Sunteți pe pagina 1din 100

the social impact of high rise on tyneside

mark carman architecture

Produced by Mark Carman at Northumbria University 2012. Tutor | Lewis Preston All images copyright of Northumbria University and Mark Carman 2012. unless otherwise referenced Newcastle City Campus Ellison Place Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST UK Tel: +44 (0)191 232 6002 Fax: +44 (0)191 227 3903

contents
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 introduction the urban sprawl slum clearance comprehensive redevelopment refurbishment private sector regeneration references appendix

1.0 introduction
This research paper will look at the social impact of the local authority housing policies of the mid 20th century. With the emerging welfare state in Britain following the second world war, comprehensive slum clearances became common across Britain, with high density, high rise modernist social housing developments built to house displaced communities as a response. In the context of Newcastle and Gateshead, the urban centre of Tyneside, this paper will integrate research already carried out in previous studies as part of previous design projects, looking more in depth into the relevant topics considered. Through looking at the subject areas of these design projects, including Shieldfield and Dunston, amongst others, this investigation will look more in-depth into the fundamental causes of the social issues which emerged following the pragmatic master planning of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, where communities where routinely displaced in an often well-intentioned but arguably misguided attempt to improve living conditions. Whether as a result of bad planning, or a decline in heavy industry in the latter part of the 20th century, these developments were largely unsuccessful with some, like St Cuthberts Village in Gateshead, being considered a housing disaster and experiencing partial demolition within just 20 years of its construction. The high rise tower block, a symbol of social housing in all major conurbations of Britain is often associated with the destruction of communities and the underlying issues of economic inactivity, crime and other social problems. Despite these negative associations, in some

poplars tower, cruddas park

construction of cruddas park towers in the elswick slum clearance area, 1960

areas on Tyneside, like Shieldfield and Dunston, these high rise social housing developments have become defining landmarks for their community and the wider areas. Disregarding the environmental implications, and often risking further community disparity, local authorities across Britain have traditionally demolished failed high rise developments as an attempt to tackle these social problems. This research paper will attempt to determine whether this is an adequate response, and what alternative solutions exist such as building refurbishment looking at policies on sustainability and building re-use like CABE to support this.

2.0 urban sprawl


The conditions which led to the demolition of old housing stock to build high rise across Tyneside throughout the 20th century were thought to have been as a result of the overcrowding of industrial urban conurbations around the late 19th century, of which Newcastle was perhaps one of the worst examples in the country. Cologne has a bad name; Cairo has an even worse reputation; but that part of Newcastle called the Sandgate must be allowed to exceed either city in stenches, filth, over-crowding and pestilential ills (The Builder, 1861, p.242). By the height of the industrial revolution in the mid19th century, Newcastles thriving coal trade allowed manufacturing and engineering in the town to flourish. This subsequently led to rapid and unchecked growth in Newcastle and the surrounding areas, with no regard for the quality of building, public health or cleanliness, with some older areas of the town becoming pestilent fever beds. Starting on the banks of the river, it later climbed to the top of the very steep banks, and still later on, spread in all direction as coal was exploited and the great engineering concerns made their guns or ships or great pieces of machinery. As the City spread, the riverside life declined and the river changed from a fine salmon river to an open sewer (Burns, 1967, p. 4). As a result of rapid industrial expansion in the North East, the population in Newcastles already overcrowded urban centre was booming. With increasing migration and birth rates, the towns population was increasing by an average of over 20% decade on decade up to the early 20th century (See Table 1), leading to massive
over london by rail, 1872

Table 1 Population Change in Newcastle upon Tyne Registration District *, 1851-1901 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901 Total Population Change %Change 87156 110968 +21812 131198 +20230 150252 +19054 196817 +46565 233644 +36827

Natural +24.5 +18.2 +14.5 +31.0 +18.7

Change Migration +8300 +13512 +13975 +6255 +19755 -701 +24189 +22376 +28363 +8464
the river tyne 1823

* Data for the Registration District a slightly larger unit than the city.

poverty and health problems in many areas and the departure of the more affluent social classes from urban centres to the new suburbs appearing north of Newcastle. Of late years these houses have been forsaken, and their wealthier inhabitants have chosen the higher Parts of the Town (Bourne, 1736, p. 126).

the order of the day. Many observers noted the seriously inadequate living conditions, particularly various health commissions following the implementation of the Public Health Act of 1873. The water I found was deficient in quantity and most questionable in quality, dead dogs being lifted out of the reservoir... I am staying at the best This rapid population growth gives an indication of the hotel in town, but there is no water closet, only a filthy demographic pressure and demand for housing, water privy at some distance (McCord, 1979, p.158). and sanitation imposed on Newcastle, in the wake of the industrial boom. In the city, property was sub- Conditions had become so poor that the government divided and further sub-divided, accommodation was forced a Medical Officer of Health upon Newcastle, scarce and over-crowding perhaps the most notorious although this was met with similar despondency and in England (Barke & Callcott, 1994, p.12). However, strong opposition. Alderman Plummer openly protested this was thought to have been met with a certain that this was no more use to the town than an umbrella complacency by the leaders of the town. This is likely to to a duck (Barke & Callcott, 1994, p.14). be as a result of the ideological climate of unregulated and unrestricted entrepreneurship, where self-help was On occasion through the late 19th century, the problems

addys entry, wallers yard & prudhoe place public convenience, 1894-1912

of poor quality house building were raised before the council, but they were rarely given much consideration and never became a significant preoccupation. Despite the worsening conditions, there was little intervention through the local government. The low standard of house building was not because of the impossibility of producing the right house, but because the right kind of house was not then considered necessary (Smith, 1970, p. 46). Most new houses in the late 19th century were built by private developers and often for the middle class communities who were increasingly choosing to live away from the urban centres, in the healthier conditions of the suburbs north of Newcastle. A subsequent saturation of the middle class housing market in the new suburbs brought rent down for those who could afford it, whilst conditions elsewhere became increasingly

squalid for those who could not. (Lancaster, 1994). It was not until well into the 20th century that the housing problem became a significant concern for the local governments on Tyneside. By this point, the situation in many areas was beyond crisis point, further exacerbated by a slump in house building at the beginning of the 20th century and practical cessation during World War I (Pepper & Yeomans, 2006 p.2515). Domestic construction became more important during the interwar years with a rapid delivery of cheap homes for displaced workers and schemes such as homes fit for heroes. This meant new estates emerging in the wake of slum clearances of old tenements, but during a time of economic austerity in western Europe, this was not always well received by the public. It is not an equitable state of affairs that one section of the community should be housed partly at the expense of

Second World War, would have a profound affect on housing policy. The fact that the Housing Committee chose to build conventional two storey dwellings (albeit in flats) rather than several storey blocks of flats caused a furore amongst the cost-conscious council members (Barke & Turnbull, 1994, p.146). This gives an indication of the attitudes many people had about the kind of housing which was appropriate for slum dwellers and the kind of housing appropriate for everyone else.

homes fit for heroes, 1921

the state and the municipality, while others have to pay the full market value of their house accommodation (Shields Daily News, 1932). The building of new low rise estates at the expense of the taxpayer is believed to have been a cause of significant vexation to many who were paying high rates of tax without seeing the benefit of this public spending. Corporation policy is inflicting an unfair burden on the thrifty members of the community. It is rotten business, rotten finance, and in every way fundamentally unsound (Shields Daily News, 1931). This increasing resentment towards public spending may have been one of the leading influences in the decision by local councils to favour high rise housing. As the 20th century progressed, deepening economic uncertainty and ever increasing housing demand following the

3.0 slum clearance


By the 1960s the urban conurbation of Tyneside had become largely dependent on the heavy industries along the Tyne River, with at least a quarter of all workers in Tyneside employed in locally traditional sectors of engineering, mining or shipbuilding. This was double the proportion of any other conurbation in Britain (Robinson, 1988). The influx of workers attracted by these industries through the late 19th and early 20th centuries had caused the inevitable overcrowding in the central areas of Newcastle. Whilst the middle classes had already left the urban centres for higher grounds in the new suburbs, the demand for low cost housing led to an urban sprawl along the riverside. Villages built for the workers of early riverside industries, once described as charming rural communities were consumed by urban corridors of mass terraced housing. This meant street upon street of densely packed and often poor quality housing built to meet booming demands, where workers needed to live close to their place of employment as commuting was not then possible (Rowe, 1981). From the older piecemeal tenements familiar with the city centre and the cottages of rural workers, the style of house building changed to new linear terraces. This new type of housing was usually in the form of the Tyneside flat, which became synonymous with 19th century house building in the north east. These standard terraced units were easily adaptable to suit either the middle or working classes and could even contain retail units. The flexible design usually gave some access to outside toilets and water in a private backyard, traditionally non-existent in older houses

structurally sound housing marked for demolition in byker, 1973

which were usually based around communal courtyards and alleys (Pearce, 1994). A lot of house building along these new urban corridors was carried out by conscientious employers to accommodate the needs of their workers, with the average family having considerably more space than those living in the older tenements of the city centre. With the lack of proper regulations however, most of the booming housing demand in these areas was met by speculative developers building to a low quality standard, with tightly packed houses, in narrow streets. Some of the new workers housing was described as a very sorry affair indeed, and its name is not easily accounted for, except by the supposition that it was built for little men with little wives and no families (Pickering, 1981, p.13).
kitchen

yard yard

kitchen

parlour bedroom

parlour

typical 19th century tyneside ground and first floor flat layout

These suburbs across Tyneside, which had exploded in size during the industrial revolution, had begun to fall into rapid decline by the early 20th Century. This was most likely as a result of war damage, continually increasing overcrowding and a reduction in coal mining and heavy industry, brought on by economic difficulties. This inevitably caused unemployment levels to rise significantly, and rates of poverty began to escalate as a result. By the mid 20th century, the local authorities on Tyneside determined that between 50,000 to 100,000 dwellings were below the minimum required standards and unfit for habitation (English, Madigan and Norman, 1976). Though this considerably of post-war of Tyneside level of apparent slum housing was still lower than in most other conurbations Britain (Burns, 1993), the local councils became particularly renowned for their

homes to re-house families displaced by war damage, were presenting an acute housing problem for local authorities, particularly in Newcastle (Faulkner, Beacock and Jones, 2006). The governments national slum clearance policies, which were carried out across Britain in the mid 20th century, emerged as a response to widespread urban squalor and were considered the only rational means to deal with the these social problems. Among the first national policies relating to slum clearance was the war time Prime Minister, David Lloyd Georges, Homes fit for Heroes scheme in 1918. This was apparently intended to improve urban housing stock but was more accurately a blunt and vast slum clearance programme targeting all inner-cities across the country (Power and Mumford, 2003).
elswick slum clearance in progress, 1963

somewhat zealous approach to relentless slum clearance and autocratic redevelopment. This is believed to have been a root cause of the enduring sense of mistrust towards local authorities from the communities affected by comprehensive master planning. The autocratic planning of the 1960s when Newcastle became nationally renowned for innovation in housing policy and city centre renewal, but also for accusations of what was termed evangelistic bureaucracy, which created an autocratic and non-pragmatic planning atmosphere. (Coaffee, 2004, p. 450). The somewhat tenacious attitudes of the local authorities at the time were thought to be a response to the desperate conditions inherited in a post industrial era of social decline. The high density of tightly packed terraced housing of the old industrial areas had long been in decline and the use of prefabricated

These policies have their origins in legislation emerging from the mid 19th century. Initially Nuisance Removals Acts were introduced in the 1840s allowing local health officers to inspect houses and prohibit dwellings which were considered injurious to health (English, Madigan and Norman, 1976). The first actual laws dealing with the issues of slum clearance did not fully emerge until the introduction of the Artizans and Labourers Act 1868. This apparently unethical policy required the owners of unacceptable properties beyond reasonable repair, to demolish their own houses, at their own expense, if it was considered that these houses did not meet the minimum requirements for habitation. The government took no further responsibility to purchase the cleared land or even re-house the displaced owner, or more commonly their tenants (Great Britain.

poor quality post war housing in fawdon, 1957

hulme crescents in manchester, 1970s

Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act 1868).

particularly poor with one in particular as An area of medium-rise walk-up flats, built in 1954 and described Those who were evicted as a result of the policy were by one councillor as a barracks even before they were simply expected to fend for themselves and find more opened (Brown, 1983, p.104). suitable accommodation. It took until the 1920s, as council housing developments were becoming It was believed by many that local authorities across widespread, for local authorities to begin assuming Britain, utilising autocratic planning systems, often the responsibility of re-housing residents displaced by arbitrarily flattened structurally sound houses, scattering slum clearance (English, Madigan and Norman, 1976). deep rooted communities in the process, often among the new rapidly built, poor quality council estates which These controversial slum clearance policies would go on would decline faster than the apparent slums they had across Tyneside and throughout most of Britain largely replaced (Hetherington, 2004). unchecked until the early 1970s. It was becoming apparent by this time that many of the new housing Some of these new developments were almost developments replacing those considered slums, were immediately considered housing failures, like the iconic arguably built to a standard barely any higher than the Hulme Crescents development in Manchester which houses they replaced (Smith, 1970). was described by its own local authority as an absolute Some new developments on Tyneside were considered disaster, it shouldnt have been planned and it shouldnt

have been built (FastF0rward, 2008). The damage to the social fabric caused through these pragmatic national and local planning strategies would have the affect of creating a lasting distrust from communities across Britain towards social housing policy which continues to prevail today (Coaffee, 2004). The culmination of 20th century urban development around Tyneside occurred in the 1960s with a comprehensive redevelopment of the urban centres and suburbs of Newcastle and Gateshead. Some of the key figures behind urban regeneration in the 60s were the leader of the city council T. Dan Smith and his appointed City Planner Wilfred Burns. Their vision was to sweep away the congested and outdated infrastructure and architecture of Newcastle and its suburbs to create a modern adaptable city, appropriate for a regional capital. He will always be damned for the architectural heritage the city lost but the crass piece meal approach of his predecessors unite dhabitation, sectional diagram showing arrangement of public spaces would almost certainly have cost it more (North East These principles were supported by the success of Le Free Thinkers: T Dan Smith, 2009). Corbusiers Unite dHabitation in Marseilles. Corbusiers vision was to create a new concept of living based on a Although considered by many to be somewhat cruise liner were the personal space of the individual is misguided, Smiths vision for the old riverside suburbs reduced to allow greater communal space and shared was arguably heroic, sweeping away the old slums public facilities. Crucially the Unite block was built to of Newcastle to develop new estates based on the a high standard of construction, carefully following modernist principles set out by Le Corbusier. Our new principles of geometry and responding to its context. layout, employing the same area and housing the same number of people, would show great blocks of houses This basic theory became popular with local authorities with successive set-backs, stretching along arterial across Britain and is believed to have been a key avenues. No more courtyards, but flats opening on influence in the rapid development of high rise every side to air and light (Le Corbusier, 1927, p. 61). estates. Unfortunately with the necessity of cost saving measures, the reality of these visions would often fall

derwent tower interior plan showing indefensible space

Grunwald and Krohn, 2007) The walls were solid with no insulation to create an acoustic barrier, I could hear everyones TV and I had to turn my own up to drown it out. It was never peaceful (Clark, 2011)1. The impact of the decision to cut costs can perhaps be attributed as one of the fundamental problems with high rise. With no emphasis on public spaces, communal areas were often an afterthought, becoming inherently dark and intimidating. A crucial factor derwent tower diagram showing lack of integrated public space creating defensible space and the associated sense of drastically short of Le Corbusiers modernist ideals. security is to allow natural surveillance. following the barest thread of rationalism: the search for the most economic solution; a way of housing the This was generally lacking within high rise units, often most within the least (Newman, 1973, p. 25). designed externally within isolated grounds away from the public street, and internally with enclosed stairwells These cost implications would often result in the and double loaded corridors. substandard construction of high rise blocks, creating apartments which offered little acoustic privacy, and Most crime occurs in the visually deprived semi-public sacrificing public space for additional population interiors of buildings: the lobbies, halls, elevators, and density, converse to the modernist principle. (Janson, 1 Conversation with Craig Clark, 2 November 2011, See Appendix A.

lifeless tower grounds in shieldfield, 2011

serve creating unanimated and intimidating areas. There were a few fields around the building, but again, they didnt feel any secure. Just sort of Chavs, lets call them unsociable. They were basically littered with crap left by binge drinking youths. Not necessarily somewhere you would want to spend any time (Clark, 2011)2.

fire stairs. However, it is possible, through the relative juxtaposition of apartment windows with stairs and corridors, as well as with the outside, to ensure that all public and semiprivate spaces and paths come under continual and natural observation by the projects residents (Newman, 1973. p.80).

diagram of a tower in shieldfield showing residents feeling of safety reducing with height

The disastrous Hulme Crescent development is an extreme case which illustrates the impact of these fundamental design flaws. Conceived poorly on the much admired Georgian Bath Crescent, the Hulme development had a vast density of around 13,000 people in small urban area. This density was offset by These public spaces, particularly external spaces large areas of green space and a series of public decks, were largely anonymous and would quickly become in accordance with modernist ideals. Disassociated with the towers they were supposed to 2 Conversation with Craig Clark, 2 November 2011, See Appendix A.

hulme crescents in manchester, 1970s

However, typical of such high density blocks the residents felt no ownership and the public spaces had little association to the flats they served. This would result in the wider development becoming infamous for a wide array of social problems including violent crime, drug abuse and suicide. In Hulme you are at least 30 times more likely to be mugged or murdered than the national average and 3 times more likely to show clinical symptoms of stress (FastF0rward, 2008).

3.0 comprehensive redevelopment


It is a prevailing solution for local authorities across the United Kingdom to repeat the actions of their predecessors by attempting to erase the failures of their mid 20th century housing experiments through comprehensive demolition and redevelopment. This is most apparently the case on Tyneside with the local authority in Gateshead, a town which has already been subject to substantial arbitrary demolition and redevelopment in the 1960s destroying much of the towns historic character. This is evident in the councils decision regarding housing developments like the modernist St Cuthberts Village in Gateshead, which replaced an area of housing considered by the local authority to be uninhabitable. Despite being hailed as a heroic vision for the future of housing, the development was in fact considered a catastrophic failure and was quickly subject to partial demolition within just twenty years of its construction. The plastic faded, the work was shoddy; And now, ye cant find anybody; Not from the Cooncil, nor the folks roond here; Who thought them flats were a good idea; Theyve all var nye disappeared; With a huge Cooncil debt, uncleared. (Bratton, 1973). With construction approved for the village in 1967, the existing 19th century terraced houses on the site, having been designated as slums, were demolished. A new modernist development consisting of fourteen tower blocks connected by deck access, and a number of surrounding low rise units, were built amidst much celebration from the council, even winning a civic trust award (Glendinning, 2010).
st cuthberts village, 1970s

st cuthberts village internal corridors, 1986s

st cuthberts road with only remaining tower, 2009

It quickly became apparent however, that the estate was a housing failure, as living standards were in rapid decline, thought to be influenced by increasing unemployment and subsequent crime and anti-social behavioural problems. In some cases, shortages in adequate housing stock left large families sharing tiny, awkwardly arranged and unpleasant flats. A resident of the old St Cuthberts Village described the conditions as a dark labyrinth of concrete walkways and damp entrances to flats clustered at the end of intimidating corridors. The dark corridors had no windows to see into them so as a kid I used to sneak down and tie all the door handles together so nobody could open their doors properly and they had to squeeze out to get untangled. I only did it because I was bored but thinking back its things like that which are probably the reasons everyone hated it there and

undeveloped wasteland of demolished st cuthberts village, 2009

gateshead car park, 2009

derwent tower (the rocket) & tower court maisonettes, 2010


1

nobody had any respect for that place (Clark, 2011) . Today a new low rise development of modern houses and apartments occupies part of the St Cuthberts Village site, with only one tower block and a somewhat redundant road bridge remaining of the original development.

Decades on, the legacy of the decision to demolish St Cuthberts Village is that despite an ever increasing demand for social housing in Gateshead, a large part Perhaps the most contentious issue of demolition over of the site remains empty, slowly becoming wasteland refurbishment is taking place on the famous Derwent Tower on the failed Ravensworth Road housing in a prime central location (English Heritage, 2007). development. Known locally as The Rocket due to In recent years Gateshead Council have taken the its unique cylindrical buttressed design, the 29 storey decision to continue this arguably ill fated legacy of tower has become a local landmark and architectural comprehensive redevelopment in the demolition of icon defining an otherwise unremarkable suburb of 1 Conversation with Craig Clark, 9 November 2011, See Appendix A. 2 Conversation with Owen Luder, 10 February 2011, See Appendix A.

much its town centre, including the iconic Gateshead Car Park. The demolition of the mid 20th century modernist developments of Clasper Village and the Ravensworth Road estate are also proceeding as the council attempt to resolve on-going anti-social behavioural issues, despite evident community opposition. The council have a policy to bring the town up to date which just means getting rid of the past. All the architectural features of Gateshead will be gone (Luder, 2011)2.

uninspiring hebburn new town development in south tyneside, 1994

unite dhabitation in marseilles, 2007

Gateshead. Since, the demolition of the Gateshead Car Park, the Derwent Tower has become one of the last brutalist architectural landmarks of Gateshead, which the town became synonymous with during its 1960s regeneration.

The tower, now standing empty, has become a bleak symbol of the worst failings of high rise social housing in the mid 20th century. Despite this, its robust design and its architectural presence makes this high rise apartment block unique among the featureless local authority designed modernist tower blocks appearing elsewhere on Tyneside around this period. The brutalist form of the tower, though despised by many, is at the very least provocative, with a bold design sharing none of the mediocrity of most high rise schemes in the The reality of this however, falls drastically short of this surrounding areas. modernist vision with the tower said to be representing
3 Conversation with Owen Luder, 10 February 2011, See Appendix A.

The idea of building high rise on the Ravensworth Road site was originally opposed by the Rockets architect Owen Luder, who claimed the site was unsuitable. Back then the council, in a petty competition with Newcastle, wanted three of the tallest towers on Tyneside. I told them the site couldnt handle it, the river was too close and there had been too much mining, deep and open cast (Luder, 2011)3. Nevertheless the local authority insisted on high rise and a solution was conceieved with a single tower as a central landmark with the rest of the estate as low rise maisonettes. This was apparently influenced, similiar to many modernist housing schemes, by principles of Le Corbusiers Unite dHabitation.

evidence of reinforced concrete failure on the rocket, 2003

the rocket basement car park, 2002

all that was wrong with the past, when buildings were designed and created as architectural exercises rather than places to live (Gateshead Housing Company, 2010). Predominantly as a result of cost implications, the building, incorporates no public space, does not conform to a high standard of construction and does not offer spacious, healthy living conditions, conducive with the modernist vision. Furthermore, the tower, set amidst a labyrinth of concrete walkways, (which were subsequently removed), immediately became an intimidating place, associated with crime and other social problems. The unusual structural design of the Rocket, responding to the difficult site was an untested exercise in reinforced concrete, which has apparently caused problems for the council since the tower was built (Beatty, 2011).

Further design issues, particularly with the towers small, poorly equipped flats made achieving a diverse tenure or any sense of community impossible. This was perhaps the towers worst failing, as it became fundamentally undesirable. The lack of social diversity in the tower led to severe social issues contributing to the buildings rapid decline. The small flats could not accommodate families and the difficult access made the tower inappropriate for the elderly or disabled, and residents complained of feeling intimidated in the public spaces of the tower, particularly its underground parking (Turner, 2011). The majority of residents in the tower were invariably small single parent families or unemployed individuals; social groups in the local area typically associated with anti-social behaviour, alcohol and drug abuse, and other social problems.

evidence of violent criminal activity within the rocket, 2003

neglect and poor maintenance in the rocket, 2003-2011

According to Gateshead Council, this study indicates that over 99% of tower residents and 96% of the wider community would like to see the demolition of the Derwent Tower. However, the information provided in this study on behalf of the council is highly ambiguous and could not be verified, with the little evidence of Recent studies carried out by an agent on behalf of research behind these statistics being referenced from the local authority determined that residents and vague data sources (GVA Grimley, 2008). locals wanted to see the tower demolished, although the validity of the study has been questioned by the All of these studies also took place between 2005 and
4 Conversation with John Mathie, 6 January 2011, See Appendix A. 5 Conversation with Owen Luder, 10 February 2011, See Appendix A.

Unfortunately, many of the Rockets residents were also considered transient, where they normally occupy the tower for less than two years. These conditions, with a lack of public space, are believed to have contributed to the lack of desire from residents to form relationships or any sense of community. The general lack of interest and neglect from residents, along with a failure to maintain and update the building by the local authority, has led to the currently uninhabitable condition of the tower today. Its a shame but the building is beset with problems from years of neglect, nobody wants to live there (Mathie, 2011)4.

Rockets architect. They let it ruin, waited for half the residents to get fed up and move out, and then asked the remaining few whether they wanted something better to justify demolishing it. Of course they want something better the council never looked after it (Luder, 2011)5.

2008. Since this time, the global credit crunch has caused a rapid fall in house prices across Britain with a subsequent fall in house building (BBC News, 2009). It is believed that this is likely to have affected public opinion in relation to demolition of housing stock, and a study carried out in 2011 for a student design project indicated that ten out of ten locals randomly questioned would like to see the tower restored6. The Area Planning Team within Gateshead Councils Environment and Regeneration department, accepted that the results may have been more positive in favour of demolition as the study was taken before the onset of global housing market slump, but insisted that demolition was still the only feasible option. Now even if we wanted to refurbish the tower it would simply be too expensive and even if we were to give it away for free there would no developers who would take it on as its simply not financially viable (Jones, 2011)7. Despite the evident failings of the Derwent Towers design and the cost cutting construction leading to structural issues, the building has become an iconic local landmark, integral with the industrial heritage of Dunston. Unlike, other residential tower blocks built around the same time, the towers architect Owen Luder insists that the robust structure of the Rocket would allow a flexible approach to its refurbishment. In an interview with the Architects Journal, Luder accused Gateshead Council of deliberately neglecting the tower, insisting that refurbishment was feasible despite the local authority claiming otherwise. The council has allowed, indeed encouraged, deterioration but these
6 Local Area Satisfaction Survey, See Appendix B. rocket restoration design project visual 7 Conversation with Gemma Jones, 18 November 2011, See Appendix A.

local authority visual for ravensworth road redevelopment, 2010

flats can be brought up to modern standards and the Rocket kept as the landmark in the new development (Tharp, 2009). The complex structure will also make the demolition a slow and hugely expensive process, leaving the towers site permanently contaminated with a three storey deep concrete caisson foundation which can never be removed (Mathie, 2011). The demolition has already proved costly and is presently over two years behind schedule. Although work has slowly begun to start on site, the council still have no clear deadline for the demolition and no time-frame for redevelopment following the clearance of the site. Lacking the finance to re-develop the site once the demolition is complete, the local authority are reliant
poorly conceived redevelopment plan for ravensworth road, 2010

gateshead councils proposal for a new landmark replacing the rocket, 2009

generic developer built housing estate in gateshead, 2012

on private developers taking on the project, providing new housing and a landmark commercial centre for the area. Our short term goal is to clear the site, green it and restore old footpaths to make it more attractive to developers (Jones, 2009)8. A number of schemes have been proposed for the site but as yet no developers are believed to have shown interest in the site. The councils poorly conceived schemes for redevelopment have been criticised as a repeat of the arbitrary master planning which led to the first Ravensworth Road development (Turner, 2011). The proposed schemes do not react to the historic context of the site nor does it even sufficiently meet the social housing demand in the area.

from the existing high street, and the only public space on the site would be the concrete plate which remains of the Derwent Towers foundation and an essential flood relief zone. Similar to many other private sector housing developments appearing on Tyneside, this scheme is at risk of becoming a generic and anonymous estate, lacking any architectural character or critical regionalism.

A bid to achieve listed status for the Rocket, supported by the Twentieth Century Society was rejected in 2010, apparently as English Heritage were unable to give a compelling case to save the tower. However, an officer from Gateshead Councils in house Property and Design Services referred to an arguably underhanded plan to block any potential listing bids by initiating a The new commercial centre would also be separated planning application to install flagpoles on the tower and surrounding maisonettes (McNulty, 2011). 8 Conversation with Gemma Jones, 18 November 2011, See Appendix A.

local authority visual for ravensworth road redevelopment, 2010

Under current legislation, a building cannot be granted listed status whilst a planning permission request is outstanding (Great Britain. Planning [Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas] Act 1990). This effectively blocked the listing bid whilst the application was delayed through planning, giving the local authority the time to obtain a certificate of immunity from listing, subsequently sealing the towers fate (Mathie, 2010).

4.0 refurbishment
In some urban conurbations of Britain, the high rise modernist developments built during the mid 20th century social housing experiments have been identified as landmarks and local authorities are following the arguably more enlightened model of building re-use where possible. This has already become a common response in the capital where property prices have encouraged private redevelopment of old social housing units, with iconic buildings like the Barbican having been partly restored and have subsequently become sought after places to live. Indeed it is believed by many, that if the Derwent Tower had been built in London, it would have been privately refurbished years ago, as discussed by the towers architect in his lecture to the RIBA North East (Luder, 2010). This model of building re-use is slowly becoming more common in the rest of Britain as a response to more sustainable approaches to housing policy being encouraged by the government. This is particularly the case through English Heritage and CABE who advocate building re-use where possible, although this is not always the case in their view towards high rise buildings. Tall building guidance documents refer to opportunities for the removal of past mistakes and their replacement by development of an appropriate quality (Great Britain. English Heritage and CABE, 2007, p.3). A prevalent example of imaginative refurbishment of high rise 1960s housing is currently underway at the iconic grade II listed Park Hill in Sheffield, Europes largest listed building. Like many high rise housing schemes across Britain, the Park Hill estate was

refurbished hawthorns tower on cruddas park, 2010

park hill, 1972

park hill regeneration proposal, 2008

considered a housing failure, though its striking and unique brutalist design had merited its listed status. Arguably a victim of circumstance, Park Hill had been designed to respond to desperate post war conditions, but was built into an era of steady industrial decline.For the first decade or so Park Hill was regarded as paradise for those who lived there in contrast to what they had before, but over the years things began to go wrong. The three industries that had made Sheffield great ceased to exist, the management of Park Hill changed, the building fabric was allowed to deteriorate, and it was used as a place to dump difficult tenants (Smith, 2011). The apparently bold vision to modernise and reinvigorate the estate, rather than demolish and start again, was conceived predominantly by the architects Urban Splash working with Sheffield City Council.

However, the proposal to refurbish was met with much contention within the city council as the powerful opposition Liberal Democrat party wanted to see the demolition of the estate claiming the 35 million investment required from the local authority could be better spent elsewhere (Waite, 2006). Despite this, approval for the scheme was granted and the works have proceeded with units within the development proving popular, even before its completion. As intended by the original visionaries of high rise living, the redeveloped Park Hill estate will sacrifice private accommodation density to integrate dedicated public facilities such as shops, bars, cafes and parkland (Urban Splash, 2011). Orienting external spaces and opening up lobbies and circulation to create natural surveillance and promote community integration is also a key element in the re-design to create a safe

newcastle central area redevelopment model, 1960s

scotswood road, 1910

and sociable environment. In Newcastle on Tyneside, the legacy of comprehensive demolition and redevelopment is deeply rooted, with much of the cities historical context swept away to create modernist developments in the 1960s and 70s. Similar to Gateshead, Newcastle proceeded with a policy of comprehensive redevelopment involving slum clearance programmes targeting industrial era housing and erasing historic communities, to build uninspiring high rise developments. With Newcastles shortage of building land you could develop the massive Greenfield estates outside the citys boundaries or demolish the slums and rebuild. Like most authorities they were sold the high rise dream. It only takes 10 men to do anything, so long as they agree on what they want to do (North East Free Thinkers: T Dan Smith, 2009).

One key area subject to this imperious mid 20th century planning strategy was Elswick in Newcastles west end, in particular the Scotswood Road area. These historic communities went back to the 19th century when Newcastles west end had been one of the industrial hubs of Tyneside, with booming manufacturing and mining industries. It was said that the road was lined with so many public houses that it was impossible to count them, perhaps because many who tried followed the time honoured routine of having a drink in each (The Times, 2009). With industry along the riverside in sharp decline through the post war years, the levels of unemployment were rapidly increasing having a significant effect on levels of poverty. The council, led by the infamous T. Dan Smith, determined that the former industrial areas had become slums and set out a comprehensive

Table 2 Comparative growth of population in the suburbs of Newcastle, 1831-1901

cruddas park high rise, 2011

redevelopment plan which would clear away the apparently overcrowded and dirty historic streets. This would clear the way for new experimental high rise modernist developments as part of Smiths vision for a modern Newcastle (The Times, 2009). This lead to the creation of the Cruddas Park development, one of T. Dan Smiths most contentious visions; the future of modern social housing. Since the mid 19th century Elswick had grown faster than any other suburb on Tyneside (See Table 2), with a massive population increase of nearly 12000% by the turn of the 20th century, (Pearce, 1994). This had led to creation of some of the most densely packed and lowest quality housing on Tyneside, though the communities had become close knit (The Times, 2009). Comparative growth of population in the suburbs of

This level of growth proved massively unsustainable and as early as the 1930s the council had already described the area as suffering chronic congestion with high mortality rates and increasing crime and unemployment (Brown & Cousins, 1983). Despite this, the subsequent slum clearance of the area in the 1960s was considered to be somewhat arbitrary by many of the communities affected, sweeping away the historic fabric of the area, without regard for the deeply rooted community ties which existed there. Charing houses from 1958 Dan is also blamed for the destruction of working class communities. People dream it differently he argued, remembering instead the rats on Scotswood Road, as hungry as the tenants; demand for re-housing as high as the levels of disease; not a single pupil from a riverside school passing the 11+ in 1956 (North East Free Thinkers: T Dan Smith,

t. dan smith, 1960s

wasteland in scotswood created through arbitrary demolition, 2008

2009).

This would inevitably lead to a deeply embedded antipathy between the remaining disparate communities and the local authority, which still exists on many levels today. There was significant conflict between the citizen and the official as the latter attempted to impose their theories, visions and even fantasies on the area in an all-out effort to abolish the past This strategy of comprehensive redevelopment has and to manufacture the future through comprehensive continued to prevailed in Newcastle as it has in planning (Gower Davies, 1972, p. 2-3). Gateshead and across Britain, with plans even suggested to demolish the award winning Byker Wall. Unexpectedly There is evidence of this in the ongoing dispute between however, this proposal resulted in a successful, if not residents and the local authority in dealing with the contentious campaign to have the estate listed, similar regeneration of the Scotswood area today. The council, to Park Hill due to its architectural merit. Originally following a poorly conceived plan of comprehensive intended as another generic replication of modernist redevelopment in response to the social issues of the housing developments appearing elsewhere in area, has left vast amounts of empty space where Newcastle around the mid 20th century, the distinctive

substantial areas of housing have been demolished with the land left vacant for many years. This ongoing course of demolition, often without clear redevelopment proposals, has continued to cause antagonism amongst the remaining communities leaving little trust towards local authority housing regeneration decisions (Coaffee, 2004).

byker wall raby gate, 2009

art deco entrance to poplars tower in cruddas park, 2011

design of Byker Wall, was a response to an unusually cohesive community atmosphere in Byker. The estates architect Ralph Erskine based the design on the historic context of the site whilst maintaining community integration, resulting in the arguably more successful social atmosphere, though the estate is not without its critics (Collymore, 1994). In the spirit of restoring some of the lost community cohesion in Elswick, the local authority in Newcastle adopted a new approach in dealing with the social issues emerging on the high rise Cruddas Park estate during the late 1980s. Rather than repeating a program of demolition and reconstruction, the council made the bold decision to deal with the estates anti-social behavioural problems through community intervention. Residents were given

a stake in their own areas in an attempt to encourage a restoration of lost community pride. Furthermore, the council made substantial evictions of problem tenants, and refurbished the towers entrances in an art deco style, with a concierge desk and modern flat entry systems (Pickford-Jones, 2011). Unfortunately, this policy was largely unsuccessful, perhaps due to the limited nature of the refurbishment strategy. Other than cosmetic updates, the fundamental design of the towers remained the same, lacking social spaces and with external areas remaining disconnected from the towers. These spaces remained indefensible and intimidating, doing little to improve the community interaction of the towers residents as was intended. This type of anti-social community atmosphere has been linked with residents feeling isolated and having little respect for their own flats or the communal areas

riverside dene (cruddas park) refurbishment proposals, 2008

riverside dene phases 1 (blue) and 2 (red), 2008

more thorough, albeit somewhat generic, modernisation of ten of the estates towers, five of which would be At a cost of 97.4 million, the scheme would involve remodelled as social housing, with the remaining five completely re-configuring the towers to create new sold as buy to live units (Robbie, 2007). internal spaces and a new facade treatment to all of the towers to modernise their image. Each tower would By also creating some duplex apartments within the also be topped with an illuminated colour changing towers, the council intended to create a more diverse lantern with the intention of creating a more evocative selection of apartments sizes, some of which could create skyline, as the towers enjoy a prominent position on a suitable environment for larger families. It was hoped the steep north bank of the Tyne Gorge. Additional that this would encourage a mixed tenure which would funding was also sourced from the Energy Savings Trust promote community interaction. Further improvements and One North East to install a district biomass heating would also take place to the public spaces around the boiler to supply the refurbished flats, in line with the towers to better associate the external spaces with the governments green policies (Robbie, 2007). apartments, which was identified as a problem in the Whilst this scheme is perhaps more socially responsible original Cruddas Park development. The council also than the alternative demolition and redevelopment, committed to a refurbishment of the local commercial this model of private sector partnered refurbishment is centre in keeping with its new look towers (Newcastle not without limitations. Newcastle City Council claim to City Council, 2008). be unable to finance the redevelopment independently

riverside dene duplex apartment proposal, 2008

riverside dene skyline, 2011

of the towers they live in (Newman, 1973).

and rely of private sector partners to carry out the works. In return for this, the private sector partners Despite the apparent lack of success with previous make profits from property sales in five of the towers refurbishments, in 2008 the local authority took the and beneficial maintenance contracts on the remaining decision to continue this policy of refurbishment over social housing units. demolition. Following on from a relatively successful scheme in Sunderland to refurbish twenty-two of the This inherent reliance on private sector partnership citys twenty-four tower blocks to good standard, the is a critical issue affecting the potential success of private developers Gentoo and Bellway were chosen refurbishment over demolition. This is particularly as private sector partners by Newcastle Council to apparent in Cruddas Park as work on the scheme began completely refurbish the Cruddas Park estate. in April 2008, around the same time of the global credit crunch and subsequent housing market slump (BBC With work starting in April 2008, the Cruddas Park estate News, 2009). Although work on four of the Cruddas Park was formally re-branded Riverside Dene at a cost of towers started on schedule, for financial reasons, the 45,000 (Hunt, 2010). The estates refurbishment would private sector partners Gentoo and Bellway pulled out, be carried out in four phases to minimise disruption abandoning the scheme. This has effectively derailed to existing tenants, with the work expected to be the scheme as the councils reliance on private sector completed April 2014. The scheme included a much partners has left them apparently unable to complete

of the housing market. Nevertheless, the local authority intend to proceed with demolition of the remaining towers. If the council had known how popular the sale of the apartments had been they may have considered continuing with the refurb as the sales could finance the development. Unfortunately I dont think they were willing to take the risk. They already took the risk in the first place and then the economic climate nearly caused a disaster (Bagnell, 2011)1. Partly similar to Gateshead Councils housing renewal policy of relying entirely on the private sector, Newcastle City Council intends to sell off the cleared site of the remaining un-refurbished areas of Cruddas Park to private developers. The council believe that once the site has been cleared and greened, expected around August 2012, it will appeal to potential developers as a viable commercial opportunity. As yet no developers have shown interest in the site, and similar to the redevelopment area in Dunston, the site will remain vacant until a time frame for redevelopment can be arranged between private developers and the affected local communities.

refurbished towers, 2011

the refurbishment. According to Your Homes Newcastle, the refurbishment of the remaining towers would cost around an additional 5.5 million of public money each. To demolish all of the remaining towers would have an overall cost of only 2 million, and would also prevent the long delays which would be inevitable in sourcing enough public funding (Bagnell, 2011). Newcastle City Council were able to authorise additional public funding to complete a fifth tower independently for private sales, but only as a means of recovering some of the substantial losses caused in the collapse of the scheme (Hunt, 2009). Unexpectedly however, the private sale tower, available only to owner occupiers, proved overwhelmingly popular with only four apartments left to sell even before completion, despite the condition

1 Conversation with Stuart Bagnell, 18 November 2011, See Appendix A.

5.0 private sector regeneration


In some inner suburban areas, a natural regeneration is taking place, mainly influenced by private sector business, private landlords and home owners. This process, sometimes associated with gentrification, occurs over a prolonged period of time where middle class or other more affluent social groups migrate into a typically deprived area, usually due to its proximity to urban and commercial centres. The most prevalent examples of this in Britain can be seen in London where high rise housing areas which may have faced demolition elsewhere in the country, have been refurbished in response to high property prices and the massive demand for housing in central areas of the capital. Even the most contentious brutalist schemes such as the barbican have been creatively refurbished, illustrating the potential flexibility of these types of structure. This type of refurbishment is becoming more common across Britain with increasing demand for character and industrial properties, and increased emphasis on sustainable development following government policies. On Tyneside the effects of this type of refurbishment can be seen in areas like Sandyford in Newcastle, and Gatesheads riverside. In these cases, housing has been built or refurbished in otherwise run down areas by private developers, as the market demand for housing in central urban areas has increased. This needs little local authority involvement and is responsible for the economic development of inner suburbs in many major conurbations across Britain. This has also however, been associated with the

The barbican housing complex in london, 2009

former industrial ochre yards site in gateshead, 2009

gentrified 19th century terraces in sandyford, 2010

displacement of poor and working class social tenants, the reputation of modernist estates was believed unable to afford increased market rate rents, though to deter more affluent residency, with prospective some argue this is an unfounded assumption (Cameron homeowners and developers predominantly targeting traditional low rise estates. and Doling, 1994). This is not necessarily the case in all inner suburbs, particularly those subjected to mid 20th century high rise and modernist redevelopment, although this trend is beginning to change. The slum clearance policies of the mid 20th century in Newcastle left large areas of entirely public owned redeveloped high density housing. These new estates would generally resist high income migration, even if it was occurring around their peripheries. This was considered to be in part down to the negative reputation of social groups on high rise estates, but is believed to be primarily related to the anonymous modernist image. These developments are widely regarded across the country as among the least attractive or desirable places to live, with residents finding it difficult to relate to their environments (Coleman, 1990).

Despite increasing private ownership of former local Estates such as this are common around the peripheries authority homes, brought on by the increasing availability of urban centres on Tyneside, a prevalent example of right to buy schemes from the late 1970s onwards, being Shieldfield in Newcastle. This was another historic community marked for slum clearance following alleged

suburban housing regeneration model of shieldfield

demolition of king charles house in shieldfield to construct tower, 1950s

These redevelopments would go on to become a strong source of lasting resentment with the local and wider community, with many people considering them to be little more than overzealous social experiments. Most of the area had declined a bit, partially by being allowed to decline by the City Council, in view of their intentions for the area. But, the decline was nothing that couldnt have been put right and parts of that area Similar to Elswick, this contentious slum clearance policy could have looked grand again, with a good quality would cause lasting antagonism within the community bit of renovation and refurbishment work done on it of Shieldfield. A persistent issue which continues to (Newcastle Historian, 2010). create bitterness is the apparently arbitrary demolition of historic housing including the grade I listed, King In some areas where the redevelopment of slumCharles House. This had famously been used as a clearance communities was never completed, some prison for King Charles I in the English Civil War, but historic terraces were retained and have subsequently was irrationally cleared to make way for a new tower been modernised, usually by owner-occupiers or private block of the same name. landlords, occasionally with investment into the public realm through public funding. Ironically, according to 1 Conversation with Mellisa Guinsberg, 2 November 2011, See Appendix A.

local authority demonization of pre-war terraces, referring to often reasonable standard homes as slum like tenements. These Victorian streets were all well built and the houses spacious but the councils in the 60s said they were slums and evicted the residents and put them in new towers with tiny, crap flats (Guinsberg, 2010)1.

victorian housing in south tyneside, adjacent to high rise development, 2012

ouseburn regeneration concept image, 2010

local estate agents, today these historic houses tend to be in considerably better condition than many of the high rise units which stand as their incongruous neighbours. The towers are really detrimental to our area. The Victorian terraces are generally all well maintained but the towers and maisonettes behind them are definitely not. Every now and then the council comes along and paints them, theyre currently pink and beige, honestly, but on the whole theyre a bit of state (Guinsberg, 2010)2. Despite a destructive impact on community cohesion caused through slum clearance and redevelopment, in some areas like Shieldfield, a strong sense of community has been maintained, particularly amongst older, preslum clearance residents. Unfortunately this remaining community atmosphere has steadily declined in recent years, believed to be in part by a continually ageing
2 Conversation with Melissa Guinsberg, 2 November 2011, See Appendix A.

population and an increasing migration of more transient social groups into the area with little interest in community integration. This changing demographic coupled with non-inclusive private sector regeneration has had the effect of creating a feeling amongst the remaining local community of been left out. This is further exacerbated by substantial public investment, over a period of years, into the regeneration of surrounding areas such as Ouseburn, Jesmond and the Quayside, with little proliferation of public expenditure into the Shieldfield area despite its central location (Drury, 2010). This lack of public investment has traditionally been a recurring grievance for residents, with Shieldfield becoming a barrier for commercial development, as Newcastles city centre has relentlessly expanded

proposed portland green, accommodation for 2000 students in shieldfield, 2010

northumbria architecture student design proposal for shieldfield green, 2011

eastwards. However, in recent years this has begun to change, since the expansion of Northumbria Universitys central campus into the Shieldfield suburb. With improved pedestrian access and investment into the public realm, the physical barriers separating Shieldfield from the city centre have become more permeable (Allum, 2010). This is widely believed to have had a positive effect on the local economy in Shieldfield, with private developers regenerating vacant sites in the area. In recent years this has predominantly been through providing student accommodation, supporting the expansion of the University, although these typically incorporate retail or cultural spaces, apparently to the benefit of the wider community. This developer led regeneration has however, had a

mixed response in the existing community with many local people feeling left out in decision making. It is a common belief among residents that students are taking over; a belief not unfounded as it likely that the transient student population of Shieldfield will far exceed the long term resident population, by 2016 (Drury, 2010). Whilst the areas regeneration has largely been developer led, Newcastle City Council has had some involvement in the progress of development. Northumbria University has also attempted to integrate itself into the area with initiatives such as the Engage Shieldfield exhibition through the School of Arts and Social Sciences as well as student projects based in the local community (Henderson, 2010).

privately funded multi-use games pitch in shieldfield, 2012

Predominantly as a result of local authority pressure on behalf of the Shieldfield community, private developers are investing directly in the regeneration of Shieldfield as is evident in a number of small civic projects in the area. These include new childrens play areas, a multiuse sports pitch and a proposed redevelopment of Shieldfields historic Green, financed and maintained for the benefit of the community, largely through private investment. Without such private investment, the local authority claim they would be unable to provide any substantial redevelopment to the area, despite its proximity to the city centre. The Council also claim that if the community were to reject a relationship with private developers, it would inhibit long term regeneration, not only in Shieldfield, but also in the wider context of Newcastle.

6.0 conclusion
Our iconic high rise housing estates, with all their negative associations, were built at a time when almost all social house building was carried out by the public sector. Politically fuelled, re-developments were often arbitrary, with too little concern for the quality of the construction and maintenance. Whilst some schemes may have been an improvement on the slumclearance housing they replaced, it would seem the destructive effect of comprehensive redevelopment on local community atmosphere has had a lasting impact on Tyneside. With inadequate maintenance and little personal stake in their own environments, it is apparent that the residents of these schemes became quickly detached and isolated from any community atmosphere. The lack of interest in their own surroundings may have contributed to the blight of social problems, which high rise developments have become synonymous with. Since the free market policies implemented by the Conservative government in the 1980s, the trend of public sector house building has almost completely reversed. Most local authorities now lack the resources to carry out urban housing renewal independently and rely on private sector developers. With increasingly limited public sector resources, regeneration and renewal is becoming virtually impossible without private sector development. A private sector it appears, which predominantly prefer to demolish existing housing stock and rebuild (Cameron, 1992). This is perhaps the primary influence in the common local authority model of demolishing high rise estates,

derwent tower demolition, 2012

authorities on Tyneside, this paper has determined that there is a significantly detrimental impact of this type of comprehensive redevelopment on community cohesion. Despite often well intentioned policies, this route invariably creates greater community disparity and increases antagonism towards a local authority. Although there is a greater financial risk to a developer and the local council, refurbishment of existing housing stock has proved feasible and often preferable by the communities affected. As this paper has identified, there is also scope to take advantage of the flexibility of existing high rise housing stock allowing an environment more adapted to mixed tenure and sustainable living, through refurbishment and installation of renewable energy sources.
long term vacant land awaiting developer interest in gateshead, 2012

as this provides a greater commercial opportunity, generally the most important factor in securing private sector investment. Another factor supporting demolition may be the negative wider public opinion of high rise through association with anti-social behaviour, which cannot be easily eradicated. Local authorities repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempt to deal with these anti-social elements by simply dispersing the entire community. This route has been widely discredited and generally considered to be an inadequate solution as the antisocial elements are not eliminated but merely moved elsewhere, potentially causing similar problems on other deprived estates.

Unfortunately, it seems that despite their good intentions, local authorities fundamentally lack the resources, and sadly the vision, to deal with social housing issues without private sector involvement. Despite having 2 million families across the country on social housing waiting lists, councils often consider themselves compelled to demolish often adequate housing stock, as refurbishment of wider estates is considered unfeasible (The Great British Property Scandal, 2011). Gateshead Council alone is thought to currently have around 12500 people on its social housing waiting lists, but despite this, the local authority have recently confirmed they will demolish all 258 dwellings in one of its failed modernist estates, Clasper Village.

Whilst recognising the financial constraints and the This decision will involve priority re-housing of the extraordinary pressure on housing faced by local existing residents onto estates elsewhere, at a cost

have been lost, large areas of vacant land will be left empty and social housing lists and community anxiety will continue to grow.

clasper village, 1970

of 2.9 million. The expected cost of refurbishing the estate would be 3 million, and this apparently saves the council 100,000 (Davies, 2011). Many critics reasonably argue that this strategy will almost certainly cost the council significantly more in the long term as this will invariably lead to further strain on the housing demand, without resolving the anti-social behavioural issues which caused the failure of the estate. The council have also taken the decision to demolish hundreds of other dwellings across a number of other sites around the borough, rather than refurbish, as a solution to similar anti-social issues (Evening Chronicle, 2011). These decisions to demolish have also been taken despite little evident interest from developers on the available land created by clearing these mid 20th century estates. As is already the case in previous demolition areas around Gateshead; architectural heritage will

7.0 references
Allum, S. (2010) Shieldfield: Borders and Boundaries, [Online]. Available at: http:// shieldfieldbordersandboundaries.blogspot.com/ (Accessed: 10 February 2012). Al-Yafai, F. (2003) Its Just Crazy. They Should Knock it Down. The Houses are Built all Wrong The Guardian (London edn.), 23 August, p.6. Bagnell, S. (2011) Telephone Conversation with Mark Carman, 18 November.* Barke, M., Callcott, M., (1994) Municipal Intervention in Housing: Constraints and Developments in Newcastle upon Tyne 1835-1914 Newcastle: Bewick Press. Barke, M., Turnbull, G (1994) Meadowell & Mythology: The Making of Problem Estate Newcastle: Bewick Press. BBC News (2009) Timeline: Credit Crunch to Downturn, 7 August [Online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/ fr/-/1/hi/business/7521250.stm Beatty, S (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 6 January.* Bourne, H. (1736) The History of Newcastle upon Tyne; or the ancient and present state of that town. Newcastle: John White. Bratton, J. (1973) West Street, [Online]. Available at: http://www.gateshead-history.com/twentieth-century.html (Accessed: 16 Nov 2011). Brown, M. (1983) The Structure of Disadvantage. London:

rocket restoration design project visual, 2011

Heinemann. Brown, R., Cousins, J. (1983) Employment and Deprivation in an Urban Labour Market. London: Heinemann. The Builder (1861) 13th April. Burchell, I. (2009) Visioning Document & Planning Briefs Gateshead: The Print Room. Burns, W. (1967) A Study in Replanning at Newcastle Upon Tyne. London: Leonard Hill. Burns, W. (1993) New Towns for Old: The Technique of Urban Renewal. London: Leonard Hill. Cameron, S. (1992) Housing, Gentrification and Urban Regeneration Policies Urban Studies, 29 (1), pp. 3-14 Sage [Online]. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/ content/29/1/3 (Accessed: 15 December 2011). Cameron, S., Doling, J. (1994) Housing Neighbourhoods and Urban Regeneration Urban Studies, 31 (7), pp. 12111224 Routledge [Online]. Available at: http://jr3tv3gd5w. search.serialssolutions.com (Accessed: 29 November 2011). Clark, C. (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 2 November.* Clark, C. (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 9 November.* Coaffee, J. (2004) Re-Scalling Regeneration: Experiences of merging area-based and city wide partnerships in urban policy International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17 (5), pp. 443-461 Emerald [Online]. Available at: http://

www.emeraldinsight.org (Accessed: 31 October 2010). Coleman, A (1990) Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing. London: Hilary Shipman. Colls, R., Lancaster, B. (2001) Newcastle upon Tyne: A Modern History. Chichester: Phillimore & Co. Collymore, P. (1994) The Architecture of Ralph Erskine. London: Academy Editions. Davies, K. (2011) Bosses to Justify Clasper Village Demolition, Evening Chronicle, 3 October [Online]. Available at: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-eastnews/evening-chronicle-news/2011/10/03/ (Accessed: 10 Nov 2011). Davies, K. (2011) Families Forced Out in Clasper Village Revamp, Evening Chronicle, 20 September [Online]. Available at: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-eastnews/evening-chronicle-news/2011/09/20/ (Accessed: 10 Nov 2011). Drury, M. (2011) Shieldfield 2012. San Francisco: Blurb. English, J., Madigan, F., and Norman, P. (1976) Slum Clearance: The Social and Administrative Context in England and Wales. London: Croom Helm. English Heritage (2007) St Cuthberts Court, [Online]. Available at: http://www.pastscape.org.uk (Accessed: 4 Dec 2011). Evening Chronicle (Gateshead edn.) (2011) Homes Set to Go, 21 September, p.1.

FastF0rward (2008) Hulme Crescents 1978. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1qpf9hogI0 (Accessed 17/11/2011). Faulkner, T (2011) Historic Architecture of Newcastle Upon Tyne. [Lecture to MArch Architecture Year 1]. 18 January. Gateshead Housing Company (2010) Derwent Tower Demolition Moves Closer, 6 August [Online]. Available at: http://www.gatesheadhousing.co.uk/site/scripts/news_ article.php?newsID=699 (Accessed: 9 Jan 2011). Glendinning, M. (2010) St Cuthberts Village, Bensham, Gateshead, 20 March [Online]. Available at: http://fields. eca.ac.uk/gis/ (Accessed: 16 Nov 2011). Gower Davies, J. (1972) The Evangelistic Beauracrat. London: Tavistock. Great Britian. English Heritage and CABE (2007) Guidance on Tall Buildings [Online]. Available at: http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/publications/guidance-on-tall-buildingsconsultation-2007-final/ (Accessed: 8 December 2010). Great Britain. Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act 1868: Victoria I. Chapter 130. (1868) London: The Stationery Office.

November.* GVA Grimley (2008) Ravensworth Road: Final Report. Gateshead: Gateshead Council. Henderson, T. (2010) Northumbria Uni Puts Shieldfield in the Picture, Evening Chronicle, 11 February [Online]. Available at: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-eastnews/evening-chronicle-news/2010/02/11/northumbriauni-puts-shieldfield-in-the-picture-72703-25807951/ (Accessed 10 February 2012). Hetherington, P. (2004) Society: Razed Expectations The Guardian (London edn.), 10 March, p.2. Hunt, A (2010) More Money to Redevelop Newcastle Tower Blocks, Evening Chronicle, 16 February [Online]. Available at: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-eastnews/evening-chronicle-news/2010/02/16/more-moneyto-redevelop-newcastle-tower-blocks-72703-25844580/ (Accessed 10 February 2012). Janson, A., Grunwald, A., and Krohn, C. (2007) Le Corbusier: Unit dhabitation, Marseille. Stuttgart: Axel Menges. Jones, G. (2011) Telephone Conversation with Mark Carman, 18 November.*

Great Britain. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: Elizabeth II. Chapter 1. (1990) London: The Le Corbusier (1927) Towards a New Architecture. Rev edn. Stationery Office. Oxford: Architectural Press. The Great British Property Scandal (2011) Channel 4, 5 December. Guinsberg, M. (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 2 Luder, O. (2010) John Dobson Memorial Lecture. [Lecture to RIBA North East]. 16 March. Luder, O. (2011) Telephone Conversation with Mark

Carman, 10 February.* Mathie, J. (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 6 January.* McCord, N. (1979) North East England: The Regions Development 1760-1960. Batsford: London. McNulty, M. (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 6 January. Merrick, J. (2010) Battle to Save Britains Brutalist Buildings from the Bulldozer, Independent, 6 February [Online]. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/architecture/battle-to-save-britains-brutalistbuildings-from-the-bulldozer-1890905.html# (Accessed: 8 December 2011).

3, 26 October. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ episode/b00nhmcf/The_Essay_North_East_Free_Thinkers_T_ Dan_Smith/#programme-info (Accessed: 16 November 2011). Collymore, P. (1994) The Architecture of Ralph Erskine. London: Academy Editions. Pearce, K (1994) Newcastles Tyneside Flats 1830-1900. ByLaw Housing or Cultural Phenomena? Newcastle: Bewick Press. Pepper, S., Yeomans, D. (2006) Working Class Flats in the 1930s: Steel versus Concrete [Online]. Available at: http:// www.arct.cam.ac.uk/personal-page/james/ichs/Vol%203%20 2515-2526%20Pepper.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2011).

Pickering, W. S. F. (1981) A Social History of the Diocese of Newcastle City Council (2007) New Cruddas Park Newcastle 1882-1982 Stocksfield: Oriel November/December 2007. [Leaflet obtained from Pickford-Jones, T. (2011) Cruddas Pk - Sun. 19th Nov., Newcastle City Council], 18 January 2011. 2000. [Online]. Available online: http://home.freeuk.net/ timarchive/html/body_cruddas_park.htm (Accessed on: 27 Newcastle City Council (2008) New Cruddas Park - Summer November 2011). 2008. [Leaflet obtained from Newcastle City Council], 18 January 2011. Power, A., and Mumford, K. (2003) Boom or Abandonment: Resolving Housing Conflicts in Cities. Coventry: Chartered Newcastle Historian (2010) The Newcastle Suburbs Institute of Housing. (No. 6), Skyscraper City, 13 February [Online]. Available at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread. Robbie, K. (2007) Cruddas Park Regeneration. Newcastle: php?p=51805447#post51805447 (Accessed 10 February Newcastle City Council. 2012). Robinson, F. (1988) Post Industrial Tyneside: An Economic Newman, O. (1973) Defensible Space: People and Design in and Social Survey of Tyneside in the 1980s. Newcastle the Violent City. Oxford: Architectural Press. upon Tyne: City Libraries and Arts. North East Free Thinkers: T Dan Smith (2009) BBC Radio Rose, J. (2007) Erskines Ark is Rebuilt as Byker Wins

Listing Building Design, 26 January, p.6. Rowe, D. J. (1981) The Social and Economic Characteristics of Northumberland in the 1880s Stocksfield: Oriel. Shields Daily News (1931) 25th June Shields Daily News (1932) 26th March Smith, D, T. (1970) Dan Smith: An Autobiography. Newcastle: Oriel. Smith, I (2011) Park Hills Original Architect Responds to AR Revisit, Architectural Review, 13 October [Online]. Available at: http://www.architectural-review.com/reviews/ park-hills-original-architect-responds-to-ar-revisit/8621100. article (Accessed: 19 Nov 2011). Thanaraj, M. A. (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 3 December. Tharp, J. (2009) Gatesheads Derwent Tower to be Demolished, The Architects Journal, 30 October [Online]. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5210232. article (Accessed: 19 Nov 2011). The Times (1993) T. Dan Smith; Obituary, 28 July. The Times (2009) Jimmy Forsyth: Photographer who captured the resilient spirit of a working-class community in Newcastle upon Tyne in the 1950s and 1960s, 18 July, p. 85. Turner, J. (2011) Conversation with Mark Carman, 6 January.*

Urban Splash (2011) Park Hill. Available at: http://www. urbansplash.co.uk/residential/park-hill (Accessed: 9 February 2012). Waite, R. (2006) Urban Splash in Political Storm Over Park Hill, Architects Journal, 1 March [Online]. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/urban-splashin-political-storm-over-park-hill-image/582176.article (Accessed: 19 Nov 2011).

* See Appendix A for conversation transcripts.

7.1 list of illustrations

11. Scotswood Road Old New Skyscraper City (1963) Images referenced in order of appearance. All images other [Online]. Available at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ than those specified as otherwise, are provided by the showthread.php?p=63349891. author. 12. Dorrington Road, Fawdon - Newcastle Libraries (1957) Flickr [Online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ 1 (Title Image) Derwent Tower (2011). newcastlelibraries/4083360947/in/set-72157622859845568/. 2. Ravensworth Road Site Section (2011). 3. Poplars Tower, Cruddas Park (2011). 4. Cruddas Park Housing Estate 23 July 1960 - Burn, Z (1960) [Online]. Available at: http://www.journallive.co.uk/ lifestyle-news/newcastle-features/2011/07/13/interviewphotographer-and-author-john-grindrod-61634-29041182/. 5. Over London By Rail - Dore, G (1872). 6. Newcastle upon Tyne - Turner, J. M. W. (1823) Rivers of England. 7. Addys Entry, Sellers Entry, Sandgate Armstrong, H. (1894) On the Waterfront: An Historical Tour of Newcastles Quayside. 8. Wyther Estate House - University of the West of England (1921) [Online]. Available at: http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/ video/cd_new_demo/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/ section3.htm. 9. Byker - Loud, P (1973) [Online]. Available at: http://www. peterloud.co.uk/photos/Newcastle/Nc_2.html. 10. Tyneside Flat - Pearce, K. (1994) Newcastles Tyneside Flats 1830-1900. By-Law Housing or Cultural Phenomena?. 13. Urban Decay in Europe - Jonesy55 (1970-1990) [Online] Available at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ showthread.php?t=1463468&page=4. 14. Unite dHabitation Section (2011). 15. Derwent Tower Elevation (2011). 16. Derwent Tower Floor Plan (2011). 17. King Charles Tower - Drury, M. (2011) Shieldfield 2012. 18. Pandon Court Plaza (2010) 19. Hulme Estate - Jonesy55 (1970-1990) [Online]. Available at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread. php?t=1463468&page=4. 20. St Cuthberts Village Bensham, 1981 - Ermel, T. J. (1981) [Online]. Available at: http://isee.gateshead.gov.uk/ Local%20Studies%20Photos/Jpgs/GL005222.jpg. 21. St Cuthberts Village Interior - Tower Block (1986) [Online]. Available at: http://fields.eca.ac.uk/gis/?p=466. 22. St Cuthberts Street (2009).

23. Askew Road Wasteland (2009). 24. Gateshead Indoor Market / Trinity Centre - Hook, R. (2009) [Online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ hookie/4269681037/. 25. The Rocket and Tower Court (2011). 26. Hebburn New Town Estate - Tower Block (1994) [Online]. Available at: http://fields.eca.ac.uk/gis/?cat=66. 27. Unite dHabitation - Narwell, K. (2007) Flickr [Online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ clydehouse/2056429132/. 28. Concrete Repairs - Gateshead Council (2003). 29. Basement Swastika - Gateshead Council (2002).

37. Hawthorns Tower - Paul Santos (2010). 38. Park Hill - Sheffield FM (1982) Park Hill [Online]. Available at: http://www.sheffield-fm.co.uk/park_hill.htm 39. Park Hill Regeneration Proposal - Stephens, A (2008) Ugliest Building in Europe Makes English Heritages Conservation Top 20. [Online]. Available at: http://www. telegraph.co.uk/news/3152020/Ugliest-building-in-Europemakes-English-Heritages-conservation-Top-20.html 40. Central Area Redevelopment Model Burns, W. (1967) A Study in Replanning at Newcastle Upon Tyne. 41. Scotswood Road - Newcastle Historian (1910 [Online]. Available at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread. php?t=982536&page=57. 42. Cruddas Park High Rise (2011).

30. Violent Axe Attack - Gateshead Council (2003). 31. Maintenance Neglect - Gateshead Council (2003). 32. The Rocket Restoration Design Proposal (2011). 33. Ravensworth Road Redevelopment Proposals Gateshead Council (2010) 34. Ravensworth Road Landmark Photomontage - Burchell, I. (2009) Visioning Document & Planning Briefs 35. Quay Court Housing Estate (2009). 47. Poplars Tower Entrance (2011) 36. Ravensworth Road Elevations - Marc McNulty (2010) Ravensworth Road Planning Submission. 48. Refurbishment Proposal - Newcastle City Council (2008) New Cruddas Park - Summer 2008. 44. Dan Smith - Colls, R., Lancaster, B. (1966) Newcastle upon Tyne: A Modern History. 45. Scotswood Wasteland (2008). 46. Rabygate - Byker, C. (2006) Flickr [Online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/visualadventurer/1541039229/ 43. Comparative Growth Table - Pearce, K (1994) Newcastles Tyneside Flats 1830-1900. By-Law Housing or Cultural Phenomena?

61. Shieldfield Green Proposal Model (2011). 49. Site Proposal - Newcastle City Council (2008) New Cruddas Park - Summer 2008. 50. Duplex Apartment Riverside Dene (2008) [Online]. Available at: http://www.riversidedene.co.uk/category/ image-galleries/riverside-dene 51. Riverside Dene (Cruddas Park) Flats at Night - Burton, G (2011) Flickr [Online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/ photos/12087513@N00/6260636684/ 52. Cruddas Park Refurbished Towers (2011). 53. Barbican, London Bardino, M (2009) Flickr [Online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ myriamba/3759002328/ 54. Ochre Yards, Gateshead Riverside (2009). 55. Kelvin Grove, Sandyford (2010). 56. Shieldfield Redevelopment Model Burns, W. (1967) A Study in Replanning at Newcastle Upon Tyne. 57. King Charles House - Remembering Historic Newcastle (1950) [Online] Available at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ showthread.php?t=982536&page=2 58. St Rollox Street, Hebburn (2012). 59. Stepney Bank Photomontage (2011). 60. Portland Green - Staunton, A., White, F. (2011) Shieldfield 2012. 62. MUGA Pitch, Shieldfield (2012). 63. Derwent Tower Demolition - OHeed, K (2012) Skyscraper City [Online]. Available at: http://www. skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=87080031 64. Oakfield Terrace Demolition Site (2012). 65. Palmerston Walk, Clasper Village, Gateshead iSee Gateshead (1970) [Online]. Available at: http://isee. gateshead.gov.uk/detail.php?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=fell &record=517 66. Rocket Restoration Evening Visual (2011).

8.0 appendix
a. interview transcripts b. ravensworth road local satisfaction survey c. rocket restoration design project d. shieldfield design project

a. interview transcripts
Transcripts in order of date of interview. All specified participants provided information willingly in conversations by telephone or directly with the author.

1.0 Beatty, Stephen (6 January 2011). 2.0 Mathie, John (6 January 2011). 3.0 Turner, Jill (6 January 2011). 4.0 Luder, Owen (10 February 2011). 5.0 Clark, Craig (2 November 2011). 6.0 Guinsberg, Melissa (2 November 2011). 7.0 Clark, Craig (9 November 2011). 8.0 Bagnell, Stuart (18 November 2011). 9.0 Jones, Gemma (18 November 2011).

gateshead council regeneration offices

1.0 CONVERSATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY OFFICER


[name] Stephen Beatty [date of conversation] 6 January 2011 [position] Structural Engineer [local authority] Gateshead Council [department] Property and Design Services Comments made on the condition of the Derwent Tower: The tower has some quite serious structural issues. In particular we recently had to make some repairs to the reinforced concrete as it was falling from the building. This type of construction was still experimental when the tower was built and so the technology hadnt been fully tested. Theres also been problems with the old lifts and water supply for years. At one point pigeons were nesting on the plant level and dead pigeons were turning up in the water tanks. Theres also been problems of getting water pressure to the flats since the building opened. Weve also had problems with the car park

flooding making it inaccessible as its deep below the water table. Theres too much to deal with to make it reasonable to refurbish. Every time we do any work on the Rocket there isnt enough of a budget to sort out all of the problems and it must be hell for the residents having to live in that. I couldnt live there thats for certain.

2.0 CONVERSATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY OFFICER


[name] John Mathie [date of conversation] 6 January 2011 [position] Technical Department Team Leader [local authority] Gateshead Council

money waster as nothing we can do will make that place any more habitable. The only thing we can do is demolish it and be rid. Theres a lot of opposition towards demolition, would the council not consider any other options? Its a typical architect thing to tell people how they want to live and say its a shame to knock down such an interesting building but you dont have live there.

The demolition will be complicated though. The tower is just a mass of rotten concrete and it needs to come down one floor at a time so it will take a while. The other problem we have [department] is the concrete foundation will begin to bob Property and Design Services up out of the ground as the weight of the tower Why has the council chose to demolish the reduces. Were going to have to fill it in with tower over refurbishment, even though other concrete as we go otherwise well have a three less interesting towers in Gateshead have been storey deep hole in the middle of Dunston. retained? Your right but its complicated. The other So what will happen to the foundation? towers in Gateshead are cheaper to maintain It will remain in the ground, a cost we have to and we cant just go round knocking down all accept. Well have a concrete plate on the site our social housing. The Rocket is interesting forever but I believe it will become some new but that matter of opinion and not relevant if symbolic public space. It could be quite nice. you have to live in that horrible place. Its a shame but the building is beset with problems from years of neglect, nobody wants to live there. What kind of problems? We seem to get endless jobs to sort out this or that in the Rocket, its design is too complicated and nothing is standard. Its a

3.0 CONVERSATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY OFFICER


[name] Jill Turner [date of conversation] 6 January 2011 [position] CDM Coordinator (Ravensworth Road Demolition Contract Administrator) [local authority] Gateshead Council [department] Property and Design Services Would the Council not consider refurbishing the Rocket: The Rocket is being demolished because the council believe it is the only way to regenerate Dunston. Whether right or wrong its too late now as work is due to start and the contracts have been set up. They say there are all sorts of problems and thats why it needs to be knocked down but to be honest ive been in and a lot of it is cosmetic. I say that but I mean its really bad. You would have to rip the whole thing out but thats possible. Demolition is going to be just as complicated as we cant simply bring it down with explosives it will need to be a phased demolition and will cost a fortune.

What sort of problems were given? I know that one of the excuses was the flooding in the car park meant that nobody could keep cars in the tower. Thats a load of crap theres not a shred of evidence to support it. Theres a pump in the bottom to prevent flooding and its about the only thing in the tower which is still working properly. Are there any real issues supporting demolition? Oh yes, dont get me wrong the tower is falling to bits, quite literally. There have been ongoing problems with tenants, terrible water pressure inside, weve had pigeons in the water tanks and concrete falling off the exterior. All of this though could be prevented with a decent maintenance programme but were only ever told to do quick fixes as its been the long term intention of the council to demolish.

4.0 PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DERWENT TOWER ARCHITECT


[name] Owen Luder [date of telephone conversation] 10 February 2011

couldnt handle it, the river was too close and there had been too much mining, deep and open cast. I didnt want to be known for building the Leaning Tower of Whickham so I came up with a low rise scheme which they rejected. They insisted they wanted towers.

A local engineer came up with the scheme we needed. He identified one piece of land on the site which might support a tower so we used [occupation] a concrete caisson, three stories deep and Director of Owen Luder Consultancy useful for parking. You normally use these when Comments made on the councils decision to building in harbours. So we gave the council one tower and the rest maisonettes, but they demolish the Rocket: As an architect, losing a building is sad, never managed it properly anyway. especially when it should have been kept. What the hell are they doing knocking it down when They let it ruin, waited for half the residents the requirements are the same! The Council to get fed up and move out, and then asked the have a policy to bring the town up to date remaining few whether they wanted something which just means getting rid of the past. All better to justify demolishing it. Of course the architectural features of Gateshead will they want something better the council never looked after it. Leaving the Rocket would not be gone. inhibit further development, its just the I think the council knew it themselves when council lacking vision and making the same they went too far with the demolition of the mistakes again. In London it would been snapped car park, then when Tescos got a hold of the up by private developers long ago. town centre they had no choice but to continue. Gateshead is going to lose its front teeth. They should have redeveloped the lower levels, when they stripped them out, then reinstate the car park with more light and colour. The demolition of the Tower is even more absurd. Back then the council, in a petty competition with Newcastle, wanted three of the tallest towers on Tyneside. I told them the site

5.0 INTERVIEW WITH HIGH RISE RESIDENT [name] Craig Clark [date of interview] 2 November 2011 [occupation] Technical Author [adress of high rise unit] Essington Court, Dunston

the street lights so it was pitch black. The heating was also the old fashioned storage heaters with concrete blocks inside, but because I had a south facing flat and there was so much around me I never needed heating, even though the flat had single glazing. Rubbish wise, I also had to take my rubbish to the nearest refuse chute on my floor and they were never cleaned and full of other peoples rubbish where the bags had split from being shoved in when they didnt fit. They were unclean and smelly and people often left stuff next to it if wouldnt fit.

Describe the residential unit: It was a one bedroom flat on the 13th floor of Was there a caretaker or someone who would the building with a bedroom, living room, tiny remove it? We had someone called a warden. He had a bathroom and tiny kitchen. little office by the entrance, but all he really How did you feel about the living conditions in did was keep spare keys for all the flats so you could get in if youd been locked out. In your high rise unit? Living there I didnt feel secure at all, firstly terms of trouble though, he wouldnt leave his because the front door was mainly glass and office. Things would have to get so bad that the because it was so thin I could hear everything police were called before anything was done. going on around me. The walls were solid with no insulation to create acoustic barrier, I Was there anything positive about your flat? could hear everyones TV and I had to turn my I cant think of much. I didnt like how own up to drown it out. It was never peaceful. everything was electric especially the hot There was no storage in my flat, the decoration water heater. I only ever had enough water for gave the flat a gloomy atmosphere, oppressive. one bath a day. Maybe the light and ventilation. The windows were literally wall to wall on the south side of the room, and went up to the Can you describe why that was? I had all woodchip wallpaper, which was stained ceiling, the flat was really light and airy. The from previous tenants, and I had those plastic security issue was the biggest problem for me. tiles which are glued to the floor all dark brown. Having said that, I had the south facing How did you feel about the communal environment flat and I got loads of sunlight. There was within your high rise unit? plenty of daylight which made the flat feel The corridors were narrow and central to the nicer, but at night, I was so high I was above building, with all the flats coming off it.

Because there was no windows or natural light coming in, it felt insecure, especially since I was so far up. It felt like if I was ever chased I would have to run 13 floors down to get to the warden as my front door was just glass and probably wouldnt protect me.

bumped into neighbours in the corridors they was never any politeness you would get on a normal housing estate.

Would you live in a high rise unit again? I left the tower in the first place because I didnt like it and a friend of mine had a It was also impossible to be quiet. Even the shared bungalow so I went to live there because noise from walking was loud because of the the environment was much nicer. hard surfaces and if you tried talking or even whispering it felt like everyone could hear I wouldnt live in a high rise again because you because of the un-insulated walls. I felt the building wasnt managed properly, The flats were too small and not suited to There was a communal balcony on each floor at the individual or family living. The old fashioned end of the corridor, though it was basically heating took too long respond, for hot water and just a concrete box. heating, and there wasnt sufficient acoustic insulation. I dont want everyone hearing my Did anyone ever use it? business and I dont want to hear everyone Not really it was just a tiny box, you could elses. I felt like I needed an ironclad front probably fit three people if they were all door. huddled together. I only went out once, just to see what was out there and never again whilst What if the high rise was a privately owned and I lived in the tower. I didnt feel very safe. run development? I wouldnt live there just because its a tower, How did you feel about the external environment even if I was shown round and it looked nice. of your high rise unit ? Having lived in a tower I know that because There were a few fields around the building, but its all one building, only one part has to go again, they didnt feel any secure. Just sort bad and it ruins the whole place. of Chavs, lets call them unsociable. They were basically littered with crap left by binge Its also kind of inconvenient. I didnt mind drinking youths. Not necessarily somewhere you having to get to the 13th floor but if I ever would want to spend any time. brought furniture or appliances, I couldnt get them in the tiny lifts and would have to How did you feel about the community atmosphere carry everything upstairs. in and around your high rise unit? There wasnt one. The kind of people who lived Any further comments? in my building were either old drunk men, or kids; seventeen year olds and that kind of people, all of them on benefits. Whenever I

6.0 INTERVIEW WITH HIGH RISE NEIGHBOUR


[name] Melissa Guinsberg [date of interview] 2 November 2011 [occupation] Estate Agent Manager [adress of high rise unit] Westmorland Court, Hebburn Describe the residential area: I currently live in a large 19th century terraced house, the last row before a number of 60s tower blocks and maisonettes and Hebburn New Town shopping centre. How do you feel about the living conditions around the high rise unit? Normally its fine. I like my house but I think it would have been a nicer area if those towers had never been built. These Victorian streets were all well built and the houses spacious but the councils in the 60s said they were slums and evicted the residents and put them in new towers with tiny crap flats.

be right outside the back yard, and theres a lot of drinking, shouting and fighting goes on in there. There are also times when Ive been heckled in the mornings when Im getting in my car to go to work, presumably because Im bothering to go to work rather than staying at home claiming benefits. It doesnt bother me too much, I like to think I give as good as I get, it mainly just a bit annoying. How did you feel this affects the environment of the surrounding low rise residential areas? It actually think the towers are really detrimental to our area. The Victorian terraces are generally all well maintained but the towers and maisonettes behind them are definitely not. Every now and then the council comes along and paints them, theyre currently pink and beige (Laughs), honestly, but on the whole theyre a bit of state.

In what way? Theres bins are always overflowing so residents let it pile up in the exits and around the foot of the building. The flats all seem to have dirty curtains and windows and the ground always seem to be covered in graffiti. I suppose theyve just be dumped in there and forgotten about so they dont really care about their The towers hold hundreds of flats and the only own homes. thing which separates our terrace from the next tower is a small green and car park so it can I know a few years back the council were planning be quite noisy. The sound travels as well and on demolition of the towers but only one was it can be quite intimidating because it sounds ever brought down. they rest were just given like the noise from the tower opposite could a half arsed refurbishment. I suspect they

bring our property prices down significantly, call polite conversation. but then again I probably would never have been able to live in a house this large had it been Is there any community spirit among the high anywhere else. rise residents? I suppose, I sometimes hear parties and things or kids playing about the How did you feel about the external environment with cars in the car parks but its all the of the high rise unit ? kind of stuff the council would probably call I dont feel much about it. Its just a patch of Anti-social behaviour. Theyre no harm really grass and some car parks. There always seems to but they just make noise and intimidate the be peoples clothes dotted around where someone surrounding residents. I suppose the council has thrown stuff out of a window. would prefer them to have picnics and play Does anyone make use of the external spaces? rugby on the grass (Laughs). Just for car parking I think. Im not around Would you live in a high rise unit? during the day so I dont really know but its I dont thinks so. Maybe if it was a trendy not like Ive ever seen anyone having picnics city centre apartment, but not one of these or playing rugby or any of the other things you council high rises. As an estate agent Ive see on the council architects drawings when sold and let out ex-local authority flats, and they come up with regeneration plans. you know what, theyll always be council flats. Poorly built, you can hear everything going on To be fair why would you, its just a bit of around you, and the door to these buildings grass with a load of cars parked around, no are like prison doors with dark lobbies behind shelter and people watching you from the tower them and smelly stairways and crap lifts. It windows. I wouldnt feel comfortable in any of takes a lot of money and imagination to get those little squares I prefer my back yard with rid of that council flat feel and I dont think its high wall where the tower residents cant anybody would waste their time on that in a watch me. place like Hebburn. How did you feel about the community atmosphere in your area? Hmm, I dont really know. We get on well enough with our immediate neighbours, theyll come and feed our cats when were away and every few years theres some party invite or other. Ive never once spoken to anyone from the tower though, apart from when theyve shouted down from their windows and then its not what Id

8.0 PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HOUSING COMPANY OFFICER [name] Stuart Bagnell [date of telephone conversation] 18 November 2011 [position] Office Manager [housing company] Your Homes Newcastle I understand the redevelopment of the towers has been halted why is that? Originally our plan was to refurbish five of the ten towers on Cruddas Park for social housing, which would be financed by selling the other five to private developers to refurbish for private sale. Unfortunately with the recession and credit crunch, the developers pulled out and this stopped the redevelopment. We already had four towers underway and finished so we completed the fifth and now selling the apartments to recover costs. What will happen with the site now? The remaining towers are to be demolished, and were looking at selling off the site for mixed use development. Theres some demand, we believe, for commercial and light industrial on the site as well as residential to meet the need for housing. Nothing is decided yet. There are some plans floating around but certainly nothing fixed.

the other four for social housing. Unfortunately without a private sector developer we couldnt afford to so we settled for just doing one and four. With no developer interested its no longer financially viable and it and the commercial sense is to demolish. It costing around 5.5 million per tower to do a basic refurb of the remaining five and about 2 million to demolish all five. Has the one tower for private sale proved successful? Oh yes, it certainly has. In fact its proved incredibly popular we only have four units left for sale. Are the properties mainly bought by individuals or for landlords to rent out? No, theres a clause in the contract that says only owner-occupiers may purchase the apartments. In fact if the council had known how popular the sale of the apartments had been they may have considered continuing with the refurb as the sales could finance the development. Unfortunately I dont think they were willing to take the risk. They already took the risk in the first place and then the economic climate nearly caused a disaster.

So why continue with demolition? As I said they dont want the risk, and its too late with demolition starting next Monday. The way the towers are laid out, the refurbs cant be done in isolation. They would have to be done in groups of at least three as they are all clustered together on the site. Its simply isnt possible with the costs. The demolition starts Monday and will take 9 months, with Why did the council decide to refurbish the hopefully the site cleared and landscaped for towers rather than demolish, which seems to be the 29th August next year. the solution in Gateshead? Well, nobody wants to knock down houses; we already have such a high demand. It made commercial sense to use five towers for private sale which would have paid for the development of

9.0 PHONE CONVERSATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY OFFICER [name] Gemma Jones [date of telephone conversation] 18 November 2011 [position] Area Planning Team Officers [local authority] Gateshead Council [department] Environment and Regeneration Services I notice the tower still hasnt been demolished, why is that? The tower cant be demolished easily its not as simple as pushing a button (Laughs). The Maisonettes are going first and demolition on those has already started its a long terms process.

before the housing market collapse so I imagine that would have affected the results. Have any other options been considered for the tower or the site? Yes we carried out this study consultation on a number of different options but it kept coming back to demolition. Now even if we wanted to refurbish the tower it would simply be too expensive and even if we were to give it away for free there would no developers who would take it on as its simply not financially viable. There are also a number of structural issues to make matters worse. Weve had to spend money repairing the tower even after everyone had left, as concrete was dropping off.

Okay, what are the councils long term plans following the demolition? Well a number of plans have been suggested as part of the consultation process as we included in our visioning documents which were released as part of the redevelopment of the site. Ideally we would like a developer to take over the site who could provide a new landmark Having spoken with Jill Turner in Design commercial centre for the area, as well as Services nearly a year ago, she confirmed housing for families and a village for the demolition would be starting in January 2011, elderly and disabled. having already been delayed for over a year? Yes but its a slow process and weve had Have any developers committed to councils numerous delays. If youre wondering if its plans? as a result of community objections its not I cant be certain but as yet I dont believe we still have overwhelming support for the so. Our short term goal is to clear the site, demolition Im sure its over 90% support. Yes green it and restore old footpaths to make it according to the report its 96% with the other more attractive to developers. 4% undecided so there wasnt a single actual objection. Those results seem remarkable how was the study carried out? (Laughs) Those are the results we got in this study. It was carried out by an external company, GVA Grimley, though this was back

B. ravensworth road local satisfaction survey


This survey was conducted on 16 February 2011 and was initially carried out for a the Rocket Restoration student Design Project. All survey participants were chosen at randomly in the Ravensworth Road local commercial centre. All information was provided willingly, directly to the author.

derwent tower entrance deck

[name] Karen [from] Teams [job] Shop Assistant Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should be demolished? d) if the tower were refurbished would no you live inside? no [further comments] Without the Rocket, nobody would know we even existed, they should turn it into [further comments] I dont think I would live in a tower block, something better than flats. you get a bed rep. b) do you think the ravensworth road maisonettes should be demolished? uncertain [further comments] Theyre a bit ugly but I suppose you could always do something with them. c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? no [further comments] Not a chance! Im living in the councils attempt to improve things and they just make it worse.

[name] Mary [from] Dunston [job] Pensioner Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should d) if the tower were refurbished would you live inside? be demolished? no no [further comments] [further comments] Its part of were local heritage, they just Im happy where I am thank you. dont want to hear it. b) do you think the ravensworth maisonettes should be demolished? no road

[further comments] Im always seeing poor beggars when I go into the town, Im sure they wouldnt turn their noses up at those flats. c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? yes [further comments] I hope so, the area could do with something to clean it up.

[name] Paul [from] Local [job] Unemployed Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should d) if the tower were refurbished would be demolished? you live inside? yes no [further comments] [further comments] Its better than those council flats on the I suppose so, if it was done up decent. other side of the road. b) do you think the ravensworth maisonettes should be demolished? yes [further comments] Theres nothing special about them! c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? yes [further comments] Its got to be better than leaving it like this. Half the shops are boarded up. road

[name] Kevin [from] Gateshead [job] Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should d) if the tower were refurbished would be demolished? you live inside? no no [further comments] [further comments]

b) do you think the ravensworth maisonettes should be demolished? uncertain [further comments]

road

c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? uncertain [further comments]

[name] Tony [from] Dunston [job] Taxi Driver Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should be demolished? d) if the tower were refurbished would no you live inside? yes [further comments] Come on, whats Dunston going to have left [further comments] if they just demolish everything that makes I know a bloke who used to live there years this place what it is. ago, he seemed to like it. They would have to do it up really nice like first. b) do you think the ravensworth maisonettes should be demolished? no road

[further comments] Im sure theres potential if they would just start letting them to the right people. c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? no [further comments] Not likely, if Gateshead anything to go by. Town Centres

[name] Kalai [from] Dunston [job] Pharmacist Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should rest of Dunston. be demolished? no d) if the tower were refurbished would [further comments] you live inside? I know its not so nice, but when theres no such a shortage in affordable housing its mad to spend so much knocking perfectly [further comments] good flats down. Its not my cup of tea. I only mean if your desperately trying to get a flat or b) do you think the ravensworth road something. maisonettes should be demolished? no [further comments] Again, maybe they could go someday, but we cant justify demolition when theres such a shortage. c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? uncertain [further comments] I certainly hope so, its quite nice where I live, they should put some effort into the

[name] Michael [from] [job] Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should be demolished? d) if the tower were refurbished would no you live inside? yes [further comments] I dont know, its got a certain charm [further comments] hasnt it, just needs a good paint job or Yeah, why not. A flats a flat, as long as its something. cheap. b) do you think the ravensworth maisonettes should be demolished? yes road

[further comments] As for them, look at the state there in. c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? yes [further comments] If you look at other parts of Dunston its quite nice down by the river.

[name] Peter [from] Dunston [job] Former Policeman Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should be demolished? d) if the tower were refurbished would no you live inside? no [further comments] These places get a bed rep, but whatever [further comments] they build will go down the same route if Maybe if I could have the whole thing to they dont sort out the social issues which myself. made things go so bad here in the first place. b) do you think the ravensworth maisonettes should be demolished? no road

[further comments] Like I said in the last question, its no good just erasing the past. c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? no [further comments] I wish I could say it would. Maybe Im just too cynical.

[name] Zara [from] Dunston [job] Unemployed Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should d) if the tower were refurbished would you live inside? be demolished? yes no [further comments] [further comments]

b) do you think the ravensworth maisonettes should be demolished? no [further comments]

road

c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? yes [further comments]

[name] Jill [from] Gateshead Council [job] Pensioner Using yes, no or uncertain, how would you answer the following? a) do you think the derwent tower should live in it. be demolished? d) if the tower were refurbished would you no live inside? yes [further comments] Its a shame, I know it nobody wants to live [further comments] there, but to build something like that Yeah, if it was as funky as your idea it these days would cost a fortune. might attract a nicer lot of tenants. You would need a bottomless pit of money though. b) do you think the ravensworth road maisonettes should be demolished? yes [further comments] They dont have quite the same impact. They just look run down and tired. c) do you think the councils plans will improve the area in the long term? yes [further comments] I know were probably losing the tower, but it doesnt mean we cant build something even better for the community. I suppose thats the important thing, nobody wants to

c. rocket restoration design project


This student design project was carried out for the DP2 Realisation module of fifth year MArch Architecture. Design project proposals relevant to this research paper have been included for reference purposes.

derwent tower

adventure playground dunston medical centre


linked to accommodation

modular objects can be built and re-built by children

parking

parking town square

rocket
landmark community pavilion

supermarket housing
specialist elderly and disabled accommodation

community park

social club playing fields

site plan

resident car parking access vehicle site access gardens cleaner & garden store refuse room

lower ground entrance

entrance hall lifts service yard fire escape

visitor car parking

lower ground floor entrance hall

public entrance hall concierge

tower access bridge

security seating area

double height void entrance hall lifts fire escape

upper ground floor entrance hall

coffee shop

kitchen

circulation lobby & viewing area housing company reception

day care quiet room secure interview room

entrance hall lifts housing company offices day care staff break area secure records room

first floor public street

coffee shop mezzanine

coffee shop external space

circulation lobby & viewing area conference room

day care office

entrance hall lifts plant public garden day care kitchen

upper first floor

circulation lobby & viewing area communal garden

duplex apartment upper level

studio apartment

duplex apartment lower level

typical lower tower residential floor

sky cafe/bar

circulation lobby & viewing area

community supermarket

public garden

community supermarket store

upper tower public street level

duplex apartment upper level

circulation lobby & viewing area

single apartment

communal garden

duplex apartment lower level

typical upper tower residential floor

public roof gardens internal communal space

circulation lobby & viewing area

roof level public gardens

entrance lobby visual

New landmark standard entrance hall, integrating public concierge and seating areas. Dramatic approach to the towers entrance level across internal elevated walkway.

roof level

New public roof level gardens and artists deck to capitalise on dramatic views across Tyneside. Illuminated core creates a dramatic tower cap creating a standout effect on the skyline of Gateshead.

d. shieldfield design project


This student design project was carried out for the DP1 Enquiry module of fifth year MArch Architecture, working with the Shieldfield community. Design project research extracts relevant to this research paper have been included for reference purposes.

shieldfield community pavillion visual

S-ar putea să vă placă și