Could modular housing solve London's housing crisis?

Artist's impression of Pocket's block at Juxon Street, London SE11. Image: Pocket Living.

 The phrase "modular housing" has recently been cropping up more frequently among those of us who hang out in housing circles. (You should come to our parties, they’re wild.) Two London developments – one private, one public – opened up to prying eyes recently, so it’s an opportune moment to take a closer look.

But first of all: what is modular housing?

Briefly, it’s housing that’s mainly constructed off-site, on a factory production line. Private developer Pocket Living makes its one- and two-bedroom flats – including fittings – in two weeks. The modules are then lowered into place to form buildings over around 30 days; then finishing work takes place, to make the resulting block look like a traditional apartment block.

Modular housing is quicker and cheaper to put together than standard construction methods. Pocket Living estimates its developments take about six months less to complete than old fashioned building methods. And doing so much work off-site significantly reduces dust levels and disruption for neighbours caused by noise and lorries. It’s also one way around the construction industry’s current skills shortage.

Pocket Living recently let press and representatives from local councils into a new development near the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth. The quality is pretty impressive: it definitely doesn’t feel like stepping into a prefab.

The one bedroom flat on show was, shall we say, snug – but 38m2 is in line with space standards for single occupancy dwellings set out in the London Plan. (This is just as well; this may say more about me than the property, but I can’t imagine a relationship holding up without more space.) Prices for these flats start at £267,000; for this development, that's 30-35 per cent below market value.

A plan of a Pocket flat. Image: Pocket Living.

This prompts a number of thoughts. You don’t get much for your money these days; but it is at least near a zone 1 tube station (to be specific, Lambeth North); and modular housing must be a damn sight cheaper to build if it can be sold at these prices.

On the latter point, Pocket doesn’t have figures on costs compared to a traditional build, but says all its homes go on sale at least 20 per cent below the market rate. Speed undoubtedly helps to keep costs down, too. The development in Lambeth will take 12 months from land completion date to allocating homes to new residents.

New council housing?

A little further south, Lewisham Council is finishing off PLACE/Ladywell, a Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners-designed modular block of 24 homes, providing temporary accommodation for families on the council’s waiting list. The homes are situated on the grounds of a former leisure centre; the land would otherwise be in limbo, waiting for planning permission for a larger, permanent development.

The council says it will save £140,000 a year simply through not paying to house these families in low quality B&B accommodation. With income from rent and commercial units, it believes the project will pay for itself in ten years. The modules have a lifespan of 60 years and can be moved five times to other sites in that time period.

The space in these flats is actually 10 per cent larger than London Plan mandated standards and all have balconies. PLACE/Ladywell won two prizes at the recent New London Awards, including the prestigious Mayor’s Prize. It was also constructed even faster than Pocket Living’s Lambeth development: work began off-site in November 2015, and residents are on the verge of moving in.


Is modular housing the solution to the housing crisis? No, and nobody involved pretends that it is. But this lower cost, simple and fast construction model has great potential for adding to the mix when it comes to providing more affordable homes.

Even Pocket, a private company, has a model that’s committed to affordable housing. Costs are kept down by using the same modular home design, offering no car parking space and buying land using a GLA-supported loan.

To buy a Pocket home you must be a first time buyer living or working in the relevant borough, earning under £90,000 (the average Pocket buyer earns closer to £40,000) and not buying with cash. Pocket commits to selling its homes for at least 20 per cent below the open market rate.

Crucially, there are covenants on Pocket homes which control future affordability. Owners aren't allowed to rent them out and, when they come to sell on, new buyers are also subject to income and residence eligibility criteria. Pocket says this acts as a brake on the value of the homes, keeping them at around 20 per cent under the general market price. In other words, they're discounted (we can all argue about the definition of "affordable") forever.

"Modular housing has huge potential to speed up the delivery of new homes in London," says Tom Copley, a Labour member of the London Assembly. "If we are going to reach 50,000 new homes a year, developers, Housing Associations and local authorities should all be looking to deliver housing in this way."

Copley’s Assembly colleague, the Green party’s Sian Berry, has an idea about how councils could use the concept to minimise disruption when redeveloping estates. "As part of an alternative to demolition, modular homes should be of great interest to residents and councils alike when looking at ways to plan for more homes on existing council estates, without displacement and years of building works."

Modular housing certainly has potential to keep residents in their communities while blocks are being improved or rebuilt; it should certainly be looked at as a way to quickly infill unused space with permanent homes. Lewisham’s creative idea to unlock land for housing while it’s stuck in planning hell is also something that can be implemented elsewhere.

It’s not, in itself, a solution to the housing crisis. But it could be a solution.

 
 
 
 

Was the decline in Liverpool’s historic population really that unusual?

A view of Liverpool from Birkenhead. Image: Getty.

It is often reported that Liverpool’s population halved after the 1930s. But is this true? Or is it a myth?

Often, it’s simply assumed that it’s true. The end. Indeed, proud Londoner Lord Adonis – a leading proponent of the Liverpool-bypassing High Speed 2 railway, current chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, and generally a very influential person – stood on the stairs in Liverpool Town Hall in 2011 and said:

“The population of Liverpool has nearly halved in the last 50 years.”

This raises two questions. Firstly, did the population of the City of Liverpool really nearly halve in the 50 year period to 2011? That’s easy to check using this University of Portsmouth website – so I did just that (even though I knew he was wrong anyway). In 2011, the population of the City of Liverpool was 466,415. Fifty years earlier, in 1961, it was 737,637, which equates to a 37 per cent drop. Oops!

In fact, the City of Liverpool’s peak population was recorded in the 1931 Census as 846,302. Its lowest subsequent figure was recorded in the 2001 Census as 439,428 – which represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over a 70 year period.

Compare this to the population figures for the similarly sized City of Manchester. Its peak population also recorded in the 1931 Census as 748,729, and its lowest subsequent figure was also recorded in the 2001 Census, as 392,830. This also represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over the same 70 year period.

So, as can be seen here, Liverpool is not a special case at all. Which makes me wonder why it is often singled out or portrayed as exceptional in this regard, in the media and, indeed, by some badly briefed politicians. Even London has a similar story to tell, and it is told rather well in this recent article by a Londoner, for the Museum of London. (Editor’s note: It’s one of mine.)

This leads me onto the second question: where have all those people gone: London? The Moon? Mars?

Well, it turns out that the answer is bit boring and obvious actually: after World War 2, lots of people moved to the suburbs. You know: cars, commuter trains, slum clearance, the Blitz, all that stuff. In other words, Liverpool is just like many other places: after the war, this country experienced a depopulation bonanza.


So what form did this movement to the suburbs take, as far as Liverpool was concerned? Well, people moved and were moved to the suburbs of Greater Liverpool, in what are now the outer boroughs of the city region: Halton, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton, Wirral. Others moved further, to Cheshire West & Chester, West Lancashire, Warrington, even nearby North Wales, as previously discussed here.

In common with many cities, indeed, Liverpool City Council actually built and owned large several ‘New Town’ council estates, to which they moved tens of thousands of people to from Liverpool’s inner districts: Winsford in Cheshire West (where comedian John Bishop grew up), Runcorn in Halton (where comedian John Bishop also grew up), Skelmersdale in West Lancashire, Kirkby in Knowsley. There is nothing unique or sinister here about Liverpool (apart from comedian John Bishop). This was common practice across the country – Indeed, it was central government policy – and resulted in about 160,000 people being ‘removed’ from the Liverpool local authority area.

Many other people also moved to the nearby suburbs of Greater Liverpool to private housing – another trend reflected across the country. It’s worth acknowledging, however, that cities across the world are subject to a level of ‘churn’ in population, whereby many people move out and many people move in, over time, too.

So how did those prominent images of derelict streets in the inner-city part of the City of Liverpool local authority area come about? For that, you have to blame the last Labour government’s over-zealous ‘Housing Market Renewal Initiative’ (HMRI) disaster – and the over enthusiastic participation of the then-Lib Dem controlled city council. On the promise of ‘free’ money from central government, the latter removed hundreds of people from their homes with a view to demolishing the Victorian terraces, and building new replacements. Many of these houses, in truth, were already fully modernised, owner-occupied houses within viable and longstanding communities, as can be seen here in Voelas Street, one of the famous Welsh Streets of Liverpool:

Voelas Street before HMRI implementation. Image: WelshStreets.co.uk.

The same picture after HMRI implementation Image: WelshStreets.co.uk. 

Nonetheless: the council bought the houses and ‘tinned them up’ ready for demolition. Then the coalition Conservative/Lib Dem government, elected in 2010, pulled the plug on the scheme. 

Fast forward to 2017 and many of the condemned houses have been renovated, in a process which is still ongoing. These are over-subscribed when they come to market, suggesting that the idea was never appropriate for Liverpool on that scale. 

At any rate, it turns out that the Liverpool metropolitan population is pretty much the same as it was at its peak in 1931 (depending where the local borough boundaries are arbitrarily drawn). It just begs the question: why are well educated and supposedly clever people misrepresenting the Liverpool metropolis, in particular, in this way so often? Surely they aren’t stupid are they?


And why are some people so determined to always isolate the City of Liverpool from its hinterland, while London is always described in terms of its whole urban area? It just confuses and undermines what would otherwise often be worthwhile comparisons and discussions. Or, to put it another way: “never, ever, compare apples with larger urban zones”.

In a recent Channel 4 documentary, for example, the well-known and respected journalist Michael Burke directly compared the forecast population growths, by 2039, of the City of Liverpool single local authority area against that of the combined 33 local authority areas of Greater London: 42,722 versus 2.187,708. I mean, what bizarre point is such an inappropriate comparison even trying to make? It is like comparing the projected growth of a normal sized-person’s head with the projected growth of the whole of an obese person, over a protracted period.

Having said all that, there is an important sensible conversation to be had as to why the populations of the Greater Liverpool metropolis and others haven’t grown as fast as maybe should have been the case, whilst, in recent times, the Greater London population has been burgeoning. But constantly pitching it as some sort of rare local apocalypse helps no one.

Dave Mail has declared himself CityMetric’s Liverpool City Region correspondent. He will be updating us on the brave new world of Liverpool City Region, mostly monthly, in ‘E-mail from Liverpool City Region’ and he is on twitter @davemail2017.