No excuses for bad design

Wayne Hemingway, chair of Building for Life, explores the geographical spread of Standard award-winners, the criteria and the importance of planning.

I'm coming up to my fourth year as chair of Building for Life. I was still relatively new to the housing industry back in 2003 and I think it was my enthusiasm for change, my vocal attacks on the general state of the British mass housing industry, possibly my naïvety - and the willingness to tackle assumptions that naivety can bring - that led CABE and the Home Builders Federation to offer me the position.

I'm less naïve now. I understand the industry much more and I am aware of the many barriers that hamper its ability to deliver homes and places in which my peers and I would be happy to live. However, I also understand that the barriers are not insurmountable and that, while the quality of the schemes that Building for Life rewards is increasing, these schemes are beacons in a sea of mediocrity.

Using the Standard

It looks like exciting times ahead for the Building for Life Standard. In the past year, English Partnerships has started demanding evidence that any schemes to be delivered on its portfolio of land will achieve at least a Building for Life Silver Standard. With the number and quality of EP sites going out to design competition, this is a great step forward. The Housing Corporation has also embraced the Standard, using Building for Life in their impact assessments of grant-funded developments, and promoting Building for Life through its network of design champions throughout housing associations.

The first Building for Life Standard award was given to the striking Abode development in Harlow, Essex, in July 2003, and there have been some exceptionally good schemes winning awards in the past year. Countryside Properties' Accordia development in Cambridge offers high-quality, family-friendly housing right in the centre of the city. As one Building for Life judge pointed out, it's 'beautifully designed ... everything is so well thought-out and detailed'. In the latest round we've looked at our first housing market renewal scheme, Selwyn Street in Oldham. It's a great scheme that the judging panel felt 'breaks new ground' and 'sends a message to other pathfinders' - a worthy recipient of the Gold Standard.

Who's winning the awards?

The awards distribution amongst the major housebuilders makes telling reading. Persimmon and Barratt may control a massive share of the market, but Persimmon has only won one Building for Life award and Barratt none at all. Volume housebuilders can produce top-notch schemes - if the willingness and commitment to design excellence is there. Look at Countryside. They're just outside the top 10 housebuilders, completing 1,117 homes last year, but they've collected five Building for Life awards over the years.

The north-south divide

The geographical spread of Building for Life winners is also revealing. How come us northerners get such a bad deal?

Location of Building for Life award-winning schemes:

• London and South East: 16 Golds, 8 Silver
• South West: 2 Golds, 1 Silver
• Midlands and East of England: 2 Golds, 1 Silver
• Yorkshire and North West: 1 Gold, 9 Silver
• North East: 1 Gold, 1 Silver

Only four out of the 22 Gold Standard winners are outside the South - a shocking statistic. This regional divide should concern everyone who works in the industry.

On a brighter note, I'd like to congratulate the efforts of TADW Architects, a small pioneering practice based in Stockport. TADW was involved in two schemes we acknowledged in the latest round of awards, including Selwyn Street - the first development in the North West to be given a Gold Standard. Firms like this can lead the way.

Tackling the criteria

To be considered for a Building for Life Silver Standard, a scheme has to score in only 14 of the initiative's 20 criteria. These criteria are not high-faluting architectural concepts but rather demonstrate fairly simple, good old-fashioned human values and common sense. I know that highways engineers can stand in the way, but if I were to ask the residents of most streets to judge an environment on these criteria, they wouldn't need to go off and do a degree in planning or urban design! Surely human values and common sense are the least that the industry should strive for?

Most of the 20 Building for Life criteria can be answered by housebuilders increasing their design competence and transferring land value at an early stage to quality. Increasing design competence and an understanding of design, which is often simply understanding how to live well, is going to take organisational change. For a start, they could employ more women in decision-making positions - yet decisions on how our homes and surroundings are shaped are, more often than not, made only by men.

And before housebuilders cry foul, design doesn't have to cost more. In the hands of creative designers who want long-term relationships with clients, design can and should add value. There is, however, increasing evidence that a little extra spent on design at the outset can result in greater margins in future phases. Working with George Wimpey at the Staiths South Bank in Gateshead, we are certainly experiencing this. CABE has also recently completed some research that looked at the house prices at a range of schemes awarded the Building for Life Standard. It shows that schemes like Ingress Park in Kent, Putney Wharf in south London, and Accordia in Cambridge all enjoy a significant premium compared to similar sites in the area. Good design creates value.

The importance of planning

It's not just about housebuilders embracing design and common sense. The planning profession needs to understand its value and society needs to value planning as a profession. From my eldest daughter's experience (she is doing a degree in planning and urban design ... after getting a 'degree' in common sense from her mum and dad), courses are either undersubscribed, cancelled or full of students coming in from overseas. Planning in Britain is unfashionable. Young people with an interest in this area seem drawn towards architecture and design. From my experience, it is planners who have the greatest power in determining how the places we live in will feel.

While I am at it, I might as well have a go at architects. How many of you have disowned a housing development your practice has been involved in? Ever considered compromise, eating humble pie (once you get past the first bite it's not that bad)? Walking away from a scheme because the housebuilder is watering down the concept is not the way to serve the public. Allowing a 'jobbing' architect who has no 'ownership' of a project to dissipate the detail is to do the future residents and the environment a great disservice. All of this costs, but hopefully there will be some well-paid work to offset this philanthropy. If not, at least you can go to bed happy that you are contributing to what I consider has the most influential impact on quality of life: our homes and their surroundings.

No excuses

Earlier I mentioned 'barriers'. The biggest barrier is undoubtedly the combination of land values, house prices and wage ratios. Only real creative thinking, creative approaches to problem solving, and creative delivery teams can start to offset this barrier. There isn't really an excuse not to try our damnest to be creative. We owe it to ourselves, the public, to future generations, to the environment. That's what Building for Life is about: leaving a positive, uplifting, joyous place to live, play, work and learn in and, of course, without leaving an environmentally degrading footprint.

Wayne Hemingway is chair of Building for Life.