Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Mixed use is all in the designers'frame of mind

  • Comment

Residential redevelopment of pub and backlands sites are both established patterns of development about which there seems to be no professional discussion.What is missing is any professional overview of the urban implications of the wholesale changes involved.

Around my area in London, 10 pubs have recently disappeared. In only one has the ground floor been reused for a non-residential function. As for backland development, it is everywhere.Light industrial sites ensconced in the middle of residential blocks or behind neighbourhood frontages are snapped up by social housing groups or private developers, and turned into islands of safe housing. David Chipperfield's offices in Camden represent an intelligent counter-example to these norms.

What is so odd is that backlands in particular constitute the most indigenous form of mixed-use urbanism in UK cities. Wonderful examples of the rich urban grain which it has generated exist in every town.

So why are architects who believe in cities, and in mixed-use approaches to urban development, content to do the dirty work of social housing groups and developers and sniff out these sites in order to deliver them up for conversion into stuffy, single-use development? Like professional vandals, they help lay waste to sites of key urban ecologies, all the while viewing development control as an annoying hindrance to the realisation of the job.

Planners at least pretend to think about the overall health of the city, some even do, and certainly their audit of proposals provides the only opportunity - normally wasted of course - for intelligent discussion of the job within a larger framework of urban thinking.

How can architects enlarge the range of their professional contribution to match their true perceptiveness and capacity for thoughtful action? Or must architects vandalise places they actually care for, and suppress understanding with common sense in order to get work? Is there an alternative?

Tom Young, Tom Young Architects, London NW5

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

AJ Jobs