On Wed 4 March 2015 Peg Rawes gave a postgraduate seminar to students from the Bartlett School of Architecture, the RCA, the Slade and UCL Art History on Spinoza’s Ecology and Geometry as part of her MA Architectural History Eco-aesthetics module 2015.
Ten months after the first seminar on housing for the project, at a time when the national crisis in inequality and housing provision has deepened even further, and the day before a march on housing took place in London, this event brought together colleagues from the Bartlett School of Architecture and Faculty of the Built Environment UCL, the University of Liverpool and ETH Zurich, to consider how wellbeing and design interrelate in: contemporary design teaching contexts; architectural and urban histories of post-war housing, and housing commissions undertaken by small practices.
Across the presentations, the design of flexible or adaptable housing was the most recurrent view about the contribution that design can make to improving housing standards, housing stock provision and quality, and in light of the historical contexts that form today’s situation. However, there were different opinions of how current practices, and historical evidence defines these aims, and how they be implemented to improve current and future housing needs in UK society:
Peter Bishop underscored how the (currently absent) political will to improve the quality and provision of housing has been highly successful when it supports high quality housing design guides and standards (e.g. historically, the Parker-Morris space standards and, more recently, the impact of the Design for London Housing Guide for the Government’s housing consultation). Secondly, this political will has resulted in very successful housing when carried by local authority housing, architect, planning and design teams (e.g. the 1960-80s, London council boroughs, the GLA, Camden Council or Greenwich). Current guidance also emphasises high standards in the ‘performance’ of housing as part of a commitment to environmental wellbeing: by linking wellbeing with environmental design defined by carbon-reduction criteria, cities and their housing can be more strongly established and ensured. Simon Pepper’s ‘three ages of post-war housing’ reinforced the historical evidence of previous political commitment to quality in housing design, highlighting how 1950s-60s progressive Conservative and Labour Governments committed to housing as a political priority, which disappeared in the 1980s, and now wholly absent from the global economic asset-driven context of today’s housing market (e.g. where international property investors purchase flats, especially in London, that will remain unoccupied; or the resale of ‘right to buy’ flats which previously housed a family to be occupied by single young professionals). Stephen Gage also highlighted how the mid-Victorian terrace still provides an extremely resilient housing model for affordable adaptive design principles through which mixed social, economic and environmental standards achieved across different client groups and demographic needs.
For Jan Kattein, Patrick Weber and Sabine Storp, the wellbeing of the client/home-owner or tenant can be improved in collaborative and adaptive approaches to the local public space, and design ownership of a ‘home’. For these architects, design which isn’t determined by the larger professional scaled interest of building standards (and which Jan Kattein felt can stymie the capabilities of the smaller architect to work with their clients, or the ability of progressive developers and Housing Associations to best maximise their provision). Their presentations emphasised the importance of responsive and reflexive design approaches in which the architect collaborates with the household/home provider (Kattein) or recognises non-standard (e.g. non-European) models of adaptation (Storp Weber) so that housing design performance extends the importance of wellbeing from internal space/density ratio to enliven/reclaim external spaces of the neighbourhood as parts of the ‘home’. Patrick and Sabine also showed how a principle of low-cost adaptation has now revived the social housing failure of Le Corbusier’s Unite d’Habitation housing project in Le Briey, northern France.
These nuances of scale of design highlighted how, whilst there may well be a tendency to identify two opposing approaches – that is, the ‘generic’ regulatory approach versus the ‘specific’ singular design approach – also visible are flexible/open-ended design approaches by architects and their respective professional and client communities which do not solely promote one approach at the exclusion of the other. Nici Zimmerman’s graphic modelling of the social, economic, political, environmental and cultural forces that drive the contemporary housing and wellbeing landscape, provided an interesting analytical assessment of how these relations are multi-faceted and complex both on the micro and macro scales. Her ‘long-view’ approach to ‘integrated decision-making’ for improving effective environmental design of housing and the health of UK cities and their inhabitants helped to capture, clarify and visualise the complex formation of wellbeing in built environment discussions.
Finally, in his closing remarks to the day, Adrian Forty observed that the conversations could be defined in three ways: first, that while today’s current political outlook is clearly poor for housing, the presentations show us that architects working with housing are mindful of these situations, but also choose to work beyond them; that is, architects have always, and still do, respond to their political and social contexts by exploring how design can change the built and social realities of their clients and society. Second, there was concern about whether regulated design standards are beneficial, and third, architects are, perhaps one of the few, or only groups able to make sure that wellbeing is an ethical standard in housing
Podcasts of the day to follow.
Housing and Wellbeing Seminar (Part 2)
Friday 30 January 2015
Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL
140 Hampstead Road, London NW1
— fully booked —
Panel 1: Design and Planning (Chair: David Roberts, BSA)
Peter Bishop (BSA and Allies & Morrison): ‘Housing, Planning and Political Agendas’
Jan Kattein (BSA and Jan Kattein Architects): ‘Housing – the People’
Panel 2: Social housing histories and current practices (Chair: Torsten Lange, ETH)
Simon Pepper (University of Liverpool): ‘Three Ages of Post-War Housing’
Sabine Storp and Patrick Weber (BSA and Storp Weber Architecture): ‘The St. Pancras Way (Design) Encyclopaedia’
Panel 3: Environmental health and demographic impacts on housing design (Chair: Peg Rawes)
Nici Zimmerman (Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL): ‘Integrated decision-making about Housing, Energy and Wellbeing (HEW)
Stephen Gage (BSA): ‘A (largely anecdotal) plea for long-term adaptability in housing to allow for varying household sizes and social expectations’
Closing discussion with speakers, Adrian Forty (BSA) and audience (Chair: Peg Rawes)
This event is part 2 of a seminar on current housing concerns for the AHRC Equalities of Wellbeing research project. For podcasts of the earlier event visit the project website: http://www.equalitiesofwellbeing.co.uk/publications-from-equalities-of-wellbeing-housing-workshop/
Housing and Wellbeing Seminar (Part 2) 10-5, Friday 30 January Bartlett School of Architecture UCL 140 Hampstead Road
Panel discussions from UCL staff & other colleagues on: approaches to social housing design and its histories current planning guidance and practices new housing association commissions physical and environmental health relations retrofit and the ‘Green Deal’
Speakers include: Peter Bishop (Bartlett UCL/Allies & Morrison) Jan Kattein (Bartlett UCL & Jan Kattein Architects) Sofie Pelsmakers (The Energy Institute, UCL) Simon Pepper (University of Liverpool) Jane Rendell (Bartlett UCL) Patrick Weber and Sabine Storp (Bartlett UCL/ Storp Weber Architecture) Nici Zimmerman (Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL)
Booking information to follow in January 2015
Rae Whittow Williams’ latest Housing Design Diary entry, Every Lintle Helps, explores research from the Future Homes Commission on flexible space standards for new homes required by UK families, together with Tesco’s recent interest in the market. Rae proposes how a developer, called ‘Anesco’, could respond to the Future Homes Commission recommendations.
This first event brought together our advisory group members, Alex Ely (Mae Architects), Deborah Garvie (Shelter), Brian Quinn (CABE/Design Council), Phil Hamilton (Peter Barber Architects) together with Sarah Wigglesworth (Sarah Wigglesworth Architects and University of Sheffield), Andrea Phillips (Goldsmiths) in a series of discussions which enabled us to draw out links between contemporary architectural and urban design understandings of wellbeing, equality and, importantly in the present time, inequality that informs the disciplines. Held at UCL, it was attended by colleagues and students from UCL and other UK institutions, together with architects and members of the public as part of UCL’s Urban Lab ‘Cities Methodologies’ week of events.
Beginning with technical concerns about standards of provision, Alex and Deborah highlighted how the Government’s current housing standards review follows the guidance on minimum space standards that Alex and CABE have worked on, together with Design for London’s design guide, and which – if implemented – would go some way towards the still much-valued Parker Morris Space Standards. Deborah also very usefully emphasised that the capacity for implementation is vastly increased if standards were to be put into the industry’s building regulations, rather than as political policy. In the second panel Brian and Phil addressed design and wellbeing relations within the urban context, bringing out issues including infrastructural design (transport), and mobilising the social space of the Southern-European street for driving housing design concepts, as well as housing for the vulnerable where the ‘front door’ is also a key constituent of the individual ‘home’. In the final session Sarah and Andrea’s discussions brought in the perspective of the rights of the individual&community, where choice enables wellbeing and ‘agency’ for the specific needs of a community (such as the elderly).
Discussions which did not get unpacked during the day – and noted in the summing up by Andrew Saint (Survey of London UCL), and Anne Bottomley (University of Kent) – were issues of land value and property speculation and the long-term management of housing, as aspects that have historically, and currently, very actively determine the capacity of an individual/community’s wellbeing/equality. So very clearly highlighting material for Part 2 of the discussion within the next months….