cities 2030: nicholas boys-smith slides

1

Create Streets

Making cities livable: is London making the same mistakes a

second time ?

Nicholas Boys SmithJune 2014

© Create Streets‘a wonderful project & piece of analysis’

Alain de Botton, Farrell Review of Architecture & Built Environment

‘a wonderful project & piece of analysis’Alain de Botton, Farrell Review of Architecture & Built Environment

‘What an excellent report’Sir Simon Jenkins

‘What an excellent report’Sir Simon Jenkins

‘a remarkable & ground-breaking piece of work’

Andrew Boff, Conservative Leader, GLA

‘a remarkable & ground-breaking piece of work’

Andrew Boff, Conservative Leader, GLA

‘I support Create Streets’Nick Boles MP, Minister for Planning

‘I support Create Streets’Nick Boles MP, Minister for Planning

‘I’m convinced….I’d like to create a street with you’

Thomas Heatherwick, designer of Routemaster, Olympic torch etc

‘I’m convinced….I’d like to create a street with you’

Thomas Heatherwick, designer of Routemaster, Olympic torch etc

‘I welcome that suggestion’Boris Johnson, Mayor of London

‘I welcome that suggestion’Boris Johnson, Mayor of London

2

Everything isn’t quite awesome Create Streets

3

Create Streets: a catalyst for change

Creates Streets is a social enterprise encouraging the creation of more urban homes in conventional, terraced streets rather than complex multi-storey buildings. We do this via research, lobbying for policy change and consulting to developers and landowners. We also intend to start acting as a developer to showcase our principles.

Create Streets

Research with impact

Real impact on government & London policy

In March 2014 Budget followed our suggestion and created a £150m fund to help finance estate regeneration

In April 2014 the Government commissioned Savills to investigate the potential of our proposals

In December 2013, the GLA funding prospectus for London’s housing investment programme followed our suggestion and relaxed standard 3.2.5.

Mayor of London’s 2020 Vision also echoed our point that “it is simply not the case that good quality high density housing must always involve tower blocks.”

4

Context: £150m for estate regeneration in budget Create Streets

“The government will establish a £150 million fund to kick start the regeneration of large housing estates through repayable loans, helping to boost housing supply. Bids will shortly be invited from private sector developers, working with local authorities on estates that might be able to benefit. Following the Autumn Statement, expressions of interest have already been made through the Greater London Authority relating to the Aylesbury Estate, Blackwall Reach and Grahame Park regeneration projects in London.” 2014 Budget

5

Context: the forthcoming Savills report Create Streets

…. That is why, in the Budget, the government set aside £150 million that could be invested to regenerate and increase the number of homes on the most deprived housing estates.

There are three good reasons for doing this in the capital.

First, we need more housing capacity in the inner boroughs. Although record numbers will live in the capital by 2021, the inner boroughs will still contain 1.7million fewer people than they did in 1939.

According to research by Savills, re-discovering just half of this former housing capacity would supply the whole of London’s projected housing needs for the next 17 years.

That means it’s a challenge worth taking on.

Second, we want to radically increase the quality of housing on these estates. Past experience tells us mere tinkering won’t work. We need to be more ambitious.

Completely re-building traditional streetscapes could provide more housing and commercial space using the same amount of land. These estates would resemble neighbourhoods such as Pimlico or Islington, with terraced streets of houses, apartments and commercial space. The result will be more homes, which residents enjoy living in.

Third, this radical approach could also create value in land in a way that is not possible with the incremental, building-by-building regeneration, rather than optimal whole-scale, regeneration that has been favoured in the past.

A greater potential for private investment, could, over 10 years, lead to several hundred thousand additional new homes in London.

We want to get on with it. So we are part-funding a study by Savills to consider the best way to get started, redeveloping areas while fully involving local communities in the design and planning process.

6

Context: why is government interested ? Create Streets

Scenario Level of dwellings that could be replaced

Additional homes due to increase in density if estates with 75 dwellings a hectare are redeveloped

100 units h/a

120 units h/a

140 units h/a

160 units h/a

A 260,000 86,580 156,000 223,600 293,800 B 360,000 119,880 216,000 309,600 406,800 C 460,000 153,180 276,000 395,600 519,800

• High level estimates

• Mid-point is 260,000

• At 42,000 a year that is six years supply –

• Existing Savills report suggests at top end of this range

7

1. Streets are a good idea

− Popular

− Good for you

2. Streets are practical

− Can be very high density

− Great long term returns

3. Current regeneration and planning model finds it hard to build sufficient conventional streets

4. We should

− End the regulatory bias

− Stop trying to make development pay for too much

− Empower local people FAR more

− Improve financial focus on long term

− Pilot a Social Impact Bond

Create StreetsContents

8

1a. Streets are more popular

89

0

2

75

80

77

67

1

Create Streets

2002 respondents wanting to live in

− A house

− A tower block

− A modern apartment

Source: IPSOS, ING, Stewart, Policy Exchange, Dunleavy (For full references, see Create Streets, 2013, chapter two)

Evidence from formal survey, 1967 – 2013, %

GLC applicants wanting house (‘67)

Residents wanting Robin Hood demolished (2007)

Guardian online supporting Create Streets (2013)

80

6

3

Respondents not wanting tower blocks built near them (2001)

Respondents wanting to live in high rise apartment (2005)

2013 respondents wanting to live in

− A house − A small apartment

(<10 units)− A large apartment

(>10 units)

‘very substantial majorities of residents in high flats would prefer to live in houses according to all studies

asking about housing preferences’Patrick Dunleavy (1981)

‘very substantial majorities of residents in high flats would prefer to live in houses according to all studies

asking about housing preferences’Patrick Dunleavy (1981)

One of the lowest in

Europe but most <6%

One of the lowest in

Europe but most <6%

Street-based option

9

Create Streets1a. Some of reasons given

Reasons given in 2012 YouGov focus group from majority not wanting to live in skyscraper

“The feeling of having other people living above, below and at the sides would be one I hate.

“I'd miss the freedom …I would be miserable and depressed”

“The sense of being enclosed would be too overwhelming for me. Possible noise and distraction would also be a problem”

“I like living in an old style house, skyscrapers make you feel like you’re living on top of other people everyone is too close together.”

“Safety. And I think I would feel like a sardine”

“There is also the danger of criminals and thugs lurking in corridors and lifts”

“Too impersonal and large. They're not a home really, they're more for offices etc. Also they're too high, I wouldn't want to live that far off the ground - also there'd [be] no gardens”

“not really child friendly”

“They are dreadful living environments. Try going out for a bit of fresh air or getting a bit of peace away from the world”

10

1a. Streets are more socially just Create Streets

Source: Create Streets, ONS

2001 UK Census

21% of all British families with children live in social tenancies

But 70% of families living on or above the second floor are social tenants

75% of families living on or above the third floor are social tenants

And 79% of families living on or above fifth floor are social tenants

If you are a child in social housing you are sixteen times more likely than a child in owner-occupied or private-rented to live on or above fifth floor

In inner London, 31% of all children in social housing live on or above second floor

For other children, figure is 2.3%

Not an issue of design but of social justice

Not an issue of design but of social justice

11

1b. Streets are good for you . . . Create Streets

Source: Create Streets

Create Streets: evidence from controlled studies, 1962 - 2007 Favouring streets

“People’s dislike of living in big or tall buildings is deeply rational. The vast majority of controlled studies show that the residents of large multi-storey blocks suffer from more strain and mental health difficulties than those in low-rise buildings, even when socio-economic status is identical.” Create Streets, 2013

40

2

40 studies show negative correlation

2 studies do not

Summary of studies examining height or size & some aspect of wellbeing or contentment

Mental health (UK, 1967)Military families randomly assigned: houses vs. flats

Children Anti-social behaviour (UK, 1981)

300

157

163

Rates of neurosis

Rate of going to doctor

Rate of specialist referral

UK study (1977): children in high rise suffered more behavioural problems (control on gender & economic status)

US study (1982): boys in 14 vs 3 storeys had more hyperactivity & hostility (not girls)

Japanese study: dressing, helping, lavatory usage all slower to develop in high-rise children

High rise Houses Litter 86% 20% Faeces 7.5% 0% Urine 44% 0.1% Graffiti 76% 1.2% Vandalism39% 1.9%

12

1b. People are happier in low-rise or in houses Create Streets

In 7 controlled surveys . .

British flat dwellers complained less more about “privacy, isolation, loneliness and noise”

Of US students randomly assigned between low-rise & high-rise, those in low-rise happiest

In a nationwide Canadian survey, those in houses most satisfied, those in high-rise least satisfied

In a New York comparison of randomly assigned social tenants, low-rise and house residents happier than high-rise

In a comparison of US medium income, house residents & low-rise happier than high-rise residents

In another US study once education, age, income controlled for, the taller the building the lower the residents satisfaction

In a 2009 Indian study of 512 randomly selected families, high-rise buildings less popular

Source: Gifford, Chatterjee

Evidence from controlled studies, 1960s - 2009

13

1b. Streets are better for children & community, bad for criminalsCreate Streets

Source: Gittus, Gifford, Newman, Create Streets

Create Streets: evidence from controlled studies, 1976 - 2007 Favouring streets

Above 6th floor

Below 6th floor

In house

Mothers on Cruddas Park Estate reporting issues with ‘play, health or personalities of kids’

In two studies of US students in high, medium, low-rise halls, stamped addressed envelopes returned & donations made inverse ratio to height

Israeli study: less ‘social support’ & ‘involvement’ Third study: less ‘community’ & ‘membership’1975 comparison of crime in high vs. low rise estates

62

53

2

14

28

604

In flats

Outside flats

Semi-private space

1. Makes bringing up children harder

2. Inhuman scale discourages behaving well to your neighbours

3. Increases the ease of crime

14


− Popular

− Good for you





4. We should







15

2a. Streets are cheaper to build & maintain Create Streets

Source: Create Streets, Dunleavy, CBRE, Kunz, Segal, Jones

Building conventional streets is cheaper

British high-rise revolution in 1960s was only possibly because of Government subsidy. 1956 Housing Subsidy Act paid builders 3.4 times as much to build a flat above fifteenth floor as a house

One academic calculated that between 1960 & 1973 an additional 78,000 homes could have been built for same money

Ten-storey building is ~10% more expensive per square metre

Fifty-storey building is ~60% more expensive per square metre

Iconic value premium in London at present ~ 36%

Drivers of extra build cost include (a) build is logistically harder (b) buildings have to be higher spex (c) limited supply of necessary experts so higher cost (d) more & more complex service infrastructure (e) more wasted build due to lower efficiency ratio (f) higher finance costs

Efficiency ratio decreases from 100% (house) to 85% (5 storeys) to 70-75% (50 storeys)

Maintaining conventional streets is cheaper

1964: new high rise already costing ~ 5% more to maintain

By 1970, that had risen to ~100% more

1980 study costed difference at between 50-100% depending on circumstances

2012 study by Cambridge Centre for Housing found that service charges for flats were higher and rising faster. From 2005-08, percentage of flats with service charge over £100 a week, rose from 40% to 58%

Few large off street estates that do ‘work’ (e.g. Barbican) have very high service charges

Due to higher physical & social costs

− more communal areas

− Harder to service (janitor or DIY vs. engineer on a crane)

− Security costs (CCTV, barriers, concierge)

16

2a. Streets provide better long term returns

36

502

465

300

157

163

41

297

255

Create Streets

Source: Halifax UK Prince Index

Create Streets analysis of Halifax price index, London: 1983- 2013

Price in 1983

Price in 2013

Increase in price

Pre 1919, terraced housePrice, £’000

Pre 1919, flat or maisonettePrice, £’000

Post 1960, terraced house Price, £’000

Post 1960, flat or maisonettePrice, £’000

30

254

225

30

381

350

Price in 1983

Price in 2013

Increase in price

Traditional street

Price in 1983

Price in 2013

Increase in price

Price in 1983

Price in 2013

Increase in price

Same pattern is replicated in UK data, in other regions & in comparison with 1946-1960 housing In 30 years market shows consistent & ubiquitous preference for traditional buildings in conventional settings This has been the most rational ‘product’ for long term landowner / investor to hold Lots of other data sources (esp. Savills) show the same in the long term

+ 1284%+ 1284% + 1181%+ 1181%

+ 756%+ 756%+ 616%+ 616%

17

2a. Best returns over last 30 years Create Streets

18

2a. Worst returns over last 30 years Create Streets

19

2a. Streets provide better long term returns Create Streets

Source: Savills, Prince’s Foundation

Savills research for Prince’s Foundation, 2007

Comparison of three sites

− Fairford Leys, Aylesbury

− Poundbury, Dorset− Crown Street, Glasgow “Quietly sensational

results” Value per hectare of the

‘sustainably’ developed neighbourhood to a high density was 32 per cent higher than that of more typical lower density developments

Value per hectare even 10 per cent higher than the nearby historic town centres

Nor was this just due to greater density - actual price per square foot was greater

Market value per hectare, £m % uplift of new high density from

‘Sustainable urbanism’

‘Standard urbanism’

‘Old urbanism’


‘Old urbanism’

Buckinghamshire 9.64 6.63 6.6 45 % 46 %

Dorset 7.07 5.97 7.51 18 % -6 %

Scotland 8.03 6.19 7.96 30 % 1 %

Average 8.25 6.26 7.36 32 % 12 %

27 %9 %207241263Average

7 %2 %164171175Scotland

44 %17 %222272319Dorset

26 %6 %235279296Buckinghamshire

‘Old urbanism’


‘Old urbanism’



% uplift of new high density from

Price per square foot, £

27 %9 %207241263Average

7 %2 %164171175Scotland

44 %17 %222272319Dorset

26 %6 %235279296Buckinghamshire

‘Old urbanism’


‘Old urbanism’



% uplift of new high density from

Price per square foot, £

20

2a. Well-connected streets highest value of all Create Streets

Source: Space Syntax, Create Streets

Space Syntax research

Map of spatial accessibility of central LondonHigh spatial accessibility

Low spatial accessibility

A correlation between spatial accessibility and rateable value per square metre finds a correlation of 88 per cent

In central London 80 per cent of shops are located in the 20 per cent most spatially accessible streets

People create shops where they know people will come. This creates value. The most accessible streets are the most expensive. City-dwellers want to live near the shops if they possibly can.

Anyone who has looked for a house knows the nearer shops and transport you are, the higher the price that you will pay

21

2b. High density terraced streets could solve housing crisisCreate Streets


Comparisons made by 1999 Urban Task Force, CABE in 2005, London School of Economics, RIBA, Lord Rogers, Cambridge University Centre for Housing, MJP housing all quite clear that conventional terraced housing is very high density – normally as high or higher than post-war estate-based tower block or slab block

Notting Hill, Lancaster Gate, Earl’s Court are among most densely populated parts of UK

− Two storey terraced houses ~ 75-80 units/ hectare− Pimlico or Earl’s Court typology with 5-6 storeys

and lots of flats ~ 175 units / hectare

Around 360,000 multi-storey homes built in London from 1950s to 1970s

Mid point estimate is that replacing these with dense terraced housing would create additional 260,000 homes

Many recent regenerations unpopular because centrally-imposed with ‘fake’ consultation

Would have to be properly bottom up / neighbourhood plan / Enquiry by design etc

Would need to change rules so that you could easily build the type of housing most people want

Three ways of achieving density of 75 units / hectare

Andrew Wright Associates, cited by 1999 Urban Task Force

Create Streets summary of evidence

22


− Popular

− Good for you





4. We should







23

3. Regulation undercuts what people want Create Streets


Barriers to meeting consumer demand in London Plan & Housing Design Guide

Ban on recycling open space between buildings into private gardens makes it very hard to redevelop estates into streets

Requiring lifts, wheelchair lifts and stair-lifts in all cases makes it more expensive to build conventional vertical flats

‘Best-value’ test is misinterpreted to favour higher initial land value over the type of long-term (but ultimately higher) investment returns typically associated with street-based developments. This forces developers’ to favour smaller unit, repetitive, high-rise blocks built quickly for quick payback

Rules against staircases being too narrow or too steep make it harder to build conventional tall but thin London terraced houses

Requirement that ten percent of homes be fully wheelchair accessible and for all homes to be built to ‘Lifetime Home’ standards biases the system in favour of large, partially off-road, blocks

Super-high density targets make achieving planning agreement to build normal terraced houses & low-rise flats hard in some areas

On top of this are more rules ranging from a bias against on-street parking to heavy requirements for bathrooms that make building conventional high-density terraced streets much harder.

So great is demand and so limited supply that these houses sell for millions. They fail the London Housing Design Guide

Nice wide new houses . . . . . but price is new tower blocks. Spot the difference between

1970s & 2013 ?

24

3. Examples of impact of rules Create Streets


‘One very efficient way of delivering family housing at a certain density is with narrow-frontage terraced houses, but actually Lifetime Homes is very obstructive to making that work particularly well. Once you get to three bedrooms, you need a very large bathroom on the entry level and that actually obstructs the width of the plan; which means you have to go into a very narrow kitchen and through that into a living space at the back. . . . you are prioritising the lifetime use of the home and disabled access over its efficiency and use for a family; a family without disabled kids and things like that, admittedly. We are applying that across every new-build single home in London.’

Richard Lavington (Maccreanor Lavington Architects). Evidence to GLA Planning Committee, 11 March 2014

The house on left fails London rules on at least 13 separate points. The one on right fails 3.1.3 & probably many more

This window fails Priority 1 Clause 4.4.6

Neither of these streets could be built today under current rules. Rules they fail include 3.1.3, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 4.3.2 and certainly many others

25

3. What we’re doing right now in London

Site Current max height

Local typical height

New height Uplift

Storeys % Lillie Road 3 12 300 Dairy Crest site

6 32 433

Seagrave Road

1 4 16 1500

Aylesbury 13 3-4 20 54 Heygate 11 5 16 45 Wooddene 7 3 9 29 Packington1 8 4 8 33 Whitechapel Road

2 8 18 800

Woodberry Park

8 2/3/4 31 288

Colville 12 5 20 67 Haggerston 6 4 10 67 Kings Crescent

6 3 12 100

Heathside 7 3 17 143 Chester Road 4 4 6 50 Agar Grove 18 5 20 11 Aberfeldy 9 4 10 11 St Andrews, Bromley

7 5 27 286

New Union Wharf

6 NA 14 133

Robin Hood Gardens

10 NA 40 300

1 Phase 2

Create Streets

Source: Create Streets research

Site Units Density (units/hectare)1 Before After % uplift Before After % uplift Lillie Road 24 65 171 119 324 171 Earls Court 760 6775 791 24 210 791 Aylesbury 2,759 4200 52 115 185 56 Heygate 1107 2462 122 114 254 122 Wooddene 320 333 4 168 174 4 Packington2 538 695 56 839 150 56 Kidbrooke 1906 4800 152 64 160 152 Woodberry Park

1981 5561 181 76 214 181

Colville 438 900 105 88 180 105 Haggerston 480 761 59 113 179 59 Kings Crescent

270 760 181 65 183 181

Heathside 565 1201 113 93 198 113 Chester Road

25 53 112 104 221 112

Agar Grove 249 493 98 91 179 98 Aberfeldy 297 1176 296 45 178 296 New Union Wharf

189 399 111 111 235 111

Robin Hood Gardens

252 1575 525 140

250 525

St John’s Clapham Junction

353 528 50 156 233 50

1 Habitable rooms per hectare is a ‘better’ measure however more comparable data is available for units. 2 Phase 2

Create Streets summary of current regenerations, density, units & height

Average increase of 170% in density

Average increase in height is around 227 %

Only one redevelopment (the Packington in Islington) having a final maximum height of fewer than 10 storeys

NLA has found 236 towers of at least 20 storeys being built or with planning permission

26

3. St John’s Hill, Clapham: medium to high-rise Create Streets

From 1930s medium rise blocks round open space To modern high-rise blocks round open space

27

We should replace places like Aylesbury Estate with places like Pimlico – but building & housing codes make it very hard Create StreetsAylesbury Estate,Southwark 2,759 units Built 1963-1977 All council-owned flats in

large slab blocks apart

A few very large buildings. Correlated

with low sense of community & high

crime

A few very large buildings. Correlated

with low sense of community & high

crime

And lots of ‘wasted’ space – leading to much lower

densities than (more popular) surrounding

streets

And lots of ‘wasted’ space – leading to much lower

densities than (more popular) surrounding

streets

from 50 houses and 300 right-to-buy leasehold Density 115 dwellings /hectare (346 rooms / hectare) Poor scores on nearly all wealth, health, welfare &

attainment metrics

Pimlico, Westminster

Replace with street typology of Pimlico less than 2 miles away Mixture of flats in terraced streets & private houses Est. density of 173 units/hectare 50% more dwellings (2,759 to 4,140) 100% of social homes replaced Still space for modest back gardens & gated communal square

gardens (and Burgess Park is to immediate south) Near city-centre & excellent transport links to both city and West

End However this is currently difficult due to− London Housing Design Guide & rules on open space replacement− London density targets− Lower short term income compared to uber-high density scheme

Dense flatted 6 storey buildings. Mixture of social,

market rent & owner-occupied

Dense flatted 6 storey buildings. Mixture of social,

market rent & owner-occupied

Flats & houses

Flats & houses

Traditional streets. No space wasted. Correlated with

resident satisfaction & long term value growth

Traditional streets. No space wasted. Correlated with

resident satisfaction & long term value growth

28

What is being planned: ‘not better enough’ Create Streets

Aylesbury Estate 2010 Area Action Plan Similar basic format as status quo Main change is veneer of exterior bricks A lot of very large blocks & high rise with

some flat very low density houses behind*

Very generous green space but mainly public not private or communal

Not really putting streets back – most lined with tall buildings

‘Green fingers’ prioritised over gardens Density of 177 units/hectare leading to

4,259 units (increase of 54%) Density higher than ‘Pimlico’ but high rise

required by lost space

Tower blocks & slab blocks – again. Correlated

with low sense of community & resident

dislike

Tower blocks & slab blocks – again. Correlated

with low sense of community & resident

dislike

Repeating key design errors of 1960s &

70s – correlated with crime,

resident dislike & empty streets

Repeating key design errors of 1960s &

70s – correlated with crime,

resident dislike & empty streets

Lots of wasted space – again. Combined with high PTAL targets this obliges slab & tower blocks

Lots of wasted space – again. Combined with high PTAL targets this obliges slab & tower blocks

* Due to Lifetime Homes standards in London Design Guide which mandates flat, ‘wide’ houses - increasing need for high rise

29


− Popular

− Good for you





4. We should







30

Simplified graphic of cashflows & tests

A revolving fund for estate regeneration Create Streets

£•m loan for estate regeneration 30 Year Term (?) From Government Construction finance element with

roll up for first (5?) years

Match funded up to 100% From Third Sector funder Identical terms Pari passu (i.e. identical risk

exposure as HMT)

Funds high proportion of regeneration without need

for quick financial return

Years 1-5 Development finance No payment Payments rolled-up

Years 6-30 Paying down facility Payments from

− Affordable Rents− Private Sector Rents− Sales receipts (rising with growing

sense of place)− Right to buy receipts*

Net of management costs

* If necessary. Hope is that this income stream would not be necessary. Affordable housing should be replaced given London housing crisis

Ongoing management of rented component & release of some to

private sale

Should require . . .

• Neighbourhood plan• More than £7,000• Explicit ‘right to override’

31

Pilot a social impact bond to hardwire good outcomes. . . Create Streets

32

. . . because the long term economics could workCreate Streets

Health• Residents of lower-rise, more conventional streets are typically happier and happier with where they

live• Residents of lower-rise, more conventional streets typically suffer from lower levels of stress and

mental health issues• Levels of suicide would appear to be lower in lower-rise more conventional streetsFamily• Family relationships appear to be better, marital discord lower and mothers mentally healthier in

lower-rise, more conventional streets• Children have fewer behavioural problems in lower-rise more conventional streets• Children appear to do better at school in lower-rise more conventional streetsCrime• Crime is typically lower in lower-rise more conventional streets with most of the difference being

explained by higher levels of crime in semi-private, semi-public spaces• Anti-social behaviour (litter, graffiti, vandalism etc) are typically lower in lower-rise more conventional

streetsCommunity• Residents of lower-rise more conventional streets appear to know and interact with a high proportion

of their neighbours and report a greater sense of community• Residents of lower-rise more conventional streets appear to behave more sociably and well to their

fellow residentsEconomy• Well-connected, more walkable streets benefit from higher housing and commercial values. In other

words, shops and businesses tend to be more profitable in such areas – with an implication (but not, as yet, a proven correlation of greater job-creation)[1]

33

. . . because the long term economics could workCreate Streets

Item Cost or volume Adult population of an estate (indicative) 4,250 Child population 1,062 (London average, 24.5%) JSA cost (per person, per year) £3,744 (standard single >25 rate) Lone Parent JSA (per person, per year) £3,744 Improved tax & NI take (per person per year)

£1,5001

Improved business rate £2,000 Cost to state of recorded crime in London per person per year

£97

NPV to state of child going to university2 £64,000 Improvements in social outcome modelled on lower-rise more conventional streets

1% (benefits & jobs) 2% (education) 5% (crime)

Annual benefit saved (JSA) £79,600 Annual benefit saved (Lone Parent) £79,600 Annual crime reduction £25,800 Annual income & NI tax take £31,900 Annual business rates £120,000 Net Present value of education improvements

£1,370,000

Net Present value of all other improvements

£11,270,000

Total £12,640,000

1 Assumes additional £4,500 of taxable income per year 2 This is based on US research which has calculated a present value of a university degree at $280,00. Converting to sterling and assuming that 33% of this is taken in taxes equates to £64,000. Clearly this does not take account of increased productivity in the economy or other more marginal improvements in education outcome (better GCSEs or A levels for example or even just a better experience at school). http://www.aei.org/article/education/higher-education/how-much-is-that-bachelors-degree-really-worth/ Accessed February 2014.

• Could justify £12.6m on ‘improved design’ for estate of 4,250 adults

34

Appendix: StreetScore Create Streets

Source: Create Streets Research

1. Connectivity

2. Space

3. Height

5. Homes

6. Design

4. Size

7. Density

High connectivity to the rest of the city is correlated with high valuations and greater value

appreciation

High connectivity to the rest of the city is correlated with high valuations and greater value

appreciation

Lots of semi-public semi-private space is correlated with higher crime, greater

difficulties bringing up children & less good social

outcomes

Lots of semi-public semi-private space is correlated with higher crime, greater

difficulties bringing up children & less good social

outcomes

High buildings correlated with

low resident satisfaction,

weaker sense of neighbourhood,

less sociable behaviour & problems for

families

High buildings correlated with

low resident satisfaction,

weaker sense of neighbourhood,

less sociable behaviour & problems for

families

More conventionally designed buildings are more popular with a much higher

proportion of population & correlated with higher value appreciation

More conventionally designed buildings are more popular with a much higher

proportion of population & correlated with higher value appreciation

High density terraced streets maximise long term value in urban

developments & reduce crime

High density terraced streets maximise long term value in urban

developments & reduce crime

Houses & private gardens are correlated with better social

outcomes – above all for families

Houses & private gardens are correlated with better social

outcomes – above all for families

Large units are correlated with higher running costs, low resident satisfaction & less good social outcomes

Large units are correlated with higher running costs, low resident satisfaction & less good social outcomes

35

1. Connectivity

2. Space

3. Height

4. Size

5. Homes

6. Design

7. Density

Normally good


Appendix: Detailed drivers – normally good . . . Create Streets

• Few turns to shops & transport• Multiple connections to city• Easy to walk in, into & from

• Minimal internal & external semi-private space

• Fewer than 6-8 storeys for nearly all residential buildings• No children in high rise

• Fewer than ~10 units in apartment blocks• No very large buildings nearby

• Presence of private gardens (or secure, overlooked communal)• Minimal children in flats• Homes in conventional streets• As many houses as possible vs. flats

• Conventional design of buildings• Absence of external concrete or too much aggressively novel design

• High (but not uber-high) density streets of houses & flats • Terraced buildings• Inwardly-secure conventional urban blocks

All of these factors are correlated in

nearly all research with (a) resident

satisfaction, (b) good social outcomes or (c) good long term value

appreciation. (Correlations take account of socio-economic status)


nearly all research with (a) resident

satisfaction, (b) good social outcomes or (c) good long term value


36

1. Connectivity

2. Space

3. Height

4. Size

5. Homes

6. Design

7. Density

Normally bad


Appendix: Detailed drivers – normally bad . . . Create Streets

• Multiple turns to shops & transport• Few connections to city• Hard to walk in, into & from

• High levels of internal & external semi-private space

• Mainly greater than 6-8 storeys for residential buildings• School-age children in high rise

• Greater than ~10 units in apartment blocks• Very large buildings nearby

• No private gardens• Many children in flats• Homes not in conventional streets• Number of possible houses not maximised

• Novel non-conventional design of buildings• External concrete

• Very high density or very low density• ‘Lumpy’ or semi-detached urban form• Non-conventional & non-secure urban blocks


nearly all research with (a) low resident satisfaction, (b) poor

social outcomes or (c) lower long term value



nearly all research with (a) low resident satisfaction, (b) poor

social outcomes or (c) lower long term value


37

Appendix: helping decision-makers Create Streets


This tool assess individual developments, streets or even houses on likely resident satisfaction, social outcomes and long term value appreciation & economic returns

During the first part of 2014 we will be working this tool up at cost with firms who feel able to donate to our charitable research programme

The scoring mechanism is based 100% on peer-reviewed studies or statistically significant correlations

As we conduct further research in 2014 we will be further refining this tool and will make any improved scorings available to existing clients

This economic model is different from models usually run by surveyors or investors in that it focus on lifetime costings & valuations

It will be of particular interest to long term landowners or investors and public bodies

We are also starting to work up a calculator of likely increased cost to the state of non-street based multi-storey & high rise developments

The key drivers of extra cost are (a) higher crime (b) poorer physical & mental health (c) greater family break down & (d) lower levels of employment & economic activity

1. StreetScore evaluation tool

2. Create Streets Total long term returns model

3. Create Streets Indicative Cost to State Calculator (underway)

To ensure the StreetScore can practically help landowners, councils, RSLs and developers we have developed two tools (and are developing a third)

38

StreetScore evaluation tool – methodology Create Streets


Scoring system re-based to 100

>80% very high correlation with resident satisfaction, good social outcomes & long term value

>66% high correlation

>50% moderate correlation

<50% low correlation

<33% very low correlation

Indicative scoring & weightings

Drivers based 100% on peer-reviewed studies or statistically robust correlations

However weightings are more subjective & remain under review

Heading Specifc Driver Scoring mechanism Key sources1 Connectivity 1a Number of street turns to nearest shops Very high (>15, 0) High (>10, 1), Medium High (>7,2), Medium

Low (>5,3) Low (>2, 4), Very Low <2,5). All based on averagesSpace Syntax, Savills

1b Number of street turns to nearest train or tube station Very high (>15, 0) High (>10, 1), Medium High (>7,2), MediumLow (>5,3) Low (>2, 4), Very Low <2,5). All based on averages

Space Syntax, Savills

1b Number of street turns to nearest bus stop Very high (>15, 0) High (>10, 1), Medium High (>7,2), MediumLow (>5,3) Low (>2, 4), Very Low <2,5). All based on averages


1d Distance to nearest shops Very high (>1mile, 0) High (>2/3 mile, 1), Medium High (>1/2mile,2), Medium Low (>1/4 mile,3) Low (<1/4 mile, 4), Very Low<100 metres,5). All based on averages

Sale price analysis

1e Distance to nearest train or train station Very high (>1mile, 0) High (>2/3 mile, 1), Medium High (>1/2mile,2), Medium Low (>1/4 mile,3) Low (<1/4 mile, 4), Very Low<100 metres,5). All based on averages

Sale price analysis

1f Distance to nearest bus stop Very high (>1mile, 0) High (>2/3 mile, 1), Medium High (>1/2mile,2), Medium Low (>1/4 mile,3) Low (<1/4 mile, 4), Very Low<100 metres,5). All based on averages

Sale price analysis

1g Number of full streets crossing street (or average street in area) Very high (>5,5), High (>4,4), Medium High (>3,3), Medium Low(>2,2), Low (>1,1), Very Low (<1,0)


1h Easily walkable streets Nelessen, Brookings

2 Space 2a Proportion of internal semi-private space used for access No semi-private space (10), >10% flats accessed off internalsemi-private space (9), >20% flats accessed off internal semi-private space (8), >30% flats accessed off internal semi-privatespace (7), . >70% flats accessed off internal semi-private space(3), >80% flats accessed off internal semi-private space (2),>90% flats accessed off internal semi-private space (1), 100%flats accessed off internal semi-private space (0)

Newman, Coleman, Wilson

2b Nature of internal semi-private space No semi-private access of all < 5 doors (5), > 80% fewer than 5doors (4), >60% fewer than 5 doors (3), >40% fewer than 5 doors(2), >20% fewer than 5 doors (1), <20% fewer than 5 doors (0)

Newman, Coleman, Wilson, RIBA

2c Amount of external semi-private space within building None (5), none for critical access (4), <20% of flats accessed (3),<30% of flats accessed (2), <50% of flats accessed (1), >50% offlats accessed (0)

Newman, Coleman, Wilson, RIBA

2d Amount of unstructured public open space surrounding frontdoors

None (10), < 10% front doors (9), <20% front doors (8)….<70%front doors (3), <80% front doors (2), <90% front doors (1), > 90%front doors (0)

Newman, Coleman, Wilson

3 Height 3a Maximum number of storeys in a single block 3-6 storeys (10), 6-8 storeys (5), 9 storeys (2) < 3 storeys or > 10storeys (0)

Gittus, Jephcott, Gifford, Chatterjee, Power, ONS, Dasgupta, Marzul, Richmann, Saegart

3b Average number of storeys in street 3-6 storeys (10), 6-8 storeys (5), 9 storeys (2) < 3 storeys or > 10storeys (0)

Gifford, Chatterjee, Power, Nelessen, ONS, Dasgupta, Marzul

3c Ratio to suurounding areas 1:1 (20), < 1 (10), <1.5:1 (10), <2:1 (5), >2:1 (0) Gifford, Chatterjee, Power, Nelessen, ONS, Dasgupta, Marzul

3d No children with starting height above second floor None (15), < 10% (13), < 20% (11), ….<90% (2), > 90% (0)

4 Size 4a Number of units in building < 3( 20), < 5 (15), <10 (10), < 15 (5), > 15 (0) MORI, ONS, Gifford4b Maximum number of units in building in street < 3( 10), < 5 (7), <10 (5), < 15 (3), > 15 (0) MORI, ONS, Gifford4c Average number of units in builing in street < 3( 10), < 5 (7), <10 (5), < 15 (3), > 15 (0) MORI, ONS, Gifford

5 Homes 5a Presence of private outdoor space 100% (10), <90% (9), <80% (8)….<10% (1), >10% (0) MORI, RIBA5b Families with children < 18 in flats ? All (20), >90% (18), >80% (16), >70% (14)….., >20% (4), >0%

(2), 0% (0)Gittus, Coleman, Gifford, Fanning, Gittus, Jephcott, Richman, Saegart

5c Houses on streets All (20), >90% (18), >80% (16), >70% (14)….., >20% (4), >0%(2), 0% (0)

MORI, Mass Observation, Halifax, Power, Fanning

6 Design 6a Presence of convetional vernacualar style ? Judgement based. Totally (10). Not at all (0) YouGov, Adam Architects, Halifax, Savills6b Absence of concrete 'brutliast' style ? Judgement based. No concrete brutalist (10). 100% concrete

brutaslit (0)MORI

6c Absence of contemporary post-modern style ? Judgement based. No contemporary post-modern (10). 100%contemporary post-modern (0)

BBC, Channel 4

7 Density 7a Density (Rooms/hectare) Between 90 & 150 units / hectare (15). < 200 (10) <230 (50) > 230 (0) >70 (10) > 60 (5) < 60 (0)

Savills

7b Nature of streets Judgement. Proper urban streets (5) No Streets (0) Space Syntax, Savills7c Nature of blocks Judgement. Blocks as part of street (5) Blocks entirley off the

street (0)Space Syntax, Savills

7d Density compared to local average 1:1 (10), < 1 (5), <1.5:1 (5), <2:1 (2), >2:1 (0)

39

Create Streets

Source: Create Streets Research * Please note this is a provisional score based on imperfect data

Mix of flats in terraced streets & houses Dense flatted six storey buildings Traditional streets. No space wasted Est. density of 173 units/hectare* Create Streets score of 75%* This indicates very high correlation with

resident satisfaction, good social outcomes & high value appreciation

Main areas of low scores are high proportion of flats, lack of private gardens and presence of children in flats

Streetscore – in flight examples

Pimlico, Westminster

Aylesbury Estate, Southwark

All flats in very large slab blocks apart from 50 houses

Density 115 dwellings per hectare (346 rooms per hectare)

Despite £56.2m spent on improvements (~£21,000 per flat), site still to be demolished

Poor scores on nearly all wealth, health, welfare & attainment metrics

Create Streets score of 19%* This indicates very low correlation with

resident satisfaction, good social outcomes & high value appreciation

cities 2030: nicholas boys-smith slides

News & Politics