Historical Views on Housing Policy - Essay Example

Literature Review Since the end of the Second World War there has been a lot of debate regarding the type of public housing which should be available to those who cannot afford private accommodations. This literature review will consider the various historical policies that have led to the current policy discussions regarding housing. As Balchin and Rhoden (2002) suggest, "the supply of new and renovated housing is inextricably linked to the level of housing investment". Essentially, the literature suggests that if there is an increase in private housing investment there is a fall in investment in the social rented sectors. In the post-war period, as in every decade since, it was political and ideological concerns as much as economic rationale that dictated housing policy. As Short (1982) suggests, housing in Britain after WWII was a near-to-desperate situation. Tens of thousands of dwellings had been destroyed in the German bombing campaigns and the country did not have the resources available to undertake serious rebuilding. One of the initial reactions to this housing shortage was that up to 40,000 families ended up "squatting" in a number of spaces such as "old cinemas, ramshackle tenement buildings, Army camps and even plush apartments" (Simpson, 2007). One archetypal example was the occupation of a form-POW resettlement camp in August 1946 (Simpson, 2007). Into this situation the newly elected Labour government stepped with its Keynesian economic theories of greater state involvement in all parts of the economy. The Minister for Health and Housing, Bevin, stated that "the greatest opportunity open in this country for raising the general standard of living lies in housing" (Bullock, 2002). It was thus a mixture of ideology and pragmatic need to provide housing that drove Labour's policy. One of the initial attempts to solve the housing crisis was the manufacture of pre-fabricated homes, known as "pre-fabs" (Coleman, 1990). These were manufactured homes that were constructed in a factory and were delivered (with all needed appliance) complete to the family who needed it. By 1948 more than 125,000 of them had been delivered to areas with the greatest need (Dunleavy, 1981). Part of the reason for this great need was the baby boom which occurred after WWII: a growing number of families with a shortage of housing in the first place meant that fast solutions were needed. The Labour government also severely restricted the number of licenses that were available for private housing. This seems somewhat counter-intuitive in a housing shortage, but reflects the ideological foundation of much that they did (Dunleavy, 1981). Government organization of economics that had normally been allowed to just develop haphazardly also led to the creation of the "New Towns" such as Milton Keynes, Stevenage and Crawley. These New Towns were designed from scratch and would have housing, services, employment, shops etc. in proportion with one another. The idea was to ease overcrowding within the cities and provide a more planned type of environment within which Britain could prosper. In general the literature sees housing policy of Labour after WWII as part of the overall reach of the Welfare State, although in recent years some (Malpass, 2004) have suggested that this approach is simplistic and that "a new perspective" is needed which suggests that "housing policy after 1945 was shaped more by housing market restructuring than be ideas associated with the welfare state". In fact it can be said that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive: restructuring of the housing market was an essential part of the development of the welfare state. One major change occurred during the 1950's with the development of what was called the International Style of architecture in general, which involved modular construction, open floor plans, exposed structural and mechanical systems, and the sue of concrete, stone, steel and glass . . ." (Guy, 2006). One of the major changes that went along with this new kind of design was the move towards a vertical rather than a lateral design for public housing within Britain: essentially this was embodied within the tower blocks that were built at this time (Hall, 1992). Tower blocks appeared to be a brilliantly logical solution to the limited space that was available for public housing. By building up rather than out far more families could be accommodated on a given acreage of land than with the traditional council estate type of housing. The main period of tower block building occurred in the 1950's and 1960's, and by the end of the Twentieth Century there were "over 4,000 tower blocks, homes for perhaps 800,000 people" (Church, 2000). The tower blocks were built with a number of different supposed advantages in mind. These can be regarded as part of a possibly hopeful future for them, even though they were mainly built in the past. As Church (2000) suggests, there were a number of potential advantages to the building of tower blocks, especially when designed for government run housing: They allow housing needs to be met while minimizing land use. They can provide security. They can leave a smaller ecological footprint. They form a self-defined unit for economic opportunities. Common systems can have anti poverty benefits. (Church, 2000) Taking each of these points in turn can also show the problematic nature of tower blocks and the reason that their design is commonly seen as "not working". The minimization of land use leads to a very high concentration of population within a small area: this leads to both the perception of overcrowding. At the same time, tower blocks tended to lead to a kind of isolation in which neighbors did not know one another even though they were in closer proximity to one another than in the old council estates (Nicholson, 1989). The tower blocks are perceived as having an "Orwellian dinginess" (McDowell, 1997)and the "security" that they could supposedly provide was illusory rather than genuine. In fact the long corridors, open access and dark stairwells that characterize tower blocks meant that crime was easier to commit, and has led in recent years to the spread of gang violence through them. The "smaller ecological footprint" is genuine if seen through the crude tool of total land acreage used, but the ugly and generally foreboding nature of tower-blocks means that their footprint, at least through the prism of a human ecology is much larger than the raw acreage (Lavery, 1987). The idea that a tower block could be a "self-defined unit" for economic progress in fact turned into a 'self-defined footprint" for economic despair and privation. Tower-blocks became loci of economic inactivity (Nicholson, 1989) rather than for opportunity. Concurrently, anti-poverty measures became overwhelmed because of the sheer concentration of poor (and often unemployed) people within a single place. In theory social services had one place to go to in which they could perform their duties on a door-to-door basis, but as with the theoretical ease of law-enforcement, the tower-blocks often became "no-go areas" (McDowell, 1997)that police/social services would only enter if absolutely necessary. Again, the paradoxical mixture of overcrowding and isolation led to the tower-blocks being spaces in which services were very difficult to provide. But within this apparently dire impression of the tower blocks comes some hope for a future for them. Many have been torn down by local councils, who seem to instinctively regard them as "classic examples of bad planning" (McDowell, 1997). But with the changes that have occurred in general within public housing, some tower-blocks are now owned by housing associations and there is some attempt to improve the living conditions within them. New proponents of housing blocks suggest that they are "not suitable for families with children", but that they may be for "young people without children" and for middle-aged and elderly people." It is the latter group that Church (2000) concentrates upon, suggesting that "they can be particularly popular with elderly people, if a high standard of security is maintained". With an ever-aging population that lives far longer, active lives, tower-blocks, if substantially refurbished, might offer at least a partial alleviation of the growing housing shortages. But the sheer number of problems associated with tower-blocks needs to raid considerable caution when consideration of keeping them or building new ones id being made. These problems include the following: 1) inadequate heating systems 2) lack of safety for children 3) tenant isolation/depression 4) inadequate play facilities 5) asbestos 6) lack of community facilities 7) poor fire safety 8) racism/racial harassment 9) inadequate or unreliable lifts 10) dampness/condensation 11) building defects 12) lack of security 13) poor layout/environment of estates 14) cockroaches (Church, 2000) These problems might be regarded as a microcosm for the type of problems faced by all government-supported housing programs. They are a mixture of the physical to the social to the psychological. Under the physical come 1,4, 5,7,9,11,13: these are create an environment that is neither pleasant nor safe to live within. In many ways the physical problems of the tower-blocks lead to some of the social problems such as 2,6,8 and 12. Both of these lead to the psychological problems found in 3. Those planning public housing would do well to consider the kaleidoscope of interconnected problems which may occur without adequate provision for reasonable living conditions within that housing. In the year 2000 a Initiative studied current problems with tower-blocks and came up with a series of related, if more complex and interdependent problems that would need to be solved if tower-blocks are to be a viable public housing alternative: 1. Noise, litter and refuse - problems resulting from a 'clash of lifestyles' which is less easy to escape because people are living in such close proximity. 2. Fear of crime as well as crime itself. 3. Poor reputation and stigma. 4. The range of different interests involved - the tenants, the landlord, funders, contractors all have a stake of some sort. They have different agendas which must all be reconciled if they are not to cause friction and frustration. 5. Allocations policies - the tenants' priority will be to get a suitable resident, but for financial reasons the landlord may simply want to let the flat as quickly as possible. 6. Enforcing obligations and responsibilities of contracts/ The landlord may find it difficult to monitor performance properly. 7. Timescales - providers and receivers of services have different expectations about what constitute reasonable timescales for the provision of services. (Church, 2000) It is clear that by the beginning of the Twenty-First Century there was more emphasis on "the relationships between tenants, landlords and contractors" (Church, 2000). One of the reasons for this may be that many of the worst tower blocks had actually been torn down in the last decade and many of the others had been turned over to housing associations that maintained them far better than the original local councils had either been willing or able to do. Turning back to the chronological approach, council housing remained quite stable in nature during the 1960's and 70's, but then received a shock to the system (as did much of the country) when Thatcher's Conservative Government took over in 1979. Famous for stating, rather incongruously that "there is no society", Thatcher considered the welfare state that had been created after WWII to be a complete failure. Part of that failure was in making people reliant upon the government rather than upon themselves, and one method of freeing them from this dependence, while allowing them take control of their own lives, would be to sell them their council houses. The Thatcher government instituted what came to be known as the "right to buy" programme, which enabled council house tenants to buy their houses. Thousands of council house families took advantage of this programme and it became particularly popular with the rapid rise in housing prices that occurred in many parts of the country during the 1980's (Taylor, 2005). The common view from the left was that "it was Margaret Thatcher's obsession that council houses are, essentially, a menace to free enterprise, so she restricted the number of houses councils could build" (Foot, 2004). The fact that fewer council houses were being built was indeed a problem, but most tenants seem to have embraced the idea of ownership. They bought the houses when offered to them. When the Blair government took office in 1997 some thought there might be a change in public housing policy, but instead there was in fact a continuation of the Tory privatization program that had sold about 2,100,000 properties to tenants over the 18 years of their administration (Balchin, 2001). The Labour government actually increased the amount of selling that was occurring within the public sector, indeed the idea was to perhaps move virtually all of the present council housing into the private sector. This was a change indeed from the early days of the welfare state, yet a logical extension of the whole philosophy of New Labour, which in many ways was an extension of many Conservative polices with a kinder, gentler face. The idea that public housing was essentially a detriment to the progression of the working class was taken on board by Blair- et al.. They may have had a different ideological basis for their policy: improving the lot of the poor rather than merely adhering to the free enterprise god as with Thatcher, but the results were in fact an increased rate of council house sales. It was in part the embracing of these policies that has led to the current crunch in public housing: the very basis of council housing was that some people could not afford to either buy their houses or rent them at market rates. The fact is that many people are still in this situation but building of new public housing is virtually non-existent. The new government also introduced a kind of halfway policy in which new "Social Landlords", which would be based upon housing associations, would be set up to manage properties, taking them out of council control. While rents may rise and the tenants have less rights (although more than purely private housing) most estates that had been asked to vote on the matter have overwhelmingly voted for them. When they have not it seem as if the specific conditions of the present council estate favor continued council management: PLACE # HOMES TURNOUT% FOR % AGAINST % Tameside 17,000 69 63 27 Liverpool 4,300 78 85 15 Tower Hamlets NA 64 55 45 Calderdale 13,300 62 68 32 South Bedfodrshire 5970 NA 28 72 Sunderland 38000 73 88 12 High Wycombe 6915 68 49 51 When put to the vote, most council house tenants would prefer a private landlord to a public one, despite the apparent disadvantages that go along with that. As the Labour government continued a more complex mixture of housing choices continued to appear in Britain, developing out of the pure privatization approach that had been adopted by the Tories. Thus a number of pervious council estates had began to be run as non-profit "housing associations". While supposedly non-profit they actually charge higher rents than the remaining council houses, and one study found that the housing is so expensive that around 77% of the tenants had to claim housing benefits to afford to live in it, even if they were working fulltime (Tunstall, 2007). Essentially this is council housing by another name, as it is largely subsidized by the government. In 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, issued a report which sought to consider how communities should develop housing in the future. It was titled "Sustainable communities; building for the future". The Report starts by condemning government action towards communities and housing over the previous 30 years, with Prescott writing, "for more than 30 years this country lost its way . . , all governments failed to meet housing need . . . we built housing that failed to put the needs of communities first . . . we did not invest for the long term". Prescott then offers to essentially improve life for everyone in Britain through a number of pleasant-sounding but at times contradictory proposals. Specifically regarding council housing, the government proposed to spend 2.8 billion pounds "to bring council homes up to a decent standard". But at the same time its actions appear to support the contention that it does not believe in the whole idea of public housing. It has sought to increase the Tory policy of selling council homes to the limit. Yet some elements of the Report seem to promise better government action in the future. In particular the idea that "housing and the local environment are vitally important", but continues with the following: But communities are more than just housing. They have many requirements. Investing in housing alone, paying no attention to the other needs of communities, risks wasting money - as past experience has shown. (Emphasis added) The ghosts of the tower block debacle seems to rise with the "past experience". Prescott intends to develop the whole of communities rather than just housing, as it is this sustainable, whole community approach that will lead to "places where people want to live and will continue to want to live". In the related report "Five Year Plan - Sustainable Communities: Homes for All", Prescott shows how the government can help in "offering everyone the opportunity of a decent home at a price they can afford." The Report has some sweeping visions: It includes measures to deliver new homes while protecting the environment; help for 80,000 first time buyers and key workers to own a home; Homebuy, which could enable up to 300,000 social tenants to buy a share in their home; MoveUK - a new system bringing together information about jobs and homes; extending choice-based lettings nationwide; and action to halve numbers living in temporary accommodation by 2010. (Introduction) The sale of existing public housing is still being encouraged, but "we are also taking action to increase the availability and quality of rented homes: investing in 10,000 extra social homes each year, improving the quality and choice of homes on offer in the private sector; and bringing empty homes back into use" (p.27) (emphasis added). The attempt is thus being made to help to "create communities where people can afford to live and want to live". The two, want and afford do not necessarily occur together, and this is at the heart of the present crisis within housing. With specific regard to how the social tenants will be helped, the government proposes the following within its Choice to Own: Right to Buy and Right to Acquire will continue Existing schemes will be made simpler and fairer Homebuy will be extended to offer social tenants the opportunity to own a share of their home Help will be available for tenants to purchase a home on the open market. (p.36) Ironically, it is the flourishing economy that New Labour claims at least partial credit for which led to the current need for a renewal in social housing. As the Prescott Report states, as of 2004 "homeowners have seen the value of their home increase by an average of around 80,000 pounds since 1997 . . . but higher prices mean the three in ten who don't own are finding it increasingly difficult to access home ownership and the associated asset wealth . . . in the last year, the number of first time buyers has fallen by over a quarter" (p.37). Success in one area of the economy (the private housing market) leads to problems in another (social housing). The Barker Review (2006) sought to "set out the importance of the planning system as a vital support to productivity and economic growth". The Report mixes realism with a degree of optimism for the future. It states that "England is a small and relatively densely populated country" and that as the population grows, and so land becomes at even more of a premium and that "decisions about where development should take place are likely to become more difficult". There are three major elements to the Barker Report's recommendations: the Government should consider fiscal changes to encourage business property to be kept use, and to incentivise the use of vacant previously developed land. Planning authorities and regional planning bodies should continue to review greenbelt boundaries to ensure that they remain appropriate given sustainable development needs, including regeneration, and steps should be taken where possible to improve the quality of green belt land, and to ensure that valued green space in urban areas is protected and enhanced. The major manner in which these objectives are to be met is through stream-lining the policy process and planning permission guidelines which need to be followed in order for new development. The idea is to make the planning process more economically sensitive while preserving the environmental standards that are so needed for quality of life. Part of the recommendations that relate directly to high density housing involve the idea that "densification can almost make the best use of available land, but there are limits to how far this can go . . . although in some urban areas it is possible to build at very high densities, this may be less acceptable elsewhere" (Barker, 2006). The Report recognizes that there are paradoxes involved with densification plans. One of the main ones is that while dense housing is cheaper to the consumer, there is a "clear preference in England for living in houses rather than flats" (Barker, 2006). A house requires more land than a flat per head and thus a balance needs to occur between the desires of people for space in their living arrangement and the practical need for dense housing because space is at a premium. Planning permission "has become increasingly complex over recent decades", and while the Barker Report suggests that this is perhaps "inevitable" in "a small, densely populated island" (together with new EU regulations) there have been attempts made to simplify the system. Part of this has already been done, such as within the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), which reduced the number of layers from three to two. But as Barker suggests, more simplification of transparency within the system is both possible and necessary in order for those wishing to develop new housing in an effective and economic manner to be able to do so. In the first years of the Twenty-First Century private housing in Britain started to experience an explosion in prices until, by 2005, a Halifax Bank study found that first time house-buyers could not afford to buy a house in 92% of British towns. New Labour has decided that the method of alleviating this situation is to actually decrease the amount of public housing through moving more of it into privatization. Blair announced that his government intended to increase owner-occupation by 10% to about 80%. Some of the most recent attempts to solve the problems endemic within public housing within Britain has been Tony Blair's initiative to create "managed properties" across Britain "to handle what the Home Office calls 'neighbors from hell' who face eviction for unruliness, vandalism or noise" (Herald, 2007). These families, who are described generally as the worst of the worst, would be "subject to curfews, visiting restrictions and monitored 24 hours a day by social workers" (Herald, 2007). This represents an attempt by the Labour government to effectively manage public housing that has essentially become untenable because of a few families who make the environment impossible. In many ways this may be linked to an idealistic vision of social harmony that was first postulated by Beveridge in the 1930's. The government has suggested that this new type of housing is a part of Blair's often derided "respect initiative" in which he is attempting to restore values and social interaction that supposedly existed in the past within Britain. Whether they actually did or not is a matter of debate, but the very attempt shows that public housing initiatives are almost indelibly linked to much wider, ideological trends within society. Public housing (or the deliberate lack of it) is often regarded as a vehicle for the institution of such policy within Britain. _________________________________ Works Cited Bullock, Alan. Ernest Bevin: A Biography. Politico, London: 2002. Church, Chris. Streets in the Sky - Towards improving the quality of life in Tower Blocks in the UK. The First Report of the National Sustainable Tower Blocks Initiative. UK Government: 2000. Foot, Paul. "Remember the almo". The Guardian, January 21, 2004. Guy, Bradley. "Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse". Dodge and Davis Architecture, San Francisco: 2006. International Herald Tribune-Europe, "British government to move worst behaved families to special housing units". April 7, 2007. Malpass, Peter. "Fifty Years of British Housing Policy: Leaving or Leading the Welfare State". European Journal of Housing Policy, Vol. 4, #2, August 2004, pp.209-227(19) McDowell, Linda. Undoing Place: A Geographical Reader. Hodder Arnold, London: 1997. Nicholson, Max. The New Environmental Age. Cambridge University Press, London: 1989. Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 Short, John. Housing in Britain: The Post-War Experience. Methuen, London: 1982. Simpson, John. No Homes for Heroes, Gilpin Press, London: 2007. Tunstall, Rebecca. The Promotion of Mixed Tenure: In Search of the Evidence base. Unpublished. www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/nsa/papers/tunstall.pdf. Read More