Nichols Boys-Smith's presentation to the Cities 2030 "Making Cities Liveable" session

1. 1
Create Streets
Making cities livable: is London
making the same mistakes a
second time ?
Nicholas Boys Smith
June 2014
© Create Streets
‘a wonderful project & piece of analysis’
Alain de Botton, Farrell Review of
Architecture & Built Environment
‘a wonderful project & piece of analysis’
Alain de Botton, Farrell Review of
Architecture & Built Environment
‘What an excellent report’
Sir Simon Jenkins
‘What an excellent report’
Sir Simon Jenkins
‘a remarkable &
ground-breaking piece of work’
Andrew Boff, Conservative Leader, GLA
‘a remarkable &
ground-breaking piece of work’
Andrew Boff, Conservative Leader, GLA
‘I support Create Streets’
Nick Boles MP, Minister for Planning
‘I support Create Streets’
Nick Boles MP, Minister for Planning
‘I’m convinced….I’d like to
create a street with you’
Thomas Heatherwick, designer of
Routemaster, Olympic torch etc
‘I’m convinced….I’d like to
create a street with you’
Thomas Heatherwick, designer of
Routemaster, Olympic torch etc
‘I welcome that suggestion’
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
‘I welcome that suggestion’
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London

2. 2
Everything isn’t quite awesome Create Streets

3. 3
Create Streets: a catalyst for change
Creates Streets is a social enterprise
encouraging the creation of more urban
homes in conventional, terraced streets
rather than complex multi-storey
buildings. We do this via research,
lobbying for policy change and
consulting to developers and
landowners. We also intend to start
acting as a developer to showcase our
principles.
Create Streets
Research with impact
Real impact on government & London policy
 In March 2014 Budget followed our
suggestion and created a £150m fund to
help finance estate regeneration
 In April 2014 the Government
commissioned Savills to investigate the
potential of our proposals
 In December 2013, the GLA funding
prospectus for London’s housing
investment programme followed our
suggestion and relaxed standard 3.2.5.
 Mayor of London’s 2020 Vision also
echoed our point that “it is simply not the
case that good quality high density
housing must always involve tower
blocks.”

4. 4
Context: £150m for estate regeneration in budget Create Streets
“The government will establish a £150 million fund to kick start the regeneration of
large housing estates through repayable loans, helping to boost housing supply.
Bids will shortly be invited from private sector developers, working with local
authorities on estates that might be able to benefit. Following the Autumn
Statement, expressions of interest have already been made through the Greater
London Authority relating to the Aylesbury Estate, Blackwall Reach and Grahame
Park regeneration projects in London.” 2014 Budget

5. 5
Context: the forthcoming Savills report Create Streets
…. That is why, in the Budget, the government set aside £150 million that could be invested to regenerate and
increase the number of homes on the most deprived housing estates.
There are three good reasons for doing this in the capital.
First, we need more housing capacity in the inner boroughs. Although record numbers will live in the capital by
2021, the inner boroughs will still contain 1.7million fewer people than they did in 1939.
According to research by Savills, re-discovering just half of this former housing capacity would supply the whole
of London’s projected housing needs for the next 17 years.
That means it’s a challenge worth taking on.
Second, we want to radically increase the quality of housing on these estates. Past experience tells us mere
tinkering won’t work. We need to be more ambitious.
Completely re-building traditional streetscapes could provide more housing and commercial space using the
same amount of land. These estates would resemble neighbourhoods such as Pimlico or Islington, with
terraced streets of houses, apartments and commercial space. The result will be more homes, which residents
enjoy living in.
Third, this radical approach could also create value in land in a way that is not possible with the incremental,
building-by-building regeneration, rather than optimal whole-scale, regeneration that has been favoured in the
past.
A greater potential for private investment, could, over 10 years, lead to several hundred thousand additional
new homes in London.
We want to get on with it. So we are part-funding a study by Savills to consider the best way to get started,
redeveloping areas while fully involving local communities in the design and planning process.

6. 6
Context: why is government interested ? Create Streets
Scenario Level of
dwellings that
could be replaced
Additional homes due to increase in density if
estates with 75 dwellings a hectare are
redeveloped
100 units
h/a
120 units
h/a
140 units
h/a
160 units
h/a
A 260,000 86,580 156,000 223,600 293,800
B 360,000 119,880 216,000 309,600 406,800
C 460,000 153,180 276,000 395,600 519,800
• High level estimates
• Mid-point is 260,000
• At 42,000 a year that is six years supply –
• Existing Savills report suggests at top end
of this range

7. 7
1. Streets are a good idea
− Popular
− Good for you
2. Streets are practical
− Can be very high density
− Great long term returns
3. Current regeneration and planning model finds it hard to
build sufficient conventional streets
4. We should
− End the regulatory bias
− Stop trying to make development pay for too much
− Empower local people FAR more
− Improve financial focus on long term
− Pilot a Social Impact Bond
Create StreetsContents

8. 8
1a. Streets are more popular
89
0
2
75
80
77
67
1
Create Streets
 2002 respondents
wanting to live in
− A house
− A tower block
− A modern apartment
Source: IPSOS, ING, Stewart, Policy Exchange, Dunleavy (For full references, see Create Streets, 2013, chapter two)
Evidence from formal survey, 1967 – 2013, %
 GLC applicants
wanting house (‘67)
 Residents wanting
Robin Hood
demolished (2007)
 Guardian online
supporting Create
Streets (2013)
80
6
3
 Respondents not
wanting tower blocks
built near them
(2001)
 Respondents
wanting to live in
high rise apartment
(2005)
 2013 respondents
wanting to live in
− A house
− A small apartment
(<10 units)
− A large apartment
(>10 units)
‘very substantial majorities of residents in high flats
would prefer to live in houses according to all studies
asking about housing preferences’
Patrick Dunleavy (1981)
‘very substantial majorities of residents in high flats
would prefer to live in houses according to all studies
asking about housing preferences’
Patrick Dunleavy (1981)
One of the
lowest in
Europe but
most <6%
One of the
lowest in
Europe but
most <6%
Street-based option

9. 9
Create Streets1a. Some of reasons given
Reasons given in 2012 YouGov focus group from majority not wanting to live in skyscraper
 “The feeling of having other people living above, below and at the sides would
be one I hate.
 “I'd miss the freedom …I would be miserable and depressed”
 “The sense of being enclosed would be too overwhelming for me. Possible
noise and distraction would also be a problem”
 “I like living in an old style house, skyscrapers make you feel like you’re living on
top of other people everyone is too close together.”
 “Safety. And I think I would feel like a sardine”
 “There is also the danger of criminals and thugs lurking in corridors and lifts”
 “Too impersonal and large. They're not a home really, they're more for offices
etc. Also they're too high, I wouldn't want to live that far off the ground - also there'd
[be] no gardens”
 “not really child friendly”
 “They are dreadful living environments. Try going out for a bit of fresh air or
getting a bit of peace away from the world”

10. 10
1a. Streets are more socially just Create Streets
Source: Create Streets, ONS
2001 UK Census
 21% of all British families with children
live in social tenancies
 But 70% of families living on or above
the second floor are social tenants
 75% of families living on or above the
third floor are social tenants
 And 79% of families living on or above
fifth floor are social tenants
 If you are a child in social housing
you are sixteen times more likely
than a child in owner-occupied or
private-rented to live on or above
fifth floor
 In inner London, 31% of all children in
social housing live on or above
second floor
 For other children, figure is 2.3%
Not an issue of design
but of social justice
Not an issue of design
but of social justice

11. 11
1b. Streets are good for you . . . Create Streets
Source: Create Streets
Create Streets: evidence from controlled studies, 1962 - 2007 Favouring streets
“People’s dislike of living in big or tall buildings is deeply rational. The vast majority of controlled studies show
that the residents of large multi-storey blocks suffer from more strain and mental health difficulties than those
in low-rise buildings, even when socio-economic status is identical.” Create Streets, 2013
40
2
 40 studies show
negative correlation
 2 studies do not
Summary of studies examining height or size &
some aspect of wellbeing or contentment
Mental health (UK, 1967)
Military families randomly assigned: houses vs. flats
Children Anti-social behaviour (UK, 1981)
300
157
163
 Rates of neurosis
 Rate of going to
doctor
 Rate of specialist
referral
 UK study (1977): children in high rise suffered
more behavioural problems (control on gender &
economic status)
 US study (1982): boys in 14 vs 3 storeys had
more hyperactivity & hostility (not girls)
 Japanese study: dressing, helping, lavatory
usage all slower to develop in high-rise children
High rise Houses
 Litter 86% 20%
 Faeces 7.5% 0%
 Urine 44% 0.1%
 Graffiti 76% 1.2%
 Vandalism 39% 1.9%

12. 12
1b. People are happier in low-rise or in houses Create Streets
In 7 controlled surveys . .
 British flat dwellers complained less more about “privacy, isolation,
loneliness and noise”
 Of US students randomly assigned between low-rise & high-rise, those in
low-rise happiest
 In a nationwide Canadian survey, those in houses most satisfied, those in
high-rise least satisfied
 In a New York comparison of randomly assigned social tenants, low-rise
and house residents happier than high-rise
 In a comparison of US medium income, house residents & low-rise
happier than high-rise residents
 In another US study once education, age, income controlled for, the taller
the building the lower the residents satisfaction
 In a 2009 Indian study of 512 randomly selected families, high-rise
buildings less popular
Source: Gifford, Chatterjee
Evidence from controlled studies, 1960s - 2009

13. 13
1b. Streets are better for children & community, bad for criminalsCreate Streets
Source: Gittus, Gifford, Newman, Create Streets
Create Streets: evidence from controlled studies, 1976 - 2007 Favouring streets
 Above 6th
floor
 Below 6th
floor
 In house
Mothers on Cruddas Park Estate reporting issues
with ‘play, health or personalities of kids’
 In two studies of US students in high, medium,
low-rise halls, stamped addressed envelopes
returned & donations made inverse ratio to
height
 Israeli study: less ‘social support’ & ‘involvement’
 Third study: less ‘community’ & ‘membership’
1975 comparison of crime in high vs. low rise estates
62
53
2
14
28
604
 In flats
 Outside flats
 Semi-private space
1. Makes bringing up children harder
2. Inhuman scale discourages
behaving well to your neighbours
3. Increases the ease of crime

14. 14
1. Streets are a good idea
− Popular
− Good for you
2. Streets are practical
− Can be very high density
− Great long term returns
3. Current regeneration and planning model finds it hard to
build sufficient conventional streets
4. We should
− End the regulatory bias
− Stop trying to make development pay for too much
− Empower local people FAR more
− Improve financial focus on long term
− Pilot a Social Impact Bond
Create StreetsContents

15. 15
2a. Streets are cheaper to build & maintain Create Streets
Source: Create Streets, Dunleavy, CBRE, Kunz, Segal, Jones
Building conventional streets is cheaper
 British high-rise revolution in 1960s was only possibly
because of Government subsidy. 1956 Housing
Subsidy Act paid builders 3.4 times as much to build
a flat above fifteenth floor as a house
 One academic calculated that between 1960 & 1973
an additional 78,000 homes could have been built for
same money
 Ten-storey building is ~10% more expensive per
square metre
 Fifty-storey building is ~60% more expensive per
square metre
 Iconic value premium in London at present ~ 36%
 Drivers of extra build cost include (a) build is
logistically harder (b) buildings have to be higher
spex (c) limited supply of necessary experts so higher
cost (d) more & more complex service infrastructure
(e) more wasted build due to lower efficiency ratio (f)
higher finance costs
 Efficiency ratio decreases from 100% (house) to 85%
(5 storeys) to 70-75% (50 storeys)
Maintaining conventional streets is cheaper
 1964: new high rise already costing ~ 5% more to
maintain
 By 1970, that had risen to ~100% more
 1980 study costed difference at between 50-100%
depending on circumstances
 2012 study by Cambridge Centre for Housing found
that service charges for flats were higher and rising
faster. From 2005-08, percentage of flats with service
charge over £100 a week, rose from 40% to 58%
 Few large off street estates that do ‘work’ (e.g.
Barbican) have very high service charges
 Due to higher physical & social costs
− more communal areas
− Harder to service (janitor or DIY vs. engineer on
a crane)
− Security costs (CCTV, barriers, concierge)

16. 16
2a. Streets provide better long term returns
36
502
465
300
157
163
41
297
255
Create Streets
Source: Halifax UK Prince Index
Create Streets analysis of Halifax price index, London: 1983- 2013
 Price in 1983
 Price in 2013
 Increase in price
Pre 1919, terraced house
Price, £’000
Pre 1919, flat or maisonette
Price, £’000
Post 1960, terraced house
Price, £’000
Post 1960, flat or maisonette
Price, £’000
30
254
225
30
381
350
 Price in 1983
 Price in 2013
 Increase in price
Traditional street
 Price in 1983
 Price in 2013
 Increase in price
 Price in 1983
 Price in 2013
 Increase in price
 Same pattern is replicated in UK data, in other regions & in comparison with 1946-1960 housing
 In 30 years market shows consistent & ubiquitous preference for traditional buildings in conventional settings
 This has been the most rational ‘product’ for long term landowner / investor to hold
 Lots of other data sources (esp. Savills) show the same in the long term
+ 1284%+ 1284% + 1181%+ 1181%
+ 756%+ 756%+ 616%+ 616%

17. 17
2a. Best returns over last 30 years Create Streets

18. 18
2a. Worst returns over last 30 years Create Streets

19. 19
2a. Streets provide better long term returns Create Streets
Source: Savills, Prince’s Foundation
Savills research for Prince’s Foundation, 2007
 Comparison of three
sites
− Fairford Leys, Aylesbury
− Poundbury, Dorset
− Crown Street, Glasgow
 “Quietly sensational
results”
 Value per hectare of the
‘sustainably’ developed
neighbourhood to a
high density was 32 per
cent higher than that of
more typical lower
density developments
 Value per hectare even
10 per cent higher than
the nearby historic town
centres
 Nor was this just due to
greater density - actual
price per square foot
was greater
Market value per hectare, £m % uplift of new high
density from
‘Sustainable
urbanism’
‘Standard
urbanism’
‘Old
urbanism’
‘Standard
urbanism’
‘Old
urbanism’
Buckinghamshire 9.64 6.63 6.6 45 % 46 %
Dorset 7.07 5.97 7.51 18 % -6 %
Scotland 8.03 6.19 7.96 30 % 1 %
Average 8.25 6.26 7.36 32 % 12 %
27 %9 %207241263Average
7 %2 %164171175Scotland
44 %17 %222272319Dorset
26 %6 %235279296Buckinghamshire
‘Old
urbanism’
‘Standard
urbanism’
‘Old
urbanism’
‘Standard
urbanism’
‘Sustainable
urbanism’
% uplift of new high
density from
Price per square foot, £
27 %9 %207241263Average
7 %2 %164171175Scotland
44 %17 %222272319Dorset
26 %6 %235279296Buckinghamshire
‘Old
urbanism’
‘Standard
urbanism’
‘Old
urbanism’
‘Standard
urbanism’
‘Sustainable
urbanism’
% uplift of new high
density from
Price per square foot, £

20. 20
2a. Well-connected streets highest value of all Create Streets
Source: Space Syntax, Create Streets
Space Syntax research
Map of spatial accessibility of central London
High spatial accessibility
Low spatial accessibility
 A correlation between spatial
accessibility and rateable value per
square metre finds a correlation of 88
per cent
 In central London 80 per cent of shops
are located in the 20 per cent most
spatially accessible streets
 People create shops where they know
people will come. This creates value.
The most accessible streets are the
most expensive. City-dwellers want to
live near the shops if they possibly
can.
 Anyone who has looked for a house
knows the nearer shops and transport
you are, the higher the price that you
will pay

21. 21
2b. High density terraced streets could solve housing crisisCreate Streets
Source: Create Streets
 Comparisons made by 1999 Urban Task Force, CABE in
2005, London School of Economics, RIBA, Lord Rogers,
Cambridge University Centre for Housing, MJP
housing all quite clear that conventional terraced
housing is very high density – normally as high or
higher than post-war estate-based tower block or
slab block
 Notting Hill, Lancaster Gate, Earl’s Court are among
most densely populated parts of UK
− Two storey terraced houses ~ 75-80 units/ hectare
− Pimlico or Earl’s Court typology with 5-6 storeys
and lots of flats ~ 175 units / hectare
 Around 360,000 multi-storey homes built in London from
1950s to 1970s
 Mid point estimate is that replacing these with dense
terraced housing would create additional 260,000 homes
 Many recent regenerations unpopular because centrally-
imposed with ‘fake’ consultation
 Would have to be properly bottom up /
neighbourhood plan / Enquiry by design etc
 Would need to change rules so that you could easily
build the type of housing most people want
Three ways of achieving density of 75 units /
hectare
Andrew Wright Associates, cited by 1999 Urban Task
Force
Create Streets summary of evidence

22. 22
1. Streets are a good idea
− Popular
− Good for you
2. Streets are practical
− Can be very high density
− Great long term returns
3. Current regeneration and planning model finds it hard to
build sufficient conventional streets
4. We should
− End the regulatory bias
− Stop trying to make development pay for too much
− Empower local people FAR more
− Improve financial focus on long term
− Pilot a Social Impact Bond
Create StreetsContents

23. 23
3. Regulation undercuts what people want Create Streets
Source: Create Streets
Barriers to meeting consumer demand in London Plan &
Housing Design Guide
 Ban on recycling open space between buildings into private
gardens makes it very hard to redevelop estates into streets
 Requiring lifts, wheelchair lifts and stair-lifts in all cases makes
it more expensive to build conventional vertical flats
 ‘Best-value’ test is misinterpreted to favour higher initial land
value over the type of long-term (but ultimately higher)
investment returns typically associated with street-based
developments. This forces developers’ to favour smaller unit,
repetitive, high-rise blocks built quickly for quick payback
 Rules against staircases being too narrow or too steep make it
harder to build conventional tall but thin London terraced
houses
 Requirement that ten percent of homes be fully wheelchair
accessible and for all homes to be built to ‘Lifetime Home’
standards biases the system in favour of large, partially off-
road, blocks
 Super-high density targets make achieving planning
agreement to build normal terraced houses & low-rise flats
hard in some areas
 On top of this are more rules ranging from a bias against on-
street parking to heavy requirements for bathrooms that make
building conventional high-density terraced streets much
harder.
So great is demand and so limited supply that these houses
sell for millions. They fail the London Housing Design Guide
Nice wide new houses . . . . . but price is new tower blocks.
Spot the difference between
1970s & 2013 ?

24. 24
3. Examples of impact of rules Create Streets
Source: Create Streets
‘One very efficient way of delivering family housing at a certain
density is with narrow-frontage terraced houses, but actually
Lifetime Homes is very obstructive to making that work
particularly well. Once you get to three bedrooms, you need a
very large bathroom on the entry level and that actually obstructs
the width of the plan; which means you have to go into a very
narrow kitchen and through that into a living space at the back. . .
. you are prioritising the lifetime use of the home and disabled
access over its efficiency and use for a family; a family without
disabled kids and things like that, admittedly. We are applying
that across every new-build single home in London.’
Richard Lavington (Maccreanor Lavington Architects).
Evidence to GLA Planning Committee, 11 March 2014
The house on left fails London rules on at
least 13 separate points. The one on right
fails 3.1.3 & probably many more
This window fails
Priority 1 Clause 4.4.6
Neither of these streets could be built today under current rules. Rules
they fail include 3.1.3, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 4.3.2 and certainly many others

25. 25
3. What we’re doing right now in London
Site Current max
height
Local typical
height
New height Uplift
Storeys %
Lillie Road 3 12 300
Dairy Crest
site
6 32 433
Seagrave
Road
1 4 16 1500
Aylesbury 13 3-4 20 54
Heygate 11 5 16 45
Wooddene 7 3 9 29
Packington1
8 4 8 33
Whitechapel
Road
2 8 18 800
Woodberry
Park
8 2/3/4 31 288
Colville 12 5 20 67
Haggerston 6 4 10 67
Kings
Crescent
6 3 12 100
Heathside 7 3 17 143
Chester Road 4 4 6 50
Agar Grove 18 5 20 11
Aberfeldy 9 4 10 11
St Andrews,
Bromley
7 5 27 286
New Union
Wharf
6 NA 14 133
Robin Hood
Gardens
10 NA 40 300
Create Streets
Source: Create Streets research
Site Units Density (units/hectare)1
Before After % uplift Before After % uplift
Lillie Road 24 65 171 119 324 171
Earls Court 760 6775 791 24 210 791
Aylesbury 2,759 4200 52 115 185 56
Heygate 1107 2462 122 114 254 122
Wooddene 320 333 4 168 174 4
Packington2
538 695 56 839 150 56
Kidbrooke 1906 4800 152 64 160 152
Woodberry
Park
1981 5561 181 76 214 181
Colville 438 900 105 88 180 105
Haggerston 480 761 59 113 179 59
Kings
Crescent
270 760 181 65 183 181
Heathside 565 1201 113 93 198 113
Chester
Road
25 53 112 104 221 112
Agar Grove 249 493 98 91 179 98
Aberfeldy 297 1176 296 45 178 296
New Union
Wharf
189 399 111 111 235 111
Robin Hood
Gardens
252 1575 525 140 250 525
St John’s
Clapham
Junction
353 528 50 156 233 50
Create Streets summary of current regenerations, density, units & height
 Average increase of 170% in
density
 Average increase in height is
around 227 %
 Only one redevelopment (the
Packington in Islington) having a
final maximum height of fewer
than 10 storeys
 NLA has found 236 towers of at
least 20 storeys being built or
with planning permission

26. 26
3. St John’s Hill, Clapham: medium to high-rise Create Streets
From 1930s medium rise blocks round open space To modern high-rise blocks round open space

27. 27
We should replace places like Aylesbury Estate with places like
Pimlico – but building & housing codes make it very hard Create Streets
Aylesbury Estate,
Southwark
 2,759 units
 Built 1963-1977
 All council-owned flats in
large slab blocks apart
A few very large
buildings. Correlated
with low sense of
community & high
crime
A few very large
buildings. Correlated
with low sense of
community & high
crime
And lots of ‘wasted’ space
– leading to much lower
densities than (more
popular) surrounding
streets
And lots of ‘wasted’ space
– leading to much lower
densities than (more
popular) surrounding
streets
from 50 houses and 300 right-to-buy leasehold
 Density 115 dwellings /hectare (346 rooms / hectare)
 Poor scores on nearly all wealth, health, welfare &
attainment metrics
Pimlico, Westminster
 Replace with street typology of Pimlico less than 2 miles away
 Mixture of flats in terraced streets & private houses
 Est. density of 173 units/hectare
 50% more dwellings (2,759 to 4,140)
 100% of social homes replaced
 Still space for modest back gardens & gated communal square
gardens (and Burgess Park is to immediate south)
 Near city-centre & excellent transport links to both city and West
End
 However this is currently difficult due to
− London Housing Design Guide & rules on open space replacement
− London density targets
− Lower short term income compared to uber-high density scheme
Dense flatted 6
storey buildings.
Mixture of social,
market rent &
owner-occupied
Dense flatted 6
storey buildings.
Mixture of social,
market rent &
owner-occupied
Flats &
houses
Flats &
houses
Traditional streets. No
space wasted.
Correlated with
resident satisfaction &
long term value growth
Traditional streets. No
space wasted.
Correlated with
resident satisfaction &
long term value growth

28. 28
What is being planned: ‘not better enough’ Create Streets
Aylesbury Estate 2010 Area Action Plan
 Similar basic format as status quo
 Main change is veneer of exterior bricks
 A lot of very large blocks & high rise with
some flat very low density houses behind*
 Very generous green space but mainly
public not private or communal
 Not really putting streets back – most
lined with tall buildings
 ‘Green fingers’ prioritised over gardens
 Density of 177 units/hectare leading to
4,259 units (increase of 54%)
 Density higher than ‘Pimlico’ but high rise
required by lost space
Tower blocks & slab
blocks – again. Correlated
with low sense of
community & resident
dislike
Tower blocks & slab
blocks – again. Correlated
with low sense of
community & resident
dislike
Repeating
key design
errors of
1960s &
70s –
correlated
with crime,
resident
dislike &
empty
streets
Repeating
key design
errors of
1960s &
70s –
correlated
with crime,
resident
dislike &
empty
streets
Lots of wasted space – again.
Combined with high PTAL targets
this obliges slab & tower blocks
Lots of wasted space – again.
Combined with high PTAL targets
this obliges slab & tower blocks
* Due to Lifetime Homes standards in London Design Guide which mandates flat, ‘wide’ houses - increasing need for high rise

29. 29
1. Streets are a good idea
− Popular
− Good for you
2. Streets are practical
− Can be very high density
− Great long term returns
3. Current regeneration and planning model finds it hard to
build sufficient conventional streets
4. We should
− End the regulatory bias
− Stop trying to make development pay for too much
− Empower local people FAR more
− Improve financial focus on long term
− Pilot a Social Impact Bond
Create StreetsContents

30. 30
Simplified graphic of cashflows & tests
A revolving fund for estate regeneration Create Streets
 £•m loan for estate regeneration
 30 Year Term (?)
 From Government
 Construction finance element with
roll up for first (5?) years
 Match funded up to 100%
 From Third Sector funder
 Identical terms
 Pari passu (i.e. identical risk
exposure as HMT)
Funds high
proportion of
regeneration
without need
for quick
financial
return
Years 1-5
 Development finance
 No payment
 Payments rolled-up
Years 6-30
 Paying down facility
 Payments from
− Affordable Rents
− Private Sector Rents
− Sales receipts (rising with growing
sense of place)
− Right to buy receipts*
 Net of management costs
* If necessary. Hope is that this income stream would not be necessary. Affordable housing should be replaced given London housing crisis
Ongoing management of rented
component & release of some to
private sale
Should require . . .
• Neighbourhood plan
• More than £7,000
• Explicit ‘right to override’

31. 31
Pilot a social impact bond to hardwire good outcomes. . . Create Streets

32. 32
. . . because the long term economics could workCreate Streets
Health
• Residents of lower-rise, more conventional streets are typically happier and happier with where they
live
• Residents of lower-rise, more conventional streets typically suffer from lower levels of stress and
mental health issues
• Levels of suicide would appear to be lower in lower-rise more conventional streets
Family
• Family relationships appear to be better, marital discord lower and mothers mentally healthier in
lower-rise, more conventional streets
• Children have fewer behavioural problems in lower-rise more conventional streets
• Children appear to do better at school in lower-rise more conventional streets
Crime
• Crime is typically lower in lower-rise more conventional streets with most of the difference being
explained by higher levels of crime in semi-private, semi-public spaces
• Anti-social behaviour (litter, graffiti, vandalism etc) are typically lower in lower-rise more conventional
streets
Community
• Residents of lower-rise more conventional streets appear to know and interact with a high proportion
of their neighbours and report a greater sense of community
• Residents of lower-rise more conventional streets appear to behave more sociably and well to their
fellow residents
Economy
• Well-connected, more walkable streets benefit from higher housing and commercial values. In other
words, shops and businesses tend to be more profitable in such areas – with an implication (but not,
as yet, a proven correlation of greater job-creation)[1]

33. 33
. . . because the long term economics could workCreate Streets
Item Cost or volume
Adult population of an estate (indicative) 4,250
Child population 1,062 (London average, 24.5%)
JSA cost (per person, per year) £3,744 (standard single >25 rate)
Lone Parent JSA (per person, per year) £3,744
Improved tax & NI take (per person per
year)
£1,5001
Improved business rate £2,000
Cost to state of recorded crime in London
per person per year
£97
NPV to state of child going to university2
£64,000
Improvements in social outcome
modelled on lower-rise more
conventional streets
1% (benefits & jobs)
2% (education)
5% (crime)
Annual benefit saved (JSA) £79,600
Annual benefit saved (Lone Parent) £79,600
Annual crime reduction £25,800
Annual income & NI tax take £31,900
Annual business rates £120,000
Net Present value of education
improvements
£1,370,000
Net Present value of all other
improvements
£11,270,000
Total £12,640,000
• Could justify £12.6m on
‘improved design’ for
estate of 4,250 adults

34. 34
Appendix: StreetScore Create Streets
Source: Create Streets Research
1. Connectivity
2. Space
3. Height
5. Homes
6. Design
4. Size
7. Density
High connectivity to the rest of
the city is correlated with high
valuations and greater value
appreciation
High connectivity to the rest of
the city is correlated with high
valuations and greater value
appreciation
Lots of semi-public semi-
private space is correlated
with higher crime, greater
difficulties bringing up
children & less good social
outcomes
Lots of semi-public semi-
private space is correlated
with higher crime, greater
difficulties bringing up
children & less good social
outcomes
High buildings
correlated with
low resident
satisfaction,
weaker sense of
neighbourhood,
less sociable
behaviour &
problems for
families
High buildings
correlated with
low resident
satisfaction,
weaker sense of
neighbourhood,
less sociable
behaviour &
problems for
families
More conventionally designed buildings are
more popular with a much higher
proportion of population & correlated with
higher value appreciation
More conventionally designed buildings are
more popular with a much higher
proportion of population & correlated with
higher value appreciation
High density terraced streets
maximise long term value in urban
developments & reduce crime
High density terraced streets
maximise long term value in urban
developments & reduce crime
Houses & private gardens are
correlated with better social
outcomes – above all for families
Houses & private gardens are
correlated with better social
outcomes – above all for families
Large units are correlated with higher running costs,
low resident satisfaction & less good social outcomes
Large units are correlated with higher running costs,
low resident satisfaction & less good social outcomes

35. 35
1. Connectivity
2. Space
3. Height
4. Size
5. Homes
6. Design
7. Density
Normally good
Source: Create Streets Research
Appendix: Detailed drivers – normally good . . . Create Streets
• Few turns to shops & transport
• Multiple connections to city
• Easy to walk in, into & from
• Minimal internal & external semi-private space
• Fewer than 6-8 storeys for nearly all residential buildings
• No children in high rise
• Fewer than ~10 units in apartment blocks
• No very large buildings nearby
• Presence of private gardens (or secure, overlooked communal)
• Minimal children in flats
• Homes in conventional streets
• As many houses as possible vs. flats
• Conventional design of buildings
• Absence of external concrete or too much aggressively novel design
• High (but not uber-high) density streets of houses & flats
• Terraced buildings
• Inwardly-secure conventional urban blocks
All of these factors
are correlated in
nearly all research
with (a) resident
satisfaction, (b) good
social outcomes or (c)
good long term value
appreciation.
(Correlations take
account of socio-
economic status)
All of these factors
are correlated in
nearly all research
with (a) resident
satisfaction, (b) good
social outcomes or (c)
good long term value
appreciation.
(Correlations take
account of socio-
economic status)

36. 36
1. Connectivity
2. Space
3. Height
4. Size
5. Homes
6. Design
7. Density
Normally bad
Source: Create Streets Research
Appendix: Detailed drivers – normally bad . . . Create Streets
• Multiple turns to shops & transport
• Few connections to city
• Hard to walk in, into & from
• High levels of internal & external semi-private space
• Mainly greater than 6-8 storeys for residential buildings
• School-age children in high rise
• Greater than ~10 units in apartment blocks
• Very large buildings nearby
• No private gardens
• Many children in flats
• Homes not in conventional streets
• Number of possible houses not maximised
• Novel non-conventional design of buildings
• External concrete
• Very high density or very low density
• ‘Lumpy’ or semi-detached urban form
• Non-conventional & non-secure urban blocks
All of these factors
are correlated in
nearly all research
with (a) low resident
satisfaction, (b) poor
social outcomes or (c)
lower long term value
appreciation.
(Correlations take
account of socio-
economic status)
All of these factors
are correlated in
nearly all research
with (a) low resident
satisfaction, (b) poor
social outcomes or (c)
lower long term value
appreciation.
(Correlations take
account of socio-
economic status)

37. 37
Appendix: helping decision-makers Create Streets
Source: Create Streets Research
 This tool assess individual developments, streets or even houses on
likely resident satisfaction, social outcomes and long term value
appreciation & economic returns
 During the first part of 2014 we will be working this tool up at cost with
firms who feel able to donate to our charitable research programme
 The scoring mechanism is based 100% on peer-reviewed studies or
statistically significant correlations
 As we conduct further research in 2014 we will be further refining this tool
and will make any improved scorings available to existing clients
 This economic model is different from models usually run by surveyors or
investors in that it focus on lifetime costings & valuations
 It will be of particular interest to long term landowners or investors and
public bodies
 We are also starting to work up a calculator of likely increased cost to the
state of non-street based multi-storey & high rise developments
 The key drivers of extra cost are (a) higher crime (b) poorer physical &
mental health (c) greater family break down & (d) lower levels of
employment & economic activity
1. StreetScore
evaluation tool
2. Create Streets Total
long term returns
model
3. Create Streets
Indicative Cost to
State Calculator
(underway)
 To ensure the StreetScore can practically help landowners, councils, RSLs and developers we
have developed two tools (and are developing a third)

38. 38
StreetScore evaluation tool – methodology Create Streets
Source: Create Streets Research
 Scoring system re-based to
100
 >80% very high correlation
with resident satisfaction,
good social outcomes & long
term value
 >66% high correlation
 >50% moderate correlation
 <50% low correlation
 <33% very low correlation
 Indicative scoring &
weightings
 Drivers based 100% on peer-
reviewed studies or
statistically robust correlations
 However weightings are more
subjective & remain under
review
Heading Specifc Driver Scoring mechanism Key sources
1 Connectivity 1a Number of street turns to nearest shops Very high (>15, 0) High (>10, 1), Medium High (>7,2), Medium
Low (>5,3) Low (>2, 4), Very Low <2,5). All based on averages
Space Syntax, Savills
1b Number of street turns to nearest train or tube station Very high (>15, 0) High (>10, 1), Medium High (>7,2), Medium
Low (>5,3) Low (>2, 4), Very Low <2,5). All based on averages
Space Syntax, Savills
1b Number of street turns to nearest bus stop Very high (>15, 0) High (>10, 1), Medium High (>7,2), Medium
Low (>5,3) Low (>2, 4), Very Low <2,5). All based on averages
Space Syntax, Savills
1d Distance to nearest shops Very high (>1mile, 0) High (>2/3 mile, 1), Medium High (>1/2
mile,2), Medium Low (>1/4 mile,3) Low (<1/4 mile, 4), Very Low
<100 metres,5). All based on averages
Sale price analysis
1e Distance to nearest train or train station Very high (>1mile, 0) High (>2/3 mile, 1), Medium High (>1/2
mile,2), Medium Low (>1/4 mile,3) Low (<1/4 mile, 4), Very Low
<100 metres,5). All based on averages
Sale price analysis
1f Distance to nearest bus stop Very high (>1mile, 0) High (>2/3 mile, 1), Medium High (>1/2
mile,2), Medium Low (>1/4 mile,3) Low (<1/4 mile, 4), Very Low
<100 metres,5). All based on averages
Sale price analysis
1g Number of full streets crossing street (or average street in area) Very high (>5,5), High (>4,4), Medium High (>3,3), Medium Low
(>2,2), Low (>1,1), Very Low (<1,0)
Space Syntax, Savills
1h Easily walkable streets Nelessen, Brookings
2 Space 2a Proportion of internal semi-private space used for access No semi-private space (10), >10% flats accessed off internal
semi-private space (9), >20% flats accessed off internal semi-
private space (8), >30% flats accessed off internal semi-private
space (7), . >70% flats accessed off internal semi-private space
(3), >80% flats accessed off internal semi-private space (2),
>90% flats accessed off internal semi-private space (1), 100%
flats accessed off internal semi-private space (0)
Newman, Coleman, Wilson
2b Nature of internal semi-private space No semi-private access of all < 5 doors (5), > 80% fewer than 5
doors (4), >60% fewer than 5 doors (3), >40% fewer than 5 doors
(2), >20% fewer than 5 doors (1), <20% fewer than 5 doors (0)
Newman, Coleman, Wilson, RIBA
2c Amount of external semi-private space within building None (5), none for critical access (4), <20% of flats accessed (3),
<30% of flats accessed (2), <50% of flats accessed (1), >50% of
flats accessed (0)
Newman, Coleman, Wilson, RIBA
2d Amount of unstructured public open space surrounding front
doors
None (10), < 10% front doors (9), <20% front doors (8)….<70%
front doors (3), <80% front doors (2), <90% front doors (1), > 90%
front doors (0)
Newman, Coleman, Wilson
3 Height 3a Maximum number of storeys in a single block 3-6 storeys (10), 6-8 storeys (5), 9 storeys (2) < 3 storeys or > 10
storeys (0)
Gittus, Jephcott, Gifford, Chatterjee, Power, ONS,
Dasgupta, Marzul, Richmann, Saegart
3b Average number of storeys in street 3-6 storeys (10), 6-8 storeys (5), 9 storeys (2) < 3 storeys or > 10
storeys (0)
Gifford, Chatterjee, Power, Nelessen, ONS, Dasgupta,
Marzul
3c Ratio to suurounding areas 1:1 (20), < 1 (10), <1.5:1 (10), <2:1 (5), >2:1 (0) Gifford, Chatterjee, Power, Nelessen, ONS, Dasgupta,
Marzul
3d No children with starting height above second floor None (15), < 10% (13), < 20% (11), ….<90% (2), > 90% (0)
4 Size 4a Number of units in building < 3( 20), < 5 (15), <10 (10), < 15 (5), > 15 (0) MORI, ONS, Gifford
4b Maximum number of units in building in street < 3( 10), < 5 (7), <10 (5), < 15 (3), > 15 (0) MORI, ONS, Gifford
4c Average number of units in builing in street < 3( 10), < 5 (7), <10 (5), < 15 (3), > 15 (0) MORI, ONS, Gifford
5 Homes 5a Presence of private outdoor space 100% (10), <90% (9), <80% (8)….<10% (1), >10% (0) MORI, RIBA
5b Families with children < 18 in flats ? All (20), >90% (18), >80% (16), >70% (14)….., >20% (4), >0%
(2), 0% (0)
Gittus, Coleman, Gifford, Fanning, Gittus, Jephcott,
Richman, Saegart
5c Houses on streets All (20), >90% (18), >80% (16), >70% (14)….., >20% (4), >0%
(2), 0% (0)
MORI, Mass Observation, Halifax, Power, Fanning
6 Design 6a Presence of convetional vernacualar style ? Judgement based. Totally (10). Not at all (0) YouGov, Adam Architects, Halifax, Savills
6b Absence of concrete 'brutliast' style ? Judgement based. No concrete brutalist (10). 100% concrete
brutaslit (0)
MORI
6c Absence of contemporary post-modern style ? Judgement based. No contemporary post-modern (10). 100%
contemporary post-modern (0)
BBC, Channel 4
7 Density 7a Density (Rooms/hectare) Between 90 & 150 units / hectare (15). < 200 (10) <230 (50) >
230 (0) >70 (10) > 60 (5) < 60 (0)
Savills
7b Nature of streets Judgement. Proper urban streets (5) No Streets (0) Space Syntax, Savills
7c Nature of blocks Judgement. Blocks as part of street (5) Blocks entirley off the
street (0)
Space Syntax, Savills
7d Density compared to local average 1:1 (10), < 1 (5), <1.5:1 (5), <2:1 (2), >2:1 (0)

39. 39
Create Streets
Source: Create Streets Research * Please note this is a provisional score based on imperfect data
 Mix of flats in terraced streets & houses
 Dense flatted six storey buildings
 Traditional streets. No space wasted
 Est. density of 173 units/hectare*
 Create Streets score of 75%*
 This indicates very high correlation with
resident satisfaction, good social outcomes
& high value appreciation
 Main areas of low scores are high
proportion of flats, lack of private gardens
and presence of children in flats
Streetscore – in flight examples
Pimlico, Westminster
Aylesbury Estate, Southwark
 All flats in very large slab blocks apart from
50 houses
 Density 115 dwellings per hectare (346
rooms per hectare)
 Despite £56.2m spent on improvements
(~£21,000 per flat), site still to be
demolished
 Poor scores on nearly all wealth, health,
welfare & attainment metrics
 Create Streets score of 19%*
 This indicates very low correlation with
resident satisfaction, good social outcomes
& high value appreciation