Dissertation: Self Build, Individuality and Community in Walter's Way and Segal Close, UK by Minnie Bates

s e l f - b u i l d / i n d i v i d u a l i t y / c o m m u n i t y

Dominica Bates An Exploration of the Relationship Between Self-Build, Individuality and Community, in Walterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Way and Segal Close, United Kingdom Submitted for the degree of BA Honours Architecture and Urban Planning, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, 2017-18

The aim of this dissertation is to explore what factors contribute to the maintenance of individuality and community in an established self-build scheme, focusing on two examples: Segal Close and Walterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Way in Lewisham, London. Over the last 30 years the majority of the original self-builders have moved away and new residents have come to occupy the houses. Drawing on qualitative research methods and thematic analysis, findings are split into two sections to examine whether this scheme adheres to concepts discussed by advocates of self-build in the existing literature. Firstly, the individual experience of self-build; secondly, the communal experience of selfbuild. This dissertation concludes that original self-builders and new residents continue to express individuality in a similar way - imprinting identity onto their homes through alteration and expansion of the physical structure. However, whilst the community created by the self-build process remains strong, original self-builders and newer residents differ in their opinion about which factors contribute to community cohesion.

a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s I would like to thank my dissertation tutor Loes Veldpaus for all the advice she has given me over the past year. I would also like to thank the residents of Walterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Way and Segal Close who welcomed me into their homes and contributed to my investigation into their communities. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and their never-ending encouragement.

Chapter 1: Introduction

t 11

Chapter 5: Findings 5.1 Individual Experience

s 35

1.1 Context and Purpose of the Research

1.2 Research Questions

5.1.1

Identity, Individuality and Aspiration

1.3 Aims

5.1.2

Identity and Legacy

1.4 Objectives

5.1.3

Confidence and Empowerment

5.2 Community Chapter 2: Literature Review

5.2.1

Constructing a Community

2.1 Introduction to the Literature

5.2.2

Intentional Communities

2.2 Self-Build and Individual Experience

5.2.3

Spatial Layout

2.2.1 Home and Identity

5.2.4

Responsibility

2.2.2 Individuality

2.2.3 Fulfilling Aspirations

2.3 Community

Chapter 6: Conclusion

6.1 Research Questions

2.3.1 Constructing a Community

6.2 Further Considerations

2.3.2 Intentional Communities

6.3 Future Lines of Enquiry

2.3.3 Architectural Determinism

Chapter 3: Case Study

3.2 Segal Self-Build Method

4.2 Qualitative Methods

4.3 Semi-structured Interviews

4.4 Questionnaire Surveys

4.5 Photography

4.6 Secondary Data

4.6.1 ‘Walter’s Way and Segal Close’ by Alice Grahame and Taran Wilkhu

4.6.2 Video Resources

4.8 Limitations of the Research 4.9 Ethical Considerations

Appendices

4.1 Case Study Methodology

4.7 Data Analysis

3.1 Lewisham Self-Build Scheme

Chapter 4: Methodology and Data Collection

Bibliography

33 34 34

Figure

s Page

Cover

Illustration of a Segal Home Before and After Personalization and Expansion (Bates, 2018)

Cover

Self-build houses at Walter’s Way shortly after their construction (McKean, 1989: 178)

Self-build houses at Walter’s Way (Bates, 2017)

Inside a home at Walter’s Way (Bates, 2017)

‘Incremental Housing’, before (left) and after (right) being adapted by its residents’ over time (Aravena & Iacobelli, 2016: 192-193)

Self Builders on site at Lewisham (McKean, 1989: 204-205)

Drawings of ‘Lewisham’s Proposed Second Self-Build Scheme’ (Architect’s Journal cited in Brown and Fraser, 1986)

Construction drawings to show the structure of a Segal self-build wall and positioning of joists (McKean, 1989: 139-142)

OS Map showing part of South East London, and the two streets’ proximity to each other (Digimaps 2017a [edition by author, 2018])

OS Map of Walter’s Way, with its 13 self-build houses highlighted in orange (Digimaps 2017b [edition by author, 2018])

OS Map of Segal Close, with its 7 self-build houses highlighted in orange (Digimaps, 2017b [edition by author, 2018])

A round window that a resident added to his own kitchen (Bates, 2018)

Entrance to Walter’s Way: Private Road (Bates, 2017)

18-19

i n t r o d u c t i o n 1.1 Context and Purpose of the Research A simple definition of self-build housing is ‘production of dwellings by their subsequent occupants’ (Merrett, 1988: 247). The degree to which the dweller is involved in the production of the house varies greatly, ranging from involvement in the design of the house, to its physical construction. Self-build can be characterized by both individual and collective efforts to improve upon an existing house or settlement, or construct an entirely new one (Burgess, 1982). Ward (1976) divides those who embark on self-build housing projects into three categories: individuals assisted by family and friends, with some specialist help; housing associations formed of a group of people who collaborate to build a group of houses; and sub-standard shack builders who initially construct a basic housing unit which is subsequently extended or improved when resources become available. It is only in the last two centuries or so, and in relatively restricted areas of the world, that the majority of people have not had to build their own houses (Burgess, 1982). Self-build still accounts for a substantial proportion of housebuilding in many European, North American and Australasian countries (Duncan & Rowe, 1993). The idea of self-build is a very old one and in reality it is the idea that people do not and should not build their own houses which is relatively new (Burgess, 1982). This idea is seemingly prominent in the UK, where in the 1980s only 6% of housebuilding was self-provided, compared to around 50% in France and Germany (Duncan & Rowe, 1993). What is more, there are numerous examples within the existing literature on self-build housing that draw upon the experiences of people living in the Global South. In this context, self-build settlements are inherently linked to illegality and are more commonly referred to as ‘spontaneous’, ‘unauthorized’ and ‘unplanned’ settlements (Ward, 1982: 1). The question of who self-build serves is continuously contested. Whilst some believe self-build is only a last resort - ‘a product of the system not being able to produce a suitable object at a comparable price’ (ibid: 7) - others argue that self-build should not be ‘seen as a problem and start being seen as a solution’ (Aravena & Iacobelli, 2016: 17). In the UK the development of commercial building practices since the 18th century has been accompanied by the subsequent decline in self-build as a popular form of housing provision (Brown, 2004). However, the UK Government have proposed that the self-build housing sector should be stimulated to double its output from 100,000 to 200,000 over the next decade and Wallace et al., (2013: 7) have identified the current motivations for self-build as follows: -

increased consumer choice increased satisfaction in terms of design aspirations and personalization environmental sustainability community participation and place making a contribution to the provision of more affordable housing

This dissertation will focus on two of these motivations in particular. Firstly, ‘increased satisfaction in terms of design aspirations and personalization’. Secondly, ‘community participation and place making’. These ideas have continuously contributed to discussions around why self-build is more successful than other forms of housing. Some advocates believe that selfbuild housing on an individual scale enables the dweller to assert greater levels of freedom and autonomy over their home, and as a result they are able to express a higher degree of identity, individuality and aspiration (Ospina, 1987; Turner & Fichter, 1972; Duncan & Rowe, 1993). Advocates for self-building on a communal scale also assert that the process of building a community together leads to higher levels of social cohesion, community participation and better place making (Lloyd et al., 2013; Wallace et al., 2013). Whilst there is some literature in existence exploring how self-build communities around the world develop over time (Kellett, 2002; Aravena & Iacobelli, 2016; Hamiduddin & Gallent, 2016) there is a lack of investigation into examples of long-term self-build communities in the UK. In the context of the Global South, self-build housing often provides a home for generations of the same family, and as a result the house grows and changes to provide for the needs of its occupants. However, in the context of the UK, people more often move house to accommodate their changing needs. Statistics suggest that the number of people moving house in the UK is at a ten year high (Hughes, 2018). If self-build is to become more prominent in the UK it is therefore important to consider how self-build homes respond to new dwellers, and in turn, how dwellers respond to selfbuild homes, constructed by a previous dweller. This research is inspired by the combination of two assertions. Firstly by John Turner’s (1972: 241) assertion that dweller control of the design, construction and management of their homes stimulates ‘individual and social wellbeing’. Secondly, by Lloyd et al.’s (2013: 27) inconclusive contemplation over whether a selfbuild community ‘erodes over time as individuals and families change, just like in any neighbourhood’. This dissertation hopes to open up debate about how selfbuild responds to its dwellers over time by researching two self-build schemes in London, 30 years after they were constructed. Walter’s Way and Segal Close were constructed by their future occupiers under the supervision of (and therefore named after) the architect Walter Segal. The majority of the houses on Walter’s Way and Segal Close are no longer occupied by the original self-builder; on Walter’s Way three original selfbuilders remain, while the last original builders on Segal close moved out within the past six months.

Figure 1. Self-build houses at Walter’s Way shortly after their construction (McKean, 1989: 178)

Figure 2. Self-build houses at Walter’s Way (Bates, 2017)

1.2 Research Questions: The central research question that this dissertation aims to address is as follows: Comparing theory to practice, what factors contribute to the maintenance of individuality and community in an established self-build scheme? To reflect upon the extent to which these schemes still adhere to the theory that self-build promotes a higher level of individuality and community than other forms of housing the following sub-questions need to be addressed: 1. Is the original ethos of self-build – the promotion of individuality and community – still maintained in these particular schemes? 2. How do residents express individuality through the physical layout and structure of their houses? 3. What factors contribute to community cohesion, and how have these factors changed over time? 4. How has the experience of living in a Segal self-build scheme changed, 30 years since its construction?

1.3 Aims: The aim of this dissertation is to gain a better understanding of how the dweller’s relationship with self-build changes over time based on the perspectives of current residents of Walter’s Way and Segal Close.

1.4 Objectives: •

To examine how the existing theoretical stances towards self-build compare to the reality of self-build.

•

To explore the perspectives of different individuals who live in self-build houses.

•

To enhance the existing understanding of the relationship between identity and the self-build house

•

To enhance the existing understanding of what factors contribute to community cohesion

l i t e r a t u r e

r e v i e w

2.1 Introduction to the Literature This dissertation aims to examine self-build homes in two contexts. Firstly, the self-build home as an individual entity, providing a home for a single household. Secondly, the self-build home as part of a self-build community. The relevant foregrounding literature has therefore been examined accordingly, exploring the merits of self-build amongst other factors that contribute to the success of housing and communities in general.

2.2 Self-Build and Individual Experience 2.2.1 Home and Identity The conceptual links between home and identity have been discussed not just in relation to self-build homes but in relation to housing in general. On the topic of how home reflects identity Putnam (1990: 7) describes the process of making a home through ‘an interweaving of personal imagination, lived relationships and shaped surroundings’ – suggesting our home is the formation of our personal experiences. Pallasmaa (1992: 7) describes home as a ‘projection and basis of identity, not only of an individual but also of the family’. Reflecting upon her own interviews regarding home and identity, Marcus (2006: 8) concludes that ‘the key seems to be the personalisation of space: more and more I found in the stories I heard that it is the moveable objects in the home, rather than the physical fabric itself that are the symbols of self’. However, Marcus does not directly address homes that have been constructed by the dweller, and can therefore be altered and upgraded by the dweller - homes that are essentially moveable objects in themselves. If the aim of the design of Segal’s self-build homes was to make the home itself a moveable object, the physical fabric can then be included within the personalisation of the space. Referring to identity in self-build homes specifically, Brown (2007: 262) points out that unlike other forms of material culture, the self-build home is conceptualized by the end-user and produced by them over time ‘using their own productive energies and resources’ integrating ‘fragments of autobiographical narrative’. Pallasmaa (1992: 13) in turn argues that ‘architecture can tolerate and encourage personalisation or stifle it’. If the architecture is alterable, like it is in Segal style self-build homes, it is therefore tolerant of and encourages personalisation, and the physical structure of the house, (along with the moveable objects inside it) can become part of the dweller’s projection of their identity.

Figure 3. Inside a home at Walter’s Way (Bates, 2017)

2.2.2 Individuality The idea of individuality within the home is closely linked to that of identity – how the home can be personalized or ‘particularized’ (Brown, 2004: 7). To discuss the ideas of both individuality (and subsequently, aspiration) with regards to housing, it is important to consider the concept of dweller control. The core theoretical foundation of this research draws upon the work of John F.C. Turner. Turner’s work looks extensively at housing and community organization, drawing upon examples of self-build in Latin America and then discussing how informal housing could be influential on UK housing solutions. On the topic of dweller control he writes:

‘When dwellers control the major decisions and are free to make their own contribution to the design, construction or management of their housing, both the process and the environment produced stimulate individual and social wellbeing. When people have no control over, nor responsibility for, key decisions in the housing process, on the other hand, dwelling environments may instead become a barrier to personal fulfilment and a burden on the economy’ (Turner and Fichter, 1972: 241) It is from this assertion by Turner that the theme of individuality is identified for the purpose of this research. Individuality can be defined as ‘the attributes which distinguish a person or thing from others of the same kind; individual character or quality (Oxford Dictionaries, 2018). A person can therefore express individuality within their home through the characteristics and qualities that they attribute to the home. Research by the Institute of Housing and the RIBA (1998) found that qualitative improvements in dweller satisfaction were more likely to be achieved when dwellers are involved in the design and planning of housing schemes. Selfbuild housing is not without its critiques. It has been accused of only being useful as the last resort for the poor (Harms, 1976), or merely effective as a shortterm housing solution (Ward, 1982). However, the existing literature suggests a unanimous agreement that the self-build house provides an increased opportunity for individuality to be expressed within the physical structure of the home, including for the poor - exemplified in Dayaratne and Kellett’s (2008) research into informal settlements in Colombia and Sri Lanka.

2.2.3 Fulfilling Aspirations. For the purpose of this dissertation the idea of aspiration in connection with self-build will refer to the dwellers opportunity to improve the ‘quality or quantity of the physical space’ (Brown, 2004: 7). Reflecting upon the potential for people to ‘house themselves’ Ospina (1987: 192) asserts that in the UK, State housing authorities ‘promote housing programmes based on ideological, financial or technical considerations, rather than the real needs and aspirations of future users’. He goes on to suggest that the opportunity to produce our own homes results in our real needs and aspirations being more accurately met (see also Hamiduddin & Gallent, 2016; Turner & Fichter, 1972; Duncan & Rowe, 1993). On the topic of self-provided housing in the UK, Duncan & Rowe (1993) consider how building your own house allows you to spread out expenditure on construction. This therefore means you can improve the quality of your house over time, allowing for aspiration to be realized. This concept is referred to as incremental housing: ‘When there is not enough money, an alternative to reducing size and quality is to frame the problem as incremental housing’ (Aravena & Iacobelli, 2016: 17). Architecture practice Elemental constructed a series of homes in Iquique, Chile, where only half the house was completed (see Figure 4). Once the dweller can afford to expand the house, the second half of the house can be added resulting in ‘harmonious growth in time’ (Elementalchile.cl, n.d.). Self-build can therefore be viewed as an ongoing or incomplete process, whereby the dweller can continue to adapt their house based on their individual needs and aspirations. From the perspective of Ward (1983: 71) ‘shortcomings and imperfections for which you are yourself responsible are infinitely more tolerable than those which are the responsibility of others’. This suggests that although giving the dweller control over their housing decisions will not necessarily mean they fulfil every aspiration they have, they will at least be more tolerant of what they have, with the knowledge that they have the opportunity to improve it themselves if and when they want to. Figure 4. Incremental Housing’, before (left) and after (right) being adapted by its residents’ over time (Aravena & Iacobelli, 2016: 192-193)

2.3 Community 2.3.1 Constructing a Community Self-build plays a central role in place making and community building as it enables people to plan their immediate neighbourhood themselves (Wallace et al., 2013). Steen et al. (1994: xvi) uphold the perspective that ‘people seem to change fundamentally when they gain the added security that comes from knowing they are capable of providing their own shelter. When a community of people possess that confidence and come together to help create one another’s homes, it necessarily makes the world a better place to live’. The idea of a group of individuals cooperating to construct a group of homes together means that these individuals are literally physically constructing their community and are therefore creating a better place to live. It is also important to consider the deeper effect that this physical participation will have on this group of people. In the process of physically constructing the community, ‘relationships are built’ (Wallace et al., 2013: 17). The result of the physical self-build process is communities that are more closely bonded than in other types of housing developments (Scheurer and Newman, 2009). Turner’s (1972: 145) work similarly advocates the process of selfbuild in creating better communities on the grounds that ‘when people are building for themselves…there is plenty of room for genuine relationships between the people brought together by the activity and therefore for creativity, pride and satisfaction from the work itself’. Further adding to this Hamdi (1991: 26) compares the idea of the ‘support paradigm’ with the ‘provider paradigm’, concluding that the support paradigm creates co-responsibility between the inhabitants, whilst the provider paradigm leaves the inhabitants out of decision-making, as housing provision is provided by a different body.

Figure 5. Self Builders on site at Lewisham, with Segal (centre figure, bottom image) (McKean, 1989: 204-205)

2.3.2 Intentional Communities Examining people’s motivations for community self-build there seems to be a focus on personal and community values (Wallace et al., 2013). The previous section discussed how self-build communities can develop due to the physical process of building their homes together. Although the Lewisham self-build schemes were produced to house people from the council housing waiting list, self-build can be seen as a route to forming intentional communities. Intentional communities are formed when people live together and live a shared lifestyle, culture and common purpose (Metcalf, 2004). Mulder et al. (2006: 14) define intentional communities as communities ‘that were specifically designed to enhance their residents’ quality of life by balancing concern for interpersonal relationships (social capital), personal growth and development (human capital) and connection with nature (natural capital) with needs for physical subsistence (built capital and income)’. These intentional communities materialize for example in the form of eco-villages, cohousing communities, and self-build communities. The idea that people who are interested in being part of a community will be those who put themselves forward for self-build also needs to be considered as this leads us to question whether the increased level of social cohesion is unrelated to the building process and is in fact a pre-determined outcome – predetermined by the residents’ desire for community.

2.3.3 Architectural Determinism In contrast to the idea that communities are constructed through the process of self-build it is important to consider how spatial layout also has an impact on social cohesion. Hillier at al. (1987: 233) define architectural determinism as ‘the belief that architectural design affects human behaviour…it acts as an independent variable in a desirable process of cause and effect’. Knowledge of the links between buildings and behavioural outcomes is limited (Marmot, 2002). However, Architectural social theory contends that the physical environment has some influence or determining power on human social behaviour (Lipman, 1969). A simple example of this is the creation of an urban residential layout that is designed with the intention of ‘creating well-used spaces that promote encounter and interaction’ (Hillier et al., 1987: 234). The intention of the first suburban cul-de-sacs, for example, was to provide public space for the residents, to promote ‘familiarity and neighbouring’ (Southworth and Ben-Joseph: 30). Architectural determinism is challenged on the grounds that there is a lack of evaluative research on buildings (Marmot, 2002) and the fact that buildings are designed not just to create but to reflect an existing cultural pattern of behaviour (Hillier et al., 1987). Despite the lack of evaluative research it is still important to consider the influence that the urban environment in Walter’s Way and Segal Close will have on the upholding of community.

3.1 Lewisham Self Build Scheme Walter’s Way and Segal Close are located in the borough of Lewisham in South East London (see Figure 8). Together they comprise 20 homes – 13 homes in Walter’s Way (see Figure 9) and 7 homes in Segal Close (see Figure 10). The two streets have been celebrated for their exemplification of alternative housing solutions and for their architectural significance. In the 20th Century, self-build housing was politicised in the UK ‘as a way for low income groups to intervene in their own housing provision’ (Brown, 2004: 18). Construction by non-professionals, chosen from Lewisham council’s waiting list for public housing, was completed at Segal Close in 1982 and at Walter’s Way in 1987. Walter Segal himself oversaw the projects but died in 1985 before the completion of Walter’s Way. Those who were selected for the project formed an autonomous housing association. The selfbuilders were then able largely to control the design of the houses, the organisation of work and the prioritisation of funds (Ospina, 1987). Each self-builder was provided with basic plans and sections and a specification describing the sequence of construction. These plans were supplemented by site instructions, including construction sketches (Ospina, 1987: 54) as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Drawings of ‘Lewisham’s Proposed Second Self-Build Scheme’ (Architect’s Journal cited in Brown and Fraser, 1986)

Timeline of Walter Segal’s Life, focusing on the construction of Walter’s Way and Segal Close (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017; McKean, 1989; Ospina, 1987)

1907 1927-32

Segal studies architecture in Berlin

1944

Segal begins teaching at the Architectural Association in London

1974

In 1974 Segal talks at the Dweller Control Housing Group, set up by John F.C. Turner at the Architectural Association. He voices his desire to sell self-build to housing authorities. Colin ward reports Segal’s ideas to Brian Richardson, deputy architect of Lewisham

March 1976

Leading councillors call for a committee report, and Brian Richardson’s report recommending the Segal way comes to Lewisham council and is approved by a single vote

July 1976

A self build association is set up in Lewisham

December 1976

The 14 sites that Lewisham Council has offered to the self build association are allocated to an initial group by ballot

1977-82

The first phase of the Lewisham self-build scheme, Segal Close, takes place

1985

The second phase of the Lewisham self-build scheme, Walter’s Way, begins

October 1985 1987

Walter Segal is born in Berlin

Segal dies Walter’s Way is completed

3.2 The Segal Self-Build Method As stated previously, the definition of what is considered a self-build house is varied. In accordance with this, the appearance and materiality of a self-build house is also going to vary. The materiality of the houses designed by Segal directly correlates with the fact that they were supposed to be easy to build for the non-professional builder. Segal developed the idea of constructing a home using primarily ‘mass-produced materials...assembled in their market sizes’ (Segal, 1971 in McKean, 1989: 132). The Segal self-build method uses readily available materials, used in the sizes in which they are sold. The aim of this being that anyone can go to their local hardware store and purchase the materials themselves. The homes proved easy for anyone to construct due to the fact they required no ‘wet trades’. The materials used are timber, wood wool slabs and weather-proof boards on the outside and plasterboard on the inside. The materials are used in the sizes in which they are sold - the walls all have timber batons at 60cm apart and panels all 60cm width which are then bolted together, so there is no need for cement or glue.

Figure 7. Construction drawings to show the structure of a Segal self-build wall and positioning of joists (McKean, 1989: 139-142) 25

Figure 8. OS Map showing part of South East London, and the two streetsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; proximity to each other (Digimaps 2017a [edition by author, 2018]) 26

Figure 9. OS Map of Segal Close, with its 7 self-build houses highlighted in orange (Digimaps, 2017b [edition by author, 2018])

Figure 10. OS Map of Segal Close, with its 7 self-build houses highlighted in orange (Digimaps, 2017b [edition by author, 2018]) 27

methodology 4.1 Case Study Methodology This research is centred on a case study methodology focusing on ‘detailed and intensive analysis of a single case’ (Bryman, 2012: 709). This case study is being used as an ‘intrinsic’ case study - a case study which is undertaken because ‘first and last, one wants better understanding of this particular case’ (Stake 2005: 445). Due to a lack of similar cases, wider generalisability is problematic. The circumstances under which the Lewisham self-build schemes came into existence (and continue to exist) are unique, at least in the UK and this case can therefore be regarded as ‘extreme’ or ‘revelatory’ proving this single-case methodology to be appropriate (Yin, 2003: pp 40-42). Therefore, rather than pursuing generalisability, this research hopes simply to illuminate how the relationship between self-build, individuality and community has developed over time from the perspective of the residents in this particular case.

4.2 Qualitative Methods This research explores how residents perceive their own homes and the community within which they exist. Because this research is based on human perspective - that of the residents - it is appropriate to use qualitative research methods.

4.3 Semi-structured Interviews ‘Interviews take a conversational, fluid form, each interview varying according to the interests, experiences and views of the interviewees’ (Valentine, 2005: 111). Semistructured interviews are interviews that have ‘some form of predetermined order but still ensures flexibility in the way the issues are addressed by the informant’ (Dunn, 2000: 52). Semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to steer the conversation along particular themes, whilst simultaneously presenting the opportunity for the interviewee to draw the researcher’s attention to issues they themselves had not considered (Silverman, 2001; Longhurst, 2010). I conducted two interviews with residents of Walter’s Way, both lasting approximately 40 minutes. All primary data was collected via opportunity sampling - I mailed a letter to every house in Walter’s Way and Segal Close, expressing my desire to talk to the residents and leaving my contact details (see Appendix A). Interviews were conducted at the residents’ homes, in order to encourage focus on the buildings themselves, therefore generating richer information (Elwood & Martin, 2000). One of these interviews was in part conducted whilst walking around the house and garden, presenting the opportunity for the resident to show me different features of their home and talk about them in greater detail. Whilst the questions were scripted prior to interviews (see Appendix B) in order to steer the conversation along particular themes (Silverman, 2001) that were uncovered through the literature review, both interviews adopted a more natural flow. Interviews were initiated by seeking a general understanding of how the participant came to live in Walter’s Way. This encouraged the participant to then talk about their individual home, followed by a discussion about the community. Both interviews were recorded and transcribed later the same day.

4.4 Questionnaire Surveys To increase my response rate, those respondents who could not commit the time to being interviewed were given the option of completing an online questionnaire. I designed an open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix C) in order to allow the respondents to answer how they wished (Bryman, 2012), therefore gaining as much insight into the respondents’ attitudes, opinions and beliefs as possible (Parfitt, 2005). The questionnaires consisted of 10 open ended questions and took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete, depending on the amount of detail the respondent chose to include. In accordance with the interviews, each questionnaire started by asking how the respondent came to live in Walter’s Way, followed by questions about their home. Next followed questions about the community, and finally the opportunity to leave any other comments about the topic if they wished to.

4.5 Photography I visited Segal Close once and Walter’s Way on four separate occasions - Segal Close once for observation and Walter’s Way once for observation and twice for interviews. During these visits I took a total of 34 photographs of the street and the interiors and exteriors of the buildings. On the subjects of their own homes, various residents referred to specific physical details in their homes such as windows, doors and extensions to rooms. Photographs provide a visual record of these details.

4.6 Secondary Data Secondary data refers to ‘information that has already been collected for another purpose but which is available for others to use’ (White, 2003: 67). As Flowerdew & Martin (2013: 72) point out ‘secondary data have to be accepted in the form in which they are presented to you…You have to make the best of what you can get’. For the purpose of this dissertation I will be analysing a selection of secondary data to accompany my primary data collection. Being a quintessential example of self-build housing, the residents of Walter’s Way and Segal Close are not unfamiliar with academics, and journalists. Clark (2008) identifies one challenge to qualitative researchers as the issue of ‘research fatigue and the associated claim of being over-researched. In these cases, previous experiences of being involved with research are used by those researched as a reason not to engage any further with the research process’. I am acutely aware of this issue with regards to the residents of Walter’s Way and Segal Close. For this reason a proportion of my data analysis will be based on secondary data. By combining secondary data with my primary data, I have been able to collect data from every dwelling in Walter’s Way and Segal Close, with data from certain dwellings in greater detail than others.

4.6.1 ‘Walter’s Way and Segal Close’ by Alice Grahame and Taran Wilkhu In 2017 Taran Wilkhu and Alice Grahame published ‘Walters Way and Segal Close: The Architect Walter Segal and London’s Self-Build Community’ (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017). This book includes extracts from surveys and interviews conducted by Wilkhu and Grahame (both themselves, residents) with other residents, reflecting on their experience of living in the Lewisham self-build schemes. In an email to me, Wilkhu himself used the expression ‘Segaled out’ to describe the fatigue some residents might feel in regard to answering more questions about their homes, reinforcing my belief that the use of secondary data is appropriate in this instance. I will therefore use the interviews Wilkhu and Grahame conducted for data analysis and to inform my own data collection. Grahame informed me that the majority of the information was gathered via questionnaire surveys, whilst a few residents were interviewed in person.

4.6.2 Video Resources I shall be drawing upon transcriptions of videos of two different public events that included presentations and discussions about Walter’s Way and Segal Close that were recorded and are now available online.

•

Firstly, a lecture entitled ‘Walter Segal and the Future of Self-Build’ which took place at the Architects’ Association School of Architecture on the 26th January 2016 (AA School of Architecture, 2016). This lecture included three residents and two architects discussing personal experience with Segal self-build.

•

Secondly, ‘Book Launch: Walter’s Way and Segal Close’ which took place at the Building Centre on 24th July 2017 (The Building Centre, 2017). This book launch featured five different residents, discussing their experience of building their homes and living in the Lewisham self-build schemes, along with Walter Segal’s son, and two Segal enthusiasts.

4.7 Data Analysis For the purposes of my data analysis I shall be regarding all the forms of primary and secondary data collection previously mentioned (except photography) as one larger data set (See Appendix D). This data set therefore includes the transcriptions of the interviews conducted by me; questionnaire responses; extracts from questionnaires and interviews conducted by Alice Grahame for the book â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Walterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Way and Segal Closeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;; and transcriptions of the video discussions. Thematic analysis refers to the process of analysing data through the extraction of key themes within said particular data set (Bryman, 2012: 717). Thematic analysis allows the researcher to encode qualitative data based on a list of themes (Boyatzis, 1998). These themes, usually relating to patterns of living and behaviour (Aronson, 1995), can be generated either from the raw data itself or from the theoretical research conducted by the researcher. Thematic analysis can be used to analyse a variety of qualitative data sources including secondary sources, textual data (such as qualitative surveys), interactive data (such as interviews and focus groups) (Clarke and Braun, 2014). Thematic analysis has therefore been deemed appropriate for the data set used in this dissertation, as it includes secondary qualitative data, questionnaire surveys and interviews. Thematic analysis can be used to produce either data-driven or theory-driven analyses (ibid). Whilst some of the themes identified in the analysis were theory-driven, a selection of other themes emerged from the data.

4.8 Limitations of the Research One of the limitations of the research has undoubtedly been the inability to collect primary data due to lack of response. As stated previously the architecture of Walter Segal is considered a quintessential example of self-build housing in the UK. I am therefore not the first person to contact the residents for interview., the result of which has been that the number of interviewees is less than anticipated. However, in an attempt to overcome this limitation and to avoid non-sampling errors I have used a selection of secondary data sources in combination with my own primary data collection. A second limitation is the fact that because the secondary data I used was from a published book celebrating the work of Walter Segal, and a discussion in front of an audience about living in these two schemes the residents may have felt they had to give a positive response about their experience. None of these events provided the residents anonymity and all three were celebratory in nature. As a result they may have held back from speaking more freely and negatively about the self-build schemes. Whilst this dissertation is not looking for positive versus negative perceptions, the data may still be skewed.

4.9 Ethical Considerations Throughout the data collection all participants were informed of the study topic and how their answers would be later used, therefore guaranteeing informed consent. All participants were also given the opportunity to opt out of answering any questions that they did not wish to answer. Where necessary, consent was sought from organizations and publishers before their data was used for my research. Those who participated in primary data collection (interviews and questionnaire surveys) were guaranteed anonymity, and have therefore been given pseudonyms in Chapter 5. All other participants waived their anonymity when the secondary data sources were originally published as these included images/videos of them accompanied by their real names. As a result their real names have been used in Chapter 5.

The following discussion will explore the findings extracted through thematic analysis of the data. Findings are split into three sections. Firstly, the individual experience: ‘identity and individuality’. Secondly, the communal experience: ‘community and social cohesion’. Within these two sections sub-themes are also explored. To indicate which participants are original self-builders and which are newer residents the abbreviation [OSB] or [NR] will follow respectively. For more details on the source of each quote see Appendix D.

5.1 The individual experience. 5.1.1 Identity, Individuality and Aspiration As discussed in the literature review, advocates of self-build believe it provides greater opportunity for the home to meet the individual’s desires and needs and reflect their identity (Brown, 2004; Brown, 2007; Turner & Fichter, 1972; Duncan and Rowe 1993, Ospina 1987). The topics of identity, individuality, and aspiration were explored mostly through questions about ways in which interviewees had personalized their homes and what changes they would like to make in the future.

“The house feels very personal. The kids were born in the living room. The walls bear the marks of their growing up...When we were expecting child number two we added a triangular two-storey extension” – Claire [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) Here, one of the residents reflects upon how the house has been literally marked by the ‘lived relationships’ (Putnam, 1990: 7) and the ‘autobiographical narrative’ (Brown 2007: 262) referred to in Chapter 2.2.1. This resident is also not alone in referring to the way their evolving family has impacted the house. The majority of residents talked about how they had altered their homes based on the need to provide extra space for their families.

“Over the years the house has changed and expanded. Walter said that the house should be able to adapt to people’s changing needs. It did for us because when we first started building we had two children. By the time we’d completed a couple months later a third one had arrived…six years later we had a fourth child, so we needed another bedroom” – Dave [OSB] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) “The houses were designed to grow and adapt with the residents requirements…We are currently in the process of creating an extension to the property to provide another washroom, a studio, a new entrance, a larger kitchen and kids playroom” – Nathan [NR] These descriptions of how the houses have been altered to meet each family’s needs exemplify Pallasmaa’s assertions suggesting that the home is not only a projection of individual identity, but also a reflection of the family. It appears that for many, expansion is a viable solution for increasing the ‘quantity of physical space’ (Brown, 2004: 7) instead of having to move house. This suggests that over time the self-builders have been able to continue to contribute identity to the physical fabric of their homes.

Chapter 2.2.1 discussed whether Marcus’ (2006) assertion that identity is found in the home in the moveable objects in the home, rather than the physical fabric, applied to self-build. These examples of how residents have imparted narrative onto the physical fabric of the home through changes they have made to it, based on the changing identity of their family, demonstrate that self-build enables identity to be found both in the moveable objects and the physical fabric, as they become one entity. Not all alterations were made to meet the needs of a growing family. Interviewees also discussed alterations they had made to their home that were more an expression of choice and aesthetic.

“The way it’s built gives you the opportunity to create very interesting spaces. Since building the house I’ve built three extensions. I’ve doubled the size of the living room and the kitchen. I built a veranda and the part in front which I wanted to be my dance studio” – Federico [OSB] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) This exemplifies the opportunity to change the house based on a combination of individuality and aspiration. Federico has altered his house to increase the ‘quality or quantity’ (Brown, 2004: 7) and in doing so has added narrative. Whilst a living room and a kitchen are standard spaces in a domestic setting, a dance studio is not – it is highly specific to his identity.

[Talking about the round window in Figure 11] “We thought ‘right well we wanted a window there’ so we took off the panel and swapped it around…got an angle grinder, fitted the window in and we were done by half past eight…they’re very adaptable for just unscrewing stuff and moving stuff around…it’s very easy to be able to do things if you want to” – Neil [NR]

Figure 11. A round window that a resident added to his own kitchen (Bates, 2018)

5.1.2 Identity and Legacy Currently there exists a distinct lack of literature examining a dweller’s connection to the previous owner of a home. However, it is an important aspect of this study as the previous dweller will have imprinted their identity onto the physical fabric of the house, through the self-build process. It is clear there is a variation in how residents perceive the legacy of the original builders on the identity of the house. For some residents, the narrative of the original builder remains an important aspect of the house.

“While we don’t know much about the couple who built our home, we’re both significantly aware of their significance in the building’s history – that ultimately they will always have some claim on the house” – Aimee [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) “[The original builders] have been back a couple of times, and we’re sort of like ‘oh I really hope they like what we’ve done to their house’, because they put in 18 months solid work, so it’s still Jeff and Julia’s house” – Neil [NR] “The sense of living in a house that was made by the original owner is an intangible feeling, but the space feels more loved, somehow. It’s a happy, optimistic house” – James [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) This confirms the strength of narrative and identity in self-build. The reality that the house was built by the previous dweller, speaks to the new dweller through the physical fabric of the house. It shows that 30 years since its construction the physical fabric of the house still holds the narrative of the original building process. However, this idea varied between residents, with some interviewees not mentioning the original builders at all. Some interviewees recognized the legacy of the original builder but also recognized that the houses were designed to be alterable, and meet the aspirations of the current dweller, regardless of the previous dweller.

“We’re going to improve our house and make it more insulated. We don’t feel pressure to keep the physical structure exactly as it is” – Will [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) In summary, 30 years since the construction of the self-build schemes, recognition of the legacy of the original builders varies, as do feelings about whether the identity and narrative of the original builders is still attached to the house, and whether this has an impact on current residents.

5.1.3 Confidence and Empowerment. Another theme that emerged from the analysis was that of confidence and empowerment. Duncan and Rowe’s (1993: 1341) work suggests that the process of building one’s own house can help one to ‘feel good about developing knowledge and skills, and may strengthen feelings of self-confidence in successfully managing such an important project’. By managing to construct a house - something that is usually reserved for professional work - the self-builder feels as though they have achieved something they thought they could not. This assertion can be confirmed by the data collected from the original builders who still live at Walter’s Way and Segal Close.

“It was a huge confidence booster…we also became more empowered. It meant whatever you wanted to do you could think ‘I built my own house!’ That’s what self-build does” – Dave [OSB] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) This demonstrates how the process of self-build can increase confidence of the self-builder. Turner (1972: 242), on the subject of autonomy in the building process, talks about the ‘pride in achievement, the sense of competence and satisfaction stemming from direct personal action…direct action in fulfilling housing needs can contribute as much to psychological wellbeing as it can to the physical improvement of adequate housing conditions’. Through discussion about what changes newer residents had made to their homes since moving in, it can be asserted that the simplicity in the design of the house enables them also to make changes to their home themselves, and thereby also contributes to their confidence, despite the fact that they did not build it themselves originally. The simplicity of the design has enabled newer residents to feel confident:

“It’s pretty straightforward…you don’t need any of the skills…it’s very easy to be able to work on these houses even though you may not be trained in building…we may revamp it one day but we’ll do with it what we want” – Neil [NR] Whilst this level of confidence may only apply to the new residents’ confidence in their building skills and not their life in general, it suggests that to some extent the legacy of the scheme, to engender people to have the confidence to build their own homes, still exists amongst some newer residents.

5.2 Community “[Walter Segal] didn’t just build a road, he seems to have actually created a community. And even now…the community feel still remains. I think it’s partly the shape of the street, the layout of the houses, and I think it might also be the sort of people who are attracted to come and live here in some way share the ethos the Walter Segal brought all those years ago” – Alice [NR] (The Building Centre, 2017) From the data it is clear that community is an important part of life in both Segal Close and Walter’s Way. All but three of the residents made reference to the merits of their community and their neighbours. However, residents alluded to different explanations for why the community cohesion is strong, and which factors contribute to their own involvement. These factors are discussed in the following sections.

5.2.1 Constructing a Community In line with Wallace et al.’s (2013: 17) assertion that through the process of selfbuild ‘relationships are built’, many of the residents identified the fact that the existing community today stems from the community created by the original selfbuilders 30 years ago.

“There’s already an inbuilt community thanks to the self-builders” – Krissy [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) “This close does have a sense of community unlike anything else we’ve experienced in London. We think this is at least in part due to the original ethos…perhaps the unique aspect of the Segal enclaves, and our shared identity as residents of a special place, perpetuate the community that was first established through the shared efforts and achievements of the original builders” – Aimee [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) This resident recognizes the close bond resulting from the physical process of building the house that is identified by Scheurer and Newman (2009) in Chapter 2.3.1, and how this still has an impact on the community today.

“We didn’t have to form a community – it happened organically. We didn’t have any parties until a new resident organised them…At the end of the build we all just wanted to get on with our lives” – Dave [OSB] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) Here, one of the original builders talks about how the community was formed organically through the building process – or what Turner (1972: 145) calls the ‘genuine relationships between the people brought together by the activity’. This original self-builder gives credit to a new resident for attempting to generate more community cohesion through parties. This suggests that because new residents did not share the bond that was created through the experience of the build, they found a new way to create community – through organized interaction.

“Even though the original builders went through a pretty unique experience of building their homes, the current residents have something in common simply because of the unique nature of the houses, so we are often comparing notes on the maintenance et cetera.” – Alex [NR] Despite not being part of the original process of building, this resident explains how the neighbours still have something in common. Self-build, especially in this capacity, is uncommon in the UK and so for these residents their neighbours’ knowledge is a vital resource. This suggests that although they did not construct the community in the first place, the issue of building and construction still contributes to community cohesion today.

5.2.2 Intentional Communities Discussions with the new residents about what attracted them to the schemes, and further discussions about community resulted in some residents expressing their desire to live in a community with a shared ethos.

“It is rare to know your neighbours in London, and although it is inevitable that over time people come and go, more often than not, the Segal homes seem to re-attract people with similar values about community living. I believe both streets take great pride in living amongst neighbours who share community values” – Taran [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) “As we discovered more about Walter Segal and the people who built the street, we loved the ethos behind its original build, and the spirit of the community that remains strong here” – Rebecca [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) This statement is in line with the concept of intentional communities, where people are united as a community by shared lifestyle and common purpose (Metcalf, 2004; Mulder et al., 2006). This motive for living in Walter’s Way and Segal Close was only acknowledged by a few residents, and it is difficult to say whether it was ignored deliberately or not.

“The original self-builders and the residents who have come afterwards feel very invested in the street, absolutely…Now you’d have to be probably a middle class person or a rich person to buy one of these houses….it hasn’t changed yet because some of the original people are still here and they still have those original sensibilities, but in 20 years’ time this could be very much a middle class enclave” – Keira [NR] Here one of the residents speculated about the future of the schemes, and how the community might suffer once the remaining original self-builders had moved out. This indicates that while the original community ethos still remains, residents suspect the motives and ‘sensibilities’ of people who join the community may change in the future. This falls in line with Lloyd et al.’s (2015) speculation over whether or not self-build communities erode over time just like any other community. At this stage it is too early to say and perhaps this theme should be revisited in another 30 years.

5.2.3 Spatial Layout Chapter 2.3.3 reviewed literature discussing the idea that the built environment can influence social behaviour. This theme was acknowledged in discussion with the residents about what they thought contributed to the strength of the community. Many residents thought that the opportunity to socialize with their neighbours stemmed from the spatial layout of the street.

“Because it’s a cul-de-sac you can’t not bump into people, so the setup has just lent itself to people knowing each other” – Neil [NR] “There’s no through traffic…that encourages the kids to play in the street and that’s lovely” – Keira [NR] Residents recognized the effect of living in a cul-de-sac, and how that increased their social encounters. This reinforces the idea that urban residential layout can promote ‘encounter and interaction’ (Hillier et al., 1987: 234). Because there is no through traffic, residents said that anyone who walks on the street is usually either a resident or an architecture enthusiast. As suggested, the effect of limiting the number of people who use the street primarily to residents promotes ‘familiarity and neighbouring’ (Southworth & Ben-Joseph, 2004: 30) and also increases safety – multiple residents recognized how increased safety had enabled the children to interact with each other in the street.

Figure 12. Entrance to Walter’s Way: Private Road (Bates, 2017)

“The design of the street allows people to interact so easily – with street-facing kitchens. The children have an amazing experience. Being in a close they can congregate centrally and play together without the need for adult supervision 24/7” – Joy [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) Speaking with residents of Walter’s Way and Segal Close, John McKean (2017) made the following statement about the relationship between self-build and community: ‘you can make real communities that actually work because of shared space, you share childcare and all sorts of things. It doesn’t need to be self-build. I think a town of 10,000 self-builders doesn’t make a community. I would much rather stick with 20 houses…self-build or otherwise, I think you’ll get a community’. This in fact reflects the impression I got from the new residents at Walter’s Way and Segal Close. For those who had not been involved in the original self-build process it was the spatial configuration of the cul-de-sac that led to increased social interaction.

5.2.4 Responsibility One theme that emerged from the data collection, but not from the literature review was that of responsibility. Residents recognized how living on a private road and the responsibility that comes with it generates social cohesion and community.

“There’s something unique about living in Walter’s Way…maybe it’s the shared responsibility for street lamps and the sewerage pump which we collectively manage…or the children using the street as a shared playground” – Paul [NR] (Grahame and Wilkhu, 2017) “Walter’s Way is a private road, so you have to get together with the neighbours to iron out things like road maintenance and street lighting. We all get together and sweep the street. We have a certain responsibility….All those community aspects, the responsibilities that we have…that gets us out communally in the winter – that will always turn into something else, like somebody will get a fire pit going at the bottom of the street” – Keira [NR] It seems that having to co-operate to manage the physical side of their community contributes to the level of social interaction. As this resident points out, getting together to maintain the road creates the opportunity for a more social form of interaction to take place afterwards. Because Walter’s Way and Segal Close are both private roads, the residents contribute more to the maintenance than residents on other roads in the UK. Perhaps for some of the residents it is not so much the fact that the homes are self-build that unites them as a community; it is the joint responsibility that they share in maintaining the street.

c o n c l u s i o n s 6.1 Research Questions 1. Is the original ethos of self-build â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the promotion of individuality and community â&#x20AC;&#x201C; still maintained in these particular schemes? It can be concluded that the original ethos of self-build is still in existence. However, it is evident that to some extent the ethos is being eroded, due simply to time passing and the absence of the original self-builders. At the same time, many of the new residents still identify with the self-build ethos, citing it as a factor that made them want to live on the two streets. Their deliberate choice to join a self-build community plays a part in keeping the ethos alive. 2. How do residents express individuality through the physical layout and structure of their homes? New residents and original self-builders alike continue to express individuality in similar ways within their homes. The majority of the residents have either made changes to the internal layout or added extensions to the house, or both, in order to express individuality and realize their aspirations. One difference seems to be whether or not they make these changes themselves - newer residents were divided in their choice of whether to complete work on their houses themselves or hire a professional to do it.

3. What factors contribute to community cohesion, and how have these factors changed over time? The analysis suggests that residents are divided in their views about what factors contribute to the maintenance of community cohesion. The original self-builders asserted that the process of building their houses together had helped the community form organically. The majority of newer residents cited other factors that contribute to community cohesion, such as the fact that it was a cul-de-sac, leading to higher levels of interaction in the street, and their joint responsibility for maintaining the private roads Some newer residents also identified that the ethos of the original builders still contributed to the community atmosphere. Perhaps this is what the original self-builders and the newer residents are united by. 4. How has the experience of living in a Segal self-build scheme changed, 30 years since its construction? The previous questions indicate that the experience of living in a Segal self-build scheme has changed to some extent. Whilst the individual experience of living in a Segal self-build home has remained the same, with expression of individuality and aspiration still enduring, the factors that contribute to community cohesion have changed. For those who were not involved in the construction process it is not so much self-build that brings them together. Instead it is the celebration of the ethos of self-build, combined with the shared responsibility they have for their road, and the spatial configuration of the street. Many residents, both original self-builders and newer residents, acknowledged that Walterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Way or Segal Close were seemingly more social than anywhere else they had lived in London. It is clear that these self-build communities still maintain a strong level of community cohesion, but the factors that contribute to this community cohesion may have changed.

6.2 Further Considerations Chapter 1 highlighted the fact that the UK Government have proposed that the self-build housing sector should be stimulated to double its output from 100,000 to 200,000 over the next decade (Wallace et al., 2013) and simultaneously, the number of people moving house in the UK is at a ten year high (Hughes, 2018). It is important to consider the findings of this dissertation in this context. The self-build sector should be stimulated on the grounds that a self-build house still enables the dweller to express individuality and aspiration, even if they are not the original builder. Self-build does also contribute to the maintenance of community cohesion and social wellbeing, and the sector should therefore also be stimulated on these grounds.

6.3 Future Lines of Inquiry This study could be built upon in multiple ways. Firstly, a couple of the residents speculated about what will happen once all the original self-builders have left both Walterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Way and Segal Close, and how this could change the experience of living there. It would therefore be interesting to return to this study, in 10 or 20 years time, investigating similar themes, to see how residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions have further changed. Similar studies could be completed, focusing on different examples, to assess what values are important to individual households and communities more generally. Studies could be completed for similar-sized communities, both self-build and otherwise. Looking at the wider subject matter, it appears a great deal more empirical research into the relationships between individuals and their homes and communities needs to take place. Considering the significance of domestic architecture in human lives, it is imperative that more studies are completed to give better understanding of domestic architecture and its social context.

AA School of Architecture. (2016) Walter Segal and the Future of Self-Build [online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUf7X-ZE7r8 [Accessed 16 Feb. 2018]. Aravena, A. and Iacobelli, A. (2016) Elemental. 2nd ed. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz Verlag. Aronson, J. (1995) ‘A pragmatic view of thematic analysis’ The qualitative report, 2(1), pp.1-3. Bates, D. (2017) Photographs of Segal Close and Walter’s Way [photographs] (photographer’s private collection). Bates, D. (2018) Photographs of Segal Close and Walter’s Way [photographs] (photographer’s private collection). Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. California: Sage. Brown, R. (2004) Making home: a study of recent self-build projects in the UK. DeMontford University: Unpublished PhD thesis. [online] Available at: file:///Users/Work/Downloads/ Making_home___a_study_of_recent_self_ build_projects_in_the _UK.pdf [Accessed 12 Mar. 2018]. Brown, R. (2007) ‘Identity and narrativity in homes made by amateurs’ Home Cultures, 4(3), pp.261-285. Brown, G. and Fraser, C. (1986) Self-Build Housing - The Neglected Alternative. London: Polytechnic of the South Bank. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, R. (1982) Self-help housing advocacy: a curious form of radicalism. A critique of the work of John FC Turner, in: Ward, P (ed.) Self-Help Housing: A Critique. London: Mansell Publishing. pp.55-97. Clapham, D. (2005) The meaning of housing: A pathways approach. Bristol: Policy Press. Clark, T. (2008) ‘We’re Over-Researched Here!’ Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue within Qualitative Research Engagements’ Sociology, 42(5), pp.953970. Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2014) ‘Thematic analysis’, in Thomas, T (ed.) Encyclopaedia of critical psychology. New York: Springer, pp.1947-1952. 49

Dayaratne, R. and Kellett, P. (2008) ‘Housing and home-making in low-income urban settlements: Sri Lanka and Colombia’ Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(1), pp. 53-70. Digimap (2017a) OS Open Map - Local, [Using: EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service] Available at: http://edina.ac.uk/digimap, [Accessed: 1 May. 2018]. Digimap (2017b) OS Mastermap, [Using: EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service] Available at: http://edina.ac.uk/digimap, [Accessed: 1 May. 2018]. Duncan, S. & Rowe, A. (1993) ‘Self-provided housing: The first world’s hidden housing arm’, Urban Studies, 30(8), pp.1331–1354. Dunn, K. (2000) ‘Interviewing’, in Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp.50-82. Elementalchile.cl. (n.d.) ABC of incremental housing « Elemental. Available at: http://www.elementalchile.cl/en/projects/abc-of-incremental-housing/ [Accessed 28 Feb. 2018]. Elwood, S. and Martin, D. (2000) Placing interviews: Location as a consideration in doing qualitative interviews. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), pp.649657. Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.) (2005) Methods in human geography: a guide for students doing a research project. Cambridge: Pearson Education. Grahame, A. and Wilkhu, T. (2017) Walters Way and Segal Close: The Architect Walter Segal and London’s Self-Build Community. London: Park Books. Hamdi, N. (1995) Housing without houses: participation, flexibility, enablement. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Hamiduddin, I & Gallent, N. (2016) ‘Self-build communities: the rationale and experiences of group-build (Baugruppen) housing development in Germany’ Housing Studies, 31:4, pp.365-383. Harms, H. (1982) ‘Historical perspectives on the practice and purpose of self-help housing’, in Ward, P.M. (ed.) Self-help housing: A critique. London: Mansell. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J. and Penn, A. (1987) ‘Creating life: or, does architecture determine anything?’ Architecture and Behaviour, 3(3), pp.233250. Hughes, K. (2018) Number of UK home movers at 10-year high. The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/money/spendsave/uk-homemovers-movoing-house-housing-market-property-a8166426.html [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

Hutson, S. and Jones, S. (2002) ‘Community self-build for young homeless people: problems and potential’, Housing Studies 17(4): 639-656. Institute of Housing and Royal Institute of British Architects (1988) Tenant participation in housing design: a guide for action. London: IOH/RIBA. Kellett, P. (2002) ‘The construction of home in the informal city’, Journal of Romance Studies, 2(3), pp.17-31. Lawrence, R. J. (1987) Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice. Chichester: Wiley. Lipman, A. (1969) ‘The architectural belief system and social behaviour’, The British Journal of Sociology, 20(2), pp.190-204. Lloyd, M.G., Peel, D. & Janssen-Jansen, L.B. (2015) ‘Self-build in the UK and Netherlands: mainstreaming self-development to address housing shortages?’, Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 3(1), pp.19-31. Longhurst, R. (2010) ‘Semi-structured interviews and Focus Groups’ in Clifford, N., French, S. and Valentine, G. (eds.) Key methods in geography. London: Sage. Marcus, C. C. (2006) House as a Mirror of Self: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Home. Lake Worth: Nicolas-Hays. Marmot, A. (2002) ‘Architectural determinism. Does design change behaviour?’, The British Journal of General Practice, 52(476), p.252. McKean, J. (1989) Learning from Segal: Walter Segal’s life, work and influence. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG. Metcalf, W.J. (2004) The Findhorn book of community living. Forres: Findhorn Press. Merrett, S. (1988) ‘Self-build housing and the exploitation of labour’, Housing studies, 3(4), pp.247-249. Mulder, K., Costanza, R. and Erickson, J. (2006) ‘The contribution of built, human, social and natural capital to quality of life in intentional and unintentional communities’, Ecological Economics, 59(1), pp.13-23. National Self Build Association (2011) ‘An Action Plan to promote the growth of self build housing’. Available at: https://www.buildstore.co.uk/ActionPlan/ Govt-Action-Plan-July-2011.pdf [Accessed 12 Jan. 2018]. Opsina, J (1987) Housing Ourselves. London: Hilary Shipman Ltd. Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2018). individuality | Definition of individuality in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries. com/definition/individuality [Accessed 15 Apr. 2018]. 51

Pallasmaa, J. (1992) The Concept of Home: An Interdisciplinary View symposium at the University of Trondheim, 21-23 August. Available at: http://benv1082.unsw.wikispaces.net/file/view/PALLASMAA+Reading+with+im age+pairings+-+Identity_Intimacy_and_Domicile.pdf [Accessed 10 Feb. 2018]. Parfitt, J. (2005) ‘Questionnaire Design and Sampling’ in Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.) Methods in human geography: a guide for students doing a research project. Cambridge: Pearson Education. pp.75-106. Putnam, T. (1990) Household Choices London: Middlesex Polytechnic and Futures Publications. Sargisson, L. (2012) ‘Second-wave cohousing’, Utopian Studies, 23(1), pp. 28–56. Scheurer, J. and Newman, P. (2009) ‘Vauban: A European model bridging the green and brown agendas’, Unpublished case study prepared for the Global Report on Human Settlements. Available at: file:///Users/Work/Downloads/ Vauban_A_European_Model_Bridging_the_Green_and_Bro.pdf. Segal, W. (1948) Home and environment. London: Leonard Hill. Silverman, D (2001) Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd edn.) London: Sage. Southworth, M. and Ben-Joseph, E. (2004) ‘Reconsidering the cul-de-sac’, ACCESS Magazine, 1(24), pp.28-33. Stake, R. (2005) ‘Qualitative case studies’, in Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn.) CA: Sage, pp.443–466. Steen, A., Steen, B., Bainbridge, D. and Eisenberg, D. (1994) The Straw Bale House. Vermont: Chelsea Green. The Building Centre (2017) Book Launch: Walters Way and Segal Close [online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j51UBTEm8H4 [Accessed 17 Feb 2018]. Turner, J. (1972) ‘The Reeducation of a Professional’, in Turner J. and Fichter, R. (eds.) Freedom to Build. New York: Macmillan, pp.122-147. Turner, J. and Fichter, R. (eds.) (1972) Freedom to Build. New York: Macmillan. Turner, J. (1976) Housing by People. London: Marian Boyars. Turner, J.F. (1996) ‘Tools for building community: An examination of 13 hypotheses’, Habitat International, 20(3), pp.339-347. Valentine, G. (2005) ‘Tell me about…: using interviews as a research methodology’, in Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.) Methods in human geography: a guide for students doing a research project. Cambridge: Pearson Education, pp.110-124. 52

Wallace, A., Ford, J. and Quilgars, D., (2013). ‘Build-it-yourself? Understanding the changing landscape of the UK self-build market’. York: Centre for Housing Policy. Available at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/chp/documents/2013/ Lloyds_A4%20report%20v2-final%20NEWno.2.pdf [Accessed 1 Apr. 2018]. Ward, C. (1976) Housing: an anarchist approach. London: Freedom Press. Ward, C. (1985) When We Build Again: Let’s Have Housing that Works!. London: Pluto Press. Ward, P. (1982) Self-Help Housing: A Critique. London: Mansell. White, P (2003) ‘Making use of secondary data’, in Clifford, N. J. and Valentine, G. (eds.) Key methods in geography. London: Sage, pp.67– 85. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edn.) CA: Sage.

Appendix A: every Letteraddress postedatto every Way address at Walter’s B. Letter posted to Walter’s and Segal Close Way and Segal Close

Dear Resident, My name is Minnie, and I am an undergraduate student from Newcastle University, studying Architecture and Urban Planning. I am currently writing my dissertation on “the long term success of self-build housing in creating homes that promote individuality and social cohesion”. I was inspired to look at Walter’s Way and Segal Close as a key example in my dissertation after working at Segal Close during Open House London this past summer. The key questions I am trying to investigate are as follows: 1. Is the original ethos of self-build – the promotion of individuality and community – still maintained in these particular schemes? 2. How do residents express individuality through the physical layout and structure of their houses? 3. What factors contribute to community cohesion, and how have these factors changed over time? 4. How has the experience of living in a Segal self-build scheme changed, 30 years since its construction? I have spent a lot of time looking at the book recently published by your neighbours (Alice Grahame and Taran Wilkhu) about Segal Close and Walter’s Way and I was hoping to gain more insight into your personal experience of living here by conducting interviews with as many of you as possible. I am very aware that you might feel that you have answered enough questions about your homes recently. However, if you could spare some time I would really love to speak to you - ideally in person (for around 15 minutes, depending on how much you would like to say!). Alternatively, I am happy to speak on the phone, via skype, via email or via post - whatever is easiest for you. If you are willing to participate, please get in touch with me via email: d.bates1@newcastle.ac.uk or call/text: 07507555435 Best wishes,

Minnie Bates

C. Examples of Questions used for used Interviews: Appendix B: Examples of Questions for Interviews:

- Can you tell me how you are associated with Walters Way / Segal Close? - Did you know about the original building process when you moved in? C. Examples of Questions used for Interviews:

- Have you made many changes to the layout of the house?/Do you plan to do so in the future? - Can you tell me how you are associated with Walters Way / Segal Close?

Did/Would make changes to theprocess housewhen yourself? -- Did you knowyou about the original building you moved in? Tell me community Close? -- Have youabout made the many changes to at theWalterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s layout of Way/Segal the house?/Do you plan to do so in the future?

- Has participation within the community changed at all over the time you have you make changes to the house yourself? - Did/Would lived here? - Tell me about the community at Walterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Way/Segal Close?

- What attracted you to the street?

- Has participation within the community changed at all over the time you have lived here? - What attracted you to the street?

D. Questions used for Online Questionnaire Surveys: Appendix C: Questions used for Online Questionnaire Surveys: D. Questions used for Onlinereference Questionnaire In order to cross your Surveys: responses to this survey with your Q1 profiles featured in the book "Walters Way and Segal Close" please Instate orderyour to cross your responses to this survey with your firstreference name here Q1

profiles featured in the book "Walters Way and Segal Close" please state your first name here

For how long have you lived at Segal Close or Walter's Way?

What attracted you to the street?

Q4 Q4

(Please leave blank youanare an original Did you know about (Please leave blank if youif are original builder) builder) Did you know about the original building process when you moved into your house? the original building process when you moved into your house?

Q5 Q5

Have you made any any changes to the to layout the house do you or plan Have you made changes the of layout of theor house do you plan to do so in the future?

Did you/Would you make changes to the house yourself or would you Didsomeone you/Would you changes to the house yourself or would you hire else to do make it?

Could you tell me a bit about the community at Walter's Way/Segal Close

Q6 Q7

Q8 Q9

to do so in the future?

hire someone else to do it?

Could you tell me a bit about the community at Walter's Way/Segal Close

Has community engagement changed at all over the time you have lived here (and as different residents moved in and out)?

Has community engagement changed at all over the time you have

(and else as different residents moved in and out)? as If lived there here is anything you would like to add about your experience a resident of Segal Close or Walter's Way, please feel free to do so here.

If there is anything else you would like to add about your experience as a resident of Segal Close or Walter's Way, please feel free to do so 37 here. 37

E. Data Sources Appendix D: Data Sources Data Source Primary Data Collection

Interview Online Questionnaire Survey Secondary Data Collection

Book: Walter’s Way and Segal Close’ by Alice Grahame and Taran Wilkhu

Video: Walter Segal and the Future of Self-Build Video: Book Launch: Walter’s Way and Segal Close

Name

NR/OSB

Date

Neil Keira Alex Phil Nathan

NR NR NR NR NR

05/04/2018 07/04/2018 07/04/2018 17/04/2018 22/04/2018

Jon John Pauline Earl Beverley Federico Dave Aimee Marian Lev Vanessa Jim Taran Krissy Lisa Jo Helen Will Rebecca Joy Claire Paul Ian James Jon Kareem Alice Alice Jon Dave Kareem Pauline John

OSB OSB OSB OSB OSB OSB OSB NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR OSB NR NR NR OSB OSB NR OSB N/A

2016 - 2017

Location/ Page number

Walter's Way Online 26 28-30 28-30 & 68 31-33 31-33 & 200 34 & 176 38-40 & 190 46 54 58 74 84 94 106 116 124 134 134 142 152 160 166 184 206

26/01/16

AA School of Architecture

24/07/2017

The Building Centre