Architecture and Economic Integrity
Exploring the Ethical Boundaries of London’s Urban Regeneration
Yiannis Taliotis
October 2024
Word Count: 2091
Introduction
For nearly a century, London has been subject to continuous efforts for urban development. Historically, this has been viewed as a collective effort driven by the public sector to combat the economic stagnation caused by industrial decline. Before that, the aftermath of World War II triggered a then unprecedented level of urban renewal and redevelopment of city centre slums.¹ More recently, London’s Mayoral Development Corporations have taken a proactive approach in proposing large-scale urban masterplans and infrastructure schemes.
Driven initially by the London 2012 Olympic Games², on the surface these schemes appear to be politically and ethically benign; imbued with claims of positive community contributions and economic value. However, the true economic motivation for London’s ongoing wave of urban regeneration schemes has recently been questioned, with many arguing that they exist, above all, as assets within a broader global financial network fuelled by speculative foreign investment. In the worst of cases, many luxury homes in London’s developed boroughs have been found guilty of ‘buy-to-leave’ practices, whereby desirable properties are purchased and left vacant in the hopes of appreciating asset value.³
Using the framework outlined by the UK’s governing architectural bodies, this essay will seek to explore the ethical responsibilities architects bear in contributing to the complex financial practices tied to urban regeneration. Specifically, this essay will attempt to explore the following themes:
• Is the ARB and RIBA framework prescriptive enough in defining the ethical role of architects and their impact on society?
• To what extent should financial realities dictate how an architectural practice makes decisions?
• Can architects mitigate the influence of profit-driven motives of their client/user?
• Who carries the burden of responsibility for ensuring that the built environment is safeguarded from future negative impact?
1 https://nla.london/news/the-history-and-experience-of-urban-regeneration-in-the-uk
2 https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/who-we-work/mayoral-development-corporations
3 https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/25/london-buy-to-leave-fines-kensington-chelsea
Architecture as Commodity
London’s regeneration projects can be viewed in an economic context, with strategic financial objectives of attracting investment. They often operate in tandem with free-market economic policies and therefore function as an active mechanism within a complex market economy. In practice, perpetually low interest rates and lax regulatory policies in the UK have provided significant incentive to attract a continuous stream of speculative investment into London’s regeneration projects, often through questionable financial methods. Several neighbourhoods throughout the country have fallen victim to developer-led proposals, where the proliferation of luxury homes and high-end retail outlets has limited the availability of affordable housing - displacing long-standing local communities and contributing to pervasive, substandard accommodation.⁴
Despite this, the climate crisis - amongst many issues - has brought to the forefront a long-overdue ethical reassessment for the industry. Indeed, nearly all parties involved in a construction project today are compelled to thoroughly evaluate their decisions in the context of wider societal demands for social equity and climate reform. Since the 2012 Olympic games, London’s regeneration projects have often passed planning processes with little to no resistance, provided they demonstrate sustainable practices and/or economic rejuvenation potential,⁵ despite growing concern over gentrification and buy-to-let schemes amidst a housing crisis.⁶ Furthermore, the true ethical implications of contemporary urban regeneration are difficult to pin and often fall between the cracks, inasmuch as they do not have overt political or moral consequences, unlike other topical issues such as slavery and ecological breakdown which can in many instances be tied directly to material sourcing and hence face widespread opposition across the developed world.⁷ In fact, the lack of transparency and immediacy in these implications can leave architects in a place of ethical ambivalence, where the negative impacts of contemporary urban regeneration schemes can be overlooked or even rationalised.
As a result, it has become all the more vital for architects to be diligent in mediating between the financial realities of their practice and a deeper understanding of architecture’s long-term latent impact on society. The following section looks at the Battersea and Nine Elms proposals in Wandsworth as a prime example of how urban regeneration converges with speculative property development - and explores the ways in which ARB and RIBA ethical codes may influence architectural practice in this context.
4 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/world/europe/bangladesh-london-brick-lane-gentrification.html
5 https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/25/london-buy-to-leave-fines-kensington-chelsea
6 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lselondon/how-is-gentrification-impacting-contemporary-london/
7 https://www.archdaily.com/962116/architecture-and-the-stain-of-modern-day-slavery
Case Study: Battersea and Nine Elms, London
When plans for a £15bn regeneration project in London’s 'Opportunity Area'⁸ were released in 2012, the Nine Elms development was touted as the biggest regeneration project in the world by then mayor of London Boris Johnson. In the decade since, the area has undergone extensive architectural and infrastructural proposals including connections to the existing Northern tube line and the construction of some 20,000 new homes.⁹ The proposals formed part of a wider collaborative urban masterplan, spearheaded by established architects; most notably Allies and Morrison, Foster + Partners, and Rafael Viñoly. Whilst the scheme had gone through various phases of planning, it had entered the public eye primarily thanks to proposals for Battersea Power Station which was intended to serve as the cornerstone of the overall development.10 The proposals were backed by a Malaysian consortium led by SP Setia and Sime Darby who had pumped £9bn into the Battersea plans alone.11
Despite its clear financial backing and ambition, the Nine Elms development faced continuous public backlash. The newly built high-end apartments were accused of being detrimental to the local housing market, with little to no provision for affordable housing - Profit and Viability Assessments were routinely used by developers to sidestep the 50% affordable housing quotas and lower delivery to as low as 15% in a ‘developer free-for-all’.12 In 2017, the Malaysian investment group had even slashed the number of affordable homes in their Battersea Power Station scheme to as low as 9%, citing 'technical issues' with the building’s structure.13 Furthermore, the influx of overseas investment into the ambitious proposals had also enabled a 'buy-to-leave' effect. Many of the luxury homes are still purchased as investment assets, leading to high rates of vacancy and market distortion. In more damning cases, significant investment into London’s property market at large has been found to have come from illicit wealth. Transparency International UK estimates that 4 in 10 new homes in landmark developments like Nine Elms have been sold to investors coming from "high corruption risk countries or those hiding behind anonymous companies."14
So where does this leave architects? Whilst most practices would say they are driven primarily by designled principles, they are now being forced to grapple with the economic and social consequences of their designs – many of which they are not fully equipped to understand. In the UK, the concept of ethical practice is established by two major bodies: the ARB and RIBA. The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice, published by the ARB in 2017, serves as the baseline ethical standard
8 https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/implementing-london-plan/londons-opportunity-areas/oa-locations/vauxhall-nine-elms-bat tersea-opportunity-area 9 https://www.theb1m.com/video/regenerating-nine-elms-londons-new-district 10 Ibid. 11 https://www.attractionsmanagement.com/index.cfm?subID=0&pagetype=news&codeID=350239&dom=n&email=web&pub=AMe&date=
from which all ARB registered architects are expected to work; whilst RIBA’s Code of Professional Conduct is intended to be more aspirational – setting long-term, strategic agendas for ethical duties beyond the architect-client relationship. Point 11 in RIBA’s codes suggests that public interest must take precedent over those commissioning architectural services in the event of conflict between principles. In this way, The RIBA standards can be seen as more progressive, seeking to evolve the industry’s social, cultural and environmental considerations.
Allies and Morrisons were one of the leading architects involved in the Nine Elms development. They can be cited as an example of a practice who, despite working towards an in-house ethical policy as well as RIBA codes, demonstrate the disparity in how ethical standards can be interpreted and practically adopted. The company’s policy on ‘social responsibility’ pledges to create 'contextual buildings that contribute to the place they belong.' Many however would claim their recent mixed-use proposals are guilty of contributing to a new form of urban homogenisation - something far removed from contextual sensitivity or community value. Given Nine Elms’ presumed social failure, can Allies and Morrison therefore be considered an unethical practice when viewed within the ARB/RIBA ethical Framework? If their built output is perceived to have ultimately been detrimental to the interest of the wider public, there may be grounds for scrutiny.
The consensus view on ‘ethical’ architectural practice in respect to wider public interest, as prescribed in the latest official ARB Code of Conduct (Standard 5), can be seen as falling short in this regard; failing to both stipulate and enforce a more rigorous stance on social impact. The code states architects
and Morrison LLP Practice Social Responsibility Policy
should ‘advise [their] client how best to conserve and enhance the quality of the environment’. Most contemporary practices who view themselves as progressive proudly promote their stance on ethical policy – as seen on any major RIBA chartered practice website, or indeed RIBA’s own guide to Ethics in Architectural Practice, published in 2023 – in which various practices are used as case study examples for 'how ethics features in current architectural practice'.15 Nevertheless, Architectural practice - it seemshas perpetually been under the presumption that the codes encompass the highest level of best practice. By serving primarily to establish amicable and efficient processes between the client and architect, these codes instead function on a reactive basis, where any incentive to act beyond the ethical mandates is vague or simply does not exist. Ultimately, the financial and competitive pressures of a running a practice consistently come to the fore. For some architects, this means being involved in lucrative flagship projects that look impressive on the website landing page. For others, its maintaining a steady flow of revenue in a post covid-19 economic downturn that is only now beginning to subside. In any case, the ARB standards leave plenty of room for interpretation as to what constitutes ‘quality of the environment’ - and to what extent architects should be compelled to adopt ethical practices beyond the mandatory codes of conduct.
Despite this, the new ARB Architects Code 2024 - Draft for consultation can be seen as somewhat promising. The guidance previously under Standard 5’s ‘wider impact’ has been altered to suggest greater scope for action. Under standard 2.1, architects are required to use ‘best endeavours’, implying that the onus is now on them to proactively advocate for ethical behaviour, particularly from those who commission their services. Whilst the new sentiment does perhaps offer greater impetus for advocacy, architects could still find themselves in a position of conflict – unclear as to whether a client, developer, or investor’s financial motivations warrant grounds for concern.
Standard 5 Considering the wider impact of your work
5.1 Where appropriate, you should advise your client how best to conserve and enhance the quality of the environment and its natural resources.
Figure 06: ARB's current standard for 'wider impact' lacks clarity, removing any accountability an architect may have socially. [Source: The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice]
Figure 07: ARB’s Draft for consultation suggests a shift in sentiment; indicating clearer measures an architect could take to enforce ethical social standards. [Source: The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice - Draft for consultation]
Figure 08: RIBA’s Code of Professional Conduct is not a statutory document. It is intended to promote best practice via integrity and competence as well as duty to other parties. [Source: RIBA: Code of Professional Conduct]
ethical decision
in architectural practice.
10: Investigation from TI-UK into London's property market shows significant overseas investment into the Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station developments. [Source: Transparency Internation UK]
Conclusion
The concept of ethical ambivalence was mentioned earlier in this essay. For an architect, there are many instances where the potential ethical implications of a project can become hazy. Perhaps the nature of the project’s scope has shifted; or the financial strategy of a prospective client/user, though often legal, is unclear or just doesn’t sit right with the architect. For developments like Nine Elms, legitimate arguments can be made which do in fact point to positive infrastructure development and employment opportunities. Is it then justifiable to insist that the architect err on the side of moral caution and walk away?
Moreover, the intersection between urban regeneration and economics is not an issue pertaining to architecture alone; it encompasses several socio-economic factors, going well beyond the remit of what an architect is contractually obligated to consider as far as ARB and RIBA standards are concerned. The idea that the profession has the capacity to singlehandedly address the issue is unrealistic, making it unfair to burden architects alone with the ethical responsibility of remedying such a complex issue. Many would argue that solutions should be come through increased legislation, as outlined in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 which proposes community consultation initiatives and greater transparency in property ownership.16 Notwithstanding this, a certain degree of agency can and should be taken collectively in recognising that the built output of architectural practice is contributing towards, or at the very least enabling, unethical financial practices.
Whilst ARB’s Architects Codes Draft for consultation can be seen as a step in the right direction, safeguarding the public’s trust of the profession can only come from the industry insisting on systemic changes in the culture which it nurtures. As previously stated, sustainability has been at the heart of the ethical reckoning the industry finds itself in. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn with the way in which architectural education is currently addressing environmental concerns. Climate literacy has begun to permeate design studios across schools in the UK, in large part thanks to established groups like LETI and ACAN who go beyond just advocating for sustainable practice; providing practical resource and guides through which climate consciousness and net-zero aspirations in studio culture can be catalysed.17 Is it time for the profession to follow suit and implement diligent and prescriptive social expectations in its ethical standards at all levels?
Bibliography
Cowdock, Ben. "Faulty Towers: Understanding the impact of overseas corruption on the London property market". Trust for London. 2017. https://trustforlondon.org.uk/research/faulty-towersunderstanding-impact-overseas-corruption-london-property-market/
Crosbie, Michael J. “Architecture and the Stain of Modern Day Slavery”. Archdaily, 2021. https://www. archdaily.com/962116/architecture-and-the-stain-of-modern-day-slavery
Hartman, Hattie. “Architectural education is changing. But is it changing fast enough?”. Architects’ Journal. 2024. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/architectural-education-is-changingbut-is-it-changing-fast-enough
Jenson, Zach. “How is gentrification impacting contemporary London?”. LSE. 2019. https://blogs.lse. ac.uk/lselondon/how-is-gentrification-impacting-contemporary-london/
Khan, Aina J. “Towers Rise Over London’s Brick Lane, Clouding Its Future”. New York Times. 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/world/europe/bangladesh-london-brick-lane-gentrification.html
Kollewe, Julia. “Battersea Power Station developer slashes number of affordable homes”. The Guardian. 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/battersea-power-station-affordable-homesalmost-halved-by-developer
Mills, Fred. “Regenerating Nine Elms: London's New District”. The B1M. 2017. https://www.theb1m. com/video/regenerating-nine-elms-londons-new-district
Pegg, David. “Buy to leave: profits dwarf 'meaningless' fines for London investors”. The Guardian. 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/25/london-buy-to-leave-fines-kensington-chelsea
Wainwright, Oliver. “Penthouses and poor doors: how Europe's 'biggest regeneration project' fell flat”. The Guardian. 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/feb/02/penthouses-poor-doorsnine-elms-battersea-london-luxury-housing-development
Walker, Tom. “Battersea Power Station reopens as leisure district following £9bn redevelopment”. Attractions Management. 2022. https://www.attractionsmanagement.com/index. cfm?subID=0&pagetype=news&codeID=350239&dom=n&email=web&pub=AMe&date=
Williams, David. “The History and Experience of Urban Regeneration in the UK”. NLA. 2024. https://nla. london/news/the-history-and-experience-of-urban-regeneration-in-the-uk
Other Resources
Allies and Morrison LLP, Practice Social Responsibility Policy, 2023
ARB. The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice. 2017
ARB. The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice - Draft for consultation. 2024 RIBA. RIBA: Code of Professional Conduct. 2023
RIBA. Ethics in Architectural Practice. 2023
UK Government. Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. 2023