Architecture, law and politics - Essay Example

Law, Biopolitics, Social Housing and Architecture Introduction Politicians and professionals shaped social housing history in the United Kingdom in the twentieth century. These politicians and practitioners tried to grapple with what occasionally looked like an overwhelming and massive problem. Despite merit being in what was attempted, it is clear that several mistakes occurred. One of the fundamental problems that occurred and contributed to these errors was the lack of consultation between the government and the social housing tenants about the critical issues such as the location and the design of new homes. The choice never featured on the agenda of social housing projects. Dissatisfaction of social housing tenants began to increase as the changing political and social climate increasingly put emphasis on the rights of consumers and welfare. The paper is an architectural essay that argues that the laws governing the social housing industry and biopolitics have significantly affected the social housing projects in the United Kingdom. Additionally, it critically looks at the social housing issues in the United Kingdom. Architecture in Social Housing Social housing is a synonym denoting housing for people who cannot afford the free-market price (Connelly, 2013). This kind of housing implies that a humane and responsible society has an obligation of assisting those members who cannot afford to have decent housing. Connelly (2013) considers social housing to be a type of housing developed outside of the proximity of the purely market-rate private system. The architectural design of social housing both public and private has been a controversial topic for quite a long period. The speculative boom of the 1930s that generated the archetypal semi-detached suburb receives widespread condemnation despite the homes being popular to date. A high-rise local authority flat of the 1960s became heavily blamed for an overabundance of social problems, and many of the problems of sink estates are attributed to design. The obvious mistake in public housing over the last fifty years overshadows the occasional and long honored history of architect’s participation in social housing. Seventy percent of the cost of a new building is influenced by planning and design (Muir, 2013). Careful planning and sensitive design that save even the ten percent of those costs can reduce the monthly payments by over one hundred euros. Although any single design decision is not likely to yield dramatic savings and improved quality, thoughtful unit planning will. For instance, a social housing plan that does not utilize the space efficiently may call for long hallways, which add little to the livability of a dwelling and costs money to construct. Additionally, they need to be lighted and heated, an ongoing expense for the occupants of the social housing. For all that one might save by utilizing materials of poor quality and scrimping on space, such short-sighted penny-wise attitudes are ultimately costly both economically and socially. The Rise of Social Housing United Kingdom’s contemporary social housing can be tracked back to humanitarian responses to the overcrowding upon industrialization and urbanization of Britain in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Outbreaks of cholera in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s significantly led to the creation of social settlement. Added with the release of a report on the Sanitary Condition of the Laboring Population of Great Britain by Chadwick in 1842 established the powerful direct adverse impact of industrialization on population health (Vale & Freemark, 2012). These negative effects were concentrated mainly among the families of citizens who were comparatively disempowered and displaced immigrants who delivered a large part of the workforce in the cities and industrial towns that were fast growing. The squalor effects not only threatened poor people’s health. Instead, it also jeopardized their economic growth, and equally put the middle-class at risk. Prompted by activist evangelical beliefs, Victorian Philanthropy pioneered Model Housing among its several social projects. There was a demonstration of the possibility of housing the poor at low rents in conditions that were not squalid. Despite this effort, the housing provided would not have any significant impact on the problem of urban squalor. It was then that the state took an increasing role in housing provision. However, the provision of social housing on the scale that would significantly contribute to the resolution of the urban housing problem was only after the Second World War. The desire to avoid the social promise failure that followed the First World War and the extensive damage that resulted from aerial bombing led to the development of social housing. Similarly, the squalor revelations following the evacuation of urban children. Vale and Freemark (2012) remark that the Social solidarity that resulted from conditions of the war necessitated that planning for a post-war social settlement become a vital part of ensuring the nation is on a war footing. Housing provided by the local governments and funded by the national state council housing were to dominate. The ones provided by the council immediately after the war were democratic and progressive, with a good quality that would make families feel they were making good choices by renting from the state. Unfortunately, the future of social housing marred by the demand for quantity, added to the expense of quality resulted in reduced standards. In the 1950s and 1960s, cheap methods of construction and high-rise became the norm as clearance of slum became the political priority. The methods of construction reinforced the class differentials that had been discouraged. These provided the evidence on the persistence of the squalor that council housing was designated to eliminate. Laws Regulating Social Housing There are several laws regulating the social housing industry in the United Kingdom. The regulatory framework for social housing in England that currently used came into effect on 1 April 2012 replacing the regulatory framework of 1 April 2010. The framework implements the amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 introduced by the Localism Act 2011 and the Secretary of State’s directions on specific standards. Under this framework, the regulator has roles that are distinct to consumer regulation and economic regulation. Vale and Freemark (2012) note that economic regulation applies only to privately registered providers and is a form of control that is proactive. On the other hand, consumer law is a kind of regulation that is more reactive and applicable to all registered providers. Co-regulatory principles underpin the regulatory approach. Registered providers are required to meet and comply with the relevant standards (Mullins, Murie & Leather, 2006). Councilors and Boards that govern provider’s service delivery are in charge of meeting the standard and being transparent and answerable for the delivery of social housing objectives by their organizations. It is for providers to offer their support to tenants both to scrutinize and shape the delivery of services and to hold boards and councilors to account. In the case where potential breach or violation of consumer standard results to risks of serious detriment to tenants, there may be an intervention of the regulator (Weesep, 2014). Regulatory standards for registered providers contain outcomes that providers are expected to achieve and the specific expectations of the regulator. Standards classified as either consumer or economic. Some of these standards have changed significantly from the framework of 2010. There has been the introduction of a new value for money Standard for private registered providers. The new standard places an increased onus on boards to develop and deliver a clear strategy to drive value for the improvements of money. In the Tenant Involvement and Improvement Standard, there is more focus on local mechanisms to resolve complaints and disputes. Further, there is an increased scope of more involvement of the tenant in maintenance and repair. There is a retention of the principles of local offers and annual reporting to tenants. Given that economic regulation is to protect historic government subsidy, promote access to private finance and help address the lack of competitive pressure on providers that might otherwise put pressure on service efficiency and quality. The regulator proactively assures itself that private registered providers are well-governed financially. Because of the amendments to the Localism Act, there is a new focus on monetary value and the standard on rent now makes up part of the group of the economic standard. Equally, regulations will be carried out in a risk-based and proportionate way. The regulations have a new statutory duty to reduce interference, so there is a continuing emphasis on regulatory burdens that is consistent with meeting the overall objectives of the regulator. In regulating the standards of the consumer, councilors and board that govern delivery remain responsible for making sure that providers of social housing meet the consumers standards. Under the new regulation arrangement, others like the Members of Parliament, tenant panels, and elected councilors have a more prominent role in overall scrutiny of the proprietors. Under the Localism Act, the regulator has no active role in monitoring the performance of service providers. There are restrictions on the intervention powers of the regulator to situations proved to have complied with the requirements of the serious detriment test. The Localism Act holds all the regulatory, enforcement and general powers that the regulator might utilize to intervene in dealing with poor performance. These are still applied in a way that is consistent, transparent, and proportionate. The principle underlying how regulator uses its power are updated in appropriate places for the serious detriment threshold (Simmons & Birchall, 2007). Similarly, the regulator continues to maintain a register of private and local authority providers. The Localism Act makes no changes to the definition of social housing or the criteria of eligibility for registration. Influences of Biopolitics on UK’s Social Housing Review of the history of housing welfare over the past century and beyond assists in the definition of the purpose of social housing. The emphasis on building homes as a way of solving people’s problems with often very complex and challenging housing needs is one of the issues. Throughout the history of the United Kingdom, there is a strong sense of the Government believing that it known best what to avail for people. Similarly, there is a sense that housing is very much a political tool utilized by political opponents instead of focusing on the outcomes for the people these policies purport to benefit. The best illustrations of these claims are depicted in the remarks of Hebert Morrison, who was a Labour Leader of the London County Council in the 1930s. Mr. Morrison is alleged to have said that he wished to “build the Tories out of London.” There are several examples in the United Kingdom where Politics overrides the very real problems of multiple social deprivation that have often been the outcome of social housing policy over the years. Another recent example is the scandal that surrounded Dame Shirley Porter in the 1980s. When Shirley Porter was the leader of the Westminster City Council, she oversaw the “Building Stable Communities” policy, that was later derided as “homes for votes”. The district auditor derided the policy as having been illegal, and a twenty-seven euros surcharge was levied on her in 1996. Presently, social housing remains to be heavily politicized with the key lobby and campaign groups focusing on the same narrow agenda of “building more homes.” Instead, they should establish the potential role of social housing providers in assisting in breaking down areas of multiple social deprivations. Additionally, the should help in exploiting a vast reserve of capital value built up over a century of taxpayer funding. Political parties seem to be very cautious about suggesting anything past the minor twists to current systems (Hodkinson & Robbins, 2012). The aim of being cautious is for the fear of an attack from either side of the political divide as being either for or against social housing. Nonetheless, many professionals in social housing recognize that the existing policy set is not adequate and that there is an appetite for radical reform to address the chief causes of the failures witnessed (Vale & Freemark, 2012). International perspectives have already indicated the potential usefulness of such reforms. Similarly, there is an emerging thinking in the United Kingdom Local Government as to the role that the Local Authorities can and must play in solving the wider social problems. These have resulted in large concentrations of deprived households in regions that are dominated by social housing. Biopolitics in UK’s Housing Polices Under Margaret Thatcher, local authority’s role changed from producers to being enablers. The responsibility for rented houses of lower costs increasingly shifted towards the growing housing associations and other non-profit making organizations like housing co-operatives as noted by Weesep (2014). However, for most of the 20th century, the responsibilities for the majority of projects for social housing were with the central government and local authorities. From the period of interwar, until in the 1980s, social housing significantly implied local authority built, owned and managed housing. With the addition of health services, housing was a critical part of social policy and biopolitical thinking (Harrison & Davis, 2001). From 1890, local authorities were awarded greater powers to remove slums and replace or refurbish the homes that were in existence. London County Council took a forward step in the development of new estates. However, it was until 1919 with the Liberal government’s Housing and Town Planning Act that the local authorities started the initially sustained drive towards building low cost subsidized housing. According to Weesepv (2014), Christopher Addison’s program dubbed the “Home for Heroes” was famous and meant to offer quality housing to individuals who were working and soldiers who returned from war. The consequent history of the Act availed valuable lessons that went unnoticed with future housing acts and that the current Prime Minister’s promise to increase completion rates to twenty-four thousand needs to consider critically. From the activities of 1920s, Weesep (2014) advised that the government required to be cautious when making promises if they could not keep them. Promising to build houses on a scale that is unprecedented was good for short-term popularity, but failure to meet high targets demonstrated an electoral liability. Housing policies that are ambitious and that rely on large subsidies from the government can be subject to fluctuations in the economy. The Addison Act ran into trouble given that the target of half a million houses constructed in three years proved a tall order to achieve. Consequently, Harrison and Davis (2001) observes that the number of completed houses did not reach half the initial target. In 1923, with the Conservatives in power, the Housing Act of Neville Chamberlain replaced it. Eventually, there was a reduction in the subsidies and greater emphasis on the private sector. However, the first Labor government’s Wheatley Act also replaced this in 1924. Subsidized general needs house building under these later Acts did manage to create an estimated five hundred and eighty new homes by 1935. However, it failed to solve the problem of increased demand and to give answers to the question of clearance of slums. General needs housing on new estates was far away from the traditional town center and mainly designed for the working class. However, as Harrison and Davis (2001) posit the vast problem of the slums remained virtually untouched prior to 1930s. In 1930, the Greenwood’s Housing Act was designated to address the issue, but economic problems again had adverse impacts on replacement and clearance rates. Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear that politics has greatly influenced United Kingdom’s Social Housing Policies both negatively and positively. Whereas social housing in the twentieth century experienced significant successes, some disappointments and failures should not be forgotten. Though government needs to avoid proclamations of overly ambitious targets just in the name of political convenience, more critical is the need to keep firmly in mind the importance of the strategy of active participation with residents. The absence of this was very crucial to the problems witnessed in the 1960s and 1970s. Further, it is clear that design and architectural base of social housing have not been considered in several undertaken projects. It is key for the government to regard architecture and design in social housing projects. References Connelly, A. (2013). The working-class suburb: social change on an English Council Estate, 1930–2010. Planning Perspectives, 28(4), 651-653. Doi:10.1080/02665433.2013.828464 Harrison, M., & Davis, C. (2001). Housing, social policy, and difference. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Hodkinson, S., & Robbins, G. (2012). The return of class war conservatism? Housing under the UK Coalition Government. Critical Social Policy, 33(1), 57-77. Muir, J. (2013). The Dynamics of Policy-Making under UK Devolution: Social Housing in Northern Ireland. Housing Studies, 28(7), 1081-1093. Mullins, D., Murie, A., & Leather, P. (2006). Housing policy in the UK. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave Macmillan. Simmons, R., & Birchall, J. (2007). Tenant Participation and Social Housing in the UK: Applying a Theoretical Model. Housing Studies, 22(4), 573-595. Vale, L., & Freemark, Y. (2012). From Public Housing to Public-Private Housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(4), 379-402. doi:10.1080/01944363.2012.737985 Weesep, J. (2014). Social housing across Europe, edited by Noémie Houard. Urban Geography, 35(6), 940-941. doi:10.1080/02723638.2014.941719 Read More