Briefing: Learning from Europe Free

Faced with growing demands for more housing and falling levels of private investment, there is an urgent need to look to examples outside the UK. In recent decades, countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have far outstripped the UK in the number, size and quality of housing built every year, often in places that are comparable with designated growth areas in the UK. Other countries have succeeded in regenerating older industrial areas that have lost their original purpose in ways that have boosted local economies.1 They have provided much more in the way of rented housing and largely avoided house price inflation. Designers and engineers in the UK need to collaborate if communities are to be created that not only cope with climate change, but also enable children to socialise and grow up well.

This article looks at how to manage infrastructure growth in a smarter way and takes up some of the lessons and recommendations from the research report Beyond Eco-towns: Applying the Lessons from Europe.2 The report is based on ten case studies of major housing schemes in northern Europe that have succeeded in reducing energy consumption, cutting traffic and creating balanced neighbourhoods. These new communities were chosen because they are recognised as exemplary in terms of design and sustainability, provide over 5000 homes (like the proposed UK eco-towns) and are substantially complete and therefore in a position where they can be assessed. The research2 was undertaken by a team from PRP Architects, URBED and Design for Homes, and was sponsored by three major organisations involved in building better homes (Grainger Trust, Guinness Trust and Scott Wilson) who took part in the study tours and, along with other experts, helped the team reach practical conclusions.

The summary report draws a large number of policy conclusions, but possibly the most important is the need to adopt a different approach to procurement through local leadership, integrated spatial planning and creative development finance. The overall conclusions for major new housing developments can be summarised under six themes adapted from the Cambridgeshire quality charter for growth.3 

• Connectivity. Successful new communities in Europe are closely linked to thriving urban conurbations. As a guideline, this means a choice of jobs within half an hour's travel by good public transport, plus primacy for walking and cycling within the new settlement.

• Community. Having a balanced population, with a mix of housing that reflects demand in the wider area, the community is closely engaged in building up the social infrastructure. This means that social housing for rent should generally not account for more than 20% of the total, with other forms of intermediate housing accounting for the balance of affordable housing. It should be indistinguishable to look at, thus avoiding any stigma, and dispersed around the development.

• Climate proofing. Eco-towns have clear targets for saving natural resources in terms of energy, water, waste and land. In practice this means avoiding building on good farm land and using the new settlement to help improve the image and appeal of the wider area. None of the case studies were trying to achieve zero-carbon buildings, but all were aiming at doing significantly better than national standards.

• Character. Successful settlements have a strong identity and offer a choice of attractive places to live in a green and pleasant setting, which in turn helps them to grow relatively quickly. They were the work of a large number of designers and developers catering for different markets, but linked together by a very high-quality public realm. Theming and branding can help appeal to markets wider than new housing in the UK currently reaches.

• Collaboration. The processes for planning and implementation are key. New communities enjoy local authority support and are developed by agencies with a long-term interest and active civic leadership. Although the relationships varied, there was none of the adversarial and legalistic approach to development that has marred many recent developments in England.

• Cash flow. Infrastructure is generally funded and provided from the outset and funded separately from the house-building budget using relatively low-cost public finance. There is a wider range of ‘entry’ opportunities for people to move in due to the importance of private rented housing.

In essence, the case study locations have adopted a similar approach, which might be called ‘smarter growth’. The idea of smart growth—a term originally coined by the US Congress for New Urbanism—is to make the most of locations with high accessibility (such as railway stations or town centres) by redeveloping poorly utilised land at higher levels of density and then sharing scarce infrastructure over a number of uses.4 However, smarter growth is about more than physical development. It should also take account of the economic and social dimensions of what makes places successful and sustainable.

The exemplars studied had all created attractive places to live that were future-proofed through, for example, promoting balanced communities, taming the car and living with nature. But these innovations were not just the result of visionary masterplans. They were achieved through a different approach to procurement that involved sustained local leadership, integrated spatial planning and creative development finance. Participants in the study tours learned a lot from very different approaches to procuring development as opposed to the approach taken by volume house-builders in the UK.

The study tour to Kronsberg (built for Hanover Expo) and HafenCity in Hamburg, which is the largest regeneration project in Europe, discovered that the development process was clearly spelt out in site-specific manuals and had benefited from community engagement. Schemes were designed to change behaviour and minimise car dependence. High-quality transport infrastructure from the start helped in building up a community very rapidly. The much greater quality of the public realm and transport systems encourage people to leave their cars behind for most short trips.

The study tour to Hammarby Sjöstad, a high-density extension in what had been derelict docklands in Stockholm, found that exploitation of natural features like water created a place with a strong positive image. High rates of sales helped pay for a very advanced system of utilities. The so-called Hammarby water cycle model works not just because it is technically advanced, but also because the place itself attracts people who can afford to pay a premium for living in an ecologically sustainable settlement. Doubts have been expressed about whether anything similar could ever be achieved in the UK. In a recent article, David Lock commented ‘above all else the people are civilised and communitarian in their behaviour, and appear to be gentle and courteous in their dealing one with another’.5 Like all the schemes visited, a great deal of care has gone into engaging new residents in the process of community building so that they feel proud of what has been accomplished and take good care of it.

Importantly, the Hammarby model for resource utilisation (Figure 1) was created by the local authority cleansing department and water and energy companies working together. The energy company was keen to bid for such an important contract, and the city council requires all homes to be connected to their district heating system. Waste is either converted into energy or returned to the environment; even the sewage residue is used to help trees grow faster.

The study tour to Amersfoort, a fast-growing historic town near Utrecht in the Netherlands, visited the new settlements of Vathorst, Kattenbroek and Nieuwland. The team learned how the municipality had succeeded in achieving growth on their terms. New housing is available at a range of prices. Energy consumption is reduced through local energy generation, including a ground source heat pump for 700 homes, and the installation of so many solar panels on a group of homes that they generate 1 MW as a ‘power station’. Their motto is ‘treat water as your friend not your enemy’—rainwater runs into new canals to create attractive vistas (Figure 2).

All the settlements visited have sought to reduce their energy consumption by encouraging people to use cars less (Table 1 6). While the experience of Vauban (Figure 3) and Rieselfeld (Figure 4) in Freiburg is probably the most advanced in Europe in changing behaviour with frequent and cheap public transport operating as part of integrated system, similar approaches are being used in other cities. (Accounts of the study tours to Freiburg and the Netherlands, the latter sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government, are to be published.7) However, the most interesting message for the UK is the increased use of cycling and walking for shorter trips—in the UK the trend has been the other way.

The study tours revealed that councillors and officers in these European exemplars are much more involved in ‘place-making’—not just responding to developers' proposals—and free from continual arguments and changes in personnel and policies. Compared with the UK, there is much more continuity and respect for the role of municipalities. Moreover, local authorities commission masterplans and infrastructure.7 Countries with a social democratic tradition like the Netherlands avoid some of the traps of a consumerist society, where people expect everything to be done for them, by encouraging people to get involved with their neighbourhoods. These differences in the way ordinary people live and behave may also hold the key to reducing risks and improving returns on investment.

The greater leadership role of European local authorities is revealed in case studies that compare European regeneration success stories in Rotterdam, Gothenburg and Lille/Roubaix with the situation in similar cities in England.1 There are moves to encourage local authorities in the UK to adopt a similar approach, for example through the Sub-National Review8 and the idea of local and multi-area agreements with government using contractual models. However, despite talk about devolving powers and responsibilities, the process of bidding competitively and having to respond to government targets tends to impede collaboration in the UK. Reliance on central government for capital funding discourages local initiative.

Another difference is that lower levels of private home ownership and greater respect for communal space make it easier to grow new communities more quickly in Europe (at least three times the rate of comparable schemes in the UK). Research by a group of international experts convened by the London School of Economics9 suggests that the UK is trying to achieve the impossible in encouraging further extension of home ownership, when it is already the highest in Europe. Table 2 9 suggests that there is scope for expanding the private rented sector, perhaps by encouraging investment from financial institutions such as pension funds and insurance companies.

Planning is done differently too. Visitors on study tours ran for the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth initiative3 were impressed by the combination of clearly expressed visions and greater flexibility in implementation, allowing cities to ride the tides of changing markets and business conditions. There is not the same adversarial situation that pits land owners and developers against the public agencies responsible for providing the social and physical infrastructure. The greater sense of collaboration undoubtedly helps to improve cash flow and speed up the process of building better new homes.

In a working paper on economic issues for Beyond Eco-towns, the author has explored ways in which some of the costs of producing new settlements could be reduced through a more collaborative approach. Figure 5 is based on work by English Partnerships10 on the costs of expanding Milton Keynes and was used to calculate a ‘roof tax’ through which each new home contributes £18 000 towards infrastructure. It shows that transport and education are by far the largest items of cost that the public sector has to meet. However, even if this was achieved, it is only a fifth of what needs to be invested and this clearly demonstrates that funding physical infrastructure is a major obstacle. European cities manage to achieve a higher quality of infrastructure—and in advance of residents moving in—by local authorities taking on the roles of masterplanning and procuring the basic infrastructure.

Further research into ways of reducing infrastructure costs would yield real dividends. For example, before houses can be built and sold, land has to be decontaminated and re-graded, roads and streets built, and pipes for utilities such as water and gas installed, all by different companies that tend to have short-term and narrow horizons. Some of the costs are essentially directly attributable and would usually be collected in England through regular Section 106 negotiations, but others are more strategic, and apply to the wider area. As well as hard physical infrastructure, communities require investment up front in social infrastructure, ranging from schools and shops to open spaces where people can meet, all of which tend to generate conflicts over what should be funded and how it is to be maintained.

Some idea of the scale of the funding gap can be seen from the government's commitment to provide £100 million investment for schools and hospitals in 20 towns. Although this sum sounds large, it amounts to only £1300 per home. If eco-towns are also trying to get greater investment in superior utilities, for example underground waste storage, local energy systems or water recycling, then some of the expenditure on roads and transport needs to be reduced, as customers will not pay much of a premium for homes that are climate-proofed.

By applying the good practice observed in the European case studies—including the way finance for infrastructure is raised—to new settlements in the UK, it should be possible to reduce many risks and thus make development to higher standards viable. For example, the economics of house-building is much improved if finance for infrastructure can be borrowed at lower rates of interest than private companies have to pay and then reimbursed from disposals of serviced plots. As well as sharing the costs of masterplans, four other ideas for infrastructure need to be tested out through action research to help shape projects where major housing schemes are planned.

• Tap into good existing public transit systems (rapid transit is only feasible at population densities of over 50/ha). Development should be focused on locations where there is under-used rail capacity and where road schemes are already far advanced and required for other purposes. Efforts can then focus on designing schemes to maximise walking and cycling (and hence healthier living).

• Design narrower residential streets and only cater for lighter vehicles away from main roads, for example underground waste storage would reduce the need for municipal waste vehicles to get everywhere. Locating parking at edges of settlements should discourage the use of cars for short trips. Installing service ducts under pavements should avoid having to dig up roads in the future and hence cut connection charges.

• Build the main infrastructure in relatively large stages using a rolling fund, and then dispose of 1–2 ha plots through agreements that recover the investment, with land valued as a proportion of the expected value. Hammarby Sjöstad uses the model of a ‘fishbone’, with loops off a central transit spine (which is similar to Vauban and Rieselfeld). Vathorst and Kattenbroek rely on building a ‘rim’ road and then building neighbourhoods off it. In either situation, the value of land seems to be around 20–30% of the expected value of development.

• Create plenty of green infrastructure, but design communal green spaces to be looked after by the residents that overlook them rather than having private back gardens. Though this adds significantly to the service costs for residents it can be more acceptable if the costs come under local control. It can also be a means of building a sense of community and breaking down class divides.

Images of places like Vathorst and Rieselfeld show that it is possible to create new places that reflect the needs of the 21st century, for example being climate-proofed as well as offering a better quality of life. Like other new housing schemes in Europe, these new eco-towns offer a much more advanced level of infrastructure—and it is provided in advance of the development, not after all the residents have moved in. Beyond Eco-towns2 makes the case for looking to Europe to learn how to overcome the barriers faced, rather than blindly stumbling along and no doubt repeating the same kinds of mistakes made the last time the UK tried to build housing in a rush.

The recent collapse of many global financial institutions is forcing a rethink not only about how savings and investment decisions are made but also about who should lead development. It may also result in commissioning infrastructure as a means of reviving the economy, rather as happened in the 1930s when arterial roads like the Great West Road were built around UK cities. Hopefully, this article will stimulate designers and engineers to dispense with the old rule books and look to see how they can collaborate at neighbourhood level to reduce development costs, raise values and encourage much more sustainable lifestyles.