Championing good housing can, and should, become a source of pride for our politicians rather than an electoral liability. The problems are complex, deep-rooted and inter-related, but not incurable. They can be summarised under three broad headings:
- Quality and choice
- Affordability
- Supply
We make no apology for listing the issues in this order. This is not simply because we represent the architectural profession, but also because continuing to build sub-standard housing, which offers little real choice, is a missed opportunity and a false economy. Every home we build today should last at least a century; most experts say two, and, if we continue to build at current rates, new homes will need to last 2000 years.
The financial case for quality will always be difficult to prove beyond doubt, though increasing work is being done in this area. Flora Samuel, Professor of Architecture in the Built Environment at the University of Reading and RIBA Vice-President for Research, recently published an excellent report on design value. Even defining quality is difficult but there is often a surprisingly high degree of consensus between professionals and non-professionals. Typical, speculative, low-density ‘just-about-detached’ housing has had its day. Much of it lacks character and very little of it will age well, or last more than 60 years. Commentators, housing experts and the wider public are increasingly concerned that new suburban housing is monotonously uniform, and that little seems to have changed since the 1980s.
By continuing to under-perform now, we are storing up problems for the future. Building better, more varied and more locally distinctive, longer-lasting homes, at sustainable densities and supported by appropriate infrastructure, will increase public support for new development and ease medium and longer term supply problems. We believe that many of the larger developers and contractors are willing to step up, but for as long as numbers matter most, the highest land bid wins irrespective of quality, standards remain negotiable, and barriers prevent newer, smaller and more creative players from entering the market, a race to the bottom is inevitable.
The capital cost of a well-designed and well-built home is not much greater than the cost of a poor one; the ultimate cost - in both monetary and social terms - is substantially less. Similarly, the cost of employing an architect is negligible over the lifetime of a building, but the added value is evident at the start and continues to accrue. We know too, that housing is inextricably related to health and wellbeing: a major determinant of our life chances and our life expectancy. It affects all aspects of personal and social development from our early educational performance, through to the amount of health and social care we need as we age.
Many designers are producing beautiful and functional new housing, but this is often in spite of the system, not because of it, and it continues to be only a very small part of housing output. It is sobering that the majority of new housing is procured without any active input from an architect.
Good design is not an accident; it is the work of good designers. When it comes to designing buildings, these skills are particularly diverse. They range from generating inspiring concepts, engaging creatively with residents and other stakeholders, crafting resilient and flexible buildings and spaces, selecting durable materials and components –to meeting the technical standards and regulations that protect end users and the environment - and serving many generations.
We welcome the fact that the government has begun to acknowledge the importance of well-designed housing and accepted, in the Housing White Paper published last year, our long-held argument that quantity and quality are not mutually exclusive. We applaud many of the steps that have been taken over recent months, but not all will be as effective as they might be, and some run the risk of being counterproductive.
We need a new approach, which places greater value in the long-term quality, safety and sustainability of what we are building. Radical, cultural and systemic change is needed alongside significantly greater investment.
- Quality and choice: acknowledge the true social, environmental and financial value of good design and set a clear expectation that an architect should be involved in the design of new housing.
- Affordability: restore meaning to the definition of ‘affordable housing’, so that it relates directly to average local income, and is either retained in perpetuity or grant recycled.
- Supply: lift all of the current borrowing and revenue-raising restrictions on all local authorities to allow them to build more housing of all tenures, especially social and supported housing.
The architectural profession minds deeply about all of this. In the context of housing, what we are asking for is simply the conditions that would allow us to do the best work we can. Not a licence to indulge in lavish or self-indulgent buildings, but the opportunity to create good quality, socially and environmentally responsible living environments that will meet the needs of current and future generations. The disaster at Grenfell Tower only reinforces our collective responsibilities and there is no time to lose.
Reform is needed across the industry and all parties have a role to play. But strong and enlightened leadership is always an important factor, particularly when, as here, a deep-seated cultural and ideological shift is needed.
Ben Derbyshire, President of the RIBA
Julia Park, Chair, RIBA Expert Advisory Group on Housing
Acknowledgements
With thanks to all members of the expert advisory group on housing and RIBA staff members involved in the development of this paper.
