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