Expert Opinion from CABE

We asked Matt Bell, Director of Campaign and Education for CABE to give us his views on the challenges of delivering sustainability communities.

Quality v quantity: can we have both?

Whenever the subject of housing quality comes up, you always hear siren voices in the industry warn that it only comes at a price. You want better housing? Well beware! It will cut the numbers. And there's nearly two million people (apparently) on the waiting list for social housing.

Is this really true? If you're bleak by nature, you might suggest that we're not getting much of either right now, let alone both. But as Britain slowly pulls out of recession, is it really beyond us to deliver both more and better homes?

The first requirement is to say what we mean by quality. This is not an agenda about compliance with Building Regs or basic issues of build quality. No-one is suggesting new homes are about to fall down. The issue is about quality of design, and particularly quality of place. Two thousand years ago, a Roman called Marcus Vitruvius set out three core dimensions of good design in a book called De architectura. These were durability, functionality and delight.
We are talking here principally about the second and third. Does the home and neighbourhood work as a place to live? And does it lift your spirits or depress you with its mundanity?

In practical terms, this means having sufficient space in the home; a road layout that prioritises pedestrians; public spaces that are safe and attractive; buildings that are at an appropriate scale and density to support local services. It does not require any particular architectural style. But every new development should respond to the buildings and landscape that already exist nearby. It will also soon imply Code Level 4. These are the building blocks of a sustainable community in 2010.

So why on earth aren't they part and parcel of every new housing development? CABE's analysis is that the problem is partly about the culture of housing provision in the UK and partly about the structure and financing of the industry. Four issues serve to illustrate the challenge.

First, some home builders argue that they are just retailers of housing units. Any additional obligations are a burden of regulation, policy and amongst other things, taxation. This includes design requirements, planning gain, and measures like the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Second, some people argue that quality is entirely subjective or that it can't be judged. They reject what Vitruvius proposed, the history of construction ever since, and modern day tools like Building for Life. Third, some builders and economists argue that we simply can't afford better quality.

Fourth, it's argued that quality isn't on the agenda because customers' main worries when buying a new home are where it's located, whether they can get a mortgage and what capital growth they can hope for when they sell. In other words, the value of a good quality house has become subordinated to the value of a financial investment.

It doesn't need a consensus about which of these is nearest to the truth.
The question is, what can be done about it?

Housebuilders rightly point out they're not solely to praise or blame for the quality of housing. Every good scheme relies on a commitment to collaboration from developer, planner and highways team alike. But there are also certain characteristics of the way housebuilders work that either support or militate against the right outcome.

Put to one side the debate about business models and assume you have a viable site: it's still hard to create a good place without a half decent designer. And yet very few housebuilders either employ this kind of talent in-house or commission it routinely. A two minute search of the Architects Registration Board website reveals only a handful of qualified architects employed by the major housebuilders nationwide. That's not to suggest every scheme must be bespoke. Good standard house types can work architecturally and commercially. But you need to involve sufficient talent and apply a business process that empowers the design team.

Is this ultimately all about cost? Bad design is of course cheaper than good design. You can always save costs by lowering the spec. But good design can also be more efficient. CABE has recently taken site plans submitted for consent and reworked them to see the impact of better design. What you can get is more efficient land use, higher development densities, and the potential to extract higher values from a site which will also be more attractive and sustainable. This suggests you don't necessarily have to choose between quality and quantity. It is possible to do both.

That is not to imply that developers idly choose to ignore the chance to build better places. The vagaries of planning combine with a mix of complex regulation to make housebuilding a far from simple task. But the industry presents a range of very different attitudes to the opportunity of good design. Some businesses operate essentially like retailers. Housing is a commodity. The product is a unit. And ROCE is king. For others, by contrast, quality of place is what they do. It's the kind of business they are. They may not always deliver. But it's a part of their culture and commercial practice. And in that approach we may yet find a way to deliver both more and better homes.

Matt Bell, CABE
March 2010