surURBIA

Gerry Cahill

Picture this. A scouts hall in a Dublin suburb on a cold wet winter's evening. The hall is packed with an expectant community awaiting the architects presentation of what new housing is to be built in their midst. The ever enthusiastic architects pin up their carefully coloured and precious images. Before introductions can be made a voice from the floor : 'Through the Chair', the speaker begins 'I would just like to say, I don't care what you propose but I object.' The speaker sits down to thunderous applause. True story and it wasn't in Ballymun.

That was some years ago and the housing is now built. It accommodates those originally from the margins who are fully contributing and involved members of the community. The dwellings are comfortable and adequate and fill a once derelict site. The development is now so accepted as to be almost invisible. So why is it that the process of public consultation often brings grief ? What is it that stifles communication when all are apparently after the same goal, namely good housing ?

But what is 'good Housing' ? Look at the property pages and follow the aspirations. Houses are in schemes known as 'Woods', 'Lawns', 'Copse', 'Glade', 'Meadow' et al. It has been said that developers knock down trees to build houses and then name the roads after the trees they have felled. The images are all similar ; pantiled pitched roofs, decorative overhanging eaves, a bit of feature brickwork and preferably with a Victorian or Georgian 'style'. Landscaped driveways, traditional street lamps, rockeries, shrubberies, a garden gnome or two.

It is to this rosy glow of expectation that we bring our work. Our inspirations and references seem to be far removed from the bucolic 'rus in urbis' image of idealised surburbia. Architects speak a different language. We want to use a palette of materials and reference from the usually continental projects we admire. Perfectly valid schemes but often light years from the expectations of our audience. How do we communicate the validity of what we propose ?

Not easily. When we talk about dwellings or units our audience are thinking of 'home'. In housing how can our design solutions support the aspirations and changing and developing lives of future occupants ? Most want the two storey pitched roof house with parking out front and the kids play pen out back. But we know that model could stretch from Dublin to Galway if future housing projections are to be satisfied. So it appears our challenge is to innovate while somehow maintaining the essence of the ordinary ; to increase density while maintaining amenity ; to create community identity while protecting privacy.

Our tradition is that our urban centres are 'cities of houses'. Ground based individually accessed houses with ground based private outdoor worlds. To continue to use housing like this we will never get beyond 25 dwellings to the acre. Europe is full of the stacked dwelling options. Single level apartments with terraces and balconies accessed off common stairs. What works in Paris, Rome, Amsterdam or Berlin is resisted here as a suitable solution for family living. Why should this be so ?

The spectre of the Ballymun Towers looms. They didn't work, so medium to high rise living in the suburbs is dismissed. But they didn't work for lots of reasons social, design, management, maintenance. Whilst higher residential buildings are being built in the city centre the suburbs can only be permitted low-rise. Not good for the ever diminishing stock of land. With the continuing foot and mouth fear our census is postponed. What our last round up showed was that family and household size in modern Ireland continues to change. Less kids, more single parent families, people working from home, the elderly living alone, those of all ages with impairment needing support. Not a uniform population, not a uniform society. Not needing a uniform response of the standard two-storey three bedroom semi.

In the words of Noud de Vreeze, Director of the Rotterdam Architecture Centre we as architects now find ourselves 'between convention and innovation'. If we have a mission in housing it is to explain and inform ; to propose solutions that create a variety of homes for a variety of occupier ; to propose and maintain standards that posit a range of absolute rights to which all housing must respond ; the right to light, air, space, aspect, privacy, environ-mental comfort, properly managed, shared open space. Our housing solutions must respond to these. Nothing must be dismissed.

Our innovation must show how good housing can be created in apartments, duplexes, stacked units as alternatives to the familiar suburban solutions. We must be prepared not only to listen but also to discuss ; to demonstrate through our craft and our understanding of building methods how quality homes can be created in new ways. The required 50,000 dwellings per year over the next 10 years must not be left to be created by market forces. Developers and local authorities have and will continue to respond to a vision of new ways to design and build. We as architects can develop that vision. It's the least we can do.

Gerry Cahill is an architect.