Rethinking sustainability by designing for social resilience

The term “sustainability”, in the context of buildings and construction, emerged through architecture discourse in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, the effects are unmistakably pertinent, with high temperatures lasting for longer periods of time and a predicted increase in rainfall of 25% by 2070 among many other environmental challenges.

But sustainability can also mean a measure of robustness and a continuity of a state of being. In our awareness of the need to address climate and physical change, are we just as sensitive to the evolution of people, of communities on a multitude of complex facets such as accessibility and equality, diversity and inclusivity? Is our existing building stock resilient to social, cultural and political change?

Conservation can no longer be just about the physical fabric of our buildings, but should also consider a building’s social dimensions

Social resilience is the ability for the built environment to adapt and evolve with societal change – ie the way we live, work and play, the way we interact with each other and the physical constructs around us. Conservation can no longer be just about the physical fabric of our buildings, but should also consider a building’s social dimensions. In tandem, our approach to new designs should place just as much importance on how they might be used in years to come, and not just whether they are a success story on day one. 

The concept of social resilience is not new – we’ve been doing this for over 200 years, and the robustness of our historic building stock should be seen as a precedent for new designs.

Take the humble Victorian terraced house. Designed and built in mass with a significant boom during the Industrial Revolution, this housing stock is a distinct feature of most British towns and cities.

With party walls as the only defining constraint, these homes have been reconfigured internally to increase or decrease the number of living spaces; expanded vertically with attic conversions and mansards; extended to the rear with a multitude of configurations to closet wings and conservatories. With little change to the exterior, internal spaces have either remained as single-home dwellings or become multiple occupancy flats, some even laterally occupying two or more property addresses.

But without occupation and investment, there is no maintenance and care. Unlike the ever-in-demand Victorian house, many early 20th-century town halls in London fell into a vulnerable state when smaller municipalities merged into larger boroughs. As relatively large buildings, they were not only difficult to occupy but also expensive to service and maintain, resulting in many being listed on Historic England’s “at risk” register.

There is much to learn from the ongoing success of the Victorian terraced house and the recent accomplishments of town halls

However, over the past 10 years, there has been an increased focus on the repurposing of town halls, from hotels to arts centres and back to offices for local authorities. The success of these adaptations is due to creativity in their reuse but also in the cleverness and future-proofing of their original designs.

In challenging the notion of a single typology, we find town halls reoccupied in a myriad of uses: hospitality, commercial, leisure and retail including any combination of the above.

Strategically located service voids, reusable routes for ducting, structures designed to take additional loads and an enduring aesthetic are some of the many characteristics that render these town halls adaptable – and therefore socially resilient.

There is much to learn from the ongoing success of the Victorian terraced house and the recent accomplishments of town halls. And, in the spirit of being resilient, what other aspects of societal change can we address in the adaptation of our heritage assets?

How can we do this in a creative and considered way? Let’s consider these three themes:

Designing for inter-generational coexistence

Homes and neighbourhoods are lived in, not simply delivered. To keep communities intact, we must design for homes to shrink and expand in the way that family units do.

Modern housing briefs often focus on density and material efficiency, but rarely on the long-term flexibility of internal spaces and structural adaptability in the way of the aforementioned Victorian terraced house. We must also consider inter-generational coexistence rather than merely multi-generational provision.

The former goes beyond accommodating different age groups. It creates the conditions for exchange, empathy and shared purpose among people of varying backgrounds and abilities – ie fostering interaction between age groups, supporting young families or combating loneliness in older people.

Homes designed for social change promote sustainable communities by supporting change and growth in each stage of someone’s personal circumstance.

Challenging standard typologies

Building typology has evolved dramatically in the past five years and the need for flexibility has never been so apparent when it comes to the way we work. As we emerge from the years of remote-working during the pandemic, we find ourselves in a hybrid situation of being able to “dial-in” in a variety of circumstances.

The birth of the co-working model some 20 years ago emerged as a sub-type of the workspace and, with its increase in numbers and demand, should it have a use-class in its own right? Combinations of “standard” sectors – residential, retail, commercial are results of a change in the way we live, work and play, adding layers to the category of “sui generis”.

In urban society, we are challenging the ideas of a workplace, and we are seeing a change in publicly accessible buildings such as libraries, community centres and cafes as our “third space”. Imagine the likes of a Barbican Centre on the occasional street corner!

Broadening accessibility

Access to equality must be a norm in the society that we live in today and in years to come. It therefore goes without saying that the buildings we design today must serve a person of any circumstance, and we must rise to the challenge of adapting out heritage assets to the same standard.

Accessibility of historic buildings should be a default in order to provide opportunities for the enjoyment and appreciation of its historical, cultural and architectural values. Where physical access is challenged, the response is not to derogate, but to think outside of the box in how we can design a collective experience for all members of society.

Can we change the assignment of internal spaces? Can we reconfigure circulation? Can we offer a comprehensive and equal experience in spaces that are free of mobility restrictions and therefore broaden the reach of our heritage assets?

In looking beyond physical change to improve access, we must now also factor in intellectual, emotional and economic accessibility to our heritage assets.

A counterpart to sustainability

A socially resilient building or place is one that is continuously used and maintained – avoiding the wrecking ball in the first place. Let’s move beyond solely focusing on material sustainability and incorporate social resilience into our approach to conservation and every design brief for our new buildings and masterplans.

We are responsible for the next generation of heritage assets that can successfully endure continuous use by the society they were built to serve. And we should begin by instinctively designing spaces that can be remodelled with structural and infrastructural adaptability with creativity unconstrained by the norms of typology.

Our built environment must be enduring from a user’s perspective because the core designs have allowed for change. Social resilience, as a strategy from the outset, plays a leading part in the long-term sustainability of our built environment.