Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier Boy
I have mixed feelings about this. Obviously, Britain's crumbling tower blocks are far worse but despite how outwardly nice these places look, they do kind of evoke thoughts of "projects" and inevitable ghettoisation - the IDEA of the Glasgow tower blocks, for example, were that they'd be modern/community-based replacements for old tenement flats that were mostly populated by industrial workers. They do have the play parks, the football pitches, basketball courts... but fast forward a few decades and you wouldn't want to play on one unless you're particularly keen on ending up in hospital with an injury from broken glass (or maybe a nice needlestick injury).
The irony is that those aforementioned old high-ceiling tenement flats are now in gentrified areas, fully renovated and selling to city professionals for £400k  .
Basically I think it ends up presenting a massive social mobility issue and also limits choice - flats, and for that matter, the larger towns and cities that those flats are in, are not for everyone and with the UK govts being what they are, I can see them simply herding everyone on a low income (which will be a larger and larger percentage of the population) into said projects whether they want to be there or not -- that will be the offer. If you need social housing, it's in one of these, and you'll need to relocate.
Sooo... yeah. My thoughts are essentially that
- IF we're going to have people in subsidised flats then yes they should be as nice as possible for as long as possible
- I think the UK has social issues that mean it's unlikely they'll stay nice for very long
- They're probably better for individuals and couples. At the core of it, I don't think young families should be stacked in flats of any description. Families need a house, a garden, and a neighbourhood with other families with houses and gardens.
There used to be a lot more of that of course, until they were all sold off cheap to the occupiers to start renting out for 4x their mortgage. |
I don't share your opinion on predetermined outcomes of schemes such as this because it's never been tried.
The main issue is that 20 small terraced houses with gardens takes up a hell of a lot more space, and isn't really either achievable or sustainable. We can't force landlords to sell their stock back to councils or housing associations, so of course, I agree with your minimum standards, but the island is on it's arse so it becomes about what is possible versus what is ideal. We have to fight to even get school meals for hungry children, so gardens are way down the list, but leafy play areas, swimming pools, sports facilities, as provided in the Austrian example is way beyond anything that is currently on offer.
I don't think there is any reason to believe that these places will be full of broken glass and needles within a decade either. I understand where that thought comes from, because if we look at council estates today we see these things, but the council estates today aren't places of community or to even be remotely prideful about.
These socialised housing schemes are full of mixed incomes and backgrounds, so isn't about cramming as many low income people as we can in to the cheapest possible structures. They are communities, and it's proving extremely successful because I think people are invested.
If you want to say it's impossible over here because of our government, then I agree, if you want to say it's not possible because of our people, then I disagree on that point, because they are working and successful in other European countries, and we're not a different species.