Reclaiming Utopia

Reclaiming Utopia

The sustainable densification and urban re-appropriation of post-war social housing estates in Whitechapel, London David Sharpe

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy in Environmental Design in Architecture (Option B), 2010-12 Darwin College, University of Cambridge, 31st July 2012 15,586 words

1

ď‚ž{1} Post-war social housing in Whitechapel, estate 1

2

Abstract

Crossrail’s arrival in Whitechapel creates a unique opportunity for the sustainable expansion of the built environment in this part of inner London. The station’s location

should accelerate the regeneration and gentrification of Whitechapel’s hinterland

beyond Brick Lane. However, the area is dominated by post-war social housing estates, and these are a major barrier to development. To date there have been few

attempts to reintegrate these estates into the urban fabric, tackle their wasteful use

of land, improve their energy efficiency or deal with their poor public perception. The most common strategy to deal with them, wholesale demolition, is now viewed as socially, environmentally and economically unsustainable. It looks like we are stuck

with these buildings in their present form for the foreseeable future. But is there an alternative? Using a design research methodology, this thesis proposes a new

approach to the regeneration of these estates, based on densification. It concludes that this approach can solve many of the estates' problems, and permanently improve their public perception. This has far reaching implications for the role of the state, the private sector, and housing associations in inner London in the future.

3

4

ď‚ƒ{2} Visual abstract of the design proposal

5

6

ď‚ƒ{3} Visual abstract of the design proposal

7

8

Contents

Preface: a design research methodology Introduction

11 13

The future: energy, density and growth Opportunities and barriers to development Selecting a site for further analysis A zone of transition Ethnicity and the community Whitechapel and post-war social housing: a history

17 21 27 45 53 59

1. Whitechapel: Future, Present and Past

2. Post-war Social Housing: Approaches

The legacy Social remedies and management Defensible space and design improvement Criticisms of design improvement Architectural language and homogeneity Why not demolition?

The relevance of density

83 87 89 115 117 125 127

Legal and economic status Densification The numeric brief Criteria for success

131 135 135 137

Realising the brief Reconfiguring urban relationships Proposed massing, urbanism and tenure strategy

141 157 167

On the rooftops Reclaiming the courtyard

181 213

The life of the street Connecting tower and ground

229 253

Acknowledgements, abbreviations and declaration Bibliography

270 271

3. The Proposition

4. Urbanism

5. Domestic Space: Rooftop and Courtyard

6. Flexibility and Transition: Street and Tower

7. Conclusions

264

9

ď‚ {4} Whitechapel within the built environment in southeast England EEA / author

10

Preface: a design research methodology

This thesis uses design as the primary method of original research. It is fundamentally propositional, beginning with a thorough understanding of context, background, and

past approaches, and from this literature develops a new theory in the area studied.

Design is then to test whether this theory is workable, and to propose exactly how it should be applied, creating a vision of a new reality. It is not simply an objective

process of rational testing, nor just a subjective architectural argument. The two are combined inseparably into a cohesive whole through design, responding to reality whilst simultaneously creating it anew.

The power of this approach is that it uses the interdisciplinary skills of the architect

in a new way. The academic context of a combined MPhil and RIBA part II allows a level of deep thinking and access to knowledge beyond that which is possible in

architectural practice. Traditionally at part II level, this opportunity has been used to further architectural thinking in a very theoretical way. Whilst of value, this approach

has limited impact outside of academia and the buildings of a small number of very successful architects.

We rely on our built environment not just for our personal survival but for that of our

civilisation. Presently, this environment faces seemingly insurmountable challenges,

from the climate change it has helped cause, to the unsustainable economy it has played a part in creating. If we are to adapt, it must adapt. It would be wrong for those in society who care most deeply about this environment, and especially architects, to turn inwards to theory at this time.

The method of design research used in this thesis allows architects to look outwards, addressing real, fundamental issues in the built environment. In doing so, it not only furthers their personal understanding and direction, but in many cases will influence

reality, by inspiring decision makers and collaborators to think more widely about

what is possible in their field. It is hoped this design research methodology will finally allow Cambridge’s architects to join its scientists and engineers in innovating for the future of our civilisation.

11

ď‚‚{5} Transport in Whitechapel in 2018 Edina Digimap / author

Rail and underground lines through Whitechapel

1km

Rail and underground lines near Whitechapel

Crossrail in 2018

Kings Cross St Pancras

Stratford

Euston

Whitechapel to Heathrow airport

The City

West End

Shadwell

Canary Wharf

Westminster

Victoria

to Croydon

12

Introduction

In 2018, a new Crossrail station will open at Whitechapel in the East End of London, connecting this densely populated part of the inner city to London’s three commercial

centres in less than ten minutes1 {5}. This part of the third most deprived borough

in the UK2 will be subsumed within the heart of one of the world’s foremost cities,

representing, at first glance, a considerable opportunity for development, and a potential next step in inner east London’s gentrification.

1.

Crossrail, “Exploring the Crossrail Route” <http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route> [accessed 17 July 2012]

2.

LBTH, Core Strategy 2025: Development Plan Document (London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 2010).

In common with much of inner east and south London, Whitechapel is dominated by large post war local authority housing estates, many urgently in need of expensive environmental retrofitting3. They are viewed as the problematic legacy of a failed

architectural approach, and are often cited as one of the great failures of modernism4.

Poorly perceived by the general public, over the last 30 years they have frequently

been demolished well before the end of their service life, and this trend continues to this day5. However, demolition is environmentally, socially and economically

unsustainable, and some have begun to ask if there might be an alternative future for these estates:

3.

Inside Housing, “Tall Order” <http://www. insidehousing.co.uk/analysis/in-depth/ tall-order/6513584.article> [accessed 17 July 2012] and Inside Housing, “The Sky’s the Limit” <http://www.insidehousing. co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6501355> [accessed 17 July 2012] 4.

C. Jencks, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (New York: Rizzoli, 1984).

5.

G. Towers, Shelter is Not Enough: Transforming multi-storey housing (Bristol: The Policy Press, 2000)., 90.

“Despite the low status it has acquired, the legacy of multi-storey housing has the potential to become a critical part of a more compact, high density urban form. It can

make a significant contribution to generating a more diverse and inclusive lifestyle which could eclipse the negative urban images of the past”6.

This thesis proposes an alternative model for the regeneration of post war social

6.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 9.

housing estates, a model very different from the status quo {2}. This alternative model

is based on the idea that these estates offer great potential for urban densification in a constrained region, and that this densification can fund the regeneration of the

existing fabric of the estates. In turn, this could lead to an altered public perception of post war social housing and its future potential. This thesis aims to provide a fully viable and well researched solution that can be considered a potential reality rather

than an idea. To do so requires a full understanding of a number of complex issues,

from the regional impact of densification and the place of Whitechapel within it, through the changing demographic of the area and the effect of estates on local urban life, to the fundamental design failures of estates.

The first part of this thesis, chapters 1 to 3, explains the theory behind these issues, and the thesis’ stance on them. The second part, chapters 4 to 6, tests the implications

of this theory through the detailed design of an estate densification in Whitechapel.

The thesis concludes by asking whether there are implications for other estates in Whitechapel, and for estates in inner London as a whole.

Chapter 1

13

14

Whitechapel: Future, present and past

The future: energy, density and growth

Opportunities and barriers to development Selecting a site for further analysis A zone of transition

Ethnicity and the community

Whitechapel and post-war social housing: a history

15

Population of Inner London since 1981

3,200,000

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{6} The population of inner London since 1981 ONS

3,100,000

3,000,000

2,900,000

2,800,000

2,700,000

2,600,000

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

(Owens refs)

1991

1981

2,500,000

(wikipedia / Census data) ď&#x201A;&#x192;{7} The Urban Task Force's proposed regional and local planning strategy, based on densification DETR

16

The future: energy, density and growth

The south east of England faces a housing crisis7, at a time when we must significantly

reduce the CO2 emissions of the built environment in order to combat climate change.

Concurrently, inner London is experiencing rapid growth {6}; the population of the

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) has increased by 26% in the last 10 years8.

However, there is great academic uncertainty as to how regional planning strategy can balance these issues. As a result, it is not clear that the densification of areas of inner London like Whitechapel is desirable in the way that many assume.

7.

K. Barker, Delivering Stability: securing our future housing needs: Final report of the Barker review of housing supply (London: HM Treasury, 2004).

8.

ONS (Office for National Statistics), “2011 Census, Population and Household Estimates for England and Wales” <http:// www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011census/population-and-householdestimates-for-england-and-wales/index. html> [accessed 17 July 2012]

The idea that densification is a good urban planning strategy is multifaceted. In 1989 Newman and Kenworthy demonstrated that, worldwide, there is a clear correlation between urban density and transport energy use9. As typical low density building

forms have a greater external surface area per floor area than typical high density forms, is clear that they should use more energy for heating. Gordon cites a significant

body of evidence demonstrating that higher densities lead to enhanced economic

productivity compared to a low density equivalent.10 These arguments began to find

favour in government in the 1990’s, and were placed at the forefront of planning policy

after the 1999 publication of the report of the Urban Task Force, Towards an Urban

Renaissance, chaired by the architect Richard Rogers11 {7}. The Task Force delivered a number of arguments for greater density that did not address energy consumption.

They suggested that a mix of land uses, housing tenures and types of resident would

9.

P. Newman and D.J. Kenworthy, “Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with a global survey”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 55 (1989): 24-37.

10.

I. Gordon, “Density and the Built Environment”, Energy Policy, 36 (2008): 4652-6.

11.

DETR, Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of the Urban Task Force (London: Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999).

avoid clusters of poverty and deprivation. They also claimed that increased density

would improve social sustainability, leading to a more vibrant community, with regeneration projects attracting “urban pioneers” back into the inner city12.

The policies suggested by the Task Force were adopted in The London Plan13. The document and its revisions set ambitious twenty year housing targets for each

borough, the majority to be built on brownfield land by private developers, thus

increasing urban density. The LBTH was given the second highest housing target in

200414, and has the highest target in the latest revision15. Desired population densities are set on a flexible scale, with the highest densities in areas assessed to have high

public transport accessibility, in line with the advice of the Urban Task Force16 {8}.

The London Plan encourages a mix of land uses and housing tenures17, and states that: “A youthful and diverse population is likely to wish to live in places with higher levels

of social and working activity. The move to a higher density, more urban, intensive, continental lifestyle is already evident”18.

12.

DETR, Towards an Urban Renaissance, 22, 38 and 172.

13.

GLA, The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (London: Greater London Authority, 2004).

14.

GLA, London Plan (2004), 66

15.

GLA, The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (London: Greater London Authority, 2011)., 83.

16.

GLA, London Plan (2004), 50-4, and GLA, London Plan (2011), 85.

17.

GLA, London Plan (2004), 78.

18.

GLA, London Plan (2004), 33.

17

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{8} Density requirements for new development in London, dph Bowie 240-435 100-150 55-175 50-110 30-65 30-60

3,200,000

3,100,000

3,000,000

2,900,000

2,800,000

2,700,000

2,600,000

1981

2,500,000

(Owens refs)

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{9} The findings of SOLUTIONS on the effects of regional planning scenarios,"compaction" is a densification policy similar to that suggested by the Urban Task Force Echenique et al

18

Recently, however, many of these ideas have been supplanted by new research.

Gordon cites a body of evidence, published since that of Newman and Kenworthy,

showing that doubling the density of an urban region will reduce transport energy use by as little as 7%, rather than the 50% originally suggested19. This view is given

considerable weight by the findings of the SOLUTIONS project at the University of

Cambridge20 {9}. The results suggest that changes to planning policy, and density, will have very little impact on the energy use of south east England, firstly because energy

use is only slightly reduced by increased density, and secondly due to the very low

19.

Gordon, “Density and the Built Environment” 20.

M. Echenique et al., Sustainability of Land Use and Transport in Outer Neighbourhoods: Final Report (Cambridge: SOLUTIONS, 2010).

rate of turnover in the built environment overall. Most existing buildings will still

be with us in 50 years’ time, and so new development has little impact, whatever its form. Indeed, Gordon suggests this in his earlier paper:

“Planning operates only at the margins of physical development, with much slower

and more modest impacts on the behaviour of the population as a whole than would changes in relative transport costs, in particular”21.

Jin has a more optimistic take on densification22. Citing the work of Gordon and the SOLUTIONS project, he expresses concern that, in the UK:

“Densification by and large takes place in an opportunistic manner on whatever

21.

Gordon, “Density and the Built Environment”

22.

Y. Jin, “2030 Vision for the Cambridge Sub-region” (University of Cambridge: presentation at the Centre for Mathematical Studies, 16th January 2011 ).

urban land that has come forward for redevelopment”.

He agrees with the findings of SOLUTIONS which suggest that, if this were continue, it would have an adverse effect on congestion, and thus on emissions and economic

productivity. Jin argues that densities in the majority of urban areas should remain as they are, to avoid further congestion, but that areas very close to major transport nodes should be dramatically densified.

Steemers concludes that the relationship of density to building energy use is mixed23. For housing, higher densities result in lower energy use up to a density of

approximately 200 dwellings per hectare (dph), past which energy use increases.

He concludes that the arguments for and against higher densities are therefore

23.

K. Steemers, “Energy and the city: density, buildings and transport”, Energy and Buildings, 35 (2003): 3-41.

finely balanced in terms of building energy use, and are reliant on other design and infrastructure issues. Design of housing and associated infrastructure and the extent

of retrofitting is therefore more important in reducing building energy consumption than any attempt to increase urban density.

For Whitechapel, this means that development should be concentrated within about

500m of the new Crossrail station, and that if there is to be any wider effect on energy consumption, it can only come from the infrastructural and retrofitting benefits that new development could confer on the existing built form. This thesis argues that

the combined densification and retrofitting of environmentally inefficient post-war housing estates could be one of the most successful strategies for reducing the energy consumption of areas of inner London like Whitechapel.

19

ď&#x201A;ž{10} The Crossrail work site

20

Opportunities and barriers to development

Despite the imminent arrival of Crossrail, plans for the future of Whitechapel are

limited. The LBTH has produced a masterplan identifying a small number of sites suitable for redevelopment24, and when compared with the land and buildings

currently vacant, it is clear the area is heavily built and well used {11}. The high streetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conservation area status, the presence of a large secondary school, and the area

24.

LBTH, Whitechapel Masterplan: Interim Supplementary Planning Document (London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 2007).

occupied by the Royal London Hospital mostly prevent very high density transport

oriented development around the station of the type suggested by Jin. Development is planned directly above the Crossrail work site, formerly a supermarket car park,

and is possible on the site of a 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private gated community. However, this is not enough to contribute significantly to the sustainability or regeneration of Whitechapel as a whole.

Further afield, post-war estates dominate Whitechapel {12}. They are the most common type of building requiring retrofitting. Furthermore, they occupy land inefficiently and at a lower density than the 18th and 19th century pattern of streets and

houses; most estates have a floor area ratio (FAR) of about 1, and the historic fabric

typically has a FAR of 1.5. Many of these estates are very close to the Crossrail station.

This thesis argues that, for these reasons, they are Whitechapelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best candidate for redevelopment.

21

22

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{11} Opportunities and barriers to development 1:3500 Edina Digimap / LBTH / survey by author Post-war social housing estates Vacant buildings Vacant land Opportunities for development identified by LBTH Conservation area Buildings listed grade I or II* Buildings listed grade II Other Crossrail, District, Hammersmith and City and East London Line station

23

24

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{12} Building typologies 1:3500 Edina Digimap / survey by author

Post-war social housing estates Pre-war social housing 18th and 19th century terraces Post-war houses with gardens Other

25

ď&#x201A;ž{13} Estate 4, tower

26

Selecting a site for further analysis

The design research began with a study of all the estates in Whitechapel {14-26}.

Detailed design can only be performed on two, and so estates 1 and 4 were selected as the main focus of the thesis {27}. This decision was made based on whether they are

typical and representative examples, whether they are close to the Crossrail station, and their relationship with the urban context. Throughout this thesis, these two

estates will be used to illustrate the problems caused and faced by post-war estates in general.

27

❾

⓬

❿

⓫

28

❿

{14} Post war social housing estates in Whitechapel, estates 1 and 4 highlighted 1:3500 Edina Digimap / author

❷ ❸ ❹ ❶

❺

❻

❽

❼

29

ď&#x201A;ž{15}

Estate 1 FAR: 1.15

DPH: 165

Advantages Close to Whitechapel Road area of mixed use Close to high footfall supermarket

Close to large mixed use development opportunity over Crossrail work site Close to Crossrail station

Typical, uniform typology means lessons can be learnt and applied elsewhere

Relationship with Cambridge Heath Road Relationship with surrounding similar context Internal courtyard not well used Disadvantages Very tight spaces in internal courtyard compared with elsewhere

Bing maps

30

ď&#x201A;ž{16}

Estate 2 FAR: 1.28

DPH: 171

Advantages Contrast of tower and smaller flatted blocks is commonplace Relationship with estate 1 Large areas of open space Disadvantages Combination of tower and flatted blocks is similar to estates 4 and 8 Surrounding area entirely residential in use

Bing maps

31

ď&#x201A;ž{17}

Estate 3 FAR: 0.88

DPH: 145

Advantages Typical, uniform typology

Large area of open space in centre Close to Crossrail station

Relationship with estate 2 Disadvantages Typology very similar to estate 1 but with fewer advantages

Surrounding area mostly residential in use Central open space used moderately effectively for recreation

Bing maps

32

ď&#x201A;ž{18}

Estate 4 FAR: 0.89

DPH: 118

Advantages Contrast of tower and smaller flatted blocks, decreasing in size, is commonplace Relationship with Cambridge Heath Road Relationship with estate 1 Disadvantages Inclusion of some out-of-typology buildings could detract from validity of result, i.e. the working mensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; club and individual houses Open space is used for recreation, however not particularly effectively Similar to estates 2 and 8

Bing maps

33

ď&#x201A;ž{19}

Estate 5 FAR: 1.12

DPH: 123

Advantages Close to Crossrail Station On Whitechapel Road

Mixed use surroundings

Wasted space along Whitechapel Road Disadvantages Unique typology and relationship with Whitechapel Road could mean that results are not applicable elsewhere

Bing maps

34

ď&#x201A;ž{20}

Estate 6 FAR: 0.87

DPH: 117

Advantages Large areas of open space not well used at present Typical, uniform typology Disadvantages Similar to estate 1 but without as many advantages

Surrounding area mainly residential in use

Bing maps

35

ď&#x201A;ž{21}

Estate 7 FAR: 1.05

DPH: 135

Advantages Adjacent to mixed use area on Commercial Road Substantial area of open space in the centre not used effectively Typical, uniform typology

Relationship with estate 8 Disadvantages Relatively far from Crossrail station, densification more likely to cause unwanted congestion on local bus routes and the DLR

Similar to estate 1 and others but without as many advantages

Bing maps

36

ď&#x201A;ž{22}

Estate 8 FAR: 1.65

DPH: 195

Advantages Adjacent to mixed use area on Commercial Road Area of open space in the centre not used effectively

Contrast of tower and smaller flatted blocks is commonplace Relationship with estate 7 Disadvantages Relatively far from Crossrail station, densification more likely to cause unwanted congestion on local bus routes and the DLR Similar to estates 2 and 4

Bing maps

37

ď&#x201A;ž{23}

Estate 9 FAR: 1.00

DPH: 138

Advantages Some mixed use already at ground level Close to Crossrail station

Open space not used effectively Disadvantages Similar to estate 1 but without as many advantages

Bing maps

38

ď&#x201A;ž{24}

Estate 10 FAR: 1.06

DPH: 163

Advantages Contrast of tower and smaller flatted blocks, decreasing in size, is commonplace Close to Crossrail Station

Relationship with estate 11 Disadvantages Very complex mix of typologies including business park and community centre, plus individual houses could detract from validity of results

Bing maps

39

ď&#x201A;ž{25}

Estate 11 FAR: 1.19

DPH: 142

Advantages Typical, uniform typology

Relationship with estate 10 Disadvantages Tight spaces between blocks pose a difficulty

Further from Crossrail station although it is still the nearest public transport node Small site overall

Similar to estate 1 and others but without as many advantages

Bing maps

40

ď&#x201A;ž{26}

Estate 12 FAR: 1.10

DPH: 141

Advantages Relationship with estate 9 Disadvantages Existing roads take up significant space around buildings

Inclusion of some out-of-typology buildings could detract from validity of result Further from Crossrail station although it is still the nearest public transport node

Bing maps

41

42

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{27} Estates 1 and 4 in context, a study of these forms the core of this thesis

43

ď&#x201A;ž{28} Gentrified 18th century terraces next to new office and biomedical research buildings on Turner Street

44

A zone of transition

Returning to the urban scale, Whitechapel is clearly what geographers call a “zone of transition” or “assimilation and discard”25. Its location at the edge of the City makes

it a frontier between commercial and residential land uses, and it has the dynamism of function typical of much of inner London {31}. Such areas offer a rare, sustainable

25.

See for example: T. Hall, Urban Geography (London: Routledge, 1998).

and attractive opportunity to live, work and socialise in the same area, and the relative affordability of office space and perceived creativity of such areas has often led to their gentrification. Examples of this in inner London would be the Old Street

corridor, Shoreditch, and Southwark. In Whitechapel, complete gentrification has only extended from Spitalfields as far as Brick Lane, at the edge of the study area of this thesis, despite the City expanding strongly around the Aldgate with new office buildings.

However, the recently refurbished 18th century terraces of Turner and Varden Street26

{28-29}, the construction of apartments aimed at working professionals, and the

movement of celebrities to the area27, are early signs of a change. High Street 2012, part of the Olympic Legacy, is acting as a catalyst for this change, refurbishing and

restoring the area’s historic buildings and recreating the lost 18th century High Street,

albeit with state funds28. The physical transformation that has occurred during the 18

months leading up to the Olympics is extraordinary {30}.

It is clear that post-war estates are a significant barrier to the dynamism and

26.

Threefold Architects, “Turner Street”, in Threefold Architects <http://www. threefoldarchitects.com/projects/turnerstreet/> [accessed 17 July 2012]

27.

R. Eden, “Peaches Geldof is to marry for second time at the age of 22”, in The Telegraph <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/celebritynews/8948354/PeachesGeldof-is-to-marry-for-second-time-at-theage-of-22.html> [accessed 17 July 2012] 28.

High Street 2012, “High Street 2012” <http://www.highstreet2012.com/> [accessed 17 July 2012]

transition of use in Whitechapel, and thus to the area’s gentrification {31}. Estate 1 in particular represents a barrier to the varied uses that could result from the high

pedestrian footfall between Sainsbury’s and Cambridge Heath Road {32}. This street, Darling Row, could support a mixture of retail, office and live-work space, were it not for the presence of the estate. The thesis proposes an urban re-appropriation of

estates, allowing them to provide the dynamism and flexibility of use that is essential for the future of Whitechapel. This will be examined in chapter 6.

45

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{29} Gentrification on Turner Street Threefold Architects

46

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{30} Transformations: High Street 2012 High Street 2012

1900

2009

2011

2012

47

48

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{31} The zone of transition: ground floor uses 1:3500 Edina Digimap / survey by author Education Community youth centre or library Further, college or training Higher Under 16 Office Professional or public sector Informal or local

Residential Flats: post-war social housing estate Flats: other Private house Retail Bar or pub Cafe Fast food Restaurant Other Books Clothes and accessories Cycle or automotive Electrical and mobile phones Food and drink Household Newsagent

Services Bank Betting gambling amusements Estate agent Hair beauty and therapy Laundry dry cleaning Legal or accounting Light industrial or mechanics Money transfer Pawnbroker Pharmacy dentist or opticians Printing or photography Travel agent

Other Religious building Unclassified or vacant (see other maps) Mixed use / residential transition boundary

49

❶

❸

❹ ❷

50

{32} Estates 1 and 4: the zone of transition ❶ Sainsbury's superstore ❷ Idea Store (public library) ❸ Sainsbury's multistorey car park ❹ Crossrail work site, mixed use development planned for 2018

Mixed use / residential transition boundary

Protection from traffic noise required Opportunity for expansion of zone of mixed use

Local area of mixed use, opportunity for live work or other diverse uses

51

ď&#x201A;ž{33} Whitechapel market: diversity on the edge of the City

52

Ethnicity and the community

As with all gentrification, the effects in Whitechapel could be particularly detrimental to the existing community. Since the early 1960’s Whitechapel has been the main focus

of emigration from a small region in upper Bangladesh called Sylhet, and the Sylheti

community is well established and recognised, with bilingual signs and services commonplace in Whitechapel. The problematic nature of the relationship between the Sylheti community, the white working class community of the East End, and the working professionals that have begun to settle in the area is detailed in Dench et al’s

The New East End: Kinship, Race and Conflict29. Generally this is a story of segregation

and lack of communication. This is reflected in the experience of the author through communication with a number of residents in Whitechapel. The only exception

29.

G. Dench, K. Gavron and M. Young, The New East End: Kinship, Race and Conflict (London: Profile, 2006).

is over social housing allocation policies, where white working class residents feel the Sylheti community have received favourable treatment over many years due to

their large families and representation within the council and housing associations.

However, they fought very hard to gain this advantage against a background of council discrimination in the 1970’s30.

It is clear from census records that the Sylheti community is indeed concentrated in

post war social housing, especially around Brick Lane, but they do not outnumber

30.

The Secret History of Our Streets: Episode 6, Arnold Circus, dir. by C. Durlacher (Century Films Ltd and Halcyons Heart Films Ltd for the BBC, 2012).

other residents overall {34}. The Sylheti tradition is to live in large extended family groups; typically with three or four generations in one household, with oldest sons moving into the paternal home with their wives, giving a fairly high household income

if all are working. Most post-war social housing is ill suited to this way of life, with inflexible internal layouts and small, fixed, dwelling sizes, typically with two or three

bedrooms. Current housing policy in the LBTH is to provide a number of large socially rented houses of five and six bedrooms on any new development to cater for Sylheti families.

53

54

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{34} Ethnicity (self identified) 1:3500 ONS / Edina Digimap / author

Bangladeshi or British Bangladeshi White British Other

55

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{35} Pilot project: adaptability of a house typology Sharpe, "Transport oriented..."

56

A pilot project undertaken by the author demonstrated how these houses could adapt to future demographic and functional change due to gentrification31 {35}. They therefore form a key part of the thesis’ overall strategy, but will not be designed in detail. This is discussed further in chapter 4.

It is not clear whether gentrification will cause the existing Sylheti community

31.

D. Sharpe, “Transport oriented mixed use development in inner London: to what extent can current best practice produce a typology appropriate for the future of Whitechapel?” (MPhil Essay, University of Cambridge, Department of Architecture, 2011).

to leave Whitechapel. Those with a social housing tenancy will not have reason to leave, and Dench et al found that many Sylheti residents have exercised their Right

to Buy and have expressed a wish to remain in Whitechapel despite the rising value of their property. Nevertheless, the Sylheti community has gradually begun to move into suburban outer London, particularly around Ilford, in a similar manner to the

Jewish and Huguenot communities before them. However, in this case there is no clear immigrant group arriving to replace them, and available social housing space in Whitechapel is being filled by new extended family arrivals from Bangladesh, enabling the area to maintain its ethnic character despite the mobility of the population. It

is possible, but not certain, that changes in immigration law could now break this cycle32.

The relationship and needs of these different communities must be considered as part of the design proposal. The existing residents must benefit and a feel part of any

32.

G. Kenyon, “UK test risks ‘keeping couples apart’”, in The Guardian <http://www. guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/10/ uk-english-test> [accessed 17 July 2012]

changes, so that they are comfortable with remaining in Whitechapel, if they so wish.

It would be unethical to suggest otherwise. This will ensure that natural demographic change, not physical development, determines the future makeup of the community.

However, if there is the opportunity to use architecture to integrate the communities and encourage communication and understanding, then this should be taken. This is discussed in chapter 5.

57

ď&#x201A;ž{36} Typical pre-war social housing in Whitechapel, Parfett Street

58

Whitechapel and post war social housing: a history

Armed with an understanding of the regional, economic and demographic issues facing Whitechapel, the specific problems of post war social housing estates can be addressed. This thesis proposes a radical change to the way in which these estates are perceived, and so it is necessary to understand the reasons for their development in

the first place, and how this has led to poor public perception, both of estates and of

Whitechapel. The story of estates is inextricably tied to that of Whitechapel, and so the two are told together.

During the 19th century the East End, and Whitechapel in particular, gained a formidable

reputation as the most overcrowded, poverty and disease ridden urban area in the world33. The need of workers to be close to the docks at Wapping, and their casual

work structure quickly led to one of the highest population densities in Europe34. In the 1840s a survey showed that it was common to find eight people living in a room

of only 10ft by 8ft35. This led to the UK’s first attempts at social housing, mostly by

private philanthropists such as George Peabody36, and in 1893 the Boundary Street Estate, just to the north of the study area, was built by the London County Council

(LCC), the first example of local authority housing in Britain37. The construction of

local authority housing in Whitechapel continued throughout the next 40 years, and much was of excellent quality, and is cherished today {36}. However, some larger

33.

S. Inwood, A History of London (London: Macmillan, 1998)., 522.

34.

Inwood, History of London, 518-9.

35.

A. Davies, The East End Nobody Knows (London: Macmillan, 1998)., 90.

36.

A. Palmer, The East End: Four Centuries of London Life (London: John Murray, 1989)., 61.

37.

L. Hanley, Estates: An Intimate History (London: Granta, 2007).54-6.

schemes began to experience significant social problems.

The advent of cheap workmen’s tickets on the railways allowed those who could

afford it to move away from Whitechapel and inner London, increasing the social

stigma and poor environmental conditions of the area, but lowering its population density38. However, by 1939 the government still viewed densities in the East End to be too high39.

The proximity of Whitechapel to the docks made it a primary target in the Second

World War, and 19% of the built area in Whitechapel and Stepney was destroyed {37}.

40

Although the damage was considerable, large areas were left intact, and communities

38.

C. Kerrigan, A History of Tower Hamlets (London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 1982)., 47, and M. Young, Family and Kinship in East London (London: Routledge, 1957)., 66.

39.

Palmer, Four Centuries of London Life, 129.

40.

Inwood, History of London, 180.

were preserved. However, by 1941, the government thought that comprehensive post

war reconstruction could solve many of London’s problems. They commissioned the LCC architects Patrick Abercrombie and John Forshaw to produce what was to become The County of London Plan and The Greater London Plan41.

41.

P. Abercrombie and J. Forshaw, The County of London Plan (London: Macmillan, 1943). and P. Abercrombie and J. Forshaw, The Greater London Plan (London: Macmillan, 1944).

59

60

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{37} WW2 bomb damage in Whitechapel Saunders

Total destruction Damaged beyond repair Seriously damaged, doubtful if repairable Seriously damaged, repairable at cost Minor blast damage Current slum clearance areas

61

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{38} Abercromie's proposed post-war re-zoning Carter and Goldfinger

62

The “worst” parts of London were to be granted “Reconstruction Area” status, involving mass compulsory purchase and wholesale rebuilding over many years,

and rezoning of land use into clearly defined types with no allowance for the mixed

and dynamic uses Whitechapel has today42 {38}. The southern part of the study area was one of these reconstruction areas, referred to as “Stepney” {39}. Abercrombie agreed with the government that many of inner London’s problems would be solved by lowering the population density, and proposed that the density in Whitechapel

should be lowered by around 40% from pre-war levels, to the equivalent of around 100dph43. Abercrombie suggested that bomb damaged sites should be rebuilt first44,

and that, as Goldfinger put it, they should be used for “the types of dwellings which can accommodate the most people: […] the tallest blocks of flats”45. Abercrombie

suggested that these were to be surrounded by entirely communal gardens, and Goldfinger suggested that:

42.

Abercrombie and Forshaw, County of London Plan, 103, and The Secret History of Our Streets: Episode 1, Deptford High Street, dir. by C. Durlacher (Century Films Ltd and Halcyons Heart Films Ltd for the BBC, 2012).

43.

Abercrombie and Forshaw, County of London Plan, 8 and 147.

44.

Abercrombie and Forshaw, County of London Plan, 103.

45.

E. Carter and E. Goldfinger, The County of London Plan Explained (London: Penguin, 1945)., 68.

“With the resources of modern building science and the skill and imagination of modern architects […] every house […] will be as good as the best that London has known in the past”46 {40}.

The implementation of the Plan was slow due to post war financial pressures47.

During the 1940’s suburban flight from inner London accelerated, and the perception of Whitechapel remained very negative. By 1951 housing had begun to dominate politics48. Local authorities were subsidised to demolish 19th century houses rather

than refurbish them, and to replace them with flats which were supposed to be more

46.

Carter and Goldfinger, County of London Plan Explained, 31.

47.

B. Cullingworth, “Fifty Years of Post-war Planning”, The Town Planning Review, 65 (1994): 277-303.

48.

Hanley, Estates, 87-90.

efficient to construct and maintain. Instead, constructing flats became much more

expensive per dwelling than houses, which led to budget cuts. These were achieved partly by reducing the provision of local amenities and by lowering the quality of the communal gardens49, however:

“The main way savings were achieved was by increasingly stringent economies in the access systems, which were to become the root of many of the subsequent problems”50.

Estate 1 is a typical example of the estates constructed in the 1950’s {41}. It consists

49.

P. Dunleavy, The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain 1945-75 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981)., 35.

50.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 49.

of five storey walk up “tenement” blocks arranged around publically accessible courtyards originally used mostly for car parking {42}.

63

64

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{39} The proposed post-war reconstruction of Whitechapel Abercrombie and Forshaw, The County of...

65

66

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{40} Types of housing proposed for the post-war reconstruction areas Carter and Goldfinger

67

68

ď&#x201A;ž{41} Estate 1, 1950's tenement blocks

69

70

ď&#x201A;ž{42} Estate 1

71

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{43} Martin and March's demonstration of the efficiency of a low rise, high density form Martin and March

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{44} The Urban Task Force's demonstration of the same idea DETR

72

By the mid 1950’s, the drive to cut costs, the influence of the modern movement on local authority architects, and pressure from the construction industry, all pointed towards building larger, taller and supposedly more efficient planned housing estates51. In 1956 a progressive storey height subsidy was introduced by the government, this

represented the first official break from Abercrombie’s plan52. By 1960, around 40%

of the “Stepney” reconstruction area had been rebuilt, although not in line with the

51.

Hanley, Estates, 85-6, and Dunleavy, Politics of Mass Housing, 53-70.

52.

Dunleavy, Politics of Mass Housing, 37.

drawings in the Plan, and much of the northern part of the study area had been rebuilt

in the same manner. Only 10% of the public open space recommended by Abercrombie had been provided53, and the quality of the buildings, community facilities and open

space was considerably worse than he had envisaged. Then, between 1956 and 1969,

many of the remaining sites in Whitechapel were used for system built tower blocks of increasing height, and worsening quality54.

Estate 4 is a relatively high quality example from this period. Although it is dominated

53.

Inwood, History of London, 821-22.

54.

Palmer, Four Centuries of London Life, 154, Hanley, Estates, 106-110, and Dunleavy, Politics of Mass Housing, 242-8.

by an 11 storey system built tower, which is in poor condition {49}, there are some two story walk up flats and four storey walk up maisonette blocks in good condition {45-48}.

The 1968 collapse of Ronan Point in nearby Canning Town was a turning point in

the construction of social housing in Britain. A 1967 report had shown that 70% of the “slums” demolished since 1945 had been structurally sound55, most of these

having been 18th and 19th century terraces that would be cherished today, and there

55.

Inwood, History of London, 880.

were growing concerns about the social problems emerging in planned housing. In

1976 the government suggested the policy of constructing large planned estates

was seen as a failure56. This abandonment of the modernist dream was mirrored by

contemporary architectural discourse. In the US, the 1972 demolition of the Pruitt

Igoe housing estate was described by the influential critic Charles Jencks as “the day

56.

Inwood, History of London, 892.

Modern Architecture died”57. In the same year in Cambridge Martin and March had

57.

Jencks, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture.

in a traditional, low rise form58 {43}.

58.

L. Martin and L. March, eds., Urban Space and Structures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

demonstrated that it was possible to achieve the densities of most high rise housing

In time, this perception of post-war social housing as a failure would become

ingrained in the consciousness of policymakers and the public. Fundamentally, this thesis argues that it is possible to remove this perception though design, and that

Whitechapel is the place to begin this process. Firstly, however, it is essential to fully understand the reality of the relationship between the design of these estates and the problems they have experienced. This is the subject of the next chapter.

Chapter 2

73

74

ď&#x201A;ž{45} Estate 4, maisonette blocks

75

76

ď&#x201A;ž{47} Estate 4, maisonette blocks

77

ď&#x201A;ž{48} Estate 4, maisonette blocks

78

ď&#x201A;ž{49} Estate 4, tower

79

80

Post-War Social Housing: Approaches

The legacy

Social remedies and management

Defensible space and design improvement Criticisms of design improvement

Architectural language and homogeneity Why not demolition?

The relevance of density

81

ď&#x201A;ž{50} Estate 4, two storey walk-ups, showing physical security measures made necessary by the electronic access systems

82

The legacy

Social malaise was apparent in some post-war social housing estates from the start.

This prompted many to ask whether there was a connection between their design and their occupants’ behaviour, especially as vandalism was causing high maintenance costs. Some estates became hard to let to potential tenants, and it was clear there was

a problem with their perception. Physical problems with their structure and detailing began to emerge. Central government, local authorities and academics began to search for a solution.

In Shelter is not Enough59, Towers provides a review of the successes and failures of the

many attempts to improve estates undertaken in the UK over the last 40 years. The first centrally funded program, Estate Action, started in 1978, and more funding was made

59.

G. Towers, Shelter is Not Enough: Transforming multi-storey housing (Bristol: The Policy Press, 2000).

available throughout the early 1980’s, mostly for the modernisation of older estates,

providing new windows and heating, improved access systems, and sometimes

pitched roofs and better landscaping. Access systems in particular were expensive to install and maintain, and were often vandalised or left unsecured, especially where

a single system served more than 25 dwellings. It was often necessary to provide extensive physical defences to prevent the systems being bypassed, and this created

a fortified appearance, especially to the lower levels of estates, contributing to the

emerging poor public perception of post-war estates and the inner city areas in which they were located. This is a still a serious problem for estates 1 and 4, especially given Whitechapel’s historic issues with poor perception {50-51}.

The early 1980’s “window dressing” was successful on many smaller estates, but larger ones remained hard to let and prone to social disorder. Crises such as the 1985 Broadwater Farm riots focussed the government’s attention on improving the largest

estates from the 1960’s and 70’s. By the late 1980’s two strands of thinking had emerged on how to improve post-war estates, the first based on the idea that social

factors were the main problem, and the second based on the idea that the design of the estates themselves was at fault and should be improved.

83

84

ď&#x201A;ž{51} Physical security measures on estate 10

85

ď&#x201A;ž{52} THH maintain an almost constant presence on many of their estates due to the high levels of maintenance required

86

Social remedies and management

In inner London, many estates now house the poorest in society, but this was not the case originally. In 1978 42% of the UK population lived in council housing and there

was little stigma attached to renting a council home. Over time, the Right to Buy and the disposal of stock to housing associations eroded the amount and average quality of council housing. Today, only 12% of the population live in council housing, and public perception is the worst it has ever been60.

Typically, once the best housing had left the state sector, the best of what remained

60.

See Hanley, Estates, chapter 3 and Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, chapter 3.

was taken by those who knew their local area well, and the most disadvantaged in

society and those new to the UK were placed on the most problematic estates. This led to a variety of attempts to improve estates through extensive social intervention.

Power61 argued that estates were poorly managed, and sought to improve this through

local management. This approach was moderately successful, however Towers argues that “Local management must be seen as a key part of a successful package of

improvements rather than as a solution in itself”62. This thesis is primarily interested

in design issues, so the technicalities of management will not be discussed further.

61.

A. Power, Property Before People: The management of 20th century social housing (London: Allen and Unwin, 1985). and A. Power, Estates on the Edge: The social consquences of mass housing in northern Europe (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997).

62.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 113.

Other approaches sought to improve the social mix of tenants on estates, and to re-

allocate tenants to housing more appropriate to their needs, particularly where this

reduced child densities on high rise estates. This was a much more successful policy than local management. Today, the social benefits of constructing housing for a range of potential occupants and tenures are well recognised:

“A poor mix of housing tenure […] can lead to social imbalance and result in unsustainable communities. A large development should have the full range of tenures.”63

“[The planning system should deliver]… a mix of housing, both market and affordable,

particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households in all areas.”64

It has already been argued that tenure and dwelling mix is of critical importance

63.

CABE, Building for Life (London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2008). 3.

64.

PPS3 Housing, quoted in CABE, Building for Life, 3.

to this thesis, given the changing demographic of Whitechapel and the needs of the Sylheti community. This evidence adds further weight to that argument.

87

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{53} Defensible space Newman

88

Defensible space and design improvement

Newman’s 1972 Defensible Space65 is one of the earliest academic studies of post-war estates. He compares a detailed record of incidences of crime on estates in New York

with their design features, and from this he formulates a theory of housing design

65.

O. Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design (New York: Macmillan, 1973).

he calls “defensible space” {53}. Focussing mainly on the way in which dwellings

share access and amenity space, Newman claims that factors associated with higher crime rates include anonymity, lack of surveillance of access routes and grounds, the presence of alternative escape routes, and high numbers of dwellings per communal

entrance. He also finds that taller buildings suffer more crime, and suggests that the

degree to which the grounds and public amenity space are shared and defended by different households and the general public is important.

The issues discussed by Newman in Defensible Space are returned to throughout

virtually all the literature on post war social housing published since, and have become part of housing design guidelines generally66. However, Newman makes it very clear

that “defensible space” only provides security, perceived or actual, if residents have

the capacity and desire to defend it. He suggests that those experiencing the most

66.

See for example “Secured by Design”, and Design for London, The London Housing Design Guide (London: London Development Agency, 2010)., 12.

difficulty in society are less likely to be able to defend, and this is likely to cause a worsening of problems in whatever type of housing they are placed. The difficulty of separating this duality of cause between the physical design features of social housing

estates and the socio-economic problems of their occupants has haunted attempts to analyse and correct their problems ever since Newman’s work was published.

89

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{54} The estates in the LBTH studied by Coleman, the study area and estates 1 and 4 are highlighted, this reveals the extent of post-war social housing in the LBTH Coleman, Utopia on Trial

90

Coleman’s 1985 Utopia on Trial67 was an attempt to perform a study similar to that of Newman in the UK context, specifically the London Boroughs of Southwark and

Tower Hamlets, and the estates studied in this thesis were all analysed by Coleman at

67.

A. Coleman, Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing, 2nd ed.

(London: Hilary Shipman Ltd, 1990).

the time {54}. Coleman was unable to access the detailed records of crime available

to Newman. She therefore analysed abuse and vandalism on the estates, and compared this with a series of “accused” design features using statistical analysis. She

recommended that these “deleterious features” should be removed through “design improvement” funded by central government, and managed by her.

Coleman’s findings align closely with those of Newman, her essential argument being that family houses are superior to flats due to their layering of defensible space. She

argues that the most problematic features on estates are: large numbers of dwellings in a single building; large numbers of dwellings accessible from each communal

entrance; very high buildings with dwellings over many storeys; buildings with

multiple vertical access routes freely interconnected by deck access or corridors; and buildings with communal entrances poorly visible from the street, or hidden inside

the estate. Again it is clear that these features would not be allowed by current housing design guidance, but many are present on estates 1 and 4. A particular problem is the

number of dwellings accessible per entrance on estate 1 and in the tower of estate 4 {55}. Street relationships are poor on estate 1 and the maisonette blocks of estate 4,

with entrances deep inside the estate {56}. This will need to be improved as part of the design proposal.

Coleman argues that problems are also caused by internal corridors with poor

surveillance, and that deck access is therefore preferred, as seen throughout estates

1 and 4. This is contrary to the current approach, but is excellent environmentally, as it allows full cross ventilation of each dwelling, giving this type of post-war social housing great resilience. Research has shown that this is critically important in

reducing the summertime overheating that is caused by London’s urban heat island, and will be exacerbated by climate change68.

68.

D. Sharpe, “Iroko Housing, Coin Street, Southwark: Controlling overheating in high density residential buildings in a changing climate” (MPhil Essay, University of Cambridge, Department of Architecture, 2011). and O. Jowett, “High Density, LowCarbon Housing: the design implications of the UK’s changing climate” (MPhil Thesis, University of Cambridge, Department of Architecture, 2011).

91

92

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{55} Number of dwellings accessible from a single entrance, estates 1 and 4 up to 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

93

94

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{56} Relationship of entrances and street, estates 1 and 4 0-20m 20-40m 40-60m 60m+

95

ď&#x201A;ž{57} Estate 4, dead space under the tower created by pilotis

96

Coleman has much to say on the urban design of estates, mirroring the findings

of Newman. She cites research that suggests the dead spaces under tower blocks supported by Corbusian pilotis are crime hotspots, as are estates where there are

multiple entrances into the grounds. The space under the pilotis of the tower on estate 4 is unused, and feels unsafe, despite receiving a fair amount of sunlight, daylight and

artificial light {57}. Coleman finds that the typical 1960â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach of creating linear buildings arranged with a north south aspect, in order to provide maximum sunlight

to living rooms, performs poorly compared to the less typical, and more traditional, form of buildings arranged around a communal courtyard. Estate 4 is fortunate

enough to be arranged in this manner. Estate 1 is clearly arranged according to solar

aspect, but is a hybrid between linear and courtyard blocks. The courtyard spaces

therefore suffer from poor observation due to being surrounded by the defensive, lightly fenestrated entrance walls of the flats {58}. Observation will have to be

improved if these spaces are to become useful, but they suffer from another, more serious problem, much discussed by Coleman.

97

98

ď&#x201A;ž{58} Poor courtyard observation, estate 1

99

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{59} Confused space Coleman, Utopia on Trial

100

Coleman refers frequently to the way in which the urban design of estates creates what she calls “confused space” {60}. These are the publically accessible grounds

between the estate buildings that were originally designed to give each flat “outdoor living space roughly equivalent in area to the garden space of high density housing”69.

Coleman suggests that this space is not truly defensible as strangers cannot be challenged when walking across it, but that it is not as public as a street, and so it feels

69.

The Ministry of Housing, The Density of Housing (1952), quoted in Jowett, “High Density Low Carbon Housing”, 23.

less secure and more uncomfortable, leading residents to avoid using it except as an access route to communal entrances. It is certainly not felt secure enough for younger

children to play there unsupervised. Coleman suggests that it should be converted into private gardens, but also states that these do not work beneath tall blocks over four storeys due to the fear of items dropping from above, and can create problems with envious residents on the upper floors.

On estates 1 and 4, confused space abounds, surrounding the buildings and filling the courtyards {61}. From the author’s observations on summer Saturdays in Whitechapel,

Coleman is quite right that it is never used, and feels incredibly physiologically

uncomfortable to walk through, albeit as an unchallenged stranger {62-63}. Children are many times more likely to be seen playing in the street or on access balconies than

in this confused space. This thesis argues that in Whitechapel, where land and space is precious, this it is unacceptable for space to be so poorly used. Eliminating this confused space is perhaps the most important task of the design proposal.

Environmentally, estates 1 and 4 benefit from excellent daylighting and solar access, well above BRE guidance {64-65}. This was clearly a key driver in their planning,

but it was also a key driver in forming the confused space between them. The design proposal must carefully rebalance these two issues.

101

102

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{60} The potential for confused space in Whitechapel 1:3500 Edina Digimap / survey by author Parks managed by LBTH Post-war social housing estates

Publically accessible private land Car parking Hardstanding Grass or gardens

103

104

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{61} Confused space on estates 1 and 4 Public grass or garden Public hardstanding Car parking Individual private garden Communal private garden Children's playground Sports pitch

105

106

ď&#x201A;ž{62} Confused space, estate 1

107

108

ď&#x201A;ž{63} Confused space, estate 4

109

110

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{64} Hours of sunlight received on 21st March, the BRE recommends at least 25% of amenity space receives at least some sunlight on this date 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

111

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{65} Estates 1 and 4, daylight 0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0+

% Daylight Factor

+6.85m

+3.85m

112

+0.85m

+30.85m

+27.85m

+24.85m

+21.85m

+18.85m

+15.85m

+12.85m

113

+9.85m

Daylight factor

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{66} The relationship of post-war social housing to the 2011 London Riots Space Syntax

114

Criticisms of design improvement

With its provocative title, the work of Coleman was to trigger a heated debate across the pages of The Architects Journal between Coleman and her detractors. Most critics

argued that the correlations she found were due to social factors70, and Coleman’s response is not particularly convincing71. Clearly Newman’s uncertainty over the

relative role of design and social factors is an ever present danger, and Newman

expressed his concerns that Coleman hadn’t addressed social issues properly72.

Nevertheless, Newman’s argument that social and design issues are connected through defensible space retains its strength after Coleman.

Hillier was the most vocal critic of Coleman, and argued that her scientific approach

was fundamentally flawed73, an accusation rebuffed by Coleman74. Indeed, Hillier

made similar criticisms of the work of Newman, and Newman supports Coleman in

her scientific defence of her work against Hillier75. It would appear that Coleman’s conclusions have some validity. In fact, Hillier agrees with most of Coleman’s views

on design, including that of confused space, stating that “the only way to re-humanise estates is to gradually reintegrate them with the public realm”, citing both his own Space Syntax research76, and the work of Jacobs. Recently, Hillier has argued that

estates played a key role in the 2011 London riots {66}:

70.

B. Anson, “Don’t Shoot the Graffiti Man”, The Architects Journal, 2nd July (1986): 16-7. and B. Heaven, “Comeback on Coleman”, The Architects Journal, 3rd September (1986): 32-3.

71.

A. Coleman, “Utopia Debate”, The Architects Journal, 6th August (1986): 16-7.

72.

S. Heck, “Oscar Newman Revisited”, The Architects Journal, 8th April (1987): 30-2.

73.

B. Hillier, “City of Alice’s Dreams”, The Architects Journal, 9th July (1986): 39-41.

74.

Coleman, “Utopia Debate”.

75.

Heck, “Oscar Newman Revisited”.

76.

B. Hillier and J. Hanson, The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

“Most post-war housing estates have been designed in such a way that they create over-complex, and as a result, under-used spaces. These spaces are populated by large groups of unsupervised children and teenagers, where peer socialisation can occur between them without the influence of adults”77.

Although somewhat tenuous, this acts as a reminder that post war estates remain the one of the most difficult issues facing inner London’s built environment today.

77.

Space Syntax, “London Riots”, in Space Syntax <http://www.spacesyntax.com/ project/2011-london-riots/> [accessed 17 July 2012]

Coleman was ultimately successful in getting funding for a radical “design

improvement: controlled experiment” on seven estates in inner London from 1991.

However, dramatic improvements were not forthcoming. Towers finds that, generally,

Coleman’s approach was no more successful than the basic improvements of Estate Action. He concludes that:

“Design modifications undoubtedly have an important part to play in regenerating multi-storey housing, but they are not an all-embracing panacea.”78

He calls for an approach that mixes the social, management and design improvement

facets of regeneration into a cohesive whole, arguing that to miss out one would jeopardise the others79. Mikellides explains how this view perfectly echoes the findings

of Newman80. The design proposal must therefore combine design improvements to

the estates, which are mainly about the sharing of space in high density environments, with an allowance for the social and demographic challenges of Whitechapel.

78.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 117.

79.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 136.

80.

B. Mikellides, “Theory, Practice and Education: Architectural Psychology 19692007”, Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 2 (2007).

115

ď&#x201A;ž{67} Estate 1, facade

116

Architectural language and homogeneity

Although many have blamed the problems of estates on societal, economic and cultural issues, it can be argued that the general public were intuitively perceptive

of the design problems and architectural criticisms of many estates from the start. If this were not the case, they would not have remained at the bottom of the list in the

process of housing choice from the 1960’s onwards, and the poorest in society would

not have become concentrated in them. Aside from the spatial design and social issues discussed, the main architectural criticism levied at much post war social housing is that it is “gloomy and unattractive”81. Hanley comments of her experience growing up on estates that:

“It was the anonymity and conformity of the estate as a whole that threatened to consume me. It felt as though the identikit homes produced identikit people”82.

This view is echoed in popular culture, from A Clockwork Orange to Attack the Block

81.

A. Power, Hovels to High Rise: State housing in Europe since 1850 (London: Routledge, 1993)., 30.

82.

Hanley, Estates, 34.

and Ill Manors, and has been explored by many architectural authors. Estates 1 and 4 are classic examples of this problem, and the individual buildings are very banal,

lacking identity, and presenting identical façades with no differentiation between dwelling units {67-68}.

Rather than cover the theory extensively here, it is more useful to look at architectural

responses to post war social housing that tackle these issues. Many estate regenerations have used colour and variation of fenestration to attempt to break down homogeneity.

This is often simply high maintenance window dressing. However, Urban Splash and Hawkins\Brown’s redevelopment of Park Hill in Sheffield is a successful example

that respects the original architectural intent83 {69}. In France, LAN architecture and

Lacaton and Vassal have regenerated a number of post-war estates, often tackling

confused space, but do not succeed in breaking their homogeneity {70-71}84. The

more theoretical responses of Tavares

85

{72} and Dujardin

86

{73} deal with the

appropriation and densification of estates, and Tavares makes visual reference to high

density environments such as the Kowloon Walled City. Kirk makes an interesting case for recladding tower blocks with thatch; although impractical this eloquently articulates the common desire to visually “soften” post-war social housing87 {74}.

If the thesis is to dramatically improve the perception post-war social housing, then

it must strike a balance between reducing homogeneity, creating an identity, and

creating too chaotic a visual environment. The solution must be realistic and low maintenance. This must be considered throughout the development of the design proposal.

83.

Hawkins\Brown, “Park Hill, Sheffield”, in Hawkins\Brown <http://www. hawkinsbrown.com/projects/park-hillsheffield> [accessed 17 July 2012]

84.

LAN Architecture, “Urban Renovation, Genicart district - Lormont, France”, in LAN Architecture <http://www.lan-paris. com/project-lormont-urban-rehabilitation. html> [accessed 17 July 2012] and Lacaton and Vassal, “Transformation of Housing Block - Paris 17°, Tour Bois le Prêtre Druot”, in Lacaton and Vassal <http://www. lacatonvassal.com/index.php?idp=56> [accessed 17 July 2012] 85.

K. Tavares, “Robots of Brixton”, in Factory Fifteen <http://factoryfifteen. com/7936/152394/home/robots-ofbrixton> [accessed 17 July 2012]

86.

F. Dujardin, in Filip Dujardin Photography <http://www.filipdujardin.be/> [accessed 17 July 2012] 87.

J. Kirk, “London Thatch”, in James Kirk Architecture <http://www.jameskirk.eu/ home.php?page=U02> [accessed 17 July 2012]

117

118

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{68} Facade homogeneity , estates 1 and 4

119

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{69} The regeneration of Park Hill, Sheffield Hawkins Brown

120

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{70} The regeneration of estates in France LAN architecture

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{71} The regeneration of estates in France Lacaton and Vassal

121

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{72} A re-imagined Southwyke House, Brixton Tavares

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{73} Post-war social housing re-imagined Dujardin

122

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{74} Post-war social housing re-imagined Kirk

123

82m

(18m)

Courtyard ratio 0.2:1

17m

Street ratio 0.95:1

Private amenity (inc. upper �loors)

Secure communal amenity

{75} The Tarling Estate: brief 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed

6 bed

66m

Commercial 20m 22m

18m

22m

Private amenity (inc. upper �loors) Secure communal amenity

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed Commercial

25m

(10m)

Street ratio 2.5:1

26m

22m

Courtyard ratio 0.8:1

124

Private amenity (inc. upper �loors)

Secure communal amenity

{76} The Tarling Estate: site plan showing existing tenement blocks Long

Why not demolition?

Given the uncertainty of the cause of the problems on post war estates, it is

understandable that demolition holds an appeal. Certainly this would be Coleman’s

preferred solution. In Whitechapel, the Tarling Estate regeneration is an example of what would be considered current best practice in estate redevelopment by demolition. It lies 800m southeast of the Crossrail station, just beyond the boundary

of the study area, adjacent to Shadwell DLR station {76}. The redevelopment was the

culmination of a competition launched by the LBTH, which was open to partnerships led by registered social landlords (RSLs)88. It replaced a number of Tower Hamlets

Homes (THH) managed 1950’s tenement blocks similar to those of estate 1, at a density of around 150dph, with a new build scheme with a varied range of dwelling

88.

K. Long, “Street Smart: The Tarling Estate”, The Architects Journal, 12th June (2008): 34-42..

and tenures, at a density of 256dph. As such, it is a good example of how new transport

links have encouraged the LBTH to release their land for development, provided

the social role of their housing can be retained and enhanced. 84% of the units are affordable, shared ownership or socially rented, 16% were sold on the open market.

15% were large socially rented houses for the Sylheti community.

However, the Tarling Estate regeneration is far from a perfect solution to the problems

of estates. Firstly, demolition is not necessarily an easy solution to increasing the

density of estates next to transport nodes. A pilot project undertaken as part of the author’s research asked whether an adaptable house typology could form part of an appropriate, high density typology for the regeneration of estates in Whitechapel by

demolition89. It proved very difficult to achieve a density above 260dph whilst meeting all the requirements of the Tarling Estate brief, and so if the in-situ densification

approach proposed in this thesis can match this, demolition can be considered to

89.

Sharpe, “Transport oriented mixed use development in inner London”

offer no density advantage.

Secondly, economic, social and environmental attitudes to demolition are changing.

The Tarling Estate is the only example of estate redevelopment in Whitechapel to

date, and it was fuelled by the property and debt bubble leading up to the economic correction in 2008. RSLs no longer have access to the cheap finance required to

complete such schemes, and the economics of doing so have become unfavourable90.

In this new, more stable, economic situation, it would appear to be unfeasible to continue with a policy of demolition. Towers agrees, arguing that demolition is quite

90.

Interview by the author with Gavin Cansfield of Tower Hamlets Homes on 21st January 2012.

possibly the worst option for dealing with estates. He claims that redevelopment costs are at least 50% higher than the most expensive comprehensive design improvement schemes, and that:

“Multi-storey housing, as bad as it often is, contains valuable community networks and support systems. The sheer cost of redevelopment [by demolition] makes it prohibitive as a universal solution.”91

91.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 117.

125

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{77} The Tarling Estate: large family houses Long

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{78} The Tarling Estate: elevations, the tower is new build despite the resemblance to a 1960's point block Long

126

Given current concerns over climate change, and the extraordinary carbon intensity of

demolishing and rebuilding estates, Towers’ argument has great strength. Demolition is no longer economically, socially or environmentally sustainable. A new solution must be found.

The relevance of density

In the UK there is a public perception that high density housing is synonymous with

the social problems experienced by large post-war estates. As this thesis proposes their densification, it is important to understand that density is not the cause of

the problems experienced by estates. In Whitechapel, these estates are of a lower density than much of the surrounding context, and about half that recommended for

new developments by the London Plan92. This is reflected by the literature. Coleman

92.

GLA, London Plan (2011), 85.

She comments that “density, per se, emerged as irrelevant” in Newman and Jacobs’93

93.

J. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961).

argues that design, not density, is the key issue affecting the performance of estates.

work, as it does in hers. She refers to the fact that the population of Southwark has

reduced by two-thirds, and Tower Hamlets by three-quarters, since 1900, however all measures of social malaise have increased, and states that the assumption by Abercrombie that lower density would improve social conditions was false94:

94.

Coleman, Utopia on Trial, 82.

as a cross between the worst features of the Radiant City95 and the Garden City, high

95.

E.g. Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse.

“Generous density standards were imposed, and in retrospect the estates can be seen

rise combined with low density”96.

Similarly, Towers argues that “there is no integral link between high density and housing stress”97. Public perceptions are false. It is clear that it should be possible

to increase the density of post-war social housing estates whilst improving, not

96.

Coleman, Utopia on Trial, 11.

97.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 6.

worsening, their social sustainability, provided due consideration is given to remedying the fundamental problems that have been discussed so far.

Chapter 3

127

128

The Proposition

Legal and economic status Densification

The numeric brief

Criteria for success

129

ď&#x201A;ž{79} Estate 1

130

Legal and economic status

On the basis of the evidence discussed so far, this thesis proposes an in-situ

densification of post-war estates, as part of a masterplan for Whitechapel after the arrival of Crossrail. This would be most sustainable if it preserves the existing

buildings intact, remedies the fundamental problems of estates, and enhances public perception. It is clear that the feasibility of this can only be tested through design, but first it is useful to look at the legal and economic argument behind such a move.

The land on which the majority of the estates sit was compulsory purchased between

1945 and 1960, and the freehold is now held by THH, who report to the LBTH. Residents either rent their dwellings from THH, or if they have exercised their Right

to Buy they own a leasehold, and pay maintenance charges to THH for the communal

areas. THH has certain rights to make changes to the exterior of the building and grounds, so long as these do not interfere with leaseholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; legal rights, such as the right to light. A review of the legal status of making significant changes is beyond the scope of this thesis, but it is argued that if it is demonstrably to the benefit of all

existing tenants and leaseholders, then there should be no legal reason why major changes could not be made.

Economically, it can be argued that, as it is pre-owned, the land on which the estates sit has a latent value that can be realised by additional development. Numerically,

this is the portion of the sale price of each new build dwelling unit that is normally represented by the land cost. The idea of public sector organisations profiting from the land they own is not as controversial as it may seem, successive governments have encouraged this, and the present government is attempting to legislate to force

public bodies to do so98. It is not yet clear if this will apply to THH, but if it does, they will be required to use the money to fund their core mission and objectives.

This thesis argues that, instead of realising this latent value through demolition and reconstruction, their objectives would be better served by preserving the estates intact,

98.

Department for Communities and Local Government, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Government on track to provide land for 100,000 new homesâ&#x20AC;?, in DCLG <http://www.communities.gov.uk/ news/newsroom/2001979> [accessed 17 July 2012]

releasing the value through in-situ densification. This would represent a far more viable and profitable strategy than that used for the Tarling Estate, as the demolition

and reconstruction costs for the existing dwellings would be eliminated. Given the problems facing post war social housing, and the objectives of THH, it is argued that

all profit arising from the realisation of latent land value through densification should

be ploughed back into the estates through design improvement and environmental

retrofitting. However, this raises questions as to the role of housing associations in the densification process.

131

132

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{80} Land ownership in Whitechapel 1:3500 Edina Digimap / survey by author

State LBTH: public highway Network rail / TfL LBTH: education or services LBTH: parks St Barts and the London NHS Trust LBTH: Tower Hamlets Homes ALMO Corporation of the City of London Housing

Registered social landlord Gateway Housing Association Southern Housing Group Spitalfields Housing Association Swan Housing Group Tower Hamlets Community Housing Land in private ownership

133

£190,000

Average price of new build two bed apartment in Whitechapel

£76,000

{81} The economics of densification and retrofitting: a 90% densification would be required to pay for comprehensive retrofitting

Additional pro�it made from building on pre-owned land (= land value per unit = 40% new build price)

£67,000

Cost of low energy refurbishment of existing stock, per dwelling unit

88%

Number of additional dwelling units that would fund this refurbishment (% of existing) 134

Densification

If the design proposal is to test the possible effects and opportunities of densification, there has to be a numeric density to aim for and test against. The most obvious target

to aim for is the 260dph suggested by the LBTH for new development, and when

applied to estates 1 and 4 together, this would represent a densification of around 90%. This would provide a convincing and cohesive vision for Whitechapel’s future,

one of new developments and densified estates at a high density, but not so high as to overwhelm the 18th and 19th century historic fabric.

However, it is not immediately clear how much design improvement and retrofitting

this would pay for. A detailed calculation is beyond the scope of this thesis, but a very rough estimate can be made. From the author’s experience, in a typical development in inner London, the land value of the site contributes about 40% of the sales value

of a low specification, minimum size new build apartment, subject to any site specific challenges99. Taking the most expensive form of environmental retrofitting that

could be attempted100, and given the current sales value of a typical dwelling unit in

Whitechapel101, a 90% densification would be economically sufficient, though this is

only an estimate {81}. The economics would become even more favourable if property prices in Whitechapel rise, as they are expected to once Crossrail arrives. Therefore,

the 90% figure can be considered the upper limit of the densification required and the ultimate proof of feasibility. This is what the design proposal will test.

99.

Experience gained by the author at Paul Brookes Architects, London, based on the 30 years’ experience of the directors.

100.

Inside Housing, “Tall Order”, Inside Housing, “The Sky’s the Limit” and United House, “Two industry firsts for £11m groundbreaking tower block”, in United House <http://www.unitedhouse.net/about-us/ news/id/1301316890> [accessed 17 July 2012] 101.

See for example www.mouseprice.com

The numeric brief

To create a numeric brief to work with, a 90% densification was applied to estates 1 and 4. The existing dwelling mix of the estates was combined with the LBTH’s required dwelling mix for new social housing in Whitechapel, as seen on the Tarling Estate, and

the dwelling mix of a typical commercial scheme for working professionals, Bear Lane

in Southwark102. This creates a 50/50 balance between the needs of Sylheti families and incoming working professionals arriving through gentrification {82}. When

combined with the existing dwellings, this dwelling mix reveals the extent to which

102.

Panter Hudspith Architects, Bear Lane, Southwark: A Design Statement. (London: London Borough of Southwark, Planning Records, 2006).

post-war social housing is completely unsuited to the demographic in Whitechapel; most of the new dwelling units required are large family houses or one bedroom apartments. This new, more varied, dwelling mix will ensure that the present needs of the community are met, whilst ensuring future flexibility. Finally, the brief was

applied across both estates rather than separately, this is the only way of achieving the dwelling mix required without demolition, as there are too many two and three bedroom dwellings on the estates at present.

135

Existing dwellings: estate 1 {82} The numeric brief and estates 1 and 4 1:500

2 bed @ 70m² 188

3 bed @ 86m² 15 1 bed @ 50m²

30

Existing dwellings: estate 2

2 bed @ 70m² 90

3 bed @ 86m² 82 The numeric brief: new dwellings required across estates 1 and 4

1 bed @ 50m² 240

2 bed @ 70m² 16 3 bed @ 86m² 78 4 bed @ 99m² 30 5 bed @ 135m² 24

136

Criteria for success

There is now enough information to start the process of design. The key conclusions

of chapters 1-3 are summarised by these criteria for success, against which the design will be tested. The design proposal must: 1.

2.

Meet the density and retrofitting targets, by fulfilling the numeric brief

Enable the urban re-appropriation of the estates, by allowing mixed, flexible uses and better street relationships, preventing the estates from

3.

4.

5.

determining the transition boundary between mixed use and residential

Provide a tenure and dwelling mix appropriate to the needs of Whitechapel, by following the numeric brief

Foster community cohesion where possible, by careful allocation of tenure, social space and shared amenity space

Reduce the number of dwellings accessible from each communal entrance, and improve the street relationships of the communal

6.

7.

8.

entrances

Improve the overlook and observation of the courtyard spaces

Eliminate confused space where possible, by making it a fully public street, or a useable secure private space, either communal or individual

Improve the public perception of estates by addressing their homogeneity and architectural language, using new development to do this where

9.

possible

Ensure all new dwellings and mixed use buildings are of the highest quality, allowing full cross ventilation of all dwellings for overheating

mitigation, and dealing with issues such as the relationship of external 10.

amenity space to the interior of the dwelling unit

Balance the above issues with sunlight and daylight requirements, as suggested by the BRE and the right to light respectively.

Chapter 4

137

138

Urbanism

Realising the brief

Reconfiguring urban relationships

Proposed massing, urbanism and tenure strategy

139

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{83} Massing development: physical model

140

Realising the brief

A physical model was used to test the massing possibilities of the numeric brief.

To begin with this ignored issues of urbanism such as confused space and street relationships, but did begin to create areas of functional transition where appropriate

{83}. The first iteration attempted to create a low rise solution, limiting the rooftop units to a single, discontinuous storey {84-85}. This means the rooftop units are

likely to be light enough to be accommodated by the existing structure. However, this creates very small internal courtyards that are unlikely to be useful as amenity space,

and also creates poor lighting conditions {93}. Iteration 2 learned from iteration 1 by allowing up to three storeys of new units above the existing buildings {86-87}. This began to create workable courtyard spaces between buildings without the new units

becoming overbearing. Lighting was marginally better than in iteration 1. Iteration

3 tested the possibility of using slender towers for the one bed dwelling units, this was dominating and had by far the worst effect on lighting {88-89}. {92-92} show the effect of the massing iterations at street level.

Within all these massing strategies, the large houses needed by the Sylheti community

are placed in the centre of the estates, as well as to the south of estate 4, where they begin to form traditional streets, and create courtyards with the existing buildings.

Iteration 3 may represent too much segregation between the communities. Overall, iteration 2 was considered the best massing solution, and its urban effects were explored.

141

142

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{84} Massing iteration 1: unit sizes 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5/6 bed

143

144

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{85} Massing iteration 1: building typologies Flats on roofs of existing buildings Special conditions: mixed use Conventional dual aspect flats Conventional townhouses Townhouses with flats above

145

146

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{86} Massing iteration 2: unit sizes 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5/6 bed

147

148

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{87} Massing iteration 2: building typologies Flats on roofs of existing buildings Special conditions: mixed use Conventional dual aspect flats Conventional townhouses Townhouses with flats above

149

150

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{88} Massing iteration 3: unit sizes 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5/6 bed

151

152

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{89} Massing iteration 3: building typologies Slender towers of dual aspect flats Special conditions: mixed use Conventional townhouses

153

{90} Massing iteration 1: street views

{91} Massing iteration 2: street views

{92} Massing iteration 3: street views

154

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{93} Lighting analysis of massing iterations % daylight factor 1:500 0

As existing

Iteration 01

Iteration 02

1

2

3

Iteration 03

155

4

5

6

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{94} Design development sketches: reconfiguring access and street relationships

Access from street Sphere of influence of block entrance Streets or access routes with poor observation Important barriers to be inserted to define public and private space

156

Reconfiguring urban relationships

Building on the analysis of access, street relationships and entrances already discussed, the existing urban condition of the estates was mapped {95}. This reveals

the extent of confused space across the estates, the confused fronts, backs and street relationships, and the unsafe areas with poor observation. Using a massing solution

based on iteration 2, various ways of tackling these urbanism problems were assessed, and a small number of these were drawn up in detail to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches.

Iteration 1 completely restored the traditional pattern of terraces to the area, whilst retaining all the existing buildings intact {96}. Areas of mixed and flexible use were introduced to the south of estate 1, and at the base of the tower on estate 4,

as suggested by the zone of transition in the surrounding context. The entrances of

the ground floor units in the maisonette blocks on estate 4 were reversed in some

instances; this creates clear fronts and backs and allows the provision of private gardens. The interior layouts of the maisonettes allow this. Most of the confused space was removed, but some remains in the uncomfortable relationship of the estates to

the central main road, Cambridge Heath Road. More areas of poor observation were created than are removed, but this is not excessive. The main problem with this

iteration was that it was necessary to place buildings very close together. This was required due to the layout of the existing buildings, and the desire to create clear

fronts and backs. This close spacing meant it was not reasonable for buildings in this iteration to be more than 3 storeys high, and the massing shows that this would not

fulfil the numeric brief. There were also many more individual houses with gardens

than were required, and the gardens took up too much space. It would appear that greater sharing of amenity space is required.

Iteration 2 learnt from iteration 1 and created large perimeter blocks with communal

gardens {97}. This proved to be a more efficient form, and better fulfils the brief.

However, it was necessary to demolish one of the maisonette blocks on estate 4 in

order to successfully create clear streets and courtyards that are of a workable size.

Many attempts were made to retain this block, but the arrangement of estate 4 made this impossible, there is no other way to create adequate access onto the estate. It

may be that although wholesale demolition is considered unsustainable, limited demolition could be a necessary part of improving the urbanism of estates. With this in mind, iteration 3 tested the effect of further demolition {98}. This allowed the

relationship of estate 4 to Cambridge Heath Road to be fully rectified and all confused

space to be eliminated. However, the perimeter blocks were no better than those created in iteration 2, and so it is hard to justify this amount of demolition for such limited gain. Iteration 2 is therefore the best solution.

157

158

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{95} Ground level urbanism: as existing 1:1000

Existing residential: fronts / entrances Existing residential: backs Confused space Secure communal gardens Private gardens Areas of street not faced by entrances

159

160

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{96} Ground level urbanism iteration 1: terraces 1:1000 Existing residential: fronts / entrances Existing residential: backs New residential: fronts / entrances New residential: backs Existing demolished New non-residential: fronts / entrances New non-residential: backs Confused space Secure communal gardens Private gardens Areas of street not faced by entrances

161

162

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{97} Ground level urbanism iteration 2: perimeter blocks 1:1000

Existing residential: fronts / entrances Existing residential: backs New residential: fronts / entrances New residential: backs Existing demolished New non-residential: fronts / entrances New non-residential: backs Confused space Secure communal gardens Private gardens Areas of street not faced by entrances

163

164

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{98} Ground level urbanism iteration 3: perimeter blocks with extensive demolition 1:1000 Existing residential: fronts / entrances Existing residential: backs New residential: fronts / entrances New residential: backs Existing demolished New non-residential: fronts / entrances New non-residential: backs Confused space Secure communal gardens Private gardens Areas of street not faced by entrances

165

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{99} Pilot project: adaptable houses with apartments above Sharpe, "Transport oriented..."

166

Proposed massing, urbanism and tenure strategy

With these conclusions in mind, a final proposal was developed using urbanism iteration 2 and massing iteration 2 {100-102}. This forms the basis of the massing

and urbanism strategy for the design proposal. A maximum of three one bedroom

dwelling units were stacked on top of the existing buildings, and a lower density

area of mainly terraced housing was created to the southeast of estate 4. Perimeter blocks were created wherever possible, and the entrances of ground floor dwelling

units were reversed where necessary. The small maisonette block to the southwest

of estate 4 was demolished to make way for a tower of 2 bed apartments; this further improved access into the estate.

The massing and urbanism strategy creates several building typologies and tenures.

The terraced houses would be socially rented, with first priority given to the existing

residents of the estates. Most of the houses have apartments above them that could be

sold on the open market, though these could also be let by THH at market rates. The houses would be similar to those developed as part of the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s past research, with

very similar relationships to a private internal courtyard103 {99}. Fundamentally the houses with apartments above do not have a relationship with the existing estates, so

their detailed design does not form part of this thesis. They were developed only in

103.

Sharpe, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Transport oriented mixed use development in inner Londonâ&#x20AC;?

outline, as far as to allow accurate planning in order to meet the numeric brief.

The one bed apartments above the rooftops, and the two bedroom units in the stand

alone tower to the southwest of estate 1, would also be sold on the open market, or let at market rates. This tower is a fairly standard proposition, and does not really relate to the estates, so will not be considered further. The rooftop units, on the other hand,

interact with the estates in a profound way, and can be considered a typology specific

to the densification of post-war estates. They are considered in detail in chapter 5.

The areas of mixed use and transition, and the existing slab block tower, similarly

relate specifically to post-war estates, and they are considered in chapter 6. These would be let by THH to a wide variety of users, as discussed in that chapter.

The existing dwellings would retain their current tenants or Right to Buy leaseholders in the most part. Most of the Sylheti families already in the estates would be given the

option to move into the new terraced housing, bringing with them extended family from other estates under the control of THH. The fate of the newly empty units in

the existing buildings is then a political decision. They could be let to new social tenants with smaller households, or they could be sold on the open market, or let at

market rates. Here it is argued that as the amount of social provision would remain

the same, it is permissible for THH to sell the empty units, if this would help to make the regeneration of the estates viable.

Chapter 5

167

168

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{100} Final massing iteration: unit sizes 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5/6 bed

169

170

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{101} Final massing iteration: building typologies Flats on roofs of existing buildings Special conditions: mixed use Conventional dual aspect flats Conventional townhouses Townhouses with flats above

171

172

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{102} Final massing iteration: tenure

Sold or let on the open market Socially rented Special conditions: mixed use

The existing buildings will retain their tenure (mixed) except those units that are made vacant by the movement of Sylheti families into the houses, these would be sold or let on the open market

173

{103} Final massing iteration: street view

{104} Final massing iteration: street view

{105} Final massing iteration: street view

174

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{106} Final massing iteration: street view

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{107} Final massing iteration: street view

175

176

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{108} Final massing iteration: hours of sunlight received on 21st March, the BRE recommends at least 25% of amenity space receives at least some sunlight on this date 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

177

5 178

Domestic Space: Rooftop and Courtyard

On the rooftops

Reclaiming the courtyard

179

{109} The rooftop typology

{110} On the rooftops: concept sketch

180

On the rooftops

The massing and urbanism development revealed that placing new dwellings on the roofs of the existing estate buildings was necessary to fulfil the numeric brief. They

were the most sensible way to increase the density of the estates without adversely affecting the amenity of the courtyards within the perimeter blocks. Their design resolution will not only determine if they are feasible, it will also determine the nature of the courtyards, and the relationship of the new dwelling units to the retrofitting, re-appropriation and architectural language of the existing buildings.

The first step was to determine the dimensions and layout of the dwelling units. They will have the standard one bedroom apartment area of 50m2 as recommended by the

London Housing Design Guide, but within this there is scope to improve both their relationship with their private external amenity space, and their internal planning for

cross ventilation. Fire is an issue; means of escape must be provided from bedrooms and this must not be though a room used as a kitchen. Typically this is achieved by

using a protected entrance hallway, but could be directly from the bedroom onto the

access balcony, depending on the design of the full height window. After an initial exploration {111-116}, the design of the dwelling units gradually evolved in parallel with the rooftop typology.

The dwellingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; relationship with each other was explored next. One particular

part of estate 1 was chosen for this, where each of the existing dwelling units has a relationship with both the busy Cambridge Heath Road, and the much quieter internal

courtyard. There is also a band of confused space at ground level facing Cambridge Heath Road. The aim was to create a dynamic, heterogeneous visual appearance that lifts the homogeneity of existing buildings, whilst also making full use of roofs of the new units for additional private amenity space.

The relationship of the rooftop units to the ground and to the existing buildings is perhaps the most important element of their design. The units are too heavy to be supported by the existing buildings and require external structure104 {117-121}. The existing buildings would be overclad as part of their environmental retrofitting, and suffer from a lack of external amenity space. There is, therefore, the opportunity to

104.

Discussion with M. Ramage at the University of Cambridge, Dept. of Architecture, June 2012

view the rooftop units, support structure, and overcladding of the existing buildings as part of a single typology, with a clear architectural language {110/117-121}. This can incorporate new external or semi external amenity space for the existing dwelling units, and can improve the confused space ground condition.

181

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{111} Possible one bed unit dimensions and configurations 1:200

182

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{112} Possible one bed unit combinations 1:200

183

184

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{113} Possible one bed unit layouts and cross ventilation 1:200

Cross ventilation through bedroom, amount Cross ventilation through living room

185

186

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{114} Possible one bed unit layouts and cross ventilation 1:200

Cross ventilation through bedroom, amount Cross ventilation through living room

187

188

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{115} Possible one bed unit layouts and quality of living space, connection with external space 1:200 1: best quality of living space 2 3 4 5: worst quality of living space

189

190

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{116} Possible one bed unit layouts and quality of living space, connection with external space 1:200 1: best quality of living space 2 3 4 5: worst quality of living space

191

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{117} Development of a structural strategy, the arrows demonstrate how the rooftops of the dwelling units could be used as additional amenity space

192

The fluid economics of the densification process mean that unusual and expensive strategies such massive external structure can be justified. In this instance it is the only solution, but the case is made even stronger if this support structure begins

to fulfil a number of different roles, thus allowing it to absorb funding from the retrofitting of the existing buildings as well as the rooftop units, becoming a more efficient solution as a result.

One option would be to see the rooftop units as a “cloud” above the existing building

{121}. Winter gardens were introduced onto the Cambridge Heath Road side of the existing building. These can open up in the summer and become a fully enclosed space in the winter or in situations of excessive noise. They are a fairly common

commercial product. Here, they would provide much needed amenity space for the existing dwelling units, and allow a visual connection to be made between units, whilst breaking up the homogeneity of the façade. Each existing dwelling would receive its own winter garden.

The “cloud” provides a clear separation between the existing and proposed, does not

adversely affect lighting, and would substantially alter perceptions of the existing buildings. However, it does not provide the required number of rooftop units when applied across the estates {124}. It also dominates the internal courtyards with access stairwells, and with its clear separation it could create an “us and them” mentality

between existing and new residents. It proved necessary to use colour as a two dimensional façade treatment to break up the homogeneity of the existing building,

however this is not an ideal solution due to its rather temporary appearance. There is a lack of unity between the rooftop units and their supporting structure, especially where the “cloud” is absent.

The final rooftop design proposal uses a more spread, lower rise form {126}. This unites the rooftop units with their structural supports, from which the winter gardens are suspended. The architectural language is more successful, achieving unity, with but maintaining a separation from, the overclad existing building. The division of

the rooftop units into heterogeneous clusters, and the arrangement of the winter gardens, successfully breaks up the homogeneity of the existing building purely

through form, without resorting to the use of coloured façade treatment. At ground level, the reversed entrances to the dwelling units receive their own defensible front

gardens and porches at the points where the rooftop supporting structure reaches the ground. During development of the final proposal, the plan of the dwelling units evolved into a more spatially and environmentally successful form {127}.

193

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{118} Structural strategy development sketch

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{119} Structural strategy development sketch

194

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{120} Structural strategy development sketch

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{121} Structural strategy development sketch

195

196

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{122} Estate 1: "Cloud" proposal for the rooftop units

197

+21m

+24m

198

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{123} "Cloud" proposal for the rooftop units, plans 1:200

+27m

+30m

199

200

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{124} "Cloud" rooftop units Dwellings required and achieved 1 bed required = 240, achieved = 183 2 bed required = 16, achieved = 16

3 bed required = 78, achieved = 49, minus 12 demolished = 37 4 bed required = 30, achieved = 49 5 bed required = 24, achieved = 15

This does not include the dwellings in the mixed use areas, for example above the tower.

201

202

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{125} Estate 1 as existing

203

204

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{126} Estate 1: final proposal for the rooftop units

205

206

+19m

ď&#x201A;ž{127} Final proposal for the rooftop units, plans 1:200

+22m

+25m

207

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{128} Rooftop units, estate 1, detail section Not to scale

208

It is proposed that the rooftop units would be constructed using CLT panels, or a

similar modern timber based method of prefabrication, as is becoming increasingly

common in residential buildings in inner London105. This would reduce their weight, and allow for easier and quicker construction, minimising disruption to the residents in the estate. Although this has a striking similarity to the concrete panel prefabrication

used in 1960’s social housing, even down to the sizes of the panels, the technology is

105.

O. Jowett, “The thermal behaviour of cross-laminated timber construction and its resilience to summertime overheating”, in Passive and Low Energy Architecture (Louvain-la-Neuve: PLEA, 2011).

considerably more sophisticated. Environmentally, the units would be constructed to a near-passivehaus standard, with mechanical ventilation and heat recovery,

high airtightness, triple glazing and good insulation, plus good cross ventilation and sliding shutters to reduce summertime overheating. This is set to become almost the

standard method of residential construction in coming years; concerns over a lack of thermal mass have increasingly been shown to be unfounded106.

Externally the rooftop units would be clad in a lightweight material, preferably

106.

Sharpe, “Iroko Housing, Coin Street”.

timber. This would emphasise their distinction from the existing buildings, which would be overclad with a metal or preferably a glass based façade panel system,

now that the two are reaching cost parity, with insulation under, and an integrated window system {128}. It is proposed that the structure supporting the rooftop units

and the winter gardens would be external grade glue laminated timber. The use of a

steel structure would be too costly, however low carbon precast concrete would be an option, as illustrated during design development. The problem would be public

perception, it is therefore argued that because of the number of hard surfaces in the urban environment at present, the lightweight nature of the rooftop units, and the negative connotations of concrete and post-war social housing, timber would be a better solution.

When combined with the other typologies that emerged in the massing and urbanism study, the final proposal for the rooftop units comes close to fulfilling the numeric

brief {129}. This suggests that a 90% densification may be too much to achieve, but

the economics mean that this is not a critical problem. The success of the rooftop units as a typology is, of course, dependent on their relationship with the internal

courtyards, and the way they interact with the spatial ownership and access issues of the existing buildings, this was studied next.

209

210

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{129} Final proposal for the rooftop units

Dwellings required and achieved 1 bed required = 240, achieved = 207 2 bed required = 16, achieved = 18

3 bed required = 78, achieved = 70, minus 12 demolished = 58 4 bed required = 30, achieved = 30 5 bed required = 24, achieved = 24

211

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{130} The courtyard

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{131} Reclaiming the courtyard: concept sketch

212

Reclaiming the courtyard

The massing and urbanism study proposed a re-appropriation of the courtyard spaces inside the perimeter blocks, and of the access routes to each individual dwelling, in

line with the findings of Coleman and Newman {131}. To begin this process, the access

to the existing dwelling units was reconfigured so that each dwelling shares a secure communal entrance with a maximum of 20 other dwellings in most cases, forming a â&#x20AC;&#x153;communityâ&#x20AC;? that is defensible. The exception was the tower, which was left with

38 dwellings per entrance, although this would be significantly better than the 70 it

has as existing. As well as blocking the routes between stair cores along the access balconies, this reconfiguration required a number of new stair cores, and a new lift and stair core for the tower on estate 4 {132}. As with the external structure for the rooftop units, this additional expense can be justified as it is a necessary part of the

densification process. However, if it is possible to use these new access cores for the

rooftop units, and perhaps to reconfigure the nature of the courtyard, their presence gains further strength and efficiency.

The courtyard adjacent to the rooftop units, part of estate 1, was used as a vehicle for further analysis {130}. Firstly, the courtyard was made private by placing terraced

houses along the open side, and extending garden walls to fill the small gap between these and the existing building. Some of the entrances to the ground floor units have been reversed, so that they are entered from the street. However some would still

have to be accessed from the courtyard, as would the existing stairwells the units

on higher floors. Therefore it would be necessary to make a new, secured communal entrance into the courtyard. This would be an opportunity to create a social space

at the entrance to the courtyard, to be used by residents for informal gatherings or as a workspace {134}. Ideally this would bring together the Sylheti and working professional communities.

213

214

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{132} Reducing the number of dwellings accessible from each entrance: final proposal: compare with {55} up to 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

215

216

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{133} Improving street relationships: final proposal: compare with {56} 0-20m 20-40m 40-60m 60m+

217

ď&#x201A;ž{134} The courtyard from the community entrance

218

In the courtyard studied, the communal entrance was placed in the small gap between the existing buildings to the north {135}. This allows easy access from the street, and

avoids knocking through an existing ground floor dwelling. Further, the arrangement

of the rooftop units means it is possible to integrate a stair core to access them at this point, and so avoid additional stair cores dropping directly into the courtyard.

As well as making the courtyard private, it is also necessary to increase overlook onto

the courtyard, so that it becomes observed, owned and defensible rather than confused

space. The support structure of the rooftop units provides an opportunity to create balconies leading from the entrances of the existing dwelling units into the courtyard.

These allow residents to observe the activities in the courtyard below at their leisure.

They will only be accessible to residents in each stair core â&#x20AC;&#x153;communityâ&#x20AC;?, and they are defined, defensible, semi private space, clearly belonging to a dwelling unit, so they

very likely to be appropriated with residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; garden furniture and planting. This is

similar to some 19th century terraced housing, where access into the back gardens is via a path in front of the back doors, the space is in this case totally public, but is also

very defensible, and ownership is well defined. This semi private space is rare in postwar social housing schemes, despite the communal areas avoiding the legal issue of

rights of access that is a problem for the 19th century terraces. The idea is continued

on the ground floor where private gardens are provided, separating the backs of the existing and new dwellings from the activities in the courtyard {137}.

Chapter 6

219

220

ď&#x201A;ž{135} Final proposal for the courtyard, ground floor plan 1:200

221

222

ď&#x201A;ž{136} Estate 1: the courtyard as existing

223

224

ď&#x201A;ž{137} Estate 1: reclaiming the courtyard

225

226

Flexibility and Transition: Street and Tower

The life of the street

Connecting tower and ground

227

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{138} The street typology along Darling Row

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{139} The street typology: concept sketch

228

The life of the street

As mentioned, estates 1 and 4 represent an insurmountable barrier to the expanding zone of transition between mixed and residential uses, an expansion that is essential

for Whitechapelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future. Estate 1 in particular represents a barrier to the dynamism of use that could result from the high pedestrian footfall between Sainsburyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and Cambridge Heath Road. This street, Darling Row, could support a mixture of retail,

office and live-work space, were it not for the presence of the estate. The design proposal explores the potential for the strip of confused space in front of the existing

buildings to support this greater dynamism of use, thus removing the barrier the estate creates {138-140}.

The relationship between this new street typology and the existing buildings is important. It is conceived as a skin that protects the existing buildings from the bustle

of the road, providing external amenity space for the existing residential units, whilst presenting a useful and effective front to the street {141}.

Whitechapelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 18th and 19th century built fabric is characterised by multiple uses

within a single building, and this is often advertised by external signage {142-143}.

This traditional urban form has the ability to adapt over time to suit the changing demographic of the area. As working professionals move in, they may wish to set up

small businesses, working from home in a similar manner to the Sylheti community, as has happened in other areas that have experienced gentrification. The design proposal seeks to improve on the form and planning of the traditional shopfront typology to allow for even greater adaptability.

It is argued that the street typology would be best suited to an adaptable and dynamic

lettings policy, as suggested by the Portas review107. If it were managed in a similar

way to the social housing, by THH, and the tenants were selected by criteria that are more socially beneficial than the traditional model of letting to the highest bidder,

107.

M. Portas, The Portas Review: an independent review into the future of our high streets (London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011).

then different uses could be accommodated as needed and as the demographic of

Whitechapel changes. This would avoid the units becoming empty; however it once again raises the question of the role of the housing association.

229

230

ď&#x201A;ž{140} Darling row as existing

231

232

ď&#x201A;ž{141} Concept: expanding the zone of transition

233

ď&#x201A;ž{142} Multiple uses in a single building, advertised by signage, New Road

234

ď&#x201A;ž{143} Multiple uses in a single building, advertised by signage, Whitechapel High Street

235

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{144} Street typology development: solar access, the left hand corner of the building at the bottom of the page is too large and was amended Percentage of winter sunlight hours received compared to a completely unobstructed facade

10 or greater 9 8 7 6 5 (the BRE recommended minimum) 4 3 2 1 0

Hours of sunlight received on 21st March, the BRE recommends at least 25% of amenity space receives at least some sunlight 1.0 or above 1.0-0.25 less than 0.25 (i.e. none)

236

The form of the new built space in front of the existing buildings is informed by an

understanding of the daylight and sunlight requirements of the existing buildings and their amenity space. The facades of the existing building face roughly south,

so anything in front of them will block some sunlight. A series of forms were tested against BRE sunlight and right to daylight guidelines to determine the maximum amount of built area it is possible to place in front of the existing buildings {144}. Once

a general form was found, attention was focussed on how this space is configured, in turn feeding back into the form.

The back of the new buildings became stepped in 3 dimensions, to allow the existing

dwelling units to use them as outdoor amenity space. This requires lightweight bridges between the existing buildings and the new {145}. The back of the new buildings is windowless, to maintain the privacy of the existing dwellings, but there would be high level openings for cross ventilation, and the blank walls can be thought

of as garden walls, to be appropriated with residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; planting {146}. There is space for trees in the ground level gardens.

Various options for the internal organisation of the street typology were explored.

Taking the eastern block as an example, the contemporary mixed use approach would

place residential units above shops, accessed from a central stair core {147/149}.

This does not allow for adaptability, and there is not enough space to create well

planned residential units. Another option would be to create individual stair access to the first floor, creating spaces that can be used as studio apartments or offices, and are independent or connected to the retail units below, allowing four modes of

operation {150}. This idea was applied to the western block, and here it is feasible

to create a hybrid between the traditional and the contemporary approach to mixed

use, by using a common stairwell to access flexible space on the upper floor. Again, this can be independent or connected to the retail units below. In the final proposal,

additional stair cores are provided in the western block to allow more subdivision on the upper floors {151-152}.

The external materiality is critical, if the façade is to be appropriated with signs, then these must enhance rather than detract from the architecture. A robust metal mesh

would allow signs to be attached to the façade easily, and would provide a neutral background {154}. The subdivision of the mesh, and the syncopation of the windows

and ventilation opening panels, creates a dynamism behind the signs that is sufficient to retain a sense of a skin like whole. The ventilation panels allow signs to be changed

more easily than on a 19th century terrace, as their outer faces can be accessed from inside the building when they are fully open, as with most modern proprietary window systems. The appearance of the street and its urban function is transformed.

237

ď&#x201A;ž{145} Street typology development

238

ď&#x201A;ž{146} Street typology: final proposal

239

ď&#x201A;ž{147} Street typology: development Contemporary mixed use option 1:200

+9m

+6m

+3m

240

+0m

ď&#x201A;ž{148} Street typology: development Studio, office or live work option 1:200

+6m

+3m

+0m

241

ď&#x201A;ž{149} Street typology: development Studio, office or live work option 1:200

+3m

+3m

+0m

+0m

242

ď&#x201A;ž{150} Street typology: development Studio, office or live work option 1:200

+9m

+6m

243

+6m

+3m

+0m

244

ď&#x201A;ž{151} Street typology, final proposal, plans 1:200

+6m

+3m

+0m

245

246

ď&#x201A;&#x201A;{152} Street typology: final proposal Adaptability and dynamism of use

247

248

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{153} Street typology: final proposal

249

250

ď&#x201A;ž{154} Street typology: final proposal Street view

251

{155} The tower

{156} Connecting tower and ground: concept sketch

252

Connecting tower and ground

The final typology identified during the massing and urbanism study was the 11 storey slab-block tower. Here, there is the opportunity for the re-appropriation of the

confused space ground plane under the tower, the tower itself will require retrofitting, and an additional stair and lift core is required to reduce the number of dwellings per communal entrance.

In order to make full use of the additional stair core, a number of additional towers

of dwelling units were placed in front of the tower {158}. This is acceptable from a daylight viewpoint, and as this side of tower faces north, sunlight will not be blocked

from the existing tower, but the new dwellings will not receive sunlight in the middle of the day in winter. In a high density environment there has to be some compromise.

New dwelling towers are also placed to the sides of the existing tower, this improves its relationship with Cambridge Heath Road. They are given a lightweight materiality,

emphasising their difference from the existing building, in the same way as the rooftop units. An attempt was made to use the roofs of the new dwelling units as amenity space for the units in the existing tower, but the gap between the towers is too great

for this to be successful. Instead, the new dwellings make use of this additional space.

The lightweight dwelling walls of the existing tower will need to be replaced as part of the retrofitting process, in a similar way to those of Park Hill108, and this will dramatically improve the appearance of the tower. Here, the size and homogeneity of

108.

Hawkins/Brown, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Park Hillâ&#x20AC;?.

the towerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s facades mean it is essential to use colour, mirroring Park Hill. At the same time, winter gardens would provide additional amenity space on both sides of the

existing dwellings. The internal arrangement of the existing maisonettes in the tower mean these would be either off the main living room or off the master bedroom, increasing overlook of the access balconies. These extensive improvements to the

tower will inevitably have to draw funding from the profits of the new rooftop units

and apartments on other parts of the estate, and this is one of the benefits of an estate wide approach.

253

254

ď&#x201A;ž{157} Estate 4, tower as existing

255

256

ď&#x201A;ž{158} Tower typology, street view

257

ď&#x201A;ž{159} Tower typology, courtyard

258

The ground plane under and surrounding the tower is totally unused at present, and

this can be used to expand the zone of transition between mixed use and residential.

Here, there is less pressure for retail, and so the mixed use space should be geared

more towards offices, live work, studios and light manufacturing or workshops, and managed flexibly and actively by THH in the same way as the street typology . Here,

it might be possible for THH to let some units to artists and others at a lower rent,

subject to the economics. It would be excellent if residents could be given priority

in the use of this space, thus creating an opportunity for community cohesion. The internal arrangement of the mixed use space on the ground plane is designed for total flexibility. It can be divided into small live work units, opened up into a large retail or

office space, or subdivided into different sized units at will {160}. Due to the depth of the space, light wells are provided, leaving the roof free for community use.

At present, the tower does not have an area of communal amenity space, and the

communal entrance is dark and forbidding. Residents are isolated and limited to their one metre deep balconies. A communal entrance and social space would be provided,

similar to the one into the courtyard studied on estate 1, and this would be accessed

from the new residential street created to the south of the tower. The entrance would lead into one of the light wells, in effect a large courtyard, and from this a connection can be made to the roofs of the mixed use spaces. This creates a two level communal courtyard, protected from the street, and with extensive overlook from the existing

and new residential units {159}. The tower, once on high and disconnected, now reaches the ground, and connects the community.

259

260

ď&#x201A;ž{160} Tower typology, ground floor plan 1:200

261

262

Conclusions

263

Conclusions

This thesis began by exploring a number of complex issues, from the regional

impact of densification and the place of Whitechapel within it, through the changing

demographic of the area and the effect of post-war social housing estates on local

urban life, to the fundamental design failures of these estates. It proposed an

alternative approach to the regeneration of post-war social housing in the form of densification. For estates 1 and 4, densification can solve the majority of their spatial

problems, fund their environmental retrofitting, and provide housing more suited to their residents. It can re-connect the estates with their urban environment, and

change public perceptions of post-war social housing for the better. It would be a socially, environmentally and economically superior approach to the status quo of

wholesale demolition. It was not possible to study other estates within the confines of

this thesis, so it is difficult to judge if densification could be applied more widely, and this requires further research. Nonetheless, two key facets of densification have been

identified, and these are likely to apply to other estates in Whitechapel, and perhaps to estates in inner London more generally.

Firstly, as discussed in chapter 5, the residential core of the estates can be reconfigured.

Using new dwellings and entrances, courtyards can be re-appropriated and clear

streets created, eliminating confused space. Limited demolition may be required to achieve this. Concurrently, the opportunity can be taken to provide a tenure and

dwelling mix more appropriate to the demographic of the area, and to allow social

tenants to move to a new dwelling more appropriate for their needs, without leaving

the estate. New rooftop dwellings, new amenity space, and recladding through environmental retrofitting can break down the homogeneity of the estates.

Secondly, as discussed in chapter 6, the estates can be reconnected with their urban environment. Areas of mixed and flexible use can be introduced where this is appropriate to the urban context. This can eliminate the confused space that

surrounds most estates, and re-appropriate the problematic ground plane under slab-block towers. The detailed design resolution must be specific to the context, but

in Whitechapel specific attention must be paid to the adaptability of the mixed use buildings, and the language of their façades.

If widespread densification was to occur in Whitechapel, there would be implications

well beyond the estates. Public perception of the whole of Whitechapel would change.

Indeed, Towers comments that:

“Housing investment is a key to more comprehensive urban renewal. […] The evidence is strong that public investment in social housing is a key to stimulating private investment.”109 264

109.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 199.

In a time of government budget deficit, this state funding will not be forthcoming.

Critically, the approach proposed by this thesis uses private, not state, funding.

However, the exact mechanism of this funding is unclear. Throughout this thesis, questions have been raised as to the role of the housing association in the process of densification, whether it is an RSL or an ALMO. At present, such a dramatic policy is

not within the remit of a housing association. However, they could play a key role in densification’s interplay of public social objectives and private finance. They could act

as an economic channel and a project administrator. For an ALMO like THH, the sale of small parcels of land to developers and RSLs is commonplace, and the Tarling Estate

shows that they are willing to sell a whole estate outright to an RSL. They do not

make dramatic changes themselves. An RSL, on the other hand, would have sufficient freedom to densify, but it may not be able to raise the funds needed to buy the estates and densify them in the current financial marketplace. The answer is not clear.

Further research is therefore needed on the role of the housing association in inner London in the future, on the economics of densification, and on access to finance.

However, we must not waste the opportunity to improve these estates, whether through bureaucracy or a lack of innovation. This thesis has shown what is possible.

We must find a way to make it happen. As Towers eloquently argues:

“The means exist for these estates to be transformed, both physically and socially.

Given the will, the estate syndrome can finally be ended.”110

Over the course of the author’s research, it was apparent that there is a gap in the

110.

Towers, Shelter is Not Enough, 203.

literature on how to reduce the energy consumption of the built environment in inner London. Much work has been done at the scale of the city-region, often by urban modellers. Much has been done at the scale of the individual building, usually by those with a specialism in low energy buildings. There has been less research at the level

of the neighbourhood, despite it being identified as important. This thesis could be

viewed as a demonstration of one opportunity at this scale, working with the existing

built fabric, that tackles all the environmental problems of a neighbourhood, whether spatial or energy related. There could be other opportunities. In light of the negligible

effects of planning policy on energy consumption, and the difficulty of encouraging retrofitting at a building level, working at the scale of the neighbourhood may prove

to be an effective way of reducing the energy consumption of the built environment.

As with estates, it may have wider benefits.

This thesis has revealed that when working at the scale of the neighbourhood, and with existing buildings, there are a wide range of issues that must be understood,

from the economic to social, and the spatial to the visual. Any approach will be more successful if these issues are fused into a cohesive whole, and design is an excellent

tool with which to do this. It may be that there is, in these cases, the opportunity for the architect, as a designer, to lead the research.

265

266

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{161} Visual conclusion: ground floor plan of entire densification proposal for estates 1 and 4 1:1000

267

268

ď&#x201A;&#x192;{162} Proposed masterplan for Whitechapel based on the densification of all estates 1:3500 Retained Demolished Proposed

269

Acknowledgements and Declaration University of Cambridge, Department of Architecture:

Ingrid Schrรถder, supervisor, MPhil (B)

Professor Alan Short

Joris Fach, tutor, MPhil (B) Kevin Fellingham

Professor Ying Jin Michael Ramage

Tower Hamlets Homes:

Gavin Cansfield

David Thompson

Jamie Carswell

Allies and Morrison Architects:

Ewan Morrison

Simon Fraser

Josephine Bacon Mark Taylor

Owen Jowett

And various friends, family and academic colleagues of the author, for their support This design thesis is the result of 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. All images are by the author unless otherwise stated.

Abbreviations and Terms

LBTH London Borough of Tower Hamlets THH

Tower Hamlets Homes (an ALMO)

RSL

Registered social landlord

FAR

Floor area ratio, also known as plot ratio

ALMO Arm's length management organisation dph

dwellings per hectare

estates planned, multi-storey, local authority social housing built between 1945

270

and 1972

Bibliography

Abercrombie, P., and J. Forshaw. The County of London Plan. London: Macmillan, 1943.

—. The Greater London Plan. London: Macmillan, 1944.

Anson, B. “Don’t Shoot the Graffiti Man.” The Architects Journal 2nd July (1986): 16-17.

Barker, K. Delivering Stability: securing our future housing needs: Final report of the Barker review of housing supply. London: HM Treasury, 2004.

Bing Maps. www.bing.com/maps (accessed July 17, 2012).

Bowie, D. “Density, housing mix and space standards of new housing development in London.” In RIBA Research Symposium - Space at Home. London: RIBA, 2008.

CABE. Building for Life. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2008.

Carter, E., and E. Goldfinger. The County of London Plan Explained. London: Penguin, 1945.

Coleman, A. “Utopia Debate.” The Architects Journal 6th August (1986): 16-17.

—. Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing. 2nd. London: Hilary Shipman Ltd, 1990.

Crossrail. Exploring the Crossrail Route. n.d. http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route (accessed July 17, 2012).

Cullingworth, B. “Fifty Years of Post-war Planning.” The Town Planning Review 65, no.

3 (1994): 277-303.

Davies, A. The East End Nobody Knows. London: Macmillan, 1998.

Dench, G., K. Gavron, and M. Young. The New East End: Kinship, Race and Conflict.

London: Profile, 2006.

Department for Communities and Local Government. Government on track to provide land for 100,000 new homes. http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/ newsroom/2001979 (accessed July 17, 2012).

Design for London. The London Housing Design Guide. London: London Development Agency, 2010.

DETR. Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of the Urban Task Force. London: Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999.

Dujardin, F. http://www.filipdujardin.be/ (accessed July 17, 2012).

271

Dunleavy, P. The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain 1945-75. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

The Secret History of Our Streets: Episode 1, Deptford High Street. Directed by C. Durlacher. Century Films Ltd and Halcyons Heart Films Ltd for the BBC, 2012.

The Secret History of Our Streets: Episode 6, Arnold Circus. Directed by C. Durlacher.

Century Films Ltd and Halcyons Heart Films Ltd for the BBC, 2012.

Echenique, M., T. Hargreaves, H. Barton, and G. Mitchell. Sustainability of Land Use and Transport in Outer Neighbourhoods: Final Report. Cambridge: SOLUTIONS, 2010.

Eden, R. Peaches Geldof is to marry for second time at the age of 22. http://www.

telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8948354/Peaches-Geldof-is-to-marry-forsecond-time-at-the-age-of-22.html (accessed July 17, 2012).

Edina Digimap (crown copyright). http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/digimap/home (accessed July 17, 2012).

EEA. CORINE Land Cover Maps . http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0landcover (accessed July 17, 2012).

GLA. The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. London: Greater London Authority, 2011.

—. The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. London: Greater London Authority, 2004.

Gordon, I. “Density and the Built Environment.” Energy Policy 36 (2008): 4652-4656.

Hall, T. Urban Geography. London: Routledge, 1998.

Hanley, L. Estates: An Intimate History. London: Granta, 2007.

Hawkins\Brown. Park Hill, Sheffield. http://www.hawkinsbrown.com/projects/ park-hill-sheffield (accessed July 17, 2012).

Heaven, B. “Comeback on Coleman.” The Architects Journal 3rd September (1986): 32-33.

Heck, S. “Oscar Newman Revisited.” The Architects Journal 8th April (1987): 30-32.

High Street 2012. High Street 2012. http://www.highstreet2012.com/ (accessed July 17, 2012).

Hillier, B. “City of Alice’s Dreams.” The Architects Journal 9th July (July 1986): 39-41.

Hillier, B., and J. Hanson. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

272

Inside Housing. Tall Order. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/analysis/in-depth/tallorder/6513584.article (accessed July 17, 2012).

—.

The

Sky’s

the

Limit.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.

aspx?storycode=6501355 (accessed July 17, 2012).

Inwood, S. A History of London. London: Macmillan, 1998.

Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.

Jencks, C. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1984.

Jin, Y. “2030 Vision for the Cambridge Sub-region.” University of Cambridge: presentation at the Centre for Mathematical Studies, 16th January 2011 .

Jowett, O. “High Density, Low-Carbon Housing: the design implications of the UK’s

changing climate.” MPhil Thesis, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, 2011.

—. “The thermal behaviour of cross-laminated timber construction and its resilience

to summertime overheating.” Passive and Low Energy Architecture. Louvain-la-Neuve: PLEA, 2011.

Kenworthy, P. Newman and D.J. “Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US

cities with a global survey.” Journal of the American Planning Association 55 (1989): 24-37.

Kenyon, G. UK test risks ‘keeping couples apart’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ education/2012/jul/10/uk-english-test (accessed July 17, 2012).

Kerrigan, C. A History of Tower Hamlets. London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets,

1982.

Kirk, J. London Thatch. http://www.jameskirk.eu/home.php?page=U02 (accessed July 17, 2012).

Lacaton and Vassal. Transformation of Housing Block - Paris 17°, Tour Bois le Prêtre - Druot. http://www.lacatonvassal.com/index.php?idp=56 (accessed July 17, 2012).

LAN Architecture. Urban Renovation, Genicart district - Lormont, France. http://www. lan-paris.com/project-lormont-urban-rehabilitation.html (accessed July 17, 2012).

LBTH. Core Strategy 2025: Development Plan Document. London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 2010.

—. Whitechapel Masterplan: Interim Supplementary Planning Document. London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 2007.

273

Littlefair, P. Site Layout Planning for Good Daylight and Sunlight. Watford: Building Research Establishment, 1992.

Long, K. “Street Smart: The Tarling Estate.” The Architects Journal 12th June (2008): 34-42.

Martin, L., and L. March, . Urban Space and Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Mikellides, B. “Theory, Practice and Education: Architectural Psychology 1969-2007.”

Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching (Oxford Brookes University) 2, no. 2 (2007).

Mort, F. “Fantasies of Metropolitan Life: Planning London in the 1940’s.” Journal of British Studies 43 (2004): 120-172.

Newman, O. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

ONS (Office for National Statistics). 2011 Census, Population and Household Estimates

for England and Wales. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/ population-and-household-estimates-for-england-and-wales/index.html (accessed July 17, 2012).

Palmer, A. The East End: Four Centuries of London Life. London: John Murray, 1989.

Panter Hudspith Architects. Bear Lane, Southwark: A Design Statement. London: London Borough of Southwark, Planning Records, 2006.

Portas, M. The Portas Review: an independent review into the future of our high streets . London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011.

Power, A. Estates on the Edge: The social consquences of mass housing in northern Europe . Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997.

—. Hovels to High Rise: State housing in Europe since 1850. London: Routledge, 1993.

—. Property Before People: The management of 20th century social housing. London:

Allen and Unwin, 1985.

Saunders, A. The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps 1939-1945. London: London Topographical Society and London Metropolitan Archives, 2005.

Sharpe, D. “Iroko Housing, Coin Street, Southwark: Controlling overheating in high

density residential buildings in a changing climate.” MPhil Essay, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, 2011.

274

Sharpe, D. “Transport oriented mixed use development in inner London: to what extent can current best practice produce a typology appropriate for the future of

Whitechapel?” MPhil Essay, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, 2011.

Space Syntax. London Riots. http://www.spacesyntax.com/project/2011-londonriots/ (accessed July 17, 2012).

Steemers, K. “Energy and the city: density, buildings and transport.” Energy and Buildings 35 (2003): 3-41.

Tavares, K. Robots of Brixton. http://factoryfifteen.com/7936/152394/home/robotsof-brixton (accessed July 17, 2012).

Threefold Architects. Turner Street. http://www.threefoldarchitects.com/projects/ turner-street/ (accessed July 17, 2012).

Towers, G. Shelter is Not Enough: Transforming multi-storey housing. Bristol: The Policy Press, 2000.

United House. Two industry firsts for £11m ground-breaking tower block. http://www. unitedhouse.net/about-us/news/id/1301316890 (accessed July 17, 2012).

Young, M. Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge, 1957.

275