The Concept of

housing in
New Urbanism

Report: Case Studies

Course : Arch. Design

Course Tutor:
Arch. Tariq Khalidi
Arch. Moiz Siddiqui

Submitted by;

Faraz Nadeem Butt

Sana Amjad Lateef

Tayyaba Ayyub

Zeeshan Younus

B-Arch, 7th Semester, 4th Year

11/10/2010
 Case Study : 2
A Sustainable Urban Block
Homes for Change, Manchester
Model for a Sustainable Urban Block

Homes for Change, Manchester

KEY FACTS

Location -Hulme, Manchester

Completion date -Phase 1 1996

Phase 2 1999
Developer -The Guinness Trust
Homes for Change
Architect -Mills Beaumont Leavey Channon
Covered Area 4,900m2

Division 75 flats in 5,637m2 of housing with 312

bedrooms (78% of the development) and
1,571m2 workspace (22% of the development)
Set around communal courtyard gardens.

Number of dwellings - Phase 1 51

Dwelling mix -1-bedroom flats 3
2-bedroom flats 11
2-bedroom maisonettes 24
3-bedroom maisonettes 6
4-bedroom maisonettes 7
Other provisions -Three shops and a café
Offices studios and workshops
Recording studio
Theatre and gallery
Meeting room
Previous use of site -Brewery
Density -80 dwellings per hectare
190 persons per hectare
Forms of tenure -Rented to co-op members
Key targets/issues -To create a mixed-use building
as a model for a sustainable urban block
Reduced carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy

Green features -Orientated to maximise solar gain

Recycled concrete ballast
Concrete blocks 80 per cent recycled
Super-insulation
Sustainable and non-toxic materials
Green roofs/‘sky gardens

Transport issues -24 on-street parking spaces

16 spaces in secure courtyard
Located on bus route

THE SCHEME

The project was initiated by the Homes for Change Housing Co-operative which had been
formed in Hulme several years earlier. Many co-operative (co-op) members had established
work in the area and a sister co-op Work for Change was set up. Together, they planned a
community-owned mixed-use building and this proposal was included in the Hulme master plan.
The scheme was developed by the Guinness Trust but with co-op members involved in all
decision-making. Working with architects MBLC, a complex participation process was
embarked upon. Attention was given to the selection of materials, components and colour
schemes.
Plans:

SitePlan
Plan
Design Considerations and Analysis

Positive Points:

Connectivity

 The completed scheme is built around a

secure central courtyard containing
communal gardens and limited parking
mainly for business use. The entire
scheme is connected to this center.

Mixed Usage
 The offices, shops, workshops and communal
facilities are concentrated on the ground and
first floor of this frontage and on the north side
of the site.

Views
 On the east side of the site there is housing on the
ground and first floor where it enjoys a westerly aspect
and views over the communal garden.
The upper levels contain flats and marionettes.

Visual order
 The west wing is largely restricted to four storeys.
This built form optimizes the orientation of the dwellings
and maximizes the benefits of solar gain.

Entrances
 The upper levels are
reached from a single main
enterance though a deck
 Green Architecture
 Open access galleries run
around the building at
second and fourth floor
levels. The galleries include
high-level garden spaces

Human Scale
 A secure interior space is enclosed by a perimeter,
which has a scale sufficient to create well-proportioned
streets and other urban spaces.

Recreation

 Facilities such as the

studios and theatre would
probably serve a much
wider
community.

Communal Facilities

 A range of schools, pubs,

and a Supermarket Hulme
Market and local shops are
within five minutes walking
Distance, with a community
center across the road
 Direct Access
 Most flats on the ground floor are
accessed directly from the street,
enlivening it with entrances every
eight to ten minutes.The designers
also took care that private outdoor
space is available for most units

Public Privacy

Security
 Negative Points

Lack of flexibility

 The is a lack of flexibility in the planning due to which uncontrolled dwelling

is occurring.

Inappropriate Zoning
 Smaller accommodations leading to less efficient and less sustainable dwellings

Weak Infrastructure Planning

 Were it repeated it would be beneficial to include improved environmental design such as
water recycling and passive-stack ventilation.

Conclusions

Connectivity Planning
 The way the entire community is built around a courtyard efficiently connects
The entire Urban area and provide a factor of security through a sense of
Neighbourhood.

Closeness to Nature
 Open galleries with gardens provide closeness to natural environment,
thus tending to a basic human need.

Capacity to extend
 The Housing schemes according to New Urbanism are tend to be design in such a manner
so that they have a capacity of future extension and modification, If such a provision is not given
, then uncontrolled dwellings will occur, and destroy the entire concept

Human Scale , Planned Size and Proportions

 To Design buildings to a human scale give aesthetic appeal, pedestrian comfort, and
compatibility with other land uses.

Zoning

 The Zoning of an Urban Space and Proper land division contributes towards
sustainabilityOf the Urban Space, thus providing a comfortable environment.
 Case y : 2
 Case Study no.3

Car-Free Social Housing

Slateford Green, Edinburgh
Car-Free Social Housing

Slateford Green, Edinburgh

KEY FACTS

Location -Gorgie, Edinburgh

Completion date -2000
Developer -Canmore Housing Association
Architect -Hackland & Dore
Number of dwellings - 120
Dwelling mix -Mostly 2 bedroom/4 person flats
4 flats for wheelchair users
14 flats sheltered for Edinburgh Deaf Society
Other provision -Community centre
Nursery
Communal open space
Allotments
Previous use of site -Railway goods yard
Density -Approximately 94 dwellings per hectare
Forms of tenure -26 flats for sale
25 for shared ownership
69 social rented
Key targets/issues -A car-free residential development
High level of environmentally sensitive design
Green features -Timber from sustainable sources
Construction partly prefabricated
Insulation made from recycled newspaper
Design for passive solar gain
Passive-stack ventilation
Scheme of heating by industrial waste
Surface water recycling
Native planting for biodiversity
Transport issues -No dedicated parking for residents
Sixteen parking spaces for disabled, visitors and shared use
including four allocated to car club
Bus route within 5 minutes walk
Station on proposed light rail system next to site
THE SCHEME

The Slateford Green housing is built on a former railway goods yard. The scheme, which was the
result of an international competition, was designed not only to be free of private cars; it was also
to have high levels of sensitivity to environmental issues. In form, the new housing follows the
tenement principles. All the dwellings are flats, mostly three or four storeys in height. They are
built into a continuous block, the curved form of which largely follows the perimeter of the
site.

Plans
Demographic Data
Design Consideration and Analysis
Positive Points;

Green Spaces
 It encloses private gardens and a communal green space in
the court of the surrounded building block.

Sense of ownership for Residents, and sense of safety for

Pedestrians.
 At the outside there are entrances of the flats. These are
reached by a pedestrian street and cycle route which
circles the block.
 This can also be used as access for emergency vehicles and deliveries.

Materials from Sustainable sources

 All the timber used is from sustainable sources and insulation is manufactured from
recycled newspaper.

Solar Gain
 The flats are provided with ‘sun spaces’ to both living rooms and main bedrooms. These
are designed to collect solar gain which is maximised by placing them on both sides of
the block.

Water Filteration
 A key feature of the scheme is the ponds in the central communal space. These collects
rainwater run-off from roofs and roads. The water is cleansed for re-use by passing it
through reed beds and then through two ponds containing gravel filters.

Air Flow
 The ponds have a beneficial environmental effect by reflecting sunlight during the day
and releasing heat at night
stimulating air flow.

Plants cultivated by Filtered water

 They are also an opportunity for
cultivating water plantsThe artificial
wetlands encourage biodiversity.
The scheme is planted with
deciduous trees which allow sunlight
through in winter while providing
shade in summer.
 Mixed Age groups-Secured Environment
 The project aims to create a mixed community – one which contains owner-occupiers and
tenants, young and old, and able-. Mixing with other age and social groups is helpful. The
building has a staircase access system traditional in tenements. Each entrance serves a
small number of flats – never more than six on the upper floors. This arrangement is the
easiest to secure and manage.

 The central courtyard space is accessible only to the residents and is secured by a fence
and gates in the south-east corner.

Vehicular Movement and Parking Controlled

 It is the limitations on private cars which is themost notable feature of the scheme. This
has major benefits in freeing a large amount of land that would otherwise have been used
for storing cars. This is now available for amenity and recreational use. Lack of parking
helps to reinforce the car ban but a possible weakness is the emergency vehicle route
around the perimeter.

Conclusions
Hence, Car free developments offer a number of advantages , including,

 Reduced Congestion
 Reduced Road Infrastructure Costs
 Reduced parking infrastructure costs
 More efficient Land use
 Financial saving for Residents
 Improved transport choice
 Improved Road Safety
 Improved Health
 Reduced Environmental Effects
 Community Livability
Bibliography

Urban Design, A typology of Procedures and Products

The Smart Growth Manual

http://www.seasidefl.com/communityHistory3.asp

www.ippsr.msu.edu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaside,_Florida

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Seaside.html

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, Kurt
1997 “Is Seaside Too Good to be True?” In Seaside: Making of a Town in America.
Eds. David Mohney and Keller Easterling. New York: Princeton Architectural
Press., pp. 42-47.
Archer, Kevin
1997 “The Limits to the Imagineered City: Sociospatial Polarization in Orlando.”
Economic Geography. Vol. 73.3: 322-336.
Bartling, Hugh
2004 “The Magic Kingdom Syndrome: Trials and Tribulations of Life in Disney’s
Celebration.” Contemporary Justice Review. Vol. 7.4: 375-393.
Baudrillard, Jean
1975 Mirror of Production. St. Louis: Telos Press.
1983a “The Ecstasy of Communication.” In The Anti-Aesthetic. Ed. Hal Foster.
Seattle: Bay Press, pp. 126-134.
1983b Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).
Bernstein, Fred A.
2005 “Seaside at 25: Troubles in Paradise.” The New York Times. Dec. 9.
Brooke, Steven
1999 Seaside. Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company.
Congress for the New Urbanism
2004 Codifying New Urbanism: How to Reform Municipal Land Development
Regulations. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Debord, Guy
1977 The Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Zone Books.
Duany, Andres and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk
1992 “The Second Coming of the American Small Town.” Wilson Quarterly.
Winter:19-48
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck
2000 Suburban Nation. New York: North Point Press.
Easterling, Keller
1997 “Public Enterprise.” In Seaside: Making of a Town in America.
Eds. David Mohney and Keller Easterling. New York: Princeton Architectural
Press., pp. 48-60.S
http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/homes-and-work-for-change/team