Dissertation - Oo Lawal

i
LEICESTER SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY

Sustainable Communities in the UK;
The Architects Response

By
Oluwaseyi Oluwakemi Lawal
P08280262

Supervisor by
Dr. John Ebohon

April 2012

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Bachelor of Arts
with honours (BA HONS), in the Faculty of Art and Design, De Montfort University.
Sustainable Communities in the UK; The Architects Response
ii

Abstract

This architectural discourse investigates the concept of sustainable communities and the
requirement for it within the UK. It analyses and evaluates the architects response to this
demand, with the overall aim of accessing the architects responsibility in their creation.

It attempts to achieve this aim by first; the critical review of the key literature closely
associated with the subject of sustainable communities, then by the exploration of the UK
housing and community policy , in which the research is set.

The thesis then uses the case study of Bedzed sustainable community to evaluate how well
the architects have responded to requirements set for sustainable communities by the UK
government.

The discourse ultimately goes on to clarify the architects responsibilities within the creation
of sustainable communities. It then goes further to give suggestions on ways in which the
architect can design communities which are environmentally, economically and socially
sustainable.

iii

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and advice of my supervisor
Dr John Ebohon. I would also like to offer my regards to all the members of staff who
supported me in any respect during the completion of my thesis. Finally, I would like to
thank my mother Stella Lawal for her continuous moral support throughout my studies.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The problem ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Overall aim and specific objectives .................................................................................. 3
1.4 Research Outline .............................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Delimitations and Limitations .......................................................................................... 3

2.0 Literature Review 1 ............................................................................................................. 4
Understanding Sustainable Communities .................................................................................. 4
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Sustainability development .............................................................................................. 4
2.3 Economic sustainability .................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Environmental Sustainability ........................................................................................... 6
2.5 Social Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Sustainable urban infrastructure ................................................................................... 10
2.7 Sustainability Architecture ............................................................................................. 10

3.0 Literature Review 2 ........................................................................................................... 11
Housing and Communities policy in the UK ............................................................................. 11
3.1 Housing policy history .................................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Conservative era ...................................................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Labour era ................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Sustainable Communities policy .................................................................................... 13

4.0 Research Methodology ..................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Research questions ........................................................................................................ 16
4.3 Methods of data collection ............................................................................................ 16
4.4 Research design .............................................................................................................. 16

v

5.0 Research Findings .............................................................................................................. 17
The Architects Response BedZED Case study ....................................................................... 17
5.1 Background Information ................................................................................................ 17
5.2 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 18
5.3 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 19
5.3.1 Housing and the Built environment ........................................................................ 19
5.3.2 Governance .............................................................................................................. 21
5.3.3 Transport and connectivity ...................................................................................... 22
5.3.4 Services .................................................................................................................... 24
5.3.5 Social and Cultural ................................................................................................... 25
5.3.6 Environmental ......................................................................................................... 26
5.3.7 Economic ................................................................................................................. 28
5.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 28

6.0 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 29
The Responsibilities of the Architect ........................................................................................ 29
6.1 Place making ................................................................................................................... 30
6.2 Socio-Ecological Approach ............................................................................................. 31
6.3 Community participation and empowerment ............................................................... 32

7.0 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 34

8.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 35

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background
In 2003 the UK governments Department for Communities and Local government
launched a long term action plan to create sustainable communities in both the urban and
rural areas of the UK (ODPM, 2003). The main aim of which was to tackle housing supply
difficulties faced by the UK, which had been fuelled by a range of factors including; a
constantly growing population, economic recession, reduced land availability as well as a
change in demographic and life styles, with more singly occupied homes.
The Plan also included a significant increase in resources and major reforms towards
housing and planning policy that would encourage a more sustainable approach towards the
design and construction of our built environments. Such initiatives arose from the desire to
combat the climate change caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses in particular those
caused by the housing and community sector (see Fig1.1).

Source: DECC
Fig 1.1: Proposed greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
2

The plan was also intended to bridge the gap between economic competitiveness and social
cohesion through a spatial policy that would promote thriving sustainable local
communities (Raco, 2007).

1.2 The problem
However many cities in the UK communities are still deprived and do not meet the
standards set by the government. There is still a major housing shortage due to the shortfall
of housing construction (see Fig1.2). There is more pressure on resources and with more
people living within urban areas there is a higher demand for man built forms. These built
forms require us to modify the natural environment which can have environmental,
economic and social implications that can turn out to be negative. It has been recorded by
the United Nations that now approximately half of the worlds population live in urban
areas (UN,2008). As urbanization increases so does its impact on the environment, economy
and social dynamic of an area.

Furthermore, with the current state of the economy, increased unemployment, falling
house prices and social unrest; it now more important than ever to create sustainable
communities for the future.

Fig 1.2: Housing shortfall in the UK
Source: ONS
3

1.3 Overall aim and specific objectives
This thesis intends to analyse the architects response towards the design of sustainable
communities, with the overall aim of evaluating the architects responsibilities for their
creation. The aims shall be met through the following objectives as listed below

1. Understand the key concepts related and associated with sustainable communities.
2. Explain the policies that have led to and supported sustainable communities plan in the UK.
3. Provide a critical analysis of the architects response to the demand for sustainable
communities in the UK.
4. Evaluate the architects responsibilities towards the creation of sustainable communities.

1.4 Research Outline
This study shall take a qualitative research approach and will feature the case study of
BedZED to analyse the architect response. It shall then use this research to help evaluate the
levels of responsibility for the architect.

1.5 Delimitations and Limitations
There are a range of factors that affect the state of our built environments; it is
understandable therefore that the architect should not be held responsible for all these. It is
appreciated that the government, economy and people within these communities have
their part to play. However this dissertation intends to understand the architects individual
responsibility towards sustainable communities.

4

2.0 Literature Review 1
Understanding Sustainable Communities

2.1 Introduction
For this thesis to assess the architects responsibility in creating sustainable communities it
is important to first understand the conceptual ideas behind sustainable communities by
analysing a range of literature on the subject and critically reviewing this material. If we are
to properly tackle the concept of sustainable communities it is crucial to first understand the
concept of sustainable development.

2.2 Sustainability development
Sustainable development is most notably articulated by the United Nations Brutland Report,
which gave what is now the most widely accepted definition of sustainable development as
" development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED,1987,p.43). It uses the idea of needs' of
people to use resources within development but then imposes a constraint on these needs
not constrain the capability for future generations to meet their own needs. For the UK
government sustainable development requires ensuring a better quality for everyone for
both generations now and those in the future (DETR, 1998).

However, though many accept the obligation to promote sustainable development some
authors have argued that the term is far too vague. The scholar Luc ferry argues that the
term says nothing tangible asserting that the term was more charming than meaningful
(Ferry, 2007).

Nevertheless, the United Nations later went on further to expand on their original definition
by identifying key pillars that support sustainable development, these being ...economic
development, social development, and environmental protection(UN,2005). This outlook
suggests that sustainable development is underpinned by economic, social and
environmental imperatives (See Fig 2.1).
5

However it can be argued that these three components often conflict each other, in order to
achieve one you must lose another. The writer Hugh Barton argues that the term
sustainable development is a paradox of itself. He asserts that the principles of
environmental sustainability and economic development are in fact irreconcilable (Barton,
2000). The goals of economic development can be seen to conflict with environmental
development. Businesses can have a major impact on the natural environment through their
consumption of non-renewable energy and materials they produce a significant ecological
foot print.

Fig 2.1: Sustainable development imperatives
Source: ncrenegade.com
6

2.3 Economic sustainability
Economic sustainability can be simply defined as the maintenance of capital. It supports the
usage of sustainable resources that allow businesses to continue to function over a number
years with continuous steady profits.

Here development is considered to be sustainable in terms of financial resources. The
consumption of wealth is required to maintain within a rate that will enable those in the
future to meet their own financial needs. The economic approach to sustainability originates
with in the Hicks-Lindahl definition of sustainable income as the maximum flow of benefits
possible from a given set of assets, without compromising the flow of future benefits.

In relation to sustainable communities there is an ideal of a flourishing local economy that
provides jobs and wealth for the people in the locality. It also calls for communities that
Create employment, affordable homes and produce which is versatile and sustainable. But
some may argue that many developers would rather increase their economic gain than
consider the environmental sustainability of their development especial if it was a choice
between the two. For some implementing environmental strategies is an unnecessary strain
on their profit margins.

2.4 Environmental Sustainability
However for some it can be argued that environmental sustainability is the key factor within
sustainable development as our economy requires natural resources to maintain, so the
natural environment must be protected and preserved for the future. It requires that the
natural environment be maintained, through input and out puts of resources. Daly argues
that inputs required in the harvest rates of renewable resources should be kept with the
rate where the resources may be replenished (Daly, 2005).

7

However the requirements of environmentally sustainable development can often conflict
with economic gains. Furthermore some may argue that when designing buildings we
should be more concerned about the well-being of the people who live within them than
the natural environment in which they sit (Manzi, 2010). Laundry argues that cities need to
be emotionally and psychologically sustaining to truly be defined as a sustainable
development (laundry, 2007).

Such conflicts opinion would suggest that there are in fact two interpretations of sustainable
development; One being ecocentric, which would place global ecology at the forefront and
the other being anthropocentric, which would put human welfare first (Barton, 2000, p6).

Source: The Zed Book
Fig 2.2: The ZED wheel showing carbon emission reducing practises

8

2.5 Social Sustainability
Social sustainability is an anthropocentric approach to sustainable development, which
promotes investment into the services that create the basic framework for society
(Goodland, 2002). It is argued that it is only through systematic community participation
and strong civil society as well as good governance can this be achieved. Social sustainability
deals with issues such as connectivity and cultural diversity. It is concerned with the
maintenance and preservation of human physical and mental health. Developments are
required to treat all stakeholders fairly and provide the vital services to create a healthy
society. It also calls for social mix developments with people from a range off ages and
backgrounds, where social capital can be fully exploited (Manzi, 2010).

Social capital requires preservation and restitution of shared values and equal rights
through social, moral and cultural interactions. It is thought that the western approach to
capitalism weakens social capital to the extent that it promotes competition and
individualism over cooperation and community cohesion (Roseland, 2005). The World Bank
asserts that increase in crime and Violence is the cost paid for inadequate investment in
social capital (World Bank, 2011). Goodland (2002) argues that violence and social
breakdown create a major constraint for sustainable development.

9

The UK has seen in recent times an alarming increase in violence and social breakdown with
the London riots in 2011, which spread to other cities in the UK (see Fig 2.3). But could this
unrest be attributed to a lack of investment in social capital? Or is it just a sign of a politically
rebellious society.

Furthermore, some have gone on to state that there in fact four pillars to sustainable
development this being cultural development. This was elaborated in The Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity further elaborates the concept by stating that "...cultural
diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. It argues that
development is not simply a matter of economic growth but it requires a more satisfactory
intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence" (UNESCO, 2001). But this view could
be disputed that cultural diversity as being something quite vague and difficult to assess.

Source: BBC news
Fig 2.3: Spread of the UK riots 2011

10

2.6 Sustainable urban infrastructure
There would appear to be a need for an infrastructure that would facilitate Sustainable
development particularly in urban areas. Sustainable urban infrastructure pays
consideration to technological and governmental policies that would assist urban
planning that will be sustainable in design (Sheffrin, 2003). The theory runs under the
assumption that sustainable design can lead to creation of sustainable communities by
ensuring that organisational structures in place in societies have the knowledge to make
improvements that do not deplete natural resources. There is an emphasis on design that
concentrates on localization and sustainable living, with the aim is to reduce the ecological
footprint of indidivals, according to the principles of sustainable development in areas with
a high population density.

2.7 Sustainability Architecture
Sustainable architecture is in the general sense describes environmentally conscious design
techniques in the field of architecture. Sustainable architecture is framed by the larger
discussion of sustainability and the pressing economic and political issues of our world.
In the broad context, sustainable architecture seeks to minimize the negative environmental
impact of buildings by enhancing efficiency and moderation in the use of materials, energy,
and development space. The idea of sustainability, or ecological design, is to ensure that our
actions and decisions today do not inhibit the opportunities of future generations. The term
can be used to describe an energy and ecologically conscious approach to the design of the
built environment.

It appears that with sustainable architecture the key emphasis is on environmental
conservation and we can find that factors such as social sustainable can be often neglected
(Raco, 2007). Since the built environment is used by people, shouldnt the architect
therefore put forward designs that assist society?

11

3.0 Literature Review 2
Housing and Communities policy in the UK

3.1 Housing policy history
Housing policy in the UK was first about in 1919 after the World War I; where the
government brought forward the Housing and Town Planning Act. The Act was used as a
means for local authorities to provide low-cost housing for the low income working classes.
Through this policy came about a tradition of government owned housing (council housing)
that were ran by local authorities. They were used to address the unemployment and
demobilisation issue of that time, which arose out of major economic crisis. The programme
was used to create a social focal that would unite the nation. The Government had
recognised the importance of meeting the social needs of the people. At this point arouse
the social housing sector where homes became more available low income earners for little
or even no profit (Balchin et al, 2002).

Fig 3.1: World War I destruction on a UK street
Source: townhall.com
12

The Housing and town planning Act was later amended by the government in order to allow
universally accessible rented council housing. There was an elimination of the pre-war
constitutional restrictions which limited public housing to the working classes. In place was
vision of a colourful tapestry of mixed community with people from mixed socio-economic
backgrounds (Raco, 2007).
3.1.1 Conservative era
However, during the period from 1979 to 1990 under the governance of the conservative
party (lead by Margret Thatcher), came the restoration in the dominance of the private
housing market. The conservatives had the intention of bringing about an increase in home
ownership and the private rented sector. As a result of this initiative came a drop in the
construction of social housing and a decrease in the investment of the already existing
housing by local authorities (Barton, 2000).
3.1.2 Labour era
By 1997 there had be a drastic problem with the quantity and quality of local authority
housing. According to a report done by the now labour government, 2.1m homes within the
social sector housing had not met the Decent Homes Standard (see Fig 3.2). However
within 3 years labour had managed to get 92% of the social housing stock to meet the
minimum standard set. Enabled by a stable economic climate the quality of housing had
been improved for many and house prices were going up (HCA, 2012). In the early 2000s
labour government tackled homelessness and directly assisted 77,000 families to buy their
first homes. A 1 million investment was made towards improving social housing and
assisting 300,000 private sector households living in non-decent conditions.

Fig 3.2: Summary of decent homes standard
Source: DCLG
13

However the UK were still faced with problems regarding housing supply, as demand for
housing had become greater than the available stock. Furthermore house prices had grown
faster than the earnings of many, making it difficult for first time buyers and low income
earners to step onto the housing market. Additionally, the challenges posed climate change
and greenhouse gas reduction targets proposed in the Kyoto protocol (1998) brought about
lead to demand to embrace sustainability and create sustainable communities.

3.2 Sustainable Communities policy
These factors culminated into the formation of the Sustainable communities: Building for
the future plan. The plan argues that sustainable communities should be places that; thrive
economically, are good for the environment, socially connected, and well designed and
planned with a good level services (ODPM, 2003).

In the plan the government sets out a vision to build new homes in the south-east of
England and regenerate urban areas across the UK. The government desired to create more
homes within the social sector and encourage housing developers within the private sector
to take a more sustainable approach within their design and construction (Rudlin et al,
1999). There was a call for Carbon reducing interventions both in construction and
throughout use.

It was also identified that the site should be taken into account by the architect, and that
the development of available brownfield sites should be exploited. House designers and
builders were also required to follow tighter guidelines and firmer guidelines to ensuring the
production of higher quality housing especially in the social sector. A 2005 survey carried
out by DCLG showed that out of 22 million homes in the UK just roughly 18% were part of
the social sector, 12% which are rented via private landlords, and 70% of the majority being
owner occupied. Furthermore privately owned homes tended to be new developments with
local authority housing stock being relatively old in comparison.
14

The report records that around 50% social housing in the UK was actually constructed over
40years beforehand. This suggests that tackling housing problems in the UK will require the
architect to work with existing housing stock.

There is evident a lack of investment into social housing projects, which will need to change
if the requirements of the Government are to be met. Another problem here is that the
nature of housing development in the UK. The Construction of new buildings in the UK is
mostly developer led and unfortunately most developers are not particularly conscious of
the environment (Rudlin, 1999).

The architect will need to take a more integrated approach throughout the construction
progress and new sustainable techniques will be required to be implemented into their
design. The architect will need to promote the ecological health of these buildings, create an
investment in people; improve existing facilities; produce socially connected and integrated
communities which embrace sustainability (ODPM, 2003).

Fig 3.3: Components of Sustainable Communities

Source: ODPM
15

Fig 3.4: Components of Sustainable Communities- explained

Source: ODPM
16

4.0 Research Methodology
4.1 Introduction
The aim of this research is to provide a critical analysis of the architects response to the demand for
sustainable communities in the UK, as stipulated in section 1.3 of the introduction. This aim shall be
met by carrying out an in depth case study of Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED).

BedZED was chosen because it is the UKs most established purpose built sustainable community.
The research was limited to this one case because in the UK there were not that many sizeable
developments to take precedent from. It is hoped nonetheless that the data collected from BedZED
will help form a good depiction of the architects response to sustainable communities in the UK.
4.2 Research questions
1. How has BedZED responded to each of the criteria for sustainable communities set by the
government?
2. How successful has each of the architects responses been?
3. What lessons can be learnt from the development?
4.3 Methods of data collection
A qualitative research approach has been taken towards the data collection. Secondary data has
been extracted and analysed from official sources closely linked and associated with the project.
Both paper and electronic resources were used to collate information for this research. The main
sources came from Bioregional development group (who were consultants on project) another was
from information released by the architects of the project The ZED factory. Text, Drawings, tables,
charts and photographs were collected from these sources and used to form a basis for analysis.
4.4 Research design
The findings from the data collection have been organised under the following headings; Background
information, Project description, Evaluation and Conclusion. The evaluation section of the case study
is where the research questions 1 and 2 shall be answered. It is broken down into 7 sub headings;
derived from the 7 components given by the UK government for sustainable communities (refer to
Fig 3.3). It is from the analysis of the architects response to each of these criteria; the overall aim of
this research shall be met.

17

5.0 Research Findings
The Architects Response BedZED Case study

5.1 Background Information

Project name BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy Development )
Location Wallington, Surrey
Project type Brownfield housing development
Architects Bill Dunster Architects/ ZED factory LTD
Consultants BioRegional Environmental Organisation
Project Status Completed in 2002, over a 2 year construction period
Cost 15.5 Million
Project Sponsor The Peabody Trust housing Association
Planning Authority London Borough of Sutton
Size and Density 82 residential homes ,18 live/work units
Target Population 250 people (RIBA, 2003)
18

5.2 Project Description
Beddington zero energy development (BedZED) located in Wallington, Surrey is the UKs
largest mixed-use sustainable community development (BioRegional, 2012). The project was
sponsored by the Peabody housing association who had acquired the land from Sutton
council at below market price (Peabody, 2012). The design and concept for the project was
led by the architect Bill Dunster and his ZED factory practice, which specialise in Carbon
neutral sustainable Development (CABE, 2011).

The architects used BedZED as a prototype, to test the economic viability and technical
possibility of a development that would function without damaging the environment (CABE,
2011). The architects at BedZED also hoped to test out the idea of a live/work community
in which work spaces are integrated within the living spaces (Dunster et al, 2008).The
development provides 82 homes varying in size from 1 to 4 bedrooms, and 18 workspaces .
The north-facing work spaces vary from small units designed for 1-3 people to large units
with the capacity for up to 40 people (Dunster et al, 2008). Above the work spaces are green
roofs which provide garden spaces for the connected homes. Each home has a sunspace and
at ground level there is a further garden area.
Source: Inhabitat.com
Fig 5.2: BedZED site plan
Source: BioRegional
19

5.3 Evaluation

5.3.1 Housing and the Built environment
The architects have maintained the existing topography of the site, conserved the 95% of
existing trees and have projected an ecology park on the landfill site next to the site
(BioRegional, 2009). The implementation of small private gardens creates a good wildlife
habitat and the sedum roofs encourage high biodiversity. The architects have shown here
the possibility of creating a habitat for biodiversity within an urban environment

Fig 5.3: BedZED layout concept for carbon-neutral urban infrastructure
Source: Bioregional.com
20

The buildings at BedZED have been designed to relate well with the surrounding context of
the site. Building height has been kept between 2-3 storeys in keeping with the building
heights of surrounding properties. Further more the vertial subdivision of the windows and
balconies relate well with rhythm of the window bays to an adajacent property.The
architects have also been thoughtful in their choice of materials, using a reddish brown brick
and timber cladding which compliment the locality (see Fig 5.5). However, the heavy use of
fencing that encloses the development creates a distinct detachment from the locality.

Fig 5.4: Cutaway isometric views of a BedZED house
Source: Inhabitat.com
Fig 5.5: Bedzed development relationship to surrounding context
Source: CABE
21

5.3.2 Governance
The governing bodies of BedZED introduced the Green Transport Plan, the aim of which
was to reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels through private car use. The plan
strongly encourages the usage of public transport, cycling and walking. Through the plan car
parking spaces on the site have limited, with yearly parking fee for car owners. As a result of
such initiatives, only 17% of the users travel to work by car (see Fig 5.6), 33% less than those
in the same borough of Sutton (BioRegional, 2009).

The lack of parking facilities however, has become a key problem for users at BedZED. A
survey produced by the Peabody trust showed that as a result of the parking restrictions,
some users felt that they were limited from inviting visitors to their homes (BioRegional,
2009). It would appear in this case that ecological goals have been placed over the social
needs of the users.

In addition to the Green Transport plan a Pedestrian first policy to encourage people to
travel by foot, was also implemented. Vehicles at low walking speeds, street lighting is
placed for people to navigate the streets better at a night and there are drop kerbs for pram
and wheelchair users (CABE, 2008).

Fig 5.6: Mode of travel to work by BedZED users
Source: Bioregional
22

Furthermore the use of private car use has been reduced through a car-sharing scheme
provided by City Car Club. Car ownership is discouraged instead users are encouraged to use
selection of vehicles available on site. However it would be appear that not many residents
have been enticed by the scheme. A survey produced by Bioregional group showed that out
of the 71 residents surveyed only 9 had signed up to the scheme. While saying this only 2 of
this 9 owned a car, hence indicating that the car club does in fact lower car ownership.

5.3.3 Transport and connectivity
BedZED is located 500 metres and a 5 minute walk from Hackbridge station, which connects
to London Victoria within 20 minutes. There is also a Tram service which is a 15 minute walk
from BedZED and a bus service that links the development to the nearby towns of Purley
and Tooting. For those who may choose to travel by car they can easily connect to the M25
motorway which rings around the City of London.

Source: City car club
Fig 5.7: BedZED car sharing scheme
Fig 5.8: Road and transport links at BedZED
Source: Bioregional.com
23

Nevertheless, those who do choose to drive are encouraged to purchase eco-friendly
Electric and liquefied-petroleum-gas run cars. These cars are given free parking compared
to fossil fuel owners who have to pay 200 a year. Furthermore electric car charging points
have been provided with fuel free of charge (BioRegional, 2009).
.

Travel by bicycle is even more so encouraged; at BedZED cycle parking has been given
priority over car parking on the site, with spacious covered bike storage units and lockers.
Homes have also been designed with cycle storage spaces with up to 3 spaces per home and
1 per flat. As a result around 49% of resident surveyed by Peabody (housing association)
said they owned a bicycle; however a number of them did feel that more secure bicycle
storage was needed on site.

Fig 5.9: car charging facilities at BedZED
Source: viewpictures.co.uk
Fig 5.10: Travel by bicycle at BedZED
24

5.3.4 Services
BedZED is located within walking distance of several Local services, including; 1 pharmacy, 2
churches, 5 shops, 5 cafes/restaurants hairdresser and a drycleaners. However the nearest
supermarket to BedZED is around three miles away and local shops do not have a
particularly good range. Some residents are therefore forced into using their cars for
convenience, which conflicts with desire to restrict private car use as stated in section 5.3.1
of this chapter (see fig 5.11).

On site, BedZED features; a medical centre, nursery, bar/caf, village square and a
community centre with a sports pitch and allotments. The allotments provide a space for
occupants grow and source their own food in a sustainable manner. However many
residents may be put off using the facilities, due to a lack of security. The allotments have
suffered from criminal damage; plants have been ripped out by vandals and in April 2007
seating constructed by residents was burnt by arsonists. Despite this 24% of residents
surveyed by Peabody (2009) still use the facilities.

Fig 5.11: Travel mode for food shopping by residents at BedZED
Source: Bioregional
Fig 5.12: Allotments at BedZED
Source: flickr.com
25

The most popular facility provided at BedZED would be the community centre, used by
residents for exercise classes, meetings and social events. A survey carried out by Peabody
(2009) showed that 66% of the residents had attended events at the centre. Such figures
indicate high levels of social interaction between residents which is a key for creating a good
community spirit.

5.3.5 Social and Cultural
A survey carried out by Peabody showed that Residents had been pleased with the social
side of the community, one resident even commented that there was a nice community
spirit and that BedZED was non-isolating (BioRegional, 2009).

Such feedback could indicate the success of BedZEDs mixed tenure breif. The development
is comprised of 82 residential homes; 34 for private sale, 23 for shared ownership, 10 for
key workers and 15 for social rent (Energy cities, 2008). The homes range from 1 bedroom
flats to 4 bedroom houses, encouraging a mix of people with different lifestyles, such as
single people and those with families. By creating homes with different sizes a healthy and
balanced social mix is created, where a diverse range people can participate in a zero-
carbon lifestyle.

Fig 5.13: Residents at BedZED socialising at community center
26

5.3.6 Environmental

The architects have taken a zero-carbon attitude to both construction and function of the
buildings. Renewable or recycled materials where used for construction from sources
within a 35 mile radius of the site (BioRegional , 2002).For example, the structural steel used
to frame the buildings and timber internal walling studs were sourced from local demolition
sites to form new components. Such initiatives reduce the embodied energy of construction
materials significantly compared to standard building industry practice (Dunster et al, 2008).

In addition, homes have been designed to reduce thermal demand by reducing heat losses
and utilizing solar gain through the following measures;
Orientating the fully glazed living spaces towards south
Using super insulation between walls
Double-glazing the south elevation and triple-glazing for all other elevations
Using concrete mass block work and floor slabs to provide thermal mass
Providing passive ventilation with heat recovery
Reducing the flow of taps and showers
Providing visible hot water meters ( (BioRegional, 2009)
Fig 5.14: BedZED building physics
Source: Arup
27

BedZED has also been designed to function solely on renewable energy through a combined
heat and power (CHP) plant, which runs on bio-mass from chipped tree surgery waste (see
Fig 5.15). The CHP plant has been sized to produce enough electricity to meet all the users
energy needs for a whole year. However post installation the CHP plant has not been able to
be put to use. Subsequently renewable energy is now being sourced from photovoltaic (PV)
panels which provide around 11 % of total site electricity (BioRegional, 2009). Consequently
the rest of electricity demand is being met through non-renewable electricity sources from
the National Grid. Nonetheless non-renewable energy usage is still 25% less than the
average UK household.

Source: BioRegional
Fig 5.15: Sustainable technologies employed

Glazed sun-spaces provide light and
heat to BEDZED homes, and
photovoltaic arrays generate
electricity
Source: Arup
Fig 5.16: Ventilation cowls, PV panels and Sedum roof

Source: Bioregional
28

Another ecological consideration for the architect was to increase water efficiency and
decrease dependency. Water-efficient appliances have been installed and rain water is
recycled and used where possible (refer to Fig 5.15). In addition to this water meters have
also been installed into homes to encourage users to keep water usage down. As a result of
such initiatives water usage is 50% less than the average UK household (BioRegional, 2009).

5.3.7 Economic
The architects have supported the regional economy by sourcing both bulk materials and
labour within a 50 mile radius of the site (The Zedbook, 2008). BedZED supports the local
economy further through the provision of work spaces for 200 employees. The spaces are
available for a range of uses, however due to the close proximity between work spaces and
homes; certain types of businesses are ruled out in order to protect the health and safety of
the residents (BRECSU, 2002).

5.4 Conclusion
From the information gathered in this research it would be fair to say that the architect has
responded well to government criteria. The architects architect has been particularly
successful in preserving the environment, through passive and zero-carbon measures.
Furthermore more they have shown how through mixed tenure and mix use developments
can also be economically and socially sustainable. However it should be noted that without
the support of governing bodies and sponsors this project would not have been so
successful.

29

6.0 Discussion
The Responsibilities of the Architect

Architects have the role of designing, improving and preserving our built environments.
They have the responsibility therefore to do this in a sustainable manner as built forms
affect the natural environment, the economy and our social dynamics. Nowadays, it has
become a standard practice for architects to promote ecological sustainability with
initiatives that reduce the reliance on non-renewable unsustainable resources and in the
case study of BedZED we saw how the architect achieved this successfully.

However, it could be argued that the architect needs to do more to recognise their social
responsibilities (Manzi et al, 2010). If we consider that buildings only function because of
the people within them, it is fair to assert that the people should be a key priority within the
design process. But often the social needs of a community can often be neglected in place of
aesthetics, economics and ecological concerns. This chapter shall consider the ways in which
the architect can meet the cultural and social concerns of our communities in addition to
the ecological and economic concerns. It shall examine models placed by different authors
and specialists who have developed principles for architects to follow.

It important to note that these practices may require further training as they are rather
specialist and deal with issues that are not particularly taught in the main stream of
practices and architecture school. It is also fair to assert that communities are unique to
each other there is not a one size fits all typology for them. Each community must be taken
individually into consideration by the architect. Design strategies must be adapted into the
particular condition of that community. Moreover, it should be noted that the ideas
expressed by design theories may be idealistic and might prove difficult to apply practically.
Nonetheless the following design strategies should provide a good basis for architect to
work from.

30

6.1 Place making
Architects as designers are called to be problem solvers, the problem here for the designer
is the providing place in which people are happy to live in. The scholar Bernard Hunt argues
that place making should be the primary concern of the architect (Hunt, 2001). Hunt asserts
that architects should do more than just put up buildings but instead be concerned with
creating places.

The task given to architect here is to create places rather than spaces. The architect is
given the duty to engage the stakeholders of the community before embarking on their
design. Architects are required to study and interview the people who live and work in the
environments they intend to build for. The information they discover should then be used to
form the basic framework for their design. It is considered that by doing this the architect
will be better positioned to respond to the social and cultural needs of that particular
community, therefore promoting the health, happiness, and wellbeing of the people
(Thomas, 2002).

Fig 6.1: Diagram illustrating principle behind Placemaking
Source: PPS.org
31

6.2 Socio-Ecological Approach
Another towards planning sustainable communities would be the socio-ecological approach.
This design approach requires consideration of both social and ecological factors throughout
the planning and design process. Data is gathered about the community, such as existing as
cultural dynamics, social identity and natural resources. This information is then used as the
foundation of the planning and design process. It is thought that through this approach that
architects will be better placed to meet the specific social and ecological needs of that
community; it therefore promotes the health of the natural environment and the wellbeing
of those who with in it (McMurray, 202).

Participation of local community becomes is a key aspect of this design and planning
process. It is seen to provide a design strategy that is socially more sustainable. It allows
architects to gain necessary knowledge from user involvement to ensure that their design or
planning will meet intended objectives in the most effective way (Knevitt and Wates,
1987).This route can begin at the early stage of the design process before construction to
the time of user occupation. The degree of user involvement can range from informing,
consulting, and partnering to even designing the project. Through this process both the
architect and the user can share their knowledge and experiences with each other.

Fig 6.2: Socio-Ecological model

Source: nehpnblog .com
32

It is believed that by increasing the stakeholders awareness and involvement in the decision
making process, communities members become more empowered and therefore more
willing to take care of their environment (Wates & Knevitt, 1987). Once the architect has
completed their design, the local people can now be able to manage, evaluate, maintain and
adjust the architects product to meet their changing needs. Architects are also required to
learn from past projects and need to learn from them in order not to make the same
mistakes.
6.3 Community participation and empowerment
The response by the architect will need to take into account the needs of the stake holders
in the community and should not only be limited for just those with the control of finances,
but should also extend to the economically vulnerable, those with limited opportunities and
economically challenged (Manzi, 2010). However it may be argued that there is not enough
investment of resources to support the up keep of the economically challenged. Some
responsibility may have to fall upon citizens to unite together to take up certain actions with
financial gain. This can be in the form of community development groups, such as housing
cooperatives, development trusts, and specific groups that come together to create
particular facilities (Saegert, Thomas and Warren, 2001). The additional benefit of this
would be the sense of ownership created by being involved in the development.
Furthermore it might also encourage users to take better care of the environment around
them and give them an incentive to preserve what they have created. For the architect
there is an obligation for them to immerse themselves into the local community they are
designing for.

However it is fair to maintain that no architect can encompass the entire specialist skills
required in obtaining sustainable communities and that architects can only provide services
relevant to their capabilities. Yet some still assert that it is the architects obligation to
process as much skill and knowledge of the sustainable design and planning process as
possible. This includes the process of creating sustainable built environments that can
satisfy and support functional and emotional community needs also the process that assists
in strengthening the community.
33

In the creation of sustainable communities the architect is required to acquire as much
knowledge and information that will lead them to the most sustainable outcome.
Sustainable community design entails multidisciplinary considerations throughout the
process of design and planning. The architect must take a holistic approach and fuse the
economic, environmental and social factors that encompass sustainability (Martin, 2001).

34

7.0 Conclusion

At first, this discourse unravelled the concept of sustainable communities. It identified its
close connection with the principles of sustainable development, which fuse together the
concepts of economic, environmental and social sustainability. Then we discovered the
housing shortage issues that led to a policy for sustainable communities in the UK.
Using the criteria set by the UK government regarding sustainable communities a case study
report of BedZED was carried out. We saw in the case study of BedZED that architects had
responded well to the requirements given by the government. The architect supported the
environment through zero- carbon design strategies, the local economy was encouraged by
sourcing materials and labour nearby and social inclusion was sustained through a mixed
tenure scheme. The case study of BedZED demonstrated that the architect could respond
well to the demand for sustainable communities. It also demonstrated the immense
obligation the architect has to create sustainable communities.
The responsibilities of the architect are complex and multi-faceted, from the moment of
conception to the completion of a development the architect has the power to shape the
ways in which people live. It is therefore imperative that the architect does this in the most
sustainable manner. However it must be stated that the architect is not solely responsible
for creating sustainable communities. The architect can design the homes people live in but
they cannot determine the people who live in them. The stakeholders must also harness the
concepts of sustainable development and take actions to promote it within their
communities.

35

8.0 References

Adams, W. (1990). Green Development: Environment and Sutainability in the Third World.
London: Routledge.
Barker, K. (2004). Review of Housing Supply. Norwich: The stationery office.
Barton, H. (2000). Sustainable Communities: The Potential fo Eco-Neighbourhood. London:
Earthscan .
BBC. (2011, August 9). Further riots in London as violence spreads across England. Retrieved
January 5, 2012, from BBC website : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
london-14450248
BioRegional . (2002). BedZED: Toolkit Part I. London: BioRegional Development Group.
BioRegional. (2003). BedZED: Toolkit Part 2. London: BioRegional Development Group.
BioRegional. (2009). BedZED seven years on. London: BioRegional Development Group.
BioRegional. (2012). The Prototype: BedZED. Retrieved Feburary 5, 2012, from One Planet
Communities : http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/communities/bedzed/
BioRegional Development Group. (2012). Bedzed: Prototype. Retrieved Feburary 12, 2012,
from One Planet communities website:
http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/communities/bedzed/
BRECSU. (2002). BedZED Beddington Zero Energy Development, Sutton. London : Crown.
CABE. (2011, January 1). BedZED. Retrieved Feburay 5, 2012 , from The National Archives :
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http://www.cabe.org.
uk/case-studies/bedzed
Chance, T. (2007). Towards sustainable residential communities; the BeddingtonZero Energy
Development (BedZED) and beyond. Environment and Urbanization, 527-544.
36

CIWEM. (2005, August). Sustainable communities. Retrieved Feburary 9, 2012, from CIWEM
website : http://www.ciwem.org/knowledge-networks/panels/sustainability-and-
environmental-management/sustainable-communities.aspx
Daly, H. (2005). Economics in a full world. Scientific American, 100-107.
DCLG. (2005). English House Condition Survey. London: Crown.
DCLG. (2006). Code for Sustainable Homes. London: Crown .
DCLG. (2007). Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable. London: The
Stationery Office.
DCLG. (2011). Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing. London: Crown.
DEFRA. (2004). Study into the Environmental Impacts of Increasing the Supply of Housing in
the UK. Cheshire: Entec UK Limited .
DETR. (1998). Building a Sustainable Future: Homes for an Autonomous Future. London:
HMSO.
Dunster, B. Simmons, C. and Gilbert, B. (2008). The Zedbook. Newyork: Tony and Francis.
Energy cities. (2008). Sustainable neighbourhood - BedZED (Beddington Zero fossil Energy.
Retrieved march 9, 2012, from Energy- Cities: http://energy-
cities.eu/IMG/pdf/Sustainable_Districts_ADEME1_BedZed.pdf
Ferry, L. (2007). Proteger l'espece humaine contre elle-meme. Revue Des Deux Mondes, 75-
79.
Geough, M. (2004, Feburary 28). Model for Sustainable urban design. Retrieved January 3,
2012, from National Energy center for sustainable Communities:
http://www.necsc.us/docs/ORNL_Design_Final.pdf
Goodland. (1999). The Concept of Environmental Sustainability. Washington: Annual
Reviews.
37

HCA. (2012). Sustainable Communities. Retrieved Feburary 8, 2012, from Homes and
Communities Agency website:
http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/sustainable-development
Hunt, B. (2001, Feburary ). sustainable placemaking:A keynote speech . Retrieved march 6,
2012, from sustainable placemaking forum: http://www.sustainable-
placemaking.org/about.htm
Knevitt, C., & Wates, N. (1987). Community Architecture . London: Penguin .
LGID. (2010, May 26). What is a Sustainable Community? Retrieved January 03, 2012, from
Local Government Improvement and Development website:
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=1
Manzi, T. e. (2010). Social Sustainability in Urban Areas: Communities, Connectivity and the
Urban frabric. London: Earthscan.
McMurray, A. (202). Community Health and Wellness. Perth: Mosby Elsevier.
ODPM. (2003). Sustainable Communities:Building for the Future. Retrieved january 3, 2012,
from DCLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289.pdf
ODPM. (2004). Planning policy statement 1: planning for sustainabe development. London:
HMSO.
ODPM. (2004). The Egan Review - Skills for Sustainable Communities. London : RIBA
Publishing.
Peabody. (2012). BedZED. Retrieved march 8, 2012, from Peabody website:
https://www.peabody.org.uk/my-peabody.aspx
Pitts, A. (2004). Planning and Design strategies for Sustainability and Profit. Oxford :
Architectural Press.
Raco, M. (2007). Building Sustainable Communities: Spatial policy and labour mobility in
post-war Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press.
38

RIBA. (2003, October). Sustainable Communities. Retrieved feburary 5, 2012, from
Architecture website:
http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/P
olicy/PublicAffairs/responseToEganReviewOfSkills.pdf
Roseland, M. (2005). Towards Sustainable Communities. vancouver : New Society publishers

Rudlin, D. and Falk, N. (2009). Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood:Building the 21st Century
Home. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Saegert, S. Thomas, P. and Warren, M. (2001). Social Capital and Poor Communities.
Newyork : Russel sage foundation.
Thomas, D. (2002). Architecture and the Urban Environment. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Twinn, C. (2003). BedZED. The Arup Journal, 10-16.
Wates, N. and Knevitt, C. (1987). Community Architecture . London: Penguin.
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Dissertation - Oo Lawal

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dissertation - Oo Lawal

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

i

LEICESTER SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

Você também pode gostar