Future dense

The logic is impeccable. London's population is growing fast. Over the next 15 years it is predicted to grow by 700,000 people – the population of Leeds. The number of people already in London and in need of housing is similarly worrying.

As key providers of new affordable housing in the capital, housing associations recognise that density needs to increase.

But they also want to build places where individuals and families want to live and high-density housing has a grim reputation. This is ironic, considering that the densest parts of London include Notting Hill, Belgravia and the leafy squares of Islington.

What makes places pleasant?
Capital Gains: Making High-Density Housing Work in London is the London Housing Federation's contribution to this debate.

With several good design guides around, we sought instead to take a broader view of high-density housing and consider all aspects of development, management (including occupancy), child densities, lettings policies and residents' preferences.

The report's approach is all too novel in the housing sector: it looks at successful schemes that residents like living in (and yes, we did ask). The major share of each scheme is owned by a housing association or local authority and they are all built to very high densities (81 to 455 dwellings a hectare).

But that is where the physical similarities end. One is part of a Victorian square, one is a deck access scheme above a supermarket and another includes recently built family houses with gardens. Only one includes a tower block, and this scheme delivers the lowest density – hopefully putting another nail in the coffin of the popular misconception that high density equals high rise. The study looks at a partnership scheme at Imperial Wharf, Fulham, that is being led by the private developer St George.

Not-so-secret success
What is really striking is the similarity in the factors that managers and residents think make these schemes work. They are in accessible locations with good transport and good access to employment and are close to shops, schools and other amenities. Areas regarded as sought after by residents are particularly valued.

Child density, at an average of 18% of total residents, is low for social housing, as is occupancy within homes at 75%. In other words, a spare bedspace or bedroom is common. There is a higher-than-usual proportion of older residents without children.

The housing has well-maintained common parts. Residential caretakers are common and, as housing management is relatively intense, it's essential landlords act quickly to tackle antisocial behaviour. Residents like on-site staff but feel the most important thing is a speedy and personal response, however it is delivered. Residents' associations, covering all tenures, play an important role but, in general, residents are more interested in being able to steward – protect and oversee – their homes than control them.

They all fit well into the existing urban scale and street pattern. High-quality building materials have been used that seem to be standing the test of time – over 100 years in one case. Some personal outdoor space is provided on almost every scheme, and space standards in dwellings are generous. Car parking provision is low but there is excellent access to public transport.

So the secrets of success are not really secrets at all. Just a good location, old-fashioned housing management, a mature and balanced community, high-quality building materials and a decent, humane – but not necessarily spectacular – design. The only challenge is to recreate all this.

As you would expect, the report contains a number of recommendations. We need to accept that current measures of density are pretty meaningless, especially when applied to infill sites. None of the factors above have anything to do with density as measured by standards such as habitable rooms per hectare.

What matters is occupancy – who lives on the scheme, the space residents enjoy and time spent at homes. This is difficult to measure but bedspaces per hectare can at least give an idea of the maximum number of people who might live on a scheme.

Letting it work
A range of housing needs can be successfully met in high-density schemes, provided that lettings policies are reformed. Each scheme should from the start have a letting plan designed to replicate the profile of more mature schemes. Such a plan should be agreed by all parties in a development and be a condition of Housing Corporation funding.

Plans should take account of the balance of household types, occupancy levels, intensity of use, child densities (a maximum of 25% of the total scheme population is advised) and tenancy histories. Homes exclusively for families should not be developed in parts of a scheme where the density exceeds 250 dwellings a hectare. Whereas Capital Gains recognises the tremendous pressure to house homeless families, it also found that child numbers need to be managed if housing of families is to be successful in the longer term.

Successful high-density housing does not come cheap. As density increases, so should amenities (room size, balconies, storage and so on), specification standards and sound insulation. The Housing Corporation's grant rates and total cost indicators should be increased to allow for this.

Intense management has implications for service charges. Rent guidelines need to take this into account to maximise affordability for tenants and protect associations' viability.

On mixed-tenure schemes there should be uniform conditions for freeholders, leaseholders and tenants and consideration should be given to using a single, estate-based management service provider. How this will be paid for clearly needs to be sorted out when the scheme is being planned.

High-density living can work for all household types with varied economic circumstances, but only if it is high-quality living brought about by good design, intensive management and supported by appropriate occupancy levels procured through sensitive lettings policies.