好色先生TV

Everyone deserves a roof over their head and a place to call home. Staying safe, warm and dry is one of the most basic of modern human requirements. But the bare minimum isn鈥檛, and shouldn鈥檛 be, enough in the future according to some of the industry鈥檚 leading design, housing and planning experts - no matter how tough the economic climate.

The experts in question are those who made up the panel for the second annual Alan Cherry debate last month made up of Lord Richard Rogers, Rt Honourable Nick Raynsford MP, David Lunts, Greater London Authority鈥檚 executive director housing and land, director of architects Feilden Clegg Bradley Keith Bradley and planning consultant David Lock.

This year鈥檚 debate, hosted by 好色先生TV Magazine and Countryside Properties in memory of the late Countryside founder Alan Cherry, focused on homes design and whether it is possible to satisfy demand for quantity without sacrificing quality.

Just two days before the debate, the latest Office of National Statistics (ONS) GDP figures were released, reporting a slip back into a double-dip recession and construction output reportedly contracting by 3%.

While the panellists clashed throughout the morning on a number of issues, there was one they all agreed on - that good housing design should be upheld and delivered, no matter what.

Everyone in this room will accept we are living in very tough times indeed. But the built environment is what we are. It represents us

As BBC newsreader George Alagiah took to the stage to kick off the debate as chair, it became quickly apparent that this was a subject close to his heart: 鈥淓veryone in this room will accept we are living in very tough times indeed. But the built environment is what we are. It represents us. It鈥檚 an important lesson to learn and to remember.鈥�
Keith Bradley continued, saying that good design is sometimes wrongly considered a luxury when it should be viewed as an essential: 鈥渄esign is not superficial,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t is not an add on. It鈥檚 about getting the basics right, it鈥檚 about promoting equality and it is about sustainability. We only have one planet. And if we continue to live the way we live now we will need three. And America will need five. So unless you happen to know where we can pick up a couple of planets, we need to change the way we live, design and build.鈥�

David Lunts agreed that hard times 鈥渟hould not be an excuse for cutting corners in design鈥� rather we need to find a way 鈥渢o build efficiently and leave how to change the public realm for as little money as possible.鈥�

British design should be about great homes, great neighbourhoods and great urban spaces

Eric Pickles said: 鈥淏ritish design should be about great homes, great neighbourhoods and great urban spaces. Over the last few years UK housebuilding and design has been littered with hundreds of standoffs between developers and local residents. We need communication to make sure this stops.鈥�

Lord Rogers added that sacrificing design was not an option, and we should be collectively ask why England, in his opinion, has 鈥渃onsistently produced the poorest design in housing in western Europe.鈥� He went on to surprise delegates by lending support to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), something he admits he has been 鈥渉orrified鈥� by in the past. 鈥淭he good news on this was that government accepted it had to be improved,鈥� he said. 鈥淒id you know that 35 criticisms were made of it and 30 have since been addressed, which I find very interesting.鈥�

Nick Raynsford鈥檚 main point was that good design need not be extravagant, something he believes is a common misconception and one that could stand in the way of design being considered a realistic goal. He pointed to the velodrome on the Olympic park as an excellent example of low cost, highly efficient and sustainable excellence. This was welcomed by fellow panellists and delegates alike, prompting a murmur of agreement throughout the room. He added: 鈥渢hat project is proof that you don鈥檛 need to spend squillions of pounds to create good design.

鈥淪imilarly with housing, it doesn鈥檛 need to be a case of dumbing down. Greenwich Millennium Village is an example of brilliant semi-rural design in London. I know because I live there.鈥�

David Lock had something to add on the logistics of the Greenwich scheme: 鈥淲hatever lovely life Nick is leading, I think that site should have been left to the wildlife rather than made into a place to love for a few highly subsidised individuals. It cost millions more to clean up the contaminated land on the site. It just wouldn鈥檛 be viable today. The real problem here is that current civil leadership is so poor and no one in town halls will take responsibility.鈥�

Lock added that the role of a designer should be simply 鈥渢o service place and people鈥� and that architects 鈥渓eft to their own devices lose the plot 鈥�.
Controversial words indeed. Especially with two architects on the panel. Bradley had plenty to say in response: 鈥淭here are good architects and bad architects, good planners and bad planners, good clients and bad clients. You can鈥檛 generalise.鈥�

Alagiah steered the debate to what the panel thought about standardisation as a tool to design in quantity, economically, without compromising quality. Bradley added it could be 鈥渁 good challenge and discipline for architects鈥�.

Rogers moved the debate on by adding that innovation needs to be a key part of successful homes design: 鈥渢here is very little innovation in housing design at the moment. There are a number of dwellings in London, for example, that look back from the Thames which I find amazing.鈥�
So what is the solution to all of these problems? Better civic leadership perhaps? Certainly Lock thinks so. But Bradley had other points to raise: 鈥渢here needs to be more access between people and government and designers and planners,鈥� said Bradley. 鈥淧eople should go and see things together. What works, what doesn鈥檛 work. And have a proper dialogue.鈥�

鈥淵ou have to really work at it,鈥� added Rogers: 鈥渂ut I would say that I think we have done rather well generally. Apart from housing which, as I said at the start of this debate, I think is all very poor in this country. And that鈥檚 what we really need to change.鈥�

Produced by