Talking of Tories and anodyne comments about progress (see here) on the buildings for the Olympics, Andrew Boff, the London Assembly Conservative Group's Olympic spokesman, has come out firing on all cylinders about the "tenanted ghetto" that he claims is the Athletes Village.
The full extent of Boff's litany against an Olympic village that is creating the "slums of the future" can be read in this little gem on social housing and public sector news wire 24hourdash.com
Boff accuses the ODA of having "learned nothing from the housing mistakes of the past" as he lays into the layout and design of the flats that are springing out of the ground at speed.
While Boff has plenty of political reasons for laying in to the village, he is of course entirely at odds with Tory mayor Boris Johnson and, so far, is the one person to have provided a discordant response to the ODA and Lend Lease's latest update on progress at the site.
As such it's worth considering what Boff has to say.
He argues: "What families want in London are houses with gardens and a door that opens on to the street. The legacy of the Olympics will be flats with mean little balconies and doors that open into a tenanted ghetto ... it is a great shame that this awful development will be part of the Olympic legacy.
"Village architects were restricted to an eight year-old masterplan that looks more like a child's potato print pattern than somewhere for people to live. The result will be soulless high-rise courtyard developments that have failed Londoners so many times before. Has nothing been learned from London's post war housing disasters?
"Due to the severe lack of homes in London tenants will have no effective choice over whether or not they move in there. Families will be forced to live higher than the fifth floor in socially-segregated blocks, some being for owner-occupiers and some for tenants. I will continue to raise this matter with the Mayor of London."
Of course much of Boff's argument comes down to aesthetics and how individuals feel about living in residential blocks and in tenanted communities. But there is a genuine question mark hanging over the developments appeal to the 1,000 families it intends to attract.
The ODA's response is quite understandably defensive. It has after all been working with Lend Lease to ensure leading architects and contractors are involved in the development of the village.
"The Village will be a high-quality development where private, affordable and family housing will be integrated helping create a thriving new community for east London."
Still it would be very useful to hear from those close to the designs and the building and get a sense of how they think the end product is shaping up.
I think it's largely the people that make the slums not the buildings by themselves. So take a view on the local population of Stratford for an inkling of what's to come.
"Of course much of Boff's argument comes down to aesthetics"
Not really. I have no opinion on what colour the blocks should be painted.
It's about how the design allows people to interact in a way that creates a cohesive co-dependent community.
I questioned the ODA about what proven models they had used to determine that mixed tenure courtyard developments worked. They were unable to cite a precedent and said that the plan was 'experimental'.
In my experience, trapping the poorest in our community in socially segregated blocks of flats has not proven successful in the past and would welcome seeing some evidence to the contrary.
I think people who have no effective choice as to where they live should not be experimented on.
What I find missing from similar housing developments such as in Salford Quays is the absence of community building. Although in a different cultural settings, high-rise quality apartments in Gothenburg and Amsterdam are constructed around the idea of community, so that smallholder shops, schools and a variety of services (all prices) are within walking distance.
In the absence of residents who care about communal spaces, who organise local festivals and events, and who can and do walk with their children around the neighbourhood, any neighbourhood is likely to be appear soulless.
I imagine the quality of the buildings is sufficient, and apartments are the way forward for British cities, only that more of an effort should be made to build local community groups like in neighbouring continental and Scandinavian cities.
Hi James,
thanks for this response. Speaking to a number of regeneration experts about this issue it's obvious that Andrew Boff has publicly voiced ongoing concerns about the willingness of UK families to live in high-rise apartments. There is a feeling that while European families have embraced living without a private garden you can open your door on to and let the kids run about in, the UK mindset remains resolutely unenthusiastic.