The latest news about the Newlands development suggests that the homes will be designed to a pseudo neo-classic specification by an architect that has connections with the Prince of Wales. The Prince is famous for his Poundbury town. However it is extremely doubtful that the Newlands development will be anything like Poundbury. The Prince of Wales has done many good things and his views about agriculture are good, but he doesn't have a clue about architecture. Poundbury may have some context in Dorset, but it would be ridiculous to build anything like it next door to the existing buildings of Waterlooville.
One thing to consider is what will happen to the Georgian or Edwardian facade of the Newlands houses in the future, once they have exchanged hands a few times. These buildings will not be listed and will have the minimal protection from alterations like any other building in the borough. This basically means that the architects vision of nice neat homes will eventually be destroyed when people start building plastic porches at the front, stick a satellite dish on the roof and a plastic conservatory in the back garden.
Waterlooville is not an area that is now rich in Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian architecture. It was once, but that has all either been demolished or extensively re-adapted and extended for modern use.
Yes there are the remains of Victorian/Georgian homes and commercial buildings in Waterlooville town centre, but you have to look at the top floors of the shops to see the nature of the original buildings, at ground level they are modern shops. The vast majority of homes were built between the 1930s and 1970s. That period is the 'traditional' architecture of the area.
So the real choices for architecture have to be of that period or something completely new, not some fantasy vision that dates back to the Napoleonic or Crimean wars.
There is of course an alternative, Newlands could become a theme park or a gated community like Celebration in the USA of which much amusement and many TV documentaries are made. Celebration has strict rules about what colours can be used on homes and the community has an unelected town manager. With such strict rules and corporate management, Newlands could be kept like the architect designed it to be.
What will Waterlooville get?
Most likely standard box houses with token features that suggest some historical context, the windows will probably be plastic framed and the sandstone cornices will probably be replaced with plastic or concrete equivalents. Yes it will satisfy some today, but it will likely ruin Waterloovilles image for the next hundred years, just like Waterloovilles town centre was ruined in the 1950s and 1960s.
Maybe if the area hadn't been massively developed in 50s/60s into a suburbia and the old Victorian/Georgian village of Waterlooville still existed, then just maybe the Newlands redesign would work. The reality though is far from that ludicrous ideological vision.
What does Waterlooville need?
The area desperately needs property that is built for the context of climate change and environmental sustainability. To do this, modern understanding of low energy construction, natural convection and the use of natural solar heating/cooling have to be built into the design of a building, traditional design does not fulfil that criteria. Any environmentally sustainable property will probably look different to anything built in the past if this essential criteria is met.
In fact the Newlands properties may contribute to their own demise because current building standards are not stringent enough to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions.
23 comments:
I think these house designs for Waterlooville are lovely! In my opinion, Waterlooville currently has awful housing, that awful 50-70’s housing, as you say, has ruined its image, so why shouldn’t someone now propose something like this? This is much better than “something new”. Also, doing some research of my own, I came across the Newlands architect’s website and their sustainability credentials, their research has shown that traditional buildings are the most sustainable buildings so I’m not sure where your comment that these are “high carbon design” came from.
Hi Emma,
I have seen the architects web site and I have seen a photo of a typical house that they design.
They are extremely unimaginative.
Whether you like it or not, the traditional architecture of the area does indeed date to the 50s and 70s. It isn't any more awful than the neo-classic designs that are proposed for Newlands.
Sustainable materials and low carbon design are two different things. You can use 'sustainable' materials in a badly designed house and it can use a lot of energy to heat it.
You can also use 'unsustainable materials' in a very energy efficient design and it will use next to nothing to heat it.
The point being that a low energy house is defined by it's overall design. You need ways of naturally moving warm and cold air around, that isn't possible in a traditional 'British' design.
The other point is that Grainger are going to be building them, not the arcitect, so when it comes to money, they will choose the materials.
Some info about the Passiv Haus system:
http://www.passivhaus.org.uk/index.jsp?id=669
"Passive use of solar energy is a significant factor in PassivHaus design."
Which means glass Emma, probably more than in a traditional design.
Neo-classicists don't go for glass much.
More info:
http://www.1010global.org/uk/passivhaus-standard
I take on board your comments however I just wanted to say that I feel the new designs will fit in very well in Waterlooville,I really do believe most people would agree.
At the end of the day they have to sell these houses. The design must be appropriate for families and the traditional house fits that spec. They should indeed use the best environmental specifications possible and some of the ideals passivhaus offers, but why not revert back to a more traditional house. I think the older styles age more gracefully than the then ‘high tech’ 70’s building were lumbered with. The tricorn is a classic example, where as Portsmouth Guildhall and neighbouring University building (Park building) are far easier on the eye and I’m sure will be in years to come.
In short... ‘modern’ ‘contemporary’ buildings look great now, but wont in 20 years time.
Anon said:
"At the end of the day they have to sell these houses."
Indeed, that's why you need a good architect to design modern houses that will sale.
There are hundreds of thousands of modern homes that do sell, so the design issue isn't a selling problem.
Anon said:
"The design must be appropriate for families and the traditional house fits that spec."
Well that makes an assumption. Right across Europe there are millions of houses that are modern and very family friendly.
Anon said:
"They should indeed use the best environmental specifications possible and some of the ideals passivhaus offers, but why not revert back to a more traditional house."
Because ultimately traditional design has it's environmental limitations.
Anon said:
"I think the older styles age more gracefully than the then ‘high tech’ 70’s building were lumbered with. The tricorn is a classic example"
The Tricorn was an old design and isn't relevant to designing homes. There are plenty of ugly Victorian buildings. eg. the Portsdown Hill forts.
Anon said:
"In short... ‘modern’ ‘contemporary’ buildings look great now, but wont in 20 years time."
Which implies you hate tradition design!
Because Victorian, Georgian, Edwardian and Tudor buildings were modern and contemporary once.
In fact what I am suggesting is design not for now, but for 50 to 100 years time. eg. think long term.
I can't imagine many Passiv Haus or similar designs becoming dated. In fact I would suggest most owners in 20 years time being very grateful that they are living in one. Whilst Newlands residents struggle paying ever higher energy bills, Passiv Haus owners will be saving money.
Something I forgot to mention...
The environmental building code is changing in any case, so the idea that homes in the future are going to be built to some past traditional standard is a false hope.
By the time Grainger has finally built the last home on Newlands, the specification of the houses will be out of date.
Some photos of one particular passivhaus design, does it look like the Tricorn?:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcolmi/sets/72157600708203327/
Nope, it has a pitched roof and being Canada uses local materials, eg. wood. I don't actually think you could design a Passivhaus like the Tricorn, it wouldn't pass the energy efficiency criteria.
You missunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that houses were once built like the tricorn, that's obsered. I was mearly suggesting that designers have to be careful in designing houses which arn't in the usual design, like I said they need to be sold at the end of the day.
I agree that the passivhaus is a fantastic design though.
Did you make a proposal to the developer and express your concerns?
Hi Anon,
Point taken.
I haven't got around to filling in the consultation form yet.
The current architects that Grainger have employed would not design anything other than neo-classic. So they would need to change to another architect.
Shame because true sustainable homes would be ideal. I kinda implied that no one would buy them but I certainly would!
TheVille seems to be under a series of misunderstandings or is possibly a salesman/woman for Pasivhaus, a German company selling just one method for achieving sustainability in house design. The claim that traditional design is unsustainable is simply untrue - in fact it is the reverse. In the first instance, traditional design evolved when oil was not a heat source and energy was very expensive. Materials were moved about as little as possible, using local materials. A great deal of energy is consumed in importing materials and equipment in modern building. In the second place, keeping warm and cool by using as little energy as possible was financially important and the use of high-mass building materials provides thermal stability - a very important consideration in sustaining energy.
Nonetheless, if you go to the Passivhaus website you will find an outline specification. All of this is compatible with traditional design: compact form and good insulation (simple rectangular buildings with good insulation fit well with traditional design); southern orientation and good shading (orientation and shading are nothing to do with style, the comment about glass from TheVille is misleading, this is not about huge areas of glass which are fundamentally unsustainable but reasonable areas of glass on south elevations - again perfectly traditional); energy efficient windows and frames (you don't have to use old fashioned windows in traditional design, traditional types of windows are available off the shelf to the appropriate standard); airtightness (not a problem, just the right form of construction); pre-heating air and heat exchangers (this is a simple mechanical issue and nothing to do with whether a house is traditional or looks different, in fact the reliance on mechanical equipment is one of the failings of the Passivhaus system); household appliances (pretty obviously nothing to do with the building's appearance).
Like many architectural professionals (is TheVille one such?) sustainability is used as a mask for style preference or taste. Anyone serious in the sustainability industry knows that it has nothing to do with style except that the modern addicition to glass is extremely unsustainable.
What matters to residents as much as to any builder is to provide something people like. Sustainability is style-blind. People aren't and there is plenty of good objective research that shows that around 75% to 80% of buyers prefer traditional designs.
Firstly 'A Traditionalist', I assume the three duplicate comments were mistakes, so have deleted two as 'spam'.
A Traditionalist:
TheVille seems to be under a series of misunderstandings or is possibly a salesman/woman for Pasivhaus, a German company selling just one method for achieving sustainability in house design.
1. I have not misunderstood anything, I think you misunderstand me.
2. I represent no one, as is quite clear from the nature of my blog. I quoted PassivHaus purely as an example.
A Traditionalist:
The claim that traditional design is unsustainable is simply untrue...
That wasn't the point I was making. Sure traditional building methods are likely to be sustainable to an extent. But that would be the method, not the 'design'. Are you seriously suggesting that Newlands homes are going to be built traditionally and with local materials?
Does Grainger know about this?
A Traditionalist:
In the first instance, traditional design evolved when oil was not a heat source and energy was very expensive. .
Erm cherry picking aren't we??
What about coal, the worst source of carbon emissions known to humanity.
I mean if you want to use straw bales to build homes, that is fine by me!
I believe some 'social' homes up north somewhere will be the first, I don't think they will be 'neo-classic' though.
A Traditionalist:
Materials were moved about as little as possible, using local materials. A great deal of energy is consumed in importing materials and equipment in modern building.
In the second place, keeping warm and cool by using as little energy as possible was financially important and the use of high-mass building materials provides thermal stability - a very important consideration in sustaining energy.
Indeed, but you don't have to design a neo-classic house in order to implement the provision of local materials. Your comment is a red herring. I agree with your comment about high-mass materials.
A Traditionalist:
Like many architectural professionals (is TheVille one such?) sustainability is used as a mask for style preference or taste.
That is very amusing. Isn't an obsession with neo-classic style a mask for something?
I find it ironic that we are discussing style preference when it is clear the Grainger architects are indeed putting style preference first!
A Traditionalist:
Anyone serious in the sustainability industry knows that it has nothing to do with style...
Fine, in which case the Grainger architect should be more than capable of coming up with a range of styles (other than neo-classic) that the public can choose from!
All of which would be very popular.
If not, why not?
Something to ponder:
http://lovelywaterloovlille.blogspot.com/2010/05/work-on-st-judes-southsea.html
Traditional methods (stone), modern design.
Some examples of eco homes:
http://www.ecodesign.co.uk/oakmeadow.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2007/05/29/eco_homes_feature.shtml
http://www.ecoarc.co.uk/
http://www.zedfactory.com/
Those are all really attractive looking modern buildings, but I like this website for its 'rustic charm' I don't think they're suitable for everybody, but as an outbuilding or shed- perfect!
http://www.earthhandsandhouses.org/ehah-projects.htm
Danners
I mentioned a straw bale social housing scheme 'up north'.
Here it is:
http://naturalbuild.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/straw-bale-council-house-lincolnshire/
It's actually council housing and they are going to build more. Someone left a comment:
"Hey! This house from the outside looks staggeringly like a council house!!!!"
I see that the adminstrator has deleted my response last night. I am puzzled. Is this a blog for genuine discussion or a one-person propaganda site? If this is deleted, I'll know it's the latter.
I will summarise last night's point.
It is clear that TheVille and a Traditionialist agree, the style of a house is nothing to do with it's sustainability so the discussion amounts to nothing more than style preference and taste
It's well established that the vast majority of the public prefer traditional design so why would anyone want to build anything else? It makes no commercial or community sense to do anything else. There is a choice and contemporary houses are being built up the road. Soon they will be on competition with traditional designs and we'll see which sell best.
A Traditionalist.
I deleted your comment because you are using my personal blog for your own propaganda.
For your information, count yourself lucky that I respect free speech to a greater deal than the local councils.
Why?
Because I don't appear to have the same rights on the councils West of Waterlooville MDA blog as you do here. When I first started this blog I left a comment on the MDA blog and it was not allowed to be published.
Frankly, The two councils involved, Grainger and Adam architects get plenty of publicity, they don't need you to do the same on my blog!
Which is a good enough reason to moderate comments regarding this subject.
A Traditionalist.
"It is clear that TheVille and a Traditionialist agree,"
Do not make assumptions about what I think or what I agree on.
I do not agree with your views. Especially as you ignore all the other serious issues regarding the Newlands development that have been raised.
A Traditionalist.
"It's well established that the vast majority of the public prefer traditional design so why would anyone want to build anything else? "
That statement is clearly incorrect, as I have already pointed out. Clearly the public live in a wide range of properties throughout the UK, Europe and the world. They do so and they enjoy it.
As I have pointed out and others to. The traditional style in this area is mainly 60s and 70s.
A Traditionalist
Take your propaganda elsewhere.
As I said, the corporates already have plenty of publicity. Don't come here helping them.
I have enjoyed following this blog for a good while now and wish to do so in the future. It saddens me to see rudeness from visiting bloggers.
What I do find interesting though is how much this development has caused a stir. Clearly there should be more community involvement before the first brick is laid.
Danners
Hi Danners,
Yes indeed until now, the blog has been a quite pleasant place to be!
I think some of my comments tend to be a bit reactionary!
Apologises to regulars for that. I didn't even expect to have regulars!
It's a difficult thing to write something that is of personal interest and not to be protective about it.
For the record...
Lovely Waterlooville was chosen as a title because I thought Waterlooville wasn't lovely. It was started because I was fed up with all the rubbish on the streets and hedgerows. I still am!
Some posts are 'rants', others are just general info, others are educational (climate science).
The general theme is and always will be about the environment and climate change, in a local context of course, at least most of the time!
I accept that the issue of design style and sustainable building is probably one where I made a mistake.
However that wasn't the primary issue that the post was about.
I'm also aware that vested interests attend blogs and forums to put their views across, sometimes pretending to be neutral.
Dear Anonymous,
If you read the blogs I've posted you would see that they were not rude at all, but merely discussed the issues raised. But you can't read them because they're censored. I'll keep posting them so, if you happen to pick them up before they're censored, you'll see what was said. I'm very sad that a blog that seeks debate censors debate when it disagrees with what is said.
To Traditionalist.
Be aware that trolls are not welcome.
You have been told about the nature of this blog.
The fact that you obsessively focus on this post suggests that you aren't interested in the blog in general but have a single interest.
I suggest you let it rest.
Post a Comment