122+

As part of the extensive New Islingtonredevelopment project in Manchester,Islington Square is one of the first of theaffordable housing elements here toreach completion. The relatively modestdevelopment, consisting of 23 houseswith a combination of two- and three-bedroom units alongside flats for thedisabled, is unusual due to the verydirect working relationship thearchitects, Fashion Architecture Taste(FAT), had with the prospectiveresidents. From the outset, the residentshad a very distinct voice in the decision-making process for the scheme. Thesubject of a RIBA competition in 2003,the entrants’ proposals were not onlyjudged by a jury of their peers, but by

the people who would actually be theend users of the housing, who had veryfirm ideas about what they wanted.

The New Islington MillenniumCommunity project is a partnershipthat includes the developers UrbanSplash, regeneration agency EnglishPartnerships, urban regenerationcompany New East Manchester Ltd andManchester City Council. Its vast urbanrenewal project, over 12 hectares (29acres), was master-planned by WillAlsop, and replaces the Cardroom Estate– a run-down and depopulated 1970shousing estate in the east ofManchester. The registered sociallandlord of the development is theManchester Methodist Housing Group.

There are over 20 individual plots fordevelopment by a wide range ofarchitects, which will hopefully bringback life to what was a once desolatearea of the city.

Such a range and mix of architectsand designers echoes one of theprimary tenets of the idea behind thismillennium community: that a viablecommunity is a mix – a mix of tenures,age groups, incomes and building types.However, a major problem has beenthat while for private developers, andin terms of creating higher densities,well-designed blocks of apartments areoften seen as the most obvious andeasiest solution, the Islington Squareresidents who chose to be involved in

Islington Square, ManchesterWith its bold gables, Islington Square is a conspicuous presence in New Islington, the area ofeast Manchester that is currently being developed to take the place of the dilapidatedCardroom Estate. Bruce Stewart explains how, rather than being an exercise in wilfulpattern-making, the form of the facade and the interior planning of this unique scheme havecome about as the result of FAT’s lengthy consultation process with the housing residents.

Home Run

FAT, Islington Square, New Islington, Manchester, 2006The layout of the block allows each of the houses to have a private, off-road parking space and a rear garden – essential to the new residents’ ideas of what ahome should have. All of this is then protected by the enclosing wall.

123+123

The scale of the scheme is very much in keepingwith the traditional brick terrace that is part ofManchester’s industrial heritage.

124+

Each of the individual houses has been given adistinct identity by the treatment of the gablefacing onto the street. The polychromatic brickworkand the possibility of a small balcony not onlydefine each house, but the block as a whole.

the new project were not unhappy withthe traditional terrace or semi-detachedtypology, and in fact insisted that thenew housing reflect their notions ofhome and security.

The community was asked what theywanted from the new development, andresponses included both front and backgardens, two storeys, a pitched roof, safeparking, a greengrocer, baker, butcher,chippy, Indian takeaway, pub, personalsecurity, property security, a footiepitch, and somewhere for the kids.

Residents’ main concerns included aperceived lack of private outdoor spacewith flats, the materials that might beused (what would the housing look like),and a desire to reduce the amount ofcommunal outdoor space, seen as justextra space for marauding gangs tocongregate in. Thus the challenge forFAT was how to combine these quitetraditional, yet valid, aspirations withthe concerns currently facing all housebuilders – sustainability, increasingdensities to maximise land use, and thenotion of ‘added value’ for the end user.A further challenge was how tointegrate the seemingly modestaspirations of the new tenants with themore ‘slick’ metropolitan architecture ofsites being developed elsewhere as partof the regeneration of New Islington.

In order to help the residents explaintheir desires for and fears about thenew housing scheme, the team at FATundertook an exhaustive preliminaryresearch programme that includedseveral visits to the existing homes ofresidents to see how the space that wasto be used as a model for the newscheme was inhabited. What were therequirements for daily life, and howcould they be better provided for in thenew homes? For example, central toany home is the daily ritual of cookingand eating. Although most of theexisting homes had no separate diningroom, in many a table and chairs hadbeen placed in the living area,cramping the space for both eating andfor relaxation. But, reducing the spacein the living area was seen by residents

as secondary to eating at the table. Throughout the consultation process,

the residents were adamant in theirresistance to modern design, perhaps alegacy of the poor housing of the 1960sand 1970s where tower blocks andprefabrication that were once held up asideal solutions are now seen by many asthe cause of the current socialproblems. In order to broaden theirhorizons, a group of the residentsjoined the FAT team on a trip to theNetherlands to look at the recentdevelopments in social housing there.Among the places visited were BorneoSporenburg, master-planned by West 8,and Ypenburg, an old airport now beingused as land for housing. However,although this helped the residents tosee the wider design possibilities, theyremained firm in their notions of whata family home should be, and it becameclear that their ideas of a front door atground level, gardens front and rear,and so on, were unshakable.

FAT’s solution combines the desiresand wishes of the residents with thefirm’s own idiosyncratic designperspective. Formed in 1995 as aresearch laboratory, the practice hasundergone a number of personnel

changes, but the driving ethos remainsthe same. FAT sees architecture as muchmore than a reductive process based onnarrow, Modernist references. Usingexplicit, figurative imagery, its workcould be seen as whimsical and devoid ofserious concern about how architectureimpacts on daily life. But this is mostdefinitely not how the practice woulddescribe its projects. Though thearchitects do react against the ‘less ismore’ aesthetic, it is in a very carefullythought out manner. All their builtprojects are very context specific, usingreference points from the particularenvironment of each. In a very assertive,graphic manner they hope to provide analternative to the often sterile legacy ofModernism. Although this could be seenas a latent Postmodern methodology,their work is not a simple regurgitationand pastiche: it shows a concern for itsimpact on the environment and on thosewho will use the end product, setting upa dialogue between the nature of thebuilding and the user. Thus, at IslingtonSquare, the intensive workingrelationship with the residents hasproduced a very individual city block.

The L-shaped plan of the new housesconsiders the way in which the homes

125+

126+

The Islington Square housing, while very different to its existing neighbours, will have to compete withthe varied architectural styles of the rest of the New Islington development.

were previously used by residents andtries to clarify and expand upon the waythe spaces can be used. By keeping thenumber of walls to a minimum, theground floor is freed up to provide anopen-plan kitchen/dining/livingarrangement that accommodatesdomestic rituals such as eating andcooking without compromising the needfor space to relax. The nature of the planthus creates space for daily life. Theground floor also includes a good-sizedWC and storage space, which means it isflexible: for example, should at somepoint in time the occupier becomeunable to manage stairs, then the livingarea can easily be adapted to a bedroomwith accessible bathroom space – verymuch part of the homes-for-lifeinitiatives currently being talked about.

When combined in pairs, the L-shapeplan again fulfils the desires of theresidents by forming a terrace, so thateach house now has a courtyard to thefront, providing a private, almostdefensible space. This can also be usedfor off-street parking, bike storage or asa buffer from the street.

On the first floor the generouslanding could be used as a study area, forexample. The bedroom and bathroomarrangement is a very standard layout,but again very much in keeping withwhat the end users wanted.

The external spaces of thedevelopment were yet another area forintense discussion between thearchitects and residents. The initialproposal for the layout of the gardens,with an alleyway bisecting them, wasfirmly rejected, perceived as a securitythreat since the space this would createwould not be under constantobservation by the residents. Acompromise was reached with shorterpassageways with key access.

In terms of construction, theconcerns of the residents were againtaken on board. For them, a housemust look like a house, thus load-bearing masonry with internalblockwork was chosen for the scheme.This choice of materials gives the blocka very solid presence and it is hopedthat it will age well (perhaps betterthan some other technologies currently

In their previous homes, the residents had gone to a lot of trouble to personalise their spaces, as in thisexample of DIY, proving that the adage ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle’ is very much a truism.

127+

128+

being investigated in theaffordable/social housing arena). Theuse of these materials alongside designdecisions such as higher than normalceiling heights, using micro UHPcombined heat and power systems(which recycle their own excess energy)and good daylighting, have combinedto give the scheme an ‘Eco- Homes’rating of excellent.

Of all the features of the project, itis the encircling wall which protectsand announces the scheme that is themost arresting. This polychromaticdevice at once declares the presence ofthe houses while allowing theresidents shelter from neighbouringdevelopment. With the position ofIslington Square on the periphery ofthe New Islington development, FATwanted to give the scheme a very

definite identity, not only in thecontext of the range of otherarchitectural languages that are/willbe employed across the entire 12-hectare (29-acre) site, but also in termsof empowering the residents of theproject. They will be able to view theirblock from various vistas around thewhole development and be able torecognise their own homes, for notonly does the wall mark the urbanblock, but each gable end has anindividual profile, arrived at afterdiscussions between the architects andresidents. Added to this is a small‘catalogue’ of personal options foreach household to choose from: forexample, whether or not to add asmall balcony. In this way, thepotential for blank uniformity leadingto anonymity for the residents, often

associated with affordable/socialhousing, has been avoided.

Perhaps because FAT’S work is as yetnot very well known, at first glance thedramatic enclosing wall could bemisread as strange, if not wilful,pattern-making. But the aims of thiselement – to announce and protect –have certainly been achieved, and thephilosophy that architecture should besymbolic and rhetorical with meaningfor its users can now reach a wideraudience and, hopefully, stimulate someinteresting debate. 4

Bruce Stewart is currently researching and writingThe Architects’ Navigation Guide to New Housing,to be published in early 2007 by Wiley-Academy.He trained as an architect and is currently acollege teacher at the Bartlett School ofArchitecture, UCL London.

While the layout of the ground floor allows for amore adaptable living space, the first floormaintains a more traditional form, though thelanding could be used as a study area, for example.