Back to Case Studies

The Sutton Estate Regeneration, Chelsea

Created on 13-06-2024 | Updated on 18-09-2024

The Sutton Estate, Chelsea was funded by philanthropist William Richard Sutton, who bequeathed his fortune to the creation of The Sutton Model Dwellings Trust (now Clarion Housing Group) in 1900. Due to the industrial revolution and mass migration into inner cities, the working classes in the UK were living in extreme slum conditions. According to The Chelsea Society, “in 1902 a quarter of Chelsea’s community officially lived in poverty, and 14% [sic] lived in overcrowded accommodation”, bringing sanitation issues and the “potential of a health related pandemic”, to an otherwise affluent area. Sutton left instructions to set up a trust that would build and lease social housing for “use and occupation by the poor…[in] populous places in England” (Booth, 2015; SaveOurSutton, 2018). The Sutton Estate was built between 1912-1914 on a previously dense urban site. It was the third of four social housing estates erected in Chelsea by philanthropic institutions: (1) Peabody Trust Estate, Lawrence Street, 1870; (2) Guinness Trust Estate, Kings Road, 1891; (3) Sutton Dwellings Trust Estate, Cale Street, 1912-1914; (4) Samuel Lewis Trust Estate, Ixworth Place, 1915, directly opposite the Sutton Estate (Best, 2014). By the 21st century, however, the Sutton Estate dwellings had fallen into disrepair and in desperate need of refurbishment.

 

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) is now the second most expensive borough in the UK, after Westminster, and as such The Sutton Estate sits in prime real estate location. In 2018, the RBKC rejected a planning application, in part due to a resident orchestrated campaign “Save our Sutton”, which proposed to demolish the estate and rebuild, with part of the site sold for private ownership to fund new social housing. Plans to refurbish, retrofit, and regenerate began in 2019 and were accepted in 2021. 
 

Architect(s)
Original Architect: ECP Monson; Retrofit Architect: HTA Design LLP

Location
London, England

Project (year)
2014 - present

Construction (year)
1913

Housing type
15 blocks of single family flats with shared landscape

Urban context
city centre housing estate

Construction system
brick masonry, lime mortar, and plaster; double and triple glazed windows with aluminium frames and trickle vents.

Status
Building renovation

Description

Innovative aspects of the housing design/building

The Deep Energy Retrofit (DER) involves four blocks with new lifts, ground floor apartments made wheelchair accessible, 81 one-to-four-bedroom flats, double glazed windows with aluminium frames and trickle vents, and re-opening closed balconies as private outdoor spaces for residents. A ground source heat pump acts as a collective heater via 200m deep piping in 25 boreholes distributing heat to each home through individual Kensa ‘shoeboxes’. The ventilation, heating, and thermal performance were designed together to allow each strategy to complement the other: insulation depth was limited, the ground source heat pump has a certain performance, and walls were made airtight.

The landscaping includes a new communal garden, natural stone hard landscaping, and soft landscaping that directs rainwater to the garden. A play trail will wind through the estate, transforming the spaces between building entrances into inviting, people-friendly areas. These will feature new trees, attractive landscaping, and enhanced facilities for bin and bike storage. The sunken garden has been updated and is a focal point for communal activity and respite. New cycle infrastructure also aims to encourage an increase in cycling as transportation. The estate office boasts a sedum roof and will be used by maintenance staff and whenever housing officers require offices on site.

Construction characteristics, materials and processes

The DER occurred while the four buildings were unoccupied. Floor plans were amended to accommodate new lifts and a greater household mix. The construction system adds the following to existing brick masonry walls: 50mm wood fibre internal insulation; 5mm reinforced lime plaster coat; double glazed windows with timber frames, aluminium fascia, and trickle vents. Where closed balconies existed, these were opened to provide some private outdoor space. Where they did not exist, prefabricated external metal balconies were fixed to the façade.

The maintenance regeneration was retrofitted with residents in situ with external façades designed to look identical to the DER. While it was preferable not to move, this was a challenge because residents have had to live with scaffolding for almost 2 years, impacting natural light and noise. During particularly disruptive periods or vulnerabilities, residents could temporarily move into vacant apartments on site. A phased approach was taken, largely block by block, where replacement of kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, and electrics occurred simultaneously on a property-by-property basis. This may mean more tenant disruption but minimises the duration of inconvenience to each home. Window replacements are being undertaken in conjunction with the external works to each block, including roof replacement, lightning conductors, pointing and brickworks repairs, and pest control measures. This maximises utilisation of the scaffold to the block, which represents a significant part of the costs, helping to achieve better value for money overall. Improvements were also made to the communal areas, door entry systems and lifts. The phasing of the 11 occupied blocks was developed to enable the scaffold to be removed in time for the landscaping works to be carried out.

Although it was preferable to avoid any relocation, this proved challenging given that residents had to live with the presence of scaffolding for almost two years, which resulted in disruptions to their natural light and noise levels. During periods of particularly disruptive construction activity or when specific vulnerabilities were identified, residents were able to temporarily relocate to vacant apartments on site. The project was delivered in a phased manner, with each block undergoing replacement of kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, and electrics simultaneously. This approach may result in greater disruption for tenants, but it also serves to minimise the overall duration of inconvenience to each residence.

To meet Secure by Design (SBD) requirements front doors to each block will have a metal core and timber facades. Existing windowsills are at a height of 990mm. Bars at a height of 1,100mm are, therefore, added to the window internals to adhere to modern building regulations. The fence around the sunken garden will be replaced by a metal fence at a 1,100mm height.

Energy performance characteristics

The objective of the DER is to enhance energy performance, with a baseline of 208 kWh/m²/year and a predicted reduction of 38% to 111 kWh/m²/year.. The following measures have been taken to improve thermal performance: enhanced airtightness; 50mm wood fibre internal insulation; 5mm reinforced lime plaster coat; double glazed windows with timber frames, aluminium fascia, and trickle vents. A new ground source heat pump with individual ‘shoeboxes’ in each apartment facilitates low and constant heat through large, low service temperature radiators. After six years unoccupied, the DER buildings will become occupied in late 2024. Therefore, the actual improved performance is currently unknown.

The maintenance strategy improved energy performance through the following improvements: triple glazed windows with timber frames, aluminium fascia, and trickle vents; brickwork repairs to improve airtightness; adding loft insulation; and replacing boilers with new hybrid boilers.

Involvement of users and other stakeholders

The DER turned 159 flats, mostly studios and 1-2 bedrooms, into a mix of 81 one-to-four-bedroom flats accessible by lift. This new mix was chosen to meet the demographic needs of existing residents.

Residents are integral to the Sutton Estate. Clarion’s regular printed Sutton Estate newsletter, the ‘Chelsea Chat’ was distributed to all homes across the estate in the initial stages of the project and continued until 2021. All back issues are still available online. Through the pre-application design evolution process, two Design Update leaflets, plus a questionnaire, were produced to provide residents with the opportunity to engage. Six interactive events were held throughout the pre-application process, consisting of regular online residents’ workshop, a stakeholder walkabout and a public exhibition. A design steering group was generated from within the residents to discuss designs, gain feedback, and is now used to update on construction and share concerns. For example, there was concern over many households simultaneously cooking and showering at the same time, therefore the strategy was stress tested.

Communal events are also a key component to the estate’s philosophy. These include: a resident gardening club; pantomine, monthly senior lunches; trips to the seaside and other housing estates; various training events, such as media and chairing meetings; and outdoor events in the sunken garden, such a fish and chip van. Apprenticeship schemes have been implemented for gardeners, adding further social value.

Relationship to Urban Environment

Two of the street-facing blocks rent their ground floor to commercial shops and cafés. The residents have been historically integrated into the wider neighbourhood through shared amenities such as laundrettes, and a Tenants Association that previously organised neighbourhood fêtes. With rising costs, however, replacing affordable services with new amenities, the integration of Sutton Estate residents within the wider neighbourhood is diminishing (personal communication, 2024).

Alignment with project research areas

Design, planning and building

  • Retrofit re-designed internal layouts to meet housing needs of existing residents, including lift and larger family units.
  • Energy efficiency plays a key role in both the DER and maintenance strategies, to improve comfort and lower costs of bills.

Community participation

  • A Resident Steering Board was set up early in the regeneration design process to comment on plans and give feedback. All residents were invited to join via the newsletter (Clarion Housing, 2019)
  • Public consultations were also utilised online (during the Coronavirus pandemic) and in person to “chat through the draft designs and give us your feedback” (Clarion Housing, 2020).

Policy and Financing

  • All dwellings remain social rental housing.
  • The retrofit was financed by the building owners – Clarion Housing Group.

Design, planning and building

Community participation

Policy and financing

* This diagram is for illustrative purposes only based on the author’s interpretation of the above case study

Alignment with SDGs

The Sutton Estate responds to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

Goal 3 Good Health and Well-being: All flats will be in safe and sanitary condition with healthy indoor air quality.

Goal 7 Affordable and clean energy: Passive and mechanical solutions to a reduction in energy costs and carbon output.

Goal 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities: estate remains 100% social housing and all residents can remain on the estate.

Goal 12 Responsible consumption and production: Energy consumption results are pending, but the expected energy reduction is 38% compared with pre-retrofit.

References

Best, G. (2014). From Hovel to Penthouse: A History of Social Housing in Chelsea.

Booth, R. (2015, February 12). Chelsea residents fight landlord's plan to sell off social housing estate. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/12/chelsea-landlord-keith-exford-sell-off-william-sutton-social-housing

Clarion Housing. (2020, April; 2018, December). Chelsea Chat. https://www.myclarionhousing.com/my-community/regeneration-projects/sutton-estate--london

Clarion Housing. (n.d.). Sutton Estate, London. My Clarion Housing. https://www.myclarionhousing.com/my-community/regeneration-projects/sutton-estate--london

HTA Design LLP. (2020). Sutton Estate, Chelsea Statement of Community Involvement. https://planningsearch.rbkc.gov.uk/publisher/docs/4632FDA252E00BABE7B59BE80E8DCF83/Document-4632FDA252E00BABE7B59BE80E8DCF83.pdf

HTA Design LLP. (2020). Sutton Estate, Chelsea Sustainability Statement. https://planningsearch.rbkc.gov.uk/publisher/docs/04BC6195E7F194B10C0A65C66D7D0B8E/Document-04BC6195E7F194B10C0A65C66D7D0B8E.pdf

Landscape Institute Awards. (2023). Building with Nature National Award 2023. The Landscape Institute. https://awards.landscapeinstitute.org/building-with-nature-award/

SaveOurSutton. (2018, December 17). BBC The One Show - Sutton Estate - 17 / 12 / 2018 [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIbaXrMl6_o

The Chelsea Society. (n.d.). THE HISTORY BEHIND SUTTON DWELLINGS, CHELSEA. https://chelseasociety.org.uk/history-behind-sutton-dwellings-chelsea/

Related vocabulary

Energy Retrofit

Housing Retrofit

Area: Design, planning and building

Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of energy consumption and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU (European Commission, 2021). Energy retrofit is also referred to as building energy retrofit, low carbon retrofit, energy efficiency retrofit and energy renovation; all terms related to the upgrading of existing buildings energy performance to achieve high levels of energy efficiency. Energy retrofit significantly reduces energy use and energy demand (Femenías et al., 2018; Outcault et al., 2022), tackles fuel (energy) poverty, and lowers carbon emissions (Karvonen, 2013). It is widely acknowledged that building energy retrofit should result in a reduction of carbon emissions by at least 60% compared with pre-retrofit emissions, in order to stabilise atmospheric carbon concentration and mitigate climate change (Fawcett, 2014; Outcault et al., 2022). Energy retrofit can also improve comfort, convenience, and aesthetics (Karvonen, 2013). There are two main approaches to deep energy retrofit, fabric-first and whole-house systems. The fabric-first approach prioritises upgrades to the building envelope through four main technical improvements: increased airtightness; increased thermal insulation; improving the efficiency of systems such as heating, lighting, and electrical appliances; and installation of renewables such as photovoltaics (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). The whole-house systems approach to retrofit further considers the interaction between the climate, building site, occupant, and other components of a building (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). In this way, the building becomes an energy system with interdependent parts that strongly affect one another, and energy performance is considered a result of the whole system activity. Energy retrofit can be deep, over-time, or partial (Femenías et al., 2018). Deep energy retrofit is considered a onetime event that utilises all available energy saving technologies at that time to reduce energy consumption by 60% - 90% (Fawcett, 2014; Femenías et al., 2018). Over-time retrofit spreads the deep retrofit process out over a strategic period of time, allowing for the integration of future technologies (Femenías et al., 2018). Partial retrofit can also involve several interventions over time but is particularly appropriate to protect architectural works with a high cultural value, retrofitting with the least-invasive energy efficiency measures (Femenías et al., 2018). Energy retrofit of existing social housing tends to be driven by cost, use of eco-friendly products, and energy savings (Sojkova et al., 2019). Energy savings are particularly important in colder climates where households require greater energy loads for space heating and thermal comfort and are therefore at risk of fuel poverty (Sojkova et al., 2019; Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018). Similarly, extremely warm climates requiring high energy loads for air conditioning in the summer can contribute to fuel poverty and will benefit from energy retrofit (Tabata & Tsai, 2020). Femenías et al’s (2018) extensive literature review on property owners’ attitudes to energy efficiency argues that retrofit is typically motivated by other needs, referred to by Outcault et al (2022) as ‘non-energy impacts’ (NEIs). While lists of NEIs are inconsistent in the literature, categories related to “weatherization retrofit” refer to comfort, health, safety, and indoor air quality (Outcault et al., 2022). Worldwide retrofit schemes such as RetrofitWorks and EnerPHit use varying metrics to define low carbon retrofit, but their universally adopted focus has been on end-point performance targets, which do not include changes to energy using behaviour and practice (Fawcett, 2014). An example of an end-point performance target is Passivhaus’ refurbishment standard (EnerPHit), which requires a heating demand below 25 kWh/(m²a) in cool-temperate climate zones; zones are categorised according to the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) (Passive House Institute, 2016).  

Created on 23-05-2022

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Environmental Retrofit Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of energy consumption and 36% of carbon emissions in the EU (European Commission, 2021). Environmental retrofit, green retrofit or low carbon retrofits of existing homes ais to upgrade housing infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions, tackle fuel poverty, and improve comfort, convenience and aesthetics (Karvonen, 2013). It is widely acknowledged that environmental retrofit should result in a reduction of carbon emissions by at least 60% in order to stabilise atmospheric carbon concentration and mitigate climate change (Fawcett, 2014; Johnston et al., 2005). Worldwide retrofit schemes such as RetrofitWorks, EnerPHit and the EU’s Renovation Wave, use varying metrics to define low carbon retrofit, but their universally adopted focus has been on end-point performance targets (Fawcett, 2014). This fabric-first approach to retrofit prioritises improvements to the building fabric through: increased thermal insulation and airtightness; improving the efficiency of systems such as heating, lighting and electrical appliances; and the installation of renewables such as photovoltaics (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). The whole-house systems approach to retrofit further considers the interaction between the occupant, the building site, climate, and other elements or components of a building (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). In this way, the building becomes an energy system with interdependent parts that strongly affect one another, and energy performance is considered a result of the whole system activity. Economic Retrofit From an economic perspective, retrofit costs are one-off expenses that negatively impact homeowners and landlords, but reduce energy costs for occupants over the long run. Investment in housing retrofit, ultimately a form of asset enhancing, produces an energy premium attached to the property. In the case of the rental market, retrofit expenses create a split incentive whereby the landlord incurs the costs but the energy savings are enjoyed by the tenant (Fuerst et al., 2020). The existence of energy premiums has been widely researched across various housing markets following Rosen’s hedonic pricing model. In the UK, the findings of Fuerst et al. (2015) showed the positive effect of energy efficiency over price among home-buyers, with a price increase of about 5% for dwellings rated A/B compared to those rated D. Cerin et al. (2014) offered similar results for Sweden. In the Netherlands, Brounen and Kok (2011), also identified a 3.7% premium for dwellings with A, B or C ratings using a similar technique. Property premiums offer landlords and owners the possibility to capitalise on their  retrofit investment through rent increases or the sale of the property. While property premiums are a way to reconcile          split incentives between landlord and renter, value increases pose questions about long-term affordability of retrofitted units, particularly, as real an expected energy savings post-retrofit have been challenging to reconcile (van den Brom et al., 2019). Social Retrofit A socio-technical approach to retrofit elaborates on the importance of the occupant. To meet the current needs of inhabitants, retrofit must be socially contextualized and comprehended as a result of cultural practices, collective evolution of know-how, regulations, institutionalized procedures, social norms, technologies and products (Bartiaux et al., 2014). This perspective argues that housing is not a technical construction that can be improved in an economically profitable manner without acknowledging that it’s an entity intertwined in people’s lives, in which social and personal meaning are embedded. Consequently, energy efficiency and carbon reduction cannot be seen as a merely technical issue. We should understand and consider the relationship that people have developed in their dwellings, through their everyday routines and habits and their long-term domestic activities (Tjørring & Gausset, 2018). Retrofit strategies and initiatives tend to adhere to a ‘rational choice’ consultation model that encourages individuals to reduce their energy consumption by focusing on the economic savings and environmental benefits through incentive programs, voluntary action and market mechanisms (Karvonen, 2013). This is often criticized as an insufficient and individualist approach, which fails to achieve more widespread systemic changes needed to address the environmental and social challenges of our times (Maller et al., 2012). However, it is important to acknowledge the housing stock as a cultural asset that is embedded in the fabric of everyday lifestyles, communities, and livelihoods (Ravetz, 2008). The rational choice perspective does not consider the different ways that occupants inhabit their homes, how they perceive their consumption, in what ways they interact with the built environment, for what reasons they want to retrofit their houses and which ways make more sense for them, concerning the local context. A community-based approach to domestic retrofit emphasizes the importance of a recursive learning process among experts and occupants to facilitate the co-evolution of the built environment and the communities (Karvonen, 2013). Involving the occupants in the retrofit process and understanding them as “carriers” of social norms, of established routines and know-how, new forms of intervention  can emerge that are experimental, flexible and customized to particular locales (Bartiaux et al., 2014). There is an understanding that reconfiguring socio-technical systems on a broad scale will require the participation of occupants to foment empowerment, ownership, and the collective control of the domestic retrofit (Moloney et al., 2010).

Created on 16-02-2022

Author: A.Fernandez (ESR12), Z.Tzika (ESR10), S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Related publications

No entries

Blogposts

Icon sustainable-social-housing-a-myth-trend-or-an-inescapable-fait

Sustainable social housing: a myth, trend or an inescapable fait

Posted on 09-01-2024

The study of indirect connotations in metadata, especially those generated by artificial intelligence, is a curiosity catalyser. Therefore, I undertook a comparative analysis of the frequency with which key terms such as social housing, sustainability, affordable housing and housing renovation were queried in search engines worldwide between 1 November and 31 December 2023. This data set, known as a “trend” or “interest over time” is measured on a 100-point scale. During this period, sustainability scored an average of 70 points on trend, while social housing and housing renovation slightly recorded 1 point each and affordable housing by 3 points (see Figure 1). It is also worth noting that similar results appear when the time frame is extended to a full year or even five years. Interpreting this data with a degree of scepticism and caution, it appears that sustainability retains its prominent position as the dominant trend. Meanwhile, other vital issues that directly impact our society do not attract comparable interest.   Assuming the previous introduction has captivated your interest. Let me explain why this date and these terms. The date is related to my secondment to Housing Europe, where I gained in-depth experience working with dedicated professionals dealing with the various challenges in the housing sector. Meanwhile, the terms are critical objectives of the RE-DWELL project, which derive from its primary goal of creating a framework for affordable and sustainable housing across Europe. This confluence of dates and terms leads us to a compelling question: what if we were to summarise these terms into a single adjective for a genre of social housing? And then, what constitutes an environmentally sustainable social housing? The following sections, therefore, draw on the insights gained during the secondment to answer these questions and offer a nuanced perspective on the interplay between sustainability, social housing and regulatory frameworks.   What constitutes an environmentally sustainable social housing?   “It has affordable rent, but also affordable energy, that means heating, cooling, lighting and obviously the means of the family. One that is accessible, in term of meeting the individual requirements of occupants. Also one that is in reach of key services, employment, shopping, medical services […]. Access to nature, ensure that resident have access to fresh air, also consideration to acoustics and noise. […] But if we look at sustainability I suppose not from the perspective of occupants but the society, […] it needs to limit the production of energy  needed.” (S. Edwards, personal communication, November 2023).   A triad of connotations can be derived from this. First, affordability and social housing are so closely intertwined that discussion of the latter presupposes consideration of the former, especially when viewed from the perspective of the welfare state. Secondly, the definition from the perspective of the urban fabric goes beyond the material structure and encompasses the city's intangible services. This is directly related to economic aspects such as income, employment and trade. Thirdly, another critical element of sustainable social housing is the well-being of residents. Not just physical health but also mental health, as demonstrated during the last pandemic.   “There are two components for social housing […], below the market level [rent], and allocated through decision and rules taken by or agreed upon by local authorities [allocation]. The sustainability component is interesting […] as we consider it only as the environmental part, while doing so, we forget that sustainability is supposed to embrace the three component of environmental, social and economic. If we focus on the environmental aspects, the question […] is how we can manage to combine these three components, so we can built-renovate homes using the sources of the planet. Then […] how much we can build to meet the demands - the availability aspects. The third point is the affordability […], because everything has an impact on the ability to deliver homes at affordable price.” (J. Dijol, personal communication, November, 2023).   To this extent, I argue that environmentally sustainable social housing epitomises a multifaceted system deeply embedded within the fabric of welfare state services. It substantiates its sustainability through an intricate balance featuring economically viable and socially equitable attributes. This housing system articulates affordability in rental structures, facilitates access to natural environments, ensures proximity to pivotal services and infrastructure, implements judicious energy production and utilisation practices, underscores the imperative of decarbonisation, and intricately aligns with the tripartite foundations of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental. Significantly, this sustainable housing framework adeptly navigates societal demands while steadfastly adhering to the imperative of preserving the planet's finite resources. It looks at the new construction and considers issues such as sustainable renovation.   The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive: regulations to support or to hinder   Regulations are a vital tool in sustainable social housing provisions. It has the ability to standardise, optimise and organise the structure of the sector to deliver the intended goals. One notable example, is The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). The EPBD is a crucial instrument to drive sustainable housing development. While regulations are traditionally seen as catalysts for progress, this narrative contends that they can also pose substantial obstacles. To contextualise this contention, it is essential to recognise the intricate links between housing construction, renovation, affordability and energy efficiency. The EPBD, alongside other directives, is a cornerstone in pursuing sustainable housing by promoting a more energy-efficient built environment. However, a critical examination of the EPBD reveals pertinent critiques. Critics argue that the occasional vagueness and lack of clarity of some of the Directive's provisions can lead to inconsistent implementation and interpretation across member states.   Furthermore, concerns have been raised that the penalties for non-compliance with the Directive are insufficient, which could reduce the effectiveness of the Directive in motivating Member States to meet energy efficiency targets. The flexibility granted to Member States in implementing the EPBD requirements has led to regulatory variations that pose challenges for cross-border businesses and hinder a harmonised approach to energy efficiency. Stakeholders argue for a stronger emphasis on renovating existing buildings in the EPBD, as the current provisions may not provide sufficient incentives for Member States to prioritise energy performance improvements to existing buildings. Additionally, critics emphasise the potential social and economic impacts, including increased costs for building owners and tenants. Balancing the Directive's energy efficiency targets with affordability and feasibility considerations is a multi-faceted challenge that should be carefully considered in pursuing a sustainable housing policy.   The way forward   The creation of sustainable social housing is not a myth or a far-reaching goal. However, it is a fact that requires comprehensive regulations and extensive co-operation between policy makers, practitioners and the public. Such collaboration enables a more holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with sustainable social housing and ensures that different factors are considered in the decision-making process. This will help to align policy with the realities on the ground and ensure that regulations are both effective and feasible. It also promotes social acceptance and buy-in for sustainable initiatives. As societal needs, technologies, and environmental considerations evolve, ongoing collaboration is important to ensure that housing strategies can be adjusted and refined to meet changing circumstances.   While natural collaboration is an optimistic notion, proactive steps, such as large-scale projects, are essential. A notable example of such collaboration is The European Affordable Housing Consortium (SHAPE-EU) project, developed and coordinated by Housing Europe. SHAPE-EU aims to support affordable and social housing providers, public authorities and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing effective renovation strategies and tools. This proactive approach recognises the challenges posed by the lack of policy measures, the realities of the market and the actual capacity for growth, and points a way forward in the search for sustainable and affordable housing solutions.   Acknowledgements The time I have spent at Housing Europe has provided me with invaluable insights into social housing development. More importantly, meeting and working with dedicated and professional colleagues was truly inspirational. I have received tremendous support from all the teams and must therefore thank everyone at Housing Europe, especially Alice Pittini, Sorcha Edwards, Julien Dijol and Joao Goncalves.  

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5)

Secondments

Read more ->
Icon let-s-talk-embodied-carbon

Let’s talk embodied carbon

Posted on 26-07-2023

I’m happy to report of some good news for once from the UK, although I am a Londoner now living in Barcelona, I am trying to keep my finger on the pulse with the goings-on of all things sustainability back home.   There have been some promising updates regarding embodied carbon, with real steps being taken to actually limit it, rather than just talking about it. But first to clarify what embodied carbon is, the World Green Building council defines it as “the carbon emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole lifecycle of a building or infrastructure”, the lifecycle refers to extracting raw materials, transportation to factories, manufacturing processes, transporting products to site, construction on site, maintenance and replacements during the use phase, and the end of life phase (i.e. when the building is transformed and hopefully not demolished). Until recently the conversations really centred around operational carbon, which is the energy consumed during the use phase by occupants mostly for heating, cooling, lighting, and powering appliances and devices.   To reduce the amount of embodied carbon that is put out into the world, the first practical step is to stop and think whether a project should be built at all, as per the R ladder by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which goes beyond the famous 3R’s (reduce reuse recycle). Given that we do build in most cases, the focus must be on reusing as many materials as possible to reduce embodied carbon, rather than recycling (downgrading), landfilling, backfilling, and incinerating.   Here are some of the good discussions going on:   The RIBA has launched a new prize championing reuse called the Reinvention Award that “recognises achievement in the creative reuse of existing buildings through transformative projects that improve environmental, social, or economic sustainability”. This will incentivise architectural practices to push for reuse and in time provide excellent case studies for others to follow suit.   Oxford street’s Art Deco M&S building has been saved from demolition after a long campaign launched back in 2021. Knocking the building down would have generated almost 40,000 tonnes of embodied carbon and acted counter to the UK’s net-zero targets. To stop more projects like these trying to get through, it would be extremely helpful to have a tax reform removing VAT on refurbishment projects – whereas in contrast new build projects (which often entail demolition) are currently exempt.   Steps are being taken to regulate embodied carbon slowly, but promisingly. The push has come from industry with the Part Z proposal and a campaign launched by ACAN UK in February 2021. In February this year the Carbon Emissions (Buildings) Bill went for its second reading. The UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Select Committee’s 2022 report highlighted the fact that current policy inadequately addresses the need to reduce embodied carbon, develop low-carbon materials, or prioritise reuse and retrofit. Whilst “[ot]her countries and some UK local authorities are already requiring whole life carbon assessments to be undertaken. This leaves the UK slipping behind comparator countries in Europe in monitoring and controlling the embodied carbon in construction. If the UK continues to drag its feet on embodied carbon, it will not meet net zero or its carbon budgets.” The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and France have already introduced regulation on whole-life carbon emissions. Apparently, the UK is considering including regulating embodied carbon in 2025 building regulations.   Some outgoing thoughts:   All buildings should be built as monuments, meaning we need to literally build in value so that they are considered worth keeping in the future. Today developers, insurers, and designers take too much of a short-term view to the detriment of building quality. What’s more, we need to put more thought into how we can better design buildings to be dismantled and adapted in the future to deal with changing needs and climate change. We have countless world heritage and listed buildings that have stood for centuries that have been reconfigured and maintained throughout time. This level of protection should be afforded to all buildings to limit further carbon emissions.   Re-skilling: There is a great need to re-train current built environment professionals and overhaul academic curriculums to reflect the skills needed to prevent further destruction of biodiversity and climate change. That means rather than striving to build whatever the client wants - regardless of potential negative environmental impacts – the priority should be to make sustainability focussed design decisions. That is at least until legislation catches up.   High-tech solutions are not the answer, unquestioningly embracing new technologies such as AI and the ubiquitous use of smartphones is having negative and even dangerous effects on our lives. The same can be said for the over-reliance of smart systems, mechanical solutions, and overengineering in the built environment. This quote from a recent report by Unesco about the overuse of digital technology on learning outcomes and economic efficiency also applies to construction: “Not all change constitutes progress. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.” An example of high-tech energy efficient solutions masking the embodied carbon cost is Foster + Partner’s Bloomberg building which claimed to be the “world's most sustainable office building” and was awarded BREEAM’s highest rating Outstanding in 2017, despite the high embodied carbon that went into building it. Since the invention of electricity, we have relied heavily on it to heat, cool, and light our buildings and homes and have turned our backs on passive strategies which rely less on the production of electricity and the extraction of an increasing number of critical materials.   It's not all about embodied carbon. It’s important to bear in mind that carbon is not the only cause of climate change (methane is another contributing greenhouse gas); climate change itself is also just one of nine planetary boundaries identified by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, which are moving towards tipping points and endangering the earth’s stability.   Although these last remarks sound quite existential, I’d like to bring the focus back to the positive moves happening back home (and abroad). The seemingly small wins of promoting reuse, actively preventing demolition, and regulating embodied carbon are the foundations of building a sustainable future.     Sources World Green Building Council’s embodied carbon definition found in report https://worldgbc.org/advancing-net-zero/embodied-carbon/   R ladder by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains      RIBA Reinvention prize https://www.architecture.com/awards-and-competitions-landing-page/awards/RIBA-Reinvention-Award#:~:text=The%20Reinvention%20Award%20is%20a,%2C%20social%2C%20or%20economic%20sustainability   M&S building saved from demolition https://www.dezeen.com/2023/07/20/marks-spencers-oxford-street-flagship-saved-demolition/   Proposed Part Z regulating embodied carbon in the UK https://part-z.uk/   ACAN UK’s regulating embodied carbon campaign https://www.architectscan.org/embodiedcarbon   The Stockholm Resilience Centre planetary boundaries https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html  

Author: A.Davis (ESR1)

Reflections

Read more ->
Icon retrofit-and-social-engagement-we-can-do-better

Retrofit and Social Engagement | We can do better

Posted on 13-07-2023

That’s it. The final summer school of RE-DWELL has officially been and gone. This year saw input not only from my cohort of ESRs and supervisors, but we were joined by industry partners to test the first iteration of RE-DWELL’s ‘Serious Game’ – which will be coming to a city near you. ‘Serious Game’ combines academia and industry to help all housing stakeholders navigate complex questions regarding holistically sustainable housing. Through the game, transdisciplinary discussion prompts action through tools and methods within policy and finance; design, planning and building; and community participation – the benchmark of RE-DWELLS investigations. This output will form a part of the transdisciplinary framework based on the ESR’s PhD’s.   One turn of the 'Serious Game' took our group from the solution “new tools to tailor make housing solutions”—through exploring methods including urban rooms, workshops with critical action research, transdisciplinary collaboration, and grant of use models—to answer: “could the participation of people living in social housing improve retrofit solutions more than end point performance targeted retrofit?” Funnily enough, this question is identical to one of my research questions.   Working on my PhD in social housing retrofit with tenant engagement, has put the terms “retrofit” and “social sustainability” on the tip of my tongue. Constantly ready to listen, learn, and discuss these concepts, I see blind spots everywhere. Tom Dollard from Pollard Thomas Edwards revealed a stunning environmentally sustainable scheme, even attempting some socially sustainable effort on the Blenheim Estate greenfield site in Oxfordshire but drew attention to the ethical grey area of building on a greenfield. Paul Quinn from Clarion revealed plans for regeneration that prioritise the Right-to-Return but is often not taken advantage of. A good way to keep the existing community together, Quinn says, is to build new environmentally sustainable housing on the same plot, decant the existing tenants into this housing, then retrofit the rest. Of course, this only works if the plot allows new buildings, and often buildings with retrofit potential are still cited for demolition and rebuild.   85-95% (European Commission, 2020) of buildings will remain standing in 2050, in the UK this extends to 80% of all dwellings (Pierpoint et al., n.d.) and they desperately need retrofitting for the climate crisis and for inhabitants. There are residential buildings in London designed for 40% occupancy. These leave 60% of those homes empty, acting as safety deposit boxes called “foreign investment”. Do we need to build more? Or do we need to re-enforce existing building stock and insist on full occupancy? When asked about retrofit, “we could do better” is a common reply from architects and housing associations. So why aren’t we doing better? It’s true that retrofit incurs more upfront cost that new build—in part because new build in the UK is exempt from tax, while retrofit is not—but the opportunities for long-term returns are enormous. To name a few: embodied carbon savings; new supply chains; opportunities to upskill unemployed tenants in a field with huge skills gaps; upskilling construction workers who fear a dwindling construction sector; physical and mental health and wellbeing implications; and integrative, iterative learning from the tenants who are experts in the way they live.   During the RE-DWELL visit to London, I visited the Building Centre exhibition Retrofit 23:Towards Deep Retrofit of Homes at Scale*. The exhibition (which I highly recommend) displays examples of retrofit from around the UK. The questions identified in the exhibition read “how do we fund retrofit and leverage the benefits? How best can deep retrofit be scaled up locally across streets and neighbourhoods to meet the net zero goals?”. It states that improving performance brings environmental, economic, and social benefits. Environmental benefits are easily displayed through energy performance statistics, economic benefits are displayed in terms of financial cost, but social benefits remain a struggle to translate beyond technical measures such as quantifiable indoor air quality and temperatures. The lack of quantifiable social benefits can be a huge barrier in tenant engagement because of the need to justify the extra expense, especially in social housing. But this is where engagement is most needed. In homes where residents are already disempowered by the knowledge that changes to their homes are not their decision to make. Noble efforts of community engagement displayed on a handful of case studies in the Retrofit 23 exhibition include: meetings with installers, on-site training, and one example of a resident design group where tenants had some real design impact.   Deep Retrofit comes with a specific restriction: to reduce energy consumption by 60-90% of pre-retrofit levels (Fawcett, 2014; Femenías et al., 2018) and therefore immediately places the focus on environmental sustainability and economic viability, consequently deemphasising social sustainability. So I ask the question: can deep retrofit lead to holistic sustainability? Mostly, engagement efforts are systems motivated, attempting to teach residents the correct use of technical systems, at times nominating technical agents from within the building to help transfer this knowledge to the others.   The biggest success of the Retrofit 23 exhibition must be the message board. Full of answers to the question “how can the challenge of retrofitting homes be made easier?”. Answers included: more grant money; increased low-carbon incentives; neighbourhood scale solutions; increase supply chains; increased education and training; upskill; knowledge sharing with children, schools, and communities; and attention to detail to avoid costly mistakes. My personal additions included cut tax on retrofit, extend funding spending deadlines, and legislate social engagement processes.   Often, social housing residents don’t want costly mechanical interventions, they want people to listen to their input and learn from the way they occupy their homes. Not that technical solutions don’t have their place, of course. But there are plenty of energy savings to be had with passive solutions, education, and conversation.   Let’s do better.     *Retrofit 23: Towards Deep Retrofit of Homes at Scale is a free exhibition held at the Building Centre in London until 29thSeptember 2023.     References European Commission. (2020). A Renovation Wave for Europe -greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives.   Fawcett, T. (2014). Exploring the time dimension of low carbon retrofit: Owner-occupied housing. Building Research and Information, 42(4), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.804769   Femenías, P., Mjörnell, K., & Thuvander, L. (2018). Rethinking deep renovation: The perspective of rental housing in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.282   Pierpoint, D., Rickaby, P., & Hancox, S. (n.d.). Social Housing Retrofit Toolkit MODULE 3: Housing Retrofit Policy Summary.

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Summer schools, Reflections

Read more ->
Icon energy-efficiency-renovation-of-buildings-in-croatia

Energy efficiency renovation of buildings in Croatia

Posted on 24-03-2022

Around 90% of Croatians are homeowners. Homeownership was catalysed by the “give-away” privatisation in the beginning of 1990s, and it slowly became a part of mainstream investment choices for many Croats. Due to a lack of financialisation and investment incentives, a house or an apartment is seen as a potential investment whose intrinsic value will only increase, and is suitable for passing on to next generations. The potential lack of liquidity of the housing market never hampered the enthusiasm of investment in housing.  However, with ownership comes responsibilities in terms of asset maintenance. Within the HESC project (Quality of living in the Housing Estates of the socialist and post-socialist era: a comparative analysis between Slovenia and Croatia), a survey was conducted among apartment representatives of 353 buildings in four large Croatian cities. Many apartment owners who live in socialist built buildings (built between 1945 and 1990) are overall satisfied with the quality of that building. However, these buildings need substantial upkeep and renovation in terms of energy efficiency improvement, which proves to be costly, whilst many of the residents are not united and willing to bear the cost of renovation.  This was the topic of today's public discussion organised by the HESC project, bringing together the main stakeholders involved in this issue, including the relevant ministry, local administration, funds, academics and agencies from the top and owners representatives from the bottom.  Issues that prevent a large-scale renovation is the lack of funds that is secured by the ministry and a lack of willingness of households to invest their own funds. Funds secured by the government could cater to only 1 in 12 buildings that apply for the grant by the ministry (60% of the total investment), and households who do not get the funding from the ministry often are not willing or do not have sufficient funds to fund the renovation themselves. Moreover, it seems that the general condition of the buildings is sought to be improved by the ministry’s funding programme, not only targeting energy efficiency in terms of energy consumption and emissions.  Some of the proposed solutions by the participants were reducing the bureaucracy of the application process for the funds issued by the ministry, introduction of subsidies for supply side, i.e. construction materials etc., establishment of a national buildings registry, other funding opportunities provided by publicly owned banks, and subsidies for funding the documentation needed to apply for the funds, that needs to be repeated every funding cycle.   

Author: M.Horvat (ESR6)

Conferences, Workshops

Read more ->

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts