HOUSING RESEARCH TOUR Friday 10th May 2013

1. HOUSING RESEARCH TOUR Friday 10th May 2013 Supported by

2. The following notes are pulled together by Debby Matthews and Pru Rowntree with photos and comments from attendees on the trip. • Thanks to all who came on the day out and contributed to the discussions; to Ros Brewer for her written feedback and to David Hutchinson and John Stockdale for pictures.

3. Barking Riverside

4. Barking Riverside urban regeneration The setting in the middle of a desolate industrial and post-industrial landscape detracted from what is interesting design. A more promising landscape would have enhanced this scheme no end.

5. Creating a community from scratch There seemed to be no social centre other than the school which you would not have known it was also a church / doctors' surgery / social centre if we hadn't been told this.  We saw no shops of any kind.  

6. Car parking and front gardens The housing had some interesting aspects, such as the roof lines, "garage" arrangements and car port gates and balconies.  The odd patches of planting at the fronts of some buildings seemed unkempt - as if it wasn't clear who owned them and therefore who would take care of them.

7. Back gardens need privacy The back gardens were in use but does it works to have back gardens backing on to public open space as this gives rise to insecurity and privacy issues especially in a location such as Barking?

8. Open space and play The landscaping of the public open spaces, including the SUDS and crushed cockleshell paths were naturalistic but the construction seemed a bit slapdash.  The play facilities were perfunctory and offered limited play value.   The streets were not playable unless parents are to supervise quite closely.

9. Long streets Some streets seemed very long and uniform and not broken up in any way. Felt very urban which may suit the new residents if they have moved from inner or east London terraces Wheely bins out on pavements are unattractive

10. Cambridge Trumpington

11. Trumpington Meadows Cambridge – A Barratts green field development This scheme comprised comparatively conventional, rather dull if pleasant individual houses.  The non-orthogonal layout of parts of this scheme created both privacy and good overlooking in some parts A range of different building materials were used, with stylistic variations made it look more established and diverse than a uniform scheme.

12. Public spaces felt welcoming to non residents walking through Residents reported that they didn’t feel overlooked by houses opposite

13. Some architectural detailing

14. But around the back Views of back fences and garages clashing with very ugly and huge sheds (for refuse, recycling and cycle storage) and perhaps the potential for some insecurity.  The sheds greatly detracted from the scheme and were clearly not designed in as part of the scheme from the beginning.

15. Back sheds

16. A different range of styles in the next section

17. Great Kneighton, Cambridge off A10

18. Cambridge Trumpington Meadows This scheme was much more interesting in design terms with a mix of houses and flats, though it was quite hard to find the entrance doors to the flats.  I don't think this helps people to read / navigate a scheme and leads to the problem of ambiguous spaces that no one owns and everyone neglects.  

19. Different design styles and open space The elevations were quite interesting in design terms and were not afraid to be modern. There was a pleasant open space which will be improved when the trees have grown and there are more people using it. We were told that more of these properties have been sold than the Barratts' scheme, though it was completed later.

20. Other examples

21. Prize winning development, Cambridge centre

22. Accordia Cambridge Botanical Gardens The best development we saw in terms of quality of master-planning and architectural  design and materials.  The architects  achieved an intimacy of scale which was very pleasing, though it is a large development. The mews housing is especially successful with a complex mix of intimate private gardens and roof terraces as well as shared courtyard spaces.  

23. Overall ambiance Those mews streets with shared space appeared to be good for children's casual play as well as being good spaces for walking and cycling.  

24. Local facilities The only development we saw that had a shop was Accordia – below a block of flats

25. Play space The shared-surfaced mews' dimensions were quite tight and were certainly more pleasant and intimate than the other housing schemes seen today. The play components are provided at a good scale but this type of equipment appeals more to designers than to children with comparatively little play value.  

26. Landscaping   The hard and soft landscaping were of high quality in design and materials, much assisted by the large trees retained from what had once been part of the Botanical Garden. The SUDS scheme was also very pleasant and the car-parking beneath one of the blocks of flats was well detailed.   

27. Expensive private housing The private housing here was significantly more expensive and classy than the other schemes seem, even though it looked very dense. Some of the private flats had very large balconies and terraces which were beautifully designed and detailed

28. Social housing part of development The affordable housing was less successfully resolved with inadequate planning for storage of refuse bins, cycles and movable play equipment, leaving this block easily identifiable as the affordable block.    On speaking to some residents it was clear that there were issues about sound carrying inside the flats and one stated they had requested to be moved away from there because of it.

29. Notice on notice board on changing buildings in conservation area

30. Two articles on Accordia • Can Accordia really be a blueprint for housing? http://www.bdonline.co.uk/comment/can-accordia-really-be-a-blueprint-for-housing?/ • Three's company http://www.bdonline.co.uk/buildings/threes-company/3066908.article

31. Shopping centre with arts complex

32. Bury St Edmonds Shopping space Many did not like the design of the shop units here, could be anywhere although it seemed to be trying quite hard to look vernacular.  The arts centre is good internally though the pitched projections sheltering the external staircases could be viewed as ugly and overscaled.