Housing estate design of the last 20yrs - why so bad?
Discussion
I thought I'd start this thread as a tangent from the one about specific housebuilders. I've been house hunting, and found myself thoroughly uninspired by pretty much every estate of new/recent builds. They seem to be full of details which may look good on plans but invariably age badly.
I'm thinking of stuff like:
I'm thinking of stuff like:
- Houses pushed right up to the road/path meaning you have cars/people going right past your front windows
- Car parking behind the houses, often in shared car park areas. Shared responsibility for the areas mean often no-one looks after them - someone dumps an old appliance and it remains there for ages as it's out of sight and no-one else knows who put it there.
- Winding roads and insufficient on plot parking, leading to minimal visibility and often only being able to get one car through large chunks of the road.
- Increased use of block paving on road areas (often raised), which seems to deteriorate at a lot faster that traditional tarmac roads.
- Winding pathways running through the estates (and often looping roads) which introduce passing foot traffic to all corners of the development where on a traditional "branch" layout there would be areas you expect this but also quieter corners where only residents would need access
- Small green spaces periodically on the aforementioned winding pathways, which never seem to be maintained sufficiently and end up suffering from the same ambiguous responsibility issues as the car parks mentioned before
Equus said:
egomeister said:
They seem to be full of details which may look good on plans but invariably age badly.
Absolutely everything on that list is a direct result of the 'PPG3' approach...Blame Prince Charles.
I can explain the reasoning behind each one, if you really want me to, though it would make for a very long and tedious thread... suffice it to say that the Developers had those features forced upon them by Planning, not the other way around.
It's utterly depressing the outcome is so different and there seems to be so little done to address the realities of these spaces - the same crap uninspired generic housing on compromised generic estates has been built for pretty much all my adult life.
Equus said:
egomeister said:
I can well imagine most of the reasoning, and i'm sure the word "social" crops up in virtually every justification.
Actually, most of it is to do with principles of 'Urban Design' (a slightly different discipline from Architecture, administered by 'Urban Designers'), and mostly to do with trying to ensure that housing estates are not nominated by vehicle use and parking.The (half baked) idea was that if car ownership and use was made inconvenient, more people would use public transport.
The parking thing is crazy, and obviously not just for residential. My last employer bought the building opposite to expand into. They set out the upstairs as 3/4 office, 1/4 meeting room and the lower had equipment in. The office had about 20 people in, (far more generously spaced than our building!) yet you could only park 13 or so cars. If you are trying to pull professional talent in, they are unlikely to relocate within walking or sensible public transport distance as their pool of potential employers tend to be geographically diverse over a number of surrounding towns or cities.
Equus said:
We already have the Nationally Described Space Standard, but it's up to individual LPAs whether they adopt it (hence it's not really national...).
Personally, as a fan of the Tiny House movement, I resent it deeply. If people want to live in small houses, they should be allowed to do so.
Which brings us to the other important point that, aside from Planning, people get the houses they want. If they were willing and able to pay for big houses, with big gardens, then that's what the developers would be building.
It's the same as with cars; everybody says they want an Aston Martin, Range Rover, or Bentley, but when it comes to signing on the dotted line, a lot more decide that want they actually want is a Kia...
Some interesting points here. I'd also be keen to see some of the tiny house ideas being explored. I think it can work well to address specific needs - for example when I was working in Germany I rented a sub 20m2 apartment which perfectly suited my requirements. I know some of the others in the same building were also taken by people who were commuting between cities weekly on business. It was a much better solution than renting a larger place, renting a room or staying in a hotel.Personally, as a fan of the Tiny House movement, I resent it deeply. If people want to live in small houses, they should be allowed to do so.
Which brings us to the other important point that, aside from Planning, people get the houses they want. If they were willing and able to pay for big houses, with big gardens, then that's what the developers would be building.
It's the same as with cars; everybody says they want an Aston Martin, Range Rover, or Bentley, but when it comes to signing on the dotted line, a lot more decide that want they actually want is a Kia...
Edited by Equus on Wednesday 10th July 21:40
I'd push back a bit on the people get the houses they want / Aston vs Kia idea though. It's clear from this thread that most people find the modern estates compromised, but from what I've seen there really is little alternative available. I agree it's difficult to get people to pay for a better place, but I suspect the housebuilders have become so good at managing the yield from a given plot that any deviation comes with a big extra cost to maintain margins. Any builder who sticks their neck out and does something different is likely to get hammered back down into place - something I think would reduce if the market was more diverse as a whole and there was genuine choice between "development A" and "development B".
Looking back to the housing I saw in Germany, there was so much more variety on what was available. I saw tiny appartments, more conventional blocks, underground parking and cellars for storage (even on modest multi dwelling buildings), and self build / customisable developments. Our market doesn't stand a chance as there isn't really a market of competing product - we get to choose between a white Kia or a grey Kia, with 17 or 18 inch alloys unless you can self-build your Aston Martin.
Equus said:
Certainly, PPG3 (and, current thinking on urban design, as exemplified by the Urban Design Compendium) is very anti-car, so will never go down well on here for that reason alone.
But there are other aspects to the conflict. For example, urban design relies on high density with buildings tight to the street and and continuous built frontages, to define and enclose spaces, with active windows looking out onto those streets for surveillance/crime reduction, whereas your average punter will tell you that he or she actually prefers 'loose', lower-density plotting typical of 1970's estates and a nice, deep front garden to act as a privacy buffer.
We've also had comments above from someone bemoaning the permeability of modern layouts, because it doesn't allow the quiet seclusion of your good, old-fashioned cul-de-sac, where connectivity and permeability are cornerstones of current urban design thinking.
The UDC also stresses the 'need' for close integration of a variety of tenures and dwelling sizes, to provide a 'melting pot' community, whereas your average punter (and particularly your average PistonHeader) will usually want to see anyone he perceives as being less affluent or of lower social standing than himself packaged off somewhere that he doesn't have to interact with them.
I see that a scheme I worked on early in my career gets a mention in the Urban Design Compendium (The Calls in Leeds)... certainly, I know the local prostitutes appreciated it, 'cos it meant they could rent flats right next to where they walked the streets.
Your observations on permeability are definitely something that resonates with me and one of the aspects that annoys me about the current design thinking.But there are other aspects to the conflict. For example, urban design relies on high density with buildings tight to the street and and continuous built frontages, to define and enclose spaces, with active windows looking out onto those streets for surveillance/crime reduction, whereas your average punter will tell you that he or she actually prefers 'loose', lower-density plotting typical of 1970's estates and a nice, deep front garden to act as a privacy buffer.
We've also had comments above from someone bemoaning the permeability of modern layouts, because it doesn't allow the quiet seclusion of your good, old-fashioned cul-de-sac, where connectivity and permeability are cornerstones of current urban design thinking.
The UDC also stresses the 'need' for close integration of a variety of tenures and dwelling sizes, to provide a 'melting pot' community, whereas your average punter (and particularly your average PistonHeader) will usually want to see anyone he perceives as being less affluent or of lower social standing than himself packaged off somewhere that he doesn't have to interact with them.
I see that a scheme I worked on early in my career gets a mention in the Urban Design Compendium (The Calls in Leeds)... certainly, I know the local prostitutes appreciated it, 'cos it meant they could rent flats right next to where they walked the streets.
For me, the 60s/70s, lower density, generous frontage, cul-de-sac layout works so much better. You have the basic unit of your own personal space & privacy, then your interactions with the personal spaces of your neighbours is one based in consent rather than forced through proximity and movement of people through area both on foot and in vehicles. You build up good relationships with your neighbours and are able to better look out for each other as it can be much clearer when something or someone is out of place.
The ambiguity of the modern design disincentivises emotional ownership & protection of the space which I think is detrimental to the success of the area.
Equus said:
egomeister said:
For me, the 60s/70s, lower density, generous frontage, cul-de-sac layout works so much better.
But most people will agree that the 'places' it creates are of very low quality, in urban design terms (and that's not just intellectual posturing from an 'expert'... most members of the public will tell you that they look pretty bland and characterless, too).As I said, it's to some degree a conflict between individual, plot-based needs and the character of the places created.
If you want to see the ultimate extrapolation of the '70's 'lower density' ethos, look at typical housing estates in North America, New Zealand and Australia, and how incongruous they would look here in the UK.
PS: Don't feel I've singled out your posts, they have just been the ones that given me the most to push back on & discuss
Equus said:
I think you've been looking at the wrong current developments, then.
Certainly there's a lot of crap about (the latest Persimmon and Bellway stuff makes my skin crawl), but even that's not as bad as the stuff being turned out in the '70's, and 'good' modern developments (for instance the ones pictured by Ben, above, and I could even post pictures of a couple of mine, if modesty did not forbid) are a great deal better.
I speak as someone who has been designing housing layouts since the mid-'80's, so my early work perpetrated stuff that was barely different to the 70's benchmark we're using, too.
The days of hardcore PPG3 (say 1995-2005) were the absolute nadir in terms of plot quality, though. I think, being positive, that we're achieving a much better balance of plot vs. place these days than we did either in the 70's or around the millennium.
In my town there is developments going on from a lot of the big name builders (Persimmon, Bellway, CALA, Taylor-Wimpey, Barratt, Redrow, Davidsons, Miller, Bloor - I'm sure there are more). I find little to like in any of these. The pictures posted above are indeed streets ahead(!) of a lot of what is available, you can clearly see the effort that has been put in on the back to back pictures but I still view this as an improvement from a very low base.Certainly there's a lot of crap about (the latest Persimmon and Bellway stuff makes my skin crawl), but even that's not as bad as the stuff being turned out in the '70's, and 'good' modern developments (for instance the ones pictured by Ben, above, and I could even post pictures of a couple of mine, if modesty did not forbid) are a great deal better.
I speak as someone who has been designing housing layouts since the mid-'80's, so my early work perpetrated stuff that was barely different to the 70's benchmark we're using, too.
The days of hardcore PPG3 (say 1995-2005) were the absolute nadir in terms of plot quality, though. I think, being positive, that we're achieving a much better balance of plot vs. place these days than we did either in the 70's or around the millennium.
I don't really blame the designers to be honest. I'm sure they are doing what they can with the twin pressures from the commercial side of their employers and the rigid requirements of planning regulation.
Ultimately from the perspective of a buyer, I have little reason to be interested in how the cake is baked - all I know is the shelves are full of tasteless low sugar, low fat products that are half the size and twice the price they were a generation or two ago.
Equus said:
egomeister said:
...all I know is the shelves are full of tasteless low sugar, low fat products that are half the size and twice the price they were a generation or two ago.
But isn't the same true of any consumer product?And the reason for that is that the shelves are full of stuff that sits in the tiny space on the Venn diagram where adequate quality/performance meets acceptable affordability.
Seriously though, taking the car market as an example I don't think it is the same for any product. You have a much bigger choice in cars, through a much wider price range than you can get in the housing market. For 25k I can choose from Hatch, Saloon, Estate, Convertible, SUV, Pickup, Van etc, at a choice of sizes, choice of engines, etc. A 350k house is likely to be a 4 bed semi or small detached. with single garage and tandem parking, pushed up on the street in an estate that could be anywhere. The main choice being what style of faux historic design features you want.
The whole housing industry seems to sit in that "adequate" venn diagram position, with little outside it unless you do it yourself. In cars, clothes, food etc we can choose that adequate product yet in every town you are likely to find someone selling outside those norms.
I can't recall ever seeing a developer build a bungalow in my adult life.
KTF said:
egomeister said:
I can't recall ever seeing a developer build a bungalow in my adult life.
Why build a bungalow that takes up more space when you can put a couple of houses on there instead I guess.Equus said:
There are also builders (and architects) who will design and build you whatever you want, if your pockets are deep enough. As I said, everybody would like to be driving an Aston or a Bentley... it's no good bellyaching because you can't afford what you want.
I'm not complaining I can't afford what I want, I'm complaining that the product isn't available. The parallel would be that you have to commission someone to build you an Aston, because there are only VWs, and BMW and Toyotas being manufactured.From the discussion on this thread it strikes me that the real villain behind this is planning regulation, and the inevitable (and commercially unimaginative) response of the housebuilders to the conditions presented to them.
blueg33 said:
egomeister said:
Equus said:
There are also builders (and architects) who will design and build you whatever you want, if your pockets are deep enough. As I said, everybody would like to be driving an Aston or a Bentley... it's no good bellyaching because you can't afford what you want.
I'm not complaining I can't afford what I want, I'm complaining that the product isn't available. The parallel would be that you have to commission someone to build you an Aston, because there are only VWs, and BMW and Toyotas being manufactured.From the discussion on this thread it strikes me that the real villain behind this is planning regulation, and the inevitable (and commercially unimaginative) response of the housebuilders to the conditions presented to them.
This has a massive impact on layout, for instance both sides of a road need to be developed (developing 1 side means you have fewer plots paying for the road), drives kept to a minimum length, housetypes that are as simple as possible, eg avoid dormers because they mean steel and steel is expensive, cul de sacs and turning heads are expensive, retaining walls are expensive so build to the contours etc
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff