title of the paper: the development of contemporary ...repository.um.edu.my/86843/1/doctoral studies...

The Development of Contemporary Courtyard House in the United Kingdom

Doctoral Studies on Housing, Joint Symposium organized by HERA-C and HREC, 20-22 May 2008

Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa – North Cyprus

1 of 11

PhD Candidate Name: Ai Tee Goh

Contact and Address: +44 (0) 7982611286 and [email protected]

Department and University: School of Architecture, Faculty of Social and Environmental Studies

University of Liverpool, United Kingdom

Title of PhD Programme: Mphil/ PhD

Supervisor Name (Primary): Dr. Magda Sibley

Title of the Study: High Density Low Rise Sustainable

Courtyard Housing for Urban Area

Keywords: Contemporary Courtyard House, Density,

Architectural Configuration, Characteristic

and Social Acceptability

State of Thesis: Continuing

Fig. 1 Private Courtyard

Title of the Paper: The Development of Contemporary Courtyard House in the UK

1.0 Introduction

High density low rise housing developments are considered as an integral part of sustainable cities

and the sustainable development agenda in the UK. In line with this agenda, there are five housing

problems that need to be addressed acutely. Firstly, the quality of housing – the results of the survey

conducted by the ODPM in 2003 show that the majority of people consider housing developments till

2003 as not well designed (ODPM 2004). Secondly, over the last 3 decades, the availability of

housing decreased by 50 per cent although the demand increased by 30 per cent; thirdly, 61.2 per cent

of people in the UK live in suburban areas due to the affordability and availability of individual

houses. Conversely, the affordability of the first time house buyer dropped to only 37 per cent as

compared with 46 per cent as in the late 1980s (ODPM, 2005). In addition to this, the issue of density

was raised as the average overall housing density in year 2000 was only 25 dwellings per hectare

(dph). Further to the publication of the report ‘Towards an Urban Renaissance’ in 1999, Planning

Policy Guidance No. 3, Housing (PPG3) stated that all housing developments should be designed to

achieve a density of at least 30 or more dph (120 person per hectare) while 40 is the preferred housing

density and 50 is the minimum for all urban locations. In the year 2006, the new housing average

density has increased to 41 dph. A report published by the DCLG shows that 3 millions new homes

are required by 2020 (DCLG, July 2007). Consequently, if development density is aimed at an

average of only 50 dph, by 2014 all new homes will have to be built on green field land. Additionally,

to support a good bus service, a density of 40 to 50 dph (Local Government Management Board,

1995) or 5,000 dwellings within 10 minutes walk needs to be achieved; and finally, the mandatory

standard for the design and construction of all new homes to meet the criteria outlined in the new

Code for Sustainable Homes (published in May 2008) need to be fulfilled.




2 of 11

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 History

The courtyard house typology is argued to possibly be the most common found housing type in

history. It seems to suggest that the advantages of court garden house form were agreed and used by

urban dwellers since ancient civilizations. This house form also influenced urban house design during

Macedonian, Roman and Arab Empires. There are four main reasons for the sustainability of this

house form for at least 6,000 years: firstly, it can provide privacy to the dwellers to perform daily

activities within a dense urban fabric; secondly, limitation of building technology and materials in

ancient time that may only permit low rise development within the fortified cities, this house form

demonstrated the best use of limited land; thirdly, the adaptability of this house form to suit different

climate conditions; and finally, the adaptability of this house form to suit different cultural

background (Schoenauer, 2002 and Edward, B. et al., 2006).

The modern movement in Europe has initiated the design and development of various courtyard house

plans in the northern regions. Macintosh (1973) argued that it was developed out of the Garden City

movement as a new type of mass housing for lower-income groups to minimize the house-keeping

needed. The first contemporary courtyard house, designed by Hugo Häring in 1928 (see Fig. 2), was

detached and looked south over its private garden. The plan was then developed into an L-shaped plan

by Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Hilbersermer at the Bauhaus (see Fig. 3). Furthermore, in 1931

Hilberseimer produced an improved L-shaped courtyard house with sleeping and living rooms

grouped in 2 wings of the block. Then, it is Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who has made the house type

elegant and spacious by opening up the courtyard house and making the indoor and outdoor spaces

flow together (see Fig. 4). The L-shaped type developed by the Hilberseimer is most used in the

northern regions (Macintosh: 1973 and Schoenauer, 2000). Additionally, Macintosh (1973) suggested

that the L-shaped detached courtyard house at Whipsnade and the U-shaped detached courtyard

house, developed in 1935, at Churt in Surrey were the earliest contemporary detached courtyard

houses found in the UK. Furthermore, the wide spread of the design of the L-shaped 1-storey and 2-

storey contemporary courtyard house form in the UK were likely to be the consequence of the

publication of Walter Segal in the 1948 (see Fig. 5) .

Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5

(Source: Macintosh, Duncan (1973) The Modern Courtyard House: History, Architectural Association Paper Number 9.

Published by Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association London, p. 28, 32, 34 & 39)




3 of 11

This house form has been explored and experimented with in mass housing schemes in the UK after

the Second World War. The experimentation of this house forms since the late 1950s is the result of a

combination of many factors. These include acute housing shortages after the war, scarcity of labour

and building materials, high cost and large housing subsidies, and more importantly the depression

and low living standards for working classes as the result of the industrial revolution. Its exploration

and experimentation involved development of new building technologies and housing systems for

new housing in order to reduce cost and increase speed of construction. In addition, new houses were

designed with emphasis on minima housekeeping, higher density yet provide privacy, air and light for

the users (Tweddell, 1961; Macintosh, 1973, Schoenauer, 2000 and Bianca, 2000).

2.2 Architecture configurations and Characteristics

As mentioned earlier, the adaptability of the courtyard house form makes it respond well to different

cultures and climates. In the UK, the courtyard is used to provide privacy to its dwellers, yet permit

penetration of natural sunlight into the house and allows for its adequate ventilation. Therefore,

ideally, courtyard houses in this region should have their private courtyard facing south and west in

order to maximise sun exposure. However, not all courtyard house schemes developed in the UK were

exploiting these benefits, for instance some of the courtyard houses within the early schemes have a

north facing private courtyard, preventing their occupants from one of the main benefit of this house

type .

The experimental nature of the courtyard house form in the UK has initiated the development of

various architectural configurations. These can be divided into four main categories: L-, I-, Internal-

and Z-shaped (see Fig. 6). This study agrees with that of from Macintosh and Scheonauer in the fact

that the L-shaped house type is the most commonly used in the northern regions. Findings show that

in the UK, 60.4 per cent of the courtyard house schemes have adopted the L-shaped house plan,

followed by the I-shaped house plan (20.8 per cent), internal court house plan (12.5 per cent) and Z-

shaped house plan (6.3 per cent).

(a) L-shaped (b) I-shaped (c) Internal Court (d) Z-shaped

Fig. 6: Various Courtyard Houses Configurations in the UK (Source: (a) AJ 20.08.75, p. 373, (b) AJ 18.06.75, p.1290 (c) Architecture Review Vol.152, 1972/2 (d) AJ 14.01.70, p.91)




4 of 11

2.3 Density

The courtyard house typology offers an important relationship between density and building form,

where high density does not necessarily mean building high-rise blocks (Edward, B., et.al: 2006). In

ancient civilizations, this typology has demonstrated its capacity to achieve that high density with

low-rise developments (Schoenauer, 2000). In 1966,) a study by Martin and March (Martin and

March, 1972) investigating which built forms make the most effective use of ground area further

substantiated that courtyard house form is the best performing urban type in term of efficiency in site

coverage compared with the towers or horizontal blocks types buildings. Furthermore, when

comparing between the courtyard house form and tower block, with the same site area, volume of

building, internal depth of room and amount of floor space, Martin and March demonstrated that the

same density can be achieved with the courtyard block form while maintaining exactly one third of

the total height of a seven storey block.

A comparative study between Le Corbusier’s 15-storey tower blocks in Ville Radieuse (The Radiant

City) and the German Samper Gnecco’s low-rise high-density prototype has demonstrated that both

schemes can achieve a housing density of 1,000 persons per hectare (see Organization of American

States publication Normas Minimas de Urbanizacion y Servicios Publicos or Minimum Standards of

Urban Design and Public Services). Additionally, the low-rise high-density schemes developed by

Peter Land were able to achieve up to 600 persons per hectare although each unit is designed with a

private outdoor patio space and car parking (Poster, 1989).

Despite the call for higher density housing developments in the UK since the late 1950s, this study

confirms that of Macintosh (1973) where medium density rather than high density courtyard housing

schemes were developed in the UK (see Fig. 7). Hitherto, the potential of ‘high-density low rise’

living offers by courtyard house typology has not yet been fully explored for housing schemes in the

UK. The courtyard housing schemes developed in the UK that achieved a density above 250 persons

per hectare are very encouraging and further exploration on its potential is essential.

Fig. 7 Examples of Layout Plans of Courtyard Housing Schemes in the UK (Source: Digimap - Ordinance Survey/ EDINA supplied service, Crown Copyright/ database right 2008)

Density < 100 dph Density 100 dph to 200 dph Density > 200 dph




5 of 11

In 1968, a comparative study between terrace houses (narrow-, medium- and wide-frontage),

courtyard houses and cluster houses by the Ministery of Housing and Local Government (MHLG)

suggested that the main characteristics of the contemporary courtyard house developed in the UK are

firstly, it is shaped to give privacy to o the house itself; secondly, it can be grouped into clusters

achieving medium or high density housing developments; third, it can join together in a variety of

ways to suit different conditions of access and orientation; and easy to provide adequate through

access, space for car, and natural lighting to kitchen and living areas. However, there are few

drawbacks of this house form: first, it is usually more expensive than the terraced house; secondly,

circulation and services are often less compact; and finally, single-storey courtyard houses are more

suitable for small families than for large ones because ground coverage and internal circulation

becomes excessive if designed for large families. The double-storey courtyard house though costly, is

usually more suitable for large families because of economy of scale.

2.4 Social Acceptability

In the 1962, a social survey was carried out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government

(MHLG) on courtyard house in Gleadless, Sheffield. The study concluded that one third of the tenants

commented that the private courtyard is one of the things they liked best about the house.

Social surveys were also being carried out for courtyard housing at Inchview, Prestonpans and Ardler,

Dundee by Architecture Research Unit (ARU), Edinburgh University, between the 1962 and 1965.

Both studies have dispelled the doubts held by some people on the general suitability of the courtyard

house typology. The enclosed outdoor space was particularly successful and well liked by most of the

families (90 per cent) except the housebound people, and the prevention of over-looking from

surrounding dwellings, by neighbours and passers-by into the house and garden, is well justified. This

would seem to be particularly important where outdoor space is provided for each dwelling. Those

studies seem to suggest that most people are prepared to accept a more limited outlook from their

dwellings in exchange for greater privacy.

Another survey (unpublished) on the same courtyard housing scheme developed in Prestonpans was

carried out by School of Architecture, University of Liverpool in 2003, 40 years after it was

developed, to re-check on its suitability and level of acceptability by the users. Although, the responds

rate was only 24.4 per cent (11 out of 45 houses), the results were very encouraging. All respondents

were happy staying at the courtyard house scheme and none of them were planning to move to

another house type mainly because of the reason of privacy and the one level house.




6 of 11

Surveys on courtyard housing schemes have also been carried out by others and results were

published in Architects’ Journal. These include courtyard housing schemes in Thornaby-on-Tees in

Yorkshire (1966), Pitsea in Basildon (1970), Rushey Close in Leicester (1976), Dibleys in

Oxfordshire (1976) and Ashbourne in Ireland (1979). Apart from residents’ criticism of the limited

outlook, their findings are very encouraging. Users’ comments include “accepted the form and very

pleased with it because of the privacy its can offer”, “maximum use of small areas and opportunity for

individual gardening,”, “the outside looks like barracks but the inside is pleasant”. Additionally, in

both Pitsea and Dibley schemes , the respondents praised the community feeling of the schemes.

3.0 Perspectives and Challenges of the Courtyard House Form

Despite the fact that the study on courtyard housing scheme at Ardler, Dundee by ARU in 1965

revealed that double courtyards as experimented in Z-shaped house plan have marked a significant

improvement in the courtyard house plan design (as it allows the separation between recreation and

services) nevertheless it is not a type that is widely used in the UK. Hence, a comprehensive study on

the merits and the disadvantages of various courtyard plan types is to be further examined.

Additionally, ARU also suggested that the size of the courtyard should be related consistently to the

size of the house types. To determine the sizes of courtyards, sun lighting and day lighting studies

should be supplemented by at least some assessment of the external space requirements of each

household. However, the optimum size of courtyards for various household sizes and how it relates to

the changing needs of the current social structure remain unexplored.

This study also reveals that 86 per cent of the courtyard housing schemes were designed and

developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Five main reasons for this trend include: firstly, the peak in

inflation and rise in oil prices in the 1973 have resulted a shift of priority in house design where

energy efficiency is the prime criteria; secondly, reduced construction skilled labour has resulted in an

increase in construction cost, thus cost has became one of the main criteria in order to ensure its

affordability; thirdly, the cancellation of Parker Morris Standard and cost yardstick in 1980 has

resulted in the end of higher density development. The transfer of power from central government to

local authority on issues relating to house demand and supply since the 1980 coupled with the lack of

enthusiasm for local authority to build houses for rent have resulted in the package deal contractors or

house builders becoming once again the key players in housing supply that has become more profit

oriented with different definitions of ‘value for money’.

World oil crisis in the early 1970s had resulted in the 1980’s in the development of courtyard housing

schemes focusing on energy efficiency design (passive solar gain, i.e. Paxton Court in Sheffield).

Edward, B. and et. al (2006) stated that “Courtyard house is a model of low-energy design...support

social activity of a house...when clustered together may form a sustainable city”. Furthermore, with




7 of 11

the increasing importance of density and sustainability in the 1990s, the courtyard house form is

once again being considered as one of the potential solution, as noted by Sir Richard MacCormac

(2007) -“courtyard housing: potential solution for urban housing in the UK – Best of Both Worlds -

Community and Privacy.”. Yet, courtyard housing schemes developed in the 2000s were mainly small

scale and mixed-tenure (courtyard, terrace and apartment) urban infill development. Visits to those

courtyard housing schemes built in the 2000s reveal that their design failed to provide adequate

privacy to its dwellers as compared to those developed by local authorities in the year 1960s and

1970s.

The popularity of the courtyard house may be increased if its design is aimed at enhancing the

compactness in its internal circulation and grouping the houses in order to reduce the construction cost

(by reducing the amount of external walls) and running cost (heating load). Additionally, the

advantage of this house form is that it enables increasing the housing development density while

maintaining privacy (if careful design is imposed to prevent overlooking problems) and this may

prevent building high rise blocks. This may further reduce the construction cost and running cost.

With the advancement in building materials and technologies, future studies on how to improve the

energy performance of a courtyard house is crucial. For example, a house with a south facing

courtyard allows for passive solar gain that can be used for general space heating requirement for the

house. Furthermore, if appropriate architectural and environment strategies are incorporated this

house form may provide it users with potentially zero energy consumption for their space heating.

4.0 Research Aim, Hypothesis, Questions, Methodology and Potential Outcomes

The literature review on courtyard housing schemes in the UK has provided an overview of the

background and perspectives of this house form. Thus, the research aim is to find out the potential of

high density low rise courtyard house model for creating sustainable urban housing that can adapt to

the changing needs of households in the UK.

4.1 Research hypothesis

The hypothesis of the study is high density

low rise courtyard house is the best typology

to provide ‘quality home’ for urban dwellers

and promote ‘sustainable development’.

(see Fig. 8)

Fig. 8




8 of 11

4.2 Research Questions and Research

Methodologies

There are three main questions being

formulated: firstly, what is the potential of

the courtyard house type in fulfilling the

contemporary and changing needs of the

users and to further develop towards idea of

‘quality home’? To answer this question, a

detailed evaluation of its principles,

architectural configurations, potential range

of development densities and trade offs are

vital (see Fig. 9). Secondly, what is the

Level of social Acceptance of this house

form? A survey will be carried out in order

to find out the views of local councils,

developers and users (see Fig. 10). Finally,

what are the latest building materials,

technologies and techniques that can help to

improve the energy performance of a

building? How to incorporate these and how

to measure their benefits in the case of

courtyard housing? (see Fig. 11)

4.3 Potential Outcomes

On this basis, one can suggest that this study may contribute to knowledge of housing design for

urban areas in the UK as follows:

i. Develop a matrix of courtyard houses in the UK, which allows designers to have a better

understanding of the potential and pitfall of this house form.

ii. The collection of data for courtyard housing schemes developed in the UK is gathered

through the literature review of architecture journals (Architect’s Journal and Architecture

Review) over 50 years, from 1955 until 2005. Thus, the data collected may act as a useful

resource for future housing research.

iii. The study will use building energy software (i.e., Ecotect) to test on the energy performance

of the courtyard house (existing and new design) and other house types. This is to prove that

the courtyard house plan may not necessarily require more energy for space heating if

adequate architecture and environmental strategies are adopted.

Fig . 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11




9 of 11

iv. The courtyard house shape gives privacy to its users, and when it is grouped with other

courtyard houses, it forms medium to high density layouts with only low rise buildings. Thus,

it will directly reduce the construction cost (i.e less expensive sub-structure and super

structure work) while providing each house with an enclosed private garden space. The

flexibility of access design, space for car and natural lighting for living areas give added

quality to this house form. When density is increased, it will directly increase the level of

affordability. Therefore, the study will provide design of courtyard house plans with reference

to the potential development density as a guidance for potential future developments

v. Last but not least, this study will suggest a number of planning guidelines and design

strategies for creating ‘Quality Homes’ for the UK.

5.0 Summary

It is believed that the juxtaposition of the courtyard house type with sustainable building features can

create high density low-rise sustainable courtyard housing for urban areas and can adapt to changing

needs over time. To date, most of the courtyard housing developments in UK are located at suburban

areas or outskirts, therefore, one of the important advantages of the courtyard house plan typology,

low-rise high-density without sacrificing privacy to their dwellers cannot yet be truly appreciated by

urban dwellers in the UK. Social studies on the acceptability of this house form to their users from the

1960s to the 1970s have given much promise to the potential of its future developments. However, the

combination of many factors have discouraged its development. With the advancement in building

technologies and materials, it is vital to evaluate and examine the potential of this house form to

create low-rise high-density sustainable courtyard housing for the urban area in the UK in the future.

‘…as the pace of modern life becomes hectic everywhere, the peace and seclusion that courtyard

house can offer; no doubt, this type of dwelling will be more and more acceptable by urban dwellers.’

Macintosh, 1973: 44

6.0 Acknowledgment

I would like to take this opportunity to thank

sponsor of my Mphil/PhD study, the

Malaysia Government, for giving me the

opportunity to pursue my research study and

School of Architecture University of

Liverpool for the financial support to

participate in the Symposium.

Fig. 12 Users of Courtyard Housing in the UK




10 of 11

7.0 References

Anthony B. Davies & Associates (1967), Housing at Laindon, Basildon, Essex. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 27

September 1967, p. 799 to 814

Anthony B. Davies & Associates (1969), Laindon, Basildon. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 11 June 1969, p. 1575 to

1577

Architecture Research Unit (1961), Prestonpans (Inchview). Architecture Review, Vol. 129, 1961/1, p.28-29.

Architectural Research Unit (1966), Courtyard House, Inchview, Prestonpans Survey, University Edinburgh.

Architectural Research Unit (1967), Courtyard Houses: Report of a follow-up (Inchview, Prestonpans). The Architects’ Journal

Information Library, 24 May 1967, p.1217 to 1227

Architectural Research Unit (1968) Privacy and Courtyard Housing, University Edinburgh.

Architecture Research Unit (1967), Prestonpans (Inchview). Architecture Review, Vol. 142, 1967/2, p.368.

Architectural Research Unit (1975), Park 3 West, Cumbernauld. The Architects’ Journal, 18 June 1975, p. 1289 to 1292

Associated Architects and Consultants (1966), Clarkhill. Architectural Review, Vol. 140, 1966/2, p. 48 to 50

Associated Architects and Consultants or Bickedike, Allen and Partners (1967), Clarkhill. Architecture Review, Vol. 142, 1967/2, p.368

Baxter, Clark & Paul (1970), Courtyard Housing at Dundee, Scotland. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 14 January 1970, p.

89 to 100

Bianca, Stefano (2000) Urban Form in the Arab World. London: Thames & Hudson

Bickedike, Allen and Partners (1967), Harlow (Clarkhill). Architecture Review, Vol. 142, 1967/2, p.368

Bicknell & Hamilton (1967), Housing in Dawnay Road, Camberley, Surrey. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 22 March

1967, p. 717 to 732

Birmingham School of Architecture (1969), Kingstanding Housing Development, Birmingham. Architecture Review, Vol. 145, 1969/1,

p.20 to 21

Byrom, Connie (1970) Privacy and Courtyard Housing. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 14 January 1970, p. 101 to 106

Chamberlin, Powell & Bon (1956), Urban High Density Housing. Architectural Design, Vol. 26, 1956, p. 327

Denton, T. F. (1974), Kintbury Village Housing Competition. The Architects’ Journal, 24 April 1974, p. 880

Derek Walker (1965), Temple Newsam, Leeds. Architectural Review, Vol. 137, 1965/1, p. 53

Edward B., Sibley M., Hakmi M. and Land P. (2006) Courtyard Housing: Past, Present & Future, Taylor & Francis

Eric Lycons & partners (1967), Cedar, Chase, Rectory Road, Taplow, Bucks. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 15

November 1967, p. 1248

Franc Dixon Associates (1966), Housing at Thornaby-on-Tees, Yorkshire. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 14 September

1966, p. 691 to 704

Frost Nicholls (1975), Calverton End. The Architects’ Journal. 20 August 1975, p. 369 to 380

Geoffrey Copcutt, (1979), Low-cost housing for sale at Ashbourne, Co Meath, Eire. AJ Information Library, 13 June 1979, p. 1209 to

1223

Gillinson Barnett & Partners (1970), Rotherham: The Lanes. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 16 December 1970, p. 1426

to 1427

Gillinson Barnett & Partners (1971), Housing Estate at The Lanes, Rotherham. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 21 April

1971, p. 883 to 894

GLC Department of Architecture & Civic Design (1982), Two Perspectives on Odhams. AJ Information Library, 3 February 1982, p. 31

to 46

Hawker, Dean (1987), Energetic Twosome, AJ, 28 January 1987, p. 40 to 47

Heseltine, M. (1980), Housing standard abolished. The Architects’ Journal, 30 January 1980, p. 218 to 219

Hollamby, Edward (1971), Virginia Walk and Cherry Laurel Walk, London SW2. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 1

December 1971, p. 1230 to 1231

Ivor Smith and Cailey Hutton (1976), Dibley, Blewbury Oxfordshire. The Architects’ Journal, 20 October 1976, p. 748 to 749

Ivor Smith and Cailey Hutton (1976), Rushey Close, Melton Road, Leicester. The Architects’ Journal, 20 October 1976, p. 750 to 751

Leonard Manasseh & Partners (1970), Basildon: Pitsea Housing Area, Parkhurst Road. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 16

December 1970, p. 1437

Levitt, D. and Webster, D (1980), Guarded Response to Parker Morris Demise. The Architects’ Journal, 6 February 1980, p. 268 to 269




11 of 11

Macintosh, Duncan (1973) The Modern Courtyard House, in Architectural Association Paper Number 9. Published by Lund Humphries

for the Architectural Association London.

Martin, John Leslie (1958), Leith Fort Competition Result. The Architect and Building News, Vol. 213, 5 February 1958, p. 180 to 184.

Martin, L. and March, L. (1972) Urban Space and Structures. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Minister of Housing and Local Government (1969), Family Houses at West Ham: An Account of the Project with An Appraisal, Design

Bulletin 15, London Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

Minister of Housing and Local Government (1969), The Family at Home: A Study of Households in Sheffield, Design Bulletin 17,

London Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

Minister of Housing and Local Government (1970), Designing a low-rise housing System: The 5M system and its development and The

Pilot project at Sheffield, Design Bulletin 18, London Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

Neylan, M (1964), Housing, Harlow, Essex. Architectural Review, Vol. 135, 1964/1, p. 11

Neylan, M (1966), Bishopfield. Architectural Review, Vol. 140, 1966/2, p. 39 to 41

Neylan, M. (1967), Harlow (Bishopfield). Architecture Review, Vol. 142, 1967/2, p.367

Neylan and Ungless (1978), Housing at Setchell Road, London. The Architects’ Journal, 9 August 1978, p. 251 to 265

Peter Phippen & Associates (1964), Housing, Hatfield, Herts. Architectural Review, Vo. 135, 1964/1, p. 12

Peter Phippen & Associates (1966), Housing in The Ryde, Hatfield. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, 12 October 1966, p.

909 to 922

Peter Phippen & Associates (1967), Hatfield (The Ryde). Architecture Review, Vol. 142, 1967/2, p.364

Phippen, Randall and Parkes (1972), Housing at Forestfield, Furnace Green, Crawley, Sussex. Architecture Review, Vol. 152, 1972/2,

p.153 to 158

Phippen, Peter (1980), Parker Morris: Housing for better or worse? The Architects’ Journal, 13 February 1980, p. 319 to 320

Poster, Corky (1989) The Courtyard House, Arid Land Newsletter Spring/Summer 1989, Issue No. 28, ISSN: 1092-5481,

http://cals.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln28/poster.html (assessed on 26 June 2007)

Schoenauer, Norbert (2000) 6,000 years of housing - Revised and extended edition. New York, W.W. Norton & Company

S. Penn-Smith, Son & Partners (1965), Competition Result: Neighbourhood for Port Talbot. The Architects’ Journal, 27 October 1965, p.

940 to 942

Shaw Stewart, Baikie and Perry (1966), Houston Village, Renfrewshire, Scotland. Architectural Review, Vol. 139, 1966/1, p. 47

Taylor, N. (1967), The Failure of ‘Housing’. Architecture Review, Vol. 142, 1967/2, p.341 to 342

Team 4 (1964) Housing, Camden Town, London. Architectural Review, Vol. 135, 1964/1, p. 13

Tweddell, N. (1961), The New Town Village, in Architectural Review, Vol. 129, 1961/ 1, p. 195-6, 205

War Office (1960), the Army Advances, Aldershot. The Architects’ Journal, 18 February 1960, p. 284 to 285

Whicheoloe & Macfarlane (1965), Houses at Frome, Somerset. The Architects’ Journal Information Library, Vol. 141, 10 March 1965,

p. 599 to 606

Whicheoloe Macfarlane Partnership (1975), Housing at St. Michael’s Hill, The Architects’ Journal, 7 May 1975, p. 975 to 988

Yannas, Simon (1994), Solar Energy and House Design, Vol. 2: Examples, London: Architectural Association

title of the paper: the development of contemporary ...repository.um.edu.my/86843/1/doctoral studies...

Documents