Single Aspect Blog

Firstly I was struck by a hypothetical question:-

“Would the regeneration have been necessary had the Thatcher cuts in maintenance been avoided and the inflation proofed money still been available?”

I suspect yes, owing to the change in residential makeup of the estates owing to the effects of right to buy (in subsequent decades companies and individuals bought onto council estates and let the flats to unemployed people on the then DSS thus further weakening the estate demographic) and the 1977 Housing Act – priority needs based lettings.

In my personal opinion the estates and council housing in general were damaged by those two pieces of legislation, the second of which was enacted under a Labour Government albeit with unintended consequences.

Two sentences stand out from the third article of which this is the first . . .

“It’s true, however, that redevelopment also chimed with the wisdom of the day. There was a growing belief that mono-tenure estates were problematic in themselves (though, strangely, this is never a criticism made of the middle-class suburbs).”

This is precisely the situation “Progress” Labour councils and their opponents find themselves in – lack of Government funding for new social housing on land outside estates has led to pressure on those estates – and where this happens the “middle-class suburbs” get away with no intervention whatever,  they keep their 100% middle class occupants.

The redeveloped council estates, on the other hand, change from 100% social rented (minus leasehold and freehold properties) to a minority of social rented properties at best, with the others for private sale and shared ownership, or at worst no social rented at all.

These are now let at “affordable” rent cf 35 percent.org in many cases with poorer standards of design and build quality cf Myatts Field.

Demographic studies show that one third of property was council housing at its peak in 1979 housing 42% of the population. The apparent 9% discrepancy is explained by the fact that council housing has traditionally been fully occupied whereas private owners are often able to afford a spare room. Please watch this video clip

where Owen Hopkins (chair) talks about the “80% occupancy of social renters compared to 53% occupancy of private renters” – I paraphrase.

UPDATE: 21/11/17

What actually happens is related to but not identical to that which I have outlined below and struck out.

Sadiq Khan’s move towards 50% “affordable” housing in new developments in London will fail to achieve its aim because the fractional approach taken to the 50% means the housing at social rent will be only 1/3rd of the 50% meaning it ends up as 1/6th of the development.

Shared ownership and private sale occupy the remaining 2/3rds of the 50%.

If new housing is to be built only on council estates subdivided into private sale, shared ownership, and social rent, then social housing will be reduced from 3/9 to 1/9 on those estates.

You have to wonder where these 2/9 people will go

Further out from the centre is the case in London and even further than that on occasion. For detailed information about the likely fate of existing council tenants on estates threatened with redevelopment follow the campaign for Save Cressingham Gardens.

This example is simplified as if it were still 1979. Owing to the effect of right to buy over thirty years and social housing lost through “regenerations” which are nothing of the sort, the figure of 42% from 1979 is now more like 12%. In fact council housing has been savaged by Government policy and lack of financial support.

Therefore my crude example using fractions doesn’t work as intended but I am trying to illustrate a principle which does work, which is that attempting to use only council estates as the location for new housing and further reducing the amount of housing available at social rent is iniquitous and destructive in the long term of a sector that has already been marginalised.

Some will manage to remain if they have some capital with which to purchase (leaseholders plus savings). The majority will however be scattered far and wide.

A more equitable solution would be if a similar intervention were to be made in areas of middle class housing as used to happen when councils bought street properties to let at council rents. These days the situation is being reversed with LBHF selling theirs off.

Unfortunately that’s not the approach the GLA is likely to take. Fortuitously I’ve just found this while browsing for Holly Street. I’ve taken it from a comment by Ian Abley of Audacity.

[Nicky] Gavron is not willing to start compulsorily purchasing swathes of privately owned London. She makes a clear summary of why estates offer the easiest approach from the combined view of the GLA, Local Authorities, and developers:

‘London’s housing estates are, for a variety of factors, particularly suitable to bridge the gap between the capital’s housing need and the capacity to deliver new homes and to generate the increased densities needed:
-They are in single ownership;
-Many were built at densities significantly lower than that considered sustainable today;
-Many estates are in highly accessible locations that can support higher densities; and,
-Many estates, due to their age, design and maintenance history, require renewal.’

Hackney to lose 915 social homes in estate regeneration ‘disaster’

. . . and this is the second.

“The historical truth is that council estates succeeded as flourishing and, in their way, mixed communities when their residents had decent and secure employment. It’s that simple.”

It is deeply unfortunate that within a decade of their completion so many schemes began to suffer the effects of a change in the political and economic climate (Thatcher) and so never really had the chance to prove themselves as a workable solution to the need for mass housing without significant alteration.

The Barbican meanwhile was thriving. For an explanation of why this was the case when large concrete estates elsewhere in London were in decline watch the last five minutes of this film, in which Simon Thurley explains how the city pours money into its maintenance.

https://youtu.be/SLF5Bq_zrU8?t=2368

Owen Hatherley is funny on the subject of Alice Coleman and her views:-

“Alice Coleman’s studies were, one of the reasons they are so dubious, you think, drop her in the Barbican which had every single one of her things that she thought guaranteed crime and yet it was conspicuous by its absence. Apparently [it] has nothing to do with poverty. It’s dubious.”

See also Design Disadvantagement

Hackney had similar problems with a set of similar solutions which manifested as the Comprehensive Estates Initiative over, by coincidence, five estates in that borough. Information is not easy to come by but the scheme is described in the book “The Dynamics of Local Housing Policy” by Keith Jacobs. (At the time of writing available second hand for £22.98 – 5/11/16)

“This book investigates some emerging themes that have arisen from the establishment of “The Comprehensive Estates Initiative” (CEI) in 1992, a large-scale multi-agency housing renewal scheme established by Hackney Council’s housing department.”

I have yet to read this book in full and report on its contents but as and when I do you may rest assured my conclusions will be reported on this blog.

To anyone continuing to pursue this subject the phrase that always returns to my mind is “from the street to the front door” since it is in this no mans land that so many of the problems described above and elsewhere manifest themselves. So important is this area of interest that the London Housing Design Guide devoted an entire chapter to it.

“The thresholds, front doors, common areas and walkways of a building can transform the perceived value of a home and help people feel proud of where they live. A central aim of this guide is to promote common areas that are well designed, welcoming and accessible to all, accompanied by management arrangements that are robust and viable in the long term.”

Lastly, people like to be able to see their parked cars from their window. This has proved to be a benefit of redeveloped schemes and led to the end of unsecured underground and other displaced car parks.