What is Community-led Housing? Proposal for a Co-operative Housing Development

open accessWhat is ‘community-led housing’? The phrase is used these days with increasing frequency, but what does it mean? How can it embrace the resource and advice hub set up by the London Mayor to build more affordable housing, and which has just been allocated £38 million of funds, and, at the same time, proposals made by campaigners trying to save the Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden in Lewisham, which has been condemned to demolition and redevelopment by a council and housing association acting with the financial support and planning permission of the same London Mayor? Beyond its rhetoric of government decentralisation and resident empowerment, what does ‘community-led’ mean in practice? Is it an initiative by London communities in response to the threat to their homes of estate demolition schemes implemented by councils in which they no longer have any trust? Is it emblematic of the kind of initiative envisaged by the former Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, in his image of a Big Society that takes back responsibility for housing UK citizens from the state and places it in the hands of entrepreneurs, whether small developers or housing co-operatives? Is it a way to relieve London councils of the responsibility for housing their constituents? Is it just another term in the increasingly duplicitous lexicon of Greater London Authority housing policies designed to hand public land and funds over to private developers and investors under the guise of being ‘community-led’? Or is it a genuine, if limited, solution to London’s crisis of housing affordability, one that will finally build and manage at least some of the homes in which Londoners can afford to live? In this article we address these questions through looking at ‘Brixton Gardens’, a proposal for a co-operative housing development that was made last year by Architects for Social Housing in partnership with the Brixton Housing Co-operative

The Costs of Estate Regeneration: A Report by Architects for Social Housing

open accessOne of the biggest problems faced by residents informed that their estate is being considered for ‘regeneration’ is the disinformation they are given by the local authority or housing association implementing the process. This is compounded by the council officers who run the unelected Resident Engagement Panels and Steering Groups formed to persuade resident representatives of the benefits of regeneration; by the professional consultants employed to manufacture resident consensus for what they have been told will happen; by the architects who visualise the promises of what regeneration will means for residents; and ultimately by the property developers who will build the new development. For whatever residents are initially told about ‘regeneration’, on estates built on London’s lucrative land, this invariably means the demolition of the existing estate, the redevelopment of new properties at greatly increased densities, and the privatisation of the management and maintenance of the new development. This problem of disinformation, however, isn’t confined to residents. Housing campaigners trying to resist the demolition of residents’ homes, as well as the journalists who occasionally write about their campaigns, share the same misunderstandings about the costs of estate ‘regeneration’. As a result, such campaigns of resistance are almost entirely confined to ethical arguments about the right of the estate community to continue to exist. These arguments are important, but they are of no concern to the agents of regeneration: either to the developers after the land residents’ homes are built on, or to the council undertaking the process of moving them off it. The registered social landlord, whether local authority or housing association, will make gestures of appeasement towards those rights right up to the moment residents are forcibly evicted from their homes; but those arguments will have little or no influence on what gets built on the land cleared of the demolished homes. What determines that is one thing, and one thing only: the financial costs of demolishing and redeveloping estates. It is important, therefore, that residents and campaigners understand these costs, and can base their resistance to the estate regeneration programme that is clearing the land for London’s property boom not only on arguments about ethics, but on a clear understanding of what will result from the continued demolition of the city’s housing estates in the middle of a crisis of housing affordability. The financial figures show that, if an estate regeneration scheme begins by demolishing the existing estate – which is current policy for London’s Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, the Greater London Authority and the UK Government – the cost of demolition, compensation for leaseholders and tenants and the construction of new-build dwellings is so high in today’s housing market that the resulting redevelopment will overwhelmingly be made up of properties for private sale, with a hugely reduced number of homes for social rent, increased rental and service charges for existing council tenants, and enormously increased sale prices and reduced tenancy rights for leaseholders. It is on the basis of this understanding that over the past three years Architects for Social Housing has developed its design alternatives to estate demolition for five London estates, including the Knight’s Walk and Central Hill estates in Lambeth, the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates in Hammersmith and Fulham, and the Northwold estate in Hackney. These design proposals increased the housing capacity on the estate by between 35 and 50 per cent without demolishing a single existing home. In addition, the funds raised from the market sale and rent of around half of the new builds meant the other half were able to be allocated as homes for social rent. Finally, the sale and rent revenues from the new builds generated the funds to refurbish and improve the current estate up to the Decent Homes Standard and higher. The ASH model of estate regeneration through refurbishment and infill new development is easily the most socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable option to address the crisis of housing affordability in London; but it is also the only financial option that doesn’t result in the social cleansing of existing residents from their estate and the mass loss of homes for social rent that is being implemented by the estate regeneration programme in its current form

New Homes and Improvements without Demolition

This report was the result of 9 months of research and resident engagement on West Kensington and Gibbs Green EstatesThis report was produced in collaboration with ASH (Architects for Social Housing) for West Kensington and Gibbs Green Community Homes as part of their People's plan, and formed part of their business case for their application for the Right to Transfer the estates into community ownership

Geopoetry: Greenwich Peninsula

This text, with the accompanying images projected, was performed at the conference on ³The Mediated City² held at Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication on the Greenwich Peninsula, London, between April 1 and 3, 2014. The performance was given on April 2. The following day, the Geopoetry Reading it introduced was conducted around Greenwich Peninsula. The main contents of this reading can be found in The Sorcerer¹s Apprentice, nos 68­69 (2014). Available online: https://thesorcerersapprenticeonline. files.wordpress.com/2014/04/no-68-69-greenwich-peninsula.pdf/. A second performance was given on the final day of ³Real Estates,² a six-week conference and exhibition organized by Fugitive Images at Peer Gallery in Hoxton, London, February 18­March 28, 2015. Available online: http://real-estates.info/

For a Sustainable Socialist Architecture

This paper was delivered as part of the 'ReciprociUdad' symposium in Seville 2020, which is part of the international seminars series 'Design Diplomacy'. The crisis of housing affordability in the UK is at its most severe in the capital, London, but its effects are the result of global forces whose financial roots reach deep into the world economy. These include the marketisation, privatisation and financialisation of housing provision; the neo-liberalisation of the processes of property development; and the writing of legislation and policy designed to accommodate and promote the financial interests of investors and developers above the housing needs of resident populations. We have all experienced something of the effects of this crisis, which has resulted in the systemic destruction of urban and largely working-class communities and cultures for short-term financial gain and at the cost of increasing social and economic inequality and environmental degradation. It is within this global context that the challenge of sustainable cities — or, more accurately, the question of how we can develop sustainably — has become one of the most urgent issues of our time, in which architects and built-environment professionals have the opportunity and duty to take a decisive role. The relatively recent rise in public awareness about the need for environmental sustainability is overdue and welcome; however, sustainable development that meets social need must go beyond the simplistic notions of the environment that characterise so-called ’green architecture’. If it is to be truly sustainable, architecture must not only contribute to countering the negative effects of development on the environment, but it must, in addition, be socially beneficial and economically viable for its users and inhabitants, and therefore, also, politically progressive. To be sustainable, in other words, architecture must be socialist. This paper outlines the opposing cycles of capitalist and socialist economy within housing development in the UK, illustrates the intersections of the social, economic, environmental and political contexts operating within the current housing situation, and demonstrates the ways in which the work of Architects for Social Housing has addressed these issues in a range of design alternatives to demolition of council housing in the UK, concluding that the only way to achieve genuinely sustainable development is through process of sustainable socialist architecture

Recommendation to Cabinet

Architects for Social Housing were asked by the residents of Knights Walk - a low rise part of a housing estate in Kennington, South London - to come up with alternatives to the demolition of their homes. Demolition for many of these residents - many go home were elderly - would mean they would be forcibly removed from their homes, committees and support networks as they would be unable to afford to move into the redeveloped estate. Although Lambeth council didn't pursue our design proposal, the project was a success, resulting as it did in the retention of half of the homes on the estate, enabling the residents who campaigned against the demolition of their homes to stay in their homes

Open Garden Estates

Open Garden Estates is an initiative for residents on council estates threatened with demolition. It is an opportunity for residents to open up their estate’s green areas, communal spaces and private gardens to the public, and help change the widely held but inaccurate perception of council estates as ‘concrete jungles’ that has been used to justify David Cameron’s plans to Blitz 100 so-called ‘sink estates’. Walking tours for visitors showed how well the estates are designed for community living, and increased awareness of the strong and mixed communities that live on them. Above all, it was a chance for estate communities to meet and organise the campaign to save their homes. Geraldine and ASH worked with the residents to come up with ideas, drew maps, produced publicity materials and helped coordinate the event

The Good Practice Guide to Resisting Estate Demolition: ASH response to the GLA

Unfortunately it takes longer to unwrap a lie than it does to tie it with a pretty bow and sell it to ‘the People’, and the Greater London Authority’s Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration, published in December 2016, is a cellophane-wrapped, ribbon-tied box of untruths. This commentary by Architects for Social Housing, therefore, is considerably longer than the Guide itself, which is a compilation of the myths used to justify London’s estate demolition programme. Of course, as Alexander the Great famously demonstrated, the quickest way to untie a mythical knot is with a sword, and the best response to this draft is the organised resistance of estate communities to its proposals, beginning with their refusal to engage in any consultation with the public institutions and private companies that are intent on demolishing their homes for profit. It’s clear that this draft and the consultation it invites, sent out to every housing estate in London with a Toolkit for Local Meetings, is a precursor to the individual estate consultations which – as any resident who has gone through the process can testify – will be used to justify the demolition of their home

For a Socialist Architecture Under Capitalism

Over the summer of 2019, as part of ASH’s research fellowship with 221A, we took up a month’s residency in Vancouver, Canada. Over four lectures held on Friday afternoons between 19 July and 9 August, we presented our thoughts about the necessity and possibility of a socialist architecture under capitalism. 221A invited individuals based in Vancouver to co-present with us at each of these lectures, each of which attracted around 50 visitors. These lectures were conceived as a forum in which we could present to and hear from residents, campaigners, academics, students, architects, environmentalists, planners, economists, developers, politicians and others affected by or involved in the housing crisis, both local and global. In tandem with these lectures, and by the end of the residency, ASH produced the draft text for a book to be titled For a Socialist Architecture. Our aim, with the financial support of 221A, is to publish this book, and make it available not only to people who are threatened by the crisis of housing affordability, but also to policy-writers looking for alternatives to the selling off of public land and housing to private investors, as well as to architects looking for an alternative to the orthodoxies of contemporary architectural practice. The texts published here are based on and expanded from the recordings by 221A of the four lectures we gave in Vancouver, taking into account some of the questions and comments made by the audience, as well as the contributions of our co-presenters. These included Am Johal, the director of community engagement at Simon Fraser University’s Vancity Office of Community Engagement; Daniel Roehr, who teaches landscape architecture at the University of British Columbia; and Ross Gentleman, the former Chief Executive Officer for CCEC Credit Union, a community development credit union in Vancouver. Since each lecture was delivered to a changing audience, there are some repetitions in the text that, given its length and complexity, we have thought it best to retain. We have also responded to developments in housing and architecture since our return to the UK

Central Hill: A Case Study in Estate Regeneration

This report includes not only our designs for the estate’s refurbishment and increase in housing capacity by up to 50 per cent without the demolition of a single existing home, but also our account of why and how these proposals were rejected by Lambeth council, which in March last year announced its intention to demolish Central Hill estate