THE AV JENNINGS CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP TO STUDY...

THE AV JENNINGS CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP TO STUDYINNOVATIVE DESIGN IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

REPORT BY ELOISE ATKINSON - 2006 CHURCHILL FELLOW

Innovative Design in Affordable Housing

1Eloise Atkinson AV Jennings Churchill Fellowship 2006

CO

NT

EN

TS 1. Introduction

2. Executive Summary

3. Programme

4. Glossary

5. Policy and Funding Background 5.1. Inclusionary housing 5.2. Mixed income 5.3. Mixed tenure

6. Selected projects

6.1. United States Folsom Dore, San Fransicso Curran House, San Francisco Swan’s Market, Oakland

6.2. Canada 25 Leonard Ave, Toronto 6.3. United Kingdom Adelaide Wharf, London Donnybrook Quarter, London Abbott Wharf, London New Islington Square, Manchester

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendix 1- Project TableAppendix 2 - Website addresses

1

3

5

9

11

18

19

29

33

47

49

68

Version 9.0

2Innovative Design in Affordable Housing

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

1. Introduction

The community as a whole enjoys benefits from people having affordable and secure housing. These benefits are at both a societal and individual level and include improving educational outcomes, stabilizing employment, greater participation in neighbourhoods and communities, and greater economic growth for families and their neighbourhoods.

As outlined in the National Housing Summit’s 2007 paper A Call for Action, three-quarters of a million lower-income households in Australia are paying housing costs, (either mortgages or rent) above 30% of their income. Many of these households live in housing that is inadequate for their needs because alternatives are unaffordable. There is no shortage of ideas for providing affordable housing for lower-income households, but little is being built throughout Australia.

This Churchill report looks at a number of innovative affordable housing projects in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom and the policy frameworks enabling them to be built.

The Churchill Fellowship not only gave me the opportunity to visit more than 20 housing projects but also the chance to speak to some of the most experienced architects and developers in the area of affordable housing. One unexpected benefit was learning from these architects how they manage their practices and manage their relationships with the bureaucrats, community organisations and the developers that together turn designs into housing projects.

As a recipient of the AV Jennings Churchill Fellowship 2006, I would like to sincerely thank AV Jennings for their continuing support of this fellowship to assist research in architecture, building and planning. I would also like to thank the Churchill Trust for not only the opportunity to travel and carry out this study but also for their support and guidance throughout the fellowship.

“For those interested in architecture and its relationship to society, the place for fruitful investigation is housing” Sam Davis Sam Davis (ed) The Form of Housing (Van Nostrand Reinhold 1977)(

Without exception, the architects, non-profit and for-profit developers and government representatives that I visited were welcoming and generous with their time and information. It was inspiring to meet an exceptional group of people who are leading the charge to get affordable housing on the ground.

I would like to thank my referees David Cant, the late Dr Paula Whitman, and Professor Michael Keniger who provided contacts, coaching and support. I would particularly like to acknowledge Paula whose “you go girl” encouragement inspired me not to disappoint her.

A number of individuals played particular roles in organising me. I would like to thank my old friend Malcolm Smith who organised many of the meetings for me in London and Antonella from Qantas for her patience.

Finally, I would not have been able undertake this study without the support of my office and my family. I would like to thank my colleagues at Deicke Richards, John Deicke, Peter Richards and Cameron Davies for seeing the value in this study both for the practice and for my own professional (and personal) development.

During my absence, many members of my family and friends picked up the pieces on the home front for which I am very grateful. As always, my husband Seamus and children, Ruby, Arthur and Frankie showed their incredible capacity to handle everything with joy and ease.


2. Executive Summary

EX

ECU

TIV

E S

UM

MA

RY

Name: Eloise Atkinson

Position: Director, Deicke Richards

Address: PO Box 507

Fortitude Valley Q 4006

Contact: Tel 07 3852 8700

Fax 07 3852 8701

Email: [email protected]

Housing affordability is currently at the forefront of the federal and state political agendas. While much of the political focus is on the affordability of home ownership, the reality is that increasingly people are turning to the public and private rental markets to find places to live.

The objective of this Fellowship was to investigate innovation in the design of affordable housing and the supporting tenure, funding and planning arrangements. The programme for the Fellowship presented an opportunity for detailed assessment of successful projects and to speak to the responsible architects, developers, managers and policy advisors to better understand the reasons for the successes.

The quality and scale of many of the projects (described in the Appendix) was remarkable. However, the highlight was the opportunity to meet leading architects in the field of affordable housing such as David Baker and Anne Torney in San Francisco, Sam Davis in Berkeley, Geoff Gooding in Boston, Dean Goodman and Brock James in Toronto and Peter Barber and Phil Hamilton in London. But quality projects require public developers (such as June Barnes from East Thames Housing) and private developers (such as Nick Johnson from Urban Splash) with the same passion and vision as those they employ to design.

The key lessons from the study are:

• Successful affordable housing projects need the ‘trifecta’ of favourable and innovative funding arrangements, supportive planning policy and good design. Where private housing growth is strong and much is being built, inclusionary housing policies are a very effective way of delivering affordable housing. Conditioning new developments offers a speedy means of adding to the affordable housing stock.

• Mixed income and/or mixed tenure developments allow the affordable housing component to be more economically viable, more diverse and to have a greater level of acceptance within the community.

• Affordable housing projects can lead the housing industry in delivering environmentally sustainable solutions, as there is a genuine incentive to reduce operations and maintenance costs.

• Innovative design and funding arrangements are often the result of strategic alliances between the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Architects have a role to play in helping these groups resolve, sometimes conflicting interests within joint developments.

There needs to be stronger strategic alliances between architects, planners and funders/developers working towards the ‘trifecta’. Architects can make a significant contribution to these alliances. Moreover the professional bodies such as the RAIA and RAPI, through their membership and structures, are well placed to broker forums and share information on innovation.

The findings from this Churchill will be presented at a number of forums including lectures at the University of Queensland and the University of Technology and presentations to the architecture profession, housing providers, developers and consultants, and specifically to the board and staff at the Brisbane Housing Company.


NAME OF PROJECT City

3. Programme

PR

OG

RA

MM

ESAN FRANCISCO, USA16- 28 April 2007

ORGANISATION CONTACT PROJECTS VISITED

Solomon ETC Anne TorneyPrincipal-Director of Housing

Alcantara

Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center

Joseph SmookeExecutive Director

Bernal Heights Housing

David Baker + Partners David BakerDaniel Simons

Curran House8th & Howard StFolsom Dore

Tenderloin Neighbourhood DevelopmentCorporation

Natalie Richie General Manager Curran House

Curran House8th & Howard St

Citizen Housing Jim Buckley - PresidentClarice Veloso-Lugo-PR

Folsom Dore8th & Howard St

John Stewart Co. PhiliciaBuilding Manager

North Beach Place

OAKLAND, USA23 April

Pyatok Architects Betsy YostAssociate

Hismen Hin-Nu Terrace Swan MarketplaceColiseum GardensLandmark Place

BERKELEY, USA26 April

Sam Davis Architecture Sam Davis University Village, AlbanyCreekside, Albany


PR

OG

RA

MM

E TORONTO, CANADA29 April- 2 May

Levitt Goodman Dean Goodman- PartnerBrock James

25 Leonard StreetPeel Youth VillageEva Phoenix

Eva Initiatives Jennifer MorrisNational Initiatives Director

Eva Phoenix

Region of Peel Gary FarisProgram SupervisorOntario Works

Peel Youth Village

MONTREAL, CANADA2-5 May

Pearl Poddubiuk Mark PoddubiukDirector

Benny Farm- Various Projects

Mc Gill University, Architecture Department

Avi FriedmanAffordable Housing Program

BOSTON, USA7-9 May

Goody Clancy & Assoc Geoff GoodingPrincipal

Tent CityAuburn CourtDewolfe HousingLangham Court

NEW YORK, USA10-11 May

Curtis & Ginsberg Mark GinsbergPartner

Morrisania Air Rights Housing

Topology Daniel Hernandez

Jonathon Rose Munsun Park


LONDON, UK16 May -15 June

AJ Affordable Housing Conference

Allford Hall Monaghan Morris (AHMM)

Will Lee Dalston LaneAdelaide WharfMoMo

Peter Barber Phil HamiltonAssociate

Donnybrook QuarterTanner St

HTA Ben DerbyshirePrincipal

CABECommission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Dickon RobinsonCommissioner

East Thames Housing Group June Barnes CEO

Abbott WharfTanner StreetStratford City

First Base Elliott Lipton Adelaide Wharf

RPS Joe ChambersAssociate

Housing Corp Richard CapieHead of Policy

YORK, UK23-24 May

Yorkon David CowardSales Support manager

Sixth AvenueMurray Grove

MANCHESTER, UK11-13 June

Urban Splash Nick JohnsonPrincipal

New Islington Various ProjectsMoHo

PR

OG

RA

MM

E


GLO

SSA

RY

4. Glossary

Area Median Income (AMI)- the US Federal Government annually calculates the median income for communities across the country and adjusts them for family size.

Brown roof- Due to the loss of habitat from the redevelopment of industrial brownfield sites that can provide valuable ecosystems for rare species of plants, birds and invertebrates, there is a growing requirement to create “brown roofs” on new buildings. This involves a thin layer of crushed rubble and gravel, ideally obtained from the redevelopment site itself or another site within the same area. They are intended to be gradually colonised by spiders and insects and provide a feeding site for insectivorous birds.

Discounted sale allows the resident to buy the property at usually 70-80% of the market value. The discounted rate is maintained if the property is resold.

EcoHomes is an UK environmental assessment method for homes. It is maintained by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). It provides an authoritative rating for new, converted or renovated homes, and covers houses, flats and apartments. The Code for Sustainable Homes replaced Ecohomes in April 2007 for the assessment of new housing in England.

English Partnerships is the UK Government’s national regeneration agency which aims to deliver high quality, sustainable growth in England.

Housing Corporation is the UK national Government agency that funds new affordable housing through the Social Housing Grant and regulates housing associations in England. Projects developed by RSLs and some private developers are eligible to apply for Grant.

HUD- US Department of Housing and Urban Development

HUD Hope VI is the US federal programme adopted in 1993 to support mixed housing to replace traditional public housing. Revitalisation program of severely distressed public housing

Intermediate rental is usually up to 80% of market rents in an area.

Keyworkers include workers who provide key services such as nurses, teachers, police officers, prison service staff, fire and rescue service staff, and social workers.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)- –The LEED Green Building Rating System™ is the nationally accepted benchmark in the US for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings.

“Lets Build” programme is a City of Toronto initiative that was launched in 2000 to help promote the building of affordable housing. It offers the services of its team of professionals to assist in the planning and development process. It offers a number of incentives to increase the economic viability of affordable housing projects including City-owned land, waiver of development fees, tax incentives and one-time financial assistance.

Lifetime Homes is a set of standards in the UK that allows for the accessibility and adaptability of a home as the situation of the occupants changes. There are 16 design features that need to be addressed.


GLO

SSA

RY Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) acts

asan incentive for individuals and corporations to invest in the construction or rehabilitation of rental housing for low to moderate-income families by providing a credit against tax liability.

Pepperpotting is used to refer to the scattering of different housing tenure throughout a site rather than clustering or grouping similar tenures together in separate buildings or separate parts of the same building.

Registered Social Landlord (RSL) includes housing associations and other not for profit companies registered by the Housing Corporation to provide social housing.

Section 106 Agreement under the UK Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is an agreement between a planning authority that includes the provision of affordable housing on all new developments where it is economically viable.

Shared Equity allows a resident to buy a share in their housing with the unsold equity owned by an RSL. The initial shares are usually about 70% of the home. “Staircasing” is generally allowed.

Shared ownership allows resident to buy a share in their housing. Rent set at about 2.75% is paid by the resident on the unsold equity. Shares usually start at 25% of the value of the home and typically can be up to 75%.

Social rental is rental accommodation that is funded by government or the not-for-profit sector where maximum rents are set below 30% of household income.

Staircasing allows the purchaser of an affordable housing unit the ability to incrementally purchase 100% of the value of the house after an initial minium purchase of 25% of the value of the property.

Supportive housing is a combination of affordable housing with services that allow people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless to lead more stable lives. Often those targeted by the programmes will be on very low incomes and may have physical disabilities or mental illnesses. The support services may include counselling, physical assistance or life skills training. The services are usually provided on site. Examples of programmes include the City of San Francisco’s “Care not Cash” and HUD “Shelter Plus Care”.

Transit Orientated Development (TOD) refers to residential/commercial centres designed to maximise access to public transport. A TOD has a rail or bus station as a central feature surrounded by relatively high-density development.


5. Policy and Funding Background

BA

CK

GR

OU

NDWhile there is some debate about the definition

of affordable housing, it is generally agreed that it is housing that costs the bottom 40% of income earners less than 30% of their income. It can be provided by the public, community or private sector and it can cover a variety of tenures.

The success of affordable housing projects relies on a number of factors including the tenacity of housing providers, the commitment of developers and the policy settings by all levels of government. However the three factors that most effect the provision of affordable housing are planning laws, finance, and design.

This section of the report looks at the planning, policy and funding frameworks in which many of the projects described were conceived, designed and constructed. Chapter 6 explores the project- specific design issues.

The role of inclusionary housing policy and of the emphasis on mixed tenure and mix income developments in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada is very relevant to the current Australian housing debate.

5.1 Inclusionary housing

Inclusionary housing or inclusionary zoning refers to city planning requirements that new housing developments provide a percentage of housing affordable to people on low to moderate incomes. Inclusionary housing generally provides a wider range of housing options within a neighbourhood than the market provides on its own. It is usually enacted at a local government level and can be either mandatory or incentive-based.

There are a number of common elements to inclusionary housing policies including developer compensation, the percentage of affordable housing required, the size of the project that will trigger the need for inclusionary housing, the income targets for whom the housing should be provided and the period for which the housing must remain affordable.

Inclusionary housing policies aim to compensate the developer for the provision of the affordable housing to a level that either allows for some profit, or in some cases, are cost neutral. To enable this, a number of cost offsets are offered to the developer. These include density bonuses, parking relaxation, fee waivers and reductions, fee deferral, fast tracking of permits such as development and building approval and design flexibility such as boundary relaxations.

The percentage of affordable housing required varies but in most parts of the United States where inclusionary housing policy is enacted, the share of housing in a development for those on low to moderate incomes is often between 10-30%. Some policies such as in Boston Massachusetts, allow the housing to be provided off-site. In these situations, there is usually a requirement to provide a larger percentage of affordable housing and the housing must be provided within a certain distance of the site receiving the bonus.

The size of the development that triggers the requirement also varies. In some jurisdictions such as San Francisco, any new housing project over five housing units requires some affordable housing. In London, developments of fifteen housing units or more require inclusionary housing.

The housing needs in an area determine the target income level for the housing. In the Greenpoint-Williamsburg Inclusionary Housing Program, there is an opportunity to provide either 20% housing for low-income earners (less than 80% of average median income-AMI) or 25% for low and moderate-income earners (below 125% AMI). Further government subsidies such as rent assistance are often then made available to increase the affordability to very low-income earners.

Ensuring that the housing stock remains available over time for the people who need it is another important aspect of an inclusionary housing policy. Many programs in the United


BA

CK

GR

OU

ND States require a minimum of 30 years for both

ownership and rental properties.

There are a number of inclusionary housing programmes throughout the United States with the most successful being in New Jersey and California. There are at least 107 cities and counties within California that have adopted inclusionary housing policies.

In San Francisco, the Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH) is responsible for providing financing for the purchase, development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. In 1992 it adopted a mandatory inclusionary housing policy. In 2006 it was determined that each development of five housing units or more was required to construct 15% of affordable housing units. This can include rental and low cost home ownership. If the developers decide to build the affordable housing off site, 20% of affordable housing is required and the housing must be built within a one-mile radius. Developers may elect to pay a fee instead of constructing housing units; revenue from these fees is then used to fund affordable housing elsewhere in the city. The fee is approximately $190 000 for a studio and up to $385 000 for a three bedroom apartment.

The inclusionary housing policy in England is relatively simple compared the various United States frameworks. An agreement between a local planning authority and a developer under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the mechanism through which inclusionary housing is achieved in England. Section 106 agreements aim to reduce the negative effects of new developments on the community and addresses current issues such as roads, and green space as well as the provision of affordable housing.

New developments in London with over fifteen homes have to include affordable housing. Currently the Lord Mayor, Ken Livingston is starting those negotiations at 50% in the Greater London Area.

Under these Section 106 agreements, it is generally required that the affordable homes be owned or on long lease to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) such as a housing association. The payment by the RSL is below the market rate and sometimes below the cost of the building. These purchases may be made through the Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant (“Grant”) or with the RSL’s other funds.

Many local planning authorities require that the affordable housing units are built irrespective of the availability of Grant, or that if Grant is used the developer must provide more housing or more amenity than would have been achieved with the planning obligation alone. As the Housing Corporation is responsible for setting minimum design standards for projects receiving funding, projects without Grant do not need to apply these minimum standards. Other forms of minimum standards therefore should be part of the agreement with the developer.

Currently, 40% of new affordable housing built by the private sector is developed under this planning legislation. Generally developers will argue for affordable housing for low to moderate income earners rather than to provide social rental housing for those on very low incomes. The intermediate rental or home ownership products give the developers a better return.

There are a number of benefits which inclusionary housing offers including the opportunity to create mixed income and diverse communities, the opportunity for low income workers to live in the communities they service and more balanced housing in areas where a lot of growth and displacement can occur.

Opposition to inclusionary housing is strongest in the development industry where there is criticism that mandatory inclusionary housing policy is a tax on developers that is borne by those in the market rate housing. The argument is also made that the requirement reduces private development as developers wait for more favourable conditions before they develop their


BA

CK

GR

OU

NDland. There is also opposition from neighbouring

property holders that inclusionary housing policy generally allows for the densification of sites and that this causes over-development and a reduction in property values.

The inclusionary housing requirements in the United States all include developer compensations. These compensation arrangements allow the developments to be cost neutral on the affordable housing component, thereby not increasing the cost of the market rate housing. Much study has been carried out in the United States on inclusionary housing programmes and there is no evidence to show that housing production has been reduced where these programmes operate. Inclusionary housing policies generally promote a reasonable level of densification within a specific range. The Greenpoint-Williamsburg programme in New York City, for example, allows a standard height of 40 feet and a zoning bonus of up to 50 feet.

Inclusionary housing is a very effective way to increase affordable housing in cities such as San Francisco and London where there has been significant growth as the affordable housing component will only be delivered where private housing is being developed. In many of the projects visited, the inclusionary housing provision made allowance for low to moderate-income earners rather than those on very low incomes. Government subsidies are still required to assist housing for very low income earners.

5.2 Mixed income housing

In both the United States and the United Kingdom, sustainable, mixed housing communities have become the focus of government policy as outlined in such documents as the HUD Mixed-Income Housing and HOME program in the United States and the Planning and Policy Statement 3- Housing in the United Kingdom. The objective is that these communities are mixed in areas such as income, race, age and tenure.

Mixed-income housing developments comprise housing units that can be affordable to a range of people from those on low-incomes to those that can afford market rates. These developments are encouraged through a number of tools including planning, financial and tax incentives.

All the projects visited in the United States and documented in Appendix 1 include rental properties with a mix of incomes.

Why mixed income?

While the policy focus on mixed-income housing is relatively new, there are many examples of traditional neighbourhoods where there was a variety of housing types and income levels. While many of these communities are vibrant and well-functioning, there are also examples both in Australia and overseas where a concentration of subsidised or public housing in low-income areas has created social and economic problems.

There are a number of benefits in encouraging a mix of incomes within an area or a development. The long-term viability of affordable housing is improved with a mix of income levels as financial returns are improved. Cross subsidisation of the affordable housing units can occur in high demand areas around employment centres ensuring a more accessible and stable workforce.

As mixed income housing often relies on attracting market rate renters, the quality of design can be higher in mixed income housing than in housing that is designed exclusively for people of low incomes.

While there seems to be debate about the role mixed income housing can play in improving the social and economic circumstance of low income earners, there appears to be some benefits in reducing the concentration of poverty in a development or neighbourhood. Many reports show that low-income earners in mixed income neighbourhoods have improved access to schools due to the social mix, and improved access to facilities and services such as shops


BA

CK

GR

OU

ND and transport where there is more money in the

community.

Even well designed low income housing often attracts much resistance from existing neighbourhoods. There is a perception that the housing will reduce the value of the surrounding neighbourhood and that anti-social behaviour will increase. Where there is a mix of housing affordability within a development, the problem of a concentration of disadvantage is reduced and community acceptance is generally higher.

How it is achieved?

There is a variety of ways in which mixed income housing is encouraged through planning, financial and tax incentives. As outlined earlier, inclusionary housing policies can offer incentives to encourage developers to include affordable housing in private developments. Often the mix of housing offered by developers will be for moderate-income earners, however further funding support can deliver a deeper level of affordability to these developments.

Financial incentives can be in the form of density bonuses, through preferential treatment for mixed income proposals where public land is tendered or through publicly funded programmes. The single most important source of delivering affordable rental housing in the United States is through Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Providing housing for a mix of income levels is an important criteria for using LIHTC to fund projects. All of the projects visited in the United States had some funding through tax credits.

The LIHTC scheme is an incentive for individuals and corporations to invest in the construction or rehabilitation of rental housing for low to moderate-income families. It provides a credit against tax liability or a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of liability. Housing aimed at home ownership is not eligible for LIHTC.

Importantly, each state is permitted by the

Internal Revenue Services to allocate LIHTC. The number depends on the state’s population. At least 10% of the credits must be used for projects that are owned or partially owned by not-for-profit organisations.

When a project has been awarded tax credits, the owner or developer will employ a broker or syndicate to market the tax credits, as there is competition from many corporations. The credits must be taken over a 10-year period.

Housing units must be affordable to low-income households to be eligible for tax credits. Therefore tenants should not pay more than 30% of their income in rent. To meet the income levels required by the LIHTC scheme, projects can either consist of 20% of units for families on less than 50% AMI, or 40% of units for families on less than 60% AMI.

The LIHTC scheme also requires that the housing be maintained for low-income occupancy for at least 15 years, though there are incentives to maintain the restrictions for 30 years. Some states mandate longer periods. California has a 55-year affordability criteria.

While federal law requires that tax credit priority is given to projects that “(a) serve the lowest income families and (b) are structured to remain affordable for the longest period of time”, the states set the criteria for allocating the tax credits. By allocating more points to certain criteria, states can encourage mixed income developments as well as other priortities such as a mix of uses on site, or the creation of transit orientated developments (TOD).

There are challenges for mixed income housing, including the perception of neighbouring communities that property values will be affected by mixed income developments in their areas. While there is little evidence for this concern, it will continue to be a contentious issue for developers. Perhaps a bigger challenge is maintaining the affordable status of these projects after the expiration of the affordability period.


BA

CK

GR

OU

ND5.3 Mixed tenure

Though there are many examples in the United States of mixed tenure projects, much affordable housing is still being delivered as mixed income, rental housing. Housing policy in the United Kingdom has as one of its key components providing for a mix of income in new developments, but often this is achieved through mixed tenure developments.

As a response to Kate Barker’s Review of Housing Supply, affordable housing policy in England is based around three themes,

• Providing high quality homes in mixed, sustainable communities for those in need

• Widening the opportunities for home ownership

• Offering greater quality, flexibility and choice to those who rent

(Delivering Affordable Housing 2006, Communities and Local Government)

It is increasingly common for new social and affordable housing to be in mixed tenure and mixed use developments, particularly in the south east of England where private sector housing is being constructed. All the projects visited in the United Kingdom during the Churchill Fellowship, with the exception of Sixth Ave in York, were developed as mixed tenure projects.

What it is?

Mixed tenure projects can have a mix of social rental, intermediate rental, market rental, low-income home ownership and market rate home ownership. These tenures may be accommodated in different housing types such as townhouses, apartments and detached houses or in “tenure blind” developments where the housing form is the same across the tenures.

There are a number of “products” that have been developed to increase the mix of tenure and therefore choice for low to medium income earners including shared equity, shared ownership, discounted sale and intermediate

rental as well as the traditional social rental.

In April 2006 the UK Government launched the HomeBuy scheme. The scheme includes three products that are based on shared equity or shared ownership. Social HomeBuy enables existing social housing tenants to buy a share in their current home at a discounted rate. New Build HomeBuy enables people to buy a share in a newly constructed property and pay rent on the remainder. The third form is Open Market HomeBuy allowing people to buy a property on the open market with the assistance of an equity loan jointly funded by a small number of large banks and the Government.

Keyworker housing has been a priority for the UK Housing Corporation for the last seven or eight years. Teachers, nurses, police officers and other service people were being pushed out of the communities in which they worked due to high market rents and house prices.

The shared equity schemes require the purchaser to typically buy an initial share of 70% of the home. These schemes typically are targeted at keyworkers. The remaining equity is retained by the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) or the private developer. When the property is sold or the purchaser buys 100% of the property, the equity partner recovers its investment. There are a number of variations to this model. English Partnership and the private developer First Base have developed a product called HomeHold where the landowner retains a share in the equity even when the property is sold.

Shared ownership or New Build HomeBuy is a more complex system and has been available through RSLs since the 1980s. The purchaser buys between 25%-75% of the value of the home. The properties are funded through the Housing Corporation Housing Grant and the purchaser must have an minimum initial share of 25%. Some RSLs such as East Thames Housing, allow purchasers to buy 30-70% of the market rate of the home and then offers them the option to “staircase” to 100%. Other RSLs retain a


BA

CK

GR

OU

ND percentage of the property. A subsidised rent of

usually about 2.75% is paid to the RSL by the purchaser on the unsold equity.

Discounted sales generally allow for a discount of 20-30% of the market value of the home. They include covenants to ensure that the property remains affordable when sold on. Generally this requires a larger initial subsidy as the market cost will never be realised.

Affordable or intermediate rental is based on up to 80% of the local area market rent and is often targeted to keyworkers.

Social rental housing is owned and managed by local authorities or RSLs. Rent Guidelines are set through the national rent regime and tenants are generally nominated through a choice based letting system.

How is it achieved?

Mixed tenure communities in the United Kingdom are achieved in three ways. Through the development of new mixed communities, the alteration of the mix in existing housing areas and through the use of Section 106 agreements where the private sector is required to provide a mix of housing.

English Partnerships’ Millennium Communities programme is designed to create seven exemplary sustainable communities across the United Kingdom. Many of the projects such as New Islington in Manchester are regeneration projects of previously very disadvantaged communities. The site for New Islington was the Cardroom Estate, one of Manchester’s most notorious housing estates. The new community will be a mixed income, mixed tenure, mixed age and mixed use community where some of the original social housing has been retained and renewed and sits adjacent to new social and private housing as well as commercial, community and retail space.

Many social housing estates are now mixed tenure through programmes such as Right to Buy set up

in the 1980’s. This programme allowed social housing tenants to buy their homes. As at the beginning of the program only existing tenants became homeowners, the social and income mix on the estates changed slowly. As properties have been resold the mix has increased. While this programme allowed many tenants to get into home ownership is also took the better social housing stock out of the sector.

The local authority planning schemes are being used to provide much of the mixed tenure housing in areas of private housing growth. Many affordable housing schemes approved by the Housing Corporation are on sites where affordable housing is funded by social housing grant and developer contribution through the Section 106 agreement. Where social housing grants are not available, developers are still required to provide a range of housing if it is deemed to be economically viable, but this affordable housing may be intermediate rental or low-income home ownership.

Where RSLs are the lead developers on a site they are also providing mixed income developments. Private developers calculate and justify how much affordable housing they can contribute on a site to allow the project to still be economically viable. However RSLs are calculating what the minimum amounts of private housing they require on a site to cross-subsidise the affordable housing.

Why mixed tenure?

Social housing tenant mix has changed over last two decades in the United Kingdom as it has in Australia. While post war social housing accommodated a range of income levels, the tenant profile today is generally within the lowest 20% of incomes, is less likely to be employed, is more likely to be a sole parent and is more likely to be over 60. Income mix within social housing estates where Right to Buy options have not been taken up, is limited.

As mixed tenure often achieves mixed incomes


BA

CK

GR

OU

NDwithin a development, the benefits outlined are

also applicable to mixed tenure developments including better long term viability for affordable housing, improved quality of design for low income housing, improved quality of well-being and circumstances for those on low incomes and greater acceptance of affordable housing by local communities.

Mixed tenure developments have the further benefit of being more sustainable in terms of meeting the needs of its residents over time. They allow people to move into home ownership or to down-size without the need to move from the community. The availability of rental properties allows younger people or those that have separated or divorced to remain within the community.

Integration

There are two ways of integrating tenures within a development. They include “Pepperpotting” which is the scattering of the housing units throughout the development, and clustering where the different tenures are grouped together either within the building of a separate buildings.

Pepperpotting is often seen by housing policy advisors as philosophically preferable because it is more inclusive, however from a management point of view grouping the tenures allows for the easier management of services to residents and can help contain building services costs. The service charges expected in the market rate accommodation can be unaffordable to those on lower incomes.

Joe Chambers from planning consultants RPS, believes that in lower density developments “pepperpotting” is generally not a problem as there are few communal spaces and fewer opportunities for differences in lifestyle to cause friction.

If the developments are to be genuinely mixed communities both “pepperpotted” and segmented tenure mix require high quality housing design,

integration of tenures and common areas where residents can mix.

18

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


6. Introduction

More than 20 affordable housing projects were visited during this Churchill Fellowship. This section of the report is a design overview of a selection of those projects. The projects discussed are a sample of all those visited, and were chosen because they represented a range of design solutions, a variety of scales, a mix of tenant groups and different funding arrangements. The table in the Appendix summarises all the projects visited with information on the client, the tenant group, the housing unit numbers and mix, the density and the funding.

There are a number of criteria that these projects have in common. Each is well located, has a high standard of design and construction, and is well managed and maintained. Each project reviewed is a mixed income development and some also include uses other than housing, such as community facilities and retail. All projects were financed through a combination of private and public funds including tax credits, capital grants and private loans.

The design of affordable housing units is not fundamentally different to the design of other higher density housing projects, however there are some challenges with affordable housing that designers need to address. One of these issues, raised by a number of architects, managers and policy advisors is the concept that the homes will be fully occupied by the residents.

Whether the housing is to be allocated to very low-income earners or moderate-income earners paying an intermediate rent, low to moderate-income earners can rarely afford more space than they need. A two bedroom will accommodate 3-6 people. There will be no study, no spare bedroom for guests and little opportunity to buy in entertainment like going out to dinner. The home will also be fully occupied, in that often at least some members of the household will be in the house for most of the day. This is often the case when people are on some social security benefit. For these reasons affordable housing, particularly for families, often needs to be slightly larger than market housing with the same

number of bedrooms. Because private space is often occupied, the use of outdoor and communal space becomes a crucial design issue.

One of the other challenges for those involved in the design of affordable housing is the number of “clients” involved in the project. There are other building types that share this challenge, but architects need to be skilled in balancing the needs of housing managers, future residents, funding agencies as well as developers. The challenge is exacerbated by the need for the justifiable expectation of funding agencies for fiscal accountability where public funds are utilised in the projects.

Ultimately these selected projects have been successful in providing good quality housing for low to moderate-income earners because of the tenacity and commitment of the developers and their architects to getting the projects on the ground.

The selected projects include:

United StatesFolsom Dore, San Francisco Curran House, San Francisco Swan’s Market, Oakland

Canada25 Leonard Street, Toronto

United KingdomAdelaide Wharf, London Donnybrook Quarter, London Abbotts Wharf, London New Islington Square, Manchester

Each project is described under the following headingS

Project descriptionSite planning and designEnvironmentally Sustainability initiativesFinancing

19

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S

Eloise Atkinson AV Jennings Churchill Fellowship 2006

Folsom Dore

Project description

Folsom Dore Apartments is a high density, mixed-use development located in the light industrial neighbourhood of South of Market in San Francisco. It is the first new building in the city to receive a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver rating from the Green Building Council for its environmental Environmentally Sustainable Initiatives. It demonstrates that affordable housing can be a leader in this area. The development consists of 98 rental units of supportive affordable housing and was completed in 2005.

The project was designed by one of the leading housing practices in San Francisco, architects David Baker and Partners. It was developed by the non-profit developer Citizen Housing Corporation (CHC). The organisation was formed in 1998 and manages 1800 units for low to moderate-income tenants. Its mission is to go beyond housing, and provide social services and opportunity for advancement. This project has served this purpose admirably.

The project accommodates people with physical and developmental disabilities, HIV/AIDS, and those that have been chronically homeless. The

Facade to Folsom St

Entrance from Dore Alley Bamboo courtyards

San Francisco FOLSOM DORE

20

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


David Baker and Partners

target tenant group is those earning less that 60% of the area median income (AMI). The majority of the units are studio and one-bedroom apartments with only eight two-bedroom apartments. There are a number of community facilities, meeting rooms and caseworker rooms on the ground floor. Three fulltime staff are on site during the day with one staff member on site 24 hours to support the residents.

Site planning and design

The development is sited on the corner of Folsom Street and Dore Alley. The façade of the warehouse which originally occupied the site has been retaining in the development. It provides the project with a significant presence to Folsom Street and an entrance to the 300m2 of community areas and offices. The main entrance to the residences is located on the quieter, narrower, more pedestrian-friendly Dore Alley.

The coloured glass windows to the community spaces on Folsom Street provides a lively street edge while the building along Dore Alley uses balconies, stairs and recesses to give it a rhythm at a more pedestrian scale. The neighbourhood is a hard urban environment. Giant bamboo courtyards and gardens have been used to green the edge and allow for a transition between the street and the front door of the apartments.

Despite the dense environment and the limited open space, the development has a very relaxed, lush and open feel that has been achieved with the centrepiece of the open stair from the main courtyard and entrance area. A children’s play area is cleverly incorporated into the open space and can be supervised from the communal laundry.

The apartments are accessed from a double loaded corridor which opens up at the ends for natural light and also to allow the residents to orientate themselves. The colours and the materials create an easily legible building where the scale feels more like a series of terrace houses rather than a five-storey apartment block.

Entrance from Dore Alley with open stair

Windows opening up the internal corridors

21

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Ground floor plan

Upper floor plan

“These award-winning designs show a remarkable respect for both their occupants and their neighbors. Although they were created for specific low-income… they make a positive contribution to the ongoing discourse about high-density, urban dwellings at all price levels “

Design For Living By Joan Chatfield Taylor Spring 2007

San Francisco FOLSOM DORE

1 bed

Studio Studio

1 bed

2 bedStudio Studio1 bed1 bed

1 bed

Studio

Ldy

* Plans courtesy of the architects

Affordable housing

Circulation space

Communal area

Retail

Common space

22

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


KItchens use formaldehyde-free cabinetry

Photovoltaic sytem on the roof

Environmentally sustainable initiatives

As the first new development in San Francisco to receive a LEED Silver rating, the building has a number of environmentally sustainable features which reduce environmental impact and reduce energy costs for residents.

Energy saving devices include the rooftop photovoltaic system and energy efficient central water heating. Superinsulation was also a major contributor to the building’s energy rating, as were the high-performance, thermally broken, commercial grade aluminum windows.

In the interior, recycled products were used in the plasterboard and the carpet, and recycled- sheet vinyl was used in bathrooms and corridors. Formaldehyde-free cabinetry and low-VOC paints were also used. Compact fluorescent lighting, energy efficient appliances and water efficient fixture were also employed.

Due to the development’s proximity to a number of forms of public transport and services, carparking was decreased by 70% (30 spaces for 98 units) and a City CarShare service was created. The service allows residents and community members to rent fuel-efficient vehicles as needed. Four carparking spaces were allocated to this service and 28 bicycle spaces have also been provided. Financing

The US$26.5 million project was funded through a number of sources including state housing funds such as the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), as well as 4% tax credits, tax-exempt bonds credit-enhanced by Citibank, a Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program grant, and local financing provided by the Mayor's Office of Housing in San Francisco.

Twenty apartments for the disabled and formerly homeless were provided through the Shelter Plus Care programme (HUD), another 20 units for the formerly homeless through the San Francisco “Care not Cash” program and 24 units which are HUD project based Section 8 units for people with disabilities.

David Baker and Partners

23

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Curran House

CURRAN HOUSESan Francisco

Project description

Curran House is located in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco and was designed by David Baker and Partners. The area has a concentration of homeless people, a number of residential hotels, community centres and support services. While there is a widely held assumption that this is not an area for families, the 2000 census estimated that 3700 children live in the Tenderloin.

The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has made the development of new supportive housing for the homeless, particularly homeless families, a priority. More than half the units in this development are two or three bedrooms housing more than eighty children ranging in age from 0-18 years.

The project was developed by the Tenderloin Neighbourhood Development Corporation (TNDC) and the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH). Construction was completed in 2005. It was recently voted by the San Francisco Chapter of the American Institute of Architects as one of the top 25 buildings in San Francisco.

The project is a very high-density housing project of 67 rental apartments comprised of studios, one, two and three bedrooms units for very low and low-income families. There are also two retail spaces onto Taylor Street and commercial spaces for TNDC offices in the basement.

The client group includes the working poor as well as formerly homeless families and individuals. Ten units are set aside for supportive housing for formerly homeless people with a disability. There is an on-site building manager as well as case managers who provide a number of support services. There is a large Asian population in the Tenderloin and this is reflected in the residents group which comprises 41% Asian, 10% African American, 21% Caucasian, 3% Native American, 2% Pacific Islander and 23% other resident

“Curran house is the love child of the rare coupling: aesthetic style and social justice.” Carol Lloyd Tenderloin Family Paradise SF Gate 12 Aug 2005

Entrance off Taylor Street

The Tenderloin district

24

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


David Baker and Parnters

groups including Latino and Middle Eastern.

All tenants have an income of below 50% of the Average Median Income (AMI), 43% are below 45% of AMI and 57% are below 30%.


The nine-storey development is built around a courtyard. All units face into this courtyard or onto the street.

As with many of David Baker and Partners buildings in the gritty urban environments in San Francisco, residents and visitors enter the building through a secure “decompression” garden which leads through another secure door to a generous lobby area. With the use of artworks, well maintained common areas and a view to the landscaped courtyard beyond, the building is immediately relaxing.

In order to capture as much outdoor space on the small site of 276m2, the roof has also been used as a garden space with raised garden beds for family vegetable plots. The communal laundry is located adjacent to the roof garden allowing supervision of children and casual interaction between residents. Given the number of children in the development and the lack of parks in the neighbourhood, the garden areas are limited and the building manager is seeking better ways to utilise the courtyard and roof garden for children.

The apartments are generous in size and the finishes robust. The simple but clever technique of providing windows at the end of the common corridors on the upper floors enables natural light into these otherwise dark spaces and orientates the visitor and residents.


No car parking is provided on the site enabling commercial office space to be provided in the basement. The site is well situated in the centre of San Francisco close to public transport and services.

Communal courtyard

Communal courtyard

Lobby looking towards the courtyard

25

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


“Curran House sends the message that families should live in buildings that offer a sense of comfort and respect—regardless of income.”

Jane Kolleeny Architectural Record February 2006

Ground floor plan

Upper floor plan

Retail

Retail

Lobby

3 Bed

3 Bed

CommonRoom

Courtyard

TAYL

OR

STR

EET

3 Bed 1 Bed

2 Bed

Studio

3 Bed

3 Bed

Studio

2 Bed

1 Bed

San Francisco CURRAN HOUSE


Affordable housing

Circulation space

Communal area

Retail

Common space

26

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Natural light, natural ventilation and the inclusion of two garden spaces reflect that good design principles can be employed even in a very dense project.

Financing

The cost of the building was US$24 million. The housing component of the development was financed by the Mayor’s Office of Housing, Affordable Housing Program and tax credits, with 16 units subsidised by the HUD Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program. The Shelter Plus Care program which funds furnished units subsidised another ten units. The programme is designed to provide housing and supportive services on a long-term basis for homeless persons with disabilities and these tenants have an obligation to attend counselling services.

David Baker and Parnters


Affordable housing

Circulation space

Communal area

LDYroof garden

3 bed1 bed

Roof Garden vegetable tubs

Roof Garden Roof Garden Plan

27

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


SWAN’S MARKET

Project description

The Swan’s Marketplace project is a mixed-use renovation of an existing historic market place in downtown Oakland. Though modest in scale, the project was one of the pilot projects to reintroduce housing into the downtown area and rejuvenate what had been an important destination.

The project, completed in 2000, consists of a new fresh food market, restaurants, street-orientated retail, a co-housing project, affordable housing units, a live/work unit and commercial space. There are 20 co-housing units plus a common house, 18 affordable housing units and one live/work unit.

The Museum of Children is located within the project and provides indoor and outdoor programmes for children on site.

The co-housing units are targeted at market rate home ownership and the affordable housing is provided to individuals and families with an annual income below 60% of the area median income (AMI).

East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation is a non-profit developer dedicated to community economic development and the construction of affordable housing.


The project occupies an entire city block which is dissected by a generous internal pedestrian street and plaza. The co-housing units and the affordable rental housing are accommodated in separate buildings around the street and plaza.

The housing and the commercial spaces are on the second and third storey allowing the retail and car parking on the ground floor to have access to the four street frontages.

Approximately 75% of the existing building structure was retained including much of the terracotta and glazed brick facade. The structure is exposed in some areas where the roof has been

peeled back to open the communal courtyard to the sky.

The common courtyard has successfully connected a number of diverse uses and provides a vibrant centre to the project.

Environmentally sustainable i nitiatives

The project reuses much of the existing building that had been vacant for 15 years.

Financing

Eight funding sources were used to deliver this project including tax credits, low interest loans and financial subsidies. The overall cost was US$11 million that equates to about $1200/m2.

Swan’s Market

Oakland

Common Courtyard showing original structure

View to co-housing * Images courtesy of the architects

28

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Pyatok Architects


Affordable housing

Circulation space

Communal area

Retail

Common space

29

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Toronto 25 LEONARD AVE

Transitional Housing25 Leonard Ave

FOLSOM & DORE APARTMENTS

Project description

The Leonard Ave Housing Project is located in one of Toronto’s most multicultural downtown neighbourhoods of Kensington Market. There are a number of social service agencies in the area making the location ideal for this project which has been designed to accommodate previously homeless people. The project was designed by Levitt Goodman Architects and was recently awarded the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) Award of Excellence for Innovation in Design 2007.

The client, St Clare’s Multifaith Housing, was established in the 1990s as a response to a group of young people being evicted from their squat, but more generally to a growing need for affordable housing in Toronto due to the Conservative Government’s desire to roll back social programs and reduce funding for affordable housing. St Clare’s was particularly focused on providing housing for people who were homeless or within the shelter system. It has partnerships with a number of local agencies who refer tenants who are ready to live independently. Leonard Ave provides transitional housing for these people.

Leonard Ave was completed in two stages and includes the refurbishment of an existing four-storey building and a prefabricated roof top extension. The existing brick building was built in the 1960s as doctors’ offices to service the adjacent hospital. The office building was converted into 51 one-bedroom apartments. The second stage consists of 26 studio apartments which were lifted into place on the roof of the existing building. The first stage was completed in 2001 and the second in 2005.


The site plan is typical of an office building with the building occupying the majority of the site and car parking to the side boundary. A reception area and office for the building managers face the street on the ground floor. Street entrance showing prefricated floors above existing

30

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S

Innovative Design in Affordable Housing Levitt Goodman

The one-bedroom units in the existing building are arranged around a corridor and lift core typical of an office building. The prefabricated units on the roof are grouped around a garden courtyard. While the converted one-bedroom units are larger than the 19m2 studio apartments, the rooftop apartments are only one room deep and therefore are well lit with natural light and ventilation.

After the original conversion of the office building, the client was keen to extend its building program and apply for more funding. The Toronto City funding model requires that land is secured and a building program established before the non-profit organisation can apply for funding. Through the early construction process the architects discovered that the doctors’ building had originally been designed to accommodate two more floors. With land in short supply, building more units at 25 Leonard Ave was a very attractive option. However the client was concerned about having to relocate the existing tenants during the construction process.

The architects’ solution was to explore a prefabrication process allowing the tenants to remain in residence with only a small amount of disruption. The prefabrication process also allowed the new units to be built in winter.

The size of the prefabricated units was determined by what could be brought onto site on a truck. The modules are 3.5 x 7.5 m, which include the external walkway. The intention was that the units would arrive on site completely fitted out, however the prefabrication company went into bankruptcy and could not complete the job which necessitated some of the fitout being completed on site.

The prefabricated units are compact at 19m2 and much research was done by the architects to research other examples of small living spaces such as caravans and mobile homes. The bathroom for instance was not seen as a traditional room but rather a number of elements. The bath

has a sliding door to create its enclosure that can be opened directly into the living space and the kitchen sink doubles as bathroom basin. As the future tenants were coming from shelters with few possessions and little capacity to purchase, as much furniture as possible was built into the apartments including the kitchen bench/table, shelving and storage. Full size appliances were used in the kitchen to allow tenants to develop cooking and shopping skills.

Plan of one bedroom refurbished apartment

Levitt Goodman

31

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S

Eloise Atkinson AV Jennings Churchill Fellowship 2006Levitt Goodman

Toronto 25 LEONARD AVE

* Images courtesy of the architects

Affordable housing

Circulation space

Communal area

Common space

Interior of prefabricated studio apartments

Plan of studio apartment

Plan of prefabricated floors on upper levels

Common room

Ldy

Studio Studio Studio Studio

Studio Studio Studio StudioStudio Studio Studio Studio

Access deck

32

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Levitt Goodman


A number of sustainable initiatives have been used on this project. The most significant perhaps is the refurbishment of the existing building. While the incentive for the client to find a building which it could renovate was a financial one, the ability to reuse the office buildings has significant environmental benefits.

With the addition of the prefabricated roof extension, the site was densified but more garden space was also provided on site. Green roof elements were incorporated into the extension allowing all residents to have access to garden space. The new units also incorporate cross ventilation as well as good natural light.

While the prefabrication of the units was not as complete as had been anticipated, the off site construction allowed for less waste of building materials and damage to the site.

Financing

The project was funded by a number of sources including local, provincial and federal funding. Money was also raised through various foundations as well as through waived development fees from the City of Toronto Let's Build Program, and Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Provincial Sales Tax (PST) rebates.

In addition to the capital funding the project has ongoing rent subsidy, which allows St Clare’s to charge market rents ($775/month) while tenants on welfare only pay the $110/month single shelter rate. Tenants who are employed pay 30% of their income. This allows the project to carry a $2 million mortgage.

33

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Adelaide Wharf

Project description

The Adelaide Wharf development is located in London’s east end. It is the first project to be constructed under English Partnerships’ London-Wide Initiative to provide new affordable homes for keyworkers. Adelaide Wharf consists of 147 apartments with a mix of tenures across the site. The project is under construction and is due for completion in September 2007.

The project was designed by Allford Hall Monaghan Morris (AHMM) and developed by the private developers First Base. Adelaide Wharf is the developer’s first large-scale mixed-tenure project. Mosaic Housing Association will manage the social housing component of the project but ownership will remain with the developer and English Partnership.

The Hackney Borough Council requires 50% affordable housing units in new developments under their planning scheme to be developed under Section106 agreements. This project provides 33 apartments for social rental and 41 apartments for sale to nurses, teachers and other keyworkers. The remainder of the apartments will be sold on the open market. There is also 65m2 of affordable workspace that will be allocated to a community-run regeneration agency.

For many years affordable housing in London has been provided for singles or couples as this is a cost effective way for private developers to provide the quantity of affordable homes required by local government. However, councils are now requiring that affordable family accommodation

London ADELAIDE WHARF

Facade facing the canal

34

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


COMMUNAL COURTYARD

be provided. At Adelaide Wharf 35% of the units are 3 and 4 bedrooms that are split across the tenures.


The six-storey building is located on Regent Canal and faces two major roads. The building is U-shaped forming a large private courtyard for residents approximately 1300m2 in area. The apartments therefore either face the canal, the street, the courtyard or overlook Haggerston Park. Large double-height openings to the street allow glimpses into the landscaped courtyard.

The developer was adamant that the project should be “tenure blind”, therefore providing no external differentiation between the private and affordable components of the project. This has been successfully achieved architecturally in one

large building through the use of shared entries and communal space. There is one main entry and managed reception to the development, which all visitors must pass through. Residents can choose to use this entry or a secondary entry opposite the park.

However, the tenure types have been grouped, not “pepperpotted”, through the development. The market units face the canal which was considered the more saleable position while the key worker accommodation faces the street. This market driven planning gave the social housing units the less saleable but very desirable south facing position facing the park.

Each unit has a large private outdoor space with the family units having balconies of about 9m2. Internally the units are similar in size and in finishs, however the market rate units have

Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

CAN

AL


Market rate housing

Affordable housing

Circulation space

Communal area

Common space

PAR

K

Upper floor plan

35

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


London ADELAIDE WHARF

ensuites while the affordable housing have one bathroom.

There are a number of prefabricated elements in the project which significantly reduced the need for scaffolding on the site. The balconies, the larch cladding and the bathrooms were all constructed off site.


Environmental sustainability has been an important selling point for the development. It has achieved an 'Excellent' rating from the Buildings Research Establishment's EcoHomes awards, the highest 'green' rating in the UK.

Carparking on the site has been minimized and bicycle parking has been provided. There are 21 car parking spaces that will be available for wheelchair accessible units and the rest will be sold. Under the lease and sale agreements no local parking permits will be allocated to residents. The location is well-serviced by public transport, shops and services.

One of the major sustainable initiatives is the “Brown Roof”. The site was an industrial brownfield site that was recogised for contributing to the habitat of a number of plants, birds and insects. The living roof covered in rubble from a nearby site, was required under the development approval to continue to provide a habitat for birds and insects along the canal. It is planted with sedum plants, which act as an insulator as well as providing a wildflower meadow for birds and insects.

Financing

The land for the project is owned by English Partnerships and provided for development to fast track more quality affordable homes in Greater London. English Partnerships is the freeholder of the apartments.

Keyworkers will buy their homes under HomeHold which is a shared equity programme

setup by First Base and English Partnerships. Keyworkers purchase the property at a discounted rate and pay no extra rent on the equity. In order to maintain the affordability, “staircasing” is not allowed, that is the purchaser will never own the full 100% market value of the house. When the property is sold the purchaser will be entitled to the increase in value for their share of the equity. The new buyer will also buy the property at a discounted rate.

Housing Corporation Grant funded the social rental housing.

Brown roof

Interior of two bedroom apartment

36

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

Developers guide to shared equity scheme-HomeHold

37

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


London DONNYBROOK QUARTER

Project description

Donnybrook Quarter is a high-density, low-rise, mixed-use project in Old Ford, East London. The project is surrounded by a number of social and private housing estates. The site originally accommodated a three-storey seniors housing project that was demolished to allow for the new, mixed-use, mixed-tenure development.

The project proposal was Peter Barber Architects’ winning entry in the Accommodating Change: Innovation in Housing competition in 2002. The competition sought to find new ideas to increase housing density in London. The construction of the project was completed in 2005.

The development consists of 35 units; one-third for social rental tenants, one-third for shared ownership units for keyworkers and the remaining third are for sale at market rate. The project includes three workspaces which can operate independently as retail spaces or connect

Donnybrook Quarter

Aerial photograph *

Entrances to social housing apartments *

*Images courtesy of the architects

38

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Peter Barber Architects

with the living areas above as live/work spaces.

Donnybrook Quarter was developed by Circle Anglia, one of the largest housing groups in the United Kingdom. The organisation manages over 27 000 properties in the south east of England.


The scheme was envisaged as part of the urban fabric in the first instance and as an internal planning exercise in the second. An internal street slices through the development allowing all apartments to have a front door to the street and creating a pedestrian space in the residential neighbourhood. Bay windows, balconies and large roof terraces overlook the internal street and the busy Parnell Road therefore allowing casual surveillance of these areas.

There was some concern about the doors opening onto the street with little transition between the public street and the private living spaces. The

architects were very interested in enlivening the street by encouraging people to be part of it. Feedback from residents, particularly the social housing tenants that face the busiest street has been positive, though in retrospect bedrooms onto the street have not been as successful as living areas.

The design successfully achieves the architects’ aim of a low-rise dense housing scheme which provides all residents with their own front door to the street and their own useable private outdoor space. Donnybrook Quarter builds on the architects housing ideas of the "notched terrace," with a two-bedroom flat at ground level and a two bedroom, two storey flat above.

The large roof terraces and private gardens of up to 27m

2 allow for extensions or modifications

by the residents. Storage is also limited within the units to allow residents to build their own to satisfy their own needs.

Internal street

39

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


London DONNYBROOK QUARTER


The site is well-serviced by buses and the underground and both the local council and the client wanted to ensure that no on-site parking was provided. As part of the tenancy and sales agreement, residents are not able to apply for a local parking permit.

Financing

The cost of the project was £5 million therefore equating to £1700/m2. The project is funded through the 66% market and shared ownership sales. No Housing Corporation Housing Grant was used for this project.

Live/work housing Elevation to Parnell Road showing social housing

Live/work housing

40

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Peter Barber Architects

Internal street

Private Courtyards


Market rate housing

Affordable housing

Circulation space

Internal street

Common space

Upper floor plan

Gound floor plan

41

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Project description

The Abbott's Wharf development is a high density, mixed-tenure and mixed-use project located in east London. The project is on the edge of the Limehouse Cut Canal on the site of a redundant warehouse. The area is an industrial and employment zone.

The project was completed in 2005, was designed by Jestico+Whiles and was developed jointly by East Thames Housing and Telford Homes. The joint venture negotiated a 50/50 split of affordable and private housing across the site including 30 social housing units and 70 shared ownership units. Of these units 77 are one bedroom, 110 are two bedroom and 14 are three bedroom.

The development also accommodates a new boat mooring off the canal, and commercial and retail space.

"Examples like these must become common place, not the exceptions." Ruth Kelly MP, 2006 Housing Design Awards, 20 July 2006

London ABBOTTS WHARF

Abbotts Wharf

Aerial photograph * *Image courtesy of the architects

View of project along the canal

42

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


“The eight-storey block combines market rent and shared ownership, or is it social rent and shared ownership? It is impossible to tell from the specification. Elegant glass and steel balconies don't disappear on affordable units. The scheme reconciles market sale and affordable perfectly.”

Housing Design Award 2006 the judges comments

Jestico + Whiles

Social Housing

CANAL

Mooring

Public Plaza

Market Housing

Mix Tenure Housing Mix Tenure Housing

*Plans courtesy of the architects

Architect Site Concept Sketch

Ground Floor Plan

43

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


London ABBOTTS WHARF

Site planning & design

Abbotts Wharf creates a new public plaza that connects the street and nearby park to the canal. The plaza is flanked by two of the four high-density housing blocks. The centrepiece of this stepped plaza is the new boat mooring that brings the canal into the site.

Three of the four tower blocks sit perpendicular to the canal allowing all units to have views to the water. The smallest block is parallel to the canal. Carparking and bicycle parking is provided under the buildings taking advantage of the change of level across the site.

The varying heights, the public plaza and the smaller courtyards to the individual blocks make the site very legible. Pedestrian and cycle routes through the site are clear and offer good casual surveillance.

The different tenures are not "pepperpotted" but are mixed across the site. The five-storey building to the southwest is social rental while the adjacent eight-storey building is a mix of market rent and shared ownership. The mirrored eight-storey building across the plaza is a mix of market rent, market sale, intermediate rent and shared ownership. The tallest building-the thirteen-storey tower- is all market housing.

Integration is an important element in this project. Integration of the housing tenures but also of the canal and the surrounding neighbourhood. Public access to the canal and public space has been improved by the development.

Abbotts Wharf is designed to be "tenure blind" with high-standard finishes used throughout all tenures. The market rate units are generally larger however all units have large outdoor areas and the apartments have been designed with an emphasis on natural light.

There are a number of prefabricated elements including the balconies and bathroom pods within the concrete and steel framed structure.

Social Housing Building *

Pulbic plaza looking towards the canal *

New boat mooring * *Images courtesy of the architects

44

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S



The project achieved an EcoHomes rating of “Good”. It is well insulated and has employed high efficiency boilers amongst its environmental initiatives.

The site is well located for access to the underground, buses and Dockland’s light rail. Therefore there is a reduced amount of carparking on the site and pedestrian and cycle paths are easy to access.

Financing

East Thames Housing bought the site, engaged the architects and then tendered the project to three developers. Telford homes won the tender and formed a joint venture with East Thames Housing. The joint venture agreed on a 50/50 split of the land.

The Housing Corporation Housing Grant funded the affordable housing component.

Jestico + Whiles

Elevation *

*Images courtesy of the architectsPrefabricated balcony*

45

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S


Manchester NEW ISLINGLTON SQUARE

Project description

The New Islington project is an ambitious regeneration project in East Manchester masterplanned by Will Alsop. It is the third Millennium Community, a programme by English Partnerships to create a new model for sustainable and environmentally responsible communities across the UK. The development is a 12.5-hectare site and encompasses the former Cardroom Estate. The Estate, redeveloped in the 1970s, was suffering effects of significant depopulation, poor services and high levels of crime and had the reputation as the worse housing estate in Manchester.

The new community envisaged and developed by local developers Urban Splash will include over 1400 new homes, 95900m2 of parks and gardens, a new canal and water park as well as commercial space for new shops, pubs, restaurants, cafes, bars and a number of facilities, including a primary school and a primary health clinic. The project’s fundamental principle for the redevelopment was to give people housing choice.

About 100 council housing units were demolished and will be replaced by 75 social rental units, which will be complimented by other affordable housing including shared ownership and shared equity products. There will be 10-15% affordable housing on the site, which is lower than the rest of the country as there is a large amount of social housing already in the surrounding area.

New Islington Square, designed by London architects FAT, was the first of two new social housing projects to be completed on site. The architects were selected from a short list and were chosen unanimously by the future tenants.

The project, completed in 2006, consists of 23 two, three and four bedroom houses and is jointly developed by the Manchester Methodist Housing Group and Urban Splash. Future residents were heavily involved in the design process. About 25% of the original tenants relocated from the estate have chosen to return to the new community.

New Islington Square

*Images courtesy of the developer

Cardroom Estate * Facade to the street with front entrances through garage gate

46

SELECT

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S



New Islington square is located adjacent to new market-rate housing still to be constructed and existing estate housing. The project aimed to meet the resident’s desire for traditional homes and to respond to the masterplan’s commitment to “innovative and world class architecture”.

The two storey town houses have gardens which back onto each other but are separated by a secure alley. Residents and visitors enter through the secure car parking court to the front door providing a double security system.

The oversized brick facades are playful but also help these smaller scale buildings respond to the larger apartment block to be constructed opposite the development. All units are provided with balconies and large windows to allow for ample light penetration.


The Millennium Community programme sets ambitious sustainability targets and, in keeping

with site objectives, the New Islington Square housing has achieved EcoHomes “Excellent” Rating. Designed to be adaptable over the tenant’s life using Lifetime Homes principles, it is also a socially sustainable development.

The development is better insulated, better built, lighter and quieter than current housing stock. Green materials have been used and construction waste was consciously reduced. Sheds have been provided to all houses to encourage bicycle use through secure and convenient storage.

There are a number of overall site initiatives which will have a big impact on the energy use on the site including the initial clean up of the site which was done on-site and resulted in materials being cleaned and reused where possible, resulting in less waste being sent to landfill. Heat and power will be provided on site via a series of gas powered Combined Heat and Power plants. Water will also be generated locally from a borehole.

Financing

The cost of £2.3 million for the New Islington Square project was funded through the Housing Corporations Housing Grant.

*Plans courtesy of the developer

FAT

“Our vision is that people will be able to choose their housing and then work out how to pay for it whether it is outright ownership, shared ownership or social rental.”

Nick Johnson Urban Splash

Ground floor planFirst floor plan


CO

NCLU

SIO

NS

7. Conclusions and Recommedations

The opportunity to visit over 20 housing projects and meet some of the leading designers, policy advisors, advocates and managers of affordable housing reinforced that successful affordable housing projects are a result of favourable funding arrangements, supportive planning policy and good design.

As governments in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom all struggle to ensure there is adequate, secure and affordable housing for all, the private sector is being encouraged to be involved. Where private housing growth is strong, inclusionary housing policies are a very effective way of delivering affordable housing. However, in order to make housing affordable to those on very low incomes, government funding in addition to developer contributions, is required. Of the housing projects visited, only one did not have a mix of public and private funds.

Most new housing projects in the United States and the United Kingdom are developed as mixed income and/or mixed tenure. This form of development allows the affordable housing component to be more economically viable, more diverse and has a greater level of acceptance within neighbourhoods.

Affordable housing projects need to and are, delivering environmentally sustainable solutions. Many of the sustainability issues are more complex in affordable housing projects because they are generally being developed in higher-density developments. There are strong incentives to reduce operation and maintenance costs so that housing costs are lower for residents.Also funding is often tied to good environmental outcomes.

Strong strategic alliances between for profit and non-profit developers can result in innovative design and funding arrangements. Architects that understand the private and the affordable housing sectors can play an important role in assisting the two groups in finding common ground in developments. Architects need to understand and

engage with the policy framework and planning regime that allow for the provision of affordable housing. Within this context the greatest benefit that architects bring to these projects is efficient site and space planning, an understanding of good sustainable design principles and the ability to work with complex design briefs that often need to accommodate conflicting client objectives.

The findings of this Churchill Fellowship will be disseminated through a series of presentations to the Brisbane Housing Company Board and staff, to the University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology architecture students, to various private, community and public clients, and to colleagues within the building industry and the architectural profession.

Recommendations

• There are good affordable and mixed tenure projects, both completed and in the pipeline in Australia. However there is very little information sharing about these projects between the states. Through my fellowship I was exposed to a number of very good research projects that looked at exemplary affordable housing projects across the United States. In collaboration with the University of Queensland School of Architecture, I hope to set up a web based project gallery that will allow architects, developers, non profit developers, government and housing bodies to see good examples of constructed projects across Australia.

• While many councils have considered the introduction of inclusionary housing for all new private developments, there are few examples of policies in operation. Inclusionary housing policy, particularly where there is strong housing growth, should be reconsidered. The new Urban Development Authority (UDA) announced recently by the Queensland Government is a perfect opportunity to provide affordable housing on significant sites throughout the south east.


RECO

MM

EN

DA

TIO

NS • The Royal Australian Institute of

Architects (RAIA) has a comprehensive awards programme. Currently the few affordable housing projects being constructed compete with market housing projects. In order to raise the profile of these projects and the discussion about affordable housing within the profession, a separate category should be provided. In the future when affordable housing or mixed tenure projects are the norm, it may be appropriate to have one housing category.

• Governments need to broaden the social and community housing sectors to include a range people on a range of incomes rather than only providing for the poorest and most disadvantaged. This can be achieved through intermediate rental programmes as well as shared ownership and shared equity to make the sector more sustainable.

• The emphasis needs to shift from affordable housing policy research to construction. This will be best achieved through strategic partnerships between non profit and for profit developers as well as housing managers and government.


Appendix 1- Project Table

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


SOLOMON ETC

Year PROJECT CLIENT/DEVELOPER TENANT GROUP NO. OF UNITS DENSITY COSTINGS FUNDING & NOTES

2007 18th and Alabama StSan Francisco, CA

Citizens Housing Senior/Family RentalHomeownershipMixed-useNew Construction

151 units

93 large affordable family units24 affordable senior units34 large below-market ownership units

1115m2 PDR space1394m2 community/ commercial space

17,652m2 site $40 million total

DD Hunters ViewSan Francisco, CA

HUD

Mayor’s Office of Housing

San Francisco Housing Authority

Hunters View Community Partners

AffordableMarket rateMixed IncomeHandicapped access

267 units

650 new homes

20 acre site

1998 Alcantara CourtSan Francisco, CA

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Low-income seniors Housing 50 units

Studio & one bed

0.45 acre site110 dua

$4.5 million total

Rent per month = 30% resident’s income

HUD

On site manager

1996 Vest Pocket CommunityFairfax, CA

Innovative HousingMavin Housing Authority

Subsidised for single parent families and families

5 shared houses27 bedrooms


$1.6 million total

$60,000 per unit project cost

$400 rent per month

State of CaliforniaFamily Housing DevelopmentMarin County FoundationCommercial Department GrantLow Income Housing Fund

SAM DAVIS ARCHITECTURE


2000 phase 1

UCphase 2

University Village at AlbanyUniversity of California, Berkeley

University of California, BerkeleyJR Roberts

Student Family HousingGraduate Students and Families

392 Units (phase one)582 Units (phase two)

$39 million phase one total

$500 rent per month

2001 Creekside AlbanyBerkeley, CA

Resources for Community Development

Special needs and general housing 16 units1 unit for developmentally disabled

$1.3 million total

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

SOLOMON ETC


2007 18th and Alabama StSan Francisco, CA

Citizens Housing Senior/Family RentalHomeownershipMixed-useNew Construction

151 units

93 large affordable family units24 affordable senior units34 large below-market ownership units

1115m2 PDR space1394m2 community/ commercial space

17,652m2 site $40 million total

DD Hunters ViewSan Francisco, CA

HUD

Mayor’s Office of Housing

San Francisco Housing Authority

Hunters View Community Partners

AffordableMarket rateMixed IncomeHandicapped access

267 units

650 new homes

20 acre site

1998 Alcantara CourtSan Francisco, CA

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Low-income seniors Housing 50 units

Studio & one bed


$4.5 million total

Rent per month = 30% resident’s income

HUD

On site manager

1996 Vest Pocket CommunityFairfax, CA

Innovative HousingMavin Housing Authority

Subsidised for single parent families and families

5 shared houses27 bedrooms


$1.6 million total


$400 rent per month

State of CaliforniaFamily Housing DevelopmentMarin County FoundationCommercial Department GrantLow Income Housing Fund

SAM DAVIS ARCHITECTURE


2000 phase 1

UCphase 2

University Village at AlbanyUniversity of California, Berkeley

University of California, BerkeleyJR Roberts

Student Family HousingGraduate Students and Families

392 Units (phase one)582 Units (phase two)

$39 million phase one total

$500 rent per month

2001 Creekside AlbanyBerkeley, CA

Resources for Community Development

Special needs and general housing 16 units1 unit for developmentally disabled

$1.3 million total


PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED STATES


DAVID BAKER & PARTNERS


2005 Folsom Dore ApartmentsSan Francisco, CA

Citizen Housing Corp. (CHC)

Silver LEED certification

Special needs (physical and developmental disabilities, HIV/AIDS, chronic homelessness)

Social-support services provided by on-site staff

Tenants below 60% AMI income

98 rental units33x studio57x 1 bed8x 2 bed

106 bedrooms183 bed/acre

296m2 office, meeting and community space325m2 open space

0.6 acre site169 unit/acre

7,349m2 project2350m2 site

$26.5 million total City of San Francisco: $8.75million • grantApollo Housing Capital: $7.8million • 4% tax credit equityMultifamily Housing Program • $5.1millionCitibank $4.3million tax-exempt bond • financingFederal Home Loan Band of San • Francisco $392,000 Affordable Housing Program funds

2003 8th & HowardSOMA StudiosSan Francisco, CA

CHC – families

Tenderloin Neighbourhood development Corporation – SRO

Homeless and those at risk of being homeless, HIV/AIDS sufferers, singles and families

81 Children in family units

162 units88x studio 12x 1 bedroom 40x 2 bedroom 22x 3 bedroom

246 total bedrooms236 bedrooms/acre

557m2 childcare1672m2 retail

1.0 acre site

155 units/acre

16,432m2 project 4,216m2 site

$36 million total SFRA ($4.6 million grant)• MOH (3.2 million Affordable Housing • Bond)OAHPP ($8.5 million)• SFRA ($2.8 million Tax Increment • Loan)HOPWA Loan ($950,000)• Take-back Note for Studio portion air • rights ($910,772)Tax Exempt Bonds, Tax Credit • Equities, Sponsors

2005 Curran HouseSan Francisco, CA

Tenderloin Neighbourhood Development Corporation

SF Mayor’s Office of Housing

Economically struggling familiesHomeless and those at risk of being homeless in supportive accommodation

80 Children

67 units14x studio

15x 1 bedroom

14x 2 bedroom

24x 3 bedroom

129 total bedrooms 435 bedrooms/acre

1381m2 retail

0.3 acre site223 units/acre


$29 million total MOH ($21 million)• Tax credits•

88% residents access support services

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


DAVID BAKER & PARTNERS


2005 Folsom Dore ApartmentsSan Francisco, CA

Citizen Housing Corp. (CHC)

Silver LEED certification

Special needs (physical and developmental disabilities, HIV/AIDS, chronic homelessness)

Social-support services provided by on-site staff

Tenants below 60% AMI income

98 rental units33x studio57x 1 bed8x 2 bed

106 bedrooms183 bed/acre

296m2 office, meeting and community space325m2 open space

0.6 acre site169 unit/acre


$26.5 million total City of San Francisco: $8.75million • grantApollo Housing Capital: $7.8million • 4% tax credit equityMultifamily Housing Program • $5.1millionCitibank $4.3million tax-exempt bond • financingFederal Home Loan Band of San • Francisco $392,000 Affordable Housing Program funds

2003 8th & HowardSOMA StudiosSan Francisco, CA

CHC – families

Tenderloin Neighbourhood development Corporation – SRO

Homeless and those at risk of being homeless, HIV/AIDS sufferers, singles and families

81 Children in family units

162 units88x studio 12x 1 bedroom 40x 2 bedroom 22x 3 bedroom

246 total bedrooms236 bedrooms/acre

557m2 childcare1672m2 retail

1.0 acre site

155 units/acre

16,432m2 project 4,216m2 site

$36 million total SFRA ($4.6 million grant)• MOH (3.2 million Affordable Housing • Bond)OAHPP ($8.5 million)• SFRA ($2.8 million Tax Increment • Loan)HOPWA Loan ($950,000)• Take-back Note for Studio portion air • rights ($910,772)Tax Exempt Bonds, Tax Credit • Equities, Sponsors

2005 Curran HouseSan Francisco, CA

Tenderloin Neighbourhood Development Corporation

SF Mayor’s Office of Housing

Economically struggling familiesHomeless and those at risk of being homeless in supportive accommodation

80 Children

67 units14x studio

15x 1 bedroom

14x 2 bedroom

24x 3 bedroom

129 total bedrooms 435 bedrooms/acre

1381m2 retail



$29 million total MOH ($21 million)• Tax credits•

88% residents access support services

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED STATES


BARNHART ARCHITECTS


2004 North Beach PlaceSan Francisco, CA

BRIDGE Housing Corp

The John Stewart Co

EM Johnson Interest

Affordable housing unitsMixed use and mixed income

341 units229 public housing apartments112 low-income families48 seniors (separate bldg)

1, 2, 3 & 4 bedroom units

1,858m2 retail279m2 resident business incubator space

20,000sf site $108 million total

$300,000 per unit

HOPE VI grant ($20 million)• Federal LIHTCs ($38 million)• California Tax Credit Allocation • Committee ($17 million)City of San Francisco ($10 million)• Federal Home Loan Bank of San • Francisco ($1 million Affordable Housing Program Grant)Citibank ($56 million loan)• Related Capital Co. (syndicator)• Bank of America (main investor)•

MACDONALD ARCHITECTS

Year PROJECT CLIENT/DEVELOPER TENANT GROUP NO. OF UNITS DENSITY COSTINGS FUNDING & NOTES•

1996 Frank G. Mar Community HousingOakland, CA

East Bay Asian Local Development Corp

BRIDGE Housing Corp

Rental accommodation for low-income families and seniors

119 units

51x 1 bed: 47m2

35x 2 bed: 74m2

27x 3 bed: 93m2

6x 4 bed: 112m2

1 acre site207 dua

7,655m2 building area

55 family housing units/acre70 senior housing units/acre

$17 million total$90/sf ($970/m2)

$90,000 per unit project cost$443-756 rent per month

City of Oakland RDA• U.S Dept of HUD (HODAG)• Federal Dept of Health and Human • ServicesFederal Home Loan Bank of San • FranciscoMission First Financial/Housing • InvestmentWells Fargo Bank• Oakland Public Works Dept• US Office of Community Services• Citibank•

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


BARNHART ARCHITECTS


2004 North Beach PlaceSan Francisco, CA

BRIDGE Housing Corp

The John Stewart Co

EM Johnson Interest

Affordable housing unitsMixed use and mixed income

341 units229 public housing apartments112 low-income families48 seniors (separate bldg)

1, 2, 3 & 4 bedroom units

1,858m2 retail279m2 resident business incubator space

20,000sf site $108 million total

$300,000 per unit

HOPE VI grant ($20 million)• Federal LIHTCs ($38 million)• California Tax Credit Allocation • Committee ($17 million)City of San Francisco ($10 million)• Federal Home Loan Bank of San • Francisco ($1 million Affordable Housing Program Grant)Citibank ($56 million loan)• Related Capital Co. (syndicator)• Bank of America (main investor)•

MACDONALD ARCHITECTS

Year PROJECT CLIENT/DEVELOPER TENANT GROUP NO. OF UNITS DENSITY COSTINGS FUNDING & NOTES•

1996 Frank G. Mar Community HousingOakland, CA

East Bay Asian Local Development Corp

BRIDGE Housing Corp

Rental accommodation for low-income families and seniors

119 units

51x 1 bed: 47m2

35x 2 bed: 74m2

27x 3 bed: 93m2

6x 4 bed: 112m2

1 acre site207 dua


55 family housing units/acre70 senior housing units/acre

$17 million total$90/sf ($970/m2)

$90,000 per unit project cost$443-756 rent per month

City of Oakland RDA• U.S Dept of HUD (HODAG)• Federal Dept of Health and Human • ServicesFederal Home Loan Bank of San • FranciscoMission First Financial/Housing • InvestmentWells Fargo Bank• Oakland Public Works Dept• US Office of Community Services• Citibank•

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED STATES


PYATOK ARCHITECTS


1995 Hismen Hi-Nu TerraceOakland, CA

San Antonio Community Development Corp

Easy Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC)

Residential/ mixed-use for singles, couples, family and senior units with child care, retail and community facilities

92 units

17x 1 bed: 54m2

35x 2 bed: 74m2

30x 3 bed: 98m2

10x 4 bed: 116m2


12990m2 total project area66 units/acre

85 units/acre (flats)35 units/acre (T’houses)

$10.5 million construction cost$75/sf ($810/m2)

$114,130 per unit project cost$428-$928 rent per month

City of Oakland RDA• Wells Fargo Bank• California Department of HCD• California Comm. Reinvestment Corp.• Bank of the West/Bank of California• FNMA and CASH, Inc• CDBG and NEA•

2000 Swan’s Marketplace HousingOakland, CA

EBALDCJoshua Simon

Market rateCo-housingAffordable housing60% AMI

39 units

20 co-housing units and common house18 affordable rental units

8x 1 bed: 48m2

10x 2 bed: 72m2

21x other: varied1x live/work

5,574m2 site28 dua

27 units/acre1.37 acre site

4900m2 (building area)2,880m2 retail1,672m2 office/commercial

$11 million total$111/sf ($1,200/m2)

$128,387 (per unit project cost)

CA Equity Fund (tax credit)• Economic Development Administration• Alameda County Housing and • Community DevelopmentCitiBank AHP Grant• Fannie Mae Foundation• CA Housing Finance Agency• Old Oakland Residence Group• LLC•

Phase 1

Coliseum Gardens Master Plan and HousingOakland, CA

EBALDCCarlos Castellmos

Townhouse apartments inc. senior apartments alongside a public park

415 units

283 residential units

25 acre site22 dua

697m2 civic and commercial space

On-site Amenities: social services, child care, laundries

$80 million estimated total

CURTIS & GINSBERG


1980 Morrisania Air Rights HousingBronx, New York

New York City Housing Authority Energy-efficient mixed-use building

843 apartments

3 buildings1,895 residents

6.3 acre site

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


PYATOK ARCHITECTS


1995 Hismen Hi-Nu TerraceOakland, CA

San Antonio Community Development Corp

Easy Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC)

Residential/ mixed-use for singles, couples, family and senior units with child care, retail and community facilities

92 units

17x 1 bed: 54m2

35x 2 bed: 74m2

30x 3 bed: 98m2

10x 4 bed: 116m2


12990m2 total project area66 units/acre

85 units/acre (flats)35 units/acre (T’houses)

$10.5 million construction cost$75/sf ($810/m2)

$114,130 per unit project cost$428-$928 rent per month

City of Oakland RDA• Wells Fargo Bank• California Department of HCD• California Comm. Reinvestment Corp.• Bank of the West/Bank of California• FNMA and CASH, Inc• CDBG and NEA•

2000 Swan’s Marketplace HousingOakland, CA

EBALDCJoshua Simon

Market rateCo-housingAffordable housing60% AMI

39 units

20 co-housing units and common house18 affordable rental units

8x 1 bed: 48m2

10x 2 bed: 72m2

21x other: varied1x live/work

5,574m2 site28 dua

27 units/acre1.37 acre site

4900m2 (building area)2,880m2 retail1,672m2 office/commercial

$11 million total$111/sf ($1,200/m2)


CA Equity Fund (tax credit)• Economic Development Administration• Alameda County Housing and • Community DevelopmentCitiBank AHP Grant• Fannie Mae Foundation• CA Housing Finance Agency• Old Oakland Residence Group• LLC•

Phase 1

Coliseum Gardens Master Plan and HousingOakland, CA

EBALDCCarlos Castellmos

Townhouse apartments inc. senior apartments alongside a public park

415 units

283 residential units

25 acre site22 dua

697m2 civic and commercial space

On-site Amenities: social services, child care, laundries

$80 million estimated total

CURTIS & GINSBERG


1980 Morrisania Air Rights HousingBronx, New York

New York City Housing Authority Energy-efficient mixed-use building

843 apartments

3 buildings1,895 residents

6.3 acre site

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED STATES


GOODY CLANCY & ASSOCIATES


1988 Tent CityBoston, MA

Tent City Corporation and JMB/Urban Development CompanyCity Corporation

An urban, mixed-use, mixed-income residential development for 1,200 residents.

25% low-income50% moderate-income25% market-rate

269 units

93x 1 bed: 58m2

92x 2 bed: 79m2

66x 3 bed: 112m2

17x 4 bed: 19m2

1x efficiency: 47m2


30,380m2 (building area)

$33.4 million total

$110.04/sf ($1185/m2)


$1600-3500 (rent per month)

City of Boston• JMB/Urban (site acquisition)• Massachusetts Housing Finance • AgencyNeighborhood Development Funds/• City of BostonState Housing Asisance for Rental • ProductionBoston Redevelopment Authority•

1996 Auburn CourtCambridge, MA

Homeowner’s Rehab Inc. Mixed-income rental accommodation

77 units

7x 1 bed: 60m2

27x 2 bed: 84m2

22x 3 bed: 112m2


144 units/acre93,000sf (building area)

$12.9 million total

$101.61/sf ($1094/m2)


$1850-2800 rent per month

Various Banks and Foundations• EOCD (state) Housing Innovations • FundHUD108 Loan• MA Housing Finance Agency (MHFA)• Federal Tax Credits•

1991 Langham CourtBoston, MA

Four Corner Development Corporation

Mixed-income urban infill residential complex

1/3 subsidized1/3 partly subsidized1/3 market rate

84 units

29x 1 bed: 60m2

27x 2 bed: 84m2

13x 3 bed: 112m2

15x efficiency: 28m2

2044m2 below ground parking

1 acre site81.5 units/acre


$14 million total

$110/sf ($1184/m2) building construction

Massachusetts Housing Finance • AgencyCity of Boston Linkage• Commonwealth of Massachusetts• Langham Court Co-operative Corp•

JONOTHAN ROSE (Dattner Architects and Grimshaw)


TBC 2010

Via Verde Bronx, New York

Cnr Brook Ave & East 156th St South Bronx

New York City’s first juried design competition for affordable, and sustainable housing New Housing New York Legacy Project (NHNY)

Jonathon Rose and Phipps Houses

For rentLess than 40% AMIBetween 40-60%AMIBetween 60-80%AMI

For sale130% of AMI($70K for a family of 4)

202 units

139 Rental 63 Cooperatives Live/work town homes within the mix

Wellness Center & fitness centre

18 Storey apartment buildingMid rise with duplex apartmentsTown houses

3716m2 site $80 million

Developers given the land for $1

LIHC• NYC LIHC (SLIHC)• NYC Housing Development • Corporations affordable Cooperative programNYC affordable Housing Corp.• New Market tax Credits• Enterprise Green Community Grants• NYSERDA• Home Depot Grant•

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


GOODY CLANCY & ASSOCIATES


1988 Tent CityBoston, MA

Tent City Corporation and JMB/Urban Development CompanyCity Corporation

An urban, mixed-use, mixed-income residential development for 1,200 residents.

25% low-income50% moderate-income25% market-rate

269 units

93x 1 bed: 58m2

92x 2 bed: 79m2

66x 3 bed: 112m2

17x 4 bed: 19m2

1x efficiency: 47m2


30,380m2 (building area)

$33.4 million total

$110.04/sf ($1185/m2)


$1600-3500 (rent per month)

City of Boston• JMB/Urban (site acquisition)• Massachusetts Housing Finance • AgencyNeighborhood Development Funds/• City of BostonState Housing Asisance for Rental • ProductionBoston Redevelopment Authority•

1996 Auburn CourtCambridge, MA

Homeowner’s Rehab Inc. Mixed-income rental accommodation

77 units

7x 1 bed: 60m2

27x 2 bed: 84m2

22x 3 bed: 112m2


144 units/acre93,000sf (building area)

$12.9 million total

$101.61/sf ($1094/m2)


$1850-2800 rent per month

Various Banks and Foundations• EOCD (state) Housing Innovations • FundHUD108 Loan• MA Housing Finance Agency (MHFA)• Federal Tax Credits•

1991 Langham CourtBoston, MA

Four Corner Development Corporation

Mixed-income urban infill residential complex

1/3 subsidized1/3 partly subsidized1/3 market rate

84 units

29x 1 bed: 60m2

27x 2 bed: 84m2

13x 3 bed: 112m2

15x efficiency: 28m2

2044m2 below ground parking



$14 million total

$110/sf ($1184/m2) building construction

Massachusetts Housing Finance • AgencyCity of Boston Linkage• Commonwealth of Massachusetts• Langham Court Co-operative Corp•

JONOTHAN ROSE (Dattner Architects and Grimshaw)


TBC 2010

Via Verde Bronx, New York

Cnr Brook Ave & East 156th St South Bronx

New York City’s first juried design competition for affordable, and sustainable housing New Housing New York Legacy Project (NHNY)

Jonathon Rose and Phipps Houses

For rentLess than 40% AMIBetween 40-60%AMIBetween 60-80%AMI

For sale130% of AMI($70K for a family of 4)

202 units

139 Rental 63 Cooperatives Live/work town homes within the mix

Wellness Center & fitness centre

18 Storey apartment buildingMid rise with duplex apartmentsTown houses

3716m2 site $80 million

Developers given the land for $1

LIHC• NYC LIHC (SLIHC)• NYC Housing Development • Corporations affordable Cooperative programNYC affordable Housing Corp.• New Market tax Credits• Enterprise Green Community Grants• NYSERDA• Home Depot Grant•

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED STATES


LEVITT GOODMAN


2001 (stage one)2005(stage two)

25 Leonard AvenueToronto, Ontario

St Clare’s Multi-faith Housing Group

Transitional housing for homeless or people living in shelters

51 units (stage one)50x 1 bed1x 2 bed

26 units (stage two) SRO’s26x 1bed: 19m2

Pre fab new units added to roof

2,601m2 (original bldg)

$4.75 million total stage one

“Rent-geared-to-their-income”

$775/month$110/month with rent support

Supporting Communities Partnership • InitiativeCity of Toronto • Mayor’s Homelessness Reserve Fund• First National Financial Corporation • ($1.5 million first mortgage)Canadian Alternative Investment Co-• op ($150,0000 second mortgage)Other govt grants and fundraising•

2005 Peel Youth VillageRegion of Peel, Ontario

Region of PeelPeel Living Board of Directors

Mixed-use development inc. Community Centre and 5-storey housing for youth at risk

48 rooms

32 rooms – 4 bed apartment pods (shared kitchen & lounge)16 rooms – 1 or 2 bed

$7.625 million total National Homelessness Initiatives’ • Supporting Communities Partnership InitiativeFederal Community Affordable Rental • Housing ProgramGrants through The Region of Peel• Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing • Program

2000 Eva’s PhoenixToronto, Ontario

City of Toronto Transitional housing and training facility for homeless youth aged 16-29

10 share houses 5 bedrooms, shared living, dining, kitchen and bath per house

$2.5 million total

$95/sf ($1023/m2)

Rent supplements from City of Toronto

City of Toronto• City of Toronto Shelter, Housing and • SupportDivision• Ontario Government• Human Resources Development • CanadaCanadian Auto Workers•

PEARL PODDUBIUK


2006 Benny Farm Master plan (and various housing projects on the site)Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Canada Lands Council OBNL Les Maisons TransitionnellesCoopérative d’habitation Benny FarmOBNL Chez Soi

Affordable housing for low to average income households

530 units

1/3 first-time home buyers200 units: seniors, young families, single mothers, people with limited mobility (subsidized rental units)225 units: home ownership


$8.6 million (client: OBNL Chez Soi)

$5 million (client: Cooperative d’habitation, Zone Of Opportunity)

$4.8 million (client: Cooperative d’habitation Benny Farm)

$3.2 million (client: OBNL Les Maisons Transitionnelles)

No costing inc. taxes

Logements abordables – Quebec (91 • apartments)Acces Logis - Quebec•

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


LEVITT GOODMAN


2001 (stage one)2005(stage two)

25 Leonard AvenueToronto, Ontario

St Clare’s Multi-faith Housing Group

Transitional housing for homeless or people living in shelters

51 units (stage one)50x 1 bed1x 2 bed

26 units (stage two) SRO’s26x 1bed: 19m2

Pre fab new units added to roof

2,601m2 (original bldg)

$4.75 million total stage one

“Rent-geared-to-their-income”

$775/month$110/month with rent support

Supporting Communities Partnership • InitiativeCity of Toronto • Mayor’s Homelessness Reserve Fund• First National Financial Corporation • ($1.5 million first mortgage)Canadian Alternative Investment Co-• op ($150,0000 second mortgage)Other govt grants and fundraising•

2005 Peel Youth VillageRegion of Peel, Ontario

Region of PeelPeel Living Board of Directors

Mixed-use development inc. Community Centre and 5-storey housing for youth at risk

48 rooms

32 rooms – 4 bed apartment pods (shared kitchen & lounge)16 rooms – 1 or 2 bed

$7.625 million total National Homelessness Initiatives’ • Supporting Communities Partnership InitiativeFederal Community Affordable Rental • Housing ProgramGrants through The Region of Peel• Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing • Program

2000 Eva’s PhoenixToronto, Ontario

City of Toronto Transitional housing and training facility for homeless youth aged 16-29

10 share houses 5 bedrooms, shared living, dining, kitchen and bath per house

$2.5 million total

$95/sf ($1023/m2)

Rent supplements from City of Toronto

City of Toronto• City of Toronto Shelter, Housing and • SupportDivision• Ontario Government• Human Resources Development • CanadaCanadian Auto Workers•

PEARL PODDUBIUK


2006 Benny Farm Master plan (and various housing projects on the site)Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Canada Lands Council OBNL Les Maisons TransitionnellesCoopérative d’habitation Benny FarmOBNL Chez Soi

Affordable housing for low to average income households

530 units

1/3 first-time home buyers200 units: seniors, young families, single mothers, people with limited mobility (subsidized rental units)225 units: home ownership


$8.6 million (client: OBNL Chez Soi)

$5 million (client: Cooperative d’habitation, Zone Of Opportunity)

$4.8 million (client: Cooperative d’habitation Benny Farm)

$3.2 million (client: OBNL Les Maisons Transitionnelles)

No costing inc. taxes

Logements abordables – Quebec (91 • apartments)Acces Logis - Quebec•

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

CANADA


AHMM


MoMo Initially a research project: alternative accommodation for homeless using shipping containers

2007 Adelaide WharfShoreditch London

First Base

English Partnerships (landowner)

Mixed-use, mixed-tenure development

147 units

33x social rented units(inc 4x wheelchair acc)41x key worker73x market rented

51x 1 bed: 46m2

53x 2 bed: 66m2

38x 3 bed: 80m2

4x 4 bed

14,379m2 gross floor area

£20.6 million total

PETER BARBER ARCHITECTS


2005 Donnybrook QuarterTower Hamlets, London

Circle Anglia Social rented, key worker, market rate

Living units Community, work and retail spaces

35 units

1/3 Social housing1/3 key-worker1/3 market-rate

111 dwellings/ha £5 million total

£1,700/m2

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


AHMM


MoMo Initially a research project: alternative accommodation for homeless using shipping containers

2007 Adelaide WharfShoreditch London

First Base

English Partnerships (landowner)

Mixed-use, mixed-tenure development

147 units

33x social rented units(inc 4x wheelchair acc)41x key worker73x market rented

51x 1 bed: 46m2

53x 2 bed: 66m2

38x 3 bed: 80m2

4x 4 bed

14,379m2 gross floor area

£20.6 million total

PETER BARBER ARCHITECTS


2005 Donnybrook QuarterTower Hamlets, London

Circle Anglia Social rented, key worker, market rate

Living units Community, work and retail spaces

35 units

1/3 Social housing1/3 key-worker1/3 market-rate

111 dwellings/ha £5 million total

£1,700/m2

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED KINGDOM


JESTICO + WHILES

Year PROJECT CLIENT GROUP TENANT GROUP NO. OF UNITS DENSITY COSTINGS FUNDING

2005 Tanner StBarking, London

East Thames Housing

With Peter Barber Architects

Affordable rent, low cost ownership, self build, private sale, intermediate rent

165 units

67x 1 bed flat2x 1 bed house58x 2 bed flat1x 2 bed house2x 3 bed house35x 4 bed house

97 dwellings/ha315 habitable rooms/ha372 bed spaces/ha

2005 Abbott WharfTower Hamlets, London

East Thames HousingCircle Anglia

Telford Homes (developer)

30 Affordable rent70 Shared ownership + key-worker101 private sale

201 units

77x 1 bed110x 2 bed 14x 3 bed

330 dwellings/ha885 habitable rooms/ha 1089 beds/ha86 car parking spaces

£22 million total

£139,000: 1 bed£200,000: 2 bed

Market sale apartments• Housing Corporation Housing Grant•

URBAN SPLASH DEVELOPERS


2004 Moho Castlefield, Manchester

Architect: Shed KM

Urban Splash Students 102 units

1 bed: 49m2

2 bed: 65m2

400m2 green roof

£8 million total

Buy from: £145,000Rent from: £550/month(furniture included)

Yorkon (pre-fab pods)

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE


JESTICO + WHILES

Year PROJECT CLIENT GROUP TENANT GROUP NO. OF UNITS DENSITY COSTINGS FUNDING

2005 Tanner StBarking, London

East Thames Housing

With Peter Barber Architects

Affordable rent, low cost ownership, self build, private sale, intermediate rent

165 units

67x 1 bed flat2x 1 bed house58x 2 bed flat1x 2 bed house2x 3 bed house35x 4 bed house

97 dwellings/ha315 habitable rooms/ha372 bed spaces/ha

2005 Abbott WharfTower Hamlets, London

East Thames HousingCircle Anglia

Telford Homes (developer)

30 Affordable rent70 Shared ownership + key-worker101 private sale

201 units

77x 1 bed110x 2 bed 14x 3 bed

330 dwellings/ha885 habitable rooms/ha 1089 beds/ha86 car parking spaces

£22 million total

£139,000: 1 bed£200,000: 2 bed

Market sale apartments• Housing Corporation Housing Grant•

URBAN SPLASH DEVELOPERS


2004 Moho Castlefield, Manchester

Architect: Shed KM

Urban Splash Students 102 units

1 bed: 49m2

2 bed: 65m2

400m2 green roof

£8 million total

Buy from: £145,000Rent from: £550/month(furniture included)

Yorkon (pre-fab pods)

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED KINGDOM



UC New Islington Millennium Community Manchester

(5 stages, 20 individual development plots)

Masterplanning:Will Alsop

Manchester Methodist Housing Association (MMHA)

Urban Splash

NHS LIFT

Taylor Woodrow

Mixed-income, mixed-tenure, mixed-age

1,400 new homes

600x 1&2 bed500x 2&3 storey34x urban barns

26.5 million litres of new waterways92,900m2 park and gardensUrban amenitiesCommunity facilities

29 acre site £250 million English Partnership (clean site)• Manchester City Council (13 ha of • land)Urban Splash•

2006 New Islington SquareManchester

Architect: FAT (Fashion Architecture Taste)

MMHA

Urban Splash

New East Manchester

English Partnerships

Existing tenants and other social housing tenants

23 units2, 3 & 4 bedroom units

£2.3 million Housing Corporation Housing Grant•

2007 Guest StreetNew Islington Manchester

Architect: de Metz Forbes Knight

MMHAUrban Splash


Terrace of 14 houses 12x3 bed 2x2 bed

Gross internal floor area 1,300m2

£1.5 million total

£1,128/m2

Housing Corporation Housing Grant•

CARTWRIGHT PICKARD


2002 Sixth Avenue York

Yorkshire Housing Association

City of York Council

Mixed community – families, singles, couples, elderly

24 units Modular Affordable housing apartments

4x 1 bed16x 2 bed4x 3 bed

£2 million

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE



UC New Islington Millennium Community Manchester

(5 stages, 20 individual development plots)

Masterplanning:Will Alsop

Manchester Methodist Housing Association (MMHA)

Urban Splash

NHS LIFT

Taylor Woodrow

Mixed-income, mixed-tenure, mixed-age

1,400 new homes

600x 1&2 bed500x 2&3 storey34x urban barns

26.5 million litres of new waterways92,900m2 park and gardensUrban amenitiesCommunity facilities

29 acre site £250 million English Partnership (clean site)• Manchester City Council (13 ha of • land)Urban Splash•

2006 New Islington SquareManchester

Architect: FAT (Fashion Architecture Taste)

MMHA

Urban Splash

New East Manchester

English Partnerships


23 units2, 3 & 4 bedroom units

£2.3 million Housing Corporation Housing Grant•

2007 Guest StreetNew Islington Manchester

Architect: de Metz Forbes Knight

MMHAUrban Splash


Terrace of 14 houses 12x3 bed 2x2 bed

Gross internal floor area 1,300m2

£1.5 million total

£1,128/m2

Housing Corporation Housing Grant•

CARTWRIGHT PICKARD


2002 Sixth Avenue York

Yorkshire Housing Association

City of York Council

Mixed community – families, singles, couples, elderly

24 units Modular Affordable housing apartments

4x 1 bed16x 2 bed4x 3 bed

£2 million

PR

OJE

CT

TA

BLE

UNITED KINGDOM


Appendix 2- WebsitesW

EB

SIT

ES Company Website Notes

Solomon ETC www.solomonetc-wrt.com Architects

David Baker + Partners www.dbarchitect.com Architects

Pyatok Architects www.pyatok.com Architects

Sam Davis www.sdavisarchitecture.com Architect/ author/ lecturer

Goody Clancy & Assoc www.goodyclancy.com Architects

Curtis & Ginsberg www.cplusga.com Architects

Jonathon Rose www.rose-network.com Private developers

Citizen Housing www.citizenshousing.org Non-profit developers

Bridge Housing Developers www.bridgehousing.com Non-profit developers

Tenderloin Neighborhood DevelopmentCorporation

www.tndc.org Non-profit developers

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

www.hud.gov Administers a number of public and affordable housing funding programmes

Mayor’s Office of Housing www.sfgov.org/site/moh Provides financing for the development, rehabilitation and purchase of affordable housing in San Francisco. Guides and coordinates the City’s housing policy. Administers a variety of programs to finance the development of affordable housing by non-profit and for profit developers, provide financial and educational assistance to first-time homebuyers, and finance housing rehabilitation costs for low-income homeowners. Monitors and ensures the long-term affordability and physical viability of the City’s stock of affordable housing.

Innovative Housing Institute (IHI)

www.inhousing.org Promotes affordable housing in mixed income environments. -Provides technical assistance and professional support to local governments, private developers, housing agencies and community organisations.

National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials

www.nahro.org/home/resource/credit.html

The leading housing and community development advocate for the provision of adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable communities. Provides a good summary of the tax credit system

Design Matters Catalogue wall.aa.uic.edu:62730/ahc/catalog

A catalog of exemplary affordable housing located throughout the U. S. compiled by The City Design Center at the University of Illinois at Chicago

National Building Museum www.nbm.org/Exhibits/online/affordable_housing

Designing an American Asset is an online exhibit of affordable housing projects in the US

UNITED STATES


CANADA & UNITED KINGDOM

WEB

SIT

ES Company Website Notes

Toronto City Council app.toronto.ca/im/council/councillors.jsp

Fund “Let’s Build” programme

Levitt Goodman www.levittgoodmanarchitects.com

Architects

Pearl Poddubiuk www.loeuf.com Architects

Mc Gill University, Architecture Department

www.mcgill.ca/architecture/ Offer “the Affordable Homes Program”

Allford Hall Monaghan Morris (AHMM)

www.ahmm.co.uk Architects

Peter Barber www.peterbarberarchitects.com

Architects

HTA www.hta-arch.co.uk Architects

East Thames Housing Group www.east-thames.co.uk Non-profit developers

First Base www.firstbase.com For-profit developers

RPS www.rpsgroup.com Planners

Urban Splash www.urbansplash.co.uk For-profit developers

Yorkon www.yorkon.co.uk Prefabrication company

Housing Corporation www.housingcorp.gov.uk The UK government agency who fund and regulate Registered Social Landlords in England

English Partnerships www.englishpartnerships.co.uk

English Partnerships is the UK government’s national regeneration agency to deliver high quality, sustainable growth in England.

BREBuilding Research EstablishmentHousing Corp

www.bre.co.uk Provides a complete range of consultancy, testing and commissioned research services covering all aspects of the built environment, and associated industries

CABECommission for Architecture and the Built Environment

www.cabe.org.uk Promoting design and architecture to raise the standard of the built environment

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation

www.jrf.org.uk A social policy research and development charity

THE AV JENNINGS CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP TO STUDY...

Documents

Transcript of THE AV JENNINGS CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP TO STUDY...