Monthly Archives: August 2009

Monumental Suburbia – Just What Is It That Makes A Circle So Appealing?

By Elly Ward

The street layout and arrangement of public spaces in Monkston suggest a beaux arts style, ‘City Beautiful’ approach to its planning.  The most notable feature is Monkston Circle – a huge, flat, public green with a diameter of 200 metres located right in the middle of the grid square and presumably intended as the prescribed ‘centre’ for the neighbourhood.

The scale, absence of activity and sense of enclosure are quite overwhelming.  The houses surrounding the circle form a neat, discreet and civilised horizon line between the immense blue sky above and the green fields below – the suburban idyll?  Or a waste of (public) space?

Does a neighbourhood of 927 households really need such a big public space?  And what’s so appealing about a circle?

The following comparative study examines the scale of Monkston Circle.

The next study compares other well known circles and circles in scale, use, arrangement and ambience.

These locations are all far more successful examples of public space which is likely to be attributable to the level of resident activity, the scale and proximity of surrounding buildings and by the more considered use of hard and soft landscaping.

The overt scale and central dominance of Monkston Circle suggest heroic aspirations, but the vastness of the space and yet unyielding density of the surrounding houses generate a peculiar and uncomfortable combination of both agoraphobia and claustrophobia and the level of resident use and activity is practically non-existent.

Monkston Circle exists purely as a monumental, token centre and feels totally out of place in this suburban setting.

Tristram Hunt makes the case for suburbia in The Observer, Sunday 19 July 2009.

“Tight, compact cities such as Florence and Siena have been the inspiration for far too long. We now need to take a lead from Croydon and Kingston-upon-Thames. That would really turn Evelyn Waugh’s stomach”

Read the full article here

The Challenge of Change

By Jonathan Turney

Homeowners sometimes need to make changes to their properties. Yet the planning system stands in the way of the simplest change if it doesn’t meet stern criteria. ModifIcation to properties, be it a conservatory to enjoy sunny days, a garage for that new car, or an extension to run a home business, are common in suburbia.

Needs and functions change over time and with new owners.

Downhead Park, Milton Keynes, has its fair share of extensions and adaptations. They all blend in to the built fabric – constructed of similar materials, and hidden behind walls or in back garden – due to planning restrictions which keep a tight reign on developments.

Space for Change

Below is a comparison of Private Space in Downhead Park, Milton Keynes and the Upper East Side, New York.

Private Space - Downhead Park, MK

Private Space - Upper East Side

The potential adaptive space in Downhead Park far exceeds that of the Upper East Side. Space in Downhead Park awaits. It is ripe for change.

However, change is restricted by planning regulations. Residents told me that the garage extension below had gone ahead without getting planning permission. If this was the owners back garden, they might be OK, as it is, down it’ll come…

The Adaptation Loophole – Permitted Development Regulations

Permitted Development is development that can be undertaken without the need to submit a planning application to the local council, often a lengthy and frustrating process. 

Recently updated in 2006, the regulations now give more scope to permitted development, but still creates guidelines which do not necessarily help a large number of households due to their particular existing site conditions. Below is a summary of some of the key parameters.

• No extension forward of the principal elevation or side elevation fronting a highway.

• No extension to be higher than the highest part of the roof.

• Maximum depth of a rear extension of more than one storey of three metres including ground floor.
• Extensions cannot be within two metres of the boundary of the property, if their eaves were higher than 2 metres.
• Side extensions to be single storey with maximum height of four metres and width no more than half that of the original house.

A Map of Residential Adaptations and Extensions in Downhead Park

95 percent are in the back gardens of properties…

On average there are 1.4 adaptations per house…

How the Suburban Detached House isn’t fit for Adaptation

Despite the potential for change offered by suburbia and the permitted development regulations, the typical suburban detached house is not as fit as it could be for adaptation:

1. The houses are situated in the middle of the plot, which means that the space of the front garden is not permitted for development.

2. Any developments have to be at the back of the house, as the house fits nearly the whole width of the plot.

3. The development can only go back 3-4m which limits the potential for development.

4. The Cavity Wall construction, so familiar in Downhead Park. is costly and difficult to extend.

The Adapt-it House

In response to the latent potential for adaptation offered by suburbia and the permitted development regulations, and the inadequacy of the typical suburban detached house to benefit from this potential, I have developed my own house design that exploits the regulations. The Adapt-it House.

How the adapt-it house exploits the regulations:

The original plot has little space for permitted developmentî (shown in red). The new plot configuration uses a false facade to bring the front elevation to the front of the plot, and sites the house down the side of the plot to allow sideways development.

The Adapt-It house (basic model)

The Adapt-It house (with permitted development)