HIGHGATE NEW TOWN PHASE 1, CAMDEN Community-led Conservation Guidance for inclusion in the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area and Application for Grade II* Listing

4 Statement of Significance
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This Statement of Significance establishes the heritage values of HNT, presenting its historic
baseline and wider context. The development of HNT given is drawn from a range of sources,
notably Cook’s Camden: The Making of Modern Housing, information from residents, the DPCA
Appraisal and other sources (Camden 2009 & Swenarton 2017). It considers the influences and
experience of Peter Tábori, the design and development of HNT and its subsequent history detailed
by the working group and other sources.
4.2 Background to HNT
4.2.1 Low Rise High Density (LRHD) projects at Camden and elsewhere developed from a rejection of
the legacy of interwar Modernism seen in the ‘mixed development’ housing of 1940’s and ‘50s.
This mix of high-rise and low slab-blocks, preferred by the London County Council (LCC) and other
authorities came to be regarded as problematic due to issues such as their isolation of families
and individuals in tall structures and the lack of community produced by their disconnection from
street. This provoked a reappraisal of the street and other aspects of the traditional city such as
squares and terraces, which can ostensibly be traced back to the work of Team 10 and Brutalist
architects such as the Smithsons through their elevated ‘streets in the sky’. Notions of continuity and
community were central in this, discernible in the cooperation between architects and sociologists
undertaking surveys of working-class communities in areas of redevelopment. Examples include the
Smithsons and Nigel and Julia Henderson’s mapping of Bethnal Green, East London or the French
state employing thinkers such as Foucault and Lefebvre to advise on housing (Foucault 1967,
Swenarton, Avermaete & van den Heuvel 2015: 14 & Cupers 2016: 171).
4.2.2 The origins of LRHD as a type are diverse, responding to individual situations. These extend from
Le Corbusier’s Roq et Rob (1949) and Cap Baume (1948) which sit low in the landscape so as
not to detract from the wild beauty of Cote D’Azur, in the South of France or Patrick Hodgkinson’s
turning the tall-block on its side to articulate density through length; which proved inspirational for
Neave Brown and others at Camden (Steyn 2010: 22-26 & Swenarton 2017: 20-21). An impression
of the expansive take-up of LRHD can be gained from Hoffman and Repenthin’s Neue urbane
Wohnformen, with its myriad European and some American examples, published in 1956 and
reprinted in 1966 (Hoffman & Repenthin 1966). Against a backdrop of competing public and private
development interests, clear notions of habitat and community emerged in the late ‘50s within
which architects sought to reconcile private dwelling with public-space and increasingly to integrate
their schemes within the surrounding area and to redefine their housing as ‘a piece of the city’
(Freear 2013: 46). This is seen from Team 10 with Peter and Alison Smithson and Jaap Bakema’s
advancement of the Open-Society. This sought to balance collective provision and individual
expression to the complex dynamics of Foucault’s heterotopia’s as real city-spaces (Foucault
1969). Concepts of ‘public’ and ‘private’ zones, were advanced by Chermayeff and Alexander in
Community and Privacy: Towards a new Architecture of Humanism (printed 1963) which whilst
it received critique from Team 10, presented a problem-based methodological approach which
influenced Tábori, Brown and others (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963, Cupers 2016 & Boyer 2018:
16-26). Notably, Chermayeff and Alexander conclude that “Only when the habitat of urbanising man
is given such an order shall we perhaps restore to urban life a fruitful balance between community
and privacy” echoing Bakema and the Smithsons (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963: 37).
4.2.3 Given the influence of Community and Privacy on Camden Architects between 1965-73, it is
important to explain their system in greater detail and clarify the nature of its effect at Camden. The
locks or gradations of public to private set out in Community and Privacy are;
“Urban Public- The places and facilities in public-ownership: highways, roads, paths, civic parks.
Urban semi-public- The special areas of public use under government and institutional controls: city
halls, courts of justice, public schools, post offices, hospitals, transportation exchanges, parking
lots, garages, service stations, stadia, theatres.
Group public- The meeting ground between public services and utilities and private property
requiring joint access and responsibility: places requiring mail delivery, garbage (refuse)
collection, utilities control, access to fire-fighting equipment and other emergency service rescue
devices.
Group private- Various secondary areas under control of management acting on behalf of private
or public interest for the benefit of tenants and other legal occupants: receptions, circulation and
other spaces, community gardens, playgrounds, laundries, storage, etc.
Previous- Fig. 12: Lulot Gardens toward Highgate Cemetery (TD)
32