Genuine Regen by Viola Petrella

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON // FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT // BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

major project // how can professional and community-led design be balanced in participatory processes of regeneration of housing estates? Viola Petrella // MSc Urban Design & City Planning

word count: 7939 Being a Major Project in Urban Design and City Planning MSc submitted to the faculty of The Built Environment as part of the requirements for the award of the MSc (Urban Design and City Planning) at University College London, I declare that this project is entirely my own work and that ideas, data and images, as well as direct quotations, drawn from elsewhere are identified and referenced.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Elanor Warwick for her support, her patience, and the enjoyable chats, and to the course director Filipa Matos Wunderlich for her advice and availability throughout the year. My sincere thanks also go to my tutor Sonia Arbaci Sallazzaro. I would also like to thank Richard Lee, whose advice and support have been fundamental to my research and to define the further steps in my career. Thanks to all the lovely people I have had the chance to meet and interview Geraldine Dening, Simon Elmer, Katherine McNeil, the Concrete Action team, Melissa Kinnear, Alex Frediani, Pat Turnbull, Richard Schunemann and Ricky Schunemann. In many different ways, your work is truly inspiring. Thanks to ASH for taking me on board, to Fernanda and Letitia for their contribution, and to the Central Hill residents - particularly Andrew and Sabine - for their enthusiasm: I hope this is just the start of a successful collaboration. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family who have had the strength to support me even at a distance, even in difficult times.

Contents Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................................................

Visioning of future activities ...............................................................................................................................

Contents ................................................................................................................................................................

Creating a green corridor ....................................................................................................................................

Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................

Mapping future uses ............................................................................................................................................

Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................

Technical documents review: current policy .....................................................................................................

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................

Formal drawings: Masterplan .............................................................................................................................

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................

Diagram: Phasing .................................................................................................................................................

Research methodology .........................................................................................................................................

Vision: Parkour.....................................................................................................................................................

Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................................................

Sketch: Market ......................................................................................................................................................

A gradient of community participation .............................................................................................................

Section: Screens for privacy ................................................................................................................................

Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation ......................................................................................................................

Sketch: Food growing ...........................................................................................................................................

Lindsay’s pyramid of user led design ..................................................................................................................

Collage: Bee keeping.............................................................................................................................................

Lee’s typology of design participation.................................................................................................................

Vision: Repairing fences ......................................................................................................................................

Contemporary approach to participation in regeneration: theory ...................................................................

Study visit: The Horniman Gardens ....................................................................................................................

Four theoretical approaches ................................................................................................................................

Collage: DIY play space ........................................................................................................................................

The Adonis Report ................................................................................................................................................

Outcomes ..............................................................................................................................................................

Staying Put ............................................................................................................................................................

Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................

Knock it down or do it up?....................................................................................................................................

Appendix ..............................................................................................................................................................

The Estate Regeneration Sourcebook ...................................................................................................................

Bibliography and sources ....................................................................................................................................

Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................

Image references ..................................................................................................................................................

Contemporary approach to particiaption in regeneration: practice .................................................................

Case studies: the Colville estate ...........................................................................................................................

Case studies: the Andover Estate Development Plan (AEDP) .............................................................................

Conclusions to the theoretical framework and contemporaryapproaches ......................................................

Objectives .............................................................................................................................................................

Observational research........................................................................................................................................

The four groups ....................................................................................................................................................

The interviews ......................................................................................................................................................

Summarising the approaches ..............................................................................................................................

Conclusions to interviews and observation ........................................................................................................

The Design Participation Process ........................................................................................................................

The Activities ........................................................................................................................................................

The Process ...........................................................................................................................................................

The Actions ...........................................................................................................................................................

Proposed Process..................................................................................................................................................

Preliminary research: location, history ..............................................................................................................

Preliminary research: access, circulation ...........................................................................................................

Preliminary research: vegetation ........................................................................................................................

Preliminary research: site levels .........................................................................................................................

Preliminary research: current projects ..............................................................................................................

An alternative to demolition ...............................................................................................................................

Walkabout ............................................................................................................................................................

Mapping ................................................................................................................................................................

Model making .......................................................................................................................................................

Mapping summary: land use, dwelling size .......................................................................................................

Mapping summary: open spaces .........................................................................................................................

Mapping review: The Open Garden ....................................................................................................................

Mapping review: The Confused Fence ................................................................................................................

Mapping review: The Brave Horse ......................................................................................................................

Mapping review: The Recycling Castle................................................................................................................

Mapping review: The Buffer Zone.......................................................................................................................

Mapping review: The New Development............................................................................................................

43 3

Figures Fig. 1. Participation matrix (Wates 2014) .......................................................................................................... 8

Fig. 48. Mapping green space and areas for development............................................................................. 35

Fig. 2. Pyramid of user-led design (adapted). (Lindsay 2003) .......................................................................... 9

Fig. 49. Refuse collection hub .......................................................................................................................... 36

Fig. 3. Four types of design participation. (Lee 2008) ..................................................................................... 10

Fig. 50. Terraced houses with patios ............................................................................................................... 36

Fig. 4. The realm of collaboration. (Lee 2008) ................................................................................................ 10

Fig. 51. The housing offices .............................................................................................................................. 36

Fig. 5. The Adonis Report’s main themes (2015) ............................................................................................. 12

Fig. 52. Family homes ...................................................................................................................................... 36

Fig. 6. Staying Put’s views on consultation and participation (Southwark Notes n.d.) ................................ 12

Fig. 53. Elderly care facility ............................................................................................................................ 36

Fig. 7. Guidelines for community engagement (2015).................................................................................... 13

Fig. 54. Linear block ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Fig. 8. Rules for partnering (2014) ................................................................................................................... 13

Fig. 55. Rows of terraced homes ...................................................................................................................... 36

Fig. 9. The Colville Estate in Hackney ............................................................................................................. 14

Fig. 56. Community space, food shop .............................................................................................................. 36

Fig. 10. Actors and reciprocal roles in the design process. ............................................................................ 14

Fig. 57. Ex community centre, now elderly daycare centre ........................................................................... 36

Fig. 11. Phase 3 towers images presented during the consultation (2014).................................................... 15

Fig. 58. Central Hill high street ....................................................................................................................... 36

Fig. 13. Description of PPCR’s activities as advertised on the LB Hackney newsletter (2015) ...................... 15

Fig. 59. Land use and dwelling size map (2015) ............................................................................................. 36

Fig. 12. Petition circulated by CETRA in support of redevelopment (2014) .................................................. 15

Fig. 60. The grocery shop ................................................................................................................................. 37

Fig. 14. Launch of the Colville Estate community garden at the presence of the chair of CETRA and one of

Fig. 61. Playground........................................................................................................................................... 37

the facilitators from PPCR. (2014) ................................................................................................................... 15

Fig. 62. Field for ball games ............................................................................................................................. 37

Fig. 15. All my lovely plants... - Colville Estate resident, 01.09.2015.............................................................. 16

Fig. 63. Table tennis ......................................................................................................................................... 37

Fig. 16. The Andover Estate in Islington ......................................................................................................... 17

Fig. 64. Alleyway .............................................................................................................................................. 37

Fig. 17. Timeline of community involvement activities (2013) ...................................................................... 17

Fig. 65. Alleyway between terraced homes .................................................................................................... 37

Fig. 18. AEDP actors structure ......................................................................................................................... 18

Fig. 66. Area with raised beds.......................................................................................................................... 37

Fig. 19. Strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches ............................................................................ 19

Fig. 67. Communal garden ............................................................................................................................... 37

Fig. 20. The groups’ approaches to participation ........................................................................................... 21

Fig. 68. Playing space ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Fig. 21. The interviews’ structure .................................................................................................................... 22

Fig. 69. Central square ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Fig. 22. Summary of the organisations’ approaches ...................................................................................... 23

Fig. 70. Meadow strip between road and estate ............................................................................................. 37

Fig. 23. Analysis of the case studies’ design process....................................................................................... 24

Fig. 71. Green space around the abandoned central heating facility ............................................................ 37

Fig. 24. Women from San Jose, Argentina, making a model out of cardboard boxes during an AfH workshop

Fig. 72. Open spaces map (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 37

(McNeil 2013) .................................................................................................................................................... 26

Fig. 73. Shop frontage on central square ....................................................................................................... 38

Fig. 25. Activities in the design participation process ................................................................................... 27

Fig. 74. Shop frontage on road......................................................................................................................... 38

Fig. 26. Actions in the design participation process ....................................................................................... 28

Fig. 75. Community space on central square .................................................................................................. 38

Fig. 27. Design participation process in Central Hill, Lambeth ..................................................................... 29

Fig. 76. Meadows overlooking the offices ....................................................................................................... 38

Fig. 28. Gipsy Hill Parish Map (Hines, n.d.)..................................................................................................... 30

Fig. 77. Central square ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Fig. 29. Aerial view - the boundary of the area for projected redevelopment and significant buildings

Fig. 78. Meadows around the playing space ................................................................................................... 38

surrounding the estate (2015) ......................................................................................................................... 30

Fig. 79. Alleyway in the west of the estate (North) ......................................................................................... 38

Fig. 30. Bird’s eye view - Central Hill Estate’s terraces are built on a leafy slope (2015) .............................. 30

Fig. 80. Alleyway in the west of the estate (Center) ........................................................................................ 38

Fig. 31. Preliminary research - access and circulation (2015) ....................................................................... 31

Fig. 81. Alleyway in the west of the estate (South) ......................................................................................... 38

Fig. 32. Preliminary research - vegetation (2015) ........................................................................................... 32

Fig. 82. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 33. Preliminary research - site levels (2015) ............................................................................................ 33

Fig. 83. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 34. Report by PRP architects and Lambeth council summarising the responses to resident consultation

Fig. 84. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

(2015) ................................................................................................................................................................ 34

Fig. 85. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 35. Leaflet for the Resistance by Design workshop designed with SCH members................................. 34

Fig. 86. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 36. Discussion before the walkabout ....................................................................................................... 35

Fig. 87. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 37. Walkabout with model ........................................................................................................................ 35

Fig. 88. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 38. Drawing sections ................................................................................................................................. 35

Fig. 89. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 39. Map identifying the location of the stall for future consultations/feedback .................................... 35

Fig. 90. Fences around the estate..................................................................................................................... 39

Fig. 40. Residents sketching sections and plans of their homes .................................................................... 35

Fig. 91. Playing field ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Fig. 41. Sections and plans of homes ............................................................................................................... 35

Fig. 92. Play structure (East) ............................................................................................................................ 40

Fig. 42. Residents mapping where they live ................................................................................................... 35

Fig. 93. Table tennis ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Fig. 43. Building the model .............................................................................................................................. 35

Fig. 94. The brave horse ................................................................................................................................... 40

Fig. 44. Model ................................................................................................................................................... 35

Fig. 95. Play structure (West) ........................................................................................................................... 40

Fig. 45. Notes from the discussion of engagement strategies with the community ...................................... 35

Fig. 96. Map of the play spaces ........................................................................................................................ 40

Fig. 46. Scan of the land use map .................................................................................................................... 35

Fig. 97. Slide (South-East) ................................................................................................................................. 40

Fig. 47. Mapping the land use .......................................................................................................................... 35

Fig. 98. Slide (West) .......................................................................................................................................... 40 Fig. 99. Playground........................................................................................................................................... 40 4

Fig. 100. Recycling Castles around the estate ................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 101. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 102. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 103. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 104. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 105. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 106. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 107. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 41

Tables Tab. 1. Structure of the Major Research Project ............................................................................................... 7 Tab. 2. Ladder of participation (adapted) (1969) .............................................................................................. 9 Tab. 3. The four reports ................................................................................................................................... 11 Tab. 4. Classification of examined reports and case studies .......................................................................... 19 Tab. 5. Phases of the design process ............................................................................................................... 22

Fig. 108. Diagram explaining the rubbish collection ....................................................................................... 41 Fig. 109. Recycling Castles around the estate .................................................................................................. 42 Fig. 110. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 111. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 112. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 113. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 114. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 115. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 116. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 117. Patios around the estate .................................................................................................................... 42 Fig. 118. Empty space between two rows of houses ....................................................................................... 43 Fig. 119. Empty space by the central square ................................................................................................... 43 Fig. 120. Offices................................................................................................................................................. 43 Fig. 121. Police station...................................................................................................................................... 43 Fig. 122. Empty space west of the estate ......................................................................................................... 43 Fig. 123. Abandoned communal heating facility ............................................................................................ 43 Fig. 124. Former community centre ................................................................................................................ 43 Fig. 125. Diagram: from the mapping, to the design themes, to the visions for the estate ........................... 44 Fig. 126. Central Hill as green corridor ........................................................................................................... 45 Fig. 127. Sketch of the open spacesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; land use map ......................................................................................... 45 Fig. 128. Open space by typology (2011) ......................................................................................................... 45 Fig. 129. Accessibility to local open spaces (2011) .......................................................................................... 45 Fig. 130. Open Garden Strategy Masterplan ................................................................................................... 46 Fig. 131. Open Garden Strategy with detailed interventions, North-West .................................................... 47 Fig. 132. Open Garden Strategy with detailed interventions, South-West .................................................... 48 Fig. 133. Open Garden Strategy with detailed interventions, South-East...................................................... 49 Fig. 134. Phasing of the discussed interventions ........................................................................................... 50 Fig. 135. The parkour itinerary (2015) ............................................................................................................ 51 Fig. 136. Parkour athlete jumping from a ramp (2015) .................................................................................. 51 Fig. 137. Parkour athlete on a Recycling Castle (2015) ................................................................................... 51 Fig. 138. Parkour athlete balancing on a rail (2015) ....................................................................................... 51 Fig. 139. Central Square on a market day ....................................................................................................... 51 Fig. 140. Central Square with active frontage................................................................................................. 51 Fig. 141. Section of vegetation as screen for privacy on the patios along the alleyways ............................. 52 Fig. 142. Woven panels and vegetation as screens for privacy at street level .............................................. 52 Fig. 143. Textile panels (n.d.) ........................................................................................................................... 52 Fig. 144. Woven willow (n.d.) .......................................................................................................................... 52 Fig. 145. Revitalisation of the gardenbeds west of the estate ........................................................................ 52 Fig. 146. Sabine shows the garden beds area ................................................................................................. 52 Fig. 147. Residents planting during the Open Garden Estates event (2015) .................................................. 52 Fig. 148. Bee keeping area East of the estate .................................................................................................. 53 Fig. 149. The Sound Garden (2014) .................................................................................................................. 53 Fig. 150. Xylophone in the Sound Garden (2014) ............................................................................................ 53 Fig. 151. New games in the playground .......................................................................................................... 53 Fig. 152. Outcomes of the proposed process ................................................................................................... 54 5

Abstract word count: 239

The project explores different attitudes of designers towards community participation in the regeneration of housing estates in London. The goal is to clarify the designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approach to the communities and their methods of engaging with residents in the design process. After a review of the main theoretical approaches to design participation - comprehensive of recently published reports - two case studies are analysed to construct a framework to the following fieldwork. The Andover Estate Development Plan (Islington) and the Colville Estate Regeneration (Hackney) are examined as example of, respectively, bottom-up and topdown community initiatives that have seemingly received the support of the community. Fieldwork is conducted in the form of interviews with members of the following four groups and initiatives: Architects for Social Housing, Architects Sans FrontiĂ¨res, Concrete Action and Architecture for Humanity. The fieldwork impressions are then elaborated highlighting different approaches towards the various phases of the design process. The aim is to inform a structure that weaves different participation tools and tactics into a process that allows direct interaction between designers and communities. The process is finally applied to test its applicability in the context of a real design challenge in Central Hill estate in Lambeth, London. The research concludes that a direct relationship between designers and residents is desirable; a framework for partnership and productive negotiation can be established and proves useful in achieving a balance between designers and communities in the regeneration of housing estates.

Phase Theoretical framework building

Chapter

Element Wates (2000)

A gradient of community participation

Arnstein (1969) Lindsay (2003) Lee (2007, 2008) IPPR (2015). City Villages LTF et al (2014). Staying put

Contemporary approach to participation in regeneration: theory

London Assembly (2015). Knock it down or do it up? Urban Design London (2015). The Estate Regeneration Sourcebook

Contemporary approach to participation in regeneration: practice Interviews Observational research

Summary of approaches to the design participation process

Colville Estate Masterplan Andover Estate Development Plan Architects for Social Housing Architects Sans FrontiĂ¨res

Process construction

The Activities The Process The Actions

Process application

Participatory process in the design of open spaces in the Central Hill Estate in Lambeth, London

Tab. 1. Structure of the Major Research Project

While recent UK legislation aims to devolve power to local communities, large-scale redevelopments of housing estates are raising concerns around housing affordability and gentrification, particularly in London. The word design features in the Localism Act 2011 (Chapter 4, Part 6: 122), where it is stated that publicity must set out how people can comment or collaborate on the design of the proposed development. This does not give people a statutory right, but it does allow for their inclusion in the design process. However, the role of designers in the participative process of estate regeneration still needs to be clarified. Are designers facilitators of community initiatives? Are we guides? Should we provide solutions, should we coordinate actions? The project is focused on exploring different attitudes of designers towards community participation in the regeneration of housing estates. These are compared and elaborated into a process for community participation which will guide the realisation of a balanced participative project.

Architecture for Humanity Concrete Action

Process construction and application

Introduction

Research Methodology The research project is structured in three moments (tab.1). Firstly, a theoretical framework is built by reviewing relevant literature. The focus is on different definitions of design participation and on the contemporary approaches to participation in regeneration of housing estates in London. Two case studies of design participation are analysed. In phase two, interviews are performed of four selected groups or organisations of designers that have broadly similar goals of inclusiveness and democracy, but different approaches. Whenever possible, the interviews are followed by the observation of these groups at work. The aim is to understand the designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approach to participation in different phases of the design process, and how their approach translates into practice. During the third phase, the findings are used to construct a process for design participation in the regeneration of housing estates. This is then tested in the context of a real design challenge, in collaboration with one of the organisations interviewed and members of the community living on a housing estate.

Theoretical framework Community participation can be described as a gradient between completely top-down approaches, in which authorities are the initiators and leaders of the regeneration process, to completely bottom-up ones, in which communities have control. Between these two extremes, there are different shades of participation. Nick Wates (2014: 12) summarises the levels of community involvement at four stages of a project (fig.1). Any party may initiate action, but the crucial ingredient is joint planning and design (2014: 12).

A gradient of community participation

The dark purple square in figure 1 is the field of this research: that in which authorities and communities plan and design in partnership. However, it can be argued that even within a context of collaboration and joint planning and design, there is a gradient of participation that is, the professionalsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; contribution to the design process can be more or less balanced.

Fig. 1. Participation matrix (Wates 2014)

Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation

Sherry Arnstein, in 1969, composed a Ladder of Participation consisting of different levels of participation, from its absence and manipulation of people by the powerholders to complete citizen control. Arnstein provides examples of tools employed by powerholders or communities at each rung of the ladder.

Degrees of participation

Rungs of the participation ladder

Arnstein’s description (excerpts)

Non-participation

Manipulation

People are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of ‘educating’ them or engineering their support. (1969: 218)

Therapy

The tenants are brought together to help them ‘adjust their values and attitudes to those of the larger society’. Under these groundrules, they are diverted from dealing with [...] important matters. (1969: 218)

Informing

[...] a one-way flow of information (often in jargon, a/n) - from officials to citizens - with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation. (1969: 219)

Tokenism

Consultation

Placation

Citizen power

[...] it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into account. The most frequent methods used to consult people are attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings. [...] People are primarily perceived as statistical abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings, take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. (1969: 220) Citizens [are allowed] to advise or plan ad infinitum but [powerholders retain] the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice. (1969: 220)

Partnership

[...] power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and powerholders. [...] In most cases where power has come to be shared it was taken by the citizens, not given by the city. (1969: 221)

Delegated power

Negotiations between citizens and public officials can also result in citizens achieving dominant decision-making authority over a particular plan or program. [...] citizens hold the significant cards to assure accountability of the program to them. [...] separate an parallel groups of citizens and powerholders, with provision for citizen veto if differences of opinion cannot be resolved through negotiation. (1969: 222)

Citizen control

[...] that degree of power (or control) which guarantees that participants or residents can govern a program or an institution [...] and be able to negotiate the condition under which outsiders may change them. (1969: 223)

Tab. 2. Ladder of participation (adapted) (Arnstein 1969)

Since Arnstein’s theorisation, there has been increasing interest in design participation. However, there is still little consensus on the optimal level of community engagement, and on how to achieve it. Researchers have produced models to describe the relationship between designers and users: Lindsay has elaborated a pyramid of user-led design (2003). At the base lie top-down processes, for which professional designers are exclusively responsible, largely assuming the characteristics of a generic user. Proceeding towards the vertex of the pyramid, user involvement increases, and the user gradually transforms from the object to the subject of the research. The pyramid culminates with co-development, with users initiating the design process.

Lindsay’s pyramid of user-led design

Co-development Co-creation Real-life context Limited contact Representations Fig. 2. Pyramid of user-led design (adapted). (Lindsay 2003)

Having identified communities and designers as two poles of design participation, it is important to understand the context they work in, and where different approaches can be positioned.

Lee’s typology of design participation

The research conducted by Lee (2007) identifies a space at the overlap of Lefebvre’s concepts of concrete space (in which people live) and abstract space (conceptual space with which designers work). Here, in the realm for collaboration between designers and people, design participation can happen. This space is further divided into two categories according to the role that designers and people assume in the collaboration (fig.3).

Fig. 3. Four types of design participation. (Lee 2008)

To Lee, design participation for collaboration is initiated by designers; they devise new methods of interacting with people and use them to get feedback. Design participation for emancipation is user-centred and directly initiated by people. Designers can also feature in other forms of participation outside of the realm for collaboration. Community participation happens in concrete space and empowers people to fight for social justice within the expertsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; world (Lee 2006: 161). Here, designers are advisors who help communities to deal with authorities or developers. Public participation, on the other hand, is a much more tokenistic, top-down approach using consultation as a tool to bring the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; advice into the project.

Fig. 4. The realm of collaboration. (Lee 2008) 10

Contemporary approach to participation in regeneration: theory This section presents a review of four reports published within the past year, describing different approaches to design participation in regeneration. They have different positions within the participation spectrum: the Adonis Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2015) approach can be described as top-down, while Knock it down or do it up? (2015) and Staying Put (2014) show a significantly more bottomup approach. The fourth report is a collection of what Urban Design London (2015) regards as examples of good practice in regeneration, both with a top-down and a bottom-up approach.

Four theoretical approaches

Four reports: 1) IPPR (2015). City Villages (the Adonis Report) 2) LTF et al (2014). Staying Put 3) London Assembly (2015). Knock it down or do it up? 4) Urban Design London (2015). Estate Regeneration Sourcebook (the UDL report)

Tab. 3. The four reports

Published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), it advocates a new model for development named the city village, applied by developing brownfield land or redeveloping housing estates from the 1960-70s - some of which are defined using the expression sink estate (2015: 13). Although the need for transparency, ballots and community consultation in the development process is acknowledged (2015: 97), and developers and designers may even have to go beyond open meetings to involve communities (2015: 65), the City Villages approach is still top-down. It expresses faith in regeneration that, through design of the built form, could create communities - a recurring phrase - that are socially mixed and multi-tenure. Designers should provide the homes and neighbourhoods that people want (2015: 61) - seemingly in the assumption that there is a generic group of people that designers should provide for. A commitment to design excellence should be led from the top (2015: 31), and the strong statement is made that architects and urban designers rarely have the clients they deserve (ibid.).

The Adonis Report

Actor Product Objective

Faith in...

Relation Possible relation Absence of relation finance

Partnerships

produce

Local Authorities

Housing Associations

Private sector

Communities

Professionals (consult)

Fig. 5. The Adonis Report’s main themes (2015)

Staying Put

able to

Design

“Create communities”

constitutes

City Village

Social mix

Multitenure

hire

Staying Put (2014) was compiled by the London Tenants Federation and other contributors who are active on estates facing problems of regeneration and gentrification. Views are radically different from those of City Villages. The report describes what is called the consultation con (2014: 10): the practice by councils or developers of hiring consultants to write a statement of community involvement certifying their engagement in the regeneration through consultation. The report opposes this practice and provides information in informal, accessible language about regeneration, its risks and what can be done to limit them - including advice on collecting confidential information, campaigning, participating in a consultation and how to legally challenge councils. The report also suggests possible alternatives to top-down regeneration; however, designers are almost never mentioned as a resource for communities in bottom-up initiatives - with the exception of the Andover Estate Development Plan - and their role is not discussed.

Fig. 6. Staying Put’s views on consultation and participation (Southwark Notes n.d.)

Published by the London Assembly (2015), it discusses community engagement in the refurbishment and regeneration of estates. It presents a anti-tokenistic view of participation, stressing the need of engaging residents while keeping a realistic perspective: In any proposals for change there will always be those who gain and those who lose, at least in relative terms [...] If existing residents are to engage with the process, and this is vital for success, they must themselves realise fair benefit (2015: 12). To build trust and support, the introduction of an independent body acting as mediator is advised (fig.7).

Knock it down or do it up?

Continuous Steering group

of milestones Community leaders Institutions Independent body Developer

Celebration

Activity Trust and support

With a top-down approach, communities are created by places which are shaped by designers.

With a bottom-up approach, places are created by the communities who inhabit them.

The role of designers in participation is never clearly defined, whether the approach is top-down or bottom-up.

Stalls

Varying intensity

Conclusions

Guidelines for Community Engagement

of voices being heard

Demonstration

The existence of communication issues between actors is acknowledged. Hiring consultants and mediators to address them is common; however, this practice is controversial. To clarify the role of designers in participation, the next section will examine two examples of community participation which have been deemed successful.

Communication

Cost On site

Door-to-door Workshops

Online

Leaflets press paper

Fig. 7. Guidelines for community engagement (2015)

The Estate Regeneration Sourcebook

The Estate Regeneration Sourcebook advocates councils taking the lead for development and stresses the importance of the connections between people in shaping places with quality. Five rules for building a successful partnership, which are applicable to partnerships between designers and communities, are provided (fig.8); however, specific guidance for design participation is not given. Rules for partnering

1. Objectives 2. Contribution

3. Goal Alignment 4. Transparency 5. Understanding Fig. 8. Rules for partnering (2014) 13

Contemporary approach to participation in regeneration: practice The Colville Estate in Hackney is undergoing a regeneration scheme that has received the support of the majority of the community. The design process is rather top-down; residents are consulted on options provided by the architects (Karakusevic-Carson, KCA) during drop-in sessions and consultations days.

Case studies The Colville Estate

The actorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reciprocal roles are summarised in figure 10. The Sourcebook does not mention that a group of public participation consultants called PPCR was hired to mediate between the community - represented by a steering group elected by the tenantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; association (CETRA) - and the designers and developers. Consultants seem to have played a key role in building consensus around the scheme; however, they are almost never mentioned. A newsletter was circulated on the estate notifying residents of the existence of a team of facilitators and providing contact details (fig. 13).

Colville Estate

Fig. 9. The Colville Estate in Hackney

Manager

Development Partner

Hackney Homes

LB Hackney hire

Architects

Karakusevic-Carson KCA

hire

PPCR Public Participation Consulting and Research

produce

CETRA create

mediate

Masterplan consultation

Residents Steering Group

Fig. 10. Actors and reciprocal roles in the design process.

The Colville Estate: an interview with Pat Turnbull, Activist (03.07.2015)

For some reason the Colville Estate is held as an example. I don’t agree. - Pat Turnbull, 3rd July 2015

Pat Turnbull, activist in the borough of Hackney, was the only nonprofessional who took part on a tour of the estate organised by KCA; she also collected newspaper articles and evidence of the regeneration process over the years. Speaking with Pat provided information about the involvement of the community in the redevelopment process. The process of regeneration of the Colville Estate started in 1999. CETRA had become increasingly concerned with the state of the homes and, after years of meetings and discussions, residents came to an agreement that they wanted the estate to be demolished and re-built, and composed a Charter to guide the Options Appraisal. However, the discussions and plans never resulted in the regeneration of the estate (Turnbull 2015). A decade later a new team of designers, KCA, was appointed by the Council to design a masterplan for the Colville Estate.

I went to the [consultation] event but didn’t find out much more than how wonderful the architects think their work is. - Anonymous commenter on debeauvoir councillors. blogspot.com, 01.12.13

The tenants are very lucky it’s going to be refurbished [...] but they didn’t ask for the estate to be regenerated, it was forced on them. - Cllr Linda Kelly on the Hackney Gazette, 19th March 2012

A steering group of twenty people appointed by the CETRA was regularly consulted on the development. KCA report that 150 meetings were held between the community and the designers, including monthly drop-in sessions with an attendance of 50-150 people; in these occasions, participants found it hard to read plans, and were therefore presented with models (Turnbull 2015). Evidence (fig. 13, 14) suggests that PPCR coordinated these meetings, mediating between designers and the community. Judging from how they are advertised (fig.13), PPCR seem to focus on providing information rather than on enabling residents to understand and intervene in the design process.

Fig. 11. Phase 3 towers images presented during the consultation (2014)

Fig. 12. Petition circulated by CETRA in support of redevelopment (2014)

While phase one of the redevelopment - Bridport House, which includes 41 social rented homes - is now complete, phase two’s economic viability relies on the completion of phase three - two towers of 198 homes for market sale (fig.11). The redevelopment will take 15 years, during which the existing buildings will have to be partially refurbished. The length of the process and the actual affordability of homes, along with the height of the buildings (which would cast a shade on the newly built Bridport House) seemed to be Pat’s main causes of concern. Although some of the residents have expressed their dissent about the redevelopment (Bartholomew 2012), 219 people over 438 households have signed a petition to support it (fig.12). One of the reasons, Pat suggests, is that people have been waiting for a change to happen on the estate for 15 years, and will have to wait 15 more for the completion of the project; they are now less likely to oppose the Council’s decisions, for fear that this would stop the redevelopment.

Fig. 13. Description of PPCR’s activities as advertised on the LB Hackney newsletter (2015)

Fig. 14. Launch of the Colville Estate community garden at the presence of the chair of CETRA and one of the facilitators from PPCR. (2014) 15

Timeframe, uncertainty and community engagement

Extended timeframes are a typical feature of regeneration; however, in the case of the Colville Estate redevelopment, the time during which residents have been waiting for change to happen on the estate has been particularly long, lasting thirty years. The designer-led regeneration has a simple structure and clear modes of interaction between actors; however, residents live in a condition of uncertainty requiring constant reassurance. On July 2014, a temporary community garden was launched on the Colville Estate (fig. 14). This garden replaced the existing one, which had been set up eight years before. The temporary garden was demolished in September 2015, to the dismay of some residents (fig.15); a new garden will be incorporated in the new development. A smoother flow of information from residents to designers could have, if not raised the issue of the sustainability of the timeframe, at least ensured that community facilities could find a definitive place on the estate at the beginning of the process, giving residents a constant point of reference during the redevelopment. The consultation, although defined by the architects as meaningful, direct, and aiming to bring residents through every step of the process (Turnbull 2015) failed to build a common understanding of the meaning of the estate’s spaces for the residents.

Fig. 15. All my lovely plants in the old community garden that I could not get out look at them now trashed no one’s come forward to say Michael this is for the loss of your plants I must’ve put over £200 into that garden I’m very angry - Colville Estate resident on the Colville Estate Regeneration Facebook Group, 01.09.2015 16

The Andover Estate is located in the borough of Islington. Its community centre, the Finsbury Park Community Hub (FPCH), is run by local residents and partnership organisations. In summer 2011, increasingly concerned with issues of antisocial behaviour, deprivation, health and housing overcrowding on their estate, the FPCH began looking into the options available to solve these problems. With a small grant from the Design Council CABE, the FPCH set up a team of designers (RS Architects, Annie Lennox), facilitators (Open City) and other professionals and a steering group - the Andover Future Forum - to work on the Andover Estate Development Plan (AEDP), which was published in 2013 and won the Place Making award for regeneration the same year.

Case studies The Andover Estate Development Plan (AEDP)

A section of the plan is dedicated to explain community engagement in its development: Key to the consultantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; brief for the AEDP was that is should capture the local communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision for the neighbourhood and involve the community every step of the way, thus the development plan is for the community, by the community. (p.31) A number of initiatives were organised to involve the community in the redaction of the plan (fig. 17). ry

a bru

l pri

2012

First residents meeting. Ideas and drawings presented for discussion

Andover Estate Fig. 16. The Andover Estate in Islington

rua

b Fe

rch

r r be be m m e c ve De No

Walkabout; Design awareness training sessions

Public event: comments are collected Neighbourhood planning process explained

e tob

Steering group setup

Study tour of contemporary developments

n Ja

m pte

ril

Design team meetings with residents and with groups working with young residents Steering group invited to conference on housing design

y Ma

2013

Consultations with residents Design workshops on 3 different areas on the estate; youth design workshop Agreement on final design proposals

Fig. 17. Timeline of community involvement activities (2013)

At the first meeting with residents, designers presented ideas and drawings to start the discussion. Residents were then taken on study tours of contemporary developments (R W Schunemann, 2015). The architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; initial approach seems therefore quite top-down: designers were choosing developments and pointing out positive and negative aspects based on their perception of good design, rather than enabling residents to recognise elements of interest. However, intensive design awareness training sessions facilitated by Open City were organised later in the year to transfer design skills to the community. The making of the plan, as Richard pointed out, was an unstructured experiment which did not follow a pattern; the order in which the actions were performed could be improved.

Finsbury Park Community Hub FPCH hire

Feasibility study re prepa

RS Architects Annie Lennox Landscape Open-City involve

Residents FPCH Andover TRA Council Officers Ward Councillors St. Mark Church Local Police Arsenal in the Community

finance

developed in finance

Andover Estate Development Plan par

pat

tici

CABE

hire

Andover Future Forum ute

stit

con

forms

Partnership Delivery Board

Corporate Director of Housing and Adult Social Services

forms form

Different groups of residents were engaged separately on different areas of the estate, while a steering group - the Andover Future Forum - was informed and consulted through consistent meetings.

Executive Member for Housing Development

prepares

I asked Richard what was the key to achieving high levels of participation, especially of groups that are typically hard to involve such as teenagers. Leaders in the community had a key role in the design process, he explained - the support of the leader of the group working with young residents, for instance, was essential to ensure youth participation. The FPCH acted as a conduit, both in terms of authority and of physical presence on the estate.

Brief guides

Homes and Community Technical Agency Panels Unfortunately, the plan lost the support of the Council, who are now appointing a design team for the delivery of additional housing on the estate, but not of the facilities and services proposed in the AEDP. The interviewees suggested this may be due to a power imbalance between the Local Authority and the community. This highlights the possible presence of an issue of imbalance between developers and end users, even in those cases in which designers have a more inclusive attitude towards design.

Islington Council

Richard W Schunemann, one of the architects who assisted the preparation of the AEDP, grew up on the Andover Estate; his father Richard S, also interviewed to clarify the complex structure of actors and stakeholders underlying the plan (fig.18), is chair of the Andover Future Forum, and involved Richard W since the very beginning of the regeneration process.

for

The AEDP: an interview with Richard W Schunemann, architect, and Richard S Schunemann, chair of the AFF (08.07.2015)

appoint

lan

ry ve

li de

at ur

Design Team Legend Community members/Actors appointed by community Council/Financier Fig. 18. AEDP actors structure

Colville Estate Top-down approach

Strengths

Regular meetings

monthly/quarterly/annually

Conclusions to the theoretical framework and contemporary approaches

Range of mediators CETRA/PPCR/Councillors

Varied communication methods websites/facebook/ newsletters/press/ noticeboards/ consultations

Weaknesses

Designers only present at consultations Mediators are not enablers Unsustainable timeframe for residents

AEDP Bottom-up approach

Strengths

Highly collaborative Mediators are enablers Open-City hired for this purpose

Multi-scalar democracy the Andover Future Forum includes a variety of stakeholders

Lost support

the plan is no longer backed by the Council, possibly due to power imbalance between authority and community

Lack of structure

a structure on which to base design participation would have allowed a more efficient use of resources

Fig. 19. Strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches

Typology of participation

Reports

Case Studies

Public Participation

Adonis Report

Colville Estate

Design Participation for Collaboration

Knock it down or do it up?

Design Participation for Emancipation Community Participation

Lack of guidance in participation directed to designers

working with designers

Andover Estate Staying Put

working with communities

Tab. 4. Classification of examined reports and case studies

All reports recognise there is a need for more participation in the regeneration process, albeit with very different views. The top-down approach to participation needs a wide range of mediators and the investment of resources to handle the communication with the residents; this can still result in a one-way flow of information from designers to residents. The bottom-up approach uses mediators and resources, but with the goal of creating a common ground for designers and residents to collaborate through intensive design training sessions. However, in the example of Design Participation for Emancipation reviewed, the Andover Estate, architects actively collaborated with residents in what was described as an unstructured experiment.

architects are present on site

Weaknesses

Table 4 classifies the reviewed reports and the case studies based on the Lee’s typology of design participation (2008).

None of the reports examined focuses on giving designers specific guidance on design participation for emancipation. Even the Knock it down or do it up? report provides loose principles or guidelines rather than proposing a structure. There is literature available on design for emancipation1; toolkits such as that presented by Wates (2000) or Living Streets (2012), however, lack guidance on how to use them, and on how tools relate to each other. The Glass-House, a charity promoting public participation in the design of the built environment, assessed the online resources available for community led design (2010): among others, Wates, The Community Planning Handbook (2000); Toker, Making Community Design Work (2012); the extensive literature published by CABE, especially By Design (2000), It’s our space (2007) and the Spaceshaper (2007); and Living Streets, Reclaim your streets (2011). 19

A particular gap appears to be between design support and guidance on engaging with others - resources tend to focus on one of these key elements rather than integrating the two. (p.2) CABE’s Spaceshaper - a user’s guide, which is said in the Glass-House’s report to be partially bridging the gap between designers and communities does, in fact, recommend the employment of mediators.

As Jenkins et al. (2009) suggest, the attitude of architects constitutes an issue for participation in housing design; the architects are said to find difficult working with communities and other professionals, one of the reasons being that architectural education itself does not provide adequate training in this area. Jenkins also stresses the need to make a clear distinction between the various participatory processes actors [...] and where their respective inputs are suitable/possible (2009: 68). It seems, therefore, that the interaction between communities and designers needs to be balanced to the point that the hiring of a mediator is often necessary; there also is a lack of comprehensive guidance for designers to directly engage with communities in the design process, resulting in a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities and missed possibilities for contribution. The lack of a structure is not preventing designers from working with communities. Designers are, in fact, developing their own methodologies out of experience. The research will therefore focus on designers who work with communities and collect their views on design participation; the aim is to inform a structure which makes the most of their participation tools and tactics, weaving them into a process allowing designers and communities to directly interact.

OBJECTIVES

Collect experiences

Translate experience into guidance

Organise the guidance into a process

Balance designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; input in the design process

Observational research This section presents six interviews performed in June-July 2015 to representatives of four organisations providing advice and support to communities on architecture and urban design issues.

The four groups

Within the framework provided by Lee (2007), the groups are situated in Design Participation for Emancipation (enabling communities to understand and participate in the design process).

Formal Architects Sans FrontiĂ¨res

Architecture for Humanity

Theory

Practice Concrete Action

Architects for Social Housing Informal Fig. 20. The groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approaches to participation

The groups have broadly similar goals and all work pro bono, but their working methods differ. These are summarised in a semiotic square (fig.20) classifying them according to how they operate. Groups can be formal (a registered, established organisation) or informal (people contributing to a cause) and focus on theory and education, or practice. ASH is a collective of architects, urban designers, planners and other built environment professionals founded in 2015. It offers support to residents who feel their interests are not being taken into account by institutions during the redevelopment processes. ASH explore alternatives to developer-led regeneration and advocate refurbishment over comprehensive demolition and reconstruction. (ASH, 2015)

Architects for Social Housing - ASH

AfH Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Design Team offers communities design assistance and architectural advocacy in support of grassroots development. AfH runs training and outreach programs and comprehensively handle the design and construction process. Their focus is on communities, with relatively small scale projects of common spaces or workspaces. (AfH London, n.d.)

Architecture for Humanity London AfH

Architects Sans Frontieres - ASF-UK

ASF-UK explore techniques for participatory design through workshops, engaging students and professionals in working in a field-based environment. They assist communities in long-term regeneration processes providing them the tools to understand the legal framework in which regeneration takes place, enabling opportunities for community-initiated upgrading.

Concrete Action

Concrete Action launched a website on the 3rd of September 2015 which provides information on the planning system and accessible explanations that demystify the planning jargon. This information is available for communities to use as aid to creating alternative options to planned developments; it also promotes change towards a more accessible and democratic planning system. The Concrete Action team members asked to remain anonymous.

The groups’ approaches are summarised by dividing the design process in eight phases (tab. 5) and evaluating the share of actions in each phase performed by the community (C) or by designers (D) (fig.21). The process is presented in a linear way; however, in reality it involves iteration and multiple redirections. To offer a comparison, the design processes examined in the two case studies are here analysed with the same technique (fig.22).

Summarising the approaches

See appendix for extended interviews

In the appendix, look for this symbol identifying key concepts which informed the proposed process

PHASES OF THE DESIGN PROCESS The interviews

Inquire

Gathering information on the estate

Analyse

Examining the gathered information

Abstract

Imagining future uses and actions

Test

Get feedback on preferred options and test viability

Visualise

Turning the ideas into images

Formalise

Formalising the images in architectural technical drawings

Communicate

Communicating the design to the rest of the community and to authorities

Assist

Launching and monitoring the delivery process

1-1,5 HOURS SEMI-STRUCTURED THEMED QUESTIONS Four groups, six interviews: 1) Architecture for Humanity Katherine McNeil (01.07.2015) 2) Architects for Social Housing Simon Elmer (02.07.2015)

Self-definition Defining specific jargon terms Who is involved? How are they involved? Issues in participatory design Timeframe See appendix for full questionnaire

Geraldine Dening (07.07.2015) 3) Concrete Action (09.07.2015) 4) Architects Sans Frontières Melissa Kinnear (09.07.2015) Alex Frediani (21.07.2015)

Tab. 5. Phases of the design process

Fig. 21. The interviews’ structure

Architects for Social Architects forHousing Social Housing Inquire Inquire

Designers Designers

Simon Elmer

Community Community

Inquire Inquire It is important to find out who we are dealing with. There are lots of different factions on the estate.

AnalyseAnalyse

You can’t fasttrack seven years of design training, but you can make people understand what they like about their environment.

Test

C We are trying to destroy the myth of the professional: residents know what they want, I am just providing an interpretation service.

Formalise Formalise

Formalise Formalise Residents have to do the fighting eventually; but you don’t need to train them up. Access to technical knowledge is important.

Communicate Communicate

I think design skills are transferrable as planning knowledge is, but it’s the next stage of the project.

Test

Visualise Visualise

Architects think that working with communities is limiting design possibilities. But you have to see it as another parameter.

Communicate Communicate

Assist Assist

Assist Assist Architecture for Humanity Architecture for Humanity D

AnalyseAnalyse

AbstractAbstract

Test

AnalyseAnalyse

Visualise Visualise

Inquire Inquire

Concrete Action

Abstract Abstract

AbstractAbstract

Test

Concrete Action Action Concrete

Geraldine Dening

Test

Visualise Visualise

Formalise Formalise

Katherine McNeil

Architects Sans Frontières Architects Sans Frontières Inquire Inquire

We are investigating technique[s] for communities to draw themselves, because it’s not for me to draw.

AfH’s activity was observed during a street consultation with the Vauxhall Gardens Estate TRA (VGERTA) about the regeneration of the estate’s high street. Following a discussion with VGERTA, AfH had analysed issues and prepared some proposals. These were displayed at the consultation, with a box where people could drop their written comments. Volunteers went doorknocking in the shops along the road. Because people were presented with problems and proposed solutions, they tended to agree or partially disagree with those, rather than adding new elements.

AnalyseAnalyse

Melissa Kinnear

C We try to have a step by step methodology. We try and understand dwelling and everyday practices and move from those to aspirations.

Abstract Abstract

Test

Engaging in meaningful relationships is better than trying to reach out to a wide number of people.

Visualise Visualise

Formalise Formalise

Communicate Communicate

In the brief interviews conducted without giving visual or verbal suggestions people did, in fact, suggest problems that were not listed in the report.

Communicate Communicate

Assist Assist

The pink dashed line represents the balance designer/ community as emerged from the consultation rather than the interview.

Assist Assist

Fig. 22. Summary of the organisations’ approaches

Alex Frediani

You can use design skills to activate a different type of agency - resist the process, not be part of it, find a better negotiation.

Case Studies Inquire

Colville Estate Masterplan Designers

Community

Andover Estate Development Plan D

Analyse

Abstract

Test

Visualise

Formalise

Communicate

Assist Fig. 23. Analysis of the case studiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; design process

Conclusions to interviews and observation The summaries show that design participation encompasses many different approaches. Similar goals are pursued with different methods and the contribution of architects and communities to each phase of the design process varies greatly. Designing with communities emerges as a time-consuming process in which designers need to mediate between a multiplicity of different aspirations. The biggest differences between approaches are encountered in the test and visualise phases, when designers either impose their ideas in the attempt to speed up the process, or withdraw from design activity, limiting their contribution to raising awareness and building critical capacity in communities without engaging in the design challenge. In the following section, different activities for each phase of the design process will be considered. The share of activities performed by communities or by designers will be evaluated in the light of the findings from the literature review and the interviews, and elaborated into a more balanced design participation process. 24

The Design Participation Process The Activities

ANALYSE

Each phase of the design process consists of one or more activities which have been selected based on the organisations’ experience and the case study analysis, and have been integrated with propositions and critiques. This linear presentation clarifies what the activities consist of, but does not reflect the complexity of the process formed by these activities.

Mapping summary

ABSTRACT Visioning of future activities

INQUIRE Preliminary research

- Geraldine Dening, ASH

A vision for the estate should be built. Participants can show hesitation and shy away from making proposals - designers should encourage them to express their thoughts, but they should not provide too many suggestions. A man said he [liked] the terrace in front of his house because it was a buffer zone between the street and his house [that] offered him security. If you wanted to achieve security what other methods would you use? With questions, you start building different scenarios. - Alexandre Apsan Frediani, ASF-UK

The preliminary research is essential to professional designers to form an idea of the people and the estate they will be working with. Basic knowledge such as history, an essential land use map or distinctive features helps shaping starting questions. Knowing who are the leaders of a community can help establish connections and understand conflicts.

They are all difficult. It’s a mess, it’s complicated, there are paranoias, egos, personal conflicts. People claim to speak for other people, but who are they really speaking for? The issue of how you deal with a group is very serious.

The result of the mapping activity should be summarised by the designers. Particular attention should be paid at the differences between elements pinpointed by residents and those identified by designers.

There is generally a leader in each community, who naturally appears. There are always key people in a community. It’s a natural phenomenon.

Study visits By looking at examples of what has already been done, residents

and designers can collect ideas for the estate. Study visits should bridge the gap between wanting to design something and understanding which elements it consists of, its characteristics, and whether it is actually fit for the site or the needs of a community.

- Katherine McNeil, AfH

TEST Walkabout

During walkabouts, designers learn about the estate from the residents, who gain a new perspective on their estate.

If you walk around with people you can ask them, why do you like this? This process is very valuable, it builds trust: people are happy to show you around the estate and you must be interested and ask questions, because you know nothing about it.

I like the idea of knowing what the layout of the site is. [...]I think the minimum you can have is a map. However, a walkabout is a great way to engage people.

Mapping review

The mapping summary should be reviewed comparing the residents’ and the designers’ impressions. Elements that did not emerge during the mapping exercise can emerge during the review; residents and designers identify design themes and aspirations.

Technical documents review

Designers should review technical documents and present an essential summary to make sure opportunities and constraints to design posed by law are understood and accepted. Other types of constraints, such as conflicting aspirations, should also be discussed.

- Katherine McNeil, AfH

It is also about starting communication and introducing the idea to them that they may have to accept some things they don’t like.

- Geraldine Dening, ASH

Mapping

By touring the estate with a map prepared by the designers, residents and designers can map prominent features. Residents also get acquainted with a technical drawing of a well-known area.

Feedback

During the design process, feedback should be collected. This can be done in a variety of ways, some of which are listed by Wates (2014): door-knocking, drop-in events, street stalls. Feedback should be clearly incorporated into new designs. 25

VISUALISE

FORMALISE

Model making

Model-making can foster engagement. Models can be used to ease the transition from a bigger to a smaller scale, and from plans to sections. Rather than being provided with a ready-made visualisation, residents should be encouraged to collaborate in the construction, using materials they are familiar with.

Formal drawings

It is the designers’ job to formalise the decisions taken with the community and to integrate them with their technical knowledge, consolidating them and organising the information into a professional piece of work.

COMMUNICATE Presentation to the community Model making is a great way of engaging people. It needs to be relatively large, so you can play with volumes and move parts around. Small scale volumes, or too detailed ones, don’t work as well.

Presentation Designers have the authority to represent residents when to authorities submitting the project to local authorities or potential sponsors. However, the community should participate and be able to discuss and negotiate.

- Geraldine Dening, ASH

We aim to enable community members so that they can sit at a meeting with developers and architects. There is very specific jargon embraced by architects and planners- we aim to enable them to understand, feel more powerful and have a voice.

Fig. 24. Women from San Jose, Argentina, making a model out of cardboard boxes during an AfH workshop (McNeil 2013)

Diagrams, sketches

Diagrams and sketches will help organise and visualise ideas for the estate. Other methods of visualisation (e.g. tracing, collages, models) should be explored.

Sketching is not for everyone, but you can trace on pictures. You can make a collage kind of drawing, tracing alternatives. It is easier than sketching, because almost everybody can trace.

We got people to draw their dream home in Nairobi. From that drawings we identified components, started unpacking principles and values. - Alexandre Apsan Frediani, ASF

- Geraldine Dening, ASH

Plans, sections

Those who were involved in the design process - and especially community leaders - should know the designs to the extent of being able to explain them to the rest of the residents. During the presentation of the project to the community, designers should be present to answer questions. Any additional feedback should be considered.

Plans and sections made by residents aim at building a more thorough understanding of the project and bridge the gap between having a set of aspirations and being presented by designers with technical drawings that are often hard to read and understand.

- Melissa Kinnear, ASF-UK

ASSIST Preparation of formal documents Implementation

The preparation of formal documents should be handled by the designers. The designers’ and community’s involvement in implementation depends on the procedure followed. Self-build projects, for instance, involve residents to a greater extent than those undertaken by private developers. Phasing should be carefully planned and the residents’ concerns should be heard and discussed; whenever possible, design solutions should be sought.

Business owners [...] were aware of what regeneration would mean to them - fifteen years of closure of their business [and] implications on the whole system of relationships there. The council proposed to solve the issue by adding billboards saying business as usual. Will this mitigate the effect of regeneration? Of course not. - Alexandre Apsan Frediani, ASF-UK

It is possible to design with people in a democratic way, but you need to present the project so that you don’t take it away from the people but it is still deemed viable. - Concrete Action

The following diagram (fig.25) gives a better picture of the complex relationships between different phases and activities and of the non-linearity of the design process. It also shows the share of different activities performed by professionals or by the community for each phase of the design process.

The Process

Preliminary research

Preparation of formal documents Project presentation to authorities

Technical documents review

Des i gn ers Co mm un i t y

Formal drawings

Mapping summary

Study visits Implementation

time

Walkabout

Mapping

Mapping review

Model making

Visioning of future activities

Plans and sections Feedback

Diagrams and sketches

Phase

Project presentation to the community

Involvement

Activity

Skill building One activity informs the other

m u o

Fig. 25. Activities in the design participation process

lis

Fo r

su a

ly se

bs tra

ire

informs

Less

One activity

The other

The Actions

Each activity requires that the designers and the community perform a number of actions and approach the design process with different attitudes. The diagram (fig.26) summarises this approach.

Co mm un i t y

Des i gn er s

Investigate Interview Ask

Consolidate

Summarise Consider

Compare

Encourage

Amend Stimulate

Review

Reflect

Challenge

Mediate

Evaluate Interpret

Tinker

Measure

Promote

Connect Imagine

Implement Defend

Propose

Discover Visualise

Show

Synthesise

Organise

Point out Map

Present

Integrate

Draw

time

Debate Narrate Explain

Question Persist

Preliminary research Walkabout Mapping Mapping summary Technical Model-making doc. review

Visioning

Study visits Diagrams, sketches Feedback Plans, sections Formal Project Formal doc. Project drawings presentation to c. presentation to auth.

Implementation

Fig. 26. Actions in the design participation process

Proposed Process The design participation process was tested, in collaboration with ASH, with residents of Central Hill Estate in Lambeth, London, in July-August 2015. The diagram summarises the activities and products of this process so far.

ASH and Central Hill Estate

Location | History Access | Circulation Vegetation Site Levels Current Projects

p.30 p.31 p.32 p.33 p.34

Core Strategy Open Space Strategy Play Strategy p.45 Land Use | Dwelling Size Open Spaces

The Horniman Gardens p.53

Mapping summary

Preliminary research

Formal drawings

Preparation of formal documents Project presentation to authorities

Technical documents review

Des i g n e r s Co mm un i t y

Masterplan p. 46-49

p.36 p.37

Study visits Implementation

time

Walkabout

Mapping

Model making

Mapping review

Visioning of future activities

Plans and sections Feedback

Diagrams and sketches

Project presentation to the community Mapping future uses Screens for privacy

p.35 Design Themes: The Open Garden The Confused Fence The Brave Horse The Recycling Castle The Buffer Zone The New Development

Create green corridor Draw people to the estate Food growing New businesses Flowers and planting New fencing Play space Recycling system p.44

p.38 p.39 p.40 p.41 p.42 p.43

Phase

Phasing Market Screens for privacy Bee keeping DIY play spaces

Involvement

p.45 p.52

p.50 p.51 p.52 p.53 p.53

Activity

Skill building One activity informs the other

Less

One activity

The other

i m al

lis

Fo r

su a

ly se

bs tra

ire

informs

Fig. 27. Design participation process in Central Hill, Lambeth

Lambeth Council has introduced a borough-wide regeneration programme comprising six estates, of which Central Hill is the largest.

Location | History Preliminary research

Built between 1960 and 1974, it was designed by Ted Hollamby and is of heritage interest.

Intent To form an initial idea and image of the estate and of who is involved in the process.

In December 2014, the Council appointed PRP Architects to perform a feasibility study and North Lambeth evaluate design options for the Claphamredevelopment and of the estate. Stockwell (Lambeth Council, 2015).

N North Lambeth

Clapham and Stockwell

Brixton Norwood A core group of circa 40 residents formed the Save Central Hill Community (SCH) group and contacted ASH asking for assistance.

Streatham

Brixton Norwood Streatham

Fig. 29. Aerial view - the boundary of the area for projected redevelopment and significant buildings surrounding the estate (2015)

Central Hill Estate 456 homes 134 homeowners

N N Fig. 28. Gipsy Hill Parish Map (Hines, n.d.)

Fig. 30. Birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye view - Central Hill Estateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s terraces are built on a leafy slope (2015) 30

Access | Circulation Preliminary research

Intent To understand the ways in which people can get to and through the estate.

Car routes Pedestrian routes Car parks National rail (Gipsy Hill) Bus stops

Fig. 31. Preliminary research - access and circulation (2015)

100

200m

N 31

Vegetation Preliminary research

Intent To gain basic understanding of the size, layout and ownership of the green and open spaces in Central Hill estate.

Trees within Central Hill Estate Private / shared gardens Public green space

0 Fig. 32. Preliminary research - vegetation (2015)

100

200m

N 32

Site Levels Preliminary research

Intent To understand the relationship between design and site characteristics (see fig.29)

Site boundary Fig. 33. Preliminary research - site levels (2015)

100

200m

N 33

On the 9th of June Lambeth Council ran a public consultation event with PRP architects, and more than 150 people. Residents protested against a questionnaire circulated on the estate posing negative questions such as How important is it to improve the following on the estate? or To what extent are the following a problem?. The responses had been used as evidence in support of demolition.

Current projects Preliminary research Intent To understand the current approach to regeneration

ASH and SCH organised a series of participatory workshops aimed at designing an alternative regeneration scheme through refurbishment and infill; in this occasion, the design participation process here presented was tested. Together with members of ASH and SCH, I designed the leaflet for the first workshop and agreed on its agenda. The expression resistance by design was preferred to workshop, not to confuse the event with the workshops organised by PRP architects.

An alternative to demolition

Improving

your neighbourhood Shape the future of Central Hill. PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

e are s e h T n ews o i v r you ving .. o r p . im ACES P S OPEN

PLAY AREAS Play areas

18%

17% 39%

12%

27%

21%

! l l i h l a r

Very important Important 31%

Not important

35%

t n g i n s e e c d y e b v e sa resistanc

N/A

Your key comments ... ‘Unattractive and dark public spaces’

is state ‘The e ng the i becom paradise’ s r e g g mu

‘The public spaces near the shops and the community building are unattractive’

‘There is an imaginary boundary that breaks the estate from the surrounding area’

nd h park a ‘Dulwic vide o r p k r d pa Norwoo lay areas’ better p

m is roble ‘The p l habits of cia e’ the so ung peopl o y e m so e okay reas ar ved’ ‘Play a ro im be p but can

WHY To fight redevelopment together with the same weapon - design - and show demolition is NOT the only option!

Unused public green open space

Paving in

‘Trees affect the daylight in my property’ ‘N-W corner lacks trees to reduce noise from street’

ition poor cond

Public green open space with unused playground

WHEN Wednesday 29 July, 6,30-9PM

Save Central Hill Community ASH (Architects for Social Housing) @savecentralhill @ASH_housing

Unfriendly non overlooked public areas

Fig. 34. Report by PRP architects and Lambeth council summarising the responses to resident consultation (2015)

It is a joy to walk through

Poor quality public realm?

I love where we live been here over a decade it’s our home

WHERE Gipsy Hill Tavern - 79 Gipsy Hill, WHO ARE ASH? Architects for Social SE19 1QH

http://savecentralhill.org.uk/

For any other information please contact: Marcus Shukla telephone :0207 926 3649 email :mshukla@lambeth.gov.uk

Gorgeous!

Shows how well designed it is

Housing are a Undesirable open spaces? collective of architects, designers, planners and activists offering their expertise to residents who feel their interests are not being represented in the redevelopment process. On Wednesday, come show us around your estate, tell us what you like about it, and we can make a model together that we will use to formulate an alternative proposal to the Few activities for residents? Lack of sense of community? demolition of Central Hill Estate.

SOCIAL HOUSING NOT SOCIAL CLEANSING! Fig. 35. Leaflet for the Resistance by Design workshop designed with SCH members 34

Walkabout

Residents took designers on a tour of the estate. They chose the itinerary and pointed out elements. Intent To understand the residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perception and use of the elements identified during the preliminary research Fig. 36. Discussion before the walkabout

Fig. 37. Walkabout with model

Fig. 38. Drawing sections

Fig. 39. Map identifying the location of the stall for future consultations/feedback

Fig. 40. Residents sketching sections and plans of their homes

Mapping Designers provided maps in different scales, tracing paper, modeling material, pens, sticky notes. Intent To record the residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and the designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; impressions of the estate Fig. 41. Sections and plans of homes

Model making While some built the model with the help of two students, others were encouraged to sketch simple plans and sections of their dwellings, using the model as reference. Intent To aid the visualisation of space Fig. 42. Residentsmapping Fig. 43. Building the where they live model

Fig. 44. Model

Fig. 45. Notes from the discussion of engagement strategies with the community

Mapping summary

A document compiled by ASH reviewing the meeting was sent via email to SCH residents, initiating discussion and plans for the following steps.

Fig. 46. Scan of the land use map

Fig. 47. Mapping the land use

Fig. 48. Mapping green space and areas for development

Intent To summarise the mapping activity for future discussions

Land Use | Dwelling Size Mapping summary Intent To summarise the land use as described by residents Fig. 50. Terraced houses with patios

Fig. 49. Refuse collection hub

Fig. 51. The housing offices

Fig. 52. Family homes

Residents identified the ownership of this building as a key element in the negotiation with the council

Fig. 53. Elderly care facility

Fig. 54. Linear block

Residents mapped the refuse collection hubs and discussed their appearance and architectural quality with the designers

N Fig. 55. Rows of terraced homes 4 beds apartments 3 beds apartments 1 beds apartments Community facilities/services Refuse collection hubs Privately owned building Fig. 59. Land use and dwelling size map (2015)

100

200m

Fig. 56. Community space, food shop

Fig. 57. Ex community centre, now elderly daycare centre

Fig. 58. Central Hill high street 36

Open Spaces Mapping summary

Intent To define the use and character of open spaces as pinpointed by residents

Fig. 60. The grocery shop

Fig. 61. Playground

Fig. 62. Field for ball games

Fig. 63. Table tennis

Fig. 64. Alleyway

Norwood Park

Fig. 65. Alleyway between terraced homes

Crystal Palace Park

Fig. 66. Area with raised beds

N Fig. 67. Communal garden

Public green space Play areas Private gardens Pedestrian routes

100

Fig. 72. Open spaces map (2015)

200m

Fig. 68. Playing space

Fig. 69. Central square

Fig. 70. Meadow strip between road and estate

Fig. 71. Green space around the abandoned central heating facility 37

Mapping review

Intent To identify design themes by discussing with residents and comparing architects’ and residents’ perceptions

Fig. 73. Shop frontage on central square

The Open Garden

Fig. 74. Shop frontage on road

Fig. 75. Community space on central square

Fig. 76. Meadows overlooking the offices

Fig. 77. Central square

There is a community space here, it’s used very rarely. The shop entrance is on the other side of the building.

On the 13th of June, ASH organised the Open Garden Estates event to celebrate the beauty of housing estates and dispel some of the negative images promoted in the media. The event revealed the potential of Central Hill’s green spaces as an attraction for non-residents.

The estate is very green, but I think people don’t know what to do with the space. Some spaces are very empty.

Fig. 79. Alleyway in the west of the estate (North)

Fig. 80. Alleyway in the west of the estate (Center)

At the first Resistance by Design meeting, residents agreed on thinking of a strategy to make the most of this potential. The mapping review identified the themes on which to build the Open Garden strategy.

Fig. 78. Meadows around the playing space

Residents formed design teams of people interested in specific parts and themes on the estate. The mapping review was performed with residents Andrew and Sabine, who lead the design of open spaces. Fig. 81. Alleyway in the west of the estate (South) 38

Mapping review

The 2 Confused Fence Broken fences give spaces a run-down appearance, do not fulfil their function and can be dangerous. The theme of designated areas for specific functions emerged - not all activities, however, require a fenced space.

Andrew and Sabine were asked about the abundance of fences around the estate. They are used to keep dogs within an area, to keep children in the playground, to protect flowerbeds, and to prevent car access. However, some of them are broken.

Fig. 82. Fig. 83. Fig. 84. Fig. 85. Fig. 86. Fig. 87. Fig. 88. Fig. 89. Fig. 90.

Fences around the estate

Mapping review

Fig. 91. Playing field

The Brave Horse

Fig. 92. Play structure (east)

Fig. 93. Table tennis

3 My children play in the alleys, where the ball cannot roll away.

Fig. 94. The brave horse

Ball games are only allowed in the playing field east of the estate, far from some homes. A brave horse guards the western playground; playgrounds are used and there is room for improvement in the provision of play space. This could attract non-residents to the estate.

Brave horse Slide Play structure Table tennis Ball games Play structure

Slide

Fig. 95. Play structure (west)

Fig. 96. Map of the play spaces

Fig. 98. Slide (west)

Fig. 99. Playground

Fig. 97. Slide (south-east)

Mapping review Fig. 100. Fig. 101. Fig. 102. Fig. 103. Fig. 104. Fig. 105. Fig. 106. Fig. 107.

I really like the structure, they are quite beautiful. But we have had problems with people leaving their rubbish outside.

Recycling Castles around the estate

The 4 Recycling Castle - So do you climb up and throw the bag in the collector? - Recycling bins sit outside the door, so I normally just walk down, I never use the collector. It is not pleasant to walk into the rubbish room though.

Collector for nonrecyclable refuse

Recycling bins not integrated in structure

Fly-tipping

Fig. 108. Diagram explaining the rubbish collection 41

Mapping review

Privacy issues and the need for separation between the street and the home were discussed. I introduced Andrew to the defensible space theory (Newman 1976) and we agreed to explore design options for the creation of a buffer zone.

I don’t use my patio. I really don’t know what to do with it, honestly. Patios on the upper floors are better, they are very used.

The Buffer Zone

People put wooden panels to prevent passers-by to see into their bedroom. But they don’t really harmonise with the bricks and the concrete.

More privacy

The railings are transparent, and some patios are right on the street. People don’t have privacy.

More people using their patio

More “eyes on the estate”

Fig. 109. Fig. 110. Fig. 111. Fig. 112. Fig. 113. Fig. 114. Fig. 115. Fig. 116. Fig. 117.

Patios around the estate

More security

Mapping review

They can take the former community centre and redevelop it for private sale, as long as they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t demolish the whole estate.

Fig. 118. Empty space between two rows of houses

Fig. 119. Empty space by the central square

The 6 New Development Fig. 120. Offices

Fig. 121. Police station

During the walkabout, residents identified areas that could be demolished and redeveloped. These are mainly underused community facilities. Options for building on top of existing flats were also discussed.

Fig. 122. Empty space west of the estate

The designs produced by different design teams will be presented to and discussed with the wider CH community.

Fig. 123. Abandoned communal heating facility

While a specific design team will discuss the developments with another ASH member, it was important to identify which open spaces will be designated for new developments.

Fig. 124. Former community centre 43

Visioning of future activities

Seven elements which emerged during the mapping exercise produced six design themes during the mapping review. Some elements informed more than one design theme.

Create a green corridor

Reflecting upon design themes generated visions of future activities. These relate to each other and to the design themes.

Market Planting/DIY screens for privacy

Because the time required to design in partnership with residents is more than that required by a designer-led project, only some of these visions were developed, and at varying depths: while they were all included in the masterplan, some led to the production of sketches and collages. Moreover, the designs presented in the following pages will be influenced by the feedback gathered during the discussion with the wider community, and are therefore likely to change considerably over the course of the next months.

Parkour

The Open Garden The Buffer Zone

Visioning of future activities

Alleyways and ramps

Small businesses

Homes Communal space and grocery store

Mapping review

The Recycling Castle

Integrated recycling system

Grocery shop / takeaway

Composting

Beekeeping / mushroom growing

Food growing

Refuse collection hubs

Mapping summary

Underused community facilities

The New Development

Communal gardens The Confused Fence

Playing space

The Brave Horse

Flowers and planting

Designated fenced areas

Elements emerged during the mapping exercise Design themes emerged during the mapping review

DIY play spaces

Visions of future activities Developed visions Fig. 125. Diagram: from the mapping, to the design themes, to the visions for the estate 44

The Open Garden design theme sets the vision for the whole estate. Creating a green corridor vision

The community identified Central Hill Estate as an important green corridor between two parks (fig.126) The Open Garden strategy aims to draw nonresidents to the estate, enhancing the social role of open spaces, and to provide biodiversity and connected green spaces to the benefit of wildlife.

Lambeth Core Strategy (2011) was reviewed looking for evidence to inform and support the Open Garden strategy. Here is a short summary of the main findings: Open space in Central Hill is not classified as Housing Amenity Land (fig. 128). The estate lacks accessibility to local open spaces (fig.129); West Norwood presents a shortage of play opportunities (Core Strategy 2.26; 2.92; Lambeth Play Strategy 2007-2017). Emphasis is given to increasing biodiversity within Lambeth’s network of open spaces (2.72), but since there is no land available for a major new park, safeguarding existing open space is key (3.7). Lambeth’s Biodiversity Action Plan (2005) provides further guidance on typologies of open spaces (e.g. allotments, private gardens) and species.

Current policy technical documents review Intent To summarise the findings in support of the strategy

Allotment/Urban farm Cemetery

Norwood Park

Local Park Crystal Palace

Major Park Housing Amenity Land Borough Wards Central Hill Estate

Fig. 126. Central Hill as green corridor

The possible uses of open space were discussed and mapped with residents, then translated to formal drawings (fig.127). Mapping future uses plans

Fig. 128. Open space by typology (2011)

250

500

750

1000m

Intent To position and spatially arrange the identified visions for the estate

Local open spaces with a 400m “walking distance” catchment Area of Deficiency Unrestricted Limited Restricted Borough Wards Central Hill Estate

Fig. 127. Sketch of the open spaces’ land use map

Fig. 129. Accessibility to local open spaces (2011)

250

500

750

1000m

Masterplan Formal drawings

Intent To translate the sketch (fig.127) into a clear, readable masterplan

Public green space Play areas Private gardens Pedestrian space Food growing Meeting spot Beehives Meadow for dog walking Areas for new development

100

200m

Fig. 130. Open Garden Strategy Masterplan

N 46

Masterplan Formal drawings

Dog training area

Intent To visualise the activities in further detail and spark future discussions

Planting / DIY bamboo screens see p. 52

Dog-walking area

Planting Grass

Composting bin

Herb planting

Areas for new development Wildflower meadow Fence (see p. 52)

Raised vegetable garden beds and seating area; floor painted games

see p.52

2 3

Wild garlic meadow

Blackberry bushes

PLAYGROUND Sandpit Seating Playhouse Climbing wall

2 3

Quieter meadow facing one-bed apartments

Area with parkour equipment see p.51

Berries and flowers

1:500 N Fig. 131. Open Garden Strategy with detailed interventions, North-West

Masterplan Formal drawings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PLAYGROUND see p.53 Wooden play structure Slide Floor painted games, Brave Horse Play tents Balance games Musical games Yarn maze

Planting Grass Areas for new development Wildflower meadow

1 4

Fence

Herb garden

Beehives/ mushroom growing

MARKETPLACE see p.51 1 Stalls 2 Seating 7

Dog walking area 1

Rainwater barrels

1:500 N Fig. 132. Open Garden Strategy with detailed interventions, South-West

Masterplan Formal drawings

Herb garden 2 1

Planting Grass Areas for new development Wildflower meadow Fence

Orchard Beehives see p.53

Rainwater barrels

1 2 3 4 5 Fig. 133. Open Garden Strategy with detailed interventions, South-East

PLAYGROUNDS Wooden play structure Seesaw Basketball/Football field Table tennis Slide

1:500 N 49

Phasing diagram

Options for growing food on the estate, planting flowers and play space were explored with Sabine. She suggested an incremental strategy, with first, simple solutions that can be implemented easily and quickly, and more complex interventions to follow, depending on available funding.

Design Themes THE OPEN GARDEN

THE BUFFER ZONE

Visions of future activities

Proposed interventions

Page

PARKOUR

Parkour equipment

MARKET

Stalls and seating

Planting

PLANTING / DIY SCREENS FOR PRIVACY

time/funding

Woven willow Textile panels

FOOD GROWING

Raised garden beds

Bee keeping

Composting

THE RECYCLING CASTLE

Berry planting Herb garden beds Mushrooms

THE CONFUSED FENCE

DESIGNATED FENCED AREAS

Orchard

Repairing fences

Dog play spaces

THE BRAVE HORSE

DIY PLAY SPACES

FLOWERS AND PLANTING Fig. 134. Phasing of the discussed interventions

Painting the ground Yarn maze

Tents

Balance games

Sandpit

Musical games

Wildflower meadows 50

Parkour vision Intent To focus people’s attention on the open spaces and unlock imaginaries proposing a radically different vision for their use.

Following discussions with residents, students volunteering on the estate organised a parkour session inviting athletes to Central Hill. Parkour is a training discipline which involves free running and acrobatic movements across urban spaces; the complexity of the estate’s topography and architecture makes it particularly attractive for athletes. A promotional video was shot and shown to residents, raising mostly positive reactions.

The possibility of setting up a weekly market was discussed with residents. This would provide a service for the whole neighbourhood, bring fresh produce directly to the estate, and revitalise the Central Square, which is almost never used. The addition of seating space and the creation of a herb garden would follow. Other options for reactivating the community space and opening the shop’s frontage on the square were discussed.

Market sketch

Fig. 136. Parkour athlete jumping from a ramp (2015) Stalls selling fresh produce

Seating space is added

Herbs garden to replace existing hedges

Fig. 139. Central Square on a market day

Fig. 135. The parkour itinerary (2015)

Fig. 137. Parkour athlete on a Recycling Castle (2015)

During the Open House Festival on the 20th of September, people from outside the estate will visit Central Hill; a parkour event will be organised to draw their attention to the estate’s open spaces. A map of a parkour itinerary will be distributed. Promoting parkour would also act as an incentive for the introduction of sports equipment on the estate (fig.131).

Open community space

Shop with active frontage on the square

Fig. 138. Parkour athlete balancing on a rail (2015) Fig. 140. Central Square with active frontage

Options for achieving more privacy on the balconies and patios were explored. Some have added wooden panels or bamboo cane fences behind the existing glass railings. These methods were discussed; in accordance with the Open Garden strategy and the goal to create a green corridor, it was suggested that foliage could offer privacy while providing for biodiversity. However, it was objected that not all residents would commit to maintain the plants. More low-maintenance options, such as woven willow panels and colourful textile panels were considered, with scope for organising a weaving workshop on the estate.

Screens for privacy section

Raised beds are more accessible to elderly people; a colorful, playful space would appeal to children and families.

Wild garlic meadow, easy to maintain

Raised vegetable garden

The ground is painted for childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s play

Food growing sketch

Seating space is added

Fig. 145. Revitalisation of the gardenbeds west of the estate

Fig. 141. Section of vegetation as screen for privacy on the patios along the alleyways

Fig. 142. Woven panels and vegetation as screens for privacy Fig. 143. Textile panels (n.d.) at street level

Gardening is enjoyed by residents of all ages in Central Hill. The raised beds west of the estate would be the first step towards planting food.

Fig. 144. Woven willow (n.d.)

Fig. 146. Sabine shows the garden beds area

Fig. 147. Residents planting during the Open Garden Estates event (2015)

Composting, mushrooms and bee keeping collage, sketch

Some of the Recycling Castles are no longer in use as waste disposal hubs, and can accommodate a new function. Composting will take place at the eastern end of the estate (fig. 131), while mushrooms and bees could be located in a more central position (fig.132). Another suitable area for beekeeping is in proximity of the orchard, as this would promote pollination (fig. 133, 148).

Sabine suggested a visit to the Horniman Museum gardens to gather inspiration. Ideas for an interactive musical playground were collected from the Sound Garden (fig. 149, 150). Medicinal herbs, plants to produce natural dyes and wildflower meadows are also grown in the Horniman Garden; this inspired the introduction of herb gardens and wild flowers in Central Hill estate

Fig. 150. Xylophone in the Sound Garden (2014)

Fig. 149. The Sound Garden (2014)

Some of the play space interventions would be relatively easy to implement. Children and families could be involved in the construction of play facilities and structures. All the new play spaces are directly overlooked by buildings; adding seating space for parents to sit while watching over the children would promote socialisation.

Orchard

The Horniman Gardens study visit

DIY play spaces collage

Beehives

Fig. 148. Bee keeping area East of the estate

Repairing fences maps

Some of the spaces included in the strategy - vegetable gardens, beehives, dog walking/training areas, wildflower meadows - require fencing to keep animals and children in or out. These areas were selected and mapped (fig. 131-133); useless fences around the estate will be used to repair useful fences or build new ones. Seating space is added Fig. 151. New games in the playground

Balance games

Yarn maze

Musical games

Outcomes Fig. 149 illustrates the outcomes for each phase of the proposed process.

Outcome Through the preliminary research and mapping summary it was possible to understand the differences between the elements pinpointed by residents, and those identified by designers and to integrate them.

Formal drawings

Outcome A study visit proved effective in linking aspirations to design interventions on the estate.

Technical documents review

Des i gn er s Co mm un i t y

Outcome Reviewing technical documents provided strong points in support of the strategy agreed during the mapping review.

Mapping summary

Preliminary research

Outcome Formal drawings were created to present the design ideas to the rest of the community; producing them also allowed the designer to further reflect on the design process.

Preparation of formal documents Project presentation to authorities

Study visits

Implementation

time

Walkabout

Mapping

Mapping review

Outcome The combination of walkabouts and mapping proved very effective in unlocking visions for future activities. However, reiteration is required.

Model making

Visioning of future activities

Plans and sections Feedback

Diagrams and sketches

Outcome Discussing the maps led to the identification of design themes. A broader view of design issues and opportunities was developed starting from single mapped elements; from this, a strategy emerged.

Outcome Illustrating different visions with different techniques, from simple diagrams to sketches and drawings, allowed to have a fresh look on the designs, favouring creativity.

Project presentation to the community

Outcome Model making helped both residents and designers understand the complex topography of the estate.

Phase

Involvement

Activity

Skill building One activity informs the other

Fig. 152. Outcomes of the proposed process

m u

m al

lis su a

Fo r

ly se

bs tra

ire

informs

Less

One activity

The other

Conclusions Summary

Having identified a gradient between top-down and bottom-up approaches to participation in regeneration of housing estates in the London context, this research argued that even in bottom-up processes the designers’ approach can be more or less overbearing. It is argued that imposition can undermine the positive outcome of a design participation process, and that it is crucial that the share of input of communities and designers in the participation process is balanced.

The proposed process does not aim to erase or blur the boundary between designer and user; it aims to explore the conditions that determine where this boundary is positioned, and its meaning for both designers and users.

The research recognised a lack of a clear framework of reference for designers who approach design participation; having identified this gap between theory and practice, the research aimed to fill it by collating and critiquing different experiences of design participation as narrated by the designers who lead them. These experiences were compared and evaluated against two case studies and eventually used to construct a balanced design participation process.

1) Designers’ and residents’ objectives do not always have to coincide, but must be agreed upon. The activities and actions are versatile tools to develop mutual understanding; combined, they lead to the production of a shared vision between designers and residents that can substitute the more traditional, top down project brief.

Finally, the process was tested in the context of a real design challenge in Central Hill estate. This allowed the author to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach by building a direct and positive relationship with the end users. Through direct interaction, the designer developed an understanding of the estate, and the residents could express spatially the issues they identified through experience. Reflections

Engaging in this project has offered me the chance to develop my own views on design participation in regeneration. The quality of a participatory regeneration process should perhaps not be exclusively measured by how much support it gets from the community, or by how many people engage with it. At this stage in the project, all design sessions were organised with one resident at a time; while the next workshops will be more inclusive, one-on-one design session enabled to explore the potential of the process as a guide for designers in design participation. The ability of the regeneration process to generate a rich and complex discussion with residents should, in my view, be included as one of the terms of evaluation of its quality. Because residents tend to get involved gradually and at varying intensities, the proposed process requires reiteration. However, it allows an understanding of individual residents’ needs so that, even in moments of uncertainty, it is still possible to devise interim solutions together. Being able to pin down issues and their design solutions, positioning them in space and visualising their prospective appearance is a considerable achievement, given the short time span. Keeping the discussion lively without being excessively defensive of design ideas was not easy; investigating the reasons behind disagreement was important and helped devising alternative solutions, as in the case of planting as a means to create a buffer zone on the patios (p.52).

Looking back to the rules for a successful partnership presented in Knock it Down or Do it Up? (2014), the process shows how each rule can be applied to design participation:

2) The contribution of designers and residents is possible when different points of view are equally valued. In the proposed process, residents provide their personal experience - and this cannot be replaced; designers possess the expertise to organise this experience within a spatial framework, encouraging and assisting residents in understanding the spatial implications of the issues and aspirations they identify.

Balance through partnership

Rules for partnering (see p.13)

1) Objectives 2) Contribution 3) Goal Alignment 4) Transparency 5) Understanding

3) Goal alignment is crucial in participatory processes of regeneration. Because of the length of the regeneration process, it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture; every step of the process needs to lead in the direction of achieving the ultimate goals. So, each design theme and intervention, in the case of Central Hill, aim to develop its open spaces and make a case against demolition. 4) Transparency is achieved building trust and mutual respect. Residents must trust the designers and feel their desires and concerns are taken into accout. Designers have the responsibility of not dismissing the residents’ needs, and of being clear about what can and cannot be achieved by design. 5) A common understanding of how design decisions are made is built through the process with reiteration and discussions, so that residents and designers can share the ownership of regeneration. It seems, therefore, that the balance of designers and communities in regeneration processes can be achieved through a partnership in which both parts are engaged in continuous, productive negotiation. It appears that the key to successful regeneration of housing estates is not, contrary to the claims made in the Adonis report, design excellence; the solution is not design as an end product. Rather, designing - collaborating in the complex process of shaping space - is the key to promoting positive regeneration and creating places where communities feel they belong. By providing a framework for negotiation in design, this research will hopefully contribute to making future regeneration more inclusive and fair. 55

appendix // interviews word count for this section: 4219

The following is a summarised transcription of five 1,5-hour interviews performed with members of four organisations - ASH, AfH, Concrete Action, ASF-UK. The interviews were semi-structured and the aim was to discuss the topics aside, while letting the interviewees speak freely about their experiences and approach to design participation. Due to the word limit to this section, interviews with Pat Turnbull (Colville estate), Richard Schunemann and Richard W. Schunemann (AEDP), and Melissa Kinnear (ASF-UK) were not included.

Guiding questions Basic concepts • • • • • •

How would you describe participation? If any, what are your expectations when starting a community engagement process? How would you define regeneration? How would you define empowerment? What does the word community mean to you? What does the word designer mean to you? Are all designers professionals?

Community involvement: who • • •

Who do you think should be involved in the design process? How important is it for you to define who is involved? Would you like to share your impression of the relations different stakeholders have between them?

Community involvement: how • • • • • •

Do you devise a completely new strategy for each project, or you have a canvas/model you follow? Do you conduct any previous research before meeting the community? How do you involve people in the design process? Do you have specific engagement activities that you find are particularly effective? How important is it to you to transfer design skills? Do you find it easy? Please describe. Is there anything that you think the communities should or should not be asked, showed or involved in?

Timeframe • •

How early in the process would you like to involve or be involved, and why? Have you experienced issues which have caused delays in the design process? How have you handled them, especially in relation with keeping the community informed and engaged in difficult times?

Interviews Geraldine Dening Architects for Social Housing ASH

What are your views on participation? Big firms claim they do consultations, but they often hire companies to handle that. As an architect you have to have an involvement. How can other people communicate to residents what the architects have experienced? It’s nonsense, they are nonsultations. Architects are very reluctant to get involved; it’s definitely one side or the other of the fence. They are threatened by not getting future work. Residents can identify problems, but they don’t want to point them out to the council because then the council will use them as an excuse to demolish. How would you define empowerment? Residents designing their estate over a few months is a myth; it cannot really happen that quickly, because you can’t train people up in a couple of months to have all the skills needed to do that. What they can do is be aware of the pitfalls. Real consultations involve talking to people and understand what they want. They also need to understand what we want. Although we spend a vast amount of time working on these projects pro bono, we are not entirely selfless… we also do it because we enjoy it, and it gives us an opportunity to work on the kinds of social housing projects we wouldn’t ordinarily get the chance to do. Of course I want to do the best job I possibly can, because if residents are unhappy, the architects have not done their job properly. Is it hard to get residents involved? Yes. They are all difficult. There are paranoias, egos, personal conflicts. People claim to speak for other people, but who are they really speaking for? The issue of how you deal with a group is very serious. I started working on an estate; I knew nothing about the TRA or about the politics there, I was very naive. I found that the community is terribly split over there. In your experience, is there anything that must not be omitted when relating to a community? A lot of people are against people coming in from outside, or think that we are trying to politicise residents; but this is nonsense. You have to be very clear about why you are there: we are there because what is happening right now is wrong and damaging London. It’s not just about their homes, we have a bigger purpose. There is a benefit to being neutral.

what they like about their environment. As an architect, you constantly unpick spaces to see why you like what you like about them. Not everyone is interested in learning this, so you cannot force that on them. Very few are interested in getting involved and acquiring new skills. However, everybody has an ability to be aware and reflect upon their environment. If you are shown drawings or photos, you are commenting on an image; that’s the problem with looking at examples and precedents. But if you walk around with people you can ask them, why do you like this? I want to know what people like about the estate, and create new things from what they know rather than bringing in a lot of different references from outside. This process is very valuable, it builds trust: people are happy to show you around the estate and you must be interested and ask questions, because you know nothing about it. This personal connection people have with the space has to be passed on to you. On one estate, they wanted to put together an alternative set of designs. I did a little feasibility study of it, but there was no formal consultation involved in that. The drawings had no more input than the council’s design, but we had to go forward two steps and come back; we then did a workshop 2 weeks ago, organised and advertised. Around 20 people came around, out of 300 homes. There should have been more than that, but then it would have been difficult, you would have needed more people from ASH. What about specific design engagement activities? Model making is a great way of engaging people. The model needs to be relatively large, so you can play with volumes and move parts around. Small scale volumes, or too detailed ones, don’t work as well. Sketching is not for everyone, but you can trace on pictures. You can make a collage kind of drawing, tracing alternatives. It is easier than sketching, because almost everybody can trace. Do you think you can transfer enough design skills within a sensible timeframe? Why would you train for seven years to be an architect if then people can design their own space? You need to share language though. People are forced to be interested by the fact that their homes are under threat: once you have interest and you share language, you can collaborate. Eventually it’s the residents who have to do the fighting; but you don’t need to train them up and offer all the skills. What we do is giving residents an idea of what they can do, what they want, what they can’t do, and what they don’t want. Access to technical knowledge is also important: people can abuse the fact that you don’t know technical aspects.

How do you involve people in the design process? For one estate we are working on, it is very important that it is a resident led design process. You can’t fasttrack seven years of architectural design training, but the longer the time, the more you can make people understand

ASH recently organised an event called Open Garden Estates. What was that about?

Simon Elmer Architects for Social Housing ASH 58

We based Open Garden Estates on an event called Open Garden Squares, organised by the National Trust. It’s a countrywide event opening up gardens of manor houses and castles around London. We thought of opening up the estates; we managed to get Central Hill estate put on the list as well so they get the advertising used for this nation wide event, hoping to elevate it as an architecturally special place, and opposing the image of a run down place that the council and the architects were trying to paint at the consultation.

unless the regeneration process has already started. It is in the interest of developers to keep it quiet. Consultation workshops are run on the estates, but people are not told about them. Until residents or someone like us start reporting about what is going on, everything happens behind closed doors, so it is hard to do research. In this sense it is very important to find out who are the stakeholders and who is involved in the estate.

They posted a picture on Twitter asking Would you walk down this alleyway at night? At the consultation process , they had booklets with badly laid out questions and bad photographs of the estate.

How important is it for you to transfer design skills to communities when you work with them?

When I first went there I got a lot of photos of the estate, thinking it was lovely and very green, and I put them up on their Central Hill Campaign Facebook page. Everyone loved them: there were people who almost forgot how beautiful the estate was. It shows how damaging the opposite campaign can be. I compared my photos with those made by the architects appointed by the Council. They were taken in winter, trees did not have leaves. The photographer always chose a dark spot, like standing under a tree casting a shadow. They must have walked around with a traffic cone and just placed it in the photo or something. It’s part of their job to do this kind of bad publicity. What are your views on design participation? My impression of consultations is that a lot of it is shab, it’s not genuine consultation. Initially they give this impression to the residents that the estate is run down, then options for refurbishment are considered, and then refurbishment is declared impossible and there is only the demolition option left. They use this tactic to narrow down options towards demolition. It is important that you get feedback from residents about what they know about the estate. But in terms of actual design of buildings, I am not sure whether the residents know about design. On one estate, the council and the architects held a public meeting and a presentation of the options that they had come up with - demolition, infill, partial demolition… The public and the residents - they are just about 30 people - were meant to go and have a look. There is no way that people could understand what that was about. Not many people can read a plan; people had no idea what things represented, some have never looked at those things before. Language also can be very complex, and the booklets that are given out at public meetings are often very hard to understand in terms of language. When approaching a new estate, would you rather do your own research first, or would you rather get to know the site by being shown by the people who live there? We go there and are shown about. A lot of the research on the estate is done by the people of the estate itself, but it’s hard to find out about estates online,

Katherine McNeil Architecture for Humanity - AfH

It is very important, we do as much as we can. We ran a workshop in Argentina, and women made a beautiful model of a camping space and a place for visitors to come - they had never made a model before. The community recognised that tourism was coming to the region and they needed to adapt to change. I visited Argentina last year and in 2013 to run participatory workshops. We produced a tool with two sets of drawings showing spaces and materials, organised into two decks of cards. People could pick and choose. This decksof-cards tool was in part inspired by the drawings that Arome Agamah made for another project at the Elephant and Castle. We are investigating how this tool can be shared as a technique for communities to draw themselves, because it’s not for me to draw. In Argentina, the first site visits I did sketches and drawings. As time went on, I tried to do less, and when I went last year, I did none, I just took pictures. You want to drift into the background, to some extent. At the end you want to just be sharpening pencils. Then, each of the cards we provided prompted a question. That’s what you want to do in the end: ask questions. Is it hard to engage people in the design process? There is generally a leader in each community, who naturally appears. There are always key people in a community. It’s a natural phenomenon. We want to be as inclusive as possible, but also have to rely on people to organise themselves. Each community is unique in itself; even if you have the same tool, the way the takeup happens is different. Even different members of AfH London adopt a different strategy, because we have different experiences. Within the participation world, people are generally very positive about engagement. They do not have to pay for it, they are appreciative and have a positive outlook. We are not being paid to do this, so the outcome can be more open, because we do not have a job to deliver. Those hired by a developer and are serving their interests. What are the challenges in design participation? I think the biggest challenge are always expectations. In most circumstances in developing countries, there is an expectation that people from another 59

culture are bringing money. So I think roles have to be made really clear at the onset. The second challenge is if you are working with people who haven’t done this before. Inevitably, among new volunteers coming in, there is a tendency to want to do the traditional draw-sketch. But drawing the line is very powerful. In Argentina, two women asked to do a drawing for me; they drew llamas, sunshine and mountains. That made me appreciate how fundamental the land is to their daily life. There is a lovely sense of space and optimism in those drawings, which were very well done and crafted. When you give people permission, space and tools to draw, there are good outcomes. So expectations, new volunteers, these are the challenges - but I have never found very challenging situations. Would you like to share your impression of the relations different members of communities have between them, and with the designers? In projects we interview the client, but it’s also the client interviewing us - you want to build a relationship. If you let people self organise - good communities do that - they will take the lead. You are just a visitor. You have to respect the boundary between those who inhabit and people who are invited in. Everyone knows you are there on a temporary basis, even if you build relationships that last years. There is not one way of doing this, I have realised: the principle should be “do no harm”. The biggest mistake is being unclear about what you are going to deliver.

Let’s talk about the word “empowerment”. I think there has been a paradigm shift from “you are in need, so you are asking for help” to fundamentally valuing people and their views. Most people who do voluntary work would say that you receive as much from doing it, as the people you are volunteering for. In London people do not have the opportunity, or they don’t see it, for doing things for themselves. There are high expectations from the State; the exchange mechanism has broken, and people are in horrendous circumstances of generational poverty. For these people, to be approved is an enormous challenge, for many reasons. Empowerment should not be about telling people what to do. What are Concrete Action’s projects?

Concrete Action

We have been setting a platform that has a number of different functions: it gives an overview of the different groups and campaigns in London and gives access to information about the planning system. It takes so much energy and time for communities to find out about the planning process. They have no access to all of the research that happens before the design phase. There are consultations, but most people have now realised that it’s a box ticking exercise, and developers are interested in profit - not in safeguarding the fabric of the city or its communities.

Is there anything you think the people should or should not be told? Democracy is about transparency. The money problem is really important. You must be clear about what the resources are, and whether there is funding. Even when projects don’t work, anything you do is not going to be wasted: everything you do, you can pull apart and reassemble it for another project. In terms of the right moment to enter the process, when do you think it is the right moment to be involved as a designer? I would rather be involved early on. You want to be invited, not imposing. Almost all clients would like their project to look in a specific way; then you have a conversation with them and the client changes their mind. You start making options, and they keep changing, there can be quite big shifts. You have to expect this to happen, because the process is about giving visibility to ideas. If you are involved early on, you may change what you need.

We are also doing workshops with communities about the planning process: we can provide a two hour discussion about what kind of documents they should be looking for. Tell me about what you do as a designer. I work in self-build. I don’t want to tell people that I am an architect because it changes their view on me; they think oh, you’re an architect, you must know better. We are trying to destroy the myth of the professional: residents know what they want, I am just providing an interpretation service. People are not taken seriously because they don’t know how to use the right language. Do you think design skills are transferable?

When approaching a new project, would you rather do your own research first, or would you rather get to know the site by being shown by the people who live there?

They are, as planning knowledge is, but it’s the next stage of the project. If you were to design a counter proposal, it would be so easy for people evaluating to dismiss it and say it’s not valuable. It is possible to design with people in a democratic way, but you need to present the project so that you don’t take it away from them but it is still deemed viable.

The ideal situation is finding a balance between the two. I like the idea of knowing what the layout of the site is. However, a walkabout is a great way to engage people. They love to show you around their estate, and you can see what they value, it gives you a great insight. I think the habit of listening is what is at the centre of the process. You listen, you see, and look for the gaps.

We were thinking of developing our own assessment for a project. A sustainable community viability assessment to evaluate our proposal with, and the developer’s proposal. On the people’s terms - not on financial terms. I was contemplating having a mobile centre which we could drive around, stay on one estate for a weekend - I think you could get funding for that more 60

easily. Permanent things are much more difficult. Who do you think should be involved in the design process? Do designers have a moral duty to involve communities? It depends on who your prime responsibility is for. Is it the client with the money, or is it the people who you are designing for, those who are going to live on the estate? It is a very political discussion. Because of the way things are going, designers feel they are powerless. But it’s a matter of critical mass. It’s also a matter of ego. Designers are not going to work for communities because they don’t get credit for it. There is a parallel with sustainability: for some reason architects think that working with sustainability, or with communities, is limiting design possibilities. But you have to see it as another parameter. Alexander Apsan Frediani Architects Sans Frontieres - ASFUK

What are your views on design participation? Participation now is power blind, does not engage with complexities of communities, it does not engage with the city scale, it’s all about the low hanging fruits because it’s consensus based and substantial disagreements never come into discussion. We know the faults of participation and we can design a process and contribute to that. The open spaces and infill sites for Regent’s Park estate is a good example. They will destroy some homes and rehouse residents in infill sites. They consulted the residents on the design of these infill sites, and people objected that they would rather have been consulted on the decision of whether to knock their homes down or not. In this process the architects are aware of how meaningless the participatory process is, but again their brief requires that - so they devise a participatory strategy for the design of the infill sites.

People have very different visions of change, and balancing them is more difficult than activating imaginaries - you can find very creative playful manners to do that. Multiplicity brings complexity: who is represented and who is not? What is good representation and how do you achieve it? We don’t have the scope to be fully representative of a locality. But we try and see different perspectives and recognise diversity - you can reproduce misrepresentations by trying to reach everybody. Can designers “empower” communities? The dichotomy is so unproductive: designer, user. Empowered, disempowered. It is more interesting to investigate the conditions that shape the variety of different positions that there are between these two poles. What sort of concerns were people that you interacted with had in the Euston experience? Did they converge? People are not against change. They question the type of change. People are not conservative when they resist regeneration, nimbyism is an homogenization of a variety of opinions. People do not resist change unless it is not good for them. The working class population trying to make a living in the Euston area do not have benefit from the change happening there. They use the words social cleansing, they are aware that this change is pushing them out and is causing inequality. They are worried of what this change is doing to London. There is a strong sense of belonging in Euston, it’s a constellation of communities. Did you have issues in overcoming the jargon barrier?

Can you give me an example of how you work? In Euston we did a 10 days workshop, with different exercises to understand “dwelling” beyond the home, understand the different challenges people are facing in the regeneration process, how it will affect communities. Lots of maps, drawings, design methodologies to identify the causes and also the people’s aspirations. Imagining the future, using scenarios and understanding perception of change and vision for a place. We never start from a blank page. We have a step by step methodology. We have used little cardboard models to understand the arrangement of the rooms in people’s house, if they would like to change some elements and keep others. For example in Brazil a man said he had a terrace in front of his house and he liked it because it was a buffer zone between the street, where crime happened, and his house; not because, as one may think, he could spend time outside. The terrace was offering him security. If you wanted to achieve security what other methods would you use? With questions, you start building different scenarios. Tell me about the relationship between different stakeholders.

Regeneration is an interesting word. Business owners in Drummond street were really aware of what regeneration would mean to them - fifteen years of closure of their business. There is a really strong Bengali community on Drummond street, and there are huge implications not only on the businesses, but on the whole system of relationships there. The council proposed to solve the issue by adding billboards saying business as usual. Will this mitigate the effect of regeneration? Of course not. Were people giving alternatives, being propositive? We were not aiming for such a specific type of engagement. They were propositive of visions for change. The right way is not always designing alternatives. It is understanding the social, political, economic conditions within which design is operating. Understanding the political nature of design, using it as a process, associating with the groups that are engaging with it. You can use design for activism; to activate a different type of agency, resist the process, find a better negotiation. Sometimes the process is so messed up that even the most enriching way to engage with it might sustain the existing decision making process. Sometimes it’s about using adversarial design methodologies. Using design to foster dissent, or tease.

Bibliography and references Adonis A, Davies B (eds.) (2015). City Villages: more homes, better communities. London: IPPR

regeneration-sourcebook/ (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Wates N (2014). The Community Planning Handbook: How people can shape their cities, towns & villages in any part of the world (Earthscan Tools for Community Planning). London: Routledge

Architects Sans Frontières ASF-UK (n.d.). Architects Sans Frontières United Kingdom [online]. http://www.asf-uk.org/ (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Architecture for Humanity London (n.d.). Architecture for Humanity London [online]. https://www.facebook.com/ AfHLondon (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Arnstein S (1969). ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’. Journal of the American Institute of Planners Vol.35(4): 216-224 ASH – Architects for Social Housing (n.d.). ASH (Architects for Social Housing) [online]. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ 408492165990733 (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Bartholomew E (2012). ‘Colville Estate residents being “bulldozed” in Hackney Council’s estate regeneration’. Hackney Gazette [online]. http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/colville_estate_residents_being_bulldozed_in_hackney_council_s_ estate_regeneration_1_1241913 (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Burns, D (2004). Making community participation meaningful. Bristol: Policy Press. Colville Estate regeneration (n.d.). [online]. https://www.facebook.com/groups/839347569411002/ (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2000) By Design. London: Cabe Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, (n.d.). Decent homes need decent spaces. London: Farrer Huxley Associates. [online]. Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/decent-homes-needdecent-spaces.pdf (Accessed 12.08.2015). Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2007) It’s our space. London: Cabe Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2007) Spaceshaper. London: Cabe De Beauvoir Councillors (n.d.). Colville Estate regeneration - Phase 3 consultation event. [online]. http:// debeauvoircouncillors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/colville-estate-regeneration-phase-3.html (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Finsbury Park Community Hub et al. (2013). The Andover Estate Development Plan. A roadmap for the holistic regeneration of the Andover Estate. London: FPCH Hackney People, 18.11.2013. E-state of the art new homes. [online] p.11. http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/ HT319.pdf (Accessed 12.08.2015) Jenkins P, Forsyth L (2009). Architecture, Participation and Society. London: Routledge Karacusevic Carson Architects (n.d.). The Colville Estate; Phase 3. [online]. http://karakusevic-carson.com/work/the-colvilleesatat-78a58a52-fab1-4b6b-9a97-e4a94cfcfa2d (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Lee Y (2007). Design Participation Tactics: enabling people to design their built environment, unpublished doctoral research thesis, School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University Lee Y (2008). ‘Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process’. CoDesign Vol 4, Issue 1, March 2008, 31-50 Lindsay C (2003). ‘Involving people as co-creators’. The new everyday: Views on ambient intelligence. Rotterdam: The 010 Publishers, 38–41 Living Streets Scotland (2011). Reclaim your streets. Edinburgh: Living Streets Scotland Localism Act 2011. London: DCLG Loeb, J (2012). Plans afoot for Hoxton skyscrapers. [online] Hackney Citizen. http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2012/05/17/towerblocks-colville-estate-regeneration-hoxton/ (Accessed 12 Aug. 2015). London Assembly’s Housing Committee (2015). Knock it down or do it up?. [online]. https://www.london.gov.uk/mayorassembly/london-assembly/publications/knock-it-down-or-do-it-up (Accessed on 07.08.2015) London Tenants Federation (eds.) (2014). Staying Put: An Anti-Gentrification Handbook for Council Estates in London. [online]. https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/staying-put-an-anti-gentrification-handbook-for-council-estatesin-london/ (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Newman, O (1972). Defensible space. New York: Macmillan. PPCR (n.d.). The Colville Estate. [online]. https://ppcrassociates.wordpress.com/category/london-borough-of-hackney/ colville-estate/ (Accessed on 07.08.2015) Richardson L (2008) DIY community action: Neighbourhood Problems and Community Self-Help. Bristol: The Policy Press Sanoff, H (2006). ‘Multiple views of participatory design’. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 23(2), pp.131-143. The Glass-House Community Led Design (2010) A review of online resources for community led design. London: The GlassHouse Toker U (2012). Making Community Design Work: A Guide for Planners. Chicago: APA Planners Press Urban Design London (2015). Estate Regeneration Sourcebook. [online]. http://www.urbandesignlondon.com/new-estate-

Image references With the exception of those listed below, all images belong to the author. Fig. 1. Wates N (2014) Participation matrix. In Wates N (2014). The Community Planning Handbook: How people can shape their cities, towns & villages in any part of the world (Earthscan Tools for Community Planning). London: Routledge Fig. 2. Lindsay C (2003) Pyramid of user led design [adapted]. In Lindsay C (2003). ‘Involving people as co-creators’. The new everyday: Views on ambient intelligence. Rotterdam: The 010 Publishers, 38–41 Fig. 3. Lee Y (2008) Four types of design participation. In Lee Y (2008). ‘Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process’. CoDesign Vol 4, Issue 1, March 2008, 31-50 Fig. 4. Lee Y (2008) The realm of collaboration. In Lee Y (2008). ‘Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process’. CoDesign Vol 4, Issue 1, March 2008, 31-50 Fig. 6. Southwark Notes (n.d.), Our graphics [online]. http://southwarknotes.wordpress.com (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 11. Karakusevic-Carson Architects (2014). Colville phase 3 Masterplan Context. [online]. https://ppcrassociates.files. wordpress.com/2014/04/phase-3-kca-6-designs_page_21.jpg (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 12. CETRA (2014). Colville News – Please sign the petition. [online]. https://twitter.com/ppcrassociates (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 13. PPCR (2015). PPCR - Here to help [online]. https://ppcrassociates.wordpress.com/category/london-borough-ofhackney/ (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 14. PPCR (2014) The first of many flowers to be planted by the residents. [online]. https://ppcrassociates.files.wordpress. com/2014/07/20140712_1412381.jpg (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 15. Jones M (2015) Old community garden [online]. https://www.facebook.com/photo. php?fbid=10204839878261131&set=gm.1035003673178723&type=1&theater (Accessed 10.09.2015) Fig. 24. McNeil K (2013) Participatory drawing and modeling workshop [online]. http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/ projects/red_puna_jujuy_regio (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 28. Hines N (n.d.) Gipsy Hill Parish Map [adapted]. [online]. http://www.gipsyhill.org.uk/pages/further-information/ parish-map.php (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 29. Bing (2015). Aerial [adapted]. [online]. https://www.bing.com/ maps/#Y3A9NTEuNTEyMTAwfi0wLjA5MDAwMCZsdmw9NiZzdHk9ciZlbz0wJnE9Z2lwc3klMjBoaWxs (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 30. Bing (2015). Bird’s eye [adapted]. [online]. https://www.bing.com/ maps/#Y3A9NTEuNTEyMTAwfi0wLjA5MDAwMCZsdmw9NiZzdHk9ciZlbz0wJnE9Z2lwc3klMjBoaWxs (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 31, 32, 33. Ordnance Survey, GB (2015) OS VectorMap Local Colour Raster [GML geospatial data]. [adapted]. [online]. EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service (Accessed 01.06.2015) Fig. 34. Central Hill Estate Regeneration (2015). Stage 1 Consultation Boards [online]. http://www.centralhillregen.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/CentralHill-Stage01Boards.pdf (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 126. Bing (2015). Aerial [adapted]. [online]. https://www.bing.com/ maps/#Y3A9NTEuNTEyMTAwfi0wLjA5MDAwMCZsdmw9NiZzdHk9ciZlbz0wJnE9Z2lwc3klMjBoaWxs (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 128. LB Lambeth (2013). Open Space By Typology South East Map [adapted]. In Lambeth Open Space Strategy Addenda [online]. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LambethOpenSpaceAddendaFinaPt2l2013Maps.pdf (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 129. LB Lambeth (2013). Accessibility To Small Local And Local Open Spaces. [adapted]. In LB Lambeth (2013). Lambeth Open Space Strategy Addenda [online]. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ LambethOpenSpaceAddendaFinaPt2l2013Maps.pdf (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 130, 131, 132, 133. Ordnance Survey, GB (2015) OS VectorMap Local Colour Raster [GML geospatial data]. [adapted]. [online]. EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service (Accessed 01.06.2015) Fig. 135. Gasperin F, Leite L (2015). Le Parkour way. In Gasperin F, Leite L (2015). Save Central Hill [unpublished report]. Fig. 136, 137, 138. Gasperin F, Leite L (2015). Parkour. In Gasperin F, Leite L (2015). Save Central Hill [unpublished report]. Fig. 143, 144. House to Home (n.d.). [online]. http://www.housetohome.co.uk/ (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 147. Elmer S (2015). Save Central Hill Community [online]. https://www.facebook.com/photo. php?fbid=10153421470464571&set=oa.787292774717392&type=3&theater (Accessed 29.08.2015) Fig. 149, 150. Mellor N (2014). Discovering the nature base and sound garden at kid-friendly Horniman Museum and Gardens. [online]. http://www.thisisyourkingdom.co.uk/article/horniman-museum-garden/ (Accessed 29.08.2015) Vectorial icons [adapted]. [online]. https://thenounproject.com (Accessed 29.08.2015)