Housing the 99%

The front cover of architectural magazines are often graced by the latest Rogers, Foster or Hadid building.  This is no surprise, just as Vanity Fair prefers Lady Gaga to Joe Public.  Glamour projects often grab the headlines as they tap into human nature’s interest in the exciting and the daring.  This also goes for politicians, as Sir Simon Jenkins has recently shown (see here), who often become obsessed with glamourous skyscrapers from big name architects. 

But the majority of people do not live or work in these types of buildings.  Even those who do work in London’s signature office towers will jump on a commuter train at the end of the day to their 2 up 2 down in the suburbs.  So why doesn’t architectural and planning commentary in the media focus on what really matters – run of the mill family housing?  Or to borrow a phrase, the homes of the 99%.

This issue came to my attention following this review of Kevin McCloud’s foray into house building.  For those readers outside the UK, McCloud is a designer who has gained fame through his Grand Designs television programme.  In the show he documents the construction of a house from initial plans through to construction and completion.  Through this exposure he has become in the last 10 years one of the most prominent talking heads on issues of architecture and planning.  So it was interesting to see him attempt to undertake a housing development by himself. 

Real Estate in Vancouver: A Local Obsession

Two months have now passed since I landed in Vancouver and what has struck me most is the local obsession with house prices.  And this is not just because I have been hanging around with real estate agents and urban planners!  One only needs to pick up a local newspaper or turn on the television news to witness the continuous stream of stories on house prices.  Yesterday's Vancouver Sun was typical in that it led with a new survey reporting how the city's housing market is in 'dangerous territory' (see here).  In many other cities this story could act as a major warning, but in Vancouver this type of story appears as often in the newspaper as the weather forecast.  In the short time I have been in Vancouver, I have been amazed at how locals have fetishized real estate.

First, the obvious.  House prices are incredibly high in Vancouver and show no sign of changing.  This article reports on how the average house in Vancouver is priced at 11.2 times the median family income, a ratio far in excess of other Canadian cities.   

 

The high cost of housing in Vancouver stems from a number of factors, including: land supply; influx of overseas capital; the creation of a resort-style city; the type of development product being promoted; and planning regulations.  But I don't want to focus on the reasons for the high prices, and instead focus on why Vancouverites cannot stop talking about it.  London has similarly high house prices compared to average incomes, but from my experience it figures less in the everyday conversation.  Do people in London just accept the situation and move on?  Do Londoners have better things to talk about, like the weather?  Soccer?  Riots?  (ok, they also apply to Vancouver).

I can identify two reasons why the topic of house prices is so much to the fore in Vancouver.  Firstly, house prices are unreasonably high and it is a legitimate concern for youngsters and families looking to get onto the housing ladder.  Many people believe that the only way to afford property is to move further out the city.  Yet, this brings anxieties related to increased commuting and a disconnection from the urban amenities that many young people have grown used to.  This then shapes the local conversation and media discourse.  However, this is no different to many other cities and is not exclusive to Vancouver.

It is therefore more important to look at the characteristics of the local and provincial economy.  While Vancouver has historically been dominated by logging and other exports moving through the seaport, it is now real estate that largely shapes the economy.  As Vancouverism has developed into a brand of urbanism, the real estate sector has capitalised on this to place a premium on living in the 'Liveable City'.  This is not to deny other economic sectors operating in the city (e.g. tourism, film, minerals etc), but the city is noticeable for a lack of HQs or a sizeable financial sector.  Into this void has stepped real estate, whereby local people are more informed from either working in the sector or having greater exposure to it. 

Finding a solution to this obsession is no easy task.  The reasons for the high prices need tackling, and that is wide-ranging strategy which requires coordination from numerous city departments as well as a recognition of wider (and more macro) economic issues which cannot be directly shaped by city policy.  But a greater diversification of the local and regional economy would dilute the dominance of real estate and prove that real estate speculation is not the only industry that a city exists for.  And if all that fails?  Perhaps go back to talking about the weather.

Planning for the Nation - England's attempt at a National Planning Policy Framework

The saying goes that if you are receiving criticism from all sides, then you must be doing at least something right.  This phrase came to mind when I was reviewing the initial reactions to the publication of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (found here).  To summarise, some commentators believe the draft NPPF is a pro-development charter that will permit unfettered development across the countryside.  Yet others continue to complain that planning will remain a drag on development and the NPPF does little to overcome the cumbersome and restrictive nature of English planning policy.  The truth, unsurprisingly, lies somewhere in the middle.

I have long been a supporter of a national planning strategy for England (and the wider UK).  At university I studied the experience of a national spatial strategy in the Netherlands and found the approach to be a positive one (see here).  England is geographically small enough to warrant a national strategy that can articulate the key infrastructure requirements and distill the key guiding principles for new development.  From experience, the existing Planning Policy Statements have ballooned in number and breadth, resulting in guidance that is so generic it becomes obsolete. 


Some of the key reactions to the recent draft include:

• Royal Town Planning Institute - concern that economic interests could override other (environmental, social etc) interests and unclear about the relationship between national policy and local policy.
• National Trust - warns that the deletion of the 'brownfield target' will result in urban sprawl similar to Los Angeles!
• British Chamber of Commerce - supportive of the approach as planning policy has historically been an obstacle to growth.
• Home Builders Federation - strongly welcomes the pro-growth emphasis towards house building but still wary that Local Authorities could use the ambiguity to delay development.
• Centre for Cities - dismayed at the lack of reference to cities and believes the NPPF lacks a 'big picture' approach to the economic role of cities.

The future of England if the National Trust are to be believed!

In my view, alot of the reaction to the draft NPPF has been alarmist (though this should not come as a surprise).  The framework is NOT a charter to concrete over the countryside as a number of safeguards are still in place to protect important habitats and avoid inappropriate development.  Groups such as the National Trust and CPRE state that previous planning policy has encouraged growth so why does it need to be drastically altered.  I would argue that previous planning policy may have encouraged economic growth but has not sufficiently supported housing growth. England still has an under-supply of housing stock which is not being sufficiently addressed. This should be the resounding focus of the framework.


Secondly, I agree with the Centre for Cities and RTPI that the draft NPPF lacks a true spatial approach to planning. Where is the recognition that England is a network of urban areas that support economic growth?  Many of the references in the framework are to rural areas and the countryside which shifts the emphasis away from development towards protectionism.  The final NPPF must articulate what kind of cities the country requires and whether growth will be focused in some areas and not others.  Currently the NPPF lacks a spatial dimension which would aid economic and housing growth and give weight to what truly is 'sustainable development'. 
 

Musing Urbanist on Tour - Vancouver Olympic Village

Following a previous article on the Vancouver Olympic Village back in 2010 (and seen here), I could not pass up a visit on my recent trip to the city. With my visit coinciding with the one year anniversary of the Winter Games, the media was full of reflective stories on the legacy of the event. Unfortunately this reflection was not wholly positive as it focused on leaked emails surrounding the death of Georgian luge competitor Nodar Kumaritashvili and the ongoing troubles of the Olympic Village. Unsurprisingly, I have chosen to focus on the latter.

Pricing the Market

Following the exodus of the 3,000 Olympic athletes and officials in February 2010, the 600 apartments in South East False Creek were placed on the market. Very little happened. As a result the developer (Millennium South East False Creek Properties) went into receivership, owing the City of Vancouver approximately $740 million in loans. At a time of fiscal tightening in the public sector, the local tax-payers are understandably desperate to see a return on the investment. As a last role of the dice the City have slashed prices to stimulate activity and try to overcome the 'ghost town' feel. With some prices cut by 50% and a rebranding exercise underway, it appears there is light on the horizon with the developer claiming that 128 units have since been sold over the course of a weekend (see here).



During my short visit the lack of commercial activity was notable. Very few of the promised retail occupiers have started trading from the ground floor units (although the standalone liquor store may have been a sign of the times!). This is understandable as until the Village is populated with sufficient people and visitors there is no demand for groceries and restaurants. Therefore the City will be hoping that the recent sales, though representing a loss, will be enough to kickstart commercial interest and activity will snowball from there.

Key lesson to learn - the developer bought the land at too high a price. This required the apartments to be sold at levels which were not appealing to the local market. Vancouver is awash with condominium developments and the Olympic Village offers very little to distinguish it from surrounding schemes.

Design Review

Reading Owen Hatherley's masterful deconstruction of much of Britain's recent waterside urban regeneration (here) weeks before my visit prepared me well for what the Village offers. The scheme provides all the notable characteristics that define much of recent high density urban development. Overly small apartments - tick. Token splashes of colour on external elevations - tick. Wind swept public space with misplaced public art and street furniture - tick. Whilst the overall lack of people did not help the ambiance, I felt it offered nothing different to what I have seen in Greenwich, Salford, Leeds or Newcastle.


Most of all, the Village felt isolated and out on a limb. Downtown Vancouver is across the water but it feels worryingly distant. Being a grid city, Vancouver finds it hard to connect up the key parts of the city with a mass transit system. The metro and bus system are both too infrequent and lack the coverage required to connect the Village to other parts of the city. Whilst the Village benefits from the Sea Wall walkway, it still felt frustratingly disconnected.

Path to nowhere?

Two big stories in the news this week centred on housing in the UK. Firstly, the Government signaled it would scrap the remaining phases of the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder scheme (here). This was a policy much trumpeted by John Prescott in the early days of New Labour as a way to regenerate huge swathes of Northern cities. The Pathfinder scheme identified 9 areas where the housing market had seemingly failed and large-scale government intervention was required to kick-start it. The scheme was specifically tied to the North of England and neighbourhoods struggling to cope with the loss of manufacturing employment.

The normal practice was for the Council to produce a map to identify those premises earmarked for demolition, usually red-brick terraces. Owners would then be compensated and plans drawn up for the replacement housing. But the process rarely went smoothly and Council (and national Government) delays often left residents in limbo - unsure whether to invest in their home or not (see here). Some people moved out the area, whilst others (and often the most vulnerable) were left isolated in a community devoid of life and services.

However, this should not be a reason to finish the Pathfinder scheme through to the conclusion. I agree with Owen Hatherley, writing in The Guardian, that the scheme acts as gentrification and fails to serve the original working-class communities. Large-scale demolition and Government incentives have allowed developers to enter these neighbourhoods to produce housing far too expensive to the local community. The impact is that the local community is split up and dispersed across the city as they search for replacement accommodation, as described by Anna Minton in her excellent book Ground Control. The Pathfinder scheme was too quick to condemn neighbourhoods as blighted and the Government must look closer into whether the existing stock could be refurbished first.


The other housing story in the news was the decision by the High Court to quash the move taken by Eric Pickles MP to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies. In layman's terms, Labour imposed housing targets on Councils whilst the Conservatives want to scrap the targets and allow Councils to decide their own housing levels, as part of the drive towards localism. Therefore not long into his job as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Pickles revoked the regional tier of planning. However, he didn't. Because to revoke regional planning requires primary legislation, as stated by the High Court last week.


The end result? Planning, like the Pathfinder residents, is once again in limbo. Should Councils use the old targets or devise their own (lower) targets?

This episode raises two points about the Government's approach to housing. Firstly, Pickles has an arrogance towards the planning profession where he thinks he can make major changes without going through the due process. Secondly, housing targets will be scrapped eventually and many Councils across the country will use this as an excuse to stop any house building in their area. Most local Councillors are elected on the basis of promising less development. So, will the incentivised approach favoured by the Conservatives work instead? The Localism Bill is due out next week so stay tuned for a review. In the meantime, get your planning applications submitted now, who knows when things will change again!!

The end of Hobbit Homes?

The Musing Urbanist was at City Hall last Friday to see the issue of mandatory space standards being discussed. The Mayor of London has proposed a new policy in the London Plan to require all new residential development to meet minimum space standards, starting at 50sqm for a 1-bed flat. This was being discussed as part of the wider London Plan which sets strategic planning policy for the city. With Boris being very vocal on this issue and his reference to the ‘Hobbit Homes’ of London, it was sure to be a heated discussion!

The case for Space Standards

Quality of Life. That was the phrase most often used by advocates of space standards, arguing that London needs to catch up to Europe and stop building minuscule spaces that pass as homes. I agree that the level of space can impact on quality of life, but I think there are other factors that must be considered – access to park space, the quality of the build, services and facilities, safety etc. But in the main I can’t disagree with this argument.

CABE put forward some excellent points including how the London Plan should be at the cutting edge of policy and not be afraid to drive forward new policy. The Merton Rule (10% on-site renewable energy) began life as a small policy in a London Borough and has now spread much further. So no reason why the London Plan can’t change the national picture either.

The National Housing Federation also were impressive, arguing for the increased supply of housing, but with a recognition that homes must be built to a decent standard in order to last. The speaker also recognised that housing changes tenure over its lifetime and it would be nonsensical to only adopt space standards for affordable housing – a point well made.

The case against Space Standards

The Home Builders Federation were champing at the bit to bring down this policy and duly reeled off a detailed critique of town and country planning!! The HBF argued that if developers were required to build larger units, viability would be impacted and affordability would skyrocket (even further). They argued that planning has acted as a constraint on housebuilding for too long and has left millions unable to afford a home. Playing to the galleries somewhat they made a pitch to the younger audience and the need to avoid young adults living at home ala Italy!

The viability argument was also backed up by London First and a number of interested developers. They repeatedly made the point that housing must be provided to meet all financial requirements. By reducing the number of units on a site the build costs would increase and the individual cost of units would begin to exceed those at the bottom of the market.

View of the Musing Urbanist

Space standards are no different to any other planning ideal – excellent design, access to parks, and protection of neighbour’s amenity. Just because UK planning has behind the curve on this issue doesn’t make it less important. It must be considered on a level par with these other issues. If anything it is more important than some others that already form London Plan and national policy. Fingers crossed the Panel see it this way and keep the space standards in the London Plan.

Debate Review - Is London Growing Too Big Too Fast?

The Musing Urbanist attended a debate on Tuesday evening at the British Library as part of the Story of London festival. The talk was part of the Future City lecture series and entitled ‘Is London Growing Too Big Too Fast?’ The debate was chaired by the excellent Austin Williams and panel members included:

• Sir Terry Farrell (Terry Farrell and Partners)
  

• Peter Bishop (Director of Development at the LDA)

• Chris Luebkeman (Head of Foresight, Incubation and Innovation, Arup)

• David Green (Director at Civitas)

• James Heartfield (author 'Let's Build!')
  

With a title this broad it was unsurprising that the discussion cut across many themes, including: immigration, density, planning, infrastructure and housing. After a few days to digest the event I can add the following musings:

1. There is a world outside London!

I was left more than frustrated by James Heartfield’s blinkered view that housing growth must take place in the South East and for London to keep sprawling out towards Southampton, Southend and Sussex. It would be naïve to doubt the economic strengths of the South East region and the global appeal of London, but support for London should not be to the detriment of the rest of the UK. An economic strategy of supporting the city-regions of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would not necessarily harm the capital. It would raise competition, take pressure of London’s infrastructure and allow a mixed national economy. Whilst the regional policy of New Labour did have weaknesses, I can see the benefits of supporting urban areas outside of London and now worry about the current vogue towards localism which could reduce strategic thinking. For me, the major boost will come with High Speed 2, which thankfully had a recent funding commitment from the Coalition Government. But it also shows the requirement for a National Planning Framework, something the RTPI has rightly championed (for once!). A National Planning Framework could foster a network approach to UK urbanism and avoid regional cities suffering in the shadow of London and the South East.

2. Planning’s bad reputation

It became clearly evident in the Q&A session that planning was taking the brunt of most people's frustration. Very few seemed to deny that London needed to grow, but many (including the speakers) felt that the planning system was acting as a barrier. Heartfield put it best when he stated that planning must be the only discipline that sets out a vision for the future then actively does its best to stop this from happening. Putting the strengths and (many) weaknesses of planning to one side, it is obvious that the profession has a serious reputation problem. The public hates it. I've always thought that the general public see planning as embodying the worst aspects of petty Council bureaucracy.....and the debate only reaffirmed this view. Any planning reforms must tackle why the public views the profession in this negative manner. Apparently in some countries planning is seen as a trendy profession! Perhaps a radical break with a system that dates back to 1947 may help the UK and London?!

3. The never-ending Thames Gateway

I won't hark on too much about this here as it will be subject to a forthcoming Musing Urbanist article, but the Thames Gateway beggars belief. The growth of London cannot be discussed without mentioning 'Europe's biggest regeneration project'. Judged as a floodplain by planners but a solution to the country's housing shortage by politicians, the TG stumbles from one shambles to the other. Now the London TG Development Corporation is to be scrapped as part of Eric Pickles' 'bonfire of the quangos'. The TG was meant to be the centrepiece of London's future, but unfortunately it got less than 30 seconds mention in the debate!

Post-Olympics Planning - Lessons from Vancouver

With concerns having already been raised about the post-Olympics planning in London (here), it is prudent to look at the example of Vancouver and the current problems with their Olympic Village. Vancouver hosted the 2010 Winter Olympics and by all accounts was judged to have done an excellent job, despite some early reservations (here). The Olympic Village is part of an area known as South East False Creek and follows a long line of large planned mixed use neighbourhoods close to Downtown. The Millennium Water's sustainability credentials have been much trumpeted and is talked of as a 'model of sustainability'. But here is the problem. Whilst 257 of the lower end apartments have been sold, there are still 480 unsold! The remaining apartments were built to high end specifications with the latest fixtures and fittings and were expected to sell at close to $2,000 per sqft. But so far no buyers.


The City Council are in a tough postition as they lent the developer $731 million, of which only $200 million has been recouped. With sales flagging it looks as though apartments may be sold at a fire sale price in order for the City Council to try and recoup some value. So what was once seen as the jewel crown of the Olympics legacy is now threatening the political careers of many involved. There are some excellent articles on www.citycaucus.com which focus on the past politiking surrounding the village and the current troubles with how best to progress the scheme.

Any lessons for London? Vancouver couldn't have predicted the apartments would go onto the market at a time of economic downturn, but this argument falls down because prices appear to have remained strong across the wider city despite global financial troubles. A key lesson is the level of affordable housing. Whilst initial policy referred to a 60% provision of affordable units, the final figure appears closer to 10% in Vancouver. For a city with problems of affordability and homelessness this is particularly disappointing. With two years to go, London is promising 50% affordable units for the athletes village - it will be interesting to see how this develops post-2012.

A World Without Planning?

With the approaching Party Conference season and the impending Government Spending Review it is hard to think beyond the planned budget cuts. With most Government departments being told to trim their budgets by at least 25% in the short term, it is interesting to muse on how radical the area of planning could be altered in light of the proposed cuts. Planning is without doubt the clearest policy area where Government, at all tiers, has the strongest direct influence. So if the Coalition Government are to truly 'roll back the State', then what if urban planning were to disappear as a public function?

This is not so outlandish as one might think as the city of Houston demonstrates. In this Texan city of over 2 million people the traditional free market philosophy is subscribed to, with public sector planning (in the form of US 'zoning') seen as a violation of private property rights and individual freedoms. One can imagine public sector planning being termed 'too socialist' in these parts! Qian (2008) provides an excellent study of how Houston has developed as a city with no zoning and the role played by the private sector, as well as neighbourhood residents groups.

In short, the only public sector intervention comes through the planning of infrastructure (such as utilities and transport) and minimum standards on issues including plot size and parking requirements. The onus therefore falls on private covenants which dictate the type of land use and mimick zoning policy to a degree. But not all covenants are enforced and this therefore fails to provide as strong a steer as a city zoning map.

Despite this, Qian finds that Houston displays little difference to a comparative city such as Dallas which is traditionally zoned for land uses. In fact Houston is characterised by a urban form that could easily have been the result of state planning. Whilst not perfect, and still dominated by car-dependency and urban sprawl, the city demonstrates that other bodies and actors can step into the void left by the public sector. Most interestingly, neighbourhood organisations play a strong role in the types and character of land uses in the city.

But unfortunately planning is more than just land use policy - as the current move towards spatial planning demonstrates. The danger is that with a lack of state planning 'joined-up' thinking is overlooked and planning fails to engage with a wide range of parties, especially those vulnerable groups that have little representation or power in the private sector.

So lessons for the UK? Perhaps not. Despite it's radical overtones regarding the 'age of austerity', I cannot imagine the Coalition Government wholly disbanding the planning system. Houston relies heavily on the covenant system, whereas in the UK covenants are less prevalent. But the idea of communities taking a more proactive role in the planning of a neighbourhood is appealing and has been alluded to by DCLG in the move towards the 'Big Society'.

Ref:
Qian (2008) World Cities and Urban Form. Routledge: London.

Planning - the defining issue of the coalition?

Despite my obvious biases, I've always thought urban planning could benefit from greater attention in the UK - both in the media and at a political level. The fact that planning is dealt with at the national level within the depths of the Department of Communities and Local Government says it all. Where is the Department for Planning? But........my dreams may be coming true.

It seems that the coalition's dominant themes of localism and the 'Big Society' are being clearly expressed in the realms of housebuilding, planning and environmental protection. Slowly but surely the media are picking up on this and I've noticed an increasing amount of commentary on areas which were previously seen as dry and boring. Only last Friday did the Guardian run an Editorial on the problems associated with the abolition of the regional planning system.

Planning has become one public policy area where the coalition have been quick to tear up Labour policy and hastily enact new ideas linked to the themes of localism and the 'Big Society'. Since the coalition was formed in May the following changes have either directly or indirectly significantly influenced planning, in particular housebuilding:

• the abolition of regional strategies, including the scrapping of housing targets for local authorities;
• the redefining of 'brownfield' land to exclude gardens with the intention of avoiding building homes on back gardens;
  
• the removal of a minimum density at which homes must be built;
• the encouragement of 'free schools' which can be set up anywhere and therefore require a relaxation of planning controls; and
  
• greater freedoms to build homes in the rural area if agreed by the community.

These are just a few policy decisions and I'm sure there are plenty more.

Whilst I'm pleased that debate is taking place on matters such as 'where and what should we build', it is frustrating that a raft of coalition policy has come out which is fragmented and ultimately will decrease housebuilding. Last year the number of homes built was the lowest since 1923 and the new coalition policies will do nothing to increase this level.


All incoming Governments start with the ambition of simplifying the planning system and making it easier to gain permission for sensible and sensitive development. Most would agree. I felt that between 1997 and 2010 Labour did over-complicate the planning system with too much being asked of poorly resourced Local Authorities. Despite this I believe they had the correct intention of setting a spatial strategy for a local area from which all other decisions would follow. The recent abolition of the regional tier of planning removes this spatial strategy. We no longer have a guide of how to match homes with jobs and where regionally significant infrastructure should be located. Comparisons with abroad is always dangerous but the Dutch planning system is rightfully lauded for providing a national framework that clearly guides the broad locations for development. Frustratingly it looks like we have taken one step forwards and two back!