Housing and dwelling deptford

HOUSING AND DWELLING IN DEPTFORD BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

LUCIANA GALLARDO RUCHIKA LALL JUAN USUBILLAGA LUCIA WEILG TATAG ARHATH

CONTENT

01

SITE CONTEXT 1.1 History

1.1.1 Timeline 1.2 Government Housing Policies

1.2.1 Type of Developers

02

DEMOGRAPHICS 2.1 Economic Activities and Qualification 2.2 Tenure 2.3 Diversity Index 2.4 Population and Ethnicity

03

HOUSING ANALYSIS

04

DWELLING ANALYSIS 4.1 Services 4.2 Total Crime Offences 4.3 Perception 4.4 Adaptability 4.5 Bridging and Bonding Capital 4.6 Conflict Resolution and Expectancy of Action

05 06

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

3.1 Estates 3.2 Types of Accomodation 3.3 Building Heights 3.4 Density 3.5 Property Market 3.6 Mixed Use Building

Group A1 Housing

Page

2

Location of Lewisham Borough in London City.

Location of the area of study and the identification of Convoys Wharf.

Source: London Councils web page (2016) and Google maps (2016).

introduction “There doesn’t seem to be much balance, is 14 per cent affordable really enough to integrate it into the local area?

It is surrounded by a lot of social housing and it could do with more employment space. It should not be just an island with its back turned to Deptford - these proposals do not really feel like part of London” (Roo Angell at Evening Standard, 2013).

The zone of study is located in Deptford area in the borough of Lewisham at southeast London. It is focused on the surroundings of the future residential development of Convoys Wharf.

The last few decades have seen a transformation of the erstwhile docklands, from industrial use, to include post-war state residential estates, and post structural adjustment, increasing private interest along the Thames- leading to concerns of gentrification and affordability.

The Mayor of the city established that “it is clear that London desperately needs more homes in order to promote opportunity and real choice for all Londoners, with a range of tenures that meets their diverse and changing needs and at prices they can afford” (London plan, 20016). In this context, the Lewisham Council supported the Deptford´s regeneration to transform the industrial use of Convoys Wharf to mixed use with a 76.5% residential use. The master plan proposed 3,500 of housing units with 15% (500 units) of affordable housing that only includes affordable rented and intermediate housing.

The new development and transformation of the neighbourhood’s character and its ability to cater to the new residents, gentrification and lack of affordable housing has raised several concerns. With a continued shift from predominantly council developments of Deptford, the new development threatens to transforming the area with high housing prices and high-income population.

Olympia Square Building is the heart of the new development. The old warehouse will be remodeled to include hotel, retail, meeting and events spaces, etc. The images show its transformation to become part of the new vision of the area.

Source: Andy Worthington Blog (2013) and Adriette Myburgh (2016)

Group A1 Housing

Page

3

HOUSING

DWELLING Neighbourhood Scale

Social Capital

Services

Mixed Use

Density

Housing Typologies

Boundaries

Diversity

Tenure

Qualifications

Resident perception

RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION

RESIDENTS Economic Activities

Housing Policies

History

HOUSING AS URBANISM

Household Scale

Crime indicators

City Scale

High Income

Medium Income

Low Income Housing Stock : Demand

Housing Stock : Supply

methodology Our urban analysis looks at the site under the lenses of Housing and Dwelling. We understand both as two interrelated realms in which the relationship between residents and the built environment they live in is played out at different scales. As such, they represent a continuum which we aim to uncover through this exploration.

Starting at the larger scale of the city, we define housing as urbanism (Fiori and Rosa, Santa 2016). We argue that there is a fundamental link between the production, spatialisation of housing and the right to the city. This conceptualisation builds on an argument towards a spatial and qualitative understanding of housing and not houses, placing housing within the larger urban context, rather than only referring to the quantitative criteria of deficit. This is key to understand the relevance of housing within the larger urban context; for whom it is accessible (or inaccessible), and to contest the idea that the growing demand of housing can be quantitatively achieved by simply building more (Fiori and Rosa, Santa 2016).

Under this broader dimension of housing as urbanism, we analyse housing through the larger political economy in which it exists. Our methodology traces the historical trajectory of the site with respect to the larger political and economic institutions that it is embedded within. It also draws on the typologies of housing estates that have been developed, linking this with the characterization of the residents that live in them. On this note, emphasis will be given to the diversity that exists in the neighbourhood; a characteristic that is acknowledged by the Deptford Neighbourhood Association.

The deep relationship that exists between housing and the dwellers also brings into the argument the notion of housing as a verb (Turner, 1972). Turner argues that housing should be understood as a process in which families have a lot of agency in shaping their environment. This autonomy

Group A1 Housing

Page

4

Objective Environmental Attributes - Physical - Social

PERCEPTION Subjective Environmental Attributes - Physical - Social

ATTITUDE AND AFFECTION RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION

Personal Characteristics

INTENTION OF CONDUCT

CONDUCT

Social Interaction in the Neighbourhood

Source: Author’s translation from the original in Aragones & Amerigo (1987).

methodology Residential Satisfaction is a concept from environmental psychology (Amerigo & Aragones, 1997). It brings again quality to the discussion, but at the scale of the neighbourhood. The conceptual framework developed

by Amerigo and Aragones aims to uncover the dynamic relationships between the resident and its environment through the exploration of the dimensions described in the diagram above.

In the development of our analysis, we gave especial attention to the social interactions in the neighbourhood, as they are key to understand how such a diverse (and potentially conflictual) population can build a constructive community. Social interactions are framed under the concept of Social Capital, initially proposed by Bourdieu (1986).

He defines it as “the aggregate of current and potential resources derived from the possession of a durable social network or membership to a group.” (Bourdieu, 1986).

Such a sociological perspective is brought to a methodological realm by authors such as Patulny & Morris

(2012), Coleman (1988), Portes (1998), Sampson (2009) and Foster et al. (2015). From them and from previous fieldwork experience assessing the quality of housing projects in Bogota, we extracted a multidimensional definition of social capital that includes the following aspects: - Bonding capital: a dimension related to the grade of cohesion that the community has.

- Bridging capital: a dimension related to the grade of porosity of the community and its ability to relate to other communities.

- Expectancy of action: “latent” social capital which enables communities to organise themselves and react during emergencies.

- Conflict resolution: the ability of a community to solve conflicts in a constructive manner, diminishing the negative effects they may have on the social network.

interviews included questions about perception of the neighbourhood and relationships between neighbours, in an attempt to obtain sufficient qualitative information to draw conclusions about what it is to dwell in the study area.

Moreover, these conclusions provide an opportunity to further develop the interrelationships between both lenses of analysis (housing and dwelling) and the concepts used to explore them (Housing as Urbanism and Residential Satisfaction).

We assessed these dimensions through structured interviews, informal conversation with local residents and participant observation during two visits of the area. The Group A1 Housing

Page

5

01 housing as urbanism

Future 90s to current 80s to 90s 50s to 80s Pre war and during wars

history The mapping according to chronology of housing across the site in focus, shows how Deptford has transformed in the past and its plans for the future, from the historically industrial use of one of the most important wharves, to wasteland and towards a dominantly redeveloped residential area.

areas.

The late 90s and early 2000s saw a continuation of the declining role of the state in welfare housing, with changes in ownership and redevelopment of existing holdings by the Council, towards private financing, largely along the river.

Dating back to the 1500s, the site was one of the largest and most used docks, until their closure. Charles Booth’s London Poverty maps of the late 19th century show mixed income groups living closely. This mix of classes was challenged during the 60s, with an ‘unslumming’ demolition drive, resulted in a demographic shift. It was at this time that large scale council housing was planned, which included Pepys Estate.

The current housing developments that are planned or are under construction, post the financial crisis of 2008 planned or presently under construction continue the trend of the withdrawal of state financing, with state looking at the private sector to provide for and fund the cost of redevelopment, including redevelopments such as Convoys Wharf, continuing the debate on gentrification along the river.

Affected by the shift towards container shipping, the 70s saw the closure of the docks. The 80s saw structural adjustment during Thatcher’s rule which resulted in the formation of London Dockyards Development Company, with privately developed large scale housing in the defunct industrial

Group A1 Housing

Page

7

time line

1980s - 90s Southwark Council took over the London docks. London Docklands Development Corporation established by Thatcher to devlop the east London Docklands. Redevelopment, filling and reclamation by LDDC to create mixed use redevelopment 1970 5500 homes added (including indiDocks shut vidual detached housing and apartcommercial ment complexes) - Surrey Quays and operation Baltics Quay. These 2 docks, were however, turned into south dock marina (a boating facility) including 130 residential berths

World Wars Damage to the docks. The railings of Rowley House were recycled stretchers from the wars

WW II

1940

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT

1950

1960

1970

1962 Aragon tower, Eddystone tower and Daubney Tower built and owned by London Borough of Lewisham as a part of Pepy’s Estate 1960 and 70s Demolition of nearly all the Victorian terraces that had once fed into the Deptford High Street.

1980

1990 1992 Deptford city challenge initiative approved by Department of Environment. 29 million spent to revive and rennovate the estate. Consultation with residents in the mid 90s resulted in a the removal of walkways, refurbishment of a existing blocks, promises to build 18 new 3-4 bed houses and the demolition of Merrick House (44 flats)

2004 high rise housing adjacent to developments of the 80s and 90s (Iceland Wharf)

2013 Mayor of London takes takes over the planning application of Convoy’s Wharf, instead of Lewisham Council. Lewisham council is present during the process

FINANCIAL CRISIS

2000

2010

Future

1998 Lewisham Council carried out a residents survey to review works and plan for the future. Community Organizations objected to the format and actual engagement of the survey.

2006 Aragon tower sold to Berkeley Group Holdings Inc to aid funding of regeneration plan of Pepy’s Estate. Additional floors added to the tower

1999 Lewisham Council announced change in its plans - the new houses promised in earlier meetings were not going to be constructed. Instead, demolition of 5 low rise structurally sound blocks (Limberg, Dolben, Barfleur, Marlowe and Millard Houses) and plans to sell Aragon were announced. The council selected Hyde Housing Association for Pepy’s Estate regeneration plans .

Tentants from 222 flats are expected to move with no right of return.

Group A1 Housing

Page

8

UK CENTRAL GOVERNMENT GREATER LONDON COUNCIL MAYOR OF LONDON (London Plan) The plan of 2016 identifies the annual target of social housing supply in London: 17,000 units. In addition, it establishes the targets by boroughs, in the case of Lewisham: 1,385 units.

It defines that the social housing target must include a 60% of social rent and affordable rent housing and a 40% of intermediate rent.

It establishes the density matrix of London´s land and the size of the housing units according the number of inhabitants.

33 LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL LEWISHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (Local Plan that depends on the London Plan) It promotes the construction of affordable houses and develop a general program to accomplish the London plan´s targets.

It negotiates with the private developers the percentage of affordable houses in the projects and the possible mix-uses of the residential complexes.

It is in charge of the process of select the inhabitants for the social housings, establishes the taxes for each unit and reduces its the amount according the individual situation.

It gives subsidies to social housing tenants that are willing to buy a house or interest-free loans to home maintenance.

HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS PRIVATE, NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS These organisations provide social housing to rent and to buy.

They are regulated by the Greater London Council.

These companies work along with local authorities to offer lowcost home ownership schemes: “shared ownership” or “rent to homebuy”.

government housing policies

lewisham housing policies

According the 2013 London Strategic Housing Market Assesment (SHMA) the London’s household population is increasing 100,000 people per year and the city is not fully supplying the need for housing. The serious housing affordability problems are reflected in the average price of the houses that has double since the late 1990s and trebled since the 1980s.

The Lewisham Council has the responsibility to provide 1,385 houses each year to counteract the deficit and the high prices of the market. For that purpose, the council has to negotiate with the private developers the percentage of social housing that they are going to provide in the residential projects.

The study (2013) also established the total housing demand between 2015 to 2035 of almost 50,000 units per year, from which 17,000 (32%) must be under social schemes with a preference of smaller social rented homes.

The council offers three types of affordable housing programs: Social rented housing: the local council or the Housing Associations has the tenure of the unit. The rent is established according the national rent regime.

Affordable rented housing: the local council or the Housing Association let the unit to a price that is no more the 80% of the market price including all the services.

Intermediate housing: are units that could be sale or rent “at a cost above social rent, but below market levels” (Lewisham Council, 2016).

In the case of Convoys Wharf, the council and the company had an agreement of 500 units in the modalities of “affordable rented” and “intermediate housing”. However, this residential project is characterized by the high prices of the apartments and a high-income lifestyle. This produces a dramatic contrast in the built environment that concentrates big percentage of council housing and a low-income population.

The current housing policies are carrying out the gentrification of the area where low-income families would be obliged to move because the high qualification of the land would bring more private developers and more inhabitants.

This pattern has already been identified in commercial use, according to Ian Jack “many of the old markers of place are vanishing – the local jobs, the local factory and office, the local post office and branch library, the local pub” (The Guardian, 2015).

Group A1 Housing

Page

9

type of developers The area is characterized by the construction of housing complexes that groups buildings with similar appearance and creates green areas inside. The Trinity Estate is an example of the council development while the Millennium Quays is from a private one. Both have the same urban conception of community that offers the inhabitants spaces of recreation and exchange outside the buildings.

Map of Trinity Estate and a building type.

Map of Millennium Quays and a building type

private development future private development council development

Group A1 Housing

Page

10

02 demographics

1

3

2

4

economic activities & qualification

45 40 35 30 25

The Database of London’s Census 2011 includes data on the levels of qualification and economic activities of the residents of each ward who are economically active. They provide a good starting point to understand who are the residents of the study area and its surroundings.

20 15 10 5 0

Lewisham Level 3

SouthwarkG

Level 1

Level 2

Leel 4

Other

reenwich Student

140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000

In terms of qualification, there are seven levels considered by the census (London Census, 2011): No qualifications.

Level 1 Qualifications: 1-4 O Level GCSEs, Foundation Diplomas.

Level 2 Qualifications: 5+ O Level GCSEs, School Certificates.

Apprenticeship.

Level 3 Qualifications: 2+ A Levels, Higher School Certificates.

Level 4 Qualifications: University BA/BS, MA/MSc or higher degrees.

Other qualifications.

20000 0 Employed

Lewisham Self Employed

SouthwarkG Unemployed

reenwich

The results of the mapping of qualifications show how the highest percentage of the residents of the study area (between 40 and 50%) have a level 4 qualification, compared to people with no

Maps generated in ArcGIS with data from the London Metropolitan Police Database (2016).

1

No qualifications % of total population

3

2

Level 4 qualification % of total population

4

Economic Activity: Students % of total population Economic Activity: Employed % of total population

qualifications who tend to be concentrated more around Trinity Estate. This has some variation within wards, but it is consistent with the qualifications in the rest of Lewisham.

This is also consistent with the data from the neighbouring boroughs of Greenwich and Southwark.

The economic activity of the residents, on the other hand, shows that the majority of the residents in the area are employed, in contrast to a small percentage that are students.

These tend to be concentrated in the area around the student residences of Bellerbys College London.

Crossing both layers of data, it becomes evident that most of the residents of the study area are highly educated and have a relatively stable source of income. The character of the residents of the study area, in these two indicators, reflect the general trends of this area of the city.

Group A1 Housing

Page

12

1

3

2

4

tenure Percentage of Households

Percentage of Households by Tenure 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Lewisham

SouthwarkG Owned

Mortgage

Social Rent

In terms of tenure, the study area reflects the general trends observed in the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich: there is a high percentage of households living in social rent, although this percentage is not as high compared to the other forms of tenure, as it is in Southwark, for example.

reenwich Private Rent

However, at the scale of the ward, there are considerable differences along the study area. Even though between 40 to 50% of the households have a social rent scheme, these are clustered around Pepys and Trinity Estates with quantities over 70%.

The exception to this trend is Millennium Quay, developed recently. It hosts mostly owners that have a mortgage and private renters. This is an exception because in general, home ownership (with and without a mortgage) represents a low percentage in the study area.

Having so many social housing units allows Deptford and Lewisham to host a diversity of residents in terms of income,

Maps generated in ArcGIS with data from the London Census Database (2011).

1

Tenure: Ownership % of total population

3

Tenure: Mortgage % of total population

2

Tenure: Private rent % of total population

4

Tenure: Social rent % of total population

levels of education, ethnicity and others. This is a characteristic of the area that is recurrent in the discourse of both the residents and the members of the Deptford Neighbourhood Association.

Because new developments like Convoys Wharf are not including social housing units but rather affordable housing units, it is likely that the study area will go through a change in the distribution of tenure, increasing the percentage of privately owned households and transforming the profile of the residents of the area.

Group A1 Housing

Page

13

1

3 Change in Diversity Index (2001 - 2011) 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00

-6.00

2

Maps generated in ArcGIS with data from the London Census Database (2011).

diversity index With the data gathered from the London Census 2011, the Greater London Authority issued a study on diversity using Simpson’s Diversity Index (SDI). This index takes into account the number of population groups present in the area and their size in relation to each other (Greater London Authority, 2011).

“SDI scores can range from 1 to N, where there are N groups in the population. A score of 1 indicates the entire population is in a single group while a score of N indicates that the population is equally spread across all N categories. This means SDI scores will tend to be higher if the characteristic measured has more categories and scores will tend to be lower if one category tends to predominate.” (Greater London Authority, 2011, p. 5) Even though the index was created to look into ethnic diversity, it is now used to calculate diversity in other areas such as Tenure, Household Composition, Accommodation type, Socioeconomic characteristics and Age. These are espe-

cially relevant for this analysis as they provide a clear image of how diverse is the population in the area, to contrast official data with the perception of the residents. It also allows for a better identification of those areas of special interest in terms of promoting a more inclusive urban environment.

Because of this, and because the area is undergoing a large process of transformation, we mapped the change on the diversity index from 2001 and 2011. This allows to understand the information provided by the London Census in terms of the evolution of the demographic characteristics of the area.

In terms of tenure and accommodation type, there is a general increase in the diversity index which suggests a diversification on the housing stock (typology) and access schemes (ownership, rent). Areas like Trinity Estate have undergone a high diversification in terms of tenure even though the accommodation type has become more homogeneous. This suggests that the general trend of selling council properties to private owners might be still ongoing.

Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster

-4.00

Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark

-2.00

City of London Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden Croydon Ealing

0.00

Tenure

1 2

Diversity Index: Tenure Change in Simpson’s Diversity Index (2001-2011) Diversity Index: Accommodation Type Change in Simpson’s Diversity Index (2001-2011)

3

Diversity Index: Household Composition Change in Simpson’s Diversity Index (2001-2011)

On the other hand, developments such as Millennium Quay have had a homogenising role in the neighbourhood as they do not include social housing and the variety of housing stock is limited. This is corroborated by the changes in diversity of household composition, as apparently the new residents moving in the area (both in council housing and private developments) have similar family characteristics.

On the other hand, developments such as Millennium Quay have had a homogenising role in the neighbourhood as they do not include social housing and the variety of housing stock is limited. This is corroborated by the changes in diversity of household composition, as apparently the new residents moving in the area (both in council housing and private developments) have similar family characteristics.

Group A1 Housing

Page

14

1

3 Change in Diversity Index (2001 - 2011) 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00

2

-15.00

Age Structure

Ethnic Group

Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster

-10.00

Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark

-5.00

City of London Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden Croydon Ealing

0.00

Socio-economic

Maps generated in ArcGIS with data from the London Census Database (2011).

diversity index Regarding socioeconomic characteristics and age, the development of Millennium Quay represents an exceptional decrease in diversity in the area. The data suggests that the project was aimed at a specific type of resident, with higher education, relatively higher income (see Housing section of this document) and of the same age group.

The area around Trinity Estate, on the other hand, has undergone a homogenisation of the population in terms of age, although the socioeconomic characteristics have remained similar. This might be caused by the rotation of residents in council housing as newcomers in these estates must fit a specific profile to be eligible to live in them.

Source: Greater London Authority (2011)

1

Diversity Index: Socioeconomic Change in Simpson’s Diversity Index (2001-2011)

2

Diversity Index: Age Change in Simpson’s Diversity Index (2001-2011)

3

Diversity Index: Ethnicity Change in Simpson’s Diversity

study area has been significantly diversified in this aspect.

This is consistent with the general trends in London, as every borough has experienced an increase in diversity of ethnic groups, while showing variation in terms of age and socioeconomic characteristics.

The opposite has occurred in Pepys Estate, as the population has diversified a bit in terms of age, but have been homogenised in terms of the socioeconomic characteristics.

This Estate (along with Millennium Quay) has conserved the diversity in the ethnicity of its residents, while the rest of the Group A1 Housing

Page

15

1

3

Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster

Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark

2

City of London Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden Croydon Ealing

80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

BAME

population and ethnicity Apart from the information provided by Simpson’s Diversity Index, it is important for the case of Deptford and Lewisham to look in detail to the location of diverse population groups in terms of quantity, country of origin and ethnic minorities.

6000000 5000000

Overall, there is a high amount of population concentrated in the area south of Millennium Quay, due to the presence of student accommodation facilities. Because student accommodation is developed in higher densities, a relatively large percentage of the young population lives in this area.

4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0

2001

2011

The area around Trinity Estate is another ward with a high number of residents. The fact that Convoys Wharf (unused since the 1970’s) is located within this area indicates that Trinity Estate is one of the densest places in Deptford.

On the other hand, Millennium Quay has the lowest number of population in the study area. It also has the lowest percentage of ethnic minorities (BAME) compared to the other wards. This reinforces the idea that this development

Maps generated in ArcGIS with data from the London Census Database (2011).

3

1

Population per Ward Census 2011

2

Ethnicity: Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic % of total population

Country of Origin: Not UK % of total population

in particular has had a homogenising effect in terms of diversity in the area.

Lewisham in general is one of the top 10 boroughs in London in terms of the percentage of the population that are considered ethnic minorities. This has been recognised by the members of the Deptford Neighbourhood Association as one of the strengths of the area as it brings a lot of cultural diversity. In places like the ward around Trinity Estate, up to 70% of the residents identify themselves as BAME. In terms of the country of origin, there is also a general trend both in the study area and its surroundings to have around 40 to 50% of residents who were born outside of the United Kingdom, which is above the average in London.

Group A1 Housing

Page

16

03 housing analysis

17 19 18

15

5

14 6

4

16

4 20

13 4 7

3 1

2

10 8

28

11

9 a

34

23 12

29 27

21

32 30

22 26 24

1 kalmars 2 rose court 3 sutton dwellings 4 ploughway estate 5 ICELAND WHARF 6 YEOMAN 19 7 CHILTON GROVE 8 ZAPOTEC HOUSE 9 MELVILLE COURT 10 CROFT STREET FLATS 11 ACACIA CLOSE 12 POMONA HOUSE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Barratt marine wharf west marine wharf east lewisham homes boat house gate deptford homes peppys deptford timberyard trinity estate convoy wharf evelyn estate

25 highfield estate 26 mews house 27 rowley house 28 knights tower 29 hughes house 30 gilbert house 31 mcmilan campus living 32 ola house 33 henrietta close 34 millenium quay

33

31

25

estates 1 kalmars 2 rose court 3 sutton dwellings 4 ploughway estate 5 ICELAND WHARF 6 YEOMAN 19 7 CHILTON GROVE 8 ZAPOTEC HOUSE 9 MELVILLE COURT 10 CROFT STREET FLATS 11 ACACIA CLOSE 12 POMONA HOUSE

13 Barratt 14 marine wharf west 15 marine wharf east 16 lewisham homes 17 boat house 18 gate 19 deptford homes 20 peppys deptford 21 timberyard 22 trinity estate 23 convoy wharf 24 evelyn estate

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

highfield estate mews house rowley house knights tower hughes house gilbert house mcmilan campus living ola house henrietta close millenium quay

The area of study can be clearly divided according the different complexes that exist, where the buildings were constructed surrounding green spaces to create confined spaces. The estates of the urban development can be individually perceived by walking in the neighbourhood because it has fences dividing with the exterior or because the architecture of the buildings has the same language.

Group A1 Housing

Page

18

types of accomodation

KEY HOUSE FLAT STUDENT ACCOMODATION BOAT

Group A1 Housing

Page

19

BUILDING HEIGHTS In general, the area has an average medium rise height that allows to recognize easily high rise buildings as urban landmarks. These buildings are scattered and belongs to Pepys Estate and Trinity Estate. Along the river Thames and Evelyn St., there are not low rise buildings, possibly because of the views that the dwellers can access by being in these sites.

It is expected a change in the area because of the development of Convoys Wharf. The buildings will be high rise constructions that will eventually increase the density of the area.

KEY

low rise (0-2 STORY) medium rise (3-7 STORY) high rise (>7 STORY)

Group A1 Housing

Page

20

3 4

density

KEY 3.3 -101.5 persons/hectare 101.5 - 232 persons/hectare 232 - 553.3 persons/hectare 553.3 - 1256.7 persons/hectare

Group A1 Housing

Page

21

1

3 Average House Price (£)

property market In economic terms, the population of the study area is diverse. There are residents with salaries as high as £75.000 per year in Millennium Quay, while others receive less than £25.000 per year around Pepys and Trinity Estates.

Average House Prices in London per Borough 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000

Average Prices (£)

1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

City of London

Barking and Dagenham

Barnet

Bexley

Bromley

Camden

Croydon

Ealing

Greenwich

Hackney

Hammersmith and Fulham

Haringey

Harrow

Havering

Hillingdon

Hounslow

Islington

Kensington and Chelsea

Kingston upon Thames

Lambeth

Lewisham

Merton

Newham

Redbridge

Richmond upon Thames

Southwark

Waltham Forest

Wandsworth

Westminster

2013

2014

This gap is mirrored by a gap in property market prices.

Both the areas around Millennium Quay and Surrey Quays had the highest property market prices in 2014 and they were the areas with the highest amount of properties sold in the same year. This is consistent with the fact that these areas have the least amount of Council Housing and therefore the highest amount of properties that could be potentially sold.

Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster

Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark

2

City of London Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden Croydon Ealing

1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

House Prices

Maps generated in ArcGIS with data from the London Census Database (2011).

3

1

Average Household Income 2012 GBP per year

2

Average Property Market Prices 2014 Net GBP

Properties sold in 2014 Number of properties sold

The strategic location of Deptford in terms of the regeneration and development projects being carried out in East London makes it especially subject to the rise of property values that has characterized London’s real estate market for the last decade.

Brent

Tower Hamlets

In terms of the wider context of the city, the average house price in Lewisham is relatively low compared to boroughs in central London or other neighbouring ones such as Southwark or Tower Hamlets. Nevertheless, some properties in Millennium Quay or Surrey Quays have been sold for over £400.000.

Group A1 Housing

Page

22

MIXED USE BUILDING

KEY

airbnb cafe, restaurant, retail

In general, the area of study presents few mixed uses.

The majority of the constructions are for residential use only and the services are located in separate buildings, such as the medical services, the universities and the gas stations. However, the new complexes of housing -as Convoys Wharf- develop units of houses that have in the ground floor other uses, e.g. cultural, retail and restaurants.

This urban transformation is fostered by the current policies that have a vision of more auto sufficient communities; in contrast to previous planning guidelines that segregate the uses.

The research includes another type of mixed uses that are produced by the inhabitants, which is the offer of temporal housing to the tourism sector known as “bed and breakfast� (Air bnb). This new vision is concentrated in the recent constructed buildings.

Group A1 Housing

Page

23

04 dwelling analysis

m St. nicholas c of e church

G F E D

a

L B

C M J H I

KEY

parks public services

COLLECTOR ROAD MAIN ROAD

K

services The character of the area is residential with few services that are mainly dispersed along the main road at the south border. Through this road, the residents can access restaurants, groceries’ stores, gas stations, schools and universities. In addition, some of these services are located inside the area of study and corresponds with a particular development, for instance the Grove Medical Centre was constructed inside Pepys Estate.

It is also possible to recognize in the area the great availability of green spaces that complement the residential buildings. The inhabitants have the possibility to access to children´s game area in walking distance from their houses.

These encounter spaces are also important for the dwellers to meet each other and have a sense of community.

The photos compare the old vision of segregating the services with the current development that combines commercial use with residential one.

Source: Google maps (2016)

Group A1 Housing

Page

25

Total Criminal Offences Number of offences reported in 2016

“Me, I don’t have a problem, but I see them going around at nights.

When they see me and they realise it’s me, they just smile and say ‘hey boss!’. But that is because they know me from my shop. They know I live here and I’m no stranger. But to people who are not from the neighbourhood, it is not safe.” (Local shop owner, 28/01/2017)

3000 2500

Maps generated in ArcGIS with data from the London Metropolitan Police Database (2016).

total criminal offences One of the main constraints in being satisfied with the built environment that constitutes one’s home and neighbourhood is the issue of security. Environmental Psychologists argue that sense of security is one of the main causes of residential satisfaction (Amerigo & Aragones, 1997).

Although the crime rates in Lewisham in terms of number of average number of criminal offences is high compared to the rest of the city, it is relatively low compared to neighbouring boroughs of Southwark, Greenwich and Tower Hamlets.

2000 1500 1000 500

Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster

Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark

City of London Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden Croydon Ealing

0

Within the study area, crimes rates are higher towards the eastern part of Lewisham, especially around the student residences. However, these rates are still very low compared to other wards in the south of the borough.

The perception of security was a recurrent issue in the interviews to the residents of the area, as some of them complained about mugging and the presence of gangs especially during the nights.

Group A1 Housing

Page

26

perception Very unsafe

12

34

5

how expensive is it for you to live in your home?

Very safe Very cheap

12

34

5

how safe do you consider your neighbourhood?

Muggings and Crime. “Before it was dangerous, now hoodies.

Drunk people and it is changing�. lonely areas at Thefts. night.

Building has security and it is Streets can be new. too quiet.

Similar age group, no teenagers.

why do you consider safe/unsafe your neighbourhood?

how satisfied are you with your home?

how happy do you feel about the number, state and maintenance of public spaces near your home?

Very unsatisfied

Very unhappy

12

The majority of the neighbours interviewed acknowledged that Deptford was a safe neighbourhood. However, when asked to identify the main cause of insecurity, several characteristics arised such as thefts, gangs and drunk people at nights.

We observed an interesting correlation among our interviewees, between the perception of safety and of public spaces.

In this sense, as neighbours state that Deptford is safe, they feel more content with the state of the surrounfings public spaces. Whereas, in the case of the neighbours that recog-

34

5

12

34

5

Very satisfied

Very happy

nised Depford as an unsafe neighbourhood, they also state their unhapinness regarding the state of the public space.

In this sense, it can be inferred that the current physical characteristics of the public space of this neighbourhood might provoke feelings of fear in the dwellers.

In the case of the interviewees, they acknowledge that they need to spend a considerable amount of money to live in their houses, as they sometimes result quite expensive.

However, they also state their satifaction regarding their home. This perceived satisfaction suggests that some trade-offs have occurred according to the dwellers priorities and their financial capabilities.

Furthermore, because the new developments in the area might increase the cost of living, it would be expected that the perceived satisfaction changes according to new living conditions.

Group A1 Housing

Page

27

KEY

GROUND FLOOR BALCONIES

adaptability Some Deptford inhabitants tend to start a process of customisation their own houses transforming the space.

This process is characterised by the appropriation of spaces to be adapted by the needs and/or desires of the dwellers. There are three forms of adaptability identified: in the ground level, in balconies and in exterior finishes. It is important to highlight that dwellers tend to adapt their balconies when they are in front of green spaces rather than when they face vehicular streets, possibly because of the views.

Group A1 Housing

Page

28

bridging capital

bonding capital Are there any gatherings organised by neighbours?

Very uncomfortable

1

23

45

Very comfortable

how comfortable are you with new residents moving into the area?

RRI SB ~ å ë ï Éê =ë ó É

how many neighbours do you know by name?

+10 neighbours

1-5

In which societies or activities do you participate outside of your neighbourhood?

neighbours

0 neighbours

Sports.

Workshops.

None.

“The new people, they don’t buy from us. Sometimes they come to our shops to buy specific things, but they generally go to Saintsburys or other places. As a resident, I don’t mind them coming, but as a shop owner, it damages my business...” (Local shop owner, 28/01/2017) The responses we got from the interviews, as well as the observations we made during our visit, suggest that there is a high degree of bridging capital in the study area. Most of the residents interviewed feel relatively comfortable with new residents moving into the area. Although not many of them participate in activities outside of their neighbour-

Other.

Please draw the boundaries of your neighbourhood in this map.

hood, their idea of neighbourhood, as shown in the maps they drew, is diverse.

Deptford is a welcoming community that embraces diversity and has no clear territorial boundaries, although through observations we noticed a clustering of social interaction and activities per estate. However, there is some apprehension towards new developments like Convoys Wharf, as some of the residents consider it may bring a different population to the area; a population that would not engage with local businesses. This is expressed by a deep rejection of the new Costa cafe in Deptford High Street.

The questions related to bonding capital show diverging results. Almost half of the population interviewed do not know if there are gatherings organised in the neighbourhood.

Additionally, half of them do not know any neighbours by name.

However, almost half of the residents do know more than 10 neighbours by name and more than half acknowledge the existance of neighbourhood gatherings. This suggest there are two types of dwellers in the area: those who do not engage with the rest of the community and those who are in the core of the social networks. This division might be caused by social preferences or the time living in Deptford as older residents may have had more time to interact with others and form stronger bonds.

Group A1 Housing

Page

29

conflict resolution Neighbours get along very badly.

12

expectancy of action 34

5

Neighbours get along very well.

if you had an emergency, do you feel you could ask your neighbours for help?

how well would you say neighbours get along?

UMB

~ å ë ï Éê = ó É ë

what would you say is the most frequent cause of conflict between neighbours?

People don't interact much.

Parking issues.

Drugs near the college.

Litter on the streets

Noise.

“Actually the neighbourhood is quiet”.

Noise, rubbish.

“There is no conflict really”.

how likely would your neighbours help during an emergency in the neighbourhood?

12 how do you usually solve conflicts between neighbours?

34

5

Problems are not solved.

through institutions

Conflict is also part of the dwelling experience in Deptford.

In this sense, understanding whether inhabitants acknowlegde its existence and how they deal with it allows us to comprehend the dynamics within the community and the way in which they relate under stressful circumstances.

According to the neighbours interviewed, most of them get along well and some even recognised that there was not any conflict in Deptford. Nevertheless, conflicts do affect dwelling in this area. For instance, noise and litter on the streets are the most common issues.

through face to face interaction (talking) When analysing how conflicts are solved, it is important to highlight that as neighbours state that they get along better, talking appears as the most usual way of dealing with problems. In contrast, when neighbours get along badly, conflicts are dealt through institutions or simply not solved.

This is key to recognise the importance of face to face interaction, a common practice among the neighbours in Deptford.

The results of the questions related to expectancy of action insuggest a high latent social capital in the community. 80% of the residents feel they could ask their neighbours for help in case of an emergency and the majority believes that they would actually help in such case.

This was consistent throughout different age groups and people with different time living in the area. It suggests that even if at times there might not be any daily interactions between residents, there is a sense of community in terms of help.

Group A1 Housing

Page

30

conclusion DIVERSITY The first cross-section theme identified in the analysis is Diversity. The study area is diverse in terms of its housing stock, the characteristics of its residents and the way they engage with neighbours and the built environment. This diversity is recognised and embraced by some interviewed residents, as well as by the members of the Deptford Neighbourhood Association.

It constitutes one of the core characteristics of the identity of the area and as such, it provides a window of action in which it may be potentialised by the introduction of new activities and residents.

However, the new developments may have a homogenising effect, as it occurred with the area where the Millennium Quay was developed. Therefore, more than a space for opportunities, diversity might become a topic of reflection in design interventions in the area.

Diversity in housing stock, tenure and typologies.

TRANSFORMATION During the last decades, the area has undergone a process of transformation. This has been facilitated by housing and development policies in the city, which has resulted in former industrial areas being transformed by developers to build new housing estates.

This process aims to introduce new residents in the area which might come as agents of even further transformation. It may also generate variation in housing prices, because the affordable housing is limited by the agreement clauses between developers and the state. Therefore, the transformation of the area may leave out the population at the bottom of the pyramid of the housing demand.

On the other hand, these processes of transportation may alter the perception of the neighbourhood, especially in residents who have lived there for a long time. The challenge depicted, then, is how to frame the processes of transformation for them to be inclusive.

Transformation of types of housing being built, land uses and activities.

UNITY VS SEGGREGATION Finally, the analysis revealed a tension between forces that attempt to bring more unity to the area and others that attempt to cause seggregation.

Unity comes with the strength of bonding and bridging capital, as well as (paradoxically) with policies that facilitate a development of similar housing estates. However, this is contrasted by the fact that residents acknowledge diversity as one of the characteristics that unify them as a collective.

On the other hand, the forces of seggregation may be driven by the new developments as they may cause gentrification and a homogenisation of the population, which would weaken the strong identity in terms of diversity. Additionally, there is a latent risk of ghettoisation of vulnerable communities that live next to new developments, such as Trinity Estate, as they may become isolated in an area with new services that don’t satisfy their specific needs.

Homogeneneous housing stock VS ghettoisation of vulnerable communities.

HOUSING AS URBANISM Diversity in types of residents in their demographic characteristics.

Transformation on the type of residents living in the area, possibly gentrification.

Strength in diversity VS gentrification.

RESIDENTS Diversity in perceptions of the neighbourhood and interactions with neighbours.

Transformation of the perception of the neighbourhood caused by new developments.

Bonding and bridging capital VS Isolation and lack of services.

RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION

POTENTIAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE INTERVENTIONS.

Group A1 Housing

Page

31

references Amérigo, M. & Aragonés, J. (1997).A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, pp.47-57.

Aragonés, J. & Amérigo, M. (1987). Satisfacción Residencial: Un concepto de calidad de vida. Documentación social, 67, pp. 133 - 154.

Bourdieu, P. (2002). The Forms of Capital. In: N. W. Biggart, ed. Readings in Economic Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Limited, pp. 280-291.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, pp. S95-S120.

Evening Standard (2016). Available at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/1bn-plan-to-turn-deptford-into-theshoreditch-of-south-london-8600714.html Fiori, J & Santa Rosa, J., 2016. New formal housing policies: building just cities? Notes of presentation to the panel of same title in the 7 Urban World Forum, pp. 1-10 Foster, K & Pitner, R, Freedman D, Bell, B & Shaw, Todd 2015. Spatial Dimensions of Social Capital. City and Community, American sociological Association, pp 392-409 Greater London Authority (2011) Jack, I. (2015). How Deptford became the ‘apex of fashionability’ and other stories. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/02/deptford-apex-of-fashionability Lewisham Council Affordability of Housing (2015). Available at http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/ s38482/07AffordabilityScopingPaper%20updated_160915. pdf

Australian Social Housing Tenants. Urban Studies, 49 (15), pp. 3365-3384.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, pp 1-24 Sampson, R. (2009). Disparity and Diversity in the contemporary city: social (dis)order revisited. The British Journal of Sociology 2009, pp 1-31 Turner, J. & Fichter, R. (Eds.), (1972). Freedom to build.

Dweller control of the housing process. New York: Collier Macmillan. http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/category/wartime-stretcher-railings/ http://www.farrells.com/projects/convoys-wharf/ http://www.olddeptfordhistory.com/2009/11/deptfordhigh-street-looking-north.html http://www.musgroves.co.uk/alburystreethistory.htm http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/southdockmarina https://municipaldreams.wordpress. com/2015/08/18/a_tale_of_two_cities/ http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/ applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_ LEWIS_DCAPR_69913 http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2013/11/community-groups-worried-about-boris-johnsons-intervention-in-planning-application-for-1-9m-redevelopment-of-deptfords-convoys-wharf/ https://pastinthepresent.net/2012/06/12/the-planneddestruction-of-deptford/ https://booth.lse.ac.uk/learn-more/download-maps http://www.policeprofessional.com/files/news-image-25133.jpg

London Metropolitan Police (2016). Crime mapping [Accessed on 2/2/2017]. Available at: http://maps.met.police. uk/ London Strategic Housing Market Assesment (2013). Available at https://www.london.gov.uk/file/15571/download?token=q4aeX4gP London Plan (2016). Available at https://www.london.gov. uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/ london-plan-2016-pdf Patulny, R.V.; Morris, A. (2012) Questioning the need for social mix: The implications of friendship diversity among Group A1 Housing

Page

32