1. home and garden

Seeking pathways with more sustainable and affordale
residential urban form with occupant input.
Jasmine S. Palmer
Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning
University of Adelaide
Supply-led design versus Demand-led design
Differences in choice / flexibility / costs / financing / development profits / risk etc.
Supply-Led MDH : ‘Rear-view mirror’ design
Risk adverse
Limiting innovation
Meeting needs of majority market segment
‘minority’ market segments ‘silent’ to system
Demand-led MDH: “those who build for their own use” (Millington, 2010)
“Those who build for the own
use will have the prime
objective of ensuring that the
development is ideally suited
to their needs……
……..they are likely to be
very much influenced by the
extent to which compromise
of design is likely to
adversely affect their own
[use].” (Millington, 2010 p27)
•
let those who want to live in MDH communities as owner-occupiers engage in the building design –
listen to the potential occupants.
• Identify and remove the barriers which stand in the way of community members actively
building the communities desired by the strategic metropolitan plans
Image: Property Collectives Development Northcote, Melbourne.
The UK experience
•
•
•
•
•
One-size cannot fit all (Parvin et al 2011)
Reduced diversity and choice (Brown et al 2012)
Innovation is lost due to lack of competition (Barlow et al 2001)
Decreasing affordability (Parvin 2008; Ball 2012)
Lowering of quality; including size, construction and design
qualities (Parvin et al 2011)
• Focus on short term asset value over long term use value (Brown
et al 2012)
• Housing supply is unresponsive to market conditions, (Ball 2012)
• Focus on profit and market exchange limits improvements in
housing quality and sustainability (Parvin et al 2011)
Traditionally ‘supply-led’ development at all scales
UK Custom Build and Collective Custom Build (CCB)
• The Localism Act of 2011
• The 2011 Housing Strategy for England
• The National Planning Policy Framework 2012
“…. where a builder is contracted by a home owner to create a ‘custom built’ home or where a private
individual builds their home as a DIY ‘self build’ project. This form of housing can include single detached
homes on small plots in rural areas, larger scale sites with hundreds of homes, community self build
projects, blocks of apartments commissioned by a group of people in an urban area” (DCLG, 2013)
UK Custom Build and Collective Custom Build (CCB)
• Homes and Communities
Agency Custom-Build
homes fund. £30m.
• Identification and
disposal of government
owned land to CCB
groups
“with the objective of bringing forward sufficient numbers of successful schemes to demonstrate to
commercial funders that the lending model is a viable and sustainable business which can be taken
forward by industry”(HCA 2012)
Image: CCB Urban Pioneers MiddleHaven. Source: gazette.co.uk
UK Stakeholder Interviews November 2014
Architect
- Of a six household London Co-housing Project completed 2014
Image: Copper Lane Co-housing London
UK Stakeholder Interviews November 2014
Development Member of a Co-housing project in Bristol Completed 2014.
Also establishing a brokerage agency for CCB.
Image: The Courtyard Bristol
UK Stakeholder Interviews November 2014
London cohousing project of 30 households being developed in collaboration with a
Housing Association. Construction commencing 2015.
Interviewed Architect and a Development Member of Group
Image: Co-Housing Woodside
UK Stakeholder Interviews November 2014
Founding Member of a London Co-housing project in design. To be developed in
partnership with a Housing Provider.
Image: Hackney Cohousing Design Workshop
UK Stakeholder Interviews November 2014
Advocate supporting members of a Older Womens Co-housing project, London.
25 units being developed with Housing Association partnership, completion due
2015.
Image: Older Womens Cohousing Members
UK Stakeholder Interviews November 2014
The founder and CEO of a development firm promoting CCB as a profit and risk
sharing development model in which “you decide what your home will look like”
6 row house project launched January 2015.
Image: Inhabit Blenheim Project
UK Stakeholder Interviews November 2014
• Urban Designer and Project
Manager of MiddleHaven Urban
Pioneers, project advocating CCB
• Advocates and Policy makers from
Shelter UK / Design for Homes /
NaCSBA
• Land Economist and spatial planner,
CCB and CLT advocate
• Design consultant commencing
practice as facilitator of CCB.
Non project specific advocates
Image: CCB Urban Pioneers MiddleHaven. Source: gazette.co.uk
The CCB Spectrum(s)
Instigation (Brown et al 2013) Independent Group
Developer enabled
Supported Community
Procurement (Benson 2014) Self-build
Self-organising
Self-commissioning
Design / Lifestyle
Sharing
Co-housing
100% Individual space
Challenges to infill CCB identified by interviewees
• Access to finance
• Access to land
• Access to knowledge
• Perception of risk
• Professionalisation
• Role of Government
The best thing the council did “was to leave us alone, to not say no.” (UK Interviewee 7)
Image: Co-housing Project London 2014
The Berlin Experience.
Baugruppen / Baugemeinschaft / Genossenschaft / Building Groups
10% of residential construction I Berlin in 2011(Stattbau GmBH 2012)
Image: Spreefeld Co-operative 2014
Berlin Stakeholder Interviews October 2014
•
•
4 Building Group residents
4 Founding Development Members
•
•
•
•
•
3 Architects
1 Urban Planner
1 Building Group Agent
1 Project Manager of urban regeneration partnerships
1 Director of a Not-for-profit civil society organisation promoting sustainable
urban development and innovative housing
Financial savings of 25-35% compared to market product
Construction rates as much as 40% below commercial developments (Chan 2012)
The BG Spectrum(s)
Instigation (Brown et al 2013) Independent Group
Developer enabled
Supported Community
Ownership/Structure
Procurement (Benson 2014) Co-operative
Self-build
Self-organising
Private / ‘Strata’
Self-commissioning
Design / Lifestyle
Sharing
(Stattbau,2012,Ring, 2013))
Co-housing
100% Individual space
Challenges to infill BG identified by interviewees
Initial Challenges
• Access to finance
• Access to knowledge
• Perception of risk
Current Challenges
• Access to land
•
Over Professionalisation
Image: www.theurbanist.org
Changes in BG Community over time
• Professionalisation
• Changing Motivations
• Increasing Project Size
Möckernkiez, Berlin. 400+ apartments under construction
Image: Mockernkiez brochure
Role of Berlin Government / State: Historic
BG’s commenced in the city “exclusive of government support” (B1)
“Land was available and affordable and people make it happen.
It is thriving despite government.” (B2)
Berlin Senator 2004: “this is a luxury problem – I am not interested” (B3)
“the Senate of Berlin loves baugruppen” (B2), but members of the buildinggroup community interviewed question if this has any practical impact:
“Berlin city has goodwill – but to what end?” (B4).
2008 established ‘The Network Agency for Generational Living
Role of Berlin Government / State: desired
• greater support in information dissemination and networking (B1, B6)
• guaranteeing loans to encourage more financial institutions to be
involved (B2)
• facilitating the master planning of large brown field precincts to deliver
sites suitable in size for building-groups as is done in southern cities and
Hamburg (B5)
• to “have more trust in democratic powers and individuals and new
ideas”…“be more open minded”….“Trust and recognise [buildinggroups] as a secure way” (B6)
• to “enable emergence” (B2)
• “to remove barriers to people being active with ideas, to allow
democratic and self-help activities.” (B6)
Achieving the Australian MDH desired by strategic plans
Jasmine S. Palmer
[email protected]
• remove barriers to innovative self-formed bottom-up groups building for
themselves
• promote and facilitate expansion of demand-led housing provision as a trust
worthy alternative to supply-led provision.
Images: 1 bedroom Apartments, Gungahlin, ACT; Mosaic Apartments ACT; www.seeplatform.eu