The Sustainability
Park Hill flats has many themes of subtle sustainability, it does not thrive on “ticking boxes”, indeed the word sustainability rarely came into play until the late 1960’s for architecture, however what Park Hill did achieve was sustainability within a community. As already stated, the development took place on the mostly cleared out slum locally known as “Little Chicago” (Sheffield City Council) due to crime rates. Smith and Lynn wanted to recreate the image of the area – not least for the prime location and stunning views it offered, but we believe to rejuvenate the city by improving a focal building – if they could change the image of Park Hill it could bring in new businesses and trade which had declined since the war in the Steel City.
The flats were modern for the times, with central heating and indoor baths, it was unheard of in this age for council estates – this meant that only the “well-behaved” would be allowed to move in and assured upstanding community members (Howe, 2009).
Park Hill was also a pioneer in housing, being one of the first flats in Britain, it was space efficient by building up, however pioneering also meant there was little precedent on whether this new scheme would be effective, flats in America were an indication, however the vastly different cultures meant they could not be relied on.
To quote Albert Einstein, “The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation.” For architects, this means not only designing new buildings which are deemed sustainable, but also regenerating and redeveloping old buildings in a sustainable manner which have failed over time, such as that of Park Hill. Sustainability within architecture has often primarily been thought of as an ‘environmentally friendly building’. It emerged in recent years the lack of efforts in developing a socially sustainable dwelling, especially since the formation of Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), which focuses efforts on the lifestyles of the way people are and live in order to create a more sustainable future. The revelation of social sustainability impacts the way architects think, which is translated into the design of new structures; now it is important to design structures which cater for the needs of today’s people as well as tomorrow’s.
For the likes of Urban Splash, their challenge was to regenerate Park Hill whilst maintaining its character and revitalizing life into the declining building. Achieving this would bring economic prosperity into the area, however from a social perspective, was the regeneration necessarily as sustainable as it could have been?
The first thing to consider is the people: The residents of Park Hill prior to the redevelopment, compared to the target audience once the development is complete. Due to the goals set by Urban Splash, redeveloping Park Hill to act as a potential trigger for an economic increase in the area, some have thought the regeneration to be a form of ethnic cleansing rather than regeneration: once unpicturesque council tenants have been 'decanted', inner-city estates can be safely claimed by the affluent (Guardian, 2011). This use of the word ‘decanted’ is fascinating: to ‘pour off’ without disturbing the sediment, because it illustrates this idea that Urban Splash haven’t considered the residents who live at Park Hill and instead have refurbished the flats so that it is unaffordable for any previous resident, forcing them to move on - highly unsustainable. In the words of Braungart, “The ‘replacement’ is a distraction, not a solution, and it introduces new problems.” (Baumgart 2008: 12). So where do the old occupiers move to? How does it affect their quality of life? Overall, this approach taken by Urban Splash appears to be unsustainable from a social perspective. The project has addressed the physical decline of the building but seems to have forgotten about the reason behind why Park Hill was built in the first place. It could be said the architects have found themselves in a ‘catch-22’ as they try to maintain the buildings character, yet aren’t the residents the people who forge the character in the first place?
On the other hand, some might argue that the redevelopment of Park Hill has been successful in achieving social sustainability, the building has evolved in the same way people’s attitudes have evolved. Roy Hattersley, a young Sheffield councillor who worked on the Park Hill project in the 1950’s, claimed:
“We were pioneering to the point we were futuristic, but in another sense we were very traditional. The amenities were modern but, the spirit and community, families living together if you like. That was the spirit of an earlier age where people wanted to live together.” (Streets in the Sky, 2010)
The original planners used Park Hill to capture “the spirit of an age” the building was designed homogeneously and was a fitting structure to the needs of the people at the time. In the same way, Urban Splash are keeping to the ideals of the original design by once again, attempting to address the situation of what is needed by the people of today’s time. The reality is that the people of today are not like the people of the 1950’s. Urban Splash understands that simply mimicking the original design purpose of the building would not work in today’s society, as the togetherness and community spirit of back then has almost completely vanished. Instead, the redevelopment would be better suited to a more privatized environment since communities are less social in today’s society. The redevelopment is sustainable in the sense it has come intrinsically, the nature of its surrounding landscape has evolved, as has the nature of its people. Therefore, the regeneration has been socially sustainable as it looks to maintain the same quality of life as it did in its heyday, only it is catering to a different audience to the past so it is designed and publicized in a different light. The sustainability of the building works more on the social sector giving the people an easy, quicker and healthier way to their needs - The train station is a two minute walk from park hill, the city centre is a 5 minute walk and the landscaped area to both is a park.
The flats were modern for the times, with central heating and indoor baths, it was unheard of in this age for council estates – this meant that only the “well-behaved” would be allowed to move in and assured upstanding community members (Howe, 2009).
Park Hill was also a pioneer in housing, being one of the first flats in Britain, it was space efficient by building up, however pioneering also meant there was little precedent on whether this new scheme would be effective, flats in America were an indication, however the vastly different cultures meant they could not be relied on.
To quote Albert Einstein, “The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation.” For architects, this means not only designing new buildings which are deemed sustainable, but also regenerating and redeveloping old buildings in a sustainable manner which have failed over time, such as that of Park Hill. Sustainability within architecture has often primarily been thought of as an ‘environmentally friendly building’. It emerged in recent years the lack of efforts in developing a socially sustainable dwelling, especially since the formation of Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), which focuses efforts on the lifestyles of the way people are and live in order to create a more sustainable future. The revelation of social sustainability impacts the way architects think, which is translated into the design of new structures; now it is important to design structures which cater for the needs of today’s people as well as tomorrow’s.
For the likes of Urban Splash, their challenge was to regenerate Park Hill whilst maintaining its character and revitalizing life into the declining building. Achieving this would bring economic prosperity into the area, however from a social perspective, was the regeneration necessarily as sustainable as it could have been?
The first thing to consider is the people: The residents of Park Hill prior to the redevelopment, compared to the target audience once the development is complete. Due to the goals set by Urban Splash, redeveloping Park Hill to act as a potential trigger for an economic increase in the area, some have thought the regeneration to be a form of ethnic cleansing rather than regeneration: once unpicturesque council tenants have been 'decanted', inner-city estates can be safely claimed by the affluent (Guardian, 2011). This use of the word ‘decanted’ is fascinating: to ‘pour off’ without disturbing the sediment, because it illustrates this idea that Urban Splash haven’t considered the residents who live at Park Hill and instead have refurbished the flats so that it is unaffordable for any previous resident, forcing them to move on - highly unsustainable. In the words of Braungart, “The ‘replacement’ is a distraction, not a solution, and it introduces new problems.” (Baumgart 2008: 12). So where do the old occupiers move to? How does it affect their quality of life? Overall, this approach taken by Urban Splash appears to be unsustainable from a social perspective. The project has addressed the physical decline of the building but seems to have forgotten about the reason behind why Park Hill was built in the first place. It could be said the architects have found themselves in a ‘catch-22’ as they try to maintain the buildings character, yet aren’t the residents the people who forge the character in the first place?
On the other hand, some might argue that the redevelopment of Park Hill has been successful in achieving social sustainability, the building has evolved in the same way people’s attitudes have evolved. Roy Hattersley, a young Sheffield councillor who worked on the Park Hill project in the 1950’s, claimed:
“We were pioneering to the point we were futuristic, but in another sense we were very traditional. The amenities were modern but, the spirit and community, families living together if you like. That was the spirit of an earlier age where people wanted to live together.” (Streets in the Sky, 2010)
The original planners used Park Hill to capture “the spirit of an age” the building was designed homogeneously and was a fitting structure to the needs of the people at the time. In the same way, Urban Splash are keeping to the ideals of the original design by once again, attempting to address the situation of what is needed by the people of today’s time. The reality is that the people of today are not like the people of the 1950’s. Urban Splash understands that simply mimicking the original design purpose of the building would not work in today’s society, as the togetherness and community spirit of back then has almost completely vanished. Instead, the redevelopment would be better suited to a more privatized environment since communities are less social in today’s society. The redevelopment is sustainable in the sense it has come intrinsically, the nature of its surrounding landscape has evolved, as has the nature of its people. Therefore, the regeneration has been socially sustainable as it looks to maintain the same quality of life as it did in its heyday, only it is catering to a different audience to the past so it is designed and publicized in a different light. The sustainability of the building works more on the social sector giving the people an easy, quicker and healthier way to their needs - The train station is a two minute walk from park hill, the city centre is a 5 minute walk and the landscaped area to both is a park.
Sustainable mechanisms
Figure 1 (Cruickshank, D, 1995-61) shows how Park Hill was self sustaining in terms of getting rid of waste. Developed in France, it was a way of making it easy for tennats to dispose there waste as well as avoiding the estate looking unflattering due to dumped rubbish. However it became no longer in use due to the introduction of disposable nappies which clogged up the pipes. So rubbish was collected in plastic bags.