Tower Block

447

Transcript of Tower Block

TOWER BLOCKModem Public Housing in England, Scotland,Wales, and Northern IrelandMiles GlendinningStefan MuthesiusOnce they were seen as one of the greatesttriumphs of the postwar Welfare State and of thesocial functionalism of Modern architecture. Morerecently,high flats and other dense Modernhousing patterns have become the target ofwidespread, violent condemnation. The authors ofTower Block have decisively broken from thispolarisedrhetoric,believing that it has itself fuelledthe 'high-rise problem'.Instead, they haveundertaken a cautious but comprehensivehistorical analysis of the bUildings in the hope thatthis may help foster a generally more balancedattitude towards them.Two fundamental questions are addressed inthese pages. Firstly: why were tower blocks heldto provide good dwellings - better than anyprevious form of dense urban housing? Here, theauthors explore the beliefs of designers a.ndtheorists in technical matters such as density,layout, construction and services, as well as in theless easily defined, yet equally urgent, search for'community'in new housing. And they show that,alongside all this, there ran a belief that it waspossible,in at least some of these solutions, toachieve an absolute architectural quality.The second question takes a different form.Whywas there such a rapid and massed building ofmulti-storey blocks - peaking in the mid-1960s-across all urban areas of Scotland,England andWales? An immensely broad researchprogramme,using both centraland local sources,including countless interviews, has allowed theauthors to conclude that the chief driving forcewas municipal pride - the idealistic daring ofcouncillor 'housing crusaders'determined to give'their people' new homes,as many and as fast aspossible. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand,the new housing drive was masterminded bypowerful civil servants.In its comprehensive answer to these twofundamental questions - which take in, betweenthem, the conception and the production ofModern housing - the book contributessignificantly to the history of Modern architecture,as well as social policy and public administration.And the two massive gazetteers at the end,containing a statistical list of all pUblic-authorityhigh blocks in England,Scotland, Wales, andNorthern Ireland and the ChannelIslands, and abibliography of architecturally noteworthy projects,provide a vast quarry of data for local and nationalhistorians.Miles Glendinning: Bornin Londonin1956;studied at the universities of Cambridge,EastAnglia and Edinburgh.Now teaching at theDepartment of SocialPolicy,University ofEdinburgh, and working at RCAHMS.Currentlyresearching the history of architecture and housingin Scotland.His tower block flat was condemnedas a slumin1979. Publications include: ProvincialMixed Development (as M. G.Horsey; withS.Muthesius); Preservation - Dawn of the LivingDead; Tenements and Towers (for RCAHMS).Stefan Muthesius: Bornin Berlin in1939;studied at the universities of Marburg, Munich andLondon.Now teaches at the University of EastAnglia, Norwich. Currently researching the historyof architecture and designin England, Germanyand Poland.His terracedhouse was condemnedas a slumin1945. Publications includeVictorianArchitecture (withRoger Dixon); TheEnglishTerraced House (also Yale University Press);Artand Architecture in Poland (forthcoming).JACKET ILLUSTRATIONSFRONT: GLASGOW-SHOCK CITY OF THEHOUSING REVOLUTION. The 31-storey Blocks1 and 2 of the RedRoad development seenunderconstructionin1965. Architect Sam Buntonproclaimed, 'Housing is no longer domesticarchitecture:it's public building'. (Sam BuntonJnr. )BACK: A MUNICIPAL CRUSADE. Officialopening of Enfield LBC's10,OOOth new postwardwelling(131Bounces Road, Edmonton), on14January 1967, by the Minister of Housing andLocal Government, Anthony Greenwood.(LondonBorough of Enfield)Printed in Hong KongISBN 0-300-05444-0YALEUNIVERSITYPRESS NEWHAVEN&LONDONInspectionof models for the LCCPrincesWay(Ackroydon) development, on 17November 1950. Fromleft toright: Cyril Walker(Director of Housing andValuer), ReginaldStamp(thenew, design-mindedHousing CommitteeChairman), and H.].WhitfieldLewis(principalHousing Architect). (GreaterLondonRecordOffice)TO RBLOCKModern PublicHousing in England, Scotland,WalesandNorthern IrelandMilesGlendinning andStefan MuthesiusPublished forThePaul MellonCentre forStudies in British ArtbyYaleUniversity PressNew Haven andLondonAcknowledgementsSpecial gratitude is owed to Michael Brandon-Jones (forhelp with the illustrations), to Eamonn Hynes and TimJilani,andtoMrsSadieGibson(for loan of papersrelating toherlatehusbandCllr DavidGibson).We would also like to thank the following individualsand institutions: F. J. C. and L. Amos, N. Antonovics,Basildon District Council, J. Beckett, Belfast NewsletterPhoto Librarian,J. and N. Benjamin, Birmingham City TownCouncil (Town Clerk), N. Bullock, S. BuntonJnr, F. Bushel,N. Carroll, City of Aberdeen District Council PlanningDepartment (G. Massie, J. Souter), Lady E. Denington,Department of the Environment (Mr Phillips and MrsMartin), Department of the Environment for NorthernIreland (S. Stewart), Dundee Courier (Mr Spence), J. andE. Eastwick-Field, S. Fagan, A. J. SheppardFidler, I.Flett,A. Gilmour, I. T. Glendinning, K. Grasby, Greenwich LBC(Departmentof Administration), K. Grieb, A. Grieve, MrsE. Gullick, N. Hambleton, N. Harris, A. Harvey, A., K., M.NOTE: Measurements in this book areimperial.1 inch =25.4mm1 foot = 0.3048 m1 squarefoot =0.0929squarem1 acre = 0.4047 ha.andS.Horsey, Jersey Local History Library, A. D. Johnson,J. Kernohan, Leeds CityCouncil (TownClerk), LinenhallLibrary(Belfast), Liverpool CityCouncil (BuildingControlDepartment), E. H. M. Love, T. McCartney, ManchesterCity Council (Building Control Department),A. Massey, K.Murawska-Muthesius, M. Murawski, B. Muthesius, Na-tionalHousing and TownPlanning Association, Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council (Building Control Department),J. A. Oliver, P. Rogan, A. Ross, B. Russell, ScottishDevel-opment Department (D. Hart), Scottish Record Office(West Register House), M. Shigler, J. Sjostrom, T. DanSmith, Cllr E. J. c. Smythe, B. Solman, States of JerseyHousingDepartment, G. P. Stell, S. Stewart, R. Stones,Strathclyde Regional Archive (R. Dell, A. Jackson, I.O'Brien), S. Turnbull, P. Turner, F. Wasoff, D. Watters,A.andA. Whitworth, F. A. Willis, G. Woodman, andtotheArchiteaural Reviewand Architeaural Design(EmapBusinessPublishing Ltd).,.1""1 \.//.Copyright the authorsDesigned byJohn TrevittSet in Linotron Ehrhardt by Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Hong KongPrinted in Hong Kong through World Print Ltd.Library ofCongressDataGlendinning, Miles, 1956-Tower block: modern public housing in England, Scotland, Wales,and Northern Ireland / Miles Glendinning and Stefan Muthesius.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-300-05444-01. Public housing-Great Britain. 2. High-rise apartmentbuildings-Great Britain. 3. Architecture, Modern-20th century-Great Britain. 4. Architecture and society-Great Britain.I. Muthesius, Stefan. 11. Title.NA7540.G58 1993728'.3140483'094109045-dc20 93-26962 CIPContentsAcknowledgements page viiiIntroduction 1Section I: Design 7Part A: The Modern Dwelling:Plan,Fittings, Construction 91: TheSearch for theNew:ThePostwar Definition ofModern Architecture 92: Inside theDwelling:Size, Plan, Fittings, Heating 143: NeedandFit:Type of Household andType ofDwelling 224: The Case forFlats and Maisonettes 245: Mixed Development 296: Daylight and Densities: Zeilenbau andOpen Space 357: Multi-Storey Architecturein the1950s: Point Blockversus Slab Block 53.8: Very High Blocks 619: ServicesOutside theFlat and Access 6610: New Construction: ReinforcedConcrete andPrefabrication 7311: New Construction and Appearance.The Modem Public Authority Dwelling 90Part B: 'Community Life': A Postwar Architectural Stimulus 9412: A WelfareState Utopia 9413: Town Planning: Communal Open Space and HousingLayout; The NeighbourhoodUnit 9714: TheSociology of Community: From Social Reform toScepticism andNostalgia 10115: TheModern Architect in PublicHousing: Publicityand Criticism; Theory 104vi CONTENTS16: 'Solving,Architecturally,the Most Difficult of SocialProblems' HO17: New Socio-Architectural Catchwords: Space, Urban,Townscape, 'Prairie Towns', UrbanRedevelopment 11618: TheSmithsons:Association andCommunication;Team Ten 12119: InfinitePossibilities of Design in the1960s 132Section 11: Production 151Part A: A Municipal Crusade: Modern Flats and the Defence ofHousing Production in Britain 15320: TheLandTrap:Multi-Storey Flats VersusOverspill 15721: Central Government,Local Government andHousingProduction in the1950s 17422: Quantity or 'Quality'? Defeat of theDesigners 18323: Financing andOrganising the1960s Housing Drive 19424: PackageDealers andNegotiators:Housing Productionand theBuilding Boom 200Part B: Scottish, English and Welsh Housing in the1960s:National, Regional, Local Variations 21825: 'GivethePeopleHomes!' Scodand's HousingBlitzkrieg 22026: The Curate's Egg:Provincial Initiatives in England andWales 24727: Break-up of an Empire: Reorganisation in London 265Part C: Northern Ireland'sHousing Revolution 28528: ThePursuit of 'Parity' 28629: TheGreat Leap Forward:Production in the1960s 294Section Ill: Breakdown 30530: TheRejection of Modern Design 308CONTENTS vii31: End of the Drive: The Collapse of 'Production'32: 'New Slums': Management Problems and theUndermining of Production33: Conclusion: 'Utopia' on Trial?312319324Appendix: High Flats in the Channel Islands 328List of Interviewees 329Statistical Tables 331MAPS(showing administrativeboundaries): Central Clydeside;Economic Planning Regionsof Englandand Wales;WestMidlands; South East Lancashire; West Yorkshire; Merseyside;Tyneside; Greater London 337Gazetteer1: Multi-Storey Developments Erected by PublicHousing Authorities in the UK and Channel Islands since1945 345Gazetteer 2: A Selection of References to Public Housing in theUK from 'National' Periodicals, Chiefly Architectural,~ 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 7 0 370Notes 382Abbreviations 406Bibliography 408Name Index 410Subject Index 419IntroductionTheconditionsin whichmany peoplelivedremained shocking. In onesensethey weremoreshocking than before because of changing ideas of what was adequateor decent. What had oncebeen normal now seemed scandalous. Thus in Sunderland in thesixties nineout of ten familieshad no indoor lavatory.P. Calvocoressi, 1978Someonerecently askedme what were themost urgent everyday issues that concernedEdinburghfolk 40 yearsago, in1952, the year theQueen cametothethrone. I repliedthattherewas only onereal issueintheCity at that time: bad housing. There was oneparticularlybad tenement intheCanongate I fought toget demolished. It was in a shocking state ofdilapidation,and its services had been cut off by vandals, who had ripped out the piping. So theinhabitants,just toget their water, hadto struggle with pails all the way down to thestreet,thenright down tothefoot of theCanongate,to the publictoilets!The scandal was, that allthis wasgoing on with theQueen in residenceat thePalace of Holyroodhouse, just a few yardsaway!Pat Rogan, 1992Blocks with lifts arethrowing their towers intothe skies. They willdominate the landscapeformilesaround. Theseflats, asfar as planning goes, willequal, even surpassanything that hasoeen built in Scotland forprivate ownership. They will be provided with lifts of a foolproofnature, all heat, light and hot water services fromcentral sources, and in every way will probablybe the finest house building achievement ever attempted ... It will be interesting to see how suchedifices willfareat the hands of thedenizens of great industrial towns. Truly, democracy is stillon trial.].Steel Maitland, 19521A HISTORICALACCOUNT of the vastandcomplex subject ofpublichousinginEngland, Scotland, Wales andNorthernIrelandmust beginwithanumber of simplifiedfacts andassessments. Fromthe end ofthe First World War, thebuilding of homes through public or non-profit-makingagencies became seen as a necessity byprofessional andpolitical groups. In this book on post-1945Modern housing,we cannot describe in detail the collapse of the old system ofprivately built masshousingforrent, andtheemergenceoflarge-scale municipal housing from1919. Almost all thesmall, speculatively built dwellings of thenineteenthcenturywere nowlooked on as being in some degree deficient,structurally as well as in their planning and design, andmany, ifnot most, were labelled'slums'. Itwas takenforgrantedthat vast sums of publicmoneywouldhave tobeprovidedto rectifYthis situation. The newpublic housingwas tobecoordinatedby'national' agencies; it was tobeplanned, designedandbuilt inanup-to-datemanner underprofessional direction, in order to assure healthandcon-venience,andalso architecturalquality. Over-arching valueswereformulatedandconstantly reiteratedso asto provideasense of mission: 'maximumoutput', 'standards' and, lateron,'Modernity' and'community'.After the Second World War, the new Welfare State, withits increased emphasis on comprehensive public provision ofservices, cast the'housing problem' inanevenworselight,despite all the building in the interwar years:a huge demandfor new dwellings was now foreseen. Nobody could, ofcourse,establishdefinitive figures for thenumber of houses tobebuilt ineachtownor region. Certainlywe cannot, inthisbook, attempt to assess the general constraints and calculationsofdemography, 'housing need' and housing economics duringthosedecades. Infact, forsomepostwar housing reformers,thenumberof newhomes neededappearedtobevirtuallylimitless; theywouldnot rest until theysawall nineteenth-century working-class, or even lower middle-class,dwellingsreplaced.During theinterwar years, over onemillion publicly builtdwellings wereprovided-30%of all newdwellings. Theperiod between1945and the end of 1969, however, saw thecompletion of over four million public dwellings, comprising59%of total housing construction. This startlingly highpercentage-for dwellings directly built, owned and letbyStateauthorities-washardlymatchedeveninEasternEurope.It must benoted, however, that theseoverall totalswere rather unevenlydistributedacross the UK. Betweenthe wars, public housing accounted for 28%of all newdwellings in England and Wales, only 15%in NorthernIreland, but as much as67%in Scotland. The contrasts areevensharper whenwe compare some of the urbanareas:2 INTRODUCTIONGlasgow, 71 %,against Northern Ireland towns, a mere 6%.In the postwar period to 1969, public housing's share climbedmarkedly in England and Wales(51 %), consolidated itself inScotland(85%)andsoared inNorthernIreland(64%).Afurther strikingcharacteristic ofpost-WorldWar 11publichousingintheUKisitsdiversityof dwellingtypes.Almost two-thirds (that is, 64%-neverless than44%inEngland and Wales, or 35%in Scotland) of total publichousing output in Britain between1945 and1979 comprised'cottages', laidout invast suburbandevelopmentsmuchinthe manner ofthe earlytwentieth-centurytype ofgardensuburb. About another20%tooktheformof flatsinthreetofive-storeyblocks, a typewhichwaschiefly usedininnerurban slum-clearance areas, but also in outer suburbanlocations inScotland (where it merely perpetuated pre-1914patterns) and, afterWorldWar 11, inEngland. Andlastly,there were multi-storey dwellings:thenew types of flats andmaisonettes in blocksof six or morestoreys. Theyformthechief subject of our account-for, although high blocks werenever preeminentinoverallstatisticalterms, onlyexceeding20%of all approvals in England, Wales and Scotlandin1963- 7, and, again, briefly in Scotland in 1970-there is nodoubt' that they, more than anyother type, have come toepitomise thepostwar 'Modem Dwelling'in the big cities oftheUK.TheseModemblocksof flats, prominent astheyappearstill today, werenot justbuilt asa straightforwardresponsetoa simply statedneed, at minimumexpense. Theyformedpart of that extraordinary collective drive for 'Modernisation'during andafter World War11. In these years, therewasanurgetoreconstruct, apressurewhoseurgencyderivednotjust fromwartime destructionbut alsofromawidespreadconviction that the old fabric of towns was rotten in any case.The newhousingwas tobe basedonagreatlyexpandedscience of habitation, which ranged from the technical to thesocio-psychological. Among reformers and politicians, theearly postwar years were a time of shared beliefs whosestrength is now difficult to appreciate-beliefs in therecon-struction of the physical fabric as well as in a whole range ofsocio-political values. Public housing was tobean importantinstrument inthisfundamental andcomprehensivereform.Neverbeforeorsincehasnewpublichousingappearedsoprominent as it did with the Modem blocks of flatsof thosedecades. The chiefaimofthis bookis to tryto recreatesome of theurgency and immediacy of this great adventure,whether by investigating the various fields of intellectualspeculationandscientificenquiry whichsupportedit, or bynarrating key examples of the innumerable episodes in whichthe building ofModern blocks was actually decided and'pushed through'.All histories ofbuildingandarchitecture askthe samebasic questions. These questions fall into two broad categories.The first group comprises questions concerned with theconception, design and construction ofbuildings-the subjectofthis book. Whowas the client?What was the buildingintendedfor-or, inother words, howdidthe client, andthose who helpedinthe process of planningand design,perceive the purpose ofthe building? Which forms werepreferred, and which values were the forms meant to express?Howwere the detailedelements of planandconstructionarrivedat? Who precisely did what, among clients, designersandbuilders?Whatweretheparticularprocessesbywhichthe individual project was financed, organised and built? Thesecondgroupof questions, bycontrast, concerns the sub-sequent history of buildings, after their completion-a ques-tion to which weshall return at theend of this Introduction.THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC HOUSINGA generalrulecanbeappliedtotheprovisionandplanningof buildings: thelargertheproject, themoreimportantandpowerful theclient. Thebasicframeworkof publichousingwas, first of all, set bythecentral State: lawswerepassedby Parliament, financial assistance was provided fromtheExchequer, andadvice, evenrulesconcerning planning andconstruction, werepromulgatedbytheGovernmentdepart-ments responsible for housing in the various constituentparts ofthe UK. But the actual organisation and the building-to a degree unparalleled in Western Europe-was undertakenbymunicipal authorities; after WorldWar 11 the ScottishSpecial Housing Association and the Northern IrelandHousingTrust alsoplayeda majorrole. Muchof thisbasicpattern of patronage had been established, at least in Britain,since1919, andwetakeit largely forgranted in thisbook.Taken altogether, the providers and 'agents' of publichousing formeda very variedgroup. At first, not allof themwere actuallypubliclyemployed. For instance, there werethosewho, fromthelatenineteenthcentury onwards,calledthemselves 'housingreformers'. Theywrote andotherwiseproselytised the values associated with public housing incharitableandsocial organisationsorprofessional societies,and were at times consulted and employed by the Government.Elizabeth Denby was such a 'sociologist and specialist in lowcost housing'-toall intents andpurposes a'privateindi-vidual' who tirelessly propagated the cause of Modern urbanflatsandhelpedpromoteparticular projectsduringthelate1930s (notablyKensal House). After thewar, bycontrast,charity was mostly succeeded by a new kind ofprofessionalism.Nowamoretypical careerwasthat of A. W. CleeveBarr,a prominent architect involved in devising innovations inbuilding technologyand organisation, and throughout hisactivities employeddirectlyorindirectlybycentral or mu-nicipalgovernment. There was alsoanother new profession,that of town planner;almost all its members occupied publicposts. Townplanningconcerns frequently interactedwiththose of architects, who also found public employmentincreasingly attractive-although many important publichousing commissions were won in open competitions byarchitects inprivate practice. Finally, there were the con-tractors and builders, and building suppliers, virtually allbelongingtoprivate enterprise, althoughmanylocal auth-oritiesbuilt someblockswiththehelpof their owndirectlabour forces.Amongthisvarietyof 'agents' therewere, however, twogroups which exerted the greatest influence in the process ofcreationandlarge-scalebuilding of multi-storey blocksandother large agglomerations of Modern public housing:firstly,thedesigners; and, secondly, thosewhomwecall the'pro-ducers', the councillors and supporting officials who providedthe political andorganisational impetus behindlarge-scaleproduction. Thetwomajorsectionsof thisbook, SectionsIand11,are, ineffect, devotedrespectively totheactivitiesofthesetwogroups.Postwararchitectsanddesigners, ithasbeenclaimedbyrecent historians, were able to direct the course of innovationineveryday lifetoa degreenot dreamt of by their forebearsintheprofession. Certainly, innootherperiodof housingdesigninBritaindowewitnesssuchradicalchangesinthephysical formof dwellings. Itwasessentiallythenewlyap-pointedhousingdesigners inthe LondonCountyCouncil(LCC) who, from1950 onwards, devised and helped to pushthroughthe pioneeringpublic authorityexemplars ofhighblocks, novel in their conception of use, in their constructionand in their architectural form. The Modern designers of theLCC, suchasthePrincipal HousingArchitect,]. WhitfieldLewis, were, one might say, backed by the force of theModern Movement, or, more literally speaking, bythosemouthpieces of Modern architecture, the Architectural Reviewand the Architeas ' Journal. As one would expect, our accountof these designers' theories and intentions, contained inSectionI, is largelyderivedfromthis kindof publication.Another vital element inthe initial successes of the LCCdesigners, andthus intheintroductionof Modernflats topublichousinginthe UK, was thereceptivityof powerfulLCCcouncillorssuchasEvelynDeningtonto'progressive'designideals. As aresult, the LCCarchitectswereintheremarkable position of enjoying both professional powerandpolitical backing. Theseagenciesandagents, althoughbasedinLondonandlargelypreoccupiedwithspecificallyEnglishconcerns, enjoyed'national' statusamong designersinall partsof Britain, andtheirvaluesweretreatedas, bydefinition, 'national'valuesof 'British' design.InSection11, however, weshallseethata verydifferentbalance of influence began toemergeoutsideLondon, oncethe main design formulas of Modern blocks had been workedout and their numerous technical problems appeared to havebeensolved. Fromthispoint, thefocus of powerinpublichousingmovedtothe other group: tothe local politicianswithinthebigcitiesof ScotlandandtheEnglish provinces.The values and concerns of these 'producers' appeared quitedifferent fromthose of thedesigners: aboveall, theywerepreoccupied with the local-political imperative of housing, orrehousing, asmany aspossibleof 'their' ownfellowcitizenswithin their municipal boundaries. Accordingly, what matteredmore thananythingelse, intheir housingpolicies, was to. construct the greatest number of new dwellings. The massedbuilding of multi-storeyblocksontheoutskirtsof Glasgowin the mid-1960s, for instance, would have been unthinkablewithout the forceful campaigningworkofCouncillor andHousing CommitteeConvener DavidGibson; his main taskand skill was akindofimpresario-like activity, constantlyarguing,persuading,organising.In this great task of 'output', certain local authority officersalsoplayedavital role. But here, incontrast totheLCC,with its all-powerful designers, therole of the local authoritytechnical specialists, engineers orarchitects, suchasCrossinGlasgow or Maudsley inBirmingham,was chiefly organ-isational-to assist thecouncillors by negotiating and moni-INTRODUCTION 3toringsites and programmes. It was also frequently theirdutyto cajole the contractors intoofferinglarge 'packagedeal' contracts for highblocks. Insuchcases, it was thosecontractors whoalsoundertookthe detaileddesignof theblocks. The engineer Lewis Cross, Glasgow's powerful'HousingProgressOfficer', incessantlyremindedthefirms:'Youare the designers!'2Inthis way, municipal architectsand engineers werefreeto pursuetheir organisational work,in ensuring that the 'housing drive'proceeded at a maximumrate.We shall see that, by contrast, the LCC architects pursueddesign for its own sake, rather than output,and wereable toprevent the'packagedealers' fromgaining a footholdin theCouncil's programme. Unlike the London designers, theofficials in other cities did not have the 'national' mouthpiecesof architectural journals at theirdisposal. Althoughin manyrespectsthemulti-storey blocksbuilt by authoritiessuchasGlasgoworSalfordinthe 1960swerephysicallysimilartothose introducedbythe LCCdesigners inthe 1950s, thetwo groups ofofficers andcouncillors, definedwithinthe'British' frameworkas'national' (i.e., inLondon)and'pro-vincial',existed almost in two different worlds. In contrast tothe first Section, therefore, the sources for Section 11 arealmost entirelycontainedinunpublishedmunicipal reportsor derived frominterviews with a very large number ofcontemporary participants. Thisalso accountsfortheratherdifferent languageused inSectionsI and11: polishedarchi-tectural journalismonthe one hand, and'downto earth'commentsbythemunicipal 'actors' ontheother. Thisdis-crepancybetween'national' and'provincial' was especiallyimportant in the case of Scotland, whose own national archi-tectural traditionhadbeenpartlydecapitatedbytheproli-feration of 'British' professional and opinion-forming agenciesin London since the mid-nineteenth century. As a result, thecountry's incipient counter-tendencies to the 'mainstreamBritish Modern' evolving in London emerged in a somewhatinchoate, yet none theless powerful, form.In contrast to some recent historical accounts of the mass-production of public housing, our book argues that it is onlywhenonetracesthenational constraintswithinthevariouscomponents ofthe UK, as well as the particular circum-stances of keymunicipalities, that onecanunderstandthetiming andthequantitativeimpact of decisions which led tolarge-scale Modern housebuilding across the union. Butwhy, it maybeasked, if Scots andEnglishhousingpolicyand architectureare dealt with at such length,and NorthernIreland separatelytreatedinPart CofSection 11, whyisWales hardlymentionedspecificallyinthis account, otherthan as the t a i l ~ e n d ofthat collective administrative con-cept, 'England and Wales'? There are three reasonsfor this.Firstly, themanycenturiesof EnglishdominationinWalesleft the two countries witha common Government adminis-tration (up to 1964), a commonmunicipal structure, andcommonlegislation. Secondly, the Welsh nation's culturalidentityhas beentraditionallyheld, not least bynationalistcommentators, toresidechieflyinthe spokenwordratherthaninthree-dimensional objects. Last, andnotleast, veryfewhighflatswerebuilt inWales. Asimilar buildingpat-ternappliedinNorthernIreland-anotheressentiallyrural4 INTRODUCTIONsociety-but withina highly distinctive politicalandadmin-istrativecontext. As we shall seeinduecourse, municipalhousebuilding zeal waslargely absent in the Province: it wasthe Stormont Government's civil servantswhoexertedthegreatest influence.Toexplain, asinthebooksby Dunleavy andFinnimore,the multi-storey'boom' invarious localities primarilyas aresult of thecentralisedor 'structural' pressureexertedby,say, building contractorsisan interpretation which seems tous not onlymisleading, but untenable in the face oftheplentiful evidenceof forceful local authorityinitiatives.3Inour pattern of explanation, we emphasise the cumulativeeffect of the non-orchestrated and diverse decisions of power-fullocal 'actors'. Even among those urban areas characterisedgenerally by large-scale output, there were strong divergencesoverthebuildingof Modemhousing. InGreater London,forinstance, multi-storey flatscomprisedabouta quarteroftotal new council dwellings in the first three postwar decades,andabouthalf of outputinthemidandlate1960s, butinGlasgow from1961to1968, they accounted for a staggering75%of all new public housing.The first two sections of this book are built on thenotionofabroad postwar consensus amonghousing'providers',concerningthe large-scale buildingofModemdwellings.But thisinterpretationmust bequalifiedat theoutset: forthere never was, nor ever couldbe, complete accordanceabout all aspects of housing. Disputesanddivergences werepresent throughout our period, until theyburst right intotheopeninSectionIll. At times, eventhetwochief 'pro-viders' of public housing in Britain, the central State and themunicipalities, were at odds, because the former had endorsedregion-wideplansdrawnupby townandcountry planners,which proposed theresettlement of a high proportion of themajor cities' populationsoutsidetheir boundaries. From themid-1950s, on the other hand, the central State directly sup-ported inner urbanhousing,by encouraging slum-clearanceandbyproviding(under intense pressure fromthe cities)special subsidies for multi-storeyblocks. Yet this did notpush out the municipalities from the driving seat: it only rein-forced their independence. But as already stated, the oppositeapplied to Northern Ireland: a strongGovernment andastrong national housing agency (the Northern Ireland HousingTrust)facedby weak or reluctant local administrations.Divergencies ofinterest were bound to arise fromthenatural division oftasks; no single 'agent' could concernhimselfor herselfwith all the factors that went into thebuildingof amajor development, especiallyat timeswhenthingshadtomoverapidly. Todeviseanewjointbetweenlarge prefabricated panelsisa task that isfarremovedfromthecalculation of statisticsconcerning householdsandtheirvaryingdwellingneeds, or fromtheaesthetic-formal con-cernsof thearchitect, let alonefromdiscussions of socio-psychologicalfactors. It couldbearguedthat conflicts wereinevitable: as each profession strove to contribute to thereformsasa whole, its fervour alsoledit tostressitsownexpertiseand to distrust others. Town planners, sociologistsand architects, who worked closely together in the immediatepostwar years, soon began to part company. In Section 11, weshall trace one particularly sharp divergence during the periodof greatest output in the1960s. At that time, the 'production-orientated' councillors, andsome of their chief supportersamong thelocal authority officers, begantofindthemselvesat odds with the'design-orientated' views of many architectsand planners; for the latter seemed to place unnecessarycomplications andobstacles inthewayof what the multi-storey 'crusaders' considered to betheir mainaim: output.The morespecifically architectural concern for form, andthe socio-psychological understanding ofthe effects ofvariousforms, aretheareas in which thereoccurred themost rapidand violentfluctuationsof opinion. In fact, onecansay thattown planning and architectural preferences completelyreversedbetweenthelatefortiesandthelatesixties. In theforties, cottagesortenementsliningtraditional streetswerecondemned, while high blocks set in open space were praised;bythe late sixties andearlyseventies, arejectionof highblocks andpublicopenspace hadset in, andtherewas arenewedlikingfor 'traditional' rowsof housingalongordi-narystreets. The'national British' story of the'point block'beganessentiallyat Roehampton, where it was devisedbyLCCarchitects in the early fifties largely for reasons of'design',and moreparticularly because of its Modernity andits suitabilityas anaccent withina'MixedDevelopment',placed in an existing park. The London 'national' professionaljournals gave their utmost support. The later fifties sawfurther development of the constructional possibilities ofhigh blocks. Then, from the early sixties, some of the 'housingcrusaders' in Glasgow, Dundee, Liverpool and elsewherechosetoemploy precisely thislate-fiftiestypeof highblockfortheir own purposes of output and the'eradication of theslums'. These late 'producers' did not appear to notice,andprobablywouldnot havecaredhadtheynoticed, thatarchitectural and sociological opinion in distant London, thatthe'national British' journals, hadbeguntoreject preciselythis type of dwelling, and were even busy revaluing the hatedslums! The dichotomy between 'design' and 'production'was, bynow, soentrenchedthat it wouldsoonassist, even,in the collapse of the whole movement of public housing.But, of course, historians of specificallyEnglishhousingare usedtothe analysis of rapidchanges inhousingpre-ference. In thenineteenth century,forinstance, some of theprestigious-looking large terraces in Paddington were already,uponcompletion, subdividedintosmall flats for tenants ofa social status far belowthat suggested by their externalappearance.The reason for this was that the'better classes',inEnglandandWales, wereat that timeintheprocessofchanging their preference fromterrace to detached or semi-detached. In the later nineteenth century the bungalow beganasan upper middle-class type but rapidly travelled down thesocial ladder: withinabout fiftyyears it was the object ofnothingbut scornonthepart of the designandplanningestablishment. Noothermajorcountryseemstoshowsuchvolatility in its debatesabout types of housing.Cantheturbulentstory of preferencesinpublichousingalso be understood in these terms, as a perpetuation ofthe Englishpatternof fluctuatingtasteinhousing types-together withanunsuccessful attempt toextend thispatterntoScotland?Certainly, thebuilding of flatsinEngland wasalwaysseenasasomewhatunusual matter, anda causefordebate. Flats werefirst introduced therein mid-nineteenth-century London, both as high-class andlow-classdwellings.During thefollowing century,however, they were built con-spicuouslyandalmost exclusivelyforthelatterclasses, andacquired in the process a rather negative image;now, in theearly 1990s, we have seen a revival of positive interest amonghousingmanagers andother professional groups. Has theviolenceof thesefluctuationssomething todowiththefactthat, inorganisationalterms, theUKstands at oneextremeof housing provision within the 'Western' world-as itstwentieth-century low-rent housing has almost all been builtand managed by State and municipal agencies, whereas mostother 'developed'countries, outside the former Eastern bloc,have relied more on State subsidies to a variety of cooperativeand private companies? Such an interpretation is not supportedby the factthat Scotland has built a far higher percentage ofpublic housing than England, and yet has often not endorsedthe latter's manyfluctuations andpolarisations inhousingfashion (for instance, the opposition between 'Hard' and'Soft'factionsin the1950s).Across the world, reactions to the flat, as such, varygreatly. In Southern Europe, Latin America and the FarEast, it appears that flats of whatever kind are still 'Modem',andareacceptedunquestioninglyasnormal urbanhousingforallincomegroups. InNorthAmerica, middleor upper-income apartments in inner cities have gained wide popularity,but theutilitariantenement blocksor 'project' housingforthepoor havealsoleft theflat withanenduringstigmaof'expediency'. In some Northern European countries, includingFrance, recent affluence and mobilityhas coincided withsomedeclineinthetraditionof bothinner urbanlifeandapartment blocks.It wasScandinavia where, intheopinionof many, thereseemedthemostconvincing combinationofthe flat, Modernity,and low-cost provision:and it was thosecountriesthat postwar designersinBritainmost sought toemulate. But incontrasttoBritain, Scandinavia asa wholehas never ceasedto have astronganduncontentious flattradition. EveninScotland,whosetradition of monumentalhousingarchitecture, unexceptionalinEuropeanterms, haslong been branded an 'aberration' within the 'British' context,the building of urban flats was discouraged for a time, duringthe earlyand mid-twentiethcentury, bythe challenges ofEnglish critics and reformers.PUBLIC HOUSING IN USEAllthisbringsus, finally, tothehistory of theactualuseofour blocks.There are three major aspects to this:firstly, thephysical functioning of the fabric and all its fittings; secondly,inthe caseof largecomplexesof buildings, the historyofallocation, administration and maintenance; and, thirdly,the judgementsof theusersintheyears after completion.However, asalready stated, ouraccount only deals with theprovision of Modem housing up to the point when dwellingswerecompleted. Noneof thefurther stagesintheirhistorycan bediscussed at any length in this book.This means thatour concept ofthe user is largely that envisaged by theproviders, whichmight be consideredas somethingofanINTRODUCTION 5abstraction. Afewgeneral reflections shouldbeofferedatthis point.In the matter of building quality, there can be little in theway of academic argument:either the lavatory flush works orit doesnot. Muchmoredifficult wouldbetheinvestigationof more innovative or complex fittings, such as Modemheatingequipment; assessmentof thesemight havetotakeaccount of theinteraction of numerous practical difficulties,and, at times, a failureto use theequipment in precisely thewayintendedbythe 'providers'. Modemdwellings incor-poratedanunusual number of innovations, whose preciseperformance was, at least initially, hardtopredict. Inat-tempting a history ofphysical problems, such as condensation,inModemflats, a verydetailedstudywouldfirst of all beneededtodetermine the precise proportionof truly'bad'estates. This wouldthen havetobe set intoa wider contextofthe history ofinnovation in building, and ofdifferentkindsof expectationsamong various groups, aswell astheprecisehistory of theflats' useaswell asof letting policiesandmanagement-inrelation, of course,toanticipatedandactual maintenance costs.Thesecondareaof possible 'complaints' concerns thatwhichgoesbeyondthematerial-practical andwhichcomesunder a variety of headings: socio-political concerns(for in-stance the labelling ofdwellings as 'middle-class' or 'working-class'), socio-psychological concerns including those ofgender-specificity, andarchitectural ones (inthenarrower,aestheticsenseof theterm). Of course, theboundariesbe-tween these areas and the 'practical' and 'socio-architectural'are always shifting. Inthe caseof postwar Modempublichousing, the apparently widespread tenant satisfaction at firstgreatly enlarged the assumed scope of the 'practical': Modemflats seemed sucha strongcontrast withthe oldhousingwhichwasthedailysetting formost people'slives, bothasanimageandinpurelypractical terms. Forpeopleleavingwhateverybodysawasgrimyandprimitiveoldhouses, andmovinginto light, Modemdwellings, plentifullyequippedwiththefittingswhichthey hadmostlynotexperiencedbuthad long been conditioned to desire, there could at first haveseemed little to complain about. Everything was so new-fromtheviewpoint of usersaswell asof providers. Well beyond1960, councillors were faced with their constituents queuingoutside their houses or intheir 'surgeries' withpleas forurgent rehousing into such new dwellings.However, what makes the story of the 'reception' ofModem housing so immensely complicated and controversialis not somuch the complexdebates ofthe time, but thecriticism whichdevelopedafterwards. In the decadesbeforethe 1960s, the attitudes of bothCapitalismandSocialismtowards the lower strata of consumers were largely in unison.Capitalism prided itself in supplying more and more materialgoods at prices the lower classes could afford; Socialismstrove to subsidise a number of key 'services', ofwhichhousing was one of the most important.Both Capitalism andSocialismassumedthat the lower-class recipients of suchprovision had every reason to be satisfied. Hence the unity ofState and commercial provision, ofmunicipal clients andprivate-enterprisebuilders, upto, andincluding, the 1960s'systems building'boom.6 INTRODUCTIONFromthelater1960sonwards, a newgeneration of pro-fessional and political commentators onhousingbegantorejectthosenotionsof 'provision', indesignaswell aspro-duction, as simplistic, patronisingor downright dictatorial.'Consumers' of all classes were now deemedtodemand notjust greater provision, but greater choice. State provisioncould becriticisedasinherentlyrigid. Thenew watchwordswere 'user flexibility' and 'participation' (which we shalldiscuss brieflyinChapter 30). This alsocoincidedwitharenewedstressonsocio-psychologicalconsiderations, whichmany commentators held to be more important than the'mere' provisionof physical services; andwasoftenaccom-paniedbynewways ofdiscussingarchitectural forms andimagery. Of course, thesenewideasonlygainedcredibilitybecausesomuchnewhousingnowexisted: somanymorepeoplehadbecomeusedtothetechnologicalinnovationsofModemhousing, andnowtookthemfor granted. Insomerecent HegelianandPost-Structuralist theories concerningtherelationshipof productionandconsumption, thereisanevengreater emphasis onthe 'contribution' of consumers,or, better, the'appropriation' of objectsby their consumers:theacquisitionof anobject, first of all leadstoalienation,which must then be overcome through active appropriation.4At anyrate, thehistoryandsociologyof housing, over thepast twenty or thirty years, has produced a host of studies oftheusersof all typesof dwellings.5In our context, that of thehistory of housing upto aboutthemid-1960s, weseenoneedtoenterintothedetailsofthe history of use, nor the lengthy discussions on the dialecticsof housing provisionandconsumption. Onecandistinguishbetweentwosimplekindsof suchrelationships: firstly, theuser handles the object in precisely the way that was intendedby the providers; secondly, the user modifies the objectduringuse. For thepurposesof ouraccount, it sufficestostate that the Modemdwelling was conceived, and wasunderstood at the time to have been conceived, for theformer kindof'passive' user. Inthetheoryof Modernity,particularly within theconcept of Functionalism, design wasmeanttoenvisage, totakecareof, all possiblefunctions orpractical uses ofthe object. Equallyclearly, onecanstatethat theconcept of user primacy or participation,whichhasenjoyed dominance over the past twenty years, belongs to thesecond kind ofprovision- consumption relationship. The userwho departs from what he or she is 'meant'to do is enteringa different realm, andtakesonsomeof theattributes of thedesigner, or eventhe'provider'. Wemust, however, remindourselvesat thispoint that, eventoday, fewDIY enthusiastswoulddaretointerferewithmanytechnical elements thatoccur in any house, forinstanceattempt tomanufacturethecomponentsof anelectricpower point ormakea bathtub.Astheelectricsocket andthebig whitefixedbathtub wereamong the chief newelements in the Modemdwellingsofthirtyyears ago, it is perhaps understandable that lessemphasis was given then to the idea of individualismindwelling use.Design, production and use form part of a broader networkofsociological andpolitical notions of theproductionandthe consumptionof housing.6Their constant circularityisillustratedbythefact that thetheory of 'user flexibility' andtenant 'participation' doesnot seemtohaveoriginatedpri-marilywithanyspecificgroupof usersortenants, butwasfirst propagatedbygroupsof 'providers', notablydesignersand journalists. What we really witness fromthe 1960sonwards is anewconsensus betweensome providers andsome users, directed, by both, against the previous groups ofproviders: thearchitectswhodevisedtheformsof Modemhousing, andthecouncillor 'housing crusaders' who pushedthrough their large-scale construction and letting in all urbanpartsof Britain. Itisthese'agents' withwhomthisbookisconcerned; we shall come back briefly to the post-eventcriticism of Modem housing in Section111.SECTIONI: DESIGNModern and Future HomesIn SouthAm"rittIl"MenSource: Gazetteer, other primary local-authority sources.TABLE5County of London:Housing Completions1/4/45to 31/12/64AUTIfORIlY COMPLETIONS COMPLETIONSPER 1,000POPULATIONMetropolitan Boroughs:Battersea 1887 18.3Bennondsey 2370 46.9BethnalGreen 2158 46.9Camberwell 4772 27.3Chelsea 866 17.8Deptford 1446 21.1Finsbury 1802 56.0Fulham 1899 17.3Greenwich 2282 27.1Hackney 4902 30.0Hammersmith 1497 13.9Holbom 578 27.9Islington 4163 18.3Kensington 1795 10.4Lambeth 4920 22.1Lewisham 4475 20.1Paddington 1436 12.6Poplar 1865 27.4St Marylebone 1293 19.2St Pancras 5497 44.5Shoreditch 4244 110.8Southwark 2220 25.8Stepney 2847 31.7Stoke Newington 2176 41.2Wandsworth 6319 18.1Westminster 2210 25.5Woolwich 5491 36.8Total Met. Boroughs 78853 24.8City of London 1143 248.4LondonCounty Council 116576 36.7wCOUNTYTOTAL(inc. LCC) 196572 61.8wVlSource: MHLG Housing Retums.TABLE6Greater London:(a) Local Authority Housing Completions 1/4/65-31/3/68;(b) Local Authority Housing Under Construction 31/3/68Each column lists, firstly, London Borough, thenGLCdwelling totals in each borough area, followedby (in brackets)totalsper1,000 population.HOUSING COMPLETIONS HOUSING UNDER CONSTRUCTION HOUSING COMPLETIONSHOUSING UNDER CONSTRUCTIONBarking 1354 (8.0) 30 (0.2) 1037 (6.1) - Lewisham 1133 (3.9) 2526 (8.7) 1369 (4.7) 579 (2.0)Barnet 961 (3.0) - 680 (2.2) - Merton 672 (3.7) 9 (0.1) 204 (1.1)~ e x l e y 933 (4.3) 175 (0.8) 566 (2.6) 1557 (7.2) Newham 3514 (13.7) 221 (0.9) 1762 (6.8)Brent 1048 (3.6) - 1794 (6.1) - Redbridge 648 (2.6) 18 (0.1) 738 (3.0) 164 (0.7)Bromley 1125 (3.7) 77 (0.3) 1145 (3.8) 12 (0.1) Richmond 929 (5.2) - 228 (1.3)Gamden 1735 (7.3) 123 (0.5) 1455 (6.1) 62 (0.2) Southwark 2443 (8.1) 2062 (6.9) 3973 (13.2) 1767 (5.9)Groydon 3206 (9.8) 32 (0.1) 797 (2.4) - Sutton 667 (4.1) - 718 (4.3) 951 (5.8)Ealing 1807 (6.0) 323 (1.1) 1394 (4.6) 33 (0.1) Tower Hamlets 1161 (5.9) 2042 (10.3) 1173 (5.9) 2239 (11.3)Enfield 2824 (10.6) - 1332 (5.0) - Waltham Forest 2834 (11.9) 29 (0.1) 1482 (6.2) 22 (0.1)Greenwich 1568 (6.8) 1807 (7.8) 1633 (7.1) 172 (0.7) Wandsworth 1822 (5.5) 1415 (4.3) 1781 (5.4) 161 (0.5)Hackney 1476 (5.9) 1177 (4.7) 1525 (6.1) 1675 (6.7) Westminster 541 (2.1) 292 (1.1) 893 (3.4) 777 (3.0)Hammersmith/F 924 (4.4) 242 (1.1) 538 (2.5) 96 (0.5)Haringey 1445 (5.7) - 2266 (8.9) - CityHarrow 553 (2.7) 45 (0.2) 124 (0.6) - Corporation 151 (33.5) - 2225 (494.4)Havering 1731 (6.9) 99 (0.4) 665 (2.6) 307 (1.2)Hillingdon 1575 (6.7) 44 (0.2) 998 (4.3) - TOTAL LBC/ 45570 (5.8) 16243 (2.0) 39486 (5.0) 12903 (1.6)Hounslow 1608 (7.8) 12 (0.1) 1733 (8.4) - GLCIslington 1529 (6.0) 666 (2.6) 1691 (6.6) 738 (2.9) (LBC total includes City Corporation; GLC total includes out-county building)Kensington/Ch. 306 (1.4) 107 (0.5) 279 (1.3) - JKingston 476 (3.3) - 133 (0.9) - TOTAL GREATER 61813 (7.8) 52389 (6.6)Lambeth 861 (2.5) 1834 (5.4) 1155 (3.4) 1037 (3.1) LONDONSource: MHLGHousing Returns.CENTRAL CLYDESI DEAYRSHIRESTIRLINGSHIRELANARKSHIREBOUNDARIESMILES0 3 4 ~III IIIII I I I0 2 ;\ 4 ~ 6 7 8KILOMETRESDistrictI BurllhI andCounty of CityCountyConurbotionEast Kilbride NewTown-SCOTLANDThe pgr' 01 Derbyshire in the NorthWest Reoion (the"HiOh Peak" districllcomprise. :BUXTON M.B,WHALEY BRIDGE U,D.CHAPEL EN LEiv..... L...GLOSSOP M.BNEWMILLS U.DFRITH R.D.10 0 10 0MILES----r'--.- ... .,!'