As a practice we had a longstanding interest in the way cities evolve, and in particular the case of London. The capital has served as the starting point for many of our projects, and we invariably begin by researching the historical background to the surrounding context. London has a particular typological profile, with relatively low-density residential development, based partly on the substantial landholdings of the Great Estates, and the stable locations of its constituent ‘villages’.
Richard Rogers’ office (RSH&P) had made a proposal in 2008 that investigated a ‘modern’ idea for the city, in which vehicular circulation was largely below round, releasing the ground level for pedestrians. Blocks of housing lay in regular lines, reminiscent of the 1920s work of Ludwig Hilberseimer.
The relevance to our own areas of interest was obvious. From our point of view, what was required was a layout that would join things together and form a natural extension to the adjacent urban pattern. That pattern has some universal characteristics, consisting of residential streets, squares, crescents and mews, all characterised by a distinction between fronts and backs.
It was an unusual circumstance that the Chelsea Barracks site was large enough to investigate some of these well-established typological devices. It is rare to be able to design both sides of a street or the entire perimeter of a garden square.
The proposed layout looks beyond the immediate site boundary at a larger triangle of streets consisting of Chelsea Bridge Road. This enables the block pattern to hide the raw edges and exposed backs that arise when the site boundary is considered uncritically. Ranelagh Grove bisects the triangle, setting in motion a simple block pattern that can incorporate garden squares as well as streets.
With this kind of elementary block pattern, the ‘architecture’ is entirely in the making of the buildings and their facades. Can the traditional idea of the residential street work with buildings higher than six floors?