Reclaiming Beauty and Affordability in London’s Housing
A Mini-Monograph by Alan Crawford RIBA June 2025
Introduction: Beyond Bricks and Mortar
Section 1: Vitruvius—The Ancient Call for Beauty and the Modern Evasion
Section 2: The New London Vernacular—Promise, Mutation, Failure
Section 3: The Science of Beauty—From Dopamine to Urban Malaise
Section 4: The Hidden Cost of Housing Shortages
Section 5: Exemplars—Proof That Beauty and Value Coexist
Section 6:
We stand at a crossroads: by 2050, nearly 68 percent of humanity will call cities home (1). In the UK, fresh government ambitions for 1.5 million new homes over five years (2) starkly contrast with a thirty-year delivery average closer to 200,000 annually in England (3) .
Meanwhile, local authorities shoulder a staggering bill, recently estimated at over £4.7 million a day, for emergency homeless accommodation (4). Compounding this crisis of volume and cost is a crisis of quality and spirit.
Figure 1 (pg 4 & 5): Contrasting Visions: London's cherished architectural heritage (left) versus the monotonous aesthetics of some recent large-scale housing developments (right), highlighting the challenge addressed in this monograph
Alarmingly, it is reported that as few as 6-8% of new homes in England benefit from meaningful architectural involvement in their design (5), with the vast majority delivered through pattern-book approaches by volume housebuilders.
In this feverish drive for quantity, often without sufficient design oversight, we have sacrificed something essential: the beauty that transforms mere dwellings into restorative sanctuaries.
This mini-monograph argues that beauty is not a luxury. It is essential to well-being, social cohesion, and long-term value. As cities swell and land values soar, we must embrace thoughtful, restorative design while confronting issues of affordability, homelessness, and ecological stress. A healthy urban future depends on the quality, not just the quantity, of our homes.
Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, Rome’s first-century BC engineer and architect, penned De Architectura, codifying three immutable principles:
Firmitas (soundness), Utilitas (utility), and Venustas (beauty).
For Vitruvius, beauty was not mere ornament but integral to well-being; harmonious proportions and thoughtful details uplift the spirit.
A deficiency in Venustas can, in truth, undermine both Firmitas, as unloved buildings often suffer neglect, and Utilitas, as spaces that fail to delight may fail to function effectively for their inhabitants.
Renaissance luminaries like Palladio and Alberti revived his tenets, embedding beauty at the heart of civic and domestic architecture.
Yet, translating this enduring wisdom into modern housing policy has been a fraught journey.
Over two decades ago, Richard Rogers, as Chair of the Urban Task Force, eloquently argued, “A city that is beautiful, safe, and sustainable is a city for all” (6), championing the indivisible link between quality of life and quality of place. Successive governments have since attempted to introduce policies aimed at achieving better quality in new homes.
However, a peculiar reticence often emerged in official discourse. As Reinier de Graaf notes in his chapter “The ‘B’ Word”, in Architecture the term ‘beauty’ itself became almost taboo, difficult to quantify and thus often omitted from the measurable targets of policy documents (7) .
This linguistic and conceptual vacuum has arguably contributed to a built environment where the essential human need for aesthetically nourishing spaces is frequently sidelined, paving the way for the very issues this monograph seeks to address.
Only recently, with initiatives like the ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’ (8), has ‘beauty’ tentatively re-entered the formal lexicon of UK planning, though its consistent application remains a challenge.
It is within this fluctuating commitment to ‘beauty’ that policies like the NLV emerged. When London’s mayoral administration launched the NLV through its Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance in 2016, it sought to reconnect contemporary housing with London’s cherished brick-built terrace heritage: deep window reveals, subtle parapets, and front doors that meet the pavement. The policy’s good intentions included contextual familiarity, legible street edges, and a restrained material palette.
Yet, without robust ongoing design review, clear success metrics, or perhaps sufficient skilled architectural interpretation at project level, that flexible language too often ossified into a formulaic scourge: endless slabs of homogeneous brick; copy-and-paste balconies stacked floor upon floor; towering monoliths that dwarf human scale.
What began as a gentle revival frequently mutated into a widespread condition many perceive as a dystopia of monotony that carpet-bombs London’s skyline with soulless blocks that violate Vitruvius’ call for beauty and erode local character. The very standardisation that can aid delivery speed, when unmoored from genuine design ingenuity and a commitment to Venustas, risks creating the bleak landscapes of tomorrow.
The aversion to, or neglect of, beauty in mass-produced environments is not merely an aesthetic concern; it has tangible physiological and psychological consequences.
“Why do we swoon at symmetry?” asked neuroscientist Semir Zeki, whose imaging studies reveal that harmonious proportions and natural patterns spark dopamine release in the medial orbitofrontal cortex, measurably reducing stress (9). Donald Ruggles, in Beauty, Neuroscience and Architecture, demonstrates how elements like the golden ratio and rhythmic façades resonate with our neural wiring (10) .
Conversely, Thomas Heatherwick, in Humanise, critiques the proliferation of “boring” buildings, developing a conceptual “boringometer” to articulate characteristics of monotonous, unengaging architecture. He argues that such environments contribute to a sense of alienation and can exacerbate mental health issues, imposing a hidden burden on public well-being and potentially the overall quality of human life.
Juhani Pallasmaa’s ‘The Eyes of the Skin’ argues that architecture communicates through all senses(11) .
Ann Sussman and Justin Hollander, in ‘Cognitive Architecture’, show via biometrics that textured, engaging environments foster comfort (12) .
Stephen Kellert’s Biophilic Design quantifies how natureconnected design enhances cognitive performance and emotional well-being (13), while Alain de Botton’s ‘The Architecture of Happiness’ positions beautiful spaces as crucial emotional infrastructure (14) .
Even Charles Jencks, in ‘Iconic Building’, celebrates forms that "defy flat-chested conformity," (15) a spirit vital for inspiring living spaces.
Fig 6: Thomas Heatherwick argues that 'boring' buildings can negatively impact mental well-being, contrasting with spaces designed with texture, detail, and human engagement in mind.
London’s housing ecosystem has polarised: gleaming investor towers on one end, and substandard HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) on the other. Over 1 million young Londoners—key workers, creatives, graduates—live in converted rooms with shared kitchens, poor insulation, and no privacy. Rents often exceed £800 per month.
Planning rules prohibit building self-contained homes smaller than 37 square metres, despite the fact that most of these tenants already live in spaces far smaller. We are failing the “invisible middle”: those too wealthy for social housing, but too poor for market rents.
Crawford Partnership, in collaboration with Centrepoint, is developing a solution. Modular, beautifully designed micro flats of 24–26 square metres, built on underused sites. Case Studies:
Green Lanes, Haringey: 23 micro flats above a supermarket for young adults at risk of homelessness.
Alma Place, Hammersmith: 10 modular studios with communal gardens for residents aged 16–25.
These flats are not substandard. They are right-sized, filled with light and texture, and supported by robust management frameworks. They’re not a panacea—but they represent a realistic, humane response to an urgent problem.
Co-living—already successful in European and East Asian cities—pairs compact private studios with generous shared amenities. It can reduce loneliness, boost social cohesion, and provide affordability in increasingly unaffordable cities.
Combined with micro flats and new council housing, co-living forms part of a diverse toolkit for addressing urban housing crises.
To prevent exploitation:
Use Section 106 agreements to cap rents at one-third of income.
Apply strict tenancy frameworks for safeguarding and support.
Embed high design standards to ensure comfort and dignity. Restrict occupancy to target groups (young people, key workers).
Micro flats must serve the public interest—not become a loophole for profit.
by Peter Barber Architects
Seventy homes above shops enclose a new civic square. Projecting bays, alternating brick hues, and recessed loggias enliven social housing at little extra cost.
Despite London’s polarised housing market, all is not lost. Amid the copy-paste contagion, a growing number of schemes throughout the UK and especially in London, demonstrate that beauty, affordability, and sustainability can—and must— coexist, often driven by insightful architectural involvement.
by Alison Brooks Architects
Replacing two 1970s towers with 229 dwellings, Brooks frames communal gardens and a pedestrian boulevard with mansionterrace rhythms and intricate brick bonds that honour local character.
by Amin Taha + Groupwork
A ten-storey, load-bearing structure of rough, fossilised limestone with terracotta infill, this project sculpts texture and warmth, proving that solid masonry can be both robust and visually inviting (e.g., as featured in architectural press on completion).
by Bill Dunster Architects / ZED factory
Two decades on, the UK’s first large-scale eco-village remains emblematic: reclaimed brick, timber cladding, and rooftop photovoltaics merge zero-carbon aims with punctuated massing and verdant roofs—an aesthetic born of environmental ethics.
RUSS & Architype
Over fifteen years, residents trained in carpentry and design co-created mixed-tenure homes on former council land. The resulting enclave of shared-ownership, social-rent, and market units radiates tactile craftsmanship and communal pride.
by Patrick Hodgkinson
Camden’s Brunswick Centre stands as a testament to pioneering urban design: stepped concrete terraces, integrated mixed-use spaces, and a bold Brutalist aesthetic merge residential living with a vibrant commercial hub—an architectural vision reborn through significant regeneration.
Peter Barber Architects
Edgewood Mews by Peter Barber Architects reinvents urban living: a robust, crenellated brick facade shields a pedestrianised mews street, fusing 97 homes (half affordable) with a café and shop—an ingenious, high-density, low-rise model fostering community against an urban backdrop.
These projects echo Victorian and Georgian blocks, standardised plans enlivened by thoughtful details, reinterpreted today through digital design tools, modern methods of construction, and circular-economy materials, demonstrating that quality design is an investment, not a cost.
To cure the high-rise virus and the spread of monotony, every new development should draw on an adaptable toolkit, integrating innovative approaches to both design and delivery:
1. Reclaiming Design Leadership
• Mandate Architectural Involvement: Advocate for policies requiring meaningful architectural leadership and design review from concept to completion for all significant housing developments, moving beyond the current low levels of engagement.
2. Contextual and Sensorial Richness
• Local Palette Alignment: Source brick, stone, or timber palettes that resonate with the immediate context.
• Articulated Massing: Subdivide façades into legible rhythms—stepped bays, recessed panels, colour shifts—to create human scale and visual interest.
• Multisensory Layering: Combine textured brick relief, timber screens, living walls, discreet water features, and scented planting (lavender, jasmine) to enliven all five senses.
• Active Ground Floors: Dedicate space to cafés, workshops, or market stalls, generating “eyes on the street” and social animation.
3. Rethinking Space, Affordability, and Living
• Reviewing Space Standards for Innovation: Undertake fundamental research into current London Plan minimum space standards. Explore how adaptable, intelligently designed smaller units ("micro-flats" that are highly spatially efficient in 2D and 3D) with flexible configurations could reduce build/rental costs while enhancing comfort and energy efficiency.
• Embracing Co-Living Solutions: Promote welldesigned co-living models that offer smaller, highly efficient private units complemented by generous, high-quality shared amenity spaces, fostering community and economic viability.
• Strategic Housing Allocation: Develop policies that discourage the placement of families with young children in high-rise blocks, allocating such typologies more appropriately for singles, couples, and older households, while ensuring diverse family housing is provided in lower-to-mid-rise, street-based environments.
16:
within smaller footprints: adaptable layouts can maximise usability and comfort in well-designed compact homes."
• A New Tenancy Model: Champion the categorisation of a significant stream of affordable housing as essential social infrastructure, delivered by local authorities and housing associations as a modern, high-quality iteration of "council housing."
• Integrated and Equitable: Ensure these homes are seamlessly integrated within wider developments, avoiding social stratification and displaying sensorial characteristics and design quality equal to, or even exceeding, market-rate housing.
• The Economic Case: Highlight the positive social return on investment, including substantial long-term savings for local authorities currently burdened by exorbitant temporary accommodation costs.
• Safe, Sustainable Materials: Prioritise products that comply fully with Building Regulations and fire safety (e.g., non-combustible façades, A1/A2 cladding).
• Embrace Zero-Carbon Options: Champion crosslaminated timber, recyclable composites, and circulareconomy principles from cradle-to-cradle (UKGBC, various resources).
• Biophilic Integration: Maximise daylight, natural airflow, and views of greenery. Use indoor-outdoor transitions, green roofs, and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to temper heat and foster connection to nature (e.g., Kellert et al., 2008; Jarvis Build guidance).
• Intelligent Construction: Employ off-site modular construction and other MMC where appropriate for cost control, quality assurance, and speed.
• Digital Tools: Harness AI for generative concept design, performance simulation, and on-site coordination to optimise design and delivery.
Outcome:
These measures, approached holistically, represent not an added burden but an investment in occupant health, community cohesion, reduced lifecycle costs, and enduring value.
By 2050, three-quarters of us will live in cities. If these cities become unaffordable, alienating, and ugly, they will cease to function. Homelessness is no longer a peripheral issue—it’s central.
Micro flats and co-living alone cannot fix everything. But they are part of the solution. We need beauty, affordability, and dignity—at scale.
A “Homes for All” vision must marry genuine affordability with guaranteed sensory delight and robust social value. Thoughtful, architecturally led design, from macro policy shifts on space and tenure down to the intimate details of massing and materials, yields profound hidden returns:
• reduced healthcare demands
• sharply lower retrofit and maintenance outlays
• significant savings on temporary housing
• communities proud to dwell and invest in their neighbourhoods
This is not a utopian ideal but an achievable necessity.
“Let’s stop treating beauty as a luxury. Let’s stop delivering homes that harm the people who live in them. Let’s design homes that heal—places that people love and want to care for.”
“To councillors, developers, architects and communities: the challenge ahead isn’t just to build more homes, it’s to build better ones. Homes that don’t just tick boxes but lift spirits. Places that delight the senses, support well-being, and feel good to live in. Let’s move beyond the flat and functional. Let’s design spaces that people connect with emotionally, physically, and mentally for generations to come.”
Alan
Crawford RIBA, June 2025
(1) UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division). (2018). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision.3
(2) GOV.UK Planning Reform (2024) Press Release: Planning overhaul to reach 1.5 million new homes.
(3) DLUHC (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities). Live tables on housing supply. (Housing supply: net additional dwellings, England: 2023-24 data for figures in release document 28 Nov 2024) (10/7/25).
(4) Local Government Association (2023) £1.74 billion spent supporting 104,000 households in temporary accommodation.
(5) Huxford, R. (2022). Written evidence to the LUHC Select Committee inquiry into design quality of new housing. (Available via UK Parliament website).
(6) Rogers, R. (2002). Paraphrased sentiment from speeches during the Urban Summit period, Birmingham. (Search for specific published text if available, e.g., “Towards an Urban Renaissance,” the Urban Task Force report (1999) also contains much of his thinking).
(7) De Graaf, R. (2023). The ‘B’ Word. In Architect, Verb: The New Language of Building. Verso.
(8) Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. (2020). Living with Beauty: Report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.1 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
(9) Zeki, S., & Kawabata, H. (2004). Neural correlates of beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(4), 1699-1705.
(9.1) Zeki, S. (2009). The neurobiology of beauty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1939-1942.
(10) Ruggles, D. H. (2017). Beauty, Neuroscience and Architecture. Oro Editions.
(11) Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (3rd ed.). Wiley.
(12) Sussman, A., & Hollander, J. B. (2021). Cognitive Architecture: Designing for How We Respond to the Built Environment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
(13) Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (Eds.). (2008). Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life.2 Wiley.
(14) De Botton, A. (2006). The Architecture of Happiness. Penguin.
(15) Jencks, C. (2005). The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma. Frances Lincoln.
Heatherwick, T. (2023). Humanise: A Maker’s Guide to Designing Our Cities. Penguin.
Jarvis Build. “Incorporating Biophilic Design.” (jarvisbuild.co.uk/news/article/incorporating-biophilic-design-into-your-home-the-benefitsand-how-to-do-it) (Or prefer peer-reviewed sources for biophilic principles).
National Model Design Code. (2021). Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (now DLUHC).
NHBC Foundation. (2015). Design and procurement of new homes – an update (NF60).
Place Alliance. (2020). A housing design audit for England. University College London.
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects). (2024). “Designing Homes: The Architect’s Role.” (Ensure this is the correct title of a specific, citable RIBA publication from 2024).
UK Green Building Council. (Various dates). Resources on circular economy, net zero carbon buildings. (e.g., "Circular Economy Guidance for Construction Clients," "Net Zero Carbon Buildings: A Framework Definition"). Cite specific documents.
Vitruvius Pollio, M. De Architectura. (2020) Marcus Vitruvius Pollio: de Architectura, Book I. The University of Chicago (Various translations and editions available)
2025