An Argument for Greater Social Duty of Care by zimmie.sutcliffe

“To Fulfil their duty of care more effectively architects need to turn to the example of the baugruppe and its model for greater architect participation in the procurement and development of land.” An argument for a greater social duty of care By Zimmie Sutcliffe - Student no: 18015382 AR7023 – Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics

OWCH Group, Day, G. (2017)

Contents Introduction - the social duty of care - 3 Why the baugruppe? - 4-5 Duty of care to whom? - 5-6 Case studies - flexible models - 6-10 Expanding the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s influence - 10-12 Conclusions - 12 Reference list - 13-15

Introduction - The social duty of care “Concern and due regard for the effect that their work may have on its users and the local community”. (RIBA, 2005, p. 5) The above is taken from the RIBA’s Code of Professional Conduct, specifically principle 3.1, setting out the architect’s responsibilities and standards of professional practice. Its broadness, along with similar definitions in the ARB Code of Conduct such as “Consider the wider impact of your work.” (ARB, 2017), make numerous interpretations inevitable but it is important to unpack these guidelines when considering the role of the architect, in this instance, specifically relating to how land is acquired and who influences what is built upon it. Defining what “duty of care” means is an incredibly difficult task which will always contain an element of subjectivity but in the context of this piece I have chosen to echo the words of Sir Richard Rogers, when he said “The idea is that we have a responsibility to society. That gives us a role as architects not just to the client but also to the passer-by and society as a whole.” (Fairs, 2013). My argument centres around this idea that whilst the architect’s predominant duty of care is to their client, buildings don’t exist in isolation; every one is a contribution to a wider built setting, predominantly the city, which we all have a stake in. Thus, the duty of care extends to the broader urban landscape and all its inhabitants; architects have a responsibility to ensure the quality of our built environment, to place social improvement and increasingly sustainable cities at the top of the agenda. There needs to exist a cultural and operational framework for them to operate in that allows this to happen. The traditional development model in the UK limits the agency of the architect in several ways, often reducing them to a role more in line with that of consultant, with the developer demanding their 20% and a process of value engineering often used to squeeze every last penny of profit out of a project to ensure those returns are delivered. Now, maximising efficiency and managing costs are essential, desirable to the design process, not evils in of themselves. However, when quality of design and construction are compromised to maximise profit for only one player in the process, it becomes a problem that stymies the nature of the architect, severely constraining their ability to work in the public interest. Whilst not explicitly stated in the professional codes of conduct, I believe a duty of care to the city and its inhabitants is fundamentally within the remit of the architect; one which is delivered both through quantitative means; affordable rents, larger living and green spaces, and qualitative ones; design quality, the experiential nature of spaces. So how do we begin to redress the balance of capital profit with social profit? One model becoming common in Europe is the baugruppe (building group). Originating in the town of Freiburg near Dresden in the 1990’ s, this concept has become popular throughout Germany, as well as in Austria and the Czech Republic, with examples as far afield as Australia.

Why the baugruppe? The concept behind the baugruppe is simple; a group of private individuals coming together to form a building group with the intention of procuring land on which to construct a residential building that fits their range of individual needs better than a typical off the shelf residential scheme. Instead of a private developer buying land and then selling off or renting individual homes, the baugruppe allows individuals to buy a stake in a plot and own a home at the end of the process. By removing the developer and their profit margin from the process costs are reduced, “The price of a baugruppe apartment is usually up to 25% lower than the price of a comparable new home built by a property developer” (Kopeć, Doudová and Dušek, 2015, p.4) . The formation of the building group can be initiated by a prospective home owner or the architect themselves, giving the potential for the architect to manage the design from an earlier stage. This structure enables the architect to be appointed earlier and the removal of developer pressures to reduce costs through standardisation allows greater flexibility in design, with the personal needs of each baugruppe member specifically catered for, as opposed to the more homogeneous, “one size fits most” design found in many medium to large housing schemes. Thus the baugruppe model removes power from the hands of land developers and places it back in the hands of the residents and the architect, resulting in closer engagement, individually tailored responses, more cohesive urban design and a better fulfilment of the architects’ duty of care to “users and the local community”. (RIBA, 2005, p. 5)

Communal space in a Berlin baugruppe, Bridger, J (2015)

Architect

Developer

Project Manager

Construction Company

Client/s

Key players in an architectural project

Baugruppe structure

Traditional housing development structure

Models of development structure, edited from Kopeć, M and Doudová, H and Dušek, O (2015), p.5-7

Duty of care to whom? On first inspection the baugruppe, like other forms of co-housing and community led development (co-operatives, community land trusts), seems to address many of the issues cities face, particularly London, with rampant property developer led schemes prioritising profit over social cohesion whilst still failing to meet housing targets. The reduced role of the architect seems also to be addressed, but is the baugruppe just another in a series of “idealistic enclaves”? (Hatherley, 2016) A duty of care to the public surely means more than simply those who reside in any single residential scheme and applies to

the city and populace as a whole. With this in mind the baugruppe, and other forms of co-operative, “DIY” housing, fall short of providing an enhanced duty of care to those other than the lucky few. In his article “The cult of self-build and do-it-yourself won’t solve the housing crisis” (Hatherley, 2016) Owen Hatherley outlines how the exemplar community housing schemes of Walter Segal, Assemble and others are wonderful models of what is possible through serious, genuine resident engagement, but seemingly also the limits of what is possible in terms of scale and social transformation. In many ways the fact that the architect is currently forced to work in this method of slowly stitching the city together; individual models of excellence buried in the shadows of faceless developer funded towers, showcases how the role of the architect has been subdued to the point where opportunities to make a work of true social and architectural weight are in many cases limited to the fringes, discussed primarily in halls of architectural academia, eulogised by an increasingly insular community. Architects have rarely been regarded in the same way as artists, musicians or poets in the popular imagination but the sheer difference in scale between London’s first co-housing scheme; Henley Halebrown’s Copper Lane and Norman Foster’s newly proposed tulip tower suggests an increasingly lessening ability to contribute to and influence society in a meaningful, socially conscious fashion. It is the issue of scale and universality that really begins to undermine the baugruppe/co-operative model as a mainstream solution, and as Mitchell and Tang say in Loose Fit City, “if this duty of care is articulated simply as a responsibility to the general public beyond the paying client” (Mitchell, Tang, 2018, p.24) then these models need to be made accessible to all, otherwise the duty of care provision remains limited by access to personal capital. It is here that we arrive at the primary objection to the baugruppe system; it invariably tends towards middle class professionals with the personal finance, or ability to easily secure finance, to fund their stake in a plot of land – according to Helena Hede ”The average monthly earning of each baugruppe co-housing resident in Berlin is estimated to be 3500-5000 euros (roughly £2700-£3100). Residents are usually well-educated and many work in creative industries and the cultural sector” (Hede, 2016, p.2). This leads us to issues of gentrification, who owns and has access to the city, and fundamentally, who the architect has a duty of care to. A common complaint against the baugruppe initiative in Berlin is that it inherently alienates vast numbers of city dwellers of lower socio-economic standing and leads to displacement of existing communities to make room for middle class professionals, of which somewhat ironically, the architect is commonly one. With this in mind, is the architect’s duty of care not also extended to the economically and socially marginalised that are negatively impacted by a supposed greater duty of care towards inhabitants of a baugruppe? How does the architect reconcile these issues?

Case studies - flexible models Firstly, there are movements towards more inclusive co-housing schemes that aim to correct for economic exclusion, with authorities becoming more actively involved in these projects, such as the A House for Artists pilot scheme that has recently received planning permission in Barking. “Funded by

the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham with support from the Mayor of London” (Create London, 2018) this project offers rents at 65% of market value to a group for whom rental prices are particularly prohibitive - artists, in exchange for half a day of work staffing and curating a ground floor community space from each resident. The obvious criticism here is that this is arguably more exclusive, not less, but the specificity of residents is linked to a borough wide drive towards increasing creative enterprise. What this example does offer, whilst not technically being “co-housing”, is a route through which the public sector can fund co-housing and community space alongside each other, opening up rental opportunities to much wider demographics, reducing the seemingly inherent inequality of much co-housing.

A House for Artists proposal, Create London (2018)

Additionally, the architect exists and works in a complex system of interests, often conflicting, and has to manage these as best they can, finding opportunity for social capital where possible. So while co-housing initiatives like the baugruppe have clear shortcomings, at a fundamental level they are still preferable to many traditional forms of procurement and housing provision. Acknowledgement of the unintended consequences does not need to undermine the concept, as with any form of building or attempt at social improvement, there will be flaws that can’t be predicted so a process of refinement, iteration and testing takes place to correct these flaws when they become apparent. In summary, whilst issues of social exclusion and equality of opportunity exist in co-housing, they are solvable and the structure of these models allows the architect much greater scope to find and implement these solutions, delivering a duty of care both of a higher standard and wider reach than is currently common. The baugruppe concept doesn’t currently exist in the UK, however there are some pioneering projects

with similar principles and structures. One of these is New Ground co-housing in Barnet, completed by Pollard Thomas Edwards in 2016. This scheme provides 25 customised homes, a “co-house” and community garden for the Older Women’s Co-Housing Group, a co-operative formed in 1998 by 6 older women following their attendance of a lecture about senior co-housing schemes in the Netherlands (Brenton, 2018). The co-op existed long before a site and funding were found, and in this model the developer was a housing association (Hannover Housing) who purchased the land and funded construction. The scheme was then bought from the housing association by the co-operative. This shows that co-housing can models can take a range of structures, from the architect sourcing a group of like-minded people, an existing co-op directly appointing an architect, local councils acting as developers, through to removing the developer entirely. This flexibility of structure gives greater potential for larger schemes to emerge and for these models to give more architects the opportunity to influence social change on a wider scale.

New Ground Cohousing structure New Ground community engagment,

New Ground development structure, edited from Kopeć, M

Pollard Thomas Edwards (2018)

and Doudová, H and Dušek, O (2015), p.5-7

I spoke to Maria Brenton, who wrote the original thesis on co-housing in the Netherlands that prompted the formation of the OWCH group and now acts as head of communications for the group as well as being an ambassador for UK Senior Co-housing. Maria helped source funding for the scheme and advised the OWCH throughout the process of developing the project. When I asked her if she and the OWCH “felt that the co-housing model used in this project allowed the architect to play a more active role in fulfilling the needs of you as a client than would have been possible in a more traditional developer-led housing project?” her response was very clear, “Yes, our choice of architect - one who believes in involving and working with the end-user and who operates a ‘duty of care’ far more readily than a profit motive...The co-housing model both expects this and facilitates it and this is no doubt the reason why so many architects are interested in co-housing - it offers them higher job-satisfaction and more satisfied clients.” (Brenton, 2018) The benefits of alternative meth-

ods of procurement and project structure for the architect are numerous compared to traditional approaches. According to 2012 National Planning Policy Framework legislation “To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development…should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.” (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012, p.41) Furthermore, official government guidance on viability states “For the purpose of plan making an assumption of 15-20% of gross development value (GDV) may be considered a suitable return to developers in order to establish the viability of plan policies.” (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2018) If this 20% can be removed or lessened it frees up capital to be invested in better design, through larger fees for architects, higher specification of materials, less value engineering. Alternatively, the savings can be passed on to the end user, providing schemes of equal quality for more affordable prices. This would allow a larger section of society to access good quality architectural services. The discussion of quality vs affordability can become a more transparent one between client and designer, freed from some of the perverse incentives of building purely for profit. Co-housing offers flexibility, meaning there is still room for private developers. The New Ground scheme that I visited operated on a semi traditional structure “Working with the developer (a housing association) we participated in the appointment of Pollard Thomas Edwards Architects, a firm which met our aspirations for involvement in design. The developer, Hanover housing association, front-funded the development from site purchase to completion, when the building was purchased from them.” (Brenton, 2018) This method lies between a baugruppe and traditional procurement methods, providing a template perhaps more palatable to British sensibilities to home ownership. Every member of this co-operative own their homes as in a baugruppe, but there are also 8 socially rented flats, showing how the model can be improved through combining ownership and rental accommodation. This mix offers up the prospect of different socio-economic classes mixing in one building, and an opportunity for local authorities to invest in social housing alongside private development. A second example in London is the Copper Lane Co-Housing scheme completed in 2014 by Henley Halebrown. Here, a more baugruppe-esque model was used with a group of local residents forming a limited company in order to purchase an available plot before commercial developers swept in. This company owns the freehold and each home owner is a director in the company. They technically lease their properties on a 999 year basis. The clients/residents in this model are the developers themselves and appoint the architect directly. As the residents of this scheme point out, one of the key architectural advantages is the opportunity to realise projects that aren’t traditionally profitable “It wasn’t commercially viable at the scale we envisaged because developers expect to make a sizeable profit on what is a risk-laden and time-consuming activity (e.g. buying land without planning permission, taking minimum 3 years from start to finish, many unknowns along the way). That is why they would have wanted a significantly denser level of development, to create more individual units...as is clearly evident from most developer-led new-build projects in cities.” (Copper Lane Co-housing, n.d.)

Copper Lane plan with communal space highlighted, ArchDaily (2014)

Copper Lane Cohousing structure Copper Lane development structure, edited from Kopeć, M and Doudová, H and Dušek, O (2015), p.5-7

In both of these schemes the role of the architect is greater in scope than in many typical projects, especially city based residential. This is a result of the fundamental structure of land procurement, ownership and finance which deliberately places more power into the hands of end users and designers and lessening or removing the capital interests of private developers. Within this framework the architect engages with the client much more directly, is embedded in the project earlier on and is given more freedom to use his/her expertise in a socially responsible way that enables projects that are both more specific to individual needs whilst also delivering greater community services, resulting in an urban environment more beneficial to the collective society.

Expanding the architect’s influence When confronted with the typical role of the architect in the modern world it is an easy, maybe natural reaction for the architectural world to occasionally assume the role of victimised artists, restricted by rampant greed, as though every architect were capable of Fallingwater if only given free reign, and every developer a ruthless profit hawk. Clearly, this isn’t the full nature of reality, with many incredible schemes delivered every year through traditional models and the great work of architects and developers alike. However, the architect’s ability to influence the built environment positively and provide better spaces for its inhabitants, is an issue of great importance, not just to the frustrated architect. Working directly with a client, as defined as the end user of a building, removes many conflicting third-party interests, allowing the architect to operate more as designer, less as mediator, freeing up

time and resources to devote to delivering the client’s wishes; delivering a better duty of care. If architects were to adopt this approach in the current climate they would risk losing even more control over the final built scheme, with developers free to cut costs at every corner. In the typical model it is essential for the architect to act as a conduit between client and developer, as well as between consultants and developer, consultants and client, helping to balance the client’s desire for bigger, better, more beautiful with the developer’s insistence on smaller, more efficient, cheaper. To step back into the role of pure designer would be fatal, and lead to even greater plundering of our urban environments by those with less noble aims. In no way am I advocating for this, I am advocating for an expansion of the architect’s influence, not a reduction of it, but this is clearly an immensely complex issue. The situation we find ourselves in currently is the result not purely of greed, good vs evil, us vs them, it is the product of decades of cultural shifts, changing societal attitudes, good policy, bad policy, the genius or otherwise of larger than normal individuals, architectural hyper-ambition in the first half of the 20th century, architectural retreat in the second half, and a whole host of other factors. To advocate for any single solution, a silver bullet, would be foolish, hubris is partly to blame for the state of housing provision in the UK, and it won’t be the answer to solving it. This is a case for returning more power of design to the architect, restructuring the models which are used to procure land and deliver buildings. By allowing the architect to focus more on the needs of the client and wider society and less on negotiation and cost cutting it will allow them to deliver on their duty of care to the public and the built environment. Essentially, a loosening of the shackles, not casting them off completely. This is what the baugruppe model does, and this piece aims to showcase it as one of many potential alternatives to the current norms, not a universal solution. This argument is not for the exclusion of developers, or even an attack on them, it is a critique of the ideology that allows architecture to be run on a pure market basis, in light of the housing crisis it has contributed to. Principles of promoting home ownership and encouraging investment are good, as is a healthy scepticism of too much state interference in any industry. However, the reality is in the realm of housing, particularly in the city, this pure market-based approach is failing and has been for some time. To argue for the removal of private land developers would surely be to risk a serious slowdown in the rate of building - who steps in to procure land and build in the absence of private developers? Much of the uncertainty around the UK’s departure from the EU, and partly why “59.4% think it’s best for the construction sector if we remain in the EU, with 40.6% voting to leave.” (Reay, 2016), is based on worries over reduced investment leading to less homes being built. Will developers be put off investing in the UK, and if so, who plugs the gap in investment? Many would argue that the state should be investing more in housing as things stand, and even more so in the event of a decline of private funding, but this approach isn’t without its downsides. The previous attempt at large state funded investment in housing in the post war period has been written about from all manner of angles and its successes and failures well documented but it is not at all evident that this method increased quality in building; many of these estates suffered from poor construction standards, high maintenance costs and social problems, so whilst in theory allowing the architect the greatest scope to influence society positively and

deliver a universal duty of care, the reality was much more dubious. In advocating for the principles of baugruppe/co-housing, I am advocating for the bypassing of developers where appropriate, not for the removal of private financing of construction.

Conclusions “In the past, architects have been able to ensure that specified materials were used as part of a unified design strategy. However, facing increasing industry pressure to cut costs, this isn’t the current reality, with performance specifications enabling alternative materials to be used – often selected by the developer, contractor or sub-contractors…architects are increasingly being left powerless within the construction supply chain.” (Voice, 2018) This is the response of Duncan Voice to the interim report into the Grenfell Tower fire that killed 72 people. It is an appalling tragedy that it may take a disaster of this scale to prompt reform in the construction industry that places a duty of care to the public back at the top of the priority list, but it serves to highlight one of the numerous areas in which architects are losing the ability to influence our built environment, more often than not due to cost control being valued over design quality. The Grenfell report recommends a range of new and amended safety legislation, including a restructuring of the approved documents, and a new “over-arching Approved Document” (Barratt, 2018). Changes in policy are undoubtedly a key part of any move towards a more “caring” attitude to building in this country, but alongside changes at the legislative level there needs also to be a development in attitudes “on the ground”, starting with the models and supply structures that we use to develop buildings. Despite the many valid criticisms of co-housing, including from its residents “We would be the first to acknowledge that co-housing on the scale of this project isn’t the solution to the chronic shortage of suitable housing in the UK. There will need to be multiple, local solutions to that issue that respond to specific conditions on the ground, enabled by changes to national planning policies and strategy.” (Copper Lane Co-housing, n.d.), the baugruppe and similar forms of community initiated housing models provide an exciting template in which the architect can engage more meaningfully in the design process from conception to completion. From the initial stages; procuring land directly, bringing together people to form a community, working with existing communities to procure land ahead of private developers, through the design process; working directly with the client/s, designing to the specific needs of each individual, directing the appointment of appropriate consultants, to handover; specifying based on quality over cost, overseeing construction more actively on site. Advocating for these co-housing models will benefit each individual client through a more personalised design for their home, and the wider urban environment through greater provision of green space, community facilities and more democratic ownership of the city, through allowing architects to apply greater “concern and due regard for the effect that their work may have on its users and the local community”. (RIBA, 2005, p. 5) Word count (Not including titles, sub titles, image captions and in text citations): 4009

Reference List Akehurst, S. (2017) ‘Developers are using a trick to get out of building affordable homes’, New Statesman. Available at: https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/07/developers-are-using-trick-get-out-building-affordable-homes (Accessed: 17/12/18) ArchDaily (2014) ‘1–6 Copper Lane N16 9NS / Henley Halebrown Rorrison Architects’. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/580881/1-nil-6-copper-lane-n16-9ns-henley-halebrown-rorrison-architects (Accessed: 15/12/18) ARB (2017) The Architects Code Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice. Available at: http://www. arb.org.uk/architect-information/architects-code-standards-of-conduct-and-practice/ (Accessed: 11/10/18) Barratt, L. (2018) ‘The Hackitt Review: key recommendations at a glance’, Inside Housing. Available at: https:// www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-hackitt-review-key-recommendations-at-a-glance-56337 (Accessed: 11/01/19) Bridger, J (2015)‘Don’t Call It A Commune: Inside Berlin’s Radical Cohousing Project’, metropolis. Available at: https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/residential-architecture/dont-call-it-a-commune-insideberlin-radical-cohousing-project/ (Accessed: 15/01/19) Catterall, O. (2016) ‘TO LEAVE OR NOT TO LEAVE - HOW WILL BREXIT AFFECT THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY?’, LABC Warranty. Available at: https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/ blog/to-leave-or-not-to-leave-how-will-brexit-affect-the-construction-industry/ (Accessed: 16/12/18) ‘Copper Lane Cohousing’ Available at: https://copperlanecohousing.wordpress.com/ (Accessed: 21/11/18) Create London (2018). ‘A House for Artists’. Available at: http://createlondon.org/event/a-house-forartists/ (Accessed: 12/11/18) Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180608095821/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 (Accessed: 17/12/18) Day, G. (2017) ‘This is how to live’, The RIBA Journal. Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/ new-ground (Accessed: 15/01/19)

Fairs, M. (2013) ‘We have a responsibility to society” says Richard Rogers’, Dezeen. Available at: https:// www.dezeen.com/2013/07/16/we-have-a-responsibility-to-society-says-richard-rogers/ (Accessed: 15/12/18) Grahame, A. (2015) ‘Councils look to radical alternatives to solve the UK’s housing crisis’, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/may/06/councils-radical-alternative-housing-crisis (Accessed: 15/12/18) Griffiths, A. (2016) ‘Arches puncture brick facade of Amsterdam apartment block by WE Architecten’, Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/12/24/we-architecten-arches-balconies-apartment-amstelloft-block-co-housing-amsterdam/ (Accessed: 15/12/18) Hatherley, O. (2017) ‘Historic solutions to the modern housing problem’, Labour List. Available at: https://labourlist.org/2017/10/owen-hatherley-historic-solutions-to-the-modern-housing-problem/ (Accessed: 17/12/18) Hatherley, O. (2016) ‘The cult of self-build and do-it-yourself won’t solve the housing crisis’, Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/01/29/opinion-owen-hatherley-social-mass-housing-versus-self-buildidealism-walter-segal/ (Accessed: 15/12/18) Hede, H. (2016) ‘In search of a “chosen community” – A study on self-initiated co-housing projects in Berlin’. H2 - Master’s Degree thesis. Lund University. Available at: https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/ publication/8902029 (Accessed: 12/11/18) Kerimol, L. (2015) ‘The do-it-yourself answer to Britain’s housing crisis’, The Guardian. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/nov/10/housing-crisis-affordable-self-build-london (Accessed: 16/12/18) Kopeć, M and Doudová, H and Dušek, O. (2015) ‘Baugruppe! handbook’, Prague Institute of Planning and Development. Available at: http://www.iprpraha.cz/uploads/assets/dokumenty/obecne/bau_manual_en_online.pdf (Accessed: 12/11/18) Li, C. (2015) ‘A new form of housing delivery in Germany and France – Part 2’, Ecourbanism Worldwide. Available at: https://ecourbanismworldwide.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/a-new-form-of-housing-deliveryin-germany-and-france-part-2/ (Accessed: 12/11/18) Maak, N. (2015) ‘Post-Familial Communes in Germany’, Harvard Design Magazine. Available at: http://www. harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/41/post-familial-communes-in-germany (Accessed: 13/11/18) Mairs, J. (2016) ‘Pollard Thomas Edwards completes UK’s first over 50s co-housing scheme’, Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/12/09/pollard-thomas-edwards-architecture-first-older-co-housingscheme-owch-uk/ (Accessed: 15/12/18)

Mark, L. (2016) ‘We are making history’: UK’s first senior cohousing completed by PTE’, Architects’ Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/we-are-making-history-uks-first-senior-cohousing-completed-by-pte/10015721.article (Accessed: 15/12/18) Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2018) ‘Viability’ Available at: https://www. gov.uk/guidance/viability (Accessed: 17/12/18) Mitchell, M and Tang, B. (2018) ‘Loose Fit City: The Contribution of Bottom-Up Architecture to Urban Design and Planning’, Taylor & Francis Group, New York Pollard Thomas Edwards (2018) ‘New Ground Cohousing’. Available at: https://www.pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/projects/new-ground-cohousing/ (Accessed: 15/12/18) Reay, S. (2016) ‘BREXIT: STAY OR LEAVE? THOUGHTS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’, Construction Marketing Experts Blog. Available at: http://constructionmarketingblog.co.uk/ brexit-stay-or-leave-thoughts-from-the-construction-industry (Accessed: 16/12/18) RIBA (2005) Code of Professional Conduct. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/code-of-professional-conduct (Accessed: 11/10/18) Schindler, S. (2014) ‘Housing Beyond the Market: Transatlantic Precedents’, Urban Omnibus. Available at: https://urbanomnibus.net/2014/12/housing-beyond-the-market-transatlantic-precedents/ (Accessed: 12/11/18) Sutcliffe, Z. (2018) ‘Primary research - Maria Brenton interview’ Voice, D. (2018) ‘Grenfell interim report: Now is the time for architects to take back control of fire safety in construction’, Architects Datafile. Available at: https://www.architectsdatafile.co.uk/news/grenfell-interimreport-now-is-the-time-for-architects-to-take-back-control-of-fire-safety-in-construction/ (Accessed: 11/01/19) Whitcroft, A. (2018) ‘Community-led housing can be a game-changer’, The RIBA Journal. Available at: https:// www.ribaj.com/intelligence/intelligence-community-led-housing-makes-for-better-homes-alex-whitcroft (Accessed: 16/12/18)