This paper is about state — market relations in speculative housebuilding, with specific reference to the means by which higher quality design can be achieved in new residential developments. Applying the concept of opportunity space, we investigate the extent to which form-based/design codes change developers' opportunity space both in absolute terms and vis-à-vis the opportunity space of designers. We interrogate this using evidence from a major design-coded residential development in the southeast of England, drawing on interviews with housebuilders. We conclude that design codes have the potential to transform the market context for new housebuilding, but that the typical housebuilder has yet to be convinced of their business advantages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsDLeishmanC, 2008Factors Affecting Build Out Rates report to Department for Communities and Local Government, London
2.
Ben-JosephE, 2005The Code of the City: Standards and the Hidden Language of Place Making (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
3.
BentleyI, 1999Urban Transformations: Power, People and Urban Design (Routledge, London)
4.
CABE, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment2003The Use of Design Codes: Building Sustainable Communities
5.
CABE, 2004Housing Audit 2004: London, the South East and East of England
6.
CABE, 2005Housing Audit 2005: North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber
7.
CABE, 2006Housing Audit 2006: East Midlands, West Midlands and the South West
CarmonaMHeathTOcTTiesdellS, 2003Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design (Architectural Press, Oxford)
11.
CarmonaMMarshallSStevensQ, 2006, “Design codes: their use and potential”Progress in Planning65(4) 209–289
12.
DCLG, Department for Communities and Local Government, London2006aPlaning Policy Statement 3: Housing
13.
DCLG, 2006bPreparing Design Codes: A Practice Manual (RIBA Publishing, London
14.
DCLG, 2006cDesign Coding in Practice: An Evaluation (DCLG Publications, London)
15.
DETR, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London1998Places, Streets and Movement
16.
DETR, 2000aPlanning Policy Guidance Note 3
17.
DETR, 2000bBy Design: Urban Design in the Planning System—Towards Better Places
18.
DETR, CABE, 2000By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice
19.
DTLR, CABE, 2001By Design: Better Places to Live: A Design Companion to PPG3Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and Commission for Architecture and Built Environment, London
20.
DuanyAPlater-ZyberkESpeckJ, 2001Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (North Point Press, New York)
21.
EPOA, 1997A Design Guide for Residential and Mixed Use AreasEssex Planning Officers Association, Essex
22.
HallT, 2007Turning a Town Around: A Proactive Approach to Urban Design (Blackwell, Oxford)
23.
HardyD, 2005Poundbury, The Town that Charles Built (Town and Country Planning Association, London)
24.
HooperANicolC, 1999, “The design and planning of residential development: standard house types in the speculative housebuilding industry”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26793–805
25.
ParolekD GParolekKCrawfordP C, 2008Form Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
26.
Roger Evans Associates, 2007Delivering Quality Places: Urban Design Compendium 2English Partnerships and The Housing Corporation, London
Thompson-FawcettMBondS, 2003, “Urbanist intentions for the built landscape: examples of concept and practice in England, Canada and New Zealand”Progress in Planning60(2) 147–234
29.
TiesdellSAdamsD, 2004, “Design matters: major house builders and the design challenge of brownfield development contexts”Journal of Urban Design9(1) 23–45
