Social housing policy

[RichW1]

Originally Posted by kerouac1848

Lol, you have no idea of my background, experiences and I doubt even my age. But anyway.....


So consumed are you by your own ideology that you have a massive rant against something which wasn't even suggested.

You go on about how people will be forced to live in mixed communities as all large housing development will contain a degree of social housing and that millionaire enclaves will be a thing of the past.

First, not all housing is part of a large development and the majority of Britons continue to live in older housing stock. There would not, for example, be a mass bulldozing of the millions of inter and post-war semi-detaches which swamp most of England. As such, there would remain plenty of districts where someone who has no desire to mix with those on benefits can do so.

Second, did you even watch that clip? It said it was replacing government housing with mixed communities; it didn't say it was replacing all housing developments with such concepts. Hence, your assumption that all new housing development, if we follow this model, will contain social housing is false. I assume you believe it would be like affordable homes, but we can't know, plus under the current zoning laws (which is how they make developers include affordable housing) I don't believe every new built housing development is required to contain x% of affordable stock. Even if they do, it may not be the case with social housing because of differing demand, council policies, etc.

Third, you don't seem to realise we already have mixed-income areas. This is not just new developments like GMV either. Because of the-right-buy, many former estates/council own streets have families and individuals of varying income levels and socio-economic backgrounds. Similarly, much council housing was built on a small scale and integrated into wealthy streets. I use to live with someone who grew up close to Belize Park on a street which was social housing, but which was put of a larger network of mostly wealthy homes.

Fourth, you continue to espouse the myth that our economic system dictates a correlation between wealth and hardwork. It doesn't quite do so and that was never the aim (although it was claimed it would partly happen as a byproduct). There are many people, small businessmen such as newsagent owners, who work 60+ hours a week but earn around only the median (or under) income. Similarly, there are those who live off the fat of the land, or who got lucky because the service/product they were involved in suddenly became in high demand. Our economic system is based on the idea of supply and demand, not hard work/average work. What causes high demand is not always the result of actions by the producer, and inferior services and goods can out sell better ones.

Avocation for capitalism was that a) it was an efficient and automatic mechanism of allocating resources; b) that despite any inequalities or lotteries that may arise, it would, by its vary nature, improve the lot of everyone, increasingly life quality across the board. To put simply, it would lead to services and goods of greater quality, increased quantity and lower prices. As such, the cleaner who works 50 hrs a week on unsocial hours benefits in other ways because products and services become affordable and of better quality.

I agree with all you've stated. Capitalism may in itself be imperfect, but broadly speaking, it has improved much of the worlds circumstance. I agree with everything you state on housing, I'd only like to pose the question and add two points...

On one hand this social housing policy works brilliantly already in practice within London and mixed communities in cities but what of the deprived? If this policy is blanketed across all areas and not just cities, we end up with poor people being dumped in random places too far out of opportunity areas because of such quotas. I feel what is right for a city will not be right for outer suburbia or the countryside. Places like Harlow concern me greatly as far as the disadvantaged are concerned or Bury St Edmonds. If you're in social housing there and have no access to labour markets because you can't afford to travel and no work is close enough by on public transport at a cheap price, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging a X% social housing policy in areas like this exacerbating the issues some people face.

The only other thing I'd add is that (as has already been mentioned) developers don't find some sites viable with such quotas in place. The poster Officer Dibble made his point perfectly in the final paragraph where he said that it might be better to encourage more overall building, easing the supply and demand problem instead of hitting developers with quotas leading to a constrained supply issue. There would still be hotspots of supply and demand imbalance owing to the popularity of some areas, but in aggregate terms it should stabilise house prices (citeris paribus).

Broadly speaking I'd prefer see different rules applied to dense urban areas and to outer suburban and countryside regions purely because it would be better for people of all socioeconomic circumstance and would benefit all for very different reasons. However, the goal here is to reduce inequality, and this quota will do the opposite if applied to areas outside cities too. Outer areas of cities and the country, key-worker housing is certainly needed, maybe you could argue some social housing is needed in certain cases but development doesn't work like that. If we want a policy that benefits the hard working social housing tenant sector, then this is better served by being in areas of opportunity and transport links than stuck in a field with nowhere to go or work easily, hurting the very people the social housing quota is designed to help.

I do think it important too that people can choose to live where and how they like in a free society and free-market economy. You say there are loads of semi-detached and detached housing that those with money can frequent, but more of this housing is needed too and if this policy puts mansions in with social housing I'm really not sure how this would work because it wouldn't, not for those that want to live in exclusive areas and not for those who are in social housing and require a location close to work (which outer suburbia mansions are not) Everyone loses here and the free-market is also upset leading to the imbalance in supply and demand of housing we already have. Really, this policy is already proving its weakness. A varied approach is required that helps those that want to choose and be free, that helps the disadvantaged, not hinders it, which this policy looks like it'll do, replicating the errors of the past. There does need to be some degree of outside interference in the housing market, I certainly agree, but I really do not think this is the way to do it for all the reasons outlined above.

[DarJoLe]

So ghettos and poverty stricken areas of cities are just natural, as these people should fester in their own mess until they get a better job?

[Octoman]

Why should the 'fester in their own mess' ? Are they not capable of looking after their own neighbourhood? People will never learn responsible behaviour if they dont face the consequences of their negative actions.

Saying to someone who has made a disgrace of their neighbourhood that the consequence of their actions is to be moved to a nice neighbourhood is rewarding bad behaviour.

[RichW1]

With respect DarJole that's not what's being said. What's being said is that this policy is actually very good for dense city regions with great transport links. The policy falls down when applied to outer suburbia and the countryside because those in social housing are located in areas with no opportunity or transport they can afford to reach opportunity, thereby definitely 'festering' in not their own mess, but of the mess created by a blanket social engineering policy by government.

What I'm arguing for is different rules applied to urban areas (of which I live in and where I think this policy will work well) and outer suburbia and countryside areas where it hurts the disadvantaged for the reasons stated in the above post. The evidence of blanket policy like this is all around us and it has almost unarguably not been a success in outer suburbia and the countryside.

Also, if a developer wishes to build an exclusive waterside retreat development for example, I believe in a free-market he or she should be allowed to do so and make a profit without the have-nots getting worked up about it. I do well, and hopefully more so in the future, but I cannot afford to live in such a potential development at the moment, but far be it for me or anyone else to begrudge those that can. But moreso, far be it for anyone to criticise and stop the construction of such a development in a free society and free-market. This just leads to stagnation in construction and jobs creation helping neither at either end of the socio-economic spectrum. The same is true of social housing but the government does need to step in with some degree of subsidy to help the developers get the job done as social housing is vitally important. This should not be done however, by a policy that disadvantages the poor outside the densest and well connected part of urban areas. Places like Middlesbrough need less social housing and more migration to areas with work, not more of the same being built on their doorstep.

[Lloyd Lost]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Why should the 'fester in their own mess' ? Are they not capable of looking after their own neighbourhood? People will never learn responsible behaviour if they dont face the consequences of their negative actions.

Saying to someone who has made a disgrace of their neighbourhood that the consequence of their actions is to be moved to a nice neighbourhood is rewarding bad behaviour.

What about the nieghbour of the person who made a disgrace of their neighbourhood?

[kerouac1848]

I do think it important too that people can choose to live where and how they like in a free society and free-market economy. You say there are loads of semi-detached and detached housing that those with money can frequent, but more of this housing is needed too and if this policy puts mansions in with social housing I'm really not sure how this would work because it wouldn't, not for those that want to live in exclusive areas and not for those who are in social housing and require a location close to work (which outer suburbia mansions are not) Everyone loses here and the free-market is also upset leading to the imbalance in supply and demand of housing we already have. Really, this policy is already proving its weakness. A varied approach is required that helps those that want to choose and be free, that helps the disadvantaged, not hinders it, which this policy looks like it'll do, replicating the errors of the past. There does need to be some degree of outside interference in the housing market, I certainly agree, but I really do not think this is the way to do it for all the reasons outlined above.

I'm not sure why you keep worrying about 'mansions'. Those kinds of houses tend to be built on an individual basis and their proportion of the total housing stock is tiny. They wouldn't be affected. The only luxury, wealthy homes built as part of a large development are those penthouse flats and so on. But do you see councils demanding these developments of the rich to contain affordable housing? Without reading the text of the legislation which allows LAs to use zonal laws to force developers to include affordable housing (they also use these laws to obtain landscape improvements, contributions to transport, etc), I can't claim to know how the process works.

Look, in order to realise how we got to where we have (arguably the worst housing stock in the developed world at the highest prices) you need to understand the structure.

Essentially, you can split housing into 3 pillars in terms of management: Government properties; rental; ownership (I'll ignore things like old people's homes owned by charities). Britain's dysfunctional market stems from the fact that we have, especially relative to other developed states, an extremely unattractive rental sector and a shrinking social housing one (caused mostly by conservative policies during the 80s. Remember the removal of long-term leases in '89). This has led to massive demand, understandably, for home ownership, putting the power into the hands of developers. Restrictive planning laws, dominance of giant developers and a flood of cheap credit has meant a toxic mix of too many people with (illusory) wealth chasing too few homes. Developers can cut costs by continual reducing sizes without it affecting demand.

To fix it then we need to address the rental and social housing markets. We to make the former more attractive (I gave a few ideas how) and build some more of the latter. That doesn't mean 40 or 50% of all housing stock being council owned - it also means we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past (which were partly due to the fashions of the pasts). Large estates are a no-no; small council homes integrated into existing areas are the way forward. This is where mixed communities come in, but it doesn't mean every development will require it (as once the rental market is sorted out the true demand for social housing my be actually quite low).

Re. sorting out the crap homes that are being built, the only way is to either massively increase the number of developers (so real competition exists) or to enact legislation which requires minimum standards (e.g. to classified and advertised as a bedroom, Bathroom, etc, minimum sizes must be met). Moans about red-tape from libertarians and friends will surface, but housing, like health and education is too important to be left purely to the whims of the market, something Britain has discovered over the past 30 years. Also, I'm not against the government building properties again, but it shouldn't be centralised like in the post-war era, rather led by local bodies (the mayor in London's case because of the capacity for borrowing). This would plug any gaps, and some, cased by slower private developers.

[Octoman]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Lost

What about the nieghbour of the person who made a disgrace of their neighbourhood?

Having had to cope with anti social neigbours myself then I cant have anything other than sympathy for people having to deal with it. But moving the problem doesnt solve it. What the whole issue boils down to is that some people think we are all esentially equal and that our environment makes all the difference and others believe that people are inherently well functioning or poorly functioning and that it is the individual that needs to be 'fixed' and not the environment. I agree with the second view. Some people really are just useless.

[DarJoLe]

Let all the useless people live together where you can't see or hear them eh Octoman?

[hellolazyness]

I think that video SE9 posted from Atlanta seems a good way forward - the statistics on employment are fascinating. We certainly don't want ghettos - unless people want London to turn into Paris where large parts of the city are practically lawless. But there is a need for reform, all the evidence points to this.

[AWTP]

If possible take the oppourtunity to watch this documentary about council homes:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs

A real education and eye opener. Certainly the revelation – IIRC correctly – that originally, or at least post war, council homes where built not just to house people because they couldn't afford homes normally as they where low waged low skilled workers, but to replace slums, old housing stock and war damage. This was coupled with the political desire to providing a better life for people after the exertions of WW2. They where built as homes for families large and small and to provide continuity between generations. Council homes where not seen as cash cows or somewhere to put the undesirables. They where homes. They simply were not ever built to just house the deserving or undeserving poor (if you are inclined to divide people up along those lines). Pretty ethically and morally sound principles in my opinion.

Early on they where often well designed and built to space standards, (something we desperately need today) if not always building standards, and they where populated by a mix of incomes and professions: working and middle class. You also had to be interviewed to live in one and sign up to codes of conduct.

Unforatunalty much of this was undone in the 70s and 80s. The rules governing who could live there where relaxed and this was exploited by councils. This was quickly followed by the introduction of Right-to-Buy and restrictions on reinvestment and the connected reductions in investment in the existing stock to encourage buying. Add to this lack of investment was the rapid growth in unemployment, particularly for those who where likely to live on council estates but didn't work in white collar industries.

Ultimately this meant that some estates became places where crime and drug abuse rose as the quality and oppourtunites of peoples lives reduced.

It seems many of us have grown up with the impression that only life's losers live on housing estates. Losers because they are considered "feckless" and "workshy". Losers because they just don't "work hard" enough to be able to afford better. This was not the case in the past and I'm sure it still isn't the case for the majority who continue to live on estates.

This doesn't deny that some (very few) individuals and families behave in sociopathic ways, but I considered these tendencies to be as common in the well heeled as they are in for those earning less. There are plenty of neighbours from hell in leafy london suburbs and country villages. I know this through experience, although I accept that is anecdotal evidence. However I would have thought it was indisputable that low wages (which, as a side issue, are the reason for our need to have benefits) and lack of jobs is only going to exacerbate any existing problems within a community.

I support the original purposes and ideals - being an idealist and not a cynic - of council homes. I would like to see more homes built on these principles. These needn't be built and run solely by local councils of course, but also by co-ops and housing associations. What has to stop is any stigma to living in this sort of home. And the bottom line is they need to be homes not temporary accommodation and people should be able to choose to live in them.

[Black Cat]

I don't think most people dislike the concept of subsidised rental housing to provide decent homes for those on low incomes, and perhaps the intent was to provide affordable housing for people, but to my knowledge most of the housing is rented at rates significantly below market rates, and when you know that this was meant for needy people, yet is being lived in by people with good or high incomes, some of whom own second homes, one instinctively knows that something is amiss. Also, while one's home is an emotional thing, so for older people they like to hang onto their large homes even though they no longer need 3-4 bedrooms, is this right when there are families in need squeezed into 1 or 2 bed accommodation? Frankly its time for a rethink, about who needs the housing and reallocation, or saying to those who are wealthy or have second homes that perhaps they should either leave this housing or pay a fair market rent whose income can be used to provide new housing for those in need. Perhaps its time for means testing, but people should be handled sensitively and given time to work out new arrangements as appropriate.

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by AWTP

If possible take the oppourtunity to watch this documentary about council homes:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs

A real education and eye opener. Certainly the revelation – IIRC correctly – that originally, or at least post war, council homes where built not just to house people because they couldn't afford homes normally as they where low waged low skilled workers, but to replace slums, old housing stock and war damage. This was coupled with the political desire to providing a better life for people after the exertions of WW2. They where built as homes for families large and small and to provide continuity between generations. Council homes where not seen as cash cows or somewhere to put the undesirables. They where homes. They simply were not ever built to just house the deserving or undeserving poor (if you are inclined to divide people up along those lines). Pretty ethically and morally sound principles in my opinion.

Early on they where often well designed and built to space standards, (something we desperately need today) if not always building standards, and they where populated by a mix of incomes and professions: working and middle class. You also had to be interviewed to live in one and sign up to codes of conduct.

Unforatunalty much of this was undone in the 70s and 80s. The rules governing who could live there where relaxed and this was exploited by councils. This was quickly followed by the introduction of Right-to-Buy and restrictions on reinvestment and the connected reductions in investment in the existing stock to encourage buying. Add to this lack of investment was the rapid growth in unemployment, particularly for those who where likely to live on council estates but didn't work in white collar industries.

Ultimately this meant that some estates became places where crime and drug abuse rose as the quality and oppourtunites of peoples lives reduced.

It seems many of us have grown up with the impression that only life's losers live on housing estates. Losers because they are considered "feckless" and "workshy". Losers because they just don't "work hard" enough to be able to afford better. This was not the case in the past and I'm sure it still isn't the case for the majority who continue to live on estates.

This doesn't deny that some (very few) individuals and families behave in sociopathic ways, but I considered these tendencies to be as common in the well heeled as they are in for those earning less. There are plenty of neighbours from hell in leafy london suburbs and country villages. I know this through experience, although I accept that is anecdotal evidence. However I would have thought it was indisputable that low wages (which, as side issue, are the reason for our need to have benefits) and lack of jobs is only going to exacerbate any existing problems within a community.

I support the original purposes and ideals - being and idealist and not a cynic - of council homes. I would like to see more homes built on these principles. These needn't be built and run solely by local councils of course, but also by co-ops and housing associations. What has to stop is any stigma to living in this sort of home. And the bottom line is they need to be homes not temporary accommodation and people should be able to choose to live in them.

Hallelujah!

Those that 'dont want to see' real life have not yet suggested what we 'do' with those that ruin housing developments for the rest of us.

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by RichW1

Y apphorant .

? ? ? lol
Whats worrying is when you hear something second hand (like a word) and think you know what its all about.

We will never go back to social segregation. Those that cant live with others CAN go and live in one of the many gated communities....if they can put their money where their mouths are this. The problem then arises, where can you go to shop etc without having to see them?

[AWTP]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

I don't think most people dislike the concept of subsidised rental housing to provide decent homes for those on low incomes, and perhaps the intent was to provide affordable housing for people, but to my knowledge most of the housing is rented at rates significantly below market rates, and when you know that this was meant for needy people, yet is being lived in by people with good or high incomes, some of whom own second homes, one instinctively knows that something is amiss. Also, while one's home is an emotional thing, so for older people they like to hang onto their large homes even though they no longer need 3-4 bedrooms, is this right when there are families in need squeezed into 1 or 2 bed accommodation? Frankly its time for a rethink, about who needs the housing and reallocation, or saying to those who are wealthy or have second homes that perhaps they should either leave this housing or pay a fair market rent whose income can be used to provide new housing for those in need. Perhaps its time for means testing, but people should be handled sensitively and given time to work out new arrangements as appropriate.

I think it's probably a good idea to separate out the different issues you have identified.

1. Should council homes be simply for "needy" people. Was this ever the sole reason for their creation? It appears not. They where created in such vast numbers it would suggest that 10s of million of the population would have to have been described as "needy" despite being in work. Why should wealth be a factor?. This is not to say that provision shouldn't be made for those in need, but it strikes me that if there are waiting lists it is a problem caused by a lack of supply (market failure alert) not with the rules governing who lives in a council home. Policy should be trying to solve the supply problem not evicting people from their homes.

2. Second home ownership and people buying to let is a massive problem which is a separate issue to what council homes are for. However it may well be that as a condition of tenancy of council homes you should not be able to own a second (or third or thirty fifth) property. I would have no objection to this. Having rules for council houses occupants is not a new thing but they have been unpicked to create "freedom". There destruction enabled estates to become "dumping grounds" for challenging families and individuals. I have no problem with rules and guidelines as long as they are voluntarily signed-up to and then enforced. Ideally this should be through resident bodies.

[potto]

Originally Posted by AWTP

If possible take the oppourtunity to watch this documentary about council homes:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs

A real education and eye opener. Certainly the revelation – IIRC correctly – that originally, or at least post war, council homes where built not just to house people because they couldn't afford homes normally as they where low waged low skilled workers, but to replace slums, old housing stock and war damage. This was coupled with the political desire to providing a better life for people after the exertions of WW2. They where built as homes for families large and small and to provide continuity between generations.

Also the councils got rid of the caretakers and cut the maintenance of such estates in the 70s to save on the short term. I think if someone added up the longer term costs of these 'money-saving' exercises we would be in for a big shock.

Note the same thing happened to public transport in this country.

[potto]

I think people forget the term 'quality'. Everyone would find shelter ultimately, anyone is capable of building a shack.

But as pointed out previously, the point of previous large scale building was to upgrade the living standards of normal people. The majority.

I think our concept of living standards is a disgrace in this country and it will come back to bite us.

In the past this was heavily subsidised by turning natural habitat into sprawling urban spaces for example the garden city or later the New Towns.

Now we find the subsidy provided by urban sprawl has severe long term consequences but we have this political inability to reshape current urban spaces.

There are few limits with our engineering and economic ability it seems more an issue of a lack of a collective imagination.

I think it is telling that those who seem to be against any form of urban revolution in terms of housing stock have an utterly overt-romanticist view of the past.

We must remember it was not that long ago that existing Victorian and Georgian housing stock was ill-fit for living standards of the time.

It was only individuals with a lot of spare cash and a niche hobby who enabled the double-edged sword of gentrification, spawning the idea of the conservation area as a value booster.

Bang we find ourselves caught between the mis-managed, stigmatised and often poorly executed post war housing stock and the strangled in all but rocketing prices by gentrification and conservation areas.

Currently living standards that bare any resemblance to competing urban places around the world are only available to an international elite.

I would love to hear an argument as to how the status quo is in anyway healthy for the population of this city.

[Octoman]

You seem to be suggesting that there have been no opportunities to create new attractive realms within London. In just the years I have been following this site we have had plenty of grand plans but on the whole they have fallen wide of the mark. Greenwhich Peninsular? Elephant and Castle? These could have been what you are talking about but instead they are on the whole insipid, unispired dross. Given the inability of modern planning to meet the needs of the average person, do you blame those who are lucky enough to reside in the successful urban spaces to fight tooth and nail to protect them?

Rather than bemoan the fact that attractive housing is increasingly out of the reach of the ordinary person perhaps consider why people are prepared to pay such ludicrous sums for it? We have failed to add quality homes and in so doing made the good housing stock increasingly scarce. The few opporunties that we have had to demonstrate that we are able to create attractive livable environments have served up a sea of bland blocks of flats featuring whatever happens to be the architectural fad of the day. How dated do some of the 80's and 90's dockland developments look now? Limehouse basin for example? And yet quality suburban developments from the 30's and before, urban developments such as the mansion blocks remain timeless and forever appealing. Until it is generally understood that only a proportion of the population want to live in mass produced blocks and that most people like a bit of personal space and an attractive environment, nothing will change.

Once again, what hope have we got of getting people within these urban (or rural) gems to welcome in new development on their doorstep when the odds are they will be confronted with will be substandard and erode the quality of their location.

Taking an interest in architecture as I do I personally blame the generally poor quality of the output more than any other factor.

[potto]

We need to unleash a house building programme that:

a) Has clear living standard guidelines with legal minimum requirements that are reviewed every 10 years to keep up with current research.

b) Aimed at brownfield sites and densification

c) Is tied in with a complete overhaul of the planning system so that urban design lessons learnt from past mistakes and from current research can be actually implemented on the ground. The current system is hopelessly out of date, inadequate and will lead to more mistakes being made.

c) Conservation area rules more clearly defined. Protected buildings have clear grading and rightly include the sympathetic consideration of the neighbours.

However the conservation area is a larger urban block of a certain character. However juxtaposition of such blocks with other characters MUST be taken as the default normal state in a city.

Currently the vagueness is too open to abuse by greedy home/land owners that result in pointless legal battles and an inefficient planning process that puts off developers.

The term conservation should be something taken with pride and not some sort of divine right to try and strangle the market to increase ones own house price.

d) The monitoring of, heavy taxation of buy to let purchases and 2nd homes maybe even enforced quotas if taxation does not help

e) A London design and build standard run from the Mayors office along the lines of TFL to compliment the existing architect world which may end up concentrating on the high end maybe even by-passing large parts of the inefficient and mixed results of the borough planning departments.

This could be tuned to fit into the individuality of certain areas of London.

This would be where existing and new developers such as councils and Tesco can take components, customise and build in a far more streamlined process akin to the industrial process with quality control and individuality.

Hopefully this would dismantle in an instant the current cartel of poor design aimed at international investors.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Taking an interest in architecture as I do I personally blame the generally poor quality of the output more than any other factor.

I`ll call your bluff. Since when did you hear any arguments in any planning process where various resident groups were actually demanding better quality architecture?! Its only ever about seeing new buildings or smelling different types of people.

The bottom line is the planning process has ground to a halt from a combination of greedy home owners, a cartel of developers who don't get out of bed unless for a £400'000 2 bed apartment and a hopelessly out of date planning rule book that wouldn't know a master plan even if Abercrombie himself rose from the grave and slapped it in as an addendum.

[Core Rising]

Is it possible to have social housing skyscrapers? It is something I have wondered before. I'm guessing the cost is the prohibitive factor.