Think outside the box on high-density housing

He is right to point out that the failure of social housing in Guernsey, (and the United Kingdom and Ireland) is a socio-economic failure, or more accurately a political-ideological failure of successive administrations to support the delivery of good quality homes for all generally over the past 30 years or more.

But he is wrong when he suggests that housing design principles ‘can only go so far towards overcoming social problems encouraged by density’. Density is not necessarily a problem. Housing design principles that take lessons from affordable social housing design such as the Royal Institute of Architects Award winner Peter Barber Architects housing development in East London demonstrate that thoughtful, inclusive housing design leads to better community living and wellbeing. Or how about taking a lead from some of the great architectural innovators such as Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena who was the 2016 recipient of the Pritzker, architecture’s equivalent of the Nobel prize, for his 2004 ‘half a house’ Quinta Monroy development in Iquique, Chile. This scheme was designed to make the most of a tiny budget by building the frame and the essential spaces for each house, leaving the remainder for residents to complete themselves over time, according to their own needs and financial means. There is also the example of ‘Kabelwerk’ in Vienna which was supported by local government on the basis of citizen participation. For this project, teams of accredited architects created a variety of housing options ranging from garden and terrace apartments to maisonettes, home offices and more traditional housing typologies. The key design and planning concept being ‘wrap-around-architecture’, with a focus on car-free green and recreational spaces, and reliable public transport connections.

These examples are probably too radical for our community here, however there seems to be a dearth of creative thinking on these matters. For example can we imagine the professions and our government allowing social housing tenants to have a say over their own housing needs. There is talk of consultation. I think it would be fair to say that the vulnerable minority who need a social home that suits their needs over time have not been invited, never mind encouraged to contribute in a meaningful way. More critically, where are the professions, the chartered engineers, surveyors and architects who could be lending their voices and their skills to tackle a poverty of design-thinking? Why do we not see a more encouraging and participatory approach that engages local communities in the early stages of the design process? The build-by-numbers approach that is the current IDP, and the architectural profession bent towards expensive glass-boxes is short-term, inward-looking and is shackled to outdated thinking about the role of social housing, and the role of housing as a social good. Let’s encourage some out-of-the-box thinking. Pun intended.

Robert McCann, MA, ARIBA, FCIh

Forest