Lessons Learnt - Design for London

1.4 tHe outer London context and tHe
PubLic vaLue of intensification
There is widespre d pu lic
concern th t m ny current
developments re in ppropri te
to their context nd destroy
much of wh t people see s
v lu le in their d ily living
environments. Intensific tion
risks getting d n me
– such s ‘town cr mming’
– if it ecomes ssoci ted
with mediocre rchitecture,
loss of greenery, insufficient
soci l infr structure nd loss
of loc l ch r cter to ‘identikit’
development. This is p rticul rly relev nt in the
c se of south London, which is more predomin
ntly su ur n in ch r cter th n other p rts of
London.
The report Sustainable Suburbia (2007) y
M cCorm c J mieson Prich rd Architects lists
series of gener l housing qu lities th t re
highly v lued y residents. Some of these re
typic lly su ur n, such s h ving your own front
door nd priv te open sp ce, off-street p rking,
nd minim l overlooking nd overspill of noise.
Much of current su ur n development does not
chieve some or ll of such spir tions either
through typologic l constr ints or design fl ws,
whilst t the s me time the re l enefits of living
t higher densities might not e chieved either.
In th t c se, higher density development in outer
London risks ecoming the worst of oth worlds.
The report Sustaining Our Suburbs y Zero Zero
Architects (2007) dds th t some of the models
underlying the ide of su ur n town centre intensific
tion re fl wed s they re disconnected
from the re lity in which people live their lives.
12 HOUSING INTENSIfICATION IN SEVEN SOUTH LONDON TOWN CENTRES AND THEIR EDGES
People m y live, work nd soci lise in different
pl ces in complex networks, nd the ne rest
town centre might not e where they spend much
of their time. This h s led some to question the
notion of focusing exclusively on high density in
town centres. Both reports rgue th t investing
in models to improve su ur n qu lity of life nd
cre te suit le su ur n housing t ‘mid-density’
(80-120 u/h ), is necess ry s well. The ch llenge
is to find models th t en le key spects of ur n
sust in ility such s incre sed pu lic tr nsport
oper tion, ut don’t require exclusive reli nce on
high-rise, collective ccess rr ngements nd
which re more suit le for the lifestyle of those
who opt for wh t re sometimes c lled London’s
towns nd vill ges.
Residenti l intensific tion incre ses the num er
of people per hect re nd c n le d to incre sed
l nd v lue. But it is often not cle r wh t loc l
communities nd the pu lic interest s whole
st nds to g in in return for the incre sed density
nd possi le loss of menity such s greensp ce.
In p rticul r, pressure on tr ffic or on existing
soci l infr structure such s schools, GP surgeries
or sports nd other leisure f cilities re key
concerns, s is development on ck g rdens.
Hence it is cruci l to couple residenti l intensific
tion to loc l priorities s well s other wider
o jectives. The former m y include issues such
s the improvement of the ret il offer; cre tion
of new pu lic sp ce or f cilities for children nd
young people, solving loc l tr nsport or p rking
pro lems, nd the cre tion or improvement of new
pu lic menities such s sports fields or cultur l
f cilities. Improvements m y include incre sed
energy efficiency of the loc l uilding stock,
en ling district-wide renew le energy provision,