Study of Sustainable and Affordable Housing

THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA
Report by RACHAEL BERNSTONE – 2003 CHURCHILL FELLOW
THE AV JENNINGS FELLOWSHIP to study sustainable and affordable housing.
I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this report, either in hard copy or on the
internet or both, and consent to such publication.
I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out
of any claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the
publication of the report submitted to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for
access over the Internet.
I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any
person, or contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is,
actionable for defamataion, a breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of
confidence, contempt or court, passing off or contravention of any other private right or of
any law.
Signed: Dated:
Index
Introduction 3
Executive Summary 4
Fellowship Objectives 4
Fellowship Highlights 4
Key Findings and Recommendations 4
Program 6
Main findings 8
1. The United Kingdom 8
1.1 Key players in affordable housing 8
1.2 Issues and challenges 9
1.3 Policies and strategies 10
1.4 Projects and Programmes 13
2. Finland 39
2.3 Policies and Strategies 41
2.4 Projects 45
3. Sweden 49
3.1 Policies and Strategies 49
3.2 Projects 49
4. USA 62
4.3 Policies and strategies 66
4.4 Projects 69
Conclusions 79
Recommendations 80
Appendices 82
-2-
Introduction
Undertaking the 2003 AV Jennings Churchill Fellowship enabled me to investigate the
latest policies and practices in the fields of affordable and sustainable housing in the
United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden and the United States of America.
I arranged meetings with representatives of federal, state and local government

representatives, architects and planners involved in the design process; and members of
the development and construction professions. Topics of discussion included:
• policies and strategies;
• current approaches to design, and
• advances and innovations in construction techniques
for the provision of affordable and sustainable housing. In addition, I was able to view and
experience many first class examples of affordable, sustainable, and affordable-
sustainable housing.
I hope that my findings and recommendations might prove useful in considering and
tackling specific housing problems and challenges in Australia, such as:
• Procuring new sources of funding, both public and private, for the provision of new
public housing,
• Upgrading existing public housing stock, to enhance social, economic and
environmental sustainability outcomes;
• Providing affordable housing for “key” employees, or low to moderate income
earners, in areas where market rate housing is often out of reach; and
• Developing and implementing cost effective and sustainable construction methods
for the provision of new public and market rate housing
• Improving environmental performance of all housing types, from public through to
premium market rate.
I am grateful to both the Churchill Trust and AV Jennings for their financial assistance: the
trip was extremely satisfying and would not have been possible without their support. I
would also like to acknowledge my employer, Simon Grover at The Intermedia Group, who
supported my ambition to carry out research overseas for the benefit of the Australian
housing industry, as well as my own professional development. I also received
considerable support from generous industry colleagues before I departed, who provided
references and contacts that were extremely useful in my application and initial research.
All of the people I met with during the course of the Fellowship were extremely generous
with their time and knowledge, and I would like to thank them for their contribution and for
sharing their experiences with me.
Lastly, the support of my family and friends has been extremely valuable, and I am grateful
for their encouragement throughout the entire process.
-3-
Executive Summary
Rachael Bernstone
Editor, Building Australia Magazine
PO Box 55
Glebe 2037 NSW
T: 02 8586 6118
E: Rachael@Intermedia.com.au
Fellowship Objectives
To study sustainable and affordable housing initiatives that aim to assist welfare
dependent or low- and middle-income residents, with emphasis on environmental
initiatives, in the United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden and the United States of America.
Fellowship Highlights
Without exception, everyone I met in the course of the trip was extremely generous with
their time, knowledge and access to information. I visited more than 20 individual projects,
some of which were strong in their approach to environmental design and construction
issues, while others placed more emphasis on affordability. Some of the projects were
equally strong on both aspects, and they were therefore the highlights of the trip. They
included:
• London’s Greenwich Peninsula, where English Partnerships, Meridian Delta, the
London Borough of Greenwich and architects Erskine and Tovatt, Proctor and
Matthews and EPR are all dedicated to delivering some of the most exciting
affordable and sustainable housing projects in the UK;
• The Peabody Trust’s Murray Grove and Raines Dairy affordable housing projects in
London, which have demonstrated that modular housing can combine
environmentally friendly construction, affordability, and aesthetic appeal, as well as
reducing waste and defects, speeding construction, enhancing the construction
working environment, and finally, resulting in places to live that are of higher quality
and more affordable than traditional solutions;
• The Viikki Ecological Neighbourhood in Helsinki, Finland – an experiment in green
building that is resulting in appealing and environmentally friendly places for people
to live, work and study;
• The Highlands’ Garden Village in Denver, Colorado – where new urbanist principles
of design have resulted in a genuine mixed use, mixed tenure community of more
than 300 homes. It combines environmental building with historic preservation with
urban infill and all within 10 minutes of Downtown Denver – truly the most
impressive development I saw on the trip; and lastly,
• Colorado Court, in Santa Monica, California – a demonstration green affordable
housing project that generates its own energy and is designed to maximise occupier
comfort
Key Findings and Recommendations

The most advanced sustainable and affordable housing projects I saw while travelling are
fundamentally driven by governments that strongly believe in the importance of
environmentally sensitive planning and building, and the provision of housing for all. The
countries with the best green building regulations and intentions are committed to the
-4-
targets set for them in the Kyoto Protocol, and are actively attempting to achieve them
through a combination of regulation and incentives.
From my observations, it is possible to create successful sustainable communities through

planning and design, by integrating housing with opportunities for employment, education,
transport, health and culture. Many communities I visited hoped to foster diversity and
understanding among their residents, through the provision of similarly high quality
housing for various income and tenure types.
Although I had hoped to find that developers overseas had found a way to include green
technologies, such as water recycling and reuse systems and photo voltaic energy
solutions, in new housing projects with little or no extra cost, I discovered that this has not
been the case in most instances. Where green technologies have been incorporated into
new projects, developers work hard to educate consumers about the benefits of paying
more upfront to reap savings over the course of the tenure there.
This means that rather than moving towards a scenario where green technologies are
seen to be priced competitively with traditional non-green solutions, there is a growing
realisation that it is no longer adequate to consider pure economic outcomes, and that
social and environmental factors are gaining more importance, so that a shift towards real
triple bottom line reporting is occurring in some places.
I have already reported on several key areas from my trip in Building Australia magazine,
with articles on three key European sustainable cities projects (Greenwich, Malmö and
Viikki) and a Greenbuild conference wrap-up appearing in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue. The
March 2004 issue features material from the Fellowship, with a report on modular and
prefabricated buildings. I intend to cover other topics such as Affordable Housing
throughout the year. I am also planning to present my findings in person to architecture
and engineering firms, industry organisations and university students as appropriate
throughout 2004.
-5-
Program
London and York, United Kingdom: 29 September to 17 October 2003
• Allford Hall Monaghan Morris – Raines Dairy public housing, Hackney
• Bill Dunster Architects – BedZed environmentally sensitive housing, Sutton
• Cartwright Pickard Architects – Murray Grove public housing, Hackney
• Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment – Architecture and housing
policies
• English Partnerships – Greenwich Peninsula redevelopment
• EPR Architects – Greenwich Millennium Village design and construction
• Greater London Authority – Draft London Plan and housing policies
• Housing Corporation – public housing funding and policies
• Hyde Housing Association – New affordable and public housing
• London Borough of Greenwich – local government perspective on the Greenwich
Peninsula redevelopment
• London Borough of Islington – Public and affordable housing policy and provision
• Meridian Delta Limited – Greenwich Peninsula redevelopment
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – Government’s public housing finance and policies
• Peabody Trust – New public and affordable housing
• Proctor and Matthews Architects – Greenwich Millennium Village design and
construction
• Yorkon – Modular and prefabricated housing construction
• Piercy Conner Architects – the Microflat project – affordable housing for first home
buyers
Helsinki, Finland: 20 to 24 October, 2003

• City Planning Department – Viikki Ecological Neighbourhood
• Housing Fund of Finland – Public housing funding and policies
• Ministry of the Environment – Public housing funding and policies
Stockholm and Malmö, Sweden: 27 to 31 October 2003

• City of Malmö – Bo01 City of Tomorrow housing exhibition
• BoKlok – modular affordable housing from Ikea and Skanska
• Erskine Tovatt Architecture – Masterplan and housing design at London’s Greenwich
Millennium Village
New York, NY, USA: 3 to 10 November, 2003

• Lower Manhattan Development Corporation – public housing policies following the
September 11 terrorist attacks
• GF55 Architects – new public housing projects in Manhattan
• Stephen Tilley Architecture – sustainable and affordable housing in Irvington, NY
• Housing Development Corporation – public housing funding and policies for NY City
• Housing Preservation and Development –public housing funding and regeneration for
NY City
• Housing Finance Authority – public housing funding and policies for NY State
• State of New York Mortgage Agency – low cost mortgages for low- to moderate-income
first home buyers
• NYSAFAH – New York State Association for Affordable Housing
-6-
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA – 11 to 14 November 2003
• Greenbuild Conference and Expo, hosted by the US Green Building Council
Denver, Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass, Colorado, USA: 17 to 21 November 2003

• Perry Rose LLC – Highland Gardens market rate and affordable housing, Denver
• Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects – Employee housing design and construction for Aspen
• Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office – Employee housing funding and policies for
Aspen
• Rocky Mountain Institute – Sustainable housing research and development
• Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHAFA) – public housing funding and
policies for Colorado
Portland, Oregon, USA: 24 to 27 November 2003

• City of Portland – public housing funding and policies
• Portland Development Commission – market rate and public housing development
• City of Portland – Office of Sustainable Development – Green Building Division – green
building resources for residential and commercial applications
• Gerding/Edlen Development Company – Brewery Blocks adaptive reuse project
• Shiels Obletz Johnsen – Museum Place market rate and affordable housing project
• SERA Architects – Public housing design
• ROSE Community Development Corporation – affordable housing development and
management
Los Angeles, California, USA: 1 to 4 December 2003

• Global Green USA – thinktank for greening affordable housing
• Community Corporation of Santa Monica – provision of new affordable housing
• Pugh+Scarpa Architects – Colorado Court sustainable and affordable housing
• Koning Eizenberg Architects – 5th Street sustainable and affordable housing
-7-
Main findings
This Fellowship focussed on two key sub-sections of the housing market - sustainability
and affordability – and in the main, the people I met with operated in only one of those
sectors, although there were several instances where both aspects were given equal
weight.
Each of the four countries I visited used different methods for the delivery affordable
housing, and each featured different levels of regulation for sustainability outcomes. In an
attempt to simplify the presentation of my findings, I have chosen to first divide them by
country. Within each country, I have provided details about:
a) the policies and strategies that underpin the delivery of affordable and sustainable
housing (as developed by government, housing and construction industry
organisations, and non-profit and for-profit developers); and
b) the individual projects and programmes that have resulted from their
implementation. Each of these outlines provides a summary of the lessons from the
individual projects.
In the Conclusion and Recommendations, I have attempted to summarise the findings

from the entire trip, and draw out some salient points that are most relevant for
consideration and possible application in Australia.
1. The United Kingdom
1.1 Key players in affordable housing

The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, announced a new government housing
strategy in February 2002. Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future was designed
to tackle problems associated with housing shortages in some areas and low demand and
abandonment in others.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) oversees the allocation of government
funding for construction of new affordable housing, via a non-departmental public body,
the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation funds and regulates Housing
Associations or Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) that build, own and operate
affordable housing in England (similar bodies exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland). During the financial year 2003/04, the Housing Corporation planned to grant
about ₤1.5 billion in funds under the Approved Development Program, for the construction
of approximately 22,000 new affordable homes throughout England.
In the capital, the Greater London Authority (GLA) acts as a strategic planning authority
and co-ordinates the activities of local government entities, the London Boroughs. The
GLA (established in 2001 to replace the defunct Greater London Council), developed a
Draft London Plan under the direction of Mayor Ken Livingstone. The GLA has no direct
jurisdiction for housing, except for developments at significant sites where more than 200
units are planned, although its mandate includes a “general duty to promote social,
economic and environmental issues of importance to Londoners”, according to Chris
Jarvis, a Senior Policy Advisor in the GLA’s Housing and Homelessness Unit.
Public or affordable housing is owned by local authorities, comprising 32 London

Boroughs and the Corporation of London, Housing Associations such as the Peabody
-8-
Trust and Hyde Housing, and other entities. The London Boroughs administer
applications and allocations of affordable housing, according to income and asset criteria
and need. They also have responsibility for planning and housing approvals for new
dwellings, and can impose affordable housing criteria on private housing developers such
as Greenwich Millennium Village Corporation and Meridian Delta Limited through the
planning approvals process.
English Partnerships is the national government’s agency charged with sustainable

urban renewal and regeneration. It oversees the Millennium Communities program that
aims to improve sustainability in design and construction; it oversees the 10-year £365
million National Coalfields Programme, which is helping to create more than 40,000 new
jobs, more than 6,500 new homes and 2m square metres of commercial and industrial
accommodation; and it facilitates the establishment of Urban Regeneration Companies,
which bring together local partners to champion and stimulate new investment and plans
for regeneration and redevelopment, currently operating in 14 locations throughout the
country.
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) is an Executive
non-departmental public body, funded by the ODPM and the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport (DCMS). Key aims include: regenerating places suffering from economic
and social decline by restoring community identity and civic pride and attracting investors
and visitors; delivering better public services through a direct impact on the quality of
healthcare, education and welfare services; promoting value for money by reducing the
lifetime costs of buildings and improving their performance; assisting in the reduction of
crime and anti-social behaviour by creating places that foster community ownership and
eliminate physical opportunities for vandalism, violence and theft; and promoting more
environmentally friendly ways of living.
1.2 Issues and challenges

Current housing demand
According to the ODPM, published projections for household growth suggest that 155,000
additional dwellings will be needed each year in the UK. Across the country, new house
building has fallen steadily from a peak of 350,000 annually in the late 1960s to less than
140,000 now. The net figure, taking account of demolitions and conversions, is closer to
120,000, insufficient to meet new demand let alone replace ageing housing stock.
Nationally, about 70% of households are owner-occupied, up from 50% about 30 years
ago, although this figure is lower in the capital, where only about 50% of homes are owner-
occupied. Surveys suggest that up to 90% of people would prefer to own their own homes
if possible.
In London, the Housing Commission estimates that 25,700 new affordable homes will be
required each, to meet anticipated population growth levels, and solve current shortages
over a period of ten years, the timeframe set by the Mayor to deal with the current
affordable housing crisis.
This annual total comprises 11,200 homes for applicants currently waiting for permanent
affordable housing; 5,000 new social rental homes to absorb population growth; 2,000 new
social rental homes to replace those lost through right to buy schemes; 2,500 new social
rental homes to meet new demand as a result of affordability issues, and 5,000 new
-9-
intermediate homes for low to moderate income households. In addition, 15,700 market
rate homes will be required each year to account for population growth.
Current housing stock

In April 2002, there were 3.13 million homes in London, 2.31 million of those in the private
sector (74%) and 816,700 publicly owned (26%). The majority of public housing is owned
by local authorities, (512,766 units, or 16.4% of total housing stock), while Housing
Associations own 291,910 units (9.4% of the total), leaving 12,024 units (0.4%) in ‘other’
hands. Since 1981, approximately 175,000 units of public housing have been lost, mainly
as a result of Right to Buy Sales.
New housing supply

According to GLA’s Housing in London 2003 report [Table 1.2], the volume of new home
construction has dropped significantly in the last decade, despite increased demand for
housing in the capital. In 1991/92, 17,077 new homes were completed in London (13,357
by the private sector; 3,140 by Housing Associations; and 580 by local authorities), while
in 2001/02. the number of new homes completed had fallen to 14,170 (10,324 by the
private sector; 3,794 by Housing Associations; and 52 by local authorities).
1.3 Policies and strategies

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
The ODPM oversees the government’s Sustainable Communities strategy, which boasts
a new regional approach housing policy and a budget of £22billion over three years
(2003/04 to 2005/06). It aims to provide more new homes in areas of strong economic and
population growth (such as London and the South East), and tackle issues of
abandonment and decay in the areas that are currently in decline (such as much of the
north of England). It also aims to support people in their aspirations for home ownership.
More than £5 billion has been allocated to the regeneration of deprived areas; while
£350m will be allocated to speeding up planning systems. A further £5b has been
earmarked for more affordable homes, including at least £1bn for key worker housing.
The plan will concentrate future growth in four regions nominated in a review of new
housing demand completed in 2000: the Thames Gateway in London, Milton Keynes and
the South Midlands, Ashford in Kent and the London - Stansted – Cambridge corridor.
More than £600m has been allocated to the development of these growth areas.
The Sustainable Communities strategy also incorporates the Millennium Communities

program which aims to showcase advances in construction sustainability, by reducing
construction waste, implementing new construction techniques, reducing workplace
accidents, increasing energy efficiency in new buildings, re-using water and demonstrating
re-cycling of waste.
The government hopes to extrapolate the lessons from the Millennium Communities
program to all new construction in the UK. So far, seven neighbourhoods have been
selected, including Greenwich (London), Allerton Bywater (near Leeds), New Islington
(East Manchester), Nar Ouse (King's Lynn), East Ketley (Telford), Oakgrove (Milton
Keynes) and Hastings.
- 10 -
According to Sue Beaumont, a senior policy advisor at the ODPM, developers were
cautious about the first implementation at Greenwich, but the experience there “changed
ideas about what can be done”.
“Initially the developers that were willing to become involved were small, and the others
were wary,” Ms Beaumont said. “That had changed by the time we started implementation
at Telford, where 19 out of the top 20 national builders submitted bids. There’s an
acceptance now that developers and builders have to be in this game.”
Also within the Sustainable Communities strategy, the government intends to overcome
some of the difficulties of the current planning system. “Developers tend to buy up land
and then sit on it, because the planning systems are too slow, and local authorities have
too much control,” she explained.
A review of the planning system aims to shift from a “predict and provide” approach to a
system of "plan, monitor and manage". A new Planning Bill will introduce a simplified and
streamlined planning system and bring greater focus to regional planning through the
introduction of Regional Spatial Strategies.
Gillian Verrall, a Key Worker Policy Advisor in the Affordable Housing Division at the
ODPM, said that the organisation was considering expanding the pool of eligible affordable
housing developers to enable private developers to compete with Housing Associations
and Registered Social Landlords. That proposal has since been incorporated into policy,
through its inclusion in the government’s new Housing Bill, submitted to Parliament in
December 2003.
A joint venture between government agencies English Partnerships and the Housing
Corporation is developing a register of disused or underutilised public land in the hope of
maximising funding and speeding the delivery of new affordable homes. It will consider
converting surplus office space into housing, making use of space above shops and
regeneration of brownfield sites, and aims to forge new relationships with volume house
builders and institutional investors.
Also in 2003, the UK government initiated two major inquiries into housing. The Home
Ownership Task Force included 20 representatives from national and local government,
universities, private lending institutions and home builders. It was convened in February
2003 with a mandate to investigate the range of programmes available to help people into
home ownership.
The group’s final report, released in November, made 45 recommendations in six main
areas. These included increasing the supply of affordable housing; implementing a new
and simplified framework for low-cost home ownership programs including discounts,
equity loans and shared ownership; and providing better information and advice to
potential applicants. The report’s executive summary, A Home of My Own, can be
downloaded from the Housing Corporation website. Deputy PM John Prescott has already
incorporated some of the recommendations into a new Housing Bill, which was submitted
to Parliament in December 2003, while others will be considered in 2004.
The Barker Review was commissioned by the Treasury in the 2003 Budget, and aimed to
determine reasons for a lack of housing supply and weak responsiveness to the housing
- 11 -
shortage in the UK. It examined the roles of competition, capacity and financing in the
house building industry; and the interaction of those factors with the planning system and
sustainable development objectives.
In her interim report, Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy
Committee, reported that the supply of new homes in the UK was not keeping pace with
demand: only 175,000 houses were built in 2001 – the lowest level since the Second
World War – and Barker suggested that another 39,000 new homes would be needed
each year to keep up with population growth.
As a result of the shortage, housing affordability had suffered, Barker said. A London
house that cost around four times the annual income of a low income household in 1993
would cost nearly eight times the same income level by 2002.
The Review identified land supply as the main constraint, and suggested that the
housebuilding industry contributed to the problem through its response to risk, which leads
to a reluctance to build out large sites quickly. The interim report also found that the
planning issues, such as the regulatory relationship and control over the use of land,
influenced the way land was made available for development. The Review will publish its
final report with recommendations for government in the second quarter of 2004.
Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London

In the Draft London Plan, the Mayor has proposed minimum delivery levels for affordable
housing as a proportion of all new home building across the capital: in 19 London
boroughs, the target has been set at 50%, while in the remaining 13 boroughs it has been
set at 35%.
Adoption of the targets would require a public subsidy of between £500 and £600 million
for about 10,000 new dwellings per year (for a total of 130,000 dwellings between 2004-
16). In 2002/03, the Housing Corporation’s budget for construction of new affordable
housing in London was £338 million, so the Mayor plans to put a case to the national
Government to increase funding for affordable housing under this proposal.
At the same time, the Mayor is working with the Housing Corporation, London Boroughs,
housing associations and private developers, to find ways to make more effective use of
private and public investment, and to maximise the number of affordable homes delivered
through the planning process.
The Mayor anticipates that about three quarters of the proposed new affordable homes
would be provided on mixed tenure sites, with the remainder on stand alone sites. About
70% of the new properties would be provided as social rental housing, while 30% would be
intermediate housing for low to moderate income earners, for sale or rent.
The Mayor also hopes to work with local authorities to ensure that where potential
development sites are already publicly owned, they are developed to ensure a high
proportion of affordable housing instead of simply ensuring the highest financial return
through their sale into private hands.
The DLP was due to be finalised in December 2003, with supplementary planning
guidelines due for release to assist in its implementation by the spring of 2004. If and when
- 12 -
it is adopted by the London Boroughs in 2004, each will need to ensure that its
development guidelines conform with the London Plan to enable its implementation.
According to Chris Jarvis of the GLA’s Housing and Homelessness Unit, adoption of the
plan would drive the push towards greater housing affordability from the supply side of the
equation, thereby eliminating some of the uncertainty inherent in the current planning
system. “At the moment, there is a degree of uncertainty for planners in terms of
affordability: until they go to the London Borough, and negotiate a Section 106 Agreement,
they don’t know what is required,” he said.
He added that the GLA was also trying to convince planning authorities to release land
that is currently zoned for employment uses to make it available for housing uses. “The
GLA’s priority is to make use of every opportunity to provide as much housing as possible
and to ensure that it is as affordable as possible,” he explained.
To this end, two recent studies have demonstrated the potential for building over existing
single-storey developments. The Department of Transport, Local Government and the
Regions commissioned a study into airspace development potential above single storey
uses, such as food stores and petrol stations, which concluded that an extra 25,000 units
could be provided over 15 years6. The second study, commissioned by supermarket chain
Tesco's, investigated housing and regeneration potential in mixed-use developments on
existing retail sites, and estimated that an at least 10,000 dwellings could be provided.
1.4 Projects and Programmes

Keep London Working research
The London Development Agency, through its Single Regeneration Budget, has funded
research into the need for housing for London workers. The Keep London Working (KLW)
research board comprises employers, housing providers, developers, local authorities and
lobby groups, and its main purpose is to clarify the contribution that affordable housing can
make to the recruitment and retention of key workers in London and identify ways of
procuring it, without grants if possible.
KLW has also developed and leased 175 flats and houses in the intermediate housing
market to test new solutions.
KLW defines key workers according to their industries, which are geographically specific,
frequently constrained in wage bargaining, generally labour and skills intensive, and
essential to the maintenance and growth of the capital. This includes workers in health,
education, transport and law enforcement sectors, although the research has concentrated
on teachers, nurses and bus-workers as being representative of most key workers in
London. KLW concluded that there were more than 670,000 key workers in London, and
that more than 500,000 of them earned less than £30,000 per year.
It found that more than a third of nurses and teachers working in the capital would be look
for a new job in 2004, and that 50% of those job-seekers were planning to leave London.
They cited housing costs and other housing issues as their main cause for wanting to
leave, while other reasons included low pay, inadequate pay differentials and difficult
working conditions.
Although the research conceded that the current housing crises among key workers was
partly cyclical (resulting from strong economic conditions and booming housing costs), it
- 13 -
argued that underlying structural factors were also partly to blame, and that the problem
was unlikely to disappear of its own accord.
The research suggested that intermediate housing solutions for key workers should be”
• affordable: rent should be related to key workers’ incomes rather than discounted
market rates, at levels that are at least 25% cheaper than equivalent private sector
furnished accommodation;
• available: key workers should wait less than a year for accommodation;
• located no more than three-quarters of an hour door to door from a workplace, ideally
along the route of affordable, reliable and safe public transport;
• self-contained: predominantly studios, one and two bedroom flats; and
• well-managed for people at work during working hours, and positioned to reflect the
key worker’s circumstances within the housing cycle.
KLW also argued that employers should contribute towards making housing more
affordable for workers, either immediately in the form of land or rental guarantees, or as
the effects of a lower turnover of staff create savings. The report recommended a number
of strategies, including providing access to discounted land or property; equity interest in
the property; loans to workers; rent subsidies; interest free loans or nomination
agreements.
KLW does not advocate the diversion of housing related resources away from people in
acute need, such as homeless people, and those living in temporary accommodation or
overcrowded conditions. Rather it argues that support for key workers should be in
addition to social housing, not act as a replacement for it.
The Starter Home Initiative

In 2001, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Starter Home Initiative, a
£250 million program that aimed to assist 10,000 key workers, (primarily nurses, teachers
and police), into home ownership in London and the south east of England where high
housing prices were seen to be undermining recruitment and retention of staff.
In 2002, the scheme was extended to assist social workers, care workers, fire fighters,
transport workers, occupational therapists, and in July 2003, prison and probation staff
were added to the list of eligible occupations.
The program was administered by the Housing Commission, which allocated funds to
housing associations for distribution to eligible key workers. Assistance was in the form of
equity loans, interest free loans and shared ownership arrangements, and the type and
value of assistance varied according to which housing association administered the
scheme, which was administered according to workplace location.
The Peabody Trust’s SHI scheme was an equity loan program called First Step, for
workers in the London Boroughs of Hackney and Haringey, Kensington and Chelsea and
Newham. According to the scheme’s manager, Lucy Chitty, the Trust has received
enquiries from 2,000 applicants, and assisted in the purchase of 238 units by October
2004, with five months of the left to run. By October, the Trust had allocated £7.6 million in
equity loans: £5.7 m granted by the Housing Corporation and £1.8m from its own funds.
When the loans are repaid, the funds will be returned to Peabody’s recycled capital grant
fund for three years, before being moved back to general revenue if they are not reused.
- 14 -
Initially the Peabody targeted 100 health workers, in collaboration with the National Health
Service’s housing office. That quota was quickly fulfilled, and the Trust applied for more
funding for NHS admin staff and junior doctors, and then for teachers, fire fighters and
police, as the ODPM’s criteria expanded.
Applicants had to demonstrate that they were unable to buy a home without SHI
assistance, and that they were capable of sustaining home ownership. The equity loan is
issued as a proportion of the property price, and is repaid to Peabody Trust when the
property is sold, with capital gains. Initially, Peabody set its loan limits as a percentage of
the purchase price (with a maximum of 35%), but as property prices increased over the
course of the programme, it became clear that the Trust would not meet its target number
of applicants if that level continued, so a cap of £50,000 was imposed for each application.
Chitty said that initially the Trust ran marketing campaigns to alert the target groups to the
opportunity of the First Step scheme, including running opening days at hospitals, inserting
notes in payslip notes, and advertising in local and trade publications. Once an applicant
came forward, their situation, savings and aspirations were reviewed. Some applicants
had £2,000-5,000 in savings, and some had loans from parents or other relatives of a few
thousand pounds, others had no savings at all.
In most cases, Chitty said, the Trust was able to assist single people into one bedroom
flats, and couples or single parents into two bedroom flats. However, she said that in
determining the mortgage, and therefore equity loan amount, the both the applicant and
the Trust needed to be flexible in terms of the preferred unit size and location. “We needed
to ensure that we gave them sufficient funding to live near their mother in law, or for kids to
get to school, where those things applied,” she said.
Some people have criticised the Starter Home Initiative as a scheme that addresses the
supply side of the housing shortage, rather than the demand side. The GLA’s Chris Jarvis
said that housing solutions in London “needed to increase supply, not fuel demand”. He
believes that the SHI “gives money to a lucky few [key workers] to go out and bid and push
[housing] prices higher”
Chitty countered this view, and said that in some cases, the fact that applicants were
recipients of a government grant did not work in their favour. “Also, the market is so high at
the moment, that most people are just about scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of
the properties they can afford, even with First Steps,” she said. “They are tending to buy
flats in the cheaper boroughs, or places that need work to be comfortable,”
As part of its First Steps programme, the Trust offered to put its applicants in touch with
respected and economical solicitors and financial advisors, to ensure that people were
making commitments they could afford and were comfortable with.
Chitty said that one downside of the scheme was that it was only open to British or
European Union residents, but that the NHS employed a significant number of African staff
and foreign nurses who could not be assisted.
According to Gillian Verrall, from the ODPM, the scheme will not be continued in its
present form after the cut-off date in March 2004. She said that lessons included the fact
that there were too many parties administering the scheme, making it difficult for Key
Workers to access information and navigate the rules.
- 15 -
She also spoke of the risk that the Starter Home Initiative would inflate property prices by
enabling people to buy homes in the open market.
Key Worker definitions had also been contentious, with the ODPM adding new categories
to the initial three professions in response to criticism from excluded groups. Ms Verrall
said that the ODPM had not yet determined the professions that would be included in any
future scheme, although it was likely that the list would include any health worker, state
school teachers, police and police administrators, with a focus on London, the South East
and the London to Cambridge corridor.
Ms Verrall said that a further problem of the first SHI scheme was the fact that it addressed
issues of recruitment but didn’t tackle staff retention issues as well, because it was aimed
at first home buyers, not potential family home buyers.
“Any future scheme should therefore enable people to trade up and purchase family
homes,” she said. “Also, we need to look at provisions for social rental at an Intermediate
level, because not all Key Workers want to buy homes. For example, we might assist
overseas nurses on a four year contract with rental housing.
Ms Verrall added that the ODPM was consulting with public sector employers via other
government departments, such as the department of health, the Home Office for law
enforcement employees, and the department of education and skills, in an attempt to
obtain their financial contribution to future schemes.
Modular construction for affordable housing projects

The UK’s largest builder of portable and prefabricated buildings has made a successful
transition into the affordable housing market in recent years, with projects in London, York
and Manchester. Yorkon now boasts a dedicated production line for residential projects at
its 60 acre factory facility in York, where it also prefabricates buildings for supermarkets,
restaurants, hotels and temporary office accommodation.
The company’s first room modules, which consisted of two rooms on either side of a 1.2m
wide corridor, were developed for hotel clients such as Jarvis, Forte and Hilton.
Yorkon’s Commercial Team Manager, Peter Browne, said that the company aimed to
complete as much construction as possible in the factory. “That way we can control the
cost, quality and the program in York,” he said, “leaving only the site connection and
cladding to onsite contractors.”
The steel framed modules, with columns on each corner and two or three intermediate
columns on the longer sides, are built to a tolerance of 3.5mm, and can be stacked up to
six floors high. Under the floor, they feature elastomeric bearing blocks to transfer the load
and reduce vibrations between units. Internally, every flat is fully finished at the factory,
from the plumbing and fixtures and fittings, to floor coverings, painting and decorating.
The completed units are stacked in the factory yard prior to being transported to their
intended location on a trailer, and then lifted onto the site by a crane. Services to each
room are connected by Yorkon tradespeople via a service riser panel situated in the
central hallway, thereby negating the need to re-enter the rooms themselves. Prior to
transport, the modules are clad with aluminium, so that final facades can be fitted onsite
according to the client or designer’s specification.
- 16 -
Mr Browne said that it was rare for the units to be damaged in transit. “There is no
movement at all in the fixed frame,” he explained. “Occasionally we get a hairline crack
between the wall and the ceiling in some modules, but that only happens in 2% of cases,
and it can be decorated on the site.”
At its headquarters in York, the company employs nearly 900 people, including qualified
tradespeople such as electricians, M&E specialists and decorators, and non skilled
labourers, who work across the Portakabin and Yorkon business. Office based employees
work in design, engineering, sales, marketing and administration roles. Only a few finishing
trades, such as tiling and floorcoverings, are carried out by local subcontractors.
Once the individual components are completed and internally fitted out at the factory, they
are stored in the yard prior to delivery. The main contractor prepares the site and builds
the access decks, before up to nine completed modules are landed at the site each day. A
team of Yorkon employees then joins the modules together, weatherproofs the buildings,
connects the services, and clads the modules before occupation. Depending on the size of
the job, the whole process can take less than six months.
According to Mr Browne, the company has no problems attracting and retaining staff,
particularly tradespeople who appreciate the relative comfort of working in a factory as
opposed to working on outdoor building sites.
“We also train apprentices here: we’ve taken on six in the last year, mainly in joinery and
Mechanical and Engineering positions,” he said. “It’s very easy to attract people to work
here, not just in the factory line but also in the office: when we advertise a vacancy it’s a
job to sort through them.”
The company is currently working on a 102 unit proposal for a Manchester-based housing
association, where each module measures 9.3 x 4m and comprises a separate flat.
Mr Browne is confident that the commissions will continue to roll in, particularly following
the success of Murray Grove in London’s Hackney.
“We are working with partners, and we know what schemes they have on the drawing
board at the moment, and they know which ones they plan to go modular with,” he said.
“We have direct contacts with both housing associations and architects, and don’t tend to
do any direct marketing. We actually have more enquiries than we could cope with
building, but the difficulty is in translating the right types of enquiries.”
The buildings comply with local building codes throughout the country via the company’s
partnership with the York Building Commission, and certification from the national code co-
ordinator, LANTAC (Local Authority National Type Approval Confederation).
Mr Browne said that the major benefit of building in the factory was the ability to “repeat,
repeat, repeat”.
“That’s not to say that we can’t do a few different modules in one schedule,” he said. “For
example, at Raines Dairy, we produced 61 flats, and there were 24 flat types, including
one, two and three bedroom units, all with different permutations according to party walls
and external walls.”
- 17 -
Case Studies
Project: Greenwich Peninsula
Location: Greenwich, East London
Client: English Partnerships
Developer: Meridian Delta Limited (jv partners Lend Lease and Quintain
Estates)
Architect: Masterplan by Richard Rogers Partnership
Individual parcels to be undertaken by
Builder: subject to public tender
Cost: £4.5 billion total investment
Commencement date: 1997 – Infrastructure
2004 or 2005 – Residential and commercial development
Completion date: 2020
Financing type: Private investment and Housing Association
No of units: n/a
Unit type/s: 6 – 20 floor apartment towers and townhouses
Potential occupants: Owner occupiers, private rental tenants, shared ownership for
key workers, public rental tenants
Construction method: tba
What makes this project interesting?

Greenwich Peninsula is Europe’s largest urban renewal project: it aims to provide a
sustainable community for 20,000 residents and 24,000 workers by 2020.
Figure 1 - The Richard Rogers' Masterplan for the Greenwich Peninsula blends homes, roads,
services, shops, transport and leisure facilities into a coherent, ecologically friendly whole.
For more than 150 years until the early 1990s, 70% of the Peninsula was occupied by a
gasworks, earning the site the unfortunate title of “the most contaminated site in Europe”.
In 1997, the government agency responsible for regeneration, English Partnerships, paid
British Gas £20 million for 300 acres (121 hectares), before spending £180 million on
remediation and the provision of infrastructure, services and landscaping. The government
announced plans to extend the Jubilee Underground Line from Waterloo to Stratford prior
to development plans being finalised, and construction commenced in 1995. As a result,
the Peninsula boasts a state-of-the-art Tube and Bus interchange, designed by Will Alsop
with additions by Foster and Partners, providing a 20 minute connection to the city and
west end.
- 18 -
English Partnerships commissioned architect Sir Richard Rogers to prepare the master
plan for the Greenwich Peninsula, and outline planning proposal documents were
submitted to the London Borough of Greenwich for approval in 1997. In 1998, the
government convened an Urban Taskforce, chaired by Sir Richard Rogers, to identify the
causes of urban decline in England, and offer practical recommendations to draw people
back into cities, towns and urban neighbourhoods. From this process, Rogers produced a
report, Towards and Urban Renaissance, which championed the redevelopment of
brownfield sites with an emphasis on design excellences, social well being and
environmental responsibility.
Rogers’ Greenwich Peninsula master plan aimed to integrate homes, roads, services,
shops, transport and leisure facilities into a coherent, ecologically friendly whole, while
producing a showcase for British urban regeneration. In 1999, the first land parcels were
offered to private developers. Partners Countrywide Properties and Taylor Woodrow
acquired the site of the Greenwich Millennium Village (see case study below), where
residents have moved into stage one, and construction is continuing on stage two, while
stages three and four are in the final planning phase. On the south western part of the site,
a new hotel sits alongside the country’s most environmentally advanced supermarket, a
multiplex cinema and several home and lifestyle stores.
The largest, and most contentious, portion of the site was sold in December 2001, when
Meridian Delta Limited (MDL, a joint venture partnership between Lend Lease Europe and
Quintain Estates & Development) acquired 190 acres at the northern end. MDL obtained
approval from both Greenwich council and the Mayor of London for its development
proposals in 2003.
What lessons can be learned from this project?

Although MDL has not yet finalised its housing designs, it does intend to “match the
publicly announced standards of Greenwich Millennium Village” and has committed to
achieving BREEAM’s Excellent rating, according to MDL’s Community Development
Manager, Susie Wilson. “So we are currently developing environmental building codes for
our third party developers,” she explained. “So far, we have defined the overall envelope
for each building and resolved worse case scenarios in terms of shadowing, orientation
and cross ventilation.”
Within the MDL development, buildings along the river front will reach a maximum of 24
storeys, with six to eight floors the average height for interior structures. The delivery of
affordable housing within the MDL scheme will exceed GMV’s, following the decision by
the Mayor to impose a minimum of 38% on the project. Anna Ladyman, MDL’s real estate
solutions expert, said that most of that would be offered as social rental housing to housing
benefit recipients.
“There will also be a smaller proportion offered as intermediate housing [as defined by
salary and job type in the Draft London Plan] for residents who are economically active,
but are struggling to get onto the housing ladder,” she said. “Further options will include
discounted for sale homes, set at roughly 70% of market value, and other community
housing, such as for students, or sheltered or nursing home accommodation.”
Prior to MDL acquiring its development parcel, English Partnerships enforced stringent
development briefs for the private sector addressing economic, social and environmental
concerns, according to EP’s Greenwich Peninsula Marketing Manager, Catherine Snow.
- 19 -
“These include minimising private car use in favour of public transport, providing local
employment, ensuring good quality, strong design and encouraging innovation in
construction.” she said.
The focus on sustainability is a key aspect of MDL's approach too. According to Susie
Wilson, MDL’s Community Development Manager, the company is addressing social and
economic factors by working with local businesses and Greenwich council to “ensure
employment for local people, thereby improving the skills base for sustainable careers”.
“We are working with local colleges, such as Greenwich University, two Beacon [adult
education] colleges and the London Leisure College, to provide training to help local
people get jobs on the Peninsula,” Ms Wilson added. “In addition, we are working with
local business owners in Greenwich, most of whom employ less than 10 people, to
facilitate their expansion to the Peninsula as development occurs.”
The focus on transport is expected to meet both environmental and social objectives.
Millennium celebrations at the Dome set the tone for minimal car access: most visitors
arrived by Tube or coach, with onsite parking reserved for disabled users. “MDL is
challenging the role of the car, and is attempting to manage car use to the point where you
won’t need one anymore,” said Lawrence Robertson, chief architect with the project.
“Also, throughout the project, we have incorporated low emission zones, where entry will
be controlled according to the age of each vehicle and the type of fuel it uses, as well as
controlled parking zones and low car parking ratios, that will probably reduce over time
from the current level of .7 spaces per residence,” Mr Robertson explained.
While the new public transport interchange provides good links to central London and
some neighbouring areas, connections to other parts of the borough are still problematic.
“Even though it only takes 20 minutes to get here from Eltham by car, it takes 1 ½ hours
by bus,” Ms Wilson said. “So we are working on improvements to accessibility across the
borough through new and modified bus routes, we’re addressing signalling and frequency
issues on the Jubilee Line extension in conjunction with Transport for London, and we’re
collaborating on the provision of a new bridge across the river by 2016,” Mr Robertson
added.
Other environmental concerns have resulted in significant conservation and remediation,

in addition to the initial rehabilitation. In 1997, communications services and utilities were
installed in separate troughs at the edges of the new roads to prevent future disturbance
and disruption for maintenance and repair. EP also worked with the Environment Agency
to conserve 2km of riverside parkland, and a further project restored fendering and salt
marsh terraces alongside the Thames, for improved flood defences. Combined with a new
foot and cycle path, these measures have resulted in improved wildlife habitats and
increased public accessibility to the river.
- 20 -
Figure 2 – English Partnerships worked with the Environment Agency to conserve 2km of riverside
parkland, and restore fendering and salt marsh terraces alongside the Thames, for improved flood
defences.
Sustainability extends to the Peninsula’s new Sainburys supermarket, which opened in
2001, and has already demonstrated energy savings of 50% over a traditional
supermarket design. Factors that contribute to energy savings include natural lighting via
roof windows, passive ventilation which is operational 90% of the time, the use of
earthbanks for insulation, and the installation of energy efficient appliances and low level
lighting.
The store also collects rainwater and recycles grey water for irrigation, and boasts both
photovoltaic cells and a wind turbine, which generate power for all of its exterior signage. It
shares one car park with the neighbouring 12-screen cinema complex and non-food
retailer, and Sainsburys is applying the lessons learned at new store developments across
the country.
Figure 3 - Sainsburys' Greenwich Peninsula store has already demonstrated energy savings of 50%
over traditional supermarket design.
- 21 -
Project: Greenwich Millennium Village
Location: Greenwich, East London
Client: Greenwich Millennium Village Limited
Developer: Greenwich Millennium Village Limited
Architect: Masterplan and Design by Erskine & Tovatt,
Stage 1 in association with EPR Architects,
Stage 2 in association with Proctor and Matthews,
Builder: Countryside Properties and Taylor Woodrow
Cost: n/a
Commencement date: 1999
Financing type: Private investors and Housing Association
No of units: 1,600
Unit type/s: One to four bedroom units in multistorey apartments and
townhouses.
Potential occupants: Owner occupiers, and market rate and public housing rental
tenants.
Construction method: Some onsite prefabrication combined with some traditional
construction
Figure 4 - Ralph Erksine's Masterplan for the Greenwich Millennium Village situated apartments and
townhouses around a series of traditional London squares, which are grouped around a central
village green and man-made lake.
Greenwich Millennium Village is the country’s largest green housing development, and has
set new benchmarks for environmental building across the country. Architect Ralph
Erskine conceived the master plan and designed the first stage of housing for the 13
hectare site. Each section is set around an updated version of the traditional London
square, and then grouped around a central village green and man-made lake, with green
corridors connecting the river and the rest of the Peninsula.
- 22 -
Figure 5 - Each of GMV’s four sections is set around an updated version of the traditional London
square, and then grouped around a central village green and man-made lake, with green corridors
connecting the river and the rest of the Peninsula.
Erskine’s housing designs emphasise energy efficiency and mixed tenure communities:
the entire development will provides nearly 1,600 dwellings in the form of units and
townhouses. Of these, about 20% will be offered as social housing and a further 12% as
market rate rental accommodation. As well as maximising the advantages of solar
orientation and cross ventilation, the development aims to reduce energy consumption
through the use of low-embodied energy materials and low energy appliances, and will
generate power onsite for central heating, hot water and electricity for all residents, using a
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system.
Figure 6 –Greenwich Millennium Village minimises car use and creates opportunities for community
interaction in compact and character-filled streets.
The project uses innovative construction techniques, such as modular bathroom and
kitchen pods, and prefabricated cladding and window solutions which are assembled in
- 23 -
onsite factories prior to installation, resulting in lower costs, better quality finishes, and less
construction waste.
Figure 7 - GMV uses innovative construction techniques, such as modular bathroom and kitchen
pods, and prefabricated cladding and window solutions, which are assembled in onsite factories
prior to installation.
Although the project is not yet half finished: the first residential stage is complete and
occupied, while the second stage was nearing completion around the time of my visit,
several community facilities, including a primary school and health centre, have already
opened. Public transport, including buses and underground trains are also operational,
with further services to be added as the population on the peninsula increases. Local jobs
are available at retail outlets, a Royal Mail sorting office and the remaining industries on
the western side of the peninsula.
Figure 8 - The new Millennium Primary School is already open. After hours, the school is used as a
community meeting place for local events.
According to EPR Architect Brendan Phelan, Greenwich Millennium Village “tries to strike
a balance” between ecological objectives, such as water and energy saving devices, and
commercial realities. At the same time, the project has been built using new construction
techniques that reduce both time and cost, result in fewer defects, and virtually eliminate
construction waste (which accounts for 40% of the country’s landfill).
Mr Phelan said that GMV’s achievements to date, including achieving an Excellent rating
using the BREEAM system for eco-homes, had performed an educational role. “Rather
than just meeting existing targets, GMV raises the bar in terms of what other developers
could do, and it helps to educate the market in that respect,” he said. Since completing the
first stage, development partner Taylor Woodrow has committed to meeting the same
ecological standards for all its new homes nationwide, thereby exceeding existing code
requirements.
- 24 -
Mr Phelan also said that in most cases, “socially deprived sectors were living in the
poorest quality housing [in England], so they are being doubly deprived”. He suggested
that providing ecologically sensitive homes would save those residents money by reducing
their utility bills, and therefore contribute to their ability to eventually move out of the social
housing sector.
Mr Phelan said that while modularised and prefabricated construction was currently more
expensive than traditional forms of building (by between 20 and 30%), and needed at least
100 units to be viable, it offered significant advantages in terms of defects and waste
minimisation. “For bathrooms and kitchens, for example, there’s a lot of trades
concentrated in one area, and it becomes technically difficult to co-ordinate,” he said.
“Tiles get chipped, things get stolen, and they are the areas with the most defects, so
prefab is great for those rooms.”
Mr Phelan also said that the density of the GMV would be an important factor in its
success. “In the UK, suburban sprawl means about 26 or 27 houses per hectare, and the
knock on effect of that is that you don’t have enough houses for a local shop or to support
frequent and reliable public transport,” he said. “Therefore 50 units per hectare is seen as
ideal, and GMV should equate to about 170 units per hectare, compared to a maximum
density in London of about 800 units per hectare. We think the density at this project will
provide an optimum level for the residents without the disadvantages of overcrowding.”
Proctor and Matthews architect Stephen Proctor said GMV provided a good example of
planning for sustainable communities. “We are interested in creating sustainable
neighbourhoods, not through photo voltaics and wind turbines, but by making people
responsible for their environment in different ways,” he said. “We want to avoid first home
buyer ghettos, or socially deprived ghettos, and build proper communities by design
instead. So at GMV, like other mixed income housing projects, we don’t seek to
differentiate between private and affordable homes: there shouldn’t be a distinction.”
Project: BedZED, the Beddington Zero Energy Development

Location: Sutton, Surrey
Client: Peabody Trust
Developer: Peabody Trust and BioRegional (an environmental organisation
that aims to bring local sustainability into mainstream business
and industry)
Architect: Bill Dunster Architects
Builder: not known
Cost: not known
Financing type: not known
No of units: 82
Unit type/s: 1, 2, 3 & 4 bedroom flats and houses for private and public sale
and rent
Potential occupants: Singles, families and couples eligible for housing association
accommodation.
Construction method: not known
- 25 -
BedZED is an environmentally-friendly, energy-efficient mix of housing and work spaces,
and was the first in the UK to incorporate up-to-the minute thinking on sustainable
development into every aspect of the scheme. The development only uses energy from
renewable sources generated onsite, making it the country’s first large-scale ‘carbon
neutral’ community. It aims to show that it is possible to meet demand for new housing
without destroying the countryside, and to demonstrate that an eco-friendly lifestyle can be
easy, affordable and attractive.
Figure 9 – BedZED only uses energy from renewable sources generated onsite, making it the UK’s
first large-scale ‘carbon neutral’ community.
Where possible, building materials were selected from natural, renewable or recycled
sources, and purchased within a 35-mile radius of the site. The houses were designed to
be energy-efficient, and are all south facing so as to most of the heat from the sun, with
excellent insulation and triple-glazed windows. Rubbish bins in each home are divided into
`four compartments, for paper and card, and glass and tin recycling, as well as green and
general waste, while each kitchen features electricity and water meters, so that residents
can monitor their own consumption regularly.
Figure 10 - Recycle bins and water and electricity meters in every kitchen make it easy for BedZED's
residents to reduce waste to landfill and monitor resource consumption.
A site wide water strategy, including installing water saving appliances and making the
most of rain and recycled water, reduces mains consumption by one third, while a green
transport plan reduces reliance on cars by cutting the need for travel (through internet
shopping links and on-site facilities) and providing alternatives to driving such as a car
pool. Residents can hire electric cars for local journeys, and the nearest major shopping
area in Sutton provides car recharging points.
- 26 -
Residents can reduce their total energy demand by up to 60%, with a 90% reduction in
heat demand, compared to a typical suburban home.

According to interviews and research carried out by the project’s designers and managers,
BedZED’s residents are very happy with the philosophy behind their homes and the
practicalities of the scheme. Architect Bill Dunster claims that the project provides answer
to many of the problems facing planners and politicians as they try to meet the demand for
housing in the 21st century:
• The site is an good example of creative use of brownfield land (the site was formerly a
sewage treatment plant);
• The mix of living and work space cuts down on commuting and helps boost the local
economy; and
• The mix of homes: for sale and rent on affordable and market terms, attracts people
with high and low incomes, creating a diverse and inclusive community.
The development generates and uses heat and energy produced onsite by a combined
heat and power unit (CHP), which eliminates the use of fossil fuels and avoids carbon
emissions. The CHP is fuelled by waste timber from local tree surgery, which would
normally go to landfill. The CHP unit generates electricity and distributes hot water around
the site via insulated pipes. These deliver heat to domestic hot water cylinders positioned
centrally in every home and office, doubling up as heat emitters in cold spells. Excess
electricity is exported to the National Grid, to be retrieved at times of site peak electrical
demand to supplement the CHP generation.
The buildings have been designed to conserve energy: heat loss is drastically reduced by
an ‘overcoat’ of super-insulation to the roofs, walls and floors, so that heat from sunshine,
lights, appliances, hot water, and everyday activities such as cooking, keep the houses
cosy and warm. (The thick walls of the building prevent overheating in summer and store
warmth in the winter to be released slowly during cooler periods such as night and on
overcast days.)
Figure 11 - Every home has a private garden, even on the upper floors, as well as a cosy sunroom
that is well sealed to prevent heat loss.
The windows are triple-glazed, while their timber frames further reduce heat loss. Well-
sealed windows and doors, and the concrete construction stop the heat leaking out. A heat
exchanger in the wind-driven ventilation system recovers between 50% and 70% of the
warmth from the outgoing stale air. Also, the houses face south and are fitted with
photovoltaic solar panels, which generate power for recharging points for electric vehicles.
At the time of completion, kitchens were installed with the latest energy-saving appliances,
- 27 -
while low-energy lighting means that even if a family has a light on in every room, the total
use will still only be 120 watts.
Water saving measures include the installation of water-efficient appliances, such as

washing machines, using lower-volume baths and fitting taps with water-saving flow
restrictors, installing dual flush toilets, and collecting rainwater and recycled water which is
stored in large tanks in the foundations for reuse. Outside, the development’s car parking
spaces were laid with porous block paving over gravel to minimise surface run off, and
runoff from sky gardens, roads and pavements is drained to the front of the development
where a dry ditch has been enhanced into a water feature specially designed to attract
wild-life. BedZED’s wastewater is treated on site by a small-scale sewage treatment
system known as the Living Machine. It extracts nutrients for plant food, and treats the
water so that it can be recycled back to the underground water tanks to supplement
rainwater for flushing the toilet.
Figure 12 – BedZED features water efficient appliances, low flow taps and low volume baths, as well
as energy efficient kitchen and laundry appliances.
Project: Murray Grove
Location: Stoke Newington, North London
Developer: Peabody Trust
Architect: Cartwright Pickard Architects
Builder: Yorkon
Cost: £2.315 million
Commencement date: Competition held 1998, construction commenced February
1999
Completion date: September 1999
Financing type: Public funding through Housing Association
No of units: 30
Unit type/s: One- and two-bedroom apartments
Potential occupants: 50% of units are rented at subsidised rates to key workers who
meet eligibility criteria, 50% are rented at full market rates.
Construction method: Factory built modules installed, connected and clad onsite
- 28 -
Figure 13 - Murray Grove was the UK's first modular, multi-storey, affordable housing project.
Yorkon’s first residential project was Murray Grove, an affordable housing development
commissioned by the Peabody Trust, for a corner site in Stoke Newington, North London.
Peabody held a design competition for the project, which consists of 30 one- and two-
bedroom apartments, and specified offsite forms of construction.
Half of the units are rented at subsidised rates to key workers, such as teachers and
nurses, who have stable incomes but are often unable to meet the rising costs of private
rents in London, while the other half are rented at full market rates.
According to James Cartwright, architect and partner at Cartwright Pickard Architects, the
fact that he had worked in Sweden for two years, where he became familiar with flat
packed timber construction methods, helped his six month old architecture firm to win the
competition in 1998. The firm’s unique approach to design and construction was also a
contributing factor, Mr Cartwright said. “The architecture profession has lost sight of who
they are designing for,” he asserted. “They are too focussed on design for design’s sake,
and are not solving problems, or arriving at buildings that will be great places to live and
work for 100 years.
“We don’t see construction technology as an end in itself: the end result of our work is a
beautiful and functional building that works, and will last a long time and age well.”
The firm’s design for Murray Grove took advantage of the corner site by placing two wings
along Murray Grove and Shepherdess Walk, off a central tower that contains a secure
entry lobby at ground level, and lift and stair access to the upper floors.
Figure 14 - Murray Grove is situated on a corner site, with a leafy south facing internal courtyard.
- 29 -
The one-bedroom apartments consist of two 8m x 3.2m modules, while the two-bedroom
units comprise three modules. All bedrooms and living rooms have interior dimensions of
5.15m x 3m, and there are no internal corridors.
Apartments are accessed via 1.5 metre wide external corridors positioned on the street
elevation, while individual balconies, large enough to accommodate a table and four
chairs, overlook a central south-facing courtyard. The balconies and access ways were
assembled onsite from precast concrete and steel-rod cross bracing. The roof elements
and circular entrance tower that contains the lift and stairwell were also delivered as
modular elements.
Figure 15 – The street frontage features access balconies, while private balconies overlook the
internal courtyard.
Inside each unit, the front door gives immediate access to the bathroom and kitchen,
which are positioned on the street side to provide a buffer from external noise, while
bedrooms and living spaces overlook the quieter courtyard. The courtyard elevation was
dry clad with red cedar, while the street elevations feature clip-on terracotta panels, with
the modular margins clearly expressed.
Figure 16 - The front door opens onto the kitchen and bathroom, eliminating the need for corridors.
The entire project cost £2.315 million and took just 32 weeks to complete. Pile foundations
were installed in February 1999, the first 35 apartment modules were landed in three days
at the end of March, and the final 39 modules were erected in mid-April. The lift and stair
tower erection was next, followed by the access deck and roof, with final completion and
handover taking place in September 1999.
- 30 -
Figure 17 - The entire project took just 32 weeks from commencement to completion, with modules
landed onsite in just than ten days.
All photos of Murray Grove courtesy of Cartwright Pickard Architects and Yorkon.
The project has since won ten design awards, including a 2000 Housing Design Award,
and was short listed for the Royal Institute of British Architecture (RIBA) Stirling Prize for
architecture, alongside projects such as the London Eye and Canary Wharf Station, in the
same year.
In 2001, Cartwright Pickard Architects won a second modular Yorkon project, from clients
York Housing and the City of York, who commissioned the Sixth Avenue affordable
housing scheme. The firm used a similar plan to Murray Grove, with six floors of
apartments placed around a private, landscaped courtyard. The £2m project featured 24
one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, constructed from 48 modules, and was
completed in April 2002.
Figure 18 - The Sixth Avenue project in York features terracotta cladding on the ground floor and
western red cedar above (left). The stair and lift tower gives way to access balconies that overlook
the courtyard (right).
Architect James Cartwright said that lessons learnt and improved efficiencies meant that
the Sixth Avenue project cost 20% less in real terms than its predecessor, Murray Grove.
The firm is now working on a third modular affordable housing project, also for Peabody
Trust, featuring more than 200 units.
Since working with Yorkon on modular schemes, Cartwright Pickard Architects developed
a modular system for housing construction in the USA, with a developer based in Chicago,
and has also designed a flat packed timber housing system for distribution in the UK,
starting this year
“We believe that our primary market for the timber frame product will be low rise family
type dwellings and apartments up to five or six stories,” Cartwright said. “We’ll be using the
- 31 -
latest Swedish technologies, and we’ll be able to undercut traditional forms of construction
on cost, and the product will be watertight just two days after starting construction.”
Mr Cartwright said another benefit of the new system was that bathrooms and kitchens
would be manufactured in pods offsite, improving quality and speed of installation.
“Once you own one of these homes and you want to renovate the bathroom or kitchen,
you can select your new design from the catalogue, order it from the factory, and then
change it out in a day, instead of living through renovations for weeks on end, with no
certain completion date,” he said.
“Essentially, the whole house is a kit of parts: customers will be able to design a
customised house designed by an architect,” he continued. “Then it can be clad according
to the client’s choice, so volume house builders could buy our kits and clad them in
Georgian brick if they want to.”
The main advantages, Mr Cartwright said, were quality control at the site, predictability in
terms of program and cost, and the fact that buildings should be almost defect free. Kits
will be erected onsite by semi-skilled labourers, but Mr Cartwright said that the company
aimed to the housing equivalent of “Volkswagen Golfs, not Ladas”.
“We know that our timber framing partner is currently building 2,000 homes a year, and we
expect that figure will double in two the three years, and then again in three years after
that.”
Mr Cartwright said that complete offsite manufacture, like that done by Yorkon, was not as
suited to housing as other building types. “The supply is still limited, and their
manufacturing capacity is not what it could be,” he claimed. “That means that [those
builders] are more likely to go for building types with higher return, such as hospitals and
hotels, than housing. That’s part of the reason we’ve established our new product: we
don’t want to compete with steel frame companies, though.”
Mr Cartwright asserted that Murray Grove had made affordable housing “sexy”. “The vast
majority of big name architecture firms didn’t want to touch affordable housing before,
because the fees are not high, and it’s not glamorous work,” he said. “Also, you have to
really deal with clients and their needs, so other firms have tended to produce lots of big
office buildings, but they are turning to affordable architecture now that the office market is
declining.”
“It helps that the Housing Association is becoming more enlightened,” he added. “The
government has encouraged them to employ good architects, and there’s an
acknowledgement now that the quality of affordable housing is very important.”
- 32 -
Project: Raines Dairy
Location: Hackney, North East London
Developer: Peabody Trust
Architect: Allford, Hall, Monaghan and Morris
Builder: Yorkon
Cost: £4.9 million
Financing type: Public funding through Housing Association
No of units: 61
Unit type/s: Two- and three-bedroom apartments (x 53) for subsidised rent
and shared ownership and Live/Work units (x 8) for market sale
Potential occupants: Subsidised units for residents with incomes of up to £25,000
and market rate purchasers.
Construction method: Factory built modules installed, connected and clad onsite
Figure 19 - Raines Dairy is the first Yorkon modular project to offer homes for sale.
The success of Murray Grove prompted another affordable housing development in
London in 2001. Raines Dairy was also commissioned by the Peabody Trust, and
constructed with modules manufactured by Yorkon.
Architect Simon Allford said that the process of designing modular units helped to
maximise internal space efficiencies, partly because circulation space is virtually
eliminated. “You can improve the efficiency of units, in terms of the shape, layout and
access,” he said. “I think the key to good design is to stop measuring homes in terms of
squared feet, and to start thinking in terms of squared feet of useable space.
“We included balconies at Raines Dairy, and used lower quality finishes, because
residents can upgrade the finishes down the track, but they can’t add a balcony later.”
- 33 -
Figure 20 - The modules at Raines Dairy incorporate balconies for each apartment (left) and it
features an impressive, secure lobby.
The project used 127 modules ranging in length from 9.6 to 11.6 metres, with an increased
width to 3.8m, which helped to reduce installation and transport costs. The live/work units
are located on the ground floor of the T-shaped plan, with five floors of two-bedroom
apartments above, and the three-bedroom units in a separate wing at the rear.
The entire project was completed in just 50 weeks, a saving of 40% compared to
traditional onsite building. The main façade was clad with shiplap profiled zinc panels, with
zinc cover strips to mask the modular joints, and painted cladding in the balcony recesses
to define each unit. The other elevations were finished in larch timber cladding.
The triangular site was bordered by a railway line cutting, a clearway arterial road and
existing housing, making it an ideal candidate for prefabricated construction. However,
according to Mr Allford, while modular construction offers one solution to London’s housing
affordability problems and tight sights, it should not be seen as the only option.
Figure 21 - The triangular site's location, bordered by a railway cutting, a busy arterial road and
existing housing, made it a prime candidate for offsite construction.
“Prefab produces boxes, not flats,” he said. “You still need the same trades in the factory
as you would need for construction from scratch onsite, but you do improve worksite
conditions, so its easier to encourage people to work in a trade. While the lead times can
be longer for prefabrication, the process is better for the surrounding areas than traditional
construction.”
AAHM is now working on a project called MoMo, short for Mobile Modular, which uses
office technologies and is designed to be moved to different sites every five years or so as
land uses change.
- 34 -
Architect Simon Allford said that the use of prefabricated modules called into question
fundamental architectural issues about land and place, and that architects and clients
needed to be attentive to avoid producing housing solutions that were not site specific.
He also added that there was too much emphasis on construction time and cost when
assessing the practicality of modular construction. There’s “too many glib comments about
on time, and on budget,” he said, arguing that modular housing offered other benefits that
were not so easily quantified, such as internal space planning efficiencies and suitability
for difficult infill sites.
Mr Allford also argued that the Mayor of London’s 50% affordable housing target for new
construction was “killing off schemes”. ”We are currently looking at a [mixed tenure]
scheme with 60 private and 25 affordable units, and on top of that, the planners want the
developer to deliver £1 m in landscape improvements,” he said.
Housing for key workers would be one of the biggest challenges in the future in London,
Mr Allford said, wondering which agency or level of government would accept
responsibility for providing it. “You really need subsidised land to make it viable,” he said.
“We need to rethink land use, and work to renew existing land in the inner city. If there was
a clear and straightforward system for calculating land tax, that would make development
easier: at the moment planning requirements differ from site to site, and the greatest
uncertainty is not the build cost but the development cost.”
Project: Microflat prototype

Client: not yet secured
Developer: not yet secured
Architect: Piercy Conner Architects
Builder: The Microflat Company
Cost: for sale at less than £100,000 per unit
Commencement date: prototype designed in 2002
Completion date: n/a
Financing type: Seeking public financing solutions to ensure eligibility criteria
are in place and affordability is maintained over time
No of units: Multiples of 18
Unit type/s: One bedroom units
Potential occupants: Key workers who meet eligibility criteria
Construction method: Modularised steel framed construction

Architects Stuart Piercy and Richard Conner came up with the Microflat prototype as a
solution to their own affordable housing problem in London – they were unable to find
suitable housing in inner London that they and their friends could afford to buy. The
Microflat is a compact but space-efficient flat that they hoped to develop on a small but
central site. When they realised the potential of the design to address London’s shortage
of housing for key workers and young professionals, the pair decided to streamline the
construction process to produce a modular product, before securing a construction and
development partner, with a view to developing sites across the capital.
The architects are partners at Piercy Conner, which they established in 1999. The firm
now has about 16 staff, and according to architect Leonard Milford, is primarily interested
in exploring housing solutions to address sustainability and affordability issues, while
- 35 -
taking into account changing demographics and market forces. The firm has entered many
housing competitions, and developed several new housing types, including the Flexible
Living Opportunities (FLO) project, based on Victorian townhouses and the Microflat.
While the latter began life as a private project, the firm has worked tirelessly to promote its
ability to deal with a shortage of affordable housing for key workers in London. The one
bedroom Microflat measures just 32.5m2, about two-thirds of the size of an average one-
bedroom flat in London. Taking inspiration from yacht design, the architects made use of
every available inch of space, incorporating a small double bedroom, a pod containing a
shower and toilet, storage space, and a kitchen / living area that provides access to a
small balcony. Ceilings are 2.8 metres high to provide an enhanced feeling of space and
maximise natural light from floor to ceiling windows, the walls are heavily insulated to keep
noise at bay, and the interiors are attractively fitted out with laminated floors, architectural
ironmongery and kitchen fittings from market leaders such as Neff.
Figure 22 - The Microflat measures just 32.5m2, but includes a small double bedroom, kitchen and
bathroom pod, and a living area with a small balcony.
Prospective developments might include up to 40 units, sited for solar orientation and
passive ventilation. The proposed developments would also include facilities for residents
such as gardens, barbecues and tennis courts, to foster interaction and provide outdoor
leisure space.
- 36 -
Figure 23 - Microflats could be stacked on top of each other, for privacy and optimum solar
orientation, on small central sites, with community facilities on the roof.
To demonstrate the feasibility of the Microflat, a prototype was installed in a store window
at Selfridges, a department store on London’s Oxford Street, in January 2002. Two single
24 year old professionals, a male bank worker and a female market researcher, spent a
week each living in the unit, in full view of passers by. Participant Helene Cacace said that
she aspired to own her own home, “but on my present salary there's no way I'd be able to
buy anything in central London. However, I could get a mortgage for something like this. I
think it would be very popular: there's definitely a market for it.”
Figure 24 - A Microflat was installed in the window at Selfridges department store to demonstrate its
viability to prospective developers and residents
The demonstration generated mountains of publicity, with newspaper, magazine and
television coverage, including a documentary, appearing through the UK, Europe, USA
and Asia. It also generated plenty of enquiries from potential residents, and there is now a
2,500-strong waiting list of key workers eager to own a Microflat in central London.
The success of the installation gave the architects the impetus to establish The Microflat
Company with a builder, and to start looking for suitable sites. They hope to develop sites
above council-owned car parks and new supermarkets, but would require changes to
planning consents to increase densities before proceeding.
Piercy Conner also hopes to secure government support for the Microflat project, to
ensure that the units would be sold to owner occupiers who were otherwise unable to
purchase a home on the open market in London. The units are expected to sell for less
than £100,000, well short of London’s average price of £150,000 for a one-bedroom
- 37 -
apartment. With assistance from the government and housing associations, the
affordability of Microflats could be preserved for future buyers, with appreciation tied to
inflation and new buyers also required to meet eligibility criteria.
Despite much negotiating with both councils and developers, the project is stuck on the
drawing board, although the firm continues to enter housing competitions in the hope of
winning a commission for the product.
Piercy is cautiously optimistic, but acknowledges the problems. “The challenge is to find
appropriate sites close to the city and convince developers to go with the idea,” he said.
“That may be difficult because they have a ready market for expensive apartments in
central London. Building these would mean reduced profit margins.”

It is possible to combine good design and efficient construction to arrive at affordable
housing solutions for first home buyers, who are often hardest hit when housing
affordability is compromised in large cities. Piercy Conner’s Microflat solution is
environmentally sensitive (taking in solar orientation, energy and water conservation and
landscaping and biodiversity considerations), economically viable (by partnering with
government to establish eligibility criteria and long-term affordability objectives) and space
efficient (both inside through careful architectural planning, and outside via installation in
‘air-right’ spaces above ground floor commercial developments or above public carparks.
The modular system saves on design and construction costs by saving money through
repetition, and aims to use ecologically friendly materials in its construction. Also, the units
could be reused or recycled, thereby reducing the cost of the embodied energy.
The fact that the prototype has not yet been implemented in London, where the demand
for housing for working, young people in the city centre is so severe, speaks to the
requirement for government co-operation and backing for solutions such as the Microflat.
Governments at all levels can assist in delivering these types of solutions: local
governments can facilitate the development of projects of this density within their
jurisdiction; state governments can establish and enforce eligibility criteria so that
ownership is restricted to residents who are otherwise priced out of the home ownership
market, and both state and local governments can provide access to public sites where
developments of this type can take place.
- 38 -
2. Finland

The Finnish Government’s Ministry for the Environment sets the country’s housing
policies and strategies, and is responsible for housing legislature, housing subsidy
systems and budget planning. The Ministry’s operative arm, the Housing Fund of Finland
(ARA), grants state housing loans, approves interest subsidised commercial loans,
monitors quality and cost control attached to subsidy systems, and allocates grants for
regeneration and renewal of existing housing. ARA also designates and monitors the non-
profit organisations that construct and manage social housing throughout the country (15%
of total housing stock nationally).
There are more than 400 independent and autonomous muncipalities, such as the City of
Helsinki, which play a significant role in housing policy and development: they oversee
land use planning for both social and market housing, and provide new infrastructure
where necessary. In the case of social housing, municipalities also determine both the
housing type and the form of tenure, and collectively, they own about 60% of all social
housing.
A range of housing loans, interest subsidies and grants are financed from an off-budget
fund, the State Housing Fund. Its revenue is derived from cash from interest payments
and amortisation of existing state housing loans, as well as external sources such as
securitisation or borrowing.

Finland has a population of about 5.2 million people, with net growth of about 10,000
people each year, half of that resulting from international migration. The country has
approximately 2.3 million households, and housing demand is strongest in major cities,
largely as a result of migration from the country areas, that originated in the early 1990s.
This shift has contributed to a housing shortage in some metropolitan areas, particularly
the capital, offset by a housing surplus in some rural parts.
Currently the population of Helsinki is 550,000 (greater area population is 1.2 million): this
is expected to grow by another people by 150,000 by 2030, while some provinces will lose
up to one quarter of their existing population in the same timeframe.
International migration is also contributing to demand for housing in the capital: even
though foreign born residents account for only 2% of the national population, they are
largely concentrated in Helsinki, where they account for about 5% of the total.
Another factor contributing to housing demand is a steady decrease in average household

size: from 3.34 in 1960 to 2.25 in 1998.
In 1998, Finland had approximately 10,000 homeless people, with more than half located
in greater Helsinki.

Finnish society is characterised by equal opportunity for all, and housing, education and
health policies have all been formulated to reflect this. While the majority of Finns are
- 39 -
owner occupiers (64% in 2001), social rental housing plays a significant role, accounting
for 17% of all dwellings, with the remainder falling into free market rental (15%) and ‘other’
categories (4%).
According to Mr Tuevo Ijas, Director-General of the Housing Fund of Finland, the role of
social housing has been crucial in improving housing standards generally, through the
establishment of quality and space standards for social housing, that have also been met
in the public sector.
“We have no slums in Finland, our social housing is of the same standard as private
housing, and from the outside you can’t tell whether housing is social or private,” Mr Ijas
said.
More than half of Finland’s total housing stock was built between 1970 and 1990, and
about 50% of these homes were built with government subsidies. During the late 1980s
and early 1990s, the housing sector was dominated by a boom in the private sector, when
single family houses dominated new construction (66% of all new homes). Following a
downturn in the private sector that began in the early 1990s, government funded housing
has again dominated construction, with more than 70% of new dwellings funded by
government loans or interest subsidies. As most of the government subsidised dwellings
are flats, the number of new single family homes has dropped to less than 50% of total
production.
New housing supply

In 2002, 28,000 new dwellings were built in Finland: 69% were market financed (19,400
units), and the majority of those were owner occupied dwellings (18,000) with a small
number of market rate rental units (1,400). The state subsidised construction of 8,600
dwellings in 2002: 4,600 were social rental units, 1.400 were social rented for elderly
people or students, 1.500 were right of occupancy units and 1,200 were owner occupied.
The majority of new units were in apartment developments (46%), while detached houses
made up 39% of the total and terraced houses 15%.
According to Timo Tähtinen, Senior Advisor, Housing Finance at the Ministry for the
Environment, and Teuvo Ijas, the Director-General of ARA, low interest rates (generally
set at less than 3%) and extended mortgage terms (now 20 years, up from an average of 8
years in the 1980s) have both contributed to a shift towards home ownership in Finland. “It
is easier to service a loan now than it was in [the housing boom of] the early 1990s,” Mr
Tähtinen said. “Between 1990 and 2000, the cost of renting has actually increased as a
proportion of income, while the cost of mortgages has decreased as a proportion of
income.”
Developers are also taking advantage of low interest rates. “At the moment, private money
is cheaper than ARA Funding, so borrowers are less inclined to use ARA funding and
those that have are paying back our loans quickly,” Mr Ijas said. “We actually have funds
in State treasury that are not being used at the moment.” Mr Ijas said that this situation
was the main cause of the government failing to reach its target of 10,000 new social units
per year in 2002, with a shortfall of 1,400 dwellings, despite the ever increasing need for
more social housing.
- 40 -
A negative impact of the shift towards home ownership has been the increase in housing
costs in both owner occupier and rental markets. Housing costs in Helsinki are now double
the national average on a per square metre basis.
2.3 Policies and Strategies

Social housing
The state provides housing subsidies of €1.6 billion (1.2% of GNP): 83% linked to housing
demand, in the form of housing allowances and tax-relief for interest on housing loans, and
17% linked to production in the form of government loans (ARAVA loans), interest-subsidy
loans and renovation grants.
In the past 50 years, state subsidised loans have been used to finance 42% of all new
dwelling construction, resulting in the production of:
• 400,000 new rental dwellings
• 430,000 owner occupied dwellings
• 23,000 right of occupancy dwellings; and
• 225,000 dwelling renovations.
Key objectives of the country’s social housing policy include:

• Maintaining the role of housing as a core element in ensuring the welfare of all;
Planning and delivering integrated residential areas, with social stability and no slums;
• Maintaining housing affordability;
• Ensuring cost effectiveness in the construction of new housing; and
• Ensuring comparable architectural quality for social and market rate housing.
The majority of ARAVA loans, approximately 60%, are taken out by Finnish municipal
governments, or companies owned by them, as developers and owners of new social
housing. The remaining 40% of loans are allocated to designated borrowers, such as non-
profit social housing developers (whose profit margins are currently set by the state at a
maximum level of 8%) and special purpose associations (which provide housing for
targeted groups, such as the elderly and students).All developers are required to maintain
affordability of ARAVA funded housing for 45 years.
Many non-profit developers are part of larger organisations that also operate in the public
sector, and when the housing market is buoyant, as it is at the moment, the home
ownership development market is more profitable than social development, leading to a
fall in the supply of social housing. Therefore, political debate revolving around
encouraging more developers into the sector, for example by increasing the profit levels
from 8% or shortening the term of affordability, are ongoing.
In the development phase, ARA maintains responsibility for monitoring and approving the
cost and quality of all projects built with its financing schemes. Design selection is based
on an architectural competition, and the construction contractor is selected following a
public bidding process. During the construction stage, Municipalities hold responsibility for
monitoring compliance with state government construction codes, and for authorisation of
any variation to the approved design or plan.
A government imposed cap on price increases of 10% per year is designed to ensure cost-
effectiveness in the delivery of new social housing, but it may also be responsible for
reluctance among developers and builders to incorporate new environmental measures in
- 41 -
social housing. In many cases, the cost of new technologies required for energy
production and water management, such as photo voltaics and grey-water recycling
systems, fall outside the threshold.
Housing Allowance
Finland’s most important housing support system is the Housing Allowance, which was
paid to about 475,000 recipients in 2001, at a total cost of €890 million. Of the total number
of recipients, 158,500 received general housing allowance, 165,000 received pensioners’
housing allowance and 151,000 received housing supplement for students.
About 95% of recipients were accommodated in rental housing, 55% of the total in ARAVA
social housing, with the remaining 5% in shared ownership schemes. The General
Housing Allowance is available to all types of households (families with children, single
persons, couples and communities) and for all types of tenure (rental, owner-occupied and
right of occupancy). In 2001, 64% of recipients of General Housing Allowance were
unemployed, while 36% of recipients were low income employees.
Under the Housing Allowance program, the Ministry of the Environment sets a maximum
figure for rent payable according to location and household size, and meets 80% of that
total, with recipients liable for 20%. Above certain income thresholds, recipients can also
pay top up amount should the rent exceed the limits set by the program.
Shared ownership schemes

The Ministry of the Environment has introduced two main shared ownership schemes to
assist traditional social rental clients into partial home ownership. The first was the Right of
Occupancy scheme, established in the early 1990s and still operational. Residents buy
into the scheme by paying a specified percentage of the home value (currently set at
15%), which is redeemable at any time adjusted by the construction cost index. They then
pay a monthly charge, similar to rent, based on the cost of housing, for the life of their
tenure, although they are not able to ‘staircase’ out of the program into full home
ownership. While applicants do not have to satisfy income criteria, they must demonstrate
that they are not capable of purchasing a dwelling to meet their households’ needs. Upon
satisfying the criteria for Right to Occupancy housing, applicants are placed in a queue
before being allocated a place in the program. Since its introduction, the scheme has been
used for about 1% of all new housing construction, resulting in the provision of about
30,000 new dwellings.
Mr Tahtinen said that the scheme was seen as a step towards homeownership, and
offered benefits to householders because the investment was not as great as for a full
mortgage, but the tenure was more secure than traditional rental accommodation.
However, he admitted that while the scheme had been well received in Helsinki, it had not
been widely used in other parts of the country, and was perceived to have competitive
problems in the market.
A second scheme of state subsidised shared ownership was introduced in 2001.

Households can pay a share of the accepted building cost (generally 20%) while the
developer takes out an interest subsidised commercial loan for the remaining 80% of the
cost. The household then pays rent to the developer, and after five years but before 12
years, the householder can opt to purchase the dwelling from the developer.
Households are selected on the basis of social appropriateness and financial need,
although the income limits are higher than those that apply to social rental dwellings. Mr
- 42 -
Tahtinen said that the scheme aimed to balance the requirements of both homeowners
and developers, but added that in the current housing market, it had not been well
received, with less than 100 projects completed so far. He suggested that its popularity as
a stepping stone to home ownership may increase when interest rates start to rise and
outright home ownership options are not as attractive as they are currently.
State Mortgage Guarantee

In the 1970s and 1980s, prospective owner occupiers were required to procure deposits of
up to 4- or 50% in order to secure a loan to buy a home, and many younger buyers relied
on personal guarantee arrangements with family members to enable them to become
owner occupiers. In the early 1990s, a recession resulted in spiralling housing costs,
thereby creating a disastrous situation not only for young owner occupiers but also for their
family members who had provided personal guarantees.
As well as forcing many owner occupiers to sell their homes, the recession impacted on
the housing construction market, and new commencements had largely stalled.
The government, through the Ministry of the Environment, developed a strategy to tackle
these two issues: it aimed to assist young buyers back into home ownership and to
stimulate the construction of new dwellings in a soft market.
The State Mortgage Guarantee was established in 1996, and is available to households or
individuals for the purchase of a primary residence. Borrowers must put forward 15% of
the purchase price as a deposit, and the SMG is available for 20% of the loan amount (to a
maximum of €25,250). When the property is sold, the SMG reverts to the state, with capital
gains based on the purchase and sale price of the property. When it was first introduced,
the cost of the SMG was 1.5 of the loan, which has since been increased to 2.5% in light
of the upturn in the housing market.
At the end of October 2003, 134,472 State Mortgage Guarantees had been issued, with
about 3,000 new guarantees taken up each month (about 20% of all new housing loans).
The state has €84 billion invested in the scheme. In the eight years since its inception, the
there have only been about 20 defaults, where the state has been called upon to pay the
guarantee to the lending institution.
Maintenance and repairs

Since the early 1990s, the Housing Fund of Finland has expanded its remit to grant loans
and funds for the renovation of existing public and private dwellings, in line with new
environmental, health and changing population objectives. Although 85% of Finland’s
housing stock has been constructed since 1950, and is therefore modern in comparison
with many other countries, the same amount is now spent on renovation and
modernisation of existing residential buildings as is spent on construction of new dwellings
across the public and private sectors..
Building authorities and the property and construction sectors are collaborating towards
goals of sustainable development. Experimental building is taking place to research and
develop appropriate solutions for the Finnish environment, and to speed up the
introduction of technical innovations across the construction sector.
In the social housing sector, funding for repairs and maintenance has been allocated to
assist in the country’s compliance with its Kyoto Protocol obligations. Some social housing
projects have received funding for maintenance or repairs to improve energy efficiency
- 43 -
and indoor air quality. Works include upgrading central heating systems to reduce energy
consumption; replacing leaking windows to improve building envelopes; eliminating mould
and damp problems; and installing low emission finishing materials.
The Housing Fund has also allocated funds for improvements to housing for elderly
people, with the goal of enabling them to age in their homes for as long as possible.
Projects include installing elevators into walk-up apartment blocks in both public and
private buildings (ARA provides grants for 50% and 40% of the cost respectively with
tenants paying the rest), and installing technical equipment such as handrails and mobility
aids.
Changing household requirements

The Housing Fund is also working to provide adequate housing for changing household
demographics. Mr Ijas said that the Housing Fund was conscious of the need for smaller
rental dwellings, and was responsible for 70% of all new multi-storey housing. The
Housing Fund is also working to assist single tenants or couples who are living in large
flats to find suitable smaller accommodation, thereby freeing up larger properties for
families in housing need.
Review of ARA
In 2002, an independent evaluation of the Housing Fund of Finland was carried out, to
ascertain the views of key stakeholders such as municipalities, developers, construction
industry representatives and state administrators, and to provide recommendations for the
future. Overall, Mr Ijas said, the results of the review were positive, with respondents
suggesting that ARA was a professional organisation that maintained good relationships
with outside parties, while being flexible and easy to cooperate with. Constructive
feedback suggested that ARA needed more authority to affect change in housing policy
and activity more readily.
“The Housing Fund of Finland was found to be a good tool in housing policy, and it was
suggested that the government should use that tool more effectively,” Mr Ijas said. “We
face new challenges in terms of managing our existing housing stock, and maintaining
people and communities to prevent the emergence of slums. It’s important therefore to
admit that new production of housing does not play the key role that it used to”
As a result of the review, Mr Ijas hopes to develop the agency’s expertise in other areas
outside its remit of developing and financing loans. He suggested that ARA could become
an expert on meeting the housing needs of the elderly, including through the provision of
new equipment and co-ordinating the provision of food services, care visits, shopping,
healthcare and technical equipment; providing better solutions for homelessness; and
providing more advice and action on energy issues.
He also suggested that ARA could play a more proactive role in land planning and use,
through greater collaboration with Finland’s autonomous municipalities.
“At the moment ARA is just financing and constructing housing, but we could work with the
municipalities, which have significant landholdings, to help them in the construction of
schools and day-care centres for example,” Mr Ijas explained.
- 44 -
2.4 Projects
Case Study
Project: Viikki Ecological Neighbourhood
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Client: City of Helsinki Planning Department
Developer: various
Architect: City of Helsinki Planning Department and others
Builder: various
Cost: n/a
Completion date: 2010 (estimated)
Financing type: Private investors and ARAVA loans
No of units / residents:
n/a / 11,000 people:
Housing type/s: One to four bedrooms in single family houses, attached
houses, apartments
Potential occupants: Private owner-occupiers, private tenants, subsidised part-
ownership (right of occupancy) and public rental
Construction method/s: Traditional masonry, concrete and steel build on site
techniques with some part prefabrication, multistorey timber
framed houses

By 2010, it is expected that the Viikki Ecological Neighbourhood and Science Park will
accommodate 6,000 workers and 6,000 students, and provide homes for 11,000 residents.
The neighbourhood project was initiated in 1994 by the City of Helsinki, with support from
the Finnish Ministry of the Environment and the Finnish Association of Architects.
Viikki is located just 8km from the centre of Helsinki on a former greenfield site
incorporating 1,132 hectares, one third of which will be built on, with the remaining two
thirds set aside for conservation and parkland. Prior to the development, the landscape
consisted mostly of fields, with a smaller rocky forest area, and a nature conservation area
in the form of low lying wetlands. It is bordered by the Vantaanjoki River, the northern
reaches of Helsinki Harbour, and the Ring Road 1 motorway. The area had been used as
farmland since the city was founded in 1550, firstly as part of the royal estate before being
let to private tenants. Since 1931, the land has been managed by the University as a
teaching and research facility.
Figure 25 - Viikki is located on a former greenfield site, two thirds of which will be set aside as fields
and a nature conservation area.
- 45 -
The main objective of the neighbourhood was to combine ecological, social and economic
principles in the practice of actual building, and the City’s master plan aimed to deliver an
environmentally conscious town plan and housing structure. The neighbourhood is well
served by public transport: frequent bus services connect it to the city centre and cross city
bus routes connect it to other suburbs. In future, a tram service will be extended to the
main residential area. By road, the site is connected via two major arterial roads to the city,
and is just 20 minutes from Helsinki’s Vantaa International Airport.
Figure 26 – Viikki’s housing types include apartments, attached houses and single family dwellings,
all of which incorporate ecological factors such as wintergardens (above left and below), passive
cooling (above right) and solar collectors.
The site is divided into several key areas, including the University Science Park, which is
already occupied, and the Latokartano and Viikinmaki residential neighbourhoods, where
construction is continuing. The Science Park focuses on biological sciences and
biotechnology, and incorporates the University of Helsinki’s campus areas, private office
accommodation and business incubators, as well as the University’s experimental farm. It
also features a town square shopping centre that will include a department store and
supermarket, specialty shops and other services. The town square is already home to the
Viikki public library, and will eventually incorporate a hotel.
Figure 27 - Viikki University Science Park

- 46 -
Some of the Neighbourhood’s first homes were built in this area in 1997: the 64 units are
owned by the University and provide tied accommodation for its staff. The units were
among the first timber framed multistorey dwellings constructed in Finland.
Figure 28 - Timber multistorey houses at Viikki

Within the Science Park, the Korona InfoCentre houses two libraries, lecture and
conference facilities, and private offices and admin areas. The building features double
skin facades, heat recovery from ventilation, and solar hot water. In the winter, the air
supply is preheated via solar energy, reducing the building’s heating load.
Construction at Viikki’s largest residential area, Latokartano, commenced in 1998 and will
be completed by about 2010, with 700 new residents moving in each year. The area will
eventually house 10,000 people, and it already offers community facilities such as a newly
opened school for grades 1 to 12, a childcare centre, a health centre and youth club, with
a church, facilities for senior citizens and further shops, including a full line supermarket, to
be added in future.
Figure 29 - Viikki's new school caters for grades 1 – 12.
Figure 30 - Viikki's new childcare centre is already open.

All residential buildings in the Neighbourhood are designed for optimum environmental
performance, in addition to meeting the basic requirements for obtaining a building permit
under the Finnish building codes. They must demonstrate ecological viability against five
main criteria: pollution; natural resources; health; biodiversity; and food production.
Assessments based on analysis of design schemes indicate that the neighbourhood will
consume nearly 50% less heating energy, use one third less water and produce one third
less waste than conventional residential areas in Helsinki.
- 47 -
According to Markku Siskonen, from Helsinki’s Planning Department, while the cost of
meeting the basic ecological requirements set by the City has been estimated at an
additional 5% of total construction costs, those costs have been met by owners and
residents, who will recoup them in the form of savings on utility bills over the life of the
dwelling.
Viikki also features the country’s largest solar heating experiment, with nine separate
heating systems installed to date, as part of the European Union’s THERMIE programme.
Approximately 400 dwellings are part of the experiment, which uses 1,246 m2 of collectors
to provide nearly half the energy required to heat domestic hot water, and about 13% of
the annual heating load. Solar collectors are integrated within roof structures, wall
structures, balconies and as stand alone units in carparks and on local streets. The
experiment is co-ordinated by Finnish company Solpros, in conjunction with two Austrian
energy companies and the Helsinki Energy Board.
Figure 31 - Solar collectors provide nearly half the energy required to heat domestic hot water, and
about 13% of the annual heating load.
Figure 32 - Solar collectors are integrated within roof structures, wall structures, balconies (left) and
as stand alone units in carparks (right) and on local streets.
Conservation efforts at the site have seen the Viikinoja stream, a former drainage ditch,
repositioned and rebuilt to resemble a natural waterway. It now collects rainwater and acts
as a detention facility in local floods, to slow down the movement of water across the site
and thereby improve the quality of water before it reaches the bay. The site also features
extensive paths for walking, cycling or skiing during winter, taking in residential and
commercial areas, open fields and the bay waterfront.
- 48 -
3. Sweden
3.1 Policies and Strategies

In Sweden, I met with architects and planners from the City of Malmö, to discuss local
initiatives for sustainable development, so this section is not a comprehensive overview of
the entire country.
The city has a new development area, the Västra Hamnen (Western Harbour), which
features new affordable and market rate housing, in an ecologically sensitive design and
setting. More details are provided below.
The city is also working to improve existing affordable housing neighbourhoods, such as
Augustenborg, a public housing project constructed in the 1950s. The city intends that
landscaping, building and social works in the neighbourhood, local schools and industrial
and business areas, will create a more socially, economically and ecologically sustainable
neighbourhood. One of the key aims of the project is to enable residents to take a leading
role in the ideas, design and implementation of the project.
The Ekostaden Augustenborg project is one of Sweden’s largest urban sustainability

projects, funded by the government’s Local Investments Programme, local partners within
Malmö City and the MKB housing company (a statutory body for the construction and
maintenance of public housing). More details are provided below.
3.2 Projects
Case Studies
Project: Augustenborg
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Client: City of Malmö and MKB
Developer: City of Malmö and MKB
Architect: City of Malmö Planning Department
Builder: n/a
Cost: n/a
Completion date: Ongoing
Financing type: Local Investments Program and other public and private
funding
No of units: 300+
Unit type/s: One, two and three bedroom units in medium density blocks
Potential occupants: Existing occupants – low to moderate income single people,
couples and families
Construction method: Buildings dating from 1950s with new upgrades

The project has placed a heavy emphasis on landscape and environmental issues, and
local residents, school students and employees have been consulted and involved in the
design and implementation of new outdoor environments, to improve habitats and increase
amenity. As a result, new plantings of flowering perennials, native trees, fruit trees and
wetlands have been carried out, with the addition of bat and bird boxes throughout the
housing estate.
- 49 -
In the past, local flooding during heavy rainfall resulting from the combined sewage system
has caused major problems in cellars, underground car parks and on roads and paths
throughout the Augustenborg estate. To minimise these problems, a series of new canals
and detention basins have been cut throughout the estate, to collect run-off from most
hard surfaces and take it to a number of holding ponds and flooding ponds before some of
the water leaves the area. During this process, a local resident and amateur water
enthusiast started his own business to work with Malmö´s Water Works to design and
develop a unique system designed to be partially self-cleaning.
Figure 33 - A series of new canals and detention basins have been cut throughout the Augustenborg
estate, to collect run-off from most hard surfaces and take it to a number of holding ponds and
flooding ponds before some of the water leaves the area.
The project also features the largest Green Roof scheme in Scandinavia, which has been
laid on 9,500m2 of roof surface at Augustenborg’s industrial estate. It is part of a research
and development project with funding from the European Union’s LIFE program, and it
aims to study different growing angles and conditions. To date, the use of sedum and
mosses to create light weight roof covering has had several benefits, including run-off
minimisation, extended roof life, insulation, improved microclimate, increased biodiversity
and aesthetic improvements. The project was developed in partnership with Nordisk
Gröntak AB.
Some of the estate’s buildings have also undergone significant aesthetic and functional
improvement as part of the recent works. In the 1970s, many buildings received new
facades of external insulation and steel sheeting which had a negative impact on some
homes over time, causing problems with damp, ventilation and temperature control. In the
latest renovations, the five worst affected buildings had those outer coverings removed
and replaced with a new layer of insulation and a covering of skimmed painted concrete.
The remaining buildings will be tackled in a rolling program over a longer period.
Figure 34 – The five worst affected buildings at Augustenborg have received a new layer of insulation
and a covering of skimmed painted concrete.
Other aspects of the Augustenborg project have tackled resource use and waste
management, in both the industrial and residential areas. These have included the
installation of a new ventilation system with a heat exchanger, and the replacement of
conventional petrol vehicles with electric vehicles in the Kommunteknik’s (Public Works
Dept) fleet, which now boasts Sweden’s largest electric vehicle fleet. These works aim to
decrease resource use by 20% and consumption of water, electricity and hot water in the
residential area by 10%.
Meanwhile, 90% of household waste from Augustenborg is now collected and recycled or
reused. To facilitate this process, 13 new Resource Houses were built throughout the
estate so that residents have a dedicated place to separate general waste from compost
- 50 -
organic waste. In addition, a central collection point for the separation of large items of
rubbish, waste and hazardous waste from the industrial area also features an exchange
room, where residents can leave unwanted furniture, such as an old sofa, and take
someone else’s discarded TV. The recycling and waste collecting system is operated by a
new resident’s co-operative company.
According to the residents of Augustenborg, traffic was a significant problem before the
latest project, partially as a result of a dysfunctional one way system, and through traffic
and heavy vehicles serving the industrial estate. Consequently, a local speed limit of 30
km/h was introduced throughout the entire area, and a new entrance to the industrial area
was opened for use during evenings and weekends. In addition, parts of the estate were
converted to Garden Street status, where pedestrians are prioritised, thereby deterring
commercial and through traffic.
The area is also served by the world's first electric street trains, which offer improved
public transport opportunities for local residents and new connections to local services
such as health centres, chemists and banks. The trains are powered by eco-labelled
energy in a battery unit, and are quiet, emission free and narrow enough to run on adapted
cycle tracks along short stretches of their routes to reduce travel times. The trains were
designed and manufactured locally, thereby generating new employment opportunities.
Figure 35 - New electric street trains, built in Malmo, now provde eco-friendly transport in Malmo.
By carrying out remediation and upgrading work to older affordable housing estates,
residents and owner/managers can reduce energy consumption, conserve water and
minimise waste. By involving local residents in the process, from the identification of
problems, to the design of solutions and finally, implementation of works, governments and
housing managers can achieve more wide ranging and effective solutions, and generate
an increased feeling of ownership and investment by those involved.
Using a triple bottom line approach, the City of Malmö has provided a more functional and
aesthetically appealing neighbourhood, with enhanced environmental attributes, and
increased awareness and improved responses to energy, water and waste issues. It also
offers new abilities for community interaction, and new employment opportunities, resulting
in a greater feeling among residents of investment and involvement in the neighbourhood.
Rather than being seen as an eyesore and a place of despair and isolation, Augustenborg
is now perceived as a progressive environmental area, with improved social and economic
opportunities.
- 51 -
Project: Bo01 – City of Tomorrow and Västra Hamnen (Western
Harbour)
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Client: City of Malmö
Developer: City of Malmö
Architect: City of Malmö Planning Department
Builder: Bo01 Expo area – 18 developer/builders, 22 architectural firms,
plus other builders and architects for the remaining Västra
Hamnen area
Cost: not known
Completion date: 2010 expected
Financing type: City of Malmö funding (290 million Swedish Krona - about $A60
million) for environmentally related investments at Västra
Hamnen, through the Local Investment Programme. Further
support from the European Union, for some of the energy
measures. Private investment for housing and commercial
developments. Public funding for university campus.
No of units: 600 completed to date, 10,000 residents by 2010
Unit type/s: One to four bedrooms in single family houses, attached
houses, medium and high density apartment blocks
Potential occupants: Private owner-occupiers, private tenants, subsidised part-
ownership and public rental
Potential occupants: Singles, couples, families
Construction method: various

In 2001, the City of Malmö hosted a European Housing Expo, which aimed to become an
internationally leading example of environmental adaptation of a densely built urban
environment. The city hoped that the project would also become a driving force in the
region’s shift towards environmental sustainability. The Bo01 project occupies 25 hectares
within the western harbour region, known as Västra Hamnen. The 160 hectare former
industrial and port facility is located beside a popular beach, less than two kilometres north
west of the city centre. The rehabilitation of Västra Hamnen required a significant soil
remediation program to eliminate contaminants from previous industrial uses.
The master plan for the Housing Expo site and the remainder of Västra Hamnen was
completed by the City Planning Department. The architects aimed to deliver an attractive
new neighbourhood that could compete with other types of new developments in the city,
where ecologically sustainability was seen as an added bonus. They took into account
research findings that demonstrated that close contact with green areas, sun and water
could contribute to people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.
- 52 -
Figure 36 - Västra Hamnen Masterplan - the Bo01 Expo site is located at the bottom left.
At the southern end of the Bo01 exhibition site, alongside one of the main entry points to
the area, a new marina brings the water into the urban environment. Across the whole site,
a complex configuration of streets, pedestrian walkways, alleyways and open squares
maximises access to water views and sunlight, and provides character and variety for
residents and visitors.
Figure 37 – Within the Expo area, small scale streets, pedestrian walkways, alleyways and open
squares maximises access to water views and sunlight, and provides character and variety for
residents and visitors.
A total of 18 development and construction teams won tenders to develop individual
parcels for the Bo01 exhibition. The housing itself was designed by 22 different
architecture firms, with a focus on contrast and diversity. Each project had to comply with a
design and environmental quality program, which was devised in partnership by the City,
the Bo01 Expo and property developers. It measured 150 factors including architectural
standards, choice of materials, energy production and consumption, water collection and
recycling and biodiversity and landscape.
A major initiative was the City’s commitment to renewable energy and associated
measures that aimed to reduce energy consumption within the buildings. Energy
consultant Sydkraft devised a 100% local renewable energy concept that provides all the
power for the Expo homes, using solar energy, wind power and a heat pump that extracts
heat from seawater and a bedrock aquifer. The system is linked to the city electricity grid,
so that it can ‘bank’ energy when excess is produced, for use at times of the year when
more energy is needed. The energy concept also set a maximum energy consumption
- 53 -
level of 105 kWh/m2/year for residential use. The wind power plant, called Boel, is 120 m
high to the tip of the wings, and is located in the northern harbour at Malmö. The maximum
effect is 2 MW and the calculated annual electricity production is 6300 MWh. In the Expo
area, 1400 m2 of vacuum solar collectors have been installed on ten buildings, with an
annual heat production of 500 MWh.
The open stormwater run-off system is also an important contributor to the ecological
profile of the Bo01 area. Rain is delayed on green roofs and in ponds in private courtyards
and public spaces, before being transported via open channels to the sea. The visible
waterways combined with trees and lush undergrowth serve as dynamic and attractive
features in what might otherwise have become a sterile urban environment.
The area’s waste management system aimed firstly to minimise waste generation, as well
as facilitate recycling and enable the use of waste and sewage as energy sources. Waste
separation units within each home or development make it easy for residents to sort paper
and packaging materials, while each home features one of two food waste reuse systems:
in-sink disposal units or a centralised vacuum waste chute system.
To date, nearly 600 dwellings have been completed with further residential and
commercial construction continuing beyond the original Expo site, to provide new
dwellings for an anticipated total of 10,000 residents. Taller buildings painted in pale
colours have been positioned along the outer edges of the area to serve as protection
against strong winds for the small-scale interior, where more vibrant colours were used for
the buildings.
Figure 38 - Along the waterfront, tall buildings painted in pale colours provide a buffer against sea
breezes, while the small-scale interior buildings are painted in more vibrant colours.
Currently under construction adjacent to the Bo01 site, Spanish architect Santiago
Calatrava’s Turning Torso is already seen as a new architectural landmark in Malmö. The
‘twisting’ building will reach a height of 190 metres, making it the tallest structure in the
city. It will provide 150 apartments and office space over 54 floors, and is due for
completion by late 2005.
The city’s recently established university is currently building a campus at Västra

Hamnen, which will also be occupied in 2005. Eventually the area will accommodate
20,000 workers and students: already 80 large and small businesses have set up
premises in the area, employing 6,000 people. The Bo01 Expo site already boasts four
restaurants and cafes and six new shops, while a new private school that opened in 2002
will be joined by a public school in 2006.
- 54 -
The entire area was planned to encourage inhabitants and visitors to use environmentally-
friendly transport modes: pedestrians and bicycles have been given priority in the Bo01
housing area, which is car free and boasts just 0,7 parking spaces per household. In
future, the city intends to establish a local car sharing facility, using environmentally
adapted vehicles, which will enable residents to book a car for a nominated period via the
Internet or phone. Every dwelling is located within 300m of a bus stop, which connects the
area with several central parts of the city in a service that runs every seven minutes.
As part of the Bo01 development, the city trialled a ‘green space’ factor system, which
ensured that every private outdoor space, including courtyards and gardens, provided as
much vegetation as possible on the ground, walls, roofs and in ponds. The system also
promoted the provision of suitable habitats for local flora and fauna, with bat nesting
boxes, butterfly flower beds, wild Swedish flower meadows, country gardens and enough
soil depth to grow vegetables. As a result of its success at Bo01, the ‘green space’ factor
system has been adopted for use at all new residential developments in Malmö, and
nearby Lund and Helsingborg.
To date, the City of Malmö has granted 290 million Swedish Krona (about $A60 million) for
environmentally related investments at Västra Hamnen, through its Local Investment
Program (LIP). The funds have largely been used to offset extra costs that have resulted
from the City’s high standards for the development, as well as for informative and
educational projects. Further support has been given to the project the European Union,
for some of the energy measures.
The LIP funding was granted on the proviso that scientific reviews and evaluations of
Bo01’s urban sustainability initiatives would be carried out, with the intention of capitalising
on the experience in the Västra Hamnen area for use in other projects locally and globally.
More than 10 universities and colleges are currently involved in evaluating the site, looking
at new technologies and how they are used by residents, and perceptions of the housing
and surroundings. Other studies are focussing on soil decontamination, traffic, energy,
green structures and storm water, building and living, recycling, environmental information
and education, and sustainable development.

The City of Malmö worked hard to incorporate environmental factors into its newest and
largest development area, with excellent outcomes in relation to energy generation and
consumption, water collection and runoff, landscaping and biodiversity and public transport
and traffic calming. While some of these measures required extra funding at the outset,
they have resulted in a more attractive and appealing neighbourhood, and will deliver
significant cost savings for residents in future.
A further aspect of the planning saw the co-location of public and private homes with
commercial and industrial precincts, and educational institutions including two primary
schools and a university campus. These mixed uses ensure the area is constantly
populated by residents, employees, students and visitors, who act as consumers for local
businesses, users of an extensive and frequent public transport system, and as a steady
flow of pedestrians who contribute to a sense of public life and the ‘eyes on the street’
approach to security.
- 55 -
Project: BoKlok
Location: Malmö and other parts of Sweden, as well as Finland, Norway
and Denmark
Client: Commissioned by private and public clients
Developer: BoKlok is a joint venture between construction company
Skanska and furniture company Ikea
Architect: BoKlok
Builder: BoKlok
Cost: 20% less than traditionally constructed homes in Sweden.
Commencement date: Concept commenced in 1995
Completion date: ongoing
Financing type: Private investment and housing co-operative developers
No of units: 6 units per ‘house’
Unit type/s: 2 x 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units per ‘house’
Potential occupants: Private owner occupiers and rental tenants
Construction method: Modularised and prefabricated timber framed construction for
erection onsite

Two of Sweden’s most successful companies, which both operate globally, have joined
forces to develop and build more than 1,500 affordable, modular, timber framed homes
across Sweden. Demand is so high for their popular product that BoKlok homes are now
allocated by a lottery system. Furniture giant Ikea and construction company Skanska first
teamed up in 1995 for a one-off housing exhibition, when the country’s housing sector was
depressed and building costs were high. They aimed to demonstrate that it was possible to
build houses at a lower cost than current market offerings, with Skanska responsible for
construction and Ikea in charge of furnishing the demonstration model.
According to Ulrika Nordeberg, Head of R&D at BoKlok, the collaborators turned the
practice of home building on its head in the process. “Skanska generally acts as a
speculator: they build a product and hope the market will buy it,” she said. “Ikea, on the
other hand, starts with market research, and that’s what we decided to do here.
“We approached a bank to conduct some customer research, and found that the average
household consisted of between one and three people, with one income. We worked
backwards, by asking ‘After spending on clothes, childcare, food and bills, what amount is
left for living?’”
According to responses from 1,000 participants, most people wanted to live in a small
development of just a few houses, which offered contact with the garden and a fence
around their own yard, as well as an apple tree and room to grow vegetables. Survey
respondents also suggested that they wanted to know their neighbours, not live in an
anonymous environment; and that cars should be parked nearby but not necessarily in
front of houses, with child safety an important consideration.
In addition, most participants said that they preferred a maximum height of two floors for
flats. Inside, they wanted light filled spaces with big windows, timber floors and quality
materials, such as tiles in the bathrooms and ‘nice’ kitchen cabinets.
- 56 -
Nordeberg said that in the south of Sweden, the most densely populated part of the
country, houses tended to be built with brick or stone, and the partners wondered how they
could achieve this with a low cost product.
“So we looked to Ikea, and the car industry, because normally the building industry
designs a new product every time, even for flats,” she said. “We knew that to maintain low
cost, we needed volume, and we recognised that there was room in the market for
products at both ends of the cost spectrum, like there’s a market for cars from Audi and
Skoda, for example.
“We asked ‘Who builds for the many people and households with regular income?’” she
continued. “We decided therefore to target singles with or without children (given that the
divorce rate in Sweden is higher than 50%), couples with or without children, first time
buyers, seniors, and people who wish to spend less on housing costs.”
Nordeberg said that there was a concern in the early stages of development that the low
cost homes would attract only low income residents, and could therefore contribute to the
creation of deprived neighbourhoods. “But that proved not to be the case,” she said,
“because some people who buy our homes have average to high incomes, but would
rather spend their money on other things, such as expensive motorbikes or a flat in the
Canary Islands.”
Figure 39 - Each BoKlok 'house' contains a one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartment on the ground
and first floors.
The partners came up with a ‘house’ that contains three different units types arranged in
an L-shape, repeated over two floors: a 74m2 three bedroom flat;, a 59m2 two bedroom flat
and a 48m2 one bedroom flat. While they are slightly smaller than traditional homes (by
comparison, the average three bedroom unit is 78m2 in Sweden), the flats appear more
spacious through clever design.
- 57 -
Figure 40 - Each house contains a one-, two and three-bedroom flat on each floor, and every unit
boasts access to the garden or a balcony.
Each ground floor unit has a door onto the garden while first floor homes all have
balconies, and they all boast windows on three sides. Ceiling heights are taller than the
2.4m average, at 2.6m, a fact that Nordeberg said contributed to an extremely positive
reaction from potential customers.
“In 99.9% of cases, people said ‘I thought it would be much smaller!’, Nordeberg claimed.
“We are able to fool the eye into thinking the homes are larger than they are, through the
use of natural light and high ceilings. Also, because of the planning expertise that Ikea
brought to the project, the homes could be furnished very well and still feel spacious.”
Figure 41= Every room in the apartments benefits from natural light and high ceilings, giving the
illusion of extra space.
By deciding to develop and produce a volume product in a factory, the partners discovered
an advantage” we had “time to design the details that you might not have in one off
projects,” Nordeberg said. “So we have a product that is of very high quality, because we
have time to build up systems you wouldn’t have with one-off homes.”
- 58 -
In Sweden, factory built houses are common for single family homes, but not so common
for multistorey dwellings, although timber framed houses of up to five storeys are built from
scratch onsite.
Based on their research and subsequent development, Ikea and Skanska commenced
phase one of their project in 1996, completing the first three developments in three
locations in 1997. Those first sites were developed as rental units, owned and managed by
Skanska, with Ikea responsible for post occupancy evaluations and ongoing research.
“The first stage that we opened to the public was a very big success: it proved that we
could calculate and build for lower costs, and consumer liked how they looked,” Nordeberg
said. “In fact the positive response and resulting publicity was so strong that the partners
thought ‘What have we done?’” she laughed.
In 1998, with a proven business case, Skanska and Ikea formalised their joint venture by
establishing the BoKlok brand (which translates as Live Smart) and started building more
homes. Originally, the homes were built as flat pack products, where they walls were
constructed in a Skanska factory and then assembled onsite. “But in time we realised that
that wasn’t the best system, because the onsite stage was not properly industrialised: we
still had to rely on the local plumber, painter and electrician, and we couldn’t guarantee the
quality or price, which increased the risk,” Nordeberg explained. “So now we build in
volume units with another Skanska company, to the point where the kitchen cabinets are
installed and the painting is done in the factory, and that gives us much more control over
price and quality. BoKlok then has a team of tradespeople who connect the modules
onsite.”
Figure 42 – Originally BoKlok homes were flat-packed and assembled onsite (above), but
streamlining of the construction process means that houses are now built in modules and
transported to site for installation.
Following the introduction of the second, modular system, in mid 2002, the first method
was due to be phased out, but demand for BoKlok homes is high. Nordeberg said that
both production lines had sufficient forward orders to run at maximum capacity for at least
a year, and to cope with that demand, the flat packed models are still being produced for
delivery to Northern Sweden, as they are easier to transport.
“One advantage of building homes in the factory means that we can circumvent the
retailers when buying building materials, which saves money,” Nordeberg said. “We can
also achieve economies of scale by sourcing materials from outside Sweden, because
they only have to be delivered to one place. We’ve managed to cut the cost of house
building, not through skimping on design or construction quality, but by repetition.”
- 59 -
Nordeberg said that while it was hard to provide an indicative price for a BoKlok home,
because of the impact of variable costs on each development, the homes initially sold at
prices 20% lower than traditionally built homes, regardless of the location. She added that
BoKlok aimed to reduce the price for consumers even further in future.
“There are still a few factors that we can’t control, and we are working to resolve them with
external partners,” Nordeberg said. “They include ground preparation at the site, transport,
and land costs, and they mean that the cost of a BoKlok home varies according to the site,
it’s hard therefore to give an average cost.
“Most land in Sweden is owned by the municipality, so we are working with local
governments to identify potential sites close to cities, schools, public transport and
shopping areas, with the intention of obtaining land at a lower cost so we can pass those
savings on to consumers,” Nordeberg said. “We are also in partnership with a bank brand
to manage loans for BoKlok homes, so that there is consistency across Sweden:
streamlining the cost of finance also lowers the end cost for our consumers.”
Currently, once building permissions have been granted, it takes about six months to
complete each development, with most of that time spent on ground preparation,
Nordeberg said. “The house construction is actually very quick, it’s just two weeks from
delivery of the houses to handover to customers, and the roof is on within first day.”
By the end of 2003, the company had built more than 1,500 BoKlok homes across
Sweden, and had expanded the concept to neighbouring Norway and Finland, with
Denmark to be added this year. According to Nordeberg, customer research in each new
market had concluded that the concept was suitable for the other Scandinavian countries,
although slightly different building regulations in Norway necessitated a change to the
layout of the houses.
BoKlok is now considering launching the product in the United Kingdom, although
Nordeberg said that it might need to be adapted for that market, following customer
research.
In Sweden, BoKlok developed half of the completed projects and then sold the homes as
company title properties, while half were overseen by third party developers and are rental
properties. The popularity of the BoKlok product means that both types of development are
now in such demand that a lottery system is necessary, whereby new purchasers or
tenants are randomly selected from a list of interested parties.
Each development features between three and seven ‘houses’, which consist of a one, two
and three bedroom flat on the ground and first floors, resulting in between 18 and 42 units
per site. Car parking for all the units is at a central point away from the houses, and each
unit has its own apple tree and outdoor bench in the garden, as well as storage space on
the ground floor. Community facilities include gardens for growing edible plants, and a
recycling and garbage unit, and the residents are responsible for managing the communal
garden areas, which saves on body corporate fees and assists in community building.
- 60 -
All new purchasers are entitled to a free consultation with an Ikea interior decorator, who
can assist with minor changes to the plan and selection of colours and fittings. Each flat
purchaser also receives an Ikea voucher for 3,000 SEK (about $AU650) for new furniture.
Nordeberg said that BoKlok homes were guaranteed for 50 years, “and they will last a lot
longer than that”. As for working towards ecological sustainable building, she suggested
that there was room for improvement.
“We acknowledge that our buildings are not the best [in terms of ecological sustainability]
because that costs money,” Nordeberg conceded. “If we can incorporate new green
building methods without it costing more, we will. At the moment, we meet the Swedish
regulations for building, and we are continually assessing new technologies through
Skanska’s ISO4000 Quality Assurance programme.”
Ultimately, though, the success of the homes is measured in terms of customer

satisfaction. “We conduct a telephone interview with all customers three months after they
move in,” Nordeberg explained. “We ask them ‘What is the most important quality for your
in your home?’, and then ‘How does your BoKlok flat fulfil your expectations?’ Mostly our
results are in within the 90-100% range, and twice we have achieved results of 100%,”
which is extraordinarily good feedback,” she said.
- 61 -
4. USA

The federal government’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department sets
nationwide housing policy, and provides funding for affordable housing to each state
based on its population (at the rate of $1.25 per person per year). It also conducts
research about housing need and supply, and publishes national income tables by area,
which are used to determine eligibility for affordable housing nationally.
State and city governments also have housing and finance agencies that raise funds and
administer HUD funding, as well as work with non-profit and for-profit developers to deliver
affordable housing, either in stand-alone developments, or as a proportion of market rate
developments of a certain size.
These government agencies include New York State’s Housing Finance Authority
(HFA), New York City’s Housing Development Corporation (HDC), the Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority (CHAFA) and the Portland Development Commission
(PDC).
HDC is a mortgage lender for affordable, multi-family housing that works directly with
housing developers and other mortgage lenders to structure low-cost mortgage loans for
many different types of affordable housing. HDC raises funds for its mortgage program
through the sale of both tax-exempt and taxable bonds in the municipal bond market.
Owners of rental affordable housing stock include state or city governments, for profit or
non-profit developers, such as Portland’s Rose Community Development Corporation
and the Community Corporation of Santa Monica, and corporate entities that develop
affordable housing for tax credits.
People who require housing assistance generally apply to the city or county government
agency responsible for managing affordable housing, such as the City of New York, City
of Portland or the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office. These agencies assess
eligibility according to income, against HUD’s published media income data, and need.
Within the City of New York, a further agency, Housing Preservation and Development
(HPD) uses federal, state and city funds to facilitate the remediation of existing dwellings
and the production of new housing, ranking housing alongside bridges and roads in terms
of infrastructure priority. While New York City is one of just a few cities that allocate their
own capital to housing (most cities use only federal and state funding), this type of agency
and its approach may soon be replicated in Boston and Chicago.
Another agency that is unique to New York City is the Lower Manhattan Development
Corporation, which was established after the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001, to
encourage residents of the lower Manhattan area to remain in the vicinity during the
recovery and rebuilding period, and to entice new residents into the area during that time.
Industry organisations involved in the delivery of affordable and sustainable housing

include the US Green Building Council, which is based in Washington DC and has
chapters in more than twenty states. The GBC hosts the annual Greenbuild Conference
and Expo, which was held in Pittsburgh in November 2003. In New York, the NY State
- 62 -
Association for Affordable Housing (NYSAFAH) is a trade organisation for the for-profit
development community.
There are many housing and sustainability research and development institutes across the
USA, including the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) in Colorado, which promotes
sustainable building through its Green Building Group, and Global Green USA, which is
based in Santa Monica with offices in other cities. One of its four areas of expertise is
green building, and it acts as a clearing house for the affordable housing community
nationally, and provides consultancy services for affordable housing developers.

New York City currently has one of the USA’s most acute housing shortages, and its
unique approach to tackling housing problems means that many of its methods are now
being replicated in other American cities. The fact that federal spending on public housing
has dropped by 66% in real terms of 25 years means that city and state governments have
been forced to find alternative funding sources for public housing, and in NYC, there is an
acknowledgement that housing is as important as other types of infrastructure, like roads,
bridges and schools, and it has been prioritised accordingly.
Every city in the USA faces its own set of challenges in meeting housing demand, and
factors such as climates, economics and demographics play a different role in each place.
In NYC, there is a high level of foreign migration so a significant proportion of housing
demand is generated by people who are economically active but earn low to moderate
incomes, while on the south west coast in cities like Los Angeles and San Diego, the
warmer climate attracts homeless people from across the country, so there is significant
demand for housing and support programs for people who have been used to sleeping
rough.
Because NYC faces many challenges that are similar to those faced in Australia,
particularly in Sydney, I have chosen to provide statistics and data about its current
housing conditions as a snapshot of the situation in the USA. The city has a population of
about 8 million people, and approximately 40% of residents are foreign born. While the
USA has an owner-occupier rate of about 68%, the figure is much lower in New York City,
at about 30%, meaning that a lot of people rely on rented accommodation.
In the past, the city faced issues associated with housing abandonment (like many other
major cities in the USA), and many of the agencies and policies of the last 30 years were
established to deal with those problems. Today, NYC faces a housing shortage as a result
of significant net migration, both from within America and overseas, resulting in a huge
demand for both public and private housing. At the same time, the city is constrained by
the fact that its most populous borough is an island, and the boundaries of the four other
boroughs are also fixed, so that further expansion and infrastructure development is
limited. All of these issues combine to create a high problem in the area of housing
overcrowding and affordability.
For example, nearly half of all New Yorkers pay more than 30% of their income in rent,
and nearly 500,000 households pay more than 50% of their income in rent, according to a
1999 Housing and Vacancy Survey by the US Census Bureau. In addition, hundreds of
thousands of people live in crowded (more than one person per room) and overcrowded
(more than 1.5 persons per room) conditions, and this problem is increasing. The same
- 63 -
survey found that the number of crowded families increased to 75,715 from 1996 to 1999,
and the number of severely crowded to more than 215,000. In addition, the number of
doubled-up households increased from 203,000 in 1996 to 221,000 in 1999, an increase of
9.1%.
An article written in 2002 by Boston Mayor and President of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, Thomas M. Menino, about the need for affordable housing across the USA,
appears in Appendix B.

Housing stock in NYC is in the best physical condition that it has been in since it was first
measured in 1965, with only 1% of the housing stock in dilapidated condition. Like many
American cities, New York suffered from ‘white flight’ in the 1970s and 1980s, where well-
off, generally white, middle class residents fled inner the perceived ‘danger’ of inner city
areas for the ‘safety’ of the suburbs. About 27.8% of New York City residents now reside in
areas where significant occurred at that time.
The City of New York established the Department of Housing Preservation and
Development in 1978 to deal with this crisis. According to Ilene Popkin, who has been with
the agency since that time, 329,000 apartments were lost, forcing 800,000 people from
their homes. “Landlords stopped providing services, such as heat and hot water, so
tenants fled the buildings, and then the buildings were torched by landlords for the
insurance,” Ms Popkin said.
She added that parts of Brooklyn, east Harlem and the south Bronx “looked like Dresden
after World War II” as a result of the damage inflicted by landlords. The City amended its
abandonment laws to enable it to seize possession of buildings whose owners had failed
to pay city taxes for 12 months (previously 3 years), and became the owner of 100,000
units overnight, half of which were still occupied and half of which were vacant or derelict.
In 1986, the Mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, outlined a 10 year plan to restore and
renovate the city’s stock of units, which had by then grown to 179,000 dwellings. The plan
was administered by HPD. Popkin said the agency created a pipeline of programs to use
public funds and make direct loans to developers for the rehabilitation of buildings.
Developers included non-profit organisations, tenant cooperatives and entrepreneurs, and

they purchased city-owned buildings for $1, with tax abatement for 10 years, starting with
vacant properties, before moving on to occupied unit blocks. Mayor Koch’s plan has been
carried forward by every mayor since, regardless of political persuasion, and Popkin said
that there were now less than 10,000 of the original units still awaiting redevelopment.
This process has resulted in the preservation or creation of more than 200,000 units of
affordable housing and spurred a community of academic and financial institutions, not for
profit housing and community development organizations, and local and citywide real
estate development and management professionals. The entire approach was unique to
NYC, and consequently, no other city in the USA boasts the same extensive experience or
resources in this area.
New housing supply

Most housing in New York City is built by the private sector, it is generally priced to
exclude the majority of low to moderate income earners, where the Area Median Income is
- 64 -
$62,800. Both the state and city governments are actively involved in the provision of
public housing, and in December 2002, the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg,
unveiled a new housing policy to address housing issues in the city. The New
Marketplace: Creating Housing for the Next Generation plan aims to use public funds to
stimulate private investment to the tune of $3 billion over five years, to produce 65,000
new and rehabilitated units, for low- and middle-income New Yorkers.
National demand and supply

According to an article written by Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston and president of
the US Conference of Mayors, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on 31 July 2002,
the lack of affordable housing was becoming a national crises at that time.
Menino wrote: “The poor, the homeless and low-income working families continue to
struggle to find decent affordable housing. What is new is the effect of the housing crisis
on the nation's middle-income families.
The number of middle-income families spending more than half of their income on housing
increased by 74 percent between 1997 and 1999. More than 14 million Americans are now
forced to spend more than half of their income on housing.
In no state today does a full-time minimum-wage job enable most families to pay fair
market rent for a moderate two-bedroom apartment.
He referred to the capacity of some professional groups to afford housing, and found that
janitors were only able to afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment in six of the 60 largest
housing markets in the US, while retail salespeople were only able to afford rent in just
three of those markets. Also, teachers and police officers could not afford to buy a median-
priced home in most major housing markets.
Menino argued that “no one can deny the important role that local governments,
businesses and nonprofits must play in meeting the housing crisis. Yet it is equally
essential for the federal government to address this problem. Drastic housing budget cuts
in the 1980s were followed by small budget increases in the 1990s, spurred in part by the
rising cost of government-funded housing vouchers. Few resources were devoted to
producing new housing.
For two decades now, the federal government has walked away from its obligation to
preserve the housing we have and build the housing we need. As our mothers taught us,
ignoring a problem will not make it go away.”
Menino said that America's mayors were united in recognising an affordable-housing crisis
and also in demanding action. “Working together, we have proposed a number of steps,
including: creating a national homeownership tax credit to make buying a home more
affordable; establishing a national affordable-housing trust fund to provide a steady stream
of revenue to deal with critical housing needs, as Los Angeles and more than 200 other
cities do; promoting expanded housing assistance by employers in the form of down-
payment help, low-interest loans and home-buyer education.
These proposals alone may not solve our affordable-housing crisis, but they will help. And,
equally important, they reflect the mayors' belief that affordable housing is a national
priority.”
- 65 -
4.3 Policies and strategies
The City of New York’s New Housing Marketplace
The five year plan includes new strategies and existing programs, and will devote more
than $3 billion of public funding, from city and federal sources, to affordable housing in
New York. The plan aims to bring about the construction of 27,000 new units and the
preservation of 38,000 units, for a total of 65,000 dwellings. It represents an increase in
production of 25% over the previous five years, and includes new initiatives to encourage
private sector investment in housing.
The plan is administered by two key housing agencies. Firstly, the Housing Development
Corporation (HDC) is responsible for the allocation of approximately $500 million in public
funds, which is being used to leverage more than $2.5 billion of private financing, to
construct and preserve 17,000 units, as follows:
• The New Housing Opportunities Program (New HOP)

The majority of HDCs funding, $350 million, is being channelled through its existing
New Housing Opportunity Program (HOP). Under the New HOP, the Corporation
issues taxable bonds to provide long-term fixed-rate permanent financing to
developers, in addition to providing subsidies of up to $45,000 per unit. In the past, the
Program was used to develop rental projects for middle income families who earned
between 100% and 250% of the area median income (about $62,800 in 2002), but
under the Mayor’s new plan, $60 million worth of New HOP funding was set aside for
low- to middle-income families, who earned between 60% and 100% of median
income, such as teachers, police officers, fire fighters and health care workers.
The Program assists housing developers for new construction, substantial rehabilitation
and conversions of non-residential buildings, where projects contain at least 20 units. It
is limited to projects located in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island and
northern parts of Manhattan.
• Low-Income Affordable Marketplace Program (LAMP)

HDC has also committed $100 million to its LAMP scheme, which combines the use of
tax-exempt bond financing with Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other
subsidies, to encourage developers to provide 100% affordable, rental accommodation
for people who earn less than 60% of median income. Under the LAMP scheme, HDC
provides subordinate loans of up to $50,000 per unit, or $7.5 million per project, which
can be utilised with subsidies from other agencies.
The Program assists housing developers for new construction, substantial rehabilitation
and conversions of non-residential buildings.
• Preservation of existing affordable housing
In the 1960s and 1970s, state and local governments undertook large scale financing
of affordable housing projects, such as the Mitchell-Lama developments in New York
City. These were developed on 30 year mortgages, after which time ownership and the
ability to set market rate rents reverted to the owner of the project.
HDC has therefore set aside $50 million to provide funds for the repair and
preservation of Mitchell-Lama and other affordable housing resources. It is being used
to upgrade heating systems, elevators, windows and roofs in the 30-year old projects,
- 66 -
and the Corporation is working with the owners of the properties by offering low interest
loans, to enable them to renew the properties as affordable housing resources for
future generations.
Secondly, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) has

redirected $555 million from housing maintenance to new investment in 8,000 units, and
its existing budget of $2 billion from the City's housing capital and expense budgets will
ensure the creation and preservation of some 40,000 units. Many of the projects that will
be funded with the redirected budgets will be made feasible with creative use of Low
Income Housing Tax Credits, which will generate more than $200 million in direct equity
investments.
The Mayor’s plan also aims to provide access to new development sites, to attract private
investment in affordable housing across the city by reducing building and land acquisition
costs through legislative and administrative changes. These include facilitating the
remediation of brownfield sites, implementing rezoning from commercial to residential,
increasing density limits, and reforming land disposition policies and regulations.
HPD will administer the New Venture Incentive Program, which will provide $200 million in
low-interest loans for acquisition, site development and environmental work necessary to
accelerate development for new construction. Eligible developers will receive up to
$20,000 per unit for a total of approximately 10,000 units.
The Department is also responsible for carrying out the Mayor’s plan to work with private
housing owners to return about 20,000 vacant units, many of them located above ground
floor retail uses and requiring renovation or remediation, to the marketplace, and is
collaborating with the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to develop affordable
housing on NYCHA property that is currently vacant or underutilised for housing purposes.
• Home Ownership
The Mayor’s plan also includes incentives to assist New Yorkers into home ownership,
such as the HomeFirst Down Payment Assistance Program. Funding totalling $25 million
over five years is assisting 2,500 working families in New York City to purchase their first
home in targeted neighbourhoods. HPD administers the program and helps families to
improve their credit and save for the down payments.
New Housing, New York

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the City of New York teamed up to run an
architectural competition for affordable housing in 2003-04, in an attempt to showcase
innovative design ideas and promote sustainability and architectural quality in affordable
housing.
According to competition organiser and AIA president-elect, Mark Ginsberg, the

competition should prompt the development of “different housing types that are
economically viable within existing zoning frameworks”. “It’s alarming to see how many
affordable developments look the same,” he said.
The competition was framed around three existing development sites in the city, all of
which offered different design and construction challenges. “The first site is in East
Harlem, and it’s a small plot of 75’ x 100’, surrounded by brownstones that have largely
been renovated. The main dilemma there then, is how you build modern housing in an
- 67 -
existing urban fabric?” Ginsberg said. “The second site is in Brooklyn, where the zoning
permits a mid-rise apartment block of seven to 12 floors, with commercial opportunities on
the ground floor. The third option is in Queens, and that’s a 10 acre waterfront site: a
former industrial site with remediation issues that becomes a site planning exercise,
requiring new streets and new thoughts about affordable housing.”
American and overseas architects were asked to register their interest by mid December,
with final designs for one or more sites due at the end of January.
Mr Ginsberg hoped to see developments that tackled ecological sustainability, but

acknowledged that it was hard to implement ESD in affordable housing in the city. “The
agencies that fund affordable housing in New York place great emphasis on the cost per
unit and the number of units they can deliver, so cost becomes the most important factor,”
he said. “That makes it hard to incorporate sustainable design in affordable housing: there
are some things that you can do without incurring extra costs, but there is much more
scope for improvement by spending more upfront.”
Mr Ginsberg hoped that a secondary outcome of the competition would be to contribute of

the debate about the city’s existing zoning and building codes, which are currently under
review. “The city implemented its zoning policy in 1961, and since then there have been
piecemeal updates. The building code was introduced in 1968, and has seen updates
every three years,” he said. “New York is in the process of is adopting a national model
code, as are 26 other states, but that’s an 18 to 24 month process.”
He also hoped to challenge the builders and developers, claiming that it was hard for
architects to convince their colleagues to implement new ideas, because “people build
what they know”.
“As an example, the building and planning codes mean that projects tend to have double
loaded corridors for efficiency, and we are required to have a corridor on every floor for
accessibility, so you can’t design for cross ventilation or duplexes,” he said. ““We hope that
the competition might flag some good ideas that might then be used to alter or vary the
codes by proposing innovative solutions.
“An architectural competition for housing in New York in 1900 spurred on new the law on
tenements which were passed in 1903,” he added. “We may be overly ambitious, but we
hope to have a similar impact with this competition.”
- 68 -
4.4 Projects
Case Studies
Project: Highlands’ Garden Village
Location: Denver, Colorado
Client: Perry Rose
Developer: Perry Rose
Architect: Masterplan by Peter Calthorpe, with various firms responsible
for individual housing projects
Builder: Wonderland Construction, Mendel Allison Construction
Company (Cottage Hill Senior Apartments) Palace
Construction Company (Trocadero Apartments) and others
Cost: $US93.5 million
Completion date: expected – 2005
Financing type: Private investment combined with public funding in the form of
Local tax credits for affordable housing, Historic Preservation
Tax Credits, Historic Preservation grants and Environmental
sustainability grants, and tax free city, state and federal loans
for affordable housing
No of units: 326
Unit type/s: Single family homes (x 52), including some with self-contained
carriage houses (x 20), townhouses (x 54), apartments and loft
apartments (x 124), apartments for seniors (63) , cohousing (x
33) as well as retail, live work spaces and community areas
Potential occupants: Market rate owner occupiers, market rate and public housing
rental tenants, cohousing owner occupiers
Construction method: Various

According to Shelly Poticha, Executive Director of the Congress for the New Urbanism,
Highlands’ Garden Village combines more elements of smart growth, such as
environmentally friendly construction, affordable housing, parks and walkways, a variety of
housing styles, preservation of historic sites and easy access to mass transit in an urban
setting, than any other development in the USA.
Built on the former site of Denver’s 100 year old amusement park and Botanic Gardens,
Elitch Gardens, which moved to a new site in the Platte Valley area in the early 1990s, the
project is located just ten minutes drive from the centre of the city, and is situated adjacent
to two city bus routes. When the developers purchased the site in 1998, it still contained
the carousel and heritage theatre building, which were both preserved for community use,
and rollercoasters, and other seasonal buildings which were demolished.
The master plan by new urbanist authority Peter Calthorpe combines several housing
types, including single family homes, townhouses, apartments, live/work spaces and one
of America’s few cohousing communities. It also features community buildings, significant
open parkland, and in 2004, a retail offering including a major supermarket and speciality
shops will be completed. The development has been knitted into its surrounding
neighbourhood by extending existing streets through the site and positioning single family
homes on the boundaries, with apartments and townhouses located within the site.
- 69 -
Figure 43 - 36th Street - Highland's Garden Village has been knitted into its surroundings by
positioning single family homes on the edge of the development, and extending neighbourhood
streets through the site.
A significant contributor to the success of the plan was the decision to reduce the width of
streets from the Denver minimum of 36’ to 32’. While the developer struggled to obtain
consent from the approval authority for this measure, it was eventually granted, and in fact
has set a precedent for two new major urban developments in Denver, at Stapleton and
Lowry. The narrower streets, which wind across the site, help to calm traffic, and garages
are alley loaded so as to minimise the impact of driveways and garage doors on the
streets. The calmer streets offer enhanced opportunities for walking throughout the site,
and most roads were designed to terminate with views, of the theatre, carousel,
cohousing, and parklands.
Following on from the environmentally sensitive master plan, the homes themselves are
also designed to be 25% more energy efficient than their counterparts in Denver, even
exceeding Colorado’s Build Green standards and Energy Smart program. As a result,
residents can expect to save up to $US525 a year on their utility bills.
Figure 44 - Live Work Apartments opposite the Plaza, nearing the end of construction in November
2003.
Figure 45 - Inside, the Live Work Apartments feature energy efficiency measures which could save
their owners up to $525 a year on utility bills.
- 70 -
Green building design and construction attributes include:
• Energy efficient mechanical systems, water heaters and household appliances
• Built-in kitchen recycling centres
• Double glazed energy efficient windows
• Wind generated electricity for use in community buildings and parks
• Advanced sealing of units to minimise heat loss during winter and gain during summer
• Recycled materials used for outdoor structures, decking and landscaping
• Low VOC paints and glues
• Low water use plumbing fixtures
• Compact fluorescent lighting
• Use of farm produced engineered wood and engineered wood I joists in floor and roof
trusses
• Use of flyash concrete
• Recycled materials such as OSB for sub flooring and exterior walls, reconstituted
siding for exterior walls, recycled carpet and padding, recycled content insulation
Green landscape attributes include:

• Community parks and gardens feature edible plants, increase permeable surfaces and
encourage walking and jogging
• 30 tonnes of concrete recycled for reuse as road base
• Conservation of many existing gardens and trees
• Xeriscaped tree lawns and water conserving vegetation throughout the development
Accommodation at Highlands’ Garden Village was designed to cater for a range of

household types and income levels. One third of the 52 single family homes also include
self-contained carriage units above the garages, which can be used as home offices, or to
provide intergenerational living options for grandparents or teenager or young adults, or
rented to third party tenants for extra income. At the Cottage Hill Senior Apartments , 40%
of the units are subsidised rates for people whose income is 60% or less than the area
median. They range in price from $US523 per month for a one bedroom low income unit to
$1,075 for a market rate two bedroom unit.
Figure 46 - Garages are accessed from rear alleys, and one third feature carriage houses above
them: self contained units for accommodation or home offices.
The Hearthstone Cohousing Community provides 33 homes in townhouses and single
story units, built around a central community house that includes a gourmet kitchen and
dining facilities so that all residents can eat meals together. It also features a playroom and
laundry facilities and is located on the edge of a private park. Hearthstone is the only
cohousing community within a new urbanist development in America.
- 71 -
Figure 47 – Heathstone Cohousing offers 33 dwellings set around a private park and community
house (above right), where a kitchen, dining room, laundry facilities and playroom can be enjoyed by
all residents.
The Trocadero Apartments comprise 74 units in four three-storey buildings, which were
designed to resemble individual townhouses. Residents of the one and two bedroom
apartments also have access to a clubhouse with health facilities, and a conference and
business centre. At the Trocadero, 25% of apartments are affordable for people whose
income is 50% of the area median income.
Figure 48 - Trocadero Apartments were designed to resemble individual town homes, and feature
some undercover car parking (above left).
The project also provides a range of community facilities including the Elitch Gardens
Theatre, built in the late 1800s, which is currently awaiting renovation (a non-profit heritage
group has already raised $2m of the $7m needed for the job); the Carousel, which is used
for weekly Growers’ Markets in the summer, as well as jazz and chamber music concerts;
and the Plaza, which is used for open air movies in the summer and other community
events throughout the year. The floor of the Carousel is painted with a medieval labyrinth
for meditation, which is used by some residents on a regularly basis. A children’s
playground is located near the middle of the site, adjacent to the cohousing development,
- 72 -
Figure 49 - Community facilities include the historic Elitch Theatre (top left), Carousel (top right) and
children's playground (bottom).
The park at the north east corner of the site, which was the main entrance to the
amusement park, was fully retained, and still acts as the main pedestrian entry point. It
was renovated and replanted with assistance from the Denver Botanic Gardens, who
helped to design a water conservation landscape. The same principles have been used
across the site, which features many small open spaces, and places to grow edible plants.
Figure 50 - Highlands' Garden Village provides open spaces, including places to grow edible plants
(above left) and for informal community interaction (above right).
In the Plaza in front of the theatre, buffalo grass was used in preference over bluegrass, as
it requires only 1/6 of the water needed to keep it green, and is more drought resistant. As
the lowest part of the site, a detention basin sits below the Plaza, to collect stormwater
runoff from the entire site for slow release into the city’s draining system. Another
collection point, in the form of an attractive wetlands pond, sits within the car park that
serves the Trocadero Apartments.
Figure 51 - The rear car park at the Trocadero apartments features a landscaped detention pond for
stormwater collection.
The site is well served by public transport, with two major bus routes connecting it to the
city. Initially, the developers sponsored the use of the Zipcar system, a car pool service
- 73 -
using electric vehicles that members can rent for $US4.00 per hour plus 40 cents per mile,
but with only 14 members after two years, it became unviable to continue.
According to Charles Perry, one of the development partners, the project was seen as
risky when it was first announced. “We took it to market in late 1990s, when the housing
market in Denver was very strong, and local homes were selling for $75,000 to $80,000,”
Mr Perry said. “Homes at Highlands’ Garden Village were priced between $210,000 and
$400,000, and they all sold.”
As a testament to the success of the project’s unique design and environmental attributes,
sale prices increased 25% per year between 1999 and 2002, against a neighbourhood
average of just 10% growth. On the rental front, apartments at HGV boast a 99%
occupancy rate, compared to a Denver average of 88%. “Sometimes in these urban infill
sites, you take a risk at the front end,” Mr Perry said, “and this time we got lucky.”

The Highlands’ Garden Village is an extremely successful example of how new
developments can meet environmental, social and financial objectives. By adopting energy
efficient design principles and through the extensive use of ecologically sensitive and
recycled materials, the homes save their owners money and reduce their impact on the
environment. By using all of the available public funding and resources, the project
provides affordable homes for a range of people from young couples and families to
seniors. Best of all, the developers, who put together what seemed to be a high-risk
program on an infill site with heritage considerations, expect to make a 10% return per
year on their investment.
According to development partner Charles Perry, the company’s operations in four main
areas are key to its success. Perry Rose is mainly engaged in:
1. Developments on its own behalf. Starting with the Denver Dry Good Store
redevelopment using Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation Tax Credits in the early
1980s, it has since completed 20 projects in Denver alone using those combined sources
of public funding;
2. Fee-based developments for third party clients
3. Planning and design projects for third party clients, and
4. Property and Asset Management, with 750 units under its control at present.
Mr Perry said that the firm was currently looking for a new site to carry out another project
like Highlands’ Garden Village in Denver, and is also active in New York City and Sante
Fe, Albequerque, where current projects include tribal housing for native Americans. The
company is also looking to buy existing housing projects that were developed 30 years
ago as Section 8 housing with a 30 year affordability mortgage, to rehabilitate and
preserve them for future affordable use.
Mr Perry said that while every kind of development had its own set of risks, the firm had
become expert at affordable housing developments. “For a private developer, affordable
housing actually has less market risk than market rate rental properties,” Mr Perry said.
“For example, the Denver private rental market is at its worst ever point at the moment,
with only 88% of private rental homes currently leased. When the private market suffers
higher vacancy rates, they have to accept lower rental returns. However, in affordable
housing, you have more predictable rents and the occupancy rates are higher, so you can
use affordable housing to provide a cushion from market rate slumps in the downtimes.
- 74 -
Effectively you create a rate of return that is a little bit lower than the private market rate,
but is a lot more stable and predictable.”
Mr Perry said that it was important to combine affordable housing projects with market rate
housing to ensure the success of the development over the long term. “We don’t like 100%
affordable housing developments, because projects that are just for one market don’t age
well, and they become stereotyped by the community,” he said. ”Also, they don’t create
sense of community, and the sense of diversity that people who want urban lifestyles
desire.
“So we have come up with a set of techniques where we combine affordable housing with
market rate homes, which provide a marginal subsidy for the affordable component,” he
explained. “For example, we might take a profit of $40,000 from a market rate townhouse
lot, and only $10,000 from an affordable housing lot, so there’s some degree of internal
subsidy that you’re able to accomplish through mixed use and mixed income
developments.”
Mr Perry said that ultimately, the intricacies of putting together a deal were more subtle
than straightforward subsidies though. “It’s more a question of understanding the [various
government] financing programs, and using them to fill the gaps between the rate of return
on an affordable housing product, and the market rate product,” he asserted. “Despite the
complexity of the affordable housing development framework, the end product can help
you weather downmarket cycles in the private sector.”
Project: Colorado Court,

Location: Santa Monica, California
Client: Community Corporation of Santa Monica
Developer: Community Corporation of Santa Monica
Architect: Pugh+Scarpa
Builder: Ruiz Brothers Construction Company
Cost: $US4.3m
Commencement date: not known
Completion date: April 2002
Financing type: City of Santa Monica – affordable housing finance and land
provision, City of Santa Monica and Regional Energy Efficiency
Program funding for energy efficiency elements (approximately
$US500.000)
No of units: 44
Unit type/s: Studio units over 5 floors
Potential occupants: CCSM clients who meet eligibility criteria who earn less than
35% and 40% of median area income. Rents are between $337 and $386 per month,
compared to $1,100 for a market rent studio flat.
Construction method: Ground floor concrete, wood stud framing first floor and above
with prefab concrete panels.

On an awkward site with three street frontages, including one on the Santa Monica
Freeway, Pugh+Scarpa Architects have created an energy efficient affordable housing
complex that makes the most of Californian sunshine and Santa Monica breezes. The
architects first applied passive solar and ventilation principles to achieve internal comfort.
Large access balconies on the south front provide shading, while operable windows
- 75 -
positioned above the front door provide access for cross ventilating breezes. The
apartments feature 10’ ceilings to enhance the sense of space, and there are few windows
located on the western façade, while large openings on the north side provide light without
heat. These measures mean that air-conditioning is only required in one small area of
office space.
In addition, the building employs active energy efficiency measures that result in the
project generating 50% of its electricity requirements, and producing all of the domestic hot
water needed for sinks, showers and radiators from waste heat. It uses a 30KW
photovoltaic system, with panels on three of the site’s four buildings and the rooftop, and a
28kW gas-fired micro turbine with cogeneration (heat recovery) system. This combination
makes the system more efficient than a single mode system, according to architect Angie
Brooks. “Photo voltaic systems have a long payback period, while the payback for the
micro turbine is short,” she said. “’It therefore makes financial sense to increase the
efficiency of the PV through the addition of a micro turbine”.
Figure 52 - Colorado Court features PV panels on three western walls and the roof, as well as a gas-
fired micro turbine, to make it 92% energy self sufficient.
According to project architect Angie Brooks, external materials that would require little
long-term maintenance were specified, such as exposed concrete, precoloured concrete
blocks, stucco with integral pigment that never needs painting and shade screening made
from galvanised metal. Outside, long-lasting compact fluorescent lights were installed, with
motion sensors in public spaces to further save energy. Inside the units, materials included
low VOC paints, 25% recycled carpet, cabinets that use plastic laminate and formaldehyde
free MDF for low off-gassing, which all combine to improve indoor air quality over
traditional materials. Refrigerators are provided in each unit, and super high energy
efficient models from GE were purchased, at a comparable cost to regular fridges.
The development features a permeable gravel alley and underground stormwater retention
system to collect 95% of rainfall, enabling slow percolation into the ground water, rather
than running off via stormwater drains. Landscaping uses drought tolerant plantings, and
the garden is watered via a drip irrigation system with seasonal adjustment. Careful design
meant that all of the existing trees on the block were preserved, with just one palm
relocated during the course of construction. Parking spaces are located underneath the
building to reduce the heat island effect.

The combined passive and active energy efficiency measures at Colorado Court mean
that the “payback for the whole project is les than ten years”, according to architect Angie
Brooks.
- 76 -
By partnering with local utility companies, the developers were able to offset the additional
cost of some of the environmental measures. The Regional Energy Efficiency Initiative (a
joint program of Southern Californian Edison and the Cities of Irvine and Santa Monica)
uses a public goods surcharge from utility bills to fund energy efficiency demonstration
projects, and committed $250,000 to this project, while the City of Santa Monica
contributed a similar amount to the cost of the energy generation systems, ie the PV and
micro turbine elements. The City’s Public Works Department paid for the stormwater
retention system as part of its program to capture stormwater on key sites to prevent urban
pollution runoff into the bay.
While the developer had hoped to export net energy to the grid for monetary credit, the
energy utility has a policy in place that only allows credits to accrue from one renewable
energy source, and Colorado Court uses two (PV and the gas-fired micro turbine) so is
ineligible. Even if it had been able to export energy to Southern California Edison, there is
a disparity in the cost, with the utility paying less than 2 cents per KWH, while it charges
customers 15 cents / KWH for electricity.
Ms Brooks said that the architects would have preferred to provide polished concrete
floors in the project, over carpeting, to avoid the health problems associated with carpets,
and to save money. However, she explained, it is common for affordable housing projects
to offer carpet for perceptions of comfort, and for extra soundproofing. The architects also
suggested natural linoleum flooring in place of synthetic vinyl in kitchen and bathroom
areas, but initially the first cost of linoleum was seen as prohibitive. Eventually the
developer was able to negotiate a lower cost for the lino, by purchasing it from the same
supplier as the partially recycled carpet.
The site demonstrated that it was possible to save 75% of construction waste, and the City
of Santa Monica has since introduced legislation to force all new construction projects to
achieve recycling targets or pay financial penalties for non-compliance.
Project: 5th Street Housing

Location: Santa Monica, California
Client: Community Corporation of Santa Monica
Developer: Community Corporation of Santa Monica
Architect: Koning Eizenberg Architects
Builder: not known
Cost: $US3.52m
Commencement date: not known
Completion date: April 1998
Financing type: Tax credit funding for affordable housing
No of units: 32
Unit type/s: 22 x three bedroom townhouses at ground level, 10 x two and
four bedroom disabled access units located above the townhouses
Potential occupants: Moderate income families, and disabled people requiring
modified homes
Construction method: not known

The 5th Street family housing project provides affordable accommodation in the heart of
Santa Monica, with ten units specifically designed and offered to disabled residents,
- 77 -
According to architect Julie Eizenberg, the location of the disabled access residents on the
top floor may seem counterintuitive, but residents on the third floor can access the ground
and lower parking levels via an elevator, and the complex only requires one above-grade
access walkway. The ground floor townhouses are thereby able to take advantage of large
side yards to provide generous outdoor spaces for the majority of the units, while the
footprint of the townhouses is generous enough to provide large decks for the third floor
units.
The buildings are organised around a common courtyard which features play equipment
for children, and an internal walk street. This area is overlooked by front doors and kitchen
windows, thereby providing “eyes on the street” and increased community interaction. The
project won an AIA California Design Merit Award in 2000.

5th Street uses passive solar and cross ventilation to create comfortable apartments with
an abundance of natural light. Drawing on environmental design principles, it also provides
family friendly accommodation with semi private and private spaces for each unit. The
project cleverly combines large family homes over two levels with single level apartments
for disabled residents, offering potential social benefits from increased interaction among a
diverse population. Underground car parking keeps the ground level free for community
interaction and play areas, while providing ample space for planting of large trees for
shade and amenity.
- 78 -
Conclusions
The most successful affordable and sustainable housing projects I saw during the course
of my Fellowship were mixed tenure, mixed use projects, which benefited from
considerable government support. That support took the form of assistance with planning
and development or financial assistance via grants, or incentives through tax credit
programs or tax abatement, or a combination of all these factors.
The sustainability of such projects was often measured in a triple bottom line sense –
taking into account environmental, social and economic factors. To this end, some projects
were not the greenest in terms of construction, but combined access to transport, jobs,
schools and health facilities to provide comfortable, safe, and convenient places for people
to live.
The people I met with agreed that in order to create the foundations for sustainable
communities, it is imperative that amenities such as transport, health facilities, schools and
childcare, and formal and informal meeting places, are provided when the first residents
move in. Otherwise, they argued, new residents form detrimental habits, such as driving to
buy groceries when they could work, or driving to work instead of taking public transport,
which are hard to break once the facilities are provided.
The projects that were the most green, in a planning, design and construction sense, had
moved away from purely financial reporting, to a position of acknowledging the higher
upfront cost of the green attributes and selling the benefits of lower operating costs over
the life of the building.
Many of the people I met during the course of the trip emphasised that residents of public
or social housing projects have the most to gain from living in environmentally sensitive
homes: by paying less for utilities, those residents can reduce the proportion of their
income spent on housing related costs, and thereby potentially accelerate their transition
into private accommodation.
It became apparent that new construction methods, such as flat-packed homes and
modular construction, are offering real benefits that go beyond simply being cheaper
(which in some cases, they are not). They encourage people to work in construction trades
by providing better quality working environments; they are often more suitable for tight or
difficult sites, or infill construction where nearby residents would be disturbed by noise and
dust over a long period should traditional construction be employed; they are often faster,
and offer significant savings through repetition; quality can be controlled in the factory
ensuring fewer defects upon completion; and materials can be sourced more efficiently
because they only have to be delivered to one site. Of course, some of the savings are
offset by transport costs (which would be more significant in a country as large and
sparsely populated as Australia than in Sweden or the United Kingdom), and it is possible
that unforeseen problems during the installation process can negate the earlier gains.
Architect Julie Eizenberg warned against adopting change too easily, and reminded me
that new policies have to consider all the players, from developers to buyers, governments
to residents, banks to insurance companies.
As for disseminating my findings, to date I have included some of the largest projects Iv
visited (Greenwich Peninsula, Malmo’s Bo01 Expo and Vastra Hamnen and Helsinki’s
Viikki Ecological Neighbourhood) in Building Australia’s Jan/Feb 2004 issue. The same
- 79 -
issue also included an eight-page section on the Greenbuild Conference and Expo, for the
benefit of the construction industry readers who will profit from it most.
The March 2004 issue will include a special report on modular and prefabricated
construction, and other topics of interest, such as affordable housing, will feature
throughout this year.
I also intend to present my findings in person to university students and professional

colleagues this year. Lastly, I would be pleased to make myself available to any reader of
this report who wishes to know more about any project or policy that I learned about during
the course of my trip.
Recommendations
• First and foremost, Australia needs underlying support from the federal government
for the concept of sustainable development. It is imperative that national leaders
believe in the cause, and act appropriately. In a big picture sense, Australia needs a
commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, more renewable energy R&D and
implementation, strategies and policies that aim to reduce consumption of water,
energy, waste and resources, and changes to financial structures that will
incentivise industry and the community to pursue sustainable goals.
• In areas where land supply for further housing development is limited, national and
local governments could conduct surveys of existing uses and vacant sites to
maximise density and provide new opportunities for affordable housing. Sites that
offer opportunities for development of air space are worthy of particular
investigation, such as supermarkets, petrol stations, low rise retail strips etc.
• Dense sites and neighbourhoods have more chance of achieving sustainability:

large populations are need to support local shops, schools, public transport options,
health facilities and other community amenities. Governments need to ensure that
future development sites are planned to achieve densities that will support the
infrastructure that is needed to make local communities sustainable.
• Some governments, such as the Greater London Authority, have mandated the
inclusion of an affordable housing component in EVERY new development of a
certain size (in this case, 15 units). While developers argue that the regulation is in
effect just a tax on their profits, if is worthy of consideration. From discussions with
government representatives and developers in London, the key to its success is to
level the regulation consistently across the entire area, so that the costs are known
upfront and can be incorporated in the project, rather than dealing with councils on
a case-by-case basis on each application, which creates uncertainty and increases
risk for the development community, and can result in stifling development.
• As for the provision of adequate affordable housing, state governments have an

obligation to work with private developers who wish to purchase publicly owned
land, to ensure that affordable housing is provided as part of a mixed use, mixed
tenure development, rather than simply focussing on maximising financial return
through private sale.
- 80 -
• In most countries I visited, the development of public housing has devolved from
government responsibility and is now carried out by specialist for profit and not-for-
profit agencies. The fact that state governments are still the major procurers of
public housing in Australia means that they have an incredible opportunity to push
the adoption and implementation of green building techniques and technologies. If
state government housing providers were to mandate the inclusion of renewable
energy systems and water recycling solutions on all new public housing, and
renovations of existing homes, they could contribute to the creation of critical mass
for those technologies, thereby making them more accessible for everyone.
Government also has a significant opportunity to test and trial new technologies, as
the owner of large tracts of rental accommodation, and could conduct ongoing user
research for the benefit of industry and the community generally over time.
• The rehabilitation of public and affordable housing neighbourhoods in Finland,

Sweden and the USA is providing an opportunity to revitalise down-at-heel areas
and give residents a new reason to be proud of their surroundings. In Finland, the
government is investing money in new environmentally friendly technologies such
as heating and hot water systems, while in Finland and Sweden, the owners of
public housing are working to eliminate problems associated with indoor air quality
through eradicating damp and mould. Simple measures can have significant
impacts on the lives of residents.
• The federal government should consider the efficacy of the First Home Owners
Grant, and consider the introduction of other mechanisms to assist moderate
income residents into home ownership. Some examples include low-cost
mortgages, state mortgage guarantees, shared ownership schemes, assistance
with closing costs, tied-employee housing etc. I am eagerly awaiting the report from
the Productivity Commission inquiry into Affordable Housing, and any subsequent
action, in this regard.
• Advances in modular and prefabricated construction offer the Australian

construction industry plenty of scope for improvement, for example, providing
enhanced working conditions, improvements to quality and defect control, and
through cost and efficiency measures. While Australia probably doesn’t have the
population or geographical suitability for a Yorkon or a BoKlok-type product, the
industry could benefit from efficiencies arising from modularisation and
prefabrication of many elements of the traditional building process.
• At a community level, companies and organisations of all types and size can adopt
a Fully Sustainable Workplace policy, like the Portland based architecture firm
SERA is currently implementing. Personal responsibility can go a long way towards
reducing waste, saving water and electricity, and contributing towards the reduction
of greenhouse gases.
- 81 -
Appendices
Appendix A – London housing statistics
1. Homelessness
According to the London Housing Board’s Homes and Communities in London report of
2003, London has the highest concentration of families in priority need in England: At the
end of March 2003, there were nearly 59,000 households living in temporary
accommodation in London, amounting to 60% of the national total.
The need for additional affordable housing is borne out by the number of people on council
waiting lists for social rented housing – more than 226 households in London in April 2002
– representing a 25% increase in five years. About two-thirds of homeless households
need a permanent home with two or more bedrooms.
2. Housing Affordability
House prices and rents in London have increased at faster rates than incomes, leading to
serious housing affordability issues in the capital. Between 1995 and 2002, the average
house price in London increased by 115%, from £96,000 to £205,850.
In 2002, a single annual gross salary of more than £55,000 would be needed to buy an
average home: the average London salary is £34,777.
The households most adversely affected by these changes to the housing market are
those with low to moderate incomes between £15,000 and £35,000. These households are
generally unable to afford market rate housing but do not qualify for social rented housing
either. According to the Housing Commission, this situation is creating profound
recruitment and retention difficulties for London’s key public services and some private
firms.
For example, primary school teachers earn an average salary of £26,360, staff nurses
earn about £21,900 a year, postal workers earn about £21,180, and bus or coach drivers
earn £19,430. None of these workers could afford to buy an average priced home, even in
London’s cheapest borough.
The Housing Commission concluded that the lack of affordable housing in London has
become a fundamental market failure, which is undermining the region’s sustainable
economic development, and is unlikely to improve in the future without urgent and
significant strategic input from all levels of government.
3. Population growth
According to the GLA’s Draft London Plan, London’s population is expected to grow by
700,000, or 311,000 households (based on current average household sizes) between
2001 and 2016. This equates to 20,700 new homes per year to handle population growth
alone. Research conducted by the Housing Commission suggested that 24% of those new
households (approximately 5,000 units) would require social rented housing.
- 82 -
Appendix B
Web addresses for organisations and projects featured in this report:
United Kingdom
Allford Hall Monaghan Morris www.ahmm.co.uk
Bill Dunster Architects www.zedfactory.com
Cartwright Pickard Architects Not known
Commission for Architecture and the Built www.cabe.org.uk
Environment
English Partnerships www.englishpartnerships.co.uk
EPR Architects www.epr.co.uk
Greater London Authority www.london.gov.uk
Housing Corporation www.housingcorp.org.uk.
Hyde Housing Association www.hyde-housing.co.uk
London Borough of Greenwich www.greenwich.gov.uk
London Borough of Islington www.islington.gov.uk
Meridian Delta Limited www.meridiandeltaltd.com
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister www.odpm.gov.uk
Peabody Trust www.peabody.org.uk
Piercy Conner Architects www.piercyconner.co.uk
Proctor and Matthews Architects www.proctorandmatthews.com
Raines Dairy www.yorkon.com/rainescourt
Yorkon www.yorkon.com/
Finland
City of Helsinki Planning Department www.hel.fi/ksv/english
Housing Fund of Finland (ARA) www.ara.fi
Ministry of the Environment www.environment.fi
Sweden
BoKlok www.boklok.se (Swedish text only)
City of Malmö www.Malmö.se, www.ekostaden.com
New York, NY
City of New York - Housing Preservation www.nyc.gov/hpd
and Development
GF55 Architects www.gf55.com
Housing Development Corporation www.nychdc.com
Housing Finance Authority www.nychomes.org/hfa/hfa.htm
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation www.renewNYC.com
NYSAFAH www.nysafah.org
Stephen Tilly Architecture www.stillyarchitect.com
State of New York Mortgage Agency www.nychomes.org/sony/sonyma.html
(SONYMA)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Green Build Conference and Expo www.greenbuildexpo.com
Denver, Colorado
Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Office www.aspenhousingoffice.com
Colorado Housing and Finance Authority www.colohfa.org
(CHAFA)
Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects www.cgyarchitects.com
Perry Rose www.rose-network.com
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) www.rmi.org
- 83 -
Portland, Oregon
Brewery Blocks, Portland www.breweryblocks.com
City of Portland www.ci.portland.or.us/mayor
Gerding/Edlen Development Company www.ge-dev.com
Portland Development Commission www,pdc.us
Environmental Building Supplies www.ecohaus.com
Office of Sustainable Development www.green-rated.org
ROSE Community Development www.rosecdc.org
Corporation
SERA Architects www.serapdx.com
Shiels Obletz Johnsen www.sojpdx.com
Los Angeles, California
Community Corporation of Santa Monica www.communitycorp.org
Global Green USA www.globalgreen.org
Koning Eizenberg Architects www.kearch.com
Pugh+Scarpa Architects www.pugh-scarpa.com
- 84 -
Appendix C
Other policies and strategies
Some policies and strategies I came across didn’t make into the Fellowship report, but I
would be happy to provide readers with extra information about the following programs:
NY’s Housing Development Corporation is assisting in the creation of affordable housing in

some of the most desirable locations in the city, to ensure low-income residents can live
near where they work, through the Tax-exempt 80/20 Program. Developers can access
low cost finance, providing 20% of the units in their project to low-income tenants earning
no more than 50% of area median income in exchange. Alternatively, 25% of the units
may be reserved for low-income tenants earning no more than 60% of area median
income. To date, the program has been successful in creating affordable units in otherwise
high-cost areas, but it is limited by the availability of tax-exempt bond allocations each
year. Therefore, HDC created a Taxable 80/20 Program, whereby it offers a subsidy, in
the form of a second mortgage at 1% for 20 years, of $20,000 per low-income unit. This
enables the building owner to keep 20% of the units reserved for low-income tenants
earning no more than 80% of area median income, thus making those units affordable to
low and moderate-income tenants.
In August 2002, the New York state and city governments announced a new federal
funding package for Lower Manhattan, following the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. The $US8 billion Liberty Bond Program initiative provides low cost, tax-exempt
bond financing for major projects to revitalise the affected area, which has been defined as
south of Canal Street, East Broadway (east of its intersection with Canal Street), and
Grand Street (east of its intersection with East Broadway). Up to $US1.6bn has been
earmarked for residential development within the zone, with the New York State Housing
Finance Agency (HFA) and New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC) each
responsible for issuing $800m. The housing sector of the program seeks to create
multifamily residential rental and complementary retail development, attract new residents
to New York City, and encourage environmentally responsible design and construction.
Eligible projects may consist of new construction, conversion of a commercial facility, or
substantial renovation of an existing residential facility. Rehabilitation expenditures must
equal at least 50% of the amount of New York Liberty Bonds. Both HDC and HFA are
requiring an additional public benefit as part of the Liberty Bond Program: HDC will impose
additional fees to be used to preserve and create affordable housing throughout the City,
while HFA will require that at least 5% of the units be affordable to moderate income
families.
The State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA) administers a Low Interest Rate
Mortgage Program for low- to moderate-income first home buyers, and the Achieving
the Dream Program for low-income first home buyers. Mortgages can be taken out for up
to 97% of the purchase value and have an interest rate 1-2% points lower than market
rates. Eligibility criteria include credit standards and maximum purchase prices. Some
programs also offer closing cost assistance loans for amounts up to 5% or $5,000 to cover
attorneys fees, taxes etc, that are only repayable if the property is sold within the first nine
years. SONYMA completes about 5,000 loans every year, with a total value of about $450
– 520 million, and they are funded through the sale of tax-exempt bonds. Successful
borrowers who put down a deposit of 5% or less are compelled to attend a homebuyer
education course.
- 85 -
In Denver, Colorado, CHAFA runs the state’s affordable housing program using federal
Low Income Tax Credits, to encourage the construction, rehabilitation and preservation
of rental housing for low and moderate income households, who earn up to 60% of the
area median income. It also administers the Colorado Brownfields Program, using a
Revolving Loan Fund, to assist with environmental remediation of contaminated
commercial sites for new uses including housing. CHAFA also runs programs to assist low
and moderate income residents, and disabled citizens, into home ownership, using
programs such as MRB First Step, Taxable Income Opener, Home Access and Home
Access Plus. Eligible applicants must initially attend an education program to learn about
home ownership and how to maintain a home. The Authority also publishes guidelines and
resources for employers in rural resort regions about housing employees, providing
information about how to access to programs and funding streams.
The Rocky Mountain Institute, in Snowmass Colorado, is a research organisation that

develops blueprints for a sustainable future, and acts as a consultant to private clients in
green building. Huston Eubank, an architect with RMI’s Green Development Services, is
the secretary of the World Green Building Council, and is working to establish new GBCs
in countries around the world, as well as facilitating the global sharing of information and
research about green building.
In Aspen, Colorado, where median house prices are between $5 – 7 million, the
Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Program provides housing for workers at all
income levels, ranging from cleaners and babysitters to doctors and lawyers. The program
uses funds from a real estate transfer tax and city taxes, and builds new affordable
housing as well as buying existing housing for affordable use. The county’s green building
guidelines mean that all new affordable housing developments must comply with an
Efficient Building Program Checklist, which measures indicators such as construction,
demolition and use of resource efficient materials, land use and water conservation,
framing and materials, energy measures, insulation, HVAC, solar, indoor air quality and
rewards projects that demonstrate innovation.
In Portland, Oregon, the Portland Development Commission (PDC) oversees the

implementation of the Green Building Policy for all new and major retrofitted buildings,
and all city-funded projects, such as affordable housing developments, which must comply
with standards set out in LEED. Working with the city’s Office of Sustainable Development,
the PDC has published guidelines for affordable housing, called Greening Portland’s
Affordable Housing. The PDC also carries out research into green buildings, and acts as
a disseminator of information about improve environmental performance in all types of
buildings, including housing. The city’s Office of Sustainable Development conducts
research, development and education programs to encourage home owners and builders
to adopt green building practices, and maintains the G-rated website for that purpose..
The Portland based architecture firm SERA is involved in the design of green buildings,
including affordable housing, and has adopted an internal office policy to ensure a
sustainable workplace. The SERA Fully Sustainable Workplace was developed with
employee input, and addresses aspects such as energy, chemicals, plastics, metals and
glass, travel, paper, food, furniture, fixtures and equipment, materials library and human
resources. To date the office has eliminated harmful products such as foam core, plastic
cutlery, drinking vessels and lunch wrappings, and intends to add disposable writing
implements to its banned list. The firm has also implemented a worm bin, tracking of daily
- 86 -
transportation for CO2 offsets, and is currently working toward energy efficient lighting, a
sustainable library, energy star appliances and minimising plotting and printing.
Global Green USA, based in Santa Monica, California, is the US affiliate of Green Cross
International, and organisation established by Mikhail Gorbachev to create a sustainable
future, by cultivating harmonious relationships between humans and the environment. GG
USA works with the designers, developers and operators of affordable housing across the
country to encourage the adoption of green building strategies and materials. The
organisation developed the Greening Affordable Housing Initiative and conducts
workshops around the country, collaborates with other organisations such as Habitat for
Humanity, acts as a consultant to affordable housing developers, shares information on
financing streams and funding resources among housing developers, and lobby’s
governments on policy initiatives such as tax credits. It also publishes leaflets, such as 8
Steps to Funding Green, and case studies on green projects such as Colorado Court, to
promote green building among the affordable housing development community.
- 87 -
Appendix D
Other projects
Some projects I visited didn’t make it into the Fellowship in the report, but I would be
happy to provide readers with extra information about the following developments:
1. Madison Court, East Harlem, New York
2. Burnham Factory - Affordable Housing and Public Library, Irvington, New York
3. Benedict Commons, Aspen
- 88 -
4. Burlingame, Aspen, Colorado
5. Museum Place, Portland, Oregon
6. Brewery Blocks, Portland, Oregon
7. Rose Community Development Corporation projects in Portland

No pictures available
- 89 -

Study of Sustainable and Affordable Housing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study of Sustainable and Affordable Housing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA

Report by RACHAEL BERNSTONE – 2003 CHURCHILL FELLOW

THE AV JENNINGS FELLOWSHIP to study sustainable and affordable housing.

Key Findings and Recommendations 4

I arranged meetings with representatives of federal, state and local government

Key Findings and Recommendations

From my observations, it is possible to create successful sustainable communities through

Helsinki, Finland: 20 to 24 October, 2003

Stockholm and Malmö, Sweden: 27 to 31 October 2003

New York, NY, USA: 3 to 10 November, 2003

Denver, Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass, Colorado, USA: 17 to 21 November 2003

Portland, Oregon, USA: 24 to 27 November 2003

Los Angeles, California, USA: 1 to 4 December 2003

In the Conclusion and Recommendations, I have attempted to summarise the findings

1. The United Kingdom

1.1 Key players in affordable housing

Public or affordable housing is owned by local authorities, comprising 32 London

English Partnerships is the national government’s agency charged with sustainable

1.2 Issues and challenges

Current housing stock

New housing supply

1.3 Policies and strategies

The Sustainable Communities strategy also incorporates the Millennium Communities

Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London

1.4 Projects and Programmes

The Starter Home Initiative

Modular construction for affordable housing projects

What makes this project interesting?

What lessons can be learned from this project?

Other environmental concerns have resulted in significant conservation and remediation,

What makes this project interesting?

Project: BedZED, the Beddington Zero Energy Development

What lessons can be learned from this project?

Water saving measures include the installation of water-efficient appliances, such as

What lessons can be learned from this project?

Project: Microflat prototype

What makes this project interesting?

What lessons can be learned from this project?

2.1 Key players in affordable housing

2.2 Issues and challenges

Another factor contributing to housing demand is a steady decrease in average household

Current housing stock

New housing supply

2.3 Policies and Strategies

Key objectives of the country’s social housing policy include:

Shared ownership schemes

A second scheme of state subsidised shared ownership was introduced in 2001.

State Mortgage Guarantee

Maintenance and repairs

Changing household requirements

What makes this project interesting?

Figure 27 - Viikki University Science Park

Figure 28 - Timber multistorey houses at Viikki

Figure 29 - Viikki's new school caters for grades 1 – 12.

Figure 30 - Viikki's new childcare centre is already open.

3.1 Policies and Strategies

The Ekostaden Augustenborg project is one of Sweden’s largest urban sustainability

What makes this project interesting?

What makes this project interesting?

The city’s recently established university is currently building a campus at Västra

What lessons can be learned from this project?

What makes this project interesting?

Ultimately, though, the success of the homes is measured in terms of customer