Chapter 1 - How dense can we be?
Andrew Beharrell, Pollard Thomas Edwards
We are sleep-walking into hyperdense development without proper regard for the long-term consequences. Mid-rise street-based alternatives can meet all London’s housing needs and create popular and sustainable places
There is massive unmet demand in London and the South East for more homes and better homes and the community infrastructure required to create successful neighbourhoods. This essay will provide some historical perspective to the debate about housing supply, and will touch on the wide range of possible solutions. Our message is that there are many answers – and growing up (meaning tall buildings) and growing out (meaning Green Belt release) are not the only solutions or the best ones.
The four practices involved in this report have been designing and delivering new and improved homes for over 40 years. In that period, we have seen a dramatic change in the intensity of residential development in London and in former market towns within London’s orbit. You can see this most clearly in the typical height of new residential buildings. Just 25 years ago it was around three to four storeys. Today it seems that only 20 storeys and more is regarded as ‘tall’. The illustrations which follow show the density of each example expressed in homes (dwellings) per hectare (dph), and show a range from just 12 dph for parts of inter-war Metroland up to 450 dph or more for projects emerging along the River Thames today.
The four practices involved in this report have been designing and delivering new and improved homes for over 40 years. In that period, we have seen a dramatic change in the intensity of residential development in London and in former market towns within London’s orbit. You can see this most clearly in the typical height of new residential buildings. Just 25 years ago it was around three to four storeys. Today it seems that only 20 storeys and more is regarded as ‘tall’. The illustrations which follow show the density of each example expressed in homes (dwellings) per hectare (dph), and show a range from just 12 dph for parts of inter-war Metroland up to 450 dph or more for projects emerging along the River Thames today.
To read the full Chapter please download the report. Here we just show the Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
There are many alternative ways to create more and better homes in London before we resort to building more super-towers or concreting over our open spaces. We are struck by how polarised and simplistic the debate has become. Some commentators declare themselves pro-skyscraper or anti-tower-block. Others are outraged at any suggestion of a Green Belt review and outward expansion. It is a myth that super-towers (over 20 storeys) can make a significant contribution to London’s housing need. When their overall impacts are fully considered they are an inefficient use of land, energy and other resources. Medium-rise urban quarters can create better homes and neighbourhoods at surprisingly high densities, and are more cost-effective than other solutions. We go with the view that well-located clusters of towers, alongside low-rise development and open space, can boost regeneration. But we don’t like trophy towers dropped at random into our historic city. Taller buildings do have a role within well-connected developments, provided they are integrated with other typologies and contribute to the creation of successful streets and other public realm. Residential towers need more careful consideration than other typologies: where to locate them, what they look like and the much-publicised impact on London’s skyline are just a few among many issues to consider, including management, microclimate and energy use. At the same time, we believe that London’s suburbs are a neglected resource. Smart thinking about property ownership, transport and housing typologies could bring about a new golden age of Metroland – preserving the greenery while creating many more homes and bringing obsolete housing stock into the 21st century. If London is to evolve in a way that creates thriving communities, then planning policies and standards need to adapt too. At the moment they are focused almost exclusively on conventional models of permanent housing for long-stay households. Although these will rightly remain the priority, we should also consider alternative typologies to attract and retain London’s young mobile workforce: micro-homes, cluster-homes and even temporary pre-fab cities. In accessible locations and with an effective management strategy, these could potentially be justified, as part of a balanced and affordable mix. There are many other solutions besides ‘growing up’ and ‘growing out’ to create popular homes and neighbourhoods, which build on London’s distinctive traditions of place-making and social integration. Our case studies seek to demonstrate this. |
Recommendations
Adopt mid-rise development as the preferred solution to London’s housing needs: mid-rise mansion blocks (5-8 storeys) including family apartments and duplexes, as well as smaller homes, should be the starting point for meeting London’s housing needs. Integrate taller buildings into mixed-density masterplans: taller buildings can form part of the solution when integrated with other street-based typologies and generous public realm. Create mixed neighbourhoods by combining housing typologies: careful combinations of mid-rise and taller elements can accommodate low-rise houses within high density neighbourhoods. Resist hyperdensity: there should be a presumption against very tall residential towers and hyperdense development over 350 dph. Subject hyperdense proposals to more rigorous testing: very dense and tall development, including iconic landmarks, may be justifiable in some locations, but should be scrutinised more carefully for their impacts over a wide surrounding area. Review planning policies and housing standards to allow more flexibility and encourage innovation: although the London Housing Design Guide has generally had a beneficial effect, it is too rigid and tends towards homogeneous solutions. We also need to promote new typologies to attract and retain London’s young mobile workforce. |