ISLINGTON SQUARE. COMMUNITY LED REGENERATION FFION LANCHBURY JOSHUA NOAD CHRISTOPHER WENHAM R. JOSEPH WILLIAMS
PREFACE.
The authors of this report study the Diploma in Architecture course at Oxford Brookes University and specialise in International Architecture, Regeneration and Development (IARD). Community led regeneration is an important tool used in re-development and rehousing of existing communities. This report aims to evaluate the New Islington Scheme in Manchester, focusing on the Islington Square social housing project designed by FAT Architects and its intergration with the existing community. This report has been compiled using primary and secondary research; Interviews with residence, developers and architects have supported a well-balanced report and has been upheld by published sources and critics.
i.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
This Report would not have been written without support from various sources. We express our thanks to Rachel Wilson (Cardroom estate resident), Richard Hattan from Urban Splash, Charles Holland from FAT Architects and Professor Tim Dixon of Oxford Brookes University for taking the time to speak to us and provide us with the information required to compile this report.
ii.
CONTENTS. 01.
Introduction
.................................................. page 1
02.
Stakeholders
.................................................. page 5
03.
New Islington
.................................................. page 10
04.
Islington Square .................................................. page 20
05.
Conclusion
06.
Appendix
.................................................. page 32
iii.
“a hole in the ground”
Hattan, 2010
Figure 1: New Islington Site, Location
01. INTRODUCTION. What we now know as ‘New Islington’ is located to the North East of the City of Manchester and previously encompassed the Cardroom Estate. The area was once a busy industrial hub, with factories and mills providing jobs for the people of the residents of the 204 homes within the Cardroom estate 1. There was a strong sense of community within the estate, all tenants knew and supported each other 2. The recession of the sixties and early seventies resulted in the closure of major local industries and sunk the Cardroom estate in to a spiralling decline. English Partnerships3 explains that with no jobs within the area many people started moving out, resulting in only 60 of the 204 homes remaining occupied. This depopulation had knock-on consequences in terms of not being able to support the local primary school, which together with the major decline in other services resulted in a diminution in the sense of community.
its tenants classed as ‘economically active’ and very high crime rates 1.
Beckett2 describes the estate as being “low-rise, with two-storey houses in a landscaped, villagey cluster”2. The Homes and Communities Agency 3 explain the way in which the design principles of the original estate can be linked to the decline of the area, homes facing away from the street and the creation of narrow alleyways have made the area a haven for crime. This, combined with the lack of people in the area and the empty homes it resulted in Cardroom becoming one of the worst estates in the country with less than 40% of
Richard Hattan from Urban Splash 4 claims the area was “in a hole in the ground”. He explains that as you walked down the hill towards the Cardroom estate you could only see the tops of the roofs; this lack of visibility would deter people from going down into the area. The falling numbers of visitors further affected the remaining shops. Their subsequent closure left a tucked- away parade of boarded-up shops that became a prime location for crime to thrive uninterrupted just outside the city centre. The estate had started to “rot from its core” 4.
Figure 2
An underlying factor that aided the decline of the area and amplified the crime rate was the topography and location of the site. The Cardroom Estate is only 10 minutes walk from Piccadily Station, with its reputation for drugs and crime it was one of the first places which could be reach for drug-dealing, and a certain amount of prostitution5.
Figure 3
1.
Figure 4: New Islington Site, Location
The Cardroom Estate was “characterised by high crime and
social deprivation; it suffered greatly from a lack of connectivity with the city centre and other growth areas, as well as issues of contamination related to Manchester’s industrial past.” Dixon, 2010
Figure 5 - 9 2.
TIMELINE.....
April
Manchester Methodist Housing Association is chosen as the preferred housing association partner for the project, to develop three phases of new social housing
2003
2003 2002
2002
New East Manchester Ltd is set up. This urban regeneration company is a partnership between Manchester City Council, English partnerships and the Northwest Development Agency.
Lord Rooker, Minister for housing, planning and regeneration, formally launches the strategic framework for New Islington.
September
First masterplanning meeting with residents at the Cob O’ Coal pub on the Cardroom estate.
September
October
property development company Urban Splash is founded by Tom Bloxham and Jonathan Falkingham.
January
1997
2002
1997
2000
March
March. Urban Splash is selected as lead developer for New Islington, the third in the Millennium Communities programme
1993
1827
1786
1970
The Cardroom estate, bounded by Old Mill Street, Redhill Street and Weybridge Road, is completed. The 14-acre estate of two and three-bedroomed houses is set out in the ‘Radburn’ layout with cul-de-sacs and little vehicular access. Residents are drawn from the local area and most have a long association with Ancotes.
May
English Partnerships’ Millennium Communities Programme begins with the launch of Greenwich Millennium Village, promoting sustainability in the planning, designing and construction of new homes.
A., G and H Salvin established a water powered textile mill on shooters brook, right in the centre of what is now the New Islington development site.
Maginnis Molineaux and Co. established what was to become one of the largest glassworks in Manchester. The earliest part of their factory was built on Kirkby Street near the Cob o’ Coal pub.
FAT (Fashion, Architecture, Taste) announced as architects for the first phase of social housing at Woodward Place, later renamed Islington Square.
First consultation between FAT and the future residents of Islington Square.
September
January
2006 July
First residents of Islington Square sign up as Manchester Methodist Housing Association tenants.
Public art competition launched to create two bus shelters that will be ‘loved and respected’.
dMFK selected as winning architects for second phase of social housing.
2006 March
2006
2005 January
Transport secretary Alistair Darling pulls the plug on the proposed Metrolinkextension to Ashton, which would have included a stop adjacent to New Islington
2006
September 2005
2005
2005
2005
November 2004 July
2004
First New Islington Festival takes place: ‘a fusion of avup and coming folk acts famous Manchester headliners, Manchesters finest DJs, cutting edge art installations... and an explosive firework finale.’ September
Street party to celebrate the complettion of Old Mill Street, the main street through the development.
Local residents ‘turn the first soil’ on Islington Square.
2004
December
January
Residents of Islington Square loo round their new homes ahead of completion.
2005
January
Manchester Methodist Housing Association and FAT take residents on a day trip to Amsterdam to view social housing
July
Public art competition launched to create two bus shelters that will be ‘loved and respected’.
Transport secretary Douglas Alexander announces additional funding to extend the metro link network into east Manchester. New Islington’s nearest stop will open on Pollard Street in 2010.
Islington Square hosts a house warming party.
Old Mill Street reopens to traffic.
3.
References 1. Manchester Propoerty Guide, 2010. New Islington [Online] http://www.manchesterpropertyguide.co.uk/ area-guides/New%20Islington-8.html Accessed 22nd November 2010 2. Becket, A. 2007. The Estate we’re in in The Guardian 24th February 2007 pg 30 3. English Partnership, 2008. New Islington Millenniumm Community [Online] http://www.englishpartnerships. co.uk/newislington.htm Accessed: 22nd November 2010 4. Hattan, R. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] Urban Splash Head Office, Manchester. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 15th November 2010 5. Holland, C. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] FAT Head Office, London. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 22nd November 2010 6. Dixon, T. 2010 Cities in Recession : Urban Regeneration in Manchester (England) and Osaka (Japan) and
the Case of ‘Hardcore’ Brownfield Sites. Oxford Brookes
Images Figure 1
Google, 2010. Google Maps [Online] http://maps.google.co.uk/ Accessed: 28th November 2010
Figure 2
Ickle Web, 2010. Cob-o-cole Pub [Online] http://ickleweb.com/?p=630 Accessed:29th Novermber 2010
Figure 3
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash
Figure 4
Google, 2010. Google Maps [Online] http://maps.google.co.uk/ Accessed: 28th November 2010
Figure 5 - 9
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash
4.
Figure 1: Concept Drawings
02. STAKEHOLDERS. The regeneration of New Islington became possible through collaboration between Manchester City Council, English Partnerships, Urban Splash, New East Manchester Urban Regeneration Company and MMHA. In the year 2000, the government introduced an Urban White Paper to deliver a programme of Millennium Communities throughout England. English Partnerships (now part of the Homes and Communities Agency), the UK government’s national regeneration agency were given the task of choosing areas for regeneration, which met the requirements of a future Millennium Community. Manchester City Council had previously expressed their aspiration for the redevelopment of the Cardroom Estate. The site was chosen as one of the seven Millennium Communities in England and it became ‘New Islington’. The initiative aimed to “deliver a lasting legacy of environmentally innovative and sustainable
developments in diverse, challenging locations”1. Each of the Millennium Communities is on a brownfield site, this required English Partnerships to make the ‘cleanup’ of the Cardroom Estate and surrounding area their first priority. This was in order to ...
“demonstrate to developers that difficult brownfield locations can be worthwhile, pursuable and profitable ventures.” 1 Holland, 2007
Figure 2
5.
EXISTING SITE
£
+
Cardroom Estate Site
DEVELOPER
+
£ DEVELOPER
DEVELOPER
+
DEVELOPER
MILLENNIUM COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
DEVELOPER
GOVERNMENT FUNDING
‟
£
“deliver a lasting legacy of environmentally innovative and sustainable developments in diverse, challenging locations” (English Partnerships, 2008).
Hospital Site
‘RIGHT-TO-RETURN’ CARDROOM ESTATE RESIDENTS
+
+
£
SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT
WASTE CONSULTANT
£ STRATEGIC CONSULTANT
+
MECHANICAL + STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
MASTERPLAN
QUANTITY SURVEYOR
+ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
COMMUNITY CONSULTANT
+
6.
Figure 3: Development Process
Having established a partnership between Manchester City Council and English Partnerships, the next step was to choose a developer. Urban Splash submitted an expression of interest and won the competition. Coincidently, adjacent to the Cardroom estate there was a hospital, owned by Urban Splash which was then incorporated in to New Islington. Founded in 1993, the developer’s Urban Splash are one of the country’s leading regeneration companies. Having made their name in Manchester they then expanded to Liverpool and now have offices across the UK with an impressive resume of past, present and proposed regeneration projects. Richard Hattan2, Director of Development for Urban Splash in Manchester revealed in an interview that we conducted with him, that he believes they were selected because of their experience and realistic vision for the area. Other important stakeholders involved include Manchester Methodist Housing Association (MMHA) who are the social housing landlord and the client for the Islington Square development which will be discussed in greater depth later. New East Manchester Limited, established in October 1997, was the second Urban Regeneration Company to be created. The company is a partnership between national (Homes and Communities Agency), regional (North West Development Agency) and local government (Manchester City Council), with local communities playing a full part 1.
The next stage involved the three key stakeholders (MCC, US and EP) selecting a team of consultants in order to begin work on the masterplan framework. The consultants comprised of: Sustainability Consultant – Faber Maunsell Waste Consultant – Bovis Lend Lease Consulting Mechanical + Structural Engineer – Martin Stockley Associates Quantity Surveyors – Simon Fenton Partnership Landscape Architect – Grant Associates Community Consultant – Fulcrum Consulting This team was in place from the outset and each is integral to the shaping and successful delivery of the project. In addition to the role of these consultants, the existing Cardroom estate residents were fundamental to the formation of the framework. From the beginning, the people living on the estate were given a legal ‘Right to Return’ and they became key stakeholders in the scheme.
Figure 4
7.
Figure 5: Will Alsop’s Conceptual Masterplan
Funding The three key funding partners identified on the New Islington website4 are: Urban Splash as lead developers, Manchester City Council (MCC) and English Partnerships. Urban Splash are responsible for the subdivision of plots and the selection of like-minded developers to deliver the individual developments. Manchester Methodist Housing Association (MMHA, now Great Places Housing Association) are the social landlord collaborating with Urban Splash in the provision of all the social housing developments in the masterplan framework. For the private developments, Urban Splash will judge the potential developer partners on their “ability to contribute positively to the delivery of the overall vision of the area”.5 Urban Splash and the private developers will have collectively invested £100m’s of risk capital, MCC provided the 13 hectares of lands, while English Partnerships ’property and regeneration fund’ contributed £22.7m for “masterplanning, land acquisition, site remediation, primary road, public realm and canal infrastructure costs” . There was additional funding of £3.3m from the National Affordable Housing Programme (NAHP) to build new homes. 6 As opposed to a more conventional arrangement of the council selling the land to the developer, this funding arrangement establishes a profit share agreement between the principal partners based on the level of investment made, and secures a shared stakeholder interest in its success. Urban Splash believe that this means the principal partners gain “a slice of the value added by this initiative without compromising in form and quality (which is what normally happens when developers pay too much for sites)”. 5
8.
References 1. English Partnership, 2008. New Islington Millenniumm Community [Online] http://www.englishpartnerships. co.uk/newislington.htm Accessed: 22nd November 2010 2. Hattan, R. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] Urban Splash Head Office, Manchester. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 15th November 2010 3. New East Manchester (2010) The Urban Regeneration Companies [Online] http://www.urcs-online.co.uk/ companies/company.asp?id=37. Accessed: 20th November 2010 4. New Islington, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community. [Online] www.newislington.co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010 5. Urban Spash 2003, New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community. Urban Splash 6. HCA, 2010. New Islington: Manchester [Online] http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/new-islington.htm Accessed: 19th November 2010
Images Figure 1
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash
Figure 2
Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington. co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 3
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash
Figure 4
Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington. co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 5
Urban Spash 2003, New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community. Urban Spash
9.
Figure 1: Masterplan Vision
03. NEW ISLINGTON. Urban Splash & Alsop Architects are careful in not referring to a masterplan but prefer the term ‘strategic framework’ as it allows the plan to be a “flexible guiding document which can be enriched by future input”.1 Richard Hatten of Urban Splash explains that “the whole framework breaks down into about 25 plots as each plot comes forward it goes through just the normal detailed planning process, and at that time its then decided by the partnership who decide what’s best for Manchester at that particular time.” 2 Strategic framework Urban Splash portray the strategic framework as an advantage in concentrating on aspirations and not prescriptive architecture, However CABE 3 reads this as a strategic ambiguity to avoid making definitive promises. The deliberate lack of clarity clashes with the detailed architectural vision portrayed in the visualizations; CABE additionally warns that these can raise resident expectations. This concern resonates with the residents who are sceptical of the delivery of certain key amenities such as the school. Journalist Andrew Beckett reiterates the uncertainty and vagueness surrounding ‘promised’ and ‘possible’ amenities. 4
area. In this respect it is building on the lessons learnt from the previous Cardroom Estate 5. While the old estate suffered from the reduced visibility of its sunken position, Alsop’s concept for a new typology: ‘urban barn on stilts’, has drawn criticism from CABE regarding the reasoning of the elevation and the social consequences of its detachment from ground level activity 5.
High density living
“The densities required to support the
While the strategic framework is flexible and open to change of circumstances, the constant running throughout will be the set of key objectives. The most relevant of these being the pledge of an unequivocal right-to-return for every Cardroom Estate resident that had been living there since June 2000 5. This commitment raised its own challenge in reconciling the requirement of higher density living with the traditional, low-rise preferences of the existing residents. The need to repopulate through higher densities is founded in the pursuit of a more vibrant community that can support the extensive list of amenities which the residents would like to see introduced into the
sustainable infrastructure the community wants – the newsagent, the chippy, the greengrocer, the baker – are at odds with the densities created by typical post-war terraces and semis.” Urban Splash (2010)
10.
ISLINGTON SQUARE
GUEST STREET
HEALTH CENTRE CHIPS Figure 2 - 5 : Completed Proposals
Urban Splash - Masterplan (Urban Splash, 2010) GUEST STREET HEALTH CENTRE
CHIPS
Figure 6 : Proposed Masterplan
Figure 7 : Proposed Elevation 11.
Figure 8
Figure 9 : Existing Site
The mix The re-housing of the 78 families will account for a small proportion of the 1,400 new homes earmarked for the site5. The introduction of a newcomer majority to the area required a sensitive and highly communicative approach to the integration with the existing community. The partnership extolled the virtues of seamless, blind tenure in creating a healthy mix of socio-economic and breaking down of class barriers5. However, the commitment to this egalitarian rhetoric is called into question through the disproportionate 1/10th social housing content of the development4. It is the owner occupied, private rent and shared ownership tenures that make up the significant majority. The viability of this ÂŁ200m development has been assured through the well-publicised appeasing of the minority existing community. Amenities
construction to a halt. It is unfortunate that this stuttering of delivery has left the re-housed residents adrift from an adequate level of amenities in close proximity. While there is a phasing logic to first delivering the housing that will support the new businesses, there is discontentment to the lengthiness of this lag period. Earlier Urban Splash phasing diagrams reveal that a strip of amenities were targeted for the first phase. The extension of the city’s tram network into New Islington will increase the connectivity of the residents to the city centre and its wealth of amenities2. This link is envisaged to work in reverse in drawing people through the development on the way to the Ancoats urban village and proposed office complex. The vision of the site as a thoroughfare is called into question by CABE who challenge the scale and pulling power of the proposed amenities.6 (Appendix, Image 1).
The importance of diversity extends to the acknowledgement that a mixed-land use will help nurture a more self-sufficient New Islington community. The proposal of workshops, offices, retail and eateries will provide local employment opportunities for the residents2. The community will also benefit from such facilities as a new primary school, health centre and village hall. Of these it is the health centre that stands alone in completion due to the recession grinding
Figure 10 12.
Figure 11: Masterplan model
Waterfront living
Environment
Alsop’s visions for New Islington also encompasses waterway regeneration in his proposal to create a new canal basin that would link the Rochdale and Ashton Canal that flank the site to the north and south respectively. The re-working of the boating route aims to bring an under-used canal system back to life while also providing a focal point for the new community. 5 Tom Bloxham of Urban Splash speaks passionately about the significance of water in people’s lives and the merits of canals as a place “where people can walk by, places where people can fish, place where people can even live off”.1 Before the canal construction could start there was a large operation to clean the ground of contaminants and oils from its previous industrial uses.5
There is an imaginative and comprehensive approach to the environmental sustainability of the site and its future buildings that will add a distinctness to the development.
A series of six canal inlets, each with their own character, maximizes the potential number of apartments and facilities that front the water and further reinforce the ethos of water as a focus for sustainable community living.5 The total waterside development is 3km in length, and the fact that waterside properties are 20% more valuable than the same properties further inland will not be lost on the developers 4. Tom Bloxham further admits “we’ve had a lot of success developing on canals. We have made water, and canal side locations a selling point”.4 While the waterway will provide quality amenity space for all the residents, the provision for private residential moorings hints at the type of future residents the partnership is marketing at.4 The linking canal and water park is a purposeful organising piece of the ‘strategic framework’ that has been completed. However, it is now fenced off and awaits the funding for the developments to grow up around it. This has drawn criticism from journalist Owen Hatherley, who describes the basin as “an awful bloody mess marked by huge swathes of wasteland and scattered industrial rubble.” For all its potential, it is certainly a work in progress9.
Once matured, the waterway and its surrounding basin will be permeated with wetlands, woodlands and reed-beds all working to support a greater biodiversity on site, and will offer a sense of openness at the heart of the scheme.5 There is a holistic approach to the part that water will play in the lives of the future residents that surpasses its function as solely amenity space; a series of boreholes deep into the underlying sandstone will provide naturally filtered drinking water for the residents.3 This local provision will be far more direct, sustainable and also more affordable for the resident. An on-site sewage treatment plant will convert domestic waste into a standard sufficient for reintroduction into the canal network, thus reinforcing the cyclic water strategy.5 A continuation of the sustainable ethos of local solutions are the on-site1 plants providing heat and electricity and the on-site recycling facilities that will relieve stresses on landfill. There is an admittance on the part of Urban Splash that the legally-binding sustainability plan written at the genesis of the strategic framework may be outdated by the time construction is resumed as normal.7 It is therefore crucial that the remaining developments are updated and kept relevant to the current-day sustainable thinking, regulations and level of technology available, so as to ensure that the scheme boasts the highest sustainability credentials.
“an awful bloody mess marked by huge swathes of wasteland and scattered industrial rubble.” Hatherley, (2010)
13.
Figure 12: Community Participation
Urban Splash and the Community How they did it Since a very early stage, Urban Splash and Alsop Architects ran a community consultation workshop every four weeks at a local pub at the heart of the existing estate, the Cob O’Coal. These consultations were initially very popular with the residents, however the dialogue started with a ‘blank sheet of paper’ and the meetings were focused on the overall masterplan and how things fitted together without addressing the residents replacement housing. This frustrated the locals as it appeared to reflect a lack of progress on the housing issue and they soon began to stop coming to the meetings2. The resident steering group raised this point to both Urban Splash and Alsop Architects and it marked a significant turning point in the focus and success of the community meetings. Urban Splash have since recognised that they ‘probably started in the wrong order as the residents wanted answers, not further questions2’ and subsequently identified this as an important lesson learned for future community practice. During this initial process Urban Splash recognised that community participation sessions often favour the more confident members of the community and can sometimes cause some peoples views to be overlooked. In response to this observation both Urban Splash and Alsop Architects went knocking door-to-door and visited every house on the estate for a personal consultation. This exercise resulted in the collection of views from 74 households out of 78 in total and allowed them to gain a much deeper incite into the both the aspirations and concerns of the entire community5.
Figure 13
Instead, they unanimously voted for ‘New Islington’, the name of a local historic mill and street name in the area. This early decision making process paved the way for a number of future concessions on behalf of the developer partnership who demonstrated that they were willing to listen and adapt the strategic framework. This converging of disparate visions was crucial to ensuring the local community support in the process of regeneration2.
Choices One of the key successes of the community consultation process was the level of responsibility that the community were given by Urban Splash. Firstly, the residents were able to vote for the new name of the redevelopment2. Urban Splash put forward a number of options; their preferred option being ‘Shooter’s Brook’ but the residents felt that it had negative connotations.
Figure 14
14.
WHAT THE PEOPLE THINK...... We were interested by the paradox or contradiction at the heart of the competition. Splash had the Alsop masterplan for predominantly apartment living- a quite dense model. But the residents didn’t want to live in the apartments Splash had earmarked for them.
Urban regeneration is not just about building homes. It’s about creating sustainable communities, so facilities like the Ancoats Health and Social Care Centre are vitally important.
THE REGENERATION COMPANY Eddie Smith, New East Manchester
THE ARCHITECT Charles Holland, FAT
I think this is definitely going to work. I think in the future we need to deliver far more sustainable mixed communities. We can’t just have rich people living in gated communities and less wealthy people living elsewhere. We all need to live together.
Now all we need are more community facilities, like the new doctor’s surgery which is lovely.
THE ISLINGTON SQ RESIDENT Agnes Lewis
THE SOCIAL LANDLORD Matthew Harrison, Manchester Methodist Housing Group
From our perspective, the key was to develop our ideas in close collaboration with the existing community who will in effect become the roots of the new community. No more ghettos, no more regeneration. It’s all in the mix. Mix of tenure, mix of housing type, mix of architectures, mix of land use.
THE MASTER PLANNER Will Alsop, Journalist/Author
New Islington is a bit light on social housing… this may limit its usefulness as a model for reviving other deprived areas. There is also a danger that regeneration areas become victims of their own success, with local people priced out because the drive to higher densities means ‘apartment living’ dominates and there is insufficient affordable housing.
THE REGENERATION EXPERT Professor Timothy Dixon, Oxford Brookes University
If you just mix it all up it tends to work much better... you can walk through central London and there’s really high value apartments next door to council blocks next door to shops and it mixes together really quite well compared with some areas where they’ve built a sea of social housing and then they’ve built a yuppie development at the side of it. Safety and the lack of amenities are the real issues here. There just aren’t any shops, and they keeping talking about a school- I think it’s myth. It just won’t happen.
THE ANCOATS RESIDENT Rachel Wilson
The site has to reintroduce social infrastructure if it wants to attract people back to the area.
New Islington is an awful bloody mess. Marked by huge swathes of wasteland and scattered industrial rubble, the area has as its centre a derelict pub, named– with perfect conjunctional timingthe Bank of England.
THE DEVELOPER
THE CRITIC
Richard Hatten, Urban Splash
Owen Hatherley, Journalist/Author
THE GOVERNMENT Lord Rooker, Housing Minister
15.
Figure 15: Community Participation Festival
Where to live? The residents were also unusually given the choice of selecting exactly where they wanted to live within the scheme; an exercise that uncovered some interesting results. Initially Urban Splash expected a scatter-gun reaction of preferred locations around New Islington, however the response was in fact the very opposite. It soon became clear that these people had lived together under difficult social circumstances for so long that they had built up strong support and friendship networks5. The residents then took this opportunity as a chance to consolidate these networks, resulting in three micro communities at three different locations around the site. Richard Hatten recounts how one group wanted to live on a central site right in the ‘belly’ of New Islington and how this scheme has now become known as ‘The Guts’2. One move or two? When it came to the phasing strategy, the initial pledge was that Urban Splash would try and ensure one move only. However after dialogue with the residents they realised that two moves may be acceptable if it meant a new home quicker thus speeding up the construction process and saving considerable costs. The existing tenants accepted the choice of either a one or two
• One-move strategy: Remain in existing house until new house is ready to move into. • Two-move strategy: Move into a temporary house in another council tenancy property and returan when new house is complete. Richard Hatton from Urban Splash reported a loose trend that saw younger families with children preferring the two-move strategy to get the kids away from all the construction noise and dust, while the elderly residents seemed to favour remaining in their existing home until the new ones are read2. The process itself was selfreinforcing in helping to strengthen the foundations of the existing communities.
16.
Figure 16 - 18: Community Participation
Types of housing
Summary
The most significant decision made by the existing residents was regarding the type of houses that they would move into. The initial masterplan was designed with a high-density housing model and was predominantly made up of blocks of flats. This allowed Urban Splash to achieve higher and more profitable densities as well as exploring different types of contemporary living patterns. However despite much consultation, including trips to Greenwich, Liverpool, Glasgow, Castlefield and Hulme to view exemplar high and low density housing, 9 out 10 residents still rejected the apartment living model favoured by Urban Splash and Alsop Architects5. Instead they were completely fixed on what they described as traditional housing-two story, brick built, pitched roof and gardens front and back. The overwhelming demand for an essentially more stereotypical traditional model challenged the developer’s assumptions of the widespread taste culture towards contemporary living. This demand for an alternative lower density typology forced Urban Splash to re-configure the masterplan and shuffle densities towards the apartment blocks. The concession and evolution represented a considerable shift from their initial proposals.
Through their commitment and approach to the existing community it seems fairly evident that Urban Splash and Alsop Architects have made every effort to preserve the spirit of existing family and neighbourhood links that were present on the Cardroom estate. Consultation in a community that was already suffering from consultation fatigue was not an easy task, however through persistence and adaptive methods they succeeded in gaining the residents trust and strengthened it by listening and reacting to the residents concerns and desires. The collective fear of change and a perceived external threat to their accustomed way of life had a unifying effect on a previously fragmented community. The consultation sessions themselves served to reveal to the residents their common concerns and similarities. Their concerns were then allayed through the resident involvement in the process of change and ensuring that they felt in control of the outcome.
17.
Figure 19: Existing
Figure 20: Proposed
18.
References 1. Urban Splash, 2010. New Islington. [Online] http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/projects/new-islington Accessed” 22nd Novermber 2010 2. Hattan, R. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] Urban Splash Head Office, Manchester. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 15th November 2010 3. CABE, 2000. New Islington Manchester in Design Reviewed Master Plan. CABE 4. Becket, A. 2007. The Estate we’re in in The Guardian 24th February 2007 pg 30 5. Urban Spash 2003, New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community. Urban Splash 6. Gates,C. 2002. Alsop’s ‘elan ‘lacks a plan’. September 20, 2002 7. Holland, C. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] FAT Head Office, London. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 22nd November 2010 8. Griffin, P. 2004, Hot Water. Urban Splash 9. Hatherley, O. 2010. A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain. Verso.
Images Figure 1
Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington. co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 2 - 5
Google, 2010. Google Maps [Online] http://maps.google.co.uk/ Accessed: 28th November 2010; Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www. newislington.co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 6
Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington. co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 7
Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington. co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 8
Noad, J. 2010. New Islington
Figure 9
Noad, J. 2010. New Islington
Figure 10 - 11
Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington. co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 13 - 18
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash
Figure 19
Willimans, J. 2010. New Islington
Figure 20
Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington. co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
19.
ISLINGTON SQUARE
GUEST STREET
HEALTH CENTRE CHIPS
Figure 1: Urban Splash - Masterplan
04. ISLINGTON SQUARE The Islington Square scheme designed by FAT architects is located in the North of the New Islington Masterplan where once sat the local playing fields. The scheme compromises of 23 two to four bedroom family homes including private garden areas. The final cost of the scheme was £2.3 million. 1
The uniqueness surrounding the commission process of the RIBA competition was attractive to FAT Architects. The competition was not a design competition but a competitive interview process. In the first stage, all competition entries had to submit an expression of interest. The brief emphasised that...
“it was an unusual situation that called for unusual thinking” Grant, 2007
Charles Holland1 explains that FAT thought the brief for the Islington Square scheme was an interesting paradox and contradiction at the heart of the whole masterplan. The masterplan framework is made up of high-quality contemporary apartment architecture, however when presented to the residents, this highrise theme was rejected as they favoured ‘traditional housing’ with gardens, parking spaces, pitched roofs etc. FAT tried to adapt this conventional ‘traditional’ model of housing to suit the residents aspirations. Instead of fading the existing residents out with what may be described as high-rise gentrified apartments, FAT Architects contradicted Urban Splash’s vision of everyone living and integrating with each other.
Figure 2- 4
20.
Figure 5: Community Participation Meeting
The Competition Having been shortlisted, FAT Architects were invited for an interview with the panel made up of Urban Splash, Great Places housing association and the residents who had the casting vote. Richard Hattan3 from Urban Splash explained that FAT approached the scheme in a unique and different way compared to the others. With no power point presentation or fancy images, it was a vocal, interactive presentation where they answered questions and came up with concepts there and then. Hattan3 identifies this as one of the projects main successes. Fortunately for FAT, on the way to the presentation, their laptop broke. Charles Holland explained that this presented FAT with two advantages. Unlike the other presentations, during the FAT presentation;
1. The residents couldn’t see anything which they didn’t like 2. They weren’t bamboozled by slideshows of corporate images and indicative visions of the future.
Holland, 2010
FAT explain1 that they did copious amounts of research on the project before the interview, so they were confident in what they were talking about, and got on well with the residents. Both Richard Hattan3 and Charles Holland1 agree that FAT winning the competition was down to the residents liking the architects and feeling relaxed with how they approached the project. FAT made an effort to understand their views and ensured that feelings would be heard and taken into consideration.
21.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION STAGE 1 Expression of interest submitted followed by an interview with the key stakeholders and residents.
ARCHITECT
ARCHITECT
ARCHITECT
25 PLOTS ...
competition
ARCHITECT
INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION STAGE 2 A series of community participation methods with the residents to understand what they wanted and keep them in the loop.
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
THEMED WORKSHOPS
PRECEDENT DAY TRIP
£
+
+
‘RIGHT-TO-RETURN’ CARDROOM ESTATE RESIDENTS
ISLINGTON SQUARE
22.
Figure 6 -11: Comunity particiaption process
Community Participation Process
Methods of Community Participation
Following the selection of FAT Architects, Great Places Housing Association started to put together a tenancy list for the New Islington square scheme. FAT conducted background studies into how the site could be utilised efficiently with different housing models1. Having received the tenancy list, FAT met the residents who would eventually be living in Islington Square at their private homes. They took a photographer with them, Len Grant, with whom the residents were all familiar. During the consultation meeting, FAT remained direct and kept the questions simple, previous public consultation sessions had been cluttered with ‘architectural jargon’. The residents were getting tired of this and they could not see any physical output.
“its about what they need and what they want”
Holland, 2007
Individual Meetings The questions were directed to the residence were to do with their own private homes, what they liked about their homes, and what they didn’t, and what they wanted in their new home. Len Grant took photos of their homes inside and out. These photographs became useful tools back in the architect’s office. Charles Holland1 explains that the home visits were the best bit of the participation. It allowed the Architect to have a one on one conversations with the residents which made the residents open up more about what their concerns were and what they wanted. Photographic Survey The photos were annotated with observations made by FAT to indicate the things which the residents liked about their homes, and what they had changed from the previous designs, for example some had beautiful gardens and some had tarmaced their gardens for parking space. With this information, they were able to create a list of desirable and undesirable features. Workshops FAT collated information provided from the individual meetings and the photographic survey to conduct workshops covering a variety of subjects. The Workshops were split up into themes, making the workshop more accessible and so that FAT were able to present more manageable information for the residents. Breaking the community participation into chunks was another successful tactic.
Figure 12
The outcomes of the community participation were relayed back to the residents in an easily accessible and easy to understand format for the residents. The information collected facilitated the creation of the brief, the first design review was presented to the residents and clients this then lead to the more conventional architectural development phases.
23.
Figure 14 - 22: Field Trip to Amsterdam
Field Trip - Amsterdam The stakeholders took New Islington residents on a day trip to Amsterdam to help the residents understand the ideas surrounding contemporary residential design. This was an effective for of community consultation because not only were the residents then able to experience firsthand where the Architects inspiration was coming from but better relationships were established between the community and the Architects and developers further improving trust. This also gave the residents a sense of involvement with the design process. Charles Holland 1 explains that the trip was a good way of getting to know the residents, and opened their eyes up to different forms of urban living. The main criticism of the trip was that it was held too late within the design process, so some of the feedback which came from of the trip didn’t go into the project because it was too late in the design phase.
12 January 2004 04:00
Depart Cardroom
06:15
Depart Liverpool John Lennon
08:35
Depart Amsterdam Schipal
18:30
Arrive Liverpool John Lennon
20:00
Arrive Cardroom
24.
Figure 13: Developmernt Diagrams
Ouput From all the data retrieved FAT Architects were then able to put together a brief and were able to create a first design review, which was presented to the residents, and clients, which then lead away to the more conventional architectsa development phase.
25.
Figure 25: Islington Square
Community Consultation Outcomes The Islington Square social housing development has become prime example of how effective consultation can lead to the creation of a real and sustainable community. Through the regular workshops and participatory exercises with the tenants-in-waiting, FAT were able to shape a visionary response to an awkward brief. It is widely acknowledged that this inclusive approach a key factor towards delivering a scheme that both satisfied the aspirations of the community, the strict guidelines of the developer at the same time as a strong and relevant architectural expression. How the community helped shape the scheme The level of involvement from the ground up is relatively uncommon in projects of this nature and therefore arose with little precedent in methods of practice. FAT chose a very direct approach to the process as they recognised that the community was beginning to show signs of consultation fatigue. The realities however were still quite complex to manage, in conversation with Charles Holland he recalled how
be able to sit and watch television at night and be able to see their car through the window if needs be, they wanted the kitchen at the rear of the properties and they wanted a private back garden- none of this communal nonsense.” 3 By recognising the core objectives of the residents early, it gave FAT the opportunity to work innovatively around the resident’s requirements and generate a successful working relationship complete with mutual respect and trust. This understanding provided the foundations for a very effective dialogue between the community and the architects and meant that the community involvement had a significant impact on the evolution of the scheme and was a key aspect of its eventual success.
“lots of the consultations were quite aggressive…the residents were quite skeptical of the whole thing saying things like ‘you’re just going to do what you want anyway’.”
Holland, 2010
This meant that the first issue was the barrier of trust. Since the residents had a preconceived idea of what they thought architects taste was, there was a lot of skepticism towards the overall process. However once the residents were on side Richard Hattan believes that FAT’s early success was how they “were able to extract information over a five month period from that set of individuals about exactly what they meant by traditional houses and exactly what they wanted to keep”.3 This resulted in FAT realising that “It really boiled down to being able to park their car off the road, they wanted to Figure 26 26.
Figure 27
Figure 28: Islington Square
Form From the very start the residents had some very fixed ideas on what housing should be. They were very attached to their idea of traditional housing- maximum two story, brick built, pitched roof and gardens front and back. So from the outset the residents dictated the overall typology of the development ruling out any alternative types of living. In response to the residents FAT proposed 4
“a novel reinterpretation of the English terrace house that married fanciful styling with practical solutions.” Holland, 2010
Plans The L-shaped plan of the new houses is heavily influenced by the living patterns of the previous houses and through consultation FAT listened to the residents opinions and reinterpreted and improved the basic layout. The ground floor is freed up to provide an open-plan kitchen/dining/living arrangement that keeps number of walls to a minimum. This space accommodates all domestic rituals without compromising the need for space to relax. The ground floor has been designed to be flexible so that if the occupier became unable to manage stairs, the ground
floor can be converted to into a fully functioning living space – very much part of the homes-for-life initiative. When viewed as a pair the L-shape plan fulfils the desires of the residents by forming a front terrace, providing a private, almost defensible space or a secure place to park a car’.3 On the first floor is a very standard layout, but again it is very much in keeping with what the end users wanted 4. Security, Gardens and Public Space One of the main objectives of the residents’ was a desire to reduce the amount of communal outdoor space, as to them it was seen as just extra space for marauding gangs to congregate in. Charles Holland3 admits, “[their] initial proposal was to make a kind of communal garden in the middle, but the residents were dead set against that - they thought it was the worst idea they had ever heard.“ Thus the challenge for FAT was how to combine these quite drastic, yet valid, views with the concerns currently facing all house builders – sustainability, increasing densities to maximise land use, and the notion of ‘added value’ for the end user.4 Due to the strong concerns over security the final scheme is in a way “a form of gated community; the gardens to the rear are gated and protected and that is a response directly to the residents views. Our slightly more utopian idea was that you could make a public garden in the middle and it could be like one of those London squares where it can be communal and really big. But it was something that they absolutely didn’t
27.
WHAT THE PEOPLE THINK...... Strong, bold design is at the heart of everything we do in New Islington and makes it the distinctive place that is now emerging. Islington Square has already set new standards in social housing, creating quality stylish homes for local people.
THE REGENERATION COMPANY Eddie Smith, New East Manchester
What they ended up with, which is a weird amalgam of a traditional backto-back with a ‘ginnell’, works really well whenever I have been back there. People wander up and down them chatting and you can walk the length of everyone-else’s back garden and therefore have this sense of commonality,
The great thing is I’ve managed to stay near the people I used to live by. It’s nice to be with my old neighbours.
THE ARCHITECT Charles Holland, FAT
Islington Square is a striking development and absolutely integral to the growing and flourishing community of New Islington.
THE ISLINGTON SQ RESIDENT Agnes Lewis
THE SOCIAL LANDLORD Matthew Harrison, Manchester Methodist Housing Group
We have a much closer relationship with the residents now. The new houses are like a gated complex. I’ve seen the plans for the whole development- it’s all straight lines, no cul-de-sacs. A CCTV camera at one end can see all the way down.
THE POLICE Police Inspector McFarlane, Greater Manchester Police
The most successful schemes are those that engage with the community at an early stage, where there is strong focus on partnership between the private and public sectors, and where sustainable construction methods and design are used.
THE REGENERATION EXPERT Professor Timothy Dixon, Oxford Brookes University
I don’t see my neighbours as much as I did. With the front gates the houses have gotyou’re meant to keep them locked- I see my next-door neighbour only when she’s getting her mail.
One thing that FAT did really well I think was to extract information over a period from that set of individuals and what they meant by traditional houses and what they wanted to keep.
THE NEW ISLINGTON RESIDENT
THE DEVELOPER
THE CRITIC
Anonymous
Richard Hatten, Urban Splash
Owen Hatherley, Journalist/Author
If dMFK or Fat had been allowed to design a whole area of social housing rather than tiny closes of 10 or 15 houses, this place could have been a beacon, rather than what the recession’s unforgiving light shows it to be- a failed confidence trick.
28.
Figure 29
Figure 30: Islington Square Homes
Figure 31
want”.3 It could be argued that the success of the scheme amongst the residents is largely because of the fact that it is a gated community in an area notorious for its crime. This nature of this solution removes the ability for thieves to break in through back gardens and vanish down a maze of narrow alleyways by cutting of rear access to the houses.4
“The motifs used within that project was actually developed in that project, and have been used since because of their success within this scheme.”
Taste During the consultation process FAT interviewed each person in his or her own house, and took photos of their houses and gardens, eventually forming the inspiration for the architectural language of the scheme. FAT used the ‘tenants’ richly patterned wallpapers and false fireplaces’4 as a reflection of taste and reference to local vernacular. These studies ‘were morphed into the Argyll socks brickwork across the facades. And their accumulation of ornaments found its way into the elaborate mock-Dutch gables and window surrounds, along with the profusion of patterned, add-on balconies, window boxes and window surrounds.4
Holland, 2010
The striking postmodernist playfulness and bold statements of architectural taste has not received unanimous applause from everyone. “Passers-by regularly ask why no Wild West tumbleweed can be seen blowing past or ask residents what’s on the menu, in sly reference to the local Taj Mahal restaurant”.4
Figure 32 29.
Figure 32 - 35: Islington Square
Summary It is rare that a scheme has allowed such significant input and creative comment from existing residents. FAT’s ultimate challenge was to balance their own desires with the ambitious masterplan for the site designed by Will Alsop whilst constantly satisfying the strong aspirations voiced by the residents. Many would agree that FAT have delivered houses that are carefully planned, spacious and reflect exactly how the resident’s wanted to live and are able to adapt to the way that future tenants may wish to live. On the outside they have an unabashed flamboyant quality and a scale and presence that is very unusual for social housing. However Holland admits, that the tenants did not specifically request the latter. Rather it was an urban design ploy that is intended to make up a free-standing backdrop at the end of a series of long medium-rise apartment block “fingers” proposed by New Islington’s masterplanner Will Alsop - still to be built. The original idea was for the facade to be in scale with the fingers and be seen from far away. It’s a big, bold urban gesture, with detailed design for viewing close-up. With or without ‘fingers’ the scheme is still architecturally successful through its playful layered readings, and its exuberant and lively nature. All in all, Islington Square succeeds in a variety of areas largely due to the comprehensive community consultation process. It is encouraging to find tenants being so intensively consulted and heeded. It is also refreshing to see Architects that are able to satisfy community desires and aspirations whilst simultaneously pushing boundaries in taste, and driving innovation in a notoriously bland sector of design. As for the end result, the scheme offers novel practical solutions to high-density urban housing and demonstrates that not being designed by the residents but designed by FAT in consultation with the residents.
30.
References 1. FAT, 2010. Islington Square [Online] http://www.fashionarchitecturetaste.com/2006/11/islington_square_1. html Accessed: 20th November 2010 2. Holland, C. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] FAT Head Office, London. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 22nd November 2010 3. Hattan, R. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] Urban Splash Head Office, Manchester. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 15th November 2010 4. Stewart, B. 2006 Is this a Joke? Building Magazine, Issue 13.
Images Figure 1
Google, 2010. Google Maps [Online] http://maps.google.co.uk/ Accessed: 28th November
Figure 2 - 4
2010
Figure 5
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington.
Figure 6 -11
co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 12
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash Urban Spash, 2010. New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community [Online] www.newislington.
Figure 13
co.uk Accessed: 18th November 2010
Figure 14 - 22
FAT, 2010. FAT Architects - Developments Process
Figure 23
Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash
Figure 24 Figure 25
Google, 2010. Google Maps [Online] http://maps.google.co.uk/ Accessed: 28th November
Figure 26
2010 Wenham, 2010. Islington Square
Figure 27
FAT, 2010. Islington Square [Online] http://www.fashionarchitecturetaste.com/2006/11/islington_
Figure 28 - 31
square_1.html Accessed: 28th November 2010 Wiilliams, 2010. Islington Square
Figure 32
FAT, 2010. Islington Square [Online] http://www.fashionarchitecturetaste.com/2006/11/islington_ square_1.html Accessed: 28th November 2010 Grant, 2007. From the Ground Up. New Islington Client Group c/o Urban Splash
FIgure 33 - 35
Wenham & Willimans, 2010, Islington Square
31.
05. CONCLUSION. SOCIAL CONTEXT
It is difficult to fully analyse the social regeneration of New Islington as the scheme is far from being on course for its 2012 completion target. Despite Nick Johnson of Urban Splash confidently announcing that “there is sufficient momentum in this project to weather such storms as a recession�1 the project fell to the fate of many other developments nationally.
LOCAL IMPLICATIONS
The stalling of work on the site creates nervousness amongst some of the residents about the lack of progress, and diminishes local confidence in the developers and Manchester City Council. There is a feeling of discontentment amongst some of the residents who are disheartened by the fact that they are still living on a building site.
PROMISED/ POSSIBLE AMENITIES
It will be interesting to see if Urban Splash are not just paying lip service to the stakeholders and actually deliver on the series of promises/proposals they have made to the community in providing a farmers market, a primary school, a nursery, a football pitch amongst other amenities. The timing of the recession is particularly unfortunate because it came before the implementation of the phasing that included the desperately needed amenities. As a result residents are currently dependent on a very small newsagents for their basic needs.
RE-BRANDING
The Urban Splash PR machine is working hard to ensure that through clever re-branding of the area as a positively vibrant mixed-use quarter, it starts to reverse the social stigmas attached to the previous estate. The challenge in altering public perceptions is key to attracting future residents as well as commercial investment to the area.
1.
Blackwood, L. 2009. Chips, Will Alsop and the regeneration of Manchester [Online] http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/ property/article5980823.ece Accesses: 29th November 2010
Urban Splash are quite vague on their ‘cunning plans’ for the future community involvement in tackling the local social issues such as crime and unemployment.
Urban Splash propose “to set up a company that will manage the area, in which the residents will receive the ground rents so that they have an income and an asset, to protect, govern and safeguard the future of the area”2. Richard Hattan3 reveals that the commercial spaces are “not intended to be big office-y type spaces but the more community shops and things”.
SOCIAL REGENERATION
01
Employment opportunities have also been considered in the process as well as the outcome; the civil engineering company Volker Stevin made a concerted effort to employ and train local people during the construction stages.
02
Crime and security issues are considered in the surveillance preoccupied layout of Islington Square and its gated nature.
03
There are also strict conditions attached to living in New Islington with the unequivocal right to a home being dependent on a zero tolerance towards antisocial behaviour.
04
Urban Splash promote New Islington as a mixed tenure scheme but the balance is heavily weighted towards private housing with only 1/10th social housing, representing a bare minimum. The marketing of the scheme as a truly diverse mixed community is thus slightly deceptive. The seamless tenure aspiration of Urban Splash is only really relevant within the private developed apartment blocks such as ‘Chips’, where there is blurred distinction between ‘private rent‘, ‘owner occupied’ and ‘shared ownership‘. On the macro scale there is no seamless tenure between plots as there are three distinct ‘social-rented’ plots out of the 25.
2. 3.
MIXED TENURE
Urban Spash 2003, New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community. Urban Splash Hattan, R. 2010. The New Islington Development [Interview] Urban Splash Head Office, Manchester. Ffion Lanchbury et al. 15th November 2010
32.
Figure 1 - 3: Urban Splash, 2010. New Islington. [Online] http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/projects/new-islington Accessed� 22nd Novermber 2010
APARTMENT LIVING
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNTIES
COMMUNITY DEFINED
The majority designation of apartment living within the strategic framework does not lend itself to building diverse sustainable communities, instead creating transient communities 4. The abundance of 1 and 2-bed apartments coupled with a family preference for houses results in adults moving elsewhere when they want to start a family.
It is the community-led social housing developments that are the most successful in providing housing typologies that will nurture a balanced and more stable community with residents that are more likely to have a long standing relationship with the area. Whereas the private apartment block models are based on increased profitability and skewed assumptions of the mass market demand; they ignore the realities of the strong preference of families to establish the foundations of a family in a traditional house with a garden and a garage. Here in lies the contradictory nature at the heart of the strategic framework that was the initial attraction and challenge to FAT architects.
The name: Urban Splash proposed ‘Shooter’s Brook’ as the new name for the area, but the associations with heroin and guns turned the residents to vote for ‘ New Islington’- a previous street name from the Cardroom estate. Diversity of typologies: The Initial masterplan comprised largely of apartment blocks, as a method of achieving higher more profitable densities and an assumption of the widespread taste culture towards contemporary living patterns. However, having promised the existing residents the choice of their new home there was a unanimous tide towards living in ‘traditional’ houses rather than flats that they associated with the failed 60’s tower blocks. This demand for an alternative low-rise typology led to a re-configuring of the masterplan and a shuffling of densities towards the apartment blocks. The introduction of lower-rise typologies contrasts with the predominant apartment block model and a more interesting urban fabric. Unstitching the seamless tenure of the masterplan: The residents resisted the idealistic ‘pepper-potting’ of social housing around scheme but instead organised themselves into 3 distinct groups so as to safeguard/ensure the passage of the existing community. This lead to the three social housing zones within the ‘strategic framework’ plan and the unstitching of Urban Splash’s aspirations of a ‘seamless tenure’ development.
“And we are grounded by the desire to deliver, because without delivery we will fail” Urban Splash (2003)
4.
Dixon, T. 2010 Cities in Recession : Urban Regeneration in Manchester (England) and Osaka (Japan) and the Case of ‘Hardcore’ Brownfield Sites. Oxford Brookes
33.
ISLINGTON SQUARE THE PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Community participation was high on the agenda from both a masterplan wide perspective and on a smaller scale with the Islington Square development. While the strategic framework is incomplete it is possible to evaluate the successes of Islington Square in terms of community-led regeneration.
The process of community participation actually help galvanise fragmented groups against a common threat, their concerns regarding change and the disruption to their lives.. The group workshops on plans, facades, gardens run by FAT with the local residents involved the residents in defining their new homes. This helped to allay fears of change and instead instilled a sense of ownership and pride Community Participation can be both a time consuming and costly process.
DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS
The residents were able to coordinate with whom they lived in close proximity to thus strengthening existing community ties. The process of re-housing through the ‘one move’ or ‘two move’ strategy has inadvertently led to an imbalanced demographic distribution throughout New Islington and the creation of demographically distinct pockets. New Islington was the ‘one move’ option and was popular amongst the elderly population who saw it as less disruptive. While the families preferred the ‘two-move’ option so as to distance themselves from the construction site. As typical with all housing developments, a mix of demographics is ideally beneficial to a healthy and diverse community.
GATED COMMUNITY
The requirements of the residents may have proved to be a barrier to innovation at times. Their collective preoccupation with security formed the key design drivers of protected parking, secure back gardens, easily surveyed ginnel that shaped the overall layout of the scheme. As such it is a form of micro gated-community, whose decorative walls are impenetrable and offer defence to the external threats of the area. At this scale Charles Holland argues that is not necessarily a bad thing and after all- it is what the residents want and a direct response to the surrounding environment and the concerns of the residents. The current construction site status of the surroundings makes the introversion even more appropriate.
The community participation became a process of gaining the trust of the residents and winning them over. Through a series of workshops and field trips, the architects were then able to alter the fixed perceptions that some held about contemporary architecture by showing them that their needs are still catered for even though the house may look a little different.
CHANGING ATTITUDES
While the residents were introduced to new attitudes to what constitutes a home, architectdeveloper team gained a valuable insight into residents’ common concerns and desires. They also learnt how best to gain the trust of the community and bring them on board with the process. The dialogue proved to be a reconciliation of different perspectives on living.
MUTUAL LEARNING
The architectural end product reflects the unique ‘taste culture’ of the residents, authored by the architects. It contrasts starkly with the pervasive developer ’taste culture’ of the apartment blocks where the preferences of the future residents are second-guessed. In Islington Square the motifs on the facade celebrate a unique set of interests and provides a striking local identity for the residing community. The layout of the dwellings themselves are organised from the distinct criteria outlined by the residents, and in turn successfully facilitate their daily living patterns.
ARCHITECTURE
While the residents were introduced to new attitudes of what constitutes a home, the architectdeveloper team gained a valuable insight into residents’ common concerns and desires. They also learnt how best to gain the trust of the community and bring them on board with the process. The dialogue proved to be a reconciliation of different perspectives on living.
EXEMPLAR PROCESS
The Urban Splash PR machine has generated much publicity for Islington Square and thus raised awareness of new, exciting ways of designing social housing. The scheme is a testament to the transformative powers of good architecture.
34.
06. APPENDIX.
IMAGES IMAGE !: PHASING DIAGRAM Urban Spash 2003, New Islington: Manchester Millennium Community. Urban Spash
INTERVIEWS New Islington Richard Hattan 15th Novermber 2010 Urban Splash Head Quarters, Manchester OB- First of all we would like to ask how Urban Splash became involved in the New Islington regeneration project and subsequently how the project team was assembled? RH- Ok, well going right back to the very beginning, the New Islington site used to be a council estate which was failing. So the city council had an ambition to regenerate that area. There was also a derelict hospital to one side of it, which Urban Splash owned at the time. The whole of that side of town was understood as a future regeneration area really. So the city council made it known that it was their ambition to regenerate the council estate, English Partnerships as they were known then had just launched their millennium communities initiative where they were looking for a handful of sites to showcase innovation in the future of housing, and so the city council linked up with EP and said ‘we think this area would suit your requirements for that initiative.’ They agreed so EP and the city council then formed a partnership to regenerate the Cardroom estate as it was then. And then they went out to competition to find a developer to do that. As we [Urban Splash] had the land at one side we thought, well actually if we can win that as well it gives ours a bit more critical mass so we went in for the competition and were selected, and as a result of that we then said why don’t we make New Islington bigger than the initial estate, so we included the land on the side. So New Islington grew as a result of our selection. So we were appointed as lead developer, not on a particular scheme, our selection was just based on our experience and our attitude towards what we thought we would do in the area. So we were appointed lead developer and given a blank sheet of paper, and then we started working with the city council and EP. First of all we went out to select seven different disciplines of consultant to help us pull the framework together, that was the team that included Alsops as well as a few others. The after that team was in place we then started to consult with the ‘Right to Return’ people who were living on the original estate. So everyone who was still on the original estate when the project started was given a legal right to return into whatever emerged as the area was regenerated. So right from the very beginning those people knew that they weren’t being turfed out when we were gone but they had a long standing relationship with the place and they would continue to be living in that place as we moved forward.
OB- So did that dictate the number of social housing units that be would have to provided? RH- Well, the whole idea on New Islington is that it’s a mixed tenure/blind tenure scheme with a whole mix of different affordability’s. The only contractual requirement, that has to be achieved is that everyone who was previously living on the estate on a social tenancy should have the ability to come back into the new development on a social tenancy. The only difference being that they used to be tenants of the city council but when they come back they’re tenants of an RSL (Registered Social Landlord) who they had selected. So the residents on the estate interviewed different RSL’s and selected what is now Great Places Housing group, who were Manchester Methodists at the time. After that it’s a case of every…the whole framework breaks down into about 25 plots as each plot comes forward it goes through just the normal detailed planning process and at that time its then decided by the partnership who decide what’s best for Manchester at that particular time.
OB- Does the section 106 apply to each new private development? RH- No, Manchester tends not to use section 106, its does things in a different way really.
OB- In terms of the logic between the organisation of the private development and the social housing around the masterplan, RH- That’s quite an interesting story. The ambition for blind tenure we had a group of right to return residents who we worked on the framework with and we threw it out there and said it would be really good if you could let us know roughly where you want to live within the scheme, expecting to get a complete scatter of preferred locations within it. Its obvious when you look back as we didn’t get that at all, what we got instead were three micro communities because these people had lived together for a long time, some of them had really strong, um what you have got to remember is that the estate was kind of under siege from antisocial behaviour so the people that were left there had built up really quite strong support networks across each other. For example there was an old lady that had a carer a couple of streets away and that sort of relationship and what came back when they were given the option of living where they wanted to live within the scheme, instead of a complete scattergun was actually formalisation of these support networks and families suddenly grouped together and friends grouped together and they saw it as real positive actually, instead of living three streets apart they could all live next door to each other.
OB- So you think they actually co-ordinated that in their responses to you? RH- Oh they did, and so that then broke down er, we also said wherever we can we will facilitate it so that you can have either a one move strategy or a two move strategy. So how it tended to break down was the younger families with kids said that actually we’ll take up the option of the two move strategy, we’ll move off the area completely into another council tenancy property and we’ll come back when its all finished. So we will get the kids away from all the noise and dust and the more elderly people said well actually I can only really face one move so I’ll stay in my existing house until the new ones ready. So the three groups then tended to split again really into those two, so the first two phases, Islington Square by FAT and Guest street were the one move strategy people and then the final phase with its working title ‘the Guts’, for reasons I’ll tell you about in a minute, designed by may which is just about to start on site. That caters for all of the remaining two move strategy move people that moved out and want to move back. Its called ‘the Guts’ because that’s the group of people who, when we were looking at the framework and where different people wanted to live, the one move people, for them to get into their house as soon as possible had to go on a site that was already cleared and when the project started it had a housing estate in the middle of it and you could pick away at various bits but the people living in the houses had to be sensitively re-housed one by one. So at various stages a plot became available and we said we could build the first phase on that and you could all get housed, so the one movers worked into the sites which became available first which tended to be on the periphery. The two movers tended to say we’ll wait because we want to live right in ‘the guts’. That was a consultation phrase that came out, we want to live in the guts of New Islington so its now become known as ‘the Guts’..
OB- Where exactly is that on site? RH- From when you went down to site this morning, if you walk down the main street with the lamp posts, as you are walking out of the city centre there was a terrace of houses on the left hand side which is the other bit of the estate which remained and ‘the Guts’ are the two roads in front of that next to the canal so its just off the main street.
OB- Is there commercial/shops etc provisions within that scheme? RH- Right yeah, there is, within the framework, there are some commercial spaces. Not intended to be big office-y type spaces but the more community shops and things. And again there is a very deliberate place that they are going to be put in that the main ones are going to be down both sides of old mill street and along the curvey canal edge.
OB- Yeah I think we saw the actual thing being dug up there today, is that right? Next to the tower block. In-between the hostel and the canal there’s that stretch of green that’s running along side the canal with a road running through it. RH- Oh yeah, that’s actually for the promenade that’s about to be put in. Part of the big public realm that sweeps along that edge. But at the back of that promenade there will be commercial uses and they were deliberately put along those North South East West movement routes to get the benefit of some passing trade and footfall really. Because the old estate was on a real classic radman layout, with a little core of shops, about three shops core in the middle all the houses around it. Its not evident now but New Islington used to be a hole in the ground so as you walked up and down the road you just used to look out over roof tops, so no one used to go down into the estate which is why eventually it became overrun by antisocial behaviour because people were going down there knowing that no one was going to find them. But what that meant for the shops of course was that this architectural vision on this lovely estate with trees and a nice little parade of shops in the middle, they were completely dependant on the two hundred people that lived around it and it didn’t work so the first thing to happen as the estate failed was the shops shut and then dealers found out that there was this fantastic location just outside the city centre with a parade of shops that are all shut and no one bothers you because its in a hole in the ground and it started rotting from the core outwards really so the residents were really clear and supportive of us saying that we want to put commercial spaces on the main routes where people are passing through and they were really up for that.
OB- How is the overall regeneration program financed? You mentioned it was split up into plots such as the chips building and the FAT building. RH- Right, the way that its financed is a true public private partnership. So within the partners, the city council own most of the land because it used to be a council estate. English partnerships or the HCA as they are now, had a financial fund that they were prepared to commit to the project for public realm and that sort of stuff really, and cleaning contamination. Then all the buildings were to come through on a private initiative. All three of those partners get a return from the profits that come through so the city puts the land in, EP puts the canal and most of the public realm in, we build the stuff, when it sells and the profits come in then those profits get shared between the three partners in accordance with the investment level.
OB- So does that mean that the city council are coming at the project with a social regeneration slant because of the community as it was, and how has that affected the way that you have mixed the range of social backgrounds? RH- If you step back from all that right now, that whole side of Manchester for many years actually, probably since the second world war, has been a sea of social housing and so the really high level ambition is to without loosing that is to get a mix of all sorts of other stuff in there as well. So New Islington kind of does that on a micro scale so it also feeds into the other new east Manchester stuff that s going on in the area. It doesn’t have to solve it all in one go but as far as we see it we’re certainly not going to attempt to do any social engineering or anything like that, we’re builders and that’s how it works but the way that we try to work is to offer a range of sizes and affordability’s and housing typologies and if you get the choices there it follows on that you get the range of different, you know the demographic mix as well.
OB- We you consulted throughout the process by the city council and the EP about the numbers of each type of housing requirement?
RH- Not massively no, not the regeneration team, but obviously when it goes through planning it feeds into the wider planning strategies and that’s where it comes out really. Its obviously been an ambition in the development world and planning world for a long time and everything else to get a percentage of affordable housing/social housing nestled within any development that comes forward and what does sometimes happen is that sometimes gets lumped into one corner of a development, you know you’ve achieved the planning requirement, you’ve done what you needed to do and then you get the rest of the buildings. We really didn’t want that to happen in New Islington.
OB- It loses its desirability as well doesn’t it. The desirability of the rest of the development might lose its desirability, people might not want to move there. RH- Well possibly, but you only start to get into all that kind of thing when you put up invisible walls between different things really, if you just mix it all up it tends to work much better. It might seem scary at first but actually over time if you look at mature populations in the UK like central London, you can walk through central London and there’s really high value apartments next door to council blocks next door to shops and it mixes together really quite well compared with some areas where they’ve built a sea of social housing and then they’ve built a yuppie development at the side of it. So what we wanted to do was not get into an area where the second floor was social housing and everything else was high end private stuff and we wanted to mix it up a bit more.
OB- Like plot by plot? RH- No within buildings actually, and we’ve achieved that in Chips, the big apartment block is 142 apartments and within that over one third is affordable housing and its completely pepper potted within it, the whole building was designed, its all got exactly the same spec and then the relevant parties picked which units they wanted within it. So as you walk through the building you cant tell one tenure from the next.
OB- In terms of community participation, what sorts of methods did you use when you went into the community? RH- A few different types really, within the original team of seven disciplines one of the disciplines was a community consultant, but we as a developer quite like to be quite hands on anyway so we got very actively involved in getting to know the people there. We’re quite fortunate that it was quite a small estate to start with so we were able wherever possible to pretty much have a conversation with everyone on the estate. One of the directors and the architects literally went door knocking and spent a few days knocking on everyone’s door and going in. We also had the communal events in an old derelict pub in the middle, we invited people there, but you get different results from different methods and so it’s quite important to have a bit of a spread. On the pub sessions we got some things sorted out but it tended to be driven by the people that were not nervous about speaking in large groups like that, but when you go round peoples houses and speak to them one to one you quite often get a completely different story and so you’ve got to kind of pull all those bits together which is what we tried to do.
OB- So the social housing by FAT for example, how did you choose to use that practice? Was that part of the community participation work? RH- Yeah it was, well we had that initial consultation that was to get the framework sorted then that was published first and then it went into planning to get outline planning permission. Then once that was in place as a framework and the first plot started to be drawn down the FAT houses/Islington Square, were the very first phase of social re-housing and what we did there, we were in quite a fortunate position really because we knew the people that wanted to live on that plot, so we decided to make the most of that really so we went out through RIBA to select an architect, not to select a scheme, again the same way that we’d [urban splash] been selected as a developer rather than as a scheme, we went out to select an architect rather than a scheme. That attracted about 35-40 applications, the professional team then looked through all those and selected six of whom we [urban splash] would have been happy to work with and then we engaged with the community that were going to be living on that site and said these are the six we will work with any of them- lets have an interview day. We had a few meetings before hand and explained how the interviews might work, don’t be frightened about asking any questions that kind of thing. Then we had an interview day where all six came one after the other. We [urban splash] were present at the interviews as were the residents, we both asked questions, we [urban splash] asked professional questions they asked more resident type questions and then at the end of the day the professional team left the room and left the residents to pick who they wanted, and they chose FAT.
OB- Why do you think that was? RH- Why? Because on that particular day, we deliberately played it quite safe really and had a full range of architects from big well established ones to FAT as a kind of wildcard option and everything inbetween, knowing that somewhere in there would be something that they liked and we would be able to make progress. What happened on the day was that in the normal way most of the architects turned up with a PowerPoint presentation and that kind of thing and FAT as a deliberate policy turned up with absolutely nothing and sat down and said that we’ve just come for a chat, we’ve come to find out what your all about, we’d rather ask you what you want and we’ll try and work with that, all those human side type discussions and at the end of the interview they’d become friends basically. The residents felt like they could trust these guys and they were going to listen to them and they were going to do what they wanted. And that’s how it worked out and it did work out that way as well actually and FAT really threw themselves at it and worked really well with the residents and the residents loved the whole process and so we’ve repeated that process for the following phases.
OB- Would you say that’s one of the lessons that you’ve learnt from this development? And would you say that it was a lot easier in this situation because as you said you had most of the residents already there and you knew the areas that they wanted to live in? RH- Easier than what?
OB- New build scheme without knowing the people who are going to live in it.
RH- Well, it depends how you look at it doesn’t it because I mean you could argue that if you’ve already got the residents that are there then its more difficult because you’ve got to produce something that’s attractive to them whereas if the people moving in, the developer can build what he feels is right and people make the choice whether they move into it or not. So there are pros and cons to both to be honest.
OB- We spoke to some residents on the site and they actually said today that Islington Square was the one that they felt was most successful of the realised masterplan so far. Our particular research is focusing on that FAT scheme and how that process has been a success in terms of social regeneration and it is because of that process. RH- The one thing that I think is really interesting about the whole process is that in the normal way that happens every time you do any sort of consultation, because people have a real fear of change and you know they’re quite happily living in an area and then a great load of people come in and start talking saying its all going to change beyond recognition. The human nature is a fear of change and you get time and time again you get people saying we want to live in traditional houses and it’s the same with those people they want to live in traditional houses and I think its kind of automatic that you think traditional houses kind of like what they were living in before, two stories pitched roof, they’ll be looking for something similar. One thing that FAT did really well I think was to extract information over a period from that set of individuals and what they meant by traditional houses and what they wanted to keep. It really boiled down to, they wanted to be able to park their car off the road, they wanted to be able to sit and watch television at night and be able to see their car through the window if needs be and that was a throwback to the crime that they’d experienced over the recent years they wanted the kitchen to be at the rear of the properties because their old houses had them at the front and for years they’d washed up with people walking straight past their window and they wanted a private back garden none of this communal nonsense, they wanted a private back garden and once those four parameters we, you know FAT said to them its not a problem we can work those into the scheme, then well you can see from the result that people we far more open minded and really quite supportive of modern design and innovation and everything else. And I think that’s really quite a strong lesson as well really that people do quite like new and exciting and innovative things and theres a bit of a almost like a national belief that everyone wants to continue living in the same sorts of houses and you know those people weren’t pulled together as architectural critics they were just people living together on an estate and they really supported innovation.
New Islington Charles Holland 22nd Novermber 2010 FAT Architects Head Office, London How did you become chosen by the residents, and what was your approach? The background is that the RIBA organised a competition, not a design competition but a competitive interview process. We had to submit an expression of interest; it was a totally open competition. We wrote an express of interest which all about what we saw as an interesting paradox or a contradiction at the heart of the competition. This was that splash has this masterplan for predominantly apartment living- quite a dense model… you’ve obviously seen the Alsop’s master plan, chips etc. They had a commitment to re-house the existing tenants of the estate which was already there, which was called the Cardroom and when they consulted the residence, the residence had politely declined, to live in the apartment living model. 9 out 10 residence expressed a preference for houses with what they described as traditional houses, with private front and back gardens, pitched roof, that very ‘trad’ model. So they didn’t wan to live in the apartments that Splash had ear-marked for them. Urban Splash’s idea was that it would be mixed tenure which means that you wouldn’t really be tell the difference between whose living where and who, whether they were socially renting or private owners. But the residence didn’t really want to live in the predominant model. So Urban Splash had organised this competition which was to design with the first group of residence houses for them within the masterplan but which were clearly different from the majority of the masterplan. We wrote an expression of interest about that because we thought that we stood a good chance, or a better chance of getting to the interview stage because we had a very particular attitude to that. This was that we were interested in the contradictions of it all rather than trying to smooth them away. We thought that this was a really interesting difference between a popular taste in housing and a more sophisticated “developer taste”.
How did the residence react to that when you were trying to fid out their views on a traditional home? We did get short listed and then we were presented to the residents and the whole steering group, which was the residents, Splash, the housing association (Great Places/Manchester Methodist Housing). Our client wasn’t Urban Splash, it was Great Places Housing Group, and one of these regional agencies which has recently been disbanded. So all these people were at the interview and we pitched to them. The residents supposedly had the casting vote, we had a fortunate accident on the way to the interview when our laptop broke so we couldn’t show many pictures of what we designedthat was enormously helpful!
We had heard from Urban Splash, that was kind of a deliberate move that you turned up with no power point? We ended up totally by accident having to talk a lot and not really show much work, which I think had two advantages: 1) probably, in a self-deprecating way, they couldn’t see anything which they didn’t like; 2) more productively it also meant that they weren’t bamboozled by a kind of slide show or power point of like ‘this is what we do, we’re amazing‘. And so it was more by luck than design in some senses. But we had done an awful amount of homework on the brief, the issue and we a lot to say. But I think a combination of things, that it was mostly verbal, more of a conversation around the table, that I think in the end the residents, in all truth, probably chose us cause we would be nice people to work with and they could see themselves working with us, where perhaps other groups were not as concerned by the fact that they were going to get an example of what we would normally do.
So did you carry the conversation into the community participation, once you won the interview? Yes, the whole thing was a very intensive and quite unusual set up really, because after we were selected there was a process where the client Great Places was putting together a list of who the residence would be. It was something like 75 families with the right-to-return and our houses were going to be something like 20-30 of them. So we were doing some little studies to see how many you could get on the site which would determine the number of residence that they could house in this phase. Meanwhile they were kind of canvassing the residence to see who wanted to be in it, because were quite a lot of them were saying they were not sure what we’re going to get, and so we got the more upfront and vocal members of the community who went ‘yeah, we’ll go there.’
So it wasn’t demographic specific then? It was a bit- it was a complicated mixture and we weren’t really in charge of that. There was a complex order of who the people were and what their sort of needs were. So some people for instance took the two single story bungalows on the site because of a specific need. So there was a mixture of who wanted to be in the first phase. Great Places obviously had a vetting system, like all housing associations they make sure that their tenants are going to be able to pay the rent, that they’re not going to smash the place up and there was a certain kind of social dynamics at work of who might want to live next to who and stuff. So they had a vetting process which was totally opaque to us, which was their the business as they are the client. Then there were the kind of numbers you could accommodate. So that went on for a little while, and then we kind of had our hardcore group. At which point we went to visit each one of the houses which were still standing- some of them had moved from the Cardroom but they still had this right-to-return so they were off the estate in another estate somewhere. So we went round each individual house/family and we took a photographer who was kind of known to them who had been documenting the area generally. So we took Len Grant and we had an idea that because there had been a lot of consultation up to that point, and that some of the consultation had been quite perhaps ‘woolly’ in the sense that Will Alsop had done one where you bring an object that you love and they would all be like: ‘you what?’ Because it’s a sort of thing you would do in your first year architecture course- its quite weird to ask. It was probably very well-meaning but there was quite a lot of that. Its not so much to criticise that, it was more that we were coming in at a point that where there might be a bit of consultation fatigue setting in; they have been asked a lot things about what they wanted, so our idea was to be really direct and straight about the consultation not make it anyway feathery. So we said that we had 23 clients and we would go and visit and talk to each one about the house that they’ve got what they like about it, what they didn’t like about it, what they need and what they want in their new house in a very straight
way without any embellishments. That was our first thing. But we took the photographs which were quite key because we annotated the photographs with lots of observations by us about their existing house: about what seemed to work about them and what didn’t seem to work about them, changes they had made to them, things that they have done outside and inside. Some had amazing beautifully kept gardens, some just had concrete with a car parked there, some had lots of decoration on the outside, some of them didn’t. We used the photographs to make a brief, like a list of things which were desirable and not desirable and then we had a series of group work shops with them.
Am I right in thinking that you went to Amsterdam with them? You’re right- we did. We went to Holland that was a hilarious trip. I made this little itinerary so I thought we’d go to Borneo Sporenburg, a place called ‘Etamberg’ (sic) an old air field outside the Hague which had some MVRDV housing and we also wanted to see some of that earlier modernist housing: Michael de Klerk, ‘News Aclocite’ (sic) era housing from the 20’s and 30’s, particularly because that stuff seemed to combine an amount of futurism with very traditional things and a use of brick and stuff. There was a weird hybrid quality to it- there was this bit in the scheme where this church tower sticks out from this group of housing where they are all made of brick. It’s just really weird- if you squinted it would look a bit like a nice village, but actually it’s all just made out of the one material. It’s amazingly surreal (from the late twenties). So we went to see some of those as well because I thought ’well, here’s a history of Dutch housing from the twentieth century that’s really interesting. Their attempts to make social housing which was about loads of things that we thought might be relevant here. So I had this itinerary and Shaun from here, and I went the night before and then we met them at the airport and they had all been up since 4am. They had got this flight from Liverpool, and 98% of them smoked heavily and by the time they got of the plane they were in this foul mood and wouldn’t get on the coach until they had about 5 fags! And then we got on this coach and had to stop every 20mins to have another fag break, so we ended up only seeing only a 1/3 of what we had on my list! And I was being really anal saying ‘we must see all of the things on the list!’ But we did see Borneo Sporenburg which they really liked; it’s basically the forerunner of ‘Tutti Frutti’. Splash stole the model of it. It was an interesting day because they really did have some incredibly fixed ideas on what housing should be. And in a sense some of the things that came out of that trip didn’t really go into the project because it was quite far through the design process when we went but it did allow people to be quite be open. Even some of the little things like they were adamant that they didn’t want any houses over 3 storeys high, which was one of the things we looked at looked at- some kind of town house which was over 3 stories, but they were like ‘nah, don’t want to go up and down stairs all the time‘, which was weird because if you lived in London, the majority of the houses are 3 stories high and there was something nice about that; you could have the living room on the first floor etc. And when we went to Sporenburg, it was quite a revelation that you could make quite civilised modern houses which weren’t totally traditional at the same time. And we did a series of work shops and they were a particular theme, one on plans- we looked at lots of plans, one on facades, one on gardens.
These were done in the pub? No, they were done in a variety of places, mostly in one of the mills which was owned by splash next door and occupied by these people ‘New East Manchester’ who were the regeneration agency. So each workshop had a thematically thing, so they weren’t ever looking at the whole thing, breaking it up into chunks. And then they had an exhibition of all that stuff and then we did a first design where we had another show and tell of that. And then it went into more conventional architects development phase.
There seemed to be a big desire to be able to see their car, to have their living room looking out at it, a preoccupation with security really. Do you think that this specific to this estate and their concerns, or is this a common theme amongst social housing projects? No, they were incredibly obsessed by security issues. Because the Cardroom Estate was quite central- only ten minutes walk from Piccadilly Station, it had particular kind of attractions to the criminal fraternity. It was the first place you could reach for drug-dealing, and there was a certain amount of prostitution on the street, and there was canals and stuff where there were various un-overlooked areas where a lot of that stuff could happen on the edge of the very surveyed, nice, cleaned up bit of the city. There were a lot of crime issues- you get a lot of burnt out cars, people setting fire to empty houses and things like that. So there was a lot of that going on so they had very understandable issues with security. I mean they were incredibly concerned with that. The Cardroom Estate, because of the way it had been designed was a series of cul-de-sacs and that’s kind of something that people tried to avoid generally these days in housing design because it creates a lot of un-overlooked space. One of the big things that everybody’s obsessed by in housing design is a natural surveillance whereby if you look out of your window you can see the public space- it’s not behind you or round the back. And so that informed the way the houses do that (sketches plans); effectively that there’s no way in. While their old estate was more permeable. But if the gardens are there (gestures), you can garden hop very easily. No-ones really looking out at night and stuff like that so the whole kind of idea of a protected central garden space grew out of that for instance. And then as you say, trying to make these parking spaces within the realm of the house, and we had to make a parking space within the realm of the house because it was a planning stipulation. But, yes that was a big issue for them really.
Essentially it’s a form of gated community; do you think there is risk that all the other plots could follow suit? Our initial proposal was to make a communal garden in the middle, but the residents were dead set against that -they thought it was the worst idea they had ever heard. They were like: ‘I don’t want to sit next to him in his deck chair with his belly out!’ They were all quite rude about each other and quite openly! Yes, it is a form of gated community, but there are a number of things about it… Number 1, we tried to make the houses have a very strong relationship to the street and they address the street by making a formal frontage. But the gardens to the rear are gated and protected, and that is a response directly to that kind of situation. Our slightly more utopian idea was that you could make a public garden in the middle and it could be like one of those London squares where it can be communal and really big. But it was something that they absolutely didn’t want, and that was a battle that we lost. But I think what they ended up with, which is a weird amalgam of a traditional back-to-back with a ‘ginnell’, a northern name for connecting alleyways, works really well whenever I have been back there. People wander up and down them chatting- it works like one of those old back-to-back’s in a funny sort of way… and you can go out your back garden, you can chat and you can walk the length of everyone-else’s back garden and therefore you have this sense of commonality. So I don’t really feel too troubled by that aspect of it. I know that it is an aspect of new urbanism which is problematic, but it is actually an aspect of old urbanism too, in the sense that most Victorian, Edwardian, Georgian terraces work in the same way that they have a public frontage and a private rear garden that then
sometimes open up to make a public space. I think the thing is that if we had had a much bigger remit and we were doing more blocks I think there would have been a chance to address the public realm in a much more positive way. All we really had in the end was two facades. Also because the masterplan had quite a large amount of public realm in it, it didn’t seem perhaps such a big a loss to not have any more in our little bit of it. The houses look down a whole series of canal arms and linear parks etc. Well, I guess that where they have got their car, if they don’t want a car there then they can always have it as a courtyard… That was the idea- that they could make that a front garden. That wall was a very specific device really. For us it serves a number of purpose; for one it mediated between the scale of the houses and the scale of the houses that weren’t there. It was meant to be a kind of ‘mid-scale’ that you got this 3, sometimes 4 storey façade in front of this 2, sometimes 3 storey houses. And then you would get this 6 maybe 7 storey apartments; there was this purpose to the façade in that way. And it was obviously this rhetorical device to express certain aspects of taste in terms of what the houses might look like.
Is that a reflection of the resident’s taste of FAT’s taste? I think it’s a bit of both actually. We are like the author’s of it for sure and we wouldn’t deny that. I think it was a genuine attempt… and the one thing that was quite weird about it was that a lot of the motifs developed in that project were actually developed ‘in that project’. I.e. they didn’t exist before that but we have perhaps used them since. They’ve struck us as good ideas to use again- big scale patterning with a mix of close-up decorative things are devices that to some extent are devices that we developed during that project. So the idea that they are our taste is perhaps slightly retrospective too. We had never done anything that looked like that when we designed that. I think a lot of it came out of the experience of doing it and clearly we were authoring it and clearly we were choosing which bits to pick up on and what to do with them. It’s not designed by them, it’s not designed by the residents- it’s designed by us in consultation with them. And it used lots of ideas from looking at their houses and talking about DIY and talking about taste cultures which are outside of architectural taste cultures, and by going ’how can we make that?’ And that becomes the subject of the work. And I think that there is nothing to apologise about that for on our side, because when we met Urban Splash and they took us to see their apartments in Timber Wharf and such, and when you walk in these apartments you get almost knocked back physically by the pervasive taste culture of those places: the bare-faced concrete, the vast atriums, the abstract art that hangs in there, the stainless steel kitchens… There is an incredibly powerful taste culture that hits you and yet if you do something other than that and everyone says you are like somehow imposing your taste on the world. I find that really weird. Here’s a bit of architecture that doesn’t look like anything else that Urban Splash have ever been associate with, and I think that this is a good thing. It celebrates a set of interests and taste-culture which aren’t normally recognised by architects, and of course it involves our tastes as well, and of course it involves out compositional sense and an enjoyment of working with that stuff- yeah it annoys lots of people. But I think that is legitimate; the world doesn’t have to look like Glen Howells.