issue #2 : summer 2012
includes map, guide & posters
Hackney Wick & Fish Island, Summer 1921.
+plus 24 pg suppliment
AT A CROSSROADS
Š English Heritage (Aerofilms collection)
6
By muf architecture/art HACKNEY WICK AND FISH ISLAND IS CURRENTLY AN ENVIRONMENT WITH AN UNUSUALLY HIGH DENSITY OF STUDIO-BASED FINE ARTISTS AND DESIGNER MAKERS, A PLACE WHERE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED LATE CAREER ARTISTS SUCH AS BRIDGET RILEY AND MICHAEL SANDLER, PRACTICE ALONGSIDE YOUNGER GENERATION ARTISTS LIKE PAUL NOBLE, JAKE AND DINOS CHAPMAN, AND GAVIN TURK, WITH AN EMERGING TIER OF RECENT GRADUATES.
Summer 2012, The Wick
pathways for the future number of plans and proposals for development in the area are currently being discussed and/or have been approved recently, including Hackney Wick and Fish Island’s Action Area Plans, the introduction of a wider Conservation Area. It is clear from leases not being renewed or if renewed only in the short term that more developments and planning applications are in the pipeline. Where studio or workspace is included in planning applications it tends to appear as an afterthought or a shop-ground floor with low ceilings and limited natural light. The vulnerability of studio space to market forces is recognised in HWFI
and a proportion of the studios are run by organisations such as Space Studios and Mother Studios, who have established economic and management models to secure leases with mid to long term affordable rents. Current plans for development could threaten this ecosystem, and recently the London Legacy Development Corporation commissioned muf to research a number of scenarios to show the impact of development and the mechanisms available to support the continued organic growth of a diverse range of SME creative and other sector businesses through the provision of affordable work space. muf believes that plans to further
pathway 1 pathway 2
grow the sector must recognise both the value of an environment of diverse cultural production and also how vulnerable it is. If there is a genuine commitment to sustaining diversity and creative practice, then the continued availability of subsidised or low rent workspace must be a priority for new development. Without affordable studio space, the existing uses will be lost, there will be too narrow a range of businesses who can afford workspace in the area and HWFI will not maintain its potential as a space of production. Further, workspace needs to be provided which has an in-built adaptability, able to support a range of uses. This will avoid a flattening of the
urban realm by only appealing to a narrow spectrum of commerciallyled tenants. Housing-led mixed use would have an homogenising effect on the character of the area, as the increase in land value leads to either change from industrial use class to residential use, or the use class being retained but at prices only affordable by commercially robust or franchised brands. Within this context, muf has produced a “road map” to sustain and grow creative and other productive industries in HWFI. The road map is set out as a matrix of possible pathways, not necessarily mutually exclusive.
pathway 3
LEAVE TO MARKET FORCES
STRENGTHEN PLANNING OWNERSHIP OF AFFORDABLE POLICIES AND USE PLANNING CREATIVE SPACES AND GAIN CREATIVELY COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE
Left to market forces alone, the future of the industrial buildings and their uses lies in the hands of the private landowners who own almost all the land in HWFI. New thriving businesses are attracted to the area, and existing businesses that originally located in HWFI due to low rents have an incentive to remain as part of this ‘cluster’ rather than moving on once they reach a certain level of success. However the major threat facing the existing studio and small business spaces is the year on year exponential rent increases and the lack of security of tenure.
SCENARIO 2A. EXTENDING THE LOCAL INDUSTRIAL LAND (LIL) BOUNDARY
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES - Provision of work space at market value will not sustain a significant proportion of the existing small businesses. - Increased land value will motivate landowners to either change the use class to a higher value purpose or raise rents. - Over time affordable workspaces will be lost as land values rise: small creative and other industries will leave and an essential component of the ecosystem of the creative cluster is depleted.
If artists’ studios fall within the LIL they are designated industrial/employment and their use is protected. Extending the boundary of the LIL to the north of the current boundary would afford protection to Bridget Riley Studios, Britannia Works, Alpha Works, the Old Peanut Factory and 41 Dace Road - one third of the 610 affordable studios in HWFI.
SCENARIO 2B. TIGHTENING PLANNING POLICIES AROUND EMPLOYMENT USE The HW and FI Action Area Plans contain polices which protect employment use or prevent loss of employment floor space, and these could be strengthened in order to protect existing creative uses. muf recommends a policy stating no net loss of existing employment floorspace and/or no net loss of job numbers, and that any development that negatively impacts on employment floorspace is obliged to reprovide as part of the new development.
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES PATHWAYS 2A AND 2B Scenarios A and B can protect the current buildings so they continue as studios for artists, micro and SME creative businesses, though these options would not prevent the current landowners from increasing rents to the extent that current uses are no longer viable. A strong policy to protect affordable workspaces needs to tightly define: i. Definition in £ per sqm of “affordable”. In 2012 this is £6-12/ ft2 inclusive of insurance, repairs, maintenance, and business rates, according to the National Federation of Affordable Studio Providers (NFASP) ii. Length of time “affordability” is in force iii. Types of uses legitimate in workspaces
SCENARIO 2C. RE-PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE EMPLOYMENT SPACES WITHIN NEW DEVELOPMENTS. If landowners develop existing sites for residential purposes, then planning policies within Tower Hamlets and Hackney require re-provision of employment space on site so there is no net loss of employment floor space, and new developments will be looked on favourably if they maintain or increase employment density.
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES SCENARIO 2C - Some or all of the existing practitioners and businesses may be re-homed. - Long-established networks and organic communities of practice may be lost if workspace tenants are moved out of their studio complexes. - “Studios as active ground floor use”, the developers’ preferred option, may not work for artists who do not want to work in a “fish bowl”. Further, this option also does not account for buildings with a public-facing / gallery / community function. - Even if new affordable studios are provided, they may not contain sufficient space for a critical mass of artists and creative businesses to develop a sense of creative community and support and produce economies of scale in terms of management and ongoing cost. - Re-provision of workspace in new developments provides no guarantees that the new spaces will be provided at affordable rents.
SCENARIO 2D. USE OF PLANNING GAIN AND SEPARATION OF NEW HOUSING AND WORKSPACE PROVISION The planning requirement for affordable workspace can be achieved by new developments cross-subsidising the costs of keeping the existing workspace in current buildings.
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES SCENARIO 2D - Current creative and productive spaces are maintained through private sector cross-subsidy through planning gain. (This raises the question of whether this is an appropriate use of S106 monies and how to ensure the benefit is to the public, rather than a private landowner.)
Public ownership of existing buildings is a means to ensure the long term security of the workspaces and practices that have evolved in HWFI. Realistically, in the long term only a public agency can buck the market trend by buying buildings and leasing them back to studio providers at affordable rates, as any profit-making business would seek to maximise income and therefore increase rents above the level of affordability. A public body could establish a fund for buildings purchase with an up-front capital investment, supplemented by S106 monies from development sites. In this scenario, the studio providers would have security of tenure and rents protected from the market rate. The public body would collect these rents to off-set the original purchase price. The studios would operate along the established economic models that have proved themselves to be successful over many decades, as they can guarantee high occupancy and low rent arrears. Asset purchase as a means of securing the long term future of the affordable creative spaces can have a more nuanced outcome by exploring options around community asset transfer and community empowerment. Community ownership plays a major part in the creation of strong, sustainable, engaged communities as it ensures that the local community takes active responsibility for their locality, determining its future and managing its assets on behalf of the wider public.
There are various different mechanisms by which community asset transfer can happen; Community Land Trusts, Community Development Trusts, Community Interest Company, charitable models and social enterprise models, but the key here is community ownership and an “asset lock” which guarantees that the assets are held within the organisation and not sold off for profit. Public subsidy plus community ownership of assets means that these spaces are duty bound to provide a public-facing function to “pay back” the public purse for its investment. This obligation could be met through open days, outreach, workshops, meeting spaces, places for cultural co-production, or training/ apprenticeships in the creative industries. We recognise that the argument must be made that the purchase of private assets is a legitimate use of public monies and in the public interest, and is not solely to the benefit of private landowner/s.