crowdfunding architecture: housing

CROWDFUNDINGARCHITECTURE

HOUSING

JOSH PIDDOCK

1

Crowdfunding Architecture:Housing

Josh Piddock

130102902ARC566

MArch ArchitectureUniversity of SheffieldSSoA

October 2014

2

In 2013 the crowdfunding industry raised $5.1 billion globally, but this is in part because ‘crowdfunding’ is no longer restricted to the novel gadget or film facilitating campaigns we’ve become used to seeing on Kickstarter and Indiegogo.

Crowdfunding has thus far been used to successfully finance a wide range of what can only be pinpointed as ‘things’, from an Oxford Masters course tuition fee, to a PC game (Star Citizen) that has raised over $58 million to date.

Crowdfunding provides a platform and testing ground for ambition. Campaigns such as ‘Let’s Own the News’, which is attempting to raise £100 million to buy The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers, highlights the potential of the still exponentially growing industry.

At the same time the UK continues to face difficulty in establishing an answer to the housing crisis that has gripped the country since the onset of the last recession. In September 2014 the £250,000 incentivised Wolfson Economics Prize was awarded to URBED for it’s Uxcester Garden City proposal, only for it to be disregarded as ‘urban sprawl’ by the housing minister Brandon Lewis within 24 hours.

This text attempts to introduce and dissect the scalable genres and types of crowdfunding, culminating in analysis of how crowdfunding has been utilised in Architecture thus far, and a proposal as to how it could be applied to the troubled area of housing provision.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With thanks to my tutor Carolyn Butterworth for her assurances on the validity of speculation throughout this study; to Elias Redstone for his research on Fideicomiso that inspired this thesis; To Kristien Ring for sharing her insight on self-initiated housing projects in Berlin, and to Phil Langley whose work at Bryden Wood convinced me of the feasibility of my ideas.

Thanks also to the AIA and Massolution for ‘Crowdfunding Architecture’ - the first published text linking the two topics, giving me a base on which to start, and to Twitter, who by providing the online infrastructure and global community have aided this thesis’ development, as well as my documentation of the rapidly-evolving crowdfunding industry.

Research for this project has been catalogued through tweets, retweets, favourites and follows.

@JoshPiddock

4

CONTENTS

Foreword 6

Introduction |

1.1 Introduction 101.2 Research & Method 14

Housing |

2.1 The Housing Crisis 182.2 The Existing Self Provided Sector 222.3 Fideicomiso 28

Crowdfunding |

3.1 Crowdfunding: A Concise Guide 403.2 Civic Crowdfunding 463.3 Real Estate Crowdfunding 563.4 Crowdsourced Design 60

Crowdfunding Architecture |

4.1 Crowdfunding Architecture 744.2 Crowdfunding Housing 86

Conclusion |

5.1 Conclusion 108

Appendices |

6.1 Glossary of Terms 1126.2 Selected Projects 1146.3 Interview Transcripts 1186.4 Key Industry Players 1276.5 Bibliography / Webliography 1286.6 Image Credits 144

++

++

++

++

++

5

Fig 1: Where’s Architecture? Comprising of (top) Kickstarter Website. Fifteen Categories of Crowdfunding Projects, and (bottom) Indiegogo Website. Twenty four Categories of Crowdfunding Projects

6

FOREWORD

The Who?

The premise of this thesis has developed over the last year, but was conceived when browsing categories on Kickstarter in October 2013. As Figure 1 demonstrates (p5), a comprehensive range of campaign categories are offered on the world’s first and second largest crowdfunding platforms - Kickstarter and Indiegogo, however at the time there was no representation of architecture. This realisation had me asking ‘Where’s Architecture?’, and this question set in motion the research that culminates in this thesis. In April 2014, 94 Subcategories were added to Kickstarter including Architecture and Civic Design,1 another topic I will discuss, which now gives bigger scale projects a presence on the world’s go-to crowdfunding site.

Despite the move by Kickstarter, the notion of combining crowdfunding with architecture is still in it’s infancy. This thesis is not the first text to discuss it however; the holder of that title is the American Institute of Architects (AIA), whose 2013 report ‘Crowdfunding Architecture’ remains the only published material specifically to address the architectural profession. January 2013 also saw the publishing of Sitra’s (Helsinki Design Lab) ‘Brickstarter’, addressing the application of crowdfunding to the built environment in a civic capacity.

The What?

At the time of writing the big problem within architecture is what is now commonly referred to as the housing crisis. A shortage of homes and the nature of housing provision, spiralling house prices, particularly in the South-East, and the poor quality of new homes have been well documented by texts such as 00:/ Architecture and the University of Sheffield’s ‘A Right to Build’. With this in mind, this thesis aims to be the first text to consider the rapidly evolving crowdfunding industry and that specifically speculates on the application of crowdfunding to housing.

Introduction | Foreword

++

7 Introduction | Foreword

++

The Why?

Written in the perspective of a graduating Part 2 Architect, whose last two years of five in academia have allowed for reflection on future practice, this thesis is written with an agenda of a threatened architectural profession. As the aforementioned Parvin notes, “in 2008 architecture was becoming unemployed.”2 In 2011 Paul Nakazawa of the AIA conceded that the foreseeable future only requires half of the pre-recession workforce in architecture.3

With schools of Architecture churning out hundreds of Part 2 Architects every year in the UK alone, the rise in tuition fee levels to £9000 appearing to be doing little to slow the intake, and a potential shortening of architectural education by the RIBA, it is worrying that we are becoming a saturated market. With Rory Hyde describing architecture as retreating into commerce and being reduced to a service industry, fulfilling the market demands of property speculation and real estate,4 the economic question has to be asked - what does the future hold for Architects if we, the supply, outweigh the demand, or if other market factors lead to our irrelevance.

Crowdfunding Architecture: Housing explores the potential of the next phase in the evolution of crowdfunding for the Architect. It builds from analysis of other fields, and speculates on the possibilities and applications that the alternative financing method brings, as well as the prohibitive factors. The speculation in this text is not complete, nor is it rooted on a perfect knowledge of the finances that control the housing market. What this thesis is, is a review of the broad principles that appear to govern the market, and a subsequent series of suggestions of better principles that may now be viable with the opportunities that crowdfunding brings.

8

Text

Introduction | Foreword

++

Fig 2: Is architecture becoming a saturated market? Monditalia. Inhabitants / 1 Architect

9

INTRODUCTION

++

1

10

INTRODUCTION

“If you think that crowdfunding just means smaller companies that launch games and device projects on platforms like Kickstarter, think again. Crowdfunding has now emerged as a viable, scalable alternative to public and private finance.”5

Carl Esposti, CEO, Crowdsourcing.org, Massolution

One of the first thoughts I had upon devising the concept of this thesis was probably something equally as skeptical as what’s going through your head at the moment. Primarily, it was the sheer cost of architecture compared to the novel offerings that crowdfunding initially connotes, that appeared to inhibit the idea.

In 2014 this could not be further from the truth. In order to comprehend the scalability of crowdfunding to the extent that it could sustainably procure our buildings, we must acknowledge the variables within both the crowdfunding and housing industries.

With crowdfunding the most important variable is the growth of the industry itself. Whilst 10 years ago when the industry was not recognised as such, the utterance of the word ‘crowdfunding’ would perhaps cast one’s mind to philanthropy or altruism, (It is difficult to place, knowing definitions as we now do). Today, the word sparks association with initiative and innovation. In just 6 years the crowdfunding industry has developed such popularity it has been able to develop sub-genres and even niches. The two master types of crowdfunding - ‘crowdfunding’ (donation and reward), and ‘crowdfunding investment’ (equity, debt, and royalty) are typically used for different stages of a ‘project’,6 with the former best applied to the ‘idea’ and the ‘prototype’ stage, and the latter applied to more mature projects such as start-ups and early growth companies.7 It is the transition between, and subsequent devolvement of projects through these sub-genres that deems the concept proposal in section 4.2 viable.

Introduction | 1.1

++

11

The variable that is populatiry is of course subject to fluctuation. At present, legislative attention has been turned to crowdfunding in the form of title III of the JOBS ACT (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) in the US, and the FCA’s policy statement (PS14/4) in the UK. This legislative attention is not designed to be restrictive, instead to offer security to investors and protect against abuse that is inevitable with a new financial service; on September 11th 2013 Tomer Barel (Chief Risk Officer, PayPal) wrote about risks on the PayPal blog in response to criticism over freezes of several crowdfunding campaign’s accounts.

It would therefore seem that variables such as regulation and payment platforms are doing all they can to maintain the popularity of crowdfunding. They are first and foremost doing this by offering financial security to the investors / crowdfunders themselves. This appears to be a wise move, as two of the factors stated for the growth of crowdfunding since 2008, the establishment of a competitive payment platform,8 and difficulty generating conventional funding after the 2008 recession hit,9 are deeply aligned to confidence.

Whilst confidence in crowdfunding at the moment is high, something integral to the aims and proposal of this thesis, the same cannot be said for housing provision in the UK. Whilst the self-provided sector is growing, as I will discuss later in this text, there are still substantial questions to be answered. House prices, density, tall buildings in London, and the notion of garden cities are all topics for discussion, however at present society is a long way from anything that resembles consensus.10 Narrowly, variables in a market can be seen as the suppliers and the demand, something that is consistent with any market, housing or not. Yet the wider economic, social and political variables that are difficult to quantify make a solution to our housing crisis complex and subjective.

Parallel to the housing crisis, a crisis in architecture has been claimed, and claimed for some time. Malcolm MacEwan’s ‘Crisis in Architecture’ (1974) talks about the same topics that can be found readily on TED Talks, from resource depletion to the exploitation of land by developers due to power given to them through finance. As Dan Hill asserts, it was written in 1974 but reads like it was written yesterday.11 Rory Hyde attributes the erosion of Architects civic responsibilities to the 1980’s and 1990’s “retreat to the self-imposed exile of the drawings board”12, following the negative consequences felt as a result of the post-war socially motivated urban developments.

Introduction | 1.1

++

12

Both Hyde and MacEwan cite architecture’s complicity and use as a tool in housing speculation as reasons for the profession’s now marginalised position and low public confidence. It seems then that, whether through resilience in the profession at the time that has now come back to haunt us, or a short term ignorance fuelled by following the money into the commercial sector, Architects have inadvertently contributed to the housing crisis the population now faces, and contributed to the lack of confidence some share regarding future architectural practice.

This thesis will build upon the identified problems outlined, utilising the positive confidence in crowdfunding and the blurring threshold between crowdfunder and investor. I will discuss the potential of crowdfunding to democratise financing for the housing sector, which could not only present a change in the balance of power from housing supplier to consumer, but also in the balance of power of the Architect within the construction industry.By viewing the Architects / designers of systems, societal processes and all other dark matter13 as the enablers, I argue that Achitects can use crowdfunding as a potential solution to the problem, and to build a resilient model of procurement, which could result in other ways of doing architecture.

SOLUTION

PROBLE

ENABLER

CROWDFUNDING

HOUSING

ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN

CONFIDENCE

COMPONENTS

Introduction | 1.1

++

SOLUTION

PROBLE

ENABLER

CROWDFUNDING

HOUSING

ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN

CONFIDENCE

COMPONENTS

Fig 3: Confidence in Crowdfunding,Housing, & Architecture

Fig 4: Components viewed as Problem, Solution & Enabler

13

Fig 5: Atelier d’architecture autogérée. A Community Garden and An Example of Other Ways of Doing Architecture

14

RESEARCH AND METHOD

Can you crowdfund housing?

The key research objective of this thesis is to propose a new model of procurement for housing in the UK. As is obvious by the title of this paper, the general subjects of crowdfunding and housing are central to this, and so before establishing such a proposal it is important to lay out the context on which such a proposal sits. It is from this that the structure of this document derives, with evaluations of both crowdfunding and housing acting as precursors to the chapters of crowdsourced design, crowdfunding architecture, and ultimately crowdfunding housing.

Both crowdfunding and housing are currently experiencing high levels of media coverage, providing new projects and data to scrutinise daily. Crowdfunding, a contender to succeed ‘Selfie’ as word of the year for 2014, is creating new records month on month; In July 2014 Crowdcube raised for itself £1.2 million in 16 minutes, a world record.14 Because crowdfunding is deeply ingrained online, Twitter and the infrastructure it provides have been used extensively in the monitoring and analysis of both platform and project dynamics in the fields of crowdfunding that this thesis is primarily concerned with; the two master crowdfunding groups as established, and civic crowdfunding and real estate crowdfunding as specific categories. In order to draw a line under the research informing this thesis, a cut off point of 10/09/2014 was decided, and only online sources prior to this date will be used for discussion; unless something extraordinary pops up that is.

Tweets, retweets, favourites and follows can be found on my personal Twitter page - @JoshPiddock.

As established, the housing crisis is well documented. Publications, opinion pieces and papers from academia all cover the problems the UK is facing with regard to housing. This thesis builds from those, but it’s primary method of research in this field has been to observe what is happening in real time. Monitoring press releases and discussions from the HCA and DCLG has kept the proposals contained in this document current and therefore applicable, and monitoring of the Collective Custom Build research project’s development

Introduction | 1.2 Research and Method

++

15 Introduction | 1.2 Research and Method

++

and subsequent presentation to parliament has kept this thesis aware of the ongoing dialogue the government is having with respective parties.

Analysis of movement within the private sector has been carried out again through the self-promoting nature of organisations and companies on Twitter, however the key research dissected within this text comes from talks and conferences attended by the author such as the RIBA Journal Housing Conference of 30/04/14, for which I have obtained digital copies of the speakers presentations, and the ‘Innovation in the Future of Housing’ event organised by the Future Cities Catapult (TSB - Technology Strategy Board) on 18/09/14.

Primary research was also conducted in the form of interviews with Kristien Ring and Phil Langley. Kristien is an Architect, Curator and the author a book titled ‘Self Made City’, highly relevant to the proposal in this text.Phil is an associate at Bryden Wood and PHD candidate at the University of Sheffield. The interview was sought to gain further insight into some of Phil’s practice work he showed when tutoring the Open Data design studio in academic year 13/14. Transcripts can be found in section 6.3.

16

1 Kickstarter. A Subcategory for Everything. The Kickstarter Blog. Apr. 18, 2014. https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/a-subcategory-for-everything. (accessed 13/019/14)

2 Parvin, A. Architecture for the people by the people. TED talk:http://www.ted.com/talks/alastair_parvin_architecture_for_the_people_by_the_people.html (accessed09.09.14).

3 Nakazawa, P. Embrace the Change: Move Your Practice Forward. Architect Magazine. Jan. 3, 2014. http://www.architectmagazine.com/business/embrace-the-change-move-your-practice-forward.aspx (accessed 13/09/14)

4 Hyde, R. Sending out an SOS. (In: Charlesworth, E. Humanitarian Architecture: 15 stories of architects working after disaster. Routledge: Abingdon, 2014. p229)

5 Carl Esposti - CEO/Founder of Massolution. (In: Massolution. 2013CF: The Crowdfunding Industry Report. (Massolution: Los Angeles, 2013 - p7)

6 In crowdfunding a ‘project’ can be defined as either an individual, group or company doing anything and hoping to raise money for it via a campaign. The field is so diverse the term ‘project’ cannot be pigeonholed to any specificities.

7 Davies, R. Civic Crowdfund ing: Participatory Communities, Entrepreneurs and the Political Economy of Place. (Masters Thesis). (MIT: MA, 2014 - p18)

8 Davies, R. Civic Crowdfunding: Participatory Communities, Entrepreneurs and the Political Economy of Place. (Masters Thesis). (MIT: MA, 2014 - p37)

9 Best, J. et al. Scaling Innovation: Crowdfunding’s Potential for the Developing World. Information for Development Program (infoDev, The World Bank, 2013 p14)

10 On 03/09/14 URBED’s Uxcester garden city proposal was announced winner of the 2014 Wolfson Economics prize, only for housing minister Brandon Lewis to dismiss it within 24 hours, claiming the government “do not intend to follow the failed example of top-down eco-towns from the last administration”. GOV.UK. Housing Minister Brandon Lewis’ response to Wolfson Prize. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/housing-minister-brandon-lewis-response-to-wolfson-prize. (accessed 06/09/14)

11 Hill, D. Dark Matter & Trojan Horses: A Strategic Design Vocabulary. (Strelka Press: Moscow, 2012 - p31)

12 Hyde, R. Future Practice: Conversations from the Edge of Architecture. (Routledge: London, 2012 -p18)

13 Dark Matter is the term that Dan Hill uses for the ‘substrate that produces’. He cites an example of a BMW car as the ‘matter’, and the BMW company corporate culture, design philosophies, supply networks etc. as the ‘dark matter’ In: Hill, D. Dark Matter & Trojan Horses: A Strategic Design Vocabulary. (Strelka Press: Moscow, 2012 - p82)

14 Crowdcube Blog. Crowdcube Sets World Record Raising £1.2 Million in 16 Minutes. http://www.crowdcube.com/blog/2014/07/22/crowdcube-sets-world-record-raising-1-2-million-16-minutes/ (accessed 28/07/14)

++

17

2

HOUSING

++

18Housing | 2.1 The Housing Crisis

++

GOVERNMENT ECONOMY DEVELOPERSPLANNINGHOUSE PRICES

QUALITYQUANTITY

COMMUNITYSHARE-

HOLDERS

RELIANCE

AFFECTS

DUTY

PEOPLE

FACTORS

RESPONSIBILITY

Fig 6: Newtons Cradle of Neoliberal Jousting

in Housing

THE HOUSING CRISIS

“Real Estate as a physical asset is not sine qua non the cause of property market crashes. Rather it is the fiscal armature surrounding property that is crisis-prone.”1

Jack Self, Writer

In recent years the term ‘the housing crisis’ has become somewhat of a colloquialism. It’s multi-faceted and agenda laden dynamic makes the term (and problem) almost undecipherable, with opinion and the vested interests of big business and politics making the subject matter a repetitive topic of discussion, with little consensus ever reached. Such perpetuity suits certain parties more than others (developers), for as long as we are stuck in a spiral of verbality we will always cater to the current state of Neoliberalism2 in which we all find ourselves.

From the left, high house prices, the low quality and quantity of new homes can be considered the surface resultants of the housing crisis. Whilst these factors are the most likely to be displayed in the mainstream press, the underpinning contributors to these are the planning system and the wider economy, with the guilty parties being the government and developers seeking to maximise profit for their shareholders. This tangled network of relationships between parties and factors can be analogized with a Newton’s Cradle. The neoliberal economy is the element of physics that keeps the debate perpetual, whilst the government’s responsibility to the public is always compromised by it’s wider economic accountability which is, in part influenced by housing delivery.

19

UP TRENDS

1974 2013

HOUSEHOLD DEBTSOCIAL INEQUALITYHOUSE PRICES

UN

ITS

NUMBER OF PROVIDERS

VOLUMEHOUSEBUILDERS

SELF-BUILDERS

Housing | 2.1 The Housing Crisis

++

Fig 7: The Pareto Distribution of Housebuilding in the UK

Arguments surrounding housing provision in the past have centred around delivery and whether this should come from the state, the market, or independent non-profit organisations.3 In recent years the vast majority of housing in the UK has been supplied by the private market in the form of volume house builders such as Barratt and Taylor Wimpey, with the demographics of UK housing provision having an obvious Pareto distribution, or long-tail.

The core problem with this Pareto distribution is that the housebuilders that occupy the top left corner are a product of the neoliberal economy, and so the ideals of such a product vastly contrast the ideals of the public and end users of buildings produced as a result. Whilst housebuilders (developers) choose profit margin over all else, end users are concerned with quality, space and community. Unfortunately, the two sets of ideals rarely go hand in hand, with the net result being the dissatisfaction of the general public.

“Our focus is on building profitability, maintaining an appropriate capital structure and improving our return on capital employed, whilst ensuring we maintain a sufficient land supply to meet the future needs of the business.”4

Barratt Annual Report 2013

With such foresight developers have crafted an environment whereby they hold all of the cards. The practices of land banking as well as planning and value manipulation are centuries old. In the seventeenth century Nicholas Barbon developed the concept of artificially raising the overall value of a property beyond it’s worth in isolation, by building it as one of many. In 2014 inflation in the housing market is at an all time high, with household debt and social inequality following a correlated path that makes it hard to dismiss causation.

20

UP TRENDS

1974 2013

HOUSEHOLD DEBTSOCIAL INEQUALITYHOUSE PRICES

Housing | 2.1 The Housing Crisis

++

Fig 8: House Prices, vs Household Debt & Social Inequality 1974-2013

Jack Self

Having spent the last 5 years listening to the world pine for economic growth, today in Britain we are struggling to prevent the increasing disparity between wages and the cost of housing caused by growth in the housing market; particularly in London and the South-East.

Nationwide we are seeing developers leverage their financial power over councils and government who at the same time are seeing funding cuts affect local budgets for community projects. Tony Travers from the London School of Economics coined the term ‘parastate’ in description of developers that are now so closely linked with government it is hard to tell they’re not a part of it.5 These links are seeing planning boundaries pushed realms further than the trivial loopholes of permitted development, with developers now negotiating from a recognised position of power, sometimes even going above councils who reject plans to seek an overriding approval from a top tier councillor or politician.6 ‘Constructive eviction’, ‘planning gain’ and the avoiding of Section 106 payments altogether are becoming more and more frequent,7 as are the ephemeral communities brought about through the asset-driven foreign investment that developers sought once the banks stopped lending during the last financial crisis.

Thus far the effects of these have been mainly felt by the consumer. Whereas in other sectors we are seeing the ‘prosumer’ revolution (producer-consumers - figure 28, p62), the land scarcity applicable to the built environment, coupled with land banking and developer access to finance has only served to strengthen the developers asset driven and profit at all costs approach to building. Such a mentality has seen further stagnation in the quality and incorporation of technology and sustainable materials in housebuilding, with developers typically taking the opposite approach to design-led production processes such as those pioneered by Apple in the electronics industry. Section 2.2 explores the growing prosumer-like self-provided sector in the UK, which is emerging as a rival to the traditional one size fits all model of housebuilding that currently dominates.

21

“Somehow the whole methodology needs to be turned around...The property development industry is always stressing commercial reality, there is no incentive and no value for design quality.”8

Alison Brooks

22Housing | 2.2 The Existing Self Provided Sector

THE EXISTING SELF PROVIDED SECTOR

If an Englishman’s home is his castle, why is it always a castle built by someone else – one of the many identikit castles with mean windows, low ceilings and tight space standards that we’ve come to accept from our builders?9

Oliver WainWright, Critic

The notion of the ‘prosumer’ is one highly relevant to self provision in the housing market. Across creative industries the world is experiencing the third industrial revolution, with the increasing digitalisation of the world changing the way we live, work and communicate.10 Whilst these new technological advances have enabled tech prosumers to establish themselves since the mid-noughties, the first prosumers of housing date back as far as humans themselves. In many innate ways it is unusual to think we would rely on others to provide our homes in the first place, yet as discussed this is predominantly the norm in the UK.11 Even more bizarrely, we do not allow others to mass produce our homes because they do such a good job of it. Whereas industrial designers such as Apple and Dyson innovate internally to make world class products and create demand,12 housing developers set industry benchmarks, meaning that all they have to do is narrowly beat the competition. Fuelled by the market conditions, it is no surprise that we are seeing the rise of the housing prosumer through self build, increasingly custom build, and there is collective custom build on the horizon.

Self build

The term ‘Self Build’ (SB) has in recent years taken to represent a number of different methods for building a house, all involving the eventual inhabitant, but to differing extents. Traditionally, SB would involve the inhabitant buying land, designing, seeking permission, sourcing materials and labour, and building the house themselves. In 2014 the self builder can opt to contract out to professionals different parts of this process, or even all of it. The term has therefore come to represent any form of bespoke housebuilding that has not been supplied by a developer.

The recent wave of publicity surrounding SB has largely been due to the Planning Minister Nick Bowles’ ‘Right to Build’ initiative.13

++

23

GETMORTGAGE

SELECTPLOT

CHOOSEMANUFACTURER

CHOOSEMODEL &

CUSTOMISEMOVE IN

Housing | 2.2 The Existing Self Provided Sector

++

Fig 9: Emerging Custom Build Developer Process (as per Igloo Regeneration working model)

Long considered a ‘dream’ to many, self build, popularised in recent years by television programmes such as Grand Designs, has become a viable and scalable alternative to the existing housing stock or new homes delivered on mass. In 2013 research suggested that 26% of people in the UK had a passing interest in SB and that as many as 6 million people were researching the possibility of building their own home.14

Government intervention such as policy reform in the 2012 amendment to the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework), which now require councils to make land available to would-be self builders,15 and the incorporation of self build quotas for development sites,16 has meant that despite the increasingly competitive land market, it has never been easier to self build. The Self Build Portal, which provides information on topics ranging from finding plots of land, to the CIL exemption (Community Infrastructure Levy) now offered to self builders as a result of an NaCSBA campaign,17 is an invaluable resource and should be promoted further than simply to viewers of Kevin McCloud’s Grand Designs, who may view self-build as a wealthy-persons opportunity only.

“It should be a right and duty of all citizens to provide shelter for themselves, either directly or enabled by the state. It’s time for a citizens’ housing revolution in which all citizens have the right to build.”18

Stephen Hill, Self Build Expert

Custom Build

Following success in Europe (most notably The Netherlands), custom build (CB) is emerging as the latest way in which people in the UK can commission the building of a new home. Like SB, CB sees the end users of homes initiate the projects, however instead of taking the risks associated with tackling a project alone, custom build involves the future inhabitants working either in an independently formed group,19 or together with a specialist custom build developer.20 This new breed of developer minimises risks for consumers by tackling issues such as plot acquisition, construction and even finance.

24Housing | 2.2 The Existing Self Provided Sector

++

In these early days for the practice of CB we are seeing the developer enabled model more than any other. Figure 9 shows what is becoming the common procedure amongst many CB developers. The custom element usually involves selecting an individual plot specifically, a manufacturer, and culminates in the choice of a housing model / type from that manufacturer, with a degree of freedom to customise smaller design aspects further. There is also often the option for consumers to leave buildings as unfinished shells, ready to finish as per their taste, and in their own time frame.

Underpinning the development of this market is the government’s £150 million ‘Custom Build Serviced Plots Loan Fund’ which became active in June 2014. The fund aims to stimulate the growth of the market by aiding a number of schemes to successful completion, therefore demonstrating to commercial funders that the lending model is viable moving forward after the fund closes on March 31st 2015.21 The fund can be used to cover eligible costs such as land acquisition and site preparation, supporting infrastructure and utilities, Section 106 and CIL charges, general construction costs, and professional fees.22

Collective Custom Build

The practice of CB for an independently formed group of people is commonly becoming referred to as Collective Custom Build (CCB), thanks in part to the Collective Custom Build research project between the University of Sheffield, Ash Sakula Architects and Design for Homes.

Like CB, CCB has independent group enabled, developer enabled and supported community enabled methods of working.23 CCB, whether through dividing up a large site into individual plots, or through developing a multi-unit site is seen as the most viable way to ‘scale-up’ self-provision as a mainstream procurement route in the UK.24

Whereas CB is typically being used on large sites released by councils from public land banks, CCB has the potential to address the area of housing where supply and demand is most imbalanced; in urban mainstream markets,25 on brownfield sites with a need for higher density housing.

25

URBANSHORTAGE2000

LOWERMAINSTREAM

<£450psf

MIDMAINSTREAM£450-£700psf

SUP

PLY

DE

MA

ND

UPPERMAINSTREAM£700-£1000psf

NEW PRIME

£1000-£2000psf

SUPERPRIME

>£2000psf

4000

6000

8000

10,000

12,000

14,000


++

Fig 10: Housing Shortage in Urban Mainstream Market

Data: Savills

Moving forward, it is again the issue of land that is problematic. In areas where demand far outweighs supply, such as London, it is going to prove difficult to convince landowners to sell in any other way than for best price (something that traditionally favours developers due to financial power). As Chris Brown (Igloo) states, encouraging public landowners to look to partner with Community Land Trusts (CLT) before procuring development partners for public land disposals could be key.26

One such CLT is the East London Community Land Trust (ELCLT), the first urban CLT in the UK.27 The ELCLT define a CLT as a “nonprofit, membership organisation, run by local people, that develops permanently affordable housing and other community assets for long-term community benefit.”28 The ELCLT can do this is by owning land directly, and through it’s legal framework as an IPS,29 set contractually binding terms that remove inflationary values, having a stabilising effect and keeping the price of land in line with earnings.

Whilst CLTs, originally from Northern America, as well as the Baugruppen movement most utilised in Berlin, (much of which is documented in Kristien Ring’s ‘Self Made City’ book), have begun to take hold in the UK, there is still much we can learn from others. Having learnt from Almere regarding masterplanning large sites and enforcing light touch planning regulations through design codes and LDOs (Local Development Orders),30 we can learn even more from the Netherlands. Amsterdam City Council take a proactive role in initiating custom and collective custom build schemes, providing an online service linked to the city’s website that maps available plots and initiatives for others to get involved with.31 The same website simplifies the planning system with slimmed down ‘plot passports’, some as little as two pages long, that outline specific permitted development criteria.

26

URBANSHORTAGE2000

LOWERMAINSTREAM

<£450psf

MIDMAINSTREAM£450-£700psf

SUP

PLY

DE

MA

ND

UPPERMAINSTREAM£700-£1000psf

NEW PRIME

£1000-£2000psf

SUPERPRIME

>£2000psf

4000

6000

8000

10,000

12,000

14,000

BESPOKE PRODUCT

BROADEN ENTRY TO HOUSING MARKET

PERCEIVED DRIVERS ACTUAL DRIVERS

EFFICIENT USE OF LAND

SPEED OF DELIVERY

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

ENGENDER SENSE OF

OWNERSHIP

HARNESS UNTAPPED SKILLS AND

TRADES

PRACTICAL NEEDS

ENGAGEMENTPOLITICAL

EXPEDIENCY

NON COMBATATIVE

CONSULTATIONPROCESS


++

Fig 11: HAB Housing Perceived & Actual Drivers

Early Analysis

In the race to establish a presence in this emerging market, we have already seen a number of different interpretations and approaches. This was obvious at the RIBA J 2014 Custom Build Housing conference in April, where findings were discussed, from Rogers Stirk Harbour’s boundary pushing off site prefabricated construction methods vastly reducing construction time,32 to Kevin McCloud’s £1.9 million crowdfunded HAB housing development company,33 who claimed that from their first operational year they discerned a vast difference in the market’s perceived and actual drivers.

Skepticism must be rationalised when considering if HAB housing is an accurate representation of the market, and therefore if these drivers are commonplace, given the associations with Kevin McCloud and the glamour and aspiration that often go with Grand Designs. It may well be that because of these associations HAB attract a certain type of custom builder, however it raises the important issue of design value. The number one actual driver according to HAB is the desire for bespoke product.34 By removing the Architect from the equation of custom build as one part of the self provided market, and replacing them with a specialist CB developer, what we are left with is not too dissimilar from traditional developer practice of selling off plan, with 5 or so ‘types’, and the ability to choose a kitchen or style / theme. This therefore leaves the ‘custom’ element ambiguous in all but name, and the bespoke product almost eradicated. Furthermore the practice of CB enabled by a developer represents a blurring of lines between genuine self provision and what in actuality is simply developers building homes having identified the consumer before a shovel is in the ground; a marked improvement on traditional developer practice but a huge missed opportunity.

27

DEVELOPER

ARCHITECT

‘ARCHIVELOPER’

CUSTOMBUILD

SELFBUILD

EXPANSIONOF ROLE

ENABLER


++

Fig 12: Emerging ‘Archiveloper’ in the Custom Build Market

“There is some consensus that we will see the emergence of a Custom Build Enabler as a distinct profession or work stream”35

Sam Brown, Architect

Whilst the market is young, Architects have not been completely removed from the CB scenario. There is still scope for an Architect to be the predominant enabler aforementioned, and with a vocational education and expertise in producing design value and bespoke product, Architects are well positioned to offer something extra to establish themselves in the market. This is emerging with the creation of what I call the ‘Archiveloper’. ArchiHaus, the sister practice of Architype, and Inhabit Homes (formerly Solidspace) have positioned themselves carefully in the CB landscape, with their main selling points being their Architect-designed approach which is free from the constraints of a cost-conscious developer continually attempting to preserve margin. The idea behind the ‘Archiveloper’ is the blurring of lines between Architect and Developer, ultimately leading to a better and possibly cheaper product than produced by a developer, and a heightened future role for the Architect. Whilst neither Archihaus or Solidspace call themselves Archivelopers, this design-led approach can be seen in Archihaus’ Summary Document,36 and so to in Solidspace’s brochure for it’s Shepherdess Walk development.37 More tellingly, Roger Zogolovitch’ (founder of Solidspace) involvement with Elias Redstone and his research on Fideicomiso heightens this link. More on the Archiveloper and Fideicomiso in section 2.3.

28

A

C

PM

PE

SS

P

SS PS

PS: PHYSICAL SCIENCESSS: SOCIAL SCIENCESE: ENGINEERSP: PLANNERSA: ARCHITECTSC: CONTRACTORCI: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRYCM: CONSTRUCTION MANAGERPM: PROJECT MANAGER

DEVELOPER ENABLED MODEL OF PROCUREMENT

20091967

E

PS

CI

A

CM

FIDEICOMISO

“Developer starts with ‘D’, like ‘devil’ and ‘demon’.”38

Paolo Soleri, Architect

One method of self provision that we have learnt about in the UK but has not yet worked it’s way to wide utilisation is Fideicomiso. Fideicomiso are legal trusts developed in Argentina (commonly referred to as a development / business model), and were born out of the early noughties financial crisis in South America. Fideicomiso, although used in Argentina for almost fifteen years, was first introduced to the UK in 2013 following Elias Redstone’s British Council backed research which featured at the 2012 Venice Biennale, and subsequently had it’s own event at the RIBA titled ‘Fideicomiso! Putting Architecture at the Heart of Housing’39, as part of a wider ‘Venice Takeaway’ lecture series.40

The Role of the Architect

Seen as a model to challenge conventional speculative housing development,41 the practice of Fideicomiso flips traditional development on it’s head, with Architects assuming the role of the developer and initiating their own projects and creating their own work. This, even more so than the Archiveloper establishing themselves in the Custom Build market, is a stark contrast to the way in which the architectural profession has been heading until now, and a real sign of resilience within the industry.

DEVELOPER

ARCHITECT

‘ARCHIVELOPER’

CUSTOMBUILD

SELFBUILD

EXPANSIONOF ROLE

ENABLER

Housing | 2.3 Fideicomiso

++

Fig 13: Architects Relation to Other Professions. 1967 (left) & 2009 (right) Richard Llewelyn-Davies & Eric J. Cesal

29 Housing | 2.3 Fideicomiso

++

12

3

4

5 6

78 10

30Housing | 2.3 Fideicomiso

++

12

3

4

5 6

78 10

Fig

14:

Fi

dei

com

iso:

A

n A

rchi

tect

ural

Ad

vent

rure

In

Arg

entin

aEl

ias

Red

ston

e &

Mar

cia

Mih

otic

31 Housing | 2.3 Fideicomiso

++

Figure 14 is an edited assortment of 8 ‘comic book’ style illustrations by Elias Redstone and Marcia Mihotic. Key findings of the Fideicomiso model from Elias’ trip are outlined below:

1. The model was born out of public difficulty in accessing credit.2. The model of Fideicomiso works in Buenos Aires due to standardised plots and building codes.3. The model of working does not provide social housing, it’s predominantly used for middle class couples and families.4. The end occupants are often the investors themselves. This can give them design input. 5. Rates increase with project duration, incentivizing early entry to the project.6. Different budgets can be accommodated within the design process, however projects typically contain 8 MDUs (Multi Dwelling Units).7. Money is transferred monthly throughout the duration of the project.8. The resulting housing is more Architectural than Asset. It is, subjectively, better quality than speculatively provided housing, with the opportunity to better reflect the local environment.9. Certain Architects in Buenos Aires have waiting lists for Fideicomiso projects.10. Projects can lead to housing that is up to 20-30% cheaper for end users.42

11. Projects offer residents shared bespoke product, rather than ‘custom’ (limited) individual product (CB), or expensive individual bespoke product (SB).

The emerging Archiveloper is one that can in the future be multi-faceted. If the Archiveloper introduced in section 2.1 was attempting to establish a presence of the Architect in the new custom build branch of the self provided housing market, then the picture of the Archiveloper painted through the Fideicomiso development model is far less conservative.

The key factor underpinning Fideicomiso is invariably, like anything else associated with reward, dependent on increased risk; in this case on the Architect’s part. Financial risk is taken, like that by a traditional developer, but to a lesser extent due to consumers being identified before the build starts. Also, if applying the model to the UK, there would be an additional risk in terms of planning. The standardisation of building codes and light touch planning that is used in Argentina and has been identified by the DCLG in Almere,43 has not yet been acted upon in the UK, least not in an urban environment. This is relevant because Fideicomiso, which although has the potential to be utilised anywhere, is completely designed for higher density areas.

32

DESIGNFEE

ARCHITECT

‘ARCHIVELOPER’ FIDEICOMISO

DEVELOPER MARGIN

MAJOREXPANSION

OF ROLEENABLER

2020?

A

C

PE

SSPS

PS: PHYSICAL SCIENCESSS: SOCIAL SCIENCESE: ENGINEERSP: PLANNERSA: ARCHITECTSC: CONTRACTOR

ARCHIVELOPER ENABLED MODEL OF PROCUREMENT


++

Archiveloper in the Fideicomiso Model. Role (Fig 15 left), & In Relation to Other Professions (Fig 16 right)

“From looking at housing in London, it has become clear that shortage of land is not the problem. Instead it is the shortage of developers willing to build out the planning permissions that they already have, because they’re not deemed to be sufficiently profitable.”44

David Kohn, Architect

Assuming the model were implemented in the UK and Architects continued to take design fees rather than developer margins (to do otherwise would simply shift the face and name of the ‘devil’), this would open up the possibility to a new range of Architect-enabled development. What may not constitute profitable development for developers, may be perfectly feasible with the eradication of the developers margin. After all, it is the technical and professional skillsets that are required to build a building, not the expertise in being a coordinator (which the Architect has always possessed anyway), or the skill of being a middleman in the form of marketing to consumers; the replacement of the middleman by the ‘platform’ is discussed in section 3.3.

The upfront finance and marketing that have up until now been the developers trump cards are irrelevant under a Fideicomiso business model, and therefore so should be the developer. The role of the Archiveloper therefore should not be one who substitutes traditional fees with developer profits, but one who is simply capable of doing what a developer does, whilst still providing value in the form of the architectural design service, perhaps with an increased fee to alleviate risk. Furthermore, the role of the Archiveloper as procurer gives greater control, creatively and practically,45 to the Architect in relation to other professions (figure 16).

33

MOST SUCCESSFUL

MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL

UNSUCCESSFUL

TRADITIONALARCHITECTURAL

PYRAMID

ARCHITECTURALPYRAMID UNDER

FIDEICOMISO

* WHAT’S LURKING OUT HERE?

**

As established, Fideicomiso sees clients as the starting point for design and can boost the Architectural profession relative to it’s rivals. Benefits though can also be internal. The architectural profession represents perhaps more than any other a steep pyramid of success. ‘Starchitects’ at the very top of the pyramid are often credited with designing buildings simply because their name is on the drawing, when in reality their role is no more than an overseeing internal critic. One step down from this and there is a whole level of architectural realisation that is inaccessible without a brand name.

“Our aspiration is to one day build a skyscraper in London, we’d love to do it, but at the moment our name’s not big enough”46

Roger Hawkins

At a smaller scale (Fideicomiso), coupled with the element of project self-initiation, the opportunity arises for Architects to more easily climb the pyramid of success, as outlined in figure 17. Whilst such a benefit can, to a degree, level the playing field amongst architectural practices, this can also be a beneficial for the public in that new design values and integrity, previously hidden amongst tiers of architectural management, can be given the platform to emerge and transpire into the built environment.


++

Fig 17: Traditional and Fideicomiso Model Pyramids of Architectural Success

34

Transpiration to Integration

Despite the benefits outlined, when contacted in September 2014, Elias Redstone said that he was unaware of any Fideicomiso inspired projects in the UK following the publication of his research.47

“Instead of avoiding risks, the profession – and more broadly the wider commission and developing bodies associated with architecture – should actually be taking more risks”48

Dickon Robinson, Chair, Building Futures

In order to have any chance of the Fideicomiso practice working in the UK, we must first discern what the prohibiting factors are. It cannot be the upfront unpaid work on the Architects part, as this is engrained into the architectural profession through the traditional architectural competition (discussed in section 4.2). One would assume it cannot be for a lack of demand, for our urban centres are the most in demand in the country. Whilst it might be land, cohousing schemes have existed for years, and examples of Baugruppen are plentiful in European cities such as Berlin. Are we missing something that Berlin has, or are they just one step ahead of us?

As Dickon Robinson alludes to, this issue of risk avoidance is larger than simply Architects. Incentivisation should be given to those who take risks in order to further and better the professional practice, whether through tax credits gained through R&D,49 or the development of a working framework or platform provided by the industry to give forms of security. At present, the model, if it is to prove applicable to the UK, needs iteration. If the largest barrier preventing Architects assuming the role of the Archiveloper is the financial one, and this is likely, given the cost of a failed project could financially ruin a practice, then the legal structure and financing process of such a model should be dissected and evaluated further...

35

++

1 Self, J. Real Estates: Life Without Debt (Bedford Press: London, 2014 - p85)

2 Neoliberalism is an updated version of ideas associated with economic liberalism, which advocates support for great economic liberalization, privatization, free trade, open markets, deregulation, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy - Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

3 Parvin, A., Cerulli, C., Saxby, D. & Schneider, T. A Right To Build: The next mass-housebuilding industry. (University of Sheffield and Architecture 00:/, 2011 -p8)

4 Barratt Developments PLC. Annual Report and Accounts: Building for the Future. (Barratt: 2013 p3)

5 The Economist (Unattributed). Berkeley Homes: Rise of the Placemakers. The Economist. Aug. 16, 2014. http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21612176-firm-has-transformed-property-development-london-rise-placemakers?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/riseoftheplacemakers. (accessed 22/08/14)

6 The latest example of this is Boris Johnson (Mayor of London) overriding Islington Council to approve a housing development on the old Royal Mail’s Mount Pleasant site in London 03/10/14

7 Wainwright, O.The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities. Guardian. Sept. 17, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities?CMP=twt_gu (accessed 17/09/14)

8 Lowenstein, O. Zero carbon housing - rising to the challenge. Detail (English). Green 2/2013. (Architecture. Munich: Detail.de. 2013)

9 Wainwright, O. Right to Build: Nick Boles Tells Councils to Offer Land for Self-Builds ‘or Be Sued’. Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/may/07/right-to-nick-boles-councils-self-build-sued.(accessed 07/05/14)

10 Harrison-Gray, E. The Web & Digital Manufacture: How the transferability of web based concepts through digital manufacture can open new possibilities for the way Architects work and produce. (Masters Thesis). (University of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2013)

11 Post-War UK Housing Supply. Hunter, N. Self-provided Housing: The long-tailed future of house building. (Masters Thesis). (University of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2012 p-7)

12 Banks, T. How to build a design-led brand. Design Week. Nov 02, 2012. http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/news-analysis/how-to-build-a-design-led-brand/3035519.article (accessed 09/09/14)

13 DCLG. Community Right to Build. GOV.UK. Nov. 7, 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-people-more-power-over-what-happens-in-their-neighbourhood/supporting-pages/community-right-to-build (accessed 04/09/14)

14 Ipsos MORI. Survey of Self-Build Intentions. Mar. 12, 2013. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3171/Survey-of-selfbuild-intentions.aspx. (accessed 07/05/14)

36

15 DCLG. National Planning Policy Framework. (DCLG: London, 2012 -p13)

16 RIBA. Self Build Quota Policy Confirmed in Local Plan. May. 29, 2014. http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/Membernews/PracticeNews/2014/May2014/29May2014/Selfbuildquotapolicyconfirmedinlocalplan.aspx. (accessed 31/05/2014)

17 Self Build Portal. CIL/s106 Exemptions. http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/cil-s106-exemptions (accessed 10/09/14)

18 CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). Who should build our homes? Six experts challenge the status quo. (CABE: London, 2009 -p90)

19 Brown, S. Collective Custom Build. University of Sheffield. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 -p12

20 Self Build Portal. What is Custom Build? http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/latest-news/313-new-custom-build. (accessed 08/08/14)

21 HCA.Custom Build. https://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/custom-build. (accessed 11/08/14)

22 HCA.Custom Build. https://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/custom-build. (accessed 11/08/14)

23 Ash, C., Birkbeck, D., Brown, B., Cerulli, C. & Stevenson, F. Motivating Collective Custom Build Report(University Of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2013 -p54-55)

24 Ash, C., Birkbeck, D., Brown, B., Cerulli, C. & Stevenson, F. Motivating Collective Custom Build Report(University Of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2013 -p54)

25 Barnes, Y. The role and potential of ‘own build’. Savills. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 p4

26 Brown, C. Delivering the Community Housing Dream. Jun. 9, 2014. http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2014/06/09/delivering-the-community-housing-dream/ (accessed 04/08/14)

27 East London Community Land Trust. What is a Community Land Trust? (ELCLT: London, 2013 - p5)

28 East London Community Land Trust. About Us. http://www.eastlondonclt.co.uk/#/about-us/4576877838 (accessed 11/09/14)

29 IPS: Industrial and Provident Society. A legal structure that falls under charitable registration. Benefits include imposing ‘Asset Locks’ on, in this case, land, and tax advantages.

30 DCLG. 12 Lessons learnt from Almere. Internal Presentation to DCLG. (23rd May 2012)

++

37

++

31 Amsterdam City Council. Do-it-yourself plots Amsterdam. http://maps.amsterdam.nl/zelfbouwkavels/ (accessed 10/09/14)

32 RSH+P calculate their method to take 4 weeks from order to completion, including 5 days factory manufacture and 24 hours to erect a watertight structure. In: Harbour, I. The Importance of Design. Roger Stirk Harbour + Partners. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 p9

33 Andrews, K. Affordable Housing Developer Exceeds £1.9m Crowdfunded Investment. Dezeen. Sept. 30, 2013. http://www.dezeen.com/2013/09/30/kevin-mccloud-hab-housing-developer-breaks-world-record-crowdsourced-equity-investment/. (accessed 14/02/02)

34 Allen, I. Housing delivery under Custom Build! What does the future hold?! HAB. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 - p11

35 Brown, S. Collective Custom Build. University of Sheffield. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 -p11

36 Archihaus. Summary Document. http://www.archihaus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SummaryDocRevB.pdf (accessed 09/09/14)

37 Solidspace. Shepherdess Walk Brochure. May 2014. http://www.solidspace.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Shepherdess_Walk_brochure_May20141.pdf (accessed 10/09/14)

38 Wainwright, O. Housing without Developers: Argentina’s Architects Show the Way. Guardian.com. Apr. 29, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/apr/19/housing-without-developers-argentina?CMP=twt_fd. (accessed 25/02/14)

39 RIBA: Fideicomiso! Putting Architecture at the Heart of Housing. http://www.architecture.com/whatson/talks/events/2013/spring/fideicomiso!puttingarchitectureattheheartofhousing.aspx#.UwuTSF61-T6.(accessed 24/02/14)

40 Venice Takeaway - Ideas to Change British Architecture. Elias Redstone. http://www.venicetakeaway.com/?portfolio=test7. (accessed 11/09/14)

41 MCCB. Fideicomiso – Self-Providing Housing Trusts in Argentina Initiated by Entrepreneurial Architects… MCCB. Apr. 24, 2013. http://mccbhomeimprovements.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/fideicomiso-self-providing-housing-trusts-in-argentina-initiated-by-entrepreneurial-architects/. (accessed 17/08/14)

42 Redstone, E. & Mihotich, M. Travesía Por La Argentina/ Elias Redstone. PLOT. Dec 11, 2012. Accessed August 17, 2014. http://www.revistaplot.com/travesia-por-la-argentina-elias-redstone/. (accessed 17/08/14)

43 DCLG. 12 Lessons learnt from Almere. Internal Presentation to DCLG. (23rd May 2012)

44 Wainwright, O. Housing without Developers: Argentina’s Architects Show the Way. Guardian.com. Apr. 29, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/apr/19/housing-without-developers-argentina?CMP=twt_fd. (accessed 25/02/14)

38

++

45 Quirk, V. Fideicomiso: When Architects Become Developers (And Everybody Wins) | ArchDaily.” Accessed February 23, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/364223/fideicomiso-when-architects-become-developers-and-everybody-wins/.

46 Roger Hawkins in private conversation during Guangfutures Live Project, SSoA - Oct. 2013.

47 With the exception of David Kohn’s exploratory diploma unit taught at CASS (London Metropolitan University)

48 Dickon Robinson, quoted from the RIBA event ‘Fideicomiso! Putting Architecture at the Heart of Housing’, in Donald, A. Fideicomiso and UK Architecture | British Council Voices. British Council. Apr. 26, 2013. http://blog.britishcouncil.org/2013/04/26/fideicomiso-uk-argentina-architecture/. (accessed 23/02/14)

49 RIBA .RIBA Encourages Architects to Apply for R&D Tax Credits. 2012. http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/News/RIBANews/News/2012/RIBAencouragesarchitectstoapplyforRDtaxcredits.aspx. (accessed 18/08/14)

39

CROWDFUNDING

3

++

40

CROWDFUNDING:A CONCISE GUIDE

In order to understand the potential crowdfunding can bring to the housing sector, we must first understand crowdfunding itself.

Definition

Definitions for crowdfunding differ in scope and specificity across the industry, but can be defined at it’s most simplistic as follows:

Crowdfunding is the raising of capital by a person, people, or any form of legally structured group, through the use of online crowdfunding platforms (CFP).

Crowdfunding by current definition is online, due to it’s rapid growth. Crowdfunding may be done offline, but this is now commonly becoming referred to as ‘offline crowdfunding’. Offline crowdfunding may be beneficial in addition to online campaigns for projects that have geographically ‘localised’ appeal.

Types

As established in the introduction, crowdfunding comes in two core forms that can be called the master types; ‘crowdfunding’ (CF) and ‘crowdfunding investment’ (CFI).

The former represents the more novel, less financially incentivised forms of crowdfunding - donation and reward, as used on the world’s two most popular CFP, Kickstarter and Indiegogo.

CFI is the younger of the master types, but is growing hugely in the UK due to the country’s policies on non-accredited investors and tax relief from the EIS and SEIS (Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme).1 In the UK anyone can crowdfund / invest for as little as the CFP stipulates; Crowdcube and Seedrs (both UK Equity CFPs) enable funders / investors to do so for as little as £10. In the UK this is now widely claimed to have ‘democratised finance’2 by

Crowdfunding | 3.1 Crowdfunding: A Concise Guide

++

41

DONATION

INTANGIBLE

CF TYPE RETURN MOTIVATION

INTANGIBLE

REWARDS

ROI

INTANGIBLE

REWARDS

LOAN+

INTEREST

% REVENUE

INTRINSIC

SOCIAL

REWARD

FINANCIAL

REWARD

EQUITY

DEBT (P2P)

ROYALTY


++

Fig 18: CF Types, Returns and Motivations

substantially lowering the thresholds for investment, and giving everyone the opportunity previously only available to those meeting specified criteria on personal wealth.

In the US this is not the case. Title III of the JOBS Act, which when eventually released is due to legalise non-accredited equity crowdfunding, has been stalled since December 2012, meaning only those accredited can invest.

CFI, contains within it Equity, Debt (also known as P2P - Peer-to-Peer lending) and Royalty crowdfunding. The forms of return, as well as motivations for investing in all forms of crowdfunding can be seen in figure 18.

42

It is important to remember that campaigns / projects can progress from CF to CFI as their ‘project’ grows and becomes a startup or early growth business. Whilst it was originally thought that crowdfunding would disrupt the traditional venture capitalist model of financing startups, it has in fact increased dealflow (the rate at which VCs receive propositions).3 Even though the differences between CF and CFI are clear, CFI is utilising motivational factors / novelty from CF to it’s advantage. For example, Chilango, a burrito start-up recently listed on Crowdcube, offered investors a burrito a week in addition to the 8% financial return. Not only does this give the investors the intrinsic, social and reward motivational factors, it makes Crowdcube appear more CF than CFI, therefore widening it’s appeal, and it guarantees Chilango an additional customer base. Benefits are being extracted all round.

Crowdfunding Old and New

A general observation of crowdfunding and it’s rise since the millennia and before, has been the increase of financial incentivisation both for funders and the platforms themselves. Pre-internet crowdfunding has been traced back centuries to Mosques on the Indian subcontinent, but the most famous example is of the $100,000 in micro-donations raised by the New York based newspaper ‘The World’ in 1884, for the construction of the pedestal on which the Statue of Liberty now sits.4 Closer to home, another example of this is the University of Sheffield itself.If we fast forward to the 21st century, Donor’s Choose, a registered not-for-profit organisation, founded in 2000 and designed to enable people to fund requests from teachers for school supplies, is acknowledged to be one of, if not the first crowdfunding websites. As the name suggests Donors Choose is completely donation based, with no expectation of return, and notably the ‘funding button’ (the link on the page to give money) is titled ‘Give’. Contrast this to later CF site’s buttons, ‘Back this Project’ (Kickstarter) and ‘Contribute Now’ (Indiegogo), as well as those of CFI site’s which are typically ‘Invest’, and we can see the incentivisation of an industry or form of giving that was previously solely charitable.

Whilst philanthropy still exists, highlighted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s recent 50% back to school match-offer for all projects on Donors Choose,5 CFI has now evolved crowdfunding’s use in the next stage of a ventures’ development. As such, it has created the democratic financial market aforementioned.

DONATION

INTANGIBLE

CF TYPE RETURN MOTIVATION

INTANGIBLE

REWARDS

ROI

INTANGIBLE

REWARDS

LOAN+

INTEREST

% REVENUE

INTRINSIC

SOCIAL

REWARD

FINANCIAL

REWARD

EQUITY

DEBT (P2P)

ROYALTY


++

43

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2004

2005

IPO

Merchant Services

* = Not-for-profit

*

*

*


++

Fig 19: A History of Crowdfunding. Notable CF & CFI platforms selected, as well as payment platforms

44Crowdfunding | 3.1 Crowdfunding: A Concise Guide

++

Platforms

The duopoly of Kickstarter and Indiegogo dominate the global donation and reward based models of crowdfunding, yet even this is predominantly one-sided in Kickstarter’s favour; in August 2013 Indiegogo had a 9.3% rate of projects reaching 100% of their funding goal, compared to Kickstarter’s 44%.6 This is to a degree, made up for by Indiegogo’s ‘take it all’ approach, as opposed to Kickstarter’s ‘All of nothing’ model, meaning that campaigns although not being fully funded do get the funds they have raised. Crowdfunder, a sister company of Crowdcube which also uses the ‘All or Nothing’ model, although being the number one CFP in the UK, cannot compete with Kickstarter and has raised under £1.5 million compared to Kickstarters $1.3 billion. One of the reasons it cannot compete is due to the web having few geographical boundaries. At the time of writing Indiegogo has funded projects in over 190 countries.7 Due to worldwide accessibility and publicity from ‘blockbuster projects’ such as Star Citizen, it is often the go-to platform for hosts wanting to maximise their reach.

Whilst these CF platforms dominate the market, niches and independent platforms are springing up due to white label providers offering pre-written code for a price, and open source alternatives such as Crowdtilt’s Crowdhoster platform.8 More on open-source in section 3.4.Like anywhere else, crowdfunded money is not free. Platforms earn revenue by typically charging between 3-5% of the total project goal, although this can be lower if the project is by / for a charity, and higher in the event of a ‘take it all’ model such as Indiegogo when the total goal is not met. In this case Indiegogo’s fees jump from 4% to 9%. There is also a fee charged by payment providers for taking, holding and releasing money. This is usually similar to the CFP fee of 3-5%.

Whilst this section does not constitute a comprehensive guide to crowdfunding, it illustrates the key points that are applicable to the proposal in section 4.2. Firstly, we must disassociate crowdfunding with solely being the publicity generating donation and reward based models we initially think of. Instead we must realise and consider the growing potential within CFI as a source of wider, upscaled finance. Secondly, when it comes to geography, anything can be crowdfunded from anywhere, just so long as someone creates the project and regulations allow it.Lastly, we must remember that although CF and CFI are established and cannot be considered new, the industry is young, it is still gaining popularity, still evolving and still innovating itself.

45

Fig 20: Development of Kickstarter. Comprising of Prototype - 2006 (top), and Sep 2014 (bottom).The Kickstarter platform was launched in 2009 and has since raised $1.3 billion

46

CIVIC CROWDFUNDING

If CF and CFI are types of crowdfunding, then Civic and Real Estate crowdfunding can be considered genres.

As Rodrigo Davies outlines, civic projects either directly or indirectly use government funds, assets or sponsorship, and may include the development of public assets.9 Civic projects are those ultimately for the benefit of a community, and so tend to be site specific and have a geographically localised funding base.10 More often than not the projects lead to changes in the built environment, with gardens and parks amongst some of the most successful campaigns. Civic projects do not exclusively affect the built environment, however, and can be public services such as the campaign to provide Mansfield town centre with free public WIFI in order to broaden it’s appeal to shoppers.11

Seen in figure 19 (p43), the first CFP specifically for civic projects was IOBY which launched in 2009. IOBY stands for ‘In Our Back Yard’, a term coined in opposition to the intractable NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) outlook that often prevents the realisation of projects for the greater good. Since the arrival of IOBY, several similar platforms have sprung up in different parts of the U.S. and the UK; Neighbor.ly in Kansas City, Citizinvestor in Philadelphia and Spacehive in London all champion YIMBYism (Yes In My Back Yard).

Dialogue

CPs (civic platforms) are typically structured very similarly to GPs (generic platforms). There have in the past been civic projects listed on Kickstarter, and the model is transferable, however due to the public domain that civic campaign proposals sit within, it is imperative for projects to receive approvals from planners, regardless of whether the money has been raised or not. A notable example of this occurring (or not occurring) was in 2011 when a Kickstarter campaign raised $67,000 to erect a giant statue of robocop in Detroit,12 (Robocop is ‘Detroit’s greatest citizen’) after a tweet to the mayor of the city was knocked back, as seen in figure 21.

Crowdfunding | 3.2 Civic Crowdfunding

++

47 Crowdfunding | 2.2 Civic Crowdfunding

++

Fig 21: Bronze statue of Robocop made with the $67,000 funded

through Kickstarter

48

More than 3 years later, the bronze Robocop statue has been made with the campaign money, although at the time of writing Robocop still doesn’t have a permanent home, as no agreement has been reached with local government. Whilst this is unfortunate for the campaign manager of the Robocop project, it only strengthens the position of CPs in their battle with GPs such as Kickstarter, as through the partnership models with non-profits and local governments that they spend time and resources developing, they gain an advantage of open dialogue with those who possess the power to approve them.

Mobilisation Meets Division

As previously stated, civic projects can benefit largely by engaging in offline crowdfunding, as those immediately around the project’s site are most likely to benefit and therefore statistically most likely to fund them. The strengths in civic projects though, are not solely financial. The emotional attachment factor that civic projects hold is powerful, and therefore the time and effort of individuals can be a quantifiable benefit. Furthermore, as Bryan Boyer and Dan Hill reflect, civic projects imply opportunities to foster social cohesion.13

Civic crowdfunding is often hailed a democratiser,14 allowing those most affected to create bottom up campaigns where they are needed most. The democratic credentials of this must be scrutinised, though. Whilst it can be argued that the mobilisation of a core group of campaign supporters putting in effort to see change is democratic in comparison to conventional top down urban and community planning, we must balance this by observing the vast majority who could be voting against an idea by not pledging anything. This is not to say that those who don’t contribute oppose an idea, more it is just identifying a potential cavity in the system. The risk with civic projects is that at present there is an ambiguity regarding the level of overall local support, given that only the yes votes are registered (through pledges). The lack of a system able to quantify those who oppose an idea, whilst inhibitive of action, is required in order for civic projects to justify their billing as ‘democratic’. As Alexandra Lange writes:

“How do you define community? There are online communities, yes, but if you’re starting a project through city channels you have to do a lot of outreach to the neighbours, to the congressional district, all of that. And that all gets swept aside when you’re looking at crowdfunding models that are purely online.” 15


++

49

CAMPAIGN&

MANAGER

CAMPAIGN&

MANAGER

CIVICPROJECTS

CIVIC PLATFORM

GENERIC PLATFORM

INDIVIDUALS

INDIVIDUALS

GENERIC PROJECTS

COMMUNITYGROUPS

LOCAL BUSINESSES

GOVERNMENT

FOUNDATIONS

CORPORATES

SOCIAL MEDIA REFERRAL

DIRECT TRAFFIC

It is easy to see how divisiveness in the participatory process could halt and further complicate action, yet it is important to have identified that when crowdfunding meets the built environment there are an awful lot more variables and challenges to overcome; something to be considered in section 4.2.

Collateral Benefits

Along with the mobilisation of groups within the community that civic projects bring, a number of collateral benefits can be attained. Some civic projects, like when rationalising the concept of crowdfunding architecture and housing, are often thought of as too expensive for a localised crowd.

If we make such assumptions on the basis of the symbiotic relationships that crowdfunding and civic crowdfunding have, then we are wrong because we have not fully appreciated the variables associated with each genre. If crowdfunding generally is geared toward the consumption of individuals, then civic crowdfunding is focussed upon the hedonistically consuming crowd. The large costs of civic and even civic infrastructure projects can therefore be proportional relative to, say a small gadget campaign on Kickstarter, due to the diversification of the funding pool, and relative competition that comes with the aggregation of projects into niche platforms (Figure 22). Despite this, the + Pool project in New York, hailed as the largest civic project ever,16 was initiated with a Kickstarter campaign, a GP rather than a CP. This can be attributed fundamentally to how platforms are used.

Yancey Strickler, CEO / Co-founder of Kickstarter states that 2/3 of traffic on the Kickstarter website comes from social media referrals,17 meanwhile Rodrigo Davies research points to civic projects being concentrated in cities, particularly cities where the platform is based;18 in Kickstarter’s case New York.


++

50

CAMPAIGN&

MANAGER

CAMPAIGN&

MANAGER

CIVICPROJECTS

CIVIC PLATFORM

GENERIC PLATFORM

INDIVIDUALS

INDIVIDUALS

GENERIC PROJECTS

COMMUNITYGROUPS

LOCAL BUSINESSES

GOVERNMENT

FOUNDATIONS

CORPORATES

SOCIAL MEDIA REFERRAL

DIRECT TRAFFIC

Fig 22: CP vs GP Funding Pools & Benefits of Aggregation. Civic Platforms are smaller, more specific and have less projects. Generic platforms have lots of projects on bigger platforms. Civic Platforms have a larger more diverse funding pool through open dialogue and partnerships. Generic platforms are tailored to individuals.


++

51

The key additions to this equation are the ‘Government’, ‘Corporates’ and ‘Local Businesses’ as new stakeholders. As Chris Gourlay, founder / CEO of Spacehive highlights:

“This is not meant to be a subversive or aggressive model at all, It’s about tapping the widest possible source of creativity. Local authorities like it very much, partly because it opens up sources of funding in an era where budgets are terribly constrained, but also because it does engage the community.“ 19

Evidence of government approval for such models can be seen in initiatives such as People St,20 set up by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to encourage and enable communities to transform the underused streets of the city.

Local Businesses and Corporates located within the community meanwhile can provide large sums of funding with the hope of winning good will. Whether this is a genuine act of localism or more cynically, a form of PR, we do not know as each benefactor will have their own agenda, however the relevance is not all that important; We can simply attribute the practice as ‘opportunistic’ on the business’ part, which should, in turn, be valued by those benefitting from the campaign. It must also be noted however, that as easily as funding can be given, it can also be withdrawn, and this is a large risk factor for projects.

Another collateral benefit of having a campaign with mobilised support can come from institutions that wish to attribute themselves with a project. Resources such as Google Drive’s API ‘powering’ of + Pool’s Float Lab (figure 23)21, can often provide valuable help that campaign money could not previously be assigned to. Furthermore, the transparency of popularity enabled by the CPs not only provide tangible benefits, but can be used as a bargaining tool, either with government or to leverage more funding or expertise from institutions eager to be credited with association.


++

52

Fig 23: + Pool (top) and + Pool Float Lab Dashboard

powered by Google Drive (bottom)

53

Funding Types

The genre of civic crowdfunding has up until now been dominated by donation and reward models. In a large proportion of cases, purely donations have been enough to fund projects, but when they are not rewards are given to incentivize further. Crowdfunding rewards linked with GPs are related to their projects and often in the form of small scale memorabilia such as t-shirts, mugs or something more project-specific. Rewards for civic projects do this too, however in a bid to raise the extra cash that they often need, rewards can come in the form of personal association with the final built product, enabled through the componentization of whatever is being built.

Naming, which works in exactly the same way as typical sponsorship - the case of the philanthropist funding the new building and having it named after them, is increasingly being used in civic projects that affect the built environment, but on a much smaller scale. + Pool for example is currently offering donors the chance to have their name engraved on a tile that will be used in the building of the pool itself, and on display, therefore selling ‘a piece of history’.22 Whilst + pool is ongoing, a completed project that has utilised the same model of reward individual sponsoring is the 390m Luchtsingel Bridge in Rotterdam (2013), which gave funders the opportunity to have their names engraved on planks (components) of the bridge itself.23

Elsewhere, projects have benefitted from ‘match-funding’, such as the case of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation match offer on Donors Choose aforementioned. Top up funding, where projects that already have substantial backing from grants, funds and other sources can be topped up to reach a goal.24

Up until now CFI for civic projects hasn’t really occurred on CPs. This could all be about to change though, with Neighbor.ly currently preparing the launch of a model that could earn investors between 6-12% TEY (Tax Equivalent Yield).25 Presently Neighbor.ly are not disclosing how they will make such a return, so this is a case of ‘watch this space’.

The closest comparable example to CFI in civic crowdfunding at the time of writing are ‘community shares’,26 which are community projects, but like CFI, businesses have a strategic business plan and offer a financial return. The difference between civic projects and projects utilising community shares is when there is a privately owned asset or business at the end of it, making it


++

54

a genuine investment from which funders can hope to see a financial return. This model of working is central to the proposal for crowdfunding housing, as although not routed through a CFP, it’s essentially a model of CFI for socially-oriented projects.

The Roco, a creative cooperative based in Sheffield is now benefitting from the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, allowing them to sell shares. Shares in the Roco will never be worth more than was initially paid for them, but there is a 5% annual interest for investors if they want to receive financial returns (not receiving it is opt-out).27

The relevance of the Roco to this study is that it is a project grounded in the built environment. Occupying 7 Georgian grade II listed buildings in the heart of Sheffield, the Roco is a £1.1 million project aiming to create a hub for the creative, digital and social industries across Sheffield. Whilst there are undeniably more financially attractive propositions on the market than the 5% offered by the Roco, value is not solely monetary. Non-monetary value in Community Benefit Societies come from the positive social consequences achieved through the democratic structure of the legal framework. With the rise of CFI, albeit not through a CFP, the Roco is able to secure finance without conditions, and with the backing of members of the society, in turn they can get away from the asset-driven development discussed in section 2.1.

By turning this order of obtaining finance on its head, participatory design planning can be built into the process of development, with the net result being a building designed with the vested interest of the users in mind, not the investors.


++

55

Fig 24: The Roco, Sheffield. Design Participation Day ePoster (top) and Schedule of Accommodation (bottom)

56

REAL ESTATE CROWDFUNDING

“What if we apply this crowdfunding concept to the solutions that we need?”28

Rodrigo Nino, CEO, Prodigy Network

Real estate crowdfunding (RECF), like civic crowdfunding is the adoption of the practice of crowdfunding for a specific genre. In this case the genre is real estate, although more specifically than this, it is commercial real estate.29 The practice of RECF presently is through equity and debt models of CFI, as it is a direct investment and investors have a financial motivation.

Up until now one of the only ways to invest in real estate has been through REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), which all essentially encompass a middle man. The essence of RECF is to democratise real estate investment from the 1% to the 99% by opening up traditionally secluded real estate projects previously only available to institutional investors. This is enabled through crowdfunding as CFPs and payment platforms reduce the threshold for investment, so instead of a minimum investment of, say $1,000,000, investments can now be as little as $100 - giving the vast majority the ability to see higher rates of return than previously afforded to them. In terms of competition, RECF offers an attractive form of investment in comparison with many technology startups, as by nature the industry is tangible; investors can even visit proposed projects, and value is more easily discerned.30

Currently real estate crowdfunding is most popular, like generic crowdfunding, in North America, however platforms are springing up globally, from CasaGrupo in Nigeria to Prodigy Network in Colombia. In the UK, Property Moose and Property Crowd are both responding to the new demands in the market this side of the Atlantic, and are making efforts to engage with the FCA regarding legislation, with the former having applied for a Retail Investors License, which will make it the first and only property crowdfunding provider in the UK regulated by the FCA when issued.31

Typically, the real estate crowdfunding platforms that have popped up promise investors rental return as well as capital gains when properties are sold. Whilst the majority of RECF platforms approach the market completely from the investors point of view, there is enormous potential, like outlined with the Roco cooperative, to utilise this monetary power of the crowd to affect what’s built, before it’s built. The fact that most real estate platforms are allowing investors

Crowdfunding | 3.3 Real Estate Crowdfunding

++

57

DEVELOPER

DEVELOPER

CROWD

CROWD

CAPITAL

POWER2008 2015? 2020?

DEVELOPER

INDIVIDUAL

to invest project by project specifically, highlights the changing demographic and balance of power within real estate. Not only does such an option afford investors the ability to strategically diversify their portfolio further, the fact that they themselves can choose what they invest in, or perhaps more importantly not invest in, means that for the first time other factors such as project suitability, sustainability and every day-use value can be used as leverage for investment; depending on the agenda of the investor of course.

One of the key factors attributable to the enormous potential for real-estate crowdfunding as a game-changer is the youth of the industry itself. With regulations not fully resolved in either the US or the UK, mainstream crowd popularity is still a way off, and the possibility is there for a platform to establish itself as the dominant business model. As such, there is potential for this dominant business model to contain principles that can shape a better future built environment.

Thus far some of the market leaders in the US have got where they are by using the crowd to provide funds for developers, whom the platforms work with as partners. Using the crowd in this way only serves to provide developers with easier capital, and thus further boosting their stranglehold on real estate development. Fundrise for example, who in June 2014 raised $31 million from Renren, essentially the Chinese version of Facebook, and Silverstein Properties, owners of the One World Trade Centre, use the platform to attract investments from as little as $100 for projects initiated by developers and communities.Despite this, Fundrise are aware of the aforementioned potential to use the crowd’s capital as leverage for social good. Dan Miller, co-founder of Fundrise, succinctly identifies institutional investment and the detachment of these institutions from communities, as the reason why a lot of real estate “has no soul”.32


++

Fig 25: Changing Power in Real Estate?

58

RECFPLATFORM

% FEECROWD GOT SOUL

PENSIONFUND

PRIVATEEQUITYFUND

REAL-ESTATEBROKER

INVESTMENTBROKER

% FEEINDIVIDU-ALS

% FEE

VS

REI

RECF

% FEE % FEE NO SOUL

“You could live a block away, actually own a piece of a project nearby, but there’s four people in the middle that have their hands in between. What this ends up doing, as not only is it really expensive to have people in the middle of it, it completely disconnects your investment from the tangible thing that you’re investing in… The people in the middle are the ones making decisions purely based on financial reasons… By allowing people to invest directly in local real estate it’s going to change what’s built, what’s possible… When investors change what they’re investing in they’re able to change the asset”33

Dan Miller, co-founder, Fundrise

The benefits of this can be more financially appealing than just the investment itself. Investors within the local community can see quality development help raise values locally and boost the area’s intrigue and popularity. By investing in something of higher quality, or in better architecture, trade-offs can be gained such as deciding on tenants and having control in the development of their surroundings. Essentially, the opportunity is there for investors to forfeit a small piece of their ROI, to gain reduced risk through socially conscious investments with better every day- use values.

With the visible change in dynamics that crowdfunding can offer outlined, it is easy to see why crowdfunding real estate is being hailed as having the attributes needed to reverse the 1 - 99% paradigm. Furthermore, it is increasingly giving the power of control to the crowd, rather than institutions acting on our behalf. For the first time, the crowd, enabled through this emerging crowdfunding market, possess the power to at least attempt to solve our own problems, regardless of scale.


++

Fig 26: Platform as the Middleman

Real Estate Investment vs

Real Estate Crowdfunding

59

Speaking at the PSFK Conference NYC 2013, Rodrigo Nino, CEO / Founder of Prodigy Network outlined the problem of horizontal urban sprawl currently affecting his home city of Bogotá, Colombia. Nino claims 120,000 people live in what is considered downtown Bogotá, with 1,700,000 commuting into and back out of the city each day.34 In his eyes, the problem in need of a solution was the financing of vertical real estate within the capital district, in order to boost the area’s density, reduce the number of people flowing into and out of the city, and to reduce horizontal growth. Nino attributes this development bottleneck problem with the lack of lending from banks, and so began conceptualising the application of crowdfunding to real estate. In Nino’s words:

“The crowd by definition is huge. Why is it that we’re using crowdfunding for little things that are nice… there are many other things that can be financed through crowdfunding. Think Big. For example a skyscraper.”35

Nino dispels suggestions that crowdfunding is for small projects and only for local communities, however to see the model succeed at such a scale he outlines 4 integral factors projects must have.

1. Have a positive impact on the community 2. Be self-sustainable and highly profitable3. Have a third party fiduciary process for the money - it has to be transparent.4. Have full disclosure

Whilst Nino has had success with crowdfunding thus far in Colombia and New York, the question has to be raised of whether the model of financing, successfully applied to commercial real estate, is transferrable to the UK ownership model of housing that this thesis is concerned with. The key point here is that commercial real estate is an appropriate model for crowdfunding due to it’s predictable rental income, therefore stable cash flow,36 and regular returns; keeping investors happy. Without this cash flow it would appear the model that Nino outlines simply does not work, however section 4.2 discusses alternative models where it may.

The two RECF platforms detailed in this chapter (Fundrise and Prodigy Network) were chosen not only because they represent the best exploitation of the existing RECF models, but because they are also in one way or another linked to crowdsourced design, the subject matter of the next chapter...


++

60

CROWDSOURCED DESIGN

This deliberate blend of bottom-up, open, creative process with top-down organisational goals is called crowdsourcing.37

Daren Brabham, Author of ‘Crowdsourcing’

Crowdsourcing was a term first coined by Jeff Howe in an article titled ‘The Rise of Crowdsourcing’ in Wired Magazine in June 2006. The term came about through an evolution in linguistics, with ‘crowdsourcing’ following on from ‘outsourcing’ which popped up in the early 2000s.38 It is therefore as a result of the professional industry in which the term was born, as means to acquire creative or design solutions, that Brabham associates the practice of crowdsourcing as completely detached from open-source practice, given that the crowdsourced solutions in this context were the property of companies who turn profits from the labour of the crowd.39

In 2014, the diversification of the crowdsourcing market is sufficient enough evidence to dispel this notion of crowd-sourced and open-sourced practice being different. Indeed, open-source code has been used by Google and Facebook amongst others to turn a healthy profit.40 The commercial gain that was once the only justification for the practice of crowdsourcing has, whilst still existing, been confined to just one use amongst many, and so I define the term loosely:

Crowdsourcing is the online pooling of creative ideas, designs and work to provide a solution to a given problem, and to be utilised by anyone.

Open-source denotes software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.41 The link between crowdsourcing and open source is the same as that of noun and verb. Open-source is the noun, the service, and crowdsourcing is the verb, the action that contributes to the development of the service.

Like crowdfunding, crowdsourcing is not new. Iterations of the practice are dotted through history, with a variety of different subjects, agendas and goals. Figure 27 gives a brief overview of key crowdsourcing moments in different industries appropriate to this thesis, beginning with the Marine Chronometer

Crowdfunding | 3.4 Crowdsourced Design

++

61

TIME

PO

WE

R

1936

1714

1955

1991

2000

2001

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

2011

2013

2014

‘CROWDSOURCING’ TERM FIRST USED BY JEFF HOWE (WIRED MAGAZINE)

pocket watch, which in 1714 was the winner of a £20,000 crowdsourced competition hosted by the British Government in an attempt to solve ‘The Longitude Problem’.42

Fig 27: A Select History of Crowdsourced and Open-source Design


++

62

TIME

PO

WE

R

The crowdsource and open-source organisations featured in figure 27 range across industries and purposes, from Toyota’s crowdsourced logo contest in 1936 to the idea-generation platforms of InnoCentive and OpenIDEO more recently. Underlying all of those featured is design, not as a product, but as Dan Hill explains, as the dark matter that controls and identifies how the world is inherently mutable or malleable - how everything is a decision or the result of a decision.43

The design that is rooted in crowdsourcing, which does the work for open-source products, is drastically changing the world. Through the crowdsourcing principles embedded within open-source practice the world is now living through the digital revolution. The open source Linux software created by Linus Torvalds in 1991, and open-source hardware like the Arduino microboard controller, initiated by one but developed by the crowd, have led to the disintermediation of incumbents across any industry remotely technologically based. From the mass production of the industrial revolutions, to the personal production of the digital revolution, we have, and still are witnessing the devolution of power to the crowd, i.e. in retail from Amazon to Amazon Market Place, to Etsy (predominantly handmade items). And from Etsy to Quirky, where inventors can ‘invent’ items, upload them in an open-source manner, enabling crowdsourced ideas to be given through the ‘influence’ section to improve them, before putting them up for sale and sharing a pre-agreed royalty.


++

Fig 28: Disintermediation of Technological Incumbents

63

In the built environment this devolvement of power gained through open and crowdsourced practice are yet to be exploited fully, although inroads are being made. Wikihouse is an ‘open source construction set’ allowing anyone to digitally design and download components for further processing via a CNC (Computer Numerically Controlled) milling machine. Despite only being founded in 2011, Wikihouse is having an effect globally, utilising the geographically boundaryless web, to see life altering changes made to lives as far away as Rio De Janeiro and Mongolia. Yet in the developed world, and in the UK in particular, the building method has rarely been the problem. As discussed already, the problem is procurement and the position of power certain parties have negotiated themselves into. In order to navigate through the challenges and factors outlined in section 2.1 with crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, we must consider the applicability of the practices thus far and analyse their credentials to combat the specific problems directly.

Crowdsourcing Architecture

Currently crowdsourcing in architecture is a small market, and a controversial one. The existing platforms of Arcbazar and CoContest do what 99designs did for graphic design, by offering crowdsourced architectural design services through online competitions. Arcbazar lets clients submit details and documentation for what they’re wanting designed, before specifying the total amount of money they want to award the winner and two runners up for the crowdsourced proposals at the end of the competition. For this, Arcbazar charges an upfront service fee of 15% on top of the prize-money, and in return provides the online infrastructure for dialogue and document submissions between clients and designers. CoContest essentially does the same thing solely for interior design, but structures it’s service slightly differently. Clients initially choose 1 package from ‘Concept’, ‘Project’ and ‘Advanced, which each have a varying level of detail, from plans, sections and renders, to lighting, furniture, colour schemes, and pricing documents. Once a package has been selected, clients specify the inhabitable areas to be designed, and pay the corresponding price on CoContest’s comprehensively broken down price list.44


++

64

Benefits of these crowdsourced services are regarded as follows:

1. Numerous proposals received. Clients are not stuck with paying for just one option2. The unambiguity in costing. Clients know what they’re getting up front, and for what price3. The additional opportunity for Architects and designers to obtain more work

Whilst these platforms lower the financial entry threshold for clients considering buying design services, criticism has come from the design industry itself. Dwell Magazine in 2011 labelled Arcbazar “the worst thing to happen to architecture since the Internet started”.45 Some of the criticisms are detailed below:

1. The service drives down fees, devalues design and wastes the unsuccessful designers time2. The services don’t distinguish between amateurs and professionals. They can foster the illegal practice of architecture3. The online crowdsourcing protocol does not produce designs that relate to their environment

“Always design a thing in it’s next larger context - a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.” Eliel Saarinen.46

Flaws with the criticisms outlined above, whilst in part correct, is that they are not inherently new and do not come solely with the territory of online crowdsourcing. As Imdat As, the founder of Arcbazar states, many architectural competitions do not offer the possibility of going to site, therefore it’s not a necessary function of the crowdsourcing protocol.47 There is also nothing illegal about amateurs providing concept architectural designs, and nothing illegal about a detailed amateur interior design scheme.

The major flaw in critics arguments however, is that the detrimental effects outlined in criticism 1, are already deeply ingrained in the profession in the form of the architectural competition. The architectural competition is, and always has been a form of crowdsourcing, with the only difference in the generic definition being that the competition promotes rivalry rather than working toward the same goals. The competition, by its very nature promotes


++

65

the Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest, and this can be seen at its most ugly in the 2013 documentary ‘The Competition’, which follows so called ‘starchitects’ such as Jean Nouvel, Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid through the design competition for the National Museum of Art in Andorra.48

Loss of earnings associated with Architects not winning a competition has been around for years, with notable examples being the Sydney Opera House competition in 1955 which attracted 233 entries,49 and the recently closed competition for the Guggenheim Helsinki, which attracted a world record 1715 submissions from 77 countries.50 In this instance, 1714 submissions are likely to be unsuccessful. Of course these are large projects, and whilst arguments will be given that such competition should not be promoted at a small scale due to the increased transparency of project procurement, in reality it is simply the collateral damage of a good intention.

Crowdsourcing in RECF

The type of crowdsourced architectural design seen on Arcbazar and CoContest was utilised in February 2014 in Prodigy Network’s latest project ‘17 John’, an extended stay hotel (Cotel) in New York. The project was run through an independent platform, ‘Prodigy Design Lab’,51 and crowdsourced design proposals for ‘public space’, ‘private space’, and ‘digital services’, with rewards of $20,000, $20,000 and $10,000. Like CoContest, these were all interior design proposals, with the extension on top of the existing building below designed by Winka Dubbeldam of New York based architectural practice Archi-Tectonics. Like clients on Arcbazar, Prodigy Network made drawing files of the building available and let the crowd get to work. Winning CGI entries can be seen in figures 29 & 30.

Popularise, sister company to Fundrise (discussed in section 3.4), is utilising crowdsourcing in a different way. Popularise is, like Neighborland, being used to let developers know what it is a community actually wants. Popularise allows developers to post potential projects on the site, take crowdsourced ideas from the community and measure popularity through it’s transparent ‘build it’ button (similar to a ‘like’ on Facebook).52 Rory Stott, essentially speaking about the mutual benefits of a reducing CFI threshold, without intending to deciphers this strategic move from Fundrise and Popularise well:


++

Fig 30 (p67): Prodigy Design Lab ‘17 John’ Private Space Winner Weco, the Nomadic Company / Vianney Lacotte

Fig 29 (p66): Prodigy Design Lab ‘17 John’ Public Space Winner HUB / Pierre Levesque

68

“This is the foundation for the popularity of crowdfunding for developers: it offers a socially responsible way of funding buildings, which contributes to the local economy. By turning around the standard paradigm of ‘developers versus communities’, the crowdfunding approach has the potential to be a true game-changer in the building of democratic cities.”53

Yet as Rory Stott describes, this is the foundation, and needs some developing. The vested interest contained within the model of such an important community platform, i.e. through a sister company of a company part owned by a developer, is not ideal and could do with reform before it even gets started. This will be expanded on in section 4.2.

Crowdsourcing Cities

In an attempt to tackle the issues surrounding democratic urban design in Moscow, in June 2013 the Strelka Institute launched the platform ‘What Moscow Wants’.54 The intention was to assemble crowdsourced ideas by uniting ordinary residents, architects, and designers, and in collaboration with one another, let them think up solutions for specific problem areas of Moscow. The experiment sourced over 2000 ideas and of these 84 of the projects were visualised.55 Whilst it’s not yet clear if any of these projects will materialise tangibly, the experiment is progressive participatory bottom-up thinking and would make for interesting civic crowdfunded campaigns...

Similar to ‘What Moscow Wants’, but with more longevity is the ‘Mi Ciudad Ideal’ or ‘My Ideal City’ platform56 setup in Bogotá by Prodigy Network and PSFK following the development of the BD Bacatá skyscraper (featured in section 4.1). Following the media campaigns that were used to generate interest in the BD Bacatá, the crowdsourcing platform was initiated in order to record what and how local citizens would want built. The lead Architect of the project, Winka Dubbeldam first developed a website, then organised spanish-speaking radio shows to “activate a conversation and to start sharing the idea of crowdfunded urban initiatives”.57 Since then an app for the iPhone store has been developed,58 and before the turn of 2014 the website had had in excess of 130,000 responses. This example, whilst again with a vested interest toward future asset-generation on Prodigy Network’s part, is a sign of the growing power the crowd has to influence the built environment in which it lives. Mi Ciudad Ideal is open and transparent, it gives a voice to the non-expert knowledge so prevalent in cities, and it means that ideas and opinions are quantifiable and therefore can ultimately lead to aspects if the city built on participatory design processes.


++

69

1 Seedrs. Tax Relief. https://www.seedrs.com/seis_eis_tax_relief (accessed 06/08/14)

2 Baeck, P. Collins, L. & Westlake, S. Crowding In: How the UK’s businesses, charities, government, and nancial system can make the most of crowdfunding. (Nesta: London, 2012 - p9)

3 CB Insights. How Much Venture Capital are Kickstarter and Indiegogo Hardware Projects Raising? Aug. 11, 2014. http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/crowdfunded-venture-capital-hardware/ (accessed 10/09/14)

4 Barollo, A. & Castrataro, D. Civic Crowdfunding: A Proposal. (Twintangibles: Glasgow, 2013 - p7)

5 Donors Choose. Gates Back to School: August 22-24 2014. http://www.donorschoose.org/gates-back-to-school#P2b08g23t20w14. (accessed 25/08/14)

6 Jeries, A. Indie no-go: only one in ten projects gets fully funded on Kickstarter’s biggest rival. (In: The Verge. Aug. 7, 2013. http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/7/4594824/less-than-10-percent-of-projects-on-indiegogo-get-fully-funded) (accessed 08/09/14)

7 Indiegogo. How it Works. https://www.indiegogo.com/campaigns/new (accessed 04/09/14)

8 Blattberg, E. Crowdtilt Launches Free, Open Source Crowdfunding Solution -- and It Supports Bitcoin | VentureBeat. Feb. 20, 2014. http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/20/crowdtilt-launches-free-open-source-crowdfunding-solution-and-it-supports-bitcoin/. (accessed 20/02/14)



11 Spacehive. Make Mansfield YOUR Hotspot. https://spacehive.com/mansfieldhotspot (accessed 09/09/14)

12 Kickstarter. Detroit Needs A Statue of Robocop. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/imaginationstation/detroit-needs-a-statue-of-robocop/posts. accessed 09/’09/14)

13 Boyer, B., Hill, D. Brickstarter. (Sitra: Helsinki, 2013 - p27)


15 Funnell, A. Civic crowdfunding and online communities rebuild urban environments. ABC. May 27, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/civic-crowdfunding-and-online-communities-rebuild-urban/5480464 (accessed 09/09/14)

16 Basulto, D. Will The +POOL Be The Largest Crowdfunded Civic Project Ever? ArchDaily. Apr. 25, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/500066/will-the-pool-be-the-largest-crowdfunded-civic-project-ever/ (accessed 10/09/14)

++

70

17 Anderson, K. Kickstarter’s Yancey Strickler: We’re Going to Do This One Thing Really Well. TheWrap. Oct. 2, 2012. http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/kickstarters-yancey-strickler-thegrill-were-going-do-one-thing-really-well-video-58976/.

18 Davies, R. Civic Crowdfunding – Four Things We Know, Two Things We Don’t. May 9, 2014. http://rodrigodavies.com/blog/2014/05/09/civic-crowdfunding-four-things-we-know-two-things-we-dont.html (accessed 10/09/14)

19 Funnell, A. Civic crowdfunding and online communities rebuild urban environments. ABC. May 27, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/civic-crowdfunding-and-online-communities-rebuild-urban/5480464 (accessed 09/09/14)

20 People St. About. http://peoplest.lacity.org/about/ (accessed 13/13/14)

21 +Pool. Dashboard. http://dashboard.pluspool.org/ (accessed 15/09/14)

22 +Pool. Home. http://www.pluspool.org/ (accessed 15/09/14)

23 Luchtsingel. http://www.luchtsingel.org/en/ (accessed 09/09/14)

24 A precedent of this is the Glyncoch Community Centre on Spacehive which in 2011/12 raised the £40,000 shortfall before it’s funds and grants from other sources expired. Spacehive. Glyncoch Community Centre. https://spacehive.com/GlyncochCC (accessed 10/09/14)

25 Neighbor.ly. https://neighbor.ly (accessed 22/09/14)

26 Community Shares. Find Out More. http://communityshares.org.uk/find-out-more (accessed 09/09/14)

27 The Roco.Share Offer 2014. (The Roco: Sheffield, 2014 -p)

28 Nino, R. Crowdfunding in Real Estate. Finance Your Ideal City. http://vimeo.com/66107908 (accessed 23/04/14)

29 Commercial real estate can be defined as a building / buildings built with the intention of making a profit from their future use

30 Simon, R. & Brown, E. Real-Estate Sector Moves Crowdfunding Beyond the Trinkets. June. 11, 2014. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/articles/real-estate-sector-moves-crowdfunding-beyond-the-trinkets-1402526777 (accessed 28/07/14)

31 Property Moose on Crowdcube. Property Moose raising £60,000 investment. http://www.crowdcube.com/investment/property-moose-14045 (accessed 15/09/14)

32 Miller, D. Creative Urban Development. Oct. 9, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNe0-P1XcA (accessed 05/05/14)

++

71

33 Miller, D. Creative Urban Development. Oct. 9, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNe0-P1XcA (accessed 05/05/14)



36 Eidell, L. A Face in the Crowd. Worth. Apr / May issue. http://www.worth.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-make/6591-a-face-in-the-crowd (accessed 12/09/14)

37 Brabham, D. Crowdsourcing. (MIT Press: Cambridge, 2013 - p12)

38 Howe, J. The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine. June 2006. http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html. (accessed 10/09/14)

39 Brabham, D. Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases (In: Convergence 2008 14:75 - p76)

40 O’Reilly, Tim. Economic Impact of Open Source on Small Business: A Case Study. (O’Reilly Media, 2012 -p24)

41 Oxford Dictionary. Open Source Definition. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/open-source (accessed 16/09/14)

42 Lynch, A. Crowdsourcing Is Not New - The History of Crowdsourcing (1714 to 2010). DesignCrowd Blog. Oct. 28, 2010.http://blog.designcrowd.com/article/202/crowdsourcing-is-not-new--the-history-of-crowdsourcing-1714-to-2010. (accessed 24/07/14)

43 Hill, D. Dark Matter & Trojan Horses: A Strategic Design Vocabulary. (Strelka Press: Moscow, 2012)

44 https://www.cocontest.com/#!/pricing (accessed 20/09/14)

45 Crosbie, M. Why Criticisms of Crowdsourcing Don’t Add Up. ArchDaily. Apr. 19, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/497828/why-criticisms-of-crowdsourcing-don-t-add-up/. (accessed 22/04/14)

46 Eliel Saarinen, Time Magazine, July 2, 1950.

47 Imdat As quoted in Crosbie, M. Why Criticisms of Crowdsourcing Don’t Add Up. ArchDaily. Apr. 19, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/497828/why-criticisms-of-crowdsourcing-don-t-add-up/. (accessed 22/04/14)

48 The Competition.(2013). IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2647618/. (accessed 20/09/14)

++

72

49 Lynch, A. Crowdsourcing Is Not New - The History of Crowdsourcing (1714 to 2010). DesignCrowd Blog. Oct. 28, 2010.http://blog.designcrowd.com/article/202/crowdsourcing-is-not-new--the-history-of-crowdsourcing-1714-to-2010. (accessed 24/07/14)

50 Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition. Updates. https://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/en/updates (accessed 17/09/14)51 Prodigy Design Lab. 17John. http://prodigydesignlab.com/contests/17john. (accessed 23/04/14)

52 https://popularise.com/howitworks (accessed 23/09/14)

53 Stott, R. “Crowdfunding in Architecture: Game Changer or PR Game? | ArchDaily. Feb. 26, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/480902/crowdfunding-in-architecture-game-changer-or-pr-game/. (accessed 22/04/14)

54 What Moscow Wants. Strelka Institute. http://moscowidea.ru/ (accessed 09/09/14)

55 Moscow Urban Forum. http://mosurbanforum.com/news/news/moscow_urban_forum_opened/ (accessed 14/09/14)

56 Mi Ciudad Ideal (My Ideal City). http://www.miciudadideal.com/en/ (accessed 04/09/14)

57 Cruz, J. Winka Dubbeldam: ‘My Ideal City’ of the Future. ArchDaily. Dec, 11, 2013. http://www.archdaily.com/455983/winka-dubbeldam-my-ideal-city-of-the-future/ (accessed September 10/09/14)

58 Apple iTunes Store. Mi Ciudad Ideal. https://itunes.apple.com/es/app/mi-ciudad-ideal/id639622724?mt=8 (accessed 09/09/14)

++

73

CROWDFUNDINGARCHITECTURE

4

++

74Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.1 ++

CROWDFUNDING ARCHITECTURE

Crowdfunding Architecture occurs in two distinct forms; CF and CFI as established in section 3.1. These types can differ enormously in potential, as I will outline, and this is in part due to the motivations seen in Figure 18 (p41).

CF Architecture (Donation & Reward Models)

Having established the existing genre of CCF and the emerging RECF market predominantly in the US, crowdfunding architecture is difficult to define; It does not sit side by side with RE or civic projects in the built environment, instead it is both an overarching term that contains within it those genres, and at the same time is a specific type within each.

“‘Architecture, that’s buildings isn’t it? That’s way above me, no i’m alright, but thanks”1

Sue. Sheffield resident, mid-thirties. Response to invitation to view SSoA Live Projects Public Presentation 2013 when directly outside

Sue’s response when invited into the Live Project presentations, although extreme, highlights the varying difference in the perception and importance of architecture between wider society and the profession itself. This is absolutely critical to understand before architectural CF campaigns are launched, as although architectural project campaign managers may be from within the profession, the people funding the projects more than likely won’t be. Campaigns therefore require a level of intermediation between the inward looking profession, and the wider public of crowdfunders, who are unlike any traditional architectural client. A lack of appreciation for this can so far be seen in both the Kickstarter sub-category for architecture and the newest CFP to specifically develop the niche of CF architecture (not CFI) - ‘Make Architecture Happen’ (MAH - figure 31).

Whilst the ‘Architecture’ subcategory on Kickstarter only retains 100% funded projects at the bottom of the page (there are a few, but dated sporadically, and not in line with success rates in other categories), MAH retains on display all information from past campaigns. From this a lot can be dissected. At the time of writing MAH looks somewhat like a ‘ghost platform’. It has struggled to take off, with no funded projects, and no active projects since the dozen that went live with the platform’s launch in May 2014.2

75

0%

76

0%

Fig

31:

M

ake

Arc

hite

ctur

eH

app

enTh

e ‘G

host

Pla

tfor

m’

(MA

H H

ome

Pag

e)

77 ++Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.1

In Kickstarter’s architecture subcategory and on MAH there has been a real mix of scale, permanence, relevance, and agenda within project dynamics. The Kickstarter subcategory for example has been used for a campaign for an architectural student’s personal portfolio website (unsuccessful - £0),3 a notebook for Architects called A:LOG (successful $30,673),4 a temporary structure at Burning Man festival 2014 titled the HAYAM Sun Temple (successful £9091. Figure 34), and the first phase of an event yacht / island named Breakwater Chicago (successful - $60,611), to name just a few.As Kickstarter only keeps on record successful projects it is difficult to quantify the level of overall success of campaigns, and this is complicated further by the blurring of category definitions; + Pool for example is considered civic design, yet is more a piece of architecture and engineering (professional consultants are involved - ARUP), than what can be considered typical civic projects such as a park regeneration.5

A further difficulty in measuring success is the phased funding goals that built projects often use in order to make the total goal seem more accessible to funders, and to break the project down into specific development stages (it’s easier to get people to fund a campaign that has already got off the ground). As with other campaigns on GPs such as Kickstarter, the 30% rule applies (research shows if a campaign reaches 30% it is highly likely to reach it’s full goal),6 and so therefore phasing projects into more manageable goals reduces this 30% threshold each time. Secondary phases of campaigns can, like civic projects, act to leverage popular support for additional public and private funding. Quantifying success is also compromised by the fact that often, built on the popularity gained through phase 1, subsequent project campaigns are run on independent CFPs often tied to the campaigns own website.

One example of an outlier is Indiegogo’s ‘Let’s Build a Goddamn Tesla Museum’ campaign which received $1,370,461 in September 2012,7 and has just exceeded $400,000 in phase 2 following a $1 million donation from Elon Musk (CEO Tesla Motor Cars).8 With the distinction between CCF and CF architecture often hard to place, it is no surprise that CF architecture through donation and reward based models appears to be showing similar dynamics. As Rodrigo Davies outlines, CF campaigns on GPs and CPs both share a pareto distribution,9 meaning that like speculative housebuilders (p19), few civic and architecture campaigns take the majority of the money associated with the genre.

“We’re going to do this one thing really well”10

Yancey Strickler, CEO, Kickstarter

78

HUMANITARIANDISASTER

NOVELTYFACTOR

(SOMETHINGNEW OR OLD)

THREAT OF LOST

OPPORTUNITY

ARTISTIC VALUE /

OCCASION

HAYAMSUNTEMPLE

LET’S BUILD A TESLA MUSEUM

+ POOL (NEW YORK)

ARCHITECTUREFOR HUMANITY & INDIEGOGO PARTNERSHIP

REBUILD THEJOPLIN MOSQUE

GLYNCOCH COMMUNITYCENTRE

LOCATION(LARGE

AUDIENCE)

EMOTIONALATTACHMENT

Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.1 ++

€$

$

££

€

¥₩₹

₣

₱

لایر$

2010 2014 2018?

Fig 32: (top) Successful Architecture Campaign Characteristics Fig 33: (bottom) Crowdfunding: A Financial Pangea

Whether or not CF architecture would benefit in the future from specific niche platforms, like the benefits CPs give civic projects (figure 22, p50), remains to be seen. Presently, the number 1 factor that ultimately determines a campaign’s success is the size of the audience and potential reach. After all, the power of the crowd is, by it’s very definition based on the size of the crowd, and even the most specific audience on it’s own is not enough when considering the scale of the built environment; In many ways the very concept of a niche CFP for architecture is oxymoronic.

At the moment, the concept of CF architecture is not popular enough to view it as a stand alone genre. Instead, it is still regarded, as seen on Kickstarter, as a sub-genre, and not a popular enough one to be aggregated into it’s own CFP. MAH is at present proof of that.

Recipe for Success

It must be noted that for the time being at least, projects in the built environment that are successful all possess certain characteristics, and these are invariably correlated to success.

As long as there are outliers the potential is there to CF anything crowdfunders deem worthy. Although CF has seen exponential growth since 2008, it is still growing, with new markets opening up, and the web returning the world back to it’s original state of Pangea, at least financially (figure 33).


Fig 34: The HAYAM Sun TempleCrowdfunded Architecture for an OccasionBurning Man Festival 2014

80

££

£

?

£GOTNO

SOUL

GOTSOUL

INVESTING IN ARCHITECTURE CROWDFUND INVESTING ARCHITECTURE

THE FATCATS

THE CROWDTHE INDIVIDUALS

£££ £ £ £

££

Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.1 ++

Fig 35: The Crowd as Architecure Procuring Fat Cats

CFI Architecture (Equity, Debt & Royalty Models)

Crowdfund Investing architecture has to be differentiated from CF architecture, as as the motivations that underpin the funding mechanism differ (more financial), so does the demographic of the audience and therefore the possibilities. Whereas CF architecture campaigns tend to require features as expressed in figure 32 to enjoy at least a chance of success, CFI architecture operates on similar features, but with an overriding focus of ROI.

The examples of CFI architecture, as seen in RECF, tend to follow trends of the wider CFI market for businesses on platforms such as Crowdcube: That is that they tend to receive a lesser number of individuals than involved in CF, but each contributing more capital on average. This can be put down largely to the nature of the crowdfunder, as if we profile those funding projects in CFI, they tend to be what we think of as more Investors than Crowdfunders. This shift toward investor driven crowdfunding has evolved from the original CF models used since Indiegogo launched in 2008, and for the first time it offers the potential for the ‘The Fat Cat’ to be joined by the crowd. With architecture as the subject, this can leads to greater bottom-up, participatory-driven and socially conscientious development.

The outlier for CFI architecture is the skyscraper that Rodrigo Nino described in section 3.3; The BD Bacatá in Bogotá, Colombia. For the building, Prodigy Network worked alongside Spanish developers BD Promotores and assembled the crowd to ultimately fund, at 853 feet, the largest skyscraper in Colombia, and the second largest in Latin America.11 With over 6000 investors, Prodigy Network raised $265 million in 40 months.12 This was achieved by “turning the skyscraper into the biggest product in the world”,13 and by selling ‘Fidi’s’ (similar to shares) for $20,000 each. (This is, with a few minor differences, the same funding mechanism in principle as the Roco share offer detailed in section 3.2).


Fig 36: The BD BacatáBogotá, ColombiaCGI Photomontage


This was eventually successful by running a comprehensive campaign covering radio,14 television adverts,15 magazines, and a twitter feed,16 with all playing on the building’s crowd procurement dynamic, by inferring common people could become famous by investing.17 The campaign, which falls into the equity and royalty CFI models as it gives investors equity and dividends, managed to fund the total amount without any bank financing whatsoever.18

Compared to the Tesla Museums average phase 1 contribution amount of $41 from 20,000 people,19 which was given through CF donation and reward models, the BD Bacatá numbers are staggering. Whilst Rory Stott claims that the $20,000 minimum buy in “stretches the limits of crowdfunding”, and that Prodigy Network’s 17 John scheme in New York sees “the claims of ethical superiority erode away” ($50,000 buy in),20 surely it is inevitable that if a project is going to be scaled up, investment will also need to scale up proportionally. Whilst Stott is right to state that a $20,000 buy in is not accessible to everyone, why should those to whom it is accessible to be excluded from crowdfunding? The crowd, at the $20,000 rate is much smaller admittedly, but 6000 people is still a sizable crowd.

The 66 floor BD Bacatá at the time of writing is still in construction. Testament to Rodrigo Nino’s promise of transparency (p59), this construction process is being translated live to both investors and the wider public of Bogotá, with regular pictures, videos and updates communicated through the BD Bacatá Twitter account:

@bd_bacata

Slightly closer to home, another example of equity and royalty based CFI architecture can be found in the form of the Weissenhaus on German equity crowdfunding platform Companisto.21 Weissenhaus is a development by AOL Europe founder Jan Henric Buettner of a luxury hotel resort on the Baltic Sea which has raised over €4.8 million to date; a European record for Equity CFI.22 The Weissenhaus is a particular case of note as it’s success demonstrates the possibilities when CFI architecture campaigns supply an abundance of specific informative material alongside the campaign. Given the sums of money involved, and the heightened due diligence checks that crowdfund investors are likely to undertake, that perhaps crowdfunders under donation and reward models may not, it is imperative to supply detailed financial plans or business plan concepts outlining exactly what money is being spent on, and how investors will see a ROI.

83

GOVERNMENTOR

BUSINESS

LOANREQUESTED

SPEND ONPUBLIC SERVICE /

ARCHITECTURE

ARCHITECTURE PROVIDES SERVICE / HELPSINCOME GENERATION

LOAN REPAYMENT

SERVICE ACHIEVED & MUNICIPAL FUNDS AVAILABLE /BUSINESS PROFITABLE

DEBT(P2P)

£

£ £

£

++Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.1

Fig 37: Debt (P2P) CFI CycleGovernment & Businesses

The Weissenhaus campaign page on Companisto is so comprehensive that it introduces investors to the management team, and even gives it’s own SWOT analysis of itself. Such transparency, honesty and a personal touch has resulted in 1068 ‘Companists’ investing at a minimum return of 4% p.a;23 Not brilliant, but better than bank rates in Germany.

CFI Debt models, although the smallest of the types, have thus far been used to procure loosely related civic and built projects in a different way. In Oestrich, Germany, Debt crowdfunding (P2P) was used through the platform LeihDeinerStadtGeld to loan the local government €83,200 in order to finance the local volunteer fire brigade a new wireless network in case of emergencies.24 Although not built, this financial arrangement makes one ponder how long it will be until the first public building is crowdfunded by having residents loan money to local councils short of funds. Elsewhere, MyC4, a platform that allows anyone globally to lend (P2P) directly to small businesses in Africa, has seen investment typically from the developed world to African businesses that serve the real estate and construction industries, and also to retail businesses who can use the money to either buy or build premises.

Reflection

In both the CF and CFI models of crowdfunding architecture it is important to be realistic, yet not let this dissuade ambition or possibility. The innovators behind the outliers tend to not have randomly struck gold, and success at such a scale does not come easily. Partnerships, collaboration and communication with the crowd are fundamental to success, as are contextual circumstances and above all, local demand. With the exception of major projects with minimum investment amounts, CFPs enable anyone to be a philanthropist at a scale relevant to their personal wealth. If a project appeals to enough people, helped if those are wealthy, any scale of project appears to be able to succeed. Tertiary factors or collateral benefits such as corporate ‘goodwill


donations’ and sponsorship can, in the built environment, be a game changer for CF projects, with popular support able to be leveraged for additional funding.

Because architecture is either publically or privately owned, therefore publically (CF) or privately (CFI) crowdfunded (difference is financial motivation and expectation), it is necessary to evaluate each in a form of isolation. Civic public architecture i.e. the Glyncoch community centre (figure 32, p78), and other civic architecture in the built environment come with their own crowdfunding dynamics, similar to projects on GPs, but with additional challenges and benefits (figure 22, p50).

As for privately commissioned architecture it appears that CFI applied to architecture is already following the same successful path as CFI in businesses. The financial element in a way makes the process a lot simpler than traditional CF models, as with financial motivations and expectations on the table, very little is left to chance. Generally if a project can provide a competitive ROI and is convincingly thorough in it’s conveyance of this through it’s campaign, there is no limit to the possibilities, and the fact that it is an investment makes it’s form as a building, rather than a business irrelevant.

With the crowd as the investor the opportunity is there to make sure we build quality architecture, rather than mundane assets in the built environment. To do this, this possibility needs to be communicated to investors on the frontline, that is in the campaigns themselves, but this should ultimately always be the first and biggest selling point; after all, the more popular something is, the lower the risk. CFI provides the opportunity to do this where traditional investors thus far haven’t. This is due to the intrinsic, reward, and social motivations that have carried through from the donation and reward based models of CF that CFI has evolved from, and these social factors can to a degree lessen the financial expectations of crowdfund investors.

85

THE DESIGNPROBLEM

FIN

AN

CIA

L P

RE

SSU

RE

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

PLANNINGSYSTEM

PUBLIC

PR

ES

SU

RE

THE REALPROBLEM

THE DESIGN

PROCESS

THE PLANNING

SYSTEM

THE FINANCIALSYSTEMS

“The contemporary constructor converts theories into instruments for support and not into responses toenigmas. He doesn’t recline on them, he moves forward, and on some occasions, reconstruct nature withtheir help. The contemporary constructor gives all of our theories flexibility; he revitalizes them and puts each of them to work.”25

Sebastián Adamo, Marcelo Faiden The Contemporary Constructor

86

THE DESIGNPROBLEM

FIN

AN

CIA

L P

RE

SSU

RE

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

PLANNINGSYSTEM

PUBLIC

PR

ES

SU

RE

THE REALPROBLEM

THE DESIGN

PROCESS

THE PLANNING

SYSTEM

THE FINANCIALSYSTEMS

Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.2 Crowdfunding Housing ++

Fig 39: Housing In It’s NextLarger Context

Fig 38: Victor Papanek’s‘The Real Problem’ DiagramAdapted As a Procurement System

CROWDFUNDING HOUSING

This thesis has thus far considered a problem (the housing crisis), and introduced a mechanism (crowdfunding) that has the credentials to be one potential solution (Fig 4, p12). The housing crisis, as established in section 2.1, is a diverse set of problems born not from a particular economic condition that we are currently facing, but as an inevitable by-product of the financial systems that dictate the neoliberal economy.

Victor Papanek’s diagram highlights how often the design of something occupies only 5% of problem space.26 If we use this analogy for the established known knowns of the housing crisis it is not hard to see why.The design problem seen in figure 38 can be linked back to Saarinen’s quote in section 3.4 regarding designing something in it’s next larger context. To provide potential solutions to the housing crisis we must approach it in a similar way, albeit scaled up. As expressed in the Newton’s Cradle of Neoliberal Jousting in Housing (figure 6 p18), housing cannot be viewed as an isolated subject. We must further explore the financial systems that housing is affected by, and come up with financial solutions that allow the design / architectural solutions to occur.

Whilst the models of CF and CFI that were applied to the built environment in the projects outlined in section 4.1 are noteworthy, each project has been a very specific solution to a very specific problem e.g. BD Bacatá - density. That said, when posed with specific problems, if deemed financially viable and attractive then CFI has in a number ways been able to facilitate a solution.Methods for the future of housing provision in it’s entirety in the UK are not going to be laid out over the next few pages, however what is is one suggestion

87 Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.2 Crowdfunding Housing ++

CROWDMONEY IS

POWER

SUPPLY MEETS DEMAND THROUGH AGGREGATION OF HOUSING TO INDIVIDUALS / GROUPS

DEVELOPERS LIKE TO KEEP DEMAND HIGH AS IT KEEPS

PRICES HIGH.

DRAWING AS PROPOSEDDRAWING AS EXISTING

1. 2.DEVELOPERMONEY IS

POWER

DEMAND

DEMAND SUPPLY

*

* SUBJECT TO LAND AVAILABILITY

SUPPLYVOLUMEHOUSEBUILDERS

SB, CB, CCB, C-P

Fig 40: Procurement Power

as to how we might procure housing in the specific area that crowdfunding can be applicable to; Co-Procurement (C-P). The proposal contained hereafter is not definitive it is a piece of speculation attempting to bridge the gap between existing practice and new technologically developed methods, with crowdfunding assuming the role of the enabler, and the platform the role of the facilitator. As Dan Hill explains, one of the core ideas to have emerged in the business world in the last decade has been the platform as a web designed service.27 This begs the question, if the platform possesses such opportunity, why are Architects not challenging and exploiting it like those who are?

When uttered in an architectural context, technology is normally thought to mean a method of construction or advanced materiality, yet arguably the biggest change brought about in architectural practice by technology in the last 20 years has been the rise of the computer. This development, essentially in the way Architects practice, not related to the final output (the building), was the last major change technology has brought to the profession, but it still continues to develop. CAD software packages have developed since the computer age began, and most recently we have felt technological benefits industry-wide with the emergence of BIM practice. Yet if we think of procurement (the mechanism of how we practice), if anything, Architects have moved backwards. The Archiveloper introduced in section 2.2 and elaborated upon in section 2.3 is, with the exception of self-initiation in the Fideicomiso and Baugruppen movements,28 essentially the same Architect as before the emergence of Construction and Project managers (Figure 13, p28).

“In order to shape housing outcomes, and find a better model of mass-housing provision, we need to extend our focus from the architecture of the product to the architecture of the process: redesigning the systems of procurement and delivery which shape our environment”29

A Right to Build

88

TOP DOWN IMPOSITION

THE

SP

EC

ULA

TIV

E

HO

USE

BU

ILD

ER

P

P = PROBLEMS = SOLUTION

P PS S S

LIGHT USER ‘CUSTOMISABILITY’

THE

CU

STO

M B

UIL

D E

NA

BLE

R

THE

SE

LF IN

ITIA

TOR

S

FULL SCALE PARTICIPATORYDESIGN PROCESS

‘THE HYBRID FORUM’FOR HOUSING


Fig 41: Crowdfunding Enabled Participatory Design Process

Seen in figure 40, with a consumer focussed financial system can come the procurement power of the crowd, enabled by the personal and cumulative funds of collective individuals. This brings with it the opportunity to aggregate housing provision amongst the population (self-provision), rather than relying on 5 mass housebuilders to provide housing for it. Whilst planning departments will not like this as it is much easier to approve a scheme containing 100 units than 100 individual applications, or 10 if housing is co-procured, the aggregation is a necessary step to bring supply in line with demand. Perhaps even more so than supply, the design problem can be viewed as design value. As Eric Cesal notes, cost is not a determinative factor of value, rather: Worth - Cost = Value30

The problem with developer supplied housing is that the end value figure often ends up being a negative number. If the developer’s margin is removed from this process of housing supply then Costs would invariably go down.Combine this with an Architect not being restricted by a developer to reduce costs at each turn, making design better, and the Worth figure rise; ultimately leading to better Value. If crowd financing has the potential to enable a new system of procurement, that is, to resolve the first portion of ‘the real problem’, then the crowd can therefore also reconfigure the secondary and tertiary factors of the superseded system for its benefit. This allows a better approach to the entire tiered process and users can then attempt to fix the design problem (Fig 38).

Architects acting as Archivelopers are perhaps the most qualified party to activate better design value. With financing acting as the catalyst, Architects can use their experience and ‘the buy in component’ to navigate the planning system and reconstruct the design process to resemble a ‘Hybrid Forum’.

‘The buy in component’ is an example of a developer practice of offering

89

equity in a development (at a price) to local people in order to leverage ‘local support’ against planners.31 The Co-Procured Housing Crowdfunding Platform models (CPH CFP) drafted in figures 44 & 45 are well positioned to benefit from the use of ‘the buy in component’, but due to the democratic synthesis at their core, not a manipulative afterthought or loophole. ‘The Hybrid Forum’ is a term derived from the book ‘Acting in an Uncertain World’. The Hybrid Forum sees experts, citizens and politicians come together to bring about technical democracy in favour of the dated traditional division of professionals and lay people.32 By building a procurement system that allows the design process to be as participation driven as those involved want it to be, the likelihood is that there will be minimal or no design problem at all. As illustrated in figure 41 this is the hardest aspect to achieve, but also the most rewarding, and a key component of a highly valuable home.

“It is time for the profession to move towards a model built on an evidence base - qualitative and quantitative; a practice focused not just on building but on creating conditions of use which make buildings everyday value-generating assets in the use economy as opposed to the transactional economy”33

Indy Johar, 00:/ Architecture

Co-Procured Housing (CPH)

Co-Procured Housing is a term I attach to the general process of collective building. The definition attempts to distance itself from the stigma attached to Cohousing, and also from Collective Custom Build, as this is too close to Custom Build, which in my opinion isn’t all that custom and will likewise have a stigma attached before too long. Instead, co-procured housing is simply a new term that derives from the principal characteristics of practices such as Fideicomiso, and what the Baugruppen movement in Berlin has now come to represent; not it’s direct translation of ‘cohousing’ and again the stigma that was initially attached to the movement.34

I created this term as I believe the importance in communicating what a practice is, through name to the public is absolutely fundamental. Given that it is often human nature to attach a short generalisation to something we do not fully understand, particularly when new to these practices and not from the building sector (as the majority of clients are not), it is important to be as generic as possible in defining a practice, so to remove the possibility of


90

RE

WA

RD

HIG

H R

ISK

HIG

H

FIN

AN

CIA

L R

EW

AR

D

ME

DIU

M R

ISK

HIG

H

FIN

AN

CIA

L R

EW

AR

D

LOW

RIS

KM

ED

IUM

FI

NA

NC

IAL

RE

WA

RD

LOW

RIS

KM

ED

- H

IGH

FI

NA

NC

IAL

RE

WA

RD

SOC

IAL

RE

WA

RD

SOC

IAL

INTR

INSI

C

LONG HAULINVESTOR

FACILITATINGINVESTOR

EQUITYCFI

MINI BONDSVENTURE FUNDS

REAL ESTATEINVESTMENT

QUICK RETURNS

SLOWRETURNS

CPH CFP

TIME

UN

ITS

NUMBER OF PROVIDERS

USERSWHO?

WHY?

VOLUMEHOUSEBUILDERS

GROUPS FORMING 8-10 UNITS

SELF-BUILDERS

HIGHER DENSITY(ECONOMICAL)

BETTERQUALITY

BETTER WORKOPPORTUNITIES

PROJECT INITIATION

HIGHER DENSITY(POPULATION)

URBANENVIRONMENT THE CITY

DESIGN VALUE

HEIGHTENED ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT

THE TARGETMARKET OF

SELF INTITIATORS

HOW FAR?

?


Fig 42: Co-Procured HousingUsers. Who & Why?

Fig 43: Crowdfunding Co-ProcuredHousing. Crowdfunders / Inverstors.Who & Why?

generalisation that often leads to stigma that could potentially kill a genre of working for a generation, i.e. prefabrication, which is still trying to shake it’s post war perception to the masses. In it’s generically simple form, co-procured housing as a term retreats from any form of building label, so broken down, it simply represents a model whereby a group of people procure some form of housing together, and it infers that the co-procurement part is an enabling stage of the process only, i.e. there is no possibility of one assuming residents eat dinner together every evening.35

Figure 42 outlines the target market for the CPH CFP model proposed in figures 44, 45. Perhaps the biggest attraction to this type of self-initiated practice is it’s specificity to the urban shortfall in housing provision (Fig 10, p25). Figure 43 identifies the specific facilitating crowdfunder / investor profile that would be most likely to use the CPH CFP. The benefits described make it an attractive and feasible financial proposition.

91

UP

LOA

D T

O C

PH

CFP

X

LAN

D

PE

RSO

NA

LFI

NA

NC

E

1

1

2 3

4

67

8

9

10 11 12

1314

1516

17

18 19

5

2

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CR

OW

DFI

NA

NC

E

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D

PR

OP

OSA

LS

USE

RS

RE

GIS

TER

IN

TER

EST

.LI

ST A

ND

RE

SER

VE

LI

ST C

RE

ATE

D

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

IDE

NTI

FY L

AN

D P

LOTS

AN

D T

AK

E O

UT

OP

TIO

NS

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

WO

RK

WIT

H U

SER

GR

OU

PS

IN

‘HY

BR

ID F

OR

UM

’ FO

R H

OU

SIN

G

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

SE

T C

OST

OF

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

E

NC

OM

PASS

ING

% C

ON

TIN

GE

NC

Y F

UN

D

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

DE

TAIL

S IF

FU

ND

ED

(FU

LL D

ISC

LOSU

RE

)

INV

EST

OR

S /

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

S O

FFE

RE

D %

RO

I O

VE

R F

IXE

D T

ER

M E

QU

ITY

AR

RA

NG

EM

EN

TTO

FA

CIL

ITA

TE C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N. S

EC

UR

ED

AG

AIN

ST L

AN

D

OF

LAN

D O

WN

ING

GR

OU

P

CA

MPA

IGN

GO

ES

LIV

E O

N C

PH

CFP

X

DR

AW

ING

SFO

RC

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

STA

RTS

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

MP

LETE

D

CFP

& P

PP

R

ELE

ASE

£ T

OA

RC

HIT

EC

T

MO

RTG

AG

E /

PA

YM

EN

T A

CTI

VA

TED

INV

EST

OR

E

QU

ITY

RE

TUR

N+

%

USE

RS

MO

VE

IN

THE HALF MODEL OF CROWDFUNDING CO-PROCURED HOUSING?

CFP

+ P

PP

%

FE

ES

AR

CH

ITE

CT

AW

AR

DE

D C

OE

DIF

FER

EN

T B

UD

GE

TS

INC

OR

PO

RA

TED

& ‘D

ESI

GN

+’

BA

NK

VA

LUE

SFU

TUR

E P

RO

PE

RTY

FUTU

RE

MO

RTG

AG

EA

GR

EE

D IN

AD

VA

NC

E

SHA

RIN

G

CO

MP

ON

EN

T %

AG

RE

ED

- 0

%+

AR

CH

ITE

CT

GE

NE

RA

TES

DE

TAIL

ED

DE

SIG

N

BU

YS

LAN

D

£

CO

OP

CLT

CB

S

PAY

A

RC

HIT

EC

T

NU

MB

ER

SR

ED

UC

E

RIS

K

USE

RS

BU

Y

SHA

RE

S

USE

RS

WIT

H

THE

OD

D

INV

EST

OR

TYP

ICA

LLY

G

RO

UP

S O

F 8

TAN

GIB

LE

QU

AN

TIFI

CA

TIO

N

OF

DE

MA

ND

TH

RO

UG

H

TRA

NSP

AR

EN

T P

LATF

OR

M

THE

‘A

RC

HIV

ELO

PE

R’

STR

UC

TUR

E O

F G

RO

UP

FO

RM

ED

DE

PE

ND

EN

T O

N

IDE

ALS

PLA

TFO

RM

HA

S IN

BU

ILT

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

FUN

CTI

ON

ALL

OW

ING

U

SER

S TO

INTE

RA

CT

RE

SER

VE

LIS

T C

ALL

ED

ON

IF

PR

OB

LEM

AR

ISE

S

BA

NK

S W

OU

LD

RA

THE

R L

EN

D O

N

SOM

ETH

ING

BU

ILT

IN A

LL P

AR

TIE

S IN

TER

EST

TO

MA

KE

TH

IS A

QU

ICK

P

RO

CE

SS

AR

CH

ITE

CT

SUB

MIT

S ST

AG

E C

OU

TLIN

E

PLA

NN

ING

AP

PLI

CA

TIO

N

FOR

SIT

E

TRA

NSP

AR

EN

T D

EM

AN

D C

AN

LE

AD

TO

PU

BLI

C P

RE

SSU

RE

BU

Y IN

CO

MP

ON

EN

T A

IDS

PATH

TH

RO

UG

H

PLA

NN

ING

A

PP

LIC

ATI

ON

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

SIN

VE

ST

PR

OFE

SSIO

NA

LS

RA

THE

R T

HA

N

AM

ATE

UR

S G

IVE

IN

VE

STO

RS

CO

NFI

DE

NC

E

* IN

VE

STO

R -

CP

H G

RO

UP

CO

NTR

AC

T R

ELA

TIO

NSH

IP E

ND

S

*

FIN

AN

CIA

L B

EN

EFI

TS

DE

LIV

ER

ED

PR

OG

RE

SS

RE

PO

RTS

AN

D U

PD

ATE

S

RE

WA

RD

S G

IVE

N

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

USE

RS

CA

N S

EA

RC

H B

Y:

LOC

ATI

ON

SCA

LE O

F B

UIL

DIN

GTY

PE

/ S

TYLE

OF

BU

ILD

ING

CO

ST B

RA

CK

ET

(S, M

, L)

CO

ST T

IER

ED

UN

ITS

USE

R T

YP

ES

E.G

FA

MIL

IES

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

HA

VE

PR

OFI

LES

SHO

WC

ASI

NG

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E

£ £

£

£ £

£

CIL

E

XE

MP

TIO

N?

USE

RS

DE

SIG

NFO

R T

HE

LIF

EC

YC

LEO

F TH

E B

UIL

DIN

G

NO

MA

RK

ETI

NG

USE

RS

AG

RE

ED

U

PST

RE

AM

M

EA

NS

LESS

RIS

K

92

UP

LOA

D T

O C

PH

CFP

X

LAN

D

PE

RSO

NA

LFI

NA

NC

E

1

1

2 3

4

67

8

9

10 11 12

1314

1516

17

18 19

5

2

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CR

OW

DFI

NA

NC

E

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D

PR

OP

OSA

LS

USE

RS

RE

GIS

TER

IN

TER

EST

.LI

ST A

ND

RE

SER

VE

LI

ST C

RE

ATE

D

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

IDE

NTI

FY L

AN

D P

LOTS

AN

D T

AK

E O

UT

OP

TIO

NS

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

WO

RK

WIT

H U

SER

GR

OU

PS

IN

‘HY

BR

ID F

OR

UM

’ FO

R H

OU

SIN

G

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

SE

T C

OST

OF

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

E

NC

OM

PASS

ING

% C

ON

TIN

GE

NC

Y F

UN

D

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

DE

TAIL

S IF

FU

ND

ED

(FU

LL D

ISC

LOSU

RE

)

INV

EST

OR

S /

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

S O

FFE

RE

D %

RO

I O

VE

R F

IXE

D T

ER

M E

QU

ITY

AR

RA

NG

EM

EN

TTO

FA

CIL

ITA

TE C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N. S

EC

UR

ED

AG

AIN

ST L

AN

D

OF

LAN

D O

WN

ING

GR

OU

P

CA

MPA

IGN

GO

ES

LIV

E O

N C

PH

CFP

X

DR

AW

ING

SFO

RC

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

STA

RTS

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

MP

LETE

D

CFP

& P

PP

R

ELE

ASE

£ T

OA

RC

HIT

EC

T

MO

RTG

AG

E /

PA

YM

EN

T A

CTI

VA

TED

INV

EST

OR

E

QU

ITY

RE

TUR

N+

%

USE

RS

MO

VE

IN

THE HALF MODEL OF CROWDFUNDING CO-PROCURED HOUSING?

CFP

+ P

PP

%

FE

ES

AR

CH

ITE

CT

AW

AR

DE

D C

OE

DIF

FER

EN

T B

UD

GE

TS

INC

OR

PO

RA

TED

& ‘D

ESI

GN

+’

BA

NK

VA

LUE

SFU

TUR

E P

RO

PE

RTY

FUTU

RE

MO

RTG

AG

EA

GR

EE

D IN

AD

VA

NC

E

SHA

RIN

G

CO

MP

ON

EN

T %

AG

RE

ED

- 0

%+

AR

CH

ITE

CT

GE

NE

RA

TES

DE

TAIL

ED

DE

SIG

N

BU

YS

LAN

D

£

CO

OP

CLT

CB

S

PAY

A

RC

HIT

EC

T

NU

MB

ER

SR

ED

UC

E

RIS

K

USE

RS

BU

Y

SHA

RE

S

USE

RS

WIT

H

THE

OD

D

INV

EST

OR

TYP

ICA

LLY

G

RO

UP

S O

F 8

TAN

GIB

LE

QU

AN

TIFI

CA

TIO

N

OF

DE

MA

ND

TH

RO

UG

H

TRA

NSP

AR

EN

T P

LATF

OR

M

THE

‘A

RC

HIV

ELO

PE

R’

STR

UC

TUR

E O

F G

RO

UP

FO

RM

ED

DE

PE

ND

EN

T O

N

IDE

ALS

PLA

TFO

RM

HA

S IN

BU

ILT

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

FUN

CTI

ON

ALL

OW

ING

U

SER

S TO

INTE

RA

CT

RE

SER

VE

LIS

T C

ALL

ED

ON

IF

PR

OB

LEM

AR

ISE

S

BA

NK

S W

OU

LD

RA

THE

R L

EN

D O

N

SOM

ETH

ING

BU

ILT

IN A

LL P

AR

TIE

S IN

TER

EST

TO

MA

KE

TH

IS A

QU

ICK

P

RO

CE

SS

AR

CH

ITE

CT

SUB

MIT

S ST

AG

E C

OU

TLIN

E

PLA

NN

ING

AP

PLI

CA

TIO

N

FOR

SIT

E

TRA

NSP

AR

EN

T D

EM

AN

D C

AN

LE

AD

TO

PU

BLI

C P

RE

SSU

RE

BU

Y IN

CO

MP

ON

EN

T A

IDS

PATH

TH

RO

UG

H

PLA

NN

ING

A

PP

LIC

ATI

ON

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

SIN

VE

ST

PR

OFE

SSIO

NA

LS

RA

THE

R T

HA

N

AM

ATE

UR

S G

IVE

IN

VE

STO

RS

CO

NFI

DE

NC

E

* IN

VE

STO

R -

CP

H G

RO

UP

CO

NTR

AC

T R

ELA

TIO

NSH

IP E

ND

S

*

FIN

AN

CIA

L B

EN

EFI

TS

DE

LIV

ER

ED

PR

OG

RE

SS

RE

PO

RTS

AN

D U

PD

ATE

S

RE

WA

RD

S G

IVE

N

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

USE

RS

CA

N S

EA

RC

H B

Y:

LOC

ATI

ON

SCA

LE O

F B

UIL

DIN

GTY

PE

/ S

TYLE

OF

BU

ILD

ING

CO

ST B

RA

CK

ET

(S, M

, L)

CO

ST T

IER

ED

UN

ITS

USE

R T

YP

ES

E.G

FA

MIL

IES

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

HA

VE

PR

OFI

LES

SHO

WC

ASI

NG

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E

£ £

£

£ £

£

CIL

E

XE

MP

TIO

N?

USE

RS

DE

SIG

NFO

R T

HE

LIF

EC

YC

LEO

F TH

E B

UIL

DIN

G

NO

MA

RK

ETI

NG

USE

RS

AG

RE

ED

U

PST

RE

AM

M

EA

NS

LESS

RIS

K

Fig

44:

Th

e H

alf M

odel

of

Co-

Proc

ured

H

ousi

ng

Cro

wd

fund

ing

(CPH

CFP

)

93

UP

LOA

D T

O C

PH

CFP

X

LAN

D

CR

OW

DFI

NA

NC

E

1 2

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CR

OW

DFI

NA

NC

E

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D

PR

OP

OSA

LS

INV

EST

OR

S /

USE

RS

RE

GIS

TER

INTE

RE

ST.

LIST

AN

D R

ESE

RV

E

LIST

CR

EA

TED

CA

MPA

IGN

GO

ES

LIV

E O

N C

PH

CFP

X

INV

EST

OR

S /

INV

EST

OR

U

SER

S O

FFE

RE

D %

INTE

RE

ST

ON

FIX

ED

TE

RM

BO

ND

S

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

IDE

NTI

FY L

AN

D P

LOTS

AN

D T

AK

E O

UT

OP

TIO

NS

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

WO

RK

WIT

H U

SER

GR

OU

PS

IN

‘HY

BR

ID F

OR

UM

’ FO

R H

OU

SIN

G

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

SE

T C

OST

OF

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

E

NC

OM

PASS

ING

% C

ON

TIN

GE

NC

Y F

UN

D

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

DE

TAIL

S IF

FU

ND

ED

(FU

LL D

ISC

LOSU

RE

)

INV

EST

OR

S /

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

S O

FFE

RE

D %

RO

I O

VE

R F

IXE

D T

ER

M E

QU

ITY

AR

RA

NG

EM

EN

TTO

FA

CIL

ITA

TE C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N. S

EC

UR

ED

AG

AIN

ST L

AN

D

OF

LAN

D O

WN

ING

GR

OU

P

CA

MPA

IGN

GO

ES

LIV

E O

N C

PH

CFP

X

DR

AW

ING

SFO

RC

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

STA

RTS

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

MP

LETE

D

CFP

& P

PP

R

ELE

ASE

£ T

OA

RC

HIT

EC

T

MO

RTG

AG

E /

PA

YM

EN

T A

CTI

VA

TED

INV

EST

OR

E

QU

ITY

RE

TUR

N +

%

BO

ND

EX

PIR

ES

AN

D L

AN

D

OW

NE

RSH

IP

TRA

NSF

ER

RE

D T

O U

SER

S W

/WO

MO

RTG

AG

ES

USE

RS

MO

VE

IN

THE FULL MODEL OF CROWDFUNDING CO-PROCURED HOUSING?

CFP

+ P

PP

%

FE

ES

AR

CH

ITE

CT

AW

AR

DE

D C

OE

DIF

FER

EN

T B

UD

GE

TS

INC

OR

PO

RA

TED

& ‘D

ESI

GN

+’

BA

NK

VA

LUE

S FU

TUR

E

PR

OP

ER

TY F

UTU

RE

M

OR

TGA

GE

AG

RE

ED

IN

AD

VA

NC

E; E

NC

OM

PASS

ING

B

ON

D IN

TER

EST

SHA

RIN

G

CO

MP

ON

EN

T %

AG

RE

ED

- 0

%+

CIL

E

XE

MP

TIO

N?

USE

RS

DE

SIG

NFO

R T

HE

LIF

EC

YC

LEO

F TH

E B

UIL

DIN

GA

RC

HIT

EC

T G

EN

ER

ATE

S D

ETA

ILE

D D

ESI

GN

BU

YS

LAN

D

£

CB

SPA

Y

AR

CH

ITE

CT

NU

MB

ER

SR

ED

UC

ES

RIS

KU

NSE

CU

RE

DH

IGH

ER

RIS

K.

INTE

RE

ST R

EC

EIV

ED

ON

B

UIL

DIN

G C

OM

PLE

TIO

N

INV

EST

OR

S /

INV

EST

OR

-U

SER

S B

UY

FI

XE

D T

ER

M

BO

ND

S A

T FI

XE

D P

RIC

E

STR

UC

TUR

E O

F G

RO

UP

FO

RM

ED

DE

PE

ND

EN

T O

N

IDE

ALS

PLA

TFO

RM

HA

S IN

BU

ILT

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

FUN

CTI

ON

ALL

OW

ING

U

SER

S TO

INTE

RA

CT

RE

SER

VE

LIS

T C

ALL

ED

ON

IF

PR

OB

LEM

AR

ISE

S

A +

B S

HA

RE

S U

SED

TO

D

ISTI

NG

UIS

H

INV

EST

OR

S FR

OM

IN

VE

STO

R-U

SER

S.M

OR

E D

ESI

GN

IN

PU

T FO

R T

HE

LA

TTE

R

BA

NK

S W

OU

LD

STIL

L R

ATH

ER

LE

ND

ON

SO

ME

THIN

G B

UIL

T

IN A

LL P

AR

TIE

S IN

TER

EST

TO

MA

KE

TH

IS A

QU

ICK

P

RO

CE

SS

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

S/

INV

EST

OR

S

PR

OFE

SSIO

NA

LS

RA

THE

R T

HA

N

AM

ATE

UR

S G

IVE

IN

VE

STO

RS

CO

NFI

DE

NC

E

NO

MA

RK

ETI

NG

USE

RS

AG

RE

ED

U

PST

RE

AM

M

EA

NS

LESS

RIS

K

* IN

VE

STO

R -

CP

H G

RO

UP

CO

NTR

AC

T R

ELA

TIO

NSH

IP E

ND

S

* FI

NA

NC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D

PR

OG

RE

SS

RE

PO

RTS

AN

D U

PD

ATE

S

RE

WA

RD

S G

IVE

N

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

USE

RS

CA

N S

EA

RC

H B

Y:

LOC

ATI

ON

SCA

LE O

F B

UIL

DIN

GTY

PE

/ S

TYLE

OF

BU

ILD

ING

CO

ST B

RA

CK

ET

(S, M

, L)

CO

ST T

IER

ED

UN

ITS

USE

R T

YP

ES

E.G

FA

MIL

IES

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

HA

VE

PR

OFI

LES

SHO

WC

ASI

NG

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E

£ £

£

£ £

£

TRA

NSP

AR

EN

T D

EM

AN

D C

AN

LE

AD

TO

PU

BLI

C P

RE

SSU

RE

BU

Y IN

CO

MP

ON

EN

T A

IDS

PATH

TH

RO

UG

H

PLA

NN

ING

A

PP

LIC

ATI

ON

AR

CH

ITE

CT

SUB

MIT

S ST

AG

E C

OU

TLIN

E

PLA

NN

ING

AP

PLI

CA

TIO

N

FOR

SIT

E

THE

‘A

RC

HIV

ELO

PE

R’

1 23

4

6

78

9

10

11 12 13

1415

1617

18

19

21

5

94

UP

LOA

D T

O C

PH

CFP

X

LAN

D

CR

OW

DFI

NA

NC

E

1 2

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CR

OW

DFI

NA

NC

E

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D

PR

OP

OSA

LS

INV

EST

OR

S /

USE

RS

RE

GIS

TER

INTE

RE

ST.

LIST

AN

D R

ESE

RV

E

LIST

CR

EA

TED

CA

MPA

IGN

GO

ES

LIV

E O

N C

PH

CFP

X

INV

EST

OR

S /

INV

EST

OR

U

SER

S O

FFE

RE

D %

INTE

RE

ST

ON

FIX

ED

TE

RM

BO

ND

S

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

IDE

NTI

FY L

AN

D P

LOTS

AN

D T

AK

E O

UT

OP

TIO

NS

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

WO

RK

WIT

H U

SER

GR

OU

PS

IN

‘HY

BR

ID F

OR

UM

’ FO

R H

OU

SIN

G

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

SE

T C

OST

OF

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

E

NC

OM

PASS

ING

% C

ON

TIN

GE

NC

Y F

UN

D

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

UP

LOA

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

DE

TAIL

S IF

FU

ND

ED

(FU

LL D

ISC

LOSU

RE

)

INV

EST

OR

S /

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

S O

FFE

RE

D %

RO

I O

VE

R F

IXE

D T

ER

M E

QU

ITY

AR

RA

NG

EM

EN

TTO

FA

CIL

ITA

TE C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N. S

EC

UR

ED

AG

AIN

ST L

AN

D

OF

LAN

D O

WN

ING

GR

OU

P

CA

MPA

IGN

GO

ES

LIV

E O

N C

PH

CFP

X

DR

AW

ING

SFO

RC

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

STA

RTS

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

MP

LETE

D

CFP

& P

PP

R

ELE

ASE

£ T

OA

RC

HIT

EC

T

MO

RTG

AG

E /

PA

YM

EN

T A

CTI

VA

TED

INV

EST

OR

E

QU

ITY

RE

TUR

N +

%

BO

ND

EX

PIR

ES

AN

D L

AN

D

OW

NE

RSH

IP

TRA

NSF

ER

RE

D T

O U

SER

S W

/WO

MO

RTG

AG

ES

USE

RS

MO

VE

IN

THE FULL MODEL OF CROWDFUNDING CO-PROCURED HOUSING?

CFP

+ P

PP

%

FE

ES

AR

CH

ITE

CT

AW

AR

DE

D C

OE

DIF

FER

EN

T B

UD

GE

TS

INC

OR

PO

RA

TED

& ‘D

ESI

GN

+’

BA

NK

VA

LUE

S FU

TUR

E

PR

OP

ER

TY F

UTU

RE

M

OR

TGA

GE

AG

RE

ED

IN

AD

VA

NC

E; E

NC

OM

PASS

ING

B

ON

D IN

TER

EST

SHA

RIN

G

CO

MP

ON

EN

T %

AG

RE

ED

- 0

%+

CIL

E

XE

MP

TIO

N?

USE

RS

DE

SIG

NFO

R T

HE

LIF

EC

YC

LEO

F TH

E B

UIL

DIN

GA

RC

HIT

EC

T G

EN

ER

ATE

S D

ETA

ILE

D D

ESI

GN

BU

YS

LAN

D

£

CB

SPA

Y

AR

CH

ITE

CT

NU

MB

ER

SR

ED

UC

ES

RIS

KU

NSE

CU

RE

DH

IGH

ER

RIS

K.

INTE

RE

ST R

EC

EIV

ED

ON

B

UIL

DIN

G C

OM

PLE

TIO

N

INV

EST

OR

S /

INV

EST

OR

-U

SER

S B

UY

FI

XE

D T

ER

M

BO

ND

S A

T FI

XE

D P

RIC

E

STR

UC

TUR

E O

F G

RO

UP

FO

RM

ED

DE

PE

ND

EN

T O

N

IDE

ALS

PLA

TFO

RM

HA

S IN

BU

ILT

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

FUN

CTI

ON

ALL

OW

ING

U

SER

S TO

INTE

RA

CT

RE

SER

VE

LIS

T C

ALL

ED

ON

IF

PR

OB

LEM

AR

ISE

S

A +

B S

HA

RE

S U

SED

TO

D

ISTI

NG

UIS

H

INV

EST

OR

S FR

OM

IN

VE

STO

R-U

SER

S.M

OR

E D

ESI

GN

IN

PU

T FO

R T

HE

LA

TTE

R

BA

NK

S W

OU

LD

STIL

L R

ATH

ER

LE

ND

ON

SO

ME

THIN

G B

UIL

T

IN A

LL P

AR

TIE

S IN

TER

EST

TO

MA

KE

TH

IS A

QU

ICK

P

RO

CE

SS

CR

OW

DFU

ND

ER

S/

INV

EST

OR

S

PR

OFE

SSIO

NA

LS

RA

THE

R T

HA

N

AM

ATE

UR

S G

IVE

IN

VE

STO

RS

CO

NFI

DE

NC

E

NO

MA

RK

ETI

NG

USE

RS

AG

RE

ED

U

PST

RE

AM

M

EA

NS

LESS

RIS

K

* IN

VE

STO

R -

CP

H G

RO

UP

CO

NTR

AC

T R

ELA

TIO

NSH

IP E

ND

S

* FI

NA

NC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D

PR

OG

RE

SS

RE

PO

RTS

AN

D U

PD

ATE

S

RE

WA

RD

S G

IVE

N

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

SOC

IAL

BE

NE

FITS

D

ELI

VE

RE

D T

O

INV

EST

OR

S

USE

RS

CA

N S

EA

RC

H B

Y:

LOC

ATI

ON

SCA

LE O

F B

UIL

DIN

GTY

PE

/ S

TYLE

OF

BU

ILD

ING

CO

ST B

RA

CK

ET

(S, M

, L)

CO

ST T

IER

ED

UN

ITS

USE

R T

YP

ES

E.G

FA

MIL

IES

AR

CH

ITE

CTS

HA

VE

PR

OFI

LES

SHO

WC

ASI

NG

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E

£ £

£

£ £

£

TRA

NSP

AR

EN

T D

EM

AN

D C

AN

LE

AD

TO

PU

BLI

C P

RE

SSU

RE

BU

Y IN

CO

MP

ON

EN

T A

IDS

PATH

TH

RO

UG

H

PLA

NN

ING

A

PP

LIC

ATI

ON

AR

CH

ITE

CT

SUB

MIT

S ST

AG

E C

OU

TLIN

E

PLA

NN

ING

AP

PLI

CA

TIO

N

FOR

SIT

E

THE

‘A

RC

HIV

ELO

PE

R’

1 23

4

6

78

9

10

11 12 13

1415

1617

18

19

21

5

Fig

45:

Th

e Fu

ll M

odel

of

Co-

Proc

ured

H

ousi

ng

Cro

wd

fund

ing

(C

PH C

FP)


The half and full models outlined in figures 44 and 45 are nothing new, rather they are the revision of a system, encompassing a new and improved component not previously utilised for that given task. The notion of a platform engaging potential clients with the work of Architects / designers is not an innovation, for we have seen this in the crowdsourcing platforms in section 3.4, whilst simply forming communication links between Architect and client has been brought about by online search engines and dedicated websites such as dzinebox.com.36 The idea of seeing development opportunities in a defined geographical area is not new either - YouCanPlan which was owned by Stickyworld.com, but has now been scrapped, initially sold itself as a platform enabling public participation in planning; One facet of the platform can be seen in use in David Kohn Architects’ Urban Vessel Project in 2008.37

The communication functionality in the CPH CFP model is taken from the functionality of Spareroom.com, which enables would-be renters to communicate with potential housemates for rooms that are listed before signing the contract; thus leading to more compatible tenants living together.

It is important to not only draw from features in successful platforms. After all, failure can be dependent on many circumstantial factors, from the time, to the decision makers. Ask Ron Arad, who widely believes he created the first iPad 11 years ago, only for LG to turn it down.38

“The day before something is a breakthrough, it’s a crazy idea.”“An expert is someone who can tell you exactly how it can’t be done.”39

Peter Diamandis, Founder & Chair X PRIZE Foundation

Whilst YouCanPlan failed, the maps enabled by a Google Earth plugin for Amsterdam City Council (section 2.2) show there is potential for this kind of platform; it just needs to be utilised correctly within the market.

When speaking to Kristien Ring about the Architect / self-initiated Baugruppen practice in Berlin, it became clear that the nonfinancial working principles of the proposed CPH CFP model have proven successful over the course of the last decade. The funding element is yet to be experimented with (as I just created it), however the non-financial aspects of the platform proposed (written in colour in figures 44 & 45) are already utilised in Germany through the Netzwerkagentur GenerationenWohnen platform.40 This poses the question, or challenge; What if this could all be integrated into one platform, including finance, and be linked seamlessly to social media or Fin-tech (financial technology) companies such as AngelList, or a socially geared property rather than start-up equivalent, that provides a direct connection to finance?

96Crowdfunding Architecture | 4.2 Crowdfunding Housing ++

We are already seeing the world of property transition to the platform, fuelled by the automation of process and ease of access. Launched in 2014 easyProperty is a platform enabled landlord management service set up by the owner of easyJet. Elsewhere, estate agents have been hit by the rapid growth of online platforms such as Rightmove, Zoopla and PrimeLocation, with the former having 400,000 active users each month.41 With these established there is no reason why can’t we readapt the platform to create an integrated CFP for a new build CPH market.

The models proposed deliberately do not specify the % return for the investor. This is in part because I do not know them, but also because specificity would only provide the opportunity to dismiss it without considering it’s potential workability. Whilst we know the traditional cost of crowdfunded capital to generally be between 6-10% - CFP + PPP % fee,42 the social and likely high value nature of these projects could be used as leverage to drive those down. The investors’ interest on Equity or Bonds would be, like any other investment, a variable dependent on external factors. Generally speaking, as long as the arrangement could offer a good deal better than bank interest rates, the model would appear attractive to at least some investors, particularly with a non-existent threshold for investment, and practically no risk as long as each project uses the platform and transparent demand to secure reserve lists of users, who have prearranged personal finance in the form of a mortgage agreement, should someone pull out.

A Social Agenda

It may well be that the model proposed cannot compete with financial offerings elsewhere (although I doubt this), however considering this raises the point that the model possesses intangible benefits that go with crowdfunding of all forms (figure 43). Like traditional CF, CFI, which is the wider category the proposed CPH CFP falls into, can maintain the intrinsic social and reward benefits as offered on Kickstarter.

Whilst it might seem strange to think that an investor would not always opt for the most lucrative financial offering, there is a whole industry emerging in social impact investment, of which the UK as a country is a frontrunner. Social Impact Investments intentionally target specific societal objectives along with a financial return,43 and the industry is being built in the UK by the Social Impact Investment Task Force.


£££ + SOCIAL REWARD?

I

HELPED

MAKE

THIS

“The UK is a world leader when it comes to building a social investment market. From introducing a tax relief for social investors to establishing the social investment bank Big Society Capital, we have demonstrated our commitment to this game-changing market which has the potential to deliver enormous benefits to society and the economy.”44

Francis Maude, The Minister for the Cabinet Office, 2014

According to the UK National Advisory Board to the Social Impact Investment Taskforce, building a market for social impact investments requires the supply and demand for investment, as well as the intermediaries that link the two.45 As the CPH CFP proposed fulfills all three of these credentials, such a platform and it’s investors would be well positioned to benefit from the government’s tax incentives and Big Society Capital.

Whereas criticisms are leveled at the Fideicomiso and Baugruppen practices because they tend only to cater to the middle class, inputting crowd finance into the self-initiated scenario has the potential to drastically change this. If the user group involved with CPH CFP were to form a CLT as outlined in section 2.2, there would be potential in either the half or the full model to establish an Asset Lock on the land, allowing them to then adopt the same approach as the ELCLT who control and determine rental prices based on local affordability. Likewise, the CPH CFP could appeal to those unable to go down any form of self-providing route due to what’s referred to as ‘the capital barrier’, such as young and first time buyers.

The example of P2P CFI on the German platform LeihDeinerStadtGeld (section 4.1) indicates a crowd willingness to lend to municipalities in order to procure something for the better good of the community. Whilst not explored thoroughly in this text, there could be a case for better quality crowd procured social housing, organised by housing associations or local government itself and using the Debt model of CFI. The September 2014 publication ‘Silent Majority: How the public will support a new wave of social housing’ states that the majority of people appear to support the need for a new generation of social housing.46 It claims that whilst the stigma attached to the housing type was real, the majority thought that new social housing should be built to a high standard because it would be a wise future investment, and that the visibly low standard at present is viewed as stigmatising for tenants.47 Furthermore they add that 87% think this should be the government’s responsibility. Perhaps a model similar to the proposed CPH CFP could be utilised, through collaboration with government like CPs use, to deliver this next generation of social housing.


£££ + SOCIAL REWARD?

I

HELPED

MAKE

THIS

Fig 46: Reward Aspect Of The CPH CFP?

“Our capacity to participate in governance and work for change is expanded and shifted through tools and techniques newly at our disposal.” 48

E. Zuckerman (MIT), 2014

If this potential for change is the social and intrinsic benefit of the model proposed, then the investors / crowdfunders should also get the novel, memorabilia-like rewards that CF has been built on since it’s emergence as a powerful source of capital. Given the personal nature of funding a group’s future residence, there should be an equally personal set of rewards. To paint a picture, one higher tiered reward could be a piece of artwork (perhaps digital) signed by the Architect that celebrates the bespoke building facilitated with crowdfunders money, leaving the crowdfunder with a memory of the social good they have enabled.

Although not in the UK, the social impact investment industry has already seen it’s first designated CFP - CrowdBoarders (US), which sells itself as ‘a social network with a purpose’.49 It will be interesting for the purpose of the proposal contained in this chapter to watch the development of the industry and how CrowdBoarders in particular fairs in comparison to Equity CFI platforms when the JOBS ACT title III is finally passed in the US.

Future Practice

“Thanks to new processes, it won’t be the architect and his personal and cultural experiences who imposes the project upon the users. Rather, it will be the users themselves, aided by new technologies and machines that turn into a collective mind, who lead the project”50

Nicolas Negroponte (MIT), 1968

99

GOOGLE

PINTEREST ETC

ARCHIZINES

COST OFTRAVEL

TVSHOWS

SOCIALMEDIA

ARCHITECTURAL PROSUMER

KNOWLEDGE


Fig 47: Tools of theArchitecturalProsumer

If Architects in the future are to benefit from assuming the role of the Archiveloper, initiating projects, holding Hybrid Forums for housing and delivering housing that is more suited to it’s end users and applicable to it’s environment, then they face a much changed future practice.

Empowered by social media in the form of Pinterest, and inspired by television programmes and the rise of online published architectural content, the consumer, or prosumer when considering the user-focussed nature of the CPH CFP model, has never been more well-equipped to know what they want. Websites such as ArchDaily and DeZeen are open and accessible to anyone, whilst sites like Archizines immediately puts those without architectural education in contact with architecture journals and magazines from around the world, making the architectural world much smaller and bringing examples and precedents much closer to the user. The client that in the past relied on the Architect to impose their own ‘personal and cultural experiences’ on a design project, can to a degree move away from this as it’s a service that the Architect can no longer exclusively offer.

Whilst this accessibility and subsequent closing of the knowledge gap between client and Architect represents the point made by Nicolas Negroponte, Architecture as a vocational profession is still well positioned to benefit from the emerging power that crowd finance can give end users. As Winka Dubbeldam explains when discussing the ‘My Ideal City’ initiative setup in Bogotá following the successful BD Bacatá crowdfunding process:

“People, ultimately, fund in experts. It’s really about a two-way feedback. It’s not about people telling us what to do; that has never worked. It would be as if you visited a doctor and began to tell him what to do to cure your illness.That’s not what the public wants. They want projects that are successful, well-designed and thought out by the designers, taking into account the needs of the client.”51

Winka Dubbeldam, Principal, Archi-tectonics (NY)


If the CPH CFP model or similar is to gain any traction then a few key factors regarding future practice must evolve. The first isn’t necessarily to do with future practice of the architectural profession, rather the approach to selling and buying land. As Kristien Ring describes, land both sold by the government and private sellers should be sold on best concept rather than best price; that doesn’t mean cheap, just so long as it’s set and doesn’t become an auction.52

A case of such practice can already be seen in Berlin, where the Holzmarkt Plus eG has recently won such a competition for the right to build a ‘unique urban neighbourhood’ rather than ‘property and possession’ on the Holzmarkt.53

Ring also notes that the process of deciding best concept may be carried out through a competition. Such a competition could easily be encompassed into the early stages of the CPH CFP working model proposed, as part of stage 4, whereby several Architects upload schemes for the same plot of land, multiple groups register interest in multiple projects, and a qualified judging panel selects the winner to go forward, create a legal structure and procure the land.

As the applications in figure 48 demonstrate, there is also much potential and need for the future practice of the architecture to better reflect the technology of the times we live in. Tools such as TopLogic, created by Phil Langley and the coding team at Bryden Wood (BW), help the Architects work with clients to configure spatial arrangements by visual representation. Another application called DataViz, which BW developed on instruction by the client for a specific job, works as a processing tool in tandem with BIM software such as Revit to analyse and compare a project’s components via a variety of filters, from area to cost and accessibility.54 Such a tool could prove invaluable for a practice like the CPH CFP working model, as it requires Architects to cost projects up front in order to set a crowdfunding goal and contingency % before a campaign goes live. TopLogic on the other hand has the potential to aid the hybrid forum for housing participatory design process that users and Architects work together in in stages 8 and 9 of the half and full models proposed.

Additional benefits that such apps and technology can bring to architectural practice (how we design) can help answer essentially the last big question the CPH CFP must stand up to; time and programming. With investors earning interest, albeit fixed and based upon a set programme, the quick and less risky nature of the investment as illustrated in figure 43, is one of the major selling points of the model.


Fig 48: Code for the ChipID Application (A Spatial Arrangement Visualiser).Developed and Used In-House by Phil Langley and the Coding Team at Bryden Wood.

102

LIFECYCLE PROSUMERS

POINT OF SALE

POINT OF CONCEPTION

CONSUMERS

MASS HOUSEBUILDER MODEL

FIDEICOMISO, BAUGRUPPEN, CPH CFP MODELS

INVESTORSINVESTOR-USERSUSERS

SHAREHOLDERS

DEVELOPER

ARCHIVELOPER

/

USERS

£

£ CONCEPTHYBRIDITY

USER BASED PROGTECHNOLOGY

SUSTAINABILITYOPERATIONAL £

QUALITY


Apps and technology such as the aforementioned examples can aid the process up until drawings for construction are produced, after which it is the development of technology in the construction process that becomes the critical factor.

Seen in figure 49, under the traditional housebuilder provided housing model discussed in section 2.1, and as the quote from Alison Brooks infers on page 21, technology in construction is barely evolving at all. Under new procurement forms we can remove the ‘design for profitability’ approach from the design process, and there is big potential to not only increase the level of technological experimentation, but to considerably reduce construction times once on site through Design for Manufacture, and prefabricated off site construction methods.

“We need investors that will invest in the future, invest in new technologies and invest in experimentation… We need experimentation because the solutions that we try out today are going to be the solutions of the future”55

Kristien Ring, Architect, Curator, AAProjects

Fig 49: User vs Developer Development Concept Ideals

103 ++

1 Quote from private conversation between the author and Sue (did not specify surname). SSoA Live Projects Public Presentation 08/11/13. Castle Markets, Sheffield

2 Make Architecture Happen. https://www.makearchitecturehappen.com/ (accessed 13/09/14)

3 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/832556475/architecture-and-design-website (accessed 04/10/14)

4 http://www.projectalog.com/#intro (accessed 10/09/14)

5Davies, R. Civic Crowdfunding: Participatory Communities, Entrepreneurs and the Political Economy of Place. (Masters Thesis). (MIT: MA, 2014 -p129)

6 CrowdClan. Crowdfunding Metrics: The 30% Rule. http://www.crowdclan.com/crowdfunding-metrics-the-30-rule/ (accessed 08/09/14)

7 Indiegogo. Let’s Build a Goddamn Tesla Museum. Indiegogo. Architecture for Humanity. https://www.indiegogo.com/partners/arch. (accessed 08/08/14) (accessed 08/08/14)

8Indiegogo. Buy a Brick for The Nikola Tesla Museum. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/buy-a-brick-for-the-nikola-tesla-museum (accessed 09/10/14)

9 Davies, R. Civic Crowdfunding – Four Things We Know, Two Things We Don’t. May 9, 2014. http://rodrigodavies.com/blog/2014/05/09/civic-crowdfunding-four-things-we-know-two-things-we-dont.html (accessed 10/09/14)

10 Anderson, K. Kickstarter’s Yancey Strickler: We’re Going to Do This One Thing Really Well. TheWrap. Oct. 2, 2012. http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/kickstarters-yancey-strickler-thegrill-were-going-do-one-thing-really-well-video-58976/. (accessed 17/09/14)

11 Nino, R. Crowdfunding in Real Estate. Finance Your Ideal City. http://vimeo.com/66107908 (ac-cessed 23/04/14)

12 Eidell, L. A Face in the Crowd. Worth. Apr / May issue. http://www.worth.com/index.php/compo-nent/content/article/2-make/6591-a-face-in-the-crowd (accessed 12/09/14)

13 Prodigy Network. The Biggest Product in the World. http://vimeo.com/42372905 (accessed 10/09/14)

14 W Radio. http://www.wradio.com.co/especiales/fidi2011/nota04.html (accessed 09/10/14)

15 Prodigy Network. Comercial BD Bacatá - Santiago Molina. http://vimeo.com/37927080.(accessed 10/09/14)

16 Twitter. BD BACATA. https://twitter.com/bd_bacata (accessed 09/10/14)

104++

17 Prodigy Network. The Biggest Product in the World. http://vimeo.com/42372905 (accessed 10/09/14)

18 Nino, R. Crowdfunding in Real Estate. Finance Your Ideal City. http://vimeo.com/66107908 (ac-cessed 23/04/14)

19 Indiegogo. The Oatmeal + Indiegogo + 20,000 people = Gosh Darn Tesla Museum (Infographic). https://go.indiegogo.com/blog/2012/08/the-oatmeal-indiegogo-20000-people-gosh-darn-tesla-museum-infographic.html (accessed 19/08/14)

20 Stott, R. “Crowdfunding in Architecture: Game Changer or PR Game? | ArchDaily. Feb. 26, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/480902/crowdfunding-in-architecture-game-changer-or-pr-game/. (ac-cessed 22/04/14)

21 Companisto. Weissenhaus. https://www.companisto.com/en/startups/weissenhaus-startup-36/overview (accessed 10/08/14)

22 Companisto. Weissenhaus. https://www.companisto.com/en/news/weissenhaus-sets-new-europe-an-crowdfunding-record-startup-article-686 (accessed 09/09/14)

23 Interest is linked to resort success, but 4% is guaranteed


25 Adamo, S. & Faiden, M. The Contemporary Constructor. (Adamo-Faiden: Buenos Aires, 2009)

26 Papanek, V. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. (2nd Edition. Thames & Hudson: New York, 1985)

27 Hill, D. Dark Matter & Trojan Horses: A Strategic Design Vocabulary. (Strelka Press: Moscow, 2012)

28 One form of Baugruppen practice is self-initiated by Architects. See interview with Kristien Ring (section 6.3)

29 Parvin, A., Cerulli, C., Saxby, D. & Schneider, T. A Right To Build: The next mass-housebuilding industry. (University of Sheffield and Architecture 00:/, 2011)

30 Cesal, E. Down Detour Road: An Architect in Search of Practice. (MIT Press: MA, 2010 - p83)

31 American Institute of Architects (AIA). Crowdfunding Architecture. (AIA & Massolution: DC, 2013 - p20)

32 Callon, M. et al. Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. (MIT Press: MA, 2011 - p33)

105 ++

33 Indy Johar, Quoted on: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/where/organisational%20structures/n.00 (accessed 13/09/14)

34 Authors interview with Kristien Ring, in which she discusses the transition of the perception of the Baugruppen practice. Interview transcript can be seen in section 6.3.

35 Authors interview with Kristien Ring, in which she discusses the initial connotations of living in a Baugruppen model enabled building. Interview transcript can be seen in section 6.3.

36 Dzinebox. http://dzinebox.com/. (accessed 30/06/14)

37 David Kohn Architects. Urban Vessel. http://www.davidkohn.co.uk/projects/residential/urban-vessel/. (accessed 10/04/14)

38 Compton, N. Master of Design: Ron Arad. Interview with Ron Arad. (In: Wired Magazine, UK Edi-tion, Oct 2014 p109-117)

39 Peters Laws. http://www.diamandis.com/law/peter%E2%80%99s-laws-listing/ (accessed 04/09/14)

40 Netzwerkagentur GenerationenWohnen. http://www.netzwerk-generationen.de/index.php?id=298 (accessed 10/10/14)

41 Brown, C. Custom Build. Igloo. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 - p3


43 UK National Advisory Board to the Social Impact Investment Taskforce. Building a Social Impact Investment Market: The UK Experience. (Report published September 2014 - p5)

44 GOV.UK. UK government welcomes social impact investment report. https://www.gov.uk/govern-ment/news/uk-government-welcomes-social-impact-investment-report (accessed 17/09/14)

45 UK National Advisory Board to the Social Impact Investment Taskforce. Building a Social Impact Investment Market: The UK Experience. (Report published September 2014 - p5)

46 Doron, N. & Tinker, R. Silent Majority: How The Public Will Support a New Wave of Social Hous-ing. (Fabian Society: London, 2014 - p1)

47 Doron, N. & Tinker, R. Silent Majority: How The Public Will Support a New Wave of Social Hous-ing. (Fabian Society: London, 2014 - p2)

48 Zuckerman, E. Beyond “The Crisis in Civics” - Notes from my 2013 DML talk. My Heart’s In Accra. Mar. 26, 2013. http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2013/03/26/beyond-the-crisis-in-civics-notes-from-my-2013-dml-talk/ (accessed 08/09/14)

106++

49 Crowdboarders. About Us. https://crowdboarders.com/AboutUs.aspx (accessed 10/10/14)


51 Cruz, J. Winka Dubbeldam: ‘My Ideal City’ of the Future. ArchDaily. Dec, 11, 2013. http://www.archdaily.com/455983/winka-dubbeldam-my-ideal-city-of-the-future/ (accessed September 10/09/14)

52 Ring, K. The Self-made City: Kristien Ring at TEDxBerlin. Dec. 4, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdFrd3eVSQ. (accessed 15/08/14)

53 Holzmarkt eG. Holzmarkt Brochure. Apr. 11, 2014. http://www.holzmarkt.com/downloads/140411_Holzmarkt_Broschuere.pdf. p18 (accessed 11/09/14)

54 Bryden Wood. R&D Software Prototyping. (Bryden Wood: London, 2013 - p2)

55 Ring, K. The Self-made City: Kristien Ring at TEDxBerlin. Dec. 4, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdFrd3eVSQ. (accessed 15/08/14)

107

CONCLUSION

5

++

108Conclusion | 5.1

++

CONCLUSION

The speculation in this thesis is open to interpretation, and it has been written in order to generate further discussion in the little written about topic of crowdfunding. It has attempted to bring current topics into the same circle to see how they can interact with one another for mutual benefit.The text was never intended to present findings of raw data or to analyse dynamics in detail like the few established texts on crowdfunding do. Instead, it is curated to have been more speculative, establishing the themes and trends in each scale of crowdfunding type and genre, and has attempted to present a proposal, or viability assessment as to it’s applicability to housing and the potential to help solve the problems we face regarding this.

As the saying goes; money makes the world go round. This thesis has found that crowdfunding in it’s widest sense can not easily be pinned down to a specific definition. Initially when CF burst onto the scene in 2008 with Indiegogo, this was not the case, as history was being written, and for a short time whatever Indiegogo was, CF was. This did not last long however, and Indiegogo has since lost it’s spot as number 1 CFP in the world to it’s East coast rival, Kickstarter. Whilst CF platforms have grown exponentially to become almost a household name in just six years, the shrew financial sector has seen the opportunity that CF and the platform can enable. The legislative restrictions that previously prevented CFI have been (or are still in the process of being) loosened by the arrival of the JOBS Act in the US, after which other countries have followed suit. Observations have been made that with this legislative reform has come the blurring of lines between crowdfunder and investor, although for the purpose of achieving success, this is not a particularly bad thing.

Different forms and genres of crowdfunding appear to have their own specific criteria as to what makes a campaign successful, although on it’s most shallow level this can be pinpointed to being mass-popularity. Whilst certain forms of crowdfunding, mainly CFI have a different dynamic due to the demographics of ‘crowdfunders’ / investors using the platforms, all forms are linked, and whilst financial motivations are reserved for CFI only, the intrinsic, social, and reward benefits remain throughout. It is obvious from venturing from genre to genre like this thesis has, that crowdfunding is inherently transferable and scalable, both physically and financially. At the top end of this scale lies RECF, which at present appears only to be perpetuating the role of the developer.

109 TIME

ALW

AY

S A

NE

ED

???

PO

WE

R

S + M ARCHITECTS

CPH CFP X

This is strange given the potential crowdfunding has to free both Architects and citizens from the profit-driven and monetisation of housing that developers have brought about. Whilst the RECF market shows signs of potential to change the way we procure and build our environment around us, at present this promise gives the sense of placation and no more.

Another aspect that has become apparent is that crowdfunding is not always named as such. Community shares, which is essentially a form of CFI has been used over the past few years to achieve social good by putting the decision making power in the hands of every would-be localised investor. The case study profiled in this thesis, the ROCO, is directly using the community share structure to impact on the built environment in which it plans to operate in the future. The success of this is promising, given the need for ‘the social investor’ for the proposal in section 4.2.

It is clear that in the UK there is definite interest in learning from other nations regarding the procurement of housing, although it is also clear that the UK, quite ironically as a developed nation whose economic strengths lies in the financial services sector, is continually playing catch up with more resilient countries. CPH methods such as Fideicomiso and Baugruppen offer the potential to raise density whilst saving money and providing better quality housing to a broad spectrum of people. With the right application, a model similar to the CPH CFP proposal could prove the enabler for it’s adaption to social housing, so long as the government is open for dialogue.

The CPH CFP proposal in section 4.2 may ultimately prove to be nothing more than unfeasible. It may completely disregard or fail to acknowledge key inalienable truths, based on a lack of financial understanding. It may even be completely naive, but if with iteration it is remotely viable, it could also be a catalyst for the movement toward the disintermediation of housing incumbents...

Fig 50: The Potential For The Disintermediation of Housing Incumbents

Conclusion | 5.1

++

110

“Naivety in a way was our biggest asset. If we had known back then what we know now, we would never have bothered, and I wouldn’t be sat here telling this story.”

Nick Johnson, Formerly of Urban Splash Sheffield School of Architecture, 2013

111 Appendices | 6.1 Glossary of Terms

APPENDICES

6

6.1 Glossary of Terms 1126.2 Project Gallery 1146.3 Interview Transcripts 1186.4 Key Industry Players 1276.5 Bibliography / Webliography 1286.5 Image Credits 144

112

GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ACRONYMS

Appendices | 6.1 Glossary of Terms

AIA: American Institute of Architects

Asset Lock: a provision within the CLT’s constitution to ensure that its assets are retained by the entity and if sold/let/transferred then only in the prescribed circumstances allowed for.

CB: Custom Build

CBS: Community Benefit Society

CCB. Collective Custom Build: Custom build utilised by many parties in the same project

CCRP: Civic Crowdfunding Research Project

CF: Crowdfunding

CFI: Crowdfund Investing

CFP: Crowdfunding Platform

CGI: Computer Generated Image

CIL: Community Infrastructure Levy. A one off payment charged when planning permission is given for a new dwelling for community infrastructure.

CIoB: Chartered Institute of Building

Civic crowdfunding: Crowdfunding for projects that are for the benefit of a community

CLT: Community Land Trust

COE: Contract of Employment

Cohousing: Community based housing arrangement whereby private homes are supplemented by shared facilities

Commercial Property: Buildings or land intended to make a profit

Community Shares: Investments in community-owned enterprises that are co-operative in nature and benefit the local community

Constructive Eviction: The disturbance, by a landlord, of a tenant’s possession of premises that the landlord makes uninhabitable and unsuitable for the purposes for which they were leased, causing the tenant to surrender possession.

CP: Civic Platform

C-P: Co-Procurement

CPH: Co-Procured Housing.

CPH CFP: Co-Procured Housing Crowdfunding Platform

Crowdfunders: Those contributing financially to a crowdfunding project

CS: Crowdsourcing. The pooling of a crowd to gain ideas, designs and opinions.

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government

Debt based Crowdfunding: A crowdfunding type constituting P2P loan lending. A loan arrangement made directly between two parties via a CFP

Design +: The process of obtaining additional services after the basic design has been agreed in the Baugruppen model of housing provision

Donation based Crowdfunding: A crowdfunding type that offers only intrinsic and social benefits in exchange for donations

EIS: Enterprise Investment Scheme. Tax relief

Equity based Crowdfunding: A crowdfunding type that offers financial motivation in the form of equity in return for capital contributions

FCA: Financial Conduct Authority

Fideicomiso: The Architect initiated development practice used predominantly in Argentina.

GP: Generic Platform

HCA: Homes and Communities Agency

JOBS Act: Jump-start Our Business Startups. Title III concerns rules regarding equity crowdfunding

Land Bank: A process used by developers of councils to stock land for future development

113 Appendices | 6.1 Glossary of Terms

LDO’s: Local Development Orders. Made by local planning authorities and give a grant of planning permission to specific types of development within a defined area

LILAC: Low Impact Living Affordable Community

Long Tail: In housing: A distribution that sees a lot of self-providers providing a small amount of units

MCCB: Motivating Collective Custom Build.

MDU: Multi Dwelling Units

NIMBY: Not in my backyard

NPPF: National Planning Policy Framework

P2P: Peer-to-peer. A loan arrangement made directly between two parties via a CFP

Planning Gain: The gaining of flexibility or reduced constraints for a planning proposal under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Councils often allow this if money is given to local infrastructure of community projects.

PPP: Payment Providing Platform

RE: Real Estate is considered property (asset), and can come in the form of buildings or land.

RECF: Real Estate Crowdfunding.

REI: Real Estate Investment

REIT: Real Estate Investment Trust

Reward based Crowdfunding: A form of crowdfunding whereby contributors are offered nominal rewards for their contributions

RIBA: Royal Institute of British Architects

Right to Build: A government scheme giving people more power to against local authorities to release council owned land for self build development

ROI: Return on Investment

SB: Self Build. The process of an individual building, or arranging the services of others to build their own home

SEC (U.S.): Securities and Exchange Commission

Section 106: A planning obligation whereby financial compensation is given to the community to be used for infrastructure to mitigate a developments impact

SEIS: Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme. Tax relief.

Self-provided Housing: Any form of new build housing provision that is not supplied by a developer and that is initiated by the user

SME: Small to Medium Enterprise

TEY: Tax Equivalent Yield

The Capital Barrier: The barrier that prevents those with good household income from going down the self-provided housing route due to a lack of possession capital.

White Label Providers: Companies that provide crowdfunding platform solutions off the shelf for a monthly / annual subscription. Typically cheaper than a platform built from scratch by a developer, but more limited in terms of customisability and scale.

YIMBY: Yes in my backyard

114Appendices | 6.1 Selected Projects

SELECTED PROJECTS

Fig 51: Once Building, Buenos Aires. Adamo Faiden Architects. Fideicomiso

Fig 52: Weg Linienstrasse 23, Berlin. BCO Architekten. Passivhaus Standard. Baugruppen

115

Fig 53: Sucre 4444, Buenos Aires. Esteban-Tannenbaum. Folding Facade. Fideicomiso

Fig 54: BaugeMeinSchaft Strelitzer Strasse, Berlin. SDU Architekten. Folding Facade. Baugruppen

116

Fig 56: Galerie Und Ateliergebaude Brunnenstrasse, Berlin. Brandlhuber + Emde, Schneider.

Recycled Materials, Low cost. Baugruppen

Fig 55:ExRotaprint, Berlin. Daniela Brahm & Les Schliesser. Rennovation & Refurbishment. Baugruppen

117

Fig 57: Garcia Del Rio 3195, Buenos Aires. 2H Architectura. Fideicomiso

Fig 58: BIGyard Zelterstraße 5, Berlin. Zanderroth Architekten.

Communally Shared Garden. Baugruppen

118Appendices | Interview Transcripts

Kristien RingArchitect, Curator & Author of ‘Self Made City’

10/10/14SSoASheffield

JPSo Baugruppen is a translation of cohousing from German. Let’s start with the cohousing groups themselves, how do the groups come together?

KRIn the beginning the groups would come together through word of mouth. Sometimes it would be local people who just get talking and decide that they wanted to buy some land and build something together. They realised that no one else was building and so decided to do it themselves. When the Baugruppen movement started, land was not in demand and plots would sit empty for a long time. The groups would contact the owner and see if the land was for sale. At the beginning there was one man who ran a website advertising these plots and opportunities, but now plots are available on the real estate platforms such as Immoscout.de.

JPAt what point then is the land purchased? In your TED talk you mention a lot about the lengthy process for the users to mobilise and get financing from the bank, compared to an investor who can do this relatively quickly…

KRAs soon as possible is the answer. A lot of banks know that there is less risk associated with a building that already has future inhabitants identified as the investors. Due to this banks can decided to lend money for land use based on programme concept.

JPWould the programme concepts not be stronger if the groups assembled were assembled on the basis of living compatibility? Do you think that there is potential to form more compatible groups, in terms of design taste and living demands, through the use of technology?

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS

Kristien Ring 118Phil Langley 122

119 Appendices | Interview Transcripts

KRYes definitely, I think that’s sort of what the Berlin Agency are now trying to do, but it’s not quite there yet…

JPSo it’s fundamentally the users who initiate the projects?

KRWell initially yes and no. It was mixed. In the recession of the early noughties there was very little work for Architects, so the Architects also would start identifying plots, come up with a scheme, and then identify potential people to form groups and act as a client. Sometimes the projects were interest group driven, sometimes Architect driven, it just depends which came first.

JPSo Architects would essentially take on the role of the developer?

KRYes. The Architects weren’t getting much work from developers so they in effect were initiating projects themselves, doing all of the upfront dogwork like the developer does, and then try to get a job out of it. The Architects identified land, sought groups, came up with sketch proposals and then the groups bought the land. From this point in the job the Architect got a contract to work. This led to some tax complications, as it was ambiguous as to what was paid work and what wasn’t. Initially, because of this large amount of unpaid speculative work on the Architect’s part, quite a few projects were completed at a loss. The group of Architects established as those who work under the Baugruppen model (Netzwerk Berliner Baugruppenarchitekten) have now agreed that this initial work needs to be paid for to make jobs profitable, and so this is now chargeable at a later date. This is just Model A of working though, there are many others slight variations as it has evolved...

JPIn Fideicomiso, a similar model of working in Argentina, investors / end users can choose to pay more or less, depending on what they can afford, and receive an appropriately sized portion of the building for that money. Is this something is possible with the Baugruppen practice?

KRYes, value is dependent on two things. The first is size, so individuals pay depending on square meterage. The second is the level of detail. The Architect will provide the very basic building for his initial contract. Thereafter extra services come into the category of ‘Design +’, for which extra fees are applicable. This means that the users have the opportunity to either stick with the basic design, continue with the same Architect, or potentially find another professional that they want to provide extra services such as interior design.

120

JPIn some of the examples mentioned there is an obvious presence of commercially rentable space, typically on the ground floor,how does this work amongst the interest group? Does it not make them essentially business owners as well as cooperative members?

KRThis is a good point. Often this space is designed to be one of the resident’s office space. It can be quite a complicated process to have a group of people managing something that brings in an income, requiring an additional legal structure as a business. For this reason if such a space is to be designed into the building it tends to be one resident of the group who owns and manages it as their own property or business.

JPEverything we’ve discussed so far has been about an ownership model of cohousing development. In your TED Talk you mention that the model can also be used for renting. How does this work?

KRIndividuals can join, instead of a dedicated cohousing group, a cooperative association where they put down money as capital stock, kind of like shares, or a deposit. The cooperative association because it owns the properties and land can keep the rent at an affordable price, often below market price. The problem with this for some people is that when you sell, you get back what you’ve put in initially, no more.

JPThat sounds quite similar to the Community Land Trust models that we are starting to see more of in the UK, where renters, in exchange for secured affordable monthly rental prices forfeit the equity appreciation at a later date that most people look to as a retirement fund…

KRYes exactly, there is a growing movement of people that believe housing, as a fundamental basic need, shouldn’t be overly monetised, and so knowing that they will always have affordable rent, the lack of a home as an investment doesn’t bother them.

JPBut doesn’t that only work if you intend to stick with that model continuously? If you live under an arrangement like this until you’re 65 and then have a change of heart, couldn’t a lot of people find themselves unable to afford market prices?

KRYes, this is one of the downsides...

Appendices | Interview Transcripts


JPIn the UK there is sometimes a stigma attached to the concept of cohousing, is there such a stigma attached to the housing model in Germany?

KRThere used to be absolutely. Around fifteen years ago it was very much like that. People used to think cohousing meant eating dinner with each other every night, but since the Baugruppen started it seems there has been a complete flip of this. Now in Berlin, maybe because there are established and well documented Baugruppen projects, there seems to be a complete reversal in thought. There is now a real push to reduce personal space and increase shared space.

JPSo I guess this is a question for cohousing as a wider general theme, but what happens when people, living in close proximity to one another, and who have opted to share a lot within the building fall out?

KRThis can be another problem. Often it can only take one bad apple to ruin the way of living for the others...

JPTo focus on the positives though, are there any examples of Baugruppen that have placed a particularly important emphasis on a sustainable approach to design?

KRYes quite a few. Because the groups commission the projects themselves they can push whatever design agenda they want. Weg Linienstrasse 23 is a passivhaus standard and one of the reasons the group decided to go down that route was to reduce the future operational incurred living costs. This is what’s so good about Baugruppen is that because the users are in control they can make buildings that aren’t simply assets to return money to developers.

JPI recently heard at the Future Cities Catapult event in London, a statistic claiming that we already have 80% of the building stock that we will do in 50 years time. The examples that we tend to see of the Baugruppen all tend to be on existing empty sites, are there examples of refurbishment and renovated existing buildings?

KRYes! The model is not exclusively for new buildings, it just happens that because there were so many empty plots in Berlin the opportunity was there to build new. Exrotaprint and Amurban are great examples of the the model working with existing buildings.

122

Phil Langley Associate at Bryden Wood LimitedPHD candidate at the University of Sheffield

24/09/14SSoASheffield

JPThe Bryden Wood (BW) website reads: ‘We are Changing the Construction Industry’. How?

PLIn very simple terms, our approach is about creating ‘continuous processes’. The traditional deign method is to create a series of ‘discrete’ proposals in order to hit certain project goals – things like the RIBA stages of work for example. This has perpetuated a linear approach to design in the industry – concept to planning to tender to construction in which the emphasis is on the proposal becoming more detailed, rather than materially ‘better’. Furthermore, the information produced at each stage is rarely reused. Instead, there is a ‘concept model’, a ‘design model’, a ‘construction model’, an ‘operations model’ and so on. On top of this, there are often discipline specific versions of each one. Even with the widespread introduction of BIM technology to the industry, you still see this approach being adopted, often driven by poorly understood contractual issues such as ‘risk’ and ‘responsibility’. BWL have been central to the government implementation of BIM standards across the industry and as part of that work, we have attempted to explore non-linear design methods and to create ‘continuous project models’. Our approach allows multiple users to access the project ‘data’ (and we are interested in expanding the conventional definitions of project data in the construction industry), at any point in the time-line, using software tools that are specific to the task. The project model is therefore a resource for the end user client to both appraise the developing design, a library or catalogue of design decisions that can inform future projects.

JPHow many people does BW employ? How has it managed in the recession?

PLBWL currently employs around 80 people and that has grown from around 35 in 2009

JPWhy do you think it has been able to grow when other practices have been shrinking?



PLI am not sure I can speak about the performance of other practices during this time, but from our point of view, BW is a noticeably different company – in terms of approach and organisation – to many other firms. We are a firm of ‘integrated designers’ that includes architects, structural and services engineers, as well as specialists in prefabrication, industrial design, coding, costing and construction. This gives us a very wide range of skills and allows us to be very flexible in terms of what projects we can work on. In one sense, we operate in a very conservative area of the industry but we have been able to say to clients that the answer to their problem might not be a building – and I think that is still quite a radical statement for an architectural practice to make.

JPWho at BW is responsible for the digital strategy, and when was it first implemented? Why was it implemented?

PLI am responsible for the digital strategy at BWL. We have a team of 4 people working on various aspects of it, which is very wide ranging due to the breadth of expertise in the office. The ‘Digital Delivery Strategy’ is something that evolved out of the industry move towards BIM technology in 2009 (obviously the technology was being used before this in parts of the industry, but around 2009 was when we felt clients were getting interested in what benefits it could offer them). We have worked with commercial software companies such as Autodesk, as well as the Cabinet Office to implement industry wide BIM standards such as PAS 1192 and the use of COBie. However, it became clear to us very early on to that the industry definitions of ‘BIM’ and the software that is central to it was not going to be suitable for all of needs. Our Digital Delivery Strategy’ is a direct response to this and an attempt to broaden the definitions and align them with our design approach to ‘continuous processes’.

JPHow important is BIM in BW’s work?

PLI would say BIM has been and still is crucial to what we do. It allows us work with the kind of data rich models that we need and it has established to framework for a lot of what we do. However, it only represents a part of the story for us. For us BIM does not equal Revit – it is not a piece of software it is a ‘state of mind’! The commercial software, such as Revit, is very particular about how it would like to be used and we continually find ourselves pushing back against this, and trying to take control of the process.I see a lot of resistance still in the industry to the adoption of BIM – architects often claim that is only suitable for large projects, or that you can’t use I design high quality architecture. That is all just nonsense. BIM should certainly change the way you work, the way you design and the way you

124

which organise, but it shouldn’t be having a negative impact on the outcome. If it does, you are doing it wrong

JPWhat was BW’s work like before BIM? How successful were they?

PLIt depends on what you mean by ‘before BIM’.....Before Revit (we moved to that platform across the entire office in 2011), the work flows and practices were similar to what we do today. We have always attempted to maintain control over the ‘tools’ by having our own clear methodology. We used a combination of 3D and 3D CAD tools to make our version of BIM, if you like, before the software was mature enough. We moved to Revit it the biggest benefit was that the software deployment and training was simpler, as it was concentrated in one platform, rather than distributed.

JPWhat kind of tools have been developed as a result of the digital strategy?

PLWe have created a range of tools, from very rude early prototypes, to quite sophisticated software that is used by designers in the office on real projects. We don’t have a dedicated R&D fund to support this work. Instead, it is paid for by specific projects and clients. For that reason, I can’t go into too much detail about the particular tools, but in general terms they cover things like GPS and global mapping, data analysis, 3D model manipulation and interrogation, as well more radical applications related to early stage brief development.

JPHow do these work? What are the benefits for BW and its clients?

PLAgain, I can’t go into too much of the specifics, but there are a few modes in which we work with these custom tools. - The first is conceptual - to use code as design tool, to sketch with the code. Working in this way allows us to explore ideas and possibilities for projects that would not normally be open to us.-Secondly, we have developed tools robust enough for use by the project team. - The third stage is, which we have not yet reached on any project, is to issue the client with the software, for them to use freely. I would say that client sees the benefits in the outcomes – our use of code and software development allows us to explore projects in a way that commercial software often doesn’t.

JPIn Studio last year you showed us DataViz and TopLogic, what are these and what do they do?



PLDataViz is intended as a visualisation tool only, for data. The software doesn’t carry out any ‘calculations’ or generate any ‘data’. Instead, it is intended as a tool to re-present project data in more useful ways than, say excel. The way in which data is represented or combined (and the speed at which this is done) has a significant impact on the understanding of the data, so DataViz is an attempt to take control of these processes and investigate project data in more suitable and relevant ways than is normally possible. the tool is at a very early stage of development and most of the work has focused on the technical challenges related to integrating the various ‘data feeds’ (spatial, cost, performance etc.). This testing has been carried out using ‘live’ project data and was done in conjunction with the design team and the client.

TopLogic is a platform for rapid topological diagram. It began as a general tool that has then ‘branched’ into a number of specific implementations at different scales. It has been used as a replacement for conventional P&ID engineering software in order to create data-rich engineering and process diagrams. At the other end of the scale, there is a version at a global scale that is about supply chain design and management across multiple facilities. The tool evolved from a style of organisational diagrams that we had been producing manually (because there was no commercial tool that could automate what we wanted to do) and the transition into our own software has allowed us to explore greater possibilities for topological thinking in spatial design. For our clients, it is an approach that allows for structured, rapid and re-usable data collection from the earliest project stages (i.e. before the ‘spatial design’ has begun).

Both tools have been developed in the context of specific projects and so the fee pays for the development. However, it is not a case of developing something in secret and then having a big ‘reveal’ at a certain moment. Rather, we promise the client the output they require from the very beginning and then commit to finding the best way to deliver it. This is crucial, because, in the same we don’t always our clients to build a building to fix their problem; we don’t offer ‘software’ as a solution. The digital ‘tools’ we develop come in many forms, from little bits of ‘unstable’ code to (hopefully!) stable desktop applications and the project/ client needs would determine where on that spectrum our work would lie.

JPHow many people at BW are creating these tools?

PLApart from myself, there are two other member of the code group

JPWho at BW can use these tools? Are they made for any Architect to work with clients? Or does someone specifically from the coding team need to help them? I.e. Do users need to have a knowledge of code?

126Appendices | Interview Transcripts

PLThe tools we have deployed in the office require no coding skills to operate. However, one of the biggest challenges when giving prototype tools for teams to use is the on-going development process – i.e. new features. There is often a sense in the user that coding is a kind of magic and that changes to the software are very simple and can be implemented rapidly. Somewhat understandably, the methods of software development are not widely understood across the teams!

JPDo you feel that these tools have won you prospective clients?

PLYes. We have had direct feedback from many clients that our approach was important in their decision. Furthermore, our ability to develop the tools has been crucial to keeping clients and expanding our role. Our approach marks us out as different and our clients like that.

JPDo BW make use of the UK Research & Development Tax Credit Scheme for this kind of R&D development? Does it make such practice more appealing?

PLWe would do it regardless – in fact, we have been very bad at pursuing these tax credits in the past. It is only recently that we have become more organised!It is crucial to the business model. As a practice, we want to keep learning and to be cleverer than everyone else!

JPDo you see Bryden Wood’s method of working as being particularly suitable for housing?

PLOn a technical level yes, our approach is relevant – we have demonstrated it on a number of projects in the past – but we have often found resistance, or at least a lack of interest in this sector. This is, of course, a very speculative explanation, but I think it is to do with the business model for large scale housing in the UK. It is commercially driven activity with significant profit margins for the big developers. For the most part, I don’t think that the developers see the benefits of doing this differently when the model is working so well for them (the fact that it doesn’t work for anyone else clearly doesn’t bother them). I think there is a feeling amongst these commercial developers that the problem is somehow well enough understood that they don’t need to try harder. As long as this economic model for house building continues, I don’t think you will see much innovation.That is not our experience of, say, healthcare. Hospitals are, rightly, seen as very complex and somewhat intimidating building types that require alternative approaches and ways of thinking.

127

KEY INDUSTRY PLAYERSBritish unless stated otherwise.

Civic Crowdfunding

Citizinvestor (PA, U.S.):http://citizinvestor.com/

Neighbor.ly (KS, U.S.):https://neighbor.ly/

IOBY (NY, U.S.):http://ioby.org/

Spacehive:http://spacehive.com/

Crowdfunding

Crowdcube:http://www.crowdcube.com/

Crowdfunder:http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/

Indiegogo (SFO, U.S.):https://www.indiegogo.com/

Kickstarter (NY, U.S.):https://www.kickstarter.com/

Crowdsourcing

Arcbazar (MA, U.S.):http://www.arcbazar.com/

Cocontest (NY, U.S.):https://www.cocontest.com/#!/home

Crowdsourcing.org (CA, U.S.):http://www.crowdsourcing.org/

Make Architecture Happen - MAH (MA, U.S.):https://www.makearchitecturehappen.com/

Neighborland (CA, U.S.):https://neighborland.com/

Popularise (DC, U.S.):https://popularise.com/

Prodigy Design Lab (Prodigy Network - NY, U.S.):http://prodigydesignlab.com/

Real-estate Crowdfunding

Fundrise (DC, U.S.):https://www.fundrise.com/

Prodigy Network (NY, U.S.):http://en.prodigynetwork.com/

Property Crowd:https://www.propertycrowd.com/about-us/

Property Moose:http://www.propertymoose.co.uk/

Self, Custom Build, Housing

ArchiHaus:http://www.archihaus.co.uk/

Collective Custom Build:http://www.collectivecustombuild.org/

HAB Housing:http://www.habhousing.co.uk/

HCA:http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/

Igloo Custom Build:http://www.iglooregeneration.co.uk/do

Inhabit Custom Build:http://www.inhabithomes.co.uk/

National Custom & Self Build Association (NaCSBA - formerly NaSBA):http://www.nacsba.org.uk/

Our London:http://www.ourlondon.org.uk/

Rational House:http://www.rationalhouse.com/

Self Build Portal:

http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/

Appendices | Key Industry Players

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY / WEBLIOGRAPHY

Books, Journals & Publications

3D Print Canal House. The World’s First 3d-Printed Canal House: Beta Brochure. (3D Print Canal House: Amsterdam, Mar. 2014)

Adamo, S. & Faiden, M. The Contemporary Constructor. (Adamo-Faiden: Buenos Aires, 2009)

Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. & Goldfarb, A. The Geography of Crowdfunding. (NBER Publications: MA, 2011)

American Institute of Architects (AIA). Crowdfunding Architecture. (AIA & Massolution: DC, 2013)

Arnstein, S. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. (In: Journal of the American Institute of planners 35.4 (1969), pp. 216-224)

As, I. & Angelico,M. Crowdsourcing Architecture: A Disruptive Model in Architectural Practice. (In: CuminCAD, Paper acadia 2012 439:

Ash, C., Birkbeck, D., Brown, B., Cerulli, C. & Stevenson, F. Motivating Collective Custom Build Report(University Of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2013)

Awan, N., Schneider, T. & Till, J. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. (Routledge: London, 2011)

Baeck, P. Collins, L. & Westlake, S. Crowding In: How the UK’s businesses, charities, government, and nancial system can make the most of crowdfunding. (Nesta: London, 2012)

Barratt Developments PLC. Annual Report and Accounts: Building for the Future. (Barratt: 2013)

Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. & Schwienbacher, A, Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd. (In: Elsevier. Journal of Business Venturing 29 (2014) 585-609)

Best, J. et al. Scaling Innovation: Crowdfunding’s Potential for the Developing World. Information for Development Program (infoDev, The World Bank, 2013)

Barollo, A. & Castrataro, D. Civic Crowdfunding: A Proposal. (Twintangibles: Glasgow, 2013)

Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. Architecture and Participation. (Spon: London, 2005)

Boyer, B., Cook, J. & Steinberg, M. Helsinki Design Lab. Legible Practises: Six Stories About the Craft of Stewardship. (Sitra: Helsinki, 2013)

Boyer, B., Hill, D. Brickstarter. (Sitra: Helsinki, 2013) Brabham, D. Crowdsourcing. (MIT Press: Cambridge, 2013)

Brabham, D. Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. (In: Planning Theory 2009 8:242)

Appendices | Bibliography

129

Brabham, D. Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases (In: Convergence 2008 14:75)

Bryden Wood. R&D Software Prototyping. (Bryden Wood: London, 2013)

CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). Who should build our homes? Six experts challenge the status quo. (CABE: London, 2009)

Cabinet Office. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office (accessed 15/09/14).

Callon, M. et al. Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. (MIT Press: MA, 2011)

Cesal, E. Down Detour Road: An Architect in Search of Practice. (MIT Press: MA, 2010)Chappell, D., & Willis, A. The Architect in Practice. 10th Edition. (Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, 2010)

Charlesworth, E. Humanitarian Architecture: 15 stories of architects working after disaster. Routledge: Abingdon, 2014)

Cordova, A., Dolci, J. & Gianfrate,G. The Bearable Lightness of Crowdfunding: Evidences from Technology Projects. (In: 4th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation CONCORDi-2013. Seville, 2013) Davies, R. Civic Crowdfunding: Participatory Communities, Entrepreneurs and the Political Economy of Place. (Masters Thesis). (MIT: MA, 2014)

DCLG. 12 Lessons learnt from Almere. Internal Presentation to DCLG. (23rd May 2012)

DCLG. Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England. (DCLG: London, 2011)

DCLG. National Planning Policy Framework. (DCLG: London, 2012) Deamer, P. Architecture and Capitalism: 1845 to the Present. (Routledge: New York, 2013)

Doron, N. & Tinker, R. Silent Majority: How The Public Will Support a New Wave of Social Housing. (Fabian Society: London, 2014)

East London Community Land Trust. What is a Community Land Trust? (ELCLT: London, 2013)

Everett, D. Alternative Delivery and Procurement Method: Medium Density Multi-residential Housing. (Brisbane QLD Australia, 2013)

FCA. CP13. The FCA’s Regulatory Approach to Crowdfunding (and similar activities)

Gerber, E., Hui, S. & Kuo, P. Crowdfunding: Why people are motivated to post and fund projects on crowdfunding platforms. (In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Design, Inuence, and Social Technologies: Techniques, Impacts and Ethics, 2012)

Gillespie, T. The Politics of Platforms. (In: New Media & Society 12, no. 3, 2010)

Goodbun, J., Klein, M., Rumpfhuber, A. & Till, J. The Design of Scarcity. (Strelka Press: Moscow, 2014)

Guo,Q. The practical use of crowd funding - Two cases illustration.(In: Management 28 (2008), p. 194-202)


130Bibliography | Appendices

Harrison-Gray, E. The Web & Digital Manufacture: How the transferability of web based concepts through digital manufacture can open new possibilities for the way Architects work and produce. (Masters Thesis). (University of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2013)

HCA. Custom Build Homes Fund Prospectus. (HCA: London, 2012)

Hill, D. Dark Matter & Trojan Horses: A Strategic Design Vocabulary. (Strelka Press: Moscow, 2012)

Hunter, N. Self-provided Housing: The long-tailed future of house building. (Masters Thesis). (University of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2012)

Hyde, R. Future Practice: Conversations from the Edge of Architecture. (Routledge: London, 2012)

Hyde, R. Sending out an SOS. (In: Charlesworth, E. Humanitarian Architecture: 15 stories of architects working after disaster. Routledge: Abingdon, 2014. p229)

James, M., Kordeczka, T. The UK Research and Development Tax Credit Scheme: A Guide for Architects. (RIBA: London, 2012)

Kim, K. & Hann, I. Does Crowdfunding Democratize Access to Capital? A Geographical Analysis. (In: INFORMS 2013. INFORMS Conference on Information Systems and Technology. Arlington, Virginia,2013)

Knight, D. & Williams, F. Sub-Plan. (AA:London, 2009)

Kuppuswamy, V. & Bayus, B. Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers in Kickstarter. (Social Science Research Network: New York, 2013)

Leunig, T. In My Back Yard: Unlocking The Planning System. (Centre Forum: London, 2007)

Massolution. 2013CF: The Crowdfunding Industry Report. (Massolution: Los Angeles, 2013)

Mollick, E. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study. (In: Elsevier. Journal of Business Venturing 29 (2014) 1-16)

NASBA. How Private Sector Builders and Developers Can Get Involved in Delivering More Custom Build Homes: A Practice Guide. (NaSBA, 2013) Now renamed NaCSBA

NaSBA. Self Build as a Volume HousebuIlding Solution. (NaSBA, 2008) Now renamed NaCSBA

O’Reilly, Tim. Economic Impact of Open Source on Small Business: A Case Study. (O’Reilly Media, 2012)

Papanek, V. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. (2nd Edition. Thames & Hudson: New York, 1985)

Parvin, A., Cerulli, C., Saxby, D. & Schneider, T. A Right To Build: The next mass-housebuilding industry. (University of Sheffield and Architecture 00:/, 2011)

Paterson, B. & Dayson, K. Proof Of Concept Community Land Trusts. (University of Salford: Salford, 2011).

131

Planning Advisory Service. LDOs and Localism: Can Local Development Orders Contribute To The New Planning Agenda? (2011)

Ring, K. Self-Made City: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions. (Jovis: Berlin, 2013)

Robson, D., Jamieson, C., Worthington, J. & Cole, C. Building Futures. The Future for Architects? (RIBA: London, 2011)

Röthler, D. & Wenzlaff, K. Crowdfunding Schemes in Europe. (European Expert Network on Culture, 2011. Rudlin, D. & Falk, N. Uxcester Garden City: Second Stage Submission for the 2014 Wolfson Economics Prize. (Urbed: Manchester, 2014)

Satorius, D. & Pollard, S. CrowdFunding - What Independent Producers Should Know about the Legal Pitfalls. (In: Ent. & Sports Law. 28. 2010, p. 15)

Self, J. Real Estates: Life Without Debt (Bedford Press: London, 2014)

Seltzer, E., Mahmoudi, D. Citizen Participation, Open Innovation, and Crowdsourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Planning. (In: Journal of Planning Literature, 2013. 28: 3)

Social Impact Investment Taskforce. http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/ (accessed 17/09/14) Stemler, A. The JOBS Act and Crowdfunding: Harnessing the Power - and Money - of the Masses. (In: Elsevier. Business Horizons. 2013. 56, 271-275)

Surowiecki, J. The Wisdom of Crowds. (Anchor Books: New York, 2005)

The Roco.Share Offer 2014. (The Roco: Sheffield, 2014)

UK National Advisory Board to the Social Impact Investment Taskforce. Building a Social Impact Investment Market: The UK Experience. (Report published September 2014)

Web Links, Articles & Media

+Pool. Home. http://www.pluspool.org/ (accessed 15/09/14)

+Pool. Dashboard. http://dashboard.pluspool.org/ (accessed 15/09/14)

3D Print Canal House. http://3dprintcanalhouse.com/ (accessed 10/09/14)

99Designs. How It Works. http://99designs.co.uk/how-it-works (accessed 08/08/14)

A:LOG. http://www.projectalog.com/. (accessed 02/07/14)

Adam, J. Crowdfunding comes to Property Investment. Invezz. May 14, 2014. invezz.com/news/real-estate/10715-Crowdfunding-comes-to-Property-Investment (accessed 09/09/14)

Alois, J. Largest Crowdfunding Campaign Ever: BD Bacatá Skyscraper from Prodigy Network. Crowdfund Insider. Nov. 13, 2014. http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2013/11/26764-largest-crowdfunding-campaign-ever-bd-bacata-skyscraper-prodigy-network/. (accessed 23/04/14)


132Appendices | Bibliography

Amsterdam City Council. Do-it-yourself plots Amsterdam. http://maps.amsterdam.nl/zelfbouwkavels/ (accessed 10/09/14)

Anderson, K. Kickstarter’s Yancey Strickler: We’re Going to Do This One Thing Really Well. TheWrap. Oct. 2, 2012. http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/kickstarters-yancey-strickler-thegrill-were-going-do-one-thing-really-well-video-58976/. (accessed 17/09/14)

Andrews, K. Affordable Housing Developer Exceeds £1.9m Crowdfunded Investment. Dezeen. Sept. 30, 2013. http://www.dezeen.com/2013/09/30/kevin-mccloud-hab-housing-developer-breaks-world-record-crowdsourced-equity-investment/. (accessed 14/02/02)

ARCHIZINES. About. http://www.archizines.com/About (accessed 11/09/14)

Armstrong, S. How we Minimise the Risks. Interview with Danae Ringelmann. (In: Wired Money Report 2014. Wired Magazine, UK Edition, Oct 2014 p55)

Arts & Humanities Research Council. The Future of Collective Custom Build. http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/News-and-Events/Events/Pages/The-Future-of-Collective-Custom-Build.aspx.(accessed 15/05/14)

AIA National. Crowdfunding Architecture. March 7, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT-5tKm7E5c&feature=youtube_gdata_player (Accessed 09/09/14)

Airbnb. How it Works. https://www.airbnb.co.uk/help/getting-started/how-it-works (accessed 09/09/14)

Allen, I. Housing delivery under Custom Build! What does the future hold?! HAB. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Apple iTunes Store. Mi Ciudad Ideal. https://itunes.apple.com/es/app/mi-ciudad-ideal/id639622724?mt=8 (accessed 09/09/14)

Arcbazar. How it Works. http://www.arcbazar.com/#HowItWorks (accessed 22/04/14)

Archihaus. Summary Document. http://www.archihaus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SummaryDocRevB.pdf (accessed 09/09/14)

Architype. Working With Us. http://www.architype.co.uk/working-with-us/. (accessed 09/09/14) Ash, C. Collective Custom Build: Reconnecting With Our Natural Clients. Ash Sakula Architects. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Aspden, P. Interview: Yancey Strickler of Kickstarter. May. 9, 2014. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1978854c-d4b5-11e3-bf4e-00144feabdc0.html#slide0 (accessed 08/09/14)

Banks, T. How to build a design-led brand. Design Week. Nov 02, 2012. http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/news-analysis/how-to-build-a-design-led-brand/3035519.article (accessed 09/09/14)

Barnes, Y. The role and potential of ‘own build’. Savills. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Barollo, A. Planning the city, intervista a Rodrigo Davies. Italian Crowdfunding Network - il blog. June 12, 2014. http://italiancrowdfunding.tumblr.com/post/88577133516/planning-the-city-intervista-a-rodrigo-davies (accessed 10/09/14)

133

Basulto, D. Will The +POOL Be The Largest Crowdfunded Civic Project Ever? ArchDaily. Apr. 25, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/500066/will-the-pool-be-the-largest-crowdfunded-civic-project-ever/ (accessed 10/09/14)

Beattie, A. Simple Ways To Invest In Real Estate. Investopedia. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/06/realestateinvest.asp. (accessed 08/08/14)

Beunderman, J. & Bailey, P. Crowdfunding Design and Architecture. Audio interview recorded with Fenella Kernebone. May. 17, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bydesign/crowd-funding-design-and-architecture/5436928 (accessed 08/09/14)

Bibby, A. Community share issues: success, but it’s a risky business. Guardian. Aug 12, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2013/aug/12/community-shares-unit-risky-business (accessed 09/09/14)

Big Society Capital. http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/ (accessed 12/09/14)

Blattberg, E. Crowdtilt Launches Free, Open Source Crowdfunding Solution -- and It Supports Bitcoin | VentureBeat. Feb. 20, 2014. http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/20/crowdtilt-launches-free-open-source-crowdfunding-solution-and-it-supports-bitcoin/. (accessed 20/02/14)

Brown, C. Custom Build. Igloo. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Brown, C. Delivering the Community Housing Dream. Jun. 9, 2014. http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2014/06/09/delivering-the-community-housing-dream/ (accessed 04/08/14)

Brown, M. Airbnb: The Growth Story You Didn’t Know. GrowthHackers. Sep 4, 2014. http://growthhackers.com/companies/airbnb/ (accessed 10/09/14)

Brown, S. Collective Custom Build. University of Sheffield. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Bryden Wood. http://www.brydenwood.co.uk/ (accessed 09/09/14)

Buzzbnk. About Us. https://www.buzzbnk.org/StaticPages/AboutUs.aspx (accessed 10/09/14)

CasaGrupo. http://www.casagrupo.com/index.php (accessed 07/08/14)

CB Insights. How Much Venture Capital are Kickstarter and Indiegogo Hardware Projects Raising? Aug. 11, 2014. http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/crowdfunded-venture-capital-hardware/ (accessed 10/09/14)

Chakrabortty, A. & Robinson-Tillet, S. The Truth About Gentrification: Regeneration or con-trick? Guardian. May. 18, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberry-park (accessed 12/09/14)

Chan, W. The Phenomenon of Building Group (Baugruppen) in Berlin. ISSUU. Jun, 2010. http://issuu.com/winnie/docs/thesis_book. (accessed 11/09/14)

Chappell, J. Crowdfunding For Real Estate – Will It Work In The UK? CrowdFundBeat. Sept 17, 2013. http://www.crowdfundbeat.co.uk/crowdfunding-for-real-estate-will-it-work-in-the-uk-2/ (accessed 09/09/14)



Chino, M. Prodigy Network Announces Plans for Crowdfunded 17 John Skyscraper Hotel in New York City. Inhabitat. Feb. 19, 2014. http://inhabitat.com/prodigy-network-crowdfunds-and-crowdsources-design-for-new-17-john-cotel-in-downtown-new-york-city/. (accessed 12/09/14)

Citizinvestor. Do projects in rich neighborhoods perform better than those in poorer neighborhoods? Citizinvestor. Feb. 13, 2014. http://blog.citizinvestor.com/post/76530391900/do-projects-in-rich-neighborhoods-perform-better-than. (accessed 08/09/14) Civic Crowdfunding Research Project. Rodrigo Davies. http://rodrigodavies.com/civiccrowdfunding/ (accessed 09/09/14)Clark, T. Housing Minister Slams Wolfson Garden Cities Prize-Winner. Architects Journal. Sept. 04, 2014. http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/housing-minister-slams-wolfson-garden-cities-prize-winner/8669278.article. (accessed 05/09/14)

COCONTEST. https://www.cocontest.com/#en/home (accessed 22/04/14)

Collins, L. Baeck, P. Defining Crowdfunding: What’s In and What’s Out. Nesta. Mar. 19, 2014. http://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/defining-crowdfunding-what%E2%80%99s-and-what%E2%80%99s-out (accessed 11/09/14)

Community Shares. Find Out More. http://communityshares.org.uk/find-out-more (accessed 09/09/14)

Companisto. Weissenhaus. https://www.companisto.com/en/startups/weissenhaus-startup-36/overview (accessed 10/08/14)

Companisto. Weissenhaus. https://www.companisto.com/en/news/weissenhaus-sets-new-european-crowdfunding-record-startup-article-686 (accessed 09/09/14)

Compton, N. Master of Design: Ron Arad. Interview with Ron Arad. (In: Wired Magazine, UK Edition, Oct 2014 p109-117)

Connor, R. Financing Custom Build Housing. BuildStore. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Crosbie, M. Why Criticisms of Crowdsourcing Don’t Add Up. ArchDaily. Apr. 19, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/497828/why-criticisms-of-crowdsourcing-don-t-add-up/. (accessed 22/04/14)

Crowdahouse. About Us. http://www.crowdahouse.com/about-us/ (accessed 09/09/14)

Crowdbaron. http://crowdbaron.com/pages/home (accessed 15/07/14)

Crowdboarders. About Us. https://crowdboarders.com/AboutUs.aspx (accessed 10/10/14)

CrowdClan. Crowdfunding Metrics: The 30% Rule. http://www.crowdclan.com/crowdfunding-metrics-the-30-rule/ (accessed 08/09/14)

Crowdcube. Investing Your Money on Crowdcube. http://www.crowdcube.com/pg/investing-your-money-on-crowdcube-4 (accessed 12/08/14)

Crowdcube Blog. Crowdcube Sets World Record Raising £1.2 Million in 16 Minutes. http://www.crowdcube.com/blog/2014/07/22/crowdcube-sets-world-record-raising-1-2-million-16-minutes/ (accessed 28/07/14)

135

Crowdcube. easyProperty.com. http://www.crowdcube.com/investment/easyproperty-com-16655?utm_source=Crowdcube&utm_campaign=253df70f50-Newsletter_16_September_RESEND_20149_16_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4922336022-253df70f50-318353709 (accessed 17/09/14)

Crowdsurfer. Crowdfunding Explained. http://www.crowdsurfer.com/learn/. (accessed 07/23/2014)

Cruz, J. Winka Dubbeldam: ‘My Ideal City’ of the Future. ArchDaily. Dec, 11, 2013. http://www.archdaily.com/455983/winka-dubbeldam-my-ideal-city-of-the-future/ (accessed September 10/09/14)

DataShine. Census.http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=12&lat=51.52&lon=-0.15&layers=BTTT&table=QS606EW&col=QS606EW0017&ramp=RdYlGn (accessed 10/09/14)

David Kohn Architects. Urban Vessel. http://www.davidkohn.co.uk/projects/residential/urban-vessel/. (accessed 10/04/14)

Davies, R. A Timeline of Crowdfunding Since 2000. Nov. 6, 2013. http://rodrigodavies.com/blog/2013/11/06/a-timeline-of-crowdfunding.html. (accessed 20/02/14)

Davies, R. Civic Crowdfunding – Four Things We Know, Two Things We Don’t. May 9, 2014. http://rodrigodavies.com/blog/2014/05/09/civic-crowdfunding-four-things-we-know-two-things-we-dont.html (accessed 10/09/14)

Davies, R. Crowdfunding Cities as Collaborative Innovation. Aug 03, 2014. http://rodrigodavies.com/blog/2014/08/03/crowdfunding-cities-collaborative-innovation.html (accessed 09/09/14)

Davies, R. What does the wealth distribution of crowdfunding look like? Nov 21, 2013. http://rodrigodavies.com/blog/2013/11/21/ spreading-the-crowdfunded-wealth.html (accessed 09/09/14)

1. Davies, R. Civic Crowdfunding and Community Assets Presentation - MIT Centre for Civic Media. www.digitalpreservation.gov/meetings/documents/ndiipp13/Davies.pdf (accessed 10.09.14)

DCLG. Building Your Own Home Can Be a Cost Effective Option. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/building-your-own-home-can-be-a-cost-effective-option (accessed 12/09/14)

DCLG. Community Right to Build. GOV.UK. Nov. 7, 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-people-more-power-over-what-happens-in-their-neighbourhood/supporting-pages/community-right-to-build (accessed 04/09/14)

Dickinson, E. “Crowdfunding in Architecture Moves Beyond Kickstarter. Architect Magazine. May. 6, 2014. http://www.architectmagazine.com/business/the-public-option_1.aspx (accessed 25/02/14)

Donald, A. Fideicomiso and UK Architecture | British Council Voices. British Council. Apr. 26, 2013. http://blog.britishcouncil.org/2013/04/26/fideicomiso-uk-argentina-architecture/. (accessed 23/02/14)

Donors Choose. Gates Back to School: August 22-24 2014. http://www.donorschoose.org/gates-back-to-school#P2b08g23t20w14. (accessed 25/08/14)

Drake, D. Anatomy of a Real Estate Crowdfunding Transaction. The Soho Loft. Aug 1, 2014. http://thesoholoft.com/2014/08/01/anatomy-of-a-real-estate-crowdfunding-transaction/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=anatomy-of-a-real-estate-crowdfunding-transaction&utm_source=The+Soho+Loft&utm_medium=twitter (accessed 04/08/14)



Drake, D. Real Estate Crowdfunding: Post-Valuations Of $100M For Series A? Forbes. June. 6, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2014/06/10/real-estate-crowdfunding-post-valuations-of-100m-for-series-a/ (accessed 28/07/14)

DUS Architects. http://www.dusarchitects.com/index.php (accessed 09/09/14) Du Val Group. Single Asset Funds. http://duvalglobal.com/investmentproducts/single-asset-funds/ (accessed 14/09/14)

Dzinebox. http://dzinebox.com/. (accessed 30/06/14)

East London Community Land Trust. About Us. http://www.eastlondonclt.co.uk/#/about-us/4576877838 (accessed 11/09/14)

Eastop, E. Oxford University Degree Crowdfunding Project. Telegraph.Jul. 28, 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10995159/Oxford-university-degree-crowdfunding-project-the-posh-brat-hits-back.html. (accessed 28/07/14)

Edelson, Z. Crowdfunding And The Future Of Architecture: An Exclusive Interview With A:LOG. Architizer. Jun. 24, 2014. http://architizer.com/blog/crowdfunding-and-the-future-of-architecture-an-exclusive-interview-with-alog/. (accessed 06/02/14)

Eidell, L. A Face in the Crowd. Worth. Apr / May issue. http://www.worth.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-make/6591-a-face-in-the-crowd (accessed 12/09/14)

Facit Homes. http://facit-homes.com/ (accessed 11/09/14)

Fearn, H. Is Localism Preventing the Development of New Homes? Guardian Aug. 1, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/editors-blog/2014/aug/01/localism-preventing-development-new-homes-housebuilding?CMP=twt_gu. (accessed 06/08/14)

Fenn, C. et al. How is London’s skyline going to change? An interactive guide. Guardian. Mar. 29, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/ng-interactive/2014/mar/london-skyline-changing-now-future-pictures (accessed 17/09/14)

Frearson, A. Iconic 20th Century Houses Are Brought to Life in Matteo Muci’s Film. Dezeen. Jul. 18, 2014. http://www.dezeen.com/2014/07/18/iconic-houses-animation-film-matteo-muci/ (accessed 12/09/14)

Fulcher, M. Architecture Crowd-Sourcing Website Criticised. Architects Journal. Sept. 29, 2011. http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/architecture-crowd-sourcing-website-criticised/8620481.article. (accessed 22/04/14)

Fundrise. Investor Education. https://fundrise.com/education (accessed 12/09/14)

Fundrise. The Fundrise Blog. https://fundrise.com/education/blog (accessed 12/09/14)

Fundrise. The History of Real Estate Crowdfunding. https://fundrise.com/education/kb-articles/the-history-of-real-estate-crowdfunding (accessed 24/05/14)

Funnell, A. Civic crowdfunding and online communities rebuild urban environments. ABC. May 27, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/civic-crowdfunding-and-online-communities-rebuild-urban/5480464 (accessed 09/09/14)

137

Future Cities Catapult (Technology Strategy Board). Innovation in the Future of Housing. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/innovation-in-the-future-of-housing-tickets-12969182173?utm_campaign=order_confirm&ref=eemailordconf&utm_medium=email&utm_source=eb_email&utm_term=eventname. (accessed 12/09/14)

GOV.UK. UK government welcomes social impact investment report. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-welcomes-social-impact-investment-report (accessed 17/09/14).

Gray, K. Built by the crowd: the changing world of public infrastructure. Wired. Nov. 4, 2013. http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/11/features/built-by-the-crowd (accessed 09/09/14)

Graven Hill: Build Your Own Home on the Edge of Bicester. http://gravenhill.org.uk/. (accessed 17/03/14)

Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition. Updates. https://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/en/updates (accessed 17/09/14)

Harbour, I. The Importance of Design. Roger Stirk Harbour + Partners. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Hartel, W. Why Berlin Loves Co-housing Projects. Sep, 2007. http://www.winfriedhaertel.de/e148/e184/index_eng.html (accessed 10/09/14)

HCA.Custom Build. https://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/custom-build. (accessed 11/08/14)

Helsinki Design Lab. Brickstarter. http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/dossiers/brickstarter. (accessed 24/07/14)

Hill, D. Conversation with Rodrigo Araya, Tironi Asociados, Chile. Brickstarter Blog. Apr. 23, 2014) http://brickstarter.org/conversation-rodrigo-araya-tironi-asociados/. (accessed 23/04/14)

Hill, D. Dark Matter & Trojan Horses. 2012. http://vimeo.com/39565431 (accessed 08/09/14)

Holzmarkt eG. http://www.holzmarkt.com/seite/. (accessed 11/09/14)

Holzmarkt eG. Holzmarkt Brochure. Apr. 11, 2014. http://www.holzmarkt.com/downloads/140411_Holzmarkt_Broschuere.pdf. (accessed 11/09/14)

Hopkirk, E. The Netherlands’ Almere Leads the Way on Self-Build Communities. Building Design.” Jun. 6, 2014. http://www.bdonline.co.uk/the-netherlands-almere-leads-the-way-on-self-build-communities/5019196.article. (accessed 26/08/14)

Howarth, D. Interview with Kickstarter CEO Yancey Strickler. Dezeen. May. 1, 2014. http://www.dezeen.com/2014/05/01/kickstarter-ceo-yancey-strickler-interview/. (accessed 20/06/14)

Howe, J. The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine. June 2006. http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html. (accessed 10/09/14)

Hyde, R. Sending out an SOS | ArchitectureAU. Sept. 08, 2014. http://architectureau.com/articles/sending-out-an-sos/#img=0 (accessed 13/09/14).

Ibberson, M. Should You Worry About Crowdfunding Tax? CrowdClan. Apr. 1, 2014. http://www.crowdclan.com/crowdfunding-tax/. (accessed 31/05/14)



Ibberson, M. The Components of a Debt Crowdfunding Campaign. CrowdClan. Mar. 4, 2014. http://www.crowdclan.com/the-components-of-a-debt-crowdfunding-campaign/.(accessed 12/08/14)

Indiegogo. Architecture for Humanity. https://www.indiegogo.com/partners/arch. (accessed 08/08/14)

Indiegogo. Buy a Brick for The Nikola Tesla Museum. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/buy-a-brick-for-the-nikola-tesla-museum (accessed 09/10/14)

Indiegogo. Let’s Build a Goddamn Tesla Museum. Indiegogo. Architecture for Humanity. https://www.indiegogo.com/partners/arch. (accessed 08/08/14) (accessed 08/08/14)

Indiegogo. Playbook. http://go.indiegogo.com/playbook (accessed 15/09/14)

Indiegogo. Rebuild One Block. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rebuild-one-block. (accessed 08/08/14)

Indiegogo. Rebuild the Joplin Mosque. Aug. 7, 2014. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rebuild-the-joplin-mosque (accessed 02/09/14)

Indiegogo. The Oatmeal + Indiegogo + 20,000 people = Gosh Darn Tesla Museum (Infographic). https://go.indiegogo.com/blog/2012/08/the-oatmeal-indiegogo-20000-people-gosh-darn-tesla-museum-infographic.html (accessed 19/08/14)

Ipsos MORI. Survey of Self-Build Intentions. Mar. 12, 2013. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3171/Survey-of-selfbuild-intentions.aspx. (accessed 07/05/14)

Jeries, A. Indie no-go: only one in ten projects gets fully funded on Kickstarter’s biggest rival. (In: The Verge. Aug. 7, 2013. http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/7/4594824/less-than-10-percent-of-projects-on-indiegogo-get-fully-funded)(accessed 08/09/14)

Keeley, S. Crowdfunded Seattle 4-BR House Fully Funded in Six Days. Curbed Seattle. http://seattle.curbed.com/archives/2014/07/crowdfunded-seattle-4-br-house-fully-funded-six-days-fundrise.php. (accessed 15/07/14)

Kerimol, L. Our London: Community Commissioned Neighbourhoods. Our London. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Kickstarter. A Subcategory for Everything. The Kickstarter Blog. Apr. 18, 2014. https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/a-subcategory-for-everything. (accessed 13/019/14)

Kickstarter. Detroit Needs A Statue of Robocop. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/imaginationstation/detroit-needs-a-statue-of-robocop/posts. accessed 09/’09/14)

Kickstarter. Kickstarter Stats. https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats. accessed 09/’09/14)

Kickstarter. The Learning Center at Greystone Farm by Phil Stober. 2014. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bfolearningcenter/the-learning-center-at-greystone-farm. (accessed 21/02/14)

Kiva. http://www.kiva.org/. (accessed 11/09/14)

139

Lange, A. Making something big happen at an urban scale is more than a popularity contest. Dezeen. June 19, 2014. http://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/19/alexandra-lange-opinion-crowdfunding/ (accessed 09/09/14)

Lear, D. Empowering Communities through crowdfunded architecture. http://www.ted.com/conversations/24094/empowering_communities_through.html (accessed 19/09/14)

Let’s Own the News. http://www.letsownthenews.org/ (accessed 08/08/14)

GOV.UK. Housing Minister Brandon Lewis’ response to Wolfson Prize. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/housing-minister-brandon-lewis-response-to-wolfson-prize. (accessed 06/09/14)

LeihDeinerStadtGeld. https://www.leihdeinerstadtgeld.de/ (accessed 15/09/14)

Littlefield, N. Kickstats: 4 Things You Need To Know About The Demographics of Crowdfunding. CrowdLifted. Nov. 30, 2014. http://www.crowdlifted.com/news/2013/11/kickstats-4-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-demographics-of-crowdfunding#. (accessed 13/04/14)

Lomas, N. Balderton Injects $6.5M Into Crowdcube’s Funding Platform. TechCrunch. Jul. 16, 2014. http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/16/crowdcube-series-b/?ncid=twittersocialshare. (accessed 17/07/14)

Loughborough University. Future of Construction Process: 3D Concrete Printing.

Lowenstein, O. Zero carbon housing - rising to the challenge. Detail (English). Green 2/2013. (Architecture. Munich: Detail.de. 2013)

Luchtsingel. http://www.luchtsingel.org/en/ (accessed 09/09/14)

Lynch, A. Crowdsourcing Is Not New - The History of Crowdsourcing (1714 to 2010). DesignCrowd Blog. Oct. 28, 2010.http://blog.designcrowd.com/article/202/crowdsourcing-is-not-new--the-history-of-crowdsourcing-1714-to-2010. (accessed 24/07/14)

Make Architecture Happen. https://www.makearchitecturehappen.com/ (accessed 13/05/14)

Matthews, B. & Taylor, P. Head to head: Is crowdfunding the way forward for councils?” (In: The Guardian. May 29, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/may/29/crowdfunding-way-forward-for-councils) (accessed 08/09/14)

MCCB. Fideicomiso – Self-Providing Housing Trusts in Argentina Initiated by Entrepreneurial Architects… MCCB. Apr. 24, 2013. http://mccbhomeimprovements.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/fideicomiso-self-providing-housing-trusts-in-argentina-initiated-by-entrepreneurial-architects/. (accessed 17/08/14)

Microgenius: The Community Shares Platform. How it Works. http://www.microgenius.org.uk/pg/how-it-works-4 (accessed 10/09/14)

Miller, D. Creative Urban Development. Oct. 9, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNe0-P1XcA (accessed 05/05/14)

MIT Department of Architecture. http://documentary.net/mit-departure-of-architecture/ (accessed 10/09/14)

Mi Ciudad Ideal (My Ideal City). http://www.miciudadideal.com/en/ (accessed 04/09/14)


140

Moreno, S. & Larrain, F. Mauchos - Arauco Documentary: After the Disaster, a Town Recovers Its Soul. 2011. http://vimeo.com/22637839 (accessed 08/09/14)

Moscow Urban Forum. http://mosurbanforum.com/news/news/moscow_urban_forum_opened/ (accessed 14/09/14)

MYC4. http://www.myc4.com/Default.aspx. (accessed 11/09/14)

Nakazawa, P. Embrace the Change: Move Your Practice Forward. Architect Magazine. Jan. 3, 2014. http://www.architectmagazine.com/business/embrace-the-change-move-your-practice-forward.aspx (accessed 13/09/14)

National CLT Network. Forming a CLT. http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/step-by-step-guide/forming (accessed 15/09/14)

Neder, M. iFunding Launches the First-Ever Real Estate Crowdfunding Mobile App. Aug. 6, 2014. CrowdFundBeat. http://crowdfundbeat.com/ifunding-launches-the-first-ever-real-estate-crowdfunding-mobile-app/ (accessed 19/08/14)

Neighbor.ly. Learn. Neighbor.ly. https://neighbor.ly/learn (accessed 10/09/14)

NESTA. http://www.nesta.org.uk/. (accessed 13/09/14)

Netzwerkagentur GenerationenWohnen. http://www.netzwerk-generationen.de/index.php?id=298 (accessed 10/10/14)

Newbury, J. The First 50 Real Estate Crowdfunding Platforms. Huffington Post. July. 17, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jorge-newbery/the-first-50-real-estate-_b_5575474.html (accessed 12/08/14)

Nino, R. Crowdfunding in Real Estate. Finance Your Ideal City. http://vimeo.com/66107908 (accessed 23/04/14)

OpenIDEO. https://openideo.com/. (accessed 30/06/14)

Openshaw, J. How to Use Crowdfunding to Invest in Real Estate. MarketWatch. Jul. 02, 2014. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-use-crowdfunding-to-invest-in-real-estate-2014-02-07. (accessed 28//07/14)

Ostime, N. Rational House Custom Build Working with Local Authorities. Rational House. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Oxford Dictionary. Open Source Definition. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/open-source (accessed 16/09/14)

Parvin, A. Architecture for the people by the people. TED talk:http://www.ted.com/talks/alastair_parvin_architecture_for_the_people_by_the_people.html (accessed09.09.14).

Paypal. PayPal and Crowdfunding https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/PayPal-Forward/PayPal-and-Crowdfunding/ba-p/782560. (accessed 08/09/14)

People St. About. http://peoplest.lacity.org/about/ (accessed 13/13/14)

Prodigy Design Lab. 17John. http://prodigydesignlab.com/contests/17john. (accessed 23/04/14)


141

Prodigy Network. How Does It Work. http://en.prodigynetwork.com/about-crowdfunding/how-does-crowdfunding-work/ (accessed 28/07/14)

Prodigy Network. Comercial BD Bacatá - Santiago Molina. http://vimeo.com/37927080.(accessed 10/09/14)

Prodigy Network. The Biggest Product in the World. http://vimeo.com/42372905 (accessed 10/09/14)

Prodigy Network. Wealth Management Redefined by Crowdfunding. http://en.prodigynetwork.com/crowdfunding/wealth-management-rede%EF%AC%81ne-by-crowdfunding/. (accessed 08/08/14)

Property Moose on Crowdcube. Property Moose raising £60,000 investment. http://www.crowdcube.com/investment/property-moose-14045 (accessed 15/09/14)

Quirk, V. Can You Crowdsource a City? ArchDaily. http://www.archdaily.com/233194/can-you-crowdsource-a-city/. (accessed 22/04/14)

Quirk, V. Fideicomiso: When Architects Become Developers (And Everybody Wins) | ArchDaily.” Accessed February 23, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/364223/fideicomiso-when-architects-become-developers-and-everybody-wins/.

Raynor. J. Jordan Raynor of Citizinvestor on creating a civic crowdfunding platform. Dec. 6, 2013.http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/video/2013/dec/06/jordan-raynor-citizinvestor-civic-crowdfunding (accessed 08/09/14)

Redstone, E. & Mihotich, M. Travesía Por La Argentina/ Elias Redstone. PLOT. Dec 11, 2012. Accessed August 17, 2014. http://www.revistaplot.com/travesia-por-la-argentina-elias-redstone/. (accessed 17/08/14)

RIBA: Fideicomiso! Putting Architecture at the Heart of Housing. http://www.architecture.com/whatson/talks/events/2013/spring/fideicomiso!puttingarchitectureattheheartofhousing.aspx#.UwuTSF61-T6.(accessed 24/02/14)

RIBA .RIBA Encourages Architects to Apply for R&D Tax Credits. 2012. http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/News/RIBANews/News/2012/RIBAencouragesarchitectstoapplyforRDtaxcredits.aspx. (accessed 18/08/14)

RIBA. Self Build Quota Policy Confirmed in Local Plan. May. 29, 2014. http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/Membernews/PracticeNews/2014/May2014/29May2014/Selfbuildquotapolicyconfirmedinlocalplan.aspx. (accessed 31/05/2014)

RIBA J. An RIBA Journal Housing Conference: Custom Build. Apr. 30, 2014. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/an-riba-journal-housing-conference-custom-build-understanding-the-growth-opportunities-for-tickets-6830344745?ref=eweb. (accessed 18/03/14)

Rijswijk, H. Custom Build: The Netherlands. Frontwork. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

Ring, K. The Self-made City: Kristien Ring at TEDxBerlin. Dec. 4, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdFrd3eVSQ. (accessed 15/08/14)

Seedrs. Tax Relief. https://www.seedrs.com/seis_eis_tax_relief (accessed 06/08/14)

Self Build Portal. Almere, Holland. http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/homeruskwartier-district-almere. (accessed 26/08/14)



Self Build Portal. CIL/s106 Exemptions. http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/cil-s106-exemptions (accessed 10/09/14)

Self Build Portal. Finding a Plot. http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/finding-a-plot. (Accessed 08/08/14)

Self Build Portal. What is Custom Build? http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/latest-news/313-new-custom-build. (accessed 08/08/14)

Simon, R. & Brown, E. Real-Estate Sector Moves Crowdfunding Beyond the Trinkets. June. 11, 2014. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/articles/real-estate-sector-moves-crowdfunding-beyond-the-trinkets-1402526777 (accessed 28/07/14)

Solidspace. Video by Roger Zogolovitch. http://www.solidspace.co.uk/video-by-roger-zogolovitch/. (accessed 17/08/14)

Solidspace. Shepherdess Walk Brochure. May 2014. http://www.solidspace.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Shepherdess_Walk_brochure_May20141.pdf (accessed 10/09/14)

Spacehive. Make Mansfield YOUR Hotspot. https://spacehive.com/mansfieldhotspot (accessed 09/09/14)

Spacehive. Glyncoch Community Centre. https://spacehive.com/GlyncochCC (accessed 10/09/14)

Spacehive on Radio 4. Interview with Chris Gourlay. March 28, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoMI2YatEs&feature=youtube_gdata_player (accessed 09/09/14)

Spatial Agency. Where? Organisational Structures: 00:/ http://www.spatialagency.net/database/where/organisational%20structures/n.00 (accessed 13/09/14)

Stevens, T. Self Build: Turning your Dream into a Reality. (Presentation at the National Self Build Week 2013)

Stickyworld. https://www.stickyworld.com/ (accessed 11/09/14)

Stott, R. A New Way to ‘Make Architecture Happen’. ArchDaily. May. 12, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/?p=505292 (accessed 12/05/14)

Stott, R. Chinese Company Showcases Ten 3D-Printed Houses. Archdaily. Sep 01, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/543518/chinese-company-showcases-ten-3d-printed-houses/ (accessed 09/09/14)

Stott, R. “Crowdfunding in Architecture: Game Changer or PR Game? | ArchDaily. Feb. 26, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/480902/crowdfunding-in-architecture-game-changer-or-pr-game/. (accessed 22/04/14)

Stott, R. Prodigy Network Announces Winners of 17John Crowdsourcing Competition. ArchDaily. Jun. 16, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/516778/prodigy-network-announces-winners-of-17john-crowdsourcing-competition/.(accessed 16/06/14)

Stott, R. Strelka Institute Crowd-Sources Urban Design Ideas with “What Moscow Wants” Campaign. Archdaily. Jan. 12, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/465934/strelka-institute-crowd-sources-urban-design-ideas-with-what-moscow-wants-campaign/ (accessed 09/09/14)

Strickler, Y. Shortening the Maximum Project Length - The Kickstarter Blog. Kickstarter. June 17, 2011. http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/shortening-the-maximum-project-length (accessed 08/09/14)

143

Tebbutt, L. Perforated Shutters Cover Sucre 4444 Apartments by Esteban-Tannenbaum. Dezeen. Aug. 16, 2014. http://www.dezeen.com/2014/08/16/sucre-4444-buenos-aires-apartments-esteban-tannenbaum-architects-perforated-shutters/. (accessed 17/08/14)

The Competition.(2013). IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2647618/. (accessed 20/09/14)

The Economist (Unattributed). Berkeley Homes: Rise of the Placemakers. The Economist. Aug. 16, 2014. http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21612176-firm-has-transformed-property-development-london-rise-placemakers?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/riseoftheplacemakers. (accessed 22/08/14)

The House Crowd. http://www.thehousecrowd.com/# (accessed 09/09/14)

Twitter. BD BACATA. https://twitter.com/bd_bacata (accessed 09/10/14)

Venice Takeaway - Ideas to Change British Architecture. Elias Redstone. http://www.venicetakeaway.com/?portfolio=test7. (accessed 11/09/14)

Wainwright, O. Housing without Developers: Argentina’s Architects Show the Way. Guardian.com. Apr. 29, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/apr/19/housing-without-developers-argentina?CMP=twt_fd. (accessed 25/02/14)

Wainwright, O. Right to Build: Nick Boles Tells Councils to Offer Land for Self-Builds ‘or Be Sued’. Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/may/07/right-to-nick-boles-councils-self-build-sued.(accessed 07/05/14)

Wainwright, O.The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities. Guardian. Sept. 17, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities?CMP=twt_gu (accessed 17/09/14)

Wallbank, J. Crowdfunding: High Tech Startups. Now Then Magazine. Jan. 2014. http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-70/crowdfunding/ (accessed 07/01/14)

What Moscow Wants. Strelka Institute. http://moscowidea.ru/ (accessed 09/09/14) Wilson, J. Helping Communities to be Neighborly. (Knight Foundation. 2013. http://www.knightfoundation.org/blogs/knightblog/2013/6/18/helping-communities-be-neighborly/ (accessed 08/09/14)

Wilson, J. Keynote by Jase Wilson. 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYJy-rLY7g&feature=youtube_gdata_player (accessed 08/09/14)

Wolf, M. Custom Build: The Government’s Custom Build Homes Programme. DCLG. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014

W Radio. http://www.wradio.com.co/especiales/fidi2011/nota04.html (accessed 09/10/14)

YouCanPlan. http://www.youcanplan.co.uk/. (accessed 10/04/14)

Zogolovitch, G. The Role of the Custom Build Developer: Helping Real People Build Their Own Homes Easily and Affordably. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 Zuckerman, E. Beyond “The Crisis in Civics” - Notes from my 2013 DML talk. My Heart’s In Accra. Mar. 26, 2013. http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2013/03/26/beyond-the-crisis-in-civics-notes-from-my-2013-dml-talk/ (accessed 08/09/14


144

IMAGE CREDITS

Figure 1: Authors edited image, using: Kickstarter, https://www.kickstarter.com/discover?ref=nav (accessed 07/09/14) Indiegogo, https://www.indiegogo.com/explore (accessed 07/09/14)

Figure 2: Monditalia, https://twitter.com/monditalia/status/460748591007408128/photo/1 (accessed 12/09/14)

Figure 3: Authors image


Figure 5: Authors edited image, using: Awan, N., Schneider, T. & Till, J. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. (Routledge: London, 2011 - p105)



Figure 8: Authors edited image, using: Self, J. Real Estates: Life Without Debt (Bedford Press: London, 2014) Addendum, Figure B: Up Trends


Figure 10: Authors image. Data - Savills

Figure 11: Authors image. Info taken from: Allen, I. Housing delivery under Custom Build! What does the future hold?! HAB. RIBA J Custom Build Conference: London, April 30, 2014 p10-11


Figure 13: Authors redrawn image of Richard Llewelyn-Davies’ (1967) & Eric J. Cesal’s (2009) versions of Architects Relation to Other Professions. Cesal, E. Down Detour Road: An Architect in Search of Practice. (MIT Press: MA, 2010)

Figure 14: Authors edited image, using 8 ‘comic’ illustrations by Elias Redstone and Marcia Mihoti. Redstone, E. & Mihotich, M. Travesía Por La Argentina/ Elias Redstone. PLOT. Dec 11, 2012. Accessed August 17, 2014. http://www.revistaplot.com/travesia-por-la- argentina-elias-redstone/. (accessed 17/08/14)






Appendices | Image Credits

145

Figure 20: Authors edited image, using Kickstarter Prototype Design, http://www.dezeen. com/2014/05/01/kickstarter-ceo-yancey-strickler-interview/ (accessed 15/09/14) & Kickstarter Home Page, http://kickstarter.com/ (accessed 15/09/14)

Figure 21: Authors edited Image, using Detroit Needs A Statue of Robocop. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/imaginationstation/detroit-needs-a-statue-of-rob ocop/posts (accessed 15/09/14)


Figure 23: Authors edited image, using: Family / PlayLab, Inc. http://www.archdaily.com/500066/will-the-pool-be-the-largest- crowdfunded-civic-project-ever/ (accessed 15/09/14) http://dashboard.pluspool.org/ (accessed 15/09/14)

Figure 24: Authors edited composition, using: Design Participation Day ePoster. https://twitter.com/WeAreRoco status/483151601440657409 Schedule of Accommodation. The Roco.Share Offer 2014. (The Roco: Sheffield, 2014 -p4)





Figure 29: Authors composition of Images, using: Prodigy Network. http://www.archdaily.com/516778/prodigy-network-announces-winners- of-17john-crowdsourcing-competition/.

Figure 30: Authors composition of Images, using: Prodigy Network. http://www.archdaily.com/516778/prodigy-network-announces-winners- of-17john-crowdsourcing-competition/.

Figure 31: Authors edited image, using: https://www.makearchitecturehappen.com/ (accessed 08/10/14)


Figure 33

Figure 34: Authors composition, using images taken by Paul Thorpe http://paul-thorpe.com/2014/09/25/the-hayam-sun-temple/


Figure 36: Authors edited image, using: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kac80mvuTwU#t=44


Figure 38: Authors edited image, based on Victor Papanek’s ‘The Real Problem’ Diagram 1985 Papanek, V. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. (2nd Edition. Thames & Hudson: New York, 1985)









Figure 46: Authors composition, including Sucre 4444 Buenos Aires (Fideicomiso procured building) http://www.dezeen.com/2014/08/16/sucre-4444-buenos-aires-apartments-esteban- tannenbaum-architects-perforated-shutters/ and... Authors illustrative representation of it


Figure 48: Authors edited image, comprising of: ChipID code and TopLogic screenshot supplied by Phil Langley, Bryden Wood



Figure 51: Photograph by Cristobal Palma http://www.archdaily.com/364223/fideicomiso-when-architects-become-developers-and- everybody-wins/517810bbb3fc4b3669000085_fideicomiso-when-architects-become- developers-and-everybody-wins-_once-jpg/

Figure 52: Photograph by Werner Huthmacher http://www.dezeen.com/2012/03/19/linienstr-23-by-bco-architekten/ (accessed 13/10/14)

Figure 53: Photograph by Cristobal Palma http://www.dezeen.com/2014/08/16/sucre-4444-buenos-aires-apartments-esteban- tannenbaum-architects-perforated-shutters/

Figure 54: Unattributed Photograph http://www.fatkoehl.com/index.php?article_id=6

Figure 55: Unattributed Photograph http://www.eberleeisfeld.de/news/

Figure 56: Nathan Willock http://www.world-architects.com/da/projects/27372_Galerie_und_Ateliergebaeude http://kultur-online.net/node/14633

Figure 57: Unattributed Photograph http://www.2hweb.com/trabajos.php?id=15&page=5

Figure 58: Simon Menges http://thisispaper.com/zanderroth-architekten-BIGyard-Zelterstrase-5


crowdfunding architecture: housing

Documents

crowdfunding housing

civic crowdfunding

types of crowdfunding

evolving crowdfunding

real estate crowdfunding

housing crisis

wheres architecture

housing minister brandon