Dissertation

‘Exploring post-war housing through the lens of Southgate Estate, Barbican Estate, and others; how social housing is failing those in need’ Catherine Warburton k1544241

Contents Preface Chapter 1: Tectonics Chapter 2: Context Chapter 3: Architecture Bibliography Image List

3 4 14 23 33 35

Preface Social housing has long been a part of the collective psyche of Britain. Socially, it provides an opportunity for upwards mobility, and a home for those most in need. Between 2016 to 2018, there were 3.9million households in the United Kingdom (which amounts to 17% of all UK households1) living in social housing.

According to the charity, Shelter there are over 1 million further households awaiting social homes. Whether people view it with pride or derision, social housing elicits an opinion. It has also been a vehicle for some of the best architects to create exciting, innovative projects - if not somewhat divisive.

Since the Victorian era, there has been a huge variety of homes built for those in need in a range of styles including Arts & Crafts, neo-Georgian, and, perhaps most famously, Brutalism. This essay aims to explore that history with a particular focus on Post-war estates. Paying particular attention to Southgate Estate in the Northwest of England and the Barbican Estate in London, I will discuss how two buildings can be architecturally similar with vastly different outcomes. Drawing on these two main case-studies, the essay will reflect on whether the architecture of a design is the most important factor in its success.

There are larger questions that this essay can not answer; why we preserve housing stock with architectural merit despite it being unfit for use? Or, why we allow those in need to live in unsuitable housing, that is rectified once it has been sold into the private sector. I hope however that it will offer some insight into the design decisions that architects make, and the impacts that they have.

1 Gov.UK ‘Ethnicity Facts and Figures: Renting Social Housing’ 4 February 2020 <https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/social-housing/ renting-from-a-local-authority-or-housing-association-social-housing/latest> [accessed: 20 April 2022] 3

Chapter One: Tectonics 4

At the turn of the 20th century cities were becoming unhealthy places to live; overcrowded, death and disease were rampant, and with the popularity of the new motor car (replacing horse drawn vehicles) they were also congested. After the second world war the government began implementing policies of ‘decentralisation’ encouraging people to move out of the city. The bombed-out city centres were to be rebuilt and new towns, with all the necessary infrastructure, including roads and civic buildings, as well as housing, were to be built.

The post-war New Town Programme was the largest public house building programme of its kind1.

More than 30 New Towns were created2 including Runcorn, Milton Keynes, and Welwyn Garden City. These towns have often been dismissed as failures with unspectacular architecture. Common problems such as extreme deprivation and decline have plagued the New Towns, thus further diminishing the public view of them. To begin with, the New Towns attracted talented and creative professionals. They also inspired similar developments worldwide. Many renowned Architects and Urban Designers worked on these projects, and in literature from the 1960s and 1970s the designs are celebrated3.

The Southgate Estate (colloquially known as Runcorn New Town) was a modernist public housing project in Runcorn, Cheshire. Developed in conjunction with Runcorn Shopping City, it was part of the post-war New Town Programme. It was intended to offer a solution to the slum house clearances in Liverpool.

Figure 1 Southgate Estate

1 Anthony Alexander Britain’s New Towns – Garden Cities to Sustainable Communities (Oxon: Routledge, 2009) p.4 2 Ibid 3 Ibid 5

Situated between Liverpool and Manchester, in the Northwest of England, Runcorn is an industrial town reliant on the chemical industry and manufacturing. Its position on the southern shore of the river Mersey established it as a port town in 1776 when the Bridgewater canal was extended. This enabled the previously isolated settlement to link with Liverpool, Manchester, and Staffordshire.

The docks permitted the growth of industry, particularly the chemical industry. Railway and road bridges begat further connections with Widnes, Halton, and Cheshire. In 1964, Runcorn was designated as a ‘New Town’ and expanded eastwards more than doubling its population by absorbing surrounding villages.

Designed by James Stirling in 1968, the Southgate Estate was completed in two parts; the first flats were completed in 1973 while the second part of the development was completed in 1978.

The estate was comprised of 1,500 residential units, housing up to 6,000 people. In 1989, after ongoing issues, a decision was made by the Development Corporation to demolish the estate.

Southgate estate was designed around the principles of Georgian Architecture and city planning.

Inspired by Georgian city plans of Bath and Edinburgh Garden squares dominated the design.

Each garden square was planted with trees, landscaped, and contained children’s play areas. The larger squares had tennis courts. The garden squares were intended to be used communally for the use of the homes that surrounded them. These were long terraces of flats above maisonettes arranged in an ‘L’ shape with two fronts and two backs (of buildings) facing each other over the garden square. Like the Georgian cities that inspired Southgate, all terraces face onto the garden square with roads intersecting between. Proportionally, the terraces are square (9.4m by 9.4m) similar to that of the 18th century designs in Bath4. Unlike Bath, Southgate was built with prefabricated materials.

Figure 2 Southgate Housing, Phases I and IA, Runcorn, England: site plan

4 James Stirling Buildings and Projects, James Stirling Michael Wilford and Associates ed.

Arnell, Peter and Bickford, Ted (London: 1984) p.133 6

The decision to use prefabricated materials at Southgate was led by the Runcorn Development Corporation. Perhaps naively, the Development Corporation believed that prefabricated building elements would be cheaper and quicker than traditional methods of construction. The project was rushed with the Development Corporation keen to get building Underway; not only because they wanted the commendation of producing a New Town, designed by an architect with growing international acclaim, but they had also made a deal with Grosvenor Estates, who were to build the largest retail mall in Europe; the Shopping City. Due to open in 1972, the Corporation had guaranteed that they would provide enough people to shop in, and staff, the shopping city.

Unfortunately the prefabricated elements hampered the speed of the development partially due to strikes at the factory.

From the 1960’s onwards, Stirling and Gowan were experimenting with prefabricated units, including the use of Glass Reinforced Polyester (GRP). GRP was used in two projects: Olivetti Training School in Surrey and the Southgate Estate. Stirling was chosen as the architect at Southgate because of his growing international acclaim and his previous work with prefabrication (notably at St. Andrews). Although Mark Girouard suggests that his selection may have been due to the Chief Architect of the Runcorn Development Corporation, Fred Lloyd Roche, having been a student at Regent Street Polytechnic when Stirling was teaching there5.

In the first half of the development every terrace had the same design. Of the 1,500 developments, one third were flats (for two or three occupants), one third were maisonettes (for four or five occupants) and one third were to be houses (for five or six occupants). These dwellings were all contained within one building of 5 stories to ensure an even distribution of social and age groups. The houses made up the ground floor, opening onto private gardens, and maisonettes were above. The maisonettes were entered via elevated walkways which were sheltered by the overhanging flats that made up the top floor6. These deck-accessed apartments were linked by streets and walkways above the roads and allowed access to other housing units and to the shopping city. The staircase towers rose from the parking areas and linked with the walkways creating two sides of the square façade. Other requirements such as a pub, laundry, and shops could be accommodated in the corner space created by the junction of the ‘L’ shaped terraces7.

Large, round windows were inspired by the area’s maritime history.

Figure 3 Round Windows inspired by the maritime history of Runcorn

5 Mark Girouard Big Jim – the Life and Works of James Stirling (London: Chatto & Windus, 1998) p.144 6 Stirling p.134 7 Ibid 7

The footways were lined with GRP in bright, alternating colours. The rest of the build was made up of prefabricated concrete. Elevated footways and deck-accessed flats were not a new idea, and arguably date back to the early Middle Ages with the invention of Loggia. The use of outside corridors had been popular with planners and architects for a long time; they were an excellent space saving device. External corridors can also be seen in much earlier programmes than Southgate, such as Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse8. However the idea of ‘Pedways’ or ‘Streets in the Sky’, as derived from Modernist Urban theory, captured the imagination of architects around the time of Southgate’s inception.

Figure 4 GDP Lined Walkway at Southgate

Figure 5 Southgate Housing, Phases I and IA, Runcorn, England: section

8 Douglas Murphy ‘Notopia: The fall of streets in the sky’ Architectural Review, 9 June 2016 < https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/notopia-archive/notopia-the-fall-of-streets-in-thesky> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] 8

Figure 6 Ville Radieuse (L) and the Walkways at Southgate (R)

While Ville Radieuse was an entirely theoretical proposal, in 1963 the Buchanan Report (later published as ‘Traffic in Towns’) bridged the gap between theory and reality. The report described the effect of the increase in car ownership and suggested that ‘if we are to have any chance of living at peace with the motor car, we shall need a different sort of city’9. Traffic in Towns set out the ‘ideal’ way to differentiate cars and pedestrians and these terms, of vehicles to the lowest levels with an elevated pedestrian deck free from traffic became the status quo for designers. With the post-war building boom, deck-accessed blocks of housing were appearing across the UK.

Figure 7 Milk floats using the Walkways Park Hill

This did not last long. In the 1980’s, people were falling out of love with Modernism. This meant that deck-accessed apartments were also falling out of favour. Once considered neat and practical, people began to see them as dangerous places which were ripe for crime. Claiming that the multiple access points of the walkways provided an incentive to criminals due to the network of escape routes, Alice Coleman led a conservative reaction against the walkways. Coleman rejected the idea of walkways in the sky and endorsed traditional streets10. This was exasperated by the Broadwater Farm riots of 1985. The walkways became linked to sink estates, deprivation, and crime. Edwin Heathcote describes them as ‘poorly maintained, ill-lit, urine-soaked routes’11.

The residents of Southgate felt similar; there were complaints of noise and anti-social behaviour 9 Colin Buchanan Traffic in Towns: A Study of the Long-Term Problems of Traffic in Urban Areas (London: H.M. Stationery Office 1964) p.6 via < https://www.architectural-review.com/ archive/notopia-archive/notopia-the-fall-of-streets-in-the-sky> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] 10 Douglas Murphy ‘Notopia: The fall of streets in the sky’ Architectural Review, 9 June 2016 < https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/notopia-archive/notopia-the-fall-of-streets-in-thesky> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] 11 Edwin Heathcote ‘How architects have tried to create ‘streets in the sky’’ Financial Times 5 May 2017 < https://www.ft.com/content/8f2bab62-2b32-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] 9

on the walkways. It is an unfair analysis to lay the blame entirely on the design of the walkways.

Rather than it being the fault of the architecture, it seems as though poor maintenance, a lack of residential autonomy, and poor lighting rather encouraged poor social behaviour.

Afterall, the Barbican Estate in London also has covered, external walkways, and yet does not have the same issues as Runcorn (and indeed Broadwater farm) seemed to have. Furthermore, traditional streets can and do have issues with noise and antisocial behaviour. 30 years on from the demolition of Southgate and Runcorn is still plagued with issues of crime and Poverty. Perhaps it is a question of environmental psychology, rather than architecture and the issues seen in the walkways could have been resolved with proper maintenance, a good lighting system, and by letting people have more control over the exterior of their properties?

Figure 8 Image Showing External Walkways at the Barbican

The second half of the development, completed in 1977, was different. The city authorities had decided to change the dwelling types halfway through the construction. Rather than the previous three types within a 5-storey section, they wanted only family housing with a garden each. All roads and underground services had been built so the new proposals had to fit to the existing layout. Other services, such as the district heating system were constructed across the roofs. This resulted in 250 low rise houses arranged in terraces around squares. Unlike the previous half of the estate these houses were clad in GDP in contrasting colours, which resulted in cheerfully cheap homes. They retained the large porthole windows12.

The estate began to be occupied in 1973 and initially was considered a “rather smart place in which to live”13. It was considered trendy and was filled with professional young families. However, issues soon began to arise. In November 1976, the subsidised rents and heating costs ended.

Heating costs spiralled due to the increases in oil costs in 1975. The district-heating system proved to be a failure as people were unable to afford the cost of heating their homes.

The professional young families began to move out of the estate into more traditional houses with 12 13

Stirling p. 192 Girouard p.161 10

gardens. New tenants moved in but disliked the architecture and again struggled with the raising heating costs. Tenancies changed frequently, and the flats became difficult to fill. Soon, most of the estate was empty, with a few homes occupied by families who relied on social assistance and had their heating bills paid for.

Issues arising from the design had been apparent from the beginning; James Stirling maintained that the ‘instructions from the Corporation determined almost every aspect of the house and were by far the largest contribution to the eventual appearance and environment of the estate’14. It was the Corporation who pushed for high-density flats and maisonettes, who wanted prefabricated units, who determined the use of the communal heating system. It was also the Corporation who decided to change the dwelling types of the second half partway through construction. When the brief is so heavily controlled, it seems unfair to blame the architect for a project’s failings. Perhaps Stirling should have pushed back against the brief, and perhaps a different architect may have. On the other hand, an architect’s job is to respond to the brief and to find solutions to the presented problems – which Stirling did.

Stirling isn’t without fault of course; the architecture itself further contributed to and compounded the issues linked to the estates decline. The elevated walkways overhung by the top floor flats were dark, ill-lit and had poor visibility which created both safety and maintenance issues.

Residents complained about anti-social behaviour, crime, and noise. They also bemoaned their lack of autonomy over the exterior of their homes which they were unable to decorate or personalise, and the lack of private gardens. It was also felt that in comparison with other new estates in surrounding areas that the architecture was too radical.

Figure 9 Perspective Drawing of Southgate Walkways compared to the Built Walkways

The use of car-free access and heavily pedestrianised areas created more issues with Maintenance. The local authority for Runcorn reported that ‘Maintenance costs can be disproportionately high due to the difficulties of machine access away from the road’15. This difficulty in accessing the estate and the associated costs of maintenance accelerated the 14 15

Girouard p.160 Alexander p.156 11

physical decline. Rather than providing a car-free oasis where people could walk and cycle freely, it resulted in the estate being isolated from its surroundings. In fact, the site was physically separated from Runcorn Town Centre by the bypass, which was screened from the housing areas by high earth banks and planting. One could drive through the New Town without seeing it.

In 1989, it was decided that the estate had become a ‘dump’16 and a ‘slum’17. It was demolished soon afterwards. There was an intensive consultation period, after which the Merseyside Improved Homes housing trust replaced Southgate with the Hallwood Park Estate; 308 detached or semidetached two-storey houses with pitched roofs and their own gardens. This new estate was more similar to those being built in neighbouring Frodsham and Helsby, more similar to the homes the original residents had moved from, and ironically, more similar to the suburban houses in Liverpool which Stirling himself had been brought up in. Perhaps, if residents had been consulted initially, then the ‘Southgate incident’ may have been avoided.

Figure 10 Hallwood Park Estate which replaced Southgate

When one looks at Southgate and considers why it failed, it is also important to consider the other side of the coin; what about post-war estates that thrived?

The damage of the war gave London a chance that it hadn’t had since the Great Fire of London in 1666; to completely rebuild and replan. This led to the Greater London Plan (1944), developed

by Sir Leslie Patrick Abercrombie. Inspired by the Garden City Movement, this plan followed similar principles to Southgate – reducing traffic congestion, zoning functional uses, controlling infrastructure, increasing open spaces, and improving the housing stock18. Rather than building ‘New Towns’, the City had the opportunity to rebuild, reconstruct, and renovate what it already had.

16 Girouard p.161 17 Ibid 18 Tostoes, Ana and Ferreira, Zara ‘Social Endurance at the Barbican Estate (1968-2020)’ The Journal of Architecture 20 October 2021 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602 365.2021.1978523> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] 12

Figure 11 Plan of the Barbican Estate

The Barbican is a high-density, mixed used development built between 1965 and 1976.

Designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, it forms part of the wider Barbican Estate. It contains 2,000 residences of flats, maisonettes, and houses, and is situated in the City of London. Like Southgate, the prevailing material is concrete. However the Barbican is a brutalist design and was not part of the New Town Movement. On the contrary, the City of London Corporation were keen to encourage people back into the city and wanted to provide housing for city workers. The Barbican was intended as homes for the middle and upper classes, white-collar families of Judges, Barristers, Financiers, and other city professionals.

Figure 12 Exterior of the Barbican

13

Much like Southgate, the Barbican Estate is a self-contained residential neighbourhood. Following similar principles, it contains landscapes gardens, lakes and roof terraces. Traffic and pedestrians are separated with the estate elevated onto a raised pedestrian deck. Rather than cutting off the development as in Southgate, it provides a foil to the noise and traffic of the city thereby creating a quiet setting within the middle of the estate.

The residential part of the complex contained housing units of between one and five rooms, in order to ‘encourage a balanced population of a truly resident nature with loyalties and interest in the City, not to provide a large number of pieds-à-terre’19. This was very similar to the housing blocks at Southgate, which aimed to provide a mix of families and social classes to create a cohesive community.

However, where Southgate would rely on the close by Runcorn Town Centre and The Shopping City for amenities, the Barbican incorporated these into the complex. Amongst shops, pubs, and restaurants the Barbican Estate contained; The Barbican Centre (an arts and drama centre), a public library, a Girls School, Museum of London, a YMCA (linking the Barbican to the Golden Lane Estate), and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. It became a city within the city. As well as being well connected to the city, there was plenty to do on the estate too, leaving the residents in a more favourable position compared to those at Runcorn.

Figure 13 Space at the Barbican including Restaurant, Girls School, School of Music, and Plaza

19 Geoffry Powell, Barbican Redevelopment: Report to the Court of Common Council of the Corporation of London on Residential Development within the Barbican Area (London: City of London, 1959). Via Tostoes, Ana and Ferreira, Zara ‘Social Endurance at the Barbican Estate (1968-2020)’ The Journal of Architecture 20 October 2021 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1 0.1080/13602365.2021.1978523> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] 14

As previously mentioned, a frequent complaint from the residents of Southgate was the lack of autonomy over their homes. The Barbican avoided this by having flexible, undecorated living areas providing the residents with the opportunity to adapt their homes to suit themselves. This was in sharp contrast to council properties which came decorated.

Although similar, it would be unfair to compare Southgate and the Barbican directly. Their differences lie in their intended audiences; Southgate was council funded, intended to house low-income, working-class families, whereas the Barbican was always meant to attract wealthier, professional residents. Southgate was to be cheap and cheerful, a better alternative to the northern slums. The Barbican was to be designed as the Corporation’s showpiece, intended to restore the City’s powerful image as an international financial centre20.

Figure 14 Materiality at the Barbican

This distinction is clear in the materiality of the projects. Southgate estate was built ‘on the cheap’ and seemed to embrace it with its gaudy GRP panels in bright primary colours. The Barbican, in contrast, used concrete (cast in-situ, not prefabricated) engineering brick, and metal and timber framed panels. The high-quality materials used gave nod to the high-quality design and expense involved in the project – no one was comparing the Barbican to ‘Butlins’, ‘Legoland’ or ‘Washing Machines’; some of the unfavourable comparisons that the Southgate Estate drew.

20 Tostoes, Ana and Ferreira, Zara ‘Social Endurance at the Barbican Estate (1968-2020)’ The Journal of Architecture 20 October 2021 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602 365.2021.1978523> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] 15

Chapter Two: Context 16

There is a much wider social context behind the failure of Southgate and the success of the Barbican. While both are high-density, low-rise estates, built of concrete and concerned with housing people post war, they are not the same. Before considering their successes and failures, one must firstly consider the wider context of social housing, and in particular housing estates, at the time.

Since 1919, local authorities have been required by law to provide council housing. However, pre-1900, the concept of social housing did not exist. Although, that is not to say that there wasn’t a need for it. The industrial revolution had caused similar issues to those faced post-war; overcrowded and dirty cities were causing death and illness throughout the working classes.

Slum quarters such as the Old Nichol, were described as ‘but one painful and monotonous round of vice, filth, and poverty’21. Death rates were over twice the London average and one in four newborns were likely to die before their first birthday22. This was a threat to the spiritual and material foundations that the middle and upper class was built. Thomas Carlyle first raised the issue of the ‘Condition of England Question’ in response to the rise of Chartism23. Six years later, Frederick Engles wrote ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’, both outlining the effect that industrialism was having on the land and on the working people.

It wasn’t just in London. William Henry Duncan, a physician, gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee on the Health of Towns in 1840 detailing the correlation between housing conditions and premature death24. He further outlined his case in the 1844 pamphlet, ‘On the Physical Causes of the High Rate of Mortality in Liverpool’. Dr John Thresh in nearby Manchester concluded in his 1889 report that in Ancoats ‘3,000 to 4,000 people were dying annually [here] in Manchester from remedial causes’25.

Equally alarming to the Victorians was the purported immortality of the slum’s inhabitants.

Reverend Andrew Mearns’ pamphlet, ‘The Bitter Cry of Outcast London’ published in 1883, describes the inhabitants as ‘Non-Attendance at Worship’. He goes on, ‘Pestilential human rookeries…where tens of thousands are crowded together amidst horrors which call to mind what we have heard of the middle passage of the slave ship’. Within these rookeries ‘incest is common; and no vice and sensuality causes surprise or attracts attention’26. Associating the poor housing with poor morals lead to a combination of pity and piety, which further led to the drive to reform housing.

The first housing reforms were seen in Liverpool. In 1842 the Sanitary Act enabled magistrates to order landlords to clean any ‘filthy or unwholesome’ house that they owned. This was policed by the council Health Committee. Following this, the Liverpool Sanitary Act made the council responsible for drainage, paving, sewerage, and cleaning. 5000 cellar dwellings were declared unfit for human inhabitation by the countries first Medical Officer for Health – Dr Duncan. 1866 saw the Labouring Classes Dwelling Act which allowed municipalities to purchase sites to build and improved working-class homes; Liverpool was the only authority to do so. St Martin’s Cottages were completed in 1869 on Ashfield Street in Vauxhall, Liverpool. These were the first council homes in Britain. However they were not lauded as any sort of reform. With only 146 flats available, the development could only assist a very small amount of the city’s most deprived.

Furthermore, St Martin’s Cottages weren’t considered a particularly pleasant place to live. The trade magazine The Builder deemed them so bleak that they concluded ‘those who built for the 21 22 23 24 25 26

John Boughton Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council (London: Verso, 2019) p. 9 Boughton p. 9 Boughton p. 10 Boughton p. 11 Ibid Boughton p. 12 17

poor should mix a little philanthropy with their percentage calculations’27.

Figure 15 St. Martin’s Cottages photographed in 1944

Various private companies began developing ‘model dwellings’ for the working classes, including social reformer Octavia Hill and the Peabody Trust, founded by American financier George Peabody. Interestingly, these early examples of social housing drew similar criticisms to the ones that Southgate received. They were austere, with stringent rules imposed on tenants. Additionally, the rent was too expensive for the slum classes to afford so the dwellings became the homes of salaried middle classes and well-paid artisans.

Figure 16 Map of the Old Nichol Slum

27

Boughton p. 12 18

Figure 17 Charles Booth Poverty Map of the Old Nichol Slum

The London County Council (LCC) were responsible for the first ‘council estate’, the Boundary Estate in Bethnal Green. Built to replace the Old Nichol slum (deemed one of the worst in London) the twenty-three blocks of arts and crafts influenced red brick were designed in a star shape, positioned as such to maximise the amount of sunlight that entered the buildings. They had large communal areas which included a bandstand, as well as ‘health-improving’28 amenities such as a laundry and over 200 shopfronts. While an arts and crafts design, it predates the arts and crafts cottages of the garden-city movement by a few years and is higher density, more similar in layout to the new town and estate developments of the 1950’s. Like other social housing of the time, the rent was set at a rate higher than the people of Old Nichol could afford29, and thus more affluent families moved in.

Figure 18 Boundary Estate - Chertsey House in 1897

28 29

Figure 19 Boundary Estate - Chertsey House in 2015

Lynsey Hanley Estates: An Intimate History (London: Granta Publications, 2007) p. 56 Hanley p. 56 19

While it could be argued that these new developments were not working as intended and were not helping the very poorest, they still had a lasting impact. By creating homes which were built and maintained by the local authority who received the rent and carried out repairs, exploitative slum landlords were unable to continue to monopolise the housing market. There was lasting significance in the LCC’s involvement too; it acknowledged the need for consistent, sanitary, and fairly priced housing. It was one of the first examples of the state stepping in at a local level, where previously only the Church and philanthropists had been willing. The council showed that it was prepared to act in a way that would directly and quickly improve the lives of the poor30. It improved the situation and lessened the slum conditions for many even though exploitation and slum conditions continued for many others.

In 1945 the Labour Party won their first general election with a majority of 145 seats. Led by Clement Attlee, the party brought forward initiatives such as the National Health Service and the nationalisation of coal, gas, electricity, railways, and other primary industries. They also expanded the National Insurance Act 1946, which built upon the social security system originally set up in 1911. This helped to partially elevate the class divides that had previously afflicted Britain, particularly during the Depression31.

Two parliamentary acts that were imperative to the improvements of the working classes were the Education Act of 1944 which raised the school leaving age to 15, and the New Towns Act of 1946.

Both programmes were effective in creating an extensive government building programme. This resulted in the construction of over two thousand schools within a decade and in the designation of ten new towns modelled on Letchworth Garden City, with populations ranging from twenty thousand to sixty-nine thousand32.

A large amount of the work was designed by ‘average municipal architects’33 following the NeoGeorgian style or the Contemporary style; shallow-pitched roofs, brick walls, vertically boarded spandrels, and squarish wood-framed picture windows, based on the official architecture of Sweden’s Welfare state34. However, this was considered sentimental, and was fiercely rejected

by Alison and Peter Smithson35 as well as their contemporaries: Alan Colquhoun, William Howell, Colin St John Wilson, and Peter Carter, all of whom worked for the LCC in the 1950’s but did not subscribe to the ‘Swedish line36’. Under the influence of the Smithsons, the architecture of Britain’s welfare state was swiftly moving away from the pre-war Modern Movement and Brutalism was gaining traction.

Like the first council homes, Brutalism occurred when there was a crucial need to house people, quickly and safely. Despite the acknowledgment of the issues surrounding urban slums and various housing initiatives since St. Martins Cottages in 1869, progress was slow, and cities were still struggling to clear the slum housing. However, as most of Europe’s major cities suffered with heavy-bomb damage during the war, it presented the perfect opportunity to redesign and rebuild.

With little to no building work happening during either world war, meant a shortage of housing during the interwar and post-war periods. There was a widespread desire to improve housing for the average Britain, driven in part by the need to house returning soldiers; Prime Minister Lloyd George promised ‘homes fit for heroes’.

Brutalism was the perfect vehicle for large-scale, affordable residential architecture. For local 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Hanley p. 56 Kenneth Frampton Modern Architecture (London: Thames & Hudson, 1980) p. 262 Ibid Ibid Ibid Joan Ockman Architectural Culture – 240 Frampton p. 262 20

councils it offered cheap materials, easily scalable designs, and did not need the highly skilled, specialised labour that existed pre-war. For architects, it offered an approach that demonstrated their socially engaged, ethically driven approach to their work through the honesty of the materials.

While Brutalism emerged post-war, it was developed from the ideas of functionalism and simplicity that had defined modernism pre-war. It sought to adapt these earlier principals to a new, post-war world with an urgent need for urban reconstruction. Despite the lofty prospects of Brutalism, it became evocative of deprivation and decline as the large-scale social housing projects it was used on fell into disrepair. Building for the working class began to be side-lined. The Smithsons moved away from their initial sympathy for the working-classes to more middle-class ideals which relied on their appeal to other middle-class people.

Figure 20 Ham Common Flats - James Stirling

Also gaining prominence during this time was James Stirling with his commission for the flats at Ham Common, Richmond. Kenneth Frampton describes the flats as ‘the ultimate integration of the British Brutalist aesthetic’37, although Stirling himself would have rejected this, and has denied that he ever thought of himself as a Brutalist [architect]38.

As seen in Southgate Estate and the Ham Common flats, Stirling saw the answer to the post-war housing crisis as ‘…prefabrication and mass production’39 and was keen that British architects should continue to push for modernity, bemoaning the fact that although the Hertfordshire schools were ‘initially motivated by a will to modernity’40, they did not ‘set a standard for either conception or style’41.

As noted earlier in the essay, Stirling was not concerned with theories of architecture or design, but rather of answering the question posed by the site.

This was a similar attitude to that of Chamberlin, Powell, and Bon, who frequently built on urban sites which were limited by their surroundings; difficult accesses coupled with bomb-damage.

37 Frampton p. 266 38 Ibid 39 James Stirling, ‘Regionalism and Modern Architecture’, in Architectural Culture pg 243 Ockman, Joan and Eigan, Edward (ed.) Architecture Culture 1943-1968 (New York: Rizzoli, 1993) pp. 243 – 252 (p.243) 40 Stirling p.243 41 Ibid 21

Moreover, with their area of interest predominantly being with urbanism and townscapes, Chamberlin explained that he was concerned with ‘… the design of a group of buildings in close proximity to each other as if they were a single problem in design’42. While the group admitted to a love of architectural history, drawing inspiration from a range of sources such as Hadrian’s Villa, Inns of Court, and (again, like Stirling’s Southgate Estate) Georgian Squares, they did not align themselves with any specific style. Their buildings could be markers on a timeline from post-war to the 1960’s, becoming more sculptural as they become more mature43.

Originally, the Barbican site was not intended for housing, which is surprising considering that the number of inhabitants of the City had fallen from 100,000 in 1851 to 5,324 in 1951 – Cripplegate Ward had just 28 inhabitants. The opportunity for redeveloping the Barbican site into housing and amenities, rather than commercial offices came from the previous success of the Golden Lane Estate which was completed in 1962. It was the New Barbican Committee, formed of the same group who had backed the Golden Lane Estate, who pushed for a residential programme to be incorporated quoting a letter from the minister of housing who recommended that the Barbican should create ‘a genuine residential neighbourhood incorporating schools, shops, open spaces and other amenities, even if this means forgoing a more remunerative return on the land’44. In the 1950’s most city centres were being given over for speculative development, making the decision to include housing a usual one; the high land values meant that something extraordinary was needed to make this a feasible alternative45.

In other parts of Britain the building of residential housing was being limited; local authorities were having their expenditures curtailed due to the Suez Canal Crisis, and new housing initiatives were being limited to slum clearances only. This put the Barbican in an exceptionally good position from the beginning46. However, to ensure that the costs to the City Corporation were met, it needed to be built to a remarkably high density, and the rents on the flats needed to be aimed at those on a middle-to-high income. Unlike Southgate or Parkhill, this was not going to be welfare housing and that would be clear from the exterior, the level of detail, and the materiality.

In fact, Milton Court, which housed service flats for City staff, was physically separate from the rest of the housing and had a simpler finish with ‘flint aggregate, sand, and Portland cement47’, which further differentiated it.

Figure 21 Milton Court

42 Elain Harwood Chamberlin Powell & Bon (London: RIBA Publishing, 2011) p.2 43 Harwood p. 4 44 John Allan, ‘Barbican: The Unique Urban Vision’, in The Barbican Estate, ed. by Stefi Orazi (London: Batsford, 2018), pp. 9-12 (p. 10).

45 Harwood p. 99 46 Harwood p. 102 47 Harwood p. 114 22

Although a high-density concrete estate (with towers), the Barbican is set apart from other buildings of the same nature. This is due to the quality of the building. Within the Barbican, one can see a high level of craft and detail such as bespoke windows and ironmongery, custom joinery, and electrically heated screed which are not apparent in its contemporaries. Buildings, which on paper should have been equal, have been plagued with problems. Notably Ronan Point in the East End which was built, finished, and handed over to the council in only 20 months. It was built using the Larsen-Neilsen method of bolting together large pre-cast panels, which was incredibly useful to the council as it provided visible progress quickly, had a small footprint, and didn’t need skilled workers to put it together. This would prove fatal when a gas explosion killed four people. It was found to be the result of high-quality materials being substituted for inferior models48. As well as rocking in the wind, Trellick Tower became known as the ‘Tower of Terror’ after experiencing a near-total social breakdown49. Poor quality building added to an amalgamation of other issues; quantity over quality, well-meaning but ill-equipped local councils, and, as shown at Southgate, poor maintenance, and the world oil crisis.

Figure 22 Bespoke Feature at the Barbican

Despite their failures, tower blocks continued to be used for housing by various local authorities, which Lynsey Hanley attributes to the Royal Institute of British Architects. RIBA saw tower blocks as an exclusive and desirable architectural tool that had ‘abundant theoretical potential50’ from a Modernist point of view. However very few tower blocks were designed by architects, and so failed to reach any form of architectural high-mindedness. Pre-cast kits such as those used at Ronan Point, could only be ordered, not designed. This led to high-rise blocks in different parts of the country that all looked identical; identi-kits with little architectural merit51. Tower blocks were in 48 49 50 51

Hanley p. 108 Hanley p. 113 Hanley p. 121 Ibid 23

vogue at the same time they were falling out of favour. Richard Crossman, the minister for housing between 1964 and 1966 (when the building had begun of the Barbican), was beginning to lose patience with the idea of high-rise building, especially as it had been established that in most cases ‘an equal number of terrace houses with small private gardens could be erected on the same plot of land’52. Crossman was critical of the tower blocks, condemning them as ‘tall blocks’ used to enlarge the egos of architects53.

Figure 23 Damage to Ronan Point

Despite Brutalism being the architecture of the welfare state and of local government, the Barbican stands apart from it and so avoids the pitfalls. Although similar in many ways – large concrete towers, blocks of flats connected by exterior walkways, centralised hard landscaping – the Barbican was an undeniably different place to live compared to its social housing equals. It partially helped that, compared to residents in similar estates, residents at the Barbican seem to truly love where they live. The quality of the design, the bespoke fixtures and fittings, and the highend products throughout gave the residents something to respect and cherish. It has always been a place with status and has become an icon of brutalism in recent years, continuing to increase the love and respect that the residents have for it.

People who moved into the Barbican wanted to live there as opposed to being housed there.

Furthermore, the Barbican was designed, and residents were encouraged to foster a sense of community. This sense of community was considered from the very first designs. Inspired

by Dolphin Square, a 1930’s high-density (but private and high-end) estate in Pimlico whose amenities included a swimming pool as well as squash courts, the principles of the Barbican were luxury housing arranged around courtyards, towers, and with the incorporation of cultural 52 53

Ibid Ibid 24

facilities54. The first schemes were turned down by the LCC for the open spaces being too small in comparison to the density of the housing55. However, the proposals garnered a lot of support, with newly appointed Minister of Housing, Duncan Sandys, saying in 1956 that he could see the ‘advantages in creating in the City a genuine residential neighbourhood, incorporating schools, shops, open spaces and other amenities, even if this means forgoing a more remunerative return on the land56’. It’s unsurprising that CP&B were concerned with creating a community for their proposal; Afterall, Bon co-ordinated the RIBA exhibition ‘Better Towns for Better Living’ in 195957.

In the introduction to their proposals, their ambitions were set out as thus ‘to create a coherent residential precinct in which people can live both conveniently and with pleasure58’. To ensure a sense of community cohesion, the scheme included: the Barbican Arts Centre, the Museum of London, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, the Barbican Public Library, the City of London School for Girls, a YMCA (which has now closed), as well as Milton Court which contained a fire station and medical facilities, alongside the service flats. This has also now closed. There are also amenities such as a laundrette and rubbish collection. The shared amenities such as the Barbican Centre and the Residents Gardens are treated as extensions of resident’s homes59, which increases the community feel. Stefi Orazi describes living at the Barbican as a ‘Utopia60’, drawing her own comparisons with the council estates that she grew up on. Despite the Barbican often being mistaken for council housing, Orazi describes that notion as bizarre; she has never come across a council estate that was ‘so impeccably designed and maintained61’.

This is something that was missing from other estates. When a community youth programme was set up at Broadwater Farm, anti-social behaviour began to drop62. Perhaps it doesn’t matter what the design is – brutalist, post-modern, classical – but how the residents are considered. Maybe architects should be designing community first.

Perhaps it comes down to, as residents of the Golden Lane Estate noted, that the Barbican was ‘the Posh Estate’63, and so couldn’t fail; it was too well cared for, too nice, too full of the ‘right sort of people’.

54 Harwood p. 108 55 Harwood p.108 56 Harwood p.110 57 Harwood p. 111 58 Harwood p.112 59 Resident 2008 - Present in The Barbican Estate, ed. by Stefi Orazi (London: Batsford, 2018), p.201 60 Orazi p.7 61 Ibid 62 Hanley p. 127 63 Resident 1975-1994 in The Barbican Estate, ed. by Stefi Orazi (London: Batsford, 2018), p.174 25

Chapter Three: Architecture 26

Today the Barbican Estate remains as popular as ever; average sale prices are close to £1,000,00064, almost double the cost of homes elsewhere in London. It became Grade II listed on 5th September 2001 and was designated as a site of special architectural interest due to its scale, ambition, and cohesion.

It is former social housing which is having a surprising boom in popularity. While flats in Trellick tower rarely come up for sale (although one flat was sold in March 2021, for the cost of £320,00065), other Ernö Goldfinger projects are highly sought after. In 2010 Balfron Tower in Poplar was sold into private ownership, with the 146 households decanted to homes elsewhere on the Brownfield Estate. This instigated two problems. Firstly, the dismantling of the existing community. Secondly, it added to the 23,500 households already on the Tower Hamlets social housing waiting lists – with 1,500 of those officially homeless and living in temporary accommodation66.

Figure 24 Trellick Tower

When Balfron was redeveloped, it was at an estimated cost of £137,000 per flat67. The flats were redesigned to be open-plan and to a 21st century standard including increased acoustic insulation, sprinklers, and ducts for a filtered ventilation system. This is with the exception of flats which were deemed ‘heritage’ apartments and have been reverted to their original states with carefully sourced period elements as a homage to brutalism.

In a similar move to the Barbican, the communal spaces are internal and integral to the design.

They include a high-spec cinema club, a music room, a workshop, library, gym, and a cooking and dining space for larger gatherings68. While having amenities within the Barbican complex worked to create a sense of community between the residents, in Balfron Tower it runs the risk of creating an introverted society who do not integrate with the people of the wider Brownfield Estate. It draws a line between the luxury flats and the people living in social accommodation.

64 Myra Butterworth ‘What’s it like to live on London’s iconic Barbican estate?’ the Daily Mail 9 June 2018 <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-5794755/Portico-reveals-4bed-house-rentLondons-Barbican-estate-5k-month.html> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 65 Prime Location ‘House prices in Golborne Road, London W10’ n.d <https://www.primelocation.com/house-prices/london/golborne-road/?num_months=12> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 66 John Boughton Municipal Dreams (London: Verso, 2019) p. 233 67 Ibid 68 Tim Burrows ‘Balfron 2.0: how Goldfinger’s utopian tower became luxury flats’ the Guardian 19 September 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/19/balfron-20-how-goldfingers-utopian-tower-became-luxury-flats> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 27

Figure 25 Balfron Tower

All of the flats are for private sale, not rent, with prices from £365,000 and a service charge of around £2,000 for a one-bedroom flat69. Despite being originally built for working-class Londoners, it seems that Balfron tower is now too good, too cool, too fashionable for the poorer local citizens it was intended for. It is symbolic of the gentrification that goes on throughout London. In Municipal Dreams, Boughton says that the removal of Balfron from public ownership is an ‘indictment of a contemporary system of housing finance which minimises public investment and betrays the shared social vision and purpose which formerly inspired it70’. However it is not a new problem.

The Boundary Estate did not result in a council run utopia housing the very poorest people and saving them from the Old Nichol Slum, instead it housed prominent local families who could afford the rent. Octavia Hill had to fill her model dwellings with salaried workers for the same reasons, as did George Peabody. It is a repeating problem that housing is being designed for, and intended to help the very poorest of society, but they are not reaping the benefits.

Figure 26 Balfron Tower Falts. Left - Originally Conceived. Right - Remodelled.

69 Marcus Field ‘Balfon Tower Flats: First Look at the new revamp of Ernö Goldfinger’s iconic Brutalist tower in Poplar’ Evening Standard 24 September 2019 <https://www.standard.co.uk/ homesandproperty/buying-mortgages/balfron-tower-flats-first-look-at-the-new-revamp-of-ernogoldfinger-s-iconic-brutalist-tower-in-poplar-a133681.html> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 70 Boughton p. 234 28

In estates where up-and-coming young Londoners don’t want to live, there is a continued attachment of Victorian morality to social housing. 17% of housing stock in the United Kingdom is social housing, home to more than 3.9 million people. Yet residents are treated as one; a homogonous group deemed to be ‘work shy’, ‘uneducated’, or ‘benefit scroungers’71. Common descriptors of social housing include ‘Sink Estates’, ‘Zones of Criminality’, ‘Drug Infested’, with these views being pushed by ‘poverty porn’ documentary series and mainstream media outlets. Dr Mercy Denedo and Dr Amanze Ejiogu suggest that this stigmatisation leads to a cycle of negative reinforcement72. These attitudes have prevailed since the very first ‘council’ homes.

As previously stated, the first examples of council housing were homes for the (relatively) affluent working classes and it was hoped that a filtering-up process would occur; the lowest of society would move up to the less slum-like homes vacated by their superiors who had moved into the council-funded homes. The Slum clearances of the 1930’s, combined with the great depression, brought the very poorest into council housing for the first time, and with them came the perceived problems and stereotypes which are still seen today. While council housing was still generally seen as aspirational as a means of helping the working class to succeed, the politics and economics of the 1970’s compounded the views that council estates, both the buildings and communities within, were low status73.

Addressing the housing crisis in London and the South-East, City Villages (published by the Institute of Public Policy Research in 2015), offers densification – more units on less land – as the preferred solution74. To Andrew Adonis, the lead author of the report, the means of achieving this was clear; Large scale demolition and redevelopment75. Duncun Bowie is critical of the proposal, describing it as ‘ill-informed, not cost-effective…socially divisive…and highly disruptive76’. It also ignores the fact that it is possible to sensitively and carefully regenerate existing council housing stock, and that architects frequently do so; Balfron Tower is just one example of this.

Another example is Kiln Place in Kentish Town. Working through a series of ‘focused interventions’77, Peter Barber Architects have been densifying and rejuvenating a post-war estate without demolishing any of the existing homes. This was done by building a terrace of houses at one of estates entrances, adding low-rise blocks at the corners of existing blocks and on underused ground between buildings and in place of disused plant rooms. A house was also slotted into an old oil tank room, where it provides roof terrace space for the flats above. The new homes were in addition to refurbishing the existing flats and improving the estate layout. This was done by removing external communal corridors, creating streets that encouraged people to walk through and around the site.

71 Dr Mercy Denedo and Dr Amanze Ejiogu ‘Exposing the stigma around social housing’ Durham November 2021 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602365.2021.1978523 > [accessed: 13 March 2022] 72 Dr Mercy Denedo and Dr Amanze Ejiogu ‘Exposing the stigma around social housing’ Durham November 2021 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602365.2021.1978523 > [accessed: 13 March 2022] 73 Boughton p. 257 74 Boughton p. 268 75 Boughton p. 269 76 Boughton p. 270 77 Barker, Nat ‘Peter Barber Architects revamps and densifies London social housing estate’ Dezeen 23 December 2021 <https://www.dezeen.com/2021/12/23/peter-barber-london-kilnplace/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 29

Figure 27 Peter Barber’s Kiln Place showing walkable routes through the site

Figure 28 Peter Barber’s Kiln Place Infill Housing

Associate Director of Peter Barber Architects, Alice Brownfield, explained that this approach was taken because “Environmentally, socially and economically we cannot continue to demolish homes unnecessarily and instead need to focus on densifying our existing neighbourhoods, improving existing buildings and protecting social infrastructure and diverse communities”78.

Like the LCC architects of the 1950’s, who rejected the sentimental architecture of the Swedish line, Peter Barber Architects are changing the approach towards social housing. Working to rejuvenate existing social housing blocks, as well as creating new schemes, Barber is keen to propose radical solutions to difficult sites and high-quality design details.

While Barber is significant in his approach, it is worth noting that his projects may not be the solution to the lack of social housing in the United Kingdom. Generally, the projects are located in London and small in scale (low rise and low density) – it simply does not cater to the majority of the 1 million families currently awaiting social homes.79 Owen Hopkins questions whether Barber’s projects would be achievable outside of London; with the cost of land in London being higher, motivated councils can use units built for private sale to offset the cost of those being developed for social rent. This approach may not be possible in poorer parts of the country. Or, if it were, may not be able to be delivered to the same high quality80. The reasons for their success, the way they are intrinsically linked to their sites and the highly specified nature of the design, are also the failings of the projects. It becomes impossible to move the project to another site or to scale them up while maintaining the same success81.

78 Barker, Nat ‘Peter Barber Architects revamps and densifies London social housing estate’ Dezeen 23 December 2021 <https://www.dezeen.com/2021/12/23/peter-barber-london-kilnplace/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 79 Shelter ‘Social Housing Deficit’ n.d <https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/ social_housing_deficit> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 80 Owen Hopkins ‘The left “fetishises council housing with the same conviction as the right fetishises traditional styles”’ 12 November 2020 <https://www.dezeen.com/2020/11/12/left-fetishises-council-housing-owen-hopkins-opinion/ > [accessed: 13 March 2022] 81 Owen Hopkins ‘The left “fetishises council housing with the same conviction as the right 30

Peter Barber is not the only architect attempting to rejuvenate the social housing sector. Mikhail Riches, Stanton Williams, and Maccreanor Lavington were all nominated for the 2021 Neave Brown Award, which recognises the best new examples of affordable housing, named for the pioneering social housing designer.

With the exception of the Maccreanor Lavington Blackfriars Circus, all of the nominations were low-rise, high-density schemes. Mikhail Riches reverts to the Victorian terrace typology in the Goldsmith Street scheme, incorporating an open alley running through the scheme which doubles as a shared communal garden and play area. There are a further two landscaped play areas to provide safe, outdoor space for children. The scheme is designed to fit in with the local vernacular, with a material palette of cream-coloured clay bricks and black gloss tiles that resonate with materials found on other buildings throughout Norwich82. Like Kiln Place, the community aspect of the scheme is realised through open street space designed to encourage movement through the site as well as a sense of ownership. Curved walls gently lead visitors into the streets, and each dwelling has a different-coloured front door on the street level, which again encourages a sense of ownership.

Figure 29 Mikhail Riches’ Goldsmith Street

To an extent, low-rise estates do seem to foster a stronger sense of community than high-rise towers. However, it is reductive to dismiss the community aspects of towers. Grenfell showed a strong and diverse community within the tower, which was intricately connected to the wider neighbourhood. Boughton suggests that, while tragic, Grenfell will act as a corrective to the demonising caricature of social housing tenants83.

fetishises traditional styles”’ 12 November 2020 <https://www.dezeen.com/2020/11/12/left-fetishises-council-housing-owen-hopkins-opinion/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 82 Lizzie Crook ‘Mikhail Riches creates energy-efficient terraced streets as social housing in Norwich’ Dezeen 1 August 2019 <https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/01/goldsmith-street-socialhousing-mikhail-riches-norwich/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 83 Boughton p. 253 31

Originally a brutalist design, Grenfell was designed in 1967 and completed in 1974, before being refurbished in 2015/16. The twenty four storey tower housed roughly 600 people in 129 flats. In 2017 an electrical fire swept through the Tower killing 71 people and destroying the building. It once again brought the failings of social housing to the forefront of the public conscience. For some, the fire proved that tower blocks are ‘antisocial, high-maintenance, disempowering, unnecessary, mostly ugly, and could never be safe84’. It would be better to simply not build them. However this argument denies the fact that, while not perfect, tower blocks have provided suitable (and happy) accommodation for many. As previously mentioned, tower blocks are also fashionable again as the middle classes displace socialhousing tenants from ex-council blocks – providing that they are in the right postcode, of course85. Furthermore, these are the same arguments levelled at Southgate and Broadwater farm which are both low-rise buildings.

Figure 30 Grenfell Tower shortly after construction

Neave Brown argues that high-rise buildings should be built only for the very rich, suggesting that the monetary backing is the only way to make these buildings work. For social tenants, they become ‘colonies of underprivileged people’86, ostracise the residents and prevent social mobility. Criticising sub-standard social housing as ‘probably England’s most massive major social problem87’, Brown is clear in the issues that he believes surround the Grenfell tragedy: “One single staircase, two slow lifts, 20-storey building, no proper control at entry, people on very low incomes, higher rents than they could afford to pay, borrowing to live in buildings that they didn’t like, decline in social patterns, increase of adolescent gangs and destruction.”

“High buildings should only be used for the very rich because they’re the only ones that can be done with proper lifts, proper services, proper control, proper entrances and the proper environment.”

That is not to say that only high-rise buildings fail. Throughout this essay, there have been many examples of low-rise estates with issues (although, with less tragic consequences than Grenfell).

84 Boughton p. 252 85 Boughton p. 253 86 Jessica Mairs ‘High-rise buildings should only be used to house the very rich, says Neave Brown’ Dezeen 5 October 2017 <https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/05/neave-brown-interviewhigh-rise-buildings-only-for-very-rich-social-housing/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 87 Jessica Mairs ‘High-rise buildings should only be used to house the very rich, says Neave Brown’ Dezeen 5 October 2017 <https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/05/neave-brown-interviewhigh-rise-buildings-only-for-very-rich-social-housing/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 32

Previously, councils had their own architecture departments who were responsible for municipal buildings. When councils began outsourcing their civic projects to private architecture firms, many local councils closed their architecture departments. Now, the Local Housing Company (LHC) model has been gaining traction, rising in popularity across the UK. This is in conjunction with the announcement that £8.6billion of funding has been allocated for affordable housing. It will be received by approximately 90 partnerships across England, which includes councils. London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced that he is to set up his own low-cost housing developer, backed by the Greater London Authority, and use the capital’s £3.46billion share of the funding package to support a ‘council housing comeback’88. This is despite the failure of Brick By Brick, Croydon Council’s arm-length developer. Homes built by LHC’s have been credited with kick-starting a resurgence in local authority buildings. The Bartlett has found the number of councils with their own housing companies has swelled from 58% in 2017 to 83% in 202189. In combination with a lift on the borrowing cap on local authorities, LHC’s are making it more possible to build on a large scale. While action has been intermittent, it has been gaining the interest of larger practices, including Foster & Partners.

In the 1970’s Fosters designed one council estate, Beanhill in Milton Keynes. It was deemed a failure, and unlike other Foster projects of the period, it is unlisted (and cannot be due to having no architectural merit). It seems unlikely that Fosters, a globe-bestriding mega-corporation with little social commitment90, would be interested in working in the non-market housing market. However, alongside a rise in completed council housing projects, it may be an indication that a large amount of social housing is due to be built.

Figure 31 Norman Foster Beanhill - Showing the mock-Tudor pitched roofs which were added when the original flat roofs failed

Perhaps a large firm like Foster & Partners is what social housing needs. After all, they are used to designing on difficult sites, with scalable projects, and meeting a variety of needs. There is some 88 Richard Waite and Ella Jessel ‘AJ investigates: the crumbling of Brick By Brick’ Architects Journal 24 September 2021 < https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/the-crumbling-of-brick-bybrick > [accessed: 13 March 2022] 89 Ibid 90 Owen Hatherley ‘What could Foster bring to social housing today?’ Dezeen 19 July 2019 <https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/19/norman-foster-social-housing-opinion-owen-hatherley/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 33

indication of what a Fosters social housing scheme would be; In the 2000’s, the firm designed a series of ‘City Academies’. Owen Hatherley derides them as looking like mini-business parks, cheaply built and knackered91. Herein lies the problem with social housing. Well done, beautifully detailed, infill homes are too modest to have the impact desired to balance the needs of the 4.2 million people92 in need of social housing in the United Kingdom. Large, multi-unit sites end up being built cheaply and quickly, with homes unsuitable for the majority.

When comparing Southgate Estate and the Barbican, two points marked the success of the Barbican and the failure of Southgate.

Making reference to poor quality builds, Lynsey Hanley identifies the first key issue, which is that of transience. While Southgate Estate had a high turnover of residents, the Barbican did not, with some of the original residents still living in the estate today. When a population is constantly in flux, it fails to form a cohesive community that can withstand economic or social shocks93. It leads to apathy and transience, which leads to the corroding of any community that existed, which in turn, leads to the physical decline of the architecture94. Hanley is clear in her assessment of the situation: People have to want to stay in order to fight for the conditions they deserve95.

This leads to the second issue; the amenities provided. Residents at the Barbican were afforded, amongst other things, a library, school, and favourable transport links to the city, whereas the residents of Southgate were isolated, with the only amenity the close by Halton Lea Shopping Centre, or reliant on cars (which they couldn’t use to access the pedestrianised estate). This limits people, removing any social mobility that social homes could have provided. If one sees the key to making social housing estates work as the community, rather than the architecture, then it makes sense to concentrate these amenities in the areas which most need them. By providing children’s centres, nurseries, shopping areas, cafés, and public transport, as well as green spaces, an area becomes a place people want to be in. It grows a successful community.

There is movement in the right direction. As shown with projects such as Goldsmith Street and Kiln place, there is an ongoing effort to build more, and to build better. However, it is challenging 40 years of apathy, outdated architectural ideas, and financial restraints. To ensure the success of these projects, it is simply not enough to design a beautiful project.

As well as building enough (good quality homes), architects need to consider further than simply housing the people in need. It is the societal ideas, space, and community, which make a successful architectural project in this sector.

Fashions change. Perhaps in another 40 years social housing projects will be critiqued in the same way as post-war estates are now.

91 Owen Hatherley ‘What could Foster bring to social housing today?’ Dezeen 19 July 2019 <https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/19/norman-foster-social-housing-opinion-owen-hatherley/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 92 National Housing Federation ‘People in Housing Need’ n.d <https://www.housing.org.uk/ our-work/building-new-homes/people-in-housing-need/> [accessed: 14 March 2022] 93 Lynsey Hanley Estates (London: Granta Publications, 2007) p. 218 94 Hanley p. 218 95 Ibid 34

35

Bibliography Alexander, Anthony Britain’s New Towns – Garden Cities to Sustainable Communities (Oxon: Routledge, 2009) Architects Year Book Vol. 5 ed. Jane Drew (London: P.Elek, 1953) Barker, Nat ‘Peter Barber Architects revamps and densifies London social housing estate’ Dezeen 23 December 2021 <https://www.dezeen.com/2021/12/23/peter-barber-london-kiln-place/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] Boughton, John, Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing (London: Verso, 2019) Buchanan, Colin Traffic in Towns: A Study of the Long-Term Problems of Traffic in Urban Areas (London: H.M. Stationery Office 1964) Burrows, Tim ‘Balfron 2.0: how Goldfinger’s utopian tower became luxury flats’ the Guardian 19 September 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/19/balfron-20-how-goldfingersutopian-tower-became-luxury-flats> [accessed: 13 March 2022] Cordell, Tom ‘Retrospective: Peter Barber’ Architectural Review 12 August 2019 <https://www. architectural-review.com/buildings/retrospective-peter-barber> [accessed: 13 March 2022] Crook, Lizzie ‘Mikhail Riches creates energy-efficient terraced streets as social housing in Norwich’ Dezeen 1 August 2019 <https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/01/goldsmith-street-socialhousing-mikhail-riches-norwich/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] Dr. Denedo, Mercy Dr. Amanze Ejiogu ‘Exposing the stigma around social housing’ Durham November 2021 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602365.2021.1978523> [accessed: 13 March 2022] Dockerill, Bertie ‘From St Martin’s Cottages to Juvenal Dwellings: Liverpool’s Pioneering Role in the Provision of Public Housing’ University of Liverpool Repository 2015 <https://livrepository. liverpool.ac.uk/3010210/1/M:%5cJuvenal%20Dwellings.pdf> [accessed:28 January 2022] Field, Marcus ‘Balfron Tower flats: first look at the new revamp of Ernő Goldfinger’s iconic Brutalist tower in Poplar’ Evening Standard 24 September 2019 <https://www.standard.co.uk/ homesandproperty/buying-mortgages/balfron-tower-flats-first-look-at-the-new-revamp-of-ernogoldfinger-s-iconic-brutalist-tower-in-poplar-a133681.html> [accessed: 13 March 2022] Frampton, Kenneth Modern Architecture (London: Thames & Hudson, 1980) Girouard, Mark Big Jim – the Life and Works of James Stirling (London: Chatto & Windus, 1998) Hanley, Lynsey Estates: An Intimate History (London: Granta Publications, 2007) Harwood, Elain Chamberlin Powell & Bon (London: RIBA Publishing, 2011) Hatherley, Owen ‘What could Foster bring to social housing today?’ Dezeen 19 July 2019 <https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/19/norman-foster-social-housing-opinion-owen-hatherley/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] 36

Heathcote, Edwin ‘How architects have tried to create ‘streets in the sky’’ Financial Times 5 May 2017 < https://www.ft.com/content/8f2bab62-2b32-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] Hopkins, Owen ‘The left “fetishises council housing with the same conviction as the right fetishises traditional styles”’ 12 November 2020 <https://www.dezeen.com/2020/11/12/left-fetishises-councilhousing-owen-hopkins-opinion/ > [accessed: 13 March 2022] Mairs, Jessica ‘High-rise buildings should only be used to house the very rich, says Neave Brown’ Dezeen 5 October 2017 < https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/05/neave-brown-interview-high-risebuildings-only-for-very-rich-social-housing/> [accessed: 13 March 2022] Murphy, Douglas ‘Notopia: The fall of streets in the sky’ Architectural Review, 9 June 2016 < https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/notopia-archive/notopia-the-fall-of-streets-in-the-sky> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] Ockman, Joan and Eigan, Edward (ed.) Architecture Culture 1943-1968 (New York: Rizzoli, 1993) Orazi, Stefi, The Barbican Estate (London: Batsford, 2018) Seiferle, Rebecca ‘Brutalist Architecture Movement Overview and Analysis’ The Art Story 08 May 2020 <https://www.theartstory.org/movement/brutalism/> [accessed: 28 January 2022] Stirling, James Buildings and Projects, James Stirling Michael Wilford and Associates ed. Arnell, Peter and Bickford, Ted (London: 1984) Tostoes, Ana and Ferreira, Zara ‘Social Endurance at the Barbican Estate (1968-2020)’ The Journal of Architecture 20 October 2021 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602365.

2021.1978523> [accessed: 28 Nov. 21] Waite, Richard Jessel, Ella ‘AJ investigates: the crumbling of Brick By Brick’ Architects Journal 24 September 2021 < https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/the-crumbling-of-brick-by-brick > [accessed: 13 March 2022] Wheeler, Brian ‘A history of social housing’ BBC 14 April 2015 <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk14380936> [accessed: 28 January 2022] “House prices in Golborne Road, London W10” Prime Location < https://www.primelocation.com/ house-prices/london/golborne-road/?num_months=12> [accessed: 13 March 2022] “People in Housing Need” National Housing Federation <https://www.housing.org.uk/our-work/ building-new-homes/people-in-housing-need/> [accessed: 14 March 2022] “Practice” Peter Barber Architects <http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/practice> [accessed: 13 March 2022] “Social Housing Deficit” Shelter <https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/social_ housing_deficit> [accessed: 13 March 2022] “Renting Social Housing” Gov.UK <https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/ social-housing/renting-from-a-local-authority-or-housing-association-social-housing/latest> [accessed:20 April 2022] 37

Image List Figure 1 Clive A Brown. Southgate Estate. Photograph. Flickr < https://www.flickr.com/photos/ cliveabrown/3622053284/> [accessed:20/04/22] Figure 2 Stirling, James. Southgate Housing, Phases I and IA, Runcorn, England: site plan.

Between 1967 and 1976. Drawing. Canadian Centre for Architecture. <https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/ search?page=1&digigroup=386977L> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 3 Unknown. Round Windows at Southgate. 1973. Photograph. Manchester Metropolitan University Visual Resources <https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmuvisualresources/16800774181> [accessed: 20/04/22].

Figure 4 [L] Unknown. GDP Clad Walkways at Southgate Photograph. Pintrest < https://www. pinterest.co.uk/pin/307159637059757511/ > [accessed: 20/04/22].

[R] Unknown. GDP Clad Walkways at Southgate Photograph. Pintrest < https://www. pinterest.co.uk/pin/522065781776673267/> [accessed: 20/04/22].

Figure 5 Stirling, James. Southgate Housing, Phases I and IA, Runcorn, England: section.

Between 1967 and 1976. Drawing. Canadian Centre for Architecture. <https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/ search?page=1&digigroup=386977L> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 6 [L] Le Corbusier, La ville radieuse, 1930-31. Drawing via Gili Merin. “AD Classics: Ville Radieuse / Le Corbusier” 11 Aug 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. <https://www.archdaily. com/411878/ad-classics-ville-radieuse-le-corbusier> [R] Richard Einzig, Southgate Housing, Phase I and IA, Runcorn, England, 1977, Photograph. Canadian Centre for Architecture. <https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/ search?page=1&digigroup=386977L> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 7 Unknown, Photograph. Twitter. <https://twitter.com/joeflatman/ status/947789719336816645> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 8 Mark Bennetts Barbican Estate. Photograph. 2017. Kathmandu and Beyond <https:// www.kathmanduandbeyond.com/london-old-favourites-new-discoveries-photographs/> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 9 [L] Stirling, James. Southgate Housing, Phases I and IA, Runcorn, England: Perspective. Between 1967 and 1976. Drawing. Canadian Centre for Architecture. <https://www. cca.qc.ca/en/search?page=1&digigroup=386977L> [accessed: 06/12/21].

[R] Unknown. A deck on the Southgate Estate, Runcorn New Town in 1973. Photograph.

1973. Manchester Metropolitan University Visual Resources. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/ mmuvisualresources/16776023766/in/album-72157650909193439/> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 10 Unknown. Hallwood Park and Palace Fields: Revitalising your neighbourhood.

Photograph. Riverside. <https://www.riverside.org.uk/redevelopment-projects/hallwood-park-andpalace-fields-revitalising-your-neighbourhood/> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 11 Chamberlin, Powell and Bon Site Plan. Drawing. Dezeen. <https://www.dezeen. com/2014/09/13/brutalist-buildings-barbican-estate-chamberlin-powell-bon/> [accessed: 06/12/21].

38

Figure 12 George Rex Barbican Estate / Lake east. Photograph. 2012. Flickr. <https://www.flickr. com/photos/rogersg/8057594887> [accessed: 06/12/21].

Figure 13 Catherine Warburton Images from the Barbican. Photograph. 2022 [By Author] Figure 14 Catherine Warburton Images from the Barbican. Photograph. 2022 [By Author] Figure 15 Unknown. St Martin’s Cottages. Photograph. Municipal Dreams. <https:// municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/liverpool-first-council-houses-in-europe/> [accessed: 07/02/22].

Figure 16 Unknown. Map of the Old Nichol Slum. Drawing. Horrid Hackney < https:// horridhackney.com/f/the-appalling-victorian-slums-of-the-old-nichol-shoreditch> [accessed:07/02/22] Figure 17 Charles Booth. Poverty Map. Drawing. Horrid Hackney < https://horridhackney.com/f/ the-appalling-victorian-slums-of-the-old-nichol-shoreditch> [accessed:07/02/22] Figure 18 Unknown. Chertsey House in 1897. Photograph. London Metropolitation archive via the Londonist <https://londonist.com/2015/02/worlds-oldest-council-estate-at-125-then-and-now> [accessed:07/02/22] Figure 19 Tom Corbett. Chertsey House in 2015. Photograph. Tom Corbett via the Londonist <https://londonist.com/2015/02/worlds-oldest-council-estate-at-125-then-and-now> [accessed:07/02/22] Figure 20 Unknown. Ham Common Flats. Photograph. The Modern House < https://www. themodernhouse.com/past-sales/langham-house-close-9/> [accessed:07/02/22] Figure 21 ‘Rebecka in South London’ Milton Court. Photograph. 2007. Flickr < https://www.flickr. com/photos/chirachira/995686113> [accessed:20/04/2022] Figure 22 Catherine Warburton Images from the Barbican. Photograph. 2022 [By Author] Figure 23 Unknown. Ronan Point. Photograph. Daily Mail via the Guardian < https://www. theguardian.com/society/from-the-archive-blog/gallery/2018/may/16/ronan-point-tower-collapsemay-1968> [accessed:07/02/22] Figure 24 Unknown. General view of Trellick Tower, from the south-south-west.

Photograph. Historic England <https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/listentry/1246688?section=comments-and-photos> [accessed:07/02/22] Figure 25 Getty Images. Balfron Tower. Photograph. Dezeen. < https://www.dezeen. com/2019/05/03/balfron-tower-brutalist-renovation-gentrification-owen-hatherley-opinion/> [accessed: 28/03/22].

Figure 26 [L] Goldfinger family [R] Londonewcastle. Balfron Tower flats. Photograph. The Guardian < https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/19/balfron-20-how-goldfingers-utopiantower-became-luxury-flats> [accessed: 28/03/22].

Figure 27 Morley Von Sternberg. Kiln Road. Photograph. Dezeen <https://www.dezeen. com/2021/12/23/peter-barber-london-kiln-place/> [accessed: 28/03/22].

39

Figure 28 Morley Von Sternberg. Kiln Road. Photograph. Dezeen <https://www.dezeen. com/2021/12/23/peter-barber-london-kiln-place/> [accessed: 28/03/22].

Figure 29 Unknown. Goldsmith Street. Photograph. MikhailRiches <http://www.mikhailriches.com/ project/goldsmith-street/#slide-2> [accessed: 28/03/22].

Figure 30 Unknown. Grenfell Tower. Photograph. Riba Journal <https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/ grenfell-tower-history-lancaster-west-estate-london> [accessed: 28/03/22].

Figure 31 Iqbal Aalam. Beanhill Estate. Photograph. Flickr <https://www.flickr.com/photos/ iqbalaalam/4313467260> [accessed: 28/03/22].

40