Housing in the Private Rental Market Ideas Competition

Transcription

1 In 2012 Wates Giving sponsored a report that investigated the impact of the under-supply of housing on current generations of aspiring first time home-owners. More broadly, the report also considered the private rental sector and its place in national housing policy. Wates Giving now seeks to build on this theme by exploring what a specifically designed privately rented suburban neighbourhood might look like through the vehicle of an RIBA competition. A JOINT PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE, PROMOTED BY: 1

2 COMPETITION BRIEF INTRODUCTION Designers are invited to speculate on new ideas for typologies and neighbourhood arrangements to cater for the private rented development, creating truly flexible homes and communities, and other benefits for those privately renting. The Wates Group and the RIBA hope to demonstrate that these fresh ideas for the suburban private rented sector can suit the emerging demographic AND be viable and desirable. VISION Research has shown that an increasing number of UK households are renting privately rather than buying, with demand for private tenancies anticipated to rise to 1 in 5 households by The private rented sector in the UK has long been an ad-hoc arrangement of private landlords buying properties designed for sale, rather than developments designed with the long term private tenant in mind. In conjunction with insecure and short term tenures, this can lead to privately renting households feeling transient rather than embedded in their neighbourhoods 2, with consequent impact on the families and the community around them. The increase in renting privately rather than buying homes has come about for broadly two reasons. Firstly, low levels of house building since the 1970s has resulted in an undersupply, making the availability and prices of open market housing for sale more challenging, and social housing unavailable to all but the most needy; recently 2010 and 2011 have seen the lowest level of house building in peacetime years since Secondly, changes in family formation and an ageing population have both contributed to a growth in households, but the resulting demand has not been mirrored by a supply of suitable homes. The impacts of the lack of homes to purchase have been significant and wide ranging. The affordability of homeownership has reduced in recent years, as over the last 20 years, the affordability gap between household earnings and house prices has increased significantly. Between 2001 and 2011, wages increased by 29 per cent whilst house prices increased by 94 per cent 4. The continuing undersupply of housing has led to a marked growth in the number of households renting including young people, families and older people from varying social and economic backgrounds. Wates Giving, the charitable programme of the Wates Family, the owners of the Wates Group, and the RIBA, are keen to explore what a suburban neighbourhood might be like if it was specifically designed to be privately rented in the current and future market. By demonstrating alternative approaches to current thinking on the private rented sector s potential for placemaking and homemaking, this competition will seek to inform future policy and unlock the potential of greenfield suburban sites for private rental developments. 1 Building the Homes and Communities Britain Needs, 2012, Future Homes Commission (an independent inquiry set up by the RIBA) and Rental Britain, 2012, Savills and Rightmove 2 A better deal - towards more stable private renting, 2012, Shelter 3 No Place to Call Home: The Social Impacts of Housing Undersupply on Young People. 2012, IPPR 4 No Place to Call Home: The Social Impacts of Housing Undersupply on Young People. 2012, IPPR 2

3 CONTEXT INFORMATION: Households might feel freer to move every 5-10 years, as their circumstances change, if the right kind of housing was available in their community. Innovative housing design could enable this flexibility, while retaining the household s feeling of security and community engagement. Entrants are invited to think outside the box, quite literally, and explore possible alternatives to current house building practice and government housing policy, outlining why alternatives would create better homes. The kind of changes this neighbourhood might cater for could include households expanding and contracting as families expand, extend across generations, shrink through break ups or as children leave home, or even children who grow up but don t leave home. There will be single people who wish to live alone, or live communally in households of multiple occupancy. People retire and may wish to downsize, liberating larger houses for future families. As they become more elderly, they may wish to live close to relatives, but with options to be independent, or perhaps in sheltered accommodation, or in groups with people of shared interest. Housing choices and designs could encourage people to move or adapt their home in response to these life changes, and could make the move or change viable economically, as well as positive at a personal level. The occupants should be able move accommodation without feeling they have had to move community, or perhaps the accommodation can be arranged to shrink and grow around them. Recent research has shown that people want more space and light, and more storage from new homes 5. Entrants could consider ways of arranging spaces and communal facilities so that these are provided either in the home itself, or in the communal areas. If part of the rental offer is a shared use of some spaces (party room, guest room, tool cupboard, garden) does it share the burden of financing and maintaining it in a more desirable way, while not compromising lifestyle and standards of living? 6 Does the ability to move homes to something more suitable at each stage of life make flexibility within the home more or less necessary? Can ways of grouping unit types or rooms make the rented property more flexible over time? In short, can the suburban home become a better way of living because it is rented? DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: IF THIS WAS PRIVATELY RENTED, HOW DIFFERENT OR SIMILAR MIGHT IT BE? The competition is asking designers to re-imagine a typical but hypothetical residential development of 250 houses for sale into a viable, attractive and high quality privately rented community in the suburbs,with an idea about density which balances land costs against suburban ideals. 5 Case for Space,2011, RIBA and The Way We Live Now 2012 RIBA and Ipsos MORI 6 There are historic examples within the UK, which are still successful today, and may provide clues for future developments. From almshouses catering for the elderly in the community, to 19th century model villages like Bourneville and Port Sunlight, mid 20th century experiments in balancing private and shared space like the Isokon Flats in Hampstead, and more recent examples such as the CASPAR (City Apartments for Single People at Affordable Rents) developments by Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the 1990s. Innovative suburban developments for sale, like Eric Lyons 1096s Span Estates, or Baylight s recent developments, may give clues about desirable elements in suburbs What would such a development be like? What sort of homes might be appropriate? What encourages people to create a community and how can this thinking be incorporated into the design of a rental development? This exploration should be at the level of site ideas (placemaking) and typologies of units (homemaking). The organisers are not looking for detailed proposals or cost plans, but it is important designers speculate on ideas of layouts and costs. The designs might address site layouts and arrangements, shared and communal spaces and facilities, private and shared gardens, suitable housing typologies and the range of accommodation choices available in the neighbourhood. The proposals can explore ideas on the definitions of types, density, use, volume and area, quality, enabling change and flexibility, amenity and place, sustainability and ease of maintenance. Thoughts on what is missing in existing developments for sale, and other issues of their choice can all be included as part of the entrants response. 3

4 COMPETITION FORMAT: This is an open ideas competition, the judges are interested in open, annotated thinking on your responses to the challenges. Submission Format: 2 A2 lightweight foam mounted boards. Sheet 1 Sheet 2 Written Statement PLACE to include a 1:1000 plan on the approach to the site layout. TYPES illustrating ideas about unit typologies. up to 500 words in support of the submission, including a brief summary of unit types, mix and numbers achieved. DEMOGRAPHICS: For the purposes of this competition, it can be assumed that the current UK figures are as follows: 29% of households are 1 person, 35% are two people, 16% have three people, 16% have four, 6% have 5 or more people, and the trend is for household size to continue to reduce. 29% of households have dependent children - 14% with 3 or more dependent children, 39% to have 2 children, and 47% 1 child. Lone parent families make up 25% of the total. The trend is for family sizes to continue to reduce, but for children to stay at home longer with their parents. Less than 3% of year olds live alone, although there is much evidence to suggest that this is due to economic factors rather than lifestyle choice, compared to 45% of those aged 75 and over 7. Households sharing as multifamily or unrelated adults was only 4% of the total. The proportion of the current population aged under 16 was around 20% and the proportion of the population aged 65 and over was around 16%. Population projections suggest that between 2013 and 2035, the number of people aged 60+ in the UK will increase by 43% and in 2035, 29% of the total projected population or 20 million people will be over the age of 60 ONS principle projection. 7 Social Trends households and families chapter 2001 to

5 JUDGING PANEL The Judging Panel (which may be subject to change) is expected to comprise: TIMOTHY WATES Director, Wates Group Chair of Panel Tim started his career at Cazenove & Co, prior to joining Wates Group. He is a Director of Wates Group, Chairs Wates Developments and the Wates Pension Fund and is Chairman of the Wates Family Council the Family Shareholder forum. Tim s career in Wates has been mainly focused on housing with roles varying from heading Wates Estate Agency to running the Wates BES Rental Portfolio. He was also Managing Director of Wates Developments. He has a passion for housing, both from a business point of view and because of the benefits that good housing brings to society. He is Vice Chairman of the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership and a Non-Executive Director of Tampopo Limited and Pedder Property. Tim is a Trustee of various Wates Family charities, a Director of the Clink Charity and a School Governor. He has an MBA from the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. ANDY HOBART Managing Director, Wates Living Space Andy was previously Managing Director at Balfour Beatty Workplace, a 600m turnover support services business employing over 8,500 people. In this role and his previous role as Divisional Managing Director of Rentokil, he has extensive experience of dealing with Public Sector Clients. Andy has an excellent track record of strategic development, organic and acquisitive growth, operational excellence and client satisfaction. Andy joined Wates in December SIMON ALLFORD Director, AHMM, RIBA Adviser with Morag Tait, AHMM From AHMM s base in London Simon leads a studio that works in England and internationally, engaging public and private clients in the exploration of a particular architecture s potential to offer delight as well as utility. Simon works on a wide range of scales and typologies. Recent projects include Stratford residential master plan, The Angel, Tea and Yellow Buildings as well as Adelaide Wharf, the Saatchi Gallery and Chobham Academy. He is currently working on the new Google HQ at KX, The White Collar Factory at City Road, a new tower on Blackfriars, three mixed use projects on Regent Street for the Crown Estate, an academic building for the University of Amsterdam as well as large urban scale projects in London and America. Simon engages in the broader architectural discussion as a writer, critic, teacher, judge, advisor, trustee and commentator. NICK JOPLING Executive Director Property, Grainger Plc Nick joined Grainger plc in September 2010 as Executive Property Director from CB Richard Ellis where he was Executive Director and Head of Residential. Nick s responsibility covers Grainger s UK & German Residential portfolio and development division. Nick has broad experience in the residential property sector in the UK and abroad, including investment, development and the private rented sector, where his particular interest lies. Nick is also the chairman of the Urban Land Institute s UK Residential Product Council and sat on the Mayor s Housing Task Force as well as the Montague review. 5

6 PAUL TENNANT Chief Executive, Orbit Housing Paul is Group Chief Executive of Orbit, a federal group of housing organisations owning and managing over 37,000 homes. The partners within Orbit provide a wide range of housing, care and support services, build over 800 homes a year, and provide corporate support services to members of the Group s other housing associations. Paul is a member of the NHF Board, Chairs the Risk and Audit Committee, is a Board member of HouseMark and President of the Chartered Institute of Housing. His particular interests include increasing the quality and range of service offer of housing organisations and progressive business transformation alongside promoting ethics, professional standards and the values offer of our sector. CRISPIN KELLY Managing Director, Baylight Born in 1956, Crispin Kelly took a first degree in Modern History at Oxford. He founded the development and investment company Baylight Properties in 1982, and went on to qualify as an architect, and has served as President of the Architectural Association. His interests include what good design can offer the ordinary housebuyer, and he has contributed extensively to architectural magazines and broadsheets on topics ranging from art in public space to the qualities of successful suburbs, as well as judging numerous design awards. ANGELA BRADY President of Royal Institute of British Architects (Sept ) As President of RIBA Angela champions sustainable design and the value that quality architecture brings to our daily lives. She promotes the best of British Architecture and sustainable design on a world stage and speaks at conferences worldwide. Well known as a TV broadcaster, with series such as The Home Show and Building the Dream, Angela is passionate about bringing architecture to the public, so that we can all engage with our built environment. She is a regular debater and contributor to TV and radio shows on architecture. Angela is a director of Brady Mallalieu Architects, an award winning private practice based in London since 1987 that specialise in contemporary sustainable design. She is a past advisor to English Heritage, CABE and the LDA. Angela Brady PRIBA, FRIAI, FRSA, PhD(hon). Julia Davies, RIBA Competitions (observer) will attend the assessments to document the competition process and provide procedural support. In the event of a Judging Panel member being unable to continue to act through illness or any other cause, Wates, in consultation with the RIBA, reserves the right to appoint an alternative Panel member. 6

7 COMPETITION CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS COMPETITION PROMOTERS The Competition is a working partnership between Wates Group, Wates Family Enerprise Trust (both hereafter, Wates) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The competition is being managed and administered by RIBA Competitions to whom all queries relating to the competition should be addressed. COMPETITION FORMAT The competition will follow the Open Ideas format and will be organised in the following stages: Stage 1 : Stage 2 : Submission of concept designs which will be assessed anonymously A shortlist of between four and six designs will be selected, with anonymity lifted and the authors invited to present their design concepts to the judging panel and discuss in more detail. ELIGIBILITY The competition is open internationally to registered architects. Architects should be registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB) in the UK, or an equivalent, recognised overseas regulatory authority. In addition the competition is open internationally to students of architecture who, at the time of application have not yet completed their RIBA Part III or equivalent. Professional and student entries will be judged within the same category. In the event that a student entry is selected to proceed to the second stage, the student competitor will be expected to team up with a registered architect of their choice. This must be taken into consideration before submitting an entry. Individual, team and multi-disciplinary entries are all encouraged. The following parties are excluded from participating in the Competition and may not compete or assist a Competitor in any way: Members of the Judging Panel, anyone employed by Wates, or any Consultant supporting the competition as specified in the Brief; Anyone who is closely related or has any kind of dependence, or close professional relationship to a member of the Judging Panel, Wates or Consultants specified in the Brief or the Competition Organisers. HOW TO REGISTER AND ENTER You may only submit an entry to the competition if you are officially registered through RIBA Competitions and in possession of a Unique Registration Number (URN). The competition is subject to a non-refundable registration and administration fee of 50+VAT for professionals and 15+VAT for students. Please visit and follow the appropriate link under Live Competitions to make an on-line payment. Once your payment has been processed, you will be issued with a Unique Registration Number (URN) and a Declaration of Authorship Form together with supporting site material. 7

8 DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP & ACCEPTANCE OF COMPETITION REGULATIONS The declaration form acknowledges authorship of the design ideas, and by signing it, competitors agree to abide by the competition conditions and the decision of the Judging Panel. The completed declaration form should be placed in a sealed envelope and accompany the design submission and should clearly bear the URN in the top right hand corner of both the form and the envelope. The declaration form must accompany the design submission - see Anonymity and Stage 1 Submission Requirements below. If making a student entry this must be clearly stated in the relevant box on the declaration form. Please note the team members stated on the declaration form will be used in all press releases so please ensure this is reflected accurately. COMPETITION PROGRAMME The anticipated programme, which may be subject to variation, is as follows: Activity Official Competition launch & Brief available Deadline for Questions Response to Questions issued Registration deadline Deadline for submission of Stage 1 Design Proposals Assessment of Stage 1 Design Proposals Short list notified Presentations to Judging Panel Announcement of Result and Prize Giving Date 11 June 28 June 5 July 21 August 28 August by 2pm BST 17 September w/c 23 September 12 November 25 November QUESTIONS Questions relating to the Competition Brief and Conditions must be submitted to RIBA Competitions at riba.competitions@riba.org before close of business on 28 June. A statement in response to all questions raised will be ed to registered competitors only by 5 July. Oral questions will not be accepted. EVALUATION & AWARD CRITERIA The design proposals will be assessed against the following criteria: Stage 1: Overall design quality Inventiveness and flair Response to the brief, context, site opportunities and constraints Clarity of presentation 8

9 ANONYMITY All Stage 1 submissions will be judged anonymously, via use of the Unique Registration Number (URN) issued at the time of Registration. The URN should be prominently displayed on each of the design submission boards, report and declaration form. Please refer to the section How to Register to obtain a URN. Any submission that has identifying marks (including logos, text, insignia, or images that could be used to identify the submission s authors) will be automatically disqualified. DISQUALIFICATION Submissions shall be excluded from the Competition: If a Competitor shall disclose his or her identity, or improperly attempt to influence the decision; If received after the latest time stated under Stage 1 Submission Method; If, in the opinion of the Judging Panel, it does not fulfil the requirements of the Competition Brief; If any of the mandatory requirements of the Competition Brief and Conditions are disregarded. STAGE 1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS There are four elements to the design submission, each of which should bear the Unique Registration Number (URN) only. Competitors should refer to the Anonymity requirements and submit the following material: i. A maximum of 2x No. A2 lightweight boards to comprise: Sheet 1: Sheet 2: PLACE to include a 1:1000 site plan on the approach to the site layout TYPES illustrating ideas about unit typologies The proposals should be presented in a clear and succinct manner to enable Judging Panel members to readily understand the essence and design drivers behind the scheme. The URN should be prominently displayed on the front face of each design board in the top right hand corner, together with the order in which the boards should be viewed (1 of 2 etc). Architectural models will not be accepted as part of the Stage 1 submission. However images of models used to develop the design proposal may be included on the design board(s). ii. A written design statement (maximum of 500 words) in support of the submission, including a brief summary of unit types, mix, numbers achieved and comment on the cost/value of their scheme. Please note detailed costings are not required. iii. Hard copy of the completed Declaration of Authorship form, which should be sealed in an envelope bearing the URN and marked Declaration of Authorship form. iv. CD containing electronic copies of the A2 design boards (PDF format), together with a separate electronic copy (Word format) of the design statement. The PDF s of the design boards should be <5Mb in size. The CD should also contain one single publicity image for use in printed, electronic media and in the online gallery. The image should be a representative of the design ideas proposed and be readily identifiable as such. The image should be submitted in JPEG format in both a low (72dpi) and high (300dpi) resolution version. 9

10 Please note that entries will not be returned and Competitors are advised to retain copies of all design material submitted. Whilst Wates and the RIBA will exercise all reasonable care, they will not be liable for loss or damage to the submission material that might occur either in transit, during exhibition, storage or package. STAGE 1 SUBMISSION METHOD Each Stage 1 entry should be submitted in a single package and sent, carriage paid, addressed to: RIBA Competitions The Studio (5th Floor) 32 The Calls Leeds LS2 7EW Overseas competitors should note that for Customs purposes no commercial value should be assigned to the design submission. When filling in the courier paperwork, please write no value in the box marked Value for Customs. If a commercial value is given, this may result in your submission being delayed and/or returned to you unopened, as the RIBA will not be liable for any Customs charges otherwise incurred. Your submission should arrive no later than 2.00pm on 28 August Late entries will not be accepted and it will not be possible to submit entries via . UK competitors should note that first class post does not necessarily guarantee next day delivery and should plan their submission accordingly. Competitors requiring proof of delivery are advised to use a signed for delivery service and should check with Royal Mail/the courier provider. STAGE 2 The Judging Panel will select the four best responses to the brief and anonymity will be lifted. Short listed designs/teams will: i. be issued with clarification points arising from the Stage 1 assessment. ii. be invited to give a presentation to the Judging Panel to clarify aspects of the proposed design approach, viability ratio and discuss their design in more detail. In the event that a student is selected to proceed to stage 2, the student competitor will be expected to team up with a registered architect of their choice. This must be taken into account before submitting an entry. NOTIFICATION OF RESULT The Competition results will be published after notification has been given to all participating Competitors. Please note that any requests for feedback should be submitted to RIBA Competitions within one calendar month of a shortlist, or a result being announced. Competitors must not release their designs for publication to any 3rd parties other than Wates or the RIBA until after the result has been officially announced and/or anonymity has been lifted. Competitors should note that they will be expected to honour a confidentiality agreement to prevent information of the winning team being leaked to the Press before any official announcement is made. Wates and the RIBA reserve the right to publicise the Competition, any design submission, and the result in any way or medium they consider fit. Illustrations of any design - either separately, or together with other designs, with or without explanatory text - may be used without cost. Once anonymity has been lifted, authors will be credited and recognised in all associated media and publicity. 10

11 PUBLICITY, PROMOTION & PRIZE-GIVING An online exhibition gallery of all entries will be produced to showcase the full range of design entries received, with each competitor acknowledged and anonymity lifted after Stage 1 is completed. Additional images, space and text will be given to the shortlisted teams. A prize giving event will be at the RIBA on the 25 November where industry leaders, stakeholders and press will be invited to view a selection of entries, discuss the designs and announce the winner. PRIZE MONEY There is a total prize fund of 12,000 to be distributed between the top four to six schemes as follows: 1st Prize - 6,000 2nd Prize - 3,000 3rd Prize - 2,000 Highly commended - 1,000 At the discretion of the judging panel the third and highly commended prize may be split from one single prize. Wates undertakes to pay the prize money within 6 weeks of the conclusion of the competition. Invoices for payment should be submitted to RIBA Competitions. COPYRIGHT The ownership of Copyright will be in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, that is Copyright rests with the author of the submitted design. POST-COMPETITION The role of RIBA Competitions is limited to the administration and management of the Competition process. The RIBA will have no further role once the Winner has been selected and competitors notified. The competition is a call for Ideas only and there is no commitment to develop the winning scheme post-competition. Wates reserves the right not to proceed beyond the competition stage in the event that the requirements and aspirations set for this competition are not met, but all Honorarium payments as indicated will be awarded. ENQUIRIES Neither Wates, the RIBA Adviser, nor other members of the judging panel or the local authority should be solicited for information as this may lead to disqualification from the competition. The competition is being managed and administered by RIBA Competitions on behalf of Wates. All enquiries relating to the competition should be directed to: RIBA Competitions The Studio (5th Floor) 32 The Calls LEEDS LS2 7EW T : ++44 (0) E : riba.competitions@riba.org 11