Public Amenity

Public Landscaped Amenity Space Public Hardscaped Amenity Space Entrances 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.

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 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

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

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)

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

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.

Figure 14: Terraces and "Floorspace; Source: Authors Own

Figure 13: Terrace Elevation and plan, relating facade to floorspace. Source: Authors Own

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

Figure 17: providing a space to dwell on the high street Source: Authors Own

Figure 18: Semi Public Communal Greens Source: Authors Own

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

Figure 19: Plan of Type C Flated Houses Source: Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949).

Figure 20: Plan of Type A Modernist Flats. Source: Frederick Gibberd, "Housing At Hackney", Architectural Review, 106.633 (September 1949). Figure 21: Residents adaptations to the flated houses Gardens Source: Authors Own

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.

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) 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.

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.