Public Spaces Dissertation (Year 3)

PUBLIC SPACES Investigating public spaces as a metric, within the housing estate, to understand the rates, of success it brings to communities.

This page has been Intentionally left blank

PUBLIC SPACES Humaira Ramzan

S18145356 BA (Hons) Architecture Birmingham City University ARC6010 - Cultural Context: Critical Study in Architecture

CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction

What is a community?

What makes a community successful and unsuccessful?

Focusing on public spaces

What this study investigates: break down of chapters

3 3-4 4-6 7 7-8

CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH ON PUBLIC SPACES

Design on the Public Convivial Urban Spaces Comparison between Design on the Public and Convivial Urban Spaces Life Between Buildings The Death and Life of Great America Cities Public Space in the Residential Areas

11 - 12 13 13 - 14 14 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22

CHAPTER THREE: CASE STUDY 1 – DONNYBROOK QUARTER

About Donnybrook Quarter

25

What did Peter Baber Architects want to accomplish?

Why did Peter Baber Architects want to accomplish this?

Did the approach for Donnybrook Quarter lead to a successful community?

25 - 27 27 28 - 34

CHAPTER FOUR: CASE STUDY 2 – GOLDSMITH STREET

About Goldsmith Street Did the approach for Goldsmith Street lead to a successful community?

37 37 - 42

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION Conclusion

45 - 48

RESOURCES References Figures

51 - 54 55 - 56

APPENDIX

Group Work – Donnybrook Quarter

59 - 95

CHAPTER ONE Introduction

INTRODUCTION Over the years, many architects, designers, planners, and theorists have been striving to create successful housing schemes throughout our cities. In accomplishing success, many elements must be considered: who we are building for, why we are building, what are the benefits within societies, environment, economy, and demographic, and what could be improved. These are just a couple of propositions that should be running through our minds. However, regardless of such significant demands, one thing that is fundamental and should be at the heart of bringing this entire housing scheme together, is a successful community.

WHAT IS A COMMUNITY? A place to start is to understand what a community is, what leads to it becoming

3

successful, and what are the downfalls that disintegrate communities. Before diving into the existing literature on this specific topic, I began to question my own experiences and knowledge as to what this means to me.

As figure one shows, many factors make up a community, such as a community is a space where people may choose to live in an environment with others that share the same beliefs and values as them; it’s a space that allows people to feel safe and connected through socialising (Chavis and Lee, 2015).

Follett (1919: 576) who was a philosopher and social worker, argues the same points, as she believes that a community is the conception of a creative process that happens within society. She claims that individuals have been integrated with wishes, and, when united with others, they share these. The society gives them a purpose as to why this may occur. This takes us back to my point; this entire vision

of creating a community is about ‘people’ because, without the people, the concept of a community would be worthless.

Jan Gehl (n.d), who is an architect, author, city planner, and an urban design consultant, has always been driven by focusing his approach on what the people need, and this is clearly shown within his statement: “People are the starting point in our work.” Jan Gehl (2011) emphasises the importance of what happens on the outside, rather than the inside, proving how important it is to design, by understanding what the people need.

two and three clearly show this. However, it’s essential to see what other responses would be when answering the same question through a questionnaire. Figure four shows; there are many similarities between answers, besides this, this study showed that people’s responses were based on their experiences and knowledge.

WHAT MAKES A COMMUNITY SUCCESSFULL AND UNSUCCESSFUL? Having looked at what a community is, there are factors that make this possible, but at the same time, there are issues that could cause communities to deteriorate. Both figures

Figure One: What makes a community? (Authors Own).

4

So, taking a looking at this from an architecture critic’s perspective, like Jane Jacobs (1961), who was an author who focuses on urbanism, sociology, and the economy, she also argues that the points mentioned within figures two, three, and four which are all as equally relevant, as they all intersect.

In other words, Jacobs book is a focal point on understanding the need of society and integrating these within the design.

Figure Two : What makes a community successful? (Authors Own).

Figure Three: What makes a community unsuccessful? (Authors Own).

5

Figure Four: This table was designed to gather participants answers from the questionnaire I gave them, asking them what makes a community successful and unsuccessful according to them? (Authors Own).

6

FOCUSING ON PUBLIC SPACES As discovered from these figures, many factors lead to a successful community.

However, as part of this study, success will be narrowed down and focused on public spaces because, like Gehl (2011) states, as much as it’s essential to create housing schemes that work’s for the resident’s, it’s as crucial to understand what happens in between these spaces, as these are the spaces that make up the community and consider the needs of the residence as a whole. However, how much of a difference does this make? Therefore, I will investigate public spaces as a metric, within the housing estate, to understand the rates of success it brings to communities.

WHAT THIS STUDY INVESTIGATES; BREAK DOWN OF CHAPTERS? To investigate this topic further, there are four

7

main sections: understanding the literature on public spaces; using this to analyse how the two case studies (Donnybrook Quarter and Goldsmith Street) have used this when thinking about their public spaces, a comparison between the two case studies, then concluding the findings, to see what was successful, unsuccessful and what could possibly be done better in the future.

This page has been Intentionally left blank

8

CHAPTER TWO Research On Public Spaces

RESEARCH ON PUBLIC SPACES DESIGN ON THE PUBLIC Kristine F. Miller (2007), an author who focuses her research on public spaces and public life, describes public space as a place opened to the entire public, one which doesn’t hold boundaries, like a private one.

It’s a space that allows the society to gather as a community for celebrations, grieving, protesting, and just doing daily activities like walking, sitting, hearing, and seeing. Despite this, Miller argues that, yes, that should indeed be the reality, having access to opened spaces and having a sense of public ownership, which all links back to the democratic lifestyle.

However, this isn’t the case because, as Miller claims, there seems to be this disconnection when architects, designers, planners, and other professionals build for the ‘people.’

11

An example she gives is, when spaces have barriers around them, for the safety of the people. She then questions, how is that still a public space, as there’s a sense of limitation, by creating these boundaries.

Therefore, Miller argues that those designing the space put too much consideration into the physical aspect instead of the nonphysical, which equally affects the people using the area. Hence, when designers take this responsibility, they need to consider it as a hybrid between physical places and the public sphere, which is when the societies open discussion between each other is acted upon by the governing bodies to make that change in their communities.

Figure Five: Visual description of Millers explanation of public spaces (Project, n.d.) edited by author.

12

CONVIVIAL URBAN SPACES Henry Shaftoe (2008), an author who specialises in better and safer neighbourhood,

has also taken a very similar approach to Miller, however, is more focused on creating the right types of convivial public spaces by looking at how the residence uses and reacts. He believes that those spaces that allow people to socialise and be festive allow for opportunities and encounters between strangers. Without this, the growth of urban spaces and communities would decrease.

Shaftoe also discusses the Carr et al 1992 study, which also links to this because it looks into the need to design public spaces as part of the residential projects, which would allow the urban dwellers to use them in a way that suits them.

13

This might lead them to recreating and reusing public spaces. Shaftoe concludes by saying by creating architecture and buildings in open spaces that are left alone don’t tend to excel. Still, those spaces left for residents to recreate do because it gives them a sense of opportunity for recreational purposes, which means more to the residents.

COMPARISON BETWEEN DESIGN ON THE PUBLIC AND CONVIVIAL URBAN SPACES Comparing, ‘Design on the Public’ and ‘Convivial Urban Spaces’, it’s clear to see that both authors have taken their own approaches because, as mentioned earlier when discussing the success of communities, it all depends on where you draw the line, on what is public space, how far is research taken, and also in the author’s case it depends on

their backgrounds, as Miller has a landscape architecture and humanities background.

Whereas, Shaftoe specialises in urban planning, architecture, and urban design. One thing they both have in common that links back to the question is that, public spaces shouldn’t be a desire but instead a demand that is integrated into the housing scheme by considering what is needed by the residents.

of the other two activities, but happen only because of people meeting each other randomly or on purpose.

LIFE BETWEEN BUILDINGS Jan Gehl (2011) emphasises the importance of understanding the need for spaces between buildings. The first chapter is focused on the three types of activities that happen outside (refer to figure six). They are necessary – those which have to take place as they are essential, like children having to walk to school, optional – which is more of a desire, like leaving the house for some fresh air and social activities – which is a combination

Figure Six: Shows the three types of activities that happen outdoor, Necessary, Optional and Social (Gehl, 2011: 10) edited by author.

14

However, as figure seven shows, this is impacted by the environment because if the weather wasn’t pleasant, then only necessary activities would go ahead. Still, if the weather is flourishing, then all activities would take place, but this would mean necessary activities would take longer, as more people are outdoors.

Figure Seven: How the environment effects the activities (Gehl, 2011: 11) edited by author.

15

Gehl says that by putting efficient designs into place, people have the chance to meet, see and talk to others, allowing them to experience through socialising and interacting. The levels of contact in this type of situation vary from high to low; high would be meeting a friend, whereas on the more downside of the spectrum, might be seeing strangers when passing by. Either way, providing individuals the chance to experience could develop into communication and move higher up the spectrum.

Gehl says if architects designed homes that considered front gardens or courtyard spaces, people are more likely to stop, look, and maybe even bond with the other resident, who might be outside watering the plants.

Not only does this build communities by getting to know each other, but it’s also a way of developing trust that leads to social and emotional benefits (refer to figure eight).

Figure Eight: A opportunity to stop, look and build bonds (Gehl, 2011: 18) edited by author.

16

Another benefit Gehl explains of outdoor public spaces is that, architects are always striving to create beautiful buildings that hopefully attract people, still his studies show that people are more interested in using or viewing spaces that have people in them. For example, even though places have parks or pedestrian spaces, children are always found alongside roads, which links to Henry Shaftoe (2008), a firm believer in allowing spaces to stay as they are or giving residents space to recreate their communities to grow in (refer to figure nine).

In addition to this, Gehl also focuses on how outdoor activities, affect outdoor spaces quality, when being physically planned. Urban planners or architects design buildings that may tend to spread buildings out. Gehl explains that having houses next to each other or designing a community where everything is close by and within walking distance, is very

17

beneficial because it allows people to walk, socialise and interact with their surroundings.

They also know who lives around them, making it easier to trust and rely on each other increasing, safety.

Figure Nine: Children crowded where other children are (Gehl, 2011: 24) edited by author.

18

THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES Jane Jacobs (1961), in ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’, investigates the safety of streets, the success of parks, the reasons why slums either regenerate or deteriorate, and what successful neighbourhoods are. It is clear to see that there is a strong contrast with Gehl’s book; as mentioned previously, people use and pass by the environments that have other people in them, which leads to successful communities.

This is also shown in Jacobs book: within the introduction, she mentions North End Boston in America. This was a place that was dirty, damaged, and was just seen as a slum.

However, since 1959, she has seen a huge improvement, as there is a sense of life back into that space. Nevertheless, this fascination with the growth and development led her

19

to wanting to know more, so she met up with a local planner to discuss the current improvements. From this meeting, she discovered that Boston is striving more than ever, as it has been recognised with extremely low death, crime, and illness rates. However, despite the fact the community recreated their safe place, the planner mentions to Jacobs the place will have to get rebuilt, as the governing bodies want the people off the streets, as it’s still seen as a ‘slum.’

Jacobs was blown away from this response because the planner agrees that the outdoor public space created by the local people was successful. Still, because of how the planner has been trained and the expertise he has to follow, it goes against this, which meant that either way Boston is seen as a wrong place for the economy. Just another situation where the needs of society are not being understood!

Figure Ten: Pictures showing the life created by the people in North End Boston In America, it shows how successful it is, however in the eyes of the governing bodies it’s still a ‘slum‘. (Turner, 2017) edited by author

20

PUBLIC SPACE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS Wojciech Bonenberg (2015), is an architect, and another author that looks into the social arrangement of public spaces in the housing estate. Bonenberg states that the current housing conditions in public spaces are not acceptable because designers who are creating these spaces are not making them to the best standards. They are only focusing on the architecture, and the size of public spaces are not big enough for the residents in that community. Bonenberg claims this could be because those designing the space may not have enough insight about the residents and may not be aware of how important it is to create outdoor public spaces alongside the architecture.

He explains that public space is fundamental as it also impacts the resident’s identity. In other words, if a resident understands, is

21

comfortable, and safe in taking care of their environment, this will be shown through their actions and behaviour towards that space.

However, suppose social identity and public space were to collide, in that case, this is easily seen as an unsuccessful community, as it is usually left abandoned and has high crime and vandalisation rates.

Other points mentioned were allowing the residents to reflect on the space they have; in other words, architects don’t need to build in every space but enable the residents to apply their own culture and taste, which leads to a more personalised successful community.

On the other hand, Bonenberg also mentions how important it is to think carefully when building public spaces because, if well designed, it could benefit the environment as it allows people to walk, run, and often cycle in outdoor spaces near their homes, which

they feel comfortable in. Having spaces that aren’t fully developed, like green spaces, could also encourage the activities mentioned before, alongside being able to rest, recreate, be a visually appealing environment, and a safe space for children to come out and play with their neighbours.

22

CHAPTER THREE Case Study 1 - Donnybrook Quarter

CS1 - DONNYBROOK QUARTER ABOUT DONNYBROOK QUARTER Using the literature discussed, I will be looking at Donnybrook Quarter to thoroughly analyse if public spaces have been considered.

If yes, how this has been effective in creating a successful community. As shown in figure eleven, Donnybrook Quarter is in Bow East, on the edge of Hackney, adjacent to Victoria Park. The building was built back in 2007

by Peter Barber Architects as a residential apartment that is two to three stories high.

It is holding a total of 40 units, which was considered by taking a more in-depth look into the demographic to understand who lives in that area, including age, ethnicity, religion, households, and employment, alongside other factors that helped to make up the majority of their concept such as focusing on the needs of people. This enabled Barber to work

25

around these findings because his whole concept revolved around designing a housing scheme that would be used and cared for by the people. Therefore, Barber was known for creating such an innovative housing scheme that highly considered the needs of people and building a strong community and circulation around Donnybrook Quarter.

WHAT DID PETER BARBER ARCHITECTS WANT TO ACCOMPLISH? When Barber was considering the design for this building, they had set themselves goals they were aiming to accomplish. They sought to create an innovation that focused on several different aspects of the design, but the main one revolved around designing public spaces because they were determined to use the urban landscape to their best of their ability. So, they had set themselves goals to create a landscape that gives the

65

61 28

36 to 33

6

24 6

161

1 11

93

1

89 a 91

71

to

51

20 to 25

1

2

9

12

13

to

10

19

16

15

11

9

19

17

M Cloulbe se rry

16

to

9

to

15

St Ma

rga rets

Alle

y

STR EET

4 ST MA RGAR ETS

25

STR EET

St Law Little rence Steps

5

3

1

79

of)

rse

4344

2 to

9

7

City Wa ll (cou

City Wall (remains of)

19 18

13 12

33 32 17 16

Plou Yard gh

15

BA RN RO AD DW

City Wall (rema ins of)

5

1 St Ben edicts View

RO AD

19 17

18

22

7 RA GL AN

STREET

1

VALENT INE

9

BA RN

10

14

12

8

20

16

25 24

Bank

27

6

19

to 37

11

ST RE ET

1

3 5

89

5 6

11 12 4

to 45

42

25

to 41

38

20

14

15 35

12

27 31 35

28 32

24

18

22

25 29 33

38

40

45

73

17 ST to R 24 EE T

25

SA YE R S

to

15 to 9

1 to 6 ST R EE T SA YE R S

OR CH AR D ST REET

35

29

27

17

7

5

3

1a

1

2

26 30 34

37

125

123

7 to 19

6 12

2 13 8 to 12

14 c 14 a to

18

20 22 26

24 28

ST RE ET DER BY

14 24 12 22

Manc roft Walk

Mancr oft

103

8 11 to 2 11

16 16 b a 6

12

6 8 5 7

4 16 26

18 Midla nd Wa 28 lk

10 20

4 8

2 6

1923 2731

41 to 45

1721 2529

15 9 13

37 1115

19

24

94 97 98 103 104 9596 99 106 101 100 105 108 102 107

88 90 92 89 91 93

13 5

163

74

94

0 to 12

Card Placigan e

CLO SE HAS LIPS

47 to 51

63 to 67

1a 1to d

12

11 10

9

65 63 57 61

55 59

41 37 39

17 19

CR

12 13 15

43 45 47 49

23

HEIGHAM ROAD

1 to 7

BELVOIR STREET

167

9 6 to

70

12 2 to

to 24 14 23 1 to

CLOSE CLIF TON

to 37 35

32 34 39 33 38

15

1 3

Posts

15

71

8.8m

59

Belvedere Centre

35

69

57 45

33

63a 63 63b 55

DOURO PLAC E

107 111

83

65 45

33 to 37

35

27

Seventh-Day Adventist Church

BELVOIR STREET

117

87 77

41 4349 47 53

3 1

23 16

12 11 10 13 22 21 20 9

49

49 51

19

ADELAID E STREET

1 99 91 87

77 67 55

Potters House Church

17

1

158

1a 1b

1c

11 15 29

33

25

43

90

RO AD 35

1

3

9

CONNAUGHT ROAD

3 3a 1 15 27

31 41

53

65

14

55

49 50 45 46

Hawthorn Row

19 19a

13

11 5

2 4 HELENA ROAD

32 48 44

70 64

7 6 5 8 19 18 17 4

75

65

89

91 93 87 85 89

111 95 99

91

ADELAIDE STREET

85

57 58 51 to 56

41

31 21

FINCHLEY COURT

2

CR ED Bdy

OLD PALA CE

141 143 133 135 119 123 127 131

101 103 117 105 107 121 109 111 125 113 115 129

113

91

WADDINGTON STREET

77

37 34

73 79 83a

33

38 19

Waddington Court

12

73

19

ED Bdy 7

23

1

13

61

NELSON STREET

7 1

114

40 46 52 20

12

71 77 83 75 81 83b

110 108

98 62 68 74 58 60 22 28 34

26 24 44 42 32 3830 3650 5648 54

NORTHUMBERLAND STREET

80 86 92 66 82 72 787064 7688 949084 96

14 245

63

65 127 131 129 133 125

113

120 BRAMFIELD CLOSE

62

46

36 26

LIVINGSTONE STREET

29

58

11 14 17 12 15 18

1 4 7

107

130

2 5 8 6 39 10 13 16

129 88a

148 140

1

144

138

176

182

3

1

150

LITTLE ARMES STREET

7

55 41

4

218

3

33

ED Bdy

136 135

45

80 86

23

29

83

11

GLADSTONE STREET

73 77

5

HELENA ROAD

St

42

75

129b 129a

43

69

68 70 72

66

81 84 87

1

11

44

46

27

71

41

49

29

9

48

26

23

45

28

ALEXANDRA ROAD

14 17 21

39 36

50

23

43

25

136

65

53

39

37

45

24 22

134

222

71

83

2

10

18

9597

93

101

107

65c

17 21

128

46

42

34

24

14

190 178

170

168

35

201316

13

12 16 20

to 70

154

152 142

138

192 a 192

100

28 30

124126

102

82

70a 72

66

to 62

2 to 6

228 204

29

15

47

55

58

4 5

55

19 23

98

90

8

21.0m

22

5

SAINT PHILIPS ROAD

134to 196

2 to

99

97

81 89

235 2

7 9

1

23

84

2 12

71

80 to

52 54

48

44

78

8

6a 8a

10

21

33

ST BEN EDICTS

42

68

48 50

46

16 to 18

9.8m

35

Little

a to g 21 to 23

40

60

6

1 7 13

44

10

4

100 to132

66

64

56 58

34

94

3 9 15

73

71

59

49 a 51

49

3941 43 45

17

Maude Gray Ct

7.0m

56

113 111

79

37

54

PH

48 50 52

45 43

3.7m

Helgate Court

St Margaret's

46

3 4

Reeves Yard

7

86

PH

49 50

Court

53

1 to

Queen of Hungary Yard

7.3m

to

Arts Centre

59

LB

33

103

67

24

St Swithins Terrace

to 67

W ES TW IC KS TR EE T

y Alle

8

69

93 to 97

41 to 44

36

81

to

to

65

87 to 91

31 32 33 to

93

13

to

79

4 12

6 14

84

67

63

4

7

95

Woolgate Court

s in ith Sw St

4

to

38

8 16

8

14

112

71

30

72 78

74 80

69 to 73

2 10

20 22

26 32

1 to 11

1

21

76 82

24 30

28 34

18

16

11

15

to

36 36to a f

36 42 48

38 44 50

15

27

14

23

24

40

40 52 46

1 to 21

27 26

10

Def

17

1 2

1

to

84

3 to 13

6

4

1

83

15

37 86

27 to 37

1

21

11

3

73

57

12 18 24

1b 1a

1

61

to

1 1

42 48

13

2

8

191b

49

53

44 56 50

58 64

18

28 36 32 2614 20

40 52 46 3830 34

45 47

175 177 GRANT STREET

6 67 7 a 69

12

201

191

179 181 183 185

171 173

37

8

1 110 12 97 1

19 12099 to 3 to 1 to 1 05 1217 7

2 to

105

167 169

163

149 127

99

83

69

69a to 69d

1111a15

1

4

2

3

1

44 46

67

25

11

5

4

40 42

63

3

6

41 43

38

3 2

87

9

6

8

The Thatched Cottage

8

13

3 to

1 to

1 to

26 3028

17 19 21

59 61

257

5

Def

4

1

Def

1f

rd Ya s 12 an rm ate W

to

3

Def

1 to

1

1

Def

1A 1B

3430 38 29 33 37

279

3

28 31 35

2421 27

20 23 26

267

19 22 25

1

66

Def

1a

1

to

Def

80

MoP

El Sub Sta

ST SWITHINS ROAD

Bell

RD YA

64

Def

62 RE SQUA

Mean Low Water

Gas Gov

re Pu se ou H

Ten

Mean Low Water

gs rin 5 oo eM Th

500 m

45 46

N OR IC UN

8

450

3.0m LB

63

Wellington Green

N TL

70

400

Po

Posts MoPs

M ea

350

Wa y 6.4m

pingn tio Pum Sta sts

12 er 14 gs rin W at oo igh eM nH Th

300

TCB

Cycle

Caro Court

Sl

P

Swift Court

19

250

69

BE NE (site of) DI CT Cycle S ST Way RE ET

RD YA

Ps

FB

se Hou

200

67

68

ST

10

Sl

5

52

18

150

Gate

Golding Place

53

54

Car Park

LS MIL

W NE

Car Park

Gate

(site of)

1 2

45 47

24

100

1

E OS CL

3.4m

Surgery

Play Area

92 to 98

Golding Place

49

Tower

(remains of)

5

Terminal Point of City Wall

s f tin' oo ar R M 1 St nder U

54 48

PH

7

PH

LA DE MAN

er at hw Hig

95 1

81

23

2

58

ST RE ET 4.0m

9

War d Bd y

12

59

53 57 50

Sawmill

Posts

2

62 56 60

46

66

11

2 6 10

11 15 19

57

61

70 71

l ito Cap

10 8 14 18

60

64

55

67

65 69

72

56

68

74 77 81

PH

59

75 78 82

73

58 61 62 63

65 67

86 94 84 80

64 63

3 7

se ou eh ar W se Hou

4 8 12

2

48 50

47 49 51

46

34

30

74

94

85 89 93 116 122 97 122 99 101 117 115 98 120 123 118 121 100 102 WEST POTTE RGATE

55

44

34

90

53

52 54

46

44

60

80

38

125 124 127129 126128

88 96

76 79 83

LO TH IAN

Filling Station

5

42

5856

56

78 78 a

26

14

104

108 11292 103 107 111

87 91 95

Timber Yard

3.7m

7.0m

1 4 7

5

11

8

40

45

11

El 74 Sub Sta 76 78

51

2321 a21b

3 6 9

4 9 to

46

12 to

79 82 85

Timber Yard

33

Shelter

Charles Square

El

Depot

59

5

Square

Sub Sta

Depot

Sports Facility

53

OT TALB

8

3.7m

ts Pos

25 to 35

1

6

Distillery

ts Pos

1 to 11

35

20

Works

El Sub Sta

1

45

7.3m

ET RE ST

PH 47

Garage

105 109 113

133

62 68

20 24

53

DE RE HA M RO AD

Car Park

106 110 114

52 53

50 56

22 26

55

LBs

9.4m

St. John's House

131 130

28 32

57

Club

7

30 34

59

27

Play Area

10.1m

10

36 42

STR EET

8

Shelter

to 67

2

56

WYMER

38 44

12

63

TCBs

Car Park

39

57 63

59

1816

7169

PO

The Shrublands

4.0m

73

7.9m

59

49

49 51

54

40 46

1

ST RE ET

81 79

Music Academy)

42

Silkfields 1 to 41

Y EL

48 50

31

48 54

5

83 85

55 61

70 to

PH

Crocodile Court

Fenn Court

46 47

34

52 58

15

10

89

Vicarage

10.4m

Place

Shetland Place

97

60 66

6 8

2 4

PH

2 PH

12 10

2

EX ET ER

107 Ward 10510 Bdy 310 1

63

Canterbury

Posts

Jewish Cemetery

40

64 70

17 5 11

18 20

14 16

El Sub Sta

Garage

p a El Sub Sta

3.0m

3.7m

32

24 26

23 25

98

nt Sai

22

31 19 25

21 27 33

2226 3034

2428 3236

23 35 29

3842 4650

ET RE ST

5.5m

e s Lan Jenkin

PC

Garage

a ic ss urt Co

urt Co

as nab Bar

12

Je

8h

to

49

5.2m

108

3.0m

1

to

134

1

47

8a

148 140 to 146

3 13 19 25

45 33 39

31 37 43

Rectory

Hall

EET STR OAK

7 5

21 15 27 29 35 41

2 8

29 to 34

Garage

9 17 11 23

4 10

6 12

Depot

Wen sum

Garage

The Talk (Club)

D YAR

TLE AND CAS

River

El Su b Sta

Napier Place

16 22

Barn Chur abas ch

4044 4852

ND LA MID

ET RE ST

12

)

12

4 5 6 1 2 3

98 7

Portway Square

99

Charles Wesley Court

GREYHOUND OPENING

32 to 36 38 to 40

16 17 18

EX SS

4

(um

5 12

22

T EE R ST

19

to 29

21

26

20

14

28

KEY

M A H EIG H

6

7058 64

60 66 72

GOLDSMITH STREET

25 26 27

41

43

45 49 53

47 51 55

63

2

Path

3 12 20 to

Garage

3.0m

St

Walk

NE

17 19

160

7 11

7462 68

42

22 23 24

162

5 11

76 80

2

Works

T REE ST

78 82

4

9

18 24

LA

Demolition Yard

ER RK BA

88 21

20

15

66 to 70 60 to 64

44

Gas Gov

7.6m

50

AY W

TE GA IN W

50

6466

1a

Scale 1:5000

0

a b St Su

16

SE CLO

84 26 34 30

LL

37

3 to 5 11 11

El

20

90 to 100

18

46

1

Ebenezer Place

Garage

11

19

3628 32

K WA

7.0m

TT RIO AR M

17

5

56

4638 42

Lang ley

Devonshire Place

58

68

48

86

CONNAUGHT ROAD

14

ROAD EDINBURGH

24

WINTER ROAD

115

to 25

14 20

82

8 to 9

School

Ward Bdy

70

14

4840 RU 44 SS EL L ST RE ET

OA

The Great Hall

Play Area

151413

131

50

64

El Sub Sta

22

9.4m

STAFFORD STREET

PH 16

66

24

23

1

S AT

8.2mSU

6

57

94

5.8m

PORTWAY PLACE

CR

Gate

(site of)

Car Breakers Yard

50

39 45 51

51

56

70

26

13.1m

103

135

Play Area

© Crown copyright and database rights 2021 Ordnance Survey (100025252). FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY. 21.0m

14 1212a

78

82

46

2

36

1

9

MAUD STREET

16

90

94

62

46

117

17

28

83 89 95

DEVONSHIRE STREET

Posts

Games Court

38

60

36 32

13.1m

16.5m

47

St. Philips Club

108

17.4m PH

Fern Villa

22

24

48

67

126 48

116

29 to 39

102

36

55

52

Play Area

2

38

17.4m

65b 65a

12

52

66

30a30

113

112

43

54

Ward Bdy

117 119

116

113 111

50

41

Langley Walk

Sunday

7.6m

114

26

43

8 10

39

126

Garden Centre

118

4

130

122

101

68

33 37 35 39

25 27

1 3

117

)

78

22.6m

42 4854

Shelter

40

37 41 35 39

31 33

52

44 50 56

8.5m

8

Play Area

Chy

31

4.6m

6.7m

133

Bdy

Tower

Outfall

m i g i Garage

151 149

120 to 126

12

27

(um

90

46 52 58

2

2

15

th

114

E ROAD OLD PALAC

ED & Ward

CR

Pa

22

153

13.1m

ED Bdy

60 66 72

DERE HAM 9.1m ROAD

2

3

16.8m

161 157

9.8m

79 85 91

45

44

51

62 68 74

165

169

10.1m

13.4m

4

1

179a179

81 87 93

42

23 29

FF

(remains of)

10

8

64 70 76

4

181

57 61 CLIFTO N STR EET

BROWNE STREET

Preparatory School

12

205

213

77

63

29

6.4m

Notre Dame

219

193

Soldiers' Monument

78 8490

30

18

4

Health Centre

1

223

LB

14.3m

Baile y Cour t

69

28

PH

2

to

3.0m

67

55 59

106 104

6.1m 4

36

47 53

45 51

21 27 19a 25

20

8.2m

16 to

24

80 86 92

PH

STREET

34a

34

WEST END

PH

El Sub Sta

35

43 49

4.9m

6.1m

36

9.1m

1

3 229

3 9 17 5 1 11 19 7 15

40

54

225

233

CR

14.6m

Langley Walk

ET RE ST E RS O KH AC BL Garage

Garage

3.4m

14 to

82 96 98 8894

11 to 30

Lanchester Court

35 41

33 39

100

44

1 2 3 to 6

9

15

102

64

58

124 130

104

74

15

4

Shelter

80

14

2

11.6m

38 44 36 48a 42 48 40 46 48b

27

4

255

70

7 1319

5 11 17

3

24

26

14

TCB

El Sub Sta

7.9m

8.5m

Play Area

104

TCB

59 to 62

Sports Facility

9 15 21

1

FW

3.4m

SE O CL

Depository

25 to

25 29

23 27

5.2m

5.8m

38

39

10.7m

NICHOLAS MEWS

5250

51

38

26

118 124 130 116 120 122128 126 132

50

50

38

35 41 47 53 55 33 59 6561 67 39 45 37 43 49 51 57 17 63 23 29 15 19 2127 25 31

60

48a48

13.1m

11.6m

2

ARDERON COURT

54 56

SPEKE STREET

112

102

92

Posts

71a

36

62 58 60

1

71 69

50

15.2m

13

108a

22

66

62

25

74

1a

BRIGHTY 'S OPENIN G

37

16 18

NILE STREET

80

86

1d

2

81 79 77 75

3

Posts

1 to 6

Northumberland Court

74

Bakery Court

8 10

82 84

86

6

110 116

2

4.3m

Sub Sta

112 118

88

9.4m 36

BRAMFIELD CLOSE

126 122 86 90 88

88

34

86a

35

El

PH

122 114 128 120

96

Sub Sta

32

30 32 34

3129 33

GO OD MA N SQUAR E

4.6m

AY W USE CA

3.7m

126 132

106

Wensum Centre Community

30

100

140

El Sub Sta

105 110

Nelson Infant School

El

25

2319 27

2 6

4

7.6m

El Sub Sta

18 22 26

12 8 16

1 3 5

1 to

PH

125

11 15

10 7 14

ARMES STREET

TCB

Pond

19

4.3m

WATSON GROVE

to

24 30 36 22 26 32 34 28 38 42 48 54 40 52 46

IN

16 18

58 58a

62

8.5m

RT

13 15

Church

72

MA

ST

8 10

7 9 11

FW FW

12 14

80

9.4m 8.5m

FW

69 6771

88

11

CR

90

to

3 11

92

124

137

135

100 104

102 106

132

130 128a

Hall

112 116

13 9 17

120 114 118

1

1 11

110 128

ARMES STREET

139

126a

9.1m

14

16 FR EEMA 18 N SQ UA RE

25

142

49 52 55

T REE ST

150

3236 515457

29 33 37

20

94

AY GSW KIN

156 158

160 162

20 23 26

4

166

170

EDWARD GAMBLING COURT

141

137a

98 108

141

NT SCE ES CRE ARM

192 188

100

145

ER RK BA

153

152 154

142

Posts

Feb 13, 2021 15:16

Humaira Ramzan Birmingham City University

Projection: British National Grid Figure Eleven: This is a figure ground map, the red highlights Donnybrook Quarter, with its surrounding context (Group Work).

26

1

residents and the other people that live in the community the chance to use the surrounding streets; to come outside and socialise with their neighbours, to sit on the benches to admire the view or just to have good catchup with a friend and for children to be able to use the outdoor space, without their parents worrying about having to accommodate them in an unsafe environment.

WHY DID PETER BARBER ARCHITECTS WANT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS? Peter Barber and his team hoped by creating such as space; they will also develop a more successful community because it will attract many people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures, meaning it will lead to a diverse community that could continue to build over some time. The team also anticipated by creating such a space, the people, and the way the architecture has been

27

designed, with balconies, roof terraces, and bay windows that can be seen by the residents walking by on the street can act as a sense of policing for the community. Alongside this, implementing all the goals mentioned would prevent crime and vandalisation within the area (Barber, 2003).

DID THE APPROACH FOR DONNYBROOK QUARTER LEAD TO A SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY? Moving forward, it’s clear to see that Barber was highly influenced by the demographics (refer to figure twelve) in that space, by taking into account the types of people which are distributed within Bow East and by doing this, it got them thinking about what types of surrounding spaces they want to create and in doing so they took into account what the residents needed, instead of assuming, by considering them and their needs.

Figure Twelve: First image shows ethnicity and second shows religion, these have been included to show how they thought about diversity (Group Work) edited by author.

28

This point of understanding what the people need, instead of what the architects wanted them to have, has been a running argument throughout the literature chapter.

For example, when Jane Jacobs (1961) looks at the improvement of North End Boston, it was clearly shown that it was a successful space created by the society, but as this isn’t the way the planner has been trained, everything the people invented, from gathering, socialising and creating their own events, to become a successful community, was disregarded.

However, comparing this to Donnybrook Quarter, it’s clearly shows the people were at the heart of this innovation, as every aspect of the design for the public spaces revolved around them.

This also links back to Gehl (2011), who claims that architects should consider the residents

29

before designing a space, as they will be inhabiting it.

Figure thirteen also connects back to diversity because Barber has thought about what other public spaces other than housing units might be necessary to the public and has included shops for the people walking by, on the residential units’ ground floor. This benefits the society as they will be able to stay in the same area and get their daily bread, milk, and butter, but it’s also a way of the shop keepers knowing who lives in their area and forming a long term bond.

Figure Thirteen: Blue showing shop fronts (Barber, 2008) edited by author.

30

Figure fouteen shows that, when Barber was designing the space he was thinking about the other pedestrians and the residents who will be using the spaces because the front of the houses have been placed either facing onto the street or courtyard spaces. This is an excellent approach because it clearly shows a sense of understanding that it’s not just about the residents but also the other people the residents could meet.

This links back to Gehl as he mentions that creating an efficient space for deliberate encounters allows people to socialise, interact, and experience others’ presence, which could develop into something higher up in the spectrum, such as a friendship.

Gehl also says that creating spaces as Barber did, encourages people to want to stop and look at what the residents might be doing.

This also benefits the community because if

31

the society starts to get to know who lives in their surroundings, they start to also develop trust, which creates their sense of safety, by knowing who lives around them (Gehl, 2011).

Jane Jacobs also claims that wherever people are mixing, it’s also a way of keeping the streets safe (Jacobs, 1961).

Kristine F. Miller (2007) also mentions that those spaces that tend to have barriers like fencing around residential apartments are the cause of why no human movement or activity is occurring in those places, as the architect has created a sense of limitation which creates a barrier for anything to happen.

However, comparing this to Donnybrook Quarter, it’s evident that Barber has stayed away from creating borders that could prevent any type of socialising between the people.

Arrows drawn to show how the front of the units face outwards Figure Fourteen: Site plan to show the connection between the front of the houses to the street and courtyard (Barber, 2008) edited by author.

32

Figure fifteen is another example of how Barber investigated public spaces. When Barber was designing the housing scheme, he created the balconies, doors, bay windows, and terraces, so they overlooked the street.

As mentioned before in figure fourteen, these spaces are facing towards the public courtyard spaces. But as figure fifteen shows, these spaces can still be divided into public, public-private, and private, without creating obvious boundaries that could take up space and prevent people from wanting to walk through, which would go against what Barber wished to achieve (Barber, 2003).

Additionally, Barber has allowed the residents to recreate and add to their units; even though this links to the ownership aspect of a successful community, it still links back to public spaces, because as people walk through these spaces, by seeing colourful

33

doors, balconies over their head and plants on window sills, they start to create a mental picture of that environment, which they later remember.

Hence, it’s essential to add these types of aspects, as it brings the community together, and like Jacobs (1961) and Shaftoe (2008) mentions by having eyes always kept on a street, the people can protect each other; like policing. Shaftoe also says how those spaces that look and feel like convivial spaces work better as they are more welcoming and attractive, which leads to communication between the society and increase the size of the community.

Figure Fifteen: Public spaces used within the courtyard space (Group Work) edited by author.

Public

Public - Private

Private

34

CHAPTER FOUR Case Study 2 - Goldsmith Street

CS2 - GOLDSMITH STREET ABOUT GOLDSMITH STREET The next case study is the affordable residential housing project; Goldsmith Street, constructed in 2019 and located in Norwich. It includes 45 houses with 60 flats designed by the architects Mikhail Riches Architects and Cathy Hawley. When designing this project, the architects had goals they wanted to achieve, including environmental, social, and quality of the spaces, which would get used on the inside of the house and the outside. By considering the exterior, the architects wanted to make the most of the streets, pavements, back gardens, and courtyard spaces that could potentially get used by the residents and allow children to run around in a safe environment. The architects managed to achieve their standards. They were rewarded a Stirling Prize back in 2019 by RIBA and

37

accomplished to create a design that included the passivhaus principles, which then led to achieving the passivhaus standards (Crook, 2019).

DID THE APPROACH FOR GOLDSMITH STREET LEAD TO A SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY? Focusing on Goldsmith Streets public spaces, in an interview with Norwich City Council member Andrew Turnbull and architect David Mikhail. They discussed individually with the interviewer the agreed approach and inspiration towards the design. From this discussion, Turnbull mentions how, when the job was given to the architects, they wanted them to create an invention inspired by others and seen as a future landmark. The architects took this demand and researched different aspects that already existed in Norwich that could be taken for inspiration and developed further.

13 5

163

74

161

94 65

61 28

36 to 33

1 11

93

1

89 a 91

71

to

51

20 to 25

1

2

9

12

13

to

10

19

16

15

11

9

19

17

M Cloulbe se rry

16

to

9

to

15

St Ma

rga rets

Alle

y

STR EET

4 ST MA RGAR ETS

25

STR EET

St Law Little rence Steps

5

3

1

79

of)

rse

4344

2 to

9

7

City Wa ll (cou

City Wall (remains of)

19 18

13 12

33 32 17 16

Plou Yard gh

15

BA RN RO AD DW

City Wall (rema ins of)

5

1 St Ben edicts View

RO AD

19 17

18

22

7 RA GL AN

STREET

1

VALENT INE

9

BA RN

10

14

12

8

20

16

25 24

Bank

27

6

19

to 37

11

ST RE ET

1

3 5

89

5 6

11 12 4

to 45

42

25

to 41

38

20

14

15 35

12

27 31 35

28 32

24

18

22

25 29 33

38

40

45

48

73

17 ST to R 24 EE T

25

SA YE R S

to

15 to 9

1 to 6 ST R EE T SA YE R S

OR CH AR D ST REET

35

29

27

17

7

5

3

1a

2

26 30 34

37

125

123

7 to 19

6 12 0 to 12

2 13 8 to 12

14 c 14 a to

18

20 22 26

24 28

ST RE ET DER BY

14 24 12 22

Manc roft Walk

Mancr oft

103

8 11 to 2 11

16 16 b a 6

12

6 8 5 7

4 16 26

18 Midla nd Wa 28 lk

10 20

4 8

2 6

1923 2731

6

24 6

167

9 6 to

Card Placigan e

CLO SE HAS LIPS

1a 1to d

12

11 10

9

65 63 57 61

55 59

47 to 51 33 to 37

63 to 67

41 to 45

1721 2529

15 9 13

37 1115

19

94 97 98 103 104 9596 99 106 101 100 105 108 102 107

88 90 92 89 91 93

CR

HEIGHAM ROAD

12 13 15

43 45 47 49 35

23

ED Bdy

33

1 to 7

BELVOIR STREET

70

12 2 to

to 24 14 23 1 to

CLOSE CLIF TON

to 37 35

32 34 39 33 38 41 37 39

17 19

1 3

Posts

15

71

8.8m 59

Belvedere Centre

83 69

57

DOURO PLAC E

107 111

24

35

27 Seventh-Day Adventist Church

BELVOIR STREET

117

87 77

65

63a 63 63b

41 4349 47 53

3 1

23 16 15

49

49 51

19 ADELAID E STREET

1 99 91 87

77 67 55

45 43

Potters House Church

17

1

158

1a 1b

1c 3

11 15 29

33

25

43

90

RO AD 35

1

3

9

CONNAUGHT ROAD

3 3a 1 15 27

31 41

53

65

12 11 10 13 22 21 20 9

55

49 50 45 46

Hawthorn Row

19 19a

13

11 5

2

218

4 HELENA ROAD

32 48 44

7 6 5 8 19 18 17 4

75

65

89

91 93 87 85 89

111 95 99

91

ADELAIDE STREET

85

57 58 51 to 56

41

31 21

FINCHLEY COURT

2

CR

OLD PALA CE

141 143 133 135 119 123 127 131

101 103 117 105 107 121 109 111 125 113 115 129

113

91

WADDINGTON STREET

77

37 34

73 79 83a

33

38 19

Waddington Court

12

73

19

ED Bdy 7

23

1

13

61

NELSON STREET

7 1

114

40 46 52 20

12

71 77 83 75 81 83b

110 108

98 62 68 74 58 60

NORTHUMBERLAND STREET

80 86 92 66 82 72 787064 7688 949084 96

22 28 34

26 24 44 42 32 3830 3650 5648 54

63

65 127 131 129 133 125

113

120 BRAMFIELD CLOSE

62

46

36 26

LIVINGSTONE STREET

14 4 245

235 2

58

11 14 17 12 15 18

1 4 7

107

130

2 5 8 6 39 10 13 16

129 88a

148 140

1

144

138

176

182

3

1

150

LITTLE ARMES STREET

7

55 41

14

136 135

45

80 86

55

83

45

81 84 87

29

73 77

23

70 64

1

42

75

11

5

HELENA ROAD

St

43

69

68 70 72

66

1

65

53

39

37

35

27

129b 129a

44

46

29

71

41

49

26

11

48

28

ALEXANDRA ROAD

14 17 21

47

45

23

29

25

136

45

24 22

134

55

17 21

128

46

42

34

24

14

190 178

170

168

222

71

83

2

10

18

9597

93

101

107

65c

13

12 16 20

to 70

154

SAINT PHILIPS ROAD

15

201316

50

82

70a 72

66

to 62

2 to 6

228 192 a 192

100

28 30

39 36

55

58

124126

102

33

86

19 23

98

90

8

204

142

138 GLADSTONE STREET

84

52 54

4 5

71

80 to

22

99

97

81 89

5

152

9

78

134to 196

2 to

7 9

1

12

23

68

8

6a 8a

10

23

33

ST BEN EDICTS

42

60

48 50

46

16 to 18

21

35

Little

a to g 21 to 23

40

56

6

1 7 13

44

10

4

100 to132

66

64

56 58

34

94

3 9 15

73

71

59

49 a 51

49

3941 43 45

9.8m

Maude Gray Ct

7.0m

54

2

17

37

48 50 52

PH

46

45 43

3.7m

Helgate Court

St Margaret's

44

3 4

Reeves Yard

7

PH

49 50

Court

53

33

113 111

79

Queen of Hungary Yard

7.3m

1 to

Arts Centre

59

LB

8

103

67

24

St Swithins Terrace

to 67

W ES TW IC KS TR EE T

y Alle

to

69

93 to 97

41 to 44

36

81

to

to

65

87 to 91

31 32 33 to

93

13

to

79

4 12

6 14

21.0m

67

63

4

7

95

Woolgate Court

s in ith Sw St

4

to

8 16

8

14 84

71

38

69 to 73

2 10

20 22

26 32

1 to 11

112

21

30

72 78

74 80

24 30

28 34

18

16

11

1

to

76 82

36 42 48

38 44 50

15

15

14

23

24

36 36to a f

40 52 46

1 to 21

27 26

10

ED Bdy

17

40

3 to 13

1

6

4

1

27

8

1 2

1

to

84

8

12 18 24

21

11

3

Def

15

37 86

27 to 37

2

1b 1a

1

83

57

1

42 48

45 47

73

to

28 36 32 2614 20

40 52 46 3830 34

44 56 50

58 64

18 13

1

44 46

191b

61

53

12

63

175 177

29

6 67 7 a 69

2 to

59 61

201

191

179 181 183 185

171 173

49

11

1 110 12 97 1

19 12099 to 3 to 1 to 1 05 1217 7

4

2

3

1

40 42

105

167 169

163

149 127

99

83

69

69a to 69d

37

1 to

5

4 2

41 43

38

3 1

87

9

6

26 3028

17 19 21

67

GRANT STREET

5

1111a15

4

1

3

1B

3430 38 29 33 37

257

3

1A

28 31 35

2421 27

20 23 26

25

3 to

1 to

8

The Thatched Cottage

8

13

1f

rd Ya s 12 an rm ate W

to

3

Def

6

1

1

Def

1 to

66

Def

1

to

Def

1a

1

MoP

El Sub Sta

ST SWITHINS ROAD

Bell

RD YA

64

Def

19 22 25

279

80

267

RE SQUA

Mean Low Water

Gas Gov

re Pu se ou H

Def

OT TALB

Mean Low Water

gs rin 5 oo eM Th

Ten

N OR IC UN

8

45 46

N TL

3.0m LB

63

Wellington Green

P

Swift Court

70

Def

62 20

Po

Posts MoPs

M ea

Wa y 6.4m

Sl

pingn tio Pum Sta sts

12 er 14 gs rin W at oo igh eM nH Th

TCB

Cycle

Caro Court

RD YA

19

500 m

69

BE NE (site of) DI CT Cycle S ST Way RE ET

3.4m

Ps

FB

se Hou

67

68

ST

10

Sl

5

450

Gate

Golding Place

53

54

Car Park

LS MIL

W NE

Car Park

Gate

(site of)

1 2

400

1

E OS CL

Surgery

Play Area

92 to 98

350

Tower

(remains of)

5

Terminal Point of City Wall

s f tin' oo ar R M 1 St nder U

Golding Place

49

PH

7

PH

LA DE MAN

er at hw Hig

52

300

9

War d Bd y

95 1

81

23

2

54 48

Sawmill

ST RE ET 4.0m

Posts

12

58

45 47

250

LO TH IAN

2

59

53 57 50

11

2 6 10

11 15 19

62 56 60

46

66

l ito Cap

10 8 14 18

57

61

70 71

se ou eh ar W se Hou

2

60

64

55

67

65 69

72

56

68

74 77 81

PH

59

64 63

75 78 82

73

58 61 62 63

65 67

85 89 93 116 122 97 122 99 101 117 115 98 120 123 118 121 100 102 WEST POTTE RGATE

86 94 84 80

76 79 83

25 to 35

5

48 50

90

47 49 51

46

88 96

55

87 91 95

53

52 54

El 74 Sub Sta 76 78

104

Timber Yard

3.7m

7.0m

1 4 7

5

11

45

11

79 82 85

51

4 8 12

3 7

Depot

Sports Facility

Filling Station

3 6 9

4 9 to

8

12 to

Depot

2321 a21b

Shelter

Charles Square

El

12

3.7m

ts Pos

59

5

Square

Sub Sta

ts Pos

Timber Yard

33

70 to

8

El Sub Sta

1 to 11

1

6

Distillery

ET RE ST

20 24

35

98

Works

1

45

7.3m

2

42

200

52 53

54

53

Jewish Cemetery

Music Academy)

42

Silkfields 1 to 41

Y EL

62 68

22 26

PH 47

Garage

108 11292 103 107 111

125 124 127129 126128

49 51

50 56

28 32

53

DE RE HA M RO AD

9.4m

133

131 130

55

LBs

Car Park

Play Area

7

30 34

57

27

Vicarage

The Shrublands

36 42

8

59

TCBs

Car Park

STR EET

38 44

12

Shelter

to 67

PO

39

57 63

59

1816

63

108

a ic ss urt Co

48 50

31

40 46

1

7169

p a PH

Crocodile Court

Fenn Court

46 47

32

24 26

23 25

40

34

48 54

5

7.9m

e s Lan Jenkin

El Sub Sta

3.0m

3.7m

52 58

15

10

81 79

73

WYMER

60 66

6 8

2 4

83 85

134

22

Garage

12

Je

urt Co

as nab Bar

64 70

12 10

89

59

49

4.0m

Shetland Place

97

55 61

5.2m

PC

to

8h

nt Sai

Place

ST RE ET

148 140 to 146

3.0m

1

21 27 33

31 19 25

17 5 11

18 20

14 16

2

EX ET ER

The Talk (Club)

EET STR OAK

1

47

to

Canterbury

Posts

29 to 34

3

45 33 39

31 37 43

8a

Depot

Wen sum

7 13 19 25

21 15 27 29 35 41

Rectory

23 35 29

2428 3236

2226 3034

ET RE ST

El Sub Sta

Garage

ET RE ST

D YAR

TLE AND CAS

River

Garage

9 17 11 23

2 8

49

3842 4650

ND LA MID

EX SS

4

)

Garage

5

Napier Place 4 10

6 12

Hall

5.5m

41

43

45 49 53

47 51 55

63

2

(um

5 12

El Su b Sta

16 22

Barn Chur abas ch

4044 4852

4 5 6 1 2 3

98 7

Portway Square

NE

17 19

Path

3 12

3.0m

St

Walk

LA

16 18

160

7 11

Garage

12

GREYHOUND OPENING

32 to 36 38 to 40

16 17 18

5.8m

162

5 11

22

14

28

KEY

T EE R ST

19

to 29

21

26

20

GOLDSMITH STREET

25 26 27

105 109 113

150

20 to

M A H EIG H

6

7058 64

60 66 72

2

Works

T REE ST

7462 68

4

15

18 24

LL

Demolition Yard

ER RK BA

76 80

42

40

18

100

3 to 5 11 11

78 82

44

22 23 24

106 110 114

34

24

50

AY W

TE GA IN W

50

6466

1a

Scale 1:5000

0

a b St Su

16

88

46

1

8 to 9

SE CLO

84

Lang ley

82

St. John's House

10

21

20

9

Club

10.4m

El

20

90 to 100

18

26 34 30

K WA

37

11

19

3628 32

OA

7.0m

TT RIO AR M

17 to 25

5

56

4638 42

S AT

The Great Hall

Play Area

46

44

34

30

74

94

115

Ward Bdy

CR

56

46

Charles Wesley Court

1

66 to 70 60 to 64

58

50

10.1m

23

IN

Ebenezer Place

Garage

Car Breakers Yard

14 20

Devonshire Place

94

151413

70

56 2 PH

7.6m 5856

44

80

38

103

66

56

60

14

13.1m

14

© Crown copyright and database rights 2021 Ordnance Survey (100025252). FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY. 21.0m

14 1212a

78

68

78 78 a

26

MAUD STREET

70

El Sub Sta

PH 16

22

9.4m

STAFFORD STREET

48

86

CONNAUGHT ROAD

14

ROAD EDINBURGH

24

WINTER ROAD

1

9

24

RU SS EL L ST RE ET

RT

8.2mSU

m i g

16

90

82

46

64

36

17

26

4840 44

DEVONSHIRE STREET

PORTWAY PLACE

63

94

62

2

13.1m

28

33 37 35 39

25 27

Gate

(site of)

Outfall

6

57

St. Philips Club

Play Area

50

39 45 51

51

99

Games Court

83 89 95

PH

38

60

46

117

29 to 39

36 32

47

107 Ward 10510 Bdy 310 1

Posts

108

17.4m PH

Fern Villa

16.5m

22

24

48

67

126 48

116

2

38

43

School

131

Gas Gov

102

36

55

52

Play Area

12

52

66

17.4m

65b 65a

30a30

113

112

101

68

135

50

41

Langley Walk

54

Ward Bdy

117 119

116

113 111

40

37 41

Sunday

7.6m 114

26

43

8 10

39

126

118

4

130

122

31

35 39

31 33

117

Garden Centre

8

Play Area

Chy

42

23 29

1 3

6.7m

Shelter

)

78

22.6m

42 4854

8.5m

79 85 91

52

44 50 56

Bdy

120 to 126

12

27

(um

90

46 52 58

2

2

15

th

114

E ROAD OLD PALAC

ED & Ward

Garage

151 149

133

CR

Pa

22

153

13.1m

ED Bdy

60 66 72

DERE HAM 9.1m ROAD

2

3

16.8m

161 157

9.8m

81 87 93

45

44

51

62 68 74

165

169

10.1m

13.4m

57 61 CLIFTO N STR EET

BROWNE STREET

4

1

179a179

Tower

(remains of)

10

8

64 70 76

12

4

181

69

4.6m

Preparatory School

Baile y Cour t

77

63

29

6.4m

Notre Dame

205

193

Soldiers' Monument

78 8490

30

18

4

Health Centre

219

213

2

to

3.0m

67

55 59

106 104

6.1m

1

223

LB

14.3m

36

47 53

28

PH

4

16 to

45 51

21 27 19a 25

20

8.2m

35

24

80 86 92

PH

STREET

34a

34

WEST END

PH

El Sub Sta

ET RE ST

Garage

3.4m

43 49

4.9m

6.1m

36

9.1m

1

3 229

3 9 17 5 1 11 19 7 15

40

54

225

233

CR

14.6m

Langley Walk

Garage E RS O KH AC BL

14 to

82 96 98 8894

11 to 30

Lanchester Court

35 41

33 39

100

44

1 2 3 to 6

9

15

102

64

58

124 130

104

74

15

4

Shelter

80

14

2

11.6m

38 44 36 48a 42 48 40 46 48b

27

4

255

70

7 1319

5 11 17

3

24

26

14

TCB

El Sub Sta

7.9m

8.5m

Play Area

104

TCB

59 to 62

Sports Facility

9 15 21

1

FW

3.4m

SE O CL

Depository

25 to

25 29

23 27

5.2m

5.8m

38

39

10.7m

NICHOLAS MEWS

5250

51

38

26

118 124 130 116 120 122128 126 132

50

50

38

35 41 47 53 55 33 59 6561 67 39 45 37 43 49 51 57 17 63 23 29 15 19 2127 25 31

60

48a48

13.1m

11.6m

2

ARDERON COURT

54 56

SPEKE STREET

112

102

92

Posts

71a

36

62 58 60

1

71 69

50

15.2m

13

108a

22

66

62

25

74

1a

BRIGHTY 'S OPENIN G

37

16 18

NILE STREET

80

86

1d

2

81 79 77 75

3

Posts

1 to 6

Northumberland Court

74

Bakery Court

8 10

82 84

86

6

110 116

2

4.3m

35

Sub Sta

112 118

88

9.4m 36

BRAMFIELD CLOSE

126 122 86 90 88

88

34

86a

3129

El

PH

122 114 128 120

96

Sub Sta

32

4.6m

AY W USE CA

3.7m

126 132

106

Wensum Centre Community

30

100

2

4

140

El Sub Sta

105 110

Nelson Infant School

El

25

2319 27

30 32 34

6 33 GO OD MA N SQUAR E

7.6m

El Sub Sta

18 22 26

12 8 16

1 3 5

1 to

PH

125

11 15

10 7 14

ARMES STREET

TCB

Pond

19

WATSON GROVE

to

24 30 36 22 26 32 34 28 38 42 48 54 40 52 46

MA

ST

8 10

7 9 11

13 15

58 58a

62

8.5m

9.4m 8.5m

FW

FW FW

FF

12 14

Church

72

11

69 6771

80

to

CR

88

1

3 11

90

16 FR EEMA 18 N SQ UA RE

1 11

92

124

137

135

100 104

102 106

132

130 128a

Hall

112 116

13 9 17

120 114 118

14

4.3m

25

110 128

ARMES STREET

139

126a

9.1m

49 52 55

T REE ST

142

3236 515457

29 33 37

20

94

AY GSW KIN

150

20 23 26

4

156 158

160 162

EDWARD GAMBLING COURT

141

137a

98 108

141

NT SCE ES CRE ARM

166

170

100

145

ER RK BA

153

152 154

142

Posts

192 188

Feb 13, 2021 15:16

Humaira Ramzan Birmingham City University

Figure Sixteen: This is a figure ground map, the red Projection: highlights Street, with its surrounding context (Authors Own).

BritishGoldsmith National Grid

38

1

Mikhail discusses how many factors had to be considered, but just focusing on the public spaces, the team was inspired by the Golden Triangle area, which was very close to Goldsmith Street (refer to figure seventeen).

Figure seventeen: Golden Triangle in Norwich (Google Maps).

The Golden Triangle seems like a normal area, but it’s well known for being dense but overly populated with residents because the people can create a sense of life in that area, as the residents all know each other and use the front garden spaces to interact and socialise, creating their successful community. Using

39

this as inspiration, as figure eighteen shows, the architects created a space that included front gardens; this was to allow the residents to come out and enjoy their view and to get some fresh air and, in doing so, get to know their neighbours. This was successful because, from the interview, one of the residents discusses how having an outdoor space, like the front garden, has allowed them to interact and socialise with their neighbours, making him feel a part of a community, as the resident lives on his own.

Another area the council was concerned about was the traffic increasing and going through the new housing scheme, so the architects implemented roads into their design strategy, shown in figure eighteen. This was included to control the traffic flow and add in roads and pavements in the same place where the houses are, allowing people to walk, cycle or drive by. This strategy benefited the residents

because they have this outdoor private space, their garden, but the spaces in front of those gardens are public. So, having these spaces allows the people walking by to stop, look, interact, and socialise with the residents, creating their community (The design museum, n.a).

This links back to Gehl (2011), as he highly emphasises how having public spaces or spaces outside the entrance of a house increases the chances of people meeting, that later leads to a friendship, that builds stronger communities, as people are aware of who’s living around them. This was something the architects wanted there to happen, so people feel safe in their areas as they know their society. On the other hand, Bonenberg (2015) also mentions how it’s crucial for architects to create well thought out public spaces because if they are well designed, they could benefit the environment as it encourages people to

walk, run and cycle in outdoor spaces near their homes which they feel comfortable in, which is precisely what the architects aimed for when building Goldsmith Street.

Figure Eighteen: Showing front of the houses (Crook, 2019).

40

Another factor recommended by the council to the architects was to consider the landscape as an outdoor space that could take the children’s needs into account, creating a safe space for the children to go out and play without their parents getting worried. The architects went ahead and made these spaces in a couple of ways; for example, as figure nineteen shows, each house has its own back garden, which are private, allowing the residents to have their own space, however they are also given a chance to use the middle gimel area, which is semi-private as it’s opened to all the residents living within that housing project but is fenced off on either side, as it’s not publicly accessible. This allows the children to come out and play with their neighbours and not have to worry about their safety, as they won’t be crossing roads or meeting strangers.

Another example of outdoor public space has

41

been shown in figure twenty, as the architects included courtyard spaces that anyone can access. The gimel and courtyard spaces were designed to allow the children to recreate their own spaces by doing what they enjoy.

The courtyard spaces have balconies that hangover them, and one of the residents says that having balconies allows them to experience a connection with the rest of the community, without having to go into the courtyards spaces, as he can see the life that is being recreated in those public spaces, by the children. Therefore, it clearly shows that the architects and the council worked holistically to meet the residents’ needs, both inside and outside of their homes (Riches, n.d.).

Allowing the residents to decide on what type of outdoor space they want to use will enable them to have the freedom of exploring and socialising with the other residents and as

one of the residents mentioned, due to allowing their kids to play with other children through recreational activities, has also meant the adults have bonded with one another. This links back to Shaftoe’s (2008) point that having green spaces encourages the residents to recreate these spaces to whatever they might prefer, such as resting and playing areas.

Also, as this housing scheme has balconies, where residents can look over and keep an eye on the children, this goes back to the point Jacobs (1961) makes on how the balconies can act as eyes for the street, but in this case, it’s eyes on the outdoor spaces. In other words, the community can take care and keep each other safe by keeping an eye on each other, which can be seen as a sense of policing, carried out by the residents, which is great as it builds trust.

Gimel Space

Figure Nineteen: private back gardens and semiprivate gimels designed to cause interaction, socialising, communication and play between the children and adults (Riches, n.d.).

Figure Twenty: opened courtyard space (Riches, n.d.).

42

CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion

45

CONCLUSION

people’s needs from the beginning, as they will shape the success of the project.

In conclusion, it has clearly been shown throughout the literature chapter how the authors Kristine F. Miller, Henry Shaftoe, Jan Gehl, Jane Jacobs, and Wojciech Bonenberg highly emphasize how it is fundamental for architects and designers to consider more than just the architecture when figuring out a design or concept for a housing project. In other words, as much as it’s essential to come up with a well-designed architecture, it’s as important to consider the outdoor public spaces because for the architecture to work successfully, it’s important to design public spaces around the housing scheme because as Jan Gehl argues people should be at the heart of the design. Architects need to consider

However, as the rest of the authors argue, without providing the society with outdoor spaces, like pavements to walk on, front, and back gardens to access, along with courtyards for children to play, socialise, interact and recreate or just being able to view things while passing by, like balconies. Then there will be this prevention that Gehl explains, without providing such spaces, interaction, socialising, and communication between people would decrease as there’s no way of deliberate encounters to occur, which then stops movement and life that could occur between buildings. Jane Jacobs also argues that without movement and life between buildings, nobody keeps an

eye on the people and their surroundings, which is why communities don’t excel because when there are no eyes watching others, it leads to crimes and vandalisation.

This is why it’s important to provide people opportunities to use outdoor spaces because not only does it build their bonds with the residents, who are living around them, which leads to creating this successful community because everyone knows and trusts each other, but it also means people can protect each other, by creating their sense of policing, by keeping an eye on each other.

Therefore, by investigating public spaces as a metric within the housing estate, to understand the rate of success it brings

to communities, it has been proven by the cases studies which were analysed, Donnybrook Quarter and Goldsmith Street, that by providing outdoor spaces not only does it tie the entire scheme together, it shows that the architects were interested in providing spaces that would benefit the residents needs, in creating their successful communities, through interacting, socialising and communicating.

Donnybrook Quarter provided the residents with balconies, courtyard spaces, and facades facing the streets that lead to people interacting with one another as they passed through these spaces. Simultaneously, Goldsmith Street provided the residents with balconies, courtyard spaces, front and back gardens,

46

and gimel areas for children to recreate their activities, increasing interaction with other residents. Either way, both of these case studies proved that the architects implemented a well thought out design because those public spaces are why the residents all know each other and feel part of their community.

However, if Donnybrook Quarter was allowed to develop, from the literature that was mentioned and comparing Donnybrook Quarter with Goldsmith street, Barber could have thought of ways to provide recreational spaces, to allow children to create their activities and spaces, just like how Goldsmith street has provided opened green courtyard spaces and gimel area. Goldsmith Street was successful as one of the residents

47

mentioned that the adults have also got to know each other through the children playing with one another.

Whereas, if Goldsmith Street was to develop further, they might have chosen to remove the barriers put in the courtyard and gimel spaces. Even though these are put in place to prevent children from wondering off on to the roads, this could still be stopped if they are taken care of by their parents and instead by having these opened spaces allows the children and even the residents to expand their communities, by enabling others to walk by. However, as the architects have given the residents a couple of outdoor spaces, some of which are private to them and some shared by the residents, the architects wanted everyone to feel safe at

all times, so it is understandable from that perspective.

Therefore, architects and designers need to start considering outdoor public spaces, when designing houses because, as shown throughout this investigation, houses become successful when they are surrounded with life and movement because this allows people to experience what’s happening around them, which will enable them to meet new people, or develop relationships, children get to recreate spaces by doing what they enjoy and most importantly the environment is kept safe, clean and looked after by the society, which has been allowed to create their successful communities, with people they know and trust.

48

RESOURCES References Figures

REFERENCES BOOKS Gehl, J. (2011), Life between buildings: using public space. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Penguin Book.

Matthew, C., Claudio, M. and Leo, H. (2008) Public Space: The Management Dimension. London: Routledge.

Miller, K. (2007) Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces. London: University of Minnesota Press.

Sennett, R. (2018) Building and Dwelling Ethics: Ethics for the City. London: Penguin Book.

Shaftoe, H. (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces : Creating Effective Public Places. London: Taylor and Francis Group.

Thompson, C. and Travlou, P. (2007) Open Space: People Space. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis Inc. JOURNALS Blake, R., Rhead, C., Wedge, B. and Mouton, J. (1956) Housing Architecture and Social Interaction.

JSTOR. 19(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2786123.

51

Bonenberg, W. (2015) Public Space in the Residential Areas: The Method of Social Analysis.

Procedia Manufacturing, 3(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.493.

Follett, M. (1919) The Philosophical Review. Community is a Process, 28(6). Available at: https:// doi.org/10.2307/2178307 Gehl, J. and Matan, A. (2009) Two perspectives on public spaces. Building Research and Information, 37(1). Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.bcu.ac.uk/10.1080/09613210802519293.

Madanipour, A. (1999) Why are the Designs and Development of Public Spaces Significant for cities? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 26(6). Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.bcu.ac.uk/10.1068/b260879.

PDF Barber, P. (2003). Donnybrook. London. Available at: https://development.towerhamlets.gov. uk/online-applications/files/A6F24280A12026B69732F6471099E101/pdf/PA_03_00468-DESIGN_ REPORT-169929.pdf (Accessed 9 January 2021).

Barber, P. (2008). Donnybrook. Westminster. Available at: https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/ download/7f485cda552f27b6ca53d000d923488c444a41be38caea37220b7a9ae4af90ac/1931523/ Barber_3.pdf (Accessed 5 January 2021).

52

WEBSITES Barber, P. (2007) Donnybrook Quarter. Available at: https://architizer.com/projects/donnybrookquarter/ (Accessed 10 January 2021).

Barber, P. (2019) Donnybrook Quarter. Available at: http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/ donnybrook-quarter (Accessed 8 January 2021).

Chavis, D. and Lee, K. (2015) What Is Community Anyway? Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/ entry/what_is_community_anyway (Accessed 7 January 2021).

Crook, L. (2019) Mikhail Riches creates energy-efficient terraced streets as social housing in Norwich. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/01/goldsmith-street-social-housingmikhail-riches-norwich/ (Accessed 15 January 2021).

Gehl, J. (n.d.) Our Approach. Available at: https://gehlpeople.com/approach/ (Accessed 13 January 2021).

Jansen, D. (2019) Dissertation Structure and Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project. Available at: https://gradcoach.com/dissertation-structure/ (Accessed 19 January 2021).

Keskeys, P. (n.d.) Goldsmith Street: The Future of Sustainable, Affordable Housing? For the first time, the UK’s Stirling Prize has been won by a social housing project. Available at: https:// architizer.com/blog/inspiration/stories/goldsmith-street-stirling-prize/ (Accessed 20 January 2021).

Mikhail, D. and Riches, A. (n.d.) Goldsmith Street. Available at: http://www.mikhailriches.com/ project/goldsmith-street/#text (Accessed 11 January 2021).

53

Nguyen, V. (2017) From Jane Jacobs to Joel Kotkin: The Effects of Ephemerality in Boston’s North End. Available at: https://medium.com/harvard-real-estate-review/from-jane-jacobs-tojoel-kotkin-56e8a1eddcb0 (Accessed 24 January 2021).

Pitts, R. (2021) From the archives: Jane Jacobs on the North End. Available at: https://www. rebeccaapitts.com/articles/jane-jacobs-north-end-boston (Accessed 21 January 2021).

Riches, M. and Hawley, C. (2020) Goldsmith Street. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/ awards-and-competitions-landing-page/awards/riba-regional-awards/riba-east-awardwinners/2019/goldsmith-street (Accessed 11 January 2021).

Riches, M. and Hawley, C. (n.d.) Beazley Designs of the year Architecture Goldsmith Street, Norwich. Available at: https://designmuseum.org/exhibitions/beazley-designs-of-the-year/ architecture/goldsmith-street-norwich (Accessed 29 January 2021).

54

FIGURES INTRODUCTION Figure One: What makes a community? (Authors Own).

Figure Two : What makes a community successful? (Authors Own) Figure Three: What makes a community unsuccessful? (Authors Own) Figure Four: This table was designed to gather participants answers from the questionnaire I gave them, asking them what makes a community successful and unsuccessful according to them? (Authors Own).

RESEARCH ON PUBLIC SPACES Figure Five: Visual description of Millers explanation of public spaces (Project, n.d.) edited by author.

Figure Six: Shows the three types of activities that happen outdoor, Necessary, Optional and Social (Gehl, 2011: 10) edited by author.

Figure Seven: How the environment effects the activities (Gehl, 2011: 11) edited by author.

Figure Eight: A opportunity to stop, look and build bonds (Gehl, 2011: 18) edited by author.

Figure Nine: Children crowded where other children are (Gehl, 2011: 24) edited by author.

Figure Ten: Pictures showing the life created by the people in North End Boston In America, it shows how successful it is, however in the eyes of the governing bodies it’s still a ‘slum‘.

55

(Turner, 2017) edited by author CASE STUDY 1 - DONNYBROOK QUARTER Figure Eleven: This is a figure ground map, the red highlights Donnybrook Quarter, with its surrounding context (Group Work).

Figure Twelve: First image shows ethnicity and second shows religion, these have been included to show how they thought about diversity (Group Work) edited by author.

Figure Thirteen: Blue showing shop fronts (Barber, 2008) edited by author.

Figure Fourteen: Site plan to show the connection between the front of the houses to the street and courtyard (Barber, 2008) edited by author.

Figure Fifteen: Public spaces used within the courtyard space (Group Work) edited by author.

CASE STUDY 2 - GOLDSMITH STREET Figure Sixteen: This is a figure ground map, the red highlights Goldsmith Street, with its surrounding context (Authors Own).

Figure seventeen: Golden Triangle in Norwich (Google Maps).

Figure Eighteen: Showing front of the houses (Crook, 2019).

Figure Nineteen: private back gardens and semi-private gimels designed to cause interaction, socialising, communication and play between the children and adults (Riches, n.d.).

Figure Twenty: opened courtyard space (Riches, n.d.).

56

APPENDIX

Group Work - Donnybrook Quarter

Peter Barber Architects Credit: Peter Barber

DONNYBROOK 59

“DONNYBROOK IS ONE OF THE MOST INNOVATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN THE UK FOR DECADES… IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE THAT IN 10 YEARS TIME, DONNYBROOK MIGHT BE REMEMBERED AS A SIGNIFICANT TURNING POINT IN THE CULTURE OF BRITISH HOUSING PROVISION” ELLIS WOODMAN, BUILDING DESIGN MAGAZINE, FEBRUARY 2006

60

Donnybrook Quarter is a low rise (two and three story), high density street-based city quarter located on a prominent corner site just south of Victoria Park in Hackney.

The Competition Year – 2007 Type – Residential Apartment Multi Unit Housing

Circle 33, who are a leading social housing provider, teamed up with Architecture Foundation in 2001 to discuss the design competition for the redevelopment of the Donnybrook site.

Budget - £5m to 10m Project Cost - £4.5m

The aim behind this competition was that they wanted to improve the status of the housing architecture status within the UK by producing a blueprint, which could then be used for the future when urban development needs improving.

INFO

The given title for this competition was “Accommodating Change, Innovation in Housing”, so they asked those competing to produce a proposal which focuses on issues which could be changed socially and politically, which are currently occurring in London.

61

Fg 1 - Donnybrook Quarter

Once this competition was out, it attracted many practices from all around Europe and Great Britain, giving them a total of 150 entries for the first stage of this competition.

This then led to Peter Barber becoming short-listed for the second stage of this competition, alongside six other practices, but then by autumn 2001, they were announced the final winners of this entire competition.

FIGURE GROUND

Fg 2 - Figure ground map showing Donnybrook Quarter (red) amongst its context

62

Practice – Peter Barber Architects Established in – 1989

PRACTICE

Location – was originally built on a canal side wharf in East End of London. But in 2002 they decided to move to a grade II listed Victorian print works.

63

Fg 3 - Peter Barber

Who they are – they are a group of architects, who focus on a wide range of projects sectors from; housing, urbanism, hostels, healthcare, commercial and educational, making them a award winning design orientated practice.

Awards - They have also been awarded the Planning Studies around the UK, twice short listed for the International Age Khan Award for Architecture and they also won the First Prize In The Architecture Foundations Prestigious Innovations In Housing competition in 2001 for the practice donnybrook urban quarter.

Promoting thriving public spaces.

Streets overlooked by balconies, bay windows and roof terraces.

MANIFESTO

Making it affordable.

Wanting to make the most of the landscape by envisioning a place where people have the opportunity to use their streets, by coming out, socialising with neighbours, kids running around, playing with each other and people passing by.

A place which welcomes people from all backgrounds, colour, ethnicity etc.

All of which should lead to a sustainable community: - By promoting 24 hour occupancy, as it will reduce crime and vandalisation - By having open spaces so people can hangout and socialise.

- By having small working units.

64

Fg 4 - Collection of drawings that aims to give a visual understanding of the various aspects of the Donnybrook Quarter design

65

HYPOTHESIS Making a successful housing scheme requires you to think holistically, taking into consideration the different factors that would make up this living scheme that will be used by the residents. A place which they can call home, but still feel safe and confident. When an architect is thinking if their innovative design is successful, maybe what they need to question is: What is needed in that space? Will it bring the community together? Is it a space for interacting and socializing and is it affordable? Most importantly, will it be free of poverty, crimes and vandalisation or does it only worsen these situations?

This is exactly what we would like to investigate in our study of the Donnybrook Quarter. Does this so called ‘innovative design’ live up to today’s standards and is it successful?

66

Children Running Around

Happy Community Neighbours Talking

Social Gatherings

Children Playing

WHAT MAKES A HOUSING SCHEME SUCCESSFUL?

Affordable

Safe Environment A place you can call home

Interaction between residents

67

No Crimes, Graffiti, Violence or Vandalisation Events

Sits within residential area Donnybrook Quarter neighbours with Donnybrook Court: assisted living rented housing Post war housing - terraced, prefab, standardised (south of site) can see old Victorian grid here Newly developed (2007 new) social housing, private housing (north of site)

Fg 5 - Plan showing the varying heights of buildings within the immediate context of Donnybrook Quarter with black being the tallest.

HEIGHTS

3 high rise blocks still in use 2 blocks demolished in 2002

Fg 6 - Collage showing the heights of buildings and the relations between them

68

VICTORIA PARK

Donnybrook quarter situated very close to Victoria park which has a long history for being:

69

‘The school in which the intelligent young men and women of the East End learnt about the society they lived in, their place in it, and how it could be changed for the better.’

‘THE PEOPLE’S PARK’

Residents have strong relation and sense of ownership over this park Proof of strong ‘community spirit’ Park opened in 1843 and is between the poorer Bow area and wealthier Hackney

Fg 7 - Plan and collage showing the position of Victoria’s Park from Donnybrook Quarter and the time it would take to walk there.

ROMAN RD

Fg 8 - Plan and collage showing the position of Roman Road from Donnybrook Quarter and the time it would take to walk there.

Roman Road is the social and commercial centre - markets.

It would be a place residents of Donnybrook Quarter would go for groceries, leisure, etc.

70

AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY

Fg 9 - Screenshots from a local news website showing the engagement of residents within the community

71

Architects carried out community consultations which led to the decision of using white acrylic render on scheme’s facade: ‘The residents were thinking, “Spain! Holidays! Marbella!”

I’m completely happy with that,’ Barber said in an interview.

TECHNOLOGY

Most surrounding buildings use the traditional brown/yellow brick thus Donnybrook stands out with white acrylic render.

Fg 11 - An annotated elevation showing the Architect’s intention for the materiality of the project

Fg 12 - Screenshots from Google Maps showing the impact of weathering on the chosen material Fg 10 - Collage showing the juxtaposition of materiality between Donnybrook Quarter and surrounding context

72

POST DEVELOPMENT - CONTEXTUAL CHANGES AROUND DONNYBROOK QUARTER

Fg 13 - Photographs that highlight the changes in materiality of surrounding context post development

73

TIMELINE

Fg 14 - Collage highlighting the key points of influence and change architecturally, politically, historically and socially

74

DEMOGRAPHICS 75

Initial research always revolves around the demographics of the area, as it is the basis for any design, especially if it is residential. Designs depend heavily on the nature of the population in the area.

Therefore, here we discussed a few of the key demographic factors that we thought would have had a direct relationship to the design.

Donnybrook quarter is located in the Bow East of London Borough of Tower Hamlet. Tower Hamlet is the second most populated local authority in the UK.

ETHNICITY

However, the Bow East is the least dense in the borough as it has a population of 14,781 which is only 5.8% of the borough population.

Bow East has 50% white British, 17% Bangladesh, 10% white other, 10% black, 8% all other and the rest are mixed.

The the and 67%

two largest ethnic groups in Bow east are White British Bangladeshi accounted for of the total Bow population.

17.5% of the population are aged 0-15, while a high percentage of 75.2% are 16-64 and finally 65+ are 7.4%.

Fg 15 - Graph showing the diversity and population of the Borough and Bow East

76

RELIGION 77

Fg 16 - Graph stating the different religions in Tower Hamlets

The first highest religion is Christianity with a high percentage of 36.7%.

The proportion of Muslims is 20.6% of the population of the Bow. Almost the fourth of the population did not state their religion in the census ward.

A high portion of 25.2% are also non religious.

Finally there’s small portions of Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.

(2011)

HOUSEHOLDS

Fg 17 - Graph highlighting the different housing tenancies and households

There’s a higher than average proportion of socially rented properties and private rented properties in Bow east, accounting for 73.1% of all properties in the ward.

Only 7.7% of houses have five or more people living in them.

Three to four people account to 29% of the total households in the ward.

While a high percentage of 63.3% were one to two to one people in a house.

78

The scheme has shown a very precise response to the demographics of the size and type of household. As we can see there is a large number of 2 bedroom houses, apartments and apartment duplexes within the quarter. The second highest type of unit was the 1 bed unit and the 3 bed unit, while there was only one 4 bedroom house.

ETHNICITY

Type of tenancy in the demographic research has also reflected back on the type of housing tenancy that was designed for the quarter as there is a variation of units to let, to buy and to share.

79

2 x 1 bedroom house 2 x 2 bedroom house 1 x 4 bedroom house 14 x 2 bedroom duplex apartments 1 x 3 bedroom apartment 3 x 1 bed apartment 14 x 2 bedroom apartments (40 Total units) However, the units type does not seem to be relevant for the near future as the number of young families with multiple children is expected to rise tremendously in the next few years.

4 Bed unit

Fg 18 - Diagram showing the different unit types in Donnybrook

Bow East has a high proportion of retired residents.

Over 700 people are unemployed in Bow East.

EMPLOYMENT

(2013)

This seemed to have influenced the architect as a working/ living space was part of the design scheme. Therefore this allowed for local and new jobs to open in the area of Old Ford.

Fg 19 - Graph showing employment rate in Donnybrook

Fg 20 - Live/ work units in Donnybrook

80

DEMOGRAPHICS 81

The demographics of Bow east appears to have influenced the intention of the architects as it seems that some fundamental factors of the demographics have a clear influence on the design of this residential complex as we mentioned before. Especially in these three factors: HOUSING HOUSEHOLD SIZE EMPLOYMENT

INTENTION

Some of the key principles that influenced Barber’s design approach were promoted by writers such as Jane Jacobs and Richard Sennet. One can consider this project a bid to improve urban sustainability as it works to investigate the social issues associated with densified urban environments.

At Donnybrook, the street is considered a meeting place and the locus of social interaction.

This is achieved through: A B C D

-

NO BORDERS EYES ON THE STREET MIXED COMMUNITY NUMEROUS PRIMARY FUNCTIONS

82

NO BORDERS

THEORY A

Richard Sennet defines the city as “a human settlement in which strangers are likely to meet” (Sennett, 2003). Furthermore, Jane Jacobs notes “mingling of people, who are present for different reasons, is the only device that keeps streets safe” (Jacobs, 2011).

83

We learn from both Sennett and Jacobs about the importance of street culture and interactions that occur in it. Jacobs explains that when borders are present, human activity decreases as ordinary city people are deterred from using the side street. Thus that street becomes a deadened place and in turn crime-prone.

Fg 21 - Post-occupancy analysis of pedestrian movement on 11/10/07

Given that the architects of Donnybrook wanted to try to increase street activity in the deprived London borough, they applied this knowledge and avoided having any borders. The street is designed to welcome people to pass through, to sit out, enjoy and for kids to play.

EYES ON THE STREET

THEORY B

The street through Donnybrook quarter has been designed in a way that allows for it to be heavily overlooked by the residents inhabiting either side via the balconies, doors, terraces and bay windows.

Each dwelling has its own front door, which are all concentrated in the open public space of the street and the terraces create a relationship between the street and the dwellings; whilst the courtyard typology allows residents to have private outdoor space too (Barber, 2003).

Fg 22 - Illustration showing some of the ‘eyes on the street’

By having public spaces that are overlooked in all directions by the residents, the architects have facilitated the presence of more ‘eyes on the street’. Jane Jacobs theorises that a place becomes less vulnerable to crime when the streets can be overlooked and somewhat self policed by the residents - natural surveillance (Jacobs, 2011).

84

MIXED COMMUNITY

Within the ‘Donnybook’ - the Donnybrook design report - the architects explain that their proposal aims to “accomodate a vibrant mixture of occupants” (Barber, 2003).

THEORY C

Barber’s design approach was very much influenced by the idea that the quarter could only become a lively urban area if there was a mix of occupancies: wealthy, poor, old, young, singles and families.

85

This social mix is created by incorporating 21% affordable rental units managed by Old Ford Housing and 5% that are shared ownership, along with the sale units.

Fg 23 - HIghlighted report showing the number of sales, rented and shared apartments

We learn about this need to have mixed communities from Jane Jacobs who discusses the need for a presence of dense and diverse populations in order for city life to flourish (Jacobs, 2011).

Similarly, Richard Sennett summarises that mixed communities work well and he encourages the creation of spaces of encounter and friction between them (Sennett, 2019).

NUMEROUS PRIMARY FUNCTIONS

THEORY D

Jane Jacobs argues that districts that are successful in generating city diversity have more than one primary function; thus people are out (and going to a specific place) at different times of the day and for different purposes. (Jacobs, 2011) Within the Donnybrook Quarter scheme, we find that the architects have incorporated 3 live/work units along Old Ford Rd; the ground floors of which facilitate non-residential use. By adding these 3 units, the quarter has numerous primary functions, as advised

by Jacobs, and the design encourages more than just residential use. Theoretically, this should in turn help prevent crime in the area as well as help create a diversely sustainable urban environment.

Fg 24 - Map indicating work units in Donnybrook Quarter

86

Fg 25 - Today: Grafitti & closed shops

87

Fg 26 - Map showing the total number of crimes in the last 12 months

DID THE THEORY WORK IN REAL LIFE?

88

CONCLUSION Donnybrook quarter proves to be successful by first understanding the needs and wants of the existing community. Its innovation in the ideals of housing at its time changed the dynamic of the process in which an architect should think when creating a home.

The theories of Jane Jacobs and Richard Sennet were applied, and consequently reduced criminal activity, created a safe environment to live and created points of interaction which therefore built bonds within the community.

There are some negative aspects, such as the lack of facade maintenance, the graffiti that adorns the shutters of the shops, the rubbish that is tipped in some stairwells and the lack of housing space for an increasing population. However, one could argue, that this is the result of political and social agendas and unforeseen changes in a rising population, not the result of its design. Donnybrook does well in its innovative approach and led the way for other architects to take precedent.

89

Barber, P. (2008). Donnybrook. Westminster. Available at: <https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/> [Accessed 14 November 2020].

Jacobs, J. Epstein, J. (2011). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, USA: Modern Library.

REFERENCES

Sennett, R. (2019). Building And Dwelling: Ethics For The City. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Sennett, R. (2003). The Fall Of Public Man. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Edmonds, A. (2020). Connecting People, Place And Design. Bristol,UK/ Chicago, USA: Intellect.

Towerhamlets.gov.uk. (2020) [online] Available at: <https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Borough_ statistics/Ward_profiles/Census-2011/RB-Census2011-Ethnicity-2013-01.pdf> [Accessed 10 November 2020].

O’brien, F. (2019) The Forum - East London’s Speakers’ Corner | Roman Road LDN. [online] Roman Road LDN. Available at: <https://romanroadlondon.com/victoria-park-forum-speakers-corner/> [Accessed 15 November 2020].

Roman Road LDN. (2020) Planning And Development Archives | Roman Road LDN. [online] Available at: <https:// romanroadlondon.com/local/society/campaigns/planning-development/> [Accessed 14 November 2020].

Kazannik, Y. (2020) From Bow To Marbella: Photo-Essay Of Donnybrook Quarter | Roman Road LDN. [online] Roman Road LDN. Available at: <https://romanroadlondon.com/donnybrook-quarter-bow-photo-essay/> [Accessed 14 November 2020].

90

Cordell, T. (2020) Retrospective: Peter Barber - Architectural Review. [online] Architectural Review.

Available at: <https://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/retrospective-peter-barber> [Accessed 15 November 2020].

REFERENCES

Tower Hamlets. (2003) PA_03_00468-DESIGN_REPORT-169929. London.

91

Barber, P. (2007) Donnybrook quarter. [online] Available at: <https://architizer.com/projects/donnybrookquarter/> [Accessed on: 9th November 2020].

Barber, P. (2019) Donnybrook quarter. [online] Available at: <http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/donnybrookquarter> [Accessed on: 16th November 2020].

Barber, P. (2019) Practice. [online] Available at: <http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/practice> [Accessed on: 18th November 2020].

Adt.co.uk. (2020) Crime In My Area - Interactive UK Crime Map. [online] Available at: <https:// www.adt.co.uk/crime-in-my-area> [Accessed 21 November 2020].

Towerhamlets.gov.uk. (2020) [online] Available at: <https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_29813> [Accessed 10 November 2020].

Figure 1 - Barber, P. 2019. Donnybrook Quarter — Peter Barber Architects. [online] Peter Barber Architects.

Available at: <http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/donnybrook-quarter> [Accessed 21 November 2020].

Figure 2 - Humaira Ramzan, 2020. Figure ground map showing Donnybrook Quarter (red) amongst its context.

Figure 3 - Barber, P. 2019. Donnybrook Quarter — Peter Barber Architects. [online] Peter Barber Architects.

Available at: <http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/donnybrook-quarter> [Accessed 21 November 2020].

Figure 4 - Barber, P. 2020. Donnybrook Quarter — Peter Barber Architects. [online] Peter Barber Architects.

Available at: <http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/donnybrook-quarter> [Accessed 21 November 2020].

FIGURES

Figure 5 - Widuri Clare, 2020. Plan showing the varying heights of buildings.

Figure 6 - Google, 2019. Google Maps Screenshot. [image] Available at: <https://www.google.co.uk/ maps/@51.535867,-0.0282303,3a,60y,323.05h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWd9-_dXXb-qRyTuojMh9Jw!2e0!7i16384!

8i8192> [Accessed 16 November 2020].

Figure 7 - Widuri Clare, 2020. Plan and collage showing the position of Victoria’s Park from Donnybrook Quarter.

Figure 8 - Widuri Clare, 2020. Plan and collage showing the position of Roman Road from Donnybrook Quarter.

Figure 9 - Roman Road London, 2020. Screenshots From A Local News Website. [image] Available at: <https:// romanroadlondon.com/local/society/heritage/> [Accessed 16 November 2020].

92

Figure 10 - Google, 2019. Google Maps Screenshot. [image] Available at: <https://www.google.co.uk/ maps/@51.535867,-0.0282303,3a,60y,323.05h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWd9-_dXXb-qRyTuojMh9Jw!2e0!7i16384!

8i8192> [Accessed 16 November 2020].

Figure 11 - Tower Hamlets, 2003. PA_03_00468-DESIGN_REPORT-169929. London.

FIGURES

Figure 12 - Google, 2019. Google Maps Screenshot. [image] Available at: <https://www.google.co.uk/ maps/@51.535867,-0.0282303,3a,60y,323.05h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWd9-_dXXb-qRyTuojMh9Jw!2e0!7i16384!

8i8192> [Accessed 16 November 2020].

93

Figure 13 - Google, 2019. Google Maps Screenshot. [image] Available at: <https://www.google.co.uk/ maps/@51.535867,-0.0282303,3a,60y,323.05h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWd9-_dXXb-qRyTuojMh9Jw!2e0!7i16384!

8i8192> [Accessed 16 November 2020].

Figure 14 - Widuri Clare, 2020. Collage highlighting the key points of influence and change.

Figure 15 - Lina Ahmed, 2020. Graph showing the diversity and population of the Borough and Bow East.

Figure 16 - Lina Ahmed, 2020. Graph stating the different religions in Tower Hamlets.

Figure 17 - Lina Ahmed, 2020. Graph highlighting the different housing tenancies and households.

Figure 18 - Lina Ahmed, 2020. Diagram showing the different unit types in Donnybrook.

Figure 19 - Lina Ahmed, 2020. Graph showing employment rate in Donnybrook.

Figure 20 - Lina Ahmed, 2020. Live/ work units in Donnybrook.

Figure 21 - Towerhamlets.gov.uk. (2020) [online] Available at: <https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/ online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_29813> [Accessed 10 November 2020].

Figure 22 - Aisha Eltabal, 2020. Illustration showing some of the ‘eyes on the street’.

Figure 23 - Tower Hamlets, 2003. PA_03_00468-DESIGN_REPORT-169929. London.

FIGURES

Figure 24 - Aisha Eltabal, 2020. Map indicating work units in Donnybrook Quarter.

Figure 25 - Google, 2019. Google Maps Screenshot. [image] Available at: <https://www.google.co.uk/ maps/@51.535867,-0.0282303,3a,60y,323.05h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWd9-_dXXb-qRyTuojMh9Jw!2e0!7i16384!

8i8192> [Accessed 16 November 2020].

Figure 26 - Adt.co.uk. (2020) Crime In My Area - Interactive UK Crime Map. [online] Available at: <https://www.adt.co.uk/crime-in-my-area> [Accessed 21 November 2020].

94

By Lina Ahmed, Humaira Ramzan, Widuri Clare & Aisha Eltabal

95