World Wars Legacy and Decent Housing Provision - Essay Example

The Legacy of World War I and II on the Provision of Decent Housing During the 20th Century Introduction Amidst the Britain’s most prolonged economic and social predicaments, arguing that forms part of the greatest ills is in the least a hyperbole. A significant number of people are still languishing on social housing waiting lists and the rate of house construction critically examined against government guarantees can surely send a chill on the back of anyone who anticipates benefiting from the program. Social housing programme has hit its record minimum since 1923. Social housing in the twenty first century was perpetuated by politicians and scholars in their effort to wrestle with what look like an irresistible and an immensely costly problem. This paper explores the Legacy of World War I and II on the provision of decent housing during the 20th century. The Legacy of World War I and II on Social Housing Prior to the First World War, Britain’s construction and provision of housing was largely a responsibility of the private sector (Burnett 1986). It was not until the termination of the First World War that the central government and local authorities assumed more active role in house construction and utilization of land. The development of council houses diminished the role played by market forces of demand and supply on locations of houses construction. According to Taylor (1998), Birmingham city took the lead as other cities followed in the same footsteps. The provision of inexpensive housing constructed by local authorities under subsidies of the central government heightened the involvement of the public in determining how land was to be used. Market forces of demand and supply no longer influenced the utilization, misuse and non-use of land. The central government and local authority in housing provision was aimed at eradicating poverty, boosting public health and reducing social isolation. The famous “home fit for Heroes,” emerged after the First World War when honoring fighters in the war became the central political focus. Local councils built council houses to ease overcrowding and to provide quality houses for low-income tenants (Daunton 2008). The programme was initiated in nineteenth century and peaked during the mid-twentieth century, at the point when the programme included extensive suburban estates as well as urban developments characterized with tower blocks. Clapp (1994) argued that there was smaller extent of property destruction during the First World War leading to lack of urgent reconstruction programmes. However, the initial sustained thrust to build and develop cheap and subsidized houses by local authorities began in 1919 under the Liberal government’s Housing and Town Planning Act. The infamous programme ‘Homes for Heroes’ designed by Christopher Addison, was aimed at providing the working classes with superior houses. The target group was mainly the soldiers returning from war, who were perceived to have fought hard for an improved future. The 1920s scenario ought to have been a major learning experience for establishing future housing Acts. Making promises that seem far from reality ought to have been a major worry for the central government. Guaranteeing to construct houses on an extraordinary range seemed alluring in creating short-term fame. However, this move was a real liability in electoral dimension. Ambitious housing policies founded on giant government subsidies are often preyed on by economic instability. The Addison Act did not last long before hitting a snag. The set limit of constructing 500,000 houses within a span of three years was far from realism. Not more than half the projected number of houses was constructed, which prompted the Act to be substituted by Neville Chamberlain’s Housing Act, under the regime of conservatives. This Act focused more on the private sector and reduced the subsidies. However, this Act never lasted too and was discarded in 1924 when the Labour government enacted its own Act, Wheatley Act. Despite the fact that this Act managed to create approximately 580,000 houses by 1935, it never provided an ultimate solution to surging demand for houses. Moreover, it never adequately attacked the problem of slum purging. General-needs housing on fresh estates were created with specific concern about the working classes leaving the devastating trouble of slums practically unattended to until prior to 1930s. In 1930, Greenwood Housing Act was enacted to help in alleviating the problem of slums. However, adverse economic conditions negatively impacted on the progress of slum eradication and replacement rates. Despite the fact that Greenwood’s Act achieved a mile in replacing slums (constructing approximately 245, 000 houses), quite a larger number of slums were in dire need for demolition and reconstruction. During World War II, approximately four million British homes were destroyed. After the war, the country was characterized with major boom in council house construction. The explosives used in World War II played a significant role in deteriorating Britain’s housing stock condition, which was already in pathetic state before the actual war breakout. Many social housing projects like the Quarry Hill Flats were constructed. However, the extent of bomb damage during the war created an urge to clear up slums by establishing giant radical reconstruction projects in most affected areas (Kemeny 1992). In the years preceding post-war period extending into 1950s, council housing provision was influenced by New Towns Act of 1946 as well as Town and County Planning Act of 1947 under the regime of the Labour Party administration. During the same period, the government substituted explicit references to housing, which targeted the working class, with the idea of developing “general needs” buildings that focused on the entire society rather than just the affluent class. For the Labour Party, 1945 General Election was the first landslide election it had ever enjoyed. The election gave the party majority backup, which was crucial in implementing the party’s manifesto pledges and to instigate extensive social reforms that were better known as the warfare Nation. The reforms were attained under daunting financial conditions in the years after the war. House shortage was a huge concern for Attlee’s administration right from the onset of the end of World War II. Many houses had been demolished through the German bombing movement. Very minimal reconstruction could be achieved as the war progressed because the government directed its entire energy and most of its resources to the war. In the wake of 1942, Beveridge pointed out poor housing as one of his major options for potential governments to launch attacks. He perceived poor housing to be among the fundamental factors in elucidation of paucity and deficiency in optimism and opportunity in Britain. Beveridge in 1944 echoed his opinion when he asserted that the greatest chance in the nation existed in improving the overall standard of living through the provision of better housing. Among the alternatives to the housing problem entailed the government construction of pre-fabricated homes, which were commonly referred to as “pre-fabs.” The houses were produced in masses and could be ferried to any part of the country. They were complete homes with entire fittings. Aneurin Bevan was appointed by the new Prime Minister, Clemet Attlee, as Minister of health also covering housing. As such, the duty for developing and establishing a comprehensive National Health Service and facing head-on the nation’s severe post-war housing scarcity hugely rested on the shoulder of Bevan. By 1948, under the leadership of Bevan, 125,000 homes had been constructed and ferried to regions with dire need. Because of the post-war baby boom, the demand for the houses was amazingly high. Many households were swelling, which increasingly piled more and more pressure on house provision. The demand for housing was skyrocketing with many households expanding steadily. Despite the fact that these houses (pre-fabs) were meant to provide provisional shelter for individuals, many of them were lived in for years on end. Bevan was dedicated on building superior quality council homes and flats. The Labour government relentlessly constrained the accessibility of license which permitted construction and trading in private homes. Owing to the extensive destruction experienced during the war, there was always a house shortage that could never be solved immediately by the government. Despite the fact that many cities constructed their initial high rise developments, England and Wales homes remained classically semi-detached or even in diminutive porches. A three-bed roomed semi-detached were basically build with a lot of space around them. This model was utilized in constructing new as well as existing towns and estates. For the so called working class, this housing model provided them with the very first experience of personal indoor toilets and bathrooms with hot shower. As in the case of tenants in England and Wales, the occupants had the opportunity to enjoy personal garden space. It is needless to mention that these houses transformed life into a bed of roses (Institute of Welsh Affairs 2006). As important as it was, the government’s emphasis on reconstructing homes was under much denigration in some quarters. A couple of people argued that the government ought to have channeled its resources to the construction of contemporary factories, good transport system and improving the overall infrastructure of the nation to boost its capacity to compete in the post-war fiscal market. The conservatives particularly held the government liable for deteriorating Britain’s economic competitiveness. The initial legislative steps of the central government to restrict the utilization of developmental land was guided by Town and County planning Act despite the fact that decision making rested with local authorities. Private development funding to such lands were restricted but for the local authorities (Rydin 2003). Housing is a crucial aspect of the general wellbeing of the society. Poor housing can impose negative impacts on the health of individuals who reside in those wanting conditions. Overcrowding and homelessness are big threats to the health and daily performance of people. Housing crisis deters people from feeling secure and becoming stable, both in the physical, economic and psychological sense. It affects the cohesion of the community. In fact, when Nye Bevan launched the council housing revolution after the Second World War, his justification for the programme was founded on the fact that housing is a fundamental requirement for individuals living in an ideal society. The legacy of right-to-purchase in the 1980s and the inability to swap sold-off stock have overwhelmed Bevan’s vision for the nation. The residual council housing prioritizes individuals who are in urgent need who are treated by successive governments as a practical social dumping site. Reduction in housing benefits is pushing poor households away from their homes. London, to be exact, is not far from becoming an epitome of those major cities of the world where the affluent occupy the centre with the poor stratum of the society languishing in the suburbs. The part played by local authorities became more of producer than enabler under the influence of Margaret Thatcher. The accountability for developing inexpensive and reasonably priced rented homes constantly swung towards increasing number of housing unions as well as other non-profit generating organisations like housing co-operatives. However, the better part of the twentieth century social-housing development rested in the hands of the sovereign state and local authorities. Beginning from the inter-war time up to 1980s, social housing was largely characterized with local authority building, possessing and administering housing. Just like healthcare provision, housing formed the core of social policy and was also a strong determinant of political ideology. Local authorities, right from1980, had enormous power to eradicate slums and swap or renovate existing homes. London County Council led the pack by emerging among the earliest County Councils to develop new estates. The housing problem, which had engulfed Britain’s urban regions, was the main thrust behind the construction of council homes and attempts to exterminate slums. Local authorities adopted a strategy that contravened the philanthropist’s affiliation with their beneficiaries. Britain was ultimately hierarchical society with significant power distance in 1960s. Policy establishment was hugely dominated with top-down approach. The slum dwellers were not involved in the plans to clear slums. Social studies in the periods of inter-war postulated that tenants, in spite of their undeniable need for new homes and houses, were not ready to quite their communities where they felt a sense of security and were free to move and work. Shifting individuals from their communities to new areas entailed annihilation of communities, which planted a sense of seclusion and displacement in the minds of people. It also constrained many families economically because they had to incur extra transport costs. Nonetheless, most tenants finally settled into their new homes despite the fact that the shifting process was an excruciating experience. Tenants may not have been adequately consulted but the baseline is that they were moved into much better houses. People were never again under the wrath of exploitative private landlords. Council housing ensured higher standards and fundamental rights for tenants, unlike in the previous periods when tenants were merely passive subjects in the entire housing process. In the periods succeeding the Second World War, the emergence of warfare nation tended to justify that there was a great potential of improving life for every member of the society under the guidance of the government. However, there was a great struggle to realize the dream of creating a palace for all the individuals of the society. The plan was crippled with many setbacks. In addition to the nineteenth century slums, most cities had experienced extensive bomb destruction. Labour as well as scarcity of materials and worsening economic conditions only aggravated the mystery of life situation of individuals of the society. Postwar government administrations focused on reconstructing areas that were destroyed and needed to be developed, also set extremely high targets that proved unattainable. The conservative guarantee in 1951 was perhaps the most successful by managing to build 300,000 houses each year while it emphasized more on the private sector. Creation of new towns was another strategy employed by the government to solve the problem of house shortage. In 1946, the New Town Act contributed considerably in the planned reconstruction of Britain. The Act was aimed at easing cities from overcrowding. The reason behind developing new towns near existing cities was to aid the transfer of the over-spill population from those cities to the new towns. London alone had eight new towns including Bracknell, Crawley and Stevenage among others. The planned development of new towns focused on the fundamental requirements and social amenities like hospitals and schools and was also focused on suppressing the likelihood of emergence and growth of unplanned towns. Post-war Labour government as well as conservative government initiated a revolutionary approach focused on developing new towns to absorb population over-spill from cities. According to Pawson & Mullins (2010), this strategy was perceived to be the most effective means of vacating tenants from the slums. The main idea of expanding cities and towns of the inter-war period seemed attractive for local authorities. Local authorities were embedded in a major crisis of land unavailability and expensive lands located within the existing boundaries. However, people had to be relocated in a bid to eradicate the slums. As Lowe (2004) describes, this was a Fordist strategy, which was focused on availing long-term solutions to city-centre slums. Many cities including Manchester and Glasgow were aggravated by inadequate land within their own circumference and more so, that they had become surrounded and partly absorbed by the expansion of the neighbourhood metropolis, constructed a series of estates beyond their boundaries. This process was very sophisticated with receiving authorities in the city suburbs resisting new plans. Other cities such as Liverpool were hesitant to adopt the plan, which they perceived to be enormous loss of populace. As people advanced towards late 1950s, the conservative government started re-focusing the construction programme to “centre city” slum eradication from the “general need” approach. Modern architecture was fast coming into play imposing much influence on the techniques for constructing new homes under the social housing programme. During late 1950s and 1960s, the conservative government was pushing local authorities to speed up the process of slum eradication. The changes were kept on toes by government, scholars as well as business enterprises. The subsidy system was abolished under Keith Joseph so as to motivate local councils to adopt new system-built developments. This approach looked like the ultimate approach by providing swift and inexpensive solutions to the decaying city-centers. However, the councils implemented an extremely non-consultative. The houses that had been constructed during the inter-war period were somehow what most people preferred despite the fact that they were never built under consultation as well (Lowe 2004). Tower blocks were widely rejected by tenants. While in some places such as Liverpool and London were characterized with the convention of constructing blocks of flats, other cities maintained the cottage-style houses (Lowe 2004). But the pressure pilling on local authorities to substitute slums with better houses and utilize modern system-built plans preordained most local authorities had to adopt the modern approaches. Tenants were convinced that the new strategy would mean a complete transformation of their lives; a shift from unbearable living conditions to quality living with overcrowding and poor housing becoming a thing of the past. Regardless of cynicism and opposition of many local authorities, and in spite of researches indicating that slum dwellers had no desire of living in flats, it eventually became inevitable for councils in main cities and urban regions to resist the plan. This irresistible drive to adopt the new system was propelled by the pilling pressure on slums clearance. Moreover, designers and constructions firms turned out to be more effective in trading their modern formulations. An approximation of 440,000 flats were erected in the period between 1955-1975, with about 90 percent of the constructions in urban districts and the greater part of the occupants shifting from slum eradication regions. Conversely, in many regions the new optimism swiftly condensed into an appalling veracity. Even though the building of many tower blocks as well as other system-built advancements have so far exhibited significant success, it was also obvious that many initiatives were crippled with numerous serious, costly and hazardous flaws. Poor house designs, insufficient resources together with substandard buildings wrecked many constructions across the entire nation. A couple of flaws in house designs manifested in mid-1960s and unremittingly bothered local authorities for many years. The concrete used in construction was substandard, walls were often too slender and steel used were corroded with chemicals used. The utilization of system building techniques later emerged as unfocused and bogus economy because most of the houses were later in critical conditions, some probably irreparable and a couple more undergoing demolition. Most of the council houses that were constructed prior to the modern building systems, developed by contemporary architectures, have indeed outlived the new buildings owing to their superior construction quality. In spite of this, both the conservative and Labour party government perceived the provision of modern housing to constitute the greater portion of post-war policy, a motive that was facilitated by providing subsidies for local councils to construct such homes or houses. Although the tragedies that befell tower buildings were connected with numerous issues like gas connection by unqualified friends of tenants, the later system-built tower structures were fitted with electric heaters to guard against reoccurrence of similar explosions in future. Even though many of these tower blocks were demolished, many still enjoy the privilege of occupying city centre and are more popular with tenants. They have become subject to the issue of gentrification as a result of trade in leases bought by initial tenants through the Right to buy Scheme to more powerful and influential buyers (Lowe & Hughes 2004). Generally, the houses constructed were in a wanting condition. The shortcomings of tower blocks evolved in 1968 during the partial collapse of Ronan Point. Ronan Point tragedy, where an explosion flattened about 22 flats and ended the lives of four inhabitants just two months after its accomplishment, instigated many blames on faulty design. From the look of things, this was only an introduction to the core of costly problems that riddled social housing project. Numerous constructions, for instance the Hulme Crescents in Manchester, turned out to be intolerable and inhabitable for households. Vandalism worsened the conditions of the houses by promoting insect invasion and increasing crimes reduced the capacity of local authorities to conduct fundamental repairs and combat the underlying problems. Besides, poor designs and damp condition made the houses more and more undesirable for families (Ravetz 2001). Despite the council’s focus on assisting the poor, attempts by local authorities have been under intense criticism by a section of social policy economist like Culyer and Barr. These two professionals have vehemently opposed the move of the council in coming to rescue individuals living in extreme state of penury. One of the arguments of the camp against the council’s move is that it damages the mobility of Labour with its approach to allocating houses to individuals in the local area (Cole & Furbey 1994). As such, the working class gets discouraged from traversing across district borders while in some instances they would still be languishing at the bottom of the social housing lists in new regions. Britain social housing programme was widely riddled with the problem of racial separation (Malpass 1990). During the time when there was high influx of immigrants, after the Second World War, new immigrants had no chances of qualifying for council houses, which fueled racial animosity. However, this scenario has positively transited with many cities currently having council estates with mixed races (Fahey 1999). Many individuals have criticized the system for its inclination towards those who have already acquired tenancy regardless of whether they are no longer in urgent need. The integration of security occupancy and cheap rent provides minimal incentives to tenants to scale back from family accommodation after children have moved to their own apartments (Pinto 1995). On the other hand, individuals in the council’s social housing waiting list are ever in urgent need of this benefit. Sadly, they hardly get the benefit that they crave for very much. Under the system, once a tenant gets council house, there is no chance for eviction, except for anti-social behavior or any other serious violation of the provisions including failure to submit outstanding rent (Cole & Furbey 1994). Council Housing Decline Under the era of Margaret Thatcher, council housing experienced a sharp fall because the conservative government motivated people to embrace home ownership, which was supported by the Right to Buy Scheme. Laws constrained the council from venturing in housing, which deterred them from subsidizing the same for local taxes (Lowe & Hughes 2004). Most importantly, council tenants were issued with the “right to buy” during 1980s Housing Act providing a discounted charge for their council house (Lowe 2004). The Right to Buy Scheme gave tenants the opportunity to purchase their homes providing them with a discount of up to 60 percent of the market price for the council houses and as high as 70 percent for flats, depending on the age of the buildings (Short 1982). Councils were barred from injecting the money they received from sales in developing new houses (Lowe 2011). This move led to the overall decline in the available stock, especially of more admirable homes. The right to buy scheme was common with Labour Party voters. However, the Labour government under Tony Blair made the rules more stringent which saw a fall in house purchase discount in areas with dire need but this never stopped the right to buy policy (Malpass 1990). The Labour administration never relaxed the policy prohibiting councils from re-injecting their sales proceeds in new housing (Cowan 2011). Local council have reassigned their housing stock to non-profit oriented housing organisations, which presently plays a crucial role in providing public sector housing (Lowe 2011). Moreover, many movements against government policy have emerged victorious in referendums on shifting house or home ownership, for instance in Birmingham. Contrary to the early post-war days when the council housing had much influence on the lives of majority of the population, it now cuts the figure of a stigmatized sector with the expression “council” mostly considered a derogatory statement. Only individuals who rely on social security now consider it an option. In particular parts of the nation, for example in northern Britain, specific council housing is practically out of order (Pawson & Mullins 2010). They have been in most occasions used to provide homes for asylum seekers. However, in south London, the demand for council houses still surpasses the supply. The Wakefield district housing stock transfer to a housing organisation marked on of the giant transfers in British record. The council transferred its housing stock after ascertaining that it could not make a sustainable supply council housing, thus taking the action of transferring all it housing stock to a housing organisation in 2004 (Malpass 2010; Pawson & Mullins 2010). Conclusion People usually link council housing estates with high crime rates despite the fact that the same normally happens in private housing regions. From immediate post-war periods, council houses have undergone partial reconstruction and complete redevelopment in some cases. As such, it is inevitable to decline that long periods of war had massive impact on good quality housing in the country. It is apparent that social housing was meant to help low-income groups. The government is a positive change agent but must give achievable promises it can deliver. The strategies should be oriented towards solving the underlying problems of the public such as scarcity of essential resources. The government should also involve extensively the common people who are likely to be directly affected by the programs. Bibliography Clapp B W 1994, “An Environmental History of Britain from the Industrial Revolution,” Longman, London. Burnett, J 1986, “A Social History of Housing 1815 - 1985,” Methuen. Cole, I & Furbey, R 1994, "The Eclipse of Council Housing," Routledge, London. Cowan, D 2011, “Housing Law and Policy,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Daunton, M J 2008, "State and market in Victorian Britain: war, welfare and capitalism," Boydell Press, Woodbridge, UK. Fahey, T 1999, "Social housing in Ireland: a study of success, failure and lessons learned," Oak Tree Press, Dublin. Institute of Welsh Affairs 2006, “Future of social housing in Wales,” Institute of Welsh Affairs, Cardiff. Kemeny, J 1992, “Housing and Social Theory,” Routledge, London. Lowe, S 2011, “The Housing Debate,” The Policy Press. Lowe, S 2011, “The Housing Debate,” The Policy Press, Bristol. Lowe, S 2004, “Housing Policy Analysis: British housing in cultural and comparative context,” Palgrave/Macmillan, Houndmills. Lowe, S & Hughes, D 2004, “The Private Rented Sector in a New Century: Revival or False Dawn?” The Policy Press, Bristol. Malpass, P 2010, "Housing, Markets and Policy," Routledge, New York. Malpass, P 1990, "Reshaping housing policy: subsidies, rents, and residualisation," Routledge, New York. Pawson, H & Mullins, D 2010, "After Council Housing: Britains New Social Landlords," Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke. Pinto, R 1995, "Developments in housing management and ownership," Manchester Univ. Press, Manchester. Ravetz, A 2001, “Council Housing and Culture,” Routledge, London. Rydin Y 2003, “Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK,” Palgrave, Basingstoke. Short, JR 1982, "Housing in Britain: the post-war experience," Methuen, London. Taylor N 1998, “Urban Planning Theory since 1945,” Sage Publications, London. Read More