Housing and Urban Design

The effect of housing and climate change on the Nigerian Environment was assessed employing secondary sources of data.  It revealed among other things that climate change is due to natural force and anthropogenic activities of man especially in the course of building his house.  This alters the Natural equilibrium of the eco-system.  The energy mostly used today in houses is produced from burning of fossil fuels which emits greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere.  These cause global warming and by extension climate change.  The paper recommended adaptation and mitigation strategies through sustainable architecture as panacea. It concluded that climate will continue to change; however, man must only tap the natural resources for his survival in a responsible and sustainable manner. Keywords: housing, climate change, built environment, adaptation, mitigation.

Over the years, professionals in the built environment have increased their concern about
environmental protection in order to achieve a more sustainable built environment. In line with
this, an architect is required to help achieve a sustainable environment through reasonable
incorporation of sustainable principles into the design of buildings, evaluate and reduce their
environmental impacts by understanding the life cycle performance of their proposed buildings.
Life cycle assessment evaluates the environmental impacts of building components and materials.
This study reviewed related published literatures to give an insight into life cycle assessment of
buildings and its relevance to sustainable architecture with a view of incorporating it into
architectural practice in Nigeria. This paper noted that adequate building performance assessment
throughout the building process enhance health, safety, quality of life and sustainable
environment. This paper finally highlights effective strategies which when adopted would
improve the architects‘ decision making in achieving sustainable built environment.
Keywords: Architectural practice, built environment, life cycle assessment, sustainable
architecture, sustainable building

This research was commissioned in the immediate aftermath of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) Building for Life (BfL) evaluation of all the housing schemes submitted for funding under the Kickstart Round 1 programme administered by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) in 2010. At the commissioning stage, no decision had been taken about whether the research would be published or what follow up work would be undertaken, due to the very open brief given to the research team. 

As the research was concluded in what turned out to be the final year of CABE before its merger with the Design Council, follow up work was undertaken through workshops for housebuilders and planners, focussing on the remedial design exercises undertaken by urban designers, the Matrix Partnership. These were welcomed by housebuilders as ‘one of the most useful things you (CABE) have ever done for us.’ The planning workshops were notable for illustrating that a generation of middle aged planners found the exercises very difficult to do. By contrast with older planners, who studied civic design, and younger planners who had urban design in the curriculum of their undergraduate courses, this cohort had very little design content in their formal training unless they undertaken urban training in post-graduate settings.

The lack of skills and confidence to engage in design issues by planners and non-architect designers was shown to be a fundamental barrier to improving the design of new homes and neighbourhoods.

Introduction and Summaries of the Research Papers

Kickstart Round 1 provided a snapshot of current housing market products. The research brief was to investigate whether and how the generally poor quality of new housing assessed against Building for Life criteria was capable of being improved, and what else could be learnt about the process of design, planning and development to inform CABE’s work to improve design quality.

The four elements of the research

These elements undertook qualitative analysis of a small number of representative schemes:
• Matt Lally –urban designer - demonstrated that it was possible to make design changes from a vocabulary of seven simple principles of urban design about site layout and public space, with modest design time and cost implications that could achieve significantly better quality outcomes.
• Kaeren Harrison- urban designer and landscape architect - concluded that most standard house types were of a reasonable housing design quality and capable of generating good site layout options, but that there was a lack of skill and flexibility in adopting and using appropriate standard house types that were fit for purpose in any particular situation for creating locally distinctive places
• Helen Walker – sustainable communities and planning expert - found a mixed record of improvement in the quality of design solutions adopted by designers/developers as a result of processes adopted by LAs and LPAs, decisions by PINS, and CABE design review and enabling support.
• Jim Meikle – chartered surveyor - provided quantitative analytical support to these three elements. Some case studies could be improved at little or no extra cost, and site utilisation could often be improved.
• The Lead Enabler, Stephen Hill – chartered planning and development surveyor - provided a contextual overview about current market conditions and their effect on investment in and delivery of quality placemaking, and further analysis of the case studies and quantitative data provided by CABE.

The team felt there were limitations to what could be concluded as over 40% of all the criteria cells scored zero, often as a result of lack of information. It was also possible that Kickstart was attracting a greater proportion of poorer quality schemes, as these were the ones needing most support on stalled sites. However, collectively we identified BfL criteria that were more or less likely to be met or attempted by house builders on such ‘ordinary’ schemes.

There was a very clear profile of developers and designers who scored worst and best on BfL criteria, and of Local Planning Authorities (LPA) that had approved the worst and best schemes. Some of the worst scoring house builders were also the best scoring in LPA areas where the BfL scores of all approved schemes were also good, from which it might be concluded that these LPAs were also more competent and well resourced in setting and maintaining high quality design requirements through the planning process.

Overview
The current house building ‘model’ is not fit for purpose. It is not designed to deliver placemaking outcomes, and the business objectives of most house builders are not aligned with and often not compatible with the long term objectives of public policy, local governance and place management, which is not usually part of the initial process of project planning or design.

Efforts to improve design should focus on what a new model should be able to do, rather than patching up what we have grown used to. Account will have to be taken of the changes that are taking place in the shape of the industry as it adjusts to the effects of ‘localism’ on the likely distribution and scale of future housing development.

There should be greater interest in the capabilities of all house builders, and how to support CLG and HMT in encouraging new entrants ie. niche eco/innovative builders, and the self-organised housing sector that is likely to receive policy support from the Coalition Government.

The CABE design focus must be informed by a practical understanding of ‘What house builders do and don’t like doing’, (or ‘can and can’t do’), based on the team’s analysis of BfL criteria undertaken with the Planning Director for a major house builder. [Not included in the evidence, as these opinions were provided informally on a strictly confidential basis.]

The quality of public realm, covered mainly by BfL Chapters 2 and 3, is where the greatest improvements are needed. The research has shown how they can be made without much difficulty or cost. However, on the basis of also examining over 200 entries to the 2010 CLG Housing Design Awards, there is a case to look at the evidence of co-producing places and particularly public space, in regeneration projects and new self-organised housing schemes in USA, Northern Europe, including UK, and older developments like SPAN Housing, with significant input from prospective occupiers and existing residents. These qualities are also recorded in the CABE Essays ‘Who should build our homes?’ [http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/CABE/Resources/CABE-publications/Who-should-build-our-homes] Even the best “designed” schemes cannot provide the quality of lived experience observable in co-produced schemes.

The BfL criteria have suffered from ‘Mission Creep’. The original award/best practice focus is not wholly appropriate as an evaluation tool in public procurement, and there have clearly been misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of BfL in the public debate about Kickstart. The team considers there is a real risk to the BfL brand unless the implications for its use in differing circumstances are better understood and explained to participants and commentators.

Apart from the design capabilities of house builders and their designers, questions are raised about the skills, training and leadership of PINS and LPA officers and members, needed to support policy and decision making in favour of design quality.
 
Main lines for future enquiry
• Development model: The problem with land price and investment confidence arising from uncertainty over planning and infrastructure delivery
• Urban design principles: Adoption of simple principles embedded in BfL Chapters 2 and 3 to be assessed on a “comply or explain” basis
• Standard house types: Development of "deemed to comply" types that create comfortable living arrangements, reflect local distinctiveness and contribute to the creation of useable public realm
• Design process: Intelligent deployment of limited design skills and awareness and thus precious design time
• Construction technology: Beyond Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), with more emphasis on carbon efficiency, customisation and sustainable lifestyles.
• Planning: Creative use of Local Development Orders (LDO)s and Sustainable Communities Act 2007 designations and tougher but less prescriptive and detailed Design Codes.
• Public Land: Disposals to open competition to wider cross-section of providers with more intelligent and less onerous disposal briefs
• Purchaser and renter awareness: Standard house data, energy performance, size, etc and more informed feedback in use.
• Co-production: The big design idea for the ‘Big Society’?

There is a lot of talk at the moment about the how digital technologies are or will impact on a variety of aspects of our lives, ranging from the nature of our work relations to urban life and housing. The ramifications of the impacts of digitalisation on our cities and in particular on housing have been the topic of a recent Housing Europe conference in Tallinn, Estonia.

Online link: https://www.sociologylens.net/article-types/opinion/digitalisation-cities-housing-will-future-bring

This work aims to advance knowledge about the high-rise large-scale housing complexes built in Latin America throughout the twentieth century: its origins, relation with contemporary cities, mapping of the the most representative works and the comparative critical analysis of some of these works. The central hypothesis of the thesis is that such buildings are more suited to the current Latin American cities than at the time they were built, being needed that their present conditions become better known. To examine the proposed hypothesis were selected thirty works of reference, designed from 1945 to 1979 and set in nine countries in Latin America where this type of housing was adopted: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The work has been divided into two main parts. Part One brings an approach from the historical and historiographical points of view of the subject of high-rise large-scale housing, tracing its origins from Europe, its hybridization with the North American urban researches, extending until its adaptation and adoption in several countries of Latin America from the 1940s on, reaching distinct meanings of those acquired by these buildings elsewhere. Once knowing both the historical conditions as the historiographical construction responsible for the enhancement and subsequent criticism of the studied housing typology, Part Two assesses the current conditions of use of those reference works, being twelve of them subject of critical comparative analysis. Despite the mystique that surrounds the high-rise large-scale residential buildings, their potential is not at all asleep, and its current revaluation can be identified, together with the idea of compact cities and emerging concepts of urban densification. It is also an aim to identify which are the main factors to be considered in the assessment of high-rise large-scale urban collective housing in order to make the most of the potential of these architectures, but avoiding at the same time its possible negative effects.

Alternative housing logics and forms of accommodation can provide London with a partial solution to its housing supply crisis, but their individual contexts, prospects and constraints within the capital city need to be better known and understood.

Alternative housing logics and forms of accommodation can provide London with a partial solution to its housing supply crisis, but their individual contexts, prospects and constraints within the capital city need to be better known and understood.