Interstitial Space A Case Study of
Somerford Grove By Sir Frederick Gibberd
Luke Cameron Design Histories London School of Architecture 3276 words 1
Contents Introduction - 3 Historical Context - 4 Urban Grain - 6 Spatial Composition - 8 Public Amenity - 10 Private Amenity -14 Thresholds - 16 Materiality - 19 Conclusion - 21 Bibliography - 22 Endnotes - 23
2
Introduction
Figure 1: Somerford Grove Source: Authors Own
There has long been an antipathy by the UK public towards the countries many postwar modernist estates, rooted in an assumption that their design is directly detrimental to residents psychological health.1 Probably best depicted in Stanley Kubrick's film Clockwork Orange, a vision of bleak, savage urban dystopia played out against the backdrop of the Thamesmead estate in south-east London.2 Recent studies by neuroscientists and psychologists have found evidence to support this notion. Finding the level of complexity and variety in a building facade correlated to peoples mood, with simple and monotonous façades (like those at Thamesmead or the majority of modernist estate) having a negative impact.3
schemes built to the new international style could produce a "dull and inhuman environment to live in."4 He pioneered a new approach that was seen to 'humanise' architecture, softening it by incorporating ideas on aesthetics taken from the analysis of historic towns and villages in England. This approach is exemplified in his design of the Somerford Grove Housing estate in Hackney. The essay will look at it as a case study focusing specifically on Gibberd's design of the space between the housing, as it was in these interstitial space that his ideas were most expressed. After providing some historical context the essay examines Somerford Groves interstitial space at all scale from the urban grain down to his choice in materiality. I will aim to explore what set Gibberd's approach apart from the prevailing modernist ideology, aiming to draw lessons that could be applied to help humanise the design of new housing developments.
It wasn't only in hindsight that these criticisms were levelled, many architects wrote on the matter as new estates were being devised and built, one such architect was Sir Fredrick Gibbered. Although not using the language of mental health Gibbered was concerned that large housing 3
Historical Context At the beginning of his career, Gibberd was an early pioneer of the Modernist movement in the UK, a strong believer in the ideas coming out from CIAM (Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne).5 Designing one of Britain's first flat developments in the international style, Pullman court in Streatham Hill (1936). Pullman court included a seven-storey flat in a double cruciform plan, similar to those famously advocated by Le Corbusier in his unrealised Plan vison for Paris (1925).6
style".10 Rather than rejecting all modernist principles and reverting to a traditional approach, Gibbered sort to incorporate picturesque ideals of variety in aesthetics and visual planning into his expression of modernism.11 After the war had finished the government set huge targets to provide new housing and repair bomb destroyed sites up and down the country.12 Armed with these new ideas, and considered a leading voice in housing design, Gibbered was able to put this newly formed approach straight into practice. 13 Commissioned in 1944 to design a housing scheme for 9 acre plot in hackney, named Somerford Grove.14
Gibberd was invited to join MARS (Modern Architectural Research Group) the British arm of CAIM months after its formation in 1933. By the Age of 29, Gibbered had quickly become a leading voice in Britain calling for a rejection of lowdensity suburban sprawl, that had been influenced by the garden city movement. Advocating instead for Le Corbusier's modernist approach of "tall buildings in a park, with common amenities air and view" views he published In "The Modern Flat" in 1937 .7 World War two broke out, Gibbered was deemed unfit to serve and after briefly working for Hampstead council producing Airraid shelters he took a professorship at The AA (architectural association) to further develop his thinking. Like many of his contemporaries, driven by the knowledge large areas of the country would need to be rebuilt, Gibbered started to become more interested with design at a greater scale, 8 studying historic approaches to town planning in the UK. The studies comprised of photography and annotated sketches, ranged from unplanned traditional vernacular towns (Safron Walden), to the planned Georgian cities of bath and the Garden Suburbs movement, the last an approach Gibbered had previously publicly criticised. 9 What united all these wartime studies was a focus on aesthetics, Gibbered admired the complexity and variety of street scenes created by their built form, something Gibberd was starting to believe was lacking in the modernists "international 4
Figure 1: Pullman Court Source: The Modern House <https://www.themodernhouse.com/past-sales/pullman-court-viii/> [Accessed December 2020]
Figure 2: Gibberd's war time studies of Safron Walden, Bath and Hampstead Garden Suburb, respectively. Source: Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017).
5
Urban Grain
Figure 4: Historic Map Overlay, Show the change in urban grain from before the development (1930) in orange with the current (2019) in purple Source: Authors Own adapted from maps obtained from EDINA Historic Digimap Service
Gibbered reconfigured the urban grain of the site in line with modernist thinking of the era, aiming to prioritise pedestrian movement and provide more public green space. A new street pattern was devised so that traffic is no longer tempted to cut through the estate, by paving over the eastern end of the site, blocking the direct connection to Kingsland High street.15
of interest, referring to them as 'pegs on which the new design hung'.17 This continuity between the new and the old means the estate blends well into the existing context with no clear point to where the estate begins or ends, unlike most other modernist developments that had a clear estate boundary. Although Gibberd referred to the previous arrangement as "dull Victorian dwellings built to a dull street pattern”18 he didn’t have the same hatred for the street as Le Corbusier who in his earlier career, wrote That the street is “a relic of the centuries, a dislocated organ that can no longer function".19 As although the road pattern was modified the axial nature of the site was still retained. With the street transferring to
However, unlike most modernist, Gibberd was against a 'tabula rasa' approach saying "It is more than vandalism to fell a tree that has taken years to grow, or to demolish a building of fine architectural qualities; it is a destruction of the spirit of the place."16 Having the opportunity to clear the bomb-damaged 9-acre site he instead retained existing services, paths, trees (fig .6) and buildings 6
Figure 5: Axial route transitioning from street to pedestrian path. Source: Authors Own
Figure 6: Gibberd architecture Retention of existing Trees Source: Authors Own
Figure 7: Fenced of under-croft, severs connection to high street. Source: Authors Own
a path at the pedestrianised precinct (fig. 5), then connecting to the high street through an undercroft in the eastern block, preserving a direct connection through the site.
set out to avoid (discussed on-page 9). Despite this, the adjustments made to the urban grain by Gibbered has lead to an estate that is still fully accessible to vehicles yet residents feel comfortable walking on the street, showing Gibbered aim of prioritising the pedestrian succeeded. The reconfigured street patter also allowed Gibbered to create an interesting spatial composition of differing housing typologies and amenity spaces previously not seen in the UK.
Sadly the undercroft has since been fenced off by the council (fig. 7) most likely in a bid to reduce anti-social behaviour. Know as 'secured by design' measures introduced in 1989 aimed to reduce loitering, antisocial behaviour and crime on housing estates, with unwatched sheltered spaces such as this undercroft believed to create a haven for unwanted activities.20 This is a real shame as Closing off the estate in this manner does change the pedestrian movement around the site reduceing through traffic giving the space a culde-sac like quality something Gibberd specifically 7
Spatial Composition
Close 1
Close 2
Community Hall
Close 3
Close 4
Close 5
Close 7
Close 8
Close 9
Close 6 GP
Type A: Three or Four-storey blocks of modernist flats ; two- or threebedroom, with direct access in pairs. Type B: Three-storey blocks of modernist flats: Single-bedroom and bed-sitting room with gallery access. Type C: Two-storey blocks of two-bedroom flatted houses, each with a small private garden. Type D: Two-storey terrace houses, with three bedrooms and private garden. Type E: Terrace of single-storey bungalows with bed recess; these are for old people, Figure 8: Typology Map Source: Authors Own adapted from maps obtained from EDINA Digimap Service
Somerford Grove was an early, if not the first, example of what was later coined mixed development.21 Unlike previous interwar council housing schemes dominated by two- and threebed family housing, Somerford Grove consisted of a range of different dwellings to suit the cities changing demographics.22 Although this change came from a social need, with over a third of hackney residents on the waiting list only requiring one bedroom23, Gibbered saw this as an opportunity to exercise his thoughts on aesthetics of variety he had developed over the war period.24
actors designing to different needs. Concluding that this form of piecemeal development “even though it may have little unity, is more alive and interesting than many planned areas.” 26 Gibbered aiming to replicate a piecemeal aesthetic design 5 different typologies to form Somerford Grove. The site considered of a mix of: "Type A: Three or Four-storey blocks of modernist flats ; two- or threebedroom, with direct access in pairs. Type B: Three-storey blocks of modernist flats: Single-bedroom and bed-sitting room with gallery access. Type C: Two-storey blocks of two-bedroom flatted houses, each with a small private garden. Type D: Two-storey terrace houses, with three bedrooms and private garden. Type E: Terrace of single-storey bungalows with bed recess; these are for old people, "27
Becoming increasingly critical of the homogeneity he saw in many modernist schemes. Often consisting of the repetition of one form or block type. “No matter how good the design, a large scheme composed of only one of these forms of development will be a dull environment to live in, through the over-all sameness of the scene.”25 Gibbered saw the solution in the introduction of variety, inspired by vernacular towns he had analysed. Their variety and complexity developed over time through competing force of multiple
(They typologies have be categorised into types so they can later be referred to with more ease) 8
To add to the variety and complexity the differing housing typologies were arranged to establish a series of closes and courtyards, each with their own character.28 The closes although intimate never consist of more than one closed corner to allow for vistas across the site, to obviate any feeling that the closes are culs-de-sac or dead ends.29 The Vistas are generally diagonal between buildings of a different character, ensuring at no point is one typology isolated, each view a diverse composition.30 Gibbered is able to achieve a series of changing compositions which, although having an over-all continuity and coherence, sustain and excite our interest by contrast and surprise as we move through the site, with little effort needed to be taken by the viewer.
Figure 9: Contrasting Typologies Source: Authors Own
These compositions echo the ideas of the picturesque movement, specially Uwin’s Hampstead garden suburb, that Gibbered had notably studied.31 Gibbered had not replicated these ideas verbatim, critical of their density and “dead end” quality derived from Cul-de-sac's, but greatly admired the Uwin's compositions.32 Both draw from the writing of Camilio Site who treated town planning as a series of enclosed spaces and carefully composed 'street pictures’.33 34
Figure 10: Contrasting Typologies Source: Authors Own
Beside variety in composition, Gibbered was also very interested in providing a balance between enclosure and connection he referred to this as a 'sense of urbaninity'. Critical of Unwins translation of Camillo Sitte ideas, He believed this sense of urbanity was lost in Uwins Hampstead Garden Suburb writing that in particular, its main squares were “far too large and open for the buildings surrounding them”.35 In the same book, he wavered the same criticism to modernist developments, who's tall block require vast street widths.36 Gibberd was able to best achieves this In the central pedestrianised precinct. Narrow paths flanked by the two low rise flat typologies, the space feels very intimate, yet connected as diagonal views out provided connection to the rest of the estate.
Figure 11: Sense of urbanity Source: Authors Own
9
Public Amenity
Public Landscaped Amenity Space
Entrances
Public Hardscaped Amenity Space
Private Amenity Space (Back-gardens)
Figure 12: Map of the sites amenity provision and entrance. Source: Authors Own adapted from maps obtained from EDINA Digimap Service
Around the time of designing Someford Grove gibbered was starting to formulate his ideas around combining landscape architecture and street design into the one discipline that he called Town design. Gibbered Began to understand that his concerns regarding the space between the building differed him from his contemporaries.37 Upset with the current modernist discord which he believed had little consideration for the domain beyond the building facade. "The architect regarding his building as being an abstract composition with an existence independent of its surroundings”.38 He put this down to an increasingly introverted and specialised profession that had little interest in disciplines outside of pure architecture.
greater importance on how elements of the built environment complemented and related to each other than there individual form. This picturesque approach diverts from the functionalism of modernism, believing all elements must not only function but should collectively create an aesthetically satisfying composition. Gibberd's consideration of all elements of the site and how they relate to each other can be seen through the level of detail and thought given to the interstitial space and amenity provision the at Somerford grove. The paving an often overlooked element is given as much consideration as the composition of the facades of the buildings. Coined floorscapes they consisting of a mix of different materials and patterns used to define space and provide “contrast” and “interest”.40 The paving in front of the terraces notable for having a dialogue with the adjacent facades, through its composition (fig 13 & 14).41
Gibbered believed all elements that composed of the built environment should be considered collectively when designing, be it the paving, a tree, lamppost or the building itself, they all equally contribute to how we perceived the built environment and therefore required the same level of attention. Instead of designing a building as a complete and independent architectural composition to then be related to a site, Gibbered believed in designing the full composition what he referred to as the "urban scene".39 Placing
Shared facilities such as bin stores, often regarded as utilitarian aspects are not seen as purely functional, equal consideration given to there aesthetic contribution to the urban ensemble. The flatted houses (Type C) Bin stores have wooden barn-like doors referencing the traditional 10
vernacular (fig.25) and the modernist blocks bin storage was conceived as an extension of the architecture constructed and detailed in the same materials (fig 15). Sadly, the later weren't maintained and have since been removed by the council and replace with metal fencing, demonstrating the negative impact a purely functional approach can have. (fig 16)
provided by the bordering dwelling. (fig 18) These seeming small interventions and consideration, blanketed across the whole estate come together to produce a series of urban compositions that are greater than the sum of all parts.
Consideration of the site extends to its edges, with alcoves for benches carved out of the estates bounding wall affording passersby on the high street, space to dwell (fig 17). Landscaping in the form of raised planter and greens, help to soften the architecture, but Gibberd does not consider landscape as purely a passive area of natural beauty they are intended as useable amenity spaces. The green “closes”, the areas of green space enclosed by the modernist flats have become very successful in this regard. Aided by a sense of encloses and passive surveillance Figure 14: Terraces and "Floorspace; Source: Authors Own
Figure 13: Terrace Elevation and plan, relating facade to floorspace. Source: Authors Own
11
Figure 16: Modernist Flats Bin store provision in 2020 Source: Authors Own
Figure 15: Modernist Flats Bin store provision in 2020 and 1939 Source: Authors Own and Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962). Respectively
12
Figure 17: providing a space to dwell on the high street Source: Authors Own
Figure 18: Semi Public Communal Greens Source: Authors Own
13
Private Amenity
Figure 18: Private Amenity provision in 1939 and 2020. Type A, B & E. Source: Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949). and Authors Own, Respectively
In writing his book “the modern flat” Gibbered aimed to promote the typology, arguing one of their main benefits was the increased amount of amenity they could provide residents through shared spaces, inspired by Le Corbusier 'towers in parkland'.42 Despite there modest heights, the idea was implemented on Somerford Grove, with each flat having a small private amenity space compensated by larger communal green adjacent them.
Originally Gibbered designed the back gardens of the ground floor flats as exposed unfenced small patios that connected directly to shared communal greens. You can see this in the original photograph and Gibbered presentation drawing both publish in the AJ (fig 18 & 20). However the unclear boundaries on ownership didn’t catch favour with residents, from historic maps we can infer that by at least the 1970 fence and hedges had been placed to provide ground floor residents with “traditional” high fenced back gardens, this 14
Figure 19: Plan of Type C Flated Houses Source: Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949).
Figure 21: Residents adaptations to the flated houses Gardens Source: Authors Own
Figure 20: Plan of Type A Modernist Flats. Source: Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949).
can also be seen at the backs of the bungalows. Likely due to the residents not feeling Gibbered's arrangement provided an adequate sense of security and privacy.
Others have left them as they were originally provided, recognising the sense of openness and connection they afforded. We can infer through Gibbered drawing that he hoped this would occur as he drew each garden differently (fig.18), probably hoping their variation would add richness to the estate. Gibberd's design provided a framework for the residents to build upon, while ensuring some element of unity was kept.
The Flatted housing (type C) had a novel arrangement where both of the flats received their own garden. Entrances placed on the side meant they had a less clear front to back arrangement, with the gardens making an interesting negotiation between public and private. Unlike the other ground floor flats, they were spacious and the boundary of the ownership is clear as they are outlined by a low brick wall. This larger more defined space has allowed residents the ability to take ownership and adapt them to their own needs. This can be seen across the estate as households have mediated the level of privacy they seek through the use of vegetation and fencing. (fig 21)
Later writings from the likes of Oscar Newman documented issues related to modernist planning and the need for a sense of ownership to help residents feel secure.43 However, from comparing these different approaches we can see that this doesn't need to be a high fenced wall and a more interesting arrangement can occur when residents are given a well-defined framework with which they can adapt to their needs.
15
Thresholds
Figure 25 Figure 24 Figure 23 Figure 27 Figure 26
Public Landscaped Amenity Space
Entrances
Public Hardscaped Amenity Space
Private Amenity Space (Back-gardens)
Figure 22: Map of the sites amenity provision and entrance. Source: Authors Own adapted from maps obtained from EDINA Digimap Service
An element of the scheme that Gibberd had not written about but clearly shows his inclusion of picturesque principles, is his treatment of entrance thresholds. Doorways on the estate show a clear disregard for the rejection of ornamentation promoted by modernism with each having some form of detailing embellishing them. As part of Gibberd's ‘urban scenes’, they needed to not only “function properly” but must also be “aesthetically satisfying” to ensure they didn't upset the larger composition44. Coloured tiling frames the entrance to the flats (Type A), Woven metal trellises adorned the bungalows and the terrace have porches reminiscent of Georgian detailing, each differing slightly in shape to its neighbour.
space, making interactions with strangers more comfortable. Collectively this results in a space that affords residents the possibility of a chance interaction. Type C: Has an equally if not more sociable arrangement. Despite consisting of flats all the entrances go straight onto a shared external square. Akin to the Tyneside flat typology, the access to the above flat is via an internal staircase with a door at street level. The square a space for casual interaction, animated by the four doors and shared bin stores nestled between them. Type B, however, is not as successful, similar to other modernist developments at the time it has a more utilitarian approach to its threshold. An abrupt unsheltered door greets residents that they open into narrow external deck access. The lack of depth engenders a space where you fell less comfortable dwelling or interacting with other people. Type B entrances are also not very well overlooked facing mainly onto blank walls and service roads. Whereas Type A face onto either green public square or public street both heavily overlooked from adjacent windows and balconies.
The configuration of the flat entrances has helped generate a more humane environment by affording residents space to comfortably connect. Type A: Sheltered overhead by private balconies and framed either side by two perchable planters, the threshold permits residents a space to dwell before entering or exiting. The wide inset doorway allowing residents their personal 16
Figure 23: Type A Entrance Threshold, sketch plan and companion image Source: Authors Own
Figure 24 Type B Entrance Threshold, sketch plan and companion image Source: Authors Own
Poor natural surveillance of these threshold has lead to the council having to implement secured by design provisions, replacing the door and fencing the walkways likely due increase crime or anti-social behaviour, the other entrance have not needed such modifications. The terraces and bungalows have more traditional threshold but the inclusion of trestles and flowerboxes at there entrances helps to give privacy through depth , while also softening the building exterior. Clearly inspired by his analysis of Hampstead garden suburb where he praised a similar argument at "hampstead way" arguing "informal planting" was infinitely superior threshold treatment to "concreate paving and an enclosed front garden"45. Ignoring the entrance to Type B flats, The rest of the sites thresholds all include touches and spatial considerations inspired by a picturesque approach that helps to humanise the developments modernist planning.
Figure 25: Type C Entrance Threshold, sketch plan and companion image Source: Authors Own
17
Figure 26: Type D Entrance Threshold Source: Authors Own
Figure 27: Type E Entrance Threshold in 2020 and 1939 Source: Authors Own and Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962). Respectively
18
Materiality
Figure 28: View to shows the sites variety in materiality Source: Authors Own
Figure 29: Bungalow (Type E) Source: Authors Own
Figure 30: Modernist Flat (Type A & B) Source: Authors Own
One of the modernist doctrines main pillars was the rejection of decoration. With the introduction of concrete and steel frame construction, walls no longer needed to be load-bearing, it was considered false to add complexity in materiality onto the facade. Gibbered in 1933 echoed these beliefs coming from CIAM in his article 'Some wall sheathings' in with which he said the wall should no longer require decorative finishes46, executed later that year in his design of Pullman Court who's wall were left completely undecorated.47 However, after his wartime studies, influenced by vernacular villages he had a change of mind. In the same way, he rejected the modernist doctrine for repetition due to its cause of monotony, he had the same issue with the lack of materiality in modernist construction.
Figure 31: Terraces (Type D) Source: Authors Own
Writing an article in 1940 titled Wall textures: A local study, Gibberd suggested it might now be acceptable to look again at traditional approaches, purely for the visual effects of their materials and textures.48 49Using photography he had taken on his studies he argues that contemporary architecture whether “modern or traditional lacked ‘the same range or variety’.50 Acknowledging that unplanned development can ‘become almost chaotic’51 he believed these unplanned villages were held together in a form of unity, because the buildings shared the same craft technique, and were constructed of local materials.52 Therefore it was not just variety it was a sort of controlled variety that Gibbered aspired to replicate. These thoughts were put into practice at 19
Somerford Grove. Rather than the whole estate using the same material pallet, he selected a range of brick types and finishes to complement and contrast between each other. The two flat typologies consisting of ‘precise’ flat ‘pale pink putty coloured bricks’, contrasting with the warmer brick for the terraces and the rougher ‘more intimate’ dark red and blue used for the bungalows.53 The project is thought of as a whole composition, the materiality of each typology conceived through how it would relate to the other. "were they removed to isolated sites their formal characteristics would need to be modified" This Variation doesn’t end at brickwork but is carried onto differing roofing tiles and thresholds. It is therefore for not obvious on the first inspection that all the differing typologies were designed and conceived at the same time. However, there are enough similarities such as window detailing and use of small areas of white rendering, that the development reads as a whole. Reinforced by the attention paid to design and detail of the spaces between the dwelling, notably complex paving patterns helps to knit the scheme together. Collectively this creates a richer warmer experience for an individual interacting with the estate, without the project lacking any sense of order or composure.
20
Conclusion
Figure 32: Mural on the side of the Bungalows Source: http://londonmuralpreservationsociety.com/murals/living-room-mural/ [Accessed December 2020]
Gibberd's attitude to the space in-between the buildings differs Somerford Grove from previous modernist housing schemes. All elements considered equally, not simply the buildings but the street furniture, paving and landscape are carefully composed to create a series of aesthetically satisfying compositions. Contrast and intrigue were added through a rejection of repetition and a return to traditional materials and decoration, reintroducing variety back into the visual language of architecture.
A mural was painted on the end of the bungalows in the 1950s, uncredited, it depicts a comfortable post-war domestic life, a couple sitting in armchairs before a cosy gas fire, while their little boy plays with his train and their daughter reads her book54. This is a reminder that despite their flaws the new housing provided post-war was a radical improvement on the living condition many suffered in slums. If improving physical health was the great public health challenge of the 20th century, then improving mental health will be the challenge of the 21st. We know architecture can not alone solve this, but incorporating more of Gibberd's humanistic approach would be a step in the right direction.
Current architects can learn from this focus on the interstitial space and aesthetics of variety as a way to humanise large housing developments. For it is in these interstitial space that we interact with people and perceive the majority of the world, greater consideration of them would provide a more beautiful backdrop to everyday life 21
Bibliography
Bartholomew, Emma, "Bid To Track Down 1950S ‘Street Artist’", Hackney Gazette, 2015 <https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/bid-to-track-down-1950s-street-artist-3494582> [Accessed 11 December 2020] Boughton, John, "Post-War Housing In Hackney: ‘Far Removed From The Pre-War Conception Of “Council Flats”‘", Municipal Dreams, 2016 <https://municipaldreams.wordpress. com/2016/03/08/hackney/> [Accessed 29 December 2020] Castella, Tom de, "Tower Blocks: The Ups And Downs Of High-Rise Living", BBC News, 2021 <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/miev6i55we/tower_blocks_ups_downs_high_rise> [Accessed 2 January 2021]
Downing, George LA Borough Engineer and Surveyor and Director of Housing Development, Metropolitan Borough of Hackney, ‘Some Aspects of Housing in a Metropolitan Borough’, The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, September 1949; vol. 69, no. 5 Gibberd, Frederick, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106 (September 1949) Gibberd, Frederick, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962)
Le Corbusier ‘The Street’ in Et Son Atelier Rue De Sèvres 35 eds. Willy Boesiger (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006), pp. 118 - 119 Lynsey Hanley, "'Delicate Sense Of Terror': What Does Concrete Do To Our Mental Health?", The Guardian, 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/28/delicate-sense-of-terror-what-does-concrete-do-to-our-mental-health> [Accessed 2 January 2021].
Manley, Christine Hui Lan, "1947: Somerford Grove Estate, London", C20society.Org.Uk <https://c20society.org.uk/100-buildings/1947-somerford-grove-estate-london> [Accessed 29 December 2020] Manley, Christine Hui Lan, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017) Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. , 1972. Print. Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited, "About Us", Securedbydesign.Com, 2021 <https://www.securedbydesign.com/about-us/about-sbd> [Accessed 10 January 2021] Uwin, Robert, “Town Planning in Practice” (London: T Fisher Uwin 1909)
22
Endnotes 1 Lynsey Hanley, "'Delicate Sense Of Terror': What Does Concrete Do To Our Mental Health?", The Guardian, 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/ feb/28/delicate-sense-of-terror-what-does-concrete-do-to-our-mental-health> [Accessed 2 January 2021]. 2 Tom de Castella, "Tower Blocks: The Ups And Downs Of High-Rise Living", BBC News, 2021 <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/miev6i55we/tower_blocks_ ups_downs_high_rise> [Accessed 2 January 2021]. 3 Colin Ellard and Charles Montgomery, A Physcoligcal Study On City Spaces And How They Affect Our Bodies And Minds, Testing Testing (New York: BMW Guggenheim Lab, 2021) <http://cdn.bmwguggenheimlab.org/TESTING_TESTING_BMW_GUGGENHEIM_LAB_2013_2.pdf> [Accessed 4 January 2021]. 4 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962). p.275 5 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.24 6 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.10 7 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.18 8 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.22 9 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.24 10 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962). p. 294 11 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.29 12 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.37 13 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.37 14 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.41 15 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962). p. 311 16 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p.19 17 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p.311 18 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p.311 19 Le Corbusier ‘The Street’ in Et Son Atelier Rue De Sèvres 35 eds. Willy Boesiger (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006), pp. 118 - 119 20 Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited, "About Us", Securedbydesign. Com, 2021 <https://www.securedbydesign.com/about-us/about-sbd> [Accessed 10 January 2021]. 21 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962). p. 311 22 John Boughton, "Post-War Housing In Hackney: ‘Far Removed From The Pre-War Conception Of “Council Flats”‘", Municipal Dreams, 2016 <https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/hackney/>W 23 George LA Downing, Borough Engineer and Surveyor and Director of Housing Development, Metropolitan Borough of Hackney, ‘Some Aspects of Housing in a Metropolitan Borough’, The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, September 1949; vol. 69, no. 5 24 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.46 25 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 293 26 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 294 27 Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949). 28 Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949). 23
29 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 313 30 Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949) 31 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.11 32 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 304 33 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.27 34 Robert Uwin, Town Planning in Practice. (London: T Fisher Uwin 1909) p.12 35 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 304 36 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 274 37 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.27 38 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 11 39 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 5 40 Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949) 41 Manley, Christine Hui Lan, "1947: Somerford Grove Estate, London", C20society.Org.Uk <https://c20society.org.uk/100-buildings/1947-somerford-grove-estate-london> [Accessed 29 December 2020] 42 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.18 43 Oscar Newman,. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. , 1972. Print. 44 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 10 45 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 307 46 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.9 47 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.10 48 Christine Hui Lan Manley, Frederick Gibberd (Historic England, 2017). p.28 49 Fredrick Gibberd. Wall Textures: A local study, Architectural Review 88 (July 1940) 9–14. 50 Fredrick Gibberd. Wall Textures: A local study, Architectural Review 88 (July 1940) 9–14. 51 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 294 52 Frederick Gibberd, Town Design, 4th edn (London: Architectural Press, 1962) p. 294 53 Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949) 54 Emma Bartholomew, "Bid To Track Down 1950S ‘Street Artist’", Hackney Gazette, 2015 <https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/bid-to-track-down-1950sstreet-artist-3494582> [Accessed 11 December 2020].
24
