Cottam Meadow - DT0A

My chosen subject will be an assessment of the situation of housing going into the future. My blog has often found itself ending up on the subject of housing and urban design, from Urbanism, a post which explored the contrasting urban theories of Le Corbusier and Leon Krier; to my investigations of Paris, which asked questions about developments by Ricardo Biofill; to recent investigations of the state of housing today.

I will begin by investigating a few examples of housing which attempts to straddle the divide which i perceive to be between Architecture and contemporary housing, and then I may investigate wider political and social problems which concern the housing market as a whole.

Case Study 01 - Cottam Meadow

One omittance from my investigation of Preston's housing scheme was the new Cottam Meadow housing scheme, which didn't fit into the narrative of neo-traditionalism which I was trying to portray. This must now be addressed.

Cottam Meadow is a new development on the fringes of Preston's new suburbia which approaches the matter of housing design in a different way to the more traditionally designed housing schemes. It is designed by DK Architects for Barrat Homes, and is certified as a 'Built for Life' development.

Aesthetically, the difference is clear: these homes have a more brash, bold and geometric style, which I believe more reflects purer 'architectural' values than that which merely attempts to re-create acceptable homes, such as the adjacent developments:

The main fundamental difference is that this is a housing scheme, primarily due to it's association with the 'Buildings for life scheme', is that it attempts to addresses the issue of the urban space itself, rather that just being a selection of houses on individual plots.

The Building for Life scheme is a set up by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), which provides 12 points designed to acredit building which provides a high standard of quality.

The most dramatic change to the urban fabric is the way in which the houses and the roads are placed and combined. Pavements are rejected in order to create "homezone" shared space roads. These 'roads' are less like traditional roads, and the effect is that of a traditional streetscape, in that the whole of the space between buildings is regarded as a public space. This may perhaps encourage community integration, by giving less to the car (and maybe reducing speeds) meaning that the spaces can be used flexibly for recreation and other community activities. What they lack is the 'defensible space' of the traditional picket fence garden, and a dramatic lack of greenery from wall-to-wall.

This shift in paradigm from houses and roads to masses and spaces has an influence on the overall nature of the development. The emphasis has moved to, as in point 7, "creating well defined streets and spaces" - so instead of cul-de-sacs, Cottam Meadows aims to design in public spaces and an overall idea of townscape permeates the whole plan.

The plan also aims to seamlessly integrate low-income housing: part of the theory which assumes that closely integrated high and low value housing situated together will prevent both expensive gated communities and low-value ghettos.

The above general approach seems based heavily on the new-urbanism theories of Leon Kirer, who argues, among other things, against the divisive subdivision of the urban fabric into 'zones' in favour of a denser, more mixed-use cityscape.

Contemporary suburban model vs sustainable urbanism, from DK Architects presentation.

The most extreme example of this approach is in Leon Krier's and the Prince of Wales' Poundbury, which combines a phased, streetscape based housing model and neo-traditional housing styles.

The main difference between these schemes, besides the scale, is in the architectural detail. Poundbury looks like a full simulation of a traditional town, minus the circulating ring-road, whereas Cottam Meadow attempts to adopt a more pseudo-modern style, with it's bold black graphics and square, blank features. Poundbury I think is a more clear architectural statement, despite the fact that the aesthetic chosen is one that is backwards-looking.

Assessing the success or failure of these schemes is a very difficult task. Homes today are built into a market which is in a constant state of under-supply. The result of such a market is that homes would find it very difficult to be un-sold, regardless of style or innovation. If the market was in over-supply, then perhaps people would have the freedom to choose between modern and tradtional style, but such a proposal is obviously not an economic suggestion.

Another problem is that communities in general tend to oppose all building in their immediate surroundings- so called NIMBYism. If they had to submit to development , would they rather their neighbours lived in dense, traditional neo-villages or in expansive cul-de-sacs? 

A paper on the architecture of Office buildings suggests that estate agents and end-users have significantly different opinions, with architects generally preferring flat roofed non-traditional forms, and users preferring pitched roofed traditional buildings. This would imply that the developers of poundbury have made an optimal choice with regards to optimum acceptability. The question remains, do we need to educate the public on the benefits of modern architecture, or do we need to un-educate ourselves?