /m ak i ng-the-pl anni ng-s ys tem -work-m oreefficiently-and-effectively> [accessed 15 December 2012] ----- Planning Obligations: Practice Guidance (July 2006) <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/7770/151363.pdf> [accessed 20 December 2013] ----- Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (London: HMSO, January 1995) ----- Table 209 House building: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure and country (May 2014) <https://www. gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-onhouse-building> [accessed 30 May 2014] 151

----- Table 502: House prices from 1930, annual house price inflation, United Kingdom, from 1970 (Feb 2011) <https:// www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tableson-housing-market-and-house-prices#live-tables> [accessed 10 July 2014]

Goldsworthy, Vesna, ‘Suburban Identity’ in Housing and Growth in Suburbia, ed. by Hackett, Paul, (London: The Smith Institute July 2009), pp. 8-14 (p. 11). <http://www.smithinstitute.org.uk/file/HousingandGrowthinSuburbia.pdf> [accessed 27 June 2014]

----- Table 600 Rents, lettings and tenancies: numbers of households on local authorities' housing waiting lists, by district: England 1997-2013 (December 2013) <https://www. gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-onrents-lettings-and-tenancies> [accessed 7 January 2014]

Hall, Peter, ‘Introduction’ in Housing and Growth in Suburbia, ed. by Hackett, Paul, (London: The Smith Institute July 2009) 3-6 <http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/file/ HousingandGrowthinSuburbia.pdf> [accessed 27 June 2014]

----- The Help to Buy equity loan scheme (March 2014) <http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TheHelp-to-Buy-equity-loan-scheme-summary.pdf> [accessed 4 January 2014] Department for Transport, ‘ONS decision on the classification of Network Rail’ (December 2013) <https://www.gov.uk/ government/speeches/ons-decision-on-the-classificationof-network-rail> [accessed 13 February 2014] Dubos, Rene, Man Adapting (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1980) Dunbar, Robin, How many friends does one person need?: Dunbar’s number and other evolutionary quirks (London: Faber and Faber, 2012), p. 28. Echenique, Marcial, ‘Forecasting the Sustainability of Alternative Plans: The Cambridge Futures Experience’, in Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities, ed. by Jenks, Michael, and Dempsey, Nicola, (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005) 113-134 Fishman, Robert, Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982) ----- Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia (New York: Basic Books, 1987) Fleis Fava, Sylvia, ‘Suburbanism as a Way of Life’, American Sociological Review 21 (February 1956) 34-37 Foster + Partners, ‘SkyCycle’ (December 2013) <http://www. fosterandpartners.com/news/skycycle-proposals-to-createsafe-new-cycle-routes-throughout-london/> [accessed 4 March 2014] Frey, Darcy, ‘Crowded House’, The Times Magazine 8 June 2008, <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/ magazine/08mvrdv-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> [accessed 5 April 2013] Gaventa, Sarah, ‘Keep alive our lost Elysium: the importance of the suburban public realm’ in Housing and Growth in Suburbia, ed. by Hackett, Paul (London: The Smith Institute July 2009) 32-37 <http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/file/ HousingandGrowthinSuburbia.pdf> [accessed 27 June 2014] Gehl, Jan, Cities for People (Washington: Island Press, 2010) Gissen, David, Subnature: Architecture’s Other Environments (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009)

Hall, Tim, Urban Geography (London: Routledge, 2001) Handbook of Experimental Psychology, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002) Haughton, Graham and Hunter, Colin, Sustainable Cities, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Routledge, 2003) Hawke, Gary, ‘Reinterpretations of the Industrial Revolution’, in The Industrial Revolution and British Society, ed. by O’Brein, Patrick and Quinault, Roland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 54-78 Home Builders Federation, HBF Stats and Statistics: Key Stats (October 2013), <http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/factsstatistics/> [accessed 12 February 2014] Homes and Communities Agency, Table 5.2: Trends in previously developed land by Government Office Region: England 2002-2009 <http://www.homesandcommunities. co.uk/nlud-pdl-results-and-analysis.> [accessed 17 March 2014] House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, Office of Rail Regulation: Regulating Network Rail’s efficiency (London: TSO, 2011) <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1036/1036.pdf> [accessed 28 March 2014] Industrial Systems Research, Housebuilding and the New Homes Market: A Survey (Manchester: ISR, 2013) ----- Political Barriers to Housebuilding In Britain (Manchester: ISR, 1999) Inman, Phillip, and others, ‘Housebuilder Barratt calls for public land sales 'to overcome homes shortage' The Guardian 10 July 2013 <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/ jul/10/barratt-housebuilder-public-land-sales> [accessed 15 January 2014] Jenks, Michael and Dempsey, Nicola, ‘The Language and Meaning of Density’, in Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities, ed. by Michael Jenks and Nicola Dempsey (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005) 287-310 Jupe, Robert, ‘Public (Interest) or Private (Gain)? The Curios Case of Network Rail’s Status’, Journal of Law and Society 34 (2007) 244-265 Kohn Pederson Fox, ‘Hudson yards master plan’ (2014) <http://www.kpf.co.uk/project.asp?ID=125> [accessed 12 July 2014] 152

BIBLIOGRAPHY CONTINUED Krupat, Edward, People in Cities: The Urban Environment and its Effects (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) Ktsanes, Thomas, and Reissman, Leonard, ‘Suburbia. New homes for old values’, Social Problems 7 (1959-60) 187-195 Landscape Institute, Landscape Institute response to Government plans for Green Belt development (2012) <http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/ GreenBeltposition_000.pdf> [accessed 24 November 2012] Law Commission, ‘Rights to Light’ (February 2013) <http:// lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/rights-to-light.htm> [accessed 23 March 2014] Lawson, Bryan, ‘The Social and Psychological Issue of HighDensity City Space’, in Designing High-density Cities for Social and Environmental Sustainability, ed. by Ng, Edward, (London: Earthscan, 2010) 285-292 ----- The Language of Space (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2001), p. 190. Lees, Loretta and others, Gentrification (London: Routledge, 2008) Lloyd, Toby, Don't bet the house on it (April 2009), <http:// www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/dont-bet-thehouse-on-it-no-turning-back-to-housing-boom-and-bust/> [accessed 3 March 2014] London Development Agency, London Design Guide (August 2010) <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ Interim%20London%20Housing%20Design%20Guide.pdf> [accessed 29 April 2014] Lynch, Kevin, Good City Form (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1984) Mark, Laura, ‘Bovis Homes Boss slams land hoarding claims as nonsense’ Architects Journal (August 2013)<http://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/news/bovis-homes-boss-slams-landhoarding-claims-as-nonsense/8652223.article> [accessed 13 March 2014] Marvell, Alan, ‘Making the Meads: Suburban Development and identity’, Geography 89 (January 2004) 50-57 Meyer, William, The Environmental Advantages of Cities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013) Meyboom, Annalisa, ‘Infrastructure as practice’, Journal of Architectural Education 64 (2009) 72-81

Network Rail, ‘Our governance structure’ <http://www. networkrail.co.uk/about-us/governance/> [accessed 17 January 2014] Newman, Peter, and Kenworthy, Jeff, Cities and Automobile Dependence: an International Sourcebook (Aldershot: Gower, 1989) Nicolaides, Becky and Wiese, Andrew, The Suburb Reader (London: Routledge, 2006) Office for National Statistics, Land Use Statistics (Generalised Land use Database) (2001 - 2005) <http:// www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/ LeadDownNav.do?a=7&b=6275020&c=birmingham&d=1 3&e=8&g=6363493&i=1001x1003x1004&o=230&m=0&r =1&s=1395933519832&enc=1&sampleAreaId=6277129> [accessed 24 November 2012] ----- Population trends no. 117 Autumn 2004 (Norwich: TSO, 2004) Office of Rail Regulation, Station usage 2012-13 data (April 2014) <http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/stationusage-estimates> [accessed 17 June 2014] Parkinson, Michael, ‘The Thatcher Government's Urban Policy, 1979-1989: A Review’, The Town Planning Review 60 (October 1989) 421-440 Parvin, Alastair and others, A Right to Build (Sheffield: Sheffield School of Architecture, 2011) <http://issuu.com/ alastairparvin/docs/2011_07_06_arighttobuild> [accessed 18 November 2013] Payne, Sarah, ‘Barratt profits as houses shrink, but don’t blame the builder’, The Conversation (November 2013) <https://theconversation.com/barratt-profits-as-housesshrink-but-dont-blame-the-builder-20117> [accessed 12 January 2013] Punter, John, (ed.), Urban Design and the British Urban Renaissance (London: Routledge, 2010) Ramsden, Edmund, ‘Travelling Facts about Crowded Rats: Rodent Experimentation and Human Sciences’ in How well do Facts Travel?: The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, ed. by Howlett, Peter, and Morgan, Mary, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) Rights of Light Act 1959

Mumford, Lewis, The Urban Prospect (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968)

Rode, Philipp, ‘Strategic Planning for London: Integrating City Design and Urban Transportation’, in Megacities: Urban Form, Governance, and Sustainability, ed. by Sorensen, Andre and Okata, Junichiro, (London: Springer, 2011) 195-22

Muthesius, Stefan, The English Terraced House (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982)

Rogers, Richard, Housing for a Compact City (London: GLA, 2003)

Network Rail, ‘Easements, wayleaves and telecoms’ <http:// www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1598.aspx> [accessed 18 January 2014] Network Rail, ‘Network Interface’ <http://www.networkrail. co.uk/aspx/1538.aspx> [accessed 18 January 2014]

Rogers Richard, and Richard Burdett, Richard, ‘Let’s Cram More into the City’, in Cities for the New Millenium, ed. by Echenique, Marcial, and Saint, Andrew, (London: Spon press, 2001) 2-14 153

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), The Case for Space (London: RIBA, 2011) <http://www.architecture.com/Files/ RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/HomeWise/ CaseforSpace.pdf> [accessed December 2012] ----- The way we live now (London: RIBA, 2012) <http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/ PolicyAndInternationalRelations/HomeWise/Thewaywelive nowRIBAIpsosMORIMay2012.pdf> [accessed 28 May 2014] Rudlin, David, and Falk, Nicholas, Building the 21st Century Home (Oxford: Architectural Press, 1999) Rydin, Yvonne, The future of planning (Bristol: Policy Press, 2013) Sassi, Paolo, Strategies for Sustainable Architecture (Oxford: Taylor and Francis, 2006) Sennett, Richard, The Fall of Public Man (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1974) Sorensen, Andre, and others, ‘Towards Sustainable Cities’, in Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions, ed. by Sorensen, Andre and others (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004) 3-23 Tallon, Andrew, Urban Regeneration in the UK (London: Routledge, 2013) Taylor, Ralph, Human Territorial Functioning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) The Architects Handbook, ed. by Pickard, Quentin (London: Blackwell, 2002) Thompson, Francis, (ed.), The rise of suburbia (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982) Thorns, David, Suburbia (London: MacGibbon & Kee Ltd., 1972) Towers, Graham, Shelter is Not Enough: Transforming Multistorey Housing (Bristol: Policy Press, 2000) Urban, Florian, Tower and Slab (London: Routledge, 2012) Urban Task Force (UTF), Towards an Urban Renaissance, ed. by Rogers, Richard, (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 1999) Vale, Brenda, Prefabs: The History of the UK Temporary Housing Program (London: Chapham & Hall, 1995) Ward, Stephen, Planning and Urban Change, 2nd edn. (London: SAGE, 2004)

Williamson, Jeffrey, Coping with City Growth during the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) Winter, Michael, Rural Politics: Policies for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment (London: Routledge, 1996) Young, Iris, ’The ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference’ in The Blackwell City Reader, ed. by Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002) 228-236

FURTHER READING Cullingworth, John and Nadin, Vincent, Town and Country Planning in the UK, 14th edn. (London: Routledge, 2006) Glazer, Edmund, The Triumph of the City (London: Pan Macmillan, 2011) Hall, Peter ‘The Containment of Urban England’, The Geographical Journal, 140 (October 1974), 386-408 Howard, Ebenezer, Garden Cities of To-morrow, ed. by Osborn, Frederic (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965) Jeremiah, David, Architecture and Design for the Family (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000) Lynch, Kevin, The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960) MVRDV, FARMAX: Excursions on Density, ed. by Maas, Winy and van Rijs, Jacob (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2006) Payne, Sarah, ‘Pioneers, pragmatists and sceptics: speculative housebuilders and brownfield development in the early twenty-first century’, Town Planning Review, 84 (2013), 37-62 Rassmussen, Steen Eiler, London: the Unique City Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1934) Webber, Melvin, and others, Explorations into Urban Structure (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964)

----- Selling Places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 - 2000 (London: Routledge, 1998) Wellings, Fred, British Housebuilders: History and Analysis (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2006) Whitehand, Jeremy, and Carr, Catherine, Twentieth Century Suburbs: A morphological Approach (London: Routledge, 2001)

154

FIGURE REFERENCES Figure

Page

Figure 2 - Total number of people on Local Authorities’ social housing waiting lists & average house price [Graph] Data source: Department for Communities and Local Government, Table 600: numbers on local authorities’ housing waiting lists, by district: England 1997 to 2013 (December 2013) <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tableson-rents-lettings-and-tenancies> [accessed 23 June 2014]

Figure 3 - Number of new dwellings constructed [Graph] Data source: Department for Communities and Local Government, Table 209: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure and country (May 2014) <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/livetables-on-house-building> [accessed 25 June 2014]

Figure 4 - Rural/Urban Map [Diagram] Data source: Office for National Statistics, ‘Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban classifications’, Regional Trends 43 (2011), p.7. <http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rt/journal/v43/n1/pdf/rt20112a.pdf>

Figure 8 - Suburban Birmingham [Photograph] Author: B. Abel (2011) <http://www.flickr. com/photos/benbobjr/6731843419/> [accessed 8 January 2013]

Figure 9 - Suburban Development [Photograph] Author: unknown (2012) <http://www. kenmcewen.com/News/files/donside.jpg> [accessed 3 February 2013]

Figure 12 - Ebenezer Howard’s Three Magnets [Diagram] Author: E. Howard (1898) <http://goo.gl/1B16I9> [accessed 28 June 2014]

Figure 14 - Clapham housing [Photograph] Author: unknown (c1900) <http://whistlerhistory. com/docs/claphamHouse.jpg> [accessed 7 July 2014]

Figure 16 - Harrow Weald housing [Google Street View] Google Maps (March 2011) <http://goo.gl/1Hi8Xx> [accessed 7 July 2014]

Figure 18 - Telford housing [Google Street View] Google Maps (March 2011) <http://goo. gl/whaxNH> [accessed 7 July 2014]

Figure 20 - King’s Reach housing [Google Street View] Google Maps (March 2011) <http:// goo.gl/R7lECV> [accessed 7 July 2014]

Figure 21 - Metro-Land brochure [Image] Author: unknown (c1920) <http://i.dailymail. co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/29/article-1247156-08148D04000005DC-423_468x688.jpg> [accessed 1 July 2014]

Figure 22 - Poster for Golders Green [Image] Author: unknown (c1908) <http://www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk/ltm-1983-4-45> [accessed 1 July 2014]

Figure 23 - Contemporary marketing image [Image] Author: Lovell (n.d.) <http://issuu.com/newhomesforsale.co.uk/docs/lymington_mews_brochure> [accessed 1 July 2014]

Figure 24 - Robin Hood Gardens ‘streets in the sky’ [Photograph] Author: A. Picton (2012) <https://www.flickr.com/photos/arthurjohnpicton/7523856580/> [accessed 9 July 2014]

Figure 25 - London Docklands [Photograph] Author: J. Deane (2006) <https://www.flickr. com/photos/parvenu/141541428> [accessed 9 July 2014]

Figure 27 - Georgian terraced street [Photograph] Author: B. Snelson (2008) <http://www.flickr.com/photos/exfordy/2716563221/> [accessed 5 January 2013]

46 155

Figure

Page

Figure 28 - Choosing a home [Diagram] Data source: Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), The future homes commission: building the homes and communities Britain needs (London: RIBA, 2012), p. 27. <http://www.ribablogs.com/files/FHCHiRes.pdf> [accessed 23 February 2014]

Figure 29 - Changing needs during different life stages [Diagram] Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), The future homes commission: building the homes and communities Britain needs (London: RIBA, 2012), p. 41. <http://www.ribablogs.com/files/FHCHiRes.pdf> [accessed 23 February 2014]

Figure 30 - First time buyer dwelling preferences [Diagram] Data source: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), What home buyers want: Attitudes and decision making amongst consumers (2005), p. 14. <http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/whathome-buyers-want.pdf> [accessed 28 December 2012]

Figure 42 - La Promenade PlantĂŠe [Photograph] Author: L. Dodsworth (2011) <http:// ontheluce.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/prom-plantee-4.jpg?w=620&h=398> [accessed 12 July 2014]

Figure 43 - The High Line [Photograph] Author: I. Bann (2009) <http://www.thehighline. org/galleries/images/high-line-park-photos> [accessed 12 July 2014]

Figure 44 - Spittelau Viaducts Housing Project [Photograph] Author: M. Spiluttini (2005) <http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/spittelau-viaducts-housing-project/?doing_ wp_cron#> [accessed 12 July 2014]

Figure 45 - LOMEX [Image] Author: P. Rudolph (1960) <http://ffud.org/paul-rudolph-andthe-lower-manhattan-expressway/> [accessed 6 February 2014]

Please note: All images courtesy of author unless stated otherwise All maps (including historic) courtesy of Edina Digimap All satellite images courtesy of Google Maps 156

157

158

APPENDIX

SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES

Figure 1 - Detached suburban house c1930

SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES DETACHED No. of Bedrooms: 4 Date Built: c1930 Floors: 2 Internal Floor Area: 226.68m2 (incl. garage) Garden Size: 459.5m2 Total Footprint: 587.14m2 (17dph excl. infrastructure) The detached house is typical of suburban dwelling. It is often portrayed as the ideal family home as its separation from other houses allows it a greater sense of privacy. The style, size and number of bedrooms vary from house to house; however, many of the features are universal. The traditional timber detailing shown here is also typical feature of many suburban dwellings, representing a rural ideology. There is a large amount of outdoor space; a driveway at the front and a larger garden at the back which can also be accessed by a pathway at the side of the house.

Figure 2 - Floor Plans

Dining Room

Kitchen

Bedroom

Living Space Utility

Garage

Living Space

Bedroom

Bathroom

Bedroom

Bedroom Bathroom

W.C.

Scale 0 1

Ground Floor

First Floor

Figure 3 - Semi-detached suburban house c1930

SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES SEMI-DETACHED No. of Bedrooms: 4 Date Built: c1920 Floors: 2 Internal Floor Area: 151.4m2 Garden Size: 218.9m2 Total Footprint: 289.3m2 (34dph excl. infrastructure) Semi-detached houses are the most common residential type in the UK and, like detached houses, are synonymous with suburban living. This typology shares a party wall on one side with a second (usually identical) house. Internally the space is generous whilst bay windows increase the amount of natural light. The green front garden with a tall hedge and planting is a common feature for both privacy and to create a more rural feeling.

Figure 4 - Floor Plans

Kitchen

Living Space 1

Dining Room

Bedroom

Bathroom

Bedroom

Bathroom

Living Space 2

Bedroom Bedroom

Scale 0 1

Ground Floor

First Floor

Figure 5 - Detached suburban house c1910

SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES DETACHED No. of Bedrooms: 5 Date Built: c1910 Floors: 2.5 Internal Floor Area: 206.92m2 Garden Size: 338.33m2 Total Footprint: 419.78m2 (23dph excl. infrastructure) This is another example of a detached suburban house and it maintains the same basic principles as the previous example. Internally there are numerous generously-sized rooms, including separate kitchen and dining areas as well as dedicated area for utilities. In this example the roof space has been converted into a further floor, increasing the number of bedrooms available.

Figure 6 - Floor Plans

Kitchen

Utility

Dining Room

Bathroom Bedroom Bedroom

Study

Dressing Room Bathroom

Bedroom

W.C.

Bedroom Living Space

Bedroom

W.C.

Second Floor 5

Ground Floor

First Floor

Figure 7 - Semi-detached suburban house c1910

SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES SEMI-DETACHED No. of Bedrooms: 4 Date Built: c1910 Floors: 2 Internal Floor Area: 141m2 Garden Size: 259.3m2 Total Footprint: 329.8m2 (38dph excl. infrastructure) This semi-detached house is slightly smaller but still provides a large garden and well-sized rooms. The distance from the street helps maintain a feeling of privacy and security. Although the facade is a simple render the form of the building and the protruding elements create interest and individuality.

Figure 8 - Floor Plans

Bedroom

Kitchen

Dining Room

Bedroom

W.C. Shower Living Space

Study

Bedroom

Ground Floor

Scale 0 1

Bathroom

First Floor

CURRENT SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES

Figure 9 - Detached house

CURRENT SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES DETACHED No. of Bedrooms: 5 Date Built: 2006 Floors: 2 Internal Floor Area: 129m2 (excl. garage) Garden Size: 111.4m2 Total Footprint: 238.83m2 (41dph excl. infrastructure) This new-build detached house maintains the key principles of earlier suburban examples such as the front and back garden, integral garage and driveway. However there is much less overall internal space despite the increased number of bedrooms. The garden size is also much smaller, decreasing the distance from surrounding properties. This example does show individuality on the facade with features such as the bay window, brick corbelling and rendered projection, though the plan itself is much more regular.

Figure 10 - Floor Plans

Dining Room

Bedroom

Living Space

Bathroom

Bedroom

Garage

Kitchen

Bedroom

W.C.

Bedroom

Ground Floor Scale 0 1

En-suite

First Floor

Figure 11 - Semi-detached house

CURRENT SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES SEMI-DETACHED No. of Bedrooms: 3 Date Built: 2002 Floors: 2 Internal Floor Area: 76m2 Garden Size: 82.1m2 Total Footprint: 150.43m2 (66dph excl. infrastructure) The internal floor area of this semi-detached house is incredibly small, so much so that even the garden has a greater area. This has impacted on the size of the internal rooms, making it harder to establish privacy within the home There is less space to the front of the house and parking is on a driveway to the side. There is also evidence of less planting and green as front gardens are more commonly hard landscaped. The floor plan and the facade are both simple and devoid of detail or features. Compared to the earlier examples there is no dedicated space for utilities and very little storage.

Figure 12 - Floor Plans

Dining Room

Kitchen

Bedroom

Bathroom

Living Space

Bedroom W.C.

Ground Floor Scale 0

First Floor

Figure 13 - Modern terraced houses

CURRENT SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES TERRACE No. of Bedrooms: 3 Date Built: 2004 Floors: 2.5 Internal Floor Area: 105.25m2 Garden Size: 58.9m2 Total Footprint: 121.99m2 (81dph excl. infrastructure) Terraced houses are historically associated with inner city, working class housing; however, they have recently become popular in suburban developments as they are cheap to build and raise density. The mid-terrace house shares a party wall on either side, with a narrow floor plan. The facade is close to the road and additional space has been gained by adding an extra floor in the roof space. Despite this there is less space internally and only one main area for living and dining. The garden is narrow and can only be accessed through the house. Parking is on the road in front of the house. There is no feeling of semi-rural living.

Figure 14 - Floor Plans

Bedroom Living Space

En-Suite

Bathroom

Bedroom

Kitchen

Bedroom

Second Floor Scale 0

First Floor

Figure 15 - Linked houses

CURRENT SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES LINKED No. of Bedrooms: 3 Date Built: 2004 Floors: 2 Internal Floor Area: 91m2 (excl. garage) Garden Size: 32.4m2 Total Footprint: 98.54m2 (101dph excl. infrastructure) Linked houses are a cross between detached and semi-detached typologies. Whilst the majority of the house is independent from its neighbour they are linked by the garages. This gives a greater feeling of separation but also uses less overall area. The small rear garden can be accessed through the side but in some cases it is only through the house, similar to terraced dwellings. The facade is also very plain with no distinguishing features or traditional details and the windows are also smaller than earlier suburban housing.

Figure 16 - Floor Plans

Pantry Bedroom

Kitchen

Bedroom

W.C. Bathroom Garage

Living Space

Bedroom En-Suite

Scale 0

First Floor 1

Second Floor

Figure 17 - Bungalow

CURRENT SUBURBAN TYPOLOGIES BUNGALOW No. of Bedrooms: 1 Date Built: 2005 Floors: 1 Internal Floor Area: 62.07m2 (excl. garage) Garden Size: 85.92m2 Total Footprint: 184.67m2 (54dph excl. infrastructure) Bungalows contain all the rooms on one, ground floor level and as such they are popular with elderly and disabled families; however, this results in a larger footprint than a building with more than one storey. They can be either detached or semi detached and it is common to get smaller house sizes, i.e. one or two bedrooms. This bungalow is relatively large despite having only one bedroom; it contains an integrated garage and has a front and back garden.

Figure 18 - Floor Plan

Bathroom

Bedroom

Living Space

Garage

Kitchen/Dining Space

Kitchen

Scale 0 1

LAND USE ANALYSIS

Figure 19 - Typical modern suburban development

Figure 20 - Buildings

Figure 22 - Gardens/Green Space

20%

41%

Figure 21 - Roads

Figure 23 - Pavement & Parking

19%

20%

URBAN TYPOLOGIES

Figure 24 - Islington Gates, Fleet Street

URBAN TYPOLOGIES ISLINGTON GATES Location: 12-16 Fleet Street, B3 1JL Date Completed: 2005 Cost: ÂŁ25 million Floors: 10 Units: 88 residential apartments

Located alongside the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, Islington Gates is part of a mixed use development comprising of residential apartments located above commercial units. There is no communal outside space or gardens, however the majority of apartments do have private balconies. The apartments are a mix of one and two bedrooms with one three bedroom penthouse. This style of modern development, built using a steel frame, is common in cities across the UK. The floor plans below show one of the larger, two bedroom duplex apartments within the development.

Figure 25 - Floor Plans

Balcony Bedroom

Kitchen/Living Space

Bedroom

En-Suite

Bathroom

Ground Floor Scale 0

First Floor Total Floor Area (127m2)

Figure 26 - Upper Parkside, Park Central

URBAN TYPOLOGIES UPPER PARKSIDE Location: Alfred Knight Way, B15 2EY Cost: £9 million (this phase) Date Completed: 2009 Floors: 8 Units: 57 residential apartments

‘Hudson’ in Upper Parkside is just one phase of a £261 million pound mixed use regeneration scheme in a 61 acre site in Birmingham City Centre. The project plans to create 1,600 homes before 2013 in a mix of apartments and freehold houses. Hudson comprises of one, two and three bedroom apartments, each with their own balconies over the eight floors. The floor plan below shows an example of a three bedroom duplex apartment, the largest in this phase, and marketed as a penthouse.

Figure 27 - Floor Plans

Balcony

Living Space

Balcony

Bedroom

Kitchen

Bedroom

Void

Bathroom En-suite

Kitchen

Void

En-suite

En-suite Ground Floor

Scale 0 1

Bedroom

First Floor

Internal Floor Area (120.65m2) 5

Figure 28 - The Cube, Wharfside Street

URBAN TYPOLOGIES THE CUBE Location: 196 Wharfside Street, B1 1RN Date Completed: 2010 Cost: £100 million Floors: 23 Units: 244 residential apartments

The Cube, designed by Ken Shuttleworth of MAKE Architects, is the final phase of the Mailbox, Birmingham’s latest flagship development. The Cube contains, offices, apartments, shops, restaurants and a hotel. Whilst the cladding defines the building’s cube shape, the interior is a complex geometric form which creates a twisting central courtyard containing terraces for the apartments on each level. The residential units are all either one or two bedroom apartments.

Figure 29 - Floor Plan (two apartments)

Terrace Bedroom

Bedroom

Living Space

Terrace

Ensuite

Living Space

Kitchen

Bathroom Kitchen

Bedroom

Terrace

Scale 0 1

Bedroom

Ensuite

Bathroom

Average Floor Area (79.28m2)

Figure 30 - Beetham Tower, Holloway Circus

URBAN TYPOLOGIES BEETHAM TOWER Location: 10 Holloway Circus, B1 1BT Cost: £72 Million Date Completed: 2006 Floors: 39 Units: 150 residential apartments

Beetham Tower is Birmingham’s tallest residential building and second tallest building at 121.5 meters high. A 220 room hotel occupies the lower 20 floors whilst the residential part, consisting of one, two and three bedroom apartments, takes up a further 19 floors. Whilst the penthouses on the highest levels cantilever slightly forward, balconied ‘winter gardens’ are concealed by louvers flush with the rest of the facade on the lower floors. The floor plan below shows one of the larger, three bedroom apartments.

Figure 31 - Floor Plan

Bedroom

Bathroom Kitchen

Living Space

Bathroom

Dressing

Balcony Bedroom

Scale 0 1

Total Floor Area (114.8m2)

Figure 32 - Derwent Foundry, Mary Ann Street

URBAN TYPOLOGIES DERWENT FOUNDRY Location: Mary Ann Street, B3 1LH Cost: ÂŁ23 million Date Completed: 2008 Floors: 4 Units: 98 residential apartments

Derwent Foundry was formerly owned by Taylor and Challen who manufactured presses for the jewellery trade and is a Grade II listed building. Old factories like this are common in Birmingham which was once a place of heavy industry and many have found themselves similarly converted. During the project a contemporary extension was added and the foundry was converted into a range of one and two bedroom apartments. Centred around landscaped courtyards, some of the apartments also benefit from private balconies. The floor plan below illustrates the difference in size between two adjoining apartments in the building.

Figure 33 - Floor Plan (two apartments)

Bedroom

Bathroom En-suite

Bedroom

Bathroom

Kitchen/Living Space

Bedroom

Scale 0 1

Balcony

HISTORIC TYPOLOGIES

Figure 34 - Georgian Terrace, Bath

HISTORIC TYPOLOGIES GEORGIAN TERRACE No. of Bedrooms: 4 Date Built: c1735-1750 Floors: 6 Internal Floor Area: 366.39m2 Garden Size: n/a (courtyard) Total Footprint: 125.4m2 (79dph excl. infrastructure) This first example of Georgian terraced housing shows the common layout for this typology; a lower ground floor was designed for the servants of the family who lived in the rest of the house above. The narrow width of the plot meant that in order to achieve a sizeable house numerous floors were required, it is therefore common to have tall, narrow buildings. This helped create areas of high density in urban environments. The maximisation of this plot has meant that this building has no outdoor space except for a small courtyard off the lower ground level. The decline in the use of servants and the need for such large buildings has meant many other houses of this style have been converted to offices or into smaller apartments. Figure 35 - Floor Plans

Courtyard & Cellar

Ground Floor

First Floor

Second Floor

Third Floor

Lower Ground Floor

Figure 36 - Georgian Terrace, London

HISTORIC TYPOLOGIES GEORGIAN TERRACE No. of Bedrooms: 4 Date Built: 17th Century Floors: 5 Internal Floor Area: 272m2 Garden Size: 93.31m2 (incl. terraces) Total Footprint: 154.34m2 (64dph excl. infrastructure) Whilst the materials and facade are different, this terraced house maintains the same principles as the previous example. However, as well as containing a garden, it is common for Georgian terraces such as this to be arranged around a private courtyard square containing a garden for its residents. Houses such as this example, with more green space, have retained their use as family homes longer. The recessed lower entrance, formally for servants, creates a separation from the otherwise close street.

Figure 37 - Floor Plans

Ground Floor

Lower Ground Floor

First Floor

Second Floor

Third Floor

Figure 38 - Mews House

HISTORIC TYPOLOGIES MEWS No. of Bedrooms: 3 Date Built: 17th Century Floors: 3 Internal Floor Area: 197m2 Garden Size: n/a Total Footprint: 77.65m2 (128dph excl. infrastructure) Mews were once rows of stables, located in the back streets behind larger houses. Flats were provided above the stables to accommodate the grooms. The rise of the motor car and decline of large city houses reduced the need for mews and they were converted to residential use. It is common for many to have an integrated garage, however as it was not originally designed as a house there is no outdoor space provision. There is less uniformity to the facades on these streets when compared to traditional terraced housing.

Figure 39 - Floor Plans

Utility Room

Garage

Bedroom

Kitchen/Dining Room

Ground Floor

Bathroom

Reception Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

First Floor

Second Floor

Figure 40 - Victorian end-of-terrace

HISTORIC TYPOLOGIES VICTORIAN TERRACE No. of Bedrooms: 4 Date Built: 19th Century Floors: 4 (excl. cellar) Internal Floor Area: 265m2 (excl. attic, cellar & garage) Garden Size: 98.15m2 Total Footprint: 271.87m2 (36dph excl. infrastructure) Compared to the Georgian examples the Victorian terrace places a greater emphasis on private green space with both a front and back garden. They are also smaller, there is no lower ground level but the house still extends over four floors. A garage has been placed at the end of the garden, taking advantage of the end-of-terrace position.

Figure 41 - Floor Plans

Cellar

Ground Floor

First Floor

Second Floor

Attic

Figure 42 - Victorian worker terrace

HISTORIC TYPOLOGIES VICTORIAN TERRACE No. of Bedrooms: 2 Date Built: early 19th Century Floors: 3 (incl. basement) Internal Floor Area: 97m2 Garden Size: 26.51m2 Total Footprint: 63.32m2 (157dph excl. infrastructure) Terraced houses such as these were built around industry and factories during the industrial revolution to house workers. They were cheap to build and at high density, allowing large numbers of workers and their families to be housed. Internally they are small, although large windows provide a good amount of natural light. There are few rooms inside but additional space is created through the use of a basement. Separation from the street is generated by raising the ground floor level so the steps become a threshold.

Figure 43 - Floor Plans

Kitchen Bathroom

Living Space

Bedroom

Living Space

Living Space Bedroom

Basement

Ground Floor

First Floor

Figure 44 - Victorian detached house

HISTORIC TYPOLOGIES VICTORIAN DETACHED No. of Bedrooms: 6 Date Built: c1840 Floors: 5 Internal Floor Area: 851m2 Garden Size: 85.92m2 Total Footprint: 395.84m2 (25dph excl. infrastructure) This is an example of an early Victorian inner city detached dwelling, the ornate facade and bay windows are common features. Intended as a family home, it maintains urban density by remaining close to the buildings surrounding it. The internal layout is similar to that of a Georgian terrace, with a lower ground floor; however there is also a large rear garden. Due to their large size, many of these houses have been converted into apartments.

Figure 45 - Floor Plans

Third Floor

Ground Floor

First Floor

Second Floor

Lower Ground Floor

LAND USE ANALYSIS

Figure 46 - Typical Georgian street layout

Figure 47 - Buildings

Figure 49 - Gardens/Green Space

41%

26%

Figure 48 - Roads

Figure 50 - Pavement & Parking

24%

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS

Column (Ground Level)

Secondary Structure

Primary Structure

Figure 51 - Structural Grid

10m N

Please note: All images courtesy of author unless stated otherwise All maps (including historic) courtesy of Edina Digimap All satellite images courtesy of Google Maps

APPENDIX FIGURE REFERENCES Figure

Page

Figure 1 - Detached suburban house c1930 [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/esh130087> [accessed 11 July 2014]

Figure 3 - Semi-detached suburban house c1930 [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/wmb140129> [accessed 11 July 2014]

Figure 5 - Detached suburban house c1910 [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/esh140119> [accessed 11 July 2014]

Figure 7 - Semi-detached suburban house c1910 [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/wnd130187> [accessed 11 July 2014]

Figure 9 - Detached house [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://images.spicerhaart.co.uk/propimage/hires/0302/HRT030202414_01.jpg> [accessed 4 January 2013]

Figure 11 - Semi detached house [Google Street View] Google Maps (2009) <http://goo.gl/lOcGbX> [accessed 5 January 2013]

Figure 13 - Modern terraced houses [Photograph] Author: unkown (n.d.) <http://images.spicerhaart.co.uk/propimage/hires/0335/HRT033500229_01.jpg> [accessed 6 January 2013]

Figure 17 - Bungalow [Google Street View] Google Maps (2009) <http://goo.gl/Iugb9d> [accessed 6 January 2013]

Figure 26 - Upper Parkside, Park Central [Photograph] Author: E. Brown (2012) <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/6931193853/> [accessed 21 December 2012]

Figure 28 - The Cube, Wharfside Street [Photograph] Author: E. Brown (2010) <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/4757974345/> [accessed 3 January 2013]

Figure 30 - Beetham Tower, Holloway Circus [Photograph] Author: M. Thorpe (2006) <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattingham/291248022/> [accessed 21 December 2012]

Figure 32 - Derwent Foundry, Mary Ann Street [Photograph] Author: unknown (2010) <http://www.flickr.com/photos/crugg/5458340756/> [accessed 21 December 2012]

Figure 34 - Georgian terrace, Bath [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/bth120118> [accessed 7 January 2013]

Figure 36 - Georgian terrace, London [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.savills.com/property-detail/gbsshsslh120062> [accessed 7 January 2013]

Figure 38 - Mews House [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://r.yhd.net/w/1280/1347973930/chpk0233250-1.jpg> [accessed 7 January 2013]

Figure 40 - Victorian end-of-terrace [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.com/wnd110038> [accessed 7 January 2013]

Figure 42 - Victorian worker terrace [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/cnw130113> [accessed 11 July 2014]

Figure 44 - Victorian detached house [Photograph] Author: unknown (n.d.) <http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/ken100053> [accessed 7 January 2013]