Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Housing’

‘Garden grabbing’ eases the pressure on greenfield sites

June 21st, 2010 The Sheet No comments

This attack on brownfield development means more green fields will be built on

Michael White draws attention to the government's attack on "garden grabbing" brownfield development (Prisons, power stations and social housing – just not in my backyard, 10 June).

He is right to point out the links to localism, populism and nimbyism: "the empowerment of sharp-elbowed locals to prevent developments they don't like". But why would a minor bit of middle-class rabble-rousing find a place in the incoming government's first legislative programme?

White appears to assume that the issue is about the physical capacity of "old industrial land [and] gardens from past eras" to accommodate enough new homes. In fact, the key question is the right balance between extending the city and renewing its existing fabric. During the Thatcher and Major years, I was responsible for planning and transport policy in Newcastle and Birmingham. I coined the term "brownfield" (in 1976) to express the tension between urban renewal and greenfield development in the dynamics of urban change. Brownfield development, in this view, is like cell replacement in the body, an essential part of the continuing health of a city.

White rightly draws attention to how Prescott's brownfield strategy "eased the pressure on green belt and greenfield sites". However, by focusing simply on numbers of new houses, he (like Prescott) underplays the importance of the strategy to housing choices more generally. In practice, only 10% of housing transactions each year are new homes – and most of these are built within existing neighbourhoods and on brownfield land. As Prescott recognised, there is not a finite stock of brownfield sites; with good local planning brownfield supply is constantly being replenished.

White implies that the current furore is just the perennial conflict of nimbyism with developers. But there is a bigger issue: rapidly rising house prices from the mid-90s were blamed by the 2004 Barker Report on an inadequate supply of new homes, and this in turn on lack of land. Developers took the opportunity to attack Prescott's emphasis on brownfield because greenfield land is easier and more profitable to develop.

We can now see that house prices were a bubble pumped up with hot money and unreal expectations of capital gains. But the last government did a policy U-turn, persuaded by developers that more greenfield land would mean more new houses and (eventually) lower prices – and that higher profitability would provide infrastructure, services and social housing. As a result, twice or three times as much greenfield land is now in the pipeline.

With nimby constituents, Conservatives and Lib Dems generally opposed these increases. How ironic, then, that the coalition's attack on brownfield development inevitably means more green fields will go under the bulldozer – even as developers are backing out of the planning gains that justified this.

However much (or little) new housing the market will now bear, almost all will henceforth be on greenfield land, with dire consequences for cities, neighbourhoods, social fabric, transport demands, and most people's housing needs.

• This article was amended on 21 June 2010. Owing to an editing change, a line in the original said: "As Prescott recognised, there is a finite stock of brownfield sites". This has been corrected


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Prisons, power stations and social housing – just not in my backyard | Michael White’s political briefing

June 10th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

So-called 'garden grabbing' replaces large and lovely old homes with heartless flats

Ministers announced what sounded like welcome news, the restoration of immediate powers for local authorities to prevent a destructive and undemocratic practice. So-called "garden grabbing" replaces large and lovely old homes with heartless flats and disfigures once-sylvan suburbs with densely-packed starter homes. It is all John Prescott's fault, they say.

But like its earlier ruling this week – rejecting bin taxes in favour of recycling rewards – there is more to the Department of Communities and Local Government's (DCLG) populist initiative than is immediately obvious to voters eager for power to be devolved from Whitehall centralists to locally-responsive councils.

Another word for it is nimbyism, the empowerment of sharp-elbowed locals to prevent developments they don't like – from prisons and power stations to social housing and speed bumps. Everyone knows how the system works, Prescott as well as anyone. He tried to rebalance competing forces.

At issue today was the ex-deputy prime minister's drive to increase the proportion of new homes built on brownfield sites, primarily old industrial land, but also gardens from past eras where land densities – well into the 20th century – were low and gardens large. It has been going on for centuries: every town in Britain must have Victorian homes built in the garden of a Georgian house, modern ones built in Victorian gardens.

Contrary to tabloid assertion, Prescott did not reclassify gardens as "brownfield" – that happened under Margaret Thatcher. But he did increase the pressure on councils to build more homes, more densely, partly to ease pressure on green belt and greenfield sites. Councils found it easier to blame Prescott in the local paper than use existing discretion to dictate precise terms to hungry developers and offend local voters in the process. They use the EU and the Human Rights Act as punchbags too.

Labour's last housing minister, John Healey, was prodded into commissioning research which found a modest problem in some areas.

Some 80% of new homes were built on brownfield sites in 2008, against 56% in 1997; those on gardens 23% compared with 11% – 30,000 of the 150,000 new homes built each year. Too many two-bedroom flats were being built instead of family homes, it was noted.

But the very un-Labour Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE) hailed Prescott's strategy as "one of the biggest yet unsung environmental successes of recent years", now threatened by resumed suburban sprawl. So "decentralisation minister" Greg Clark's remedy overstates both the problem and the remedy.

The recession has halved market-led demand for new homes, but the social need remains. It is unlikely to be addressed by Clark's formula which may tilt power too far away from Whitehall towards the nimby. If so Clark will not be the only Whitehall-based minister who comes to regret early localist decisions rooted in years of soft options shaped in opposition.

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has also been busy this week promoting the merits of local decision-taking by the health professionals. He took time off to announce an inquiry into a brutal failure of localism: in Mid-Staffordshire hospital where patients died in lethally-managed wards and no one blew the whistle on it.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Video: Outrage revisited – from London to Milton Keynes

June 8th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

In the first of a four-part series, Jonathan Glancey travels to Milton Keynes, in search of the thwarted dreams of a postwar newtown


Scientists to rebuild ‘Coronation Street’ house in lab to study energy use

May 28th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

Salford University staff to simulate life in terraced two-up, two-down in effort to make UK's housing stock greener

Energy-efficiency scientists are to study how people live by rebuilding an entire, redbrick Manchester terraced house inside a university laboratory's sealed testing chamber.

The two-up, two-down dwelling is identical to those portrayed in Coronation Street, television's oldest surviving soap, and to more than two million real-life homes.

It will be used for power-saving experiments in simulated climates featuring high winds, snow and Manchester's notorious rain.

The pre-first world war house is to be salvaged from a nearby demolition scheme. It will be dismantled within the next fortnight and rebuilt in the Energy Hub at Salford University.

Gas, water and electricity will be piped in and furniture installed, with staff from 13 academic departments taking turns to play the part of residents.

Life in this "Energy House" will be as busy as in any of the terraces which sprang up across the North of England to house those working in mines and mills, but focused on entirely modern concepts such as carbon-reduction equipment and smart-meter tests.

Psychologists will join engineers in a series of experiments to see if particular wall or carpet colours make people feel warmer and reduce the demand for heat. Home energy use accounts for 30% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions.

"It's a house from the past, working for the future," said Dr Nigel Mellors, associate dean of science, engineering and technology at Salford and one of the team running a project aimed to last 20 years or more.

"But this one is only the beginning'" he said. "We reckon we'll know everything we need to about how to improve a terrace like this after about three years. Then we'll knock it down and build something different. Perhaps a typical 1960s house, to see how that can be improved."

The project is designed to parallel work on new-build energy-saving homes, recognising that many housebuyers prefer older properties for other reasons.

Dave Ritter, sustainability director at BDP architects, who are also involved with the scheme, said the sheer number of surviving terraces was proof of their appeal.

"They are in many ways an extremely successful design, with a particularly good sense of community and neighbourly links," he said.

"They are on a nice scale and sensibly laid-out inside. But energy-saving was not an issue at the time they were built, and this project is an imaginative and very practical way of putting that right."

Remodelled terraces have already proved a success in the Lancashire Pennine towns of Nelson and Colne and also in Salford, notably at Chimney Pot Park where the developers Urban Splash have "upended" the old model, giving 19th century terraces sleeping quarters downstairs and living rooms on the first floor.

Leeds has found a huge market as starter homes for its 40,000-plus back-to-back terraces, once condemned as slums for having inadequate ventilation but now, with three of their four walls comfortably sandwiched by other homes, praised for saving heat and economical use of space.

Green variations also include some Northern towns' policy of "alternate demolition", where the clearing of every other row of barrack-like terraces has doubled the gardens and open space of those left.

Larger scale demolition of traditional terraces by government housing renewal projects has caused anger in Liverpool, Manchester and Lancashire's former milltowns.

Professor Steve Donnelly from Salford's faculty of science said terraced houses had won their case for reprieve but now needed "ways of being more efficient, as they are going to house people for generations to come. That requires detailed and robust research, which the Energy House will provide".

Tony Juniper, former director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Domestic energy use accounts for a huge proportion of emissions which we have to reduce. The millions of real-life terrace houses like this one are going to play an important part."

John Alker, policy director at the UK Green Building Council, said: "This looks like a great piece of research and it will be particularly interesting to see the results on behaviour, where less has been done to date.

"But let's not forget that there is a hell of lot that we know already – the biggest barrier to low carbon home refurbishment going mainstream has tended to be the upfront cost to consumers, and that is set to be tackled by the Energy Bill in the form of 'Pay As You Save schemes'."


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Prince Charles accused of pressurising Qatari royal family over residential development

May 18th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

Royal letter allegedly marked opening salvo in campaign that led to scrapping of Chelsea Barracks plan, high court hears

The Qatari royal family was forced to scrap plans for a £3bn housing development in central London for "political and diplomatic" reasons after the Prince of Wales urged the emir of the gulf state to abandon them, the high court has heard.

The Qataris "floundered" after Prince Charles and his aides launched a "fight to the finish" to derail designs for more than 500 apartments on the former site of the Chelsea Barracks by Lord Rogers, the modernist architect with whom the prince has repeatedly clashed.

The court heard on Monday that during a face-to-face exchange over tea at Clarence House, the prince "pissed in [the emir's] ear about how awful the scheme was", causing him to order aides to withdraw the designs.

The claims about Prince Charles's intervention came on the first day of a trial in which the Qatari government's former development partner, CPC group, owned by Christian Candy, sought to recoup up to £81m in alleged lost earnings after the prince became involved last spring.

At the time, the prince's intervention sparked accusations he had overreached his constitutional role by interfering in a live planning application that was shortly to be considered by the planning committee of Westminster city council.

The emir met the prince at Clarence House on 11 May 2009 with his second wife, Sheika Mozah. A note of the meeting by Sir Michael Peat, the prince's private secretary, said: "The emir was surprised by Rogers's design for Chelsea Barracks and said that he would have them changed."

The impact was dramatic, with the emir described in court papers as issuing "a bollocking" to the managing director of the Qatari Diar real estate firm, Ghanim bin Saad al-Saad, about the architecture.

An email from Candy shortly after the meeting said the emir "went mental at Ghanim, telling him how awful the design was and to withdraw ASAP".

In the same email, Candy related how al-Saad told his own planning director that the prince had been "pissing" in his ear.

The decision was made to scrap the scheme and develop an alternative, and the emir assured the palace in more graceful language and through intermediaries that "he was keen for the development to be a lasting legacy which will reflect well on Qatar".

Representing CPC, Lord Grabiner QC said it was his client's case that the designs were scrapped "for diplomatic and political reasons between the emir and the Prince of Wales". That, Grabiner said, constituted a breach of contract.

Prince Charles began his campaign two months earlier with a private letter to the Qatari prime minister, the emir's cousin, stating: "I can only urge you to reconsider the plans for the Chelsea site before it is too late. Many would be eternally [underlined] grateful to Your Excellency if Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment could bequeath a unique and enduring [underlined] legacy to London."

He objected to Rogers's glass and steel design which had been commissioned by the emir's property investment vehicle, Qatari Diar, and attached a sketch of an alternative design by one of his favourite neoclassical architects, Quinlan Terry.

The project had been proceeding well until Charles's intervention, the court heard, and the Qataris were not even put off by the global financial crisis, shaking off the collapse of Lehman Brothers and writing to CPC Group that they were convinced the prudent course of action was to continue with the Rogers plan.

Candy, 35, sat in court today opposite representatives of the Qatari royal family to hear his company's case that the prince's intervention denied it a payment due upon planning permission being granted of between £68.5m and £81m.

The Qataris had tried to assuage the prince's fears with a secret undertaking to revisit the designs after planning permission had been secured. That was not enough for the prince, and John Ward, a Qatari Diar executive, was told by Peat that Charles was "going to fight to the finish".

Peat told Ward: "It [is] an enormously important site and it was difficult for many people to stand by and let, in their view, an inappropriate scheme go forward on an informal understanding."

The court papers show that Charles met two key planners, Sir Simon Milton, the deputy mayor of London, and Robert Davis of Westminster city council, the next day.

Charles's intervention was "a hand grenade requiring serious attention", according to Joe Smouha QC, representing Qatari Diar. But the Qataris denied Candy's case – that their decision to scrap the Rogers scheme was a breach of contract.

Smouha said the payment was dependent on planning permission, and it would not have been obtained either from Westminster city council or the mayor of London, Boris Johnson. "The claims advanced by the claimants go nowhere because they have suffered no loss."

The trial continues and is due to last two weeks.

A brief history of Charles's monstrous carbuncles

In 1984, Prince Charles launched his now-famous attack on Peter Ahrends' proposed extension to the National Gallery in London. At the Royal Institute of British Architects' 150th anniversary he lambasted the design as "a monstrous carbuncle". He got his way: the "carbuncle" was never built.

In the same speech he criticised the plans of his friend Lord Palumbo to replace the Victorian Mappin & Webb building in London with a skyscraper. But he was no happier with the Sir James Stirling alternative, which, he complained, looked "rather like an old 1930s wireless".

In 1987, Charles scorned Richard Rogers' redevelopment of Paternoster Square, London. He locked horns with the architect again in 2008, using Rogers' 44-storey "cheese grater" tower in the City of London to warn that historic cities were being wrecked.

In 1988 Charles described Colin St John Wilson's British Library reading room as like "an academy for secret police". He criticised the 1974 Brutalist central library in Birmingham, saying it looked like "a place where books are incinerated, not kept", and in 1991 resigned as president of patrons of the Museums of Scotland over the selection procedure for designs for the new National Museum. In 2008, he said the Ivor Crewe lecture hall at the University of Essex – later a RIBA award winner – looked "like a dustbin".


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

HJ Whitfield Lewis obituary

April 27th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

Architect who led the housing section at the LCC during its postwar glory days

So low has the prestige of British local government fallen that the authority commanded by the London county council in the 1950s can now hardly be imagined. "Don't you know the LCC has a budget larger than the Netherlands?" fumed its deputy housing architect, Kenneth Campbell, when clashing with Evelyn Sharp, permanent secretary of the housing ministry, over some grand scheme.

The architects' department at the LCC was then the biggest design office in the world. Buoyed up by faith in the welfare state and public initiative, young architects flocked to join. Replanning and rehousing postwar London brought testing but rewarding jobs in profusion. Work never had to be touted for. No sooner had one big housing estate left the drawing board than another replaced it. Yet the atmosphere was liberal, sometimes combative. Uniformity of style was shunned, and groups could test out their design ideas – at least as far as "committee stage". The department was effectively a finishing school where many of the brightest British architects did a stint.

HJ Whitfield Lewis, who has died aged 98, presided genially over the housing section from 1950 until 1959. The position, a new one, fell to him when Sir Robert Matthew, the LCC's canny chief architect, plotted to wrest control of housing design and production from the council's valuer, in whom it had been vested during the war. With his connivance, the housing designed under the valuer was criticised in the media and Matthew had to create the bones of a new section in his department. Lewis was offered the job of deputy housing architect, but would not take it unless he knew who his boss was. To get over the problem, he was appointed to the senior post.

Lewis built up the section fast and informally, pulling in any architect of flair he could find. Soon, notable schemes such as the mixed development Ackroydon estate, Wimbledon and the two Alton estates at Roehampton were on their way, drawing plaudits from around the world for the revived ambitions of LCC housing. "Whit", as he was universally known, was too busy to do much architecture, but he managed the link between the youthful, often restive design teams and his successive chiefs – Matthew, Leslie Martin and Hubert Bennett – with enthusiasm and aplomb.

Lewis arrived at the LCC with a solid modernist pedigree. Chepstow-born, he went to Monmouth school in south-east Wales before moving to Cardiff to train at the Welsh School of Architecture. In 1932, he moved to London to work first with Joseph Emberton, followed by Sydney Trent, designer of the Gaumont cinemas. His initiation into the avant garde came when he transferred to the office of Mendelsohn and Chermayeff. There his jobs included the Gilbey offices at Camden Town, and Chermayeff's own timber house at Halland, Sussex. In the run-up to war, Lewis worked with Norman and Dawbarn, specialists in buildings for the aviation industry. He spent the war as a technician and designer for the aircraft makers Short Brothers at Rochester, then returned to Norman and Dawbarn to spearhead their diversification into public housing. Their St Pancras Way estate (again in Camden) opened in 1948: largely Lewis's design, it won awards and became his springboard into the LCC.

Once ensconced within the public sector, Lewis stayed there. Like many architects of his day, he was a liberal communist until he and his wife Barbara seceded from the party as "Tito-ist deviationists". Matthew had to fend off trouble over his staff's affiliations, but these hardly affected Lewis's prospects. In 1959, he was appointed Middlesex county council's chief architect. He had shortlived success in applying LCC-style policies to the different portfolio of work available there, bringing in young architects and farming out schools to good private firms. But Middlesex was not destined to survive the reorganisation of London government.

His last full-time job was as chief architect to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, later the Department of the Environment (1964–71). These were the years when public housing seemed to have gone painfully awry. His tasks in central government could seldom be called creative, and Lewis sometimes described himself ruefully as a "clerkitect". Latterly he acted as a consultant for the architects Clifford Culpin and Partners.

Lewis was as debonair and as engaging in private life as in his profession. A natural craftsman, he made furniture, boats and even an organ, and was a good amateur musician. In architecture his tastes leant towards Scandinavia and Frank Lloyd Wright rather than Le Corbusier, whom many leftwing architects of his generation dismissed as a stylist and therefore a reactionary. There was nothing Whit enjoyed more than a hearty argument with earnest young Corbusians.

He was married three times. With his first wife, Yoanna, he adopted two children, David and Bronwen. After her death he married Barbara Watt, an architect who worked with Yorke, Rosenberg and Mardall. With her he had two further children, Victoria and Polly. Later he married Pamela Leaford. Pamela, Barbara, David, Victoria and Polly survive him.

Herbert John Whitfield Lewis, architect, born 9 April 1911; died 29 March 2010


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The urban age: how cities became our greatest design challenge yet | Justin McGuirk

March 29th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

Amid unprecedented levels of urbanisation, designers must be trusted to fashion cities that not only accommodate but also provide a pleasant environment

"Urbanisation is unstoppable, says UN," ran the headline in last week's Guardian. Do you detect a note of worry in the wording? It's almost as if the message were "Global warming is unstoppable" or "Kiss goodbye to your weekends in the country". But it might have been better written this way: "Urbanisation is the greatest design challenge we face in the 21st century."

The story was about UN-Habitat's latest report on the state of the world's cities, in which the agency predicts that some metropolises will join up like blobs of mercury to create "mega-regions". One of these is in west Africa, where the cities of Lagos, Ibadan, Lomé and Accra are threatening to merge. Which is fine, except that the amalgamation would sprawl across the national borders of Nigeria, Benin, Togo and Ghana.

For the first time in history, more people live in cities than in the countryside. By 2050, three quarters of us are expected to be urbanites. That's a lot of people heading for the bright lights. But here's the scary part: most of this growth is happening in places where millions of people already live in slums. Mumbai, Delhi, Karachi, Shanghai, São Paulo, Kinshasa: these are the fastest-growing cities in the world, most of them destined to have populations of more than 20 million by 2025. Between now and then, Lagos will have to make room for 67 new arrivals per hour. If we don't start designing for these new inhabitants now, then the potential for human misery is all the greater.

The cities we love most are slow burners, layered accretions of history – London, Paris or Rome, for instance. Yet here we are, in the position of having to manufacture new urban spaces, as though cities were just another type of product. The philosopher Henri Lefebvre anticipated this situation in the 1960s, when he argued that urban space was the new commodity. He saw that it wasn't just stocks and shares that were being speculated on but pieces of city. Lefebvre's theory was that industrialisation – the story of the last 150 years – was being replaced by urbanisation. Today, we talk about having moved from the industrial age to the information age. But this is also the urban age.

The commodification of urban space has come on in leaps and bounds since Lefebvre's day. The same deregulation that relieved the banks of any compunction to behave responsibly has also been changing the visible face of the city. The free-market agenda is what makes public spaces in so many cities nothing more than places to shop at chain stores or drink at Costa Coffee, often under the supervision of private security guards. The privatisation of public space, like that of public services, is one way that governments can avoid their democratic accountability.

Yet even Lefebvre didn't predict the extent to which cities would become products. These days a client can order a new metropolis simply by picking up the phone to a famous architect. Take Masdar, the eco-city in Abu Dhabi designed by Norman Foster, or the oft-cited eco-cities in China, such as Dongtan, designed by London-based engineers Arup (currently on hold), or Tianjin. With China expecting 300 million new urban dwellers in the next 20 years, it has no choice but to adopt the build-it-and-they-will-come approach.

Of course, city production has a history. There was Ebenezer Howard's Garden Cities movement at the turn of the last century, which resulted in new towns such as Letchworth; and New Urbanism in the US, which yielded places such as Seaside in Florida, used as the setting of The Truman Show. But these were escapist fantasies designed by people who hated cities. More relevant are those created as heroic emblems of political will, such as Brasilia in Brazil, Astana in Kazakhstan or (the example that trumps them all) Dubai. Some of the shine may have sloughed off Dubai since the recession, but there has never been such a glaring example of the city as a product ­– as a brand, even.

The brand consultant is the éminence grise of the modern city. Sometimes it's the mayor, and sometimes it falls to cult designers of Joy Division covers such as Peter Saville, who a few years ago was appointed creative director of Manchester. Or take the Canadian design guru Bruce Mau, who is called up with requests such as: "Can you provide a vision for the future of Mecca?" This has come to be known as "design thinking", and it is ever more important to cities in a competitive global environment where lucrative awards such as the Olympics, European Capital of Culture and World Design City are on offer. Cities, the engines of the world's wealth, are sometimes more important than the countries they are located in.

The question is this: how do we create cities that are not just containers for tightly-packed populations, but pleasant and equitable places to live? Someone once described the identical high-rises that ring so many capitals as the easyJet of urban living, because they offer everyone affordable access to the city; but they're not what you could call idealistic. The segregation and social polarisation of cities is getting so extreme that a violent future may be inevitable. The UN report has said as much. Now that city-making has become a priority, politicians need to have faith in designers. Because if there's one lesson to be learned from the last quarter of a century, it's that we need to shift our focus away from liberty and the free market, and move towards equality.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Brad the builder in New Orleans | Rowan Moore

March 15th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Brad Pitt called in the world's top architects for his acclaimed Make It Right project. The plan was to build green homes to replace those destroyed in New Orleans. Now the first houses are up and inhabited… so is it just a celebrity ego trip or a true regeneration?

Debra Dupar, pregnant with her fifth child, is sitting outside her new house. She is washed by the noon sun of an early spring day, nursing a pinkish-red drink and chatting to her friends. A short way off a camera crew is setting up, assessing shots, squinting at the light, chatting to potential interviewees. They are working for Spike Lee, who is making a documentary about the place where Debra lives.

A guided tour of about a dozen people tramps along the vestigial street, marked out by some sinewy evergreen oaks, or "live oaks" as they are called here. Two men, self-consciously dressed – architects, probably – get out of a maroon taxi, scan the scene, sweep it with camcorders, say to each other: "OK, I'm good", get back in the taxi and go, all in about 60 seconds. And then the man from the London Observer wants to look inside Debra's house.

Brad Pitt had warned residents of New Orleans's Lower Ninth ward that "we would be turning their neighbourhood into a circus". He was referring to the Pink Project, an "art installation/political messaging device/fundraising tool" in 2007, when hundreds of pink fabric house-shapes were scattered about the site, ghosts of houses that had been and which would return. Now, with 23 houses newly built, it remains a circus, a vortex of disaster and celebrity from which media and sightseers can't stay away. For this spot is the location of Make It Right, the project launched by Pitt in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to which he has pledged $5m. Its aim is not only to rebuild at least 150 homes in the spot worst hit by the storm and its floods but to "turn tragedy into victory", as the actor put it, and to "offer a more humane building standard… We would create homes that were sustainable and build with clean building materials for a just quality of life… We would build for safety and storm resiliency. We'd create new jobs in the process and we wouldn't stop until we could achieve all of this affordably." To show he was serious he moved his family home to New Orleans, and joined in long and gritty community meetings about the best way forward.

"We'd call upon some of our great architectural minds to innovate these solutions," he said, and create "a template that could be replicated at the macro level. We would engage and rely on the community to define the function of their neighbourhood and adhere to their guidance, protecting New Orleans's rich culture." If the people of the Lower Ninth had been betrayed by professionals, by the engineers whose levees had failed in over 50 places, if "the most sickening thought is that this all could have been avoided", Pitt's mission was to "take what was wrong and make it right".

These were stirring words, born of a celebrity's stricken social conscience but also of the love of architecture Pitt had displayed before Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005. He befriended the likes of Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid. He had spent time in their studios, especially Gehry's, trying his hand at designing buildings himself.

It was a heroic project, and one that raised questions. How much would it really be about helping victims of Katrina, and how much would it be about making Pitt feel and look good? What would the star of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button truly know about urban regeneration?

What would "our great architectural minds", whose work is usually to design luxury items such as iconic museums and private villas, know about the hard practicalities of sustainable

low-income housing? Narcissism and charity are often close companions, perhaps inevitably, but would Make It Right be more a case of the former or the latter? And, in the aftermath of the Haiti and Chile earthquakes, are there any lessons from New Orleans for rebuilding there?

On 29 August 2005, the spot where Debra is now sitting was one of the worst places to be on earth. The horizon behind her is formed by the pale band of the infamous levee, essentially a long concrete wall, now rebuilt twice as thick and twice as high as its predecessor, and with basic precautions against undermining that weren't there before. The original levee was built by the US Army Corps of Engineers following Hurricane Betsy in 1965, and was supposed to keep out the waters of the adjoining Industrial Canal, which links the Mississippi to Lake Pontchartrain. When Katrina forced volumes of water up the canal, the levee suffered multiple breaches.

The streets nearest the levee were the worst hit. I meet Gloria, a woman in late middle age who had to get from the roof of her house on to another, and then into an oak, where she waited for nine and a half hours until her rescue. "Without that tree I'd have been dead," she says.

A few doors further along stands the rebuilt house of Robert Green. Its flagpole rises out of a granite tablet, beside it some damaged statuettes of saints, commemorating Joyce Green, 1931 to 2005, and Shanat Green, 2002 to 2005. The latter was lifted on to the roof by her grandfather, who then turned to help his other grandchild up. When he turned back to Shanat, she had vanished. Outside a nearby trailer, a tableau of wreathes and writing proclaims rage and hope: "We want our country to love us as much as we love our country. The strength of our country belongs to us all. Mr Bush, rebuild – New Orleans, the Lower 9th Ward, Cross the Canal, Tennessee Street. NOT IRAQ." Then a later text: "Obama: A New Era of Responsibility".

The floods spread throughout the Lower Ninth, an almost all-black district with a population of 14,000. Over 1,000 of the more than 1,800 deaths caused by Katrina were in this district, and since then spiking rates of suicide and heart failure indicate further victims. This area is still the most visibly devastated. The picturesque parts of New Orleans, such as the French Quarter and the Garden District, were built on higher ground and were least affected, and now bear little or no trace of damage. The prettily porched and painted houses of Bywater, a former working-class area on the other side of the canal from the Lower Ninth, are now colonised by artists and designers. Young creative types have been moving into New Orleans since the flood, drawn by low property prices, sympathy, and the poignant glamour of disaster.

Much of the Lower Ninth, by contrast, is wilderness. Big vacant oblongs that were once city blocks sprout weeds between the concrete slabs which are all that are left of the wooden houses that stood here. Some poignant short flights of brick steps remain. Files of telegraph poles still stand, marking out the blocks but serving nothing. Occasionally a bright new house stands out.

Some houses still exist as ruins, boarded up or with doors swinging open. Some carry spray-painted X's, put there by rescuers in the days following Katrina. In the quadrants of each X are indicated, according to a code in use at the time, the number of people found in each house, alive and dead, and the number of pets, alive and dead. Other homes are being laboriously restored by their inhabitants. They have been partly helped by the Road Home programme, a federal compensation plan, which has often proved inadequate and slow moving. Two men, one lean and grey-whiskery, the other in a many-holed black T-shirt, tell me their repair work proceeds "paycheck by paycheck". Straight after the flood, many wondered aloud if it wouldn't be better just to give up on New Orleans. Its population was already in decline, from 625,000 in 1960 to 450,000 in 2005. All but a few thousand were temporarily evacuated across the United States, to safer places. The luckier ones would get insurance cheques. Why would they want to come back? "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed," said Dennis Hastert (Republican, Illinois), the then Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Yet New Orleans didn't die, proof, perhaps, that cities are more than functional conveniences. They inspire affection, emotional ties and loyalty. It is now the fastest growing city in the United States, at 7-8% per year, even if, at about 340,000, it is still below pre-Katrina levels. If people persist in living in earthquake-prone Los Angeles and San Francisco, why would they not return to New Orleans?

This renewal is despite, more than thanks to, the efforts of the city's government. New Orleans has suffered from what the New York Times called the "dysfunctional stalemate that has bogged down the city's recovery". The dysfunction is both between black and white populations and between city and federal government, and the consequence is that swathes of the place are still visibly ruined, and homeless rates remain high. Recently a tide of frustration swept a new mayor, Mitch Landrieu, to power with 66% of the vote, but he has yet to take office.

In the nearly five years since the storm, a "recovery plan" was drawn up, often reviewed, and barely implemented. The city, according to one involved in reconstruction, "has hundreds of millions of dollars committed but not spent". The recovery plan was created "without a drop of sense as to what was implementable".

One of the most visible government interventions into housing has been to demolish hundreds of decent, solid, brick homes, built for the poor under the New Deal. The stated aim was to create a more "mixed income" neighbourhood – that is, a higher income neighbourhood – but destroying serviceable houses is not what New Orleans needs.

Into the vacuum of action created by government, individuals and independent agencies have piled in. Self-organised groups that have grown up since 2005 have become significant forces of renewal. For example, one band of survivors in the Lower Ninth got together, commandeered their local Martin Luther King school, and got it reopened. The authorities had been planning on keeping it closed.

Habitat for Humanity, an international charity, has built more than 1,300 "simple, decent, and affordable homes" in the four states affected by Hurricane Katrina and her nasty little sister Rita, which followed shortly after. Another not-for-profit organisation, Global Green, is building a development of exemplary levels of sustainability in Holy Cross, the area of the Lower Ninth that was least badly affected (which was still quite bad enough) by the flooding. Global Green is also advising individual home owners on sustainable ways to rebuild their homes, and is campaigning for high environmental standards in new schools. Bob Tannen, a New Orleans-based urban planner, engineer and artist, has worked with Frank Gehry to devise the "Modgun" house, an updated version of the area's traditional "shotgun house", with a long, narrow timber-framed structure which could be extended as their owners acquired the means to do so.

The New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, an independently-governed public agency, says it is achieving "500-1,000" residential sales a year, and 300,000 sq ft of commercial spaces. Its director of real estate strategy Ommeed Sathe, a young, fluent and persuasive lawyer from New York, says: "We're working to the city's plan but we're better than them at implementing it." He blames slow progress on the bureaucratic procedures that government, but not his agency, have to follow: "If they want to spend a dollar they have to obey about 30 regulations… It's about as hard to buy a stapler as it is to buy a school."

NOTE: This article was edited on 15 March 2010 to remove an editor's note that was erroneously included.

Brad Pitt's project is therefore neither the biggest, nor the speediest, nor the most prolific (in terms of units built) of the reconstruction efforts. There's a certain rivalry between the different people pushing New Orleans's physical recovery, and those outside Make It Right tend to speak with a combination of gratitude for the attention that the film star has brought to their issues and envy for the attention that he draws to his own project. He was first introduced to the field through a connection with Global Green and, although the latter organisation is too polite to say so, you sense that they would rather he had lent his pulling power to their projects than branching off on his own.

Make It Right's USP is design. Its houses would not only be built (as Global Green's are) to exemplary standards of sustainability and flood protection. They would not only use construction techniques that would use 30% less timber than conventional methods. They would also have whatever added magic outstanding architects could bring. A team of 21 architects was assembled, with GRAFT, a practice based in both Los Angeles and Berlin, being one of the first to get involved, and a local firm, Williams Architects, as executive architects. The architects included the Pritzker prize-winning Morphosis from Los Angeles, the provocative Dutch firm MVRDV, and Shigeru Ban, a Japanese architect whose reputation is based on the usual array of intriguing cultural projects and private houses but also on his emergency cardboard constructions, designed in response to the 1995 Kobe earthquake.

There were the celebrated British-Ghanaian architect David Adjaye, Elemental from Chile, Constructs LLC from Ghana, and the Philadelphia firm of Kieran Timberlake, who have just been announced as the architects of the new US Embassy in London. There were also less famous practices from nearer to the Lower Ninth: five from New Orleans and others from Texas and Missouri. All work without payment: "Their work and designs are a donation to the residents of the Lower Ninth ward and society as a whole," as GRAFT puts it.

Designs were based on guidelines derived from traditional New Orleans types. Porches to shelter from sun and rain, almost ubiquitous in this city, should be included. The architects produced 28 prototype designs in two "presentations". Residents could choose which type they wanted, and could customise them. They could, for example, decide how high off the ground they wanted to be. Most went for as high as possible, not only to stand above future floods but also to allow room to park cars underneath.

These houses were for people who had owned homes before the storm and now had little property left but rectangles of mud. (Although poor, the Lower Ninth had been one of the first places where African-Americans could buy homes, and had high rates of home ownership.) The deal was that families had to "expose their finances" and "put forward what they could afford". The gap between that and the actual cost of construction would be covered by a "forgivable loan", to be repaid only if they sold their houses on.

The result is an array of similar-but-different houses, with bright colours and unusual angles denoting different authorships. Debra Dupar's house is, she tells me, called the "Space House", on account of the futuristic swoop of its louvred sunshade, and she is quite happy with that. Inside, her house is more simple, with a decent, well-proportioned front room dominated by a big flat-screen TV, a fish tank, and a table ornament that spells HAPPINESS in thick bronze-coloured letters. Not that design is the main issue for her: she spent four years in a trailer-home in Simmesport, Louisiana, 150 miles away, and, even though she is paying for her home, she is happy to be back. The residents did not, as might have been expected, opt for the most conservative or traditional-looking designs, but it's fair to say that the most convincing homes tend to be by the less starry architects. The only type no one wanted was MVRDV's, in which a traditional house-shape appears to have been snapped into a giant V by an invisible karate chop or natural disaster. The V contains a clever internal arrangement of split levels, but it still looked too much like a bad joke to victims of Katrina.

Morphosis put much of their own time and money into a house which, using Dutch techniques, would float in the event of flood, with two metal poles preventing it from drifting away. There's nothing wrong with that, except that the architect's styling is so overwrought, with so many odd angles and assertive details, that it would be an oppressive place to inhabit.

One of the more convincing structures is the Mobile Goat Unit of Operation Slo-Mow, designed by students at New Orleans's Tulane university. This is a wheeled trailer containing goats, who are released to keep surrounding grass under control. Apparently this method is more cost-effective and environmental than hiring men with mowing machines.

It's not always obvious what the architects' gestures add to the project, as distinct from the more practical stuff about sustainability (which lowers residents' utilities bills), flood protection, and more efficient ways of building. According to Ommeed Sathe: "People look at Make It Right and see it as whimsical and nonsensical… There's also a criticism that for that amount of money you could have made 500 homes." But: "I think it has added value. You get 10 to 12 tour buses a day in an area where there was very little redevelopment energy.'' It has "also served as a massive R&D project", pioneering techniques and developing skills in contractors that can now be applied elsewhere.

Louis Jackson, a forthright contractor working on Make It Right, says something similar. "The challenging part," he says, is getting architects "to realise they're not designing a $5m mansion. Some of the guys have been closed-minded. They'd say, 'I'm the designer, I am the king and you do it my way.' But if you think about the big picture of it – and I have to do that sometimes to keep my sanity – it's a learning process, and we are much better today than we were a year ago."

Jackson hasn't made money on the project but he is far from regretting his involvement. "It's fun, it's challenging, it's something you think about all the time." It is also a "reputation-builder", and something that teaches him things he can use on other projects. "The third time we build something we should be getting pretty close to how it should be," he says.

The question also remains why they rebuilt on this exact spot. If you look at a map of New Orleans with a cold eye, it seems logical to return the Lower Ninth ward, which is below sea level, to uninhabited wetlands, and to rehouse its former citizens in the many gaps in higher, relatively safe parts of the city. No one is very confident that the place won't get flooded again, despite the improved levees. "If anything serious comes through, like another category 5 hurricane, we're going to get washed away again," says one resident. Bob Tannen, who worked for the city on building their roads, says: "The levee is now designed for another Katrina, but what happens if it is worse than Katrina?"

But cold logic overlooks the detail that, for low-income homeowners, their plots in the flood zone were the only property they had left, as well as the fact that the political will and mechanisms to attempt wholesale relocation were wholly lacking. It ignores the fact that the Lower Ninth was not just a statistical unit but a place of memories and associations for New Orleans's black communities. The pianist Fats Domino refused to live anywhere else until Katrina forced him out of his mansion. The common sense of building only above sea level would also mean evacuating much of the Netherlands.

It's also fair to say that this site offered the most scope for Brad Pitt to strut his charitable stuff. The worst part of the worst affected district gave the best stage for a dramatic transformation, and actors are in the habit of looking for the best stage. Make It Right is not without ego, on the part of either Pitt or his architects. If one thing is to be learned from the project, whether in Chile, Haiti, or in building further houses in New Orleans, it would be to recruit a smaller crew of architects, and get them to focus more tightly on what really does constitute the best possible home in places like this.

Only a miserable churl, however, could fail to be moved by the scene Make It Right now offers. It has turned devastation and misery into something hopeful, and there is an energy about the place that other post-Katrina reconstruction projects don't offer. The show-off architecture does its bit, too, in adding to the festivity of the place. Also as a sign that someone could be bothered.

It may be that Brad's model village has a touch of the Hollywood vanity project but I can think of very many much worse ways to use celebrity and influence.

NOTE: This article was edited on 15 March 2010 to remove an editor's instruction that was included erroneously.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Letters: Kickstarting better housing design

February 11th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

Lynsey Hanley (Comment, 2 February) puzzles why Design for Homes has not joined in attacks on the Homes and Communities Agency's housebuilding rescue plans. She worries that the HCA awarded emergency funds to unbuilt schemes which scored badly in desktop reviews. These desktop reviews used a matrix called Building for Life, which I wrote in April 2002 so that housebuilding's many professions could have a common language for assessing how accessible, safe and welcoming a new-build development is. The matrix works well when visiting built schemes, but it can be very unreliable without a site visit supported by background knowledge. In 2008 Lynsey was one of several judges who honoured developments on the basis of Building for Life reviews. One of the "winners" is already reported in its local paper to be "a hub for antisocial behaviour a year after first residents moved in".

Building for Life is like a race meeting form card. It give you one person's calculation of the odds for success. But ultimately privileged knowledge of the track and the runners should guide your selection – which is how the HCA works with its local procurement teams. Design for Homes remains unconvinced that remote desktop reviews should be the overriding process for deciding how £1bn of public money should be wagered.

David Birkbeck

Chief executive, Design for Homes

• Your correspondents do not do justice to the Kickstart programme managed by the HCA (Letters, 5 February). While Building for Life assessments provide an important initial quality check, these are supplemented by our own local design teams. In fact we rejected 11 schemes outright on the basis of poor design quality. Kickstart is so far unlocking more than 10,000 much-needed new homes and maintaining capacity and safeguarding jobs in the housebuilding industry.

Bob Kerslake

Homes and Communities Agency


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Letters: Blowing the whistle on bad house design

February 5th, 2010 The Sheet No comments

Lynsey Hanley is right to draw attention to the lamentable standard of new housing funded by a massive injection of public cash through the Kickstart programme (Comment, 3 February). However, she is wrong to suggest the whistle has been blown by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. In fact, it was a freedom of information request by Building Design's news desk that uncovered the scandal that 27 of the 136 projects handed £360m by the government scored five or less out of 20 under the industry's Building for Life standard, with two scoring only 1.5.

Despite being the government's design watchdog, Cabe has been very unwilling to help us in our investigation for fear – we believe – of annoying its fellow quango, the Homes and Communities Agency, which pays Cabe for its advice. Hanley is also surprised that "design champions" like Design for Homes have not been more critical of the low standards. However, she should be aware that Design for Homes, despite its name, is partly funded by volume housebuilders, who are the real villains of the piece.

Amanda Baillieu

Editor, Building Design

• Too many houses are built with little thought for decent open space provision, whether for playing, growing food or simply to provide respite from oceans of tarmac. Can the government really not make the connection between poor living environments and increases in poor health and social deprivation? We are demolishing 1960s housing estates and yet, by continuing to provide housing with poorly designed and managed open space, we are simply repeating the mistakes of the past. Rather than ticking boxes, we must invest in good design.

Jo Watkins

President-elect, Landscape Institute


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds