The Conclusion
The concept of sustainability has evolved over time and Park Hill is representative of that. Historically, the design of Park Hill was unprecedented as the architects strove to achieve a self-sustaining microcosm in the centre of Sheffield. In its earliest years, the future looked bright for Park Hill; it was achieving sustainability on an economic, social and environmental scale. The construction of Park Hill flats provided housing for the 800 Victorian houses (Cruickshank, D, 1995) that stood there previously but it also became a source of economic income into the area as well. Housing grouped around courts and streets were leavened by pubs, corner shops and small businesses scattered throughout, each generating its own kind of activity’ (Cruickshank, D, 1995-59). The added intervention services brought about a self-sustaining economic intervention. Along with this it brought a sense of community spirit to the area, socially the original project could be deemed sustainable, through its efforts in generating social integration among the occupiers. Even environmentally Park Hill was attempting at the time, new ideas such as burning its own waste to heat it. With all the elements of a 1960’s sustainable lifestyle under the same roof, Park Hill aspired to be a self-sustaining microcosm of the future.
The regeneration of Park Hill flats brought about questions to the reasoning of its decline as well as how it would achieve a sustainable future so the degradation of the area would not happen again. Urban Splash took a very frontal approach in making sure the regeneration was as sustainable as possible. Physically, the building maintained its shell saving money, and maintaining character. The building was subject to regenerative design meaning Park Hill was revitalised with a lot of its own materials creating a level of sustainability in the sense that it incorporated the needs of both society and the environment. However, the regeneration was also considered a financial disaster (BBC, 2012) due to the overall cost behind the regeneration. Some regard the regeneration as socially responsible investing rather than regenerative design because rather than addressing all aspects of sustainability, Urban Splash and the council are looking to mainly bolster their own profits. This is seen through their decision to illuminate the graffiti - it is more of a marketing ploy than it is a way of maintaining its previous character.
Whether Urban Splash have successfully and sustainably regenerated Park Hill for future generations remains to be seen. Only in 50 years will it become evident because the measurement of sustainability coincides with time. What can be said is that the scheme has come under immense criticism for substituting social sustainability in efforts to increase economic performance. It has been regarded as a form of ethnic cleansing (Guardian, 2011) due to the fact each flat costs from a range of £90.000 to £150,000 (The Telegraph, 2012). However, from a sustainable point of view, one could argue that the expensive regeneration was necessary in order to kick start the economy surrounding Park Hill. The regeneration was privatised in its attempts to help put Sheffield back on the map because it aims to attract young professionals and business minded people to the area which in turn will bring more economic activity. This boost in economy means there will then be more money to spend on more environmental and social factors creating a more sustainable settlement.
The regeneration of Park Hill flats brought about questions to the reasoning of its decline as well as how it would achieve a sustainable future so the degradation of the area would not happen again. Urban Splash took a very frontal approach in making sure the regeneration was as sustainable as possible. Physically, the building maintained its shell saving money, and maintaining character. The building was subject to regenerative design meaning Park Hill was revitalised with a lot of its own materials creating a level of sustainability in the sense that it incorporated the needs of both society and the environment. However, the regeneration was also considered a financial disaster (BBC, 2012) due to the overall cost behind the regeneration. Some regard the regeneration as socially responsible investing rather than regenerative design because rather than addressing all aspects of sustainability, Urban Splash and the council are looking to mainly bolster their own profits. This is seen through their decision to illuminate the graffiti - it is more of a marketing ploy than it is a way of maintaining its previous character.
Whether Urban Splash have successfully and sustainably regenerated Park Hill for future generations remains to be seen. Only in 50 years will it become evident because the measurement of sustainability coincides with time. What can be said is that the scheme has come under immense criticism for substituting social sustainability in efforts to increase economic performance. It has been regarded as a form of ethnic cleansing (Guardian, 2011) due to the fact each flat costs from a range of £90.000 to £150,000 (The Telegraph, 2012). However, from a sustainable point of view, one could argue that the expensive regeneration was necessary in order to kick start the economy surrounding Park Hill. The regeneration was privatised in its attempts to help put Sheffield back on the map because it aims to attract young professionals and business minded people to the area which in turn will bring more economic activity. This boost in economy means there will then be more money to spend on more environmental and social factors creating a more sustainable settlement.