Tag: SD4116

Categories
Building Sustainable, Inclusive and Just Cities (Hons module) Latest from the Lab Projects

Building sustainable, inclusive and just cities (Antonis Vradis and Hons colleagues)

Antonis teaches a new Honours module at St Andrews, Building Sustainable, Inclusive and Just Cities.

In the module’s inaugural year (2020-21), Hons colleagues were asked to present a major urban challenge in a city that they were familiar with, and to explain how local communities could go about challenging this, without or against state intervention. The result was Community Power, a virtual special issue edited by Moriah Hull, Linda Eckefeldt, Mathilde Roze and Antonis Vradis.

The interventions of colleagues in the years ahead will be posted here. Stay tuned… The module is running again in the 2022-23 year.

Relevant Posts

Categories
Blog Latest from the Lab

London’s Housing Crisis – A Community Approach to Urban Sustainability

Georgie Murrin: I am approaching my fourth year of studying Sustainable Development at the University of St Andrews. However, I was born and raised in the city of London. I have watched the city expand and develop over the course of my childhood. My interest in London’s housing crisis was sparked by the stark contrast living within one of London’s largest boroughs. Just one street apart there lies several occupied, yet near-derelict council housing blocks, and on the other side of the road, a string of perfect multi-million-pound homes. I became fascinated with this divide and the gentrification of the areas surrounding me, questioning how such an innovative and successful city could fail to provide basic housing needs for all citizens.

Author bio

Download Murrin’s report (pdf)Download

London is facing one of the largest urban challenges: the megacity is failing to provide affordable housing for all residents. For years, housing supply has fallen below demand. The root of the issue has been highly debated; some suggest the lack of affordable housing is due to the ‘Right to Buy Scheme’, while others suggest it is partly due to the foreign market and a lack of new affordable housing build in the past century.

This report presents London’s housing crisis: its roots, the primary and secondary implications of this, evaluates the current policies and projects which exist to mitigate housing pressures, and offers an alternative framework which utilises a ‘systems-thinking’ and collaborative approach that places communities and people at the forefront of future developments.

This report offers an original and creative dual approach to combat London’s housing crisis, a ‘self-building’ model and the ‘Nightingale approach’, both of which favour a tripled bottom line (development that values people, planet and profit equally), for a community-centred solution to the UK capital’s housing challenge.

1. Introduction.

London’s most ubiquitous urban challenge is the ability to provide affordable housing for all residents. For years housing supply has fallen below demand. One in three Londoners believes the urban housing crisis is the biggest issue the city faces today (London Assembly, 2020). This essay outlines the root cause of the current housing crisis, the primary and secondary implications of this, evaluates the current policies and projects which exist to mitigate housing pressures, and offers an alternative framework which utilises a ‘systems-thinking’ and collaborative approach between communities and municipalities, placing the people at the forefront of all development. Finally, this paper concludes with proposing two models, ‘self-building’ and the ‘Nightingale-Approach’ as feasible, Community Centralised solutions to London’s affordable housing challenge. 

2. The History of London’s Housing.

Over the decades, London’s housing shortage has primarily been caused by a failure to build new houses, meaning that, while population has increased, affordable housing stocks have not. According to the Office of National Statistics, more people live in London than ever before (8.9 million in 2019)(National Statistics, 2019). This equates to an average increase in population of just over one per cent (1.1%) annually since 2012. This is nearly an additional 100,000 people to house each year. Despite this, according to the Greater London Housing Authority, in 2017, just over 20,030 new homes were built each year over the previous decade (Data Store, 2020).

The Mayor, Sadiq Khan, estimates we would need to build a minimum of 66,000 new homes each year to cope with this increased demand (London Assembly, 2020). However, since this estimation was made in 2017, we have continually fallen short of this building goal, particularly with the uncertainty of Brexit and COVID19 this past year—only 10,000 homes were built (GLA Housing, 2020).   

Despite London’s failure to build enough homes over the most recent decade, to accommodate an ever-growing population, many cite the root of this shortage due to the vast selling of the council house stock to the private sector in the 1980’s. Margaret Thatcher’s introduction to the controversial ‘Right to Buy’ policy offered the opportunity for lower class council home renters to buy their houses from the government at 33% discount on market price (tenants who live there more than 3 years), as well as 100% mortgages from the local authority) (Cole, I , 2015). Supporters of the scheme claim it gave aspirational working-class citizens the chance to improve their financial circumstances and the safety net of owning their own home. While others suggest it amounted to a “sub-market flogging of public assets” that untimely lead to disordered housing prices and substantial reduction (1.8 million homes sold through this scheme) of housing stocks, the consequence of which we have still not recovered from today (Booth, R, 2017).

3. The Implications of Housing Shortages.

Due to this shortage of stock, the cost of renting and purchasing houses has become inflated across the market, resulting in unaffordable housing options. As a result, long-term local inhabitants are pushed out, in favour of wealthier clientele, often from overseas. Of the new properties built in the capital, only 38% of them are deemed affordable by the government (Ibid). To solve this urban sustainability challenge, 65% of all new builds need to be affordable. According to ECA international consultancy, London is the most expensive city within Europe to rent, estimated at triple the cost of the average European city (ECA, 2020). 

The primary implication of slow building rates and an inherent lack of affordable housing supply has resulted in one in three Millennials never being able to afford a house in the UK – let alone those who want to live in London. Since London is a capital city, housing has always been more expensive than the rest of the UK. However, this gap has widened – with housing prices in 2018 being 13x the median gross annual earnings compared to an average of 8x across the rest of the UK (Gov, 2019) For context, since 2007, this number has doubled. As a result, there has been an increase in pressures to provide ‘social housing’ for Londoners.

Social housing, also known as council housing, has rent factored into local incomes and provides an affordable housing option for individuals and families (Shelter, 2020). The idea is that social housing is more affordable than renting privately (typically between 40-60% less) and provides a more secure, long-term tenancy for those in need. From 2016-19, it was calculated that 17% of households in England lived in social housing (3.9 million) (Gov, 2020). Additionally, 1.2 million people across the UK are currently on the waiting list, but only 6,463 social homes were built between 2017-2018 (Ibid). As a result of London’s slow new-build rate, and consequent high rent and buying prices, and limited social housing stocks, it is estimated that nearly 1 in 50 Londoners are now homeless (70,000 people in the capital are sleeping rough) (Shelter, 2020).  

In addition to rising homelessness, there are two key secondary implications of a lack of affordable housing. Firstly, a considerable proportion of people aged 18 to 39 are considering leaving London forever (Sortland, 2020). This is problematic, because they are taking their talents with them, posing a substantial risk to London’s competitive advantage over its global rivals. Failure to attract and retain skilled people (including key workers) for all types of work undermines the rich mix of abilities needed to make the city function and prosper. The scale of this loss is exemplified in a study by Total Jobs, finding that more people were moving out of London than moving in (between the ages of 25-34)—net loss of 88 workers every day (Total Jobs, 2020). Of those surveyed, the most common reason given was their inability to afford housing, contributing to London’s financial inaccessibility. Since London’s population is already growing older each year (Age UK, 2021), the shift of young citizens leaving may result in drastic systematic change, the implications of which are simply unknown.  

 

Secondly, this affordability crisis perpetuates gentrification, resulting in more residents being pushed out of central London, inviting an influx of super-wealthy foreign buyers who can keep up with rising housing prices. 75% of new homes in central London go to foreign buyers (LSE, 2017). Many overseas clients purchase these apartments as second homes; thus, they remain empty for much of the year, meaning local economies, particularly amenities, are not stimulated in the same way as they would be with local residents. As a result, communities are displaced and fractured, reducing the quality of life for many Londoners. In the Mayor’s own words, the housing crisis affects “social cohesion, causes poor health and plunges residents into poverty” (Verdict, 2018). 

4. The Current Policy.

 The next section evaluates the current policy in place to mitigate this urban sustainability challenge. The Mayor’s approach to the London housing crisis is outlined in the London Housing Strategy, formally adopted by the Secretary of State, communities and Government in August 2018 (Greater London Authority, 2018). The Mayor’s previous version was rejected because it was deemed unsustainable and did not create enough new affordable housing. This 2018 version does just that, “addressing the housing shortage through an intensive use of London’s available land, focusing on more genuinely affordable housing and providing help now for people feeling the effects of the housing crisis – from private renters to rough sleepers” (Ibid). It focuses on five key areas; 1) building more homes for Londoners, 2) delivering genuinely affordable homes, 3) high-quality homes and inclusive neighbourhoods, 4) a fairer deal for private renters and leaseholders, 5) tackling homelessness and helping rough sleepers (Ibid).  

This plan brings together vital policies and proposals, and actions for implementation.   

However, the Mayor has achieved less than half the projects outlined in 2018. This is in part due to Covid-19 inhibiting supply chains and the ability to operate; however, since 2018, with a budget of 4.82 billion to build 116,000 affordable homes by 2022, as of December 2020, they had only begun 56,239. The Mayor has been criticised for not meeting his annual targets. However, he claims that City Hall requires a “seven-fold increase in funding to build the number of affordable homes the Capital needs”.  

Research was undertaken by CLA and G15 – London’s most prominent housing associates, revealing the city needs just under 5 billion pounds (GBP) per year to meet housing needs (CLA & G15, 2019). Khan recognises this; “despite Government Ministers failing to provide London with the full funding our city needs, I’m determined to help build the high quality, genuinely affordable homes that Londoners so desperately need and deserve (Greater London Authority, 2018).” Fundamentally, the government cannot fund the housing crisis alone, and until alternative solutions are devised, this problem will not be solved.   

This claim has been met by a further 4 billion pounds (GBP) put towards the ‘Affordable Homes Program’ (2021-26) to begin building 82,000 new homes (Gov, 2020). This new report states that the Mayor has ditched the ‘dodgy’ definition used by ministers who believe that affordable is circa 80% of the market rate (Ibid). Instead, the Mayor favours a more inclusive understanding of affordability based on average earning prices, safety, security, equity, diversity and sustainability (now termed London Living Rent). These updated standards mean there is a heightened focus on quality and quantity for the new builds over the 2021-26 period.   

5. The Current Programs.

The government has agreed to direct half towards Social Rent, primarily through the ‘Building Council Homes’ program, enabling councils to return to their role as significant homebuilders in London. This trend has not been seen since circa the 1930s, which saw the most extensive council housing creation in London’s history. As a new solution, the Building Council Homes strategy focuses on encouraging housing associations and private developers to work with councils to share skills and resources to form formal partnerships and collaborations (Ibid). An example would be “engaging in two-way secondments of staff swaps between council staff and partner teams” (Greater London Authority, 2018). Greater collaboration between the private and public sector has been cited as one of the most effective means of achieving results (Public Review 18, 2016). It has the potential to empower London, not only by creating a more just environment, but a city that engages with the ‘ethereal’ principles of living together, permitting people to remain local to ‘home’ and work (Harvey, 2008). This notion is conveyed in David Harvey’s ‘Right to the City’ (2008). The idea that as citizens, we have a right to remain in our city and to access affordable housing (Ibid). 

For decades, London’s affordable housing scheme has been a normative, centralised and top-down approach to urban planning (Horelli, 2013). As suggested in ‘New approaches to Urban planning’ (2013), our municipalities have not yet recognized the significance of genuine citizen participation in community development, which is why this paper concludes that current policy falls short in actively making London’s housing market accessible for all (Ibid). Although London’s new ‘Building Council Homes’ strategy aims to involve both the public and private sector, establishing a renewed interdisciplinary approach for the first time in London’s history, this paper maintains that too little progress has been made to validate this approach. 

6. Why Current Policy & Programs Fall Short.

Current policy falls short for several reasons. Firstly, because affordable housing is centralized around profitability (especially with private developers), which is why demand inevitably outstrips supply, housing prices continue to rise and increase competitiveness pressures inexorably. Secondly, it focuses solely on overall housing supply rather than addressing tenure – attention to detail, community needs, sustainability of homes, rather than believing that centralised policy change could increase supply in the long term and resolve complex issues around affordability.  

 

Thirdly, the solutions posed are always based on seeking additional public finances. As past trends in government funding have delineated, more money does not necessarily mean greater results. Our governmental bodies are still “turning a blind eye not only to the most important users of the urban environment”, but also to creators of the most current data and knowledge regarding our affordable housing needs (Pissourious, 2014). Without integrating elements of this bottom-up, community centralised approach, new strategies will continue to marginalise those who require support the most. 

Given the above, this paper suggests that, although this policy change is moving in the right direction, current policy falls short. In order to provide enough long-term, sustainable affordable housing to meet London’s current and future needs, there needs to be a unilateral systemic shift, which will only occur if the focus is transferred from policy to people. In David Harvey’s words, “justice is simply whatever the ruling class wants, (Harvey, 2008) ” and as it stands, the ruling class does not consider the needs of the working class and lower income households at present.

8. A Shift in Perspective – Community-based Solutions.

This paper proposes that the shift from policy to people should be realised through community-based solutions, as they are the only way to ensure sustainable growth and the needs of local citizens. The notion that social justice and sustainability for communities should be a priority in policy is a view grounded in academic literature. Scott D Campbell’s ‘Green City…’ (1996) paper suggests that communities should be at the forefront of design and innovation rather than an afterthought both in policy and implementation (Campbell, 1996). He suggests that planners have devised a ‘triangle’ consisting of social equity, economic development and environmental development. In the middle, there is “sustainable development, which cannot directly be reached, and as a consequence, it is approximated or indirectly touched on” (Ibid). To adequately implement sustainable development into urban planning to create just cities, he maintains that social theory and environmental thinking must be combined to interlink the ‘triangle’ and to represent the community’s actual needs (Ibid). 

With this in mind, the next section of this paper evaluates the role of the community, illustrating a way to involve local citizens within development and policy decisions through a democratic approach to home-building. Currently, the Mayor holds the policy-making and decision-making power (Greater Housing Authority, 2019). The power to plan is implemented through policy by setting out strategic measures to ensure London’s boroughs contribute to development. Conversely, the decision-making power permits him to rule for or against planning applications submitted by councils. This paper suggests that it should be an either or. There are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches. However, the first appeals more towards a community-centric approach because it allows communities to drive development where they need to most without worrying about rejected applications at the final ‘decision-making’ stage. Maria Kaika’s 2017 paper on ‘New Urban Agenda’ highlights the need for this shift, from state to population in order to meet the call for “safe, resilient, sustainable and inclusive cities (Kaika, 2017)”.

A more democratic approach would pay greater attention to marginalised voices, permitting all local voices from all classes to ‘heard’ and changes to be driven by communities. One method to implement this would be for local communities to elect and vote on several individuals from a variety of social and ethnic backgrounds to represent the wider community. Community meetings, focus groups, online surveys and improvement boxes could allow local citizens to voice their needs and concerns to these elected community representatives, who could then feedback to councils on a set timeline to allow councils to allocate resources and funding towards community-derived projects.  

Two factors would drive this approach: firstly, financial incentives from London City Council directed towards these community-based projects. Secondly, local citizens would be able to run on their own self-determination. This notion allowing citizens to have the right to self-determination is a fundamentalist perspective grounded in Western Philosophy’s ‘Autonomy Argument’ (Stanford, 2003), which suggests that people are more likely to engage when they are given the right to choose. Shepard’s research (2016) found that communities that do not perceive themselves as having self-determination or control over aspects of their lives (such as housing) are less readily engaged with local projects, education, housing development simply because they are ‘passive’ in the equation of change (Shepard, 2016). 

7a. Model 1 – Self- Building.

The above system’s thinking and collaborative approach to housing development places the emphasis on the community to build to suit their individualized needs. Applying this strategy, the last section of this paper presents two possible building models as solutions for London’s current affordability crisis. The first model is the notion of ‘self-building’, comprised of a large-scale self-building projects directed by local communities. The second is termed the ‘Nightingale model’, a triple bottom line approach to architecture(Centre for Universal Design, 2014). Simply put, this approach to architecture and property development values people, planet and profit equally.

As of 2020, 1 in 3 adults in the UK stated that they were interested in self-building (Lloyd, 2015). However, the UK’s current standard procedure does not lend itself to this autonomous and egalitarian approach, due to the rigorous building standards and policy hurdles. Applications are often rejected (City council still holds decision-making power) on vague statements such as deemed ‘unneighbourly development’ or ‘impact on amenity’ simply because individual council representatives deem them to be so (Collinson, 2011). This has previously made this model inaccessible. Nonetheless, with the above suggestion of electing local representatives to permit greater community autonomy paving the way for a more democratic approach to home building, the self-building model could lend itself to creating sustainable and affordable housing. 

This is not a new concept; self-building is already extremely popular in other European countries and has seen great success in tackling the affordable housing crises and building sustainable homes centered around community requirements. For example, in Berlin, a group of single mothers united with local authorities to commission a block of flats (Ibid). They now rent these apartments at an affordable rate and have a comprehensive support network for raising their children. Amsterdam offers land packages and low-interest financing for self-builders who are registered on their statutory housing list. 

Furthermore, during the 1980s, 13 families built their homes in the London suburb of Honor Oak. These families knew nothing about home building; they were guided by the inspirational German Architect Walter Segal, who believed that anyone could build their own home as long as they could cut a straight line. Segal’s modular grid structure, made from recycled material inspired these beautiful homes, voiding these homeowners of complicated technical cement and plaster trades (Wainwright, 2016). The families described the approach as totally inspiring; with the local council’s support, they had the freedom to create a small community that worked for all the families. The architect Rod Hackney observed that “it is a dangerous thing to underestimate the human potential and the energy which can be generated when people are given the opportunity to help themselves.”  

7a. Model 1 – Self- Building.On a site in Ladywell, only a few miles away from this original design, the council (2016) agreed to hand over the land on a long-term lease to the Rural-Urban Synthesis Society to allow 33 new homes to be built. These have various rent options (social rents, shared ownership), allowing them to remain affordable in perpetuity as the land lease has been linked to local incomes. In addition to cutting costs through ‘sweat equity’ (the element of self-building), these homes are made with sustainable materials, as well as being energy efficient, keeping running costs low. Additionally, a shared roof garden provides a sustainable food supply, and a community hall and kitchen allow inhabitants to connect and live socially as a community.   

Applicants who were interested in this self-building scheme would be offered a plot by the local council to build their own home or buy already finished homes at reduced rates or long-term leases. Local council planning officials could then be retrained to assist new builders, alongside collaborating with local council representatives to ensure self-building projects were aligned with wider community goals. These homes show us “how self-build can work at high density on urban sites, not just be confined to one-off houses in the countryside”. They are a democratic collective effort that place residents at the forefront of financial return (and long-term stability), sustainability (investing in a shared future) and most importantly, liveability. These three elements have been cited as a tripled bottom-line approach, a concept grounded in the ‘Nightingale model’, which lends itself as an alternative affordable housing approach for those who do not feel confident in self-building alone but still desire a centralised community approach.  

7b. Model 2 – Nightingale Housing.

The Nightingale Housing approach has taken off in Australia and has since won multiple awards for its design (Cumming, 2018). Nightingale Housing provides socially, financially, and environmentally sustainable apartments – “we believe that homes should be built for people, not profit” (Nightingale Principles, 2021). This model could easily be applied to London areas, where councils have larger plots that are suitable for more extensive development opportunities. This design cuts out everything that is not essential, marketing display suits, second bathrooms, profit margins, and focuses on sustainable material, energy-saving techniques and a sense of community (Ibid). The result is comfortable and stylish homes occupied with residents that have similar goals and interests.   

This design model could serve as a simplified template for communities throughout London boroughs to make their own based on their needs. This option would allow communities to take control of their future homes in the same way as self-building. However, it would offer a pre-determined structural design for those looking for a smaller and more financially stable means of accessing social housing. This paper suggests that if this architectural model was available for citizens to access, communities could form groups of like-minded people to propose a ‘new development’ in the local area using this model to work alongside councils to create a solution that works for everyone.   

8. Conclusion.

To conclude, this paper has addressed London’s affordability housing crisis, deducing that the current challenges stem from a lack of new builds, in addition to the inflation of prices of current stocks available. This paper has summarised the resulting primary and secondary implications, as well as evaluating past and current policy in order to assess the progress and strategies being taken by the City Council. Subsequently, this paper concludes that, while policy is moving in the right direction towards a collaborative and inter-disciplinary approach, current procedure still falls short, because it still focuses on numbers (profit and number of houses built), rather than individual and community needs. Advocating for a strategy that provides communities with autonomy and a sense of responsibility would have a greater impact on solving the housing crisis and on improving the quality of life for citizens more broadly. Finally, this outlines two possible frameworks as solutions to implement within London to provide affordable, sustainable and long-term housing options for all residents. 

9. Works Cited.

Apartments, S., 2014. Centre for Universal Design. [Online]
Available at: Sustainable Apartments – Nightingale Housing – Centre for …https://universaldesignaustralia.net.au › sustainable-apar…

Assembly, L. G., 2017. Mayor Of London New Homes. [Online]
Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/london-needs-66000-new-homes-year

Authority, G. L., 2019. HOUSING IN LONDON: 2019 The evidence base for the Mayor’s Housing Strategy. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/housing_in_london_2019.pdf

Authority, G. L., 2019. The 2022-2032 Affordable Housing Funding Requirement for London. [Online]
Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/report_2022-2032_ah_funding_requirement_for_london_v2.pdf

Authority, G. L., May 2018. London Housing Strategy. [Online]
Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2018_lhs_london_housing_strategy.pdf

Booth, R., 2017. Sadiq Khan: London needs to build 66,000 new homes a year, up from 29,000. [Online]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/27/sadiq-khan-to-raise-target-for-affordable-housing-in-london

Campbell, S. D., 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development, s.l.: Campbell, S, Journal of the American Planning Association.

Collinson, P., 2011. Self-build: it’s time to go Dutch, s.l.: The Guardian.

Cole, I, Green, S, McCarthy, L., 2015. The Impact of the Existing Right to Buy and the Implications for the Proposed Extension of Right to Buy to Housing Associations, CREST, Sheffield Hallam University.

Cummings, A., 2018. Refining the model: Nightingale, s.l.: Sanctuary issue 43.

Data, T. J. O., July 2020. Covid-19 accelerates migration from London as 1.6m plan moves out of the capital. [Online] Available at: https://www.totaljobs.com/media-centre/covid-19-accelerates-migration-from-london-as-1-6m-plan-moves-out-of-the-capital

Encyclopedia, S., 2003. Autonomy in Moral & Political Philosophy,. [Online]
Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/

Foster, D, 2015. Right to buy: a history of Margaret Thatcher’s controversial policy. The Guardian. Available [Online] at: https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/dec/07/housing-right-to-buy-margaret-thatcher-data

Gleeson, G. C. a. J., October 2020. GLA Housing and Land – The evidence base for the London Housing Strategy. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/housing_in_london_2020.pdf

Gov.uk, Febuary 2020. Renting social housing. [Online]

Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/social-housing/renting-from-a-local-authority-or-housing-association-social-housing/latest#:~:text=data%20shows%20that%3A-,in%202016%20to%202018%2C%2017%25%20of%20households%20(3.9%20million,likel

Gov.uk, M. o. L., November 2020. Mayor sets out blueprint for new generation of social housing. [Online]
Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-to-start-new-generation-of-social-housing

Harvey, D., 2008. Right to the city. In: Chapter 1. City University of New York: s.n.

Horelli, L. (., Jarenko, K. & Kuoppa, J. S.-S. J. W. S., 2013. New approaches to Urban planning, s.l.: Maankäyttötieteiden laitos Department of Real Estate, Planning and Geoinformatics.

International, E., April 2020. London retains its position as the most expensive city to rent in Europe and 4th in the world. [Online] Available at: https://www.eca-international.com/news/april-2020/london-retains-its-position-as-the-most-expensive

Kaika, M., 2017. ‘Don’t call me resilient again!’: The New Urban Agenda as immunology, s.l.: Environment and Urbanization, 29(1):89-102..

Lloyd, M. G. P. D. &. J.-J. L. B., 2015. Self-build in the UK and Netherlands: mainstreaming self-development to address housing shortages?, s.l.: Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 3(1), 19-31.

London, L., May 2017. The role of overseas investors in the London new-build residential market. [Online]
Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/08b2b_lse_overseas_investment_report_-_homes_for_londoners.pdf

Pissourios, I., May 2014. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Urban and Regional Planning: Towards a Framework for The Use of Planning Standards, Neapolis University: European Spatial Research and Policy 21(1).

Principles, N., 2021. Build Less, Give more. [Online]
Available at: https://nightingalehousing.org/nightingale-principles

Shelter, 2020. London’s Homelessness. [Online]
Available at: https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness

Shelter, 2020. What is social housing?. [Online]
Available at: https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/what_is_social_housing

Shepard, 2016. he need for self-determinism, s.l.: Modern Cartography Series.

Statistics, O. o. N., 2019. Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2019. [Online] Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2019estimates

Store, L. D., 2020. Housing in London – The evidence base for the Mayor’s Housing Strategy. [Online]
Available at: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/housing-london

Thomasson, E. M. S. &. A., November 2016. The Use of the Partnering Concept for Public–Private Collaboration: How Well Does it Really Work?, s.l.: Public Organization Review volume 18, pages 191–206.

UK, L. A., 2021. Populations facts & figures. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ageuk.org.uk/london/about-us/media-centre/facts-and-figures/

Wainwright, O., 2016. Self-build pioneers: the estate pointing the friendly way out of a housing crisis. [Online]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jan/21/self-build-pioneers-walter-segal-architect-london-housing-exhibition

Categories
Blog

Community power!

How urban communities around the world help with our pressing sustainability challenges.

Figure 1: location, subject and authors of our community reports (links below).

What is the role of community today? How can it help us resolve or, at the very least, alleviate the seemingly immense pressures we are currently faced with, globally? What relevance is there even to the idea of community as such, at a time when social norms appear to tear tightly-knit communities apart? And is there really space for us to come together, discuss and act at a time in history when it feels as if the opposite is what is expected of us? These are some of the questions that swivelled in our minds as we got involved in a new module taught at the School, “Building sustainable, inclusive and just cities”. Week after week, as pandemic lockdowns the world over challenged our sense of community (our physical co-existence), we came to realise that the community spirit (our imagining of, and our ability to act together) was more important than ever.

During this time, we learned about different conceptions of space, from Henri Lefebvre’s ideas about space as inherently social, all the way to David Harvey’s impassioned call for the right to the city. Cities and urban areas, we came to realise, are all a product of capital accumulation. The fact that in the past, in similar times of crisis, periods of social upheaval have often ensued in urban areas, is enlightening, as it has been noted by many that COVID-19 has highlighted and perpetuated many structural inequalities all over the world. The added challenge of climate change (loss of habitat, the very real threat of a future lack of freshwater) as well as large-scale urban acquisitions all call for a reconceptualisation of how we think about urban spaces. Only by re-infusing the local into the urban can we perceive a sustainable urban future.

In this collection of local community reports you will now find the fruits of this collective effort. Communities are challenged around the world in a variety of forms: there are so many daunting, severe problems for people in every country and in every city. Our reports take highly localized sustainability problems and address them through small-scale, community-led solutions, breaking down insurmountable problems into manageable solutions, or at least mitigating them. Each report shows how strong communities are the antidote to unsustainable conditions in urban environments and that there is action that can be taken to improve our cities, communities, world, and our own lives. Specifically:

In Long Branch, Montgomery County, Maryland, Charlotte Caldwell examines the potential of community action against transit-oriented displacement; in Polígono Sur, Sevilla, Mikaela Carmichel directly addresses the Roma community in order to demand its right to, and improve the quality of housing; in Oxgangs, Edinburgh, Mollie Cochran looks at ways to address the area’s long-term health inequalities; in Rosengård, Malmö, Linda Eckefeldt traces the impact of urban regeneration processes on segregation and stigmatization in the area; in London, UK, Georgie Murrin proposes a community approach to urban sustainability by looking at the city’s housing crisis; in Portland, Oregon Moriah Hull examines the Dignity Village model as a potential community solution for the city’s housing insecure community. In Boulogne-sur-Mer, France, Mathilde Roze looks at the unique potential of Passage Siblequin in addressing territorial stigmatisation; in downtown Jersey City, New Jersey, Charlotte Silverman studies the vulnerability of the city to flooding and storms and looks at ways for the community to strengthen its position; In Drumchapel, Glasgow, Yvonne Smith looks at the area’s daunting health inequalities compared to some of its immediate neighbours; and in East Boston, Massachusetts, Georgina Steel offers recommendations in face of the area’s electrical substation, the latest environmental justice challenge in this overburdened community.

One final note about the geographical focus of these reports: their (often very) concise geographic focus could at first appear off-putting to a potential reader, who might fear that this knowledge would be too place-specific and therefore irrelevant to their own places of interest. On the contrary, it appears evident upon reading that the focus of these reports is a significant strength. By reflecting on the specifics of each place and developing practical and implementable solutions to those local issues, we aspire for our reports to present you, the reader, with a door to countless opportunities to adapt this knowledge to your own contexts.

The Collection Editors,

Moriah Hull, Linda Eckefeldt, Mathilde Roze and Antonis Vradis

Cookie preferences