Saturday, 19 September 2009
Monday, 24 August 2009
Friday, 31 July 2009
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Major title??
thinking of a title for my major project:
> sustainable urbansim
> sustainable urban regeneration
> Eco-community
> sustainable urban neighnorhood
> sustainable urban village
> sustainable urbansim
> sustainable urban regeneration
> Eco-community
> sustainable urban neighnorhood
> sustainable urban village
Monday, 15 June 2009
Growing Food Locally: Integrating Agriculture Into the Built Environment
Tremendous energy is expended transporting food from fields around to world to our tables. Large-scale, centralized food production is vulnerable to disease and other threats, and there are health benefits to more local food production. In this context, there is growing interest in producing food closer to home, even in urban areas.
There are two broad approaches to more localized food production. First, the vacant land around buildings—which comprises about 15% of urban land nationwide—can be turned into productive gardens and farmland. There are thousands of community gardens and hundreds agricultural enterprises (both nonprofit and for-profit) that are converting this unused, urban land into productive land for vegetables, fruits, and other crops. In some urban farms, isolation from contaminated soils is provided with a layer of clay.
Second, there is a tremendous amount of commercial roof area in urban and suburban locations, and some of this space is suitable for productive green roofs or rooftop greenhouses. With greenhouses, soil-based growing is practiced by some, but most growers have turned to lighter-weight hydroponics (growing in which nutrient solutions replace soil). The innovative field of aquaponics marries aquaculture (fish farming) with hydroponics to permit ecological systems in which fish waste provides the fertilizer for plant growth.
Both of these approaches offer challenges to architects and farmers alike. Finding plots on the ground that are uncontaminated and receive enough sun for vegetables can be difficult in dense urban centers, and rooftop systems can easily overload existing structural supports if not carefully planned.
There are two broad approaches to more localized food production. First, the vacant land around buildings—which comprises about 15% of urban land nationwide—can be turned into productive gardens and farmland. There are thousands of community gardens and hundreds agricultural enterprises (both nonprofit and for-profit) that are converting this unused, urban land into productive land for vegetables, fruits, and other crops. In some urban farms, isolation from contaminated soils is provided with a layer of clay.
Second, there is a tremendous amount of commercial roof area in urban and suburban locations, and some of this space is suitable for productive green roofs or rooftop greenhouses. With greenhouses, soil-based growing is practiced by some, but most growers have turned to lighter-weight hydroponics (growing in which nutrient solutions replace soil). The innovative field of aquaponics marries aquaculture (fish farming) with hydroponics to permit ecological systems in which fish waste provides the fertilizer for plant growth.
Both of these approaches offer challenges to architects and farmers alike. Finding plots on the ground that are uncontaminated and receive enough sun for vegetables can be difficult in dense urban centers, and rooftop systems can easily overload existing structural supports if not carefully planned.
Green Buildings and Food Production
Our existing food production system is rife with problems. The average mouthful of food travels 1,500 miles before reaching your plate, losing nutrition and flavor while consuming a huge amount of energy. Agribusiness has created vast monocultures of grains, corn, and soybeans, decreasing biodiversity and necessitating the use of vast amounts of pesticides and other chemicals. The mammoth, centralized operations that produce our food, especially meat and poultry, mean that a single contamination event can put huge numbers of people at risk. We need a new model of food production.
Green building could play a role in producing healthier food closer to home, even in urban and suburban areas. In suburbia, we can garden our backyards as our grandparents did with their Victory Gardens during World War II, when up to 40% of vegetables were home-grown. In cities, we can create productive gardens out of abandoned and unused vacant lots, which account for an average of 15% of our urban landscapes. On land that may be contaminated, we can follow the model of City Farm in Chicago, which uses a layer of clay to isolate contaminated substrate from a rich, compost-based soil for growing crops.
Other strategies for local food production are much newer, higher-tech, and less familiar. The nation’s 4.8 million commercial buildings have about 1,400 square miles of nearly flat roof, an area the size of Rhode Island. On those roofs, green roofs or rooftop greenhouses can be constructed and planted with edible crops. New hydroponic greenhouses can achieve significantly greater yields than soil-based greenhouses, with far less weight. A hybrid system called aquaponics merges aquaculture (fish production) with hydroponics, so that the waste from the fish fertilizes the plants, providing an integrated, balanced system.
What do you think? As the green building movement evolves, should the integration of food production be a consideration? In an increasingly urbanized world, should our buildings and the landscapes around them become a part of our agricultural system?
Green building could play a role in producing healthier food closer to home, even in urban and suburban areas. In suburbia, we can garden our backyards as our grandparents did with their Victory Gardens during World War II, when up to 40% of vegetables were home-grown. In cities, we can create productive gardens out of abandoned and unused vacant lots, which account for an average of 15% of our urban landscapes. On land that may be contaminated, we can follow the model of City Farm in Chicago, which uses a layer of clay to isolate contaminated substrate from a rich, compost-based soil for growing crops.
Other strategies for local food production are much newer, higher-tech, and less familiar. The nation’s 4.8 million commercial buildings have about 1,400 square miles of nearly flat roof, an area the size of Rhode Island. On those roofs, green roofs or rooftop greenhouses can be constructed and planted with edible crops. New hydroponic greenhouses can achieve significantly greater yields than soil-based greenhouses, with far less weight. A hybrid system called aquaponics merges aquaculture (fish production) with hydroponics, so that the waste from the fish fertilizes the plants, providing an integrated, balanced system.
What do you think? As the green building movement evolves, should the integration of food production be a consideration? In an increasingly urbanized world, should our buildings and the landscapes around them become a part of our agricultural system?
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Vertical Farming:making history or making hype?
What would the permaculture approach to vertical farming look like?
Most permaculturalist agree that we must grow more food with in our cities, but does that mean inside the buildings of the city itself? Vertical farming has been making some big headlines lately and so I’ve decided to approach some of the latest ideas and innovations and examine them through the lens of permaculture principals. This idea has been around for a while (think terraces in Asia) and has some very strong merits. Bill Mollison remarked that “95 of the cost of food in a city like New York comes from it’s transportation, storage, and packaging.” Growing in a high density fashion has the potential to save ample land and resources if done correctly. But, as a permaculturalist I have some serious reservations about vertical farms. Most of the skyscraper type designs would grow food hydroponically This requires considerable energy and maintenance the trade off being a year long growing season; that is if your not dealing with constant “technical difficulties”. Dickson Despommier the leading proponent of the vertical farming idea had this say, “You can control nothing outdoors, and you can control everything indoors. That means no floods, wildfires, hailstorms, tornadoes, or droughts. Plant diseases and pests are more easily controlled, too, meaning less need for herbicides and pesticides.”
“And indoor agriculture is more efficient. One indoor acre of strawberries can produce as much as 30 outdoor acres can. In general, indoor acreage is four to six times more productive, in part because of the year-round growing season. Outdoors, you might get one crop [per year]; indoors, you might get four or five crops per year,”
Now, I might disagree about his use of the word “efficient” because it may not account for the imbued impute energy of a large hydroponic system not to mention large steel and concrete building. His emphasis on control is also a little unsettling too, simply because it was a disproportionate emphasis on control, instead of more flexible whole systems design based on relationships, that got us into the current food crisis mess in the first place. Now I wouldn’t throw out the idea of vertical farming entirely I just think there may be a better use of our energy and resources. Skyscrapers alone use ample amounts of energy in their construction let alone ones potentially holding complex hydroponics systems. Some of these designs incorporate aspects of passive and active solar, wind, housing, rainwater harvesting, methane digestion for energy, composting, aquaculture, and other generally cool features you would expect from the sustainably minded. But, here is what my friend Richard Register author of Ecocities: rebuilding cities in balance with nature had to say about it, “the notion of filling a building [with plants] and artificially supplying the light for the plants … from any kind of energy system is one of the weirdest ideas I’ve ever heard of. It’s not serious agriculture. It’s just not…. It’s an intellectual plaything.”
“A better answer is to develop, over time, more compact, energy-efficient cities along the European model, he says. That would free up land near urban areas for conventional agriculture with “100-percent-free solar energy” falling on it. Urban community gardens and high-intensity conventional commercial gardens could also supply part of the need.”
I echo Richards sentiments; it seems to me that before we consider growning food in farmscrapers in the future we should reclaim what is already available to us now. New York City alone has 1700 unused and vacant lots! If space is the issue well I’d rather get rid of some streets. Mo Town in Detroit is starting to turn into one large urban farm and should’t we encourage ideas from the bottom up, as in from the community, versus developers first. This doesn’t mean I think vertical farming is a absolute dead end. Like I said I still think that it is an idea with good merits but it needs to be more scalable and less impute intensive. If vertical farming becomes a euphemism for taking the industrialized petrol based monoculture outside and then reconfiguring that inside (which is what some designs looked like) then I say no way! Recently, one design called Sky Vegetables caught my eye. This design was developed by 22 year old Keith Agoada, a University of Wisconsin business student, and took home a 10000$ first place prize in a competition for creative start ups. Sky Vegetables is basically a big box remix with vegetables being grown on the grocery store roof (in greenhouses), complete with rainwater harvesting, solar panels, compost, oh and large unsightly asphalt parking lot too of course. I believe if you were to add affordable housing and office space to a idea like this, scale it down a bit, build most of the building with Glubam or with recycled wood, and of course take out the parking lot, well then I might sign on to vertical farming. Until then, when I hear the word vertical farming used I’m going to think of a forest garden.
Most permaculturalist agree that we must grow more food with in our cities, but does that mean inside the buildings of the city itself? Vertical farming has been making some big headlines lately and so I’ve decided to approach some of the latest ideas and innovations and examine them through the lens of permaculture principals. This idea has been around for a while (think terraces in Asia) and has some very strong merits. Bill Mollison remarked that “95 of the cost of food in a city like New York comes from it’s transportation, storage, and packaging.” Growing in a high density fashion has the potential to save ample land and resources if done correctly. But, as a permaculturalist I have some serious reservations about vertical farms. Most of the skyscraper type designs would grow food hydroponically This requires considerable energy and maintenance the trade off being a year long growing season; that is if your not dealing with constant “technical difficulties”. Dickson Despommier the leading proponent of the vertical farming idea had this say, “You can control nothing outdoors, and you can control everything indoors. That means no floods, wildfires, hailstorms, tornadoes, or droughts. Plant diseases and pests are more easily controlled, too, meaning less need for herbicides and pesticides.”
“And indoor agriculture is more efficient. One indoor acre of strawberries can produce as much as 30 outdoor acres can. In general, indoor acreage is four to six times more productive, in part because of the year-round growing season. Outdoors, you might get one crop [per year]; indoors, you might get four or five crops per year,”
Now, I might disagree about his use of the word “efficient” because it may not account for the imbued impute energy of a large hydroponic system not to mention large steel and concrete building. His emphasis on control is also a little unsettling too, simply because it was a disproportionate emphasis on control, instead of more flexible whole systems design based on relationships, that got us into the current food crisis mess in the first place. Now I wouldn’t throw out the idea of vertical farming entirely I just think there may be a better use of our energy and resources. Skyscrapers alone use ample amounts of energy in their construction let alone ones potentially holding complex hydroponics systems. Some of these designs incorporate aspects of passive and active solar, wind, housing, rainwater harvesting, methane digestion for energy, composting, aquaculture, and other generally cool features you would expect from the sustainably minded. But, here is what my friend Richard Register author of Ecocities: rebuilding cities in balance with nature had to say about it, “the notion of filling a building [with plants] and artificially supplying the light for the plants … from any kind of energy system is one of the weirdest ideas I’ve ever heard of. It’s not serious agriculture. It’s just not…. It’s an intellectual plaything.”
“A better answer is to develop, over time, more compact, energy-efficient cities along the European model, he says. That would free up land near urban areas for conventional agriculture with “100-percent-free solar energy” falling on it. Urban community gardens and high-intensity conventional commercial gardens could also supply part of the need.”
I echo Richards sentiments; it seems to me that before we consider growning food in farmscrapers in the future we should reclaim what is already available to us now. New York City alone has 1700 unused and vacant lots! If space is the issue well I’d rather get rid of some streets. Mo Town in Detroit is starting to turn into one large urban farm and should’t we encourage ideas from the bottom up, as in from the community, versus developers first. This doesn’t mean I think vertical farming is a absolute dead end. Like I said I still think that it is an idea with good merits but it needs to be more scalable and less impute intensive. If vertical farming becomes a euphemism for taking the industrialized petrol based monoculture outside and then reconfiguring that inside (which is what some designs looked like) then I say no way! Recently, one design called Sky Vegetables caught my eye. This design was developed by 22 year old Keith Agoada, a University of Wisconsin business student, and took home a 10000$ first place prize in a competition for creative start ups. Sky Vegetables is basically a big box remix with vegetables being grown on the grocery store roof (in greenhouses), complete with rainwater harvesting, solar panels, compost, oh and large unsightly asphalt parking lot too of course. I believe if you were to add affordable housing and office space to a idea like this, scale it down a bit, build most of the building with Glubam or with recycled wood, and of course take out the parking lot, well then I might sign on to vertical farming. Until then, when I hear the word vertical farming used I’m going to think of a forest garden.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
London faces new-build housing shortage
29 May, 2009
By Tom Bill
There is no oversupply of new-built apartments in the capital according to Savills
There is a looming shortage of new housing in London, according to property agent Savills.
Its latest study found only 916 units were empty and available in the capital in the first quarter of this year, dismissing recent reports the figure was as high as 10,000.
It said: “Tales of our cities being full of vast tracts of empty, newly built apartments for sale are misleading and commentators who think that an oversupply of new housing will depress the market and keep prices falling across the board are wrong.”
Its research for the first three months of the year show there are 29,000 units for sale and/or under construction. Of these, one-third have already been sold off-plan and another third are not yet for sale. The remaining 9,844 new units are mostly being sold off-plan and are not yet complete.
This leaves 916 units that Savills describes as “habitable and on completed schemes and can therefore be described as standing empty and available.”
Yolande Barnes, head of Savills Research, said: “A very conservative estimate is that, in the context of 2008 rates of new build sales, this represents a mere two months’ supply.”
She added: “When put into context of the number of units that people buy in London in a year, (the figures) point to a looming shortage rather than a looming glut of properties in many boroughs - although there are notable exceptions where a potential oversupply is an issue.”
By Tom Bill
There is no oversupply of new-built apartments in the capital according to Savills
There is a looming shortage of new housing in London, according to property agent Savills.
Its latest study found only 916 units were empty and available in the capital in the first quarter of this year, dismissing recent reports the figure was as high as 10,000.
It said: “Tales of our cities being full of vast tracts of empty, newly built apartments for sale are misleading and commentators who think that an oversupply of new housing will depress the market and keep prices falling across the board are wrong.”
Its research for the first three months of the year show there are 29,000 units for sale and/or under construction. Of these, one-third have already been sold off-plan and another third are not yet for sale. The remaining 9,844 new units are mostly being sold off-plan and are not yet complete.
This leaves 916 units that Savills describes as “habitable and on completed schemes and can therefore be described as standing empty and available.”
Yolande Barnes, head of Savills Research, said: “A very conservative estimate is that, in the context of 2008 rates of new build sales, this represents a mere two months’ supply.”
She added: “When put into context of the number of units that people buy in London in a year, (the figures) point to a looming shortage rather than a looming glut of properties in many boroughs - although there are notable exceptions where a potential oversupply is an issue.”
Sunday, 24 May 2009
BEDZED - DESIGN PRINCIPLES
* Zero energy—The project is designed to use only energy from renewable sources generated on site. There are 777 m² of solar panels. Tree waste fuels the development's cogeneration plant (downdraft gasifier) to provide district heating and electricity. The gasifier is not being used, because of technical implementation problems, though the technology has been and is being used successfully at other sites.
* High quality—The apartments are finished to a high standard to attract the urban professional.
* Energy efficient—The houses face south to take advantage of solar gain, are triple glazed, and have high thermal insulation.
* Water efficient—Most rain water falling on the site is collected and reused. Appliances are chosen to be water-efficient and use recycled water when possible. A "Living Machine" system of recycling waste water was installed, but is not operating.
* Low-impact materials—Building materials were selected from renewable or recycled sources within 35 miles of the site, to minimize the energy required for transportation.
* Waste recycling—Refuse-collection facilities are designed to support recycling.
* Transport—The development works in partnership with the United Kingdom's leading car-sharing operator, City Car Club. Residents are encouraged to use this environmentally friendly alternative to car ownership; an on-site selection of vehicles is available for use.
* Encourage eco-friendly transport—Electric and liquefied-petroleum-gas cars have priority over cars that burn petrol and diesel, and electricity is provided in parking spaces for charging electric cars.
* High quality—The apartments are finished to a high standard to attract the urban professional.
* Energy efficient—The houses face south to take advantage of solar gain, are triple glazed, and have high thermal insulation.
* Water efficient—Most rain water falling on the site is collected and reused. Appliances are chosen to be water-efficient and use recycled water when possible. A "Living Machine" system of recycling waste water was installed, but is not operating.
* Low-impact materials—Building materials were selected from renewable or recycled sources within 35 miles of the site, to minimize the energy required for transportation.
* Waste recycling—Refuse-collection facilities are designed to support recycling.
* Transport—The development works in partnership with the United Kingdom's leading car-sharing operator, City Car Club. Residents are encouraged to use this environmentally friendly alternative to car ownership; an on-site selection of vehicles is available for use.
* Encourage eco-friendly transport—Electric and liquefied-petroleum-gas cars have priority over cars that burn petrol and diesel, and electricity is provided in parking spaces for charging electric cars.
Bill Dunster's walls
Bill Dunster is, for want of a better word, an ecotect. That is an architect with a passion for green design. He sprang to fame with a project known as BedZed, a development of live-work units built on a disused sewage farm in Beddington, South London. It’s had acres of publicity and is rightly held up as an exemplar of how multiple housing units should be built in the future. But BedZed has now been finished for three years and Dunster has found it a hard act to follow. Developers and social housing landlords have not been falling over each other to repeat “the experiment” and he has been frustrated by planners who haven’t been prepared to loosen the planning corset just because a scheme is green.
But at last, Dunster has another scheme to showcase his talent. This time it’s a four-storey block of key worker flats on the St Matthews council estate in Lambeth, South London. It’s not quite as big or prestigious as BedZed but in some ways it’s more technically advanced. Building carried a feature on it this week, which caught my eye: in particular, the wall detailing. The outer walls are no less than 550mm wide, compared with just under 300mm in conventional housing. They are made up of 150mm blockwork inside 300mm of expanded polystyrene insulation filling the cavity, behind a 100mm brick skin, which is what them outside world sees. The plus point is of course that, with this much insulation, you have got a tremendously low U value – reckoned to be just 0.1W/K/m2. But against this, on a 60m2 apartment, you are loosing up to 25% of the footprint to walling.
Yikes. That’s a hell of a lot, especially considering we are being encouraged to build smaller and smaller units. Dunster is a big fan of heavy mass construction, which means little or no timber frame and little or no off-site pre-fabrication. He believes in the importance of thermal mass (concrete in other words) in regulating the temperature characteristics of a home and in reducing the effects of summer over-heating. But is thermal mass really such a wonderful concept that you have to loose 20% or more of your floor area just to accommodate it? If there wasn’t quite so much south-facing glazing — another of his betes verts — then perhaps the designs wouldn’t require quite so much thermal mass and the walls wouldn't have to be quite so thick.
Another problem comes with the adoption of a 300mm cavity, shown here in diagramatic form, (ref Building magazine). How do you manage the openings? In particular, how do you ensure that the water penetrating the outer brickwork is directed back out of the external wall rather than dripping down into the joinery? You’ve left the world of conventional construction far behind here: there are no off-the-peg wall ties this long and there are no pre-formed cavity trays this wide. Dunster’s solution has been to design a wrap-around cavity tray around each window. To me, it sounds just like the sort of detail which is likely to fall victim to sloppiness on site. Done perfectly, there should never be any problem but construction isn’t a perfect world.
One other feature of this article stands out. The costings. £1600/m2. This isn’t, in fact, far out of line with many other innovative social housing projects being built around the country at the moment, but it’s about twice the rate that selfbuilders hope to complete their projects for. Why the huge discrepancy? A good question, which will have to wait for another blog.
Labels: Insulation, Low Energy Homes
But at last, Dunster has another scheme to showcase his talent. This time it’s a four-storey block of key worker flats on the St Matthews council estate in Lambeth, South London. It’s not quite as big or prestigious as BedZed but in some ways it’s more technically advanced. Building carried a feature on it this week, which caught my eye: in particular, the wall detailing. The outer walls are no less than 550mm wide, compared with just under 300mm in conventional housing. They are made up of 150mm blockwork inside 300mm of expanded polystyrene insulation filling the cavity, behind a 100mm brick skin, which is what them outside world sees. The plus point is of course that, with this much insulation, you have got a tremendously low U value – reckoned to be just 0.1W/K/m2. But against this, on a 60m2 apartment, you are loosing up to 25% of the footprint to walling.
Yikes. That’s a hell of a lot, especially considering we are being encouraged to build smaller and smaller units. Dunster is a big fan of heavy mass construction, which means little or no timber frame and little or no off-site pre-fabrication. He believes in the importance of thermal mass (concrete in other words) in regulating the temperature characteristics of a home and in reducing the effects of summer over-heating. But is thermal mass really such a wonderful concept that you have to loose 20% or more of your floor area just to accommodate it? If there wasn’t quite so much south-facing glazing — another of his betes verts — then perhaps the designs wouldn’t require quite so much thermal mass and the walls wouldn't have to be quite so thick.
Another problem comes with the adoption of a 300mm cavity, shown here in diagramatic form, (ref Building magazine). How do you manage the openings? In particular, how do you ensure that the water penetrating the outer brickwork is directed back out of the external wall rather than dripping down into the joinery? You’ve left the world of conventional construction far behind here: there are no off-the-peg wall ties this long and there are no pre-formed cavity trays this wide. Dunster’s solution has been to design a wrap-around cavity tray around each window. To me, it sounds just like the sort of detail which is likely to fall victim to sloppiness on site. Done perfectly, there should never be any problem but construction isn’t a perfect world.
One other feature of this article stands out. The costings. £1600/m2. This isn’t, in fact, far out of line with many other innovative social housing projects being built around the country at the moment, but it’s about twice the rate that selfbuilders hope to complete their projects for. Why the huge discrepancy? A good question, which will have to wait for another blog.
Labels: Insulation, Low Energy Homes
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
harvest green project-02, vancouver
Romses Architects has designed “Harvest Green Project-02′ as a part of Vancouver ‘The 2030 Challenge’. Harvest Green Project is rooted in a concept that challenges the status quo of how energy and food is produced, delivered and sustained in our city, neighbourhoods, and individual single-family homes.
Taking cues from the citys eco-density charter, and in particular, it’s new laneway housing initiatives, the Harvest Green Project proposes to overlay a new ‘green energy and food web’ across the numerous residential neighborhoods and laneways within the city as these communities address future increased densification. The city’s laneways will be transformed into green energy and food conduits, or ‘green streets’, where energy and food is ‘harvested’ via proposed micro laneway live-work homes.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Friday, 15 May 2009
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
In defence of the eco-town
By Wayne Hemingway
Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 06 Aug 2008
Young families need decent homes. First-time buyers should be given a chance to buy, without needing a fantasy salary increase. Single people, key workers, the elderly – all these people want and deserve a home in a place they like and where they might choose to put down roots. We have a growing population , people are getting married later in life, people are living longer, there is net inward migration, we simply need more homes. I want to hear what these people have to say about being given the chance to live in a well-designed, attractive place.
At the moment, the strident voices of those opposed to eco-towns are using every trick in the book to win attention. But what about the people eco-towns are being planned to provide homes for? We need to listen to them too. I understand that for decades this country has been particularly good at delivering great new places to live but as chair of Building For Life I can see that there is a movement towards liveability, quality and sustainability and the eco-town programme is an opportunity to set examples that could start to put an end to isolated, identikit housing developments in unsuitable locations away from all facilities.
Related Articles
*
The horrible bingo of growing old
*
Budget 2009: boost for housing expected
*
Alan Shearer given a reality check as below-par Chelsea sink Newcastle
*
Grand Designs' Kevin McCloud hits opposition over eco homes
*
Harley-Davidson V-Rod Muscle review
I am part of a 15-strong panel advising the Government on the design and sustainability elements of eco-towns. This independent panel has been set up by the Government to challenge and push the consortiums bidding to build eco towns so that they really do deliver the best possible communities for those who live there. I spend a lot of my working time designing homes and putting the building blocks in place so that vibrant new communities can develop – and so I have strong views.
Getting on the housing ladder early is now almost impossible. The average age for a first-time buyer is 34. And mortgages now require ten times the earnings of the average first-time buyer – and that could be a young family or a single person.
The eco-town plan is designed to create a workable template so that a few exemplar developments around the country can inform the wider industry how to deliver more homes at affordable prices across England and improve quality of life in a sustainable way for the 21 st century. My role as an adviser is to look at all the applications for the shortlist of eco-towns and ensure that the plans provide for good transport, shops, schools, jobs and leisure and don’t impact negatively on existing communities. To ensure that the plans allow for 30 to 50 per cent affordable housing. And to ensure that the plans pioneer sustainable environmentally-friendly living.
The Government has already warned developers that if they can’t meet these standards, they’re out. We need to create places where people can be happy and enjoy life – where there is space to walk the dog, kick a ball around and walk your child to school.
It is my job, and that of others on the panel, to push developers to make sure that this happens. We have got to get this right as the first eco-towns will be pioneering projects to ensure that all the ingredients are in place and deliver what people want; blueprints for the future.
We also need to make sure that people understand what is meant by “eco-towns”. Most people accept that more homes need to be built – and it makes absolute sense to do our best to make them as environmentally friendly as possible.
In short, homes that don’t cost the earth to run and are designed to deal with climate change; schools, shops, businesses and community facilities with jobs; places to go, a sense of place and a community spirit. This means a mix of people - young families, singles, older families, downsizers and the elderly - from all walks of life. We are talking about creating towns for around 5-10,000 families; and maybe two or three bigger communities for up to 15,000 families - about the size of Morecambe where I was born.
In many ways what we are doing is nothing new. The Victorians created some outstanding new towns and cities because new homes were needed then, just as they are now. They put in place transport links, schools, public buildings and parks. I am working on a scheme in Dartford where getting the infrastructure in place first was vital. We now have a free bus service that links up the entire local area and a fast train link to St Pancras will be opened next year.
We must ensure that eco-towns also relate to towns and cities nearby. They need to join up economically so that businesses can look to the new communities as places for expansion, creating jobs and an entrepreneurial spirit. And many other countries around the world are also looking at building eco-towns and cities for their citizens.
But more than anything, we have to remember why the eco-towns plan was created in the first place and keep that centre stage – to build homes for people who need and deserve them. And, I would suggest, we need to listen to what these people have to say about the homes they want and not just let the naysayers dominate.
Whilst I realise that “nimbyism” is a powerful movement, often soundly based on the housing industry’s mistakes, a great development or two can start to change perception about an area, helping us to catch up with our European neighbours whose thorough planning means new developments are often a welcome prospect.
• Wayne Hemingway is a member of the Eco-town Challenge Panel, an independent group of experts in sustainability and urban development.
Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 06 Aug 2008
Young families need decent homes. First-time buyers should be given a chance to buy, without needing a fantasy salary increase. Single people, key workers, the elderly – all these people want and deserve a home in a place they like and where they might choose to put down roots. We have a growing population , people are getting married later in life, people are living longer, there is net inward migration, we simply need more homes. I want to hear what these people have to say about being given the chance to live in a well-designed, attractive place.
At the moment, the strident voices of those opposed to eco-towns are using every trick in the book to win attention. But what about the people eco-towns are being planned to provide homes for? We need to listen to them too. I understand that for decades this country has been particularly good at delivering great new places to live but as chair of Building For Life I can see that there is a movement towards liveability, quality and sustainability and the eco-town programme is an opportunity to set examples that could start to put an end to isolated, identikit housing developments in unsuitable locations away from all facilities.
Related Articles
*
The horrible bingo of growing old
*
Budget 2009: boost for housing expected
*
Alan Shearer given a reality check as below-par Chelsea sink Newcastle
*
Grand Designs' Kevin McCloud hits opposition over eco homes
*
Harley-Davidson V-Rod Muscle review
I am part of a 15-strong panel advising the Government on the design and sustainability elements of eco-towns. This independent panel has been set up by the Government to challenge and push the consortiums bidding to build eco towns so that they really do deliver the best possible communities for those who live there. I spend a lot of my working time designing homes and putting the building blocks in place so that vibrant new communities can develop – and so I have strong views.
Getting on the housing ladder early is now almost impossible. The average age for a first-time buyer is 34. And mortgages now require ten times the earnings of the average first-time buyer – and that could be a young family or a single person.
The eco-town plan is designed to create a workable template so that a few exemplar developments around the country can inform the wider industry how to deliver more homes at affordable prices across England and improve quality of life in a sustainable way for the 21 st century. My role as an adviser is to look at all the applications for the shortlist of eco-towns and ensure that the plans provide for good transport, shops, schools, jobs and leisure and don’t impact negatively on existing communities. To ensure that the plans allow for 30 to 50 per cent affordable housing. And to ensure that the plans pioneer sustainable environmentally-friendly living.
The Government has already warned developers that if they can’t meet these standards, they’re out. We need to create places where people can be happy and enjoy life – where there is space to walk the dog, kick a ball around and walk your child to school.
It is my job, and that of others on the panel, to push developers to make sure that this happens. We have got to get this right as the first eco-towns will be pioneering projects to ensure that all the ingredients are in place and deliver what people want; blueprints for the future.
We also need to make sure that people understand what is meant by “eco-towns”. Most people accept that more homes need to be built – and it makes absolute sense to do our best to make them as environmentally friendly as possible.
In short, homes that don’t cost the earth to run and are designed to deal with climate change; schools, shops, businesses and community facilities with jobs; places to go, a sense of place and a community spirit. This means a mix of people - young families, singles, older families, downsizers and the elderly - from all walks of life. We are talking about creating towns for around 5-10,000 families; and maybe two or three bigger communities for up to 15,000 families - about the size of Morecambe where I was born.
In many ways what we are doing is nothing new. The Victorians created some outstanding new towns and cities because new homes were needed then, just as they are now. They put in place transport links, schools, public buildings and parks. I am working on a scheme in Dartford where getting the infrastructure in place first was vital. We now have a free bus service that links up the entire local area and a fast train link to St Pancras will be opened next year.
We must ensure that eco-towns also relate to towns and cities nearby. They need to join up economically so that businesses can look to the new communities as places for expansion, creating jobs and an entrepreneurial spirit. And many other countries around the world are also looking at building eco-towns and cities for their citizens.
But more than anything, we have to remember why the eco-towns plan was created in the first place and keep that centre stage – to build homes for people who need and deserve them. And, I would suggest, we need to listen to what these people have to say about the homes they want and not just let the naysayers dominate.
Whilst I realise that “nimbyism” is a powerful movement, often soundly based on the housing industry’s mistakes, a great development or two can start to change perception about an area, helping us to catch up with our European neighbours whose thorough planning means new developments are often a welcome prospect.
• Wayne Hemingway is a member of the Eco-town Challenge Panel, an independent group of experts in sustainability and urban development.
Rogers attacks eco-towns as a big mistake
22 May, 2008
By Rory Olcayto
Richard Rogers has launched an extraordinary criticism of the government’s eco-towns project calling it one of the government’s “biggest mistakes”.
Speaking today at a conference on high density housing at London’s building Centre, the Pritzker-prize winning architect and Labour peer claimed eco-towns were inherently unsustainable, and cited a report by the US Green Council that showed that draughty accommodation in a dense urban centre is more efficient than that of an eco-home in a greenfield location.
“I think eco-towns are one of the biggest mistakes the government can make," he said. "They are in no way environmentally sustainable.
“The retention of the green belt is essential. We need to increase density around public transport. We need to invest much more in public transport.”
Rogers’ comments reflect the extent that prime minister Gordon Brown – who personally backs eco-towns - has departed from the principles espoused by Rogers’ Urban Task Force, an advisory body formed under his predecessor Tony Blair.
Last month BD revealed that Rogers had criticised the government for ignoring the Urban Task force’s Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance report produced over two years ago.
Other speakers at the event, chaired by HTA’s managing director Ben Derbyshire, included Pablo Lazo of Arup and Duncan Bowie, a former GLA planner.
By Rory Olcayto
Richard Rogers has launched an extraordinary criticism of the government’s eco-towns project calling it one of the government’s “biggest mistakes”.
Speaking today at a conference on high density housing at London’s building Centre, the Pritzker-prize winning architect and Labour peer claimed eco-towns were inherently unsustainable, and cited a report by the US Green Council that showed that draughty accommodation in a dense urban centre is more efficient than that of an eco-home in a greenfield location.
“I think eco-towns are one of the biggest mistakes the government can make," he said. "They are in no way environmentally sustainable.
“The retention of the green belt is essential. We need to increase density around public transport. We need to invest much more in public transport.”
Rogers’ comments reflect the extent that prime minister Gordon Brown – who personally backs eco-towns - has departed from the principles espoused by Rogers’ Urban Task Force, an advisory body formed under his predecessor Tony Blair.
Last month BD revealed that Rogers had criticised the government for ignoring the Urban Task force’s Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance report produced over two years ago.
Other speakers at the event, chaired by HTA’s managing director Ben Derbyshire, included Pablo Lazo of Arup and Duncan Bowie, a former GLA planner.
Eco-towns: a design for life
They could be the answer to our housing and carbon-footprint problems, so why are people opposed to new towns?
Tom Dyckhoff
It is an unlikely alliance: Germaine Greer, Sir Simon Jenkins, Dame Judi Dench, Richard Rogers, Ben Fogle, Duncan Goodhew, John Nettles and the family of Tim Henman united at the barricades. But then, eco-towns are an unusual opponent, forcing together those who you would expect to oppose them with those you wouldn't.
A YouGov poll in June showed 46 per cent of the public in favour of building eco-towns, with just 9 per cent opposed. Yet there's no disputing the strength of local protest at many of the 13 sites on the Government's shortlist. One group, the Bard campaign, which opposes an eco-town outside Stratford-upon-Avon, has called for a judicial review of the consultation process. Already two from the original shortlist of 15 - Lincolnshire and Staffordshire - have dropped out.
When Gordon Brown announced plans for eco-towns in May last year he was trying to seize the green initiative back from the Conservatives. Brown reiterated the Government's plan to build 3 million new homes by 2020. The problem had always been the vast increase in Britain's carbon footprint that this would entail.
On paper, the latest standards for eco-towns, set down two weeks ago by Housing Minister Caroline Flint, are the epitome of moderation. Ten are to be built, defined by the Government as having between 5,000 and 20,000 homes, built to at least level four of the Code for Sustainable Homes (the Code measures the sustainability of a new home against nine categories of sustainable design). These towns would include at least 30 per cent affordable housing, “high-quality public transport links” and enough community facilities and jobs to avoid them becoming commuter 'burbs. Each would be an exemplar in eco-design, with all buildings achieving zero-carbon status. The average home would be within ten minutes' walk of frequent public transport and everyday neighbourhood services.
Related Links
* Living: Is this the future?
* Eco-town residents face £500 surcharge
Shoddy design, that curse of so much British housing, would be avoided with “a commitment to high standards of architecture”, an architectural competition in each town, and designs overseen by various professional bodies. The Housing Minister at the time, Yvette Cooper, promised “a mix of styles” not “the grand vision of a single architect” that still blights many of the postwar towns. What's not to like?
“On the whole it's a good thing,” says Bill Dunster, the designer of the UK's largest carbon-neutral development, BedZED in South London. “It's very clever, because it instantly creates a market for carbonzero homes. Left alone, housebuilders would move slowly to meet the new green housing standards. This, though, is like rocket fuel to the cause.”
The protestors would beg to differ. Yet beneath some of the nimbyism lie key concerns, says Kate Gordon, the senior planning officer at the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. The first is the policy's top-down imposition. “It cuts across the planning system and disrupts regional plans that have been put in place democratically over years,” she says. “We support the aspirations of eco-towns, just not how the policy is being carried out. Without co-ordination, the feet will be going one way and the head the other.”
“Of course eco-towns will not be ‘imposed' without local support,” counters Gideon Amos, director of the Town and Country Planning Association, whose former chairman, David Lock, came up with the eco-towns idea. “They'll have to go through normal planning. If they're faulty, they'll fail.”
Dunster understands the concerns, however. “We've had 20 years of poor development on greenfield sites,” he says. There are enough disused airfields, old quarry sites and 'damaged' countryside we can use before we start on the green fields.”
Both Kate Gordon and Richard Rogers propose “retrofitting”: densifying and making green existing towns before building new ones. The problem is that building on brownfield sites is less profitable, while “densification” is as controversial for city dwellers as “concreting the countryside”. The fact is, building ten eco-towns is barely going to dent our housing and carbon problems. We need to improve existing cities and housing urgently and build eco-towns.
It's the poor transport links of many of the proposals that are the biggest headache. For example, plans for Middle Quinton, southwest of Stratford-upon-Avon, Coltishall in Norfolk, Rossington in South Yorkshire and Ford in Sussex all require substantial transport improvements to prevent them becoming isolated or forcing residents into cars to commute to work.
But still the general guiding principle of eco-towns should be embraced. “Instead of asking, 'Why should we build eco-towns?', I'd turn the question round,” Amos says. “Why have we been so blinkered not to build new towns?” The policy, he thinks, is a corrective “against the inherent attitude in Britain that all new development, especially that on greenfield land, is automatically bad. This is our chance to become a flagbearer.”Britain has a good record in building new towns. Bath was once a new town. The beautiful terraces of Edinburgh's New Town were once exactly that, as was the philanthropic housing at Saltaire, New Earswick and Port Sunlight. The 19th-century precursors of the suburb were in London, in Camden Town and Bedford Park, while garden cities such as Letchworth and Welwyn have been influential all over the world. Many were once regarded as blots on the landscape; now they are thought of as stunning examples of town planning.
But, looking at the record of British housebuilders in the past few years, few would be optimistic. Despite exceptions such as the Greenwich Millennium Village, Accordia, a Cambridge housing scheme on the Stirling Prize shortlist, and Dunster's BedZED, our record on new developments is poor. How can the Government make the building industry comply with its new, green regulations?
The Government points to Hammarby Sjöstad, a suburb of Stockholm, as a foreign exemplar. But it was designed 17 years ago when the impacts of climate change were less widely known, so much of the architecture doesn't reach the equivalent of level six of Britain's Code for Sustainable Homes. Dunster thinks that it is “not particularly relevant to Britain's climate and culture. It relies on a whopping great wind turbine or power plant.”
Better, he thinks, to design neighbourhoods that don't demand as much energy in the first place, such as his RuralZED plans. “It's appallingly basic. If you build higher-density, higher-rise neighbourhoods, you need more technology to keep them carbon-neutral because of simple things like less sunlight and warmth reaching the flats. For 70 per cent of the UK, all you need is a simple wood-pellet boiler and solar thermal collectors, not all these wind turbines and photovoltaics.”
Britain already has government-sponsored eco-settlements under way. English Partnerships is creating “eco-villages” on sites from Bristol to Doncaster - all homes built to levels five or six of the sustainable homes code. In 2006, before eco-towns were a glint in Gordon Brown's eye, a new community of 9,500 homes for 24,000 people at Northstowe, outside Cambridge, was announced, an eco-town in all but name, now being considered by South Cambridgeshire District Council. It doesn't conform to the lofty standards of the Eco-towns Prospectus, but with plans for south-facing windows, rainwater harvesting, porous pavements and solar water heating, it gives us a hint as to what to expect. The future is inescapably green.
Tom Dyckhoff
It is an unlikely alliance: Germaine Greer, Sir Simon Jenkins, Dame Judi Dench, Richard Rogers, Ben Fogle, Duncan Goodhew, John Nettles and the family of Tim Henman united at the barricades. But then, eco-towns are an unusual opponent, forcing together those who you would expect to oppose them with those you wouldn't.
A YouGov poll in June showed 46 per cent of the public in favour of building eco-towns, with just 9 per cent opposed. Yet there's no disputing the strength of local protest at many of the 13 sites on the Government's shortlist. One group, the Bard campaign, which opposes an eco-town outside Stratford-upon-Avon, has called for a judicial review of the consultation process. Already two from the original shortlist of 15 - Lincolnshire and Staffordshire - have dropped out.
When Gordon Brown announced plans for eco-towns in May last year he was trying to seize the green initiative back from the Conservatives. Brown reiterated the Government's plan to build 3 million new homes by 2020. The problem had always been the vast increase in Britain's carbon footprint that this would entail.
On paper, the latest standards for eco-towns, set down two weeks ago by Housing Minister Caroline Flint, are the epitome of moderation. Ten are to be built, defined by the Government as having between 5,000 and 20,000 homes, built to at least level four of the Code for Sustainable Homes (the Code measures the sustainability of a new home against nine categories of sustainable design). These towns would include at least 30 per cent affordable housing, “high-quality public transport links” and enough community facilities and jobs to avoid them becoming commuter 'burbs. Each would be an exemplar in eco-design, with all buildings achieving zero-carbon status. The average home would be within ten minutes' walk of frequent public transport and everyday neighbourhood services.
Related Links
* Living: Is this the future?
* Eco-town residents face £500 surcharge
Shoddy design, that curse of so much British housing, would be avoided with “a commitment to high standards of architecture”, an architectural competition in each town, and designs overseen by various professional bodies. The Housing Minister at the time, Yvette Cooper, promised “a mix of styles” not “the grand vision of a single architect” that still blights many of the postwar towns. What's not to like?
“On the whole it's a good thing,” says Bill Dunster, the designer of the UK's largest carbon-neutral development, BedZED in South London. “It's very clever, because it instantly creates a market for carbonzero homes. Left alone, housebuilders would move slowly to meet the new green housing standards. This, though, is like rocket fuel to the cause.”
The protestors would beg to differ. Yet beneath some of the nimbyism lie key concerns, says Kate Gordon, the senior planning officer at the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. The first is the policy's top-down imposition. “It cuts across the planning system and disrupts regional plans that have been put in place democratically over years,” she says. “We support the aspirations of eco-towns, just not how the policy is being carried out. Without co-ordination, the feet will be going one way and the head the other.”
“Of course eco-towns will not be ‘imposed' without local support,” counters Gideon Amos, director of the Town and Country Planning Association, whose former chairman, David Lock, came up with the eco-towns idea. “They'll have to go through normal planning. If they're faulty, they'll fail.”
Dunster understands the concerns, however. “We've had 20 years of poor development on greenfield sites,” he says. There are enough disused airfields, old quarry sites and 'damaged' countryside we can use before we start on the green fields.”
Both Kate Gordon and Richard Rogers propose “retrofitting”: densifying and making green existing towns before building new ones. The problem is that building on brownfield sites is less profitable, while “densification” is as controversial for city dwellers as “concreting the countryside”. The fact is, building ten eco-towns is barely going to dent our housing and carbon problems. We need to improve existing cities and housing urgently and build eco-towns.
It's the poor transport links of many of the proposals that are the biggest headache. For example, plans for Middle Quinton, southwest of Stratford-upon-Avon, Coltishall in Norfolk, Rossington in South Yorkshire and Ford in Sussex all require substantial transport improvements to prevent them becoming isolated or forcing residents into cars to commute to work.
But still the general guiding principle of eco-towns should be embraced. “Instead of asking, 'Why should we build eco-towns?', I'd turn the question round,” Amos says. “Why have we been so blinkered not to build new towns?” The policy, he thinks, is a corrective “against the inherent attitude in Britain that all new development, especially that on greenfield land, is automatically bad. This is our chance to become a flagbearer.”Britain has a good record in building new towns. Bath was once a new town. The beautiful terraces of Edinburgh's New Town were once exactly that, as was the philanthropic housing at Saltaire, New Earswick and Port Sunlight. The 19th-century precursors of the suburb were in London, in Camden Town and Bedford Park, while garden cities such as Letchworth and Welwyn have been influential all over the world. Many were once regarded as blots on the landscape; now they are thought of as stunning examples of town planning.
But, looking at the record of British housebuilders in the past few years, few would be optimistic. Despite exceptions such as the Greenwich Millennium Village, Accordia, a Cambridge housing scheme on the Stirling Prize shortlist, and Dunster's BedZED, our record on new developments is poor. How can the Government make the building industry comply with its new, green regulations?
The Government points to Hammarby Sjöstad, a suburb of Stockholm, as a foreign exemplar. But it was designed 17 years ago when the impacts of climate change were less widely known, so much of the architecture doesn't reach the equivalent of level six of Britain's Code for Sustainable Homes. Dunster thinks that it is “not particularly relevant to Britain's climate and culture. It relies on a whopping great wind turbine or power plant.”
Better, he thinks, to design neighbourhoods that don't demand as much energy in the first place, such as his RuralZED plans. “It's appallingly basic. If you build higher-density, higher-rise neighbourhoods, you need more technology to keep them carbon-neutral because of simple things like less sunlight and warmth reaching the flats. For 70 per cent of the UK, all you need is a simple wood-pellet boiler and solar thermal collectors, not all these wind turbines and photovoltaics.”
Britain already has government-sponsored eco-settlements under way. English Partnerships is creating “eco-villages” on sites from Bristol to Doncaster - all homes built to levels five or six of the sustainable homes code. In 2006, before eco-towns were a glint in Gordon Brown's eye, a new community of 9,500 homes for 24,000 people at Northstowe, outside Cambridge, was announced, an eco-town in all but name, now being considered by South Cambridgeshire District Council. It doesn't conform to the lofty standards of the Eco-towns Prospectus, but with plans for south-facing windows, rainwater harvesting, porous pavements and solar water heating, it gives us a hint as to what to expect. The future is inescapably green.
The Big Question: What are eco-towns, and how green are they in reality?
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Why are we asking this now?
Because yesterday the Government closed its consultation process on 15 potential eco-towns that could be sited across Britain, while protesters angry at the whole idea demonstrated outside Parliament.
So what are eco-towns?
New towns comprising substantial settlements in the countryside of up to 20,000 homes each – that's the key thing to understand, and the main reason for the opposition to them. They would be the first new towns built in Britain for more than 40 years. The difference from previous new settlements is that these would have to be built to meet the highest standards of sustainability, with low and zero carbon technologies, state-of-the-art recycling and water systems, and good public transport. They would also have to consist of between 30 and 50 per cent social housing, as part of the Government's drive to tackle the housing crisis.
What's the problem?
The problem is the thing that estate agents and property dealers bang on about – location, location and location. These are huge tranches of new housing, which weren't in any carefully-considered, much-voted-on local authority housing plans, that are suddenly about to be sited, mostly, in open countryside. Many local communities fear that the character of their districts will be urbanised, and are angry that they were not consulted.
What is meant by 'suddenly about to be sited'?
The whole idea of eco-towns came out of the blue, having been suggested by Gordon Brown in one of his first speeches as Prime Minister just under a year ago. The Government then invited bids from developers, and received nearly 60, which were whittled down to a "long short-list" of 15 by April; it has been inviting comment on these 15 in the consultation exercise which ended yesterday. Some time in the autumn, the Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, will announce which will go ahead (and it will be "up to 10").
So who's protesting?
Organised campaigns against nine of the proposed eco-towns were represented at the demonstration outside the Palace of Westminster yesterday. Campaigners present included Tony Henman, father of the tennis star Tim Henman, who is opposing the proposed 10,000 to 15,000-home new settlement at Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire, close to his own village of Weston-on-the-Green. He said: "The message we want to convey is that we're certainly in favour of new, affordable housing but it's got to be in the right place."
Mike Brain, a councillor in Stratford-upon-Avon District Council, said plans to build 6,000 houses in a scheme at nearby Middle Quinton was inappropriate for an area with no unemployment, few housing needs and where it went against local planning policy. Other high-profile figures have added their support to protests against the Middle Quinton scheme, among them actors Dame Judi Dench and John Nettles and the author Jilly Cooper.
Isn't this just nimbyism?
Well, one man's nimbysim is another man's local democracy. The background to the whole argument is the conflict between new housing and the countryside which has been a major feature of the Labour Government of the last 11 years. The Government is committed – and this is a strong personal commitment from Gordon Brown – to building three million new homes in Britain between now and 2020. However, many of these will have to be in the countryside, and local rural communities may object.
It is fair to say that with its centralising tendencies, this Government has never been over-fond of local planning powers, and so in 2004 it took away the ability of county councils to decide their own future housing numbers, giving this to the new regional assemblies – which it could much more easily control.
In its latest planning bill the Government is going to shift this power once again, giving it this time to the regional development agencies, whose overwhelming preoccupation is economic growth. Tom Oliver, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says this is like "allowing Napoleon to decide who should win the battle of Waterloo".
The announcement of the eco-towns was seen by many people as yet another bypassing of the local democratic process in the pursuit of the housebuilding agenda. Even though those developments eventually chosen will have to go through the planning process, it is a fair assumption that strong Government backing for them would count considerably towards eventual success. Yet some people may feel that to seek to circumvent local planning obstacles in pursuit of housebuilding, when new housing is a pressing social need, is perfectly right and proper.
Don't eco-towns have important green benefits?
In theory, absolutely. A strong case can be made for having new settlements which are examplars of the latest good environmental practice, and which can be beacons for enlightened development elsewhere. However, some critics, and not just local objectors, fear that some of the eco-towns may just be old-fashioned speculative housing projects dressed up in green to get Government approval. After all, the process is mainly developer-led; these settlements are not being built by Greenpeace, but by housebuilders seeking to make high profits.
Concerns have recently arisen as to just how environmentally-friendly some of them are; for example, the Eco-towns Challenge Panel, a review body set up by the Department of Communities and Local Government to assess the current proposals, recognised failings in all of them (although it also recognised benefits.) A commonly expressed concern is that building lots of new houses away from other settlements may only increase dependence on cars and private transport. A more substantial criticism is that it is wrong to "ghettoise" good environmental practice into eco-towns; it should be compulsory with all new housebuilding.
So are they or aren't they good for the environment?
You need to take a balanced view in each case. One of the shrewdest commentators on Britain's housing policy, who is also a committed environmentalist, Tony Burton, the director of policy and strategy at the National Trust, said of eco-towns earlier this year: "It doesn't matter how much energy efficiency and water resource management it has, that can't make a development that's in the wrong place suddenly be in the right one."
So will eco-towns deliver what they promise?
Yes
*They will employ the latest developments in environmental technology
*They will show how whole communities can have a greener existence when planned properly
*They will be beacons of environmental excellence for other developments in the future
No
*They will take up large amounts of open countryside, damaging landscape and biodiversity
*They 'ghettoise' good environmental practice, which should be universal with new homes
*They may even create environmental problems, such as increased car-dependence
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Why are we asking this now?
Because yesterday the Government closed its consultation process on 15 potential eco-towns that could be sited across Britain, while protesters angry at the whole idea demonstrated outside Parliament.
So what are eco-towns?
New towns comprising substantial settlements in the countryside of up to 20,000 homes each – that's the key thing to understand, and the main reason for the opposition to them. They would be the first new towns built in Britain for more than 40 years. The difference from previous new settlements is that these would have to be built to meet the highest standards of sustainability, with low and zero carbon technologies, state-of-the-art recycling and water systems, and good public transport. They would also have to consist of between 30 and 50 per cent social housing, as part of the Government's drive to tackle the housing crisis.
What's the problem?
The problem is the thing that estate agents and property dealers bang on about – location, location and location. These are huge tranches of new housing, which weren't in any carefully-considered, much-voted-on local authority housing plans, that are suddenly about to be sited, mostly, in open countryside. Many local communities fear that the character of their districts will be urbanised, and are angry that they were not consulted.
What is meant by 'suddenly about to be sited'?
The whole idea of eco-towns came out of the blue, having been suggested by Gordon Brown in one of his first speeches as Prime Minister just under a year ago. The Government then invited bids from developers, and received nearly 60, which were whittled down to a "long short-list" of 15 by April; it has been inviting comment on these 15 in the consultation exercise which ended yesterday. Some time in the autumn, the Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, will announce which will go ahead (and it will be "up to 10").
So who's protesting?
Organised campaigns against nine of the proposed eco-towns were represented at the demonstration outside the Palace of Westminster yesterday. Campaigners present included Tony Henman, father of the tennis star Tim Henman, who is opposing the proposed 10,000 to 15,000-home new settlement at Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire, close to his own village of Weston-on-the-Green. He said: "The message we want to convey is that we're certainly in favour of new, affordable housing but it's got to be in the right place."
Mike Brain, a councillor in Stratford-upon-Avon District Council, said plans to build 6,000 houses in a scheme at nearby Middle Quinton was inappropriate for an area with no unemployment, few housing needs and where it went against local planning policy. Other high-profile figures have added their support to protests against the Middle Quinton scheme, among them actors Dame Judi Dench and John Nettles and the author Jilly Cooper.
Isn't this just nimbyism?
Well, one man's nimbysim is another man's local democracy. The background to the whole argument is the conflict between new housing and the countryside which has been a major feature of the Labour Government of the last 11 years. The Government is committed – and this is a strong personal commitment from Gordon Brown – to building three million new homes in Britain between now and 2020. However, many of these will have to be in the countryside, and local rural communities may object.
It is fair to say that with its centralising tendencies, this Government has never been over-fond of local planning powers, and so in 2004 it took away the ability of county councils to decide their own future housing numbers, giving this to the new regional assemblies – which it could much more easily control.
In its latest planning bill the Government is going to shift this power once again, giving it this time to the regional development agencies, whose overwhelming preoccupation is economic growth. Tom Oliver, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says this is like "allowing Napoleon to decide who should win the battle of Waterloo".
The announcement of the eco-towns was seen by many people as yet another bypassing of the local democratic process in the pursuit of the housebuilding agenda. Even though those developments eventually chosen will have to go through the planning process, it is a fair assumption that strong Government backing for them would count considerably towards eventual success. Yet some people may feel that to seek to circumvent local planning obstacles in pursuit of housebuilding, when new housing is a pressing social need, is perfectly right and proper.
Don't eco-towns have important green benefits?
In theory, absolutely. A strong case can be made for having new settlements which are examplars of the latest good environmental practice, and which can be beacons for enlightened development elsewhere. However, some critics, and not just local objectors, fear that some of the eco-towns may just be old-fashioned speculative housing projects dressed up in green to get Government approval. After all, the process is mainly developer-led; these settlements are not being built by Greenpeace, but by housebuilders seeking to make high profits.
Concerns have recently arisen as to just how environmentally-friendly some of them are; for example, the Eco-towns Challenge Panel, a review body set up by the Department of Communities and Local Government to assess the current proposals, recognised failings in all of them (although it also recognised benefits.) A commonly expressed concern is that building lots of new houses away from other settlements may only increase dependence on cars and private transport. A more substantial criticism is that it is wrong to "ghettoise" good environmental practice into eco-towns; it should be compulsory with all new housebuilding.
So are they or aren't they good for the environment?
You need to take a balanced view in each case. One of the shrewdest commentators on Britain's housing policy, who is also a committed environmentalist, Tony Burton, the director of policy and strategy at the National Trust, said of eco-towns earlier this year: "It doesn't matter how much energy efficiency and water resource management it has, that can't make a development that's in the wrong place suddenly be in the right one."
So will eco-towns deliver what they promise?
Yes
*They will employ the latest developments in environmental technology
*They will show how whole communities can have a greener existence when planned properly
*They will be beacons of environmental excellence for other developments in the future
No
*They will take up large amounts of open countryside, damaging landscape and biodiversity
*They 'ghettoise' good environmental practice, which should be universal with new homes
*They may even create environmental problems, such as increased car-dependence
Friday, 8 May 2009
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
http://www.sustainablecities.org.uk/
Going low carbon can deliver progress on other crucial fronts such as energy security, affordable homes, new jobs and regeneration.
So CABE has launched a major new initiative, Sustainable Cities, for the people responsible for planning, designing and managing towns and cities.
Sustainable Cities is the result of a two year research programme, working with the English Core Cities and a team of 30 experts.
Making towns and cities low carbon is not impossibly complicated – but it does mean seeing the bigger picture to make the right decision. Biomass boilers or combined heat and power? How do you balance high density living with more green, natural space? How do you work out energy demand and supply over the next 20 years?
Sustainable Cities aims to help towns and cities avoid the risk of unintended consequences. Going low carbon is not just about the quality of our homes – it is about how we live our lives. The household fuel bill savings from well insulated homes could, after all, be spent on more plasma screens and flights.
As our towns and cities tackle climate change they need to become better places to live and work. It is possible to undermine the quality of a place at the same time as cutting emissions, and make it less sustainable. Investing in electric vehicles will cut carbon emissions, for instance, but contribute nothing to better traffic management, more walking and cycling, and more beautiful streets and open spaces.
Greening our cities
Greening our cities would help tackle recession
23 March 2009
A major shift of public money towards the greening of towns and cities is needed, to tackle both climate change and the recession and create places we all want to live in.
Green roof on Chicago City Hall by William McDonough and Partners
Photo by Morris K. Udall Foundation
With the next budget fast approaching, CABE and Natural England are calling on the government to prioritise funding for green assets such as parks, trees and open spaces. The two government advisors on urban design and the natural environment have just brought together international experts for a conference, ParkCity (March 2009), to help share understanding about how to create more liveable places.
CABE and Natural England argue that since we are faced with two urgent and fundamental challenges – climate change and the recession – investment in grey and green infrastructure needs to be rebalanced.
The spend on grey schemes, like building and expanding roads, is out of kilter with spend on assets like street trees and parks and green spaces.
Richard Simmons, CABE chief executive, spoke at the conference of the need to redesign our towns and cities in response to the imperative of climate change. Design is the signal of intent - and the intention of urban design should be to reduce, absorb and capture more carbon dioxide. “Greening towns and cities needs to be part of the green new deal, as much as technology” he said.
The creation and maintenance of green infrastructure will generate new and sustainable jobs in the private sector as well creating desirable areas to live and work.
Investment in green roofs, for instance, would not only protect cities from flooding by absorbing heavy rain, cool the air in summer, improve air quality and support biodiversity, but it would also create many new jobs.
Just 10 per cent of the nation’s £10 billion budget to widen and build roads could pay for 40 new parks, half a million new street trees, one and a half million square metres of green roof, and 1,000 miles of safe greenways for cyclists and pedestrians.
The ParkCity conference brought together world experts with leaders from the public, private and third sectors to debate how green infrastructure can deliver energy and transport solutions, economic regeneration, improved public health and climate change adaptation.
Read our interviews with:
Edward T McMahon – the founding father of the concept of green infrastructure is a leading conservationist, environmental lawyer and an inspirational public speaker
Wade Crowfoot – San Francisco’s director of climate protection initiatives is at the front line of the Californian city’s not-so-quiet climate revolution
Klaus Bondam – Copenhagen’s mayor of environmental administration is leading that city’s drive to become provide the world’s best urban environment by 2015.
23 March 2009
A major shift of public money towards the greening of towns and cities is needed, to tackle both climate change and the recession and create places we all want to live in.
Green roof on Chicago City Hall by William McDonough and Partners
Photo by Morris K. Udall Foundation
With the next budget fast approaching, CABE and Natural England are calling on the government to prioritise funding for green assets such as parks, trees and open spaces. The two government advisors on urban design and the natural environment have just brought together international experts for a conference, ParkCity (March 2009), to help share understanding about how to create more liveable places.CABE and Natural England argue that since we are faced with two urgent and fundamental challenges – climate change and the recession – investment in grey and green infrastructure needs to be rebalanced.
The spend on grey schemes, like building and expanding roads, is out of kilter with spend on assets like street trees and parks and green spaces.
Richard Simmons, CABE chief executive, spoke at the conference of the need to redesign our towns and cities in response to the imperative of climate change. Design is the signal of intent - and the intention of urban design should be to reduce, absorb and capture more carbon dioxide. “Greening towns and cities needs to be part of the green new deal, as much as technology” he said.
The creation and maintenance of green infrastructure will generate new and sustainable jobs in the private sector as well creating desirable areas to live and work.
Investment in green roofs, for instance, would not only protect cities from flooding by absorbing heavy rain, cool the air in summer, improve air quality and support biodiversity, but it would also create many new jobs.
Just 10 per cent of the nation’s £10 billion budget to widen and build roads could pay for 40 new parks, half a million new street trees, one and a half million square metres of green roof, and 1,000 miles of safe greenways for cyclists and pedestrians.
The ParkCity conference brought together world experts with leaders from the public, private and third sectors to debate how green infrastructure can deliver energy and transport solutions, economic regeneration, improved public health and climate change adaptation.
Read our interviews with:
Edward T McMahon – the founding father of the concept of green infrastructure is a leading conservationist, environmental lawyer and an inspirational public speaker
Wade Crowfoot – San Francisco’s director of climate protection initiatives is at the front line of the Californian city’s not-so-quiet climate revolution
Klaus Bondam – Copenhagen’s mayor of environmental administration is leading that city’s drive to become provide the world’s best urban environment by 2015.
Zira Island
The Seven Peaks of Azerbaijan is a master plan for a Zero Energy culture and entertainment city on Zira Island situated within the Caspian Sea. Located within the crescent shaped bay of Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, Zira Island is designed to be a sustainable model for urban development, and an iconographic skyline recognizable from the city’s coastline. As a young post-soviet democracy, Azerbaijan is rediscovering its national identity, The Seven Peaks of Azerbaijan proposes an architectural landscape derived from its natural landscape. The mountains are conceived not only as metaphors, but engineered as entire eco-systems, a model for future sustainable urban development.
Zira Island from Andreas Klok Pedersen on Vimeo.
Zira Island from Andreas Klok Pedersen on Vimeo.
8-HOUSE
8-House is located in Ørestad on the edge of Copenhagen. 8-House offers homes for people in all of life’s stages: the young and the old, singles, families that grow and families that become smaller. Instead of dividing the different functions of the building - for both habitation and retail - into separate blocks, the various functions have been spread out horizontally. The apartments are placed at the top while the commercial program unfolds at the base of the building. As a result, the different horizontal layers have achieved a quality of their own: the apartments benefit from the view, sunlight and fresh air, while the commercial merges with life on the street.
8H - The 8-House from BIG on Vimeo.
8H - The 8-House from BIG on Vimeo.
Monday, 20 April 2009
RIBA Competition '09
These pictures of mine and Affan Beg's (fellow MAED student) work exhibited at RIBA for there competition "caring for the old". Our project was to fuse an RSA brief with the RIBA one into producing a concept for how the elderly will live 60yrs in the future! We made top 20 but unfortunately didn't win!!
Business Unit_floursh visit 13/04/09
Notes from Visit:
> Shared office - with other design firm.
> 4 Main Staff - all come from Park Avenue, large corporate design consultancy.
> The rest are freelancers, means they look to find the right staff and then need to balance the staff with the amount of jobs/projects on. They give bonuses depending on good work! Try to always celebrate b-days, anniversaries within the company, few drinks down the pub or Christmas lunch etc!
> "F**k the credit crunch" when asked how its was affecting them, they said they were the "Busiest we've ever been!"
> They aim to keep overheads as small as possible!
> As they are small they can be attractive to potential employers as they are "adaptive" as well as stating that they can be competitive against other firms that maybe larger and not give as good rates! However this does limit the amount of work they can handle! Both Catherine and Guy don't get much time off!
> The company is quite dependent on both Guy T and Catherine.........if something were to happen to either of them e.g. birth or death etc, then this would be a massive threat to the company!!
> Some big companies over-look flourish, due to their size. Also many big companies have their own branding environment designers or already have a partnership with another company!
> All money earned for the project gets put into the project and the overall money earned is again put back into the company!
> They charge day-rate to the client and every job they take they aim to have a profit between the margin of 25-75%.
> The work they do is a balance between Consultancy vs Production. Consultancy (they make a higher profit from this type of work) is mainly producing visuals, concepts or graphical work for a client whereas the production is when they do an event or hire a venue, this is a much larger budget but has to include costs such as: venue, building sets, printing, building, hiring, personnel etc.
> So what makes them different?? They have a strong record, they make things happen! Everyone in the company is from a creative background, they have large individual experience within the company!
> "Our end goal is delivering the initial idea"
> Its key to put the audience first! and to create brand experience.
> They also work with much larger design agencies.
> Strongly believe people buy into flourish: Nearly all there work is from "word of mouth"
> Its is there aim to be approachable and welcoming as......
> Reasons to setup own company: within there previous company other departments were failing and they saw an opportunity!
> They believe a key part of their success is there complimentary skill sets!
> When they started they had 1 client (T-mobile), after 1st yr 95% of their turnover was from that client!
> They have a silent partner who provided the initial setup costs (Business Angel) and believe without this persons capital they wouldn't have been able to grow so fast. Started the company from Guy T's Spare room! This help with buying computers, software, hiring designers, renting office space etc.
> Now they have 2-3 regular clients.
> The Future plan is to keep "Responsible Growth" and "to deliver both interesting and great work!"
> They don't like boring work! But at during this economic downturn all work must be considered! The economic downturn does remain a threat to them!
> They look most for brand focused work......jobs that involve communicating a brand.....however also do smaller jobs such as visuals, conferences, graphical presentations etc.
> Like to challenge a problem to solve
> weaknesses: not brilliant in animations and new media!!
> Current: 4 full time, 4 freelancers but have a pool of 10-15 freelancers that they use! Good thing about freelancers is that they have experiences from other companies and can have a more influential presence, new ideas and fresh thinking/input! However they are paid nearly double!
> means 8 people in the office. In 3rs they've gone from 2 - 8!
> This years projected turnover is predicted to be 3x that of their 1st yr!
> They believe in keeping steady workload and that slow growth is key during the economic crisis!
> Future projects:they have a traveling project being done at the moment, this will travel the UK, the next world cup and also creating a beach in Birmingham for an airline company.
> They have the World Cup 2012 to look forward to.....they done projects at the previous 2, so are hopeful they will be doing projects at the next one!
> They are always looking for new ways to be innovative!! both themselves and there projects......they research new technologies, designs, materials, the market, blogs etc. "Always checking whats out there!"
> Some of there work is "white labeled" (a product or service produced by one company (the producer) that other companies (the marketers) rebrand to make it appear as if they made it.)
> Going to bigger companies and doing work for them gives instant cash flow!! However can't use the flourish name!
> Target audience: they approach the brand or creative director of a company.
> They are Rooster approved - for t-mob, castrole and BP. by getting on that list helps get them jobs.
> They keep up to date with new technology: projections, multi-touch screens etc as well as new software, just updated to the new apple imac and adobe CS4!
> Backgrounds:
Guy T - Product design degree, Park Avenue where his worked his way up to creative director.
Catherine - Interior Design Degree, worked at interior firms then at Park Avenue.
Guy C - Graphic Design degree, work at a number of consultancies before becoming Studio head at Park Avenue.
Trina - Photography degree, worked at Park Avenue and freelanced.
> Etos: Guy: "dont really have one but i would say, to work hard, have fun and enjoy it!"
> They have branded themsleves: Officially called Flourish Creative LTD
Why called flourish?? Because the word itself symbolises them! been told to look at the dictionary definition!
1. To grow well or luxuriantly; thrive: The crops flourished in the rich soil.
2. To do or fare well; prosper: "No village on the railroad failed to flourish" John Kenneth Galbraith.
3. To be in a period of highest productivity, excellence, or influence: a poet who flourished in the tenth century.
4. To make bold, sweeping movements: The banner flourished in the wind.
> They prefer longer projects but actually make more money on smaller projects - so try to link a balance between the two, to give stability within the company!
> They already have a varied range of projects within the company history, however they would like to do some more permanent projects like the Bentley development lab. They are current looking for these!
> Shared office - with other design firm.
> 4 Main Staff - all come from Park Avenue, large corporate design consultancy.
> The rest are freelancers, means they look to find the right staff and then need to balance the staff with the amount of jobs/projects on. They give bonuses depending on good work! Try to always celebrate b-days, anniversaries within the company, few drinks down the pub or Christmas lunch etc!
> "F**k the credit crunch" when asked how its was affecting them, they said they were the "Busiest we've ever been!"
> They aim to keep overheads as small as possible!
> As they are small they can be attractive to potential employers as they are "adaptive" as well as stating that they can be competitive against other firms that maybe larger and not give as good rates! However this does limit the amount of work they can handle! Both Catherine and Guy don't get much time off!
> The company is quite dependent on both Guy T and Catherine.........if something were to happen to either of them e.g. birth or death etc, then this would be a massive threat to the company!!
> Some big companies over-look flourish, due to their size. Also many big companies have their own branding environment designers or already have a partnership with another company!
> All money earned for the project gets put into the project and the overall money earned is again put back into the company!
> They charge day-rate to the client and every job they take they aim to have a profit between the margin of 25-75%.
> The work they do is a balance between Consultancy vs Production. Consultancy (they make a higher profit from this type of work) is mainly producing visuals, concepts or graphical work for a client whereas the production is when they do an event or hire a venue, this is a much larger budget but has to include costs such as: venue, building sets, printing, building, hiring, personnel etc.
> So what makes them different?? They have a strong record, they make things happen! Everyone in the company is from a creative background, they have large individual experience within the company!
> "Our end goal is delivering the initial idea"
> Its key to put the audience first! and to create brand experience.
> They also work with much larger design agencies.
> Strongly believe people buy into flourish: Nearly all there work is from "word of mouth"
> Its is there aim to be approachable and welcoming as......
> Reasons to setup own company: within there previous company other departments were failing and they saw an opportunity!
> They believe a key part of their success is there complimentary skill sets!
> When they started they had 1 client (T-mobile), after 1st yr 95% of their turnover was from that client!
> They have a silent partner who provided the initial setup costs (Business Angel) and believe without this persons capital they wouldn't have been able to grow so fast. Started the company from Guy T's Spare room! This help with buying computers, software, hiring designers, renting office space etc.
> Now they have 2-3 regular clients.
> The Future plan is to keep "Responsible Growth" and "to deliver both interesting and great work!"
> They don't like boring work! But at during this economic downturn all work must be considered! The economic downturn does remain a threat to them!
> They look most for brand focused work......jobs that involve communicating a brand.....however also do smaller jobs such as visuals, conferences, graphical presentations etc.
> Like to challenge a problem to solve
> weaknesses: not brilliant in animations and new media!!
> Current: 4 full time, 4 freelancers but have a pool of 10-15 freelancers that they use! Good thing about freelancers is that they have experiences from other companies and can have a more influential presence, new ideas and fresh thinking/input! However they are paid nearly double!
> means 8 people in the office. In 3rs they've gone from 2 - 8!
> This years projected turnover is predicted to be 3x that of their 1st yr!
> They believe in keeping steady workload and that slow growth is key during the economic crisis!
> Future projects:they have a traveling project being done at the moment, this will travel the UK, the next world cup and also creating a beach in Birmingham for an airline company.
> They have the World Cup 2012 to look forward to.....they done projects at the previous 2, so are hopeful they will be doing projects at the next one!
> They are always looking for new ways to be innovative!! both themselves and there projects......they research new technologies, designs, materials, the market, blogs etc. "Always checking whats out there!"
> Some of there work is "white labeled" (a product or service produced by one company (the producer) that other companies (the marketers) rebrand to make it appear as if they made it.)
> Going to bigger companies and doing work for them gives instant cash flow!! However can't use the flourish name!
> Target audience: they approach the brand or creative director of a company.
> They are Rooster approved - for t-mob, castrole and BP. by getting on that list helps get them jobs.
> They keep up to date with new technology: projections, multi-touch screens etc as well as new software, just updated to the new apple imac and adobe CS4!
> Backgrounds:
Guy T - Product design degree, Park Avenue where his worked his way up to creative director.
Catherine - Interior Design Degree, worked at interior firms then at Park Avenue.
Guy C - Graphic Design degree, work at a number of consultancies before becoming Studio head at Park Avenue.
Trina - Photography degree, worked at Park Avenue and freelanced.
> Etos: Guy: "dont really have one but i would say, to work hard, have fun and enjoy it!"
> They have branded themsleves: Officially called Flourish Creative LTD
Why called flourish?? Because the word itself symbolises them! been told to look at the dictionary definition!
1. To grow well or luxuriantly; thrive: The crops flourished in the rich soil.
2. To do or fare well; prosper: "No village on the railroad failed to flourish" John Kenneth Galbraith.
3. To be in a period of highest productivity, excellence, or influence: a poet who flourished in the tenth century.
4. To make bold, sweeping movements: The banner flourished in the wind.
> They prefer longer projects but actually make more money on smaller projects - so try to link a balance between the two, to give stability within the company!
> They already have a varied range of projects within the company history, however they would like to do some more permanent projects like the Bentley development lab. They are current looking for these!
Student Housing
The high rise at the Campagneplein location lies in the middle of the Residential and Social Centre on the Boulevard facilities street.
The project stands between the Bastille by Piet Blom and the Herman Haan sport centre. Just like the Calslaan project, this building is also on a former parking lot.
The building is nine stories high on the sport fields’ side. On the Boulevard side, the building fits the small-scale character of this pedestrian street with two building layers. The supermarket and the hairdresser are on this side. On the first floor, the dwellings are situated round a communal roof terrace. The façade facing the sport centre is fitted out as a climbing wall.
These two student dormitories – a courtyard building in the forest and a highrise with a climbing wall – are located on the campus of Enschede university in the east of the Netherlands. Thanks to a functional mix of housing, study and leisure and the arrangement of the buildings as solitaires in the landscape, the university compound from the 1950ies is one of the few real campuses in the Netherlands.
According to a new masterplan, the dorms were originally meant to be built next to a new straight aisle through the forest. In order to avoid this interference with the landscape, we looked for alternative sites and found two more or less abandoned parking lots in strategic locations.
The highrise at Campagneplein also stands on a former parking lot and borders on a sports field in the south. The sports theme has been literally integrated into the architecture, in the form of a 30 metre high climbing wall.
student housing
In this case, the floor plans as well as the building envelope were already determined by the client. From these starting points, we generated a 9-storey building next to the sports field, connecting to a 1-storey building housing a supermarket and some commercial spaces. On the north side, there’s an additional row of student studios on top of the low building, whose roof serves as a collective garden. The façade materials are the same as for the courtyard building in the forest: juicy red glass panels and dark brick.
The climbing wall with 2500 grips is the second highest in the Netherlands and forms the eyecatcher of the otherwise rather straight-forward building. It was a gift from the client to the inhabitants of the campus, because the university of Enschede has a very active and successful mountaineering club – however paradoxical that may sound in the flat Netherlands. As a climber in the Netherlands, one anyway has to resort to artificially created training spots, so why not combine architecture and climbing wall?
The folds of the wall look like the urban abstraction of a mountain and give the building a sculptural appearance. Seen from the sports field, it seems to be bending its hip. The brick frame around the glass panel façade emphasizes this impression and creates a logo-like shape. The western wall of the low-rise building is also covered in grips and can be used for „bouldering“.
The climbing wall instills a fun factor into the building and therefore forms a contrast to the chique red glass façade. As motive for a sculptural deformation, it also gives the highrise character and recognizability.
The project stands between the Bastille by Piet Blom and the Herman Haan sport centre. Just like the Calslaan project, this building is also on a former parking lot.
The building is nine stories high on the sport fields’ side. On the Boulevard side, the building fits the small-scale character of this pedestrian street with two building layers. The supermarket and the hairdresser are on this side. On the first floor, the dwellings are situated round a communal roof terrace. The façade facing the sport centre is fitted out as a climbing wall.
These two student dormitories – a courtyard building in the forest and a highrise with a climbing wall – are located on the campus of Enschede university in the east of the Netherlands. Thanks to a functional mix of housing, study and leisure and the arrangement of the buildings as solitaires in the landscape, the university compound from the 1950ies is one of the few real campuses in the Netherlands.
According to a new masterplan, the dorms were originally meant to be built next to a new straight aisle through the forest. In order to avoid this interference with the landscape, we looked for alternative sites and found two more or less abandoned parking lots in strategic locations.
The highrise at Campagneplein also stands on a former parking lot and borders on a sports field in the south. The sports theme has been literally integrated into the architecture, in the form of a 30 metre high climbing wall.
student housing
In this case, the floor plans as well as the building envelope were already determined by the client. From these starting points, we generated a 9-storey building next to the sports field, connecting to a 1-storey building housing a supermarket and some commercial spaces. On the north side, there’s an additional row of student studios on top of the low building, whose roof serves as a collective garden. The façade materials are the same as for the courtyard building in the forest: juicy red glass panels and dark brick.
The climbing wall with 2500 grips is the second highest in the Netherlands and forms the eyecatcher of the otherwise rather straight-forward building. It was a gift from the client to the inhabitants of the campus, because the university of Enschede has a very active and successful mountaineering club – however paradoxical that may sound in the flat Netherlands. As a climber in the Netherlands, one anyway has to resort to artificially created training spots, so why not combine architecture and climbing wall?
The folds of the wall look like the urban abstraction of a mountain and give the building a sculptural appearance. Seen from the sports field, it seems to be bending its hip. The brick frame around the glass panel façade emphasizes this impression and creates a logo-like shape. The western wall of the low-rise building is also covered in grips and can be used for „bouldering“.
The climbing wall instills a fun factor into the building and therefore forms a contrast to the chique red glass façade. As motive for a sculptural deformation, it also gives the highrise character and recognizability.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Shelter
http://england.shelter.org.uk
Now is the Time
Millions of people are being pushed to breaking point by housing costs. High housing costs are trapping people in bad housing, causing homelessness and wrecking people’s chances in life.
- More than two million households are spending more than half their income on housing costs.[1]
- Nearly a quarter of the country’s households (six million) suffer from stress or depression worrying about their housing costs and four million people admit it’s kept them awake at night. [2]
- In the last year a quarter of all households have had to reduce their food shopping in order to meet housing costs and over a third have cut back on family treats.[3]
At the heart of Britain’s housing problems is the failure by successive Governments to build enough homes to keep pace with demand.
We have an historic opportunity to fix this.
In 2007 Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged to build three million new homes in England by 2020 to help ease the housing crisis.
We need to ensure that the right kind of homes are built in the right place and offered at the right price. It is vital that a significant proportion of new housing is affordable, including social housing for rent.
With Shelter's Now is the Time Campaign we are calling for more affordable homes, protection for people who are homeless or in bad housing and an end to the housing divide.
Our 12-point plan
Build homes
Without more affordable housing, many people have no realistic hope of accessing a decent secure home.
- The Government has pledged three million new homes in England by 2020. It should set targets for what proportion of these will be social rented and for low cost ownership.
- The housing sector must work with local, regional and national government to maximise delivery of new homes and to meet the target to build 45,000 social rented homes each year in England by 2010-11.
- House-builders, planners and Government should ensure that all new homes are built as part of mixed and sustainable communities. The homes themselves should meet rigorous design, space and environmental standards.
- The Government and housing providers should create a simpler range of low-cost home-ownership schemes, affordable for people on below average incomes and ensure that such schemes do not reduce the social housing stock.
Protect people
People who are badly housed, or at risk of homelessness because of high housing costs, need robust protection from eviction, repossession and homelessness.
- Lenders should only use repossession as a last resort, providing more active support to homeowners to prevent their difficulties from escalating and working with advice agencies.
- The Financial Services Authority should improve the enforcement of rules on lenders’ repossession behaviour and should regulate sale and leaseback schemes.
- New guidance should be issued so that courts grant possession only if they are satisfied that the lender has looked at all the options and has no reasonable alternative.
- The Government should strengthen the safety net for people in danger of being repossessed, by improving both state and private mortgage protection.
- Landlords, local authorities and the Government should consider innovative models to improve the security and affordability of private renting.
- The Government should improve the housing benefit system by addressing shortfalls in the private rented sector, increasing administrative efficiency and tackling poverty trap effects.
End the housing divide
The gap between housing haves and have-nots is widening and there is a danger of this inequality becoming entrenched for generations.
- The Government must review and reform property taxation to make the system fairer. This should include consideration of council tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax and capital gains tax.
- The Government should take measures to prevent unsuitable house price rises. This should include examination of the way housing demand is influenced by the ease of access to mortgage finance.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Paris_23-25/3/09
After seeing some interesting housing types and re-used buildings in Paris i decided visit the city for a couple of days to give myself a better understanding of the projects!
These are some pictures from my visit:
These are some pictures from my visit:
