Vital Neighbourhoods – Lessons from international housing renewal by Publica

Vital Neighbourhoods Lessons from international housing renewal

The need to increase the UK’s housing supply has led to an emphasis on the speed of delivery of new homes, which too often outweighs the focus on the delivery of good quality homes and the creation of liveable neighbourhoods and cohesive communities. Born out of an ambition to examine and address this conflict, Vital Neighbourhoods is the culmination of extensive research (including detailed international site surveys) undertaken by Publica in collaboration with Stanhope. Our research seeks to gain a better understanding of the potential of housing renewal – the long-term process of improving the physical, social and economic aspects of housing – in addressing the need to deliver more quality homes in London, and beyond. Vital Neighbourhoods offers insights on recurrent issues for housing providers, drawn from current literature and international case studies. This report presents a set of key lessons and recommendations on housing renewal topics – including development partnerships and community engagement – suggesting ways to speed up the delivery of housing and improve the quality of neighbourhoods and places. These lessons are presented through a set of 16 illustrated precedents taken from 11 countries, as well as five detailed European case studies which offer a more detailed and holistic understanding of the complexities and opportunities of housing renewal.

COVER: JOHANNES MARBURG

Vital Neighbourhoods Lessons from international housing renewal

Foreword In 1934, Elizabeth Denby commenced an international study of social housing across ten European countries, with the aim of understanding how many British-born housing concepts (including co-operatives, modern sanitation, garden cities, and by-laws and inspections) had been translated and adapted on the continent. As might be expected, her findings in each country varied significantly, but, as she articulated so clearly: “although the housing problem is national, solutions must be local.” Almost 80 years after Denby published her findings in the book Europe Rehoused, Publica and Stanhope commenced a research study of international housing renewal projects in the spirit of this work, with the aim of investigating what could be learned from successful projects elsewhere and translated for application in London. It is our hope that the recommendations in Vital Neighbourhoods: lessons from international housing renewal can contribute meaningfully to delivering housing renewal in the UK. The findings from this research – based on evidence collected between summer 2016 and early 2017 – highlight examples of how renovation and redevelopment of existing housing stock has, when undertaken with a real commitment to ensuring the wellbeing of existing residents, design integrity, and high-quality construction, provided quality homes quickly and efficiently, and helped to build community cohesion. This report proposes a set of seven key recommendations for those considering or commencing housing renewal projects (which can be found within both the executive summary of this report, and the final section,’Conclusions and recommendations’). Of particular importance are the first three key recommendations, which propose: the first task of any such project should be to develop a clear understanding of the site, its community and networks as well as its physical and spatial conditions; efforts to identify and meet the needs of existing residents should be undertaken before any new homes and residents are

introduced; and existing residents should be engaged in the project processes as early as possible to help develop a sense of ownership and involvement. The fire that broke out on 14 June 2017 at Grenfell Tower in North Kensington, destroying and disrupting the lives of an entire community, demonstrated the irrefutable need for London and the whole of the UK to reevaluate the way that social housing is planned, built, and managed. The subsequent debates and discussions have also made plain the critical need for residents to have a clear role in the decision-making and management of their homes and neighbourhoods, particularly when it comes to issues that affect their safety and wellbeing. Addressing the complex challenges that have persisted for so long in social housing cannot be postponed any longer. The findings of both Denby’s research (discussed in the literature review included within the appendix of this report) and our own study highlight the importance of understanding each housing site as a unique neighbourhood, which is home to a unique community. A true understanding of these local characteristics – both the history of a place and its current spatial, cultural and socio-economic contexts – must be the starting point for any housing renewal project. Our findings also show that it is not enough to view housing solely as a physical asset; instead, housing must be considered in relation to those people who live in it, i.e. their existing communities, and the particular ways in which they make use of and inhabit it. Similarly, the final key recommendation from our study – to partner and invest for the long term – highlights the pressing need to champion bold visions in housing renewal, and the need for a shared commitment to delivering meaningful improvements not only to the quality of housing, but also to the lives of those who live in them.

Publica and Stanhope

execu tiv e summary

1 introduction

Research questions and methodology

Structure of the report

Research methods

contextual analysis

Key messages from contextual analysis

Theme 1: The tension between quality and quantity of housing

Theme 2: Social and community cohesion

Theme 3: Establishing and maintaining long-term trust

Theme 4: Managing stakeholders and partnerships

Theme 5: Valuing best practice

pr ecedents and case studies

Scheme types

Precedents

A Community engagement

B Densification

C Improving housing quality

D Phasing and decanting

E Social infrastructure

F Creating a sense of ownership

G Maintaining community life and use during works

H Understanding tenure mix

Case studies

Bordeaux Metropolitan Area

Cross-subsidy funding models

ZĂźrich

165

conclusions and r ecommendations

Summary of conclusions and recommendations

Key recommendations

Further research and next steps

175 glossary 181 appendix

Literature review

Bibliography

List of interviewees

Executive summary The UK’s housing challenges have dominated national debates on built environment policy in recent years. Each year, only about a third of the total number of new homes needed is built in the UK. The urgency to address the housing shortage is particularly felt in London, where a combination of population growth, changing household composition, insufficient supply of land, rising incomes and greater mortgage availability is driving up demand. In 2016, the Mayor of London set up Homes for Londoners, a committee of housing experts, to help drive the delivery of new homes in the capital. There is an awareness that a sole focus on boosting housing supply is not enough, however; instead, increasing housing supply needs to be combined with a willingness to adopt a long-term perspective in housing delivery, based on a detailed understanding of housing needs and a long-term commitment to existing communities. A suitable framework needs to be established so that a more joined-up approach to housing delivery can be implemented. Housing renewal – the long-term process of improving the physical, social and economic aspects of housing – appears to offer the opportunity to increase both the quantity and quality of housing by maximising existing local assets on each site. The process of housing renewal is complex and requires a long-term perspective, sustained partnerships, and expertise on engaging with existing residents, so that developments can be integrated with the wider area, creating mixed and sustainable communities. In May 2016, Stanhope and Publica began to collaborate on a major piece of research on housing renewal, centred on an initial question: “how have other cities around the world approached housing renewal, and what can we learn from them?”. This conversation led to a twelve-month collaborative research project – including study trips to cities in Europe – on which Publica and Stanhope worked closely together. Publica is a public realm and urban design consultancy, specialising in research, strategy and design for public space, urban design and masterplanning, and Stanhope is a Londonbased developer with over 30 years’ experience of delivering major mixed-use projects. We recognise that housing renewal is a broad and highly topical subject – covering issues ranging from land availability to the delivery processes, to the final housing product. In terms of opportunity in London, in 2011 it was estimated by the Department for Communities and Local Government that the public sector owns around 40 percent of land that is suitable for development, yet the process of selecting delivery

partners is currently lengthy and complex, delaying the creation of much-needed homes. Vital Neighbourhoods: Lessons from international housing renewal is part of a wider research programme, summarising findings to date that may be revisited in the future. It has been published at this point in time to engender debate about delivering more homes on limited land, in a way that will create genuine vital neighbourhoods in London and other cities. Recent national and London policy papers, including the Government’s housing white paper Fixing our Broken Housing Market (2017), Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016) and the Mayor of London’s Homes for Londoners: Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration (2016), have demonstrated a renewed commitment to addressing the housing shortage through increasing the supply of homes, placing a greater emphasis on the value of place, and exploring a variety of community engagement methods and funding models. In attempting to understand the challenges and opportunities of housing renewal, the Publica and Stanhope study explored examples from within and outside the UK – drawing on works including that of social housing expert Elizabeth Denby, who, in the 1930s, explored and extracted lessons from exemplary housing across European cities; and Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science Anne Power, who argues that with an awareness of local political contexts, lessons can be learned from the experiences of post-industrial cities across Europe and the US that have experienced similar urban processes. Research questions The study was guided by the following research questions: 1. What are the key issues involved in housing renewal, of which a new entrant into the sector should be aware? 2. What are the key strategies for creating and supporting social and community cohesion in housing renewal? 3. How can private developers best partner with other stakeholders in housing renewal?

Research methodology and methods To help answer these research questions, the study employed a mixed methodology, including literature review, interviews with key stakeholders in housing renewal, and in-depth site surveys. A literature review of over 70 documents was supplemented by study trips to the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area and Zürich between November 2016 and January 2017, which allowed for a detailed analysis of housing renewal approaches and projects in different contexts. Interviews with key individuals involved in delivering housing renewal during the trips also provided insight into the challenges of implementing estate renewal in cities which, like London, are experiencing significant population increase and pressing housing needs, requiring local authorities to reconsider existing housing stocks and implement densification strategies. Research stages and report structure The structure of Vital Neighbourhoods: Lessons from international housing renewal broadly corresponds to the two key research stages – contextual analysis, and international precedents and case studies – and thus comprises the following sections: introduction; contextual analysis; precedents and case studies; conclusions and recommendations; and a set of appendices which contains a full literature review, a bibliography and a list of interviewees. Contextual analysis The contextual analysis explores the wide-ranging literature – including academic papers, policy documents and private sector reports – on housing renewal and estate regeneration, in order to develop an in-depth understanding of the challenges within housing renewal both in the London and UK contexts, and internationally. From the review of over 70 documents, five key themes on housing renewal emerged: 1. the tension between quality and quantity of housing; 2. social and community cohesion; 3. establishing and maintaining long-term trust; 4. managing stakeholders and partnerships; and 5. valuing best practice.

International precedents and case studies The precedents and case studies examined in this research were selected to illustrate best practice in housing renewal. The 16 precedents and five case studies are located in 11 countries including the UK, the US, France and The Netherlands. The precedents demonstrate best practice in particular aspects of the process of housing renewal, while the case studies offer an in-depth analysis of the integrated process of housing renewal. The precedents were selected to illustrate lessons on themes including: community engagement, decanting strategies, social infrastructure, and tenure mix. The five case studies from the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area and Zürich illustrate these topics in greater detail. In the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, both the GHI Le Grand Parc scheme by Druot, Lacaton & Vassal and the Lormont Urban Renovation project by LAN Architecture demonstrate how sensitive and cost-efficient refurbishment can be carried out with a minimal impact on residents’ wellbeing. These projects also delivered significant improvements in living standards, through the addition of ‘winter gardens’ to apartments. LAN Architecture’s Carré Lumière project, also in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, further demonstrates an attempt to redefine space standards in new-build projects and the provision of flexible internal living space. In Zürich, a close relationship with non-profit housing cooperatives since the early twentieth century has been integral to the city’s housing provision strategy and delivery of affordable housing. The study examined two projects, Kalkbreite and Hunziker Areal, developed by the Kalkbreite cooperative and the Mehr als Wohnen cooperative respectively. Both projects are exemplars in terms of community engagement and are particularly innovative in their approach to housing typologies and tenure mix, including the provision of adaptable and flexible spaces to suit different household configurations and the careful monitoring of the social mix by the tenants and cooperatives. These projects benefit from being situated in locations with a wide range of existing uses, comprising small local businesses and a range of civic amenity, which is key to the creation of successful neighbourhoods.

Lessons learned From both the contextual analysis and the precedents and case studies, a number of key lessons on housing renewal have been identified: 1. Densification Infill sites offer the opportunity for rethinking wider areas and linking a development to the surrounding neighbourhoods. However, a careful survey of existing conditions, such as those conducted at the Tybalds Estate (London) and La Chesnaie (Saint-Nazaire, France), is necessary to ascertain improvement needs (i.e. to routes/connections or existing homes and the number of new homes required) so that densification schemes can adopt an appropriate refurbishment strategy for existing stock and public spaces, while ensuring that the development scheme does not result in the existing social infrastructure being overstretched. 2. Decision to refurbish or demolish and rebuild Refurbishment can often deliver significant improvements in housing quality and wellbeing at a faster rate than demolition and rebuilding. At Tour Bois-le-Prêtre (Paris, France) and GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France), architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal implemented a two-step process, providing a clear benefit for the current residents (i.e. improvement in their living standards) before implementing renewal or densification aimed at attracting new residents. 3. Decanting and phasing strategy Well-structured and precise phasing removes the need for multiple decants or temporary housing during renewal works, reducing disruption for residents, reducing project costs and ensuring that works are completed on schedule. As demonstrated in Paspoel Anders (Tongeren, Belgium), a precise phasing strategy is not only cost-efficient, it also minimises disruption by avoiding placing any families in temporary accommodation. 4. Community engagement Community engagement which occurs early in project planning allows residents to make meaningful contributions to the development of the scheme, thus benefitting the residents, and facilitates the smooth running of the development scheme. Co-operative housing projects in Zürich offer some valuable examples of the benefit of clear communication and early engagement. At Hunziker Areal (Zürich, Switzerland), consultation with local residents, which took place prior to the design competition, allowed residents to make

III

a meaningful contribution to the development of the scheme, which led to the inclusion of both living and working spaces in the scheme. 5. Social and community cohesion Providing a clear benefit for current residents before implementing renewal or densification aimed at attracting new residents helps build support for a scheme, and facilitates community cohesion and trust between communities and developers, improving the speed of delivery. Adaptable and flexible internal and semi-external spaces which can be appropriated by the residents can help cultivate a sense of ownership. These spaces can also be adapted to meet residents’ changing needs, increasing their ability to remain in their flats as their living circumstances change (to accommodate a growing family or meet the needs of an older resident, for example). In both GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France) and Carré Lumière (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France), residents have the opportunity to adapt their flexible living spaces according to their individual, changing needs. 6. Social infrastructure There is often a risk that new developments stretch the capacity of existing public services, affecting the quality of life of the local community. However, by investing in social infrastructure (such as playgrounds, schools, medical practices and day care centres), the wider area can benefit from a renewal scheme, and local residents in the neighbourhood are more likely to support the project. Three case studies in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area (GHI Le Grand Parc, Urban Renovation Lormont and Carré Lumière) demonstrate how a wide range of existing social infrastructure can be integrated into the development site, adding to wider communal assets. 7. Sustaining good partnerships Both local authorities and developers should choose their housing renewal partners carefully, to ensure that they select organisations that have similar values, can share risks, secure upfront investment, and therefore that they can establish sustainable partnerships for the long term. Innovative partnership models, such as that between a major employer, Deloitte and owners of a large-scale build-to-rent scheme in London, helped provide affordable accommodation for the company’s workers in the city. 8. Unitary leadership and visions Clear leadership and a compelling vision can help to convince investors and partners to take a long-term approach to returns, and to ensure that any partnerships

are maintained throughout a project. A carefully considered and precisely phased masterplan will also ensure that a long-running project causes minimal disruption to surrounding neighbourhoods and existing tenants. 9. Funding models Innovative funding models, such as that adopted by the London Borough of Camden – the first council to act as a house builder in developing the Maiden Lane housing estate – have sought to deliver market sale homes as a way of generating funds for financing the improvements to social infrastructure and the provision of affordable homes. Housing providers adopting cross-subsidy funding models have the opportunity to demonstrate viability of subsidising affordable homes with profits made through providing market rent units. The London Borough of Camden has established a programme aimed at ensuring that improvements to social infrastructure and social housing in the borough are fully reliant on funds generated through the market sale of units by the council. 10. Valuing best practice The benefits of best practice in housing renewal for developers are not limited to long-term economic returns, but also include social benefits (such as improving health and education, reducing crime etc.) and the opportunity to influence the wider housing renewal sector through innovation and leadership. A study of the impact of the Rayners Lane Estate (London) regeneration on its residents, carried out by the LSE, has been widely publicised as a benchmark for future regeneration projects. The study has also served to promote the benefits of adopting a socially oriented approach to estate regeneration. Developers and housing providers that wish to incorporate the value of social and environmental change into a housing project can also seek out partnerships with practitioners who are already familiar with measuring social value using emerging methods, like Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI).

Key recommendations From analysis of all precedent and case study findings, the study has identified seven key recommendations in the process of housing renewal: 1. U nderstand the site Undertake a site survey and engage local stakeholders to develop a detailed understanding of local conditions, assets and challenges. 2. S tart with existing residents Prioritise the interests of existing residents to create support for a new scheme. 3. Engage early Engage residents and businesses early and throughout the duration of the project. 4. D eliver the homes that are needed Consider affordability, and the long-term and diverse needs of residents in the design and provision of homes. 5. B alance provision of density with provision of social amenity Ensure that the scheme has a sustainable level of density and adequate provision of social infrastructure and amenity. 6. M inimise community disruption Consider the impact of redevelopment on social and community cohesion and activity. 7. Partner and invest for the long term Establish trust and maintain long-term relationships with residents and other stakeholders involved in housing renewal to ensure the smooth running of a housing renewal scheme.

Next phase Following Phase 1 of this study (Vital Neighbourhoods: Lessons from international housing renewal), Phase 2 (Housing Renewal Study – London) will explore opportunities for applying and testing the recommendations developed from the international research in London. Phase 2 will suggest ways in which London’s housing challenges can be addressed through housing renewal (involving both refurbishment and/or densification, and new builds).

Introduction The UK housing challenges have dominated national debates on built environment policy in recent years. The UK needs to build 300,000 new homes annually, but only about a third of that number is built each year.1 In London, housing issues dominated the 2016 mayoral election campaign, catalysing the new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to set up a committee of housing experts, Homes for Londoners, to help drive the delivery of new homes in the capital. However, while increasing supply is clearly a critical part of meeting housing needs in London, other issues, such as affordable homes, liveable neighbourhoods, quality of place and housing renewal, have recently emerged within wider housing debates. Housing renewal â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the long-term process of not only upgrading the physical condition and appearance of housing but also improving its social and economic aspects, such as community cohesion and amenity provision 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; appears to offer the opportunity to increase both the quantity and quality of housing in London. It has become increasingly clear that housing issues cannot be tackled through boosting the short-term supply of homes alone. It is necessary to adopt a holistic long-term perspective to housing and the people who live in it, and it must involve delivering the types of housing that are needed and committing to long-term investment in housing estates and existing communities.

1 2

Scott-Marshall (ed.) ( 2014) Taylor (ed.) (2016)

In May 2016, Publica – a public realm and urban design consultancy specialising in research, strategy and design for public space, urban design and masterplanning – in collaboration with Stanhope, a major London developer, commenced a research study on international housing renewal. This research study explores the wider context of the London housing problems, aiming to identify and understand the common challenges within the housing sector, including in developing partnerships and engaging with communities. The purpose of the research is to develop a holistic awareness of key issues and challenges within the housing sector and to explore any transferable lessons from best practice outside the UK. The research seeks to understand ways in which new entrants to the housing sector can best help tackle the housing problems through partnerships with other stakeholders, including local authorities. A set of recommendations, based on evidence from international and UK projects, suggests how to successfully deliver housing renewal projects, through maintaining residential communities and establishing productive partnerships. From the perspective of promoting socially responsible development that underpins a successful renewal scheme, the research aims to offer lessons on effective community engagement and meeting the needs of communities, and how to form positive and sustainable partnerships in the delivery of housing renewal. Research questions and methodology The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the key issues involved in housing renewal, of which a new entrant into the sector should be aware? 2. What are the key strategies for creating and supporting social and community cohesion in housing renewal? 3. How can private developers best partner with other stakeholders in housing renewal? The study has employed a mixed methodology, with contextual analysis and international precedents and case studies forming the core components of the research and this report. Structure of the report The study is divided into three main sections: contextual analysis; precedents and case studies; and conclusions and recommendations. The first and third sections begin with a one-page summary outlining key messages and lessons. Contextual analysis The contextual analysis explores the wide-ranging literature – including academic papers, policy documents and private sector reports – on housing renewal and estate regeneration. The aim of this literature review was to gain an in-depth understanding of the challenges within housing renewal both in the local context and internationally. This review included over 70 documents, from which a number of key concepts were identified. These key concepts which emerged from the literature review are included on a ‘wheel of knowledge’, as shown in the appendix. The wheel of knowledge shows the range

Research questions

Research methods Desk-based research

Interviews

Site survey

What are the key issues involved in housing renewal, of which a new entrant into the sector should be aware?

•

What are the key strategies for creating and supporting social and community cohesion in housing renewal?

•

How can private developers best partner with other stakeholders in housing renewal?

•

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

of existing literature in the housing renewal sector, across three main knowledge areas – policy, theory and practice – and across a number of scales: local, borough, city, national, continent and global levels. As well as facilitating the identification of a set of key themes within the housing renewal sector, the wheel of knowledge offers a visual tool to identify knowledge areas that may benefit from future research (i.e. the segments of the ‘wheel’ that are less populated with yellow ‘plots’, indicating less material is accessible on these topics). International precedents and case studies A number of precedents were selected to demonstrate nine key aspects of housing renewal, such as community engagement, decanting strategies or social infrastructure, which emerged from the contextual review and are critical to the process of housing renewal. The key themes identified through the contextual analysis also facilitated the selection of five in-depth case studies which best demonstrate exemplary practices in housing renewal. Case studies selected therefore: • were projects in areas comparable to the sites of housing renewal schemes commonly found in London: in urban contexts where land is constrained and where significant densification is needed. • were developments considered large enough to make a significant difference to a city-wide housing shortage. (In most cases, this excluded developments with less than 100 units. Exceptions were made in cases that demonstrated particular lessons critical to understanding the process of housing renewal.) • had typically been completed within the last five years, as changes in housing policy over the last few decades mean that developments completed more than 25 years ago may be too dissimilar to the current context. • demonstrate some form of working in partnership so that best practice in collaboration could be extracted. • represent a balance of renewal and densification schemes, and demonstrate key lessons learned in the following areas: social and community cohesion; governance and partnerships; community engagement; and funding models. These case studies have been analysed in greater detail than the precedents, using site survey methods as well as desk-based research.

Research methods The study used a variety of methods, including document review, interviews with key individuals working in housing renewal and development, and site survey methods (including mapping, photography and observational note-taking). These methods were selected for their suitability in determining answers to the study’s research questions. Document review Document review involved a review of key literature covering a wide range of sources from the areas of policy, theory and practice. It also involved acquiring information from online sources, including a number of official policy databases. Findings are summarised in the contextual analysis section and the full literature review in the appendix. Interviews Two types of interviews were conducted as part of this research study. The first type of interview was conducted with individuals involved in housing renewal projects examined as case studies. The first round of such interviews was conducted in November and December 2016 in Paris and Bordeaux Metropolitan Area with architects, housing developers and local authority representatives. The second round was conducted in January 2017 in Zürich with representatives of two nonprofit housing cooperatives. The second type of interview was conducted with key individuals at Stanhope, a major London-based developer, to identify transferrable lessons from previous projects and experience that may be applicable to the housing renewal sector. These interviews were conducted in early December 2016. This research method is particularly useful for supplementing information obtained through document review, by filling knowledge gaps on the housing renewal sector as well as prompting additional questions that may benefit from further investigation. Site survey methods Site surveys were conducted between November 2016 and January 2017 in Bordeaux Metropolitan Area and Zürich, utilising a number of methods, including photography, mapping and observational note-taking. During this time, a number of site visits were conducted to three case study projects in Bordeaux Metropolitan Area: GHI Le Grand Parc, Urban Renovation Lormont and Carré Lumière. A second set of site visits was conducted in Zürich, to two further projects: Kalkbreite and Hunziker Areal.

introduction

Contextual analysis

Contextual analysis involved the review of a wide range of literature covering academic publications, research and policy documents, and private sector materials. Ultimately, over 70 documents were reviewed, from which key concepts were identified. These concepts were then plotted onto the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;wheel of knowledgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; shown in the appendix, to not only reveal the concentration of the existing research available but also suggest potential gaps in knowledge where there may be opportunities for further research. The aim of the literature review was to gain an in-depth understanding of the challenges within housing renewal, both in the local context and internationally. From this review, a set of five key themes within housing renewal were extracted, as follows: 1. The tension between quality and quantity of housing 2. Social and community cohesion 3. Establishing and maintaining long-term trust 4. Managing stakeholders and partnerships 5. Valuing best practice These five themes are explored in detail in the following pages.

Key messages from contextual analysis Five key themes on housing renewal were extracted from the review of more than 70 documents. 1. The tension between quality and quantity of housing • This urgency to address the housing shortage is particularly felt in London where a combination of population growth, changing household composition, insufficient supply of land, rising incomes and greater mortgage availability is driving up demand. These factors are also driving up home prices and rents in the capital, making it vital to re-evaluate the meaning of ‘affordable housing’. • The disproportionate focus on increasing supply of homes has had a detrimental effect on the quality of homes built and the wider integration of new developments into surrounding areas. • Damage to quality of life and social cohesion is exacerbated by the pressure on some developers to build at hyperdensity (meaning very high densities above the top end of the London Plan guidance), which creates enormous management issues.3 The measure of ‘net density’ underestimates the potential of new developments to stretch the local community resources and social infrastructure; calculations based on ‘gross density’, on the other hand, may be more useful in a housing renewal context, as they take into account land occupied by non-residential uses. • The quality of life of existing residents is also hugely affected by whether an estate is demolished or refurbished, with studies showing that refurbishment can often deliver more significant improvements to housing quality than demolition. 2. Social and community cohesion • The prospect of major changes to the make-up of the local community is seen by existing residents as one of the main threats to social and community cohesion. • In order to sustain a mixed community, demolition should be avoided as it disrupts close-knit communities. • An incremental design and a carefully considered phasing and decanting strategy helps to minimise disruption to people’s life plans and avoid multiple relocations. • Where decanting is necessary, homeowners and tenants should be moved in large clusters in order to retain existing social networks and community cohesion.

• Residents should be given the opportunity to take part in the decision-making process, which can give them a sense of ownership and feeling of control, helping to create support for projects. 3. Establishing and maintaining long-term trust • Resident engagement needs to start as early as possible to allow residents to make meaningful contributions during consultations. • Information should be provided accurately and transparently to residents. • Residents should have access to independent consultants for impartial advice on issues relating to the scheme. 4. Managing stakeholders and partnerships • Housing renewal partners should invest in long-term relationships with partners who share similar values on housing renewal, including the provision of social infrastructure and an emphasis on social value. • A unified vision and strong leadership, particularly in a regeneration context, is crucial in ensuring that a large scale development is not fragmented but is wellintegrated into existing and new neighbourhoods. • Housing providers and their partners are increasingly seeking innovative funding models to make the provision of affordable units economically viable, such as by developing market rent units to subsidise affordable homes. • Housing providers and developers seeking to incorporate non-economic values into a housing project should seek out partnerships with leading practitioners working directly in specialist areas of social and environmental change. 5. Valuing best practice • The benefit of best practice is not limited to long-term economic returns but extends to social values which may not be as easily quantifiable, including social benefits and the opportunity to influence the wider housing renewal sector through innovation. • Social Return on Investment (SROI) is an emerging tool for translating social and environmental change into data then into monetary values, which can be useful in convincing funders to invest in projects that may not appear to be economically viable, based on conventional valuation methods.

In central London, hyperdensities fall between 215 and 405 dwellings per hectare for areas with PTAL index of 4 to 6. See also the appendix for full literature review.

Theme 1: The tension between quality and quantity of housing Debates on the built environment have been focused on the overall shortage of housing and the lack of speed in housing delivery. The urgency to supply more homes has led to an emphasis on housing quantity rather than quality of homes and the quality of life of the people who live in them. Balancing housing demand and supply The national rise in the demand for a wide range of housing – for both renters and buyers – has been associated with a number of factors, including population growth, changing household composition (including a rise in single person households), rising incomes and greater mortgage availability.4 One of the main barriers to building homes in the UK is the insufficient supply of land released for new development, which pushes land values up, and increases the costs of house building.5 This increase in development costs is particularly challenging for smaller developers. A further issue in housing delivery is the existence of a gap between the number of new homes that were granted planning permission and the number of homes that were delivered. A number of reasons have been put forward to explain why such sites remain unbuilt; including market conditions and the availability of skills and labour, and delays resulting from the complexity of the planning system.6 Affordable housing Affordable housing is defined by the London Plan as including social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing.7 Some critics argue that the term has become too broad and needs to be redefined and more specifically targeted to a particular income group, as supply of social rent units has slowed over the past few decades.8,9

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Design and quality of housing There is a strong consensus across all political parties in the UK about the need to increase the number of new homes in London.10 However, the Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment warned against the disproportionate emphasis on increasing housing supply, at the expense of considering the quality of life of residents in new homes.11 Quality of homes is influenced by a number of factors, including the need for a place for the household to gather together, and the importance of ensuring that homes can accommodate changing lifestyles of families, so that residents can make long-term investments in their homes, and decide whether to modernise or adapt their home to suit needs at different life stages.12 Delivering quality at scale Development of large sites is potentially a valuable resource for meeting the housing needs in London as it can deliver a large amount of new homes. However, the development of these sites has historically been constrained by a lack of local and transport infrastructure; the latter is a key criterion in determining the levels of density permissible in London. Capital has also been tied up in these sites for a long time due to the slow delivery of units that can take decades to complete; this is principally due to a lack of construction capacity.13 Lastly, there is often a lack of leadership and vision necessary to unlock the investment capacity of large sites.14 The role of public bodies is crucial in safeguarding the interests of existing communities and ensuring high public realm standards in large-scale developments.15 Even if public bodies do not have the capacity to deliver large sites themselves, they have a critical role in holding developers accountable; wider area benefits of redevelopment can be achieved if developments deliver high-quality public realm and are carefully planned to integrate into existing neighbourhoods.16

Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2016) Scott-Marshall (ed.) ( 2014) Select Committee for National Policy on the Built Environment (2016, p. 70) M ayor of London (2016d) The point on affordable housing is raised by Duncan Bowie (Senior lecturer in Spatial Planning and Housing, University of Westminster) at a Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. See official seminar transcript, Policy Forum for London (2016, pp. 8–9). M artin Bellinger (Chief Operating Officer, Essential Living) elaborated on the concept of discount market rent, and its relevance for the concept of affordable housing, at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. Brown and Wilson (2016) Select Committee for National Policy on the Built Environment (2016) Ministry of Housing and Local Government ( 1961) Brown and Wilson ( 2016) ibid. De Magalhaes and Trigo ( 2015)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Densification Densification involves increasing the number of dwellings per hectare through a range of methods including infill, and demolition and rebuild. Calculation based on gross density accounts for all land including road and other non-residential use, whereas calculation based on net density only takes into account land occupied by residential uses. Densification is seen as having great potential for increasing housing supply in London, through the refurbishment and infill, or demolition and rebuild, of its existing estates.17 Some estate regeneration has involved building at hyperdensity, very high densities above the top end of the London Plan guidance. “For example, Wood Wharf, next to Canary Wharf, will contain around 3,100 apartments at a density of 436 homes per hectare”.18 Experts caution against building at hyperdensity during estate regeneration due to the high risk of creating unsustainable communities.19 High-density developments may pose a particular challenge in delivering mixed communities and sustaining cohesive communities, due to the enormous task in managing the demands of varying occupants in such a development.20 Estate renewal programmes involving densification have been shown to lead to increases in land and property prices and rents, with little evidence of properties in the neighbouring area benefiting from such schemes. Densification schemes also risk stretching the wider area’s capacity of public services and infrastructure.21 As yet, there is no available framework that takes into account the wider context of an area (including social infrastructure), which could be used to decide on the appropriate density of future developments.22

16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Decision to demolish or refurbish Infill development is often seen as a desirable approach for housing renewal as it involves less disruption for residents and activity on site, and can reduce rehousing cost, when compared to demolition and rebuild.23 There is a growing body of evidence suggesting refurbishment may also be preferable to demolition as it can deliver greater environmental, social and economic impacts than demolition.24 Refurbishment can often also deliver significant improvements in housing quality and wellbeing at a faster rate than demolition and rebuilding.25 Refurbishment of social housing can deliver more significant improvements in living standards for residents than demolition, given that the overall lifetime costs of works may be lower and that the process involves less disruption to local communities. Recognising this, some evidence therefore suggests that the decision to demolish housing should be influenced not only by technical and economic factors, but also by the consideration of its implications for individual and communal health and wellbeing.26 Theme 2: Social and community cohesion In undertaking housing renewal, the concerns and structure of the existing community present both challenges and opportunities for project delivery. Gentrification Existing communities often fear housing renewal will change the composition of the local community, as new homes become occupied by more affluent households; through the process known as ‘gentrification’.27 As explored later in this section, engagement with existing communities can help provide them with accurate information to address these fears.

Brown and Wilson ( 2016) ibid. HTA et al. ( 2015, p. 6) ibid. Building at hyperdensity means building at very high densities above the top end of the London Plan guidance, which in Central London is between 215 and 405 dwellings per hectare for areas with PTAL index of 4 to 6. See table 3.2, Mayor of London (2016c, p. 44) Beharrell ( 2015) What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth ( 2015) T his was highlighted by Ruth Smithson (London Borough of Lambeth), during her presentation at the ‘Three Days on Housing’ event in 2015, organised by Urban Design London. Hanna, Oduwaiye and Redman ( 2016) London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015) Crawford et al. ( 2014) ibid. Paton (2014)

c o n t e x t ua l a n a ly s i s

Sustaining mixed communities From the perspective of creating or sustaining mixed communities, total demolition of housing estates has had the impact of disrupting close-knit communities.28 In contrast, refurbishment works (including in cases which involve densification) have been cited as supporting the creation of a mixed community by attracting new residents of different income groups to a development, without displacing existing residents.29 This was observed in a study which compared two renewal schemes in London: one involving demolition and rebuilding, and the other, refurbishment. The first scheme’s complex phasing strategy and re-housing policy suffered from multiple changes which led to tenants being decanted more than once, and several deciding to leave the estate. Interviewees reported that they felt like the uncertainty and repeated moves involved in this long process weakened their community. In contrast, the study observed that the second scheme, in addition to refurbishing existing tenants’ homes in a shorter period of time, also persuaded prospective leaseholders to buy into the estate.30 Phasing and decanting strategies Another threat to social and community cohesion is the disruption caused by the decanting process in which residents are sometimes required to relocate more than once, which makes it difficult for them to make any life plans and places strain on social networks.31 Where possible, residents should not be placed in temporary accommodation, for the same reasons; it is disruptive to their life plans and social networks, and creates a sense of uncertainty.32 Literature suggests that, should decanting be necessary, homeowners and tenants should be moved in large

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Belotti (2016) ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. See Glossary for definition of ‘blight’. Belotti (2016) Crawford et al. (2014) DCLG ( 2016d, p. 12 ) Belotti ( 2016)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

clusters at the same time in order to retain social and community cohesion.54 If demolition is to be conducted, then homes should be emptied and demolished as soon as possible to avoid demolition ‘blight’. Lack of a coherent phasing and decanting strategy can cause residents to lose their sense of security and certainty about the future of the place in which they live.33 Maintaining wellbeing of communities In cases where communities have already been experiencing decline – characterised by criminal behaviour, high vacancy rates and vandalism – relocation to a neighbouring area that has just been renewed as part of the process of demolition has been demonstrated to enhance wellbeing.34 Taking into account social factors, such as community wellbeing and social networks, in decision-making processes, and involving the community where possible, has been identified as helping to give residents a feeling of control over the renewal process and cultivating a sense of ownership and participation.35 Understanding community needs and experiences A range of survey methods has been used to develop an understanding of residents’ experiences in housing renewal projects. These methods include: compiling a history of the estate; analysing resident demographics; surveying buildings, public realm and key routes through and connecting with the estate; and gathering residents’ views on the estate.36 37 Theme 3: Establishing and maintaining long-term trust From the literature, three key factors appear to be critical in establishing and maintaining trust between housing providers and residents throughout the process of housing renewal: independent advice, effective resident engagement and accuracy of information.

Independent advice The complexity of the network of partners and contractors involved in a housing renewal scheme can lead residents to feel isolated from the decision-making process. Independent advice is crucial in establishing trust between residents and these stakeholders; in cases where relationships have disintegrated, an independent body can help restore trust and reinstate an effective working relationship.38 Particularly during a decanting process as part of a renewal scheme, it is vital that residents have access to independent consultants and advice so that they feel they are being presented with impartial information about the scheme and the processes which affect them.39 Effective resident engagement However, engagement may not continue at the same intensity throughout the duration of the project due to ‘consultation fatigue’.40 Effective resident engagement has often commenced early within projects, enabling residents to provide detailed and meaningful input to a scheme, and has involved different groups, including architects, construction partners and the local authority.41 A report by the g15, a group of London’s largest housing associations, cites a number of schemes where residentled post-occupancy feedback improved the design of later phases. This also served to maintain residents’ trust in the consultation process as they could see evidence that their suggestions were incorporated into the planning and design process.42 Accuracy of information Accurate information, combined with transparency in the entire engagement process of the scheme, has been shown, in the review of 36 renewal schemes by the g15 housing associations, to cultivate trust between residents

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

and local organisations, and developers and local authorities.43 A lack of clear and accurate information can “lead to accusations of post hoc rationalisation”, which destroys the trust underpinning “effective collaboration between communities, housing providers and other regeneration partners”.44 Theme 4: Managing stakeholders and partnerships In housing renewal, partnerships can enable sectorspecific challenges to be overcome, allowing strengths and weaknesses of different organisations to complement each other. Selection of suitable partners Where local authorities and developers have chosen partners that have similar values, can share risk, and secure upfront investment, partnerships have been shown to be successful and sustainable.45 Strong leadership and a unified vision Unitary leadership 46 is critical to the successful development of large sites that are integrated into the surrounding urban fabric and provide adequate community infrastructure. A unitary leadership approach can be adopted by public bodies – even those not directly involved in project delivery – to ensure that new-build developments on specific sites are planned to integrate well into new neighbourhoods, have high public realm standards, and are allocated CIL and section 106 money for the benefit of the new residents. Even though it is typically neither possible nor practical for the development of London’s large sites to be delivered by a single body, it is crucial to ensure that there is a unified vision, coupled with masterplanning and leadership, to avoid fragmented development.47

London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015) Belotti (2016) B okaian, Sprowles and Warwick ( 2016) ibid. ibid. ibid. London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, p.11) AECOM (2016) U nitary leadership is a form of governance usually adopted by public bodies to ensure that a development achieves an agreed set of goals despite a number of different stakeholders being involved in their delivery. Taylor (ed.) (2016)

c o n t e x t ua l a n a ly s i s

Funding models Five approaches to funding for housing renewal are identified by a report by Future of London, including: cross-subsidy (PRS/market rent); asset optimisation; portfolio diversification; mixing different finance sources; and local authority low-cost borrowing.48 In particular, increasing demands have been made through the planning system for income from private sales to cross-subsidise affordable homes.49 Incorporating non-economic values The difficulty in quantifying the social value and social impacts of housing renewal can present a challenge in engaging stakeholders in schemes that have an emphasis on social programmes and social infrastructure. Developers and providers that wish to incorporate the value of social and environmental change into a housing project should seek out partnerships with practitioners working directly in the field of social and environmental change to compensate for a lack of capacity in the housing sector.50 The development of the Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) approach, combining Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Ecosystem Services Analysis (ESA), has the potential to quantify a wide range of social outcomes, including job creation, crime reduction, and a number of other wellbeing improvements.51 This valuation process can help promote the involvement of a wider range of stakeholders in the development at an early stage, and can help convince funders to invest or re-invest in projects that may not appear to be as economically attractive, based solely on conventional valuation methods.52 Theme 5: Valuing best practice A significant challenge in housing renewal is the absence of a tool to quantify the benefit of best practice within the sector, which helps measure not only the long-term economic value but also the social value and social return on investment.

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Long-term economic value of best practice The benefits of best practice in housing renewal for a developer are not limited to the increase in property and land values but also extend to other less quantifiable values, including social benefits and the opportunity to influence the wider housing renewal sector through demonstrating innovation.53 Social value and social return on investment In order to measure the impact of design on building occupants and users, there needs to be a significant “shift away from measuring building performance towards measuring the outcomes experienced by people”.54 The Social Return on Investment (SROI) measure is an emerging tool which has been demonstrated to have the potential to translate social change into data and monetary values; this helps quantify the potential benefits of investing in less tangible aspects of housing renewal.55 Even though the reduction of quality of life to a series of transactions remains simplistic, this is often the only measure that can influence investors, policy-makers, funders, and others to support a scheme, as it creates a common understanding of impact and outcomes.56 Unlike other more commonly used methods in the built environment, the SROI offers the monetisation of outcomes identified through stakeholder engagement to produce “a transferrable evidence base that can be communicated to a wide range of audiences”.57 A study carried out by the LSE to assess the impact of a £140m regeneration programme at Rayners Lane Estate, a former council-owned estate in the London Borough of Harrow, revealed the social return on investment as £10 for every £1 invested in the development. As well as being widely publicised as a benchmark for other regeneration projects, the result of this study has served to promote the benefits of adopting a sensitive and socially oriented approach to estate regeneration – the Rayners Lane Estate is one of the case studies included in the Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016).58

B rown and Wilson ( 2016) B ichard ( 2015) Select Committee for National Policy on the Built Environment (2016) London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015) Bichard ( 2015) Watson and Whitley ( 2016) London Assembly Housing Committee (2015) Bichard (2015) Watson and Whitley ( 2016) Provan, Belotti and Power ( 2016, p. 22) Bichard (2015)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Housing white paper: Fixing our broken housing market

Following the completion of this contextual analysis, the Government’s response to the national housing problems was published on 7 February 2017 in a housing white paper, entitled Fixing our broken housing market. This housing white paper introduces a set of government reforms to the housing market and plans to increase the supply of new homes. Among the plans proposed in the white paper are the following key strategies: 1. ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’ by making land available for homes in areas with a housing shortage (i.e. where not enough homes are being built), giving communities a stronger voice in the design of new housing and encouraging higher densities in urban locations. 2. ‘Building homes faster’ by ensuring infrastructure is provided in the right place at the right time by coordinating government investment, tackling unnecessary delays caused by planning conditions and taking steps to address skills shortages in the construction workforce. 3. ‘Diversifying the market’ by supporting small and medium-sized builders as well as housing associations and local authorities, encouraging more institutional investors into housing, and encouraging innovative methods of construction.

The four strategies above touch on a few of the themes discussed in the contextual review of this report but particularly relate to the tension between quality and quantity of housing. The report and the housing white paper both agree on the need to create places that people want to live in by encouraging more effective community engagement, for example through co-design in order to better understand and meet the needs of the community. Another parallel between the housing white paper and this report is on ways to diversify the housing market, by encouraging innovative construction methods and supporting smaller housebuilders and developers. The housing white paper demonstrates a number of new commitments by the Government, including a renewed focus on rent by protecting renters from exploitative landlords, and a number of measures such as unlocking public land surplus, diversifying the housing market and integrating development with infrastructure. However, the white paper has not sufficiently addressed other issues such as the lack of resources for local government to support new developments which will continue to be a major obstacle in the process of delivery of new homes.

4. ‘Helping people now’ through schemes such as Help to Buy, Starter Homes and the Right to Buy extension; through the Affordable Homes Programme; by taking actions to promote transparency and crack down on empty homes; and by helping the most vulnerable who need housing support, in an attempt to prevent homelessness.

c o n t e x t ua l a n a ly s i s

Precedents and case studies The precedents and international case studies examined in this research provide a critical insight into a number of projects of particular relevance to the five themes identified in the contextual analysis. A number of precedents were selected to illustrate nine key lessons in housing renewal emerging from the contextual analysis. Detailed case studies were carried out on five projects in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area and ZĂźrich. The case studies were selected based on a set of strategic criteria to ensure relevance to the London context, as outlined on page 4, and their selection was also informed by the key themes identified through the contextual analysis, to ensure they illustrate international best practice in housing renewal.

Scheme types Based on the characteristics of individual renewal projects, such as the presence and retention of housing on the original site, whether there was any demolition involved and whether there was any conversion of use on site, three different housing renewal scheme types were identified: stock improvement, densification and new build. These categories are illustrated in the table below.

Type of scheme

Stock improvement

Densification

III

New build

Method

Existing housing

Demolition

Retention

Use conversion

YES

Infill

YES/NO

PARTIAL

YES

YES/NO

Total rebuild

YES

TOTAL

YES/NO

Precedents The precedents provide lessons on key aspects, including community engagement, decanting strategies, social infrastructure and tenure mix, which are critical to the process of housing renewal. Lessons within each key aspect of housing renewal are illustrated by at least one precedent, as shown in the table below. Precedents were selected for their successful, and often innovative, strategies relating to these lessons.

A. Community engagement Both the development scheme and residents benefit from community engagement taking place early in project planning. B. Densification Infill sites provide opportunity for densification and rethinking wider areas and linking a development to the surrounding neighbourhoods.

• •

B. Densification C. Improving housing quality D. Phasing and decanting E. Social infrastructure F. Creating a sense of ownership G. Maintaining community life and use during works H. Understanding tenure mix I. Cross-subsidy funding models 15

Lignon Housing Complex, Geneva (Switzerland)

•

La Chesnaie, Saint-Nazaire (France)

Fatima Mansions, Dublin (Ireland)

Dawson Estate, Singapore (Singapore)

•

Ellebo Garden Rooms, Ballerup (Denmark)

A. Community engagement

Bacton Low Rise Estate, London (UK)

Ahrensfelder Terrassen, Berlin (Germany)

C. Improving housing quality Refurbishment can often deliver significant improvements in housing quality and wellbeing without the upheaval caused by demolition.

•

• • • •

•

D. Phasing and decanting Well-structured and precise phasing, combined with incremental design, removes the need for multiple decants of residents during renewal works. E. Social infrastructure By investing in social infrastructure, the wider area can benefit from a renewal scheme, and local residents are more likely to support the project.

H. Understanding tenure mix It is important to manage the integration of different tenure types through various design strategies based on a good understanding of the unique resident dynamic.

•

Via Verde, NYC (USA)

Tour Bois-le-Prêtre, Paris (France)

•

Tybalds Estate, London (UK)

Splayed Apartment Blocks, Rotterdam (Netherlands)

I. Cross-subsidy funding models A range of innovative funding models can support the delivery of affordable homes, including publicprivate partnerships.

South Kilburn Estate, London (UK)

Plaza de America, Alicante (Spain)

Paspoel Anders, Tongeren (Belgium)

Osdorp Mixed Use Centre and Housing, Amsterdam (Netherlands)

F. Creating a sense of ownership Adaptable and flexible internal and semi-external spaces which can be appropriated by the residents can help cultivate a sense of ownership.

Maiden Lane, London (UK)

G. Maintaining community life and use during works Local businesses and the residential community should be allowed to function as usual during the construction phase as far as possible, and meanwhile uses can help animate the site during construction.

• • • •

•

• 16

A. Community engagement

Fatima Mansions

Project information 59 LOCATION

Dublin, Ireland

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

4.45

DEVELOPING PARTNERS

Dublin City Council Maplewood Elliott

ARCHITECTS

BKD Architects Seàn Harrington Architects Metropolitan Workshop

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2001–2009

TYPE OF SCHEME

Demolition and rebuild

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

394

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

615

UPLIFT

+221

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

88.5 (before works) > 138.2 (after works)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

24.5 percent social rent; 11.5 percent affordable; 64 percent market sale

Metropolitan Workshop (photograph by Alice Clancy)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

A. Community engagement

The original buildings of Fatima Mansions were 14 four-storey blocks of social rented housing built between 1949 and 1951. At the time of its construction, the estate was seen as providing a significant improvement in the quality of life for residents who had been relocated as part of slum clearances in the area. However, the estate declined from the 1980s onwards, due in part to the policy-driven residualisation of social housing in Ireland in the 1980s and 90s. The estate became notorious for vandalism and drug trade and use. Design features such as enclosed stairways and an internal orientation also served to heighten the sense of insecurity on the estate by making the spaces difficult to monitor due to little oversight. The estate increasingly became isolated from its surrounding neighbourhood.60 Despite its decline, however, there remained a very strong sense of community and ownership within the estate. This led to the formation of the community coalition, Fatima Groups United, in the mid-1990s. The organisation drew up a masterplan for the site to respond to Dublin City Council’s ongoing concern about the area and their several failed attempts to improve it. This masterplan proposed the demolition and rebuilding of the estate that eventually took place in the early 2000s, after the community masterplan was combined with the City Council plan, and consulted upon with residents. Demolition was seen by residents as the best way to address the social problems that characterised the estate, as rebuilding offered a chance to establish a new image for the area.61 The redevelopment was undertaken through a publicprivate partnership between the developer and the local authority, whereby the publicly owned land would be given over for development purposes, in return for

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

social housing provision for those already housed on the estate. A comprehensive consultation process with the community was undertaken by the council. The final masterplan was agreed upon under the auspices of the newly evolved Fatima Regeneration Board (recently renamed The F2 Centre and Enterprise Management Board). The renewal was completed in two phases, with the 150 social rented units earmarked for existing tenants being replaced first, followed by 360 market units and 50 affordable units.62 As the development was in its closing stages during the 2008 property crash, it did not experience the setbacks of many other Irish PPP renewal projects.63 The strong community drive of the project, and the fact that the social housing phase, which affected existing tenants, had already been successfully completed also helped the successful delivery of the project. Because of the notoriety of the estate, social regeneration was a priority for the Fatima Regeneration Board, as set out in the document, ‘8 Great Expectations’.64 The new development therefore included the new F2 Community Centre, a crèche, homework centre, library and meeting rooms as well as a leisure centre and employment centre, the latter covering 500 sq metres of community enterprise units.65 The Fatima Mansions estate was renamed Herberton following the completion of the project, with the objective of changing the image of the site. According to a study by Dr Hearne for the Combat Poverty Agency, positive results in tackling deprivation on the estate have been observed and are largely “the result of the strong action, vision and participation by the community group, Fatima Groups United, in the regeneration process in partnership with Dublin City Council.”66

Hearne (2009) S hine and Norris ( 2006) ibid. F2 Centre. The Present [webpage] S hine and Norris ( 2006) Whyte ( 2005) O ’Brien ( 2009) Hearne (2009)

precedents

A. Community engagement

Bacton Low Rise Estate Project information 67 LOCATION

London, UK

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

1.9

DEVELOPER

London Borough of Camden

ARCHITECTS

Karakusevic Carson Architects

STATUS

Completed (phase 1); in progress (phase 2)

START-COMPLETION DATES

2011–2015 (phase 1); 2017–2021 (phase 2)

TYPE OF SCHEME

Demolition and rebuild

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

293

UPLIFT

+194

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

52 (before works) > 155 (after works)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

88 percent social rent; 12 percent market rate

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

46 percent affordable; 54 percent private sale

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

A. Community engagement

The Bacton Low Rise regeneration project in Gospel Oak is notable for its close engagement with the local community, and for being the first project in which the London Borough of Camden has acted as a developer. Forming part of the London Borough of Camden’s Community Investment Programme – a 15-year plan to invest in schools, homes and community facilities by redeveloping or selling buildings or land that are underused or expensive to maintain – its first phase won Housing Project of the Year at the 2016 Building Awards. The estate had initially been proposed for demolition in the late 1980s as it was “exhibiting the long-term problems prevalent across 1960s council estates – poor insulation, crumbling fabric, inappropriate design and high levels of anti-social behaviour facilitated by multiple deck access, compounded by a profusion of unsupervised areas such as garages and undercrofts.”68 Facing strong opposition from residents, plans to refurbish were proposed instead and were subsequently implemented by the council between 1998 and 1999.69 However, the works undertaken did not succeed in solving issues faced at the site, most notably those of poor insulation, high energy consumption and poor maintenance by the local authority.70 Resident discontent grew during the 2000s as maintenance issues worsened. This led the Bacton Low Rise Tenants and Residents Association (TRA), a very active community group with strong leadership, to engage with new propositions by the council to demolish the estate in 2011. As Sarah Robbins, Chair of the Bacton Low Rise TRA, states: “Because the refurbishment programme hadn’t gone according to plan the first time around, we decided that if this was going to happen, we wanted to be heavily involved. We wanted to be a part of the design process and then invited to all the meetings about the project.”71

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

The TRA worked with the London Borough of Camden to choose an architect to produce initial designs in consultation with residents. More than fifty meetings with residents and the design team were then held in the first three years to discuss every aspect of the scheme.72 A crucial factor in the empowerment of the TRA and residents during this process was the training they received from the Glasshouse Trust, a charity dedicated to providing residents with a wide range of building- and design-related skills such as reading floorplans, making sense of construction estimates, and understanding the planning system.73 Other events such as exhibitions, drop-in sessions, and numerous family entertainment days were organised throughout the design and planning stages to ensure involvement of the widest possible range and number of residents.74 This resulted in residents strongly rejecting proposals for new tower blocks, favouring instead low-rise family housing. A “network of new streets and mediumdensity family housing at 3–5 storeys combined with taller accent of 7+ storeys on key streets and places” was thus agreed with the design team.75 Residents also contributed to shape the project’s phasing strategy to ensure a smooth decanting process. It was decided that the first phase of the project would be built on the site of Camden’s former district housing office. This allowed half of the existing tenants to be relocated into new homes, enabling the vacant ones to be demolished in a subsequent phase of work.76 Lastly, residents were “unequivocally clear about what the overriding characteristics of the new scheme should be – durable, hardwearing and made of lowmaintenance materials.”77 This was a direct response to the maintenance issues they had previously experienced on the estate.

Karakusevic Carson Architects. Bacton Low Rise Estate [webpage] I jeh ( 2016) R obbins ( 2015) I jeh (2016) R obbins (2015, p. 51) McLaughlin ( 2015) The Glass-House Community Led Design. Bacton Low Rise regeneration, Gospel Oak [webpage] R obbins ( 2015) Karakusevic Carson Architects. Bacton Low Rise Estate [webpage] McLaughlin ( 2015) I jeh ( 2016, n.p. [online])

precedents

B. Densification

Tybalds Estate Project information78 LOCATION

London, UK

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

2.3

DEVELOPER

London Borough of Camden

DESIGN TEAM/ARCHITECTS

Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design Duggan Morris Architects Mae Architects Avanti Architects

STATUS

In progress

START-COMPLETION DATES

2011–2018

TYPE OF SCHEME

Stock improvement and infill

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

360

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

453

UPLIFT

+93

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

177 (before) > 220 (after)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

80 percent social rent, 20 percent owner-occupied

INFILL TENURE MIX

39 percent social rent, 32 percent shared ownership, 29 percent private sale

Avanti Architects

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

B. Densification

This scheme seeks to densify the existing Tybalds Estate as part of London Borough of Camden’s Community Investment Programme which aims to tackle the borough’s housing shortage. The current post-war estate includes 360 homes across nine blocks between 5 and 14 storeys in height, of which 309 homes are included within the renewal scheme.79 The project is a collaborative process between several design teams and has three main objectives: refurbishing existing homes on the estate, regenerating its low-quality public realm and the estate’s two community spaces, and delivering 93 new infill units in the form of new buildings and side, rooftop and underbuild extensions to existing blocks.80 The scheme presents a good example of precise and careful densification. Led by the planning consultants, Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design, the project seeks to repair the urban grain by creating clear new routes, giving existing buildings a street address, and creating better-defined and active public spaces.81 Avanti Architects has designed the

78 79 80 81 82 83

proposals for the extensions and additions to existing buildings,82 while Duggan Morris Architects and Mae Architects were responsible for a number of newbuild blocks on underused open spaces. These infill developments, in addition to providing new housing units, are also key in introducing active street frontages and a more legible urban form on the estate. This serves to promote its integration with the surrounding area and activity within the site. Significant improvements to the public realm have been designed to make a more attractive and useable setting for the existing and new estate buildings.83 This densification is accompanied by the refurbishment of existing blocks, which is key in ensuring that the project benefits existing, as well as new, tenants. This includes improvements to entrance arrangements and bin storage, as well as new cladding and insulation. A new boiler system for the whole estate is also planned to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes by reducing energy consumption.

cLaughlin ( 2015, p. 54) M Planning Application Taylor ( 2013) McLaughlin (2015, p. 54) Tilley ( 2013) Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design ( 2013)

precedents

B. Densification

La Chesnaie Project information84 LOCATION

Saint-Nazaire, France

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Office Public de l’Habitat Silène

ARCHITECTS

Druot, Lacaton & Vassal

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2006 (competition); 2014 (phase 1 completion); 2016 (phase 2 completion)

TYPE OF SCHEME

Stock improvement and infill

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

UPLIFT

+ 40

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

INFILL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

FORMAT EPS

2- Logements neufs ch. sdb

3- Logements neufs

101,5 m2

balc

'hiv

in d

balc

jard

17,80 22,70

ch.

130,25 113,26 112,78 135,63

14,90 13,60 13,60 17,70

95,40 109,40

23,60 22,00

72,80 101,50

17,70 33,50

ch.

94,7 m2

din

63,5 m2

jar

ch.

lco

ch.

d'h

ive

ch.

T4 ch.

79,1 m2

ch.

T3a

ch.

telec.

sdb

élec.

sdb

ch.

T3d

112,8 m2

ch. iver

jardin d'h balcon

T3c ch.

ch.

113,3 m2

jardin d'hiver

balcon

iver

T3h 2 109,4m

cuis.

ch.

Lacaton & Vassal

sdb

cuis.

ETAGE COURANT - EXISTANT

ch.

135,6 m2

cuis.

ch.

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

T4b

ch.

79,6 m2

ch.

130,3 m2

ASC.

ch.

95,4 m

ch. ch.

cuis.

T3g 2

balcon jardin d'hiver

ch.

ETAGE COURANT - PROJET EXTENSIONS - LOGEMENTS NEUFS

balcon

balcon jardin d'hiver

jardin d'h

sdb .

ch.

balcon

Lacaton & Vassal (photograph by Philippe Ruault)

72,8 m2

sdb

1- Existant + extension

ch.

55,00 78,80

20,10 38,10

T2f

75,30 71,30

43,20 20,80 20,80 26,90

'hiv

87,05 92,46 91,98 108,73

espace habitable 1+2+3

in d

balc

jard

nouveau logement

sdb

ch.

tension

abitable surf. habit. jardin 1+2 2 d'hiv. 3

23,60 12,90 12,90 14,00

T3e

B. Densification

The estate of La Chesnaie, in Saint-Nazaire, western France, comprises modernist towers and slab blocks. It was initially selected as part of a wider urban regeneration programme which involved the demolition of four towers, containing a total of 60 apartments. In 2006, architects Lacaton & Vassal were commissioned by Saint-Nazaire’s social housing office, Silène, to put in practice an alternative solution to demolition by refurbishing a tower block of 40 units.85 This project was one of the architects’ first attempts at renewing a social housing block through the addition of semi-external spaces they have labelled ‘winter gardens’. It served as a model for their subsequent work in Paris and the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area.

84 85 86 87

In addition to extending apartments out to an external loggia, adding 33 sq metres to each flat, the project is notable for combining stock improvement with densification at the block level. Taking advantage of the availability of undefined open space at the site, the design expands the existing building through the creation of two new wings using a lightweight steel construction technique. This results in the addition of 40 new apartments to the existing block, thus doubling the total number of dwellings.86 “Each new wing has its own entrance and vertical circulation”.87

L acaton & Vassal. Transformation d’un immeuble de logements, Saint-Nazaire, La Chesnaie [webpage] The Architects’ Journal (2015, p. 23) Lacaton & Vassal. Transformation d’un immeuble de logements, Saint-Nazaire, La Chesnaie [webpage] The Architects’ Journal ( 2015, p. 23)

precedents

C. Improving housing quality

Ellebo Garden Room Project information 88 LOCATION

Ballerup, Denmark

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Ballerup Ejendomsselskab v/KAB

ARCHITECTS (DELIVERY TEAM)

Adam Khan Architects (Main consultant and design lead) Ramboll Kristine Jensen Tegnestue Moe

ARCHITECTS (COMPETITION TEAM)

Adam Khan Architects (Lead) Daniel Serafimovski Architects Price & Myers (Structure and Sustainability) Kristine Jensen Tegnestue (Landscape)

STATUS

In progress

START-COMPLETION DATES

2013–2019

TYPE OF SCHEME

Stock improvement and infill

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

224 89

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

276

UPLIFT

+52

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

64 ( before and after works)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

Adam Khan Architects

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

C. Improving housing quality

The Ellebo estate is located in Ballerup, north west of Copenhagen. The estate was built in 1963 and suffers from a set of problems familiar across European post-war estates: high energy consumption, block mismanagement, isolation, and inflexible internal layouts.90 Adam Khan Architects’ renewal strategy for the estate was the winner of the Nordic Build Challenge, a competition set up by the five Nordic countries to prototype sustainable approaches to post-war housing. The project adds semi-external spaces – termed ‘winter gardens’ – to apartments, which enhance the energy efficiency of the blocks and give residents additional flexible space. This approach of adding a semi-external space, combined with the use of prefabrication, allows construction works to be realised without decanting residents. Avoiding decanting minimises disruption to existing tenants and ensures an economical and efficient construction process.91 The project also seeks to maintain different typologies across the estate, including large apartments suitable for households with children.92 This strategy thus aims to provide affordable high-quality accomodation and allow residents to take ownership of the spaces.

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Adam Khan Architects’ renewal strategy draws on the work of architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal.93 It takes on their view that the qualities of existing blocks and the life within them should be highlighted as the basis for future improvements.94 In developing the Ellebo Garden Room project, Adam Khan Architects took part in direct engagement with residents to gain a better understanding of their needs and concerns. This understanding allowed the architects to effectively address these concerns in the design process. In addition to this, the Ellebo Garden Room project also puts a strong emphasis on public spaces by creating a shared garden in the centre of the estate. The central garden will provide a range of spaces, such as allotments, playgrounds, and landscaped areas.95

The Architects’ Journal ( 2015, p. 31) Adam Khan Architects. Ellebo Garden Rooms [webpage] ibid. The Architects’ Journal ( 2015, p. 31) Nordic Innovation (2015) RIBA Architecture.com. Ellebo [webpage] Druot, Lacaton & Vassal ( 2007) Nordic Innovation ( 2015)

precedents

C. Improving housing quality

Ahrensfelder Terrassen Project information96 LOCATION

Berlin, Germany

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Degewo Marzahner Wohnungsgesellschaft (formerly WBG Marzahn)

ARCHITECTS

SPP Schüttauf und Persike Planungsgesellschaft mbH

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2002–2004

TYPE OF SCHEME

Partial demolition (upper floors) and stock improvement

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

1,689

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

447

UPLIFT

-1,242

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

91.5 percent social rent; 8.5 percent private sale

Photograph by Andreas Steinhoff

Photograph by Angela M. Arnold

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

C. Improving housing quality

The Ahrensfelder Terrassen project is located in the Marzahn-Hellersdorf in east Berlin and is one of the largest prefabricated housing estates in Europe. Although initially popular, since reunification these estates have become increasingly residualised as former East Germans became aware of the higher standards of housing in West Germany.97 This has led to two problems: an exodus by those who can afford to leave, resulting in around 30 percent of units in the district lying vacant, and an increasing concentration of poor and unemployed people. The Marzahn district has been designated as a target for urban regeneration, with a focus on redeveloping the monotonous, German Democratic Republic-era tower-blocks. Partially demolishing tower blocks is seen as a way of introducing different housing typologies by converting these blocks into townhouses and family housing. The Ahrensfelder Terrassen project involves the partial demolition and refurbishment of several 10- and 11- storey blocks which had already been marked for full demolition as they had suffered from consistently high vacancy rates and had fallen into disrepair. Following heated discussions on the necessity of full demolition between the District Planning Office, the Senate Administration for Urban Development, and the Housing Society, a stakeholder group was established to manage this pilot project, funded by the German Government’s Stadtumbau Ost ( Urban Redevelopment East) programme.98 This included the self-organised

96 97 98 99 100 101 102

Residents Council for Marzahn North-West as the main representative of existing tenants on the estate. Current residents were also invited to view the new designs, which increased public understanding of the project.99 The Ahrensfelder Terrassen project involved the remodelling of each block by demolishing several of the upper storeys (above the fourth floor). The aim was to lower the heights of the buildings by varying amounts, creating a differentiated and smaller-scale landscape. This was also accompanied by the creation of new roof terraces and balconies, as well as interior refurbishments, introducing elements such as modern kitchens and greater openness within units.100 In addition to the renovation of the existing rental units, greater social and tenure mix was promoted through the provision of different sizes of apartments, and the inclusion of a minority of units designated for owneroccupation, a strategy that sought to recreate the estate’s earlier heterogeneity.101 Colourful façades made the buildings appear more inviting than the traditional grey of GDR-era estates, and the use of different colours across the length of the buildings gives the block the appearance of a row of townhouses while also creating differentiation between buildings. Other elements such as new public spaces, play spaces and entrances served to remodel the urban environment. Over 90 percent of the properties were allocated or sold within six months of completion of the project, demonstrating its success.102

S teel and Friedrich ( 2015) he Guardian ( 2005) T S teel and Friedrich ( 2015) Steel and Friedrich ( 2015) The Guardian (2005) Urban ( 2012) ibid.

precedents

C. Improving housing quality

Lignon Housing Complex Project information103 LOCATION

Geneva, Switzerland

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

DEVELOPER

Pensimo Management AG

ARCHITECTS (ORIGINAL BUILDING)

Georges Addor, Dominique Julliard, Louis Payot and Jacques Bolliger

ARCHITECTS (REFURBISHMENT STRATEGY)

Jean-Paul Jaccaud Architectes (phase 1)

STATUS

Complete (phase 1); TBC (following phases)

START-COMPLETION DATES

2012-2013 (phase 1); TBC (following phases)

TYPE OF SCHEME

Stock improvement

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

2,780

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

2,780

UPLIFT

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

99.3 (before and after works)

TENURE MIX

Mixed tenure (percentage breakdown unknown)

EPFL-TSAM, Laboratory of Techniques and Preservation of Modern Architecture (photograph by Claudio Merlini)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

C. Improving housing quality

The Lignon Housing Complex is a 1 kilometre-long housing block of between 14 and 16 storeys high. It was constructed between 1963 and 1971 to house 10,000 residents. Built as a response to the severe housing crisis faced by Geneva after WWII, the complex was designed in the form of a meandering Y-shape, allowing every apartment to be dual aspect without being overlooked. Although a continuous slab, the Lignon Housing Complex functions as 84 separate blocks, each with its own entrance hall.104 The large infrastructure provision on site (such as schools and medical centre) and well-maintained public spaces and play areas have contributed to the formation of a mixed and successful community, which is still thriving today.105 The Lignon estate’s façades, massing and external features were listed in 2009, recognising their heritage value. In order to meet new thermal performance requirements without altering the buildings’ façades, a study was commissioned from the Laboratory of Techniques and Preservation of Modern Architecture in Lausanne to

103 104 105 106 107 108 109

establish a refurbishment strategy for the entire estate. In an attempt to “provide a framework for future interventions, the research conducted by the TSAM laboratory between 2008 and 2011 had a twofold objective: conservation of the existing fabric and at the same time a reduction in fuel consumption.”106 Led by Franz Graf and Giulia Marino, the study won the Europa Nostra prize, the European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage, in 2013.107 As the Lignon building is currently owned by 63 different parties, the strategy enables each block to be refurbished independently using a variety of options, while preserving the overall fabric of the estate.108 Jean-Paul Jaccaud Architects was subsequently appointed in 2012 to implement this strategy, starting with a single prototype block, 49 av. du Lignon.109 This first phase succeeded in upgrading the interior of the flats and significantly improving the energy efficiency of the block while keeping its listed façade unchanged.

S trange (2013) S trange (2013) Besençon (2016) Europa Nostra. The housing complex of Lignon: Architectural study and intervention strategies [webpage] Tracés (2013) S trange ( 2013) Jaccaud Spicher Architectes Associés. 49, av. du Lignon [webpage]

precedents

D. Phasing and decanting

Paspoel Anders Project information110 LOCATION

Tongeren, Belgium

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

1.6

DEVELOPER

Gewestelijke Huisvestingsmaatschappij Woonzo

ARCHITECTS

S333 Architecture + Urbanism

STATUS

Under construction (phase 1)

START-COMPLETION DATES

2011–2021

LEVEL OF INTERVENTION

Demolition and rebuild

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

192

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

192

UPLIFT

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

120 (before and after works)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

S333 Architecture + Urbanism Ltd

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

D. Phasing and decanting

The Paspoel Anders project is located in the city of Tongeren, Belgium, and involves the renewal of three high-rise tower blocks built between 1980 and 1982. The buildings suffered from severe technical and structural problems, which led to the decision to demolish and replace them with lower-rise blocks. Due to be completed in 2021, the project ensures that all residents will be rehoused on site. Demolition was seen as a way to introduce a new public realm with the aim of establishing a clear urban framework, designing a clearer set of thresholds between public and private spaces, and integrating the site within the wider neighbourhood.111 The project is notable for its precise phasing strategy “during which the decanting of residents, demolition of blocks and construction of new buildings will be delivered incrementally over a six-year period while retaining residents on site at all times.”112 This strategy

is clearly outlined by the architects’ drawings which demonstrate the four phases of the project. The first step involves the construction of two new blocks allowing the first existing building to be decanted and demolished. This then enables two additional new blocks to be constructed, prompting the demolition of the second existing tower. Two new buildings will finally be constructed before the demolition of the third tower and the construction of the last block. This complex strategy was designed amongst additional constraints; for example, the site is recognised as being of archaeological importance. This means that new development work cannot be undertaken outside the boundaries of the foundations of the existing tower blocks and a small underground car park already on site. This required the architectural team to position the new blocks right up against existing buildings, for example.

110 T he Architects’ Journal ( 2015, p.17 ) 111 i bid. 112 S 333 Architecture + Urbanism. Paspoel Anders, Tongeren, BE [webpage]

precedents

E. Social infrastructure

Osdorp Mixed Use Centre and Housing Project information113 LOCATION

Amsterdam, Netherlands

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPING PARTNERS

Ymere Ontwikkeling Amsterdamse Stichting voor Katholiek Onderwijs (ASKO)

ARCHITECTS

Mecanoo

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2005–2011

TYPE OF SCHEME

Demolition and rebuild

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

Unknown

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

UPLIFT

Unknown

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

Unknown

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

Mecanoo (photograph by Christian Richter)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

E. Social infrastructure

This mixed-use complex, designed by Mecanoo, is located in the neighbourhood of Reimerswaalbuurt in Osdorp, Amsterdam. The project is inscribed within the large-scale urban regeneration plan of the Nieuw West district, coordinated by de Architekten Cie. The masterplan, which involves the demolition of poorly maintained buildings built in the 1950s, comprises nine housing blocks set within wide avenues and public squares.114 Mecanoo’s block is the first one to have been built and is notable for integrating housing (51 apartments and 21 single-family homes) with a number of community facilities and amenities such as a school, a sports hall, a day-care centre, a community centre and two playgrounds.115

113 114 115 116

These facilities are situated on the ground floor, and each has its own entrance. The façade of the block was realised in cooperation with artist Elspeth Pikaar, who created large glass panels from texts and drawings created by pupils from the St Lukas school, which moved into the development. These panels subtly mark the presence of the school in the neighbourhood.116 The Dutch design studio Makkink & Bey was responsible for the design of a large industrial-type playground. In an effort to encourage social interaction and community life, the playground is open to residents and children from the neighbouring area after school hours.

Mecanoo. Osdorp Mixed Use Centre and Housing [webpage] Architectur Centrum Amsterdam. Nieuw Reimerswaal [webpage] Mecanoo. Osdorp Mixed Use Centre and Housing [webpage] O sdorp Multi-Functional School/Mecanoo. ArchDaily [online]

precedents

Mecanoo (photograph by Christian Richter)

St Lukas schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new facilities are seemlessly integrated to the ground floor of the Osdorp housing development.

35â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Makkink & Bey (photograph by Nadine Stijns)

The school facilities, including an adventure playground designed by Studio Makkink & Bey, are open to the public after school hours.

precedentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192;

E. Social infrastructure

Via Verde Project information117 LOCATION

New York City, USA

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

0.6

DEVELOPING PARTNERS

Phipps Houses Jonathan Rose Companies

ARCHITECTS

Dattner Architects Grimshaw Architects

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2006–2012

TYPE OF SCHEME

New build

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

222

UPLIFT

+222

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

370 (after works)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

N/A

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

68 percent affordable; 32 percent co-op housing

Dattner Architects and Grimshaw Architects (photograph by David Sundberg/Esto)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

E. Social infrastructure

Via Verde is a new-build housing development situated on a brownfield site in the South Bronx. It was developed through New York City’s first juried design competition for affordable, sustainable housing, sponsored by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. The project is part of former Mayor Bloomberg’s New Housing Marketplace Plan which delivered and refurbished 160,000 social housing units between 2003 and 2014.118 The affordable housing component of the Via Verde project was delivered through a public-private partnership. One of the project’s key points of interest is its focus on the importance of health and wellbeing. The project sought to address prevalent issues in the area such as rising levels of childhood asthma and obesity which are often a result of the lack of

opportunities for exercise and healthy eating. The development thus built on a partnership with the 5,500-sq-foot Montefiore Medical Centre which occupies most of the ground floor space. The Metcare Pharmacy is also located on the site. In addition, the project comprises different outdoor spaces, including small allotment plots on the fifth-floor roof which are cared for by a garden club. Community gardening programmes are run by a non-profit organisation, Grow NYC, which works to promote environmental education through gardening and also conducts recycling programmes.119 According to Eric Enderlin, President of the NYC Housing Development Corporation (interviewed as part of this research), improvements in health outcomes have been noted on the development, and the roof-top gardens have been very successful.

117 Urban Land Institute. ULI case studies. Via Verde [webpage] 118 NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development ( 2014) 119 Urban Land Institute. ULI case studies. Via Verde [webpage]

precedents

Dattner Architects and Grimshaw Architects (photograph by David Sundberg/Esto)

Community gardening activities take place on Via Verdeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fifth-floor roof, encouraging healthy living.

39â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Dattner Architects and Grimshaw Architects (photograph by David Sundberg/Esto)

Different outdoor spaces provide important meeting and play spaces for residents at Via Verde.

precedentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192;

E. Social infrastructure

Dawson Estate Project information120 LOCATION

Singapore

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPING PARTNERS

Housing and Development Board (HDB)

ARCHITECTS

SCDA Architects WOHA

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2007–2015

TYPE OF SCHEME

New build

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

1,718 (SkyTerrace@Dawson: 758 + SkyVille@Dawson: 960)

UPLIFT

+1,718

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

N/A

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

WOHA (photograph by Albert Lim KS)

WOHA (photograph by Patrick Bingham-Hall)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

E. Social infrastructure

Singapore’s housing market is largely governed by its public housing authority, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), which was set up in 1960. Well-maintained estates in Singapore have avoided the negative social issues that characterise similar projects in other countries, resulting in over 80 percent of Singapore’s population living in public housing owned and managed by the HDB.121 The Dawson project comprises two separate but adjacent developments. SkyTerrace@ Dawson, by SCDA Architects, is a 960-unit development comprising three 46-storey towers that connect laterally with sky bridges. SkyVille@Dawson, by WOHA, is a 758-unit development made up of five towers of 40 to 43 storeys that sit atop a parking podium. The project aims to provide replacement housing for residents of the neighbouring Tanglin Halt estate, which was set for demolition. Built in 1950, the Tanglin Halt estate is one of the last examples of 10-storey HDB blocks, as most HDB developments now reach 30 or 40 storeys. Demolition was seen as the most efficient way to densify the area while providing residents with new apartments. The renewal is a case of ‘en-bloc redevelopment’, where one block of flats is demolished and replaced with a new development on a neighbouring site.122 The Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) compensated residents based on market value, and gave them the option to choose new homes from either the replacement site or another HDB development. Because new

120 121 122 123 124 125 126

buildings were intended to directly replace the old, it is hoped that residents and communities will opt to stay together.123 As Tanglin Halts is an old block, residents tend to be slightly older, and have lived as neighbours for several years. Reflecting this context, there is an emphasis on community in the new developments, with each home being part of a Sky Village, made up of 80 homes that share a community terrace and garden.124 The provision of amenities is also focused around communal living: the site contains not only shops, a supermarket, and restaurants, but also communal facilities such as childcare centres, an education centre, a student care centre, a senior citizen centre, and pavilions which can be rented for weddings and funerals. Much of this is geared towards intergenerational living, and seeks to incorporate the changing needs of residents as they age. In SkyTerrace@Dawson, larger units are paired with studio apartments, allowing younger families to live beside their parents but retain separate entrances.125 The design of public spaces was a priority. The housing estate is set in a park environment, and the design teams adopted an ecological and natural approach to landscaping. Sky Terrace also features green terraces connecting the separate blocks, as well as roof gardens, and SkyVille features sky gardens on a number of floors. These were designed to encourage community interaction and promote outdoor living.126

F urunto ( 2012) u (2015) W S en (2016) 99.co (2016) F urunto (2012) Hui ( 2015) S ingapore Home and Décor ( 2016)

precedents

WOHA (photograph by Albert Lim KS)

A range of amenities are provided on site and are geared towards intergenerational living.

43â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

WOHA (photograph by Patrick Bingham-Hall)

Carefully designed public spaces and playgrounds are central to the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success.

precedentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192;

F. Creating a sense of ownership

Tour Bois-le-Prêtre Project information127 LOCATION

Paris, France

SITE AREA

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Paris Habitat (OPAC)

ARCHITECTS

Druot, Lacaton & Vassal

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2011

TYPE OF SCHEME

Stock improvement

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

100

UPLIFT

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

Druot, Lacaton & Vassal (photograph by Frederic Druot)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

F. Creating a sense of ownership

The 16-storey Bois-le-Prêtre tower forms part of a highrise estate of 50-metre blocks built in the 1960s, next to the Paris ring road in the 17th district, north of the city.128 Originally designed by French architect, Raymond Lopez, it became the first tower block to be refurbished as part of the Grand Projet de Renouvellement Urbain (a national urban renewal scheme) initiated by the Paris local authority in 2002. This ongoing programme aims to improve the quality of life of residents living in eleven sites within the outskirts of Paris.129 Architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal’s stock improvement approach is particularly innovative in its proposal to enlarge existing apartments by giving residents new semi-external amenity space, referred to as ‘winter gardens’. “All tenants receive a 2-meter deep winter garden and a 1-meter deep balcony as an extension of their former living space.”130 These winter gardens are attached to the outside of the tower block after the removal of its original façade and small windows, without altering the original structure.131 The addition of these spaces and their adjacent balcony almost double the size of every apartment. These flexible spaces serve to challenge existing social housing space standards, opening up previously cramped apartments to a view over Paris, and allowing daylight to penetrate deeper into the apartments. In addition to this, winter gardens help to improve the tower’s energy performance by acting as a thermal buffer, storing solar heat during the winter and shading interior spaces in the summer. Rent increases used to finance the renewal works were offset against savings from energy bills, thanks to this improvement in energy performance.

127 128 129 130 131 132 133

Using prefabricated and quickly installed modular elements, winter gardens have become key to architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal’s search for an economical approach to housing renewal. The architects’ renewal strategy aimed to preserve tenant’s existing interior arrangements and furnishing - having initially documented it through a photography study at the inception of the project.132 Their interventions within the building were limited to a few changes to flat layouts, the upgrading of kitchens and bathrooms, and the refurbishment of the ground floor entrance. The addition of these semi-external ‘loggias’ enabled residents to remain within their flat, and its established character, while providing additional flexible space for them to use in various ways. Some tenants might use it as an extension of their living room, while others might see it as their garden, for example. In addition to promoting a sense of ownership, these spaces can also respond to residents’ changing needs, increasing their ability to remain in their flats as their living circumstances change. This sensitive approach to housing renewal was instrumental in avoiding decanting, thus allowing residents to stay on site during the construction works. The architects argue that rehousing all residents while demolition and reconstruction took place would have been a more expensive, lengthy and politically delicate process, one which was avoided by their sensitive approach to renewal.133

L acaton & Vassal. Transformation de la Tour Bois le Prêtre – Paris 17 [webpage] ruot, Lacaton & Vassal ( 2007, p. 217) D Mairie de Paris. Grand projet de renouvellement urbain (GPRU) et projets d’équipements publics [webpage] Druot, Lacaton & Vassal (2013, p. 49) Druot, Lacaton & Vassal (2013) ibid. Druot, Lacaton & Vassal ( 2013, p. 77)

precedents

G. Maintaining community life and use during works

South Kilburn Estate Project information134 LOCATION

London, UK

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

DEVELOPER

London Borough of Brent

ARCHITECTS

PRP Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands Alison Brooks Architects Penoyre and Prasad Architects

STATUS

Completed (phase 1); in progress (phase 2 and 3)

START-COMPLETION DATES

2010–2030

TYPE OF SCHEME

Demolition and rebuild

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

Unknown

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

570 (phase 1); 601 (phase 2); unknown (phase 3)

UPLIFT

Unknown

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

Unknown

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

53 percent social rent; 47 percent private sale (phases 1 and 2)

What If: projects Ltd

What If: projects Ltd (photograph by Maya Glaser)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

G. Maintaining community life and use during works

The 48-hectare South Kilburn Estate is situated in the London Borough of Brent and is currently undergoing extensive renewal. The plan, led by the London Borough of Brent, is aiming to ultimately create 2,400 new homes with around half made available to existing secure tenants on the estate. The plan includes the creation of a large park, a new local primary school, new health facilities and public realm improvements. The renewal plan has been noted for the design quality of the schemes it has delivered so far. For example, Ely Court, a 43-dwelling mixed-tenure scheme designed by Alison Brooks Architects, part of Phase 1b of the masterplan, won the 2016 RIBA National Award.135 The renewal masterplan is also notable for its use of meanwhile projects to promote activity on the site during the construction period, and enhancing the social and cultural life of the neighbourhood. ‘Meanwhile use’ can be defined as “the temporary use of vacant buildings or land for social or economic gain until they can be brought back into commercial use again. It makes practical use of the ‘pauses’ in property processes, giving the space over to uses that can contribute to quality of life and better places.”136 The London Borough of Brent commissioned three meanwhile projects in South Kilburn as part of the renewal scheme. The Albert, which ran from September 2012 to September 2013, was designed and managed by architects What If: projects Ltd in collaboration with residents. The project, based around the theme of health and wellbeing, involved the conversion of a sports centre due for demolition into a cultural and community space comprising a canteen, playing fields, studio spaces, and an events venue. The project involved over 60 creative collaborations with artists and performers and hosted a diverse programme of events during its year of activity.137

134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141

A second project was designed in collaboration with Meanwhile Space CIC, a social enterprise working to promote meanwhile uses, and design practice The Decorators. The Carlton Kitchen was set up in early 2016 in the former Carlton House Hall, a vacant community centre. The project revolved around the theme of food, with the creation of a community café, spaces for events promoting health and wellbeing, such as supper clubs and food markets, and workspaces for foodbased enterprises.138 After a successful six months, the management of the space was transferred to the South Kilburn Trust, a local regeneration charity. It continues to act as a community centre and has become home to local businesses Kosher Roast and Growing Kultur.139 London Borough of Brent’s third project is the South Kilburn Studios, also managed by the South Kilburn Trust. The project, launched in April 2011, was the result of a collaboration with the Architecture Foundation and Practice Architecture, and involved the renewal of a site on Canterbury Road in South Kilburn. The building was transformed into a series of studio spaces,140 and the scheme is now home to 13 private creative businesses who, in exchange for free rent, have committed “to train a young person from the local area, helping them learn new skills, build a portfolio in their chosen trade and be part of a final exhibition show, attended by potential employers”.141 The space also offers a public programme of events, talks and workshops open to the public.

London Borough of Brent. South Kilburn Masterplan and programme [webpage] A lison Brooks Architects. Ely Court [webpage] Meanwhile Space (2012, p. 7) What If: projects. The Albert [webpage] Meanwhile Space ( 2016) Meanwhile Space. Carlton Kitchen South Kilburn [webpage] South Kilburn Studios. Home [webpage] London Borough of Brent. South Kilburn meanwhile projects [webpage]

precedents

What If: projects Ltd

As part of the Chelsea Fringe in 2013, The Albert celebrated locally grown food with a lunch, tea and evening banquet set in its public green space.

49â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

What If: projects Ltd (photograph by Sara Hibbert)

The Albert hosted a diverse programme of events including performances such as Cake by Eleanor Sikorski.

precedentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192;

H. Understanding tenure mix

Plaza de America Project information142 LOCATION

Alicante, Spain

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Patronato Municipal de la Vivienda de Alicante (Municipal Housing Board of Alicante)

ARCHITECTS

Carmen Pérez Molpeceres Consuelo Argüelles Álvarez

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2003–2008

TYPE OF SCHEME

New build

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

UPLIFT

+72

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

n/a

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

Patronato Municipal de la Vivienda de Alicante

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

H. Understanding tenure mix

The Plaza de America project, a block of 72 units, is the first phase of a programme launched in 2003 by the Municipal Housing Board of Alicante, entitled the Municipal Project for Intergenerational Housing and Community Services. This programme seeks to combine the provision of housing for low-income elderly and young people through the construction of 244 affordable, intergenerational housing units in the city centre. In addition to providing affordable housing, it aims “to resolve the serious problems faced by many low-income older persons living in inadequate housing conditions and experiencing isolation, loneliness and vulnerability”.143 The aim is to include around 75 percent of residents above the age of 65 and 25 percent of young people under the age of 35. “Young people are selected based on income as well as motivation, empathy and suitability to work in the social programmes, with preference given to those with qualifications and/or experience in community/social work.”144 The programme requires each young person to spend a few hours a week with four older tenants of the building, and to report to the

142 143 144 145 146

Municipal Housing Board in case of a problem. The development also features shared facilities such as a TV room, a music room, a workshop and games space, a reading and computer room, a terrace, solarium and laundry facilities for residents. A healthcare centre and a community centre, catering for both residents and nonresidents, are also available on the ground floor. The scheme is partly financed by an underground public car park. The project was shortlisted for the World Habitat Awards in 2012. Regular impact studies have revealed that “in addition to accessing high-quality housing at affordable rental rates, young people report gaining knowledge and establishing real relationships of friendship with the older individuals they assist.”145 Older residents have also reported the programme to have had a positive influence on their wellbeing, “allowing them to be independent yet not alone”.146 The development has also contributed to the wider regeneration of the local area through provision of its municipal facilities, which are used by residents of the wider area.

B uilding and Social Housing Foundation. Municipal project for intergenerational housing and community services in Alicante [webpage] i bid. ibid. i bid. i bid.

precedents

H. Understanding tenure mix

Splayed Apartment Blocks Project information147 LOCATION

Rotterdam, Netherlands

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Woonbron Housing Association

ARCHITECTS

Biq Hans van der Heijden Architect

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2000–2009

TYPE OF SCHEME

Stock improvement

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

704

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

704

UPLIFT

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

Mixed tenure (percentage breakdown unknown)

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

Mixed tenure (percentage breakdown unknown)

Biq (photograph by Marcel Berghout)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

H. Understanding tenure mix

Situated in the Ommoord residential district of Rotterdam, the Splayed Apartment Blocks project comprises four nine-storey blocks of 176 units each. Built in 1968, they were designed by Lotte Stame-Beese and are set in a parkland area. In addition to physical deterioration, the blocks were suffering from fraught relationships between residents. This was due, in part, to demographic changes; “Newer households, which had varied economic and ethnic backgrounds, were unfamiliar with the delicate codes of the older occupants, many of whom had been in residence since the blocks were first completed.”148 This led the owner and manager of the estate, Woonbron Housing Association, to commission two teams of architects to renew the four blocks. In addition to technical improvements to the buildings’ energy performance, the renewal strategy focused on redistributing and managing different tenure types. The architects argue that “many of the problems that had slowly arisen could be traced back to the design of the communal access system”.149 The 176 units of each block were served by a single entrance and two elevators. An extensive consultation process, led by

147 148 149 150 151 152

Biq, showed residents’ preference for a “more socially compartmentalised distribution of tenures, with two blocks being designated for the exclusive use of older residents”.150 Garages on the ground floor were also replaced by a medical centre and other care facilities. In the two remaining blocks, the Dutch equivalent of the Right to Buy was introduced. The previously continuous gallery access was divided up and transformed into balconies. Additional entrances, access stairs and lifts were introduced. The idea was “to divide slabs into autonomously functioning segments” in order to facilitate circulation within the blocks, as well as their maintenance.151 These different measures allowed different tenants to cohabit in a more harmonious way through the containment of potential disturbances, the creation of smaller, more individual entrances, and the establishment of mixed-tenure at the neighbourhood scale rather than within the blocks. An article in The Architects’ Journal concludes that “the redesignation of blocks to accommodate particular demographics meant not all residents were able to remain in place but [still demonstrates a] commitment to upgrade the buildings for the continued use of the existing community”.152

The Architects’ Journal ( 2015, p. 34) Hans van der Heijden Architect. Splayed Apartment Blocks [webpage] ibid. Woodman ( 2015) Hans van der Heijden Architect. Splayed Apartment Blocks [webpage] Woodman ( 2015)

precedents

I. Cross-subsidy funding models

Maiden Lane Project information153 LOCATION

London, UK

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

5.54

DEVELOPER

London Borough of Camden

ARCHITECTS

PRP

STATUS

In progress

START-COMPLETION DATES

2010 (consultation)–2017

TYPE OF SCHEME

Stock improvement and infill

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

314

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS

587

UPLIFT

+273

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

57 (before) > 106 (after)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

INFILL TENURE MIX

54 percent private sale, 27 percent social rent, 19 percent intermediate rent

PRP

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

I. Cross-subsidy funding models

Built between 1976 and 1983, the Maiden Lane estate is a low-rise scheme of concrete houses and flats on the northern boundary of the King’s Cross railway station. Following years of poor maintenance, the London Borough of Camden launched a renewal scheme in 2010, involving the refurbishment of existing flats and the redevelopment of the industrial estate at the edge of the site on the York Way frontage, to build 273 new homes.154 The project is part of London Borough of Camden’s Community Investment Programme (CIP), a 15-year plan launched in 2010. The programme aims to raise investment for the borough’s schools, homes and community facilities through the renewal or sale of London Borough of Camden’s public assets and local property holdings. This represents one of the biggest self-funded local government initiatives in the country.155 Within this context, the Maiden Lane estate renewal project is notable for its innovative funding strategy. In fact, Camden Council is one of the first London borough councils to act as a house builder, delivering market sale homes as a way of raising investment for the estate

153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

and financing refurbishment works for social housing. “Building homes for sale and for rent can generate money that can be reinvested back into the estate for refurbishment works to people’s homes.”156 London Borough of Camden has developed a set of sales and marketing principles for private homes developed through the CIP.157 These new council-built homes are being sold by Savills, which has renamed the scheme XY, with prices starting at £450,000 and rising up to £830,000.158 The council’s new housing company, Camden Living, has also acquired 52 units, initially earmarked for sale as shared ownership, to let them at intermediate rent in an effort to improve housing opportunities for middle-income residents and to generate more income for housing construction.159 The construction of the housing scheme is, however, suffering from severe delays, “being delivered almost two years behind schedule after being hit by leaks and construction issues” and suffering from labour and material shortages.160

London Borough of Camden. Maiden Lane [webpage] ibid. Blackwell (2012) L ondon Borough of Camden. Maiden Lane [webpage] L ondon Borough of Camden (2014) XY Apartments. XY apartments [webpage] Holdsworth ( 2016) Jessel ( 2016)

precedents

Case studies This section contains a series of case studies from the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area and ZĂźrich, which demonstrate varying methods of intervention (stock improvement, densification, new build) and exemplify best practice in housing renewal through successful and comprehensive projects. Each of the case studies is illustrated by photographs and drawings which were gathered during site visits; these were undertaken to the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area in Novemberâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;December 2016 and ZĂźrich in January 2017. Each case study highlights a number of key lessons relating to the five themes identified in the contextual analysis.

Housing renewal in Europe During recent decades, post-war housing estates all over Europe have become the object of multiple programmes aimed at physical and social renewal. Housing renewal across Europe, like many other aspects of housing policy, is shaped by “the housing history of individual countries and by the nature and processes of change that each country has experienced over time”.161 For example, changes in tenure patterns (tenure types, availability and transfers) contribute to the shaping of particular national and local housing renewal contexts. Individual policy and financial contexts are also key in shaping housing policies, including housing renewal strategies and targets.162 A comparative study of housing renewal in nine European countries, including the UK and France, carried out by Turkington and Watson (2014) argues, however, that “although there remain variations between countries in the need for, the criteria used in, the standards applied to, and the approaches adopted in housing renewal, at the same time there is a wide degree of common ground about the nature of the problem of poor quality housing, the consequences of not doing anything about it, and the methods or techniques that are effective in dealing with it.”163 It is now widely recognised, for example, that existing communities must play an active role in the process of renewal, and that “renewal should be sustainable for both local communities and the environment, achieving gains in the use of energy and other resources and improving the accessibility and usability of dwellings.”164 Another common trend across Europe in housing delivery is the recognition that a public-private partnership approach can benefit housing renewal by allowing public organisations to coordinate, and benefit from, the private sector’s financial contribution and expertise. Cities across Europe are also acknowledging, and investing in, public transport systems as a catalyst for urban development, and creating accessible, less car-dependent and more sustainable neighbourhoods.165

161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

Housing renewal in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area and Zürich France and Switzerland are both characterised by a decentralised and hierarchical planning system, with clear priorities at national, regional, and local levels regarding urban and planning issues.166 Even though the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area and Zürich have very different planning systems, urban density, morphology, and housing delivery mechanisms from London, both cities are undergoing major transformation in their housing landscape due to strong population growth and changes in demographic composition like London. Both cities are particularly relevant to the London context as they face increasing demand in housing supply, requiring them to reconsider their existing housing stocks and implement densification strategies. In the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, a current priority is the renewal of its post-war housing estates, which suffer from poor design, building standards and management. This is taking place in a national context where urban and housing renewal “takes the form of a contractual arrangement between administrative areas (municipalities, urban areas, conurbations) and the National Agency for Urban Renewal”,167 ensuring the integration of priorities across different policy levels and strong leadership from the public sector. In Switzerland, demographic growth in a number of cities, including Zürich, is creating both the need to densify housing estates and the opportunity to develop industrial wastelands into new neighbourhoods.168 In Zürich, this has largely been led by housing cooperatives, a specificity of the city’s housing landscape.

Brown and Turkington ( 2014, p. 246) ibid. Turkington and Watson (2014, p. 267) ibid. (p. 268) Gospodini ( 2007) Andres (2012) Lévy-Vroelant and Fijalkow ( 2014, p. 75) Schenkel ( 2015)

CASE STUDY SITES GHI LE GRAND PARC Le Grand Parc, Bordeaux

URBAN RENOVATION LORMONT Génicart, Lormont

CARRÉ LUMIÈRE Terres Neuves, Bègles

GARONNE

A10

A 63 0

B C

3 C

A6 2

10KM

Major road Water body Bordeaux Metropolitan Area Bordeaux city centre A

Tram stop Tram line Proposed tram line extension

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Aéroport de Bordeaux-Mérignac

Bordeaux Metropolitan Area Bordeaux Metropolitan Area is an urban agglomeration situated in the Gironde department in southwestern France. It comprises 28 cities, with the city of Bordeaux located at its centre, on the Garonne river. The metropolitan area is governed by the Plan Local d’Urbanisme (PLU) (Local Urban Plan), a legal document with detailed zoning regulations. The PLU sets out clear and detailed housing targets for each city of the metropolitan area, in line with its transport strategy.169 In June 2007, the city of Bordeaux was also designated a UNESCO World Heritage site. This was the result of more than a decade of urban regeneration led by the mayor of Bordeaux, Alain Juppé. Following his first election in 1995, the mayor launched a series of urban plans which aimed to enhance and highlight the city’s heritage, reinstate its connection with the Garonne river, reduce traffic and renew its public spaces.170 These strategies stemmed from the view that “showcasing Bordeaux’s heritage depends much more on urban policies, in other words, transportation, housing, economic development, facilities and the management of public spaces, than on cultural policies”.171 Currently home to around 748,000 inhabitants, the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area is projected to reach a population of 1 million by 2030.172 This demographic growth is due in part to strong economic growth, led by sectors such as tourism and the wine industry. The renovation of the city centre and its heritage, as well as public investments in transportation, have also contributed to the attractiveness of the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area. A new high-speed rail link, due to open in July 2017, will also reduce the travel time between the cities of Bordeaux and Paris to just over two hours. In addition to this population growth, the metropolitan area is facing the challenge of ongoing urban sprawl, over the past 20 years it has become one of the least dense cities in France.173 This is due in part to the fact that individual houses of one or two storeys, locally known as the échoppe (bungalow), have largely dominated the housing market. One of the Local Urban 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

Plan’s main objectives is thus to “re-densify the city”, by giving priority to renewing the existing fabric and developing brownfield sites.174 The metropolitan area’s response to its growing housing needs is strongly governed by its transport strategy. The reinstatement of the tram sytem in 2003 has been instrumental in connecting previously isolated cities, and spurring urban development. As argued by the Bordeaux local authority, “making the north-south axis the city’s development axis and giving the historic centre its attractiveness back rested on the building of a tram network which followed the bend of the Garonne… [and] connected outlying districts”.175 In the search for innovative approaches to housing supply, in 2010, the Bordeaux local authority commissioned five multidisciplinary teams to come up with different ways to deliver 50,000 new housing units across the metropolitan area within a five-year period.176 Each team then worked on a number of small pilot projects (all new-build schemes) as a way of trialling the implementation of their strategies. The first wave of construction should lead to the completion of 1,000 units by 2017.177 Further information about this programme can be found in a report published by a’urba (Agence d’Urbanisme Bordeaux Métropole Aquitaine), Bordeaux Metropolitan Area’s urban planning department.178 A number of key factors influence the speed of delivery of the three projects in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area examined in this study. A significant investment in good public transport connections to the city centre, which was governed by the city’s integrated housing and transport strategies, was instrumental in providing a key infrastructure to support future development. Additionally, clear stakeholder partnerships and unitary leadership supported by the national planning agenda also facilitated the project delivery. Furthermore, a careful and sensitive approach to community engagement in the GHI Le Grand Parc and Urban Renovation Lormont was also integral to securing tenants’ support for the projects.

Bordeaux Métropole. Plan local d’urbanisme ( PLU) [webpage] Mairie de Bordeaux ( 2013, pp. 11–13) Mairie de Bordeaux ( 2013, p. 30) Bordeaux Métropole. 28 Communes [webpage] Bordeaux Métropole ( 2016, p. 147) Bordeaux Métropole (2016, p. 6) Mairie de Bordeaux ( 2013, p. 11) Agence d’urbanisme Bordeaux métropole Aquitaine (2013) Bordeaux Métropole. 50 000 logements [webpage] Agence d’Urbanisme Bordeaux Métropole Aquitaine ( 2013)

ca s e s t u d i e s

1 GHI Le Grand Parc Project information LOCATION

Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Aquitanis

ARCHITECTS

Druot, Lacaton & Vassal

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2010–2016

LEVEL OF INTERVENTION

Stock improvement

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

530

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS / UPLIFT

538 / +8

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

A 6 30

C 1

SITE Context The GHI Le Grand Parc project is situated north of the Bordeaux city centre, in the Cité du Grand Parc (Grand Parc estate) which comprises over 4,000 housing units in total. As part of the first phase of a large rehabilitation scheme aiming to regenerate the Grand Parc estate, the project involves the refurbishment of the blocks Gounod (G), Haendel (H) and Ingres (I) and was completed in 2016. Architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal demonstrated ways to reuse, expand and transform existing modernist housing blocks by creating semi-external amenity space as well as minimising decanting and disruption during renewal. History The Cité du Grand Parc is a grand ensemble (housing estate) spanning 60 hectares in the heart of the city of Bordeaux. It was built on reclaimed marshland in the post-war period of mass construction of housing during the 1950s. Organised along an orthogonal plan

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

devised by Jean Royer and Claude Leloup, the cité was conceived according to the functionalist principles of the Athens Charter, a manifesto written in part by Le Corbusier summarising the 1932 Fourth Congress of the International Congress of Modern Architects (CIAM). The original design aimed to provide 4,000 units to house between 16,000 and 25,000 residents. It currently comprises four tower blocks of 22 storeys each and 18 other buildings of between 12 and 16 storeys.179 The estate is notable for hosting a large amount of social and cultural amenities (detailed in the following pages). Site today (district level) While the Grand Parc estate is situated on the edge of the city centre and is well connected by tram and bus, it currently suffers from a negative stigma. This is in part due to its insular qualities. The large housing blocks contrast markedly with surrounding residential neighbourhoods, which are predominantly formed by single- or two-storey houses. Its urban form also creates a feeling of isolation; there is, for example, very limited

GHI Le Grand Parc

visual connection to the surrounding areas at the ground level, due to views being blocked by buildings, and public spaces having little oversight. The immediate neighbourhood, however, did feel vibrant and lively during site visits. Residents were seen greeting each other and many children were seen walking back from school on their own. The estate comprises a wide range of social infrastructure. Several schools, including one opposite the GHI buildings, are present within walking distance from the case study site. School playgrounds and the sound of pupils playing performed a distinctive role in animating the unused spaces around the estate. Several other amenities, such as a social security centre, a medical practice, a youth centre, a church, a library, a day-care centre and a swimming pool complex, were also available in the centre of the estate. While these facilities varied in the level of their upkeep, they all appeared to be functioning at the time of the site visit in December 2016. A community centre featuring various spaces including a concert hall, originally built in 1967 and designed by architects Claude Ferret, Robert Bedout and Serge Bottarelli, is currently being refurbished following extensive public consultation.180 The high quality and substantial scale of these social, school, sporting and cultural facilities is one of the key assets of the estate. Other amenities include various retail outlets, a post office and two shopping centres, one of which is currently being refurbished. The estate was, however, characterised by a lack of play spaces. Very few green spaces for informal play and other leisure activities were observed around the estate. A small paved plaza within a gated area is located in front of the post office, in the middle of the estate, but no activity was observed during site visits in the winter.

179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

STAKEHOLDERS Aquitanis Created in 1920, Aquitanis is the Office Public de l’Habitat de Bordeaux Métropole (public office for housing of the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area) and the main social landlord in Le Grand Parc. It owns and manages more than 18,500 social housing units in the metropolitan area,181 and is responsible for their maintenance and renewal, as well as for the construction of new housing.182 In 2010, Aquitanis chose the three buildings (G, H and I) most in need of refurbishment, to be part of the first phase of the wider regeneration programme of the Grand Parc estate, which is steered by the Bordeaux local authority.183 Led by Bernard Blanc, who was appointed director of Aquitanis in 2008, the GHI Le Grand Parc project is a political response to the nationwide acceptance of demolition as a key approach to housing renewal. This approach was introduced by the publication of Programme de Rénovation Urbaine in 2003 by the Agence Nationale de Rénovation Urbaine (ANRU), France’s urban regeneration agency. The programme supported the demolition of 200,000 social units but only planned for the rebuilding of 120,000 units.184 In 2010, Aquitanis negotiated with the Bordeaux local authority for the UNESCO site boundaries to extend to include the Grand Parc estate, highlighting the heritage value of its plan and urban form.185 This extension of the UNESCO site boundaries protected the Grand Parc estate from any demolition plan. These arguments were also supported by the fact that the local urban plan does not allow new buildings to be built the same height as the GHI buildings today. This means that demolishing the three buildings would ultimately result in a loss of housing units.186

Aquitanis ( 2016b) Ragot et al. (2014, p. 53) Mairie de Bordeaux. Le Grand Parc [webpage] Agence Nationale pour la Rénovation Urbaine ( ANRU) Objectifs et fondamentaux du PNRU [webpage] A quitanis ( 2016a, p. 40) A quitanis ( 2014) A quitanis ( 2014) Druot, Lacaton & Vassal (2007)

ca s e s t u d i e s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Site approach The scale and density of housing of GHI Le Grand Parc is remarkable when compared to Bordeauxâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s traditional single-storey housing typology (bottom left foreground).

63â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Site approach Although there are well-used pedestrian walkways connecting into the site itself, the arrival experience at GHI Le Grand Parc is dominated by roads and car parking, an issue which will be addressed as part of the Grand Parc estateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wider regeneration programme.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

Grand Parc

TO BORDEAUX CITY CENTRE C

Émile Counourd

100M

Case study site

Tram stop

Case study blocks

Bus stop

Pedestrian connections

Cycle hire stand

Cycle lane

Green space

Tram line

Parking

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Neighbourhood connections The Grand Parc estate is visible from the city centre, and is well connected by tram and multiple bus lines running through the neighbourhood. Although easily accessible by public transport, the estateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban form contrasts with surrounding residential neighbourhoods and creates an insular feeling. Few pedestrian connections link the site to the wider area; the walking experience from the tram stop to the project site is dominated by large car parks, narrow pavements and poor landscaping and walkways.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

Échelle É Éc ch he ellle 1 : 6 00 0 000 00 15

Grand Parc

TO BORDEAUX

CITY CENTRE

Émile Counourd

11 4 5 3 1

100 m

100M

Case study site

Residential

Sports and leisure

1. Community centre

10. High school annex

Tram line

Retail

Health

2. Swimming pool

11. Sports facility

Utilities

3. Gymnasium

12. High school and

Tram stop

Commercial Education

Transport

Religious

Parking

Civic Amenity

Green space

4. Youth centre

13. Middle school

6. Post office

14. Tennis courts

7. Church

15. Hospital

8. Social support centre

16. Retail centre and

9. Mosque

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

nursery school

5. Library

supermarket

GHI Le Grand Parc

Predominant land use The estate is characterised by a generous provision of social infrastructure, an important legacy of its modernist planning. The social infrastructure includes several schools, all within walking distance of the project site, as well as amenities such as a social security centre, a medical practice, a youth centre, a church, a day-care centre and a swimming pool complex. A community centre featuring various spaces including a concert hall â&#x20AC;&#x201C; originally built in 1967 by architects Claud Ferret, Robert Bedout and Serge Bottarelli â&#x20AC;&#x201C; is currently being refurbished following public consultation in 2012.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

Druot, Lacaton & Vassal architects Following a design competition in 2011, Aquitanis appointed the architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal, with whom Bernard Blanc had previously worked on a project in Saint-Nazaire.187 The architects had also articulated a strong belief in renewing housing stock rather than demolishing it. Their publication PLUS+ (2004), reacting to the Programme National de Rénovation Urbaine (2003), envisions how to reuse, expand, and transform neglected housing blocks in a way that is more cost effective and less disruptive to existing residents than tearing down and rebuilding.188 The study gained some support from the Paris local authority who, after organising a competition for the refurbishment of a social housing tower block in the 17th district, Tour Bois-le-Prêtre, commissioned architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal in 2005 to apply their methodology on this pilot project. The Plus+ approach seeks to establish and highlight a precise inventory of site conditions and assets in order to transform it successfully and cost effectively; thus, “working with the existing”.189 Their proposals seek to undertake minimal architectural intervention in order to minimise costs. They also argue for the benefits of avoiding decanting as, in addition to supporting community cohesion by keeping residents in their homes, it also encourages a more efficient and economical construction process. Indeed, having residents on site creates an important pressure in ensuring that deadlines and quality targets are met. Architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal argue that improving the existing stock and the quality of life of its residents in this way is a necessary first step before establishing a precise and site-specific densification strategy: “first transform, then implement”.190

187 188 189 190 191 192

Aquitanis (2016b) Druot, Lacaton & Vassal ( 2007) Notes from interview on 28th November 2016 ibid. Mairie de Bordeaux. Le Grand Parc [webpage] Aquitanis (2014, p. 75)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Local authority The Bordeaux local authority, led by Alain Juppé since 1995, is responsible for the wider regeneration of the Grand Parc estate.191 The programme was initiated in 2011 with the realisation of an initial study of the estate. A multi-disciplinary team comprising architect-urban planner François Leclercq and landscape architects BASE Paysagistes was then appointed in 2014. The programme is articulated around four main objectives: renovating public spaces and pedestrian connections within the estate; refurbishing key social and cultural amenities; introducing new green spaces and play spaces; and refurbishing the existing housing stock as well as introducing tenure mix through the construction of new housing.192 The local authority was responsible for engaging with the estate’s residents. The first period of consultation was realised between February and April 2012, before the appointment of the design team. This took the form of a series of workshops structured around different themes such as the refurbishment of the community centre, green spaces around the estate, and the retail strategy. A second period of consultation then took place between October 2012 and October 2013, and focused on more specific proposals for different streets, public spaces or amenities. These discussions were recorded in the form of two small booklets, published by the local authority and freely available to the public. An information point was set up on the estate in October 2016 with information (models, plans, timeline) about the renewal programme. The space also hosts monthly activities such as site visits, workshops, project presentations and other exhibitions.

GHI Le Grand Parc

Consultation with residents The arrival of Bernard Blanc as director of Aquitanis in 2008 marked a turning point in the organisation’s relationship with residents. The GHI Le Grand Parc project is characterised by extensive engagement with residents, going beyond mandatory consultation requirements. The first step in enabling residents to understand and fully engage with the project was the organisation of a site visit to Druot, Lacaton & Vassal’s previous project, Tour Bois-le-Prêtre in Paris. Around 20 residents from the GHI buildings were able to visit the proposed ‘winter gardens’ and meet with residents in Paris to discuss their experience of the project and its construction phase. Back in Bordeaux, these residents were then able to act as ambassadors for the project.193 The second step of the consultation strategy was the setting up of a show-flat on the first floor of one of the three buildings. In addition to enabling residents to understand and experience the winter garden design, the show-flat exhibited posters with information about the timeline of the project and its construction process. Sound and vibration simulators were also installed to enable residents to better grasp the impact of construction works. This show-flat also served as a pilot for the design and construction teams, enabling them to further refine the construction process and ensure its efficiency.

The construction phase of the project also required Aquitanis to closely collaborate with residents as flats remained lived in during works. Two permanent members of staff from Aquitanis were responsible for liaising with residents regarding any issues or enquiries about the project. A second porter was recruited in 2012 to ensure the security of the site was maintained. Works lasted on average three weeks per flat and a number of steps were taken by Aquitanis to facilitate the process. Residents were supplied with a guide to living within the building during works and were helped as they prepared their flats for the refurbishment. Aquitanis also invested in 500 pairs of ear-defenders to help residents deal with noise problems. Lastly, three fully-fitted flats on the estate were made available during the day to residents who were unable to cope with disruptions.

The third phase was the mandatory consultation period, between May and September 2013, which involved regular workshops and public meetings with residents. At the end of this period, 389 households representing 75.53 percent of the total residents of the GHI buildings responded to the consultation survey with 91.77 percent voting in favour of the project. Aquitanis notes that this turnout is well above the average of 25 to 30 percent.194

193 A quitanis ( 2014, p. 76) 194 ibid.

ca s e s t u d i e s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Movement through the site Pedestrian connections through the site are well used, and appear to exist within a spatial hierarchy: public routes used by pedestrians and cyclists moving through the site are often paved; private routes located closer to the buildings and used mostly by residents are also paved; however, informal routes, also used mostly by residents, tend to be unpaved.

71â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Relationship to the wider site The addition of the winter gardens on the blocks has allowed residents to reconnect with the city of Bordeaux, providing visual links to the wider cityscape.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

BLOCKS Refurbishment strategy and usage study The central element of Druot, Lacaton & Vassal’s renewal strategy is the addition of a jardin d’hiver (winter garden) to all existing apartments. These unheated semi-external spaces (3,80m deep) are added on to the south façades of buildings H and I, and the east and west façades of building G. The addition of these unprogrammed and flexible spaces stems from a desire to rethink social housing space standards and are based on the model of the ‘villa’: every room in the apartment can be accessed from the winter garden in order to facilitate movement within each apartment. This extension thus aims to alter the fixed plan/layout of the apartments and prompt different ways of using the spaces. The approach used to incorporate the winter gardens allows for an efficient and rapid construction process. Prefabrication enabled the duration of works to be kept to a minimum. This refurbishment strategy involving the addition of an external prefabricated extension was instrumental in allowing residents to remain on site during works, minimising disruption and ensuring the cost-effectiveness of the overall scheme. The winter gardens also serve to improve the buildings’ thermal performance, which is key in offsetting construction costs and ensuring that residents are not subject to rent increases. They act as a thermal buffer, storing solar heat during the winter and shading the interior spaces in the summer. These winter gardens and their attached balconies also serve to fully transform the appearance of the buildings. This is strategic as the two main blocks, H and I, have a city-facing frontage that helps situate the development within the wider context of Bordeaux. The distinctive façades provide a visual cue to the site entrance for visitors approaching the

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

development from the tram station. The additional spaces are used in a variety of ways by residents, functioning, for example, as private backyards for some and as extensions of the living room for others. Aquitanis invited students from the École Camondo, a Paris design school, to take part in a competition to design a set of customised products, which can help residents make best use of their new winter gardens. Winning entries featured a mur végétal (green wall), an airing cupboard and a set of furniture pieces with a room divider. These winter gardens are well used and open, and they collectively create a façade that is full of character and animation. The renewal works include improvements such as the refurbishment of entryways and circulation areas, which were made wider and more transparent; the replacement of existing elevators; the addition of two new elevators in blocks H and I and one elevator in block G on the exterior façades of buildings; and the upgrading of plumbing and ventilation systems. Although the addition of new lift shafts helps animate the blank north façade, it further complicates the layout of the circulation cores, which are characterised by blind corners and a lack of visual connections. It was observed during site visits that the cores were used as a space for informal gatherings. Many of the glass door entrances to the buildings were also smashed or damaged, thus reducing the perceived safety of the circulation cores. Arrival and ground plane interface The GHI Le Grand Parc site is very well connected to the city centre by the tram. However, the walking experience from the tram stop to the GHI buildings is dominated by large car parks, narrow pavements and poor landscaping and walkways. The primary entrances of the two larger blocks, H and I, are north facing, looking out onto a car park and the carriageway.

GHI Le Grand Parc

The ground floor streetscape of this frontage does not feature the post-renewal frontage distinctive of designs by architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal. The street is lined with bins and unused grassed areas, and some of the entrance doors were vandalised. The only distinctive features are the lift cores which create a consistent rhythm of movement and activity. On the south side of the blocks, a series of bike racks and internal storage spaces can be found on the ground floor. Druot, Lacaton & Vassalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design sought to split the large ground floor space into a series of smaller pockets to enhance safety and promote a sense of ownership. Soft landscaping and a pedestrian route are found adjacent to the blocks. However, this pedestrian route sits among a number of unused and undefined public spaces, taking away from its purpose.

wider renewal strategy of the Grand Parc estate, led by architect-urban planner FranĂ§ois Leclercq, which is expected to be carried out in the near future. The masterplan, among other things, seeks to rationalise car parking and introduce new high-quality green spaces. The setting of the three buildings is thus likely to change dramatically over the next few years.

Estate management As landowner of the estate, Aquitanis is responsible for the maintenance of the housing blocks, including the G, H and I buildings. During site visits, the buildings appeared well maintained, although signs of vandalism such as broken glass doors were observed. Public realm The public spaces which immediately surround the blocks seemed to be used only by the residents of the GHI buildings. There is a lack of definition and programme in many of the shared outdoor spaces. There is substantial parking provision at the site, however, it appeared to be saturated to the point where cars were parked in all available spaces including on verges and in front of service entrances. The site boundaries of the GHI Le Grand Parc project include a minimal 4-metre-deep buffer space around the buildings, limiting the scope for intervention at this stage. The surrounding public realm is part of the

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

E RU

E AC

U ’E

DES

FRÈR

M A NN ES PORT

RUE CON DOR CET

CO UR S DE LU ZE

100M

Case study site

Parking

Case study block

Bus stop

Pedestrian connections

Cycle hire stand

Cycle lane

Trees

Green space

Primary residential entrance

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Local connections The site is relatively permeable, with a number of pedestrian routes and cycle lanes running across it. However, the site suffers from a poorly defined and used public realm. This is due in part to the fact that the boundaries of the GHI Le Grand Parc project only include a minimal 4-metre-deep buffer space around the buildings, thus limiting the scope for public realm intervention. The Grand Parc estate anticipates a more comprehensive public realm intervention as part of the wider regeneration strategy at a later stage.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

E RU

DES

FRÈR

M A NN ES PORT

L L

L’

O UR

L L

RUE CON DOR CET

CO UR S DE LU ZE

100M

Primary residential entrance

Case study site

Secondary/service entrance

Passive frontage Blank frontage

Lift core

Green space

Stair core

Parking

Refuse store

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Building frontages (H and I) The primary entrances of the two larger blocks look out onto a car park and the carriageway. The ground floor streetscape of this frontage is blank as it does not feature the post-renewal frontage distinctive of designs by architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal. On the other side of the blocks, winter gardens animate the faĂ§ade of the buildings, and a series of bike racks and internal storage spaces on the ground floor are available for use by residents.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

Block approaches At the time of the study trip, in November–December 2016, the public realm surrounding the blocks was awaiting redevelopment as part of the Grand Parc estate’s wider regeneration programme; there remains significant potential for the large spaces at the foot of the buildings to be turned into an active public realm.

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Amenity in blocks As part of the refurbishment works by architect Druot, Lacaton & Vassal, the existing bike storage and resident storage lockers were split into small individual spaces to increase the sense of ownership and provide more flexible spaces for use by residents.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

GHI Le Grand Parc

Dwellings Residents have been able to use their new winter gardens and balconies to grow plants, air laundry, create outdoor seating areas, store items and decorate them; activities which help animate the faĂ§ade of the building and allow residents to personalise their homes.

81â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

GHI Le Grand Parc

Druot, Lacaton & Vassal (photograph by Philippe Ruault)

Dwellings The winter garden is accessible from all rooms within each apartment, and the sliding doors which open onto the balcony allow the space to be used as an additional interior room or as an extended balcony space.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

2 Urban Renovation Lormont Project information LOCATION

Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Domofrance

ARCHITECTS

LAN Architecture

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2009–2014

LEVEL OF INTERVENTION

Stock improvement

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

710

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS / UPLIFT

710 / +0

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

100 percent social rent

A 6 30

SITE Context The Urban Renovation Lormont project is situated in the city of Lormont, part of the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area. The project is part of the wider urban regeneration of the Génicart estate, a district-wide estate near the centre of Lormont. Situated in the south-eastern part of the Génicart district, it includes the three Saint-Hilaire towers (387 units in total) and three additional blocks, Leroy (114 units), La Boétie (105 units) and Villon (104 units). This project, which involves the refurbishment of existing blocks and public space, was close to completion at the time of the site visits in December 2016 (only ground-floor retail units remained to be finished and occupied). According to the project manager, Fred André, existing buildings were retained for several reasons; even though in need of refurbishment, they are structurally sound and present good space standards and internal layouts. A key consideration was the Local Urban Plan’s new restrictions on building heights,

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

which would lead to a loss of units if the three towers were demolished and new housing rebuilt instead. Improving the existing stock thus appeared to be a costeffective solution to regenerating the area. History The Génicart estate was built between 1967 and 1984 by architects Jean Fayeton and Francisque Perrier on the former Domaine de Génicart, a large farming land. This large estate responded to the need to “provide mass housing when the local population doubled as a result of rapid industrialisation.”195 It presents an urban composition which is geometrically characteristic of the area, with a series of Brutalist-style concrete towers as well as low-rise buildings.196 Site today (district level) The district is currently undergoing profound changes as part of the ongoing regeneration programme. Different residential developments (both new build and refurbished blocks) can be observed around the case study site, with construction sites visible further

Urban Renovation Lormont

west. Public spaces linking the site to these surrounding developments were incomplete at the time of the site visit in December 2016. The district is principally composed of residential blocks. A butcher, a bakery and two small supermarkets (including one at the ground floor level of one of the towers) are located within a 10-minute walking radius of the case study site. A shopping centre can be found further out, northwest of the site. The area is, however, characterised by a generous provision of social infrastructure, a key asset for the local population. Multiple schools are available in the neighbourhood, ranging from nursery to secondary levels. A large public space situated between the tram stop and the case study site is the setting for the Château de Génicart (Génicart castle), one of the few heritage landmarks in the area, which, in 2005, was transformed into one of Lormont local authority’s information and service points for the local population. Another building hosts a number of amenities, including a social centre, a day-care centre and an immigrant integration centre. A third building appeared to function as a community centre, with spaces which can be used by different clubs and societies. These amenities are all situated within a 5-minute walk from the case study site. Lastly, a gymnasium complex, opened in May 2016, provides a clear marker for visitors approaching the site. It is surrounded by new landscaping from which the three towers are clearly visible. Although relatively empty at the time of the site visit, the ground floor of the gymnasium complex is covered in glass panels which enable people to see inside and, at busy times, can create an active frontage. A new and large play space can be found adjacent to the gymnasium, catering for different age groups through a variety of facilities, including a small skate park, basketball courts and various play structures.

195 196 197 198 199

STAKEHOLDERS Domofrance Created in 1958, Domofrance is Bordeaux Metropolitan Area’s largest social landlord and the dominant provider of social housing in the Génicart district of Lormont.197 It owns and manages over 25,800 social housing units in the metropolitan area,198 and is responsible for their maintenance and renewal, as well as for the construction of new housing. In 2006, Domofrance initiated a large urban renewal scheme aiming to change the image of the Génicart district. Domofrance has a local branch office on site which is key in establishing and maintaining a good relationship with its residents, by responding to daily management queries and issues and working with residents during renewal works. A member of staff was specifically designated to liaise with residents during the construction phase. LAN Architecture Following a competition process, Domofrance appointed LAN Architecture in 2010, along with landscape architects BASE Paysagistes. LAN Architecture identify the central weakness of modernist housing estates to lie in the poor definition between public space, private space and collective space. In responding to this problem, they chose to implement a strategy of résidentialisation at Lormont. This strategy was introduced in France in the early 2000s and was aimed at countering the homogeneity often found in modernist housing estates by differentiating identical blocks from one another and introducing a hierarchy of public spaces. The aim is to give every block a distinctive identity, in order to create a sense of ownership among residents and to encourage landlords to manage estates as a collection of specific blocks rather than as a large and homogeneous entity.199 This approach contrasts with the approach adopted in an adjacent refurbishment project, in which another firm appointed by Domofrance chose to retain the identical character of all blocks.

Griffiths (2015) La reconstruction de la ville sur elle-même: vous avez dit palimpseste? [online] Domofrance. Notre histoire [webpage] Domofrance. Nos chiffres clés [webpage] Chédiac (2009, p. 5)

ca s e s t u d i e s

Urban Renovation Lormont

LAN Architecture (photograph by Julien Lanoo)

Site approach The three towers of the Urban Renovation Lormont estate are visible on approach to the site from multiple directions, thus indicating the estateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s focal point.

85â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Urban Renovation Lormont

Diversity of blocks on site The renewal of the Urban Renovation Lormont estate sought to upgrade the existing building stock and to vary the appearance of buildings on the estate; by doing so, it aimed to improve the reputation of the estate and create a more diverse social mix within its community.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

e ur i

Urban Renovation Lormont

Boi s Fl

Échelle É Éc che helllle 1 : 7 500 50 5 00

Graviè

res

TO BO R

DEAUX

CITY C EN

TRE

100 m

100M

Case study site

Tram stop Bus stop

Pedestrian connections

Green space

Cycle lane

Parking

Tram line

Case study blocks

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Urban Renovation Lormont

Neighbourhood connections The Lormont site is served by the Gravières tram stop, a 17-minute tram ride from the centre of Bordeaux. A well-used pedestrian route links the tram stop to the estate itself via the Château de Génicart – an important heritage landmark which has been transformed into a community centre – connecting to a historic avenue that allows movement through the estate. The site has multiple pedestrian entrances on all sides, resulting in a sense of openness and facilitating movement through the wider district. Bus stops are located to the north and south of the site, while cycle lanes are located to the east and west.

ca s e s t u d i e s

e ur i

Urban Renovation Lormont

Boi s Fl

Échelle É Éc che helllle 1 : 7 500 50 5 00

TRE

TO BO R

DEAUX

CITY C EN

res

Graviè

4 10

100 m

100M Case study site Tram line A

Tram stop

Civic amenity

1. Gymnasium complex

High school

Play

2. Community centre

Primary school

Retail

Sports and leisure

3. Middle school

10. Social support centre

Café, restaurant or bar

Utilities

4. Electrical appliance

11. High school

Commercial

Transport

Industrial

Parking

Education

Green space

Residential Hotel

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

resale store 5. Nursery school

12. Community information centre

6. Community centre

13. Supermarket

7. Nursery school

14. Domofrance office

Urban Renovation Lormont

Predominant land use Retail and commercial use in the predominantly residential area is relatively limited, with only a butcher, a bakery and two small supermarkets (including one on-site) observed within 10-minute walking radius of the site. However, a large supermarket lies further out to the south of the site. The area is characterised by a generous provision of social infrastructure, much of which lies within a 5-minute walk from the site. There are a number of schools catering for children of all ages, as well as social, community and day-care centres, and a social support centre. The community centre offers spaces which can be used by different clubs and societies for their own programmes or events. Additional facilities within the area include a gymnasium complex, with external play facilities, and an information centre (run by the local authority) housed in the GĂŠnicart castle.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Urban Renovation Lormont

Local authority Launched in 2006, the wider regeneration programme of the Génicart district is led by the Lormont local authority and architect-urban planner Bernard Bouzou. The regeneration programme, which involves the demolition of 1,000 units, the construction of 2,100 new units and the renewal of 2,000 units, is driven by the objective of opening up the district and linking it back to the city.200 Increasing social mix through the introduction of mixed tenure is a key aspect of the regeneration strategy and it was also one of the main arguments made in favour of the demolition of certain blocks. This programme also involves the refurbishment of social and cultural amenities as well the construction of new pedestrian and cycling links across the district. An information point has also been set up on site with leaflets and posters about the project. Consultation with residents Consultation with residents on any urban development is mandatory in France. Domofrance was in charge of initiating contact with residents concerning the renewal plans. Consultation began in 2009 and involved the formation of resident working groups, which were involved in a series of meetings and voted on different design proposals. A number of workshops, including some for children, were organised to encourage residents to learn more about ways to reduce their energy consumption, recycling and other maintenance issues. During the construction phase, a designated Domofrance representative based at the local office was responsible for liaising with residents regarding a range of issues, from ways to prepare the flat for refurbishment works to noise problems. A resident perception study was launched by Domofrance in October 2016 in an effort to evaluate residents’ satisfaction with the newly refurbished blocks and public spaces, as well as the renewal project’s impact on residents’ perceptions of safety and the general image of the site.

200 Lormont. Génicart [webpage]

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Urban Renovation Lormont

Relationship to the wider site The Lormont estate is surrounded by a significant amount of civic amenity, such as the gymnasium complex, opened in May 2016 (bottom left), and the Génicart castle, transformed into one of Lormont local authority’s information and service points for citizens (centre and right).

ca s e s t u d i e s

Urban Renovation Lormont

BLOCKS Refurbishment strategy and usage study As already mentioned, the project includes the three Saint-Hilaire towers (387 units in total) and three additional blocks, Leroy (114 units), La Boétie (105 units) and Villon (104 units). The external refurbishment strategy follows three main objectives: animating and differentiating the building façades; improving energy efficiency; and creating additional amenity space. Additional improvements include the upgrading of plumbing and ventilation systems, improvement to energy and electricity systems, and finally, refurbishment of the existing lifts in the tower blocks. A ‘second skin’ of polycarbonate cladding was added onto the three tower blocks to improve the aesthetic of the façades and thermally insulate the buildings. This also serves to transform the existing 93-cm-deep balconies into 160-cm-deep enclosed and sheltered amenity spaces, referred to as ‘loggias’, which can be accessed through sliding doors from the apartments’ living rooms.201 In order to differentiate individual blocks from each other, loggias belonging to the same tower block are given a specific coloured back wall (green, blue or red) which is visible from the outside. To animate the façade and further contribute to the thermal performance of the building, 50 percent of the polycarbonate panels can be slid open or closed. The three low-rise blocks were differentiated by using distinct types of claddings and methods of extending balconies. Entrance lobbies were also refurbished to make them more transparent through the use of large glass panels, allowing visibility into the site from surrounding streets. This serves to give each résidence (residence) its own identity. This focused approach to renewing the different blocks allowed for the construction works to be carried out in five days per flat. Works were only carried out during the day, with residents being able to return to their homes in the evening. Two fully fitted-out flats were available in the area for individuals in need of somewhere to stay during the day. Refurbishment works took place one tower block at a time with individual flat renovations undertaken according to a timetable developed based on individuals’ preferences and availabilities.

201 L AN ( 2015, p. 9)

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Loggias on the whole seemed well used, although only around 25 percent of the sliding panels were open during site visits, which took place in winter time. It appeared that the most well-used loggias are located to the rear of the tower blocks where the buffer space of planting creates a distinct threshold, separating private residential spaces from public routes. There seemed to be little communication (through posters or signs, for example) about programmes, activities or events taking place on the estate. Arrival and ground plane interface The tower blocks form a key visual connection that guides those arriving on the periphery of the estate, such as from the tram stop, to the site itself. The glass entrance lobbies of the low-rise blocks then provide an active frontage which allows clear visual connections inside the estate. This openness creates a feeling of safety on pedestrian routes along these blocks and promotes the permeability of the site. While entrance lobbies appeared bare, often only comprising post-boxes and notice boards, Domofrance is currently reflecting on how to promote activity within these spaces. Ground-floor land use in the low-rise blocks is primarily residential, allowing oversight and passive surveillance around the site. The ground-floor frontage of the three tower blocks looks inwards onto the central public space, the core of the site. At the time of the site visit in December 2016, blank frontages of vacant units dominated the central space. This is because a range of retail units and other amenities such as a neighbourhood association were still in the process of being introduced. The blank frontage is reinforced by the fact that the double-skin façade prevents the ground-floor amenities from presenting an active frontage. This design feature, while providing privacy to residents in their flats, hinders the animation of the ground plane. For example, the small supermarket located on the ground floor of one of the towers was hidden behind the polycarbonate panels and thus did not serve to activate the central plaza.

Urban Renovation Lormont

Estate management Domofrance is responsible for the management of the site, including both its public spaces and the three buildings. One of the tower blocks hosts Domofrance’s maintenance services on the estate. During site visits, there were a number of litter-pickers, cleaners and maintenance workers on site, both in the tower blocks and in the public spaces. The waste collection facility has been moved outside the perimeter of the blocks on the edges of the site and it is directly serviced by municipal collection services. While the overall public spaces seemed well maintained, litter was observed within planting surrounding the towers which may be caused by being thrown out of the apartment windows – a practice which was recognised as being a key problem before the renewal works. PUBLIC REALM Landscaping In addition to the renewal of the three tower blocks and three low-rise blocks, the project involves extensive public realm works. Different sets of green spaces have been introduced throughout the site, such as a woodland walk, green spaces with seating and a hard landscape with trees. In parallel, improving the security and perceived safety of these spaces was a key objective of the project. This was done through the implementation of an ambitious lighting strategy as well as through ongoing installation of a large number of CCTV cameras – an uncommon practice on such housing estates in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area. Clear public pedestrian routes running through the estate serve to integrate it into the wider neighbourhood. The project manager, Fred André, described Domofrance’s ambition to extend the historical route which runs east-west through the site, l’allée cavalière, to the new adjacent neighbourhood as a way of opening up the site. This route importantly connects to the Château de Génicart, an important heritage landmark which has been transformed into a community centre, and to the tram stop further west.

Varied planting and topography around the different blocks have been used to create distinct thresholds between public routes and private residential spaces, thus establishing a clear spatial hierarchy throughout the site. This also served to make 80 percent of block entrances step free and accessible to all, with signs informing individuals in wheelchairs of path gradients. Play spaces The public realm is centred around the Saint-Hilaire esplanade, a large plaza enclosed by the three tower blocks. In its centre sits a distinctive play structure referred to as ‘the spaceship’, designed by the landscape architects BASE Paysagistes. Intended to be used by all ages, including older children and adults, the play structure includes a platform level designed to allow parents to sit and watch their children play. The project manager reported that the structure is well used. The structure is locked up at night to prevent any disturbance to residents. A second play space can be found adjacent to one of the low-rise blocks. The project manager reported that play facilities for physically disabled children had initially been introduced but had been misused and twice broken by other children, leading to their complete removal from the site. Parking A clear strategy seeking to rationalise and concentrate parking on the edges of the site was implemented. The existing underground parking beneath the towers, which suffered from flooding issues, was refurbished in order to bring its third floor back into use and enhance its security. This has brought parking provision to one space allocated per resident while making the site between blocks exclusively pedestrian access. However, despite the large amount of formal parking facilities, a significant number of cars were parked on side roads and other available spaces such as verges and pavements. This had the effect of forcing pedestrians onto the carriageway in some places.

ca s e s t u d i e s

Urban Renovation Lormont

EUGÈ

NE LE R OY

RUE

RABE

L A IS

RUE

MIC

HE L

DE M O N TA IG N

RUE

EF R AN

ÇOI

S VI LLO N

100M

Case study site

Parking

Case study block

Bus stop

Pedestrian connections

Trees

Green space

Primary residential entrance

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Urban Renovation Lormont

Local connections Permeability within the immediate site is good, and the site has a network of pedestrian and cycle connections. Some routes feel more public, connecting the site to neighbouring areas, while others closer to building entrances feel appropriately private for use by residents only. A road running into the site from the south allows residents to access an underground car park beneath the towers, while others to the north, east and west allow vehicular access to ground-level parking in front of low-rise blocks.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Urban Renovation Lormont

EUGÈ

NE LE R OY

DE M O N TA IG N

RUE

MIC

HE L

5 6

RUE

L L

RUE R ABEL

A IS

4 L L

RUE

FRA

NÇO

IS V ILLO

100M

Case study site

Lift core

Non-residential land use

Stair core

Retail

2. GP’s clinic

Passive frontage

Primary residential entrance

Civic amenity

3. Professional training centre

Blank frontage

Secondary/service entrance

Health

4. Community meeting facility

Refuse store

Parking entrance

Play

5. Electricity substation

Green space

6. Play structure

Parking

1. Convenience store

Active frontage

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Urban Renovation Lormont

Building frontages The ‘second skin’ of the new façade added to the tower blocks during renewal results in ground-level frontages appearing quite blank and passive. Several shops, a doctor’s surgery and community offices at ground level do not appear obvious to passersby, due to their activity being concealed behind the polycarbonate cladding. However, frontages on many of the low-rise blocks appear slightly more active due to the glass-fronted entrance halls on many of the blocks.

ca s e s t u d i e s

Urban Renovation Lormont

Movement through the site There is a network of pedestrian routes through the site, resulting in a sense of openness and permeability. Central to this network is a treelined pedestrian avenue, connecting the tram stop in the west to the newly built adjacent neighbourhood of La Ramade in the east.

99â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Urban Renovation Lormont

Movement through the site Planting and topography have been used on the site to create distinct thresholds between public routes and private residential spaces, and an ambitious lighting strategy was put in place to improve the security and perceived safety of the site.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

100

Urban Renovation Lormont

Block entrances The glass entrance lobbies of the low-rise blocks help create a sense of openness and allow views through the site; this creates a feeling of security on pedestrian routes along these blocks and improves the permeability of the site.

101â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Urban Renovation Lormont

BASE (photograph by Karolina Samborska)

Amenity on site A distinctive play structure, referred to as the ‘spaceship’, has helped to animate the public space between the three towers, and clearly defines it as a shared space for all.

ca s e s t u d i e s

102

3 Carré Lumière, Bègles Project information LOCATION

Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

Unknown

DEVELOPER

Ataraxia

ARCHITECTS

LAN Architecture

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2009–2016

LEVEL OF INTERVENTION

New build

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

Unknown

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS / UPLIFT

79 / Unknown

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

Unknown

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

100 percent social rent

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

25 percent owner-occupied; 75 percent social rent

Context The Carré Lumière project is situated in the city of Bègles, part of the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area. This project is inscribed within the wider urban regeneration of the Terres Neuves district, and including the Yves Farge estate. This ongoing regeneration programme was sparked by the extension of the city’s ‘C’ tramline in 2008 which connects the area to the Bordeaux city centre. Led by the Bègles local authority and supervised by the Société Anonyme d’Economie Mixte de Construction Immobilière de Bègles (SAEMCIB), this large programme, currently underway, involves the demolition and reconstruction of 286 units, the refurbishment of 672 units and the construction of additional 1,000 new units. A key emphasis is being put on innovation in housing design and on the promotion of social mix, with an overall objective of achieving 30 percent of social rent, 40 percent of private rent and 30 percent for sale.202 Carré

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

SITE

103

A 6 30

Lumière, a new-build project, comprises two blocks with internal courtyards on the northeast side of the regeneration area. Site today (district level) The site surrounding the project is still due to undergo significant transformation as housing blocks, retail units and public spaces are built. A number of new-build housing developments, with retail units on the ground floor, surround the Carré Lumière project, contrasting with one- or two-floor single dwellings, characteristic of the regional typology. Vacant land can also be found adjacent to the site, as well as a street lined with makeshift sheds used as garages and for storage, due to be demolished and redeveloped into single-family homes.203 The area presents a range of retail units and cafés, restaurants and bars, although a number of units appear to have been vacant for some time. In contrast, the area surrounding Carré Lumière appears to lack

Carré Lumière

social infrastructure provision. Few play spaces were observed; a small play area can be found adjacent to the site, as well as a basketball court a two-minute walk away. Other social infrastructure includes a gymnasium with a running track and a derelict community centre. A nursery and schools can be found within the area, although not immediately adjacent to the site. Secondary schools are also easily accessible by tram. The Parc de l’Economie Créative de Bègles (Creative industrial park of Bègles) is situated a two-minute walk away from Carré Lumière. Originally a disused military site, its 16 blocks were renovated to host a mix of creative industries, music studios, exhibition halls, restaurants and a university of the performing arts. It also includes the headquarters of Pôle Emploi (the equivalent of Jobcentre Plus in the UK). Within this complex, a large public space, l’Esplanade, was also designed to host circuses and other events and was occupied by a circus tent at the time of our visit.204 The complex animates the area, with students and workers coming in and out of the buildings around lunchtime and in the late afternoon.

objectives of achieving social mix, stimulating the local economy, engaging with local residents and promoting the implementation of sustainable design.205 The project is led by architect-urban planner Tania Concko. Residents of the existing neighbourhood were consulted during a three-year period through resident workshops on the regeneration plans. In addition to this, a not-forprofit organisation, Tout le monde, led a project called Le Babel Bègles, which involved using artistic and cultural activities to engage with residents and convey their views of the neighbourhood and their hopes for its regeneration. An information point for residents was also opened on site.206

STAKEHOLDERS The project was commissioned by Ataraxia, a property management company, with LAN Architecture (c.f. Urban Renovation Lormont case study, p. 83) being appointed in 2009 following an international competition. Construction took place between 2012 and 2015. The Bègles local authority is responsible for the wider urban regeneration project of the Terres Neuves district. Led by Noël Mamère, Mayor of Bègles since 1989 and member of the Green Party, the local authority is guiding large urban development projects which focus on the

202 203 204 205 206

S AEMCIB ( 2010) SAEMCIB ( 2010) Mairie de Bègles ( 2013) M airie de Bègles. Bègles, village urbain à visage humain [webpage] CAUE (2014)

ca s e s t u d i e s

104

Carré Lumière

Site approach Carré Lumière is located close to the Terres Neuves tram stop in Bègles, which is a short 10-minute ride from the Bordeaux city centre.

105

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Carré Lumière

Site approach The site is also easily accessible by car, bus, bicycle or foot; a network of designated cycle lanes runs along the southern perimeter of the site.

ca s e s t u d i e s

106

Carré Lumière

Échelle 1 : 5 000

TO BO UX EA

RD CI TY CE NT RE

r Te

s re N

ve s C

1 7

7 1 6

14 5

100M

Case study site

Tram stop Bus stop

Pedestrian connections

Green space

Cycle lane

Parking

Tram line

107

Case study blocks

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Carré Lumière

Neighbourhood connections Development of the case study site, and the wider neighbourhood, has been catalysed by the site’s proximity to the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area tram network. The Terres Neuves tram stop in front of the Carré Lumière site, connects the site with the centre of Bordeaux in less than 15 minutes. The tram line also connects the site with amenity within the immediate area, including schools and shops. The site is also served by multiple bus routes, including the 36 route which stops directly outside the site and runs between Bègles and Pessac. Numerous pedestrian connections link the site to surrounding areas, and there are also designated cycle lanes around the site’s perimeter.

ca s e s t u d i e s

108

Carré Lumière

Échelle 1 : 5 000

TO BO UX EA

RD CI TY CE NT RE

r Te

s re N

ve s C

1 7

7 1 6

100M

Case study site

Residential

Civic amenity

1. Gymnasium complex

Pharmacy and shops

Tram line

Hotel

Sports and leisure

2. Community centre

Supermarket

Retail

Utilities

3. Pétanque court

10. Hotel, bakery, restaurant

Café, restaurant or bar

Transport

4. University

11. Showroom

Commercial

Parking

5. Job centre

12. Glazing manufacturer

Industrial

Green space

6. Basketball court

13. Warehouse space

7. Energ y centre

14. Offices

Tram stop

Education

109

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Carré Lumière

Predominant land use The wider area around the site contains a range of retail units and cafés, restaurants and bars, although a number of these units appear to have been vacant for some time during the site visits in November-December 2016. There is a scarcity of social infrastructure provision; apart from a basketball court a two-minute walk away, a gymnasium with a running track and a derelict community centre, there are few other play amenities. A nursery and schools can be found within the area, although not immediately adjacent to the site; secondary schools are accessible by tram. The Parc de l’Economie Créative de Bègles (Creative industrial park of Bègles), a two-minute walk away from Carré Lumière, is a previously disused military site which has been renovated to host a mix of creative industries, music studios, exhibition halls, restaurants, and a university of the performing arts.

ca s e s t u d i e s

110

Carré Lumière

BLOCKS Key approach and usage study LAN’s approach to the design of Carré Lumière follows a set of reflections which are integral to the architects’ work. Firstly, it seeks to redefine space standards by giving each apartment a large semi-external space, referred to as ‘winter gardens’.207 These flexible spaces can later be turned into an extension of internal living space by residents, without having to obtain a building permit. This approach to the provision of amenity and internal spaces allows families to remain in the community through different life stages, as they will not need to move out in search of another apartment when upsizing or downsizing. The apartments within the two main buildings can thus change over time according to the different needs of the residents. Secondly, the project seeks to compromise between the apartment and detached-living typologies, blending dense urban living with the need for privacy. According to LAN Architecture, “apartments have the same qualities as a single-family home (the sense of privacy, individual exterior spaces, independence, and strong sensory contact with the outdoors) without the latter’s disadvantages in terms of environmental impact (urban sprawl, visual and atmospheric pollution, excessive consumption of ground).”208 The project was thus conceived as a superposition of blocks, combining the qualities of a private family home with the efficiencies of collective systems, such as shared heating and electrical distribution systems. Carré Lumière also sought to implement an economical approach to housing construction. The project was built at a cost of €1,000 per sq metre through the use of standard materials, prefabrication, and budget control and management. Winter gardens were also used as a way of improving space standards economically; as uninsulated semi-external spaces, the winter gardens do

207 LAN ( 2015, p. 2) 208 LAN (2015, p. 2) 209 L AN ( 2015, p. 2)

111

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

not count as an extra room, thus effectively doubling the size of each apartment without increasing rent. Lastly, these winter gardens and a series of moveable screens contribute to the thermal regulation of the buildings. According to LAN Architecture, Carré Lumière was designed to suit the region’s specific climate: “The bio-climatic design is halfway between the heavily insulated Nordic model and Mediterranean patio-style architecture […] Everyone can use their outdoor space as a windbreak, a greenhouse, or, to the contrary, as a cooling unit.”209 These moveable screens have a second purpose: they also enable residents to control their privacy and express their own domesticity. This fosters a greater sense of ownership and belonging by enabling residents to have control over their spaces. This was evident during the site visits when it was observed that the winter gardens were used in a variety of ways across both buildings: some contained clothes-drying facilities, additional fridges and freezers, and garden furniture. One winter garden has been transformed into an additional sitting room, complete with furniture and heating, while another was used as a rooftop garden for growing food. The presence of a significant number of pets in the winter gardens was also noted. In many cases, residents had installed total or partial screens in the form of wood boards, bamboo fencing or plants in order to turn these spaces into an extension of their private space. Arrival and ground plane interface The two blocks are clearly visible when approaching from the tram station. However, minimal interaction with the streetscape was observed during the site visits which took place in winter 2016. The winter gardens have the potential to animate the street but are often closed off for privacy. This is particularly true of gardens on the first and second floors. The blocks nevertheless appear well integrated within the neighbourhood.

Carré Lumière

The ground floors of each building, which were intended for retail units, were still either under construction or vacant at the time of the site visit and were thus marked by a lack of activity. Due to open two or three months following our site visit, the retail units on the ground level might have a positive impact on the activity and use of the site, as well as on its interface with the street. Estate management Carré Lumière is managed by Citya Immobilier, which is responsible for the maintenance of the blocks. At the time of the site visit, placards put up by the company could be found in the entrance hall of each block. These placards strictly prohibited residents from using their winter gardens as exterior kitchens (especially barbecues), from installing any types of privacy screens (fabric, bamboos or plants, for example) and from using this space in any way that might cause inconvenience to other residents, or that is contrary to the initial planning application. LAN Architecture’s design, which sought to create flexible spaces for residents to appropriate, does not seem to have been embraced by the management company, thus presenting potential challenges that come with this approach. Public realm The project sought to address the issue of undefined public space, which is characteristic of modernist housing projects, by containing communal spaces within the blocks. The two courtyard spaces act as thresholds between public and private spaces and are clearly visible from the street through the entry gate. Their potential was not fully achieved, however, due to the strict restrictions imposed by Citya Immobilier on how communal spaces, including stairwells, should be used by residents. A raised platform accessible by stairs is present between the blocks but did not appear to be used during the site visits, which took place in the winter. Underground parking with one parking space allocated per resident can be found under the two buildings.

ca s e s t u d i e s

112

Carré Lumière

TO BO RD EA UX CE

Échelle 1 : 1 250

NT RE C

R U E D U T H É AT R E DE VE RDURE

RUE

RUE DES MÛ RIE RS

R O BERT SCH U M AN

ALLÉE

100M

Bus stop

Case study site

Cycle hire stand

Case study block Pedestrian connections

Tram stop

Cycle lane

Trees

Tram line

Courtyard plants

Green space

Primary residential entrance

Parking

113

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

J EA N D UBUF

FET

Carré Lumière

Local connections Connectivity within the site is enabled through pedestrian connections through communal courtyard spaces at the heart of each building. The design of these buildings and spaces sought to address the issue of undefined public space, recognised as a common characteristic of modernist housing projects. A central stairwell leads to a small elevated plaza between the two buildings.

ca s e s t u d i e s

114

Carré Lumière

TO BO RD EA UX CE

Échelle 1 : 1 250

NT RE C

R U E D U T H É AT R E DE VE RDURE

L L

RUE R O BERT SCH U M AN

RUE DES MÛ RIE RS

ALLÉE

J EA N D UBUF

FET

100M

Trees

Tram line

Courtyard plants

Stair core

Tram stop

Green space

Primary residential entrance

Active frontage

Unlet retail (in December 2016)

Secondary/service entrance

Passive frontage

Refuse store

Parking entrance

Blank frontage

115

Case study site

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Lift core

Carré Lumière

Building frontages The two blocks on the site do not yet offer much interaction with the streetscape. Even though the winter gardens have the potential to animate the streets, they are often closed off to give residents privacy, particularly on the first and second floors. The ground floors of both buildings, which are intended for retail units, were under construction or vacant during the site visits. However, the first shops and cafés were due to open in early 2017, and retail activity at ground level will make a positive contribution to the animation of the street and site, as well as adding to existing local amenity.

ca s e s t u d i e s

116

CarrĂŠ LumiĂ¨re

LAN Architecture (photograph by Julien Lanoo)

Movement through site A set of stairs acts as a gentle threshold into the development, providing access from the street level to a pedestrian route between the two buildings; this route facilitates movement through the site, and gives privacy for the winter gardens facing onto it.

117â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Carré Lumière

Communal spaces The project sought to address the issue of undefined public space by containing communal spaces within the blocks; the courtyard spaces act as thresholds between public and private spaces and are overlooked by a number of open loggias.

ca s e s t u d i e s

118

Carré Lumière

Dwellings Screens in front of loggias create privacy for residents, while also allowing glimpses through to private living spaces, contributing to the animation of shared spaces.

119

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

CarrĂŠ LumiĂ¨re

Dwellings Residents use their loggias for a variety of activities; including storing and using exercise and leisure equipment, seating and planting, and gardening.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

120

CASE STUDY SITES 4

KALKBREITE Aussersihl, Zürich

HUNZIKER AREAL Leutschenbach, Zürich

Flughafen Zürich

M1 5

M1L 12 2

4 3

GREIFENSEE

ZÜRICHSEE

100M

Major road Water body City centre 2

10 11 12

Tram stop Tram line

121

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Zürich Zürich is the largest city in Switzerland, with a growing population of over 380,500, and is divided into 12 districts and 34 quarters.210 Its successful development over the last few years has been favoured by a stable economic climate and the guidance of Stadt Zürich, the City of Zürich municipality, which has significant decision-making powers and autonomy within Switzerland’s political system. This context has allowed the municipality to implement several different programmes within the city, including “progressive residential building policies, the development of public transport, increased variety in terms of culture, and the upgrading of public areas”.211 Following a referendum in 2008, three-quarters of the population also agreed to shift to a ‘2000-watt society’ by 2050, “making it the first city in the world to give these ambitious goals a democratic legitimacy and enshrine them in the constitution.”212 Since 2000, the city of Zürich has experienced rapid population growth. The demographic of Swiss households has also changed, with significant increases in single and senior households and a fourfold increase in the immigrant population.213 In addition, building costs have steadily increased and available land has become increasingly scarce. This has resulted in increasing pressure on the Stadt Zürich to provide additional transport and social infrastructure as well as to provide housing, including affordable housing, for an increasingly diverse and international community. With hardly any greenfield sites left, densification has

210 211 212 213 214 215 216

become more than an objective in itself; it has become a way of dealing with these urban and social challenges. This is perhaps best embodied by the publication Dichter (Denser) by the Zürich’s Amt für Städtebau, the city’s Office for Town Planning. The publication presents thirty projects across the city, each exemplifying a sitespecific urban and architectural intervention. Twentyfive of these projects have been built by non-profit cooperatives.214 A close relationship with non-profit housing cooperatives has been integral to the Stadt Zürich’s housing provision strategy, and delivery of affordable housing, since the early twentieth century. The Stadt provides long-term renewable leases on city-owned land, including development rights, which enables it to maintain a level of control over the development of the city. In return, cooperatives must meet a number of commitments such as the provision of low-cost rental housing and amenities for public use. They are also responsible for organising an architectural competition for each project site administered by the city, which is central in ensuring the high quality and innovation of housing design in the city.215 The cooperatives also often have to find innovative funding models in order to build, maintain and manage their projects. This means that the financial burden which is shared between the city and the cooperatives involves not only “providing low-income housing, but also maintaining it over the long term”.216

Stadt Zürich. Facts & figures [webpage] S tadt Zürich. Politics & law [webpage] Hee (2015, p. 95) S tadt Zürich. Facts & figures [webpage] S tadt Zürich ( 2012) J ones and Shelley ( 2016) Jones and Shelley ( 2016)

ca s e s t u d i e s

122

4 Kalkbreite Project information LOCATION

Zürich, Switzerland

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

0.67

DEVELOPER

Kalkbreite cooperative

ARCHITECTS

Müller Sigrist Architekten

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2011–2014

LEVEL OF INTERVENTION

Infill

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS / UPLIFT

97 / +97

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

144.8 (after works)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

N/A

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

60 percent below market rent; 20 percent high income; 11 percent social rent

SITE Context The Kalkbreite project is situated in district 4 of central Zürich and was built by the non-profit Kalkbreite housing cooperative. Built above a functioning tram depot belonging to Zürich’s public transport corporation, Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (VBZ), it comprises 97 units to house 230 residents, 4,000 sq metres of workspace, flexible community spaces, a new tramline stop and 2,500 sq metres of green recreational space which is open to both residents and the public. The development is notable for its response to Zürich’s changing demographics and the need to provide housing for multiple household configurations. Site today (district level) The 6,350-sq-metres site is situated on a triangular footprint defined by three streets: Seebahnstrasse, Badenerstrasse and Kalkbreitestrasse. A train station, Zürich Wiedikon, is located southeast of the site and can

123

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

M1L

4 3

be accessed in about five minutes by train from Zürich’s main station. A tram stop and a bus stop, both bearing the name ‘Kalkbreite’, can be found immediately east of the site, and they connect the site to the wider area and city. There is no car parking provision within the development and residents are not allowed to own a car as members of the Kalkbreite cooperative. The central position of the Kalkbreite site allows residents to be entirely reliant on public transport and bicycles; instead of an underground car park, the scheme provides 300 ground-level bike racks. The Kalkbreite site is located a 20-minute walk away from the city’s main shopping street, Bahnhofstrasse, and a 10-minute walk away from Langstrasse, Zürich’s main shopping and nightlife district. The area immediately surrounding the site presents a range of uses including, mid-range and high-end residential properties, offices, and various retail units, such as mobile phone shops, organic food shops and clothing stores.

Kalkbreite

STAKEHOLDERS Stadt Zürich In 1975, Stadt Zürich, the City of Zürich municipality, decided to redevelop the Kalkbreite site, when the existing tram depot’s long term lease came to an end, to provide housing for the city’s growing population. However, the tram depot, which had been planning to relocate its operations to the outskirts of the city, put off this decision, arguing that relocating all their infrastructure to the periphery of the city would hinder their efficiency and cause disruption to the lives of residents living along the tramlines. With few alternative sites available for developing new housing and increasing pressure on the city to increase housing provision, the Stadt Zürich commissioned a feasibility study in 2002 to explore the possibility of combining a housing programme with the functioning tram depot. The results of the study indicated that such a proposal would be too complex and expensive to deliver, thus halting the progress of the project. Three years later, several Members of Parliament from district 4 proposed the redevelopment of the site into an open tram depot and a narrow office building along Badenerstrasse. This motion caught the interest of Res Keller, leader of the Dreieck cooperative, who had already identified the Kalkbreite site as presenting potential for a non-profit housing project. As explained in the following section, the Kalkbreite cooperative, which was founded in 2007, eventually won the competition to lease, develop and manage the site. Following this competition, the collaboration of the Stadt Zürich and the Kalkbreite cooperative was instrumental in the success of the project. The Stadt relies on cooperatives to support the provision of affordable housing in the city, and gave permission to build on the Kalkbreite site four years before construction began. The land leasing contract also included low repayments for the land, which were only required halfway through the process of new tenants moving into the development. In return for this generous leasing contract, the cooperative was required to provide publicly accessible green space within the development, to contribute to the city’s open space provision. The cooperative was responsible for integrating the tram depot within the proposal, but the construction of the building structure, including the 20-metre tram hall below the project’s public space, was

funded by the Stadt. Kalkbreite cooperative In 2006, Res Keller organised a two-day community workshop in an effort to gather local support and ideas for the establishment of a housing cooperative on the Kalkbreite site. Fifty individuals attended, including Thomas Sacchi who went on to found the Kalkbreite cooperative with Res Keller. The workshop led to the formulation of key aims for the housing cooperative, which acted as guiding principles of the project during the architectural competition and still define the objectives of the cooperative today. The Kalkbreite Association, the precursor to the Kalkbreite cooperative, was founded three weeks after the workshop and engaged with lobbying activities, as well as further local consultation. In June 2006, a new proposal for redeveloping the Kalkbreite site as a mixed-use, non-profit housing scheme was approved by the Swiss Parliament. The Stadt Zürich invited local cooperatives to tender for the proposal, and the recently formed Kalkbreite Association made their first bid. In 2007, while the sixmonth selection process was underway, the Kalkbreite cooperative was founded by two existing housing cooperatives, Dreieck and Karthago, neighbourhood residents and potential tenants. With over 1,400 members today, the cooperative’s initial objective was the acquisition of the Kalkbreite site, with building permissions, and its long-term purpose was the maintenance of the Kalkbreite development in line with the following vision: •

Creating low-cost rental, living and working space;

•

Connecting living and working space with cultural activities;

•

Promoting sustainable development in accordance with the guidelines of the ‘2,000-watt society’;

•

Using a charitable and non-profit organisational structure; and

•

Continuing to develop the area by acquiring additional properties and obtaining planning permissions.

ca s e s t u d i e s

124

Kalkbreite

MĂźller Sigrist Architekten (photograph by Christian Brunner)

Site location The Kalkbreite development is located at the intersection of a network of roads and tram lines; it incorporates the existing tram depot within its scheme.

125â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Kalkbreite

MĂźller Sigrist Architekten (photograph by Volker Schopp)

Site approach The central position of the Kalkbreite site allows residents to be entirely reliant on public transport and bicycles; there is no car parking provision within the development.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

126

Kalkbreite

Membership of the cooperative costs CHF 1,000 per household and is open to anyone living in Switzerland, who is interested in its core vision. Members are consulted on all aspects of the running and management of the development via periodic gatherings and workshops. In practice, members are almost exclusively existing and aspiring residents of the Kalkbreite development, who became members in order to apply for an apartment within the development. In July 2008, the cooperative, in collaboration with Stadt Zürich, launched an international architectural competition for proposals for the Kalkbreite site. The winning entry, submitted anonymously as were all entries, was a project by Müller Sigrist Architects and was chosen by a jury panel which included the head of Zürich Stadt’s Hochbaudepartement (Department for Building) and Mayor Kathrin Martelli. The assessment criteria were based on the Kalkbreite cooperative’s founding vision, with special attention to the following: a high degree of spatial flexibility, modularity, and social networking potential. Spatial programming was required to accommodate the changing needs of the cooperative and its tenants, as well as those of the local community. A second central objective was the integration of the Kalkbreite site within its surroundings and its contribution to local neighbourhood life. Müller Sigrist Architects Despite significant international response to the design competition, the winning scheme was submitted by Müller Sigrist Architects, a local practice based 400 metres from the Kalkbreite site. The architects’ intimate knowledge of the local area was instrumental in enabling them to respond to the multiple constraints of the Kalkbreite site. One of Müller Sigrist Architects’ main design ideas in ensuring easy movement around the site was to connect communal spaces horizontally,

217 Hugentobler ( 2015)

127

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

as opposed to only vertically around stair and lift cores. To achieve this, they incorporated a Le Corbusiertype interior street which spirals around the building, connecting the entrance hall at the level of the public square to all communal spaces in the development, terminating at the roof-top residential terraces. The large staircase at the main entrance situated at the corner of Badenerstrasse and Kalkbreitestrasse, was also a strong aspect of Müller Sigrist Architects’ proposal; it makes a clear statement to the city that the development is open to the public and seeks to contribute to the neighbourhood’s social and cultural life. Consultation and selection of residents For the Kalkbreite cooperative, participation was key in ensuring that the development catered to the needs of its future residents, and in promoting the tenants’ commitment to the project and sense of ownership. Regular information events and surveys took place early in the project and were integral to shaping the development and design of the project. For example, the apartment mix was modified extensively following surveys; the original plan was to build only a few 4.5room apartments, as the noisy location was thought to be less popular among households with small children. However, it later turned out that there was high demand from households with children. Working groups were organised to discuss themes such as social mixing, living with children, living in old age, cluster apartments, and outside spaces. The results of these discussions were subsequently presented and discussed at regular events that typically attracted between thirty and sixty people.217 This level of engagement and consultation continues today through these working groups, which are made up of a range of users within the development – tenants, individuals working at the site, and residents of the local

Kalkbreite

neighbourhood who regularly use the public square. The monthly meetings are organised by the working groups and attended by a representative of the cooperative’s board of directors. The attendees decide on the agenda of each meeting and often discuss a wide range of issues, using it as a platform for information exchange. All apartments were occupied by August 2014, a few months after the project’s completion, and since then properties are rarely left vacant as any available apartments are immediately oversubscribed. It is estimated that around 30 percent of those who participated in the consultation eventually moved into the development.218 An online registration tool was developed for the project to monitor the unit allocation process with the aim of attracting a broad mix of tenants. The rent for many of the residential apartments and commercial units is substantially lower than that of the rest of Zürich; for example, some 4.5-room apartments are let for CHF 1,600 per month, almost half the rent of an equivalent apartment in the city. Some apartments are reserved for disadvantaged youths supported by the charity, Domicile. Other flats, however, are let at market rates (the cooperative is not exclusive to low income households). Around two percent of the tenants have personal assets of CHF 1 million or more, while around 40 percent have less than CHF 10,000.

decide which applicant should be offered the apartment. This ensures that the social mix works well both at the community and at the individual level. The selection procedure for the commercial spaces is different to that for the residential units. Two cooperative members assess each commercial tenant’s application based on its contribution to achieving a good mixture of programmes and uses that benefit all residents. The initial selection process began early in the project, immediately following the architectural competition, in order for decisions to be fed back to the design team, and spaces tailored specifically for their anticipated commercial use. This process was crucial in accommodating specific uses such as the cinema on site, for which the space for large screens had to be specifically designed.

The Kalkbreite cooperative, including existing tenants, manages the ongoing maintenance of this social mix. Data about the current tenants, including income, social background, type of work, and nationality, was collected during their initial application to the development. This data is then used to make decisions about new applications. Once two or three applicants have been selected by all members of the cooperative at this stage, they are invited to meet their potential direct neighbours in the building. The direct neighbours will ultimately

218 Hugentobler (2015, p. 225)

ca s e s t u d i e s

128

Kalkbreite

Loc

her gu t

K al k

brei

TO ZÜRICH CITY CENTRE

TO CH

ZÜ CI TY RE NT CE Zü ric h ie W di

ko n

100M

Case study site Case study blocks

129

3 2 S

Tram stop Train station

Pedestrian connections

Bus stop

Tram line

Green space

Train line

Parking

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Kalkbreite

Neighbourhood connections The Kalkbreite site is situated on a triangular footprint defined by three streets: Seebahnstrasse, Badenerstrasse and Kalkbreitestrasse, west of the Zürich city centre. A train station, Zürich Wiedikon, is located southeast of the site and can be accessed in about five minutes by train from Zürich’s main station. A tram stop and a bus stop, both bearing the name ‘Kalkbreite’, can be found immediately east of the site, connecting it to the wider area and city. The central position of the Kalkbreite site allows residents to be entirely reliant on public transport and bicycles; instead of an underground car park, the scheme provides 300 ground-level bike racks.

ca s e s t u d i e s

130

Kalkbreite

Loc

5 her gu t

K al k

brei

TO ZÜRICH CITY CENTRE 6

TO CH

ZÜ CI TY RE NT CE

4 9

Zü ric h ie W di

ko n

100M

3 2

Case study site

Residential

Civic Amenity

Tram line

Retail

Sports and leisure

Tram stop

Café, restaurant or bar

Health

Train line

Commercial

Transport

Education

Green space

Religious

131

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

1. Kalkbreite cooperative

Arthouse cinema

Kalkbreite train depot

2. Courthouse

Church

3. Sports and leisure centre

Synagogue

4. Primary school

10. Synagogue

5. Primary school

11. Football pitch

offices

Kalkbreite

Predominant land use The Kalkbreite site is located a 20-minute walk away from the city’s main shopping street, Bahnhofstrasse, and a 10-minute walk away from Langstrasse, Zürich’s main shopping and nightlife district. The area immediately surrounding the site presents a range of uses including midrange and high-end residential properties, offices, and various retail units, such as mobile phone shops, organic food shops, and clothing stores.

ca s e s t u d i e s

132

Kalkbreite

BLOCK Key approach and usage study The Kalkbreite project faced two main challenges from the outset: it had to resolve the issues of noise, pollution and possible risk to safety due to the surrounding intersection of traffic infrastructure which renders the site an island; and it had to incorporate the existing ground-level tram depot within its plan for a mixeduse development comprising both residential and commercial uses. The upper four storeys of the building contain 97 housing units, including: 30 x 1-1.5 room apartments grouped into three ‘living clusters’ where shared living and eating spaces are provided; 16 x 1-5 room apartments; 2 x 7.5-9.5 room apartments; 3 x 13-17 room apartments; and nine ‘joker rooms’. These joker rooms are distributed evenly across the building and can be rented as a small apartment or for commercial purposes for a limited time period. These flexible spaces allow residents to accommodate their changing circumstances and needs; for example, a growing family can accommodate a new baby or elderly parent without having to move apartments. These rooms are also available for a commercial company to expand its premises if required. 330 sq metres of communal spaces are also available throughout the building, including a canteen, laundry facilities, flexible workspaces, training and meeting rooms, and a guest house. These facilities serve to promote social exchange between tenants, with the canteen being well used. According to Res Keller, cofounder of the Kalkbreite cooperative, these spaces, although perhaps more ‘risky’ at the design stage, have proven to be one the aspects of the development which the residents are most proud of. He explained that

219 Notes from interview on 18th January 2017.

133

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

tenants are often keen to show their guests around both their flats and the rest of the building, including all the communal areas.219 The Kalkbreite cooperative, working towards the target of the ‘2000-watt society’, aimed to significantly reduce the development’s energy consumption. The block is built according to the Minergie-P ECO standard, Switzerland’s certificate for low-energy buildings, and tenants were invited to participate in workshops informing them about ways of managing their energy consumption. Arrival and ground plan interface The Kalkbreite development fills the entire site and is defined by the network of intersecting roads and tramlines. The building responds to the massing of the surrounding city and appears as a city block from all sides, staggered downward in the direction of the train lines. Its distinctive polygonal form brings character and identity to the neighbourhood. The ground level of the building façade overlooking Badenerstrasse is glazed and open, and offers a diverse range of retail units, as well as an arthouse cinema and a bar adjacent to the Kalkbreite tram stop. Around the corner, on Kalkbreitestrasse, the façade remains open, with the exception of the tram depot exit, a 10-metre-high gateway through which the dramatic scale of the tram depot is clearly visible. Between these two streets is a large open stairwell leading to the public square within the development. The ground, first and second floors of the building are rented out to shops, cultural initiatives, restaurants, offices and ateliers. The cooperative actively selects companies who pursue innovating business ideas, respond to residents’ needs and contribute to the activity of the area. Greenpeace, for example, established its

Kalkbreite

Swiss headquarters, with over ninety employees, on site. Other amenities include a childcare facility, a doctorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surgery and a midwife centre, in addition to restaurants and other cultural facilities. These activities all serve to activate the street frontages of the Kalkbreite block.

distributed across the square in order to manage the flow of people and to ensure that the square is used more evenly. The public square is enclosed by four storeys of housing on all sides, thus acting as an effecive barrier to the noise and pollution of the surrounding area.

This vast array of amenities, which are carefully designed and well integrated within the building, serve to promote local neighbourhood life and connect the building to its urban context. The wide range of social, cultural and commercial amenities also cater to the wider neighbourhood, extending the benefits of the Kalkbreite development to its surrounding area. The positive impact and benefit of the diverse amenities and social infrastructure at the Kalkbreite site is enhanced by the presence of good public transport and cycling connections to the city centre. Estate management All tenants contribute to the basic costs of maintaining the building. The Kalkbreite cooperative opened a service centre on site, which is responsible for the maintenance of the entire facility. In addition to this, a reception office, which is located at the entrance is open daily and promptly responds to residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; issues and enquiries. PUBLIC REALM A large open stairwell, between the streets Badenerstrasse and Kalkbreitestrasse, leads both residents and the general public to the 2,500-sq-metres public square at the top of the stairs. The public square is designed to be used flexibly; chairs and tables are movable to allow for more variation in the use of the space. A small water fountain, as well as trees and planting, make the space feel inviting, encouraging activity to take place on the site. Playgrounds are well

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

134

Kalkbreite

BAD

ENE

RST

RAS

SE EB AH NS

AS SE KA

100M

Parking

Case study site

Bus stop

Case study block Pedestrian connections

Tram stop

Tram line

Trees

Train line

Primary residential entrance

Green space

135â&#x20AC;&#x192;

3 2

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

B LK

R ST

Kalkbreite

Local connections A large open stairwell, between Badenerstrasse and Kalkbreitestrasse, leads both residents and the general public to the 2,500-sq-metres raised public square at the centre of the building block. The public square is designed to be used flexibly and to facilitate circulation within the development. An interior street spirals around the building, connecting the entrance at the level of the public square to all communal spaces in the development, terminating at the roof-top residential terraces.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

136

Kalkbreite

RST

RAS

3 4 L

ENE

BAD

SE EB

AH NS

AS SE

B LK

R ST

100M Case study site

3 2

Blank frontage L

Non-residential land use

1. Tram depot

Lift core

Retail

2. Small independent shops

Train line

Stair core

CafĂŠ, bar or restaurant

3. Cinema

Tram stop

Primary residential entrance

Commercial

4. Organic food store

Active frontage

Secondary/service entrance

Civic amenity

5. Restaurant

Passive frontage

Tram depot entrance

Transport

6. Kalkbreite cooperative offices

Tram line

7. Restaurant 8. Bar

137â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Kalkbreite

Building frontages The Kalkbreite development entirely fills the site, defined by the network of intersecting roads and tramlines which surround it, and responds to the massing of the surrounding city. The ground level of the building faĂ§ade overlooking Badenerstrasse is glazed and open, offering a diverse range of retail units, as well an arthouse cinema and bar adjacent to the Kalkbreite tram stop. Around the corner, on the Kalkbreitestrasse, the faĂ§ade remains open with the exception of the exit of the tram depot.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

138

Kalkbreite

MĂźller Sigrist Architekten (photograph by Volker Schopp)

Site activity The ground, first and second floors of the building are rented out to shops, cultural initiatives, restaurants and offices; active frontages serve to animate the street.

139â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Kalkbreite

MĂźller Sigrist Architekten (photograph by Volker Schopp)

Movement through the site A large open stairwell, between the streets Badenerstrasse and Kalkbreitestrasse, leads both residents and the general public to the large public square at the top of the steps.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

140

Kalkbreite

MĂźller Sigrist Architekten (photograph by Volker Schopp)

Public spaces The large public square is designed to be used flexibly, with moveable chairs and tables; several playgrounds, planting and a small water fountain invite activity into the site.

141â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Kalkbreite

MĂźller Sigrist Architekten (photograph by Volker Schopp)

Communal spaces 330 sq metres of communal spaces are available throughout the Kalkbreite development, promoting social exchange between tenants; they have proven to be one of the aspects of the development which the residents are most proud of.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

142

5 Hunziker Areal Project information LOCATION

Zürich, Switzerland

SITE AREA (HECTARES)

DEVELOPER

Baugenossenschaft Mehr als Wohnen (Mehr als Wohnen housing cooperative)

ARCHITECTS

Duplex Architekten Futurafrosch Müller Illien Landschaftsarchitekten (landscape architects)

STATUS

Completed

START-COMPLETION DATES

2007–2015

LEVEL OF INTERVENTION

New build

ORIGINAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AFTER WORKS / UPLIFT

370 / +370

DENSITY (DWELLINGS PER HECTARE)

92.5 (after works)

ORIGINAL TENURE MIX

n/a

TENURE MIX AFTER WORKS

Mixed tenure (percentage breakdown unknown)

Context The Hunziker Areal project is located in the district of Leutschenbach, north of Zürich’s city centre, in the Oerlikon neighbourhood. Located on the site of the former Hunziker concrete factory, the Hunziker Areal is a new quarter built by the housing cooperative Mehr als Wohnen (More than Housing), it comprises thirteen mixed-use and mixed-tenure buildings housing 1,400 residents and providing 150 jobs.220 The area was one of Switzerland’s biggest inner-city industrial areas and has undergone gradual transformation since 1998, with the introduction of residential and commercial developments. This redevelopment has been guided by a set of specific planning and building regulations which have been devised by the Stadt Zürich in conjunction with landowners, seeking to ensure that the character of the former industrial area is retained. One of the earliest initiatives was the establishment of the New Oerlikon

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

M1L 12

SITE

143

development fund, a private-public partnership between the City of Zürich and private investors. Site today (district level) The neighbourhood of Central Oerlikon, where the Hunziker Areal development is located, is easily accessed by a five-minute train ride from both Zürich airport and central Zürich. The Oerlikon train station is located a short five-minute bus journey away from the Hunziker Areal, and residents are encouraged to use this frequent bus service or to cycle to the station rather than driving. A large number of inside and outside cycle parking stands are provided for residents and employees working in the Hunziker Areal development. In addition, a no-car policy is imposed on residents, with exceptions made for special circumstances such as residents with mobility issues. Residents can rent bicycles and electric bicycles from the Hunziker Areal at a discounted price.

Hunziker Areal

The area surrounding the Hunziker Areal presents a wide range of uses. A power plant, situated immediately to the east of the site, recycles waste sustainably and is the main electricity supplier of the Hunkizer Areal development. Residents can use this facility to dispose of any large objects or furniture. A Mercedez Benz factory is located opposite the development, as well as other large office buildings, including several towers owned by Swiss banks and international banks. Many of the former industrial sites are being redeveloped as housing or administrative offices, as industrial uses are being moved further out from the centre of the city. STAKEHOLDERS The Mehr als Wohnen cooperative The Mehr als Wohnen cooperative is the building cooperative responsible for commissioning, funding and delivering the Hunziker Areal development. It was founded in December 2007 as a response to an international ‘ideas’ competition organised by the City of Zürich and its housing cooperatives, calling for ideas regarding the future of non-profit residential construction. This competition took place as part of the festivities organised in celebration of “the centenary of government support for cooperative housing construction, using the slogan ‘100 years of more than housing’”.221 The cooperative was founded with the aim of becoming an innovative and forward-looking residential construction platform offering diverse support to the not-for-profit housing industry in Zürich. The founding of the Mehr als Wohnen cooperative involved the contribution of 55 Zürich cooperatives and the City of Zürich itself. Its members also include the residents of the Hunziker Areal project. Other cooperatives, organisations and individuals living in Switzerland who feel committed to the future of not-for-profit housing can join the cooperative. Individuals must buy a minimum of two CHF 500 shares, and organisations must invest at least CHF 20,000. The capital input from the members is then invested by a committee who look to ensure ethical and secure investment opportunities. Profits made

from the investments are reinvested into the ongoing maintenance of the Hunziker Areal project and future development projects by the cooperative. Members have a right to vote on matters discussed at the annual general meeting. The voting process is a direct democracy: each member has one vote, irrespective of the number of shares that each member holds. The cooperative’s objective from the outset was to develop four hectares of disused industrial land in Leutschenbach made available for building by the city administration. In 2008, the Public Works Department of the City of Zürich collaborated with the Mehr als Wohnen cooperative to launch an international design competition for the development of the site. The objective was to develop a new living and working quarter which adhered to the principles set by the cooperative, which included requirements such as “charting a course to the 2,000-watt society, new apartment types, space for people from all generations, and reasonably priced apartments achieved by optimizing the planning and building process.”222 Stadt Zürich The presence of various legal frameworks which support the cooperatives in Zürich has meant that between 2001 and 2003, 23 percent of new-build housing units in the city were built by non-profit housing cooperatives. The support of the City of Zürich was instrumental in the development of the Hunziker Areal from its inception. It leases the site to the cooperative on a 100-year lease at a subsidised rate. It also ensures that rents remain affordable by fixing them in the leasing contract. Masterplanning team The masterplanning team for the Hunziker Areal project comprised two architectural practices, Duplex Architekten and Futurafrosch. They established specific design guidelines for individual buildings which, contrary to other projects of this scale in Zürich, sought to create architectural coherence while resisting homogeneity. The project contractor, Steiner AG, then oversaw detailed design decisions at the construction stage.

220 Hugentobler (2015, p. 8) 221 B orowski ( 2015, p. 14) 222 Borowski (2015, p. 15)

ca s e s t u d i e s

144

Hunziker Areal

Mehr als Wohnen cooperative guidelines 223 1. Developing and maintaining, and being part of, a diverse and lively city. Being open to taking limited risks as part of being open to learning and testing new ideas for housing. Playing an active role in the wider social and economic development of the city.

4. Promotion of self-organisation and self-initiative. Provision of spaces for community activities. Anyone living or working in the Hunziker Areal development can and should become a member of the cooperative, and participate in the cooperative’s continuing development.

2. Adhering to the guidelines of the ‘2,000-watt society’. Expecting conscious, low energy consumption within, as well as to and from, buildings and providing incentives for this. Aiming to meet residents’ local needs and facilitating locally and sustainably manufactured products.

5. Provision of different types of accommodation which encourage social diversity, tolerance, and openness from all the stakeholders. Provision of commercial spaces to allow residents to live and work in the same place. These should serve residents as well as the local area.

3. Providing low-cost housing by building economically and reinvesting income surpluses. Rents provide funds for the maintenance of properties and for further development projects by the cooperative. Provision for the promotion of solidarity, sustainability, and a shared culture is also part of income generated from rents.

Consultation and selection of residents Consultation with local residents prior to the design competition revealed that the site was still predominantly perceived as an industrial and commercial area. This perception initially seemed to form a barrier in creating a new residential quarter, but consultation with local residents led to this former industrial identity being used instead as a catalyst in the creation of the new identity of the Hunziker Areal scheme, as a place for both living and working. It was therefore held as a leading example of how the north of Zürich can redefine its urban identity. Following the design competition for the Hunziker Areal scheme, a six-month dialogue began between the winning architectural and landscape offices, Stadt Zürich, the competition jury, the local community and other local stakeholders; this process allowed the project to be further refined and developed. After this initial phase of consultation, a longer two-year consultation

223 M ehr als Wohnen ( 2007) 224 Heye and Fuchs ( 2015, p. 126)

145

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

6. Provision of services for residents, traders and guests. Creation of micro-jobs for residents and work with social and not-for-profit organisations. Promotion of neighbourly help and creation of strategies to provide support during personal emergency situations.

and dialogue with a range of stakeholders began. It included various events and programmes such as workshops with experts in technologies and concepts for construction, regular presentations by the architects, tours of the building site, a phased ‘Art in Building’ project with artists Irene Grillo and Stephan Wagner, workshops with children who built their own city on the wasteland of the former concrete factory, and an urban farming project with a local school. The initial intention of the cooperative was to avoid setting quotas for the makeup of the scheme’s resident population and instead “to orient itself to the population structure of the Zürich canton”,224 ensuring that the scheme promotes social diversity. However, it became clear during the planning of the selection process that Zürich’s housing market tends to exclude certain population categories, such as households with children and immigrants. In response, the cooperative made the decision to favour these groups. For example, although

Hunziker Areal

Photograph by Johannes Marburg

Site approach The masterplan was developed according to the concept of dicke typen (thick typologies); it merges the blockrand (perimeter block) typolog y and that of the high-rise block; the main faĂ§ades of the buildings face the larger public squares.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

146

Hunziker Areal

a cost-efficient building process225 already ensures lower rents, 80 of the 370 apartments are further subsidised by the local authority and made available exclusively to lower-income households.226 The initial leasing process for the scheme took place exclusively online. The cooperative used a tenantdata monitoring (MiMo) software package tailored specifically to the Hunziker Areal development. This allowed the cooperative to monitor the demographic and socio-economic composition of potential tenants and inform its decision-making process. Applicants were given the opportunity to list up to three apartment preferences, on the condition that apartments selected do not contain more rooms than the number of individuals making up the household. The cooperative also collaborated with a number of different institutions to actively invite tenants often excluded from the housing market. “A total of just under 10 percent of all apartments were reserved for the Züriwerk Foundation, which supports people with impairments; the Domicil Foundation, which finds apartments above all for families with immigrant backgrounds and restricted budgets; the WoKo Cooperative, which is oriented toward students and teachers; and the ZKJ Foundation, which finds homes for children who have not been able to live with their families for a long period.”227 A preliminary analysis of the makeup of the Hunziker Areal population has revealed that the proportion of young families and the number of children is higher than figures for the city of Zürich. Young adults are also set to rise to 48 percent of the total tenants on site. Forty percent of the new tenants do not possess a Swiss nationality. The study concludes that the wide range of apartment types has supported the creation of a more diverse residential population than found on other estates in Zürich.228 The Hunziker Areal project also places a strong emphasis on intergenerational living. Its design takes

into account the needs of the elderly but also promotes intergenerational mixing through a number of strategies, such as the provision of a wide range of public spaces which are accessible and carefully sign-posted as meeting places for the whole community. The provision of unconventional typologies such as cluster apartments (small flats clustered around shared communal spaces) is also key in enabling multi-generational families to live together. The availability of a wide range of shared spaces allows the elderly population to remain an active part of their community, thereby helping to reduce the sense of loneliness and isolation often experienced in older age. Neighbourhood groups Since the completion of the Hunziker Areal scheme, neighbourhood groups have been formed to further inform the development’s current and future life. Each of these groups is made up of five or more residents and carries out specific projects, such as the founding of an international community café. Application to join the neighbourhood groups is open to all residents, and groups can apply for project funding and use any of the public meeting rooms in the Hunziker Areal free of charge. Provision has also been made for independent consultation between the Hunziker Areal residents and residents of the wider area who wish to discuss matters concerning the Hunziker Areal scheme and its wider community implications. The Allmend Commission was elected for the first time by the cooperative’s General Assembly in 2016. Its role is to promote cultural, community, artistic and ecological activities at the Hunziker Areal. The Allmend Commission is responsible for allocating financial resources to neighbourhood groups and for coordinating the use of all public meeting rooms at the site. A representative from the commission is also responsible for coordinating discussions between neighbourhood groups and residents, and coordinating the implementation of various projects.

225 226 227 228

hereby the rent charged for apartments does not constitute a source of profit on investment. W H eye and Fuchs ( 2015, p. 127) Heye and Fuchs (2015) Heye and Fuchs (2015, p. 128)

147

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hunziker Areal

Photograph by Johannes Marburg

Movement through the site A clear network of footpaths, streets and passages runs through and across the site, connecting it to the surrounding area and providing access to the buildings and the diverse programmes they host.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

148

rns

stu

dio

Hunziker Areal

12 11

11 O e

rli

TO ZÜRICH CITY CENTRE

TO ke

ZÜ RI CH rh CI us TY

100M

Case study site

Tram stop Bus stop

Pedestrian connections

Green space

Cycle lane

Water body

Tram line

Parking

Train Line

149

10 11 12

Case study blocks

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hunziker Areal

Neighbourhood connections The Hunziker Areal project is located in the the district of Leutschenbach, north of Zürich’s city centre, in the Oerlikon neighbourhood. It is easily accessed by a train from both Zürich airport and central Zürich. The Oerlikon train station is located a short five-minute bus journey away from the Hunziker Areal, and residents are encouraged to use this convenient bus service or to cycle to the station rather than driving, in order to align with the project’s commitment to reducing energy consumption.

ca s e s t u d i e s

150

Hunziker Areal

rns

stu

dio

12 11

11 2 8

11 O e

rli

TO ZÜRICH CITY CENTRE

TO ke

ZÜ RI CH rh CI us TY

5 7

100M Case study site Tram line 10 11 12 Tram stop Train line

Sports and leisure

1. School complex

Exhibition and trade centre

Health

2. Sports spectator stand

Television studios

Retail

Utilities

3. Swimming pool

9. Bus garage

Café, restaurant or bar

Transport

4. Ice rink

10. Recycling power plant

Commercial

Parking

5. Dance hall

11. Car sales centre

Education

Green Space

Residential Hotel

Religious

151

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

6. Football training grounds

Hunziker Areal

Predominant land use The Hunziker Areal is surrounded by a wide range of uses, including a power plant supplying electricity to the development; a Mercedez Benz factory; and large office buildings. Many former industrial sites are being redeveloped as housing or administrative offices, as industrial uses are being moved further out from the centre of the city.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

152

Hunziker Areal

BLOCKS Key approach and usage study The Hunziker Areal scheme had to respond not only to the diverse constraints of the site, but also to the industrial heritage of the area and the ideology of the cooperative. The masterplan was developed according to the concept of dicke typen (thick typologies) – an architectural floor plan merging the blockrand (perimeter block) typology and that of the high-rise block. Some of the blocks are over 30m deep and 22m high, and the distance between buildings is often around 9m. The 9m spaces between buildings are lined with trees and connect to wider roads or public squares. This network of passages also connects the site to the wider area so that future developments can be integrated to the Hunziker Areal, by adopting the architectural and spatial concepts which characterise the Hunziker Areal scheme. In order to support the five different architectural offices responsible for the design of individual buildings, the masterplanning team compiled a set of design guidelines. Design teams were to include rooms with 4m-high ceilings on the ground floor for ‘public or communal’ use, or rooms with 2.9m-high ceilings for living raised above the ground level (referred to as hoch parterre). Staircase entrances were to face the street, and the main façade of each block had to overlook the public squares. The concepts of ‘twins’ and ‘sibling buildings’ were also introduced; the architectural teams which designed three blocks on site were required to locate two of these blocks, the ‘twins’ opposite each other, and the third one, the ‘sibling’ as far away from the other two as possible. This was to ensure that, architecturally, the buildings resisted homogeneity, while remaining coherent.

229 B orowski ( 2015. p. 15) 230 B oudet ( 2015. p. 21)

153

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

In order to promote social and economic diversity, the project comprises a range of experimental housing typologies (from studio and family apartments to shared and ‘satellite’ apartments), “exploring the entire spectrum of possible habitation forms.”229 The development includes 23 studio apartments, 315 apartments comprising between 2 and 7.5 rooms for families and small flat shares, 25 apartments comprising between 9 and 13.5 rooms for community living, and 3 live-in studios. One building, Dialogweg 6, consists only of a typology known as ‘satellite apartments’ or ‘cluster apartments’. These are “a hybrid form that combines the small apartment and the shared household: several individuals or couples each live in one or two rooms (usually equipped with a kitchenette and a small bathroom) but collectively use a large living/cooking/ eating area and in some cases a guest room.”230 Five or six apartments are clustered around a larger communal area, with two of these units per floor. These apartments are occupied by communities of friends, often young individuals and couples without children, as well as by individuals supported by particular social initiatives, such as a care home for younger people who cannot live with their parents, and the organisation, Züriwerk, which provides living arrangements and support for disabled adults. Arrival and ground plane interface The north end of the Hunziker Areal site is open to Hagenholtzstrasse, a main road connecting the site to motorway 64, which leads north to Zürich airport or south to Zürich city centre. Hagenholtzstrasse is a treelined street and it accomodates a mix of industrial and administrative buildings. The Hunziker Areal scheme is slightly set back from the street, providing a welcoming entrance into the site and rentable spaces suitable for cafés and restaurants on the ground floor, with space to spill out during warmer seasons. Within the site,

Hunziker Areal

the main façades of the buildings face the larger public squares. Smaller back streets enhance the permeability of the site. This creates a clear spatial hierarchy across the site. The ground floor of all blocks is almost entirely occupied by a range of retail, food and beverage outlets, offices, and facilities for sports and leisure, education, and medical services. Workshops, seminar rooms and co-working spaces can also be found on the ground floor of some buildings and are available free of charge to residents. In addition to these facilities, the cooperative has promoted innovative ventures which draw upon the site’s history as a place of industry and commerce, and respond to the cooperative’s objective of supporting locally manufactured goods and social enterprise. The Züriwerk Atelier, for example, supports individuals with disabilities by providing training in a discipline of their choice and enabling them to actively participate in working life by gaining employment in specific companies such as the Züriwerk bakeries, garden centres, or the HORA theatre, in the Hunziker Areal or elsewhere. Other examples include a clothing company, which designs, makes and sells handmade clothes for adults and children; two local food and beverage shops selling organic and seasonal produce; and a violin maker. These various amenities are visible from the surrounding public footways and squares, animating the ground plane. The wide range of amenities, including social and community infrastructure, as well as small local businesses, is key to the transformation of the Hunziker Areal from a former and peripheral industrial site to a successful neighbourhood, supported by good transport connections to the city centre.

Estate management The Mehr als Wohnen cooperative is responsible for the ongoing management of the Hunziker Areal, the maintenance of individual properties and the further development of the quarter; to facilitate this, the cooperative’s main offices are situated on the site. The substantial scale of the Hunziker Areal is instrumental in the high quality of the site’s management. For example, the residents benefit from an on-site reception desk which is managed seven days a week. The reception desk provides a first point of call for any questions or concerns regarding the buildings and public spaces within the scheme, as well as their upkeep. The reception staff also responds to ideas and issues concerning the community life of the development. The reception desk is shared with an on-site guesthouse and is made financially viable through revenue generated by the guesthouse. Other services, such as the cleaning of both indoor and outdoor communal spaces, are financed through the residents’ monthly rent. PUBLIC REALM A comprehensive public realm strategy was implemented at the Hunziker Areal site, providing for a variety of public spaces, including a large public square, smaller and more intimate squares, narrow passages for sitting and passing through, and wider streets which allow exclusively pedestrian access to the site. A clear network of footpaths, streets and passages runs through and across the site, connecting it to the surrounding area and providing access to the buildings and the diverse programmes they host. A clear hierarchy can be observed with hard-landscaped paths running between buildings, presenting a more urban and public character, while others follow the hedge of an allotment garden or a green space, creating a more intimate and

ca s e s t u d i e s

154

Hunziker Areal

residential character. During a site visit in January 2017, the sound of children playing could be heard on the Hunziker Areal site, in the school playground and in one of the three on-site childcare facilities, while other areas were characterised by the echo of traffic from the main street. The rear of the site was quieter and more peaceful, with dense planting acting as a sound buffer. A public foot and cycle path runs north of the site, parallel to train tracks behind it. This path connects a number of public spaces, including: a playground with concrete and metal swings, and climbing frames; a large wooden seating area around a public fountain; a meadow with trees; and an allotment garden for residents only. To the east of the site is a school playground attached to school premises, as well as an allotment for local residents, and a small woodland area. While the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public spaces were designed to provide scope for a range of different uses, their specific design was intentionally left open and adaptable. The consultation process, led by the Mehr als Wohnen cooperative, is still ongoing and residents are invited to give their opinion on what they think works well or requires improvement. For example, current plans include the creation of a playground built from wood to complement the concrete and metal playground already on site. A number of smaller squares for adult recreation are also being consulted on. Signs of personal and communal appropriation were observed around the site during the site visit. Brightly painted walls by a community art project contrasted with the grey and beige of the formal architecture. Other elements included hand-painted signs announcing the creation of a new community herb garden; banners hung outside apartments welcoming refugees; and furniture such as garden chairs, tables, and toys installed on street-level terraces.

155â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hunziker Areal

Baugenossenschaft mehr als wohnen (photograph by Lucas Ziegler)

Public spaces Public spaces within the development were designed to provide scope for a range of different uses.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

156

Hunziker Areal

LEN AT

FU SS W EG

SAATLE NZE LG

HA GE NHO

LZST RAS SE D IA L

OGW

RI ED GR AB

100M

Case study site

Green space

Case study block

Bus stop

Pedestrian connections

Trees

Cycle lane

Primary residential entrance

Train line

157â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hunziker Areal

Local connections The north end of the site is open to Hagenholtzstrasse, a main road connecting the site to motorway 64, which leads north to ZĂźrich airport or south to ZĂźrich city centre. The Hunziker Areal scheme is slightly set back from the street, providing a welcoming entrance into the site. A clear network of footpaths, streets and passages runs through and across the site, connecting it to the surrounding area and providing access to the buildings and the diverse activities they host.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

158

Hunziker Areal

LEN AT

FU SS W EG

SAATLE NZE LG

HA GE NHO

LZST

RAS

L L

D IA L

OGW

RI ED GR AB

100M Case study site

Non-residential land use Hotel

including: a bakery, restaurants, hair salons, a

Active frontage

Retail

childcare centre, a nursery school, primary schools,

Passive frontage

CafĂŠ, bar or restaurant

an indoor play space, a dance studio, a gallery space,

Primary residential entrance

Commercial

Secondary/service entrance

Education

Lift core

Sports and leisure

Stair core

Health Green space

159â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Varied uses within ground floor of development

Train line

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

a cinema, music rehearsal rooms, a commercial office space, a violin maker, a dressmaker, an estate management office, a hotel, and a cosmetics and beauty school.

Hunziker Areal

Building frontages Within the Hunziker Areal site, the main faĂ§ades of the buildings face the larger public squares. The smaller back streets have a tighter grain with narrower openings and fewer main entrances. The ground floor of all blocks is almost entirely occupied by a range of retail, food and beverage outlets, offices, and facilities for sports and leisure, education, and medical services. These various uses are visible from the surrounding public footways and squares, helping to animate the ground plane.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

160

Hunziker Areal

Photograph by Johannes Marburg

Public spaces While the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public spaces were designed to provide scope for a range of different uses, their specific design was intentionally left open and adaptable.

161â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hunziker Areal

Baugenossenschaft mehr als wohnen

Communal spaces Workshops, seminar rooms and communal spaces are located on the ground floor of some buildings; they are available free of charge and are well used by residents.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

162

Hunziker Areal

Photograph by Johannes Marburg

Communal spaces A preliminary analysis of the makeup of the Hunziker Areal population revealed a high proportion of young families, with the number of households with children higher than figures for the city of ZĂźrich, the communal spaces cater to the needs of different age groups.

163â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hunziker Areal

Photograph by Johannes Marburg

Ground floor uses Ground floor tenancies include a diverse range of amenities and small businesses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including a clothing company which designs, makes, and sells handmade clothes for adults and children â&#x20AC;&#x201C; many of which are owned and operated by local residents.

ca s e s t u d i e s â&#x20AC;&#x192;

164

Conclusions and recommendations Housing renewal appears to offer a solution to increase housing supply, and its quality, by making maximum use of the existing local assets on each site. The process of housing renewal is complex and requires a long-term perspective, sustained partnerships, and expertise on engaging with existing residents, so that developments can be integrated with the wider area, creating mixed and sustainable communities. This conclusion highlights the key challenges and opportunities involved in housing renewal, the key strategies for creating and supporting social and community cohesion in housing renewal, and ways that housing providers can form and sustain partnerships. In so doing, this conclusion aims to answer the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research questions. A set of key recommendations, also included in this section, synthesises lessons learned to indicate practical steps towards best practice in housing renewal.

165

Summary of conclusions and recommendations

Housing renewal has the potential to increase housing supply by making more efficient use of the local assets available to an estate. The process of housing renewal is complex and requires a long-term perspective and long-standing partnerships, and expertise on working with existing residents, integrating developments with the wider area and creating a mixed and sustainable community. The lessons and recommendations provided in this report are an initial step towards developing strategic guidance on housing renewal, which will be explored in Phase 2 of this research. KEY LESSONS Densification Infill sites provide the opportunity for rethinking wider areas and linking a development to the surrounding neighbourhoods, but a careful survey of existing conditions is necessary to ascertain improvement needs so that the appropriate density for the site can be determined. Refurbishment versus demolition and rebuild Refurbishment can often deliver significant improvements in housing quality and wellbeing at a faster rate than demolition and rebuilding. Providing a clear benefit for the current residents before implementing renewal or densification aimed at attracting new residents helps build support for a scheme, and facilitates community cohesion and trust between communities and developers. Decanting and phasing strategies Well-structured and precise phasing removes the need for multiple decants or temporary housing during renewal works, minimising disruption for residents, reducing costs and ensuring work is completed on schedule. Community engagement Community engagement which occurs early in project planning benefits both the development scheme and the residents and can allow residents to make meaningful contributions to the development of the scheme. Social and community cohesion Adaptable and flexible internal and semi-external spaces which can be appropriated by the residents can help cultivate a sense of ownership and ensure spaces can be adapted to meet residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; changing needs, increasing their ability to remain in their flats as their living circumstances change (i.e. to accommodate a growing family or an older resident). Keeping local business and activities running as usual through the construction phase allows existing social networks to thrive.

Social infrastructure By investing in a wide range of social infrastructure such as community facilities, playgrounds and medical practices, the wider area can benefit from a renewal scheme and local residents are more likely to support the project. Local support and the presence of key social infrastructure can facilitate the overall speed of delivery. Sustaining good partnerships Both local authorities and developers should choose their housing renewal partners carefully, to ensure that they select organisations that have similar values, can share risks, secure upfront investment and establish sustainable partnerships for the long term. Unitary leadership and visions Clear leadership and a compelling vision are necessary to convince investors and partners to take a long-term approach to returns and ensure that any partnerships remain strong throughout a project. Funding models Housing providers adopting a cross-subsidy funding model have the opportunity to demonstrate the viability of subsidising affordable homes with profits made through providing market rent/sale units. Valuing best practice The benefits of best practice in housing renewal for developers are not limited to long-term economic returns but also include social benefits and the opportunity to influence the wider housing renewal sector through innovation. Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a useful tool for quantifying social and environmental change, which can help convince funders to invest in projects with a greater emphasis on social values. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Understand the site 2. Start with existing residents 3. Engage early 4. Deliver the homes that are needed 5. Balance provision of density with provision of social amenity 6. Minimise community disruption 7. Partner and invest for the long term

166

Densification • Densification is a process that involves increasing the number of dwellings per hectare through a number of methods including infill, and demolition and rebuild. Estate densification is seen as having great potential for increasing housing supply in London through redeveloping its existing estates. However, creating a successful neighbourhood is particularly challenging at high density due to the management issues involved. • There needs to be a greater understanding of the viability of different densification options and strategies. Hyperdensity is not suited to estate regeneration due to the challenge in delivering mixed communities and sustainable neighbourhoods.231 Instead, high density medium-rise street-based developments which are tenure-blind tend to be more sustainable. • Density calculations based on ‘units per hectare’ are driving an increase in land value and making homes more expensive to buy or rent. It has been suggested that density calculation based on ‘beds per hectare’ can encourage the development of a broader range of housing typologies.

densification schemes can incorporate an appropriate refurbishment strategy for existing stock and public spaces. This will ensure that the needs of existing residents continue to be prioritised while also aiming to attract new residents. At the Tybalds Estate (London; p. 21), densification was achieved through the refurbishment of existing homes and the delivery of 93 new infill units through extensions to the side and on rooftops of the building. Refurbishment versus demolition and rebuild • There is a growing body of evidence suggesting refurbishment to be preferable to demolition for delivering improved environmental, social and economic impacts. At Ellebo Garden Room (Ballerup, Denmark; p. 25), a carefully designed phasing strategy during refurbishment allowed for minimal environmental, social and economic impacts, and at the same time ensured that the heritage value of the buildings was preserved.

• In inner London, higher density can be achieved through mid-rise developments on infill sites.232

• Large-scale demolition schemes have the potential to disrupt close-knit, settled communities, resulting in the erosion of social and community cohesion. At the community level, refurbishment can reduce the sense of isolation, through the retention of existing social networks and community structures, and allowing for the preservation of existing social capital. Architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal, at Tour Bois-le-Prêtre (Paris, France; p. 45) and GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 61), demonstrated how sensitive refurbishment can be carried out with minimal impact on the wellbeing and existing social networks/relations of the residents.

• A careful survey of existing conditions, such as those conducted at the Tybalds Estate (London; p. 21) and La Chesnaie (Saint-Nazaire, France; p. 23), is necessary to ascertain improvement needs so that

• Refurbishment can often also deliver significant improvements in housing quality and wellbeing at a faster rate than demolition and rebuilding, but health issues during refurbishment should be closely

• Infill sites provide the opportunity for rethinking wider areas and linking a development to the surrounding neighbourhoods. At the Tybalds Estate (London; p. 21), the redevelopment scheme has sought to repair the urban grain by creating clear routes and better defined public spaces.

231 ‘Hyperdensity’ is used to describe density that is over 350 homes or dwellings per hectare, which is the top of the London Plan Density Matrix. The top of the London Plan Density Matrix is at 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare for central well-connected sites. 232 According to Beharrell ( 2015), mid-rise developments range from 150–350 dwellings per hectare and are generally 5–8 storeys tall.

167

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

monitored. At Tour Bois-le-Prêtre (Paris, France; p. 45) and GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 61), architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal implemented a two-step process involving providing a clear benefit for the current residents (i.e. improvement in their living standards) before implementing renewal or densification aimed at attracting new residents. As also exemplified in the Bacton Low Rise Estate (London; p. 19), existing maintenance issues experienced by current residents need to be addressed and fully understood by the developers, prior to delving into the particulars of physical regeneration. Such understanding can provide insight into developing refurbishment specifications and plans which respond to the unique needs of each site and its community. • Refurbishment of social housing – even in hardto-treat structures – can deliver more significant improvements in living standards for residents than demolition; given that the overall lifetime costs may be lower and that the process involves less disruption to local communities. For example, the improvement of space standards, including the addition of a winter garden, as part of a refurbishment strategy in Tour Bois-le-Prêtre (Paris, France; p. 45), GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 61) and Ellebo Garden Rooms (Ballerup, Denmark; p. 25), significantly extended the functionality of the buildings, allowing the residents to live there longer and to adapt the space for different phases in their own lives. • In past schemes, such as GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 61) and Urban Renovation Lormont (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France, p. 83), when residents stayed in their flats during refurbishment, having residents on-site provided pressure to complete works on time and at the agreed quality and standard. • There are many factors driving demolition, including the existing residents themselves who may see it as an opportunity for a fresh start in a new unit. In Bacton Low Rise Estate (London; p. 19), after a refurbishment scheme that failed to address key maintenance issues, residents were consulted on a demolition and rebuild scheme. Significant maintenance issues affecting the existing buildings and the prospect of moving only once, without the need for temporary housing convinced residents of the benefits of the demolition and rebuild scheme.

Decanting and phasing strategies • Well-structured and precise phasing ensures that families which are upsizing (i.e. moving to a larger unit after renewal works) only move once without the need for temporary accommodation during renewal works. As demonstrated in Paspoel Anders (Tongeren, Belgium; p. 31), a precise phasing strategy was not only cost efficient, it also minimised disruption by avoiding placing any families in temporary accommodation. A well-structured and precise phasing strategy can also help speed up the delivery of housing. • Social and community cohesion can be retained by moving tenants and neighbourhoods in large clusters at the same time. At Singapore’s Dawson Estate (p. 41), the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) compensated residents based on market value and gave them the option to choose new homes in the same (new-build) development or in another similar development elsewhere, giving them the option to stay together in the interests of community cohesion. Community engagement • Community engagement with residents should occur as early as possible in the project. Co-operative housing projects in Zürich offer some valuable examples on the benefit of clear communication and early engagement. At Hunziker Areal (Zürich, Switzerland; p. 143), consultation with local residents took place prior to the design competition. This allowed residents to make a meaningful contribution to the development of the scheme, which included both living and working spaces. • It is crucial for developers and architects to take part in direct engagement with residents to gain a better understanding of residents’ needs and to listen to any concerns raised. This approach was taken by Adam Khan Architects in developing Ellebo Garden Rooms (Ballerup, Denmark; p. 25), allowing the architects to effectively address the needs of the residents in the subsequent design process. • Organising a wide range of events and using different engagement methods, from general public meetings to smaller workshops, such as those employed at Bacton Low Rise Estate (London; p. 19), can help reach different tenant groups and provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement. Innovative and interactive strategies, including show-flats, site visits and noise simulations, such as those deployed in GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area,

c o n c l u s i o n s a n d r e c o m m e n da t i o n s

168

France; p. 61), may also help inform and engage a wide range of resident groups, including children, old people, women, and ethnic minorities (who are often excluded from more traditional engagement methods). • Organised community groups at Fatima Mansions (Dublin, Ireland; p. 17) and Bacton Low Rise Estate (London; p. 19) have been instrumental in developing a sense of ownership and participation among residents. Providing residents with training in reading floor-plans and understanding the planning system, for example at Bacton Low Rise Estate (London; p. 19) through the Glasshouse Trust, allows residents to engage in a consultation process more effectively. • Providing a representative of the project manager’s office on-site, particularly during the construction phase, helps to capture and address any resident concerns that may arise. This strategy was critical to the success of GHI Le Grand Parc and Urban Renovation Lormont (both in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; pp. 61-83). • Although some local authorities favour ballots for all major regeneration initiatives as an effective way of crystallising support for regeneration proposals, ballots and votes often result in complex issues being reduced to yes/no questions at a single point in time. Social and community cohesion • The appropriate social mix of an estate can be determined by surveying the wider area social mix. The Hunziker Areal project (Zürich, Switzerland; p. 143) aimed to replicate the city-wide social mix in the new development, using data software that facilitated achieving an appropriate mix within the initial leasing process. • It is important to manage the integration of different tenure types through various design strategies, including the design of entrances. As demonstrated by the Splayed Apartment Blocks (Rotterdam, The Netherlands; p. 53), a good understanding of the unique resident dynamic is important; mixing different tenure types within a single block is not always the preferred option. In this case, residents preferred a more socially compartmentalised distribution of tenures, so that older residents could have exclusive access to their blocks. • Where intergenerational housing is included in a scheme, it is important to ensure that a mechanism (such as social programmes and the provision of

169

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

municipal facilities) such as those provided at Plaza de America Intergenerational Housing (Alicante, Spain; p. 51) is in place to facilitate interaction between older and younger tenants. • The provision of adaptable flexible spaces can cultivate a sense of ownership among residents. In both GHI Le Grand Parc (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 61) and Carré Lumière (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 103), residents have the opportunity to use their flexible living spaces according to their individual changing needs (i.e. to accommodate a growing family or an older resident). Social infrastructure • It is critical that renewed estates are integrated into surrounding areas to ensure the benefits of their renewal are experienced by the wider area. • A development can be integrated with its surroundings by increasing its permeability, through establishing clear pedestrian routes through the estate and using glazed dual aspect entrances, as shown at Urban Renovation Lormont (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 83). • Where possible, a renewal scheme should also aim to improve wider transport connections and access to the estate, such as at Urban Renovation Lormont (Bordeaux Metropolitan Area, France; p. 83), where pedestrian links between the tram station and the development were improved as part of the redevelopment scheme. • Existing social infrastructure can also be improved and integrated into the wider area through renewal of housing estates. There is often a risk that new developments stretch the capacity of public services, affecting the quality of life of the existing local community. However, by maximising local assets through investing in social infrastructure, the wider area can benefit from the redevelopment scheme, and local residents in the neighbourhood are more likely to support the project. Three case studies in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area (GHI Le Grand Parc, Urban Renovation Lormont and Carré Lumière) demonstrate how a wide range of existing social infrastructure (playground, schools, medical practice, day-care centre etc.) can be integrated into the development site, adding to wider communal assets. • Social infrastructure is crucial in supporting changing needs throughout residents’ lifetimes. Dawson Estate in Singapore (p. 41) promotes intergenerational living by providing a range of social infrastructure, from

nursery schools to elderly care, which is designed to support residents’ changing needs so they can remain in the same neighbourhood throughout their lives. • Other examples of social infrastructure integrated into developments include a new-build housing complex in New York City, Via Verde (p. 37), which was developed with the concept of health and wellbeing at its centre; and Osdorp Mixed Use Centre and Housing (Amsterdam, The Netherlands; p. 33), where schools are not only physically integrated into the housing, through innovative design, but are also open to the public to encourage social interaction. • It is important to ensure that local businesses and the residential community can continue to function as usual during construction so that economic and social networks within the community continue to grow with minimal disruptions. Meanwhile uses can help animate a site during construction periods. On the South Kilburn Estate (London; p. 47), meanwhile uses also allowed new local enterprises to test their business ideas through temporary shops and cafés. • The presence of a major infrastructure and generous provision of diverse communal amenity on site, such as that of a tram depot and a range of existing uses at Kalkbreite (Zürich, Switzerland; p. 123) can help garner local support, thus facilitating the speed of delivery of housing. Establishing and sustaining partnerships • Both local authorities and developers should choose their housing renewal partners carefully, to ensure they select organisations that have similar values, can share risks, secure upfront investment and establish sustainable partnerships for the long term. • An innovative partnership model is required to address the impact of rising housing costs in major cities like London, such as the exodus of talent from London. For example, partnerships between a major employer, Deloitte, and the owners of a large-scale build-to-rent scheme helped provide affordable accommodation for the company’s employees in London. Unitary leadership and visions • Unitary leadership is often seen to be critical to the successful development of large sites, ensuring they are integrated into the surrounding urban fabric and provide adequate community infrastructure.

• Even though projects to redevelop London’s large sites may be too expensive and impractical to be delivered by a single body, it is crucial to ensure that there is a unified vision for all stakeholders involved in delivery, coupled with masterplanning and leadership, to avoid fragmented development. A carefully considered and precisely phased masterplan will also ensure that a long-running project causes minimal disruption to surrounding neighbourhoods. • Clear leadership and a compelling vision are needed to convince investors and partners to take a long-term approach to returns and ensure that any partnerships remain strong through economic or political change. Funding models • Innovative funding models have sought to deliver market sale homes as a way of generating funds for financing the refurbishment of existing social housing. Following the UK Government’s encouragement to councils to examine their land and housing assets, the London Borough of Camden became the first council to act as a house builder in developing the Maiden Lane housing estate (p. 55). The council established a programme aimed at ensuring that improvements to the social infrastructure and homes in the borough are fully reliant on funds generated through market sale of units by the council. • Cross-subsidy as a funding model presents the opportunity to demonstrate the viability of subsidising affordable housing with profits made through providing market rent units. Valuing best practice • The benefits of best practice in housing renewal for a developer are not limited to increase in property and land values. They also extend to other less quantifiable values, including social benefits (such as improving health and education, supporting community cohesion and reducing crime) and the opportunity to influence the wider housing renewal sector through innovation. There is therefore a need for estate regeneration to be evaluated not solely on economic terms. • The Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach provides a useful framework through which to embed a number of measures to value social and environmental change. A study of the impact of the Rayners Lane Estate regeneration on its occupants carried out by the LSE has been widely publicised

c o n c l u s i o n s a n d r e c o m m e n da t i o n s

170

as a benchmark for future regeneration projects and also served to promote the benefits of adopting a socially oriented approach to estate regeneration. Developers and providers that wish to incorporate the value of social and environmental change into a housing project can also seek out partnerships with practitioners working in this field until such time as capacity in the housing renewal sector increases. • The challenge of quantifying social value and impact makes it difficult to engage different investors and partners in schemes which have greater emphasis on social programmes and infrastructure. However, the development of Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) may help persuade funders to invest in projects that may not appear to be economically advantageous in the short term, when measured using conventional valuation methods. Private sector interest in delivering Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) is likely to be stimulated by statute, client requirement or a desire for organisations to differentiate themselves commercially from competitors.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS This section suggests seven key recommendations that should be considered in carrying out housing renewal: 1. Understand the site 2. Start with existing residents 3. Engage early 4. Deliver the homes that are needed 5. Balance provision of density with provision of social amenity 6. Minimise community disruption 7. Partner and invest for the long term These recommendations are accompanied by a set of potential actions through which a new entrant into the housing renewal sector can deploy existing skills and make a meaningful contribution to the sector. 1. Understand the site • Where possible, work with independent agencies to gather information about the site, to ensure that residents feel they are contributing to the project and receiving impartial information. • Map existing community networks and stakeholders to ensure all necessary organisations and groups are identified for engagement. • Commission a survey of the wider area, and all buildings and public spaces on site, noting: use/ function, users, any programming of facilities, connections between buildings and also with the surrounding area, and quality and condition of all existing assets. 2. Start with existing residents • Ensure that the interests of existing residents are prioritised in the development of a new renewal scheme. This will help reassure residents of the benefits they will gain from the works, thus helping to secure their support of the proposed scheme. • Explore new delivery models where local authorities retain a financial stake in the development, which allows them to invest in long-term objectives by prioritising local needs and fostering social and community cohesion. • Implement a two-step process involving giving the current residents something before implementing estate-wide renewal or densification. • Fully address and understand existing maintenance

171

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

issues experienced by current residents prior to delving into the particulars of physical regeneration. • Minimise upheaval and rehousing costs by exploring densification through infill development and adding extra floors to existing developments. 3. Engage early • Begin community engagement and public consultation as early as possible, and allow residents, businesses and workers in the area to provide meaningful input throughout the project. • Organise a wide range of events using various methods, from general public meetings to smaller workshops, to reach different tenant groups and provide more opportunities for a meaningful engagement. • Consider innovative and interactive strategies, including show-flats, site visits and simulations, to engage a wide range of resident groups, including children, old people, women, and ethnic minorities. • Ensure a constant two-way exchange of information and feedback to allow the development to best respond to community needs, and consider facilitating this process by providing on-site presence particularly during the construction phase, to address residents’ enquiries. • Provide residents with the necessary training (i.e. reading floor-plans and understanding the planning system) so that they can take part in consultation in an informed and meaningful way. 4. Deliver the homes that are needed • Explore innovative practices to support alternative avenues of housing delivery such as off-site manufacture, custom and self-build. • Ensure that units offered through the private rented sector are both wide-ranging in size and typology and genuinely affordable. • Maintain clear communication with existing tenants and provide them with assurance of a guaranteed right-to-return to put their mind at ease about the risk of new housing or tenure type to their future housing prospects. • Consider providing different housing tenure types within a renewal scheme, which will benefit both aspiring home-owners and renters.

• Manage the integration of different tenure types through various design strategies, such as the design of entrances. • Use the opportunity of a renewal project to re-evaluate the spatial needs of each households so that all household are allocated the appropriate unit for their family size and needs. • Explore ways that homes can be designed to accommodate the changing lifestyles of families so that residents can make long-term investments in their homes to adapt it according to different life stages. • Where intergenerational housing is included in the scheme, ensure that a mechanism (such as social programmes) is in place to facilitate interaction between the elderly and younger tenants. 5. Balance provision of density with provision of social amenity • Avoid building at hyperdensity (i.e. density that is over 350 homes or dwellings per hectare), as this poses significant estate management challenges that make developments unsustainable (i.e. management needs of wide ranging occupants within the same housing estate become too demanding to keep up with). • Improve existing transportation routes and access to a development to help integrate it into the wider urban fabric. • Consider the wider context of an area, including social infrastructure provision, so that new developments do not stretch the capacity of public services but instead improve the wellbeing of residents and contribute to amenity in the area. • Develop a clear hierarchy of spaces, to clearly separate public routes from private residential spaces, removing ambiguity in the access rights to spaces on site. • Provide flexible interior and external spaces to cultivate a sense of ownership among residents, and allow residents to appropriate these spaces according to their changing needs. • Ensure that wide-ranging amenity is provided to meet the needs of a variety of resident groups, including the elderly and children.

• Develop a good understanding of the unique dynamic of existing residents, which is critical in determining the tenure mix of each estate.

c o n c l u s i o n s a n d r e c o m m e n da t i o n s

172

6. Minimise community disruption • Compare the environmental, social and economic impacts of refurbishment and demolition in determining the appropriate type of scheme for a site, being careful to take into account the wellbeing of the residents and existing social capital. • Explore effective frameworks for evaluating social and environmental change, such as Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) which have the potential to translate social change into data then into monetary values. • Retain existing community and local economic activity (i.e. through a retail strategy that covers small businesses and community centres) to ensure that communities thrive amid change. • Where possible, provide space for meanwhile uses, such as pop-up cafés and temporary sports amenities, to help animate a site during construction periods and allow new enterprises to test new business ideas in the local area. • Avoid decanting by implementing a well-structured, accurate and effective phasing strategy. Where possible, keep residents in their homes during works; to provide custodianship of the building, and to apply pressure to complete works on time and to the agreed quality. • Take every opportunity to avoid ‘double decant’ and the need for temporary accommodation through careful and accurate phasing. • Implement an incremental design strategy to minimise disruption to people’s life plans. • Careful consideration should be given to implementing a precise ‘patchwork’ phasing plan, allowing for a rolling decant with minimal disruption to the residents. There must also be a contingency plan from the outset to take into account all variables that are likely to affect the timely delivery of the scheme. • During decanting, retain social and community cohesion by moving tenants and neighbourhoods in large clusters at the same time. • Consider the significant impact of redevelopment works on the quality of life of residents, and minimise maintenance issues while ensuring sufficient budget for upkeep of blocks during the construction phase. • Ensure that, in the case of demolition, homes are emptied and demolished as quickly as possible to make way for the new development and to prevent

173

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

uncertainty and a heightened sense of insecurity about the future of their homes, which can be traumatic for residents. 7. Partner and invest for the long term • Establish trust by developing the skills to listen to and engage with residents, and provide a reliable and direct avenue through which residents can voice their opinions and aspirations for the new development. • Provide independent advice to residents throughout the process of a project to ensure that residents receive impartial information, which will help them engage in a consultation process more effectively, as part of the process of establishing resident support for the scheme. • Provide clear and accurate information at all times to prevent accusation of post hoc rationalisation, which can destroy trust underpinning effective collaboration. • Choose partners carefully, ensuring that housing renewal partners have similar values, can share risk and secure upfront investment and establish resilient partnerships for the long term. • Consider new delivery models that enable local authorities to retain a financial stake in the development, so that long-term objectives that prioritise local communities can be met and a longterm relationship between developers and local authorities can be maintained. • Explore opportunities to engage leading practitioners or housing renewal partners working in specialist fields that seek to quantify social value and impacts, in order to incorporate the value of social and environmental change into a housing renewal project.

Further research and next steps Following Phase 1 of this study (Vital Neighbourhoods: Lessons from international housing renewal), Phase 2 (Housing Renewal Study – London) will explore opportunities for applying and testing the recommendations developed from the international research in London. Phase 2 will suggest ways in which London’s housing challenges can be addressed through housing renewal (involving both refurbishment and/or densification, and new builds).

c o n c l u s i o n s a n d r e c o m m e n da t i o n s

174

Glossary This glossary collates and defines key acronyms and terms in use within housing renewal literature, policy and guidance documents. As many terms are used to mean different things by different organisations, this report provides its own definitions, based on a wide review of literature, unless otherwise clearly indicated by quoting definitions from other sources.

175

Acronyms CIL DpH FAR GDV GEA GIA RICS SDLT

Community Infrastructure Levy dwellings per hectare floor area ratio gross development value gross external area gross internal area Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Stamp Duty Land Tax

Blight Blight refers to land or properties that are damaged, open and vacant, hazardous, and often do not conform to standards, representing a public nuisance and danger. Demolition is typically the solution to blighted buildings; however, incomplete demolition processes can also create blight, which often occurs when there is a lack of a coherent phasing and decanting strategy in a development or regeneration context. Community cohesion Community cohesion refers to (evidence of) a sense of belonging shared by members of a community. It incorporates the concepts of race equality, social inclusion and social mix with the aim of helping â&#x20AC;&#x153;micro-communities to gel or mesh into an integrated wholeâ&#x20AC;?. 233

Community or public engagement Community engagement is the active participation of local residents and community groups in knowledge exchange and decision-making processes, where outcomes have the potential to affect their experience of a place.234 Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Compulsory Purchase Order is a legal function in the UK that allows certain bodies that need to obtain land or property to do so without the consent of the owner for the purpose of public betterment, for instance in the development of roads and towns. Cross-sector partnership Cross-sector partnerships are strategic alliances or coalitions among companies and their development or housing renewal partners across both the public and private sectors.

233 Robinson and Pearce (2009, p. 7) 234 Herefordshire Council (2014, p. 2)

176

Cross-subsidy Cross-subsidy allows housing associations and other housing providers to explore alternative ways to deliver affordable homes, by combining delivery of social housing and market rent units. Cross-subsidy housing can attract investors and kickstart project funding, enable acceleration in housing delivery and offer boroughs long-term institutional investment.235

Estate renewal Estate renewal is defined as physical intervention involving refurbishment, including, but not limited to, public housing estates.237

Decanting Decanting is the temporary relocation or transfer of people to another place, during the process of regeneration or renewal. ‘Double decant’ refers to situations where residents are required to relocate twice during the process of regeneration or renewal.

Housing density Housing density refers to the concentration of housing units on a development site, and is usually quantified using one of the two measures below:

Estate regeneration Estate regeneration is defined as the process of physical renewal of social housing estates through various combinations of refurbishment, investment, intensification, demolition and rebuilding.236

235 236 237 238 239 240

Taylor ( 2016) Mayor of London ( 2016c) What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth ( 2015) BRE Housing ( 2008) HTA et al. (2015) ibid.

177

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hard to treat buildings/structures Hard to treat buildings/structures are those that, for whatever reason, cannot accommodate ‘staple’ or cost-effective fabric energy efficiency measures.238

Gross density A units-per-hectare density measurement that includes in the calculation land occupied by public rights-of-way, recreational, civic, commercial and other non-residential uses.239 Net density A units-per-hectare density measurement that includes in the calculation only land occupied by residential uses. It does not include streets, parks or other uses.240

Housing renewal Renewal is the long-term process of upgrading housing estates beyond just their physical appearances, also improving their social and economic aspects, such as community cohesion and amenity provision.241 Mixed tenure Mixed tenure estates are those that comprise any mix of social housing tenants with: private renting tenants, with private landlords; shared owners; and owner-occupiers.242 Public consultation Public consultation is a formal process through which citizens and stakeholders can give feedback on policy analysis, proposals and options presented by the executive branch of government. Public consultation typically involves citizens, development partners, architects and local authorities responding to a scheme presented to them by government (rather than them making their own proposals) and, as such, is often considered to be a relatively low-level form of engagement as it gives citizens limited influence in the policy process.243

241 242 243 244 245

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) PPPs refer to funding models driven by collaboration between the public, private and, at times, non-profit sectors. They take many forms but generally provide a framework within which each party contributes and shares some level of risk. PPPs are often viewed as a way of financing large schemes, including the provision of social and affordable housing.244 Residualisation Residualisation refers to the transformation of the social housing sector from a sector providing housing for a broad spectrum of housing needs to one providing housing only to those unable to access the private market sector, resulting in the concentration of low-income households and high levels of deprivation in the social housing sector.245 Right to return The right to return is the right and priority that existing residents in a housing project have to move back into their original property upon completion of a renewal project, or into an equivalent new-build property on the original site, following decanting.

Taylor ( 2016) Kempton ( 2007) Open Government Guide (n.d.) UN-HABITAT (2011) Pearce and Vine (2014)

g l o s s a ry â&#x20AC;&#x192;

178

Social capital Social capital refers to the networks and connections available to individuals or groups, which allow social groups to achieve more than they could as individuals. It includes formal and informal networks where there are shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups.246 Social cohesion Social cohesion is the willingness of members of a particular social group to cooperate with and support each other. It therefore differs from community cohesion, as different social groups within a single community may demonstrate different degrees of social cohesion.247 Social infrastructure Social infrastructure refers to a wide range of assets and services, including those related to health, education, community, culture, play, recreation and sports, faith, and emergency facilities and services, that meet local needs and contribute to quality of life.248

246 247 248 249 250 251 252

London Assembly Housing Commission (2015) Robinson and Pearce (2009) Mayor of London ( 2015b) Galster (2010) Nicholls et al. ( 2009) Bichard (2015) ibid.

179â&#x20AC;&#x192;

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Social mix Social mix is the diversity of different social groups and individuals within a housing estate or block.249 Social Return on Investment (SROI) Social Return on Investment is a framework for measuring and accounting for a broad range of value types (not only financial values); it seeks to reduce inequality and environmental degradation and improve wellbeing by placing a value on social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.250 SROI is based specifically on seven principles used to measure social change as a result of an intervention.251 Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) Sustainable Return on Investment is used to understand and measure social and environmental change stemming from built environment projects, and it involves the use of multiple methods and approaches to develop this understanding of social and environmental change.252

Social sustainability Socially sustainable development refers to growth/development that meets the needs of a current community as well as those of potential future members of that community.253

Urban regeneration Urban regeneration is defined as a comprehensive transformation within a city, often associated with social programmes and outcomes, as well as physical redevelopment.255

Tenure-blind Tenure-blind is a term used to describe housing units/buildings, the tenure type of whose residents (private rent, social rent, private ownership etc.) is impossible to distinguish from their exterior appearances. For example, there is no visible differentiation within an estate between a building housing social renters and one whose residents are all private renters.254 Unitary leadership Unitary leadership is a form of governance usually adopted by public bodies to ensure that a development achieves an agreed set of goals despite a number of different stakeholders being involved in their delivery.

253 Polese and Stren ( 2000) quoted in Bramley et al. ( 2006) 254 Cassola ( n.d.) 255 Hanna et al. ( 2016)

g l o s s a ry â&#x20AC;&#x192;

180

181

Appendix

182

183

Literature review The aim of the literature review is to gain an in-depth understanding of the challenges within housing renewal both in the London and UK contexts and internationally. This review culminated in an inventory of over 70 documents, from which a number of key concepts were identified. These emerging concepts from the literature review are included on a ‘wheel of knowledge’.

Wheel of knowledge The ‘wheel of knowledge’ as shown on pages 185–186 reveals the range of existing key literature in the housing renewal sector, across three main knowledge areas – policy, theory and practice – and across a number of scales: local, borough, city, national, continent and global levels. As well as facilitating the identification of a set of key themes within the housing renewal sector, the wheel of knowledge offers a visual tool to identify areas that may benefit from future research (i.e. the segments of the ‘wheel’ that are less populated with yellow ‘plots’, indicating less material is accessible on these topics). Each of the themes identified is linked to a number of key concepts in housing renewal which have been the focus of particular research and debate. Each yellow dot refers to a specific document in which a particular concept is highlighted, and is plotted according to its scale of examination (international to local level). This allows further information on a particular concept to be easily located. In recent decades, UK cities have emulated the urban forms and densities of Far Eastern cities – building tall towers which far exceed the density level familiar to the city’s landscapes1 – to compete for international buyers, at the expense of the interests of those who live and

work in the city.2 In London these towers are located on the south bank of the Thames and the Isle of Dogs.3 The sole focus on increasing housing supply through densification is in need of greater scrutiny; as Beharrell (2015) reminds us “it is a myth that super-towers make a significant contribution to London’s housing need”.4 Clark and Moonen (2015) warn, “for nearly all cities, failed, or weak twentieth century densification projects linger in the collective public memory as places of danger, overcrowding, anxiety or boredom […] people remember the lack of public space, the anonymity, the long commute and the threat of crime.”5 Densification is seen as a radical departure from the local patterns of urban living in UK cities, so any plans to adopt this approach should demonstrate clear strategies to address these same concerns. Recent studies suggest that the housing problems in the UK cannot be addressed by increasing supply at the expense of the quality of homes. To ensure a locallyappropriate approach in addressing the housing issues, housing providers and other stakeholders must learn from past failures in housing estates and recognise the traditional characters of local neighbourhoods before delving into masterplanning any new development or refurbishing existing estates.

1 Some towers are over 400dph. Beharrell ( 2015, p.16) 2 Beharrell ( 2015, p.16) 3 Beharrell ( 2015, p.16) 4 Beharrell ( 2015, p.16) 5 Clark and Moonen (2015, p.27)

184

69 13

IMP AC T

30 37

6 30 61

61 41

1 13

5 60

London

35 56

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

72 50 51 66

7 55

Borough

56 45

36 35

41 40

Local

6 3

20 16

69 55

N 63

TI CA

G NT

TUR

M B LY

VEN

P H A SI N G

O TM

ENT

ASSE

JOI

INV

LAND

VI A B IL IT

MARKETING

1 8 5 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

AM TE T N EC OJ TIO P R L EC SE

PM ELO DEV ES L CYC

GR D E AT E VE D U LO RB PM A EN N T

VA TI

N TE

54 68

/ TY SI ION N T DE CA I IF S EN

14 69

12 63

I UN NT MM EME O C AG G EN

40 65

2 68

6 69

70 66

E AC S SP N/ ARD G I D S D E S TA N

ING

FUND

AT E EST

HO 20

ENT

ORY PULS ER COM ORD E S CHA

30 38

SO CI A L RE ST R U CT U

G ANA

ND -I ST PO

41 64

26 66

68 28

E S TAT E NERA T IO N

PUR

CIA SO

27 15

IN FR A

ALI

LM IX

TENU

LIF

RE M IX

EC ON OM IC IM PA CT

W EL LB EI

YM OD

RECOVERY

S PA

4 60

Europe

R EG E

REN

SU AL

IAL

Int’l

-B

IO AT

G NE

SOC

LIV

R TO I P EC S H -S ER SS N O RT PA

T-

A N CE

LIC

TE TA

G O VE R N

PUB

BUI

Literature review Wheel of knowledge

1 Exemplary Housing Estate Regeneration in Europe, McLachlan (2015) 2 How dense can we be?, Beharrell (2015) 3 Estate regeneration and community impacts: challenges and lessons for social landlords, developers and local councils, Belotti (2016) 4 Developing an approach to sustainable return on investment in the UK, Brazil and the USA, Bichard (2015) 5 Estate regeneration briefing for expert panel, Robson (2016) 6 Meeting the challenge of urban renewal: The g15’s contribution to regenerating London’s estates, Bokaian et al. (2016)

7 What is ‘social sustainability’ and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it?, Bramley et al. (2006)

8 Energy analysis focus report: A study for hard to treat homes using the English house condition survey, BRE Housing (2008)

9 Going large - Making the most of London’s big sites, Brown and Wilson (2016) 10 Guidance - Social Value Act: information and resources, Cabinet Office (2016)

11 Affordability and tenure, Cassola (n.d.)

13 Regeneration revival: Making housing-led regeneration work across England, Pattison et al. (2016) 14 Understanding the likely poverty impacts of the extension of right-to-buy to housing association tenants, Clarke et al. (2015) 15 Cross-sector partnerships: city regeneration and social justice, Cornelius and Wallace (2010)

12 No Place like Home: Delivering new homes for a more prosperous Britain, CBI (2016)

16 Demolition or refurbishment of social housing? A review of evidence, Crawford et al. (2014)

A CI

17 Private management of the urban public realm: The implications of contracted-out publicness, De Magalhaes and Trigo (2015)

18 Europe re-housed, Denby (1938)

AI ST

B NA

19 The new deal for communities experience: Executive summary, Batty et al. (2010)

20 Plus +: Large-scale housing developments. An exceptional case, Druot et al. (2007) 21 The way we live now: What people need and expect from their homes, Finlay et al. (2012) 22 Neighbourhood social mix: Theory, evidence and implication for policy and planning, Galster (2010) 23 Another storey: the real potential for estate densification, Hanna, Oduwaiye and Redman (2016)

N NO UR ROI) T E (S L R NT E CIA SO ESTM INV

24 Superdensity - the sequel, HTA et al. (2015) 25 Altered Estates: How to reconcile competing interests in estate regeneration, HTA et al. (2016)

URN RET UROI) LE (S B A T N N TA I ME SUS NVEST I N O

43 4

R IF GENT

IC AT

26 Mixed versus mono tenure estates: is there a difference in asset management needs?, Kempton (2007) 27 Building social mix by building social housing? An evaluation in the Paris, Lyon and Marseille Metropolitan Areas, Korsu (2015) 28 Changing places, changing lives: Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration, L&Q (2013) 29 High rise hope revisited: The social implications of upgrading large estates, Lane et al. (2014) 30 Get it on the Act: Housing and Planning Act 2016, Local Government Association (2016) 31 Creating healthy environments: practical tools for increasing walking in the built environment, Living Streets (2010)

IO N

32 Community cohesion - an action guide: guidance for local authorities, Local Government Association (2004) 33 Knock it down or do it up? The challenge of estate regeneration, London Assembly Housing Committee (2015) 34 Homes for Londoners: A blueprint for how the Mayor can deliver the homes London needs, London First (2016)

CL U SI O SO CI A L IN

35 Capital failure: Understanding the roots of London’s housing crisis, London Housing Commission (2015) 36 Building a new deal for London: Final report of the London Housing Commission, London Housing Commission (2016) 37 The future of affordable housing: Common ground or turf war? A report on changing working relationships, Trowers & Hamlins (2014) 38 Home improvements: A social justice approach to housing policy, The Centre for Social Justice (2016)

URBAN REGENERATION

39 Social infrastructure supplementary planning guidance, Mayor of London (2015) 40 Homes for Londoners: draft good practice guide to estate regeneration, Mayor of London (2016ab) 41 Housing supplementary planning guidance, Mayor of London (2016c) 42 Estate regeneration sourcebook, McLaughlin (2015)

SO CI AL HO US IN G

43 A guide to social return on investment, Nicholls et al. (2009) 44 Establish legislation and guidelines on public consultation in policy development, Open Government Guide (n.d.) 45 Gentrification: A working-class perspective, Paton (2014)

SOC

ST AR

E-

. VS NT N O ME TI H LI IS O B M R Y E FU D ID E BS R SU SOS

46 Quantifying residualisation: the changing nature of social housing in the UK, Pearce and Vine (2014) 47 Policy priorities for housing in London transcript, Policy Forum for London (2016)

48 Phoenix cities: The fall and rise of great industrial cities, Power, Plöger and Winkler (2010) 49 Cities for a small continent: international handbook of city recovery, Power (2016)

UNI

50 Council housing and culture: The history of a social experiment, Ravetz (2001)

HES

ION

51 Housing market renewal and community cohesion, Robinson and Pearce (2009) 52 The idea of social mix in town planning: An historical review, Sarkissian (1976) 53 Building a better Britain: A vision for the next Government, Scott-Marshall (ed.) (2014)

EN RE ERG TR Y OF EF IT FIC

IAL V ALU

KIN

54 Building more homes (First report of Session 2016-17), Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2016) 55 Building better places, Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment (2016) 56 Delivering estate renewal: A briefing from London housing leaders, Taylor (ed.) (2016) 57 Mixed Communities: evidence review, Tunstall and Lupton (2010)

58 Public-private partnership in housing and urban development, UN-HABITAT (2011) 59 Notes from three days on housing, Urban Design London (2015) 60 Evidence review 5: Estate renewal, What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (2015)

61 Fixing our broken housing market, DCLG (2017) 62 The Farrell Review, Farrells (2015) 63 The density dividend: solutions for growing and shrinking cities, Clark and Moonen (2015) 64 A city for all Londoners, Mayor of London (2016a) 65 The London Plan, Mayor of London (2016d) 66 Estate regeneration national strategy: Resident engagement and protection, DCLG (2016a) 67 Estate regeneration national strategy: The role of local authority, DCLG (2016b) 68 Estate regeneration national strategy: Financing and delivering estate regeneration, DCLG (2016c) 69 Estate regeneration national strategy: Good practice guide - part 1, DCLG (2016d) 70 Estate regeneration national strategy: Alternative approaches, DCLG (2016e) 71 North Essex Garden Communities: Garden communities charter, AECOM (2016) 72 Homes for Today and Tomorrow, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1961) 73 Moving on without moving out: The impacts of regeneration on the Rayners Lane Estate, Provan, Belotti and Power (2016) 74 Applying Social Return on Investment (SROI), Watson and Whitley (2016)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

186

The Farrell Review (2015) reveals that “the industry is united in the belief that the current housing crisis will only be solved by thinking long term and through proactive planning. By setting out to create communities, rather than focussing on targets and housing numbers, we can meet these challenges by thinking creatively and collaboratively”.6 Park (2015), Head of Housing Research at Levitt Bernstein, warned against the sole focus on increasing housing supply in recent years, which is most evident in London, where the ‘race for numbers’ in housing provision is having a detrimental impact on quality of life and the long-term quality of homes.7 A number of existing reports and research documents have been focussed on the tension between quality and quantity as well as other aspects of the delivery process of housing, including partnerships, community cohesion, and resident engagement. In attempting to address some of the housing challenges in London, Publica and Stanhope are looking both within and outside the UK for best practices in housing delivery. It is not the first time that we have looked beyond our national or regional borders to learn about best housing practices. In the 1930s, through her book Europe Rehoused (1938), social housing expert, Elizabeth Denby, explored housing in Europe, including Vienna, Sweden, Italy, France and Germany. She discovered that many exemplary housing practices in Europe were in fact built on principles and policies first introduced in England in the late nineteenth century. However, her study reveals that many principles exported abroad have subsequently gone through better iterations on the Continent than in England. In 1938, Denby wrote that “the ideas which are animating the most progressive Continental housing work are of English origin […] all have been changed, modified and greatly improved by their sojourn abroad, all ready to be brought back and used again for our advantage”.8

Another benefit of looking both inside and outside of the UK is the potential of learning from cities that may share similar patterns of growth. Each city is unique in its history, and its urban and economic trajectory. However, as Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics, Anne Power, observes, certain patterns of urban regeneration can be strikingly similar; some European and US cities share the same “pattern of industrial collapse”. Power (2010) argues that with the understanding of local political contexts, lessons can be learned from the experiences of other cities that share similar urban processes.9 In Phoenix Cities (2010) and Cities for a Small Continent (2016), Power highlights the strikingly similar pattern of industrial collapse across different cities. Lessons on renewal and regeneration can be taken from cities that share similar history and development trajectories. In Cities for a Small Continent (2016), Power examines seven post-industrial European cities to understand how they have transformed following the loss of their major industries.10 She developed a framework for understanding ‘phoenix cities’, which comprises three phases: (1) industrial economy; (2) post-industrial economy; and (3) resource-constrained economy. According to Power, European cities are in ‘phase three’ of development, characterised by the limits of resources, the need to invest in public/shared spaces and amenity, and ‘green’ innovation. Therefore, unlike sprawling American cities, European cities are characterised by their density and the unique opportunity to limit energy consumption and preserve the social and built heritage, for example through renewal of existing structure rather than building from a tabula rasa. European cities are facing many environmental and energy constraints as a result of their dense, highly urbanised, populated and developed areas. This necessitates a model of city recovery that is unique to European cities to emerge and take into account “high density, mixed use, […] and a pressing focus on social integration of diverse

6 Farrells ( 2015, p. 77) 7 According to Julia Park ( Head of Housing Research at Levitt Bernstein) when she presented a paper at the Three Days on Housing event in 2015 which was organised by Urban Design London. 8 Denby ( 1938, p. 246) 9 Power (2010, p. 105) 10 The cities included in the study are Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Bilbao, Leipzig, Torino, and Sheffield.

1 8 7 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

communities”.11 The central issue of land constraints also means that European cities must “work to integrate diverse communities and harmonise social conditions” through investing in more shared spaces and resources as well as taking advantage of the rich urban, social, economic and environmental assets.12 In fact, Power argues that European cities themselves are ‘renewable resources’ which have the potential of meeting future population needs. However, a custodial approach13 to city rebuilding is necessary to ensure the objectives are met in this ‘phase three’ of development in European cities.14 In a study on the history and culture of social housing, Ravetz (2001) argues that a personal relationship between the tenants and the housing authority was “crucial in fostering a sense of community responsibility”.15 Social reformer, Octavia Hill, was convinced that the role of individual residents and their relationships with the housing management or authority could not be replaced or substituted by large companies or philanthropic trusts. Ravetz also suggests that improvements to a housing estate are best achieved through the involvement of the tenants.16 She cites Octavia Hill’s style of management that aimed to empower residents by recognising their ability to be responsible for themselves. Hill also believed that, especially for the poor in society, rehabilitation and stock improvement were often a more suitable approach than demolition and rebuilding in navigating the delicate relationship between people and their homes. This literature review highlights five key themes that have emerged in the current debates on housing renewal:

1. the tension between quality and quantity of housing; 2. social and community cohesion; 3. establishing and maintaining long-term trust; 4. managing stakeholders and partnerships; and 5. valuing best practice. Theme 1: The tension between quality and quantity of housing There are a number of issues that affect the tension between housing quantity and quality, including: balancing housing demand and supply; affordable housing; design and quality of housing; delivering quality at scale; densification; and decision to demolish or refurbish. Balancing housing demand and supply The UK needs 300,000 new homes every year but only about a third of these new homes are built annually.17 Based on data published in RIBA’s Building a Better Britain (2014), approximately 107,000 new homes were built in 2012/13 and 130,000 were expected to be built in 2014.18 A 2016 report published by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, Building More Homes, established that the rise in demand for housing is due to a number of factors, including population growth, rising incomes and greater mortgage availability.19 Projections from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) suggest that by 2037, there will be 27.6 million households in England, rising by 210,000 households on average annually from 22.7 million in 2014.20 A combination of factors including increased rates of migration and rising numbers of single-person households, as well as an ageing

11 Power (2016, p. 15) 12 ibid. ( p. 14) 13 Custodial approach includes building at “high density, mixed use, recycling, conservation” and involves “investment of semi-public, semi-private funds, an energy transformation and a pressing focus on social integration of diverse communities.” (Power 2016, p. 15) 14 See also Mallett ( 2016, p. 65) for a full book review of Power (2016) 15 Ravetz (2001, p. 30) 16 ibid. 17 Select Committee on Economic Affairs ( 2016, p. 5) 18 Scott-Marshall ( ed.) ( 2014, p. 27) 19 Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2016) 20 Select Committee on Economic Affairs ( 2016, p. 16). In 1988 there were 18.5 million households. See also DCLG (2013) Household Projections in England 2012-2017, last updated in February 2015.

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

188

population, contributes to the increase in housing demands, with experts pointing to the latter as a more significant cause of rising demands than the former factor.21 Witnesses consulted by the select committee on economic affairs highlighted their observation that immigrants tend to live at high density, and as such they do not contribute to the housing demand by as much as the headline migration figures suggest. It was also pointed out that “recent migrants are much more likely to live in the private rented sector”.22 Therefore, the demand for housing by immigrants through the London private rental sector will be a significant consideration if immigration levels remain at the current levels. Professor Paul Cheshire and Professor John Muellbauer from the London School of Economics and University of Oxford respectively conclude that the increase in UK house prices was in large part attributable to rising household income.23 In addition to rising household incomes, the ease of obtaining a mortgage, often referred to as the “liberalisation of the mortgage market” is also a factor in the rise in London house prices.24 However, as the London Housing Commission (2015) points out, “London’s housing problems are not limited to house prices – rents are rising faster than earnings; overcrowding in the social and private rental markets is growing quickly [and] homelessness is increasing sharply”.25 The London Housing Commission further suggest that there are “four main elements of housebuilding: land, planning consent, investment, and housebuilders” at the heart of the housing crisis.26

Data comparing permanent dwellings completed in England by private enterprises, housing associations, and local authorities from 1946 to 2015 taken from the DCLG, shows that “the private sector has not replaced the supply that was once provided by local authorities”.27 This is in part due to the unexpectedly low numbers of buildings being started. According to a study by RIBA in 2014, Building a Better Britain, “unstarted units made up nearly half of all unimplemented planning permissions for residential dwellings in 2013, almost no change since 2008”.28 The London Housing Commission found that plans failed to be delivered because large sites that involve complex infrastructure could take decades to turn from a plan into a development.29 A number of reasons have been put forward by Jones Lang LaSalle to explain why such sites remain unbuilt, including market conditions and the availability of skills and labour, the lack of diversity in the housebuilding and development industry, and delays resulting from the complexity of planning system.30 In other instances, “sites are held by companies that can make more money from trading land that has received planning permission than from turning it into homes”.31 As a response to these problems, there is greater recognition of the need to diversify the market, as highlighted in the recently published Housing White Paper, and to support smaller developers and house builders.32 Another barrier to building homes is the insufficient supply of land released for new development, pushing land values up and making house building increasingly

21 Professor Danny Dorling ( University of Oxford) and Professor Robert Rowthorn (University of Cambridge) both suggest longevity as having a significant effect on housing demand. See Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2016, p. 17) 22 Select Committee on Economic Affairs ( 2016, p. 16) 23 ibid. (p. 17) 24 ibid. ( p. 18) 25 London Housing Commission (2015, p. 1) 26 ibid. 27 Select Committee on Economic Affairs ( 2016, p. 7) 28 Scott-Marshall ed. (2014, p. 8) 29 London Housing Commission (2015, p. 8) Large sites are sites with planning permission for over 501 units. 30 Select Committee for National Policy on the Built Environment (2016, p. 70) 31 London Housing Commission (2015, p. 8) 32 DCLG ( 2017); the need to diversify the market was also emphasised by Housing and Planning Minister Garvin Barwell MP at the recent CPRE annual lecture on 20 February 2017.

1 8 9 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

unaffordable.33 London alone needs 49,000 homes every year yet according to the Home Builders Federation, the theoretical capacity for London to meet this need is only 42,000.34 At the same time, London borough plans are not increasing supply to close this gap, and new towns are not addressing this shortfall, as many had hoped.35 The lack of speed in increasing housing supply is exacerbated by the inadequate land supply, which can be attributed in part to the practice of ‘land banking’ – aggregating parcels of land for future sale or development – by some developers. The practice of land banking also leads to smaller developers being cut out from the market, even though they may be prepared to build sooner than the developers who currently own the lands. There has been a huge disparity between the number of new homes in London that were granted planning permission and the actual numbers that were completed. As of October 2016, there were 270,000 homes that were yet to be built despite having secured planning permission.36 A report by Trowers & Hamlins in 2014 indicated that “radical ideas to promote land supply can only flourish if the subject rises up the government’s agenda and a clear, long-term strategy emerges”.37 More recently, the London Housing Commission recommended that “the mayor should offer public landowners the support of the London Development Panel to turn public land sites into new homes, on condition that a proportion of the public land is used for new affordable housing and privately rented housing”.38 In his manifesto, A City for All Londoners

(published in October 2016), in addition to bringing together a number of public sector funding sources such as contribution by developers, investment by housing associations and government, Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, plans to confront the short supply of land by bringing public land into residential use.39 Several public bodies such as the NHS and TfL are major landowners in London and the Mayor aims to work with these public bodies, to unlock any surplus sites for housing. This action has also been supported by the government who committed to selling publically owned land for more than 160,000 homes by 2020.40 A 2016 study carried out by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) highlighted the need for greater innovation, the forging of new partnerships and exploring new practices such as new methods of delivery which can help further boost building capacity. Innovative partnership models, such as a joint venture between Homes & Communities Agency and Lloyds Banking Group to develop around 10,000 new homes over the next five years, will be necessary to support alternative delivery methods, such as the use of cross-laminated timber (CLT) in the modular off-site manufacturing process by Legal & General Homes in 2016.41 According to the London Housing Commission, private investment is vital to building new affordable housing through section 106 agreements,42 in which the provision of affordable homes is a condition of receiving planning permission.43 However, private investment

33 Scott-Marshall ed. ( 2014, p. 30) 34 Theoretical capacity refers to the ideal capacity – if all parties involved in housebuilding operate at their optimum capacity. In reality, however, this capacity is not attainable given the presence of other factors such as planning delays, and lack of skilled labour or resources which will result in a slowdown in housebuilding. 35 This point was raised by James Stevens ( Homes Builders Federation) at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. 36 Mayor of London (2016a) 37 Trowers & Hamlins ( 2014, p. 15) 38 London Housing Commission ( 2016, p. 23) 39 Mayor of London ( 2016a, p. 39) 40 CBI ( 2016, p. 34) 41 ibid. ( pp. 28-30) 42 Section 106 agreements, commonly known as s106 agreements, are “a mechanism which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development. Section 106 agreements are often referred to as ‘developer contributions’ along with highway contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy.” (Local Government Association Planning Advisory Service) 43 London Housing Commission ( 2015, p. 10)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

190

needs to be combined with public grants and loans to support private and social housebuilding.44 Innovative practices are also needed to support alternative avenues of delivery, such as off-site manufacture as delivered at a facility in Yorkshire, which was commissioned by Legal & General Homes.45 The use of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) building processes and technology, for example, is increasingly mainstream and commonplace in several countries, including Austria, Germany, Scandinavia and Japan because it can be used to build “most building types including traditional family homes, apartment blocks up to twenty storeys, elderly accommodation, hotels or even student apartments”.46 In addition, custom and self-build models can also help increase housing supply more quickly; these models are well established in Europe – in some countries, 50 percent of all new homes are built using these models. Architects like Luke Tozer argue that custom build has the potential of increasing housing supply by engaging residents in building their own homes which may range from single flats to terraces.47 Currently, less than 10 percent of new homes in the UK are built using this method because mortgage finance has been slow in taking up this model. There is therefore an opportunity for the Government and local authorities to take the lead by allocating land for custom build. Affordable housing The housing shortage is having a significant impact on housing affordability at the national scale but particularly in London. Affordable housing is defined by The London Plan (2016) as including social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing.48 Some

critics, including Duncan Bowie, Senior lecturer in Spatial Planning and Housing, University of Westminster, argue that the term has become too broad and need to be redefined and more specifically targeted to a particular income group.49 A careful consideration of the role of affordable housing in the wider UK housing landscape is particularly important given that changing attitudes towards affordable housing are shaping policy. The Centre for Social Justice noted that social housing is increasingly viewed as “a stepping stone towards another form of tenure, rather than a home for life”.50 This perception of social housing is reflected in the relatively recent phasing out of lifetime tenancies in council housing, combined with the absence of commitment by the government to deliver more social housing.51 As a result, social rent has been in continuous decline and is being replaced by the private rented sector (PRS). The private rented sector (PRS) therefore has the opportunity of tackling the housing shortage especially as “‘generation rent’52 is set to grow further still, reaching an estimated 7.2 million households by 2025.”53 However, in order for the private rented sector to effectively address the housing shortage in London, it is crucial that the units offered through this sector are not only diverse in typologies but also genuinely affordable. Robson (2016) from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned that the lack of affordability of regenerated homes may otherwise disperse communities and exclude some residents who cannot afford the new homes.54

44 ibid. 45 CBI (2016, p. 30) 46 ibid. 47 Luke Tozer ( Pitman Tozer Architects) elaborated on his point about the benefits and potential of custom build at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. See official seminar transcript, Policy Forum for London (2016, pp. 21–22). 48 Mayor of London (2016d) 49 The point on affordable housing is raised by Duncan Bowie (Senior lecturer in Spatial Planning and Housing, University of Westminster) at a Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. See official seminar transcript, Policy Forum for London (2016, pp. 8–9). 50 The Centre for Social Justice ( 2016, p. 22) 51 ibid. 52 Generation rent refers to “a generation of young adults who, because of high house prices, live in rented accommodations and are regarded as having little chance of becoming homeowners”. (Oxford Dictionaries) 53 CBI (2016, p. 21) 54 Robson ( 2016, p. 7)

1 9 1 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

The shortage of affordable housing provision is further complicated by the Government’s housing initiatives which have since the 1980s been focussed on homeownership. In May 2016, the Housing and Planning Bill, which included providing support for home ownership and giving housing association tenants the chance to own their own homes, was passed through Parliament.55 While there is great value in giving people the opportunity to own homes, it is important not to lose sight of the need for a range of housing tenures which will benefit not just aspiring home-owners but also renters of different income groups. A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that “only around three per cent of households currently accessing social rented housing could afford to buy shared ownership instead, and fewer still could afford Starter Homes Initiative homes. Many households will therefore be diverted to the private rented sector (PRS)…”.56 In a conference on housing organised by Urban Design London in 2015, Park57 praised the efforts to protect the integration of market housing and affordable housing in policy but believes that the “race for numbers” is outweighing other priorities, and that more should be done to ensure that mixed communities are achieved in practice.58 She further argues that raising density thresholds increases land value and therefore costs, with a devastating impact on affordability. For this reason, Park suggested that density calculation based on ‘beds per ha’ can encourage the development of a broader range of housing typologies. Park argued that the “current pressures are resulting in a mono-culture of over-priced 1 and 2 bed flats, at the expense of other housing types and tenures”.59

A number of developers are exploring alternative forms of affordable housing. Within the Build to Rent sector, which offers homes designed and built specifically for renting, developments such as Essential Living introduced a new form of affordable housing through the ‘discount market rent’ (piloted in the London Borough of Greenwich), which introduced three bands of discounts (55 percent, 65 percent and 75 percent of the full market rate). Tenants apply for housing at the discount market rent through the local authority.60 Design and quality of housing There is a strong consensus across all political parties in the UK about the need to increase the number of new homes in London.61 The UK significantly lags behind other Western European countries, including Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Finland, and the Netherlands, in terms of the number of new homes built.62 A dominant priority in debates on the built environment policy has been the overall shortage of housing and the lack of speed in housing delivery. However, a recently published report by the Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment warned against the disproportionate emphasis on increasing housing supply at the expense of the quality of life. The overall quality of the built environment is significantly influenced by the quality of the public realm and the report emphasises that “the overall emphasis on speed and quantity of housing supply” must not “threaten place-making itself” and should consider “sustainable planning for the long-term and the delivery of high quality and design standards.” 63

55 Local Government Association ( 2016, p. 2) 56 Clarke, et al. (2015, p. 2) 57 Julia Park has been Head of Housing Research at Levitt Bernstein since 2008. She presented a paper at the Three Days on Housing event in 2015 which was organised by Urban Design London. 58 ‘Mixed communities’ can be interpreted as a broad policy goal and specific policy approach. As a policy goal, it is used to denote an integrated and egalitarian society in which people of all incomes and social classes share the same space and amenity, allowing mutual understanding and shared norms to develop. It is not often used with the community cohesion agenda. See Tunstall and Lupton (2010, p. 8). 59 Three Days on Housing transcript ( 2015, p. 7) 60 Martin Bellinger (Chief Operating Officer, Essential Living) elaborated on the concept of discount market rent at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. 61 Brown and Wilson ( 2016) 62 Scott-Marshall ed. ( 2014, p. 5) 63 Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment (2016, p. 3)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

192

Given the diverse population and rapidly changing demographic in Britain, the CBI (2016) urges that housing providers focus not only on the quantity of homes but also the types of homes, so that they are “meeting demand through more of the right homes, to suit different people’s needs both now and in the future.”64 Studies by the RIBA and Ipsos MORI, suggest that the general public is dissatisfied with the quality of new homes.65 Despite the high rents in the capital, “one-third of PRS homes fail to meet the Decent Homes standard”.66 Therefore, it will be important for the next government to not only focus on increasing the supply of homes, but also the quality of homes built.67 A call for evidence as part of The Farrell Review revealed that design can help “unify all the parties involved, including local communities”. In fact, Housing and Planning Minister Gavin Barwell MP mentioned in his lecture recently that, “ 73 percent of people say they would support new developments if they are welldesigned, built in the right places and in keeping with their local area.”68 The Local Government Association also highlighted that “design can [help] mitigate some of the often legitimate concerns of residents and engage them in the planning process in a constructive way. Our work with councillors has shown that 42 percent of councillors thought that local residents were generally opposed to housing development in their local area, but this proportion fell to 11 percent if the development was designed to high standards and met local needs.”69 Quality of homes is influenced by a number of factors, including the need for a place for the household to gather together, and the importance of ensuring that homes can accommodate changing lifestyles of families; so that residents can make long-term investments in their homes, and decide whether to modernise or adapt their homes to suit their needs at different life stages.

The provision of family homes, which may have a more complex set of requirements than those of smaller households, should be considered carefully at the point when masterplans are being developed.70 According to the 1961 Parker Morris standards, published as Homes for Today and Tomorrow, there should be a clearer understanding of different types of communal areas (private communal and other open spaces) and how they are used by residents. Much of the standards from this report still applies today, particularly on the minimum space standards for all new homes, which had not been made mandatory for homes in the private sector. The report points to the need for a place for the family to gather together, a room for activities demanding privacy and quiet, a well-equipped kitchen and a room in which to take some meals, as well as for improved circulation and storage.71 Delivering quality at scale Development of large sites is potentially a valuable resource for meeting the housing needs in London as it can deliver a large amount of new homes. However, a report by the Centre for London is critical of traditional models of development that do not deliver the longterm quality that landowners are seeking.72 The report identifies three interconnected problems that hinder the development of large sites: constraint, capacity and governance. The development of large sites has historically been constrained by a lack of local and transport infrastructure, perceived remoteness and poor quality of place. Large sites also tie up a lot of capital for a long time due to slow release of units that can take decades to complete. Meanwhile, construction capacity has not fully recovered from the most recent recession in 2008, and innovative construction methods that may help

64 CBI (2016, p. 20) 65 In a study by Ipsos MORI and RIBA, The Way We Live Now: What People Need and Expect from Their Homes (2012), ethnographic interviews with general public and discussion groups were conducted. See Finlay et al. (2012) 66 London Housing Commission ( 2015, p. 15); data obtained from GLA’s Bleak Houses: Improving London’s Private Rented Housing (2012). 67 Scott-Marshall (ed.) ( 2014, p. 27) 68 Gavin Barwell MP highlighted this point at a CPRE annual lecture, which he delivered on 20 February 2017. 69 Based on call for evidence submission by Local Government Association in The Farrell Review (2014, p. 77) 70 This consideration is included in the Love Lane Residents Charter ( 2014). For additional reading, see Love Lane Residents Association (2014) 71 Ministry of Housing and Local Government ( 1961) 72 Brown and Wilson (2016)

1 9 3 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

speed up the provision of housing, such as modular building and prefabrication, have had very minimal impact in the UK building industry when compared to other countries in Europe. According to a report by London First, “London’s future growth can only be delivered if the skills base is in place to deliver it”, and the new Homes for Londoners expert panel can play a vital role in “developing a London-wide built environment skills strategy and supporting innovative construction methods”.73 The London Housing Commission similarly recommends that the Mayor of London and boroughs “take an active lead in the nurturing of housing and planning skills in the private and public sector”.74 The role of public bodies is crucial in safeguarding the interests of existing communities and ensuring high public realm standards in large scale developments.75 With increasing reliance on private developers to deliver new homes, public bodies tend to be less involved in the procurement of redevelopment projects. The reduced involvement of public bodies in the delivery of projects is largely attributed to the significant reduction – by almost 60 percent – of the net expenditure on planning and development, which is having a detrimental impact on the capacity of public bodies to commit expertise and time in supporting individual projects. However, even if public bodies do not have the capacity to deliver large sites themselves, Brown and Wilson (2016) emphasise that they should still hold developers accountable in ensuring developments are carefully planned to integrate into existing neighbourhoods, thus meeting high public realm standards.76 While there will always be tension between today’s resources and future returns, “the requirement to achieve ‘best value’ should not be assumed to require sale of public assets for an upfront lump sum.”77

Densification Densification is a process which involves increasing the number of dwellings per hectare through a number of methods, including infill, demolition and rebuild. The method of calculating density based on net density has been recently scrutinised; density calculation based on net density excludes non-residential uses, which is deemed to be crucial in understanding the level of social infrastructure and amenity provision to local residents within a development. To address this discrepancy, it has been suggested that calculation should be based on gross density instead, as a more relevant way to measure increased concentration of homes than net density; because calculation based on gross density takes into account all land including road and other non-residential uses whereas calculation based on net density only takes into account land occupied by residential uses.78 The level of density permissible in a new development is linked to its connectivity to existing transport network. Since 1992, the most widely recognised way to measure connectivity to the public transport network in London is by using Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) values. The PTAL value combines information about how close public transport services are to a site and how frequent these services are. Each area is graded between 0 and 6b; 0 indicates very poor access to public transport and 6b indicates excellent access. Even though PTAL ratings are used to determine permissible density for a development, the current use of PTAL ratings to define development in London is not sufficient in addressing the wider issues of density and concentration of housing. This is because the use of PTAL ratings in determining permissible density for a development results in massive peaks of intensification at certain locations but actively discourages the development in other locations where housing is needed.79

73 London First ( 2016, p. 31) 74 London Housing Commission (2016, p. 17) 75 De Magalhaes and Trigo (2015) 76 Brown and Wilson (2016, p. 37) 77 ibid. ( p. 46) 78 This was highlighted by Ruth Smithson who has worked for the London Borough of Lambeth for the past eight years. She presented a paper at the Three Days on Housing in 2015 organised by Urban Design London. 79 David Birkbeck discussed the issue of PTAL ratings and density in his talk on ‘What does density look like?’ during the Three Days on Housing conference in 2015.

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

194

PTAL

Access index range

0 (worst)

0.01–2.50

2.51– 5.0

5.01–10.0

10.01–15.0

15.01– 20.0

20.01–25.0

25.01– 40.0

6b (best)

40.01 +

Conversion of the Access Index to PTAL 80

Estate densification is appealing from a policy perspective given the ability of “estates to provide land for redevelopment”.81 Various estate regeneration models are explored in a study of 12 case studies, Altered Estates (2016), conducted by group of four leading architectural practices.82 Of these, densification is seen as having a great potential for increasing housing supply in London, through refurbishment and infill, or demolition and rebuild, of its existing estates.83 In London, the London Housing Commission finds that even though “housing density in outer London is approximately one-third of the density in inner London […] the London Plan is focussed primarily on increasing

capacity in inner London”. 84 A 2015 report published by Urban Land Institute highlighted, “major development that enhances density needs to operate at a scale where it is transformational, as well as being planned, and this means that it must have a critical mass of new amenities and buildings”.85 Some key considerations on the impact of estate renewal have been explored in a 2015 review of estate renewal, Evidence Review 5: Estate Renewal; which found that estate renewal programmes lead to an increase in land and property prices and rents, but nearby properties tend not to benefit from these improvements.86 Estate renewal programmes have been found to have a limited impact on local areas in terms of reducing crime, improving health, wellbeing and education.87 At the same time, there is the risk of new developments stretching the capacity of existing public services thus affecting their quality. Evidence points to the importance of sufficient social infrastructure provision in any redevelopment project, but there is no available framework that takes into account the wider context of an area (including existing social infrastructure), which could be useful in determining the optimum future density of new developments in an area.88 Meanwhile, the urgency of addressing the housing crisis can drive the planning of estate regeneration in which providers resort to building at ‘hyperdensity’, meaning very high densities above the top end of the London Plan guidance; which in Central London is between 215 and 405 dwellings per hectare for areas with a PTAL index of 4 to 6.89 Altered Estates (2016) cautions against building at hyperdensity, contending that it is not suitable for estate regeneration due to the high risk of such developments in overstretching the capacity

80 Table taken from Mayor of London ( 2015a, p. 19) 81 Hanna, Oduwaiye and Redman (2016, p. 11) 82 HTA et al. ( 2016) 83 Brown and Wilson (2016) 84 London Housing Commission ( 2015, p. 7) 85 Clark and Moonen (2015, p. 25) 86 What works centre for local economic growth ( 2015) 87 ibid. 88 This was highlighted by Ruth Smithson who has worked for the London Borough of Lambeth for the past eight years. She presented a paper at the Three Days on Housing in 2015 organised by Urban Design London. 89 See table 3.2 on p. 44 of Mayor of London ( 2016c, p. 44)

1 9 5 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

of existing social infrastructure.90 For example, Wood Wharf, next to Canary Wharf, will contain around 3,100 apartments at a density of 436 homes per hectare.91 Instead, high density, medium-rise, street-based developments which are ‘tenure-blind’ – impossible to distinguish the tenure of the unit by its exterior appearance – tend to be easier to manage and have a lower service charge, thus are appealing to residents. The report also recommended the reconsideration of new delivery models where local authorities retain a financial stake in the development so that they can prioritise local needs, which leads to more equitable outcomes that safeguard the interests of local residents, helping to foster social and community cohesion. The provision of sufficient amenity and social infrastructure is critical to creating a successful neighbourhood, which according to the 2015 report, Superdensity: The Sequel, is particularly challenging at high density.92 In fact, this report argued that hyperdense developments with a predominance of high-rise buildings should be discouraged as they are not conducive places in which mixed communities can thrive. Beharrell (2015) further warns against “a common misconception that high density requires highrise and precludes more familiar patterns of living.” 93 Learning from the failure of post-war estates, the study highlights the need for today’s new developments to take into account “the management demands of widely differing occupiers within the same development” which can be made even more challenging at today’s superdensity and hyperdensity.94 HTA et al. (2016) conclude that hyperdensities are generally not suited to estate regeneration and the risk of unsustainable regeneration far outweighs any benefit that may be gained from the increase in housing stock. Therefore,

HTA et al. (2016) suggest that if a financial model for the regeneration of an estate is advocating the solution towards hyperdensity (i.e. meaning that it requires such a great increase in housing numbers to the point that the estate reaches hyperdensity), it would be better not to proceed with the project.95 In areas where there are many individual freehold property rights it is difficult to redevelop the entire area at a higher density due to small freehold landownerships. Particularly in inner London, one of the solutions proposed is to make better use of infill sites where it is possible to build at mid-rise, which allows for a higher density.96 In a study on densification as a solution for growing cities, Clark and Moonen (2015) assert that it is important for cities to not rely on a single densification approach (i.e. to promote density only in brownfield areas or city centres) or one type of density (i.e. high-rise high-income communities) because “this model exhausts itself and […] areas risk becoming monotonous or lose their edge”.97 They suggest instead that densification projects should possess “a distinct design and vernacular that feature mid-rise buildings, tree-lined streets and high-quality architecture” and as such “build up appetite for density through lived experiences of great places”.98 Decision to demolish or refurbish A 2016 report by LSE Housing & Communities highlights the negative consequences of demolition and weighs the costs and benefits of wholesale demolition against refurbishment.99 The argument against refurbishment has been that it does not typically provide additional housing units, and thus, does not contribute to addressing the UK housing shortage. Although refurbishment alone does not address the

90 HTA et al. ( 2016) 91 HTA et al. ( 2015) 92 ibid. 93 Beharrell ( 2015, p. 17) 94 Beharrell (2015). ‘Hyperdensity’ is used to describe density that is over 350 homes or dwellings per hectare, which is the top of the London Plan Density Matrix. The top of the London Plan Density Matrix is at 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare for central well-connected sites. 95 HTA et al. ( 2016, p. 11) 96 The potential of infill sites was highlighted by Barbara Weiss from Skyline Campaign during the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar in 2016. 97 Clark and Moonen ( 2015, p. 25) 98 ibid. ( p. 27) 99 Belotti ( 2016)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

196

issues of housing shortage or social mix (which has the potential to increase neighbourhood standards), infill development and adding extra floors to existing developments can increase housing density (and total number of housing units). Another redevelopment approach is infill, which is considered “desirable as it involves less upheaval and rehousing cost compared to estate demolition and rebuild”.100 Theme 2: Social and community cohesion After the disturbances in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in summer 2001, an agenda of community cohesion was established to ensure race equality, social inclusion and social mix so that communities of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds can integrated. Community cohesion is critical to the quality of life of local residents as it ensures that communities thrive amid change and social networks are built based on the principles of trust and respect for local diversity.101 Social cohesion, however, is different from community cohesion and is found in increasingly divided communities where individuals are integrated into their local ethnic or religious communities. According to a study carried out for L&Q in 2013, “part of the success of community cohesion has been the development of mixed-tenure neighbourhoods – 86 percent of housing professionals in our survey agreed that this is vital for successful regeneration”.102 A 2016 report by the Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment (2016, p. 97) points to the need for a “renewed focus” on how policy can “support mixed communities” through “long-term affordable rented housing”.103 The report also places

great emphasis on the role of the public realm in the overall quality and “cohesion of the built environment”, especially streets which make up the majority of public realm, thus having a significant impact on the air quality and health of the area.104 Public realm includes “all the spaces between buildings that can be freely accessed, it encompasses all outdoor areas including roads, parks, squares, pedestrian routes and cycleways”.105 Social and community cohesion is linked to a number of issues including gentrification, ways of sustaining mixed communities, phasing and decanting strategies, maintaining wellbeing of communities, and understanding community needs and experiences. Gentrification One of the major threats to social and community cohesion in housing renewal is the prospect of gentrification.106 The process of gentrification, which may accompany regeneration, is highlighted in Knock It Down or Do It Up? (2015), and is described as involving alteration in the make-up of a local community as new homes become occupied by more affluent households.107 The emphasis on home ownership is having a negative impact on the rental market; for example, the emphasis on affordable shared ownership “indicates that there may be more homes for ownership and fewer for rent in future.” 108 The number of social and affordable rent homes planned for regenerated estates has fallen by one fifth, according to the London Development Database.109 The 2014 housing strategy for London placed a huge emphasis on affordable shared ownership, which means that there may be more homes for ownership than for rent in London, further driving up costs of existing

100 Hanna, Oduwaiye and Redman ( 2016, p. 13) 101 Local Government Association ( 2004) 102 Slater et al. (2013, p. 6) 103 Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment ( 2016, p. 97) 104 Highways make up 80 percent of the public realm, according to written evidence from PATTH as cited in Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment ( 2016, p. 30). 105 Based on definition by Living Streets ( 2010) 106 ‘Gentrification’ often refers to a peripheral neighbourhood process but it is more than that, it is policy, widespread and it is part of the everyday. See Paton ( 2014) 107 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015) 108 ibid. ( p. 15) 109 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, p. 14)

1 9 7 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

rental properties.110 A renewed focus on providing a range of tenure types in the housing market is emerging in more recent literature; including the Mayor of London’s 2016 manifesto, A City for All Londoners, in which the Mayor plans to “offer a variety of affordable housing types […] towards a target of 50 percent of new homes in the capital being affordable”.111 In an earlier study on cross-sector partnerships, Cornelius and Wallace (2011) criticise the disproportionate emphasis on physical regeneration which is often “targeted at more affluent newcomers and which may have an immediate economic return.”112 They refer to Hull’s (2000) observations on ‘social regeneration’ as being a vital element of economic regeneration in communities because it reverses the decline in social capital.113 Sustaining mixed communities The primary objective of estate regeneration is often not clearly formulated or communicated, whether it is to improve conditions for existing residents or with a broader aim of addressing the housing problems. The focus of estate regeneration can help steer the decision-making process towards demolition or refurbishment. A housing assessment will likely need to be conducted in order to establish the level of local housing need for both existing and new residents (i.e. tenure types required to create inclusive and balanced communities).114 From the perspective of creating or sustaining mixed communities, wholesale demolition of mixed communities often involves an element of social engineering, and it frequently disrupts closeknit communities.115 On the other hand, refurbishment works can support the creation of a mixed community by attracting new residents of different income groups, without displacing existing residents.

This was observed in a study by LSE Housing & Communities which compared two renewal schemes in London: one involving demolition and rebuilding, and the other, refurbishment. The first scheme’s complex phasing strategy and re-housing policy underwent multiple changes which led to tenants being decanted more than once, and several deciding to leave the estate. Interviewees reported that they felt like the uncertainty and repeated moves involved in this long process weakened their community. In contrast, the study observed that the second scheme, in addition to refurbishing existing tenants, homes in a shorter period of time, also persuaded prospective leaseholders to buy properties on the estate.116 The retention of the existing community and local economic activity is important in ensuring any changes in the community are carefully managed and contained in such a way that communities thrive amid change. Evidence shows that area-based regeneration approaches that are based on mixed communities “have been successful in many places”, and that approaches based on physical regeneration alone tended to improve areas without much positive impact on individual lives.117 Unlike large-scale demolition where there is often the high risk of destroying existing community networks through displacement, refurbishment is found to benefit the existing community by allowing community networks to expand based on mutual respect and trust, which are ingredients for a cohesive community. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on housing and poverty has found that “settled neighbourhoods facilitate social networks that help people find employment and support […] more secure tenancies would improve people’s willingness to move to find work and lower rents provide a much clearer financial incentive to work.”118

110 For further reading, see Homes for London (2014) published under former London Mayor Boris Johnson. 111 Mayor of London ( 2016a, p. 9) 112 Cornelius and Wallace ( 2011, p. 75) 113 ibid. For further reading, see Hull ( 2000, pp. 301–309). 114 DCLG ( 2016d, p. 19) 115 Social engineering is associated with wholesale demolition, and is described as resulting in “the involuntary displacement of leaseholders and local businesses” ( Belotti 2016, p. 36). It is used to describe the “unnatural” evolution of communities. 116 Belotti (2016) 117 Robson ( 2016, p. 7) 118 Robson (2016, p. 16)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

198

One of the major challenges in creating and sustaining social and community cohesion is the issue of social mix. In the context of urban renewal, particularly in the US during the 1950s, social mix was seen as contributing to community stability; although, it would also lead to the exodus of the upper classes to the suburbs.119 However, it remains a term that is often used differently by planners and policymakers, as a means of achieving a particular set of goals.120 According to Galster (2010), the concept of social mix can be explored through three key elements: composition (i.e. the bases on which people are mixed); concentration (i.e. the amount of mixing); and scale (i.e. the level(s) of geography over which the relevant mix is measured).121 Findings from a study on social housing in France offer some insight into policies in countries other than the UK, where there is an emphasis on increasing social mix in social housing. Similarly to the UK, France’s substantial social housing stock “is mainly a legacy of the past due to reduced public investment”.122 Based on an empirical study of social mix in three French cities – Paris, Lyon and Marseille – it was discovered that, while new social housing increased social mix between social groups, its impact is ‘sub-optimal’. It therefore remains unrealistic to expect social housing policy to reduce segregation substantially in France’s big cities. The study also finds that the development of social housing in the three French cities has a modest impact in allowing low-income households to live in middle or upper-class neighbourhoods. The rising prevalence of the NIMBY123 attitude is identified as one of the barriers to building social housing outside poor areas in the three French cities.

Phasing and decanting strategies Another threat to social and community cohesion is present in the decanting process in which residents are relocated temporarily to allow development work to take place. In some cases, residents may have to be relocated twice during development, through a process known as ‘double decant’. Double decant is sometimes necessary in cases of specific household needs, such as when families that have increased in size are upsizing, but phasing should be implemented to minimise double decant and the ongoing disruption this causes to residents. Well-structured phasing can ensure that families which are upsizing only move once without the need for a temporary accommodation. It is also recommended that the ‘right to return’,124 should be “offered whenever possible to preserve long-standing communities”.125 According to George Clarke’s Empty Homes Review Recommendations (2013), no residents should be placed in temporary accommodation. In order to retain or create social and community cohesion when homeowners or tenants choose to move they should be moved in large clusters at the same time (i.e. street by street), and if homes are to be demolished they should be emptied and demolished as quickly as possible to make way for new development.126 One of the recommendations is concerned with displaced occupiers in the process of regeneration who should be given the ‘right to return’ following completion.127 In practice, this means that the displaced occupier should be given the opportunity to accept “newly refurbished houses at the same price as the compensation paid to the occupier when they were displaced”.128 Estate regeneration has developed a negative reputation because the vast majority of new housing on the sites of old estates are frequently sold

119 For further reading, see Sarkissian ( 1976, p. 241) 120 ibid. 121 Galster (2010, pp. 2–3) 122 Korsu (2015, p. 4) 123 NIMBY (not in my back yard) is a pejorative characterisation of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them. 124 Right-to-return in a regeneration context means that the affected residents have the right and priority to return to the original property upon completion of the regeneration project. See also Glossary. 125 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, p. 43) 126 See Appendix 3 of London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, p. 45). 127 See Appendix 3 of London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, p. 45). 128 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, pp. 44–45)

1 9 9 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

privately and become out of reach for existing or former tenants. Architects including Sarah Wigglesworth and Adam Khan also raised a concern at the 2016 Future Estates talk about the long-term effect of demolition, including the loss of cultural capital as a result of the removal of entire estates.129 Belotti (2015) highlights a number of key challenges surrounding phasing, decanting strategies, demolition, and maintenance, among others. The Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016) recommends that a phasing strategy should be carefully considered, and design should be incremental to minimise disruption to people’s life plans and to avoid undermining community ties.130 It was found in a case study in North London that a poorly planned phasing strategy led to changes to the phasing programme as many as three times in the course of the redevelopment. Such changes have been a source of “turmoil and upheaval in the community” causing disruption to residents’ life plans and prolonged living in poor housing as the council neglects to invest substantially in the upkeep of buildings which, at various times, were next in line to be redeveloped.131 Similarly, a decanting strategy should aim to minimise disruption of families’ life plans, from buying a new piece of furniture to having another child. Providers should be conscious of the significant impact of redevelopment plans on the quality of life of residents, being careful to avoid demolition ‘blight’132 and minimise maintenance issues by ensuring the necessary budget for upkeep of blocks.

According to the Mayor of London’s Homes for Londoners: Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration (2016), residents are more likely to move voluntarily if they feel that “every reasonable effort has been made” to rehouse or compensate them.133 It is imperative that private tenants are informed of any future redevelopment plans and available options and rights so that they are equipped with the right information to make decisions.134 Maintaining wellbeing of communities The decision to retain housing or to demolish is often made based on data on technical performance of buildings and often overlooks social issues such as the health and wellbeing of existing residents. The Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment (2016) recommends that housing policies take account of health impacts and that policy decisions are “informed by a robust evidence base”.135 Erosion of social and community cohesion is a particular concern in large-scale demolition schemes, because they have “the potential to disrupt close knit and settled communities”.136 Based on three case studies in a 2016 report by LSE Housing & Communities, negative consequences of large-scale demolition, which are not associated with refurbishment, include: displacement of majority of leaseholders, planning ‘blight’, and multiple decant.137 Even though there are many issues brought about by refurbishment during which residents are kept on site – including timetable delays, disruption, cleanliness, and communication – evidence from a number of prominent studies still shows that refurbishment can “achieve benefits similar to large scale demolition without its social, environmental and economic costs”.138

129 The Future Estates talk was held at Geological Society on 28 November 2016 and panellists included Oliver Wainwright, Sarah Wigglesworth, Geraldine Dening, Adam Khan and John Lewis. 130 DCLG ( 2016a, p. 5); DCLG (2016d, p. 21) 131 Belotti ( 2016, pp. 9–10) 132 ‘Blight’ refers to land or properties that are damaged, open and vacant, hazardous, and often do not conform to standards; representing a public nuisance and danger. Demolition ‘blight’ often occurs when there is the lack of a coherent phasing and decant strategy in a development or regeneration context, causing residents to lose their sense of security and certainty about the place that they live in. 133 Mayor of London ( 2016c, p. 27). 134 ibid. ( p. 14). 135 Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment (2016, p. 30) 136 Belotti (2016, p. 36) 137 Belotti ( 2016) 138 ibid. ( p. 5)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

200

A Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) research study shows that “housing-led regeneration can be effective in range of ways, from physical improvements in areas to the improvement of individuals’ mental health.”139 A closer examination of the effects of regeneration, including demolition and refurbishment of social housing, reveals that refurbishment can often deliver significant improvement in housing quality and wellbeing at a faster rate than demolition and rebuilding; although health problems during refurbishment remain a complex issue.140 In a study carried out by UCL, Crawford et al. (2014) find that at the individual level, refurbishment “increases comfort for the individual” and leads to “improved physical and mental health […] particularly around energy based improvements”.141 At the community level, refurbishment reduces the sense of isolation and allows for the retention of existing social capital. However, in some cases where communities are already experiencing decline – characterised by criminal behaviour, high vacancy rates and vandalism – relocation to an improved area as part of the process of demolition can enhance wellbeing. The negative impacts of demolition, such as mental anxiety and stress, are often a result of the feelings of powerlessness residents experience when they feel they have no control over their living situation. Crawford et al. (2014) suggest that social factors must be taken into account in the decision-making process; involving the community in the decision-making process is a necessary step in giving residents a sense of control.142 There is a growing body of evidence suggesting refurbishment to be preferable to demolition in terms of “improved environmental, social and economic

impacts”.143 The UCL study by Crawford et al. (2014) concludes with a number of key messages on residents’ wellbeing.144 Firstly, the study states that the decision to demolish housing should not be governed by technical and economic factors alone but that it should also consider the implications for individual and communal health and wellbeing. Given the unique context of any redevelopment project, it is difficult to draw unambiguous conclusions in favour of refurbishment and against demolition.145 However, the impact of refurbishment upon the community appears to be more positive than demolition.146 While there is some evidence that relocation to a more prosperous socioeconomic area can improve the wellbeing of residents, demolition and relocation can also affect the mental health of residents. The case studies and evidence within this report suggest that refurbishment of social housing – even those that are hard-to-treat structures – can deliver the most significant improvements in living standards for residents, given that the overall lifetime costs may be lower than demolition and there will be less disruption to local communities.147 Therefore, where the preferred option involves the retention of part or all of the buildings, “it is necessary to deliver high quality improvements and enhanced technical performance that address their design and technical shortcomings”.148 One of the strategies for reducing the negative impact of redevelopment is by involving the community in the decision-making process, which helps to cultivate a sense of ownership and participation among residents. Understanding community needs and experiences It has also been highlighted that residents themselves can sometimes influence the decision in favour of demolition; residents sometimes see demolition as

139 Pattison et al. ( 2016, p. 4) 140 Crawford et al. ( 2014) 141 ibid. (p. 60) 142 ibid. (p. 61) 143 ibid. ( p. 62) 144 ibid. (p. 53) 145 Additionally, the review has acknowledged the weak evidence base due to “extreme homogeneity” and poor quality of data, which put constraints on synthesising data. See Crawford et al. ( 2014, p. 58). 146 This study frames community impact based on the following parameters: perception and satisfaction; and lifestyle and mental health. 147 Hard-to-treat structures/buildings are those that for whatever reason, cannot accommodate ‘staple’ or cost-effective fabric energy efficiency measures. ( BRE Housing 2008, p. 1) 148 DCLG (2016d, p. 20)

2 0 1 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

providing an opportunity for them to move from a tower block to a low-rise home.149 It is therefore important to understand resident experiences by using a range of survey methods including: compiling a history of the estate, analysing resident demographics, surveying buildings, public realm and key routes through and connecting with the estate, and gathering resident’s views on the estates. According to the Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016) document, “a fuller understanding of the wider context will help inform the project objectives and strategic approach, leading to long-term enduring solutions for the regeneration of estates”.150 Theme 3: Establishing and maintaining long-term trust Maintaining and fostering trust throughout the process of a project is crucial in the smooth running of the project through to post-completion. Trust is achieved through a combination of clear communication and transparency. From the literature, three key factors emerge as critical in establishing and maintaining trust between housing providers and residents throughout the process of housing renewal: independent advice, effective resident engagement and accuracy of information. Establishing trust is a long-term process that goes beyond the completion of the project, so it is important to continue to keep residents involved through postoccupancy engagement, including new residents as they arrive on the estate. Any regeneration proposal must be able to demonstrate “real, tangible benefits for existing residents and the wider community”. According to Robson (2016), the dramatic reduction in the number of social rented homes (8,000 fewer social rented homes in London) as a result of 50 estate regeneration schemes in London over the past decade – despite doubling the number of homes completed from 34,000 to 68,000 homes – have contributed to the atmosphere of distrust

among residents of estates facing regeneration.151 Any benefits for existing residents need to be clearly communicated to the affected community to help garner critical support for the project from existing residents.152 In order to dispel any suspicion or mistrust around the purpose of regeneration, Lane, Power and Provan (2014) suggest, “it is also essential that residents see and understand the value of the works”.153 The recently published Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016) suggests that residents should be given the opportunity to be involved throughout the process of regeneration.154 The strategy also suggests that “successful estate regeneration projects involve communities effectively and meaningfully in the assessment, options, design and master planning process from inception to completion”.155 Independent advice The breakdown of trust in redevelopment projects is a particular concern in projects which stretch over a long period of time. The wide network of partners and contractors in regeneration schemes often means that housing providers tend to isolate themselves from the residents through their reliance on proxies such as community engagement representatives or agents. However, it is crucial that each of the partners in a regeneration scheme has the skills to listen and engage with residents as part of the process of building trust. The negative effects of a loss of trust, such as growing resentment and tensions between residents and institutional stakeholders can be particularly difficult for any developer taking on a regeneration or renewal project. A report by the London Assembly Housing Committee (2015) points to a number of key measures that developers and housing providers can take to minimise the risk of trust breakdown in the implementation of a redevelopment project.

149 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015) 150 DCLG ( 2016d, p. 12) 151 Robson (2016, p. 8) 152 HTA et al. (2016, p. 20) 153 Lane, Power and Provan ( 2014, p. 38) 154 DCLG ( 2016a, p. 4) 155 DCLG ( 2016d, p. 6)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

202

Firstly, it is crucial that developers and housing providers are aware that repossessions and compulsory purchase orders (CPO) are extremely unpopular with local residents. They are often a significant source of concern, due to the fear of loss of homes and the substantial legal fees involved in obtaining advice to understand the planning decision and their right to appeal.156 If the purchase of a property is necessary, landlords should first start with negotiation and they should always offer market value in good faith in order to incentivise leaseholders to sell. When dealing with non-resident leaseholders, landlords should also seek agreement rather than compulsory purchase.157 Independent advice is crucial in establishing trust among residents. In cases where relationships have disintegrated, an independent body has often been used to “regain trust and restore an effective working relationship”.158 For example, “On the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark […] the valuations undertaken by the council-appointed surveyor are said to be ‘the major cause of mistrust amongst Aylesbury leaseholders for the whole valuation process’”.159 The absence of clear information can lead to “accusations of post hoc rationalisation” which degrades trust that underpins effective collaboration between various stakeholders.160 A transparent process promotes trust across different stakeholder groups in regeneration. According to a 2016 study carried out by four practices – HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards, and PRP – it is possible for a “multi-disciplinary team to gain trust and willing co-operation of all the stakeholder groups in regeneration.”161 However, it is necessary for residents to “have their own ‘residents’ friend’ to help to validate or challenge the contribution of the professional team”.162

156 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015) 157 Mayor of London (2016c, p. 30) 158 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, p. 39) 159 ibid. (p. 31) 160 ibid. (p. 11) 161 HTA et al. ( 2016, p. 16) 162 ibid. 163 Belotti ( 2016) 164 ibid. (p. 5) 165 ibid. 166 Bokaian, Sprowles and Warwick ( 2016, p. 21) 167 ibid.

2 0 3 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

An LSE Housing & Communities report, Estate Regeneration and Community Impacts: Challenges and Lessons for Social Landlords, Developers and Local Councils, published in 2016 examines the unintended consequences of large-scale demolition of council estates for tenants and local businesses. It highlights a number of key challenges in maintaining (or dealing with the breakdown of) trust, including poor communication between stakeholders, which also hampers the smooth running of programmes.163 One of the key strategies that emerges from this report is the importance of involving independent consultants and advice during the transition from one location to another in the process of regeneration.164 This should be combined with transparency in the entire process of the scheme in order to cultivate trust with tenants and local organisations. It is also recommended that providers invest in outreach work to involve residents in the planning process, ideally from the start of the scheme.165 At Wornington Green (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea), regular communications with existing residents helped establish trust and alleviate residents’ concerns of gentrification and the dispersal of the existing community. The appointment of an independent residents advisor was instrumental in the three way collaboration at South Acton between local authorities, the housing association and developers.166 The bi-monthly forum acted as a formal mechanism for the three organisations to update each other on the progress of the project and allow residents to challenge decisions or ask questions. The forum consists of a wide range of stakeholders including “twelve residents, local councillors, a representative from the local community group and the Independent Residents Advisor.”167

Effective resident engagement Multiple case studies by g15 have shown that the success of a regeneration is “highly dependent on maintaining an open and honest relationship with existing occupants”.168 It is important to be aware that the levels of resident participation may not continue at the same intensity throughout the project as some residents may experience ‘consultation fatigue’. Nevertheless, effective resident engagement involves starting early and “enabling residents to provide detailed input and appointing a dedicated team to manage interactions”.169 To ensure that engagements are effective, residents should be provided with basic technical training that will help them to take part in engagement in a more informed and meaningful way.170 By equipping residents with the right tools, residents can be involved during the construction phase where they may have the opportunity to customise their homes.171 In The New Deal for Communities Evaluation, Batty et al. (2010) pointed out the importance of being clear about the community dimension in developing a scheme; residents should be involved in key aspects of all considerations for the estate, such as decision about refurbishment or demolition of homes.172 To minimise uncertainty, a set of commitments should be set out from the start, for example through a residents’ charter.173 Resident engagement should involve the different groups involved in the project, including architects, construction partners and the local authority, and may be in the form of steering groups and panels.174 At St John’s Hill (also known as the Clapham estate in

Wandsworth), Peabody increased density sensitively and connected the estate back into the surrounding neighbourhoods through constant feedback from a residents’ steering group that remained involved throughout the development. The residents’ steering group provided meaningful input and even had the critical role of selecting the architect and contractor, as well as the artist for the public art.175 It was noted in the Altered Estates report that a number of regeneration projects circumnavigated the ballot176 as a formal part of the process, although some local authorities favour ballots for all major regeneration initiatives as an “effective way of crystallising support for regeneration proposals”.177 Recent planning policy such as neighbourhood planning, which is a right for communities introduced through the Localism Act 2011, involves referenda,178 so that residents can influence direct decisions on matters related to their communities. Through neighbourhood planning, communities can influence development in their areas through the production of neighbourhood development plans, neighbourhood development orders and community right to build orders. According to the Mayor of London’s Homes for Londoners: Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration (2016), ballots or votes are “risky as they may cause complex issues to be flattened into yes/ no questions at a single point of time”.179 Another aspect of consultation which is often neglected is related to the businesses and amenities in the estates, and those working in the area. Surveys and small-

168 ibid. (p. 40) 169 This point was raised in the g15 report based on experience regenerating 35 estates across London. The Stanwell New Start scheme was mentioned as a good demonstration of the benefits of responsive and participative approach to community engagement. (Bokaian, Sprowles and Warwick 2016, p. 25) 170 DCLG ( 2016a, p. 4) 171 DCLG (2016d, p. 23) 172 Robson (2016, p. 11); Batty et al. ( 2010) 173 DCLG (2016a, p. 5) 174 ibid. (p. 4) 175 Bokaian, Sprowles and Warwick (2016, p. 37) 176 Ballots were “a legal requirement brought in with stock transfer legislation affecting programmes such as the Estate Renewal Challenge Fund – an initiative under the Blair government.” ( HTA et al. 2016, p. 18) 177 HTA et al. (2016, p. 17) 178 Referenda are general votes by “the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision”. (Oxford Dictionary) 179 Mayor of London ( 2016b, p. 19)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

204

scale meetings are generally considered an appropriate approach to consultation. According to the Mayor of London’s Homes for Londoners (2016), the aim of the consultation should be to take into account the interests of future residents.180 However, given that previous regeneration schemes have often ignored residents’ concerns, the Centre for Social Justice recommends ‘codesign’ rather than just consultation.181 The Centre states that residents should have the power to make decisions “over the final options, whether as individuals or via a democratic process using representatives”.182 A 2016 report by g15, a group of London’s largest housing associations, cites a number of schemes where resident-led post-occupancy feedback improved the design of later phases. This also served to “maintain residents’ trust in the consultation process [as] they could see evidence that their feedback and suggestions are incorporated into the planning and design process”.183 In cases with existing mistrust among the residents about a proposed regeneration project, offering one-on-one meetings with residents has been shown to effectively restore a positive relationship by alleviating residents’ concerns and gaining their support for regeneration. Accuracy of information Providing residents with consistent and accurate information about any redevelopment plans is imperative in the building of trust between developers, local authorities and the residents. The importance of clear and reliable evidence is also highlighted by the Building Better Places report. In fact, a lack of clear and accurate information can “lead to accusations of post hoc rationalisation”, which destroys the trust underpinning “effective collaboration between communities, housing providers and other regeneration partners”.184

Theme 4: Managing stakeholders and partnerships According to the Building Better Places 2016 report, “interventions in the public realm are frequently uncoordinated, and suffer from a lack of accountable leadership”.185 Therefore, there needs to be better coordination between multiple stakeholders and partners throughout the course of any developments. Developers and public authorities also value having the right leaders in a project from the outset while local authorities are increasingly exploring direct delivery of projects at a range of scales.186 Four key lessons are important to effectively managing stakeholders and partnerships, related to: the selection of suitable partners; establishing strong leadership and a unified vision; understanding different funding models; and incorporating non-economic values. Selection of suitable partners Very few developers are capable of taking on London’s large sites without any form of partnership because of the high level of complexity of delivery; the development of large sites involves creating not just buildings but an entire neighbourhood.187 One of the benefits of partnerships is that they can enable sectorspecific challenges to be overcome, allowing a wide range of expertise and skills to complement each other. Simple disposal (also known as simple sale) is the selling of site to a developer or housebuilder. It is the approach most favoured by government because of the low risk involved as all risk is passed to developers, and the government, as the landowner, is guaranteed a capital sum. At the other end of the spectrum is the direct delivery approach, in which landowners pay contractors to build homes on their behalf while retaining the risk of selling or letting them after completion.188 Direct delivery involves direct building by councils and other public landowners – a method that is becoming

180 ibid. (p. 19). 181 Robson ( 2016, p. 12) 182 DCLG (2016d, p. 15) 183 Bokaian, Sprowles and Warwick ( 2016, p. 22) 184 London Assembly Housing Committee ( 2015, p. 11). 185 Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment ( 2016, p. 32) 186 Brown and Wilson (2016) 187 ibid. ( p. 42) 188 For further reading on simple disposal and direct delivery, see Brown and Wilson (2016)

2 0 5 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

increasingly relevant with the recent commitment to release more public land in London, owned by TfL and NHS, for housing.189

housing associations and builders, mixing the model of contracting depending on the characteristics of sites and the state of the market”.193

Unlike the direct delivery approach, which relies on local authorities having the necessary resources and management capacity to undertake a development at scale, strategic partnerships and joint ventures are two further approaches which provide the opportunity for public landowners to enter into agreements that prioritise and reflect their concerns, capacities and resources.190 Joint ventures for estate regeneration are becoming an increasingly common mechanism.191 At the most basic level, both joint venture and strategic partnership involve landowners providing land which developers build on, and the returns are then shared between the landowners and developers. The Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016) recognises the joint venture approach as being able to give landowners long-term control over decisions on the development, and allowing the use of alternative procurement routes which allow both public and private sectors to be sufficiently represented throughout the process.192 However, only very few developers have the capacity to take on London’s large sites single-handedly and most use another partnership model, known as strategic partnerships.

In a briefing for an estate regeneration expert panel, Robson (2016) emphasised that “progress requires longterm funding and commitment from all stakeholders [and] community involvement is essential”.194 It is therefore important that local authorities and developers choose partners carefully, to ensure they select organisations that have similar values, can share risk, secure upfront investment and establish resilient partnerships for a long term. In developing plans for the North Essex Garden Communities, for example, the planning, promotion and development are led by Colchester Borough Council, Braintree District Council, Tendring District Council and Essex County Council in partnership with existing and new communities, alongside the private sector, thus ensuring all the risks and rewards are shared.195

Strategic partnerships involve landowner partners working with an institutional investor or developer. The strategic partnership model is a more complex collaborative approach than joint ventures because it involves the partnership firstly planning out the site before obtaining planning permission, and then putting in place ambitious infrastructure items. This partnership also “apportions plots to third party developers,

A long-term partnership may not result in the highest short-term return but ultimately seeks to pursue a social outcome where profits and risk are shared.196 According to Cornelius and Wallace (2011), “slower economic returns are seen as a more viable option for sustainability of social regeneration.”197 Referring to experience working on a renewal project in Dalston, Hackney, it was suggested that partnerships must not be “an alliance of convenience” as they require new structures that enable different stakeholders “to pull together, […] create coherent mission, vision and agendas, and a common understanding of their social purpose”.198 Through a joint project for the Wolfson Prize on Garden Cities, Peter Gladwell from Legal &

189 Mayor of London ( 2016a, p. 39) 190 Brown and Wilson (2016, p. 43) 191 Bokaian, Sprowles and Warwick ( 2016, p. 20) 192 DCLG ( 2016c, p. 9) 193 Brown and Wilson ( 2016, p. 44) 194 Robson ( 2016, p. 5) 195 For further reading, see North Essex Garden Communities Charter by AECOM (2016, p. 4). 196 Peter Gladwell speaks about the importance of long-term partnerships at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. See official transcript Policy Forum for London ( 2016, pp. 24–25). 197 Cornelius and Wallace (2011, p. 78) 198 ibid. For further reading, see Hart ( 2003) A neighbourhood renewal project in Dalston, Hackney: Towards a new form of partnership in inner city regeneration. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 3( 3), 237–245.

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

206

General Property is exploring a new paradigm where land with very little planning value subsequently obtains value through planning uplift, and risks and returns are shared equally between public and private.199 However, Peter Gladwell urges the government and local government to reimagine a joined up approach in the delivery of transport infrastructure, health and social care, and housing.200 Another potential form of partnership involves employers working with owners of large-scale build to rent schemes to help graduate employees get onto the housing ladder. An innovative partnership model is required to address the exodus of talent from London due to unaffordable housing. According to a report by the CBI, accountancy firm Deloitte found that the number of applicants to their London graduate scheme had dropped as a result of the high rental cost of accommodation in London.201 During a keynote seminar, John Adams from Deloitte explained how Deloitte has recently joined up with owners of large scale build to rent schemes to provide suitable accommodation in London where Deloitte employs 1,000 annually.202 Strong leadership and a unified vision Strong leadership is critical in the development of large sites which require a clear vision and the patience for returns on investment. A 2015 report published by the Urban Land Institute suggests a clear distinction between the roles of the public and private sector partners; “public sector leaders must act as conveners of the story while the private sector must operate as innovators and demonstrators of what is possible”.203 There is also a need to reconsider new delivery models that enable local authorities to retain a financial stake in the development. According to Brown and Wilson (2016), while “local authorities, housing associations and private partners have pioneered a range of delivery

strategies, partnership structures and special-purpose vehicles”, there remains a lack of clear leadership and vision necessary to unlock investment capacity.204 This leadership will need to convince stakeholders to take a long-term approach to returns and to ensure that any partnerships remain strong through economic or political change. In London, according to London First, the ultimate aim should be “to increase the number of homes built by associations with the GLA supporting this by unblocking obstacles to development through a combination of some grant, public land and its transport investment”.205 This will ensure local priorities are met, leading to solutions with equitable outcomes for existing residents at the same time providing revenue for the council. A high level of planning is necessary to ensure that development outcomes are liveable neighbourhoods that attract future investment. Land assembly should also provide the opportunity for comprehensive redevelopment rather than fragmented planning. However, despite local authorities being well equipped for the process of land assembly, given the enhanced compulsory purchase powers since 2004, they may be liable for Stamp Duty Land Tax, which becomes a significant disincentive for investing in planning without generating any net additional revenue for the public purse. Brown and Wilson (2016) make a number of recommendations in the Going Large report which are directed specifically at local authorities, including having a long-term approach and exploring ways to build faster through modular construction. The government also has an important role to play in removing any disincentive for local authorities to take part in regeneration projects, including exempting them from Stamp Duty Land Tax in the purchase of land for

199 Peter Gladwell responds to questions on whether we need more council housing at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. See official transcript Policy Forum for London ( 2016). 200 Peter Gladwell responds to questions on whether we need more council housing at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. See official transcript Policy Forum for London ( 2016). 201 CBI ( 2016, p. 12) 202 John Adams from Deloitte discussed this form of partnership at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. 203 Clark and Moonen (2015, p. 23) 204 Brown and Wilson ( 2016, p. 14) 205 London First ( 2016, p. 27)

2 0 7 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

development. The Mayor of London can contribute to the regeneration projects by seeking to integrate transport and major development opportunities, which will help improve the quality of the redeveloped neighbourhoods for the long-term. At the same time, the increase of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) for second homes and buy-to-let properties is reducing their appeal to investors and deterring landlords from increasing their rental portfolio. This has a detrimental effect on the supply of rental properties in the market. A re-assessment of the SDLT surcharge should therefore take into account how it affects different groups of people. For instance, specialist retirement homes and developments currently make up only three percent of the housing supply in the UK. However, as the CBI (2016) suggests, there is a great potential to make them more attractive to both developers and potential residents “through incentives such as Stamp Duty exemptions, as well as more joinedup thinking by local authorities”.206 Strong leadership also involves establishing clear aims and objectives from the inception of the project and ensuring that there is “a clear understanding of how it will be completed”.207 Local stakeholders should also recognise that “successful regeneration often requires a single agency to take the lead with the appropriate level of resources and capabilities.”208 The 2016 Estate Regeneration National Strategy suggests that local authorities can link regeneration schemes to wider objectives, particularly through working with each

other. This can help in financing regeneration, including estates near to HS2 or Crossrail stations, or near town centre regeneration schemes.209 Local authorities are responsible for ensuring the high standard of design of buildings and spaces, and that good urban design principles are applied to allow for a diverse range of housing types through densification and more efficient use of land.210 The 2016 Estate Regeneration National Strategy also suggests that “community-led housing organisations can more easily engender support from residents and the wider community than traditional developers”.211 As well as benefitting from a £60 million annual fund, other benefits of community-led housing include smaller overheads, increased local accountability, long-term investment, the development of locally owned assets, jobs and economic improvement.212 The 2016 Going Large report on developing London’s large sites emphasises that unitary leadership is critical to the successful development of large sites that are integrated into the surrounding urban fabric and provide adequate community infrastructure.213 Unitary leadership which can be adopted by public bodies – even those that do not have the capacity to deliver the sites alone – ensures that the developments on the specific sites are planned to integrate well into new neighbourhoods, have high public realm standards and allocate Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)214 and section 106 money for the benefit of the new residents.215 Unitary leadership by a government body is important and useful not only to ensure that a unified vision is achieved, but also in order to address the variations

206 CBI (2016, p. 22) 207 DCLG ( 2016d, p. 22); see also Robson ( 2016, p. 5) 208 Pattison et al. ( 2016, p. 10) 209 DCLG (2016b, p. 5) 210 ibid. 211 DCLG ( 2016e, p. 4) 212 ibid. 213 Brown and Wilson (2016, pp. 36–37). Large sites are sites with planning permission for over 501 units. 214 The Community Infrastructure Levy is a planning charge, introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool for local authorities in England and Wales to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of their area. (Planning Portal) 215 Section 106 agreements, commonly known as s106 agreements, are “a mechanism which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development. Section 106 agreements are often referred to as ‘developer contributions’ along with highway contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy.” (Local Government Association Planning Advisory Service)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

208

in expertise between different boroughs.216 The City of Stockholm offers a good example of a central team comprising the City’s Streets and Real Estate Administration, which oversaw and was responsible for the overall financing, design and implementation of the Hammarby Sjöstad project turning a former industrial area into a residential neighbourhood, which involved over 40 construction partners. The team led an intensive masterplanning process as well as detailed proposals for sub-districts, governed by a ‘design code’. Even though projects to redevelop London’s large sites may be too expensive and impractical to be delivered by a single body, it is crucial to ensure that there is a unified vision, which is coupled with masterplanning and leadership to avoid fragmented development. Funding models The 2016 Altered Estates report, a review of 12 case studies by four architectural practices, illustrates the range of estate regeneration initiatives in London and around the UK over four decades, covering most of the key government programmes and funding models.217 These models, including the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (ERCF), Private Finance Initiative (PFI), range from fully grant-funded programmes (i.e. Estates Action and Housing Action Trusts) to private equity models for council housing where no grant or cross-subsidy is required. Most models, however, involve some form of mixed private and public funding.218 A 2016 Future of London report, Delivering Estate Renewal: A briefing from London housing leaders, identified five approaches to funding including cross-subsidy (PRS/market rent), asset optimisation, portfolio diversification, mixing different finance sources and local authority low-cost borrowing.219 In recent years, cross-subsidising social and affordable homes to rent with the profit from selling market homes

has become a key financing strategy of regeneration. In such cases, regeneration is “most financially viable where land values are high as private homes can be sold at a better price”.220 However, one of the challenges in partnerships that involve cross-subsidy, particularly in the case of housing associations, is making the case for the profit margin necessary to subsidise the low cost rent. There has been a negative public perception of the financial model that incorporates a profit margin, often in excess of 20 percent, which many consider inappropriate when housing associations, which claim to prioritise providing affordable homes, are ultimately providing ‘charitable objects’.221 Housing associations are embracing market housing in order to enable them to provide as many affordable rented homes as possible so the provision of market housing is not an end but a means to providing more affordable rented homes. The rise of private rented housing and the continued resilience of housing values in London in appealing to investors, particularly institutional investors (i.e. pension funds and insurance companies) who are interested in regular and long-term returns, rather than short-term capital appreciation. In the case of the King’s Cross Central development, where landowner London & Continental Railways partnered with developer Argent, the planning for the redevelopment of the large site was extremely complex and time-consuming. However, patient capital investment proved to be worthwhile in this case despite a tumultuous period of economic and political change since 2007; developer Argent’s pension fund equity partner did not withdraw even during the crash and when private investment was being withdrawn all across London. Incorporating non-economic values The difficulty in quantifying social value and impacts presents a challenge in engaging different stakeholders in

216 This point was raised by Pete Gladwell ( Legal & General Property) at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar on 11 October 2016. See official transcript Policy Forum for London ( 2016, pp. 24–25). 217 The review includes Aylesbury Estate, Maiden Lane, South Acton, Packington Neighbourhood, Dover Court, and Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust. 218 HTA et al. ( 2016) 219 Taylor ed. ( 2016, p. 16) 220 The Centre for Social Justice ( 2016, p. 99) 221 This criticism was levelled at housing associations by Marc Francis, a councillor for Tower Hamlets at the Policy Forum for London keynote seminar in 2016.

2 0 9 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

schemes which have an emphasis on social programmes and infrastructure. A 2015 study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors looked at developing a method of valuing social and environmental change. Developers and providers that wish to incorporate the value of social and environmental change into a housing project should “seek out partnerships with practitioners working in this field” to compensate for the limited experience of applying this concept to the housing sector.222 Bichard (2015) suggests that a Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) approach, which combines Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Ecosystem Services Analysis (ESA), is expected to become more widely used as a regular testing and evaluation mechanism for all projects, even more so now with “the rising social expectation and declining social conditions, which makes the SuROI approach not only desirable but necessary”.223 Bichard (2015) further highlights three issues of which practitioners should be aware: (1) capacity to understand and carry out the calculations for measuring social and environmental value; (2) the potential problem of splitincentives (there is no incentive for landlords to invest in the property for the benefit of tenants; and tenants equally have no incentive in investing in the property as they do not own the property); and (3) the need for a wider recognition by built environment organisations that the impacts caused by development should be monitored through the experiences of the stakeholders affected by scheme, particularly the existing residents.224 Social Return on Investment (SROI) is an emerging tool that has the potential of measuring environmental change and can be used to assess the experience of residents, as discussed in the following section.

A framework that can be used as “a planning (predictive or forecasting) measure or to understand the implications of change on completion of a project (evaluative)” is known as the Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI).225 SuROI allows for both Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Ecosystem Services Analysis (ESA) to be used in a single analysis, with the aim of making explicit through evidence the environmental and social value of a project, programme or policy in the built environment.226 Private sector interest in carrying out Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI), which combines multiple methods and approaches of understanding and measuring social and environmental change, are likely to be stimulated by statute, client requirement or desire to differentiate itself commercially from other bids.227 Nevertheless, the early interest in this approach has been “from innovative developers working together with civic authorities to provide mixed developments (including low-income residential) without the need to sell publically owned land banks.”228 The development of the Sustainable Return on Investment approach is important because it has the potential “to not only quantify competing factors, but could, through the process by which value is established, involve a wider cast of stakeholders in the development at an early stage”. This can then help “convince funders to invest or re-invest in projects that may not appear to be economic, based solely on conventional valuation methods”.229 Theme 5: Valuing best practice A significant challenge in housing renewal is the absence of a tool to measure the benefits of best practice within the sector, which would help quantify not only the long-

222 Bichard (2015, p. 56) 223 ibid. (p. 55); Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) is a framework used to combine multiple methods and approaches designed to understand and measure social and environmental change stemming from built environment projects (Bichard 2015, p. 7); see also Glossary. 224 ibid. ( p. 55) 225 ibid. (p. 10) 226 ibid. (p. 14) 227 ibid. (p. 7). Sustainable Return on Investment (SuROI) is a framework used to combine multiple methods and approaches designed to understand and measure social and environmental change stemming from built environment projects. Social Return on Investment (SROI), on the other hand, is based on seven principles used to understand and measure social change stemming from an intervention. 228 Bichard (2015, p. 55) 229 ibid. (p. 8)

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

210

term economic value but also the social value and social return on investment. Long-term economic value of best practice The benefits of best practice in housing renewal for a developer is not limited to the increase in property and land values but also extend to other less quantifiable values; including social benefits and the opportunity to influence the wider housing renewal sector through innovation. Given that the main evaluation of estate regeneration continues to be in economic terms, it remains a challenge to justify other less easily quantifiable values. This task is made doubly difficult with the absence of a reliable approach to measuring non-economic values. A 2015 study carried out by What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth to explore the impact of estate renewal reveals, “estate renewal programmes have a positive impact on property and land prices and rents although not necessarily for nearby properties that do not directly benefit from improvements.”230 The evidence further suggests that “estate renewal programmes have a limited impact on non-economic outcomes such as reducing crime, improving health, wellbeing or education”.231 Despite the evidence gathered in this study, the full impact of estate renewal projects is still not always well understood. Therefore, if achieving economic impact is an important part of the case for estate renewal, then it is highly recommended that more evaluations are undertaken to explicitly explore these impacts.232 Social value and social return on investment Social value can take on varying definitions including “the concept and practice of measuring social impacts, outcomes and outputs through the lens of costs”.233 The national Social Value Act (SVA), also known as

the Public Services Act, which was implemented in January 2013, requires commissioners of public services to consider how they can “secure wider social, economic and environmental benefits”.234 The Act helps commissioners to get more value for money out of procurement and encourages constructive dialogues between commissioners and local community to achieve better services that benefit both parties. This dialogue may lead to innovative approaches in securing wider social, economic and environmental benefits for the local community. The Social Value Act (SVA) is not yet a requirement in every procurement and commissioning of projects. However, in 2013, Birmingham City Council (2013) agreed a policy to commit it to apply the principles of the SVA. Other local authorities are considering the extent and applicability of the SVA in commissioning and procurement. Watson and Whitley (2016) suggest that in order to effectively measure and disseminate the impact of design on building users, there needs to be “an evaluative shift away from measuring building performance towards measuring the outcomes experienced by people.”235 As briefly mentioned on page 217, one way of measuring social impact is through Social Return on Investment (SROI) – a concept that originated outside the realms of the built environment, from social accounting and cost-benefit analysis, and was developed to measure social change. SROI has the potential to translate social change into data, then into monetary values.236 Even though the reduction of quality of life to a series of transactions remains simplistic, this is often the only measure that can influence investors, policy-makers, funders, and others to support a scheme, as it creates a common understanding of impact and outcomes.237 The use of SROI can assist “trustees and

230 What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth ( 2015, p. 21) 231 ibid. (p. 24) 232 ibid. (p. 28) 233 This definition of social value is previously developed and used by Tuan (2008), and referenced in Bichard (2015, p. 15). For further reading, see Tuan ( 2008). 234 Cabinet Office (2016) 235 Watson and Whitley (2016, p. 1) 236 SROI is a favoured method because it is flexible and can incorporate a number of other methods into its framework; it has clear principles which encourage a consistent approach; it relies on a combination of stakeholder accounts and statistical trends to ensure a robust and defendable result; it is well-suited to built environment context. 237 Bichard ( 2015, p. 15)

2 11 v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

funders to understand the wider financial benefits of investing in social projects in the built environment.”238 Two existing valuation methods are used to measure social and environmental change, Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Ecosystem Services Analysis (ESA).239 Both these approaches are useful when calculating wider non-financial impacts of interventions, which may include the wellbeing of individuals (i.e. how an individual feels about their life), communities, social capital and improvements to the environment.240 SROI is a favoured method for measuring change because: it is flexible and can incorporate a number of other methods into its framework; it has clear principles that encourage a consistent approach; it relies on a combination of stakeholder accounts and statistical trends to ensure a robust and defendable result; and it is well-suited to the built environment context. Bichard (2015) finds that the emerging discipline of SROI provides a useful framework in which to embed a number of approaches that can value social and environmental change.241 SROI has the potential “as a novel post-occupancy tool to capture the impact of design for building users and disseminate the findings in a more powerful way across the variety of actors in the design and construction sector.”242 Unlike existing methods in the built environment arena such as basic efficiency resource (BER) analysis,243 SROI allows for “the monetisation of outcomes identified through qualitative stakeholder engagement producing a transferable evidence base that can be communicated to a wide range of audiences.”244

narratives and quantitative evidence of reported outcomes to communicate the full story of creating value.”245 According to A Guide to Social Return on Investment (2012), the SROI analysis involves six stages: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Establishing scope and identifying key stakeholders Mapping outcomes Evidencing outcomes and giving them a value Establishing impact Calculating the SROI Reporting, using and embedding 246

Home Group, one of the UK’s largest providers of social housing, commissioned an external evaluation of the performance of the Rayners Lane Estate (London Borough of Harrow) from the perspective of the residents and the social return on the investment on the estate. The housing providers are interested in the extent to which the investment has resulted in social and economic benefits either proportionate to or exceeding the value of investment. A 2016 report based on research carried out by the LSE to assess the impact of the £140m regeneration programme revealed that social return on investment on the Rayners Lane Estate was £10 for every £1 invested in the development.247 The results of this study on the Rayners Lane Estate regeneration have been widely publicised as a benchmark for future regeneration projects. The study has also served to promote the benefits of adopting a socially-oriented approach to estate regeneration, and was included as one of the case studies in the Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016).248

The SROI method “promotes contextualising the monetised results with qualitative stakeholder

238 ibid. ( p. 37) 239 ibid. ( p. 10) 240 ibid. (pp. 11, 15) 241 Nicholls et al. (2009); Bichard ( 2015, p. 56) 242 Watson and Whitley ( 2016, p. 5) 243 BER analysis is a “cost-effectiveness-based framework for the evaluation of complex programmes by enabling a comparison between operational ‘units’…”. ( Watson and Whitley 2016, p. 4) 244 Watson and Whitley ( 2016, p. 5) 245 ibid. (p. 6) 246 Nicholls, Lawlor, Neitzert & Goodspeed (2012, pp. 9–10) 247 Provan, Belotti and Power ( 2016) 248 ibid.

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

212

213

Bibliography 99.co (2016) What do residents get out of the Tanglin Halt SERS? [online] Available at https://www.99.co/blog/singapore/sers-tanglin-halt/ [accessed 22 December 2016].

Barwell, G. (2017) CPRE 2017 annual lecture [transcript] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/cpre-annual-lecture [accessed 21 February 2017].

AECOM (2016) North Essex garden communities: Garden communities charter. London: AECOM.

Batty, E., Batty, C., Foden, M., Lawless, P., Pearson, S., and Wilson, I. (2010) The new deal for communities experience: a final assessment – executive summary. London: DCLG.

Adam Khan Architects. Ellebo Garden Rooms [webpage]. Available at: http://adamkhan.co.uk [accessed 20 December 2016]. a’urba (Agence d’urbanisme Bordeaux métropole Aquitaine) (2006) Plan local d’urbanisme (PLU) de la communauté urbaine de Bordeaux. [online] Available at: http://fichiers.bordeaux-metropole.fr/plu/PLU31_interactif/ Html/1_rapport_presentation.html [accessed 4 January 2017]. a’urba (Agence d’urbanisme Bordeaux métropole Aquitaine) (2013) 50 000 logements autour du transport collectif: Les travaux des cinq equips morceaux choisis. [online] Available at: http://aurba.com/Etudes/Themes/ Projet-urbain/50-000-logements-autour-du-transport-collectif-Lestravaux-des-cinq-equipes-Morceaux-choisis [accessed 4th January 2017].

Beharrell, A. (2015) How dense can we be? In: HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards and PRP Architects. 2015. Superdensity: The sequel. London: HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards and PRP Architects, pp. 12–19. Belotti, A. (2016) Estate regeneration and community impacts: challenges and lessons for social landlords, developers and local councils. CASEreport 99. London: LSE Housing & Communities. Besençon, J. (2016) Le Lignon, 50 ans et toujours vert. [online] L’illustré. Available at: http://www.illustre.ch/magazine/le-lignon-50-ans-ettoujours-vert [accessed 19 December 2016].

Andres, L. (2012) Levels of governance and multi-stage policy process of brownfield regeneration: A comparison of France and Switzerland. International Planning Studies. 17 (1), pp. 23–43.

Bichard, E. (2015) Developing an approach to sustainable return on investment in the UK, Brazil and the USA. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

ANRU (Agence Nationale pour la Rénovation Urbaine) Objectifs et fondamentaux du PNRU. [online] Available at: http://www.anru.fr/ index.php/fre/ANRU/Objectifs-et-fondamentaux-du-PNRU [accessed 9 December 2016].

Birch, J. (2016) Estate regeneration briefing for expert panel. [online] Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/ estate-regeneration-briefing-expert-panel [accessed 20th June 2016]

Alison Brooks Architects (n.d.) Ely Court. [webpage] Available at: http:// www.alisonbrooksarchitects.com/project/ely-court/ [accessed 6 January 2017].

Blackwell, T. (2012) Camden rebuilds capital investment programme [online]. Theo Blackwell. Available at: http://theoblackwell.blogspot. co.uk/2012/07/camden-rebuilds-capital-investment.html [accessed 15 December].

Aquitanis (2014) GHI – génération d’habitat innovant. Bordeaux: Aquitanis. [online]. Available at: http://www.aquitanisphere.com/upload/ documents/GHI.pdf [accessed 16 January 2017].

Bokaian, R., Sprowles, R. and Warwick, Elanor. (2016) Meeting the challenge of urban renewal: The g15’s contribution to regenerating London’s estates. London: g15.

Aquitanis (2015) Repères: Chiffres 2015. Bordeaux: Aquitanis. [online] Available at: http://www.aquitaniservices.fr/upload/files/repères%202015. pdf [accessed 4 January 2017].

Bordeaux Métropole (n.d.) 28 communes. [webpage] Available at: http:// www.bordeaux-metropole.fr/Metropole/1-metropole-28-communes/28communes [accessed 4 January 2017].

Aquitanis (2016a) Urbanité: Le magazine d’Aquitanis, vol. 6. [online] Available at: http://www.aquitanisphere.com/actus/urbanite-6-ac-489 [accessed 4 January 2017].

Bordeaux Métropole (2017) 50 000 logements. [online] Available at: http://www.bordeaux-metropole.fr/Grands-projets/Grands-projetsurbains/50-000-logements [accessed 4 January 2017].

Aquitanis (2016b) GHI Bordeaux – révolution au Grand Parc. Bordeaux: le Festin.

Bordeaux Métropole (2016) Plan local d’urbanisme (PLU). [webpage] Available at: http://www.bordeaux-metropole.fr/Vivre-habiter/ Construire-et-renover/Plan-local-d-urbanisme-PLU [accessed 9 December 2016].

ArchDaily (2011) Osdorp Multi-Functional School/Mecanoo. [online] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/137217/osdorp-multi-functionalschool-mecanoo [accessed 22 December 2016]. The Architects’ Journal (2015) Exemplary housing estate regeneration in Europe. London: AJ Publishing. Architecture.com (n.d.) Ellebo. [webpage] Available at: https:// www.architecture.com/FindAnArchitect/ArchitectPractices/ AdamKhanArchitects/Projects/Ellebo-142958.aspx [accessed 20 December 2016]. Architectuur Centrum Amsterdam (n.d.) Nieuw Reimerswaal. [webpage] Available at: http://www.arcam.nl/en/nieuw-reimerswaal/ [accessed 22 December 2016].

Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., and Brown, C. (2006) What is ‘social sustainability’ and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it? In: Planning Research Conference. [online] Bartlett School of Planning, London: UCL. Available at: http://www.city-form.org/uk/pdfs/ Pubs_Bramleyetal06.pdf [accessed 27 January 2017] BRE Housing (2008) Energy analysis focus report: A study of hard to treat homes using the English house condition survey. Part I: Dwelling and household characteristics of hard to treat homes. Watford: BRE Housing. Brown, R. and Wilson, B. (2016) Going large: Making the most of London’s big sites. London: Centre for London.

214

Brown, T. and Turkington, R. (2014) Changing approaches to policy making in housing renewal. In: Turkington, R. and Watson, C. (eds.) Renewing Europe’s housing. Bristol: Policy Press, p. 246

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2016d) Estate regeneration national strategy: Good practice guide – part 1. London: DCLG.

Building and Social Housing Foundation. (2016) Municipal project for intergenerational housing and community services in Alicante [online]. Available at: https://www.bshf.org/world-habitat-awards/winnersand-finalists/municipal-project-for-intergenerational-housing-andcommunity-services-in-alicante/ [accessed 20 December 2016].

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2016e) Estate regeneration national strategy: Alternative approaches. London: DCLG.

Cabinet Office (2016) Guidance - Social Value Act: Information and resources. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/social-value-act-information-and-resources/social-valueact-information-and-resources [accessed 20 November 2016]. Cassola, A. (n.d.) Affordability and tenure. London: LSE. CAUE (2014) Bègles – Terres Neuves. [online] Available at: http://www. cauegironde.com/beglesterresneuves/ [accessed 4 January 2017]. CBI (2016) No place like home: Delivering new homes for a more prosperous Britain. London: CBI. Chédiac, S. (2009) A la maison dans mon HLM…La résidentialisation comme dispositif de rénovation urbaine, Métropoles. 5, p. 5. Clark, G. and Moonen, T. (2015) The density dividend: solutions for growing and shrinking cities. London: Urban Land Institute.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2017) Fixing our broken housing market. London: DCLG. Domofrance (n.d.) Nos chiffres clés. [webpage] Available at: http:// www.domofrance.fr/vitrine/vitrinedomo.nsf/vDOMODOC_id/ CHC?OpenDocument [accessed 16 January 2017]. Domofrance (n.d.) Notre histoire. [webpage] Available at: http:// www.domofrance.fr/vitrine/vitrinedomo.nsf/vDOMODOC_id/ HIS?OpenDocument [accessed 16 January 2017]. Druot, F., Lacaton, A. & Vassal, J.-P. (2007) Plus+: Large-scale housing developments. An exceptional case. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili. Druot, F., Lacaton, A. & Vassal, J.-P. (2013) Tour Bois-le-Prêtre. Berlin: Ruby Press. Europa Nostra (2013) The housing complex of Lignon: Architectural study and intervention strategies. [online] Available at: http://www. europanostra.org/awards/113/ [accessed 19 December 2016].

Clarke, A. et al. (2015) Understanding the likely poverty impacts of the extension of Right-to-Buy to housing association tenants. [online] Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/ understanding-likely-poverty-impacts-extension-right-buy-housingassociation-tenants [accessed 20 June 2016]

F2 Centre (n.d.) The present. [webpage] Available at: http://f2c.ie/?page_ id=144 [accessed 5 January 2017].

Cornelius, N. and Wallace, J. (2010) Cross-sector partnerships: City regeneration and social justice. Journal of Business Ethics. 94 (1), pp. 71–84.

Finlay, S., Pereira, I., Fryer-Smith, E., Chariton, A., and Roberts-Hughes, R. (2012) The way we live now: What people need and expect from their homes. London: Ipsos MORI and RIBA.

Crawford, K., Johnson, C., Davies, F., Joo, S., and Bell, S. (2014) Demolition or refurbishment of social housing? A review of evidence. London: UCL Engineering Urban Lab and Engineering Exchange. De Magalhaes, C. and Trigo, S. F. (2015) Private management of the urban public realm: The implications of contracted-out publicness. London: RICS. Denby, E. (1938) Europe re-housed. London: Allen & Unwin. Department for Communities and Local Government (2013, updated 2017) Household projections [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ collections/household-projections [accessed 20 November 2016] Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2016a) Estate regeneration national strategy: Resident engagement and protection. London: DCLG. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2016b) Estate regeneration national strategy: The role of local authority. London: DCLG. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2016c) Estate regeneration national strategy: Financing and delivering estate regeneration. London: DCLG.

215

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Farrells (2015) The Farrell review of architecture and the built environment. London: DCMS.

Friedrich, R. and Stahl, A. (2015) Marzahn-Hellersdorf: Modellprojekt Ahrensfelder Terrassen. [online]. Senate Department for Urban Development and Housing, City of Berlin. Available at: http://www. stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/staedtebau/foerderprogramme/stadtumbau/ Ahrensfelder-Terrassen-PDF.434.0.html [accessed 3 January 2017]. Furunto, A. (2012) SkyVille @ Dawson / WOHA. [online] ArchDaily. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/215386/skyville-dawson-woha [accessed 22 December 2016]. Galster, G. C. (2010) Neighbourhood social mix: Theory, evidence and implication for policy and planning. [online] In: 2009 International Workshop at Technion University. Haifa: Technicon University. Available at: http://clas.wayne.edu/Multimedia/DUSP/files/G.Galster/Galster_ Neighborhood_Social_Mix_Israel_paper_1-2010.pdf [accessed 27 January 2017] Gospodini, A. (2007) Urban development, redevelopment and regeneration encouraged by transport infrastructure projects: The case study of 12 European cities. European Planning Studies. 13 (7), pp. 1083–1111. Greater London Authority (2012) Bleak houses: Improving London’s private rented housing. London: GLA.

Griffiths, A. (2015) LAN Architecture reclads Bordeaux tower blocks with translucent windows that slide back and forth. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/07/17/lan-architecture-recladsbordeaux-brutalist-tower-blocks-sliding-translucent-windows/ [accessed 16 January 2017]. Hanna, K., Oduwaiye, A., and Redman, P. (2016) Another storey: The real potential for estate densification. London: Centre for London. Hans van der Heijden Architect (n.d.) Splayed apartment blocks. [webpage] Available at: http://hvdha.com/splayed-apartment-blocks/ [accessed 19 December 2016]. Hearne, R. (2009) Origins, development and outcomes of public private partnerships in Ireland: The case of PPPs in social housing regeneration. Working Paper, 09/07, Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency. Available at: http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/workingpapers/2009-07_WP_ PPPsInSocialHousingRegeneration.pdf [accessed 11 January 2017]. Holdsworth, R. (2016) Earn too much for council housing? Camden is here to help. [online] Londonist. Available at: http://londonist. com/2016/04/camden-living [accessed 15 December].

LAN (2015) Press release/November 2015, Carré Lumière [online], p. 2. Available at: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lan-test/projects/ project_files/begles/LAN_BEGLES_en.pdf?mtime=20160425193320 [accessed 4 January 2017]. LAN (2015) Press release/July 2015, Urban Renovation Lormont [online], p. 9. Available at: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lan-test/projects/ project_files/lormont/DP_LAN_LOR_EN.pdf?mtime=20160425193306 [accessed 16 January 2017]. Lacaton & Vassal (n.d.) Transformation de la Tour Bois le Prêtre – Paris 17. [webpage] Available at: http://www.lacatonvassal.com/?idp=56 [accessed 15 December 2016]. Lacaton & Vassal (n.d.) Transformation d’un immeuble de logements, Saint-Nazaire, La Chesnaie [webpage]. Available at: http://lacatonvassal. com/index.php?idp=57 [accessed 15 December]. Lane, L., Power, A. and Provan, B. (2014) High rise hope revisited: The social implications of upgrading large estates. CASEreport 85. London: LSE Housing & Communities.

HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards and PRP Architects (2015) Superdensity: The sequel. London: HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards and PRP Architects.

Lévy-Vroelant, C. and Fijalkow, Y. (2014) Making new from old in France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts. In: Turkington, R. and Watson, C. (eds.) Renewing Europe’s housing. Bristol: Policy Press, p. 75.

HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards, and PRP (2016) Altered estates: How to reconcile competing interests in estate regeneration. London: HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards and PRP Architects.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (n.d.) Visualising density: Glossary. [webpage] Available at: datatoolkits.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/ visualizing-density/glossary.aspx#gross_density [accessed 19th July 2016].

Hugentobler, M., Hofer, A. and Simmendinger, P. (eds.) More than housing: Cooperative planning – a case study in Zürich. Basel: Birkhäuser.

Living Streets (2010) Creating healthy environments: Practical tools for increasing walking in the built environment. London: Living Streets.

Hui, C. (2015) SkyTerrace@Dawson BTO project tops HDB Design Awards. [online] Channel News Asia. Available at: http://www. channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/skyterrace-dawson-bto/2142958. html [accessed 22 December 2016].

Local Government Association Planning Advisory Service. Available at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/[accessed 21 March]

Ijeh, I. (2016) Bacton Low Rise: Community blessed [online] Building. Available at: http://www.building.co.uk/buildings/bacton-low-risecommunity-blessed/5085287.article [accessed 14 December 2016]. Jaccaud Spicher Architectes Associés (n.d.) 49, av. du Lignon. [webpage] Available at: http://www.jsaa.ch/fr/pro/088.html [accessed 19 December 2016]. Jessel, E. (2016) Camden Council told it is ‘in denial’ about problems with flagship regeneration project. [online] Camden New Journal. Available at: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/regeneration-delays [accessed 15 December]. Karakusevic Carson Architects (n.d.) Bacton Low Rise Estate. [webpage] Available at: http://karakusevic-carson.com/work/bacton-low-rise-estate [accessed 14 December 2016]. Kempton, J. (2007) Mixed versus mono tenure estates: is there a difference in asset management needs? In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 3–5 September 2007, Belfast: Association of Researchers in Construction Management. Korsu, E. (2015) Building social mix by building social housing? An evaluation in the Paris, Lyon and Marseille Metropolitan Areas. Housing Studies, pp.598–623.

Local Government Association (2004) Community cohesion – an action guide: Guidance for local authorities. London: LGA Publications. Local Government Association (2016) Get in on the act: Housing and Planning Act 2016. [online] Available at: http://www.local.gov.uk/housingand-planning-act-2016-get-act [accessed 27 January]. London Assembly Housing Committee (2015) Knock it down or do it up? The challenge of estate regeneration. London: Greater London Authority. London Borough of Brent (n.d.) Masterplan and programme (South Kilburn). [webpage] Available at: https://www.brent.gov.uk/yourcommunity/regeneration/south-kilburn-regeneration/the-developmentprocess/masterplan-and-programme/ [accessed 6 January 2017]. London Borough of Brent (n.d.) South Kilburn meanwhile projects. [webpage] Available at: https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-community/ regeneration/south-kilburn-regeneration/meanwhile-projects-in-southkilburn/ [accessed 6 January 2017]. London Borough of Camden (n.d.) Maiden Lane. [webpage] Available at: http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/housing/council-tenants-andleaseholders/housing-repairs/major-repair-work/estate-regeneration/ maiden-lane/?page=1#section-1 [accessed 15 December 2016].

bibliography

216

London Borough of Camden (2014) Sales and marketing principles for private homes developed by Camden’s Community Investment Programme (June 2014). [online] Available at: https://www.camden. gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=3213602& [accessed 15 December 2016]. London First (2016) Homes for Londoners: A blueprint for how the Mayor can deliver the homes London needs. London: London First. London Housing Commission (2015) Capital failure: Understanding the roots of London’s housing crisis. London: IPPR. London Housing Commission (2016) Building a new deal for London: Final report of the London Housing Commission. London: IPPR. Mairie de Bordeaux (2013) Bordeaux, France. UNESCO world heritage. Bordeaux: Mairie de Bordeaux. Mairie de Paris (2016) Grand projet de renouvellement urbain (GPRU) et projets d’équipements publics. [online] Available at: http://www.paris.fr/ services-et-infos-pratiques/urbanisme-et-architecture/projets-urbainset-architecturaux/grand-projet-de-renouvellement-urbain-gpru-2452 [accessed 15 December 2016]. Marguerite, J.-C. (n.d.) La reconstruction de la ville sur elle-même : Vous avez dit palimpseste ? [online] Available at: https://patrimoineenscene. files.wordpress.com/2013/01/expo.pdf [accessed 16th January 2017]. Mayor of London (2014) Homes for London: The London housing strategy. London: Greater London Authority.

Mecanoo (n.d.) Osdorp Mixed Use Centre and Housing. [webpage] Available at: http://www.mecanoo.nl/Projects?project=46 [accessed 22 December 2016]. Mehr als Wohnen (n.d.) Leitbild. [online] Available at: https://www. mehralswohnen.ch/fileadmin/downloads/Wir_ueber_uns/maw_Leitbild. pdf [accessed 19 January 2017]. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1961) Homes for Today and Tomorrow. Stationery Office Books. NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (2014) The new housing marketplace plan 2003-2014. New York City: NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development. [online] Available at: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/HPDAnnual-2013-FINAL.pdf [accessed 14 December 2016]. Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., and Goodspeed, T. (2009) A guide to social return on investment. London: Cabinet Office. O’Brien, T. (2009) President opens centre at renewed Fatima Mansions. [online] The Irish Times. Available at: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ president-opens-centre-at-renewed-fatima-mansions-1.765383 [accessed 5 January 2017]. Open Government Guide (n.d.) Establish legislation and guidelines on public consultation in policy development. [webpage] Available at: opengovguide.com/commitments/establish-legislation-and-guidelines-onpublic-consultation-in-policy-development/ [accessed 16 January 2017]

Mayor of London (2015a) Assessing transport connectivity in London. London: Transport for London.

Oxford Dictionaries. Generation rent. [webpage] Available at: https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generation_rent [accessed 17 March 2017].

Mayor of London (2015b) Social infrastructure supplementary planning guidance. London: Greater London Authority.

Oxford Dictionaries. Referendum. [webpage] Available at: https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/referendum [accessed 20 March 2017].

Mayor of London (2016a) A city for all Londoners. London: Greater London Authority.

Pattison, B. et al. (2016) Regeneration revival: Making housing-led regeneration work across England. London: Chartered Institute of Housing.

Mayor of London (2016b) Homes for Londoners: Draft good practice guide to estate regeneration. London: Greater London Authority.

Paton, K. (2014) Gentrification: A working-class perspective. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing.

Mayor of London (2016c) Housing supplementary planning guidance. London: Greater London Authority.

Pearce, J. and Vine, J. (2014) Quantifying residualisation: The changing nature of social housing in the UK. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 29 (4), pp. 657–675.

Mayor of London (2016d) The London plan. London: Greater London Authority. McLaughlin, G. (2015) Estate regeneration sourcebook. London: Urban Design London. [online] Available at: http://www.urbandesignlondon. com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Estate-Regen-Sourcebook-WebVersion.pdf [accessed 14th December 2016]. Meanwhile Space CIC (2012) Meanwhile, in Wembley: A handbook for occupants. [online] Available at: http://www.meanwhilespace.com/media/ media/downloads/Meanwhile_Space_Workbook_Summer2012_VFinal_ spreads.pdf [accessed 6 January 2017]. Meanwhile Space CIC (n.d.) Carlton Kitchen information pack. [online] Available at: http://www.meanwhilespace.com/media/media/downloads/ Information_Pack.pdf [accessed 6 January 2017].

217

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Pittini, A., Ghekière, L., Dijol, J., and Kiss, I. (2015) The state of housing in the EU 2015: A Housing Europe review. Brussels: Housing Europe. Planning Portal. Available at: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/ info/200126/applications/70/community_infrastructure_levy [accessed 21 March 2017]. Policy Forum for London (2016) Policy priorities for housing in London. Policy Forum for London Keynote Seminar on 11 October 2016 [transcript] London: Policy Forum for London. Power, A., Plöger, J., and Winkler, A. (2010) Phoenix cities: The fall and rise of great industrial cities. Bristol, UK: Policy Press for JRF. Power, A. (2016) Cities for a small continent: International handbook of city recovery. London: Policy Press.

Provan, B., Belotti, A. and Power, A. (2016) Moving on without moving out: The impacts of regeneration on the Rayners Lane Estate. London: LSE Housing & Communities.

South Kilburn Studios. (n.d.) Welcome to SK Studios, a creative hub to nurture business, skills & potential. [webpage] Available at: https:// southkilburnstudios.org [accessed 6 January 2017].

Ragot, G., Costedoat, D. and Monthiers, V. (2014) Guide d’architecture: Bordeaux métropole 1945/2015. Bordeaux: Editions Confluences.

Strange, H. (2013) Le Lignon apartment complex by Jean-Paul Jaccaud Architectes. [online] Building Design. Available at: http://www. bdonline.co.uk/le-lignon-apartment-complex-by-jean-paul-jaccaudarchitectes/5053451.article [accessed 19 December 2016].

Ravetz, A. (2001) Council housing and culture: The history of a social experiment. London: Routledge. Robinson, D. and Pearce, S. (2009) Housing market renewal and community cohesion. London: DCLG. Robson, B. (2016) Estate regeneration briefing for expert panel. [online] Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/ estate-regeneration-briefing-expert-panel [accessed 20 June 2016]. S333 Architecture + Urbanism (n.d.) ‘Paspoel Anders’, Tongeren, BE. [webpage] Available at: http://www.s333.org/tongeren [accessed 22 December 2016]. SAEMCIB (2010) L’exemple du quartier Terres Neuves à Bègles (Gironde), Forum inter regional des acteurs de la rénovation urbaine [online]. Available at: http://www.anru.fr/fraru/fraru2010/Beziers/BEGLES.pdf [accessed 5 January 2017].

Taylor, D. (2013) NLA London Awards 2013 winners – Overall winners. [online] New London Architecture. Available at: http://www. newlondonarchitecture.org/news/2013/august/nla-london-awards-2013winners--overall-winners [accessed 22 December 2016]. Taylor, L., ed. (2016) Delivering estate renewal: A briefing from London housing leaders. London: Future of London. The Centre for Social Justice (2016) Home improvements: A social justice approach to housing policy. London: The Centre for Social Justice. The Glass-House. (n.d.) Bacton Low Rise regeneration, Gospel Oak. [webpage] Available at: http://www.theglasshouse.org.uk/project/bactonlow-rise-regeneration-gospel-oak/ [accessed 14 December 2016].

Sarkissian, W. (1976) The idea of social mix in town planning: An historical review. Urban Studies. 13(3), pp.231–246.

The Guardian (2005) Cut down to size. [online] The Guardian, 14th November 2005. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2005/nov/14/architecture.germany [accessed 3 January 2017].

Schenkel, W. (2015) Regeneration strategies in shrinking urban neighbourhoods – dimensions of interventions in theory and practice. European Planning Studies. 23 (1), pp. 69–86.

Tilley, J. (2013) The regeneration of Tybalds Estate. [online] Architect’s Choice. Available at: http://architectnews.co.uk/2013/05/09/theregeneration-of-tybalds-estate/ [accessed 22 December 2016].

Scott-Marshall, A., ed. (2014) Building a better Britain: A vision for the next government. London: RIBA.

Tracés (2013) La restauration de la cité du Lignon reçoit le prix Europa Nostra. [online] Available at: https://www.espazium.ch/la-restaurationde-la-cite-du-lignon-recoit-le-prix-europa-nostra [accessed 19 December 2016].

Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2016) Building more homes (First report of Session 2016–17). London: House of Lords. Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment (2016) Building better places (Report of Session 2015–16). London: The Stationery Office Limited. Sen, N.J. (2016) HDB unveils landscape masterplan to spruce up Dawson estate. [online] The Straits Times. Available at: http://www.straitstimes. com/singapore/housing/hdb-unveils-landscape-masterplan-to-spruceup-dawson-estate [accessed 22 December 2016].

Trowers & Hamlins (2014) The future of affordable housing: Common ground or turf war? A report on changing working relationships. London: Trowers & Hamlins. Tunstall, R. and Lupton, R. (2010) Mixed communities: evidence review. London: DCLG.

Shine, T. K. and Norris, M. (2006) Regenerating local authority housing estates: Review of policy and practice. Dublin: Centre for Housing Research. [online] Available at: https://www.housingagency.ie/Housing/ media/Media/Archived%20Publications/Regenerating-Local-AuthorityHousing-Estates_Review-of-Policy-and-Practices_Policy_Paper.pdf [accessed 5 January 2017]. Singapore Home and Décor (2016). Amazing HDB estates in Singapore – tour SkyVille and SkyTerrace at Dawson. [online] Singapore Home and Décor. Available at: http://www.homeanddecor.com.sg/articles/83176-seenew-face-hdb-housing-dawson-estate [accessed 22 December 2016]. Slater, et al. (2013) Changing places, changing lives: Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration. London: L&Q

bibliography

218

Turkington, R. and Watson, C. (2014) Conclusions. In: Turkington, R. and Watson, C. (eds.) Renewing Europe’s housing. Bristol: Policy Press. Tybalds Planning and Urban Design (2013) Tybalds estate regeneration granted detailed planning permission by LB Camden Committee. [online] Available at: http://tibbalds.co.uk/2013/06/tybalds-estate-regenerationgranted-detailed-planning-permission-by-lb-camden-committtee/ [accessed 22 December 2016].

Additional reading Batty, E., Batty, C., Foden, M., Lawless, P., Pearson, S., and Wilson, I. (2010) The new deal for communities experience: A final assessment Executive summary. London: DCLG. Bennie, C. (2016) Managing the estates. [online] RIBA Journal. Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/the-state-vs-the-estate [Accessed 20 June 2016]

UN-HABITAT (2011) Public-private partnership in housing and urban development. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.

Bevan, M. and Croucher, K. (2011) Lifetime neighbourhoods. London: DCLG.

Urban Design London (2015) Notes from three days on housing. [online] Available at: http://www.urbandesignlondon.com/wordpress/wp-content/ uploads/Three-Days-on-Housing-Report-26.08.15.pdf [accessed 27 Januay 2016].

Bramley, G., Power, S. and Dempsey, N. (2006) What is ‘social sustainability’, and how do our existing urban forms perform. In: Nurturing It? Global Places, Local Spaces, Planning Research Conference, The Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, London, 5th–7th April.

Urban Land Institute. (n.d.) ULI case studies: Via Verde. [online] Available at: http://casestudies.uli.org/via-verde/ [accessed 14 December 2016].

Center for Civic Education (2014) What are civic life, politics, and government? [online] Available at: http://www.civiced.org/ standards?page=58erica [accessed 4 December 2016]

Ville de Bègles (n.d.) Bègles, village urbain à visage humain. [online] Available at: http://www.mairie-begles.fr/?page_id=3760 [accessed 4 January 2017]. Ville de Bègles (2013) Les Terres Neuves et le parc de l’economie créative [online] Available at: http://archive.is/WIOlv#selection-3919.1-3919.52 [accessed 4 January 2017]. Ville de Bordeaux (n.d.) Le Grand Parc. [webpage] Available at: http:// www.bordeaux2030.fr/bordeaux-demain/grand-parc [accessed 9 December 2016]. Ville de Lormont. (n.d.) Génicart. [webpage] Available at: http://www. lormont.fr/spip.php?rubrique387 [accessed 16 January 2017]. Watson, K. and Whitley, T. (2016) Applying social return on investment (SROI) to the built environment, Building Research & Information.

Chartered Institute of Housing (2015) Regeneration revival interim report. Coventry: CIH. Colantonio, A. (2011) Towards best practice and a social sustainability assessment framework. In: Urban regeneration and social sustainability: Best practice from European cities. Colantonio, A. and Dixon, T. eds., Ch. 11. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Colantonio, A. and Dixon, T., eds. (2010) Urban regeneration and social sustainability: Best practice from European cities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CPRE (2014) Towards a livable London. London: CPRE. Crosby, N. and Wyatt, P. (2015) Financial viability appraisal in planning decisions: Theory and practice. London: RICS.

what if: projects. (n.d.) The Albert. [webpage] Available at: http://www. what-if.info/the-albert-meanwhile/ [accessed 6th January 2017].

Department for Communities (n.d.) Governance guide – section 1 – introduction. [online] Available at: https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/ governance-guide-section-1-introduction [accessed 4 December 2016]

What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (2015) Evidence review 5: Estate renewal. London: What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2016a) Estate regeneration - statement. London: DCLG.

Whyte, J. (2005) 8 great expectations: A landmark and unique social regeneration plan for Fatima Mansions. Dublin: Fatima Regeneration Board.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2016c) Local authority assets: Disposal guidance. London: DCLG.

Woodman, E. (2015) Post-war estate regeneration: Improvement over replacement. [online] The Architects’ Journal. 1st July. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/post-war-estateregeneration-improvement-over-replacement/8685376.article [accessed 19 December 2016].

Hale, V. (2016) Greater London rental demand. London: Strutt & Parker.

Wu, D. (2015) Building blocks: Singapore’s Dawson development gears up for completion. [online] Wallpaper. Available at: http://www.wallpaper. com/architecture/building-blocks-singapores-dawson-developmentgears-up-for-completion [accessed 11 January 2017].

Hull, A. (2000) Neighbourhood Renewal: A toolkit for regeneration. GeoJournal 51(4), 301–309.

XY Apartments (n.d.) Introducing XY, for ever changing views. [webpage] Available at: http://www.xyapartments.com [accessed 15 December 2016].

219

v i ta l n e i g h b o u r h o o d s

Hart, A. (2003) A neighbourhood renewal project in Dalston, Hackney: Towards a new form of partnership in inner city regeneration. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 3(3), 237–245.

Local Government Association (2016) Getting in on the Act: Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. London: LGA London Tenants Federation, Lees, L., Just Space and SNAG (2014) Staying put: An anti-gentrification handbook for council estates in London. London: Calverts Co-operative.

Love Lane Residents Association (2014) Love Lane residents charter. London: Love Lane Residents Association. Mallett, L. (2016) Dystopia on trial. Planning in London. 98 (JulySeptember 2016), pp. 65–66. Mayor of London (2014) Homes for London: The London housing strategy. London: Greater London Authority. Nicholls, J., Mackenzie, S., Somers, A. (2007) Measuring real value: a DIY guide to social return on investment. [online] Eldis. Available at: eldis. org/go/home&id=33358&type=Document#.WICaLTv8tHg [accessed 4th December 2016]. Savills (2016) Completing London’s streets: How the regeneration and intensification of housing estates could increase London’s supply of homes and benefit residents. London: Savills. Sims, S. and Bosetti, N. (2016) Stopped: Why people oppose residential development in their backyard. London: Centre for London. Skobba, K. (2015) This is what I call home: Reflections of public housing residents awaiting relocation. Housing and Society. 42(1), pp. 69–84. The Prince’s Foundation for Building Community and The Hyde Group (2015) Estate regeneration: Six steps to success. London: Prince’s Foundation. Trott, T. (2002) Best practice in regeneration: Because it works. Bristol: Policy Press. Tuan, M. (2008) Measuring and/or estimating social value creation: insights into eight integrated cost approaches. Prepared for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Impact Planning and Improvement. USA. Urban, F. (2012) Tower and slab: Histories of global mass housing. London: Routledge. Winston, N. (2009) Urban regeneration for sustainable development: The role of sustainable housing. European Planning Studies. 17(12), pp.1781–1796.

bibliography

220

List of interviewees Bordeaux local authority

Karine Gressner Housing and Urban Planning Director Bordeaux local authority Michèle Laruë-Charlus Head Director of Urban Planning Bordeaux local authority Anne-Laure Moniot Architecture and Urban Heritage Director Bordeaux local authority

GHI Le Grand Parc

Bernard Blanc Head Director Aquitanis Alain Legall Director of New Housing Aquitanis Anne Lacaton and Frédéric Druot Founders and Principal Architects Lacaton & Vassal Architects

Urban Renovation Lormont

Fred André Project Manager Domofrance Marie-José Armanet Communication Officer Domofrance Umberto Napolitano Co-founder and Principal Architect LAN Architecture

Carré Lumière

Umberto Napolitano Co-founder and Principal Architect LAN Architecture Julia Vallvé Communication Officer LAN Architecture

221

Kalkbreite

Res Keller Co-founder Kalkbreite housing cooperative

Hunziker Areal

Anna Haller Head of Participation Mehr als Wohnen housing cooperative

Written and produced by Publica

10–11 Clerkenwell Green London EC1R 0DP +44 (0)207 490 3986 www.publica.co.uk Emma Brunskill-Powell Myrna D’Ambrosio Charlotte Lord Anna Mansfield Rachel Meunier Ketki Mudholkar Lucy Musgrave Anna Page Pawda Tjoa Flora Tonking Owain Williams In collaboration with Stanhope Plc David Camp Ron German Jason Margrave Jonathan Trout Charles Walford July 2017 The contents of this report are the result of site surveys and desk-based research undertaken between June 2016 and January 2017. All drawings and photographs contained within this document are presented for informattion purposes. Publica retains all Intellectual Property Rights and copyright associated with the work, as set out in Publica’s terms and conditions. Further publication or use of images will require copyright usage approval and a license for any third party images. Contact Publica for further information. http://publica.co.uk/termsandconditions.html This publication and its contents are © Publica 2017, all rights reserved.