RADICAL HOUSING

DESIGNING MULTIGENERATIONAL + CO-LIVING HOUSING FOR ALL

CAROLINE DOVE

© RIBA Publishing, 2020

Published by RIBA Publishing, 66 Portland Place, London, W1B 1AD

ISBN 978 1 85946 891 3

The rights of Caroline Dove to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 sections 77 and 78.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright owner.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Commissioning Editor: Ginny Mills

Assistant Editor: Clare Holloway

Production: Michèle Woodger

Designed and typeset by Kalina Norton

Printed and bound by Short Run Press Limited, Exeter

Cover image: © Ossip van Duivenbode

While every effort has been made to check the accuracy and quality of the information given in this publication, neither the Author nor the Publisher accept any responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, for any errors or omissions that it may contain, or for any misunderstandings arising from it.

www.ribapublishing.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Caroline Dove

Caroline Dove is an architect and Partner of HTA Design LLP, with over 30 years’ experience designing housing with communities. She leads multi-disciplinary teams responsible for designing and delivering a wide range of community-led regeneration and refurbishment projects, housing for older people, custom-build housing, and local authority housebuilding programmes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It was a panel discussion at the RIBA Journal and Norbord Europe Ltd awards for designs for affordable multigenerational homes that led to the idea of writing this book, so thanks are due to both of these organisations for the original inspiration.

Special thanks must go to Ginny Mills, Clare Holloway and Michèle Woodger of RIBA PubliWshing for their support, encouragement and endless patience with the author.

I would also like to thank all contributors for making this book possible, as well as many others who have written informative and inspiring books and articles.

Thanks are due to the following individuals who wrote case studies: Irene Craik, Levitt Bernstein, for Buccleuch House; Riette Oosthuizen, HTA Design LLP, for her studies of Supurbia and Hanham Hall; Auguste van Oppen, BETA, for 3 Generation House; Manisha Patel, PRP, for her study of the multigenerational house at Chobham Manor. Claire Curtice on behalf of Mole Architects for Marmalade Lane’

Likewise, those who provided information and images (for photographers please see Image Credits):

HTA Design LLP; Peter Barber, Peter Barber architects; Peter Sikker Rasmussen, CF Moller; Richard Partington, Studio Partington; Ed Burgess, barc; Sam Goss, Barefoot Architects; James Macdonald Wright; Zoran Juresa, Erik arkitekter A/S; Ulrich Kriese, Siftung Edith Maryon; Patrick Devlin, PTEa, Maria Brenton, OWCH; Koen Crabbendam, CASA architecten; Michael LaFond, id22; Andrew Yeats, EcoArc; Carles Baiges Camprubi, Lacol Arquitectura Cooperative; Simon Caspersen, Space10; White Architecture.

Finally, but by no means least, I am grateful for the generous encouragement, nourishment and translations from my family and friends.

PREFACE

A safe and comfortable home – more than simply a basic human right to shelter – should be possible for everyone in the 21st century. We should also expect to have access to a sustainable home – a place which sustains us, makes few demands on the physical environment, and stands the test of time. But even in the ‘developed world’, after economic crises, wars and environmental disasters, with climate change making us re-think all aspects of our impact on the planet, coupled with the realisation that we are living longer, and – in the UK – following the tragic Grenfell fire, our homes do not feel as safe or fit for purpose as they once were. Many people do not even live in a place they can call home.

As this book is being completed, across the world people are experiencing unprecedented pressures from the Covid-19 pandemic, confined to their homes with their families, or on their own, separated from loved ones. Can multi-generational and co-housing help support us through this kind of emergency?

This book considers some of the alternative opportunities for creating more homes and sociable, cohesive communities. It was inspired by the annual RIBA Journal competition, run in conjunction with Norbord Europe Ltd, a competition for innovative use of Sterling OSB (oriented strand board).

On this occasion the challenge was to design a 30m² multigenerational home, an affordable, practical and scalable solution to the need for homes for young and old who could benefit from living both independently and with their families. This led to us thinking about the opportunities for sharing more, using resources wisely and supporting communities to develop in the way they would like to live. Reading a wide range of books and articles, it became clear that there were also social, health and economic benefits deriving from the design of homes for all generations, and from a community-led perspective.

I have a lifelong enthusiasm for designing places to live with the communities who will live there, giving them more choice and ownership of the design and long-term stewardship of their homes. Designing places for all generations to live sustainably, encouraging social interaction and the development of strong communities is a collective endeavour, and has inspired a wide range of successful places which are explored in this book.

Caroline Dove, March 2020

FOREWORD

The current pressures on our housing system are widely acknowledged. We can read in the newspapers, on a daily basis, of a shortage of supply for younger people and their families, of rising housing costs versus stagnant wages, and of chronic underinvestment in the supply of new housing.

As set out in the influential HAPPI reports, the effects of an aging population also add to the pressures on our housing supply for all ages. However, while the effects of aging are not felt equally by all older people, they do need housing which meets their particular needs, whether in terms of space, accessibility, or location.

As life expectancy increases, and with it the number of healthy years we can expect, many older people will not be looking to move to assisted living facilities or traditional retirement housing, but instead will want to remain active within their communities.

Providing a supply of age-friendly housing for older people that is also able to meet the needs of this diverse demographic group while also providing affordable housing for young people and their families is going to be one of the key challenges facing our governments in the coming decades.

As we look at how to plan, design, and deliver a comprehensive range of housing choices for people of all ages, one of the most exciting trends in housing at present is the increased interest in multigenerational models of housing. Housing which is able to meet the differing demands of different demographic populations while being well-designed and of high quality will be the goal of many planners and policy makers in the coming decades.

Multigenerational living is not new – it has been the main form of community and familial organisation throughout human history and in all parts of the world.

Our communities and our villages, towns, and cities are still predominately multigenerational. But an increasing segregation of housing and services along generational lines has led to our understanding of how multigenerational living benefits everyone to fall by the wayside.

In 2008 the then government put forward a national strategy for an ageing population, Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods. In England, however, we seem to have lost some of the radical policy ambitions originally set out in the strategy. We need to rediscover those ambitions if we want our communities to work for everyone.

In recent years, there has been a proliferation in studies showing the benefits to both older and younger people of multigenerational communities. In particular, the effect on the mental wellbeing of older people in these types of communities is well documented. And, as our society faces an increase in social isolation and frequent warnings of an epidemic of loneliness, well planned communities which encourage frequent interaction can be an important tool to help remedy the feelings of loneliness that increasing numbers of older people experience.

The effect that humans are having on our natural environment is also of increasing concern to planners and politicians, and many of the examples in this book are of housing which is energy efficient, has a low lifetime carbon footprint (including construction), and makes efficient use of the small spaces available in our already densely populated cities.

Of course, the most important aspect of housing is the people who live there. It is of no use to build beautiful or clever or environmentally friendly housing if it does not meet the needs of the people who will live in it. The final section of this book looks at community-led co-housing where the residents themselves have an important say in how developments look and how housing serves their community’s needs.

The examples in this book range from multigenerational single-family houses to community led co-housing schemes, and it is an extremely valuable resource for architects, urban planners, policy makers, and designers looking for new ideas on how to create attractive modern spaces which meet the needs of different sections of our communities.

This book is an important contribution to the ongoing debate that will extend our understanding and, I hope, will help to shape our society, homes and our communities, for all in the decades to come.

Jeremy Porteus Chief Executive
Housing Learning and Improvement Network

INTRODUCTION: SOCIABLE HOUSING – WHY WE NEED MULTIGENERATIONAL HOMES

‘The problem is that the type and location of housing that people want to live in is not available. The market must free up aspirations and housing choice. This change in the market towards consumerism will demand a much wider choice than our historical predecessors.’ ¹

This book explores radical ways of living together. Much has been written about the history of the house and housing, and excellent studies of housing for older people have recently been published. This book aims to draw together some of the best current examples of multigenerational housing, with thinking about how new ways of living can provide a more sociable housing alternative for all generations. The book was inspired by the Sterling OSB MultiGen awards – a competition for multigenerational (also known as intergenerational) home design run by RIBA Journal, and sponsored by Norbord Europe Ltd, in 2017.

We are all living closer together, with 55% of the world’s population – 74% in Europe and over 90% in the UK – now living in cities and urban areas.² This figure will continue to grow, and by 2050 it is projected to reach 68% globally. Yet in other ways we live further apart than we once did, as people move away from the kinship of small, close-knit communities and extended families. Inequalities in society, the rise of homelessness in our cities and a lack of the right homes in the right places alongside suitable employment are major issues. Access to affordable homes is a growing concern for everyone, young and old, and making more homes which meet the needs of our diverse society is a challenge for housing providers. ‘30,000 empty homes and nowhere to live’ was the headline about Dublin’s housing crisis in 2018.³ Older people wanting to move to a more manageable home – which would free up large family homes – say they cannot find suitable places to live in their neighbourhood, and feel they have no choices.⁴

The idea that multiple generations of a family group might live together is as old as homo sapiens, if not older. Throughout history, vernacular homes across the world have provided adaptable, if densely occupied, accommodation so that extended families can live together. Today, while mainstream housing satisfies the needs of many households, and can cater for multigenerational living already to some extent, newer homes are less accommodating.

There has been a tendency to provide more smaller homes for the sake of delivering housing numbers and in our towns and cities, where space to develop is at a premium, one and two bed flats predominate. From the disappearing hutongs (traditional Chinese streets) given over to multi-storey towers, to the transformation of neighbourhoods into dense and high-rise development across the world, the way we are building now has changed how people relate to each other. Tenures are firmly separated to facilitate better management. Minimum space standards have also become the maximum. A report by the Happiness Research Institute has found that, in Europe, people living in the Netherlands are the happiest with their homes, and the UK is fourth happiest, out of 10 countries surveyed.⁵ Adaptability and sense of spaciousness were two of the more important criteria. In the UK, unlike other parts of the world, individuals rarely have the chance to make their own homes – housing is provided by developers as a commodity, not as homes where the customers have control.

Pre- and post-war social housing in the UK and Europe was genuinely social, and the – then new – post-war estates included different kinds of homes for families and older people. Today, a new generation of purpose-designed private rented accommodation with shared social spaces may prove to be a successful model for different generations to live together. Historically, there are many successful examples of multigenerational and collaborative housing; these are considered in Chapter 1.

There is great potential for society in re-thinking how we live together. There is growing acceptance that age does not define people’s interests and aspirations. Young and old share many similar concerns and fears. Increasingly, we are seeing evidence of multigenerational communities, occupied either by choice or as a necessity due to a lack of affordable housing options on offer. There are also many examples of intragenerational shared living occurring for similar reasons. As noted by one national newspaper in 2018, ‘our notion of the traditional household is changing. Today, the place we call home can include extended families, friends, and even strangers.’⁶

The range of households has widened hugely over recent years. As well as the so-called nuclear family (with 2.4 children), there are many other potential household combinations. The recent exhibition ‘Welcome Home’ at the Danish Architecture Centre, Copenhagen, identified 37 different households – single, with and without children, related or not – who are wanting the right kind of flexible, adaptable place to live and, equally importantly, to form supporting and sustainable communities which can live well together.⁷

Yet the majority of new homes built are driven by a developer-led model resulting in conventional housing typologies. Funders also prefer this certainty. Planning policy most certainly does not encourage or facilitate new models of living, particularly not those models which challenge conventional ways of doing things, for instance: arranging private space, changing the balance between size of private living and amenity spaces and shared communal facilities, providing flexible spaces which can adapt over time, and questioning the needs for storage and personal transport requirements.

There is an acute shortage of affordable places to live for people of all generations across the UK. The lack of affordable and suitable housing features high up the list of priorities for national and local government, and many architects, especially those specialising in housing, are at the forefront of developing a wide range of new places to live. There is an increase in the number of young people who live at home for longer with their parents and adult children returning home with their young families – perhaps following separation from their partner, or inability to find accommodation, or simply by choice. Older people are also rejoining their children’s families. Despite these trends, the majority of new homes now built offer little flexibility for extension, or alternative use, or space to grow into. The opportunities presented by the need for multigenerational houses are also the subject of Chapter 1.

Many younger people are living in purpose-built rented communities of small homes with communal shared facilities, either by choice, because it suits their lifestyle, or because accessing the housing ladder is no longer a feasible option. Yet this is linked to a trend of age segregation in the centres of our towns and cities. Research by the Intergenerational Foundation found that children now have a mere 5% chance of having someone aged over 65 living in their area as compared to a 15% chance in 1991, while the level of segregation between retirees and young adults has roughly doubled during the same period. Writing on social integration, politician Chuka Umunna explains that ‘this pattern of increasing age separation has almost certainly been driven in part by rising housing costs and supply, as younger people have made rental properties in towns and city centres their homes, rather than migrating to the suburbs as their parents and grandparents did.’⁸

Increasingly, being well-connected and having ‘experiences’ are becoming important, and property ownership of a large home is not the only driving factor for people’s housing choice. As noted by Blake Morgan in Forbes, ‘People want to experience all that life has to offer, and since acquiring things no longer dictates your class or status in life, millennials are simply enjoying experiences over things, access over ownership. A staggering 74% of Americans prioritise experiences over products. The focus on experiences is closely related to the growth of the sharing and experience economy.’⁹

We live in a society that is fast moving and experiential, transient, global and virtual. However, people still crave real social networks and the opportunity to spend time in, or live in, communities, as a trend of loneliness and its vast impact on mental health is becoming evident.¹⁰ It is also widely accepted that, while feeling lonely is not in itself a mental health problem, the two are strongly linked. ‘Having a mental health problem increases your chance of feeling lonely, and feeling lonely can have a negative impact on your mental health.’¹¹

Since young and old alike lack appropriate affordable housing alternatives, and new homes do not offer enough flexibility in their layout to accommodate different – current and future – ways of living, this presents a social as well as a physical concern. People can become socially isolated, families are pressured if space is not adequate for their needs, and, conversely, there are beneficial health implications for looking at different, more innovative solutions. All generations need space to live and potentially work from home, and there are considerable advantages to sharing some of the spaces needed to support a sustainable community. Alternatives for living together, in co-housing and other options, are explored in Chapter 3.

In an increasingly diverse UK society, our housing solutions need to suit different cultures, generations and lifestyles. Allowing the market to dictate what should be built is simply not going to resolve our housing crisis. This chapter began with a reference to the ‘Building Futures 2024’ report written in 2004. This report referred to a growing trend of consumerism. It is of great concern that the homes being built in our cities have still not managed to align themselves fully with changing trends in living and lifestyles.

In this book the following themes are explored:

evidence of the changing needs of society

how good design can support and engender sociability, allowing communities to flourish

how designers can add value (social, environmental and economic) to communities, groups and families who chose to live in an alternative way

affordable and attractive choices for alternative, active and healthy living

designing for privacy and sharing; adaptability and flexibility; taking ownership of shared and communal spaces, and

how designers can engage with client/resident groups.

People make places, and this book is about the homes people choose to make, for multigenerational families, groups and communities, supported by good design to enable these places to be successful.

The value that can be added by architects, in understanding the wider trends for intragenerational living and/or co-living, are explored. Key issues around long-term wellbeing that these new and alternative development forms bring to society are considered. Helpful lessons can be learned from those who have already made the choice to adopt a different lifestyle; who have either, with or without the help of architects and designers, made living in a different way a reality.

Radical Housing is aimed primarily at housing designers, but also community groups and those interested in alternative places to live. The book explains the planning, technical, financial, health-based and social background for developing alternative housing typologies, illustrated with case studies and plans, aimed at stimulating and inspiring the delivery of new, forward-thinking approaches to living, work and play.

The book covers three main areas of multigenerational housing typologies in the context of the themes set out above:

Multigenerational family living: Making the most of existing, usually older, properties so that two or more generations of a family can live together – innovative adaptions, and extended and additional space created in a variety of ways. Examples of new homes which have been specially designed to be multigenerational are explored, as are the opportunities to create additional homes in backland spaces – build up or infill between – especially in more suburban neighbourhoods.

Multigenerational development: Designing places to live which are genuinely multigenerational so that people can stay in the neighbourhood where they have been living, making strong and supportive communities. New homes are designed so they are flexible and adaptable over time, or so that two homes can be joined together to create larger and extended family space. These are developer- and housing provider- led new developments, which could allow for more flexibility in their designs as well as individual customisation or self-finish. Places should be able to adapt and change over time; communal spaces and the public realm can be designed with resident input to be inclusive, encouraging social interaction, actively supporting participation and sharing responsibility for management.

Community-led, intended, collaborative co-housing: Designing solutions for collective housing and living together as an agreed and multigenerational group. Certain spaces are shared to maximise efficiencies and affordability, giving more flexibility in use. Discussing the main challenges, such as the set-up, financing, land acquisition, participation in the design process, and design and delivery, with key UK and European examples.

Multigenerational housing built with input from the community is one of many solutions to the need for more homes in the UK and Europe. It is also likely to be more affordable and sustainable in the long term as communities take ownership and put into practice their aspirations for an environmentally-friendly home and lifestyle. Climate change awareness is prompting many people to think more about where and how they live. There is a growing body of research to suggest that communities will be happier and healthier as a result.

1
MULTIGENERATIONAL LIVING: EXISTING + NEW INDIVIDUAL HOMES

CASE STUDIES

1.1 RIBA JOURNAL AND NORBORD OSB MULTIGEN COMPETITION, UK

1.2 HOMES FOR THE FUTURE COMPETITIONS, UK

1.3 CHOBHAM MANOR MULTIGENERATIONAL HOMES, LONDON, UK

1.4 3 GENERATION HOUSE, AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

1.5 CARING WOOD, KENT, UK

1.6 ‘SUPURBIA’ STRAGETY, LONDON, UK

Fig 1.0
White Architecture, LILAC, Leeds, 2013. Shared community spaces include biodiverse gardens.

Living with several generations has been the norm throughout history, rather than unusual. Yet the fact that 3.4 million people in the UK are sharing a home – three times as many as 30 years ago – is now considered reason for headline news.¹ Today, 25.9% of 20- to 34-year-olds live with their parents – a higher proportion in London, and varying across the UK.

That so many young people will not have the same chances as their parents and grandparents to own their own home, nor have access to a ‘job for life’, has been seen by some as a failing of the intergenerational contract.² Access to regular and well-remunerated employment is difficult for many young people, and the cost of renting, let alone saving for a deposit and mortgage, is beyond reach for many who have just left school or university. Living at home has become a necessity, rather than a choice, but the smaller homes that we have generally built since the post-war period constrain, and may be outgrown by, an adult family.

It was not until the Dutch merchants of the 17th century began setting up their own residences that people in Europe lived in single-family households.³ However, these were still likely to be several generations of one family, with live-in servants, tutors and other individuals employed in the running of a middle-class family home, in the days before technology and machines would take the strain and time out of managing domestic activities. Homes like these have therefore formed the structure and streetscape of our towns and cities for centuries, and the ability to adapt terraced houses and apartments, dating from the 17th to the early 20th centuries, for present day needs, is the reason for their continued popularity and longevity. A home on this scale – three or four storeys or more, and with many rooms – lends itself comfortably to families, and several generations can live harmoniously there together. Yet the history of housing in Britain is also one of crowded, single-room apartments, multi-family tenements and slums, products of the industrial revolution, which were eventually replaced with new homes by philanthropic societies and local councils.

Most family housing in Britain in use today has been provided, for rent or sale, by a third party; unlike in many other developed countries, new homes commissioned, built and inhabited by the owners themselves are not common. Individual homeowners adapting their existing homes, with the design expertise of an architect, is much more likely, spurred on in recent times by campaigns such as New London Architecture’s ‘Don’t Move, Improve’ initiative.

The homes that we are designing for life in the early 21st century are homes for the future. The Parker Morris Committee, in the early 1960s, defined the acceptable minimum space standards needed in the home; since then, spaces for living have become smaller, given that spaciousness was no longer a mandatory requirement for public housing. Only since the introduction of the London Housing Design Guidance, in 2012, and Nationally Described Space Standard, in 2015, have the minimum spatial requirements returned to that of the immediate post-war period, and now apply to all new build and all housing tenures.⁴

These small spaces permit quite limited experiences and possibilities. A typical home might allow sufficient room for preparation and consumption of a meal shared by the number of occupants that the home has been designed to accommodate, but no more. If a relative needs to visit, to help look after a new baby or young children, there is nowhere for them to sleep, let alone have a comfortable seat at the four-person table. Larger meals with friends and family are constrained to a buffet balanced on one’s knees, while hobbies – especially noisy, spread-out, messy ones – are very difficult to accommodate. The fact that so many people are now setting up their own businesses, or wanting the flexibility to work from home, suggests that more space is needed in the home of the future.

Physically, socially and economically, how we use our homes is changing rapidly and dramatically. Yet, even in our affluent society, the basic need for shelter, safety, security and comfort is barely being met for everyone. The value of land and cost of construction mean new homes are as small and economic as possible, sometimes even smaller than recommended minimum sizes, ostensibly so that they are more affordable for younger generations. Creating more homes, increasing supply so that homes become more affordable, is a slow process. Meanwhile, there are other social issues at play – such as the need for companionship, support and care of one another, as we live longer but not always more healthily – which may change how we think about our future homes.

How we live in our homes, what we want to do in them, and whether there are diverse and acceptable choices for everyone, is a key question for society, for the providers of homes, and for those who would like a roof over their heads. Providing a home which allows everyone to lead a fulfilling life, permits flexible working, nurtures interests, widens opportunities and facilitates caring for and supporting different generations, does not necessarily require significant investment in the latest technology or a bespoke one-off house. But it does mean careful design of homes to allow for adaptable and flexible use over time, with clever use of space and height.

A shared home is the smallest community we are considering in this chapter, and in its myriad forms it is the building block of society. Fundamentally, as architects, designers and planners, we are responsible for creating spaces in which life can be lived. A multigenerational home can be a dynamic and supportive place for older people, for young children and teenagers and for adult family members in between, to help each other to lead a more fulfilling life than they might otherwise be able to afford. The spaces which support this shared environment need to allow for privacy when it is required, and for sharing where sociability and involvement is appropriate. There is a wide range of research into the benefits of sharing, with insurance provider Aviva’s ‘Changing Households’ report finding that those actually sharing living space (whether through choice or need) had a significantly more positive view of the benefits than those who had not had the experience.⁵

Multigenerational homes in the United Kingdom

Recent reports have looked at spatial opportunities for housing in more detail. The National House Building Council (NHBC) report ‘Multigenerational Living: an opportunity for UK House builders?’ summarises the findings of the study by the Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research, commissioned in 2017.⁶ The report explains the types of house builder homes which can be used easily by several generations, especially by boomerang children – grown-up family members who have left home for a few years to study at university, travel or work elsewhere, and then return to the family home.

NHBC have defined family homes as ‘multigenerational’ where there are:

three or more generations of the same family living together, or

two generations of the same family living together, consisting of parents and one or more adult children (over the age of 25) or

two generations of the same family living together, consisting of one or more adult children (typically middle aged) and their elderly parent(s).⁷

This may be a permanent or semipermanent household living arrangement, at least over a few years, rather than people sharing a home on a short-term temporary basis.

Key findings in the report show that:

Four out of five multigenerational households in the UK are White British, although some ethnic groups (predominantly Asian families) are more likely than White British people to live in multigenerational households.

Multigenerational households tend not to be large. Approximately 25% of households with grandparent(s) present contain three people, just over 20% contain four people and a similar proportion contain five people. Two-adult-generation households are generally smaller, and are most likely to comprise just three people. Average-sized homes may therefore provide satisfactory accommodation for many such multigenerational households.

Multigenerational households are most likely to live in three- or four-bedroom homes that they own, and these households, in general, are not living in poverty.

Some house builders already have home designs that could suit, or be easily adapted to meet, the needs of multigenerational households.

Multigenerational households predominantly live in ‘standard’ properties, and not all have annexes or extensions to accommodate household members separately.⁸

Fig 1.0.1

BETA Architects, 3 Generation House, Amsterdam, 2018. Double-height kitchen, dining and living space.

Household formation has increased in complexity enormously, reflecting the cultural and gender diversity, and likelihood of multigenerational living being a positive choice. A successful multigenerational family home is one which has flexible accommodation and multiple bathrooms, so as to minimise pressures on different spaces at key times of the day. The ability to locate separate bedrooms with access to their own bathroom, apart from the main family living spaces, gives more privacy and independence to older and grown-up children. Opportunities to create a ground floor bedroom and bathroom, ideally with its own access, mean that older relatives, or those with disabilities, can share the benefits and also be more independent.

Typically, private house builders and developers are building new homes, of two bedrooms or more, which have at least one bedroom with an en suite shower room or bathroom, and, if two storeys, there will also be a ground floor WC. This is sometimes sized so that it can be converted into a shower. Similarly, new homes intended for private rental often have these additional bathrooms. Yet much social housing provision, and more affordable rented homes do not, which is a limitation in their suitability for adaption as multigenerational homes.

Larger family homes, of three and four bedrooms, will often have several living rooms – a large family kitchen and dining room, for instance, which might also have space for informal play and additional seating. Where not open-plan, a separate and quiet living room is provided, at the same level or upstairs, perhaps with a balcony. Choices of living space are provided in larger homes designed for all tenures. In suburban and rural areas, where houses rather than flats are developed, houses will often incorporate a single or double garage. This offers future flexibility and the ability to create a ground floor, self-contained living space for young or older adult family members.

Initiatives such as the ‘Don’t Move, Improve’ campaign have shown how, even with limited space and budget, more bedrooms can cleverly be created, slotted into previously unused gaps beside and behind existing buildings, while ingeniously inserted rooflights can bring more light into deep, dark plans, transforming and extending family living spaces.

Multigenerational homes in Europe

Multigenerational living is also on the increase in Europe. Sharing your home with different generations, but not necessarily from the same family, is also a solution which has become more common, with Germany, the Netherlands, France and Spain in particular leading the way.

There are over 450 such purpose-built multigenerational housing projects across Germany, and the Mehrgenerationenhaus (multigeneration house) programme is a key part of Germany’s older people’s strategy, which promotes the idea that old and

Fig 1.0.2

Typical house builder house plan with garage which can be converted to independent living space.

young people within a community can mutually support each other. For over 10 years, federal government has been funding the set-up of these homes, where everyone has their own room or flat and common rooms for shared activities. It is a requirement that some of the accommodation is suitable for older people and other accommodation is adaptable for families or those without children.

An example of this is the Leuchtturm, or lighthouse, in the Berlin district of Prenzlauer Berg. The design of the building allows for flexible floor plans, so that each individual flat can be adapted to suit changing needs. The residents are a mixed community of young and old, all of whom were actively seeking an improved quality of life by joining forces together. The set-up is not a substitute for nursing care, though some support during short-term illness, for example, is a responsibility of the community.⁹

A programme in Spain, ‘Vive y Convive’, from La Caixa, subsidises the costs of elderly people who act as a multigenerational home-sharing host (at 100 euros per month to compensate for additional costs).¹⁰ The Municipal Project for Intergenerational Housing and Community Services in Alicante addresses the housing needs of both low income older people and young residents of the city, and has arranged for the construction of 244 affordable multigenerational places near the city centre. Older residents can ‘age in place’ while benefitting from a range of services, embedded into a wider community. Meanwhile young people, ‘many of whom have a background in community or social work, can sign on to a “good neighbour” agreement requiring them to provide informal support for four older residents in the complex on a weekly basis’.¹¹

In the Netherlands, the government has developed a competitive financing scheme under the social housing experimentation unit (SEV). This enables independent organisations to promote innovative multigenerational social housing, with the Christian Democrat Party (CVA) setting a policy goal of constructing half a million multigenerational homes by 2040.¹²

In the UK, the New Local Government Network thinktank has written about social isolation requiring an ‘intergenerational response’.¹³ Although formal home-share schemes have been available since the 1980s, multigenerational living has taken time to become accepted. Whilst it may be a good option for older people, who have extra space in their homes, there is an assumption that younger people may feel constrained by having to spend time with older people. Yet for students, or other young people, renting and caring for older people is a mutually beneficial option for affordable housing, and offers a sociable solution for potentially isolated older people. The Share and Care Home share scheme, for example, is an arrangement which does not require any special adaptation or additional support – an older person living in a two-bedroom or larger home can easily accommodate a young student or other sharer.¹⁴

Planning and financial considerations:

When adapting individual homes internally so that a multigenerational family can live together, there are little or no planning implications. However, there may be Building Regulation requirements, especially if walls need to be changed or additional plumbing installed.

Extending homes, converting garages, creating more accommodation in gardens or backland, will all require planning consent, and following that, Building Regulations approval.

There may be implications for parking requirements, and space for additional cycle storage.

In some boroughs, backland development contravenes local planning policy, but many councils are becoming more sympathetic to appropriate development in suburban locations.

If homeowners intend to rent out rooms, there are potential planning and tax implications.

There are bedroom tax (a spare room subsidy, or under-occupancy charge) implications for those living in socially provided homes with spare bedrooms – short-term tenancy agreements may affect this.

For owner–occupiers sharing with other family members, mortgages and inheritance become important issues if one of the family dies, particularly if this occurs within seven years of the shared arrangements being established. In order to set up the financial basis for owning and sharing, it may be worthwhile for homeowners to extend a mortgage term by a further ten years, recognising that different family members are likely to have different life expectancies.¹⁵

Financing improvements, alterations and extensions could be managed through equity release.

Conclusions

The positive benefits of multigenerational living far outweigh the difficulties presented by potential overcrowding, provided that the spaces are carefully designed. Designing flexible and adaptable spaces which offer more choice, and accommodate changing family needs and the myriad combinations of family arrangements, can be considered and included in new housing schemes. Older homes are capable of inventive adaptation, infilling and extension, and can be surprisingly cost-effective. Nationally Described Space Standards and Building Regulations now incorporate the original Lifetime Homes standards and the Ageing in Place principles, but the higher levels of accessibility are not always adopted. As a prescription for improving health and wellbeing through care, support and reduced isolation, the multigenerational living remedy will suit some very well.

The case studies selected here include some ideas and competition entries, as well as a range of built schemes in the UK and Europe, all offering a variety of solutions to living in a flexible multigenerational home.

1.1 RIBA JOURNAL AND NORBORD OSB MULTIGEN COMPETITION, UK

Fig 1.1.1 Burgess Architects, Kit-Studio, 2017. The double height space is directly accessible from the street.

LOW-COST, INVENTIVE AND PRACTICAL PROPOSALS TO CREATE ADDITIONAL AND INDEPENDENT ACCOMMODATION IN EXISTING PROPERTIES

RIBA Journal has held several themed design competitions in collaboration with Norbord Europe Ltd, using their Sterling OSB construction material. In 2017, the competition brief was to ‘create unfettered, imaginative proposals that imagine how future generations might be able to live together on a single footprint’¹⁶. Shortlisted in August, the winners of the MultiGen competition were selected and published in RIBAJ’s October 2017 issue.

The brief was to think about how we might think about the future of housing by adaptation or extension to an existing dwelling, making it suitable for multigenerational living, by increasing the useable area of the family property an additional 35m², and creating an independent unit with separate access.

The response to the brief was varied and the most successful proposals were not only creative and well-thought-through ideas, but also offered practical and deliverable solutions which can be relatively easy to slot into existing gaps in terraces, or in large gardens.

Fig 1.1.2 Burgess Architects, Kit Studio, 2017. The lightweight addition occupies an infill space between semi-detached 1930s houses: plan.

Burgess Architects’ ‘Kit Studio’ is a family of lightweight additions designed to stand alongside an existing property to provide an independent living space, as a university returner’s first base. The system creates a cheap, sustainable, medium-term solution for multigenerational adaptions. Built from a kit of parts – which gives the scheme its name – the structure stands on a driveway alongside a 1930s semi-detached house, although its flexibility means that it has the potential to be adapted for many different sites. With an estimated four million similar gap sites in London alone, the proposal could greatly increase residential density, making a significant contribution to alleviating the housing crisis.¹⁷ While the plan area is compact, the extra height created by the mono-pitch roof offers more space for living, with a sleeping platform over the kitchen and shower room below.

Fig 1.1.3 Burgess Architects, Kit Studio, 2017. The elevation can be configured to occupy various under used spaces between existing homes.

Barefoot Architects’ ‘Back Garden City’ and Sibylle Metge-Toppin and Claire Chabrol’s ‘The Possibilities are Endless’ both showed how the generous space in many suburban rear gardens could provide independent accommodation for young or older generations of the same family. Several configurations are possible, and the potential to join up with neighbours and make a micro-community relies on similar principles to the ‘Supurbia’ case study, later in this chapter. ‘Back Garden City’ shows how issues such as overlooking and appropriate scale can be managed successfully, and new homes can be comfortably tucked into back gardens. A lantern light gives additional volume to the living space, while a rooflight over the bedroom brings more light into a compact home which can be located close to a boundary, with no more impact than a garden shed.

Fig 1.1.4 Barefoot Architects, Back Garden City, 2017. Site plan shows the variety of unit configurations possible in typical suburban garden.

Fig 1.1.5 Barefoot Architects, Back Garden City, 2017. The plan of the single-storey dwelling is simply arranged.

Fig 1.1.6 Barefoot Architects, Back Garden City, 2017. A roof lantern gives generous height and volume.

1.2 HOMES FOR THE FUTURE COMPETITIONS, UK

Fig 1.2.1 HTA Design, 2015. House of the Future: street view.

CONCEPTS FOR ADAPTABLE HOMES WHICH CAN CHANGE OVER TIME

The theme of what homes might be like in the future has been explored in two recent competitions run by the Architects Journal (AJ) with Barratt Homes (in 2015) and the Sunday Times (in 2018). The briefs called for a design which responded to key principles: flexibility, adaptability suited to changing needs over time, sustainable and affordable delivery and offsite production. The winning schemes were both designed by HTA Design, with other entries from HLM and up-and-coming practice C4 Architecture commended in the AJ/Barratt competition.

In HTA’s ‘Home of the Future’, entered into the AJ and Barratt competition, the ‘semi-wide’ frontage seeks to take the best features of a double-frontage house – in particular, the two dual-aspect reception rooms – and develop it to sit within a more economical plot and house size. The first floor circulation space can be reduced and integrated into the living space to make the home feel more spacious and filled with light.

Locating an element of living space on the first floor allows the roof space to be exploited and creates increased floor-to-ceiling heights. This can be achieved without increasing the overall height of the building or requiring longer stairs, a dramatic and unique sales point, combating one of the frequently expressed disadvantages of period properties’ generous floor-to-ceiling heights. The split-level living space locates one bedroom on the ground floor, making it more accessible, and making more use of the large ground floor bathroom. To make the most of this space, the bathroom is located next to the bedroom, so that it can also function as an en suite shower room.

These are just some of the benefits to splitting the living space over the ground and first floor, with others including greater opportunities and flexibility in elevation design, and market differentiation from both other volume house builders and existing housing stock. The designs are intended to be modern while grounded in British traditions. The homes have been developed from first principles to provide light, space, flexibility and storage tailored to modern lives.

The Sunday Times British Homes Awards 2018 invited architects to submit designs for:

‘a terraced house type in a visionary new vernacular for the 21st century. Whether its style references the past or is uncompromisingly of the present, it must have the qualities that make the Georgian crescents of Bath or the Nash terraces of Regent’s Park still so treasured. It should be a home that can be built at the high densities and reasonable costs we need to end our housing crisis. A home can grow with us through every life stage, as more of us work from home or juggle children and grandparents under one roof. And a home that we’d like to live in, as we aspire to a combination of light-filled, open-plan spaces and sanctuaries to retreat to.’¹⁸

Fig 1.2.2 HTA Design, 2015. House of the Future: section.

HTA’s submission with Ilke Homes and Sovereign Housing was for a terraced house of the future. The ‘Hundred House’ is designed to cost £100k to build, be built in less than 100 hours on site, and to last hundreds of years, combining the best of British design heritage and all the benefits of modern technology. Designed to enable more flexible modes of multigenerational living than is possible in most of the UK’s new build housing, the homes were developed for delivery using Ilke Homes’ innovative modular system that achieves higher quality more efficiently and at reduced cost.

The Hundred House design takes the best traditional features of Georgian and Victorian terraced housing and enhances it, producing twice as much light as previous terraces and bringing it into the 21st century. The terrace’s design features an innovative configuration, comprising of two gables with a double-height living room, study, balcony, master bedroom, kitchen/diner and a second bedroom. Additional modular units can be added when more space is required, thanks to each property’s unique design.

Fig 1.2.3 HTA Design, 2018. Terrace of the Future: Section.

1.3 CHOBHAM MANOR MULTIGENERATIONAL HOMES, LONDON, UK

Fig 1.3.1 PRP, Chobham Manor, Stratford, London, 2017. Multigen House at street corner.

A FLEXIBLE, ADAPTABLE, PURPOSE-DESIGNED HOUSE FOR THREE OR MORE GENERATIONS

A new development at Chobham Manor, near the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in Stratford, East London, includes another example of purpose-built multigenerational accommodation in an urban context.

Located in the borough of Newham, Chobham Manor is bound by the boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Hackney, and is home to a number of ethnic groups that prefer living in large dwellings to accommodate extended families. Families tend to buy property on one street to be close together. This trend can be seen among many cultures, reflecting the ongoing need for familial support in a demanding world.

In the past, architecture practice PRP has delivered several eight-bedroom houses to meet the needs of large families within the affordable housing sector. However, concurrent issues now need to be addressed no matter what the tenure, such as viability, availability, changing family dynamics and the desire for each generation to have some degree of privacy whilst living under the same roof. In the first phase of Chobham Manor the multigenerational housing scheme was borne out of a specific need for a house typology where families over three or four generations can live together. The core design ethos was to realise an adaptable and inclusive home with the ability to support family diversity over time. The aspiration was to deliver a place of nurture to allow for the ever-evolving nature of family life, thus providing the stability for the success of the whole family, in particular its children.

The multigenerational housing provision is embedded as a key component of the masterplan that includes vital support networks such as the provision of local shops, nurseries, cafés, pubs and generous, useable green open space. Structured around the principles of community interaction, these houses front onto such a shared green space, which encourages residents to identify with their locality and instils a strong sense of ownership in the new community; the vision for Chobham Manor is for a family-orientated London neighbourhood where ‘everyone lives by the green’.

Many modern families have working parents, young children and ageing members with increasingly complex health needs, placing pressures on families at different points of their lives. All these aspects contribute to the need for greater choice, flexibility and adaptability of the homes we create and inhabit. PRP’s interpretation of the multigenerational house responds to the ever-changing circumstances of life, especially those experienced by London families. The layout has been sensitively designed with families in mind.

Each plot holds a three-bedroom family dwelling with a separate self-contained annexe as a one-bedroom house. The homes are connected by a shared courtyard which links the living spaces which form the hubs for family gathering and activity. The two buildings have separate front doors with access directly off the street for activation.

Fig 1.3.2 PRP, Chobham Manor, Stratford, London, 2017. Multigen House: section.

The house is organised to promote social interaction and support family wellbeing. Other living spaces, located above ground, are places of retreat and relaxation with views of the green. Bedrooms for young children are right next door to the parents’ room, with a bedroom for older siblings on the floor below for privacy. It can be easily adapted to increase vertical circulation when required.

The annexe, the key element of the plot, facilitates the need of the overall occupancy to flex as the number of family members ebbs and flows. It is multifunctional in that it caters for grandparents, young couples, a recently qualified graduate or student, a person returning from hospital or a family member with a disability, all of whom want to live independently but wish to remain close to the family.

Shared gathering spaces for interaction are located at the ground plane. Utility and storage spaces, which are an important component of any home, are neatly contained so as not to impede the activity and flow of the main living spaces. The living room of the main house is at the upper level with an outlook over the green; children can therefore be observed by parents when playing outside. The master or parents’ bedroom, at second floor level, is right next door to a bedroom for young children, with a bedroom for an older sibling at the first floor.

The annexe, with its own living space, kitchenette and bathroom can therefore accommodate the possibility of the occupants having independence from the main house whilst being in close proximity for when assistance or support needs to be provided. The layout has been developed with simple internal flexibility and adaptability at its core. As well as living quarters for a grandparent or young person, there is also flexibility for the annexe to be used as an informal office space, offering opportunities for working from home. The main house can be easily adapted to enhance circulation for a wheelchair user whilst maintaining visual connectivity at ground level between the main house and the annexe.

The multigenerational typology sits within the wider masterplan that delivers 75% family housing, not only as apartments, but via a variety of house typologies from mews to maisonettes, duplexes and townhouses. The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) was keen to see how traditional London housing typologies could be reinterpreted, specifically asking for higher standards in terms of inclusive design and sustainability.

Overall, the Chobham Manor masterplan is for 850 homes, for affordable rented, shared ownership and market sale. Car parking is on-street, on-plot and there is also undercroft car parking. The layout of the masterplan reinforces key linkage to other facilities locally at the East Village and notably Timber Lodge and the Tumbling Play area that is directly adjacent to the site on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

PRP’s multigeneration home performs an important role in the masterplan, with the arrangement resulting in a typology which is very successful at turning street corners. Corner configuration in terraced housing is a common problem, yet PRP’s design turns this challenge into a success. The location of the front entrance doors draws on cues from historical Georgian London precedents to activate and provide interest along the street scene.

The façade articulation also draws on historical London precedents; the buildings in Bedford Square provided inspiration for PRP’s contemporary interpretation of the façades fronting the green at Chobham Manor. The material palette provides an excellent backdrop and the form of the buildings manage the transition at the junction of street with the green. Defensible space is clearly defined by brick walls, with front doors, fenestration with feature surrounds and oriel windows providing activation and interest to the street scene.

Fig 1.3.3 PRP, Chobham Manor, Stratford, London, 2017. Multigen House makes an important and active corner, using simple materials and strong elements to animate the street.

Two separately distinguished front doors are provided to the home; one to the main house which is emphasised by bold architectural expression, and one to the annexe, which is subsidiary and has less prominence. Access to the courtyard is also provided directly from the street for ease when removing refuse bins and bicycles.

These Chobham Manor houses work as a successful multigenerational place to live; the home is inclusive, facilitating family longevity to establish roots in the community. The challenge of designing an innovative home started as an aspiration to address modern family demands through promotion of social interaction and wellbeing. PRP are rightly proud that the seed of their ‘multigen’ idea has been realised as a high quality home.

Fig 1.3.4 PRP, Chobham Manor, Stratford, London, 2017. Multigen House: plans.

Fig 1.3.5 PRP, Chobham Manor, Stratford, London, 2017. Multigen House: view from annexe to courtyard.

SUMMARY
Client: | Chobham Manor LLP (TaylorWimpey, L&Q, LLDC)
Location: | Chobham Manor, Stratford, London, UK
Architect: | PRP(Manisha Patel and Scott Cromack)
Contractor: | Taylor Wimpey
Technical delivery: | PRP
Plan area: | 182–192m²
Date completed: | 2017
Website: | www.prp-co.uk

AWARDS:

NLA Awards, 2019 - Highly commended

NLA Awards, Mayor’s Prize, 2019 - Shortlisted

National Housing Awards, Best Scheme in Planning, 2015 - Winner

1.4 3 GENERATION HOUSE, AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

Fig 1.4.1 BETA Architects, 3 Generation House, Amsterdam, 2018: view of garden elevation. The bottom apartment has an office and a direct relationship with the garden, making it ideal for a working family with young children. The elderly couple occupies the top apartment with generous views across the cityscape.

A MULTI-STOREY URBAN HOUSE WHICH MAKES INVENTIVE USE OF SPACE AND LIGHT

The Netherlands has a strong tradition of individual customised and purpose-built new homes. The expanding suburbs of Amsterdam, and the nearby new town of Almere, for example, show how a masterplan of regular plots is developed in personalised and characterful ways. The sense of place created in the former Amsterdam docklands at Borneo-Sporenburg and Steigereiland have been inspirational to many architects and urban designers. The northern district of Amsterdam has similar custom-built homes at Buiksloterham, where the 3 Generation House has been built.

Dutch architecture studio BETA designed the house in Amsterdam for a multigenerational family (a couple with children and two grandparents). A yellow staircase at the centre connecting the separate accommodation is the striking defining, feature of the home.¹⁹

BETA architects explain that the concept and design principles behind their design are historically motivated: until the Second World War, multigenerational living was a common phenomenon in the Netherlands. With the advent of the Welfare State in the 60s and 70s, it became common for families to split up geographically. In their view, changing political and economic times now require Western societies to reconsider this situation, and generations must once more look out for one another.

The goal of the project was to create a building where both families could enjoy each other’s company without sacrificing the advantages of private family life. As such, two separate apartments are stacked on top of one another with the only connection being a communal entrance. While the project anticipates a greater dependency of the grandparents, the immediate advantage of the close proximity of the two families is enjoyed through activities such as running errands, shared social gatherings and the occasional day care for the children.

For this mini-apartment building a concept was devised that would allow the building to accommodate changing spatial demands over time. The bottom apartment has an office and a direct relationship with the garden, making it ideal for the working family with young children. The elderly couple occupies the top apartment with generous views across the cityscape. This apartment has a lift, level floors and wider door openings to accommodate wheelchairs. While it does not currently resemble a home for older people, all necessary preparations have been made for reduced physical ability. The grandparents’ bedroom is a loft-like space where timber cabinets give warmth to the block walls behind and define the space. Privacy can be gained by closing the sliding doors.

Instead of reducing vertical circulation to a necessity, it occupies the heart of the building. Omnipresent as a sculptural element in the lower apartment, the staircase gradually transforms into a series of voids higher up in the building. By placing the vertical access system in the middle of the floorplan, the building is divided into a ‘fore’ and ‘aft’. Either side of the floorplan can be connected to one of two staircases to create a different configuration.

Fig 1.4.2 BETA Architects, 3 Generation House, Amsterdam, 2018. The grandparents’ living room has generous views across the cityscape. Here, retractable awnings prevent the summer sun from penetrating indoors.

The building has been engineered to facilitate the transfer of space on the second floor. Initially used as a space for guests for the grandparents’ apartment, the space can be easily added to the lower apartment through a few minor adjustments. The position of the double-helix staircase makes it possible to stretch the intergenerational living concept even further. Two studio apartments could be made on the north façade to allow the younger family’s children to live in the building past their adolescence.

Fig 1.4.3 BETA Architects, 3 Generation House, Amsterdam, 2018. Instead of reducing vertical circulation to a necessity, it occupies the heart of the building. Omnipresent as a sculptural element in the lower apartment, the staircase gradually transforms into a series of voids higher up in the building.

Fig 1.4.4 BETA Architects, 3 Generation House, Amsterdam, 2018: Scheme growth. For this mini-apartment building a concept was devised that would allow the building to accommodate changing spatial demands over time.

The change in plan is emphasised in the building’s contrasting façades. The northern façade is mostly closed to reduce thermal loss and reduce sound exposure along the busy street. Towards the south the building opens up completely, maximising passive solar gain and the connection with the outdoors. In between the two contrasting façades, the plan undergoes a gradual transformation, from compartmentalised in the north, to open-plan and structured with free-form elements towards the south. Here the building is completed with an informal, filter-like balcony layer. The balconies form an intermediate zone between the private domain of the house and the semi-public area shared with the neighbours.

Fig 1.4.5 BETA Architects, 3 Generation House, Amsterdam, 2018: (a) site plan; (b) ground floor plan; (c) first floor plan; (d) second floor plan; (e) third floor plan; (f) fourth floor plan; (g) section.

The building communicates its composition and materials communicate their purpose in simple detailing. Hence the southern façade is clad only with large triple glazing window frames to underline the building’s relationship with the outdoors. The remaining structural walls are composed of large format concrete masonry and wrapped in high-grade thermal insulation. Between these walls, bare concrete slabs span the full eight metres and offer a clear plane on which warmer timber elements define spatial moments. Closed and bare towards the north, light and fragile towards the south, the building is a composition of contrasts.

Fig 1.4.6 BETA Architects, 3 Generation House, Amsterdam, 2018. The southern façade is only clad with large triple glazing window frames to underline the building’s relationship with the outdoors. Here the building is concluded with an informal, filter like balcony layer.

SUMMARY
Client: | Private
Location: | Buiksloterham, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Architect: | BETA(Auguste van Oppen, Evert Klinkenberg)
Climate advisor: | Huibert Spoorenberg
Contractor: | ATB Leerbroek
Engineer: | Huibers Constructieadvies
Woodworker: | SibeVisser
Plan area: | 450m²
Date completed: | 2018
Website: | www.beta-office.com

AWARDS: Amsterdam Architecture Prize (Gouden A.A.P.), 2019 - Winner

1.5 CARING WOOD, KENT, UK

Fig 1.5.1 Distinctive local tile clad roofs reference the oast houses of Kent.

A CAREFULLY CRAFTED RURAL HOUSE FOR AN EXTENDED FAMILY OF 15

While not a particularly affordable or replicable example, Caring Wood in Kent is an interesting scheme and was awarded the RIBA House of the Year award 2017. It is an exemplar of craft, sustainability and cohabiting as an extended family.

This scheme is built for multiple generations of a growing family, allowing grandparents, parents, children, siblings and cousins to reside under one roof, cleverly accommodating their pleasure at being together as well as their desire to be apart.²⁰ The client, one of the architect’s own extended family, had considerable experience in custom-build homes, as well as converting existing properties and had clear ideas about what was going to make this new home very different and special. Inspired by Italian cloisters and courtyards with their sense of inner calm open to the sky, it also responds to its local landscape and context, reflecting the form of Kentish oast houses and vernacular materials.

A collaboration between James Macdonald Wright and Niall Maxwell, the house is very much of its time and place, carbon neutral and sustainable, set in a natural landscape. The four connected blocks and corresponding angled and conical roofs, each a distinctive form, enclose an open courtyard at the heart. The house is filled with light and the warmth of crafted wooden floors and finishes. Everything seems to have been considered – including acoustics – to make this house for effectively several families intimate, private and welcoming. The landscape includes the planting of 25,000 mixed native trees, the stablishing of 20 acres of wildflower meadow and an orchard of 500 cherry trees.

Fig 1.5.2 Macdonald Wright and Maxwell, Caring Wood, 2017: entrance level plan.

Fig 1.5.3 Macdonald Wright and Maxwell, Caring Wood, 2017: view of roofscape and orchard.

Fig 1.5.4 Macdonald Wright and Maxwell, Caring Wood, 2017: section.

Fig 1.5.5 Macdonald Wright and Maxwell, Caring Wood, 2017. A light and crafted interior.

The house has been designed to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6, zero-carbon, and the ‘oast house’ style roofs provide for summer cooling for the whole house through passive stack ventilation. Local materials have been used to construct the house – ragstone from Maidstone, terracotta tiles from Ashford, hand made Sussex peg-tiles and coppiced chestnut cladding from Lewes.

The success of this unique house in its design for the extended family is ‘a model for multigenerational living. Like branches, the four towers, with interlinking roofs, provide intimate spaces for immediate families, but these are united by the central block, a communal space where the whole family can be together.’²¹

SUMMARY
Client: | Private
Location: | Caring Wood, Kent, UK
Architect: | James Macdonald Wright and Niall Maxwell
Contractor: | Cardy Construction Ltd
Landscape design: | Spacehub
Planning: | PPS7
Structural engineer: | Price and Myers
Plan area: | 1450m²
Date completed: | 2017

AWARDS:

RIBA House of the Year, 2017

RIBA South East Award, 2017

RIBA South East Sustainability Award, 2017

RIBA National Award, 2017

1.6 ‘SUPURBIA’ STRATEGY, LONDON, UK

Fig 1.6.1 HTA Design, Supurbia, 2018: plot passport.

THE POTENTIAL TO DIVERSIFY CHOICE OF HOMES IN THE SUBURBS THROUGH DENSIFYING AND PROVIDING FOR ALL GENERATIONS

‘Supurbia’ is a strategy to increase the speed, scale, diversity and quality of housing provision within London’s suburbs, using overlooked small sites such as back gardens, rooftops and existing built form that could evolve to encourage incremental growth. The Supurbia concept builds on the inherent advantages of these areas: facilitating community and family life, a lower density typology with connections to the street and access to private and shared green spaces. HTA Design have developed this thinking over several years and have explored the concept on several sites in suburban boroughs including Croydon.

Supurbia’s successful implementation requires two components: the support of the community and proactive planning policy guidance by local authorities to support a vision for intensification. Local planning authorities can identify specific urban blocks or areas suitable for intensification, and support specific forms of intensification such as extensions, building-up or redevelopment up to specified heights and building typologies.

There is inherent potential within lower density suburban areas of under 25 dwellings per hectare, located close to well-connected stations or neighbourhood and town centres, to support subtle increases in density which encourages more healthy forms of living through active lifestyles. HTA’s research for Supurbia demonstrated three zones suitable for intensification: immediately around well-connected stations, where densities up to 100 dwellings per hectare could be facilitated (sites joining up), 50 dwellings per hectare within a range of 960 metres from a station (on-plot intensification) and selected infill development in plots with appropriate typologies for intensification.

Recent planning policy changes as proposed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the new London Plan actively encourage the development of small sites through the use of tools such as area-wide design assessments and Local Development Orders. The NPPF talks about the need to consider maintaining prevailing character or changing it (including residential gardens). The new London Plan encourages residential conversions, extensions, demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings and infill development within the curtilage of a house through its presumption in favour of housing on small sites policy. This changing policy landscape supports Supurbia initiatives.

With homebuyers and renters being continuously pushed out from the dense central boroughs, London’s suburbs become ever more important. Current developer-driven models of housing supply remain unaffordable as they support exceptional levels of land value inflation, whereas if housing can be provided on land within the hands of residents, some of the uplift from densification can go to homeowners rather than large-scale developers, and the price of new homes could potentially be more affordable.

Back gardens make up approximately a quarter of London’s land. A recent study by the Wildlife Trust has indicated that London’s back gardens are turning from green to grey at the speed of two and a half Hyde Parks a year.²² Instead of supporting biodiversity, gardens are being covered by decking, hard standing and paving. Suburban plots consume a disproportionate amount of land. The typical semi-detached suburban plot, 8m wide and 40m deep, often accommodates no more than a two-storey house with a footprint of 7.5m by 6m. As such, only about 15% of the plot is covered in built form.

Whilst suburban areas are often romanticised, many of these areas have become concentrations of overcrowding and under-occupation. Once the suburban ideal, such plots became unappealing through loss of original character, as front gardens are converted for parking and verges and trees are lost to hardscaping. Moreover, changes in household makeup mean that ever fewer households really benefit from their space. Nearly 40% of owner-occupier households (often ‘empty nesters’) have at least two spare bedrooms, while sharing groups who increasingly rent suburban homes, rarely take full advantage of large gardens.

Supurbia offers the opportunity for the owner of a single semi-detached house, or a pair of neighbouring or facing owners, to develop their land to suit their needs through a range of options, including flats over garages, mews houses, town houses, small apartment blocks and bungalows. These development options could be supported by area-specific or development-specific planning policy guidance, such as Area Based Design frameworks or Local Development Orders (LDOs) which would effectively give planning permission for the development types assessed prior to them coming forward. Offsite manufacture could deliver highly energy efficient homes with minimal disruption. Land would thus be intensified while preserving buildings’ individuality, and owner-occupiers could unlock the equity in their unused land and invest it in their home, raising the quality of housing across the neighbourhood and improving the street as front plots are renovated as part of development.

Through the Supurbia strategy, it is projected that the scheme could intensify 10% of outer London boroughs every 10 years: approximately 15% of London’s housing stock consists of semi-detached homes. Using 2011 census data, if only 10% of London’s semi-detached housing stock of circa 618,000 homes intensify by doubling the density of its plot, it could realise in the region of 61,000 additional homes every decade. If selective redevelopment occurs and density increases by adding additional height, with an estimated net increase of three dwellings on each of these plots, it could realise 183,000 additional homes every 10 years, or roughly 28% of the current housing need in London of 65,000 new homes a year.

Fig 1.6.2 HTA Design, Supurbia, 2018: site plan.

Fig 1.6.3 HTA Design, Supurbia, 2018: overview.

To minimise resistance to development and ensure it is delivered appropriately, a coordinated approach is needed to realise benefits for all stakeholders. Supurbia would therefore bring together local authorities, designers, developers, offsite manufacturers and local residents to collaborate on supportive area-based planning guidance or LDOs for suburban blocks considered suitable for intensification. In this way, residents would understand from the outset how construction would be managed, and the benefits delivered, and would have early input on design options, creating unique neighbourhoods reflecting the character of their communities.

The scheme’s administration would also give guidelines on how to reinvest a portion of gain from development into improving the environmental efficiency of main houses. Landowners could select a pre-approved option or customise one within the set parameters, either developing their land alone or including neighbours. Local authorities would provide additional amenities as intensification reached agreed thresholds. Each improvement would have been agreed through the LDOs and tied to income generated through the development process and additional council tax revenue.

Fig 1.6.4 HTA Design, Supurbia, 2018: materials palette.

The scheme is designed to enrich limited suburban housing stock with a spectrum of options. Instead of the undifferentiated one- and two-bedroom homes that dominate many large-scale developments, this strategy would include family homes with gardens, accessible ground floor older people’s accommodation and affordable starter houses for young professionals. ‘Plot passports’ could be assigned to plots which could encapsulate the agreed rules for intensification such as floor area ratio, proportion of green space vs building, back-to-back distances, parking provision (if any) and materials palette. Plot passports would also enable local authorities to agree parameters on the range of sites within a neighbourhood, optimising quantum and mix of development, providing opportunities to speed up investment from custom build to small investors and builders.

To support this, it is anticipated that Supurbia would develop online catalogues for homeowners to choose high quality, pre-manufactured yet durable housing options exceeding London Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) standards. Groundwork can be minimised through the use of lightweight structures. These techniques will maximise speed and minimise inconvenience of construction, helping to preserve existing communities and taking full advantage of the pre-existence of all necessary infrastructure.

Supurbia makes room for niche developers that already specialise in custom built or pre-manufactured houses to grow into the market and work with local authorities and communities to continue the development of house types. This takes the onus of easing the housing crisis off large-scale speculative development, which often faces huge obstacles in terms of funding and community opposition, introducing a steadier stream of housing supply into the market. In addition, it champions the needs and characters of local communities and preserves the qualities that make London’s suburbs so popular, while combining them with the vibrancy and convenience of the city centre.

Whilst Supurbia initiatives are yet to take off completely across London, it has been encouraging to see the London Borough of Croydon adopt its Suburban Design Guide, setting in place area base guidance for intensification and evolution in selected locations across the borough. The movement of Supurbia is slowly gathering momentum and its possibilities are endless for encouraging suitable homes to keep multigenerational communities in place.

Fig 1.6.5 HTA Design, Supurbia, 2018: view of typical house.

2
MIXED COMMUNITIES: MULTIGENERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

CASE STUDIES

2.1 BUCCLEUCH HOUSE, HACKNEY, UK

2.2 HANHAM HALL, BRISTOL, UK

2.3 BEVERIDGE MEWS, TOWER HAMLETS, UK

2.4 FUTURE SØLUND, COPENHAGEN, DENMARK

Fig 2.0
HTA Design, Hanham Hall, Bristol.

Mixed communities – what makes a successful place to live for all generations?

The number of new homes really needed to house the population of the UK is cause for debate. Yet the housing crisis is not just about how many new homes might be needed, but what type of home and where. Moreover, it is about the suitability and quality of the housing provision. With homelessness a daily concern for hundreds of thousands of people, it is clear that solutions must be arrived at fast. But shipping containers and office block conversions, ostensibly intended as temporary accommodation, are a far cry from spacious warehouse conversions and lofts by city canalsides. It is apposite to be rethinking our homes and communities, and devising new ways to address our social needs.

What makes a successful community – a place where people choose to live and to put down roots – is complex and varied. For different generations, and in different regions of the country, people have a wide range of views and experiences. Many individuals live in the same places they first moved to 40 or 50 years ago, when they chose to settle down and raise a family. Others perhaps still live in the home that their own parents lived in. Some may have had little choice in the matter of where to settle, and, as more people are waiting to find affordable places to live in a suitable location, some are forced to make do in temporary or unsuitable accommodation. Increasingly there is a lack of real choice for people at all stages of life, particularly if they rent, receive benefits or do not have the financial capacity at their disposal.

The places where most people live, in both urban and rural settlements, have been developed by speculators, developers, local authorities or housing associations; this collective housing forms the familiar fabric of our streets and neighbourhoods. The great streets at the heart of European cities have proved sustainable and adaptable for generations of city dwellers. Later developments have been popular too, giving people choices to live in lower density communities, in detached or semi-detached houses rather than in apartments. For citizens of many European countries, that is still the ambition and the norm.

Staying in a familiar neighbourhood, with friends and family nearby, is preferred by many people even if their home is not that suitable, be it unmodernised, too large or too small, not on a convenient bus route or far from shops or the local town centre. As explored in the introduction, the benefits in living in a community (reducing loneliness, supporting neighbours and helping each other) often outweighs practicality or convenience. Older homes have many disadvantages, not least the cost of heating and maintenance. But many have stood the test of time, and despite some shortcomings, are more flexible and adaptable than many modern homes, partly thanks to a greater sense of space, especially if floor-to-ceiling heights are generous. Walls can be knocked down, rooms changed and plans modified to suit changing family needs in accommodating Victorian and Edwardian terraces.

Retrofitting, modernising and remodelling suitable homes and flat blocks can be cost effective and the best approach to buildings which are otherwise well-designed. Given the increasing concerns about climate change, the need to reduce energy consumption and wastage of scarce resources and adopt a more sustainable approach means that all existing homes will have to be changed to some extent, and soon. Indeed, some places get better over time, and have important characteristics: simplicity, security, shared space, stewardship, stability and spirit. In the words of Clare Bennie, ‘as our society ages, it feels ever more important to enfold older people within community ecosystems rather than isolating them in dedicated satellites; and children also benefit from this multigenerational presence and wisdom. The designer’s role is to cleverly integrate these diverse members into a coherent micro-society where households cycle through the homes.’¹

Learning from the past

The history of housing is also the story of how governments, developers, philanthropists and industrialists attempted to solve the issues of the day, for instance, how to house the influx of people moving into towns and cities for employment after the industrial revolution, and how best to do this affordably.

Fig 2.0.1 Parker and Unwin, New Earswick, York, 1910. Timeless view of hedged front gardens and gables enclose a green street.

For some, creating an enduring community was the aim at the outset, as Port Sunlight, Bourneville and New Earswick demonstrate. New Earswick, Yorkshire, is a thriving place, and continues to exemplify the values and principles envisioned by its founder Joseph Rowntree in 1904 for a self-governing garden village, a mixed income community with facilities for residents of all ages. There are homes to rent or to buy through shared or full ownership schemes, for families and for older people. All homes since 1994 have been built as Lifetime Homes (a standard for accessible and adaptable housing), and are specifically designed to enhance the quality of life of residents and to encourage community cohesion.²

Fig 2.0.2 Studio Partington, Derwenthorpe, York, 2017. New homes have distinctive gables and enrionmentally rich shared landscape.

The Joseph Rowntree Trust continues to develop exemplary communities across north-east England, and at neighbouring Derwenthorpe, one of the first large-scale low carbon neighbourhoods has been created by Studio Partington. Derwenthorpe creates a place which ‘brings together the complex ideas of identity, community, material sensibilities, public spaces and landscape into a singular harmonious place for the residents, where community is the focus and inspiration, creating a beautiful sense of place and identity for those living there’.³

Major catastrophes – fire, earthquakes and wars – have meant that some cities have had to reconstruct significant neighbourhoods at speed, replacing homes, but not always with the same enduring qualities. Post-war aspirations to make social housing which met the needs of all ages was a driving force for local authorities in the UK tasked with rebuilding damaged cities after 1945. The massive demand for homes was met with considered and thoughtful plans and driven through to completion in numbers not seen before or since. This need for rapid replacement of war-damaged neighbourhoods meant the expansion of post-war housing development in the form of New Towns in new masterplans, and new estates replacing streets. However, few people who would actually live in these new towns and neighbourhoods were consulted, and a centralised, paternalistic approach meant that hundreds of thousands of new homes were built very quickly each year for the next thirty years without answering some important questions.

Fig 2.0.3 Eric Lyons and Span, The Hall, Blackheath, 1958. Safe, shared landscaped spaces at the heart of these new neighbourhoods.

Successful architecture comes from an understanding of how places will be managed and maintained – ease of both, and minimising inputs required over time can make all the difference to cost and satisfaction for both landlords and residents. The post-war architects, planners and landscape architects drew on new housing in Holland, Sweden and Germany, and Radburn in the USA, as examples of low- and high-density homes within a landscape.

Eric Lyons, with his partner Geoffrey Townsend, formed Span Developments in the late 1950s. The designs successfully integrated homes and landscape, and saw solving the problem of managing and maintaining the landscaped spaces as crucial. Creating a sense of community ‘engendered by mandatory participation in a resident’s society, and the care of communal space by an associated scheme of management, has been considered by some to be the greatest achievement of Span…its benefits are both aesthetic and social…’.⁴

Many of the residents of these private housing schemes were professional people (including a number of architects) from diverse backgrounds, as well as older people who had opted for a more contemporary home design. Social interaction and a strong sense of community was well-established in Blackheath and New Ash Green, Kent, as a pilot study commissioned by Span from UCL in 1966 found: residents babysat for each other, invited fellow residents to dinner and helped each other when ill.⁵

The legacy of 1950s–80s local authority housing, while aspirational in many ways, also built in complexity, and has proved difficult to manage and maintain, with security and functionality issues. Shared spaces have become the source of antisocial behaviour if not well overlooked, and sometimes too much space – poorly used, left over, without function or without sense of ownership from residents – has proved hard to manage by landlords. Local authorities, and housing associations who have taken over management of some former social housing estates, have carried out improvements to security and landscape, but without significant investment many issues remain unresolved.

Not all such well-intentioned local authority social housing has failed; indeed some have become places loved by the residents and their qualities recognised by the architectural profession and the public. Where residents have taken ownership of their spaces, and where supporting management and local authorities have invested in maintenance, estates have flourished and become successful, sociable neighbourhoods. The London Borough of Lambeth, under the leadership of the borough architect Ted Hollamby (1969–1981), and Camden, at the time of borough architect Sydney Cook (1965–1973), have some of the best-loved places to live which are valued by long-term residents. Designed by pioneering young architects, they demonstrate special qualities which exemplify the kind of place people still want to call home.

The Alexandra Road estate (Rowley Way) by Neave Brown of Camden Council Architect’s Department (designed 1968, completed 1978) was the first post-war public housing scheme to become Grade II* listed. It centres around a wide pedestrian street, looked over by richly planted balconies and terraces, accessed by external stairs, all of which give plenty of opportunity for interaction and community activity.

Listening to the community

In the early 1980s, inner cities were places of tension brought about by poor living conditions and a lack of even low-paid work opportunities. Riots in Brixton, St Paul’s, Bristol, Toxteth, Liverpool, Handsworth, Birmingham and Moss Side in Manchester in 1981, followed by Broadwater Farm in 1985, were a hard-hitting cry for help from deprived neighbourhoods which had been neglected for so long. Local people were being ignored and had no say in the decisions needed to improve their living conditions.

It had become clear that local communities should be more involved in the decisions which affect them, and that a top-down approach had not worked. In the words of Lord Scarman, President of the UK Council for the UN International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, 1987: ‘Local people must assume responsibility, while the role of the experts is one of giving advice but not making the decisions’.⁶

Consequently, the architect has become facilitator and enabler, working closely with communities to develop plans for new and restored homes. Consulting residents and local communities has become mandatory, though involvement varies considerably depending on the developer and location of the scheme.

In the 1980s and early 1990s HTA Design LLP (Hunt Thompson Associates at the time) were appointed to remodel a series of early 20th century, solidly-built, walk-up blocks which were failing due to lack of investment in maintenance: Navarino Mansions (built 1911; Locally Listed) and Lea View House (1935) – both in Hackney, and Newquay House (1932; Grade II Listed), Kennington. With inadequate bathrooms, no central heating, solid, uninsulated external walls and no security on entrances, the building fabric issues were compounding the social problems causing the communities to fail.

These older buildings were interesting because they were not only refurbished, but also transformed with new typologies and external spaces into completely new places which met the needs of all generations. Truly multigenerational, they were re-planned with full engagement from the existing tenants, the majority of whom elected to stay and found their involvement in designing and seeing their homes modernised exciting. These residents were able to help re-establish the community. While some residents agreed to move out so that the rolling programme could commence, others, including many older people, moved straight back into a newly modernised home.

New communal entrances were made accessible from the street so that the courtyards could become secure community gardens. Ground and first floor flats were converted into family maisonettes with their own front doors onto the street, and with small gardens looking into the communal garden. Other ground and upper floor flats were adapted for wheelchair users and older people with more space and adapted kitchens and bathrooms, while upper floor flats were re-planned to incorporate small balcony spaces. Lifts were added so that everyone had step-free access to upper floors. Community rooms were created, as well as access to shared gardens – the residents and their children helped with planting days. With the addition of internal insulation and continuous ventilation, the transformed homes have been sustainable and popular over the twenty to thirty years since they were modernised.

We are now experiencing another kind of housing crisis – a shortage of affordable homes in the right place that cater for the needs of local people. Post-war homes, often built in complex construction, now require huge investment to maintain, and about 20 million of the 27 million homes in the UK need a significant thermal upgrade.

An increasingly elderly population and not enough suitable homes for them to move to, as the homes they occupy are too large or unsuitable, is putting further pressure on the ability of our housing stock to meet the needs of everyone. Demolishing and rebuilding is not the only solution; regeneration can strengthen communities if they themselves chose redevelopment as their preferred option, but it can damage people and places if there is strong resistance to redevelopment, leading to accusations of gentrification, as old communities are dispersed and new, unaffordable homes built.

Not all existing homes need to be demolished, but most need to be modernised, and it is not always possible to move residents out to improve their homes. There are many examples of refurbished and modernised existing homes, some more successful than others, especially those which have been undertaken in consultation with the residents. Recent refurbishments of seemingly failing large-scale post-war blocks have been awarded Mies van de Rohe prizes. In 2017 this EU prize for contemporary architecture was awarded to NL Architects and XVW Architectuur for deFlat, a customisable renovation of Bijlmermeer, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In 2019, Lacaton & Vassal’s Grand Parc Bordeaux, France, won the prize for a major transformation using prefabricated modules carried out with residents in situ.

We are learning how to improve our towns and cities to make them age-friendly, safe and easy for everyone to use, allowing for those needing to take more time to move about, to cross roads, or take a rest along the way.

Designing the right mix of homes and amenities, with sustainable transport infrastructure, is at the heart of planning policy, and more thoughtfully designed places to live are gradually being developed by housing providers. Local authorities are also building once again. The recent exhibition on public housing by New London Architecture at the Building Centre, London, is not only testimony to the ambitions to provide good, genuinely mixed tenure housing, but also to the fact that such homes make great places to live which fulfil many important criteria for successful and sustainable city living.⁷ They also demonstrate that involving local people in the reimagining of existing place and design of new neighbourhoods can make a significant difference to placemaking.

Key principles for successful, sustainable and social places

As more and more old post-war estates are demolished to make way for new developments, urban designers and planners are making sure strong routes and connections are laid out, knitting back the new fabric into the older neighbourhood, often reinstating old street patterns. It seems that in our busy, fast-moving city life, people do not have much time for each other, and still less for isolated people they do not know about or encounter in their day-to-day activities. Making places where people can walk or cycle, slow down, meet neighbours and feel safe and comfortable is crucial: ‘life, space, buildings – in that order, please’, states architect Jan Gehl.⁸

Some of the ingredients for a sociable community are already in place, and making more opportunities for activity and interaction in the spaces between our buildings is very much a focus for new developments. Some of these principles include:

‘It starts with the street’: providing front gardens, making the space in front of our homes a social space and creating green routes and connections for trees and growing things, to ensure that getting around can be safe and enjoyable.

not designing around the car and speed of vehicular movement at 40mph but designing for 4mph walking or 10mph cycling (moderate speed, rather than Tour de France), with space to pass each other with prams or wheelchairs, and places to stop on the way.

designing to make time for interaction and sociability across generations.

moving the focus from housing as an investment to making sustainable communities.

avoiding mono-typology expansion – Victorian terraces, suburban semis, endless streets stretching around our cities designed for getting about by car rather than public transport, walking or cycling.

offering more integrated options: for example tenement blocks in 19th century Edinburgh and Glasgow, and early 20th century mansion blocks.

taking the smaller dwelling typologies in older blocks of flats and turning them into successful multigenerational communities is an excellent example of remodelling existing adaptable stock, which has been robustly built and has construction and features worth preserving.

There are a number of schemes emerging – many from Denmark – which demonstrate that designing for multiple generations enables an equitable and diverse community, integrated and active. These are ambitious projects. The Generations House on Aarhus Ø, designed by Erik Arkitekter and RUM in 2016, is a project by the city of Aarhus and Brabrand Housing Association. The group of eight mansion blocks includes 100 apartments for older people, 40 family homes, 40 homes for younger people, 24 homes for people with physical disabilities and day care centres offering nine groups for children of 0–6 years of age. In this way, the Generations House supports the new port district as a place to live in all stages of life. The Generation House is the first of its kind in Denmark. Future Sølund is another recent example, in Copenhagen, which is explained in more detail in the case study below.

The case studies in this chapter have the following characteristics in common, in that they are all:

places which have been well-designed and thought through from inside to the street

positively planned for different generations to live together

designed so that people can manage and take ownership of part of their home

designed with social spaces providing places to stop, sit and encounter neighbours inside and outside

designed to be truly sustainable – not only energy efficient, but with carefully chosen materials to minimise waste, maintenance and ensure it’s easy to manage

homes integrated with landscaped external spaces, which have been designed with a purpose

designed with soft landscape which residents can maintain and own – growing food, flowers for pollinators and encouraging diversity in the environment

developed in consultation with the local community – not necessarily the people who have chosen to move there, but also neighbours and local stakeholders

examples which have garnered positive feedback from residents, suggesting benefits from small details as well as key decisions in the design of multigenerational places to live

illustrative of new concepts and directions in the creation and design of multigenerational housing.

Fig 2.0.4 Erik Arkitekter/RUM, The Generations House, Aarhus Ø. Eight distinct ‘houses’ as one, overlooking the harbour.

2.1 BUCCLEUCH HOUSE, HACKNEY, UK

Fig 2.1.1 Levitt Bernstein, Buccleuch House, Hackney, 2015: view over Clapton Common.

A MULTIGENERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PRIVATE RENT, AFFORDABLE RENT AND OLDER PEOPLE

THE CLIENT

Hanover, who owned the site, commissioned the scheme from Levitt Bernstein Architects via a developer design competition. Previous attempts to develop the site had failed at planning and they were keen to make a fresh start in order to deliver high quality older people’s housing, cross funded by homes for sale. Contractors Hill were successful, due to the quality of design proposals and the inclusion of Agudas Israel Housing Association, as the very local affordable housing provider. Hanover were focused on delivering older people’s homes that met the recommendations from a report by Housing our Ageing Population Panel for Innovation (HAPPI), to provide exemplary, flexible and spacious apartments. They were also committed to delivering a building that would allow the three different groups of residents to live alongside each other, with space and separation for privacy, but with opportunities to interact as well.

ENGAGEMENT WITH FUTURE RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

The nature of the way allocations were arranged meant that the architects were not able to consult with future residents during the design process. However, Hanover had a very clear vision of the type of homes they wanted to create, working to the HAPPI Report recommendations, and Agudas Israel had built up a well-thought-through brief over many years of commissioning bespoke projects for their Orthodox Jewish residents. The planning history associated with the site ensured that engagement with neighbours, planners, councillors and local interest groups was always a priority to guide development of the design proposals. A well-attended public consultation event was held during the earlier stages of design development, in order to gather feedback.

Close collaboration with Hackney planners and design officers ensured a smooth process through planning. Strong local support for the scheme was ultimately demonstrated by the few objections and the unanimous vote for consent at planning committee.

THE SCHEME

Buccleuch House provides 107 high quality homes. Three tenure types for three distinct groups of residents are combined to provide 41 independent social rented homes for older people, 28 affordable rent and shared ownership family apartments for the local Orthodox Jewish population and 38 smaller private sale apartments. In addition, 31 spaces including staff and visitor parking were included for Hanover. The Use Class for the scheme was C2 for the older people’s housing and C3 for the rest of the homes. The challenge was to provide each group of residents with homes meeting their cultural and physical needs within a single, elegant building.

Fig 2.1.2 Levitt Bernstein, Buccleuch House, Hackney, 2015: distinctive housing typologies.

CONSTRAINTS AND HOW THEY WERE OVERCOME

The long narrow site was the main physical constraint, restricting layout options within the blocks. The architects worked hard to provide as many dual aspect homes as possible within this constraint, especially for the larger family homes. However, the long open views to Clapton Common and the Lea Valley on either side, and roof terraces, provide an additional compensation where single aspect was unavoidable. Within the older people’s block the designers brought light and ventilation into the circulation areas through the stairs and double-height break out spaces on different floors.

A protected London square stretches along the full frontage of the site that had to be retained and the site sits on the edge of the Clapton Common Conservation Area. Rights of light to houses close to the rear were also major factors in the final design.

DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY

The different types of housing are unified within one building, creating a prominent but calm backdrop to the common, viewed through a filter of trees. The building does not immediately or obviously distinguish between the different tenures. The only exception is the use of subtly different balcony types which were designed with the practical and cultural requirements of the residents in mind: the private apartments have simple stacking balconies: those for the Orthodox Jewish families are staggered to provide a clear view of the sky for the Sukkot festival; they are also convertible into a sukkah (temporary huts) for use during the festival, with retractable canopies. The sukkahs are used for sleeping, eating and even entertaining. Balconies for the older residents are glazed winter gardens to provide more shelter and an extra living space for those who spend more time inside.

Fig 2.1.3 Levitt Bernstein, Buccleuch House, Hackney, 2015: site plan.

This bespoke approach continues inside the building. The private apartments are open-plan with one or two bedrooms to suit first time buyers. Homes for Orthodox Jewish families have at least three bedrooms and include extra sinks and external space needed for religious festivals. Many of the homes for older people follow HAPPI design recommendations, with flexible layouts to help residents move around more easily. The older people’s section of the building also includes a communal lounge, break-out spaces on upper floors and offices for Hanover’s development team. Buccleuch House meets Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, with a highly efficient building envelope and photovoltaic panels.

WHAT MAKES IT A SUCCESSFUL MULTIGENERATIONAL PLACE TO LIVE?

The integration of the three types of housing creates a truly multigenerational scheme – one which could act as a blueprint for future developments. The three parts of the building are managed and accessed separately by each of the three groups. A degree of separation is therefore designed into the building and allows for those elderly residents who prefer quiet not to be disturbed by the many young children who live in the family housing next door. The winter gardens give a similar degree of privacy, but also allow for those who are outgoing to engage more with their neighbours and the wider community by opening them up to the outside. The older residents can also enjoy two enclosed rear gardens, a tranquil sunken courtyard with sensory planting and seating areas and a kitchen garden with raised beds for growing of fruit and vegetables. The London Square at the front of the building provides a shared outdoor space that is open to all residents to use and is particularly popular with the larger Jewish families.

Fig 2.1.4 Levitt Bernstein, Buccleuch House, Hackney, 2015: section.

Feedback from residents and community post-occupancy also testifies to the success of the scheme. ‘One thing that we really liked about the building as a whole is that it had these three diverse neighbourhoods. It felt like a community that involved everyone. That was what we bought the place for,’ one resident told Hill. ‘I’ve got a lovely view and a nice balcony I can sit out on. I’m surrounded by nice people. It’s like a hotel! My son is very happy because he knows I’m safe. He wants to put his name down for a flat too’ said a Hanover resident. These sentiments were shared by the housing association too, with Ita Symons MBE, Chief Executive of Agudas Israel disclosed: ‘We really appreciate the sensitive design that meets our residents’ needs’. Local stakeholders, including this resident of Clapton Common felt the same: ‘Every day we look out from our house and see your building. It’s a real delight! I love how the trees and the windows/balconies work so well together and the vertical is expressed rather than the horizontal!’, said one.

SUMMARY
Client: | Hill, Hanover and Agudas Israel Housing Association
Location: | Hackney, London, UK
Architect: | Levitt Bernstein Architects
Contractor: | Hill
Landscape architect: | Area
M&E engineer: | Hill
Planning: | CMA Planning
Structural engineer: | Conisbee
Plan area: | From 50m² fora 1 bedroom, 2 person dwelling to 116m² for a 4 bedroom, 6 person residence
Date completed: | 2015

AWARDS:

British Homes Awards: Affordable Housing Development of the Year, 2016 - Winner

Housing Design Awards: Completed, 2016 - Shortlisted

Building Awards: Housing Project of the Year, 2016 - Finalist

London Planning Awards: Best New Place to Live, 2016 - Shortlisted

What House? Awards: Best Exterior Design, 2016 - Silver

What House? Awards: Best Partnership Scheme - Silver

New London Awards: Health & Care, 2015 - Shortlisted

Housing Design Awards: Project, 2013 - Winner

Housing Design Awards: HAPPI Award, 2013 - Winner

2.2 HANHAM HALL, BRISTOL, UK

Fig 2.2.1 HTA Design, Hanham Hall, Bristol, 2015. Vision for Hanham Hall as a sustainable place to live, centred on a sequence of rich landscaped spaces, from front garden to orchard.

A MULTIGENERATIONAL SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY, HOUSE BUILDER LED PROJECT ON PUBLIC LAND AND A ZERO-CARBON EXEMPLAR

THE DEVELOPMENT

Hanham Hall is England’s first large-scale volume house builder development to achieve the zero-carbon standard. It was conceived as one of the flagship Carbon Challenge schemes initiated by the former English Partnerships (now Homes and Communities Agency, or HCA) in 2007. The objective of the scheme was to deliver zero-carbon housing well in advance of the Government target for such housing at the time. The development had to incorporate the now abandoned Code for Sustainable Homes and achieve Code Level 6, the highest sustainability standard at the time. The Code incorporated nine categories of sustainable design, the majority of which featured environmental standards, such as energy and CO₂ emissions, water, materials, surface water run-off, waste, pollution and ecology, but these standards were also balanced by a focus on health, wellbeing and management. The Code’s target was for all homes to be zero-carbon by 2016. However, this policy was abandoned by the Government in 2014.

HTA Design LLP led the design from the national competition stage through to achieving planning permission and construction. Alongside a very challenging brief, the starting point for the interdisciplinary design team on this project was that sustainable communities must be about more than simply meeting sustainability codes and targets; the vision was to create a place where people would want to build their lives, where they felt safe and comfortable, where they were inspired to live harmoniously with their environment and where there was something on offer for people of all ages. The design team wanted to create a development that encouraged behaviours that would lead to more sustainable lifestyles, for example, creating social spaces encouraging people to engage with neighbours, and establishing the opportunity to take charge of the management of a place through a Community Interest Company. This is a special type of limited company which exists to benefit the community, rather than private shareholders. Sitting out on a veranda, growing food communally, sharing management tasks and playing together across a whole community were key design objectives. The design team set out to create streets, and make houses and flats personable, especially for the active elderly or young people who may want to live in the space long term.

The development consists of 185 homes and a community facility within the refurbished Grade II* listed Hanham Hall, completed in 2015. The refurbished Hall accommodates a mix of uses, including offices, a créche and a café. Homes range from one-bedroom starter flats to five-bedroom family houses. Two thirds of the homes have been sold privately and the rest are designated for affordable rent. There is no visible distinction between the private and rented housing.

Located 7km from the centre of Bristol, the nine hectare site is bordered by suburban housing to the north, south and west. To the east, it adjoins the green belt, enjoying open views of rolling countryside. Hanham Hall itself dates from the mid-17th century. Originally a farm and substantial family home surrounded by extensive gardens and open land, it became a psychiatric hospital around 1900. The hospital closed in 2000, and the Hall remained unoccupied and fell into disrepair, to the regret of local people, who felt considerable affection for this landmark building.

Green belt restrictions and the need to retain views of the Hanham Hills meant that more than a third of the site could not be built on. These green areas now provide an array of shared amenity spaces. A new park extends through the site and beyond and includes access to greenhouses, an apiary, allotments, orchards, retained trees and hedgerows, play spaces, a village green, formal gardens, a swale and pond with extensive areas of meadow grass beyond. Street parking is concentrated in the secondary mews roads and rear courtyards, ensuring that the main public spaces remain free of vehicular clutter.

CONSTRAINTS AND HOW THEY WERE OVERCOME

The successful delivery of this development required the need to balance the objectives of developer, design team, local planning authority and government, on a site with challenging constraints as a starting point, containing a listed building and set in an area of sensitive landscape character. As a government flagship scheme there was no option to fail. The design team used dialogue with neighbours, the HCA (previously English Partnerships) Design Panel, South Gloucestershire Council and the Hanham Abbots Parish Council, in sometimes challenging, but intellectually explanatory ways. The airing of conflicting views during workshops and events with stakeholders was a common occurrence in the design process, but the frequency with which the stakeholders met enabled all to achieve a higher level of understanding about climate change and the implications of a zero-carbon rationale. Over time, this led to a common vision and enthusiasm to achieve the objectives of the scheme.

DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY

The layout of the homes is built around the Hall, revealing and framing views, and structured by the historic gardens and field patterns to connect into the surrounding park and countryside. The homes are packed with innovative ideas; they prioritise views and light with generous windows oriented to maximise solar collection. They open onto large balconies and verandas to create strong connections with the surrounding communal gardens and countryside. Shared gardens incorporate allotments, green houses, play areas, an orchard, retained mature trees and hedgerows while integrating swales and ponds as part of the sustainable urban drainage (SUDs) solution.

Fig 2.2.2 HTA Design, 2010. Landscape masterplan for Hanham Hall, creating age-friendly spaces for all residents to enjoy Hanham Hall, Bristol.

Fig 2.2.3 HTA Design, Hanham Hall, Bristol, 2010. Front gardens greenhouses and allotments are designed to encourage interaction with neighbours.

Fig 2.2.4 HTA Design, Hanham Hall, Bristol, 2010. Active and well-overlooked pedestrian and cycle links.

Constructed from prefabricated structural insulated panels with high performance timber windows and insulated doors, all the homes are highly energy efficient – designed to allow residents to reduce their carbon footprint by 60% without any lifestyle changes. External shutters, the thermal mass of the ground floor slabs and wall linings, together with night-time mechanical ventilation, keep the buildings cool in summer. The homes combine stack and cross ventilation, large openings, deep roof overhangs, balconies and shutters to avoid overheating. Rainwater harvesting provides enough water to supply the washing machines and WCs, helping to reduce potable water use to 80 litres per person per day, while bike and recycling storage in each unit encourages residents to adopt a greener way of life.

The usable volume of the home has been exploited using the advantages of structurally insulated panels (SIPs) to open up living rooms into high cathedral ceilings. Innovative home layouts split living spaces across multiple floors, making homes that deliver more usable space while making the most of views out. The layout offers long-term flexibility, with living spaces and bedrooms at ground floor, as well as a dual aspect living room at first floor.

Fig 2.2.5 HTA Design, 2010. Typical house section, with first floor living space and balcony overlooking community gardens.

Shared and collective behaviour is seen as central to the success of Hanham Hall and this philosophy is extended through design to most aspects of the development: shared spaces, shared parking, shared energy, shared services and shared management. As Hanham Hall is run by its residents, in the form of a Community Interest Company, it promotes an active community with car-sharing clubs, gardening groups and walking school bus projects.

WHAT MAKES IT A SUCCESSFUL MULTIGENERATIONAL PLACE TO LIVE?

Whilst Hanham Hall has been tailored very closely to its specific environment, its underlying design approach provides a model for sustainable placemaking that can be replicated anywhere, the key ingredients being a holistic approach to design and an understanding that people want to be empowered rather than coerced to live sustainably.

Hanham Hall is a beautifully landscaped, friendly and open place. The homes themselves have attracted older residents from elsewhere in the country who have moved to Hanham to live in a sustainable community. The development provides housing for people at all stages of their life. Homes are grouped in terraces, semi-detached and detached to create varied urban form. A significant proportion of the homes are family homes with parking in-curtilage or adjacent to the home. Smaller apartments provide an accessible entry level to the housing market, whilst coach houses provide a good intermediate step between houses and apartments.

In December 2018, HTA Design LLP held a focus group with residents post-occupancy. Their positive feedback was telling, and reveals the success of the multigenerational approach. ‘One of the great things I love about living here [is that] the community is very strong and vibrant,’ said one. Another praised the benefits of schemes which make use of common garden facilities: ‘I live in a block of flats and we are all friendly here, but also out in the estate we are connected and can say hi to people. We have events too which allow us to socialise, but also the greenhouse we rent has built connections with neighbouring greenhouse renters.’ Finally, the sustainable construction lead to improved lifestyles and significant cost savings for inhabitants, with one explaining: ‘The houses here are just wonderfully efficient, so in terms of our energy bills they have been slashed. We were paying £250 on the electricity and now we’re paying £60 – this is good as my wife likes the house to be nice and toasty.’

Fig 2.2.6 HTA Design, Hanham Hall, Bristol, 2010. House plan; left ground floor and right first floor.

SUMMARY
Client: | Barratt Homes, Bristol + Sovereign Housing Association
Location: | Whittucks Road, Hanham Bristol, Gloucestershire
Architect: | HTA Design LLP
Contractor: | Kingspan and Barratt Homes
Heritage advisor: | ARUP
Landscape architect: | HTA Design LLP
M&E engineers: | ARUP
Planning | HTA Design LLP
Structural engineer: | ARUP
Sustainability advisor: | HTA Design LLP
Plan area: | 51m² fora 1 bedroom flat, 135.2m² fora 3 bedroom flat
Date completed: | 2015
Website: | www.hanhamhallhub.co.uk

AWARDS:

British Home Awards (Daily Telegraph), Housing Project of the Year, 2010 - Winner

National Urban Design Group Project Awards, 2010 - Winner

Housing Design Awards, Richard Feilden Award for Best Affordable Housing, 2014 - Winner

What House Awards, 2014 - Shortlisted

Housebuilder Awards: Best design for three storeys or fewer, 2014 - Shortlisted

RICS Awards, Design Through Innovation & Residential, 2014 - Shortlisted

Building Awards: Housing Project of the Year, 2014 - Shortlisted

RTPI Planning Excellence Awards, Excellence in Planning forthe Natural Environment, 2015-Winner

RTPI SouthWest Planning Excellence Awards, Excellence in Planning to Deliver Housing, 2015- Commended

RIBAJ MacEwen Award, Architecture for the Common Good, 2016 - Shortlisted

2.3 BEVERIDGE MEWS, TOWER HAMLETS, UK

Fig 2.3.1 Peter Barber Architects, Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets, London, 2012. ‘Lived-in’ houses enlivened by the residents.

MULTIGENERATIONAL SOCIAL HOUSING IN LONDON

Larger family homes are often required by local planning policy and development briefs but are not often provided where numbers of homes are the key driver to meet need and viability. This case study for Beveridge Mews, Hannibal Road, in East London, by Peter Barber Architects, explains how larger homes for the local Asian community in Tower Hamlets have been successfully integrated into the existing estate. The homes are for people ‘who would otherwise live in overcrowded lodgings or outside the city, and the architecture transforms an unattractive piece of land previously occupied by dingy garages into a beautiful place.’⁹

There is a high demand for housing for extended and multigenerational homes in Tower Hamlets, East London, to meet the problems of overcrowding in the flats and houses in the borough. Space to create more homes in an already densely developed borough is becoming increasingly challenging, and redeveloping existing homes presents some practical issues too. Local authorities and housing associations have been making the most of underused spaces between buildings and garage sites on their estates. Modern cars are often too large to fit into the garages and these have generally become used for storage, not vehicles. Moreover, fewer people need cars in the inner city close to good transport. Southern Housing Group, who manage the estate at Hannibal Road, a post-war group of three blocks of maisonettes and flats, commissioned Peter Barber Architects to design new homes on the former garage site. It was a collaborative approach to planning, and the architects worked closely with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Planning and highway officers to secure planning consent.

The existing estate had not been designed to accommodate larger families, and the brief was to create homes for extended families. The eight houses are all affordable – 50% are for social rent – and range in size from three to six bedrooms. Priority was given to families on the estate who were living in overcrowded homes. The new houses represent an ingenious response to the single-aspect boundary to the west wall of what is now Beveridge Mews, completing the square formed on the other three sides by the existing blocks. Beyond there are industrial buildings and student

Fig 2.3.2 Peter Barber Architects, Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets, London, 2012. New homes integrated with existing around a shared garden.

Fig 2.3.3 Peter Barber Architects, Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets, London, 2012. Typical plan for three bedroom house.

Fig 2.3.4 Peter Barber Architects, Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets, London, 2012: design model.

accommodation. With no windows in the west boundary, the homes look south over their own terraces and east over a new shared communal garden. Three-storey three-, four- and six- bedroom houses, and a four-storey seven-bedroom house, form an articulated, low-rise enclosure, which allows sunlight to the communal garden.

Each house has its own private courtyard entered from the path alongside the communal garden. The living spaces have direct access to the courtyard, and the front door leads into the large kitchen-dining room. Living rooms are spacious, with plenty of space for the whole family to be together, connected to the kitchen-dining room, but also capable of being screened off. A large window in the kitchen looks out onto the communal garden, so children can be supervised while playing outside. The two largest houses, for eleven people, have a ground floor twin bedroom and a bathroom, making them flexible for use by older family members. Upstairs, there are single and double bedrooms, more bathrooms – even the three-bedroom house has two bathrooms and a ground floor WC. More private amenity space is created on upper levels, with a terrace enclosed on three sides, only overlooked by itself, giving more opportunity to catch the sun as it moves round to the west.

Cedar shingles clad the notched terrace, constructed in blockwork, referencing the garden fences and sheds of the maisonette gardens opposite. They are gradually weathering to a silvery-grey and are not expected to require much maintenance. The flat green roofs have a roof light over the stair, bringing light into the heart of the house. Three houses have barrel vaulted roofs. Each house has its own courtyard and terrace which ‘not only forms generous outdoor space for residents who would otherwise not have gardens, but provide….a canvas for people to decorate (the) building with the evidence of their lives, the bicycles, clotheslines, potted plants and doormats that bring life to these kinds of spaces.’¹⁰

SUMMARY
Client: | Southern Housing Group
Location: | Tower Hamlets, London, UK
Architect: | Peter Barber Architects
Contractor: | Osborne Homes
Delivery architect: | Alan Camp Architects
Structural engineer: | Ellis and Moore
Plan area: | 103m²-176m² for3,4, 6 and 7 bedroom homes
Date completed: | 2012

AWARDS:

RIBA Stirling Prize, 2013 - Mid-listed; RIBA National Award, 2013 - Winner;
New London Award, 2013 - Winner

2.4 FUTURE SØLUND, COPENHAGEN, DENMARK

Fig 2.4.1 C.F. Møller, Sølund, Copenhagen, 2018: active street scene.

INTEGRATING NEW HOMES INTO A NEIGHBOURHOOD WITH OLDER PEOPLE’S HOMES AND STUDENT ACCOMMODATION

C.F. Møller Architects and Tredje Natur won a competition to design an innovative generation community in Copenhagen which will be one of the largest and most visionary residential and nursing home projects in Denmark once completed in 2022.

Future Sølund is an ambitious and pioneering example of city-integrated care centres. Sølund makes it possible to give the elderly in need of care a whole new opportunity to live and interact with other generations. It sets new standards for welfare, wellbeing, security and functionality, and provides a place where senior citizens, young people and children not only live close together, but also supplement and benefit from each other.

A COMPLETELY NEW APPROACH

The existing Sølund care home, located centrally in Copenhagen’s Nørrebro district next to the Sortedam Lake, has been replaced by a shared multigeneration community, which combines 360 care homes, 150 flats for young people (including 20 dwellings for young people with autism spectrum disorder), 20 flats for older people, a day care centre, and three micro-shops as well as cafés, workshops and both public and private carpark facilities – a true ‘House of Generations’.

The mix of housing types and provision for residents and visitors is unique in a Danish context, and it will become a central anchor point for the development of the entire Nørrebro district. The project has huge potential as an urban activity generator, which will provide the area with atmosphere with its many residents, staff and guests breathing life into the district.

AN INVITING, CITY-INTEGRATED, COMMON HOME

The central focus has been to closely integrate the complex in its context, with the prominent lakeside forming part of the garden to the rear, and the diverse and lively Nørrebro on the street front. An open and public ground floor meets the surroundings centred on three generous courtyards, which provide sheltered and pleasant conditions for the many young and elderly residents.

The day care centre is placed in the most calm and sunny spot to the south, facing a new lakefront pocket park, and the flats for older people are all placed on the ground floor with private front gardens – a feature already existing around the Copenhagen lakes. The accommodation for young people is located in a separate building, creating a new and intimate passage from the street side which provides a peaceful main entrance for the care centre.

Fig 2.4.2 C.F. Møller, Sølund, Copenhagen, 2018: integrated courtyards for all generations.

These functions, together with the care home from the first floor upwards, share a common ‘Generation’s Square’ in the central courtyard. This is the meeting place for Sølund’s users and guests, surrounded by a looped inner street which connects the functions on the ground floor. This inner street provides a hair salon, shops, an internet café and other public programmes towards the urban side – public workshops and rehabilitation facilities facing the calm courtyards, and a café and multi-functional venue facing the lake.

In this way, Sølund creates its own green cityscape inviting people of all generations to be involved in shared activities, inspire each other in the workshops and kitchens, or simply meet across age-divides in the numerous green spaces. This creates an environment where people in need of care are no longer excluded from urban life and distanced from their fellow human beings.

Fig 2.4.3 C.F. Møller, Sølund, Copenhagen, 2018: site plan.

Fig 2.4.4 C.F. Møller, Sølund, Copenhagen, 2018: inside the home.

A HEALING LANDSCAPE

The complex enhances the surroundings with a 360-degree green edge. The different landscape zones facing the city are completely public and can be used by the city. Climate resilience features such as stormwater handling and sustainable urban drainage are fully integrated in the landscape design.

The Generation’s Square is a semi-public urban space, and connects to the two other more private courtyards with individual landscape themes – a grove and a kitchen garden. On the roof, facing the south sun and with a view of the lakes, a roof terrace with brick arches as a distinct façade motif creates shelter and a lush green pergola combined with rooftop urban farming.

A DIGNIFIED, HOMELY AND SAFE EVERYDAY LIFE

Sølund’s primary functions are the 360 care homes. Therefore, the project has focused on creating optimal conditions for the elderly. Engineering, logistics, construction and indoor climate are coordinated and integrated with the newest welfare technology solutions. The care homes are all well-lit with a view to the surrounding landscape and city, and feature access niches that can be personalized by residents. The different housing groups are all clustered around a central kitchen and living room with a greater focus on homeliness. Whether the elderly have a large outreach, or mostly stay around the care home, they will always be close to calm common spaces, orangeries and the rest of the community.

Fig 2.4.5 C.F. Møller, Sølund, Copenhagen, 2018: typical plan.

Fig 2.4.6 C.F. Møller, Sølund, Copenhagen, 2018: section.

The brick-clad façades of the centre take their cues from the surrounding city fabric, with a vertical rhythm and discrete variations in the different sections which can be created from a simple palette of prefabricated solutions. The entire complex is designed to meet the strict Danish codes for low-energy Building Class 2020, including focus on healthy indoor climate and passive measures, and the youth residences are proposed as a fully timber-framed building.

SUMMARY
Client: | Samvirkende Boligselskaber/ KAB
Location: | Nørrebro, Copenhagen, Denmark
Architect: | C. F. Møller in collaboration
Collaborator: | Smith Innovation
Engineer: | Bascon,Transsolar
Landscape architect: | withTredje Natur
Plan area: | 37,895 m²
Date due: | 2022
Website: | www.detnyesoelund.dk

3
CO-HOUSING + COLLECTIVE SHARED HOUSING IN THE UK + EUROPE

CASE STUDIES

3.1 MARMALADE LANE, CAMBRIDGE, UK

3.2 FORGEBANK, LANCASTER, UK

3.3 NEW GROUND, HIGH BARNET, UK

3.4 VRIJBURCHT CO-HOUSING, AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

3.5 BERLIN CO-HOUSING, GERMANY

Fig 3.0 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane, Cambridge, Housing, 2018.

Choosing to live as a group with others that share a common purpose is a social practice undertaken across the world. Forming distinct communities that share beliefs, ideologies and lifestyle similarities is as old as our ancient ancestors. Throughout history, such communities have adapted their housing to suit their collective needs and circumstances, be it in caves, in purpose-built housing, in converted pre-existing buildings, or even by choosing to construct housing themselves, with local materials and the labour and expertise of the community itself.

Historically, a variety of purpose-designed buildings and places have emerged to suit the needs of these different communities for living and working: convents and monasteries, almshouses, kibbutzim and communes, for instance.

Many breakaway religious sects, in past centuries, moved across Europe and on to America to found new communities – the Mennonites, Shakers, Amish and Pilgrim Fathers to name but a few. Some groups founded places to live alongside their workplaces, based on cooperative principles, such as New Lanark in Ayrshire, and Saltaire, Leeds, both in the UK. These collectives were formed by the people who were to live there, as an intentional group, shaping the place to suit them rather than the other way around.

In Britain, Europe and the USA today, most people live in smaller family groups, as couples or alone. When work, social and other activities are some distance away from home – sometimes a commute might be an hour or more each way – people living with family or a spouse do not often get to see them, eat with them, or talk to them, let alone meet or form relationships with their neighbours. Blocks and terraces enclose places to live, but they do not make a community by themselves. Moreover, many places have been designed around cars and vehicles, which dominate streets and spaces between buildings, and which are not conducive to safe outdoor activity.

Making places people- and age-friendly, designed to encourage neighbourliness and interaction, promoting health and wellbeing and responding to the climate emergency are the key objectives for a sustainable society. Co-housing is a community-led response to these objectives, formed by people who intend to live together and share more, which could lead to a happier life.¹

Co-housing schemes are not necessarily ‘hippy communes’ in remote rural landscapes. They are urban or suburban settlements, and are likely to be far more sustainable if they can be easily reached by bicycle or bus so as not to be car-dependent, with shops and amenities nearby. They are often developed on brownfield sites, reusing existing developed land rather than spreading further across an idyllic landscape or getting in the way of a view. By the nature of their governance they tend to be smaller communities so that they can be managed collectively.

Co-housing, in its currently understood form, began in Denmark in the 1970s and has spread rapidly through Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany, where there are now hundreds of co-housing communities. It is also growing in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the USA and the UK. The ‘Bofaellesskaber’ (literally, a flat share) is a ‘residential estate with generous community facilities, jointly initiated, planned and self-managed by the residents. At the core of co-housing is preparing meals and having dinner together, which has proven its worth as a basis for community life.’²

The seminal scheme is at Tinggården near Herfølge on Zealand. The competition-winning proposal in 1973 by Vandkunsten Architects and Landscape Architects included ‘a manifesto that addressed construction on many levels – in relation to the big issues of society, the way communities work, the interplay between building and landscape, building materials and other basic qualities…a rejection of post-war housing blocks and private detached houses, challenging the rationalist mindset that put the system before people.’³

Houses at Tinggården were relatively small, with an average area of 78m², with more extensive communal areas. There are 78 social housing homes, five different housing types placed in six clusters, each with a communal house. The robust, simple homes have flexible walls that allow for continual modification so that, for example, one family may acquire and take over a room from the neighbour. There is also a larger community centre where all residents of Tinggården can meet. This alternative form of housing became a model for other low-rise, dense developments.⁴

The roots of co-housing in Denmark go back to philanthropic ideas from 19th century England; in 1854 the first social housing with community facilities was built at Brumleby, Østerbro, Copenhagen, with the aim of improving living and health conditions of the poor population. Leading architect, Gottlieb Bindesboll, was appointed by Medical Association Homes – unusual for an architect of grand theatres to be designing housing – and is an early example of Danish architects taking on more philanthropic commissions.

At the heart of the current renewed focus on co-housing and collective living is the desire to live in a neighbourly, sociable place, which has been shaped by the people who have chosen to live there, and which has minimal impact on its environment.

As Stephen Hill, author of ‘Codesign’ explains, the priorities for the group are ‘not so much the interiors or appearance of their homes, but their relationship to each other, the connections between inside and outside social space, spaces that managed the tensions between parking cars, having safe places for children to play near home, and making opportunities to bump into their neighbours in the street.’⁵

There are social, physical and economic benefits of co-housing, when compared to mainstream or other collective housing development. The process for agreeing objectives and principles, and designing and deciding details, is an important part of creating a successful project.

These are some of the characteristics of co-housing, as evidenced by the case study projects which follow:

Initiated and led by the community, cooperative or jointly developed as co-housing.

Communities take ownership of the place where they live and responsibility for management and maintenance; keeping active and having a purpose is important at any stage of life, and even older, frailer residents, or those with disabilities, can play their part.

Residents make the places where they want to live, in the way that suits them; this is particularly important for older people who have chosen to live with others on their own terms, not organised and institutionalised by third parties.

Sharing meals: some occasionally, others on a more regular basis, weekly or weekdays. Everyone contributes to everyday needs, which brings added social benefits, binding the group closer together, and for people on their own, the opportunity to meet others regularly. Common house, dining and kitchen spaces are designed in to new schemes, or a space created within existing development, so these communal spaces are at the heart of the co-housing and used by everyone as a social and meeting place.

Enabling more sharing of functions and amenities and collective support of: childcare, older people, those with disabilities. Mutual support and help, more reliable and affordable than depending on over-stretched local authority services.

More flexibility, adaptability, customisation: making the place your own, and being able to adapt it over time as needs change.

More sustainable and environmentally-responsive: there is a strong environmental ethos and desire to conserve scarce resources, aiming to achieve zero-carbon.

Low-technology, low impact: minimising use of high-technology solutions to construction and lifestyle, so as to have low impact on the environment.

Healthier: communal landscape is a vital component as a place for growing food, children play together outside as much as possible, people are encouraged to sit outside, socialise and interact. Residents take ownership of all external spaces, manage and maintain external landscape themselves.

Circular economy: less waste, reuse and recycle: sharing more equipment, repairing and reusing with support from others in the community means less waste or cost for the residents; using materials which can be reused, or including reclaimed materials in the buildings or landscape.

It often takes a lot longer than house builders building their standard housing as it takes time to establish the group, secure land and funding. The co design and approvals process need not take longer than more conventional schemes, the timescale for reaching consensus and obtaining approvals must be factored in.

Democratic, egalitarian, diverse: the basis for agreeing decisions is essentially democratic and egalitarian as everyone has a share in the co-housing management organisation. Increasing diversity is something that some co-housing groups recognise they need to do, as small groups of people who know each other and form co-housing groups tend to be from similar backgrounds. That is not to say that specific groups such as those for women, older people and the LGBTQ+ community should be criticised, as they also have their own diversity.

Co-housing and cooperatives in Europe

Switzerland has a long history of housing cooperatives dating back to the 19th century. There is a strong tradition of community self-help and volunteering, and collaborative housing organisations. One of the oldest cooperatives is Freidorf, formed in 1919 in Basel. Designed by Hannes Meyer, who went on to become the second director of the Bauhaus, he carried out surveys of prospective residents to find out how they would like to live.

All major cities, as well as rural areas, in Switzerland include a relatively high proportion of cooperative housing. The right to housing is guaranteed in the Swiss constitution, and funding for the cooperatives has been made possible by taxes on profitable businesses, initially during the periods following WWI and II. The non-profit housing organisations have adopted their own charter with the following principles: no speculative profits, good quality, affordable and sustainable housing, integration of disadvantaged households and tenant participation and self-determination.⁶

The housing cooperatives have proved themselves to be more progressive and supportive of their residents. Average rents are 20% lower than private rental, and buildings are well-maintained.⁷ Generally, the schemes are of under 100 homes, although there are larger developments, and socially inclusive neighbourhoods, an important component of urban renewal. Most cooperatives also provide support and additional services: childcare, health services, social services and communal activities. Housing cooperatives usually appoint leading architects to design their new homes, and so most are examples of outstanding architectural and ecological quality.

Even though housing cooperatives have proved their effectiveness both financially and socially, the level of assistance provided by the Swiss Confederation remains a matter of contention.⁸ As in the UK, post-war housing needs renewing or at least extensive modernisation, and costs of construction and land are ever-increasing. After lobbying by a group of housing organisations, the Government has made grants available to housing cooperatives for energy efficiency improvements.

Fig 3.0.1 COHABITAT, Bärenfelserstrasse, Basel, Switzerland. Distinctive wisteriaentwined façade.

Bärenfelserstrasse in Basel has been a successful public space for over forty years. Most of the buildings were built at the end of the 19th and early in the 20th century and are now occupied by co-housing projects. One of them, House 34, had been built in the 60s as apartments, then converted into offices, and has now been converted back into flats with one of the one-bed flats made into a common room. Originally occupied by only single people, over time some of the flats have been merged so the building is now home to several generations. The transformations are visible on the outside, as exuberant planting covers the front façade. The first shared space street in Switzerland, it gives priority to pedestrians and children playing, benches to sit out on, and allowing festivals and celebrations. The blocks have been renovated by a group of architects formed in the 1970s, COHABITAT, and are now home to a diverse community. The self-managed district ‘Baizli’ (restaurant) serves food at lunchtime and is the meeting place for the cooperatives and residential street group.

Mehr als Wohnen (More than Housing) is a collaboration of over 50 cooperative organisations in Zurich, in a ground-breaking project celebrating 100 years of government support for cooperative housing construction, and in response to the question ‘How will we live tomorrow?’. The 380 new homes have been based on the vision of low-energy use, 2000-Watt Society, which aims to reduce individual energy use to a level equivalent to a continuously run 2,000 watt generator, in Passivhaus construction. The Hunziker Areal district has been designed in consultation with future residents, architects, the cooperatives, local authorities and wider neighbourhood, supporting a diverse and multigenerational community, with activities organised by the residents.

Small apartments share communal living spaces enabling multigenerational families to live together. The range of homes meets the needs of all generations, including the elderly, with communal spaces for everyone and enabling older people to remain an active part of their community. A sequence of community spaces from children’s play to herb gardens continue to evolve and laundry, childcare, a bakery, shops, restaurants, a bed and breakfast and work space animate the ground and lower floors of the buildings. There is ample cycle parking as Hunziker Areal is close to trains and buses, and there is a no-car policy except for residents with mobility issues.⁹

Masterplanned by Duplex Architekten and Futurafrosch, the housing has been successfully designed by different architects, so that ‘More than Living’ lives up to its name – providing people access to good, affordable homes and empowering them to form communities and live a good life.’¹⁰

Co-housing for older people

Maria Brenton’s detailed account of the Older Women’s Co-housing (OWCH) experience in Community Building for Old Age: Breaking New Ground is about the building of a community alongside the building of a place.¹¹ More details about this co-housing scheme in High Barnet, London, are discussed in case study 3.3 below.

Brenton’s study is very much about the people who make the place, their choices and their commitment to the community. New Ground was inspired by a growing number of projects in the Netherlands. Co-housing and intentional communities have flourished in the Netherlands, particularly for older people, as well as more specialist places such as Hogeweyk in Weesp, which creates a ‘normal’ community setting for people with advanced dementia. Since the 1980s, many co-housing schemes for older people have been set up and there are now about 300 communities throughout the Netherlands. This group enjoys greater support from local government in the expectation that this will reduce care costs, nevertheless it is a bottom-up approach, instigated by the people themselves.

Since 2009 the Dutch Federation of Intentional Communities (FGW) organises Communal Living Day every third Saturday of May, when all kinds of communities open their doors to visitors.

In Sweden, collective housing has had a varied history, with less uptake than in Germany or the Netherlands generally. But for people in ‘the second half of life’ it is becoming more prevalent, as older people realise that helping each other socially will support a better quality of life and reduce dependency on municipal services.

Färdknäppen, Stockholm, was one of the first projects to be developed in consultation with prospective residents. It is self-managed by the residents, through regular house meetings, and everyone is required to participate in cooking and cleaning ‘according to their own ability’ which varies considerably between 50- to 90-year olds. Residents also take care of gardening, maintenance, parties, art and exhibitions. Working together is a central part of everyday life, and so are music, expeditions, cultural and creative activities, including friends coming to give talks or perform. The money that the landlord would have had to pay for the cleaning and management services is paid to the residents and put into the co-housing fund where it makes up much of their budget.¹²

La Borda in Barcelona, Spain, is a multigenerational co-housing project which has attracted a lot of attention there, as a lack of affordable housing is a big problem in Spanish cities. On the site of a former industrial complex, Can Batlló, La Borda is a community-led development of 28 flats with shared community spaces: a kitchen-dining room, laundry, guest room and health and care space. The designs were developed in close collaboration with the prospective residents through workshops.

Fig 3.0.2 Lacol, La Borda, Barcelona, Spain, 2018. Section through courtyard showing access to apartments and non-residential spaces.

Fig 3.0.3 Lacol, La Borda, Barcelona, Spain, 2018. Orange blinds animate the main façade.

Planned around a central courtyard, the property is based on a ‘corrala’, typical of central and southern Spain, where homes are accessed from the balcony decks surrounding the courtyard.

Built with the lowest environmental impact, the architects, Lacol, used passive design strategies to minimise energy consumption, and cross-laminated timber construction for the six-storey building. Completed in 2018, it is a distinctive block with external galvanised private balconies and adjustable orange blinds.

Co-housing and other community-led housing in the UK

There are currently more than 60 co-housing groups in the UK, with approximately 20 built schemes. The first new build co-housing scheme in the UK was built at Springhill, Gloucestershire. The search for land started in 1999 and the site in Stroud was acquired in 2000. Very soon after, all the plots were pre-sold to members who designed the community with the architects Architype and Pat Borer (who were involved at feasibility stage), as well as the layout of their own houses and flats, which are set in a shared communal space with cars kept to the periphery. Young families and older people all share in the activities such as meals and childcare, decision-making and running of the place. Post-occupancy feedback shows high resident and environmental satisfaction.¹³

Before that, the first housing cooperative was formed in an existing flat block in Deptford, South London, with loans from the Housing Corporation and an insurance company, and opened in 1974. The 14 shared houses are still functioning over 40 years later, with the addition of gardens, ponds, bike storage, performance stage and roof garden. Other cooperatives were to follow, mostly in existing estates and streets, such as Black Road, Macclesfield, and then new build schemes at Weller Street and Hesketh Road, Liverpool.

Similarly, the self-build schemes in Honor Oak Park and Telegraph Hill, also in Lewisham, designed by Walter Segal on sites which had been acquired by Lewisham Council at a time of housing need in the 1980s, have been successful. At the time they were found to be very difficult to develop, so were offered as an opportunity to people on the housing waiting list who were prepared to build their own home. The Segal method is ingenious – simple to construct by the inexperienced, based on locally obtained and affordable materials, these timber-framed and panelled homes sit lightly on their sloping topography, and have formed the backdrop to a close community for over 30 years.

LILAC Co-housing is a Low Impact Living Affordable Community of 20 low carbon homes completed in 2013 on the site of an old school at Bramley, in the west of Leeds, which is managed by the residents through a Mutual Home Ownership Scheme. It is a good example of one of the first eco-and co-housing developments which is genuinely affordable. Designed by White Design, it has been constructed in ModCell, comprising timber frame panels with strawbale insulation, and finished externally in lime render and timber panels. The eight houses and two blocks of 12 flats are grouped around a central space and attenuation pond, which is overlooked by the Common House (with shared post room, kitchen, dining room, multifunction rooms, office, workshop and laundry facilities). Secure bike sheds are located close to the houses, and there are two groups of limited parking space for cars (50% of homes). Allotments, communal gardens and play area give plenty of active external space to residents, with a corner of the site open to the public during the day.

A Mutual Home Ownership Scheme is a ‘new way of owning a stake in the housing market. It is designed to remain permanently affordable for future generations. Members of the society are the residents who live in the homes it provides. The society and not the individuals obtain the mortgage and so borrowing is cheaper.’¹⁴ Each member has a lease which gives them a democratic share in the cooperative and makes payments to cover the mortgage.

Fig 3.0.4 White Architecture, LILAC, Leeds, 2013. Shared community spaces include biodiverse gardens.

The story of LILAC has been told by co-founder and resident Paul Chatterton in his book Low Impact Living: A Field Guide to Ecological, Affordable Community Living¹⁵. The group was motivated by clear values: sustainability, cooperation, equality, social justice and self-management, driven by challenges and concerns over the need to respond to climate change and energy scarcity.

Custom build housing developments

Custom build housing allows for choices about your home, but not necessarily choice over your neighbours. However, the expectation is that you will form relationships and come to agree about the use and management of external spaces. There is opportunity to make a place that is made by individual residents, and quickly becomes more ‘lived-in’ and grown into, rather than controlled and determined by others. Land is usually managed and sold by the local authority or private developer who is committed to facilitating custom build on part or all of a site.

Elsewhere in Europe, such as in the Netherlands, new towns are masterplanned at scale and custom built from a wide range of architect-designed concept designs. A ‘plot-passport’ sets out the principles and parameters for each character area or neighbourhood, and within each plot a wide range of choices are usually possible, with striking results. In the new town of Almere, 30km west of Amsterdam, the streets and wider neighbourhood have been less controlled by the individuals and still have to be completed by the local authority. Where the community has settled in, decisions can be made democratically and collectively, for example the shared community garden which can be allotments in summer and flooded with water in winter so that it becomes an ice rink. In the UK, the streets and infrastructure are implemented by the developer and streets are usually better coordinated and completed as a result. The eclectic appearance, resulting from so many individual choices, creates a particular sense of place, but lacks a sense of order and control that a street or neighbourhood designed entirely by a single design team might achieve.

However, where it lacks the simplicity of repetition of harmonious composed elements, it makes up for it with exuberant, quirky personality. Where streets and neighbourhoods have been planned and laid out coherently, such as the islands of Borneo-Sporenburg and Ijburg, Amsterdam, the landscape creates a calming, sociable environment.

Co-living – smaller and closer

Studio Weave’s 2018 study Living Closer: The Many Faces of Co-housing includes interviews with different people involved in or living in co-housing schemes in London and gives insight into the social benefits and outcomes of co-living.¹⁶

The emerging purpose-designed, large-scale co-living developments in New York, London and elsewhere, are not community-led, but are serving the gaps in the market, for younger people especially, to find anywhere to live. Following on from mass-developed student housing, where students live in smaller bedrooms and share other spaces, co-living provides smaller-sized flatlets and studios (13–26m²), with more generous communal and shared spaces. These are professionally organised and managed, a complete service for young professionals who have grown up with a digitally connected service-delivery society for everything from clothes and food to haircuts and laundry.

The Urban Village Project is the result of collaboration between Space 10 and Effekt Architects since 2017, and rethinks how we design, build, finance and share our future homes, neighbourhoods and cities. The aim is to allow for cheaper homes to enter the market, make it easier to live sustainably and affordably, and ensure more fulfilling ways of living together. They have carried out research which is still ongoing, One Shared House 2030, with feedback from over 17,000 people in 138 countries. The architects have found that, ‘as humans, we long for meaningful relationships with those around us. That’s why the Urban Village Project envisions cross-generational shared living communities in the hearts of our cities. It combines private living with shared spaces that enable people to be part of a vibrant community and enjoy a social lifestyle where they live. After all, the quality of our relationships often defines how happy we are—and shared living is found to boost both health and happiness.’¹⁷

Communal activities such as urban gardening, sharing tools and facilities, day care and meals would create a supportive environment for all ages.

The Urban Village project envisages a modular, prefabricated system of construction, using cross-laminated timber as the main structure, which can be disassembled and reused, so there is little or no waste. The system would be adaptable and customisable. It envisages co-living in a variety of adaptable layouts, which can be changed to suit different needs – single, student, older people, families – with a wide range of onsite facilities and amenities.

Access to property, land and funding to set up and manage co-housing and cooperative developments is a crucial consideration and barrier to the development of more schemes. There are more opportunities coming up in the UK through Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and the Community Housing Fund.

Formed in 2010, the National Community Land Trust Network supports CLTs in England and Wales. As a new approach to housing, CLTs are the fastest growing model in the UK. Set up by local communities, they provide ordinary people with the power to deliver genuinely affordable homes for those in housing need, and not just for current residents but future residents too.

The Community Housing Fund ‘aims to support an increase in housing supply in England by increasing the number of additional homes delivered by the community-led housing sector; to provide housing that is affordable at local income levels and remains so in perpetuity; and to deliver a lasting legacy for the community-led housing sector in the form of an effective and financially self-sustaining body of expertise within the house building industry in England.’¹⁸ Community groups make applications to the fund (currently £163m in 2019), on the basis of defined affordable limitations.

Fig 3.0.5 Effekt Architects + Space 10, Urban Village Project, 2019. Flexible components give a range of customisable homes, and shared facilities.

The co-housing case studies in this chapter have been selected because they are also multigenerational. They have been led by the people who have chosen to live as a community with shared values, who have invested considerable time and personal sacrifice to achieve their ambitions. Their design has been thoughtfully considered, and collaboratively shaped and developed with the prospective residents to provide:

sustainable construction and living, minimising the use of the car and reducing the impact of development on the environment, streets and spaces

sociable spaces, which encourage interaction, with places to come together indoors and outdoors, as well as privacy

supportive, safe, collaborative neighbours

sharing of vehicles, meals, facilities, gardening, management and maintenance

brownfield regeneration sites or reclaimed land

more affordable housing to rent or buy than local market levels, or at a reasonable level given the enhanced environmental credentials and context of many of these examples

schemes which are managed by the co-housing group, and owned by them or a housing association or cooperative.

Fig 3.0.6 Effekt Architects + Space 10, Urban Village Project, 2019. Prefabricated components to build up a co-living community.

3.1 MARMALADE LANE, CAMBRIDGE, UK

Fig 3.1.1 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane Housing, 2018. Pedestrianised community street.

CO-HOUSING IN CAMBRIDGE TO PASSIVHAUS STANDARDS

Marmalade Lane is Cambridge’s first co-housing development. Its completion in 2018 marks the culmination of 18 years of work by the co-housing group known as K1, and comes at a moment when custom-build and community-led housing are being recognised by the government as viable and attractive models for future housing.

The development comprises 42 homes – a mix of two- to five-bedroom terraced houses and one- and two-bedroom apartments. In common with other co-housing communities now established in the UK, Marmalade Lane’s shared spaces and communal facilities, designed to foster community spirit and sustainable living, are integral to the development. These include extensive shared gardens as the focal space of the community – in addition to private gardens and balconies to dwellings – with areas for growing food, playing, socialising and quiet contemplation, rainwater management areas and retained trees and hedgerows. There is a flexible ‘Common House’ with a play room, guest bedrooms, laundry facilities, meeting rooms and a large hall and kitchen for shared meals and parties. A separate workshop and gym are located elsewhere on site.

All residents are members of K1 Co-housing, have a stake in the common parts and contribute to the management of the community. Fulfilling the group’s aspiration for mixed, multigenerational living, the multinational group includes families with young children, retired and young professional couples and single-person households of different ages.

Marmalade Lane is located in Orchard Park, an urban extension to north Cambridge built from the early 2000s. Orchard Park takes its name from the historic use of the site: the 19th century orchards in the area and proximity to the railway attracted the Chivers fruit distribution and marmalade-making business. K1 Co-housing chose the name Marmalade Lane for the new car-free street running through the development to celebrate this history, and in admiration of the company’s ethos and practices, which included a profit-sharing scheme first implemented in 1891 – cooperative values echoed by those of co-housing communities today.

The site, formerly known by its lot number of K1, was owned by Cambridge City Council. After sale of the site to a house builder fell through in the 2008 crash, the council agreed to work with K1 Co-housing to bring it forward for Cambridge’s first enabled co-housing scheme. A two-stage open developer competition, which established bidders’ design and delivery credentials before inviting financial offers, was held to find an innovative developer to translate K1 Co-housing’s vision and brief into a deliverable scheme. TOWN and Trivselhus, with a design team led by Cambridge-based Mole Architects, were chosen in July 2015. Mole’s competition-winning design drew on TOWN’s advocacy of street-based development to create a scheme that knits into the wider neighbourhood, while meeting K1 Co-housing’s need for private and shared spaces. Homes are arranged in terraces which front existing streets and create a new one – Marmalade Lane – ensuring the development looks outwards as well as in.

The terraces enclose the large shared garden with an open aspect to the south to maximise sunlight. The ‘Common House’ faces south onto the garden, acting as a gateway between public and co-housing realms and a focal ‘civic’ building for the K1 Co-housing community. The scheme includes communal waste stores and 146 cycle parking spaces, and car parking is kept to the periphery. As a custom-build development, each K1 Co-housing household selected one of five ‘shell’ house or flat types which they then configured through the floor-by-floor selection of floorplans, kitchen and bathroom fittings, and one of four external brick specifications.

Fig 3.1.2 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane Housing, Cambridge, 2018. Graham street view showing air source heat pump enclosure at the entrance.

Fig 3.1.3 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane Housing, 2018. Topper Street view.

Wide and narrow house and ‘paired’ flat shells share a 7.8m-deep plan, allowing them to be distributed in any sequence along a terrace. Homes have been tailored to individual requirements without the risks or complexity of self-build, while balancing personalisation with the harmony of a visually cohesive architectural style based on repeating wall and window proportions, porches and balconies. The brick-clad houses have been built using Trivselhus’s Climate Shield closed panel timber frame system, which was precision-manufactured in southern Sweden. This ensures exceptional thermal efficiency and airtightness (and thus low energy bills for residents) and consistently high build quality, permitting configuration of floorplans to suit individual needs. Triple-glazed composite aluminium and timber windows and electrical ducting are factory-fitted, making for rapid construction on site, with a single house being able to be erected in two days. Mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR) systems in all homes ensure a comfortable internal environment, and air source heat pumps provide low carbon electricity.

The scheme has been built close to Passivhaus standards, achieving AECB Silver levels of energy performance to comply with Cambridge Co-housing’s commitment to sustainable development.

Fig 3.1.4 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane Housing, Cambridge, 2018. Common House.

The ‘Common House’ is at the physical and social heart of the co-housing community. An architectural one-off, contrasting with the familiar rhythm of the terraces, this cross-laminated timber structure includes a double-height ‘great hall’ overlooking a terrace and the shared garden, and communal facilities and three guest bedrooms which can be booked by residents to avoid the wasted space of additional bedrooms in their individual homes. The ‘Common House’ shares a lobby and lift access with ten large dual- and triple-aspect two-bedroom apartments across three storeys, each with a south-west facing balcony or terrace overlooking the shared garden, and a triple-aspect one-bedroom affordable flat.

With support from Cambridge City Council and expert professionals C2O Futureplanners and Instinctively Green, the group worked to establish the feasibility of development, attract new members, develop a vision and prepare a client brief, leading to the developer competition. Following selection in July 2015, a full planning application was submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council in December of that year. This was prepared collaboratively with K1 Co-housing, whose members participated in several workstream groups – on energy, housing, common spaces and landscape – and attended many design team meetings.

Post-occupancy feedback has been more than positive. Janet Eldridge, a resident, commented: ‘As a person retired and with little family, I wanted to be part of a community where I could share skills and resources as well as providing support and supporting others. Although only having been in Marmalade Lane for a very short time, I have been welcomed and made to feel at home by everyone I have met, as well as having been given help and advice willingly when needed. My apartment is wonderfully light, airy and spacious, with a large balcony looking out to the wonderful community I have joined. I feel so fortunate to have been given this opportunity to live in an environment with a lifestyle and people that match my own values concerning sustainability and the environment.’ Another resident, Miranda Garfoot, adds: ‘It’s a way of living that is worth the hard work. It’s an inspiring place to bring up the children. Everyone has equal status. It’s a beautiful, fulfilling environment -physically and mentally.’

Marmalade Lane has been fully equity-financed by Trivselhus. The site was acquired by a special-purpose vehicle (a UK limited company), wholly owned by Trivselhus UK and with a contractual joint-venture agreement with TOWN, the lead development managers. A fixed land purchase price was agreed with Cambridge City Council based on full market value, taking account of the Co-housing brief, with payment of the land price deferred to be paid out of sales revenue, aiding development cashflow, and obligations on the developer to prepare a scheme in accordance with K1 Co-housing’s brief and to sell completed homes to members of K1 Co-housing.

Planning, construction and sales risk were transferred to the developer, ensuring that fulfilment of the co-housing brief was sensitive to commercial considerations. K1 Co-housing members who legally committed to purchase early were granted discounts,

Fig 3.1.5 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane Housing, Cambridge, 2018. View from balcony over community garden.

Fig 3.1.6 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane Housing, Cambridge, 2018: customised house plan.

Fig 3.1.7 Mole Architects, Marmalade Lane Housing, Cambridge, 2018: apartment plan.

reflecting the developer’s reduced sales risk, and were able to exercise greatest custom choice over their homes. Members have purchased properties in a conventional way, with one person from each household becoming a director of Cambridge Co-housing Ltd, the owner of the site freehold and the common parts. Residents pay a service charge to equip and maintain shared facilities, and are expected to contribute to the management of the community through participation in one of several committees and working groups looking after different aspects of co-housing life. The community has a non-hierarchical structure, with decision-making by consensus.

SUMMARY
Client: | TOWN andTrivselhus
Commissioner: | Cambridge City Council with K1 Co-housing
Location: | Topper Street, Orchard Park, Cambridge
Architect: | Mole Architects
Contractor: | Coulson Building Group
Landscape architect: | Jamie Buchanan
M&E engineer: | Hoare Lea
Structural and civil engineer: | Elliott Wood
Sustainability consultant: | Co-Create
Plan area: | 51m² fora 1 bedroom flat, 75m² fora 2 bedroom flat, 108–123m²for3and4bedroom houses
Date completed: | 2018
Website: | https://marmaladelane.co.uk

AWARDS:

National Urban Design Awards (Public Sector), 2019

RIBA Eastern Region and National Design Awards, 2019

Richard Feilden Award, 2019

Housing Design Awards, 2019

3.2 FORGEBANK, LANCASTER, UK

Fig 3.2.1 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. Houses and flats look south over the River Lune.

A LOW-ENERGY, LOW IMPACT COMMUNITY ON A BROWNFIELD SITE

A group of five friends interested in creating a sustainable place to live started thinking about the kind, homes they would like, and where they might be able to buy a site. It took six years from initial meetings in 2006 to finding a site, going through the design and construction process and moving in. They were fortunate in acquiring the site after the last financial crisis when the previous site owner was not able to proceed with development. Lancaster Co-housing received support from the local authority to set up and progress the project. After setting out initial principles the original group held a public meeting, opened up the group to other interested local people, and selected the architect, Eco Arc, who had experience of co-housing as well as highly energy efficient design.

There are 41 homes, mainly two-storey two- and three-bed houses and four one-bedroom flats. With views south over the river they have patio terraces and balconies, and eight of the houses have private gardens and in-curtilage parking. Residents include young families, some single parents who share in childcare and school runs, and some older people. They are considering building some more homes for over 55s. The co-housing group decided to have smaller homes as there would be more shared spaces.

Fig 3.2.2 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. South-facing patio gardens and balconies overlook shared community gardens.

Fig 3.2.3 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. Sociable pedestrianised street – cars are kept away at the boundaries.

The development includes guest rooms, a laundry, a common house with kitchen, dining and living space with a wood burning stove, shared heating and hot water, a children’s play room, workshops, cycle storage and a car parking clustered away from the homes with less than 0.5 spaces per home, encouraging shared car use and car-pooling. The co-housing group aim to be as low impact as possible, minimising waste, sharing bulk buying of food, and sharing management of their communal spaces and landscape.

Making a sociable street and people-centred places was important for the residents to encourage interaction, and kitchen windows and glazed front doors overlook the pedestrianised street. Residents were closely involved in the design and decisions made, reaching consensus on layouts and all materials through a series of workshops. It was an important aspect of this co-housing scheme, learning lessons from earlier schemes at Springhill Co-housing in Stroud, that choices at construction stage had to be limited to benefit from repetition and economies of scale. Residents could choose upper-level living and kitchen areas, using the roof space, with bedrooms downstairs, or kitchen-living-dining areas at entry level, and for both options, with the living room and balcony looking south over the river.

Fig 3.2.4 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. Design of balconies to minimise overshadowing ground floor.

The whole scheme has been designed to Passivhaus standards, using masonry construction and full-fill insulation; windows are triple-glazed and internal window cills are deep.¹⁹ The homes are very efficient to heat – one radiator in the living room and a towel radiator in the bathroom- as a result of good thermal insulation and air tightness. Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery provides good air quality, with only 0.6 air changes per hour. Hot water and heating is from a centralised locally sourced wood pellet biomass boiler in the old Mill building, which is also shared with other nearby homes. Additional energy is provided from solar and PV panels, and hydro-electric power upstream on the River Lune.²⁰ Daylight and solar gain in winter is important, so the balconies have a steel grid deck to prevent overshadowing. Residents use temporary coverings or mats if they want to use the balcony without disturbing the residents below.

Fig 3.2.5 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. Choices for house layout.

The homes have been designed for a 100-year life rather than 60, and are robust and easy to maintain, with simple detailing, render and Cedral boarding to walls and clay tiled roofs to the houses. The community building has a sedum roof. Internally, floors and doors are finished wood.

The aim has been to make the new homes as affordable as possible, and not cost more than similar typical local houses. Energy bills are very low. A partnering contract was selected and the contractor brought in to work with the design team after planning, to develop buildable details, and for the contractor to learn about key aspects of Passivhaus construction. Post-occupancy feedback has been undertaken by Leeds Metropolitan and Sheffield Universities.

Fig 3.2.6 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. Common house.

Fig 3.2.7 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. Sedum roof and covered outside space to the common house.

Fig 3.2.8 Eco Arc, Forgebank, Lancaster, 2014. Space at the front for rainwater harvesting and cycle storage – there is also a communal bike store accessed from this central street.

Compared to the more standard developer housing in nearby Mill Lane, Forgebank has a greater sense of place and community, with an abundant, diverse landscape, making the most of its unique setting. The success is in keeping the design simple, with a strong layout organised on a pedestrianised street and putting community and shared spaces at the heart of the scheme. Halton Mill, with its shared workspaces, community and making spaces, benefits Forgebank and Halton Village – there is no need to commute far to work.

SUMMARY
Client: | Lancaster Co-housing
Location: | Forgebank, Lancaster, UK
Architect: | EcoArc
Contractor: | Whittle Construction
Landscape: | Camlin Lonsdale
Plan area: | 40.4–54.8m² fora 1 bedroom flat, 65.4m² fora 2 bedroom house and 80.8m² fora 3 bedroom house
Date completed: | 2013
Website: | https://www.lancastercohousing.org.uk

AWARDS:

Passivhaus Trust Award, 2013

Guardian Ethical Award, 2014

3.3 NEW GROUND, HIGH BARNET, UK

Fig 3.3.1 PTE Architects, New Ground, High Barnet, 2016. The garden at the heart of the co-housing.

THE FIRST CO-HOUSING GROUP FOR OLDER WOMEN IN THE UK

New Ground is a radical new co-housing development which has been led by, and designed especially for, a group of older women, the first of its kind in the UK. It has taken many years to realise their ambitions, and the co-founder of Older Women’s Co-housing (OWCH), Maria Brenton, has been an inspirational advocate, speaking to audiences in the UK and beyond about their hard-won achievements and the success of this pioneering place to live. The architects, PTE, worked closely and tirelessly to co-design the place that this group of women wanted to live in as a community.

‘Ask any member of OWCH what she values most about her new home and she would reply: “I live in an active community where I know and can rely on all my neighbours”, says Maria. ‘To the many professionals who have visited New Ground since it was completed in 2016, the group’s message has been: “The physical architecture is great, but it is the social architecture that makes this place stand out”. Visitors swiftly discern that group solidarity is well-developed in New Ground and its communal facilities are well used.’²¹

This is not in any way sheltered housing, or an isolated community with no connections with the world outside its boundaries. The difference here is that a group of older women – from early 50s to over 90 – created the community and the place that would suit them best to live together, where they take the lead and make decisions. They were mostly all used to living on their own, and now live in their own flats where they can look out for and support each other, and are encouraged to become involved with the local community. Two residents interviewed on BBC Radio 4 explained: ‘Our culture patronises or ignores older people – how do people take charge? [Putting] older people in charge of their own environment will keep people healthier, happier, active and less of a strain on health services.’²²

Maria Brenton’s research into the many Dutch senior co-housing communities found groups of older people who did not want to end up isolated and lonely in their older age, and neither did they want to be in a place where someone else is telling them what to do. Back in 1998, she led a workshop about collaborative living for older women, inspiring six women to form the group with Maria’s support and advocacy, which eventually led to New Ground being realised 18 years later. Finding and losing sites, seeking funding and the support of a local authority or housing association to set up and establish the project has been part of a long and difficult journey. OWCH hopes their trailblazing experience will benefit other groups.

Not all older people want to live together in this way, and not all groups want to take the time needed to find and acquire a site, funding, form a group and set about developing a new place to live from scratch. Indeed, the thought of attempting this in older age, given the timescales for any one of the necessary steps, is enough to deter most people with no development experience, and be daunting even for those who have been involved in design and construction. Of the 3.8 million people over 65 who live alone (2017 data), 67% are women.²³ Women living alone are more likely to be renting their home, be less financially secure and be more anxious about their wellbeing and future. The very lack of places where people feel they can live in a community on their own terms, as an alternative to the limited options for older people in the UK, is enough for some to take up the challenge with tenacity.

Fig 3.3.2 PTE Architects, New Ground, High Barnet, 2016. Careful detailing enriches the quality of the buildings.

Collaborative design process

According to Patrick Devlin, partner of Pollard Thomas Edwards, ‘the women’s brief was very clear: their own sustainable homes, with shared facilities that create a sense of community.’²⁴ PTE facilitated a collaborative design process, involving all members of the group and strengthening their community, so that when they moved in they were ready to live together comfortably.

Fig 3.3.3 PTE Architects, New Ground, High Barnet, 2016: site plan.

Completing the street frontage on Union Street, the terrace of buff brick, two- and three-storey homes with pyramid roofs complements the Victorian and later terraces leading from the High Street. At the end of the Northern Line in High Barnet, and close to shops and buses, New Ground is very well-located and integrated with its neighbourhood. The east–west facing garden wing, with its asymmetric pitched roofs, relates to the rear of the high street buildings to the east. The buildings are carefully detailed, which enriches the quality of the building, with full brick reveals and brisessoleil to the top floor balconies.

Entering from Union Street, the common house meeting room, dining room and kitchen are easily accessible and encourage interaction. A T-shaped layout encloses a generous south- and west-facing communal garden on one side, leading to a secret ‘culture’ garden and craft shed, and a smaller parking court mews on the other. These spaces create more place for interaction, with seats and balconies overlooking the garden, and the laundry, drying space and guest room with balcony, which also doubles as a quieter meeting space, accessed from the mews. The courtyard leads to refuse storage and mobility scooter bays, another active and sociable space.

There are 25 flats, 11 one-bed, 11 two-bed and 3 three-bed, of which eight are for affordable rent, and 17 are for private sale. The acquisition of the site was made possible by Hanover Housing Association and the Tudor Trust; tenanted flats are managed by Housing for Women. New Ground is managed by the residents, who share in decision-making, gardening, making meals once a week, community events and getting to know potential future residents.

Fig 3.3.4 PTE Architects, New Ground, High Barnet, 2016. Resident Hedi Argent in her light and spacious flat.

The flats have plenty of light, from large windows opening onto balconies, dormers and rooflights, views onto the street, gardens and the spire of the church beyond. They are open-plan and have good storage. With a fabric-first approach, the homes are well-insulated and have well-performing sustainable construction, meeting Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.

SUMMARY
Client: | Older Women’s Co-housing, Hanover Housing Association and Housing forWomen
Location: | High Barnet, UK
Architect: | Pollard Thomas Edwards
Contractor: | Quinn London Ltd
Landscape architect: | Marie Clarke and OWCH Garden Group
Plan area: | 54m² fora 1 bedroom residence, 66m² for2 bedrooms and 102m² for 3 bedrooms
Date completed: | 2016
Website: | https://www.owch.org.uk

AWARDS:

Building Awards: Small Housing Project of the Year (up to £5m), 2017 - Winner

Inside Housing Development Awards: Best Older People’s Housing Development (under 100 homes), 2017 - Winner

Sunday Times British Homes Awards: Best Community Living, 2017 - Winner

Housing Design Awards: Custom-build, 2017 - Winner

European Collaborative Housing Award, 2017

Housing Design Awards, 2017 - Overall winner and custom-build award

Evening Standard New Homes Awards: Best Small Development, 2017- Winner

Build It Awards: Best Collective, 2017 - Winner

The Housing Design HAPPI Project Award, 2016 - Winner(homes)

3.4 VRIJBURCHT CO-HOUSING, AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

Fig 3.4.1 CASA Architects, Vrijburcht, Amsterdam, 2007: view from the bridge to café and homes.

A MIXED-USE, MULTIGENERATIONAL CO-HOUSING SCHEME IN THE IJBURG DISTRICT OF AMSTERDAM

The new neighbourhood at Vrijburcht includes custom-built houses on tree-lined streets, and mews streets where children can play safely. Vrijburcht (or ‘Free Castle’) is at the western tip of the island, on the cycle route from Steigereiland to the mainland. It is well-connected into the centre of Amsterdam, which is 15 minutes away by tram.

In 2000, the city of Amsterdam invited submissions for collective housing, and Vrijburcht was developed in collaboration with ‘anarchistic social housing architect’ Hein de Haan of CASA Architects.²⁵ The aims were to offer affordable homes for families, involving people in the design of their homes, and creating special shared services ‘that make living and working conditions more attractive and stimulate social and cultural interaction’.²⁶ The shared facilities for the local community contribute significantly to the neighbourhood, and their provision was one of the deciding factors in the successful application for this very well-located waterfront site.

This is one of the largest CPO, or Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap (Collective Private Commissioning), in the Netherlands, and has been an example for other collective housing developments in Amsterdam. The project was developed through a non-profit foundation, Vrijburcht Stichting, and De Key Housing Association is owner and manager of some of the non-residential facilities.

The community facilities employ around 40 people and include a café, commercial spaces, a theatre, day care centre for 42 children, docks for canoes and a sailing club. Shared spaces for the residents include guest rooms, hobby space, cycle parking and a garage.

Fig 3.4.2 CASA Architects, Vrijburcht, Amsterdam, 2007: community café.

Fig 3.4.3 CASA Architects, Vrijburcht, Amsterdam, 2007: plan.

Fig 3.4.4 CASA Architects, Vrijburcht, Amsterdam, 2007: community garden connects families and is overlooked by access walkways.

Fig 3.4.5 CASA Architects, Vrijburcht, Amsterdam, 2007: vertical planting for shade.

The 52 homes were completed in 2007, and are a mix of flats, maisonettes and studios in clusters. They are generously sized, from 65 to 256 m². The site is on a long lease from the City of Amsterdam, and all homes have been sold to families, single people and older people. There are also six rented homes for young people with learning disabilities managed by De Roef Assisted Living Facilities.

The homes are arranged around a landscaped courtyard, with wide deck access to accommodation on the courtyard side. All homes are at least dual aspect, and the larger family-sized homes are on the south-facing waterfront. The café is on the most visible corner, adjoining the cycle path, and overlooking the water front and the swimming area. The three commercial units front onto the main street leading to the bridge.

The buildings are constructed in sustainable and recyclable materials: brick with steel balconies and metal cladding to top-level setbacks. Nest boxes for birds and artwork on public façades have been incorporated into the design.

Though cycling and tram are very accessible means of transport, there is car parking for each home in the basement garage, as well as 115m² of cycle parking, which is available for neighbours as well.

The courtyard has been designed for the wellbeing of residents, and to accommodate increasingly heavy rainfall, as a result of climate change. Rainwater tanks under the courtyard store 6,000 litres of rainwater, which is used for irrigating the courtyard and terrace planting – enough to meet demand most years. The courtyard draining creates wetter and drier areas for more diverse planting and food growing, and the many trees create a pleasant microclimate in hot weather.²⁷ Climbing plants on balconies and terraces create a green façade and reduce heat stress.

SUMMARY
Client: | Vrijburchtcommunity/De Key
Location: | Vrijburcht, Steigereiland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Architect: | CASAArchitects (Hein de Haan)
Contractor: | BKBouw
Landscape architect: | Menno Vergunst
Plan area: | 7650m² residential accommodation; 375m² theatre, guest apartment, hobby space, greenhouse, bikes; 1,705m² café, day-centre, youth assisted living commercial area
Date completed: | 2007
Website: | https://vrijburcht.nl

AWARDS:

Amsterdam Zuidoost Architecture Award, 2009

3.5 BERLIN CO-HOUSING, GERMANY

Fig 3.5.1 Heide & von Beckerath et al, Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin, 2013. Continuous balconies with mesh guarding form a distinctive façade.

MULTIGENERATIONAL, LOW-ENERGY CO-HOUSING AND CO-LIVING FLATS

In German, ‘Baugruppen’ is one of the ways urban communities are developing the homes they want and can afford. Berlin has led the way in alternative housing, with the city council facilitating land and development for building groups. Over the last 15 years, over 100 group projects have been completed and in 2014, approximately one in six of all new homes in the city were self-organised by a local community.

Two completed projects typify the process and typologies of these kind of projects: ‘R50’ – Ritterstrasse 50 in the Kreuzberg district, and Spreefeld Genossenschaft, south of the River Spree.

CO-HOUSING AT RITTERSTRASSE 50, BERLIN

Ritterstrasse 50 was designed and developed by a group collaborating with Heide & von Beckerath, Fezer, Heide, Heinemann, Heiss and Schmidt, on land offered by Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development, and specially targeted to encourage development outside the usual profit-driven investment model.²⁸

Set in a street of medium rise blocks, ‘R50’ comprises 19 flats, in a seven-storey block. The prospective residents wanted affordable homes and as much future adaptability and flexibility as possible. A concrete frame was used, and a common standard for fixtures and fittings within each apartment was adopted. Externally the walls are clad in modular timber panels, screened by continuous steel mesh balconies which wrap around the block, giving it a distinctive character, enlivened by plants growing, washing drying and hammocks and chairs to enjoy the views all around. Internally, walls are timber linings, and full height windows and doors open out onto the balconies. Each flat is left to be fitted out and finished by residents to their choice.

Fig 3.5.2 Heide & von Beckerath et al, Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin, 2013. Each home is customised by the occupants.

Fig 3.5.3 Heide & von Beckerath et al, Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin, 2013. Full height doors open onto relatively narrow balconies which nevertheless have space for hammocks, seating, planting and clothes drying.

A ramp from the street leads to the semi-basement entrance, cycle storage, a laundry and a workshop, which doubles up as a music practice room. A double-height community space is also available for neighbourhood use, and with guest facilities in the upper level gallery it has been used to provide temporary accommodation for refugees. There is also a communal garden around the block, with mature trees screening adjoining neighbours, and on the top floor there is a roof terrace with a summer kitchen and winter garden. The scheme was completed in 2013.

SPREEFELD, BERLIN

Spreefeld is one of the largest and most innovative co-housing projects. The group formed in 2007, motivated to come up with an alternative to the office buildings proposed for the site, and also to make sure that the Spree riverside would remain open for public access.

Completed in 2014, the 65 apartments are organised in three seven-storey blocks, designed by Carpaneto Arkitekten, Fatkoehl Arkitekten and BARarchitekten. They are all built to Passivhaus standards, with centralised communal renewable heating. There are choices of apartments and arrangements for the diverse multigenerational and multicultural residents with a range of income levels. There are six cluster flats giving a communal living structure to groups of four to 21 people. These offer smaller rooms, with shared kitchen, dining and living space, in addition to the shared spaces provided at Spreefeld. More conventional flats range in size from 54–290m². Almost all apartments are accessible for wheelchair users and older people.

Construction is kept simple to make affordable and sustainable homes, with concrete frame and standardised, modular timber panels and components. The shell of the

Fig 3.5.4 Heide & von Beckerath et al, Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin, 2013. Tool room doubles up as practice room.

Fig 3.5.5. Heide & von Beckerath et al, Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin, 2013. Shared roof terrace for food growing enjoys views over the city.

Fig 3.5.6 Carpaneto Arkitekten, Fatkoehl Arkitekten and BARarchitekten, Spreefeld, Berlin. Generous balconies and extensive roof terraces with exuberant planting.

apartments was built by the contractor, and the interiors fitted out and finished by the residents, with underfloor heating and the concrete frame giving flexibility in layout. There is no wasted space, and the circulation space and number of lifts is minimised.

There is an opportunity to work here too, with a range of co-working spaces measuring between 44–273m². There is also a common room and catering kitchen, fitness room, music room, laundry, children’s room, workshop, cycle storage and a range of ground level landscaped spaces and upper level communal terraces. According to the architects, from the outset, ‘participation has focused on collective concerns, uses, and spaces. The social skills that have developed throughout this process both enrich and facilitate a cooperative way of living. The objectives have been implemented for the most part, and the project generates income in the form of value in its use for both residents and the city.’²⁹

Fig 3.5.7 Carpaneto Arkitekten, Fatkoehl Arkitekten and BARarchitekten, Spreefeld, Berlin, 2014. Organisation into flats, cluster flats and shared spaces.

Fig 3.5.8 Carpaneto Arkitekten et al, Spreefeld, Berlin, 2014: communal spaces.

SUMMARY
Client: | Baugruppe R50
Location: | Berlin, Germany
Architect: | Heide & von Beckerath, Fezer, Heinemann, Heiss and Schmidt
Contractor: | DIMaGB
Plan area: | 2780m² including 743m² communal spaces
Date completed: | 2014
Website: | https://www.cohousing-berlin.de/en/projects/r-50-ritterstrasse-50
AWARDS: | EU Mies van der Rohe Award, 2015 - Shortlisted
Client: | Spreefeld Cooperative
Architect: | CarpanetoArkitekten, Fatkoehl Arkitekten and CARarchitekten
Contractor: | construction managed by the architects
Plan area: | 7,400 m² including community spaces (workshop, multi-functional spaces, music, sports, guest apartments, co-working office, daycare)
Date completed: | 2013
Website: | http://spreefeld-berlin.de

AWARDS:

EU Mies van der Rohe Award, 2015 - Nominated

Fig 3.5.9 Carpaneto Arkitekten et al, Spreefeld, Berlin, 2014: cluster flats layout.

Fig 3.5.10 Carpaneto Arkitekten et al, Spreefeld, Berlin, 2014: generous private balconies, many with views over the River Spree.

CONCLUSIONS

Radical (adj) ‘relating to, constituting, proceeding from or going to the root; fundamental; original…favouring, involving or necessitating thorough-going but constitutional social and political reform…’¹

Radical Housing is an exploration of alternative housing, inspired by, and in response to, the demand for new types of places to live for diverse communities and all generations.

The aim throughout this book has been to go to the root of our needs and aspirations, and consider some of the fundamental questions about living together in sociable and sustainable communities. Change is necessary, and diversification of housing choices, how they are procured and delivered, can help alleviate some of the need. The role of the architect, as designer, collaborator and enabler, is pivotal. Alternative – radical – housing needs to be of the highest quality and design excellence, if it is to be enduring and successful.

There seems to be no doubt that there is currently a housing crisis, and housing challenges have repeatedly presented themselves, for various reasons, for over 150 years. Even the government admit this to be the case; according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG): ‘This isn’t a new problem. Its roots stretch back decades, with house building well below what was needed under successive governments. And it’s not a problem we can afford to ignore any longer.’²

It was a problem for Europe in the post-war years, which was solved with the provision of mass housing in exceptional numbers, and before that in the inter-war years. In 1932, Karel Teige wrote in The Minimum Dwelling about ‘The Housing Crisis and Dwelling Reform’, and went on to consider family, rental and collective dwelling and new forms of housing and apartments. His proposition was a fundamental change and the restructuring of living space around community and domestic labour. The minimum dwelling was to be low-cost, but high quality, achieved by industrialising construction through standardisation and serial mass production. This ambition for efficient and high quality homes is very relevant today: ‘It is in the form of the collective house that the architectural avant-garde must solve the problem of the minimal dwelling. Collective dwellings are structures and design solutions of a higher quality than existing housing of the family-centred households type…Collective housing represents a future dwelling type, but it is not utopian…’³

Karel Teige also looked back to yet another housing crisis, one which had been examined previously by Friedrich Engels, in his writing ‘On the Housing Question’ in 1872. His prescient observation is still relevant today: ‘The so-called housing shortage, so much talked about in the press these days, cannot be simply dismissed by admitting that the working class is generally living in bad overcrowded and unhealthy apartments. The housing shortage is not just a phenomenon of the present… on the contrary it has affected almost equally all of the oppressed classes at all times [and] one that is also starting to affect the small bourgeoisie as well’.⁴

In 1872 this was housing need at its most fundamental, driven by extreme poverty and lack of choice. Yet, in other guises, these are still some of the same issues facing us today. Our housing crisis is also exacerbated by the need to respond to the climate emergency, for more suitable homes for an ageing population, and making affordable, high quality places to live for all generations.

Without a written constitution there is no defined right to housing in the United Kingdom. However, the right to adequate housing was given legal recognition in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), signed in the UK in 1968.⁵ The fact that so many people are homeless, and that refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa continue desperately to attempt to reach a safe place to live in the UK, has given us all the responsibility to make more homes.

The book has looked at how different European societies have responded to urgent social needs and created alternative solutions – new settlements and typologies for multigenerations in Britain, Denmark and Germany, which did more than just provide a better roof over their heads, but which also laid down the essentials for creating a community. This approach has been redefined in new communities seeking to make places which are not only physically sustainable but economically and socially viable as well. There is not one single approach which works for everyone, but from the case studies described here, it is possible to define some common and replicable themes. The case studies have focused on design strategies which are more likely to be deliverable and acceptable in planning and affordability terms.

The extreme urgency of a response to the climate emergency has meant that many people have made the choice of more sustainable living a key factor in deciding to build their own alternative housing. This means going above and beyond the minimum requirements legally required by Building Regulations, and adopting low-energy and low impact solutions to construction and lifestyle.

The housing crisis is not only caused by lack of supply, and building more homes will not necessarily make them more affordable, according to a report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.⁶ Moreover, as we have seen, there is an increasing need for suitable housing for older people, as they are the fastest growing age group in the UK. By far the majority of the 27.6 million homes in the UK are houses and only 17% are flats. This means there are limited choices for older people who need or would like more suitable, accessible homes as part of a supportive community. The desire to be in control and actively make decisions has led some people to take charge and ownership of where they would like to live, as an alternative to a large, hard-to-heat and hard-to-maintain family home. There is also a crisis in providing social care for the increasing older population – the more that older people can be active and self-supporting, the more they can enjoy a carefree later life.

We have also seen how more adult children are living with their parents, and for longer.⁷ Out of necessity, and in some cases out of choice, more adults are choosing to live together. The reality is that the space we can provide per person is more equitable when shared with several people, if designed carefully. For example, under current Nationally Described Space Standards, a one-person flat can be a studio at 37m², and it can also be a one-bedroom flat at a minimum of 50m². Shared by two people that is 25m² per person. For two-bedroom flats, it goes down to 17m² per person and remains close to that average for the minimum three- and four- bedroom, and larger, homes. Co-living spaces and temporary housing is likely to be considerably smaller, at 13–15m² on average, with access to shared communal facilities. Collective housing, whether on a small or large scale, is an option for making the most of scarce resources, through sharing more.

More people are living in urban neighbourhoods than ever in history, and the way people live is changing and evolving. Perhaps homes could well be smaller because people may need to own less as the digital world provides everything we need when we need it, challenging conventional norms about ownership of possessions: decluttered spaces, takeaway meals and online entertainment could mean smaller kitchens and living spaces are needed in the future.

Many people are also choosing to live alone, particularly in the 45–64 age group, where there are more divorced people, and single people who have never been married. They are less likely to own their own home, and there are more men than women living on their own.⁸ However, this can change as they get older, where there are alternative and suitable choices. They may well choose to live in a community – together, but alone – and multigenerational living has been looked at as an option for support in later life.

Co-housing communities have the potential to support an age-friendly way of living. Where these have been set up and run by the residents, ‘these communities reinforce age-friendly principles of empowerment and agency…a vocabulary for housing design for older age as residences that combine the self-contained, personal and private, with the communal and shared spaces of residents living and managing their community life together.’⁹ Co-housing works on many levels for all kinds of groups, and multigenerational communities bring many benefits to all.

Co-living is an interesting development. Initially seen as the next step on for students, it is also gaining in popularity for older people. While it is not a model which appeals to everybody, for financial reasons as well as personal preferences, choices… of managed, rented accommodation with extensive social spaces, seem particularly well-suited for younger and older people, potentially living together in the same place.

From this we can draw some conclusions about the benefits and considerations for multigenerational living:

People make the place: designing places so they are safe, sociable and welcoming for all generations, are fundamental principles. Being able to choose who you live with can make it easier to get on, and establish stable communities.

Sharing spaces: this increases mobility, flexibility and adaptability; and stability and familiarity reduces the psychological impact of uncertainty and change. Designed well, the benefits of sharing more space could include more affordable, high quality homes for more people to live in. Overcrowding, loss of privacy and independence can be turned into well-balanced multigenerational communities.

Scale of the community: larger-scale development is best broken down into smaller communities. Around twelve homes seems to work well, with their own shared spaces. Some of the issues experienced by tenants living in large-scale co-living and private rental schemes is the sheer scale and difficulty in personalising the place.

Living sustainably: multigenerational living is a way of making more sustainable choices, by pooling resources, minimising waste and supporting each other.

Integrated mixed tenures: multigenerational case studies demonstrate an inclusive and diverse, well-integrated community. The tenure and ownership of homes can vary and adapt over time. A multigenerational house can be for rent as well as for private ownership, while co-housing can be shared through a Community Land Trust. Housing developed by local authorities and housing associations can be in partnership with house builders, or independently developed, with a full range of tenure options.

Control and sense of ownership: being empowered to make decisions, take responsibility for the place you live and feel pride and ownership in your home does not mean you have to own your home. Sharing places to live, and being able to influence or customise your home, is more important.

This book has explored a range of examples of purpose-designed multigenerational houses, multigenerational communities, intended communities, initiated and led by the future residents and collective housing. A multigenerational house, adapted, extended or purpose built, can be small scale as it makes the most of limited space and assets to offer flexible living for several generations living together. Multigenerational communities show that designing for inclusive communities seems to be a successful and deliverable proposition for the future, designing ways our existing and new housing is more sociable and supportive of a diverse community.

Fig 4.0.1 Studio Partington, Derwentthorpe, York, 2017. A sustainable multigenerational community.

REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

1 Kathryn Firth & Roger Zogolovitch, ‘Housing Vistas: A Possible Future’, in Housing Futures 202’, 2004

2 UN Department of Economic and Social Affaris, News, 16 May 2018 (accessed via: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html)

3 John Harris, ‘30,000 empty homes and nowhere to live’, The Guardian, 29 Nov 2018 (accessed via: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/29/empty-dublin-housing-crisis-airbnb-homelessness-landlords)

4 House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee, ‘Housing for Older People: Second Report of Session 2017–19’, HC 370, 9 February 2018

5 The Good Home Report, ‘What Makes a Happy Home’, The Happiness Research Institute for Kingfisher plc, June 2019

6 ‘Tell us: Who do you share your home with?’, the Guardian, 10 November 2018 (First of a series about the many ways we chose to live together)

7 Claus Bech-Danielsen, Mette Mechlenborg and Marie Stender, Welcome Home. Trends in Danish Housing Architecture, (exhibition catalogue for the Danish Architecture Centre), Politikens Forlag, Copenhagen, 2018

8 Chuka Umunna, ‘Ages Apart? Ties and Divides across the Generations – Foreword’, APPG on Social Integration, December 2017

9 Blake Morgan, ‘NOwnership, No Problem: An Updated Look At Why Millennials Value Experiences Over Owning Things’, Forbes, 2 Jan 2019 (accessed via: https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2019/01/02/nownership-no-problem-an-updated-look-at-why-millennials-value-experiences-over-owning-things/)

10 Campaign to End Loneliness, ‘Summary evidence on physical and mental health’ (accessed via: https://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/threat-to-health/)

11 Mind, ‘How to cope with Loneliness’ (accessed via: https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/tips-for-everyday-living/loneliness/#.XL9i7ehKhPY)

CHAPER 1

1 Aamna Modhin, ‘Nearly a million more adults now live with parents’, The Guardian, 8 Feb 2019

2 The Resolution Foundation, ‘A New Generational Contract: Report of the Intergenerational Commission’, May 2018

3 Design Museum, Home Futures: Living in Yesterday’s Tomorrow – Exhibition Catalogue, 2018

4 Greater London Authority, ‘London Housing Supplementary Design Guidance’, November 2012 and 2016; and Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, ‘Technical Housing Standards: Nationally Described Space Standard’, March 2015

5 Aviva Home Series, ‘Changing Households’, Aviva plc, 2016

6 NHBC Foundation, ‘Multigenerational Living: an opportunity for UK House builders?’, June 2017; and Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research, ‘Multigenerational Living: an opportunity for UK House builders? Final Report to NHBC Foundation Source Material’, June 2017

7 ibid

8 ibid

9 Nora S Stampfl (translated by Jonathan Uhlaner), ‘Multigenerational Houses: Under One Roof’, Goethe Institut, May 2015

10 Ana Fernándes García, ‘Explorando la conviviencia intergeneracional’, Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales: Instituto de Migraciones y Servicios Sociales, IMERSO, 2009

11 Simca Simpson and Dr Samantha Callan, ‘Bricks and Mortar Across Generations: A Think Piece on Intergenerational Living in the United Kingdom’, Home Renaissance Foundation, March 2015

12 Tim Brown, ‘Housing and an Ageing Population: The Extra Care Solution’, commissioned by Keepmoat and the Housing Learning and Improvement Group (LIN), 2011

13 Erica Belcher, ‘Social isolation requires an intergenerational response’, NLGN blog, 23 May 2018

14 Suzanne Bearne, ‘How sky-high rents forced people into imaginative alternatives’; Observer 17 February 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/feb/17/high-rents-alternative-living-arrangements

15 Simca Simpson, ‘Bricks and Mortar’, Viewpoint 74, Housing Learning and Improvement Group (LIN); and with Dr Samantha Callan, ‘Bricks and Mortar Across Generations: A Think Piece on Intergenerational Living in the United Kingdom’, Home Renaissance Foundation, March 2015

16 RIBA Journal, MultiGen Awards, sponsored by Norbord Europe Ltd, September 2017

17 RIBA Journal, MultiGen Awards, Products in Practice (PIP), 16 October 2017

18 Sunday Times, Terrace of the Future Competition Brief, 2018

19 Alyn Griffiths, ‘3 generation House’, Dezeen, 22 April 2019

20 RIBA, ‘The story of Caring Wood’, architecture.com, 1 Dec 2017

21 Deborah Saunt, Jury Chair, RIBA House of the Year 2017, reported on architecture.com, 1 December 2017

22 Chloe Smith, ‘London: Garden City? Investigating the changing anatomy of London’s private gardens, and the scale of their loss’, London Wildlife Trust, Greenspace Information for Greater London and the Greater London Authority, 2010

CHAPER 2

1 Clare Bennie ‘Places that get better over time’ in David Levitt and Jo McCafferty (eds) Housing Design Handbook, Routledge, 2019, p7

2 Lifetime Homes was a standard for accessible and adaptable housing initiated by a group of housing experts and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the early 1990s. Its 16 design criteria have now been included in Part M of the Building Regulations

3 RIBA Awards 2017 (accessed via: https://www.architecture.com/awards-and-competitions-landing-page/awards/riba-regional-awards/riba-yorkshire-award-winners/2017/derwenthorpe-phase-one)

4 Arthur M Edwards, ‘The Design of Suburbia, A Critical Study in Environmental History’ quoted by Barbara Simms in Eric Lyons and Span, RIBA Publishing, 2006, p97

5 Barbara Simms, Eric Lyons and Span, RIBA Publishing, 2006, p104

6 Lord Scarman quoted in Nick Wates and Charles Knevitt, Community Architecture – How People are Creating their Own Environment, Penguin, 1987, pp16–17
Lord Scarman was President of the UK Council for the UN International Year of Shelter for the Homeless 1987 – two strong themes being community participation and self-help

7 Peter Murray et al, Public Housing: A London Renaissance, New London Architecture, 2019 (Exhibition catalogue for New London Architecture at the Building Centre, London, May–June 2019)

8 Jan Gehl, Cities for People, Island Press, 2010

9 Kieran Long, ‘Hope for Social Housing’, Evening Standard, 12 September 2012

10 Aram Mooradian, ‘Hannibal Road’ by Peter Barber Architects’, Building Design, 22 August 2012

CHAPTER 3

1 Grace Kim, ‘How co-housing can make us happier (and live longer)’, TED Talk, Youtube video, 7 Aug 2017 (accessed via: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mguvTfAw4wk)

2 Britta Tornow, ‘Denmark – Pioneer Country for Co-housing’, Europe Cooperative Housing, Jovis Verlag, 2015

3 Claus Bech-Danielsen, Mette Mechlenborg and Marie Stender, Welcome Home. Trends in Danish Housing Architecture, (exhibition catalogue for the Danish Architecture Centre), Politikens Forlag, Copenhagen, 2018

4 Vankunsten Architects website (accessed August 2019 via: https://vandkunsten.com/en/projects/tinggaarden)

5 Stephen Hill, ‘Codesign’, in David Levitt and Jo McCafferty (eds), The Housing Design Handbook 2nd edition, Routledge, 2019

6 Cooperative Housing International (CHI), part of the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), ‘About Switzerland’ (accessed via: https://www.housinginternational.coop/co-ops/switzerland/)

7 ibid

8 ibid

9 Vital Neighbourhoods: Lessons from International Housing Renewal, Publica for Stanhope PLC, July 2017

10 Jelly Moring (Programme Manager at World Habitat Report), World Habitat Peer Exchange, 5 December 2017; Mehr Als Wohnen received a World Habitat Award in 2016.

11 Maria Brenton, Community Building for Old Age: Breaking New Ground, the UK’s First Senior Co-housing Community, High Barnet, Housing LIN Case Study 139, October 2017

12 Monica William-Olsson, Co-housing Cultures, Jovis Verlag, Berlin, 2012

13 Architype, ‘Springhill Co-housing’ project information (accessed via: https://architype.co.uk/project/springhill-co-housing/)

14 LILAC (Low Impact Living Affordable Community), ‘What is an MHOS?’ (accessed via: https://www.lilac.coop/affordable/)

15 Paul Chatterton, Low Impact Living: A field guide to ecological, affordable community living, Routledge, 21 August 2014

16 Studio Weave, Living Closer: The many faces of co-housing, Studio Weave in collaboration with RIBA, June 2018

17 Space 10 and Effekt Architects, ‘The Urban Village Project: A vision for livable, sustainable and affordable homes’ (accessed via: https://www.urbanvillageproject.com)

18 GOV.uk, ‘Community Housing Fund’, 24 April 2019 (accessed via: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/community-housing-fund)

19 Passivhaus Trust, UK Passivhaus Awards 2013, Winner: Lancaster Co-housing Project, Youtube video, 10 July 2013 (accessed via: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOUJfjGsmik)

20 John Sear and Andrew Yeats, ‘Lancaster Co-housing Project’, Green Building Magazine, Autumn and Winter 2011

21 Maria Brenton, Community Building for Old Age: Breaking New Ground, the UK’s First Senior Co-housing Community, High Barnet, Housing LIN Case Study 139, October 2017

22 Luke Jones (Presenter) and Scott Adam (Producer), ‘Elderly female and trailblazing’, iPM interview, BBC Radio 4, 3 November 2018 (accessed via: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000z72)

23 Office for National Statistics, ‘Dataset: Living Alone in the UK’ (accessed via: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/datasets/livingaloneintheuk) and Daniel Clark, ‘Number of people living alone in the UK 2019 by age and gender’, Statista, 21 November 2019 (accessed via: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281616/people-living-alone-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age-and-gender/)

24 Jessica Mairs, ‘Pollard Thomas Edwards completes UK’s first over 50s Co-housing scheme’, Dezeen, 9 December 2016

25 id22: Institute for Creative Sustainability, ‘Co-housing Cultures’, Jovis Verlag, Berlin, 2012

26 Climate Adapt, ‘Vrijburcht: a privately funded climate–proof collective garden in Amsterdam (2016)’, by Menno Vergunst and Johan Vlug / VLUGP, (accessed via: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/vrijburcht-a-privately-funded-climate2013proof-collective-garden-in-amsterdam)

27 ibid

28 Jessica Bridger, ‘Don’t call it a Commune – Inside Berlin’s Radical Co-housing Project’, Metropolis, 10 June 2015 (accessed via: https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/residential-architecture/dont-call-it-a-commune-inside-berlin-radical-co-housing-project/)

29 ‘Coop Housing at River Spreefeld / Carpaneto Architekten + Fatkoehl Architekten + BARarchitekten’, ArchDaily, 17 January, 2015 (accessed via: https://www.archdaily.com/587590/coop-housing-project-at-the-river-spreefeld-carpanetoarchitekten-fatkoehl-architektenbararchitekten)

CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER 4

1 Ministry for Communities, Housing and Local Government (formerly Department for Communities and Local Government), ‘Fixing the Broken Housing Market’, February 2017 (accessed via: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590464/Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_print_ready_version.pdf)

2 The Chambers Dictionary, Harrap Publishers Ltd, 1993

3 Karel Teige, translated by Eric Diuhosch, ‘The Housing Crisis in “The Minimum Dwelling”’, MIT, 2002 (First Published as ‘Nejmensi byt’ in 1932 by Vaclav Petr, Prague)

4 Ibid

5 D Maxwell, ‘A Human Right to Housing?’, 2019 (accessed via: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/housing-after-grenfell/blog/2019/02/human-right-housing)

6 Nathaniel Barker, ‘Housing crisis not caused by lack of supply, says Tony Blair Institute’, Inside Housing, 21 August 2019

7 Office for National Statistics, ‘Family and Households 2018’, 7 June 2019 (accessed via: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2018)

8 Office for National Statistics, ‘The Cost of Living Alone’, 4 April 2019 (accessed via) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/thecostoflivingalone/2019-04-04

9 Dr Sophie Handler, Manchester City Council and University of Manchester and Professor Chris Philipson, University of Manchester, quoted in Julia Park and Jeremy Porteus, Age Friendly Housing, RIBA Publishing, 2018

INDEX

Page numbers in bold indicate figures.

3 Generation House, Amsterdam, Netherlands 6–7, 26–33, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Alexandra Road estate, Camden, London 53

Almere, Netherlands 27, 94–95

Architects Journal 17

Architype 92–93

Arkitekter, Erik 56, 57

‘Back Garden City’ design 14, 14, 15

BARarchitekten 127–129, 128, 129, 130, 130, 131, 132

Barefoot Architects 14, 14, 15

Bärenfelserstrasse, Basel, Switzerland 89, 89

Barratt Homes 17

BETA Architects 6–7, 26–33, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets, London 70–73, 70, 71, 72

Bindesboll, Gottlieb 86

Borer, Pat 92–93

Brenton, Maria 90, 115

Brown, Neave 53

Brumleby, Østerbro, Copenhagen, Denmark 86

Buccleuch House, Hackney, London 58–63, 58, 60, 61, 62

Building Regulations 11, 136

Burgess Architects 12, 13–14, 13, 14

Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research 5

Cambridge Co-housing see Marmalade Lane, Cambridge

Caring Wood, Kent 34–37, 34, 35, 36, 37

Carpaneto Arkitekten 127–129, 128, 129, 130, 130, 131, 132

CASA Architects 120–123, 120, 121, 122

C.F. Møller Architects 74–81, 74, 76–77, 78, 79, 80, 81

Chabrol, Claire 14

Chobham Manor, Stratford, London 20–25, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25

co-housing and collective housing 85–97, 138

characteristics of 87–88

Färdknäppen, Stockholm, Sweden 91

Forgebank, Lancaster 108–113, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113

housing cooperatives, Switzerland 88–90

La Borda, Barcelona, Spain 91–92, 91, 92

LILAC Co-housing, Leeds 93–94, 94

Marmalade Lane, Cambridge 98–107, 98, 100, 101, 102–103, 105, 106

New Ground, High Barnet, London 90, 114–119, 114, 116, 117, 118

Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin, Germany 124, 125–127, 125, 126, 127, 130

Spreefeld, Berlin, Germany 127–129, 128, 129, 130, 130, 131, 132

Springhill, Gloucestershire 92–93

Urban Village Project 95–96, 96, 97

Vrijburcht Co-housing, Amsterdam, Netherlands 120–123, 120, 121, 122

Code for Sustainable Homes 37, 62, 65, 119

COHABITAT 89, 89

communities 49–57

Community Housing Fund 96

Community Interest Companies 65, 68

Community Land Trusts (CLTs) 96

Cook, Sydney 53

cooperatives 88–90, 93

custom build housing 94–95

Denmark 85–86

Brumleby, Østerbro, Copenhagen 86

Future Sølund, Copenhagen 74–81, 74, 76–77, 78, 79, 80, 81

The Generations House, Aarhus 56, 57

Tinggården, Herfølge 86

densification see Supurbia strategy, London

Derwenthorpe, Yorkshire 51, 51, 137

Devlin, Patrick 117

‘Don’t Move, Improve’ campaign 3, 8

Duplex Architekten 90

Eco Arc 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113

Effekt Architects 95–96, 96, 97

Engels, Friedrich 135–136

Färdknäppen, Stockholm, Sweden 91

Fatkoehl Arkitekten 127–129, 128, 129, 130, 130, 131, 132

Forgebank, Lancaster 108–113, 108, 109 110, 111, 112, 113

France 8, 55, 85

Freidorf, Basel, Switzerland 88

Futurafrosch 90

Future Sølund, Copenhagen, Denmark 74–81, 74, 76–77, 78, 79, 80, 81

The Generations House, Aarhus, Denmark 56, 57

Germany 8–10, 85

Leuchtturm, Berlin 10

Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin 124, 125–127, 125, 126, 127, 130

Spreefeld, Berlin 127–129, 128, 129, 130, 130, 131, 132

The Hall, Blackheath, London 52

Hanham Hall, Bristol 64–69, 64, 67, 68, 69

Heide & von Beckerath 124, 125–127, 125, 126, 127, 130

Hollamby, Ted 53

Homes for the Future Competitions 16–18, 16, 18, 19

housing cooperatives 88–90, 93

Housing our Ageing Population Panel for Innovation (HAPPI) 59, 60, 62

HTA Design 54

Hanham Hall, Bristol 64–69, 64, 67, 68, 69

Homes for the Future Competitions 16–18, 16, 18, 19

Supurbia strategy, London 38–43, 38, 41, 42, 44–45

‘Hundred House’ design 18

Hunziker Areal, Zürich, Switzerland 89–90

intensification see Supurbia strategy, London

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 136

Joseph Rowntree Trust 51

‘Kit Studio’ design 12, 13–14, 13, 14

La Borda, Barcelona, Spain 91–92, 91, 92

Lacaton & Vassal 55

Lacol 91–92, 91, 92

Lancaster Co-housing see Forgebank, Lancaster

Lea View House, Hackney, London 54

Leuchtturm, Berlin, Germany 10

Levitt Bernstein Architects 58–63, 58, 60, 61, 62

Lifetime Homes standards 11, 51

LILAC Co-housing, Leeds 93–94, 94

Local Development Orders (LDOs) 39, 40, 42

London

Alexandra Road estate, Camden 53

Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets 70–73, 70, 71, 72

Buccleuch House, Hackney 58–63, 58, 60, 61, 62

Chobham Manor, Stratford 20–25, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25

The Hall, Blackheath 52

Lea View House, Hackney 54

Navarino Mansions, Hackney 54

New Ground, High Barnet 90, 114–119, 114, 116, 117, 118

Newquay House, Kennington 54

Supurbia strategy 38–43, 38, 41, 42, 44–45

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) 23

Lyons, Eric 52, 52

Macdonald Wright, James 34–37, 34, 35, 36, 37

Marmalade Lane, Cambridge 98–107, 98, 100, 101, 102–103, 105, 106

Maxwell, Niall 34–37, 34, 35, 36, 37

Metge-Toppin, Sibylle 14

Meyer, Hannes 88

Mies van de Rohe prize 55

minimum space standards 3–4, 11, 138

ModCell construction 93, 94

Mole Architects 98–107, 98, 100, 101, 102–103, 105, 106

multigenerational development 49–57

Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets, London 70–73, 70, 71, 72

Buccleuch House, Hackney, London 58–63, 58, 60, 61, 62

Future Sølund, Copenhagen, Denmark 74–81, 74, 76–77, 78, 79, 80, 81

Hanham Hall, Bristol 64–69, 64, 67, 68, 69

multigenerational living 3–11, 138, 139

3 Generation House, Amsterdam, Netherlands 6–7, 26–33, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Caring Wood, Kent 34–37, 34, 35, 36, 37

Chobham Manor, Stratford, London 20–25, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25

Homes for the Future Competitions 16–18, 16, 18, 19

RIBA Journal and Norbord OSB Multigen Competition 12–14, 12, 13, 14, 15

Supurbia strategy, London 38–43, 38, 41, 42, 44–45

Mutual Home Ownership Schemes 93

National Community Land Trust Network 96

National House Building Council (NHBC) 5

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 39

Nationally Described Space Standard 3, 11, 138

Navarino Mansions, Hackney, London 54

Netherlands 3, 8, 10, 55, 85, 90, 94–95

3 Generation House, Amsterdam 6–7, 26–33, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Vrijburcht Co-housing, Amsterdam 120–123, 120, 121, 122

New Earswick, Yorkshire 50–51, 50

New Ground, High Barnet, London 90, 114–119, 114, 116, 117, 118

New Local Government Network 10

New London Architecture 3, 55

new towns 27, 52, 94–95

Newquay House, Kennington, London 54

NL Architects 55

Norbord Europe Ltd see RIBA Journal and Norbord OSB Multigen Competition

Older Women’s Co-housing (OWCH) 90, 114–119, 114, 116, 117, 118

Parker Morris Committee 3

Passivhaus standards 89

Forgebank, Lancaster 108–113, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113

Marmalade Lane, Cambridge 98–107, 98, 100, 101, 102–103, 105, 106

Peter Barber Architects 70–73, 70, 71, 72

planning policy 11

see also Supurbia strategy, London

plot passports 38, 43, 94

‘The Possibilities are Endless’ design 14

PRP 20–25, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25

PTE Architects 114–119, 114, 116, 117, 118

RIBA Journal and Norbord OSB Multigen Competition 12–14, 12, 13, 14, 15

right to housing 88, 136

Ritterstrasse 50, Berlin, Germany 124, 125–127, 125, 126, 127, 130

Segal, Walter 93

self-build schemes 93

Share and Care Home share scheme 10

social housing 8, 10, 51, 53, 86

Beveridge Mews, Tower Hamlets, London 70–73, 70, 71, 72

Space 10 95–96, 96, 97

space standards 3–4, 11, 138

Spain 8, 10, 85

La Borda, Barcelona 91–92, 91, 92

Span Developments 52–53, 52

Spreefeld, Berlin, Germany 127–129, 128, 129, 130, 130, 131, 132

Springhill Co-housing, Gloucestershire 92–93

Studio Partington 51, 51, 137

Studio Weave 95

Sunday Times British Homes Awards 17

Supurbia strategy, London 38–43, 38, 41, 42, 44–45

sustainability 136, 139

2000-Watt Society 89

Caring Wood, Kent 34–37, 34, 35, 36, 37

Code for Sustainable Homes 37, 62, 65, 119

Forgebank, Lancaster 108–113, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113

Hanham Hall, Bristol 64–69, 64, 67, 68, 69

Marmalade Lane, Cambridge 98–107, 98, 100, 101, 102–103, 105, 106

Sweden 85, 90–91

Switzerland 85, 88–90

Teige, Karel 135–136

Tinggården, Herfølge, Denmark 86

TOWN 99–100, 104

Townsend, Geoffrey 52

Trivselhus 99, 101, 104

Urban Village Project 95–96, 96, 97

Vandkunsten Architects 86

Vrijburcht Co-housing, Amsterdam, Netherlands 120–123, 120, 121, 122

White Design 93–94, 94

XVW Architectuur 55

IMAGE CREDITS

CHAPTER 1
Figure 1.0.0 | Ossip van Duivenbode
Figure 1.01 | Ossip van Duivenbode
Figure 1.02 | HTA
Figure 1.1.1 | Kit Studio
Figure 1.1.2 | Kit Studio
Figure 1.1.3 | Kit Studio
Figure 1.1.4 | Barefoot Architects
Figure 1.1.5 | Barefoot Architects
Figure 1.1.6 | Barefoot Architects
Figure 1.2.1 | HTA Design LLP
Figure 1.2.2 | HTA Design LLP
Figure 1.2.3 | HTA Design LLP
Figure 1.3.1 | Richard Chivers
Figure 1.3.2 | PRP
Figure 1.3.3 | Richard Chivers
Figure 1.3.4 | PRP
Figure 1.3.5 | PRP
Figure 1.4.1 | Ossip van Duivenbode
Figure 1.4.2 | Ossip van Duivenbode
Figure 1.4.3 | Ossip van Duivenbode
Figure 1.4.4 | BETA Office for Architecture and the City
Figure 1.4.5 | BETA Office for Architecture and the City
Figure 1.4.6 | Ossip van Duivenbode
Figure 1.5.1 | Heiko Prigge
Figure 1.5.2 | Macdonald Wright
Figure 1.5.3 | Macdonald Wright
Figure 1.5.4 | Macdonald Wright
Figure 1.5.5 | Heiko Prigge
Figure 1.6.1 | HTA
Figure 1.6.2 | HTA
Figure 1.6.3 | HTA
Figure 1.6.4 | HTA
Figure 1.6.5 | HTA

CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.0.0 | HTA
Figure 2.0.1 | Charlotte Benton / RIBA Collections
Figure 2.0.2 | Studio Partington
Figure 2.0.3 | John Donat / RIBA Collections
Figure 2.0.4 | Erik Aritekter
Figure 2.1.1 | Tim Crocker
Figure 2.1.2 | Levitt Bernstein
Figure 2.1.3 | Levitt Bernstein
Figure 2.1.4 | Levitt Bernstein
Figure 2.2.1 | Nick Harrison
Figure 2.2.2 | HTA
Figure 2.2.3 | HTA
Figure 2.2.4 | Nick Harrison
Figure 2.2.5 | HTA
Figure 2.2.6 | HTA
Figure 2.3.1 | Peter Barber
Figure 2.3.2 | Peter Barber/Morley von Sternberg
Figure 2.3.3 | Peter Barber
Figure 2.3.4 | Peter Barber/Morley von Sternberg
Figure 2.4.1 | C F Møller
Figure 2.4.2 | C F Møller
Figure 2.4.3 | C F Møller
Figure 2.4.4 | C F Møller
Figure 2.4.5 | C F Møller
Figure 2.4.6 | C F Møller

CHAPTER 3
Figure 3.0.0 | David Butler
Figure 3.0.1. | Leo Arnold
Figure 3.0.2. | Lacol
Figure 3.0.3 | Lacol
Figure 3.0.4 | Rob Crawshaw
Figure 3.0.5 | Effekt Architects and Space 10
Figure 3.0.6 | Effekt Architects and Space 10
Figure 3.1.1 | David Butler
Figure 3.1.2 | HTA
Figure 3.1.3 | HTA
Figure 3.1.4 | Mole Architects – David Butler
Figure 3.1.5 | Mole Architects – Jeremy Peters
Figure 3.1.6 | Mole
Figure 3.1.7 | Mole
Figure 3.2.1 | HTA
Figure 3.2.2 | HTA
Figure 3.2.3 | HTA
Figure 3.2.4 | HTA
Figure 3.2.5 | Eco Arc
Figure 3.2.6 | HTA
Figure 3.2.7 | HTA
Figure 3.2.8 | HTA
Figure 3.3.1 | PTEa
Figure 3.3.2 | PTEa
Figure 3.3.3 | PTEa
Figure 3.3.4 | Tim Crocker/PTEa
Figure 3.4.1. | HTA
Figure 3.4.2. | HTA
Figure 3.4.3. | CASA
Figure 3.4.4. | CASA
Figure 3.4.5. | HTA
Figure 3.5.1. | HTA
Figure 3.5.2. | HTA
Figure 3.5.3. | HTA
Figure 3.5.4. | HTA
Figure 3.5.5. | HTA
Figure 3.5.6. | HTA
Figure 3.5.7 | Michael Lafond
Figure 3.5.8 | Michael Lafond
Figure 3.5.9 | HTA
Figure 3.5.10 | HTA

CHAPTER 4
4.0.0 | Tim Crocker / Studio Partington
4.0.1 | Tim Crocker / Studio Partington

Illustrations: Nerea Bermejo