(Byker Wall Estate, Wikipedia, online accessed 08/04/2015)
I read an interesting article today by Gwyn Roberts of the BRE, which addresses the link between health and housing. Whilst I read I am sure I could hear the distant voices of our post-war architectural ancestors reminding me: "we told you so..."
The article raises concerns about the suggested design of the governments code three starter homes, which it rightly criticises for their small size and poor accessibility. To me, they are also alarmingly similar to the speculative terraces of the late 19th century. The very overcrowded and unhealthy houses from which the inter-war and post-war social architects sought to rescue the general population.
With the increasing pressure to redevelop inner city brown field sites to "adequate density" I can't help but think that we are moving quite swiftly in reverse when it comes to progressive housing solutions.
Couple this with the rising cost of living leading to ever-increasing numbers of people living in shared, sub-standard, over-priced private rented accommodation and the "hideous slums" of Chesney's "The Victorian Underworld" seem frighteningly contemporary.
We often view the visionary works of our post-war architects through the dark glass of their decline in the latter half of the 20th century, framed by the failure of some of the more hastily constructed high rise developments. But perhaps it was not the architecture, but a lack of ongoing investment and gross political mismanagement that led to the decline of this style of social housing.
Look no further than the later successes of the Barbican and Trellick Tower for a demonstration of why is often not design, but neglect, that causes housing failure. "Ah!" I hear you say.." but they are both populated by wealthy yuppies". OK, granted, but what of examples such as the Byker Wall Estate, which most certainly is not, where community investment has led to regeneration.
At heart, the concept of modernist social housing was sound and were a Design and Access Statement written for them today, it would likely meet with the planners approval. Many developments would also align with todays standards of "sustainable communities" allowing, of course for historic building fabrics and systems.
Perhaps we should consider some well planned, medium rise developments with infrastructure echoing the lessons of say, the Alton Estate or Lubetkins Finsbury Park Health Centre. Surely these are preferable to the sprawling, confused and already dilapidated mixed tenure housing with struggling community centres we have come to accept as the norm since the mid 1980's?
(Views reflected on this article are solely my own and do not represent the views of the BRE or any other organisation)
