User:John15CM/History of the housing stock of united kinkdom

The United Kingdom has the oldest housing stock in Europe.^[1] There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly there has been no successful invasion of the country since the Dutch Invasion 1689. Secondly the United Kingdom has a benign environment, with no earthquakes, hurricanes and hardly any destructive floods. And thirdly, wood has been in short supply for over four hundred years, whilst there is abundant clay and limestone.^[2] Consequently nearly all dwellings in the UK are built from brick, stone or concrete, rather than wood, which has meant that buildings can survive for centuries.

The UK government has recognized the importance of this inheritance by creating and funding English Heritage. The motto of English heritage is "we bring history to life".^[3] The buildings used for housing in Britain demonstrate the truth of this motto, as they tell the story of the social and economic history of the state.

The economic history illustrated is not just of interest to UK residents, but of general interest for it provides an observational test of alternative economic theories. Although there have been no political revolutions in the UK for over a hundred years, there have been substantial changes to the economic system used in the UK, which has occurred when the politicians in power come to believe in a different theory of economics. Those in power changed the tax/subsidy system and regulatory environment to conform with their current beliefs.

Prior to the World War I(1914-1918) the the ruling politicians believed in classical economics, it was held that free trade and laissez-faire provided the ideal economic environment. In this era mansions were built for the upper classes and the dwellings built for the working class became . After 1918, the belief system changed, Empire trade was considered preferable to free trade, protectionism and tariff barriers were regarded as essential to support industries vital to the national interest. Laissez-faire in housing was abandoned and local government tasked with slum clearance, and building homes fit for heroes. There were problems though with the economic system used after 1918, there was the Great Depression, and mass poverty.^[4] Following World War II (1939-1945) beliefs changed again. The success of the war economy convinced politicians that it was possible to do better than the free market system, and governments needed to manage markets to ensure efficiency and justice. This was the era of the Keynes-Beveridge consensus(1945-1979). It was during this era that most of the extant housing stock in the UK was built. In 1979, the Winter Discontent, let to the era of the Thatcher Blair Consensus(1979-present). The politicians in power in this era came to believe in neoclassical economics, and adopted the hosing policy based on the neoliberal agenda. During the era of the Thatcher-Blair Consensus, most of the publicly owned housing has been privatized, the rate construction of new dwellings has fallen, and a housing crisis has developed, resulting in overcrowded dwellings.^[5]

Winston Churchill(1874-1965) said 'we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us'.'^[6] Housing in the United Kingdom demonstrates the truth of this observation. The variety of urban plans, and dwellings designs, effect how UK citizens interact socially, how they consume, and their environmental footprint. UK citizens are fortunate in that they can learn from history, and for newbuild, choose dwellings types and estates designs which are suitable for the British culture and climate. Their are fears, however, that the lessons from past failures have been forgotten, and the current paradigm for property development is producing unsuitable dwellings.^[7]

The Laissez-faire era began with the repeal of the Corn Laws,(1846), which ended the UK government's protectionist policy of support for British agriculture. The rapidly growing cities in 1850s -1870s produced a building boom, and although it was the era of laissez faire, it became apparent that some regulation of property developers was required. This was done in the 1875 Public Health Act. The dwellings built for bottom half of the income distribution before this act are known as Pre-regulation terraced houses. They were poorly built, damp, unhealthy, and hardly any remain.

The1875 Public Health Act, as amended, transformed the urban landscape. The Act specified dwelling density, road widths, and that roads should have pavements.^[8] The Act has determined the street plan of most English towns and cities. Each local council implemented the 1875 act in Byelaws. The urban design brought about by the act is known as byelaw housing.

Local authorities specified different area should have different maximum dwelling densities. A low density area would have below 10 dwellings/acre( 25/hectare) and high density area around 40 dwellings/acre(120/hectare). The consequence of this policy was that English towns and cities became segregated by class, with the working class living in high density developments, and the top income decile living in spacious developments.

The English class system, was complex and pervasive, there was not just a simple divide into upper and working class. between these groups their were gradients of middle class. The unchallenged and unspoken assumption of councilors in deciding maximum dwelling densities was that their was no advantage in mixing social classes. Different housing densities were specified for each class, and each class had its own area of a town or city. This policy meant that a families position in the social hierarchy could be determined by their address.

Along the streets the local taxation system was an important factor in determining dwelling design. Prior to 1851, in England there was a Window tax. This encouraged the building of gloomy dwellings with to few windows, and the tax was replaced. The main source of local government revenue became the rates. This was a property tax, proportional the value of the property. The tax paid was a proportion( ie. a rate) of the annual unfurnished rental income of the property. For newly built property the rateable value was determined by the property's frontage. The rates in effect became a frontage tax. This encouraged the design of dwellings with minimal frontage.

Geometry dictates that the most efficient floor plan for a dwelling is a square, this maximizes floor area to wall length. Similarly the most efficient plot plan is a square as this maximizes ground area to fence length. The frontage tax meant that this is not the shape of dwellings and plots in English towns and cities. Instead plots are thin rectangles. The standard street design is a row of terraced houses, or closely spaced semi-detached houses. The floor plan for a terraced house is a rectangle, with the short side being the frontage, and long side being the extension into the plot.

A house in England was not just a dwelling, but also a means of status display and demonstrating class membership. Terraced dwellings for the working class would not have front gardens, the front door, would open onto the street. In terraces build for the lower middle class opened onto a small front garden. In the semidetached houses build for upper middle class, there would be two entrances, a tradesman entrance into the basement for servants, and front entrance up imposing steps for those of the owner's class.

A consequence of a frontage tax, and planning regulations, that specified road widths and dwelling densities is that the English towns and cities look densely populated when in comparative terms they are not.^[9] For example the core area of London has a population density of 4,546/km²(45/hectare) , whilst for Paris it is nearly double that at 8,229/km²(82/hectare), and for New York more double at 9,355/km²(94/hectare).^[10]

Housing build for the top of the income decile

The era of laissez faire was one of great income disparity, The top 1% had incomes that were far greater than the bottom half of the population. This is seen in the houses that were built. A rich family would have multiple homes, a country mansion, a town Mansion, and various holiday homes.

The typical country mansion would have multiple bedrooms for house guests, drawing room, dining room, breakfast room, smoking room, billiard room, and accommodation, for live in servants.

The town mansion would be terraced or semi-detached house of four or five stories. In the basement would be the kitchen and scullery. On the ground floor would be the living rooms, dining room, drawing room, etc,; on the first floor, bedrooms and bathrooms for family and house guests; on the floor above would be the nursery, In the attic space there would be accommodation for the live in servants.

Those below the top one 1% but in upper income deciles would just own one houses, a town mansion. These houses would be built inn areas which council had specified a maximum dwelling density of around 5-10 per acre (25-50/hectare).

For a large house a town mansion would have a small frontage, of the order of 7m(20ft), the depth of the house would be three or four times the frontage. There would be a front garden and long thin back garden.

.

Housing built for the bottom half of the income distribution

The houses built for the bottom half of the income distribution were very different. The typical house for this sector of the population was the two up two down terraced house.

There were two rooms on the ground floor, facing the street was the parlour, and facing the yard was the kitchen. In the yard there was the toilet.This was often a pit latrine. Also in the yard was a small coal bunker. Upstairs there were two bedrooms.

The typical working class household size of this era was six. The parents and infant would sleep in one bedroom and elder children sleep in the other bedroom.

There was no bathroom and only one tap Hot water was obtained by boiling a pan on the coal fired stove.

These houses were built for rent.^[11] The landlord was often a local factory owner. As it was the era of laissez faire there were no rent controls, or regulations for sound and heat insulation, or health and safety rules for heating systems.

The dwellings were built to high density arround 30-40 dwellings/acre (120-140dwellings/hectare), without front gardens a small back yard, and frontage of around 3.5m(12ft).

Areas with this these dwelling became slums. The lack of wash basins made hand hygiene impossible, and dysentery was endemic.^[12] The absence of a bathrooms meant washing was impossible, this meant that most had skin parasites and diseases spread them, such as typhus were present. Overcrowding, with three or more people sleeping in a bedroom meant airborne infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, whooping cough, killed up to one in ten.^[13]

For slum dwellers, about one child in five died.^[14] This high mortality rate meant that a family that lived in a slum could expect at least one the children to die. To prepare for this, it was common practice, at the birth of a child, for an insurance policy to be obtained to pay for a child's funeral, so that the family would not have the humiliation of burying their infant in a paupers grave.^[15]

Coal fired stoves were used for, heating, cooking, and boiling water for clothes washing. The smoke from the 100,000s of such stoves caused severe air pollution. London was known as the smoke, and the London smog was a notorious killer of those with lung conditions, such as emphysema.^[16] Smogs meant that the sunlight in UK cities was much reduced, and this let to many children getting rickets.

There were at the time social commentators, notably George Bernard Shaw, who suggested that building resources of the country were miss allocated, as they were being use build mansions for landowners, bankers, and entrepreneurs, whilst the ordinary people were provided with unhealthy dwellings, for which they had to pay slum landlords extortionate rents. And to correct this the government should take control of the building industry and provide good quality housing for all.^[17]

The Garden ideal

There were some entrepreneurs, often Quakers, who believed that the owner of an enterprise had a duty of care to its workforce, and that an enterprise should not maximize its profit at the expense of the welfare of its employees. The Cadbury family was a prominent exponent of this philosophy. In 1893 George Cadbury had designed and build a model village, Bournville, which he hoped would 'alleviate the evils of modern, more cramped living conditions'.

Cadbury build his village in a rural area outside the city limits of Birmingham, where the byelaws introduced under 1875 Public health Act did not apply. The houses he had build for his factory workers where spacious and had large gardens, set in an estate with generous public spaces. Although few other entrepreneurs have followed George Cadbury's example, as an urban design Bournville has had significant influence.

It came to be widely accepted that it was social advantageous to provide a working class family was a house with a garden. Influential in promulgating this belief was Henrietta Barnett, who, with her husband Samuel organized the building in 1907 of Hampstead Garden Suburb with the aim of providing housing which enabled a good quality of life for all classes. Building the Suburb required a private bill before Parliament, as it urban design was counter the byelaws introduced under 1875 Act. The provisions of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Act 1906, allowed less land to be taken up by roads and more by gardens and open spaces than in byelaw housing. The Barnetts believed that the garden in a cottage for a working class family should be large enough to provide fresh vegetables for the family.

As well as showing the benefit of gardens, the Barnetts hoped that their philanthropy would create an estate which demonstrated the advantage of housing in which social classes were not segregated. When first built, the Suburb provided cottages with large gardens at rents which were affordable to working class families, next to houses for sale to the affluent.^[18], But by the 2000s the Suburb had become one on London's most exclusive areas, in which only the very rich could afford to live.^[19]

The belief that for English people, all classes needed houses with gardens, was made into a coherent urban design philosophy by Ebenezer Howard in his book Garden Cities of To-morrow(1902). The first Garden city inspired by Howard's ideas was Letchworth.

The first World War was probably the first conflict were more soldiers were killed by enemy action than by dysentery. In the trenches the latrines had wash basins, and hand hygiene was possible. The soldiers fighting for king and country had to be promised that they would not return to live in slums more unhealthy than the trenches. The politicians in power abandoned their belief in laissser faire, and intervened decisively in the housing market. The Tudor Walters Report of 1918 set quality and size standards. It stated 'that each house should contain a minimum of three rooms on the ground floor (living-room, parlour, scullery) and three bedrooms above, two of these capable of containing two beds. A larder and a bathroom are essential'.^[20] The reports recommendations were written into law by the Housing and Town Planning, &C Act 1919. In addition the Act promised subsidies to councils to built 500,000 houses within three years, though only 213,000 were built.^[21]

The governments of this era were committed to providing housing to enable a healthy population, but were not prepared for the cost implications of the Tutor Walter standard. As time progressed space standards were lowered, though a bathroom and flushing toilet were always considered essential.^[22]

A typical design for inner city council housing of the 1930s was the tenement block. Although the room sizes were small build quality was good, with cavity walls, and good damp proofing. The land on which the these tenement blocks were built was often obtained through compulsory purchase of the property of the slum landlords.^[23]

During the era of protectionism private rental sector declined as landlords were losing their properties in slum clearance schemes. And private lan lords could not profitable purchase new properties for rent to the working class as they could not compete for tenants with subsidized council rents.

The middle middle class become owner occupiers

In the era of protectionism the cost of providing a new house fell. There were a number a reasons for this: death duties meant than the great landowners, were forced sellers making land cheap; mass unemployment made labour cheap; borrowing was cheap as official Interest rates were fixed at 2%; lacks building regulations made construction cheap.

Speculative builders took the opportunity provided falling construction costs to create a house building boom. In what was is known as ribbon development, there was mass house building of rows of semidetached houses along the axial roads and railways of the towns and cities. Building peaked in the mid 1930s, at 350,00 new houses a year, mainly semi detached.^[24]

In practice The Tudor Walters recommendations set minimum space standard for these houses, as builders did not want to try to sell houses smaller than a council house. Build quality though was inferior to council houses, and cavity walls not standard. There was concern at the time that the houses were 'jerry build' and would have high maintenance and repair costs.^[25] In practice this not been a problem. The major defect is in the urban design. The location of the dwellings along axial roads, means residents are subjected to high levels of traffic pollution.

The building boom produced a fall, in both the nominal and real house prices. In real terms, the price of a typical semidetached house of the era, fell from £(2012)36,000 in 1922 to £(2012) 27,000 in 1938.^{[26] [27]}

Prices below £(2012) 40,000 for a dwelling meant that the middle middle class no longer needed to rent and could afford to get a mortgage and become a owner/occupiesr. Mortgages were only available to men from middle middle classes and above. For the working class, and lower middle class, the era of protectionism was time of periods on unemployment and job insecurity and renting remained the only option for these groups.

It is in this area that most of the extant housing in the United Kingdom was built. It was believed that the government should regulate and control all the major sectors of the economy. It was further believed that the government had the responsibility for ensuring the health of the nation, by preventing pollution and by enabling all to live in dwellings which did not cause sickness, through over crowding or poor hygiene facilities.^[28] To realize the funding for this there were high taxation rates on the top 1%. Income tax could be up to 99%, there also substantial death duties, and a local property tax(rates).

An early visible success of government intervention was the ending of London smogs. The Great London smog of 1952 persuaded the government that it had to intervene in how dwellings were supplied with energy.^[29] Grants were provided to convert homes from using coal, local government was empowered to introduce smoke free zones, were only clean fuel could be burned. Interestingly, the technology to produce a clean fuel(coke) from coal was over a hundred years old, and it was government action, rather than technological development that ended London Smogs.

The first at steps in improving housing for the working class had begun in the inter war period, but where constrained by a belief that a government should have a balanced budget. In the era of Keynes-Beveridge consensus this belief was abandoned, and local and central government borrowing to fund housing construction was held to be desirable.

Demolition of poor housing

In Word War II the Luftwaffe had damaged or destroyed about a million dwellings, mainly in the working class areas of British cities. The cleared bomb sites provided land for redevelopment.

There was a concerted effort to reduce infectious diseases. A mass radiography program identified those with tuberculosis, which established the need for reducing overcrowding.

Council officers had powers to declare buildings unfit for human habitation. This gave the council the power to compulsory purchase a property and demolish it. They then had duty to rehouse the tenants of the slum landlords in good quality council housing.

Council estates

Clearing the slums and the bomb damaged buildings gave councils the land to build new, better quality housing. The initial vision from Aneurin Bevan, the Minister for Health and Housing, in the the post war labour government where for estates where 'the working man, the doctor and the clergyman will live in close proximity to each other'.^[30]

Different estate and housing designs were tried, for further information see Council estate design.

No design proved to be as cost efficient and quick to build as the semidetached house. These were mostly three bedrooms with front and back gardens. In the the early 1950s period about 200,000 such houses a year were built(see graph: history of new dwellings by purchasing sector).^[31]

In the late 1950s and the 60s central government encouraged the building of apartments in tower blocks, by giving greater subsidies for these. They were not a success.^[32] Maintenance costs were high, and they became known as 'slums in the sky', and they have left a costly legacy.^[33]

Culturally, the British were use to living in low rise dwellings, and although high rise living has been successful in cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore, British families did not adapt to this lifestyle. There were particular problems for families with children, as access to out door play areas was restricted. The councils found they could not let apartments in multi story apartment blocks. And many such blocks were demolished within a few decades of being built.^[34]

In 1970s . when the UK moved to using North sea gas rather than coal for heating, the design changed. Council houses no longer had chimneys, and providing for car parking was standard. The size and quality standards for council houses were improved with the adoption of the recommendations of the Parker Morris Committee. Further the additional central government subsidies for building high rise apartments ended.

Also in 1970s in a number of councils socialists were successful in local elections. Councils at the time had unlimited power to set the rates and socialist councilors made use of this power.^[35] They believed in a policy of increasing rates ( these were manly paid by affluent property owners), in order to get the funds to buy land on which to build council dwellings to let at subsidized rents to working class families.^[36]

These developments made the 1970s the golden age of council estate design.^[37] The local council town planning departments had acquired institutional knowledge from the failure or multi-storey blocks and the success of low rise development. They also recognized the new opportunities provide by not having coal heating. The best council planning departments were let by renowned architects, such as Edward Hollamby(1921-1999) head of Lambeth Council Town planning department.

A particularly notable development, is the council garden estate for which Cressingham Gardens is an exemplar.^[38] The council garden estate achieved equivalent population density(250person/hectare, 100/acre) to a high rise development.^[39] This was achieved by reducing space between buildings by having pathways rather than roads with pavements separating terraced dwellings, and by having car parks underground on the edge of the estate. It has been found that having a car free estate, with access to dwellings via paths and pedestrianized avenues promotes a mutually cooperative neigbourhood.^[40]

See, Statistics on public housing construction in the Keynes/Bevridge era, for further information on the number dwellings constructed in a year, and their type.

Owner occupier estates

Bevan's vision of estates were all classes where council tenants was never realized. Policy changed with the election of a conservative government in 1951. The new policy was for council estates to provide safe healthy housing for those in the bottom half of the income distribution, whilst subsidies were made available to provide assistance for owner/occupiers in the upper half of the income distribution. To further this objective development taxes were abolished.^[41] It was held that about half new dwellings should by built for rent to council tenants and half built for sale to owner/occupiers.^[42]

The lessons of poor social quality of housing in the ribbon development of 1930's had been learnt. The concept of a green belt surrounding cities was introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which prevented development along the arterial roads into a city, and urban sprawl.

Instead of urban sprawl, purpose built estates were built with feeder roads on to the arterial roads. The council would: formulate a local plan; re-designate land from agriculture land, to land for housing; arrange its purchase; built roads, provide drainage, water, and electricity; and sell plots to builders, who built houses for sale to owner occupiers. The typical dwelling built on such estates was the bungalow.

In the UK in the 1950s land was cheap. Death duties had risen to over 65% and this generated forced sellers. When land is cheap a single storey building is the most cost effective construction for a dwelling. In the 1950s bungalows on new estates were build for sale to owner/occupiers.

In the Keynes-Beveridge era there was job security and low unemployment. This meant that mortgages were the for the first available to the lower middle class. The cost of newly build bungalow was between two to three times average male earnings, and this owner/occupation affordable to those on average incomes.. Survey evidence suggests, that most English people, would prefer to live in a bungalow rather than any other type of building.^[43]

In the era of the Keynes-Beveridge consensus very few estates were built were there was mixing of social classes. Council estates for the working class would be built at one end of town, owner/occupier estates for the the middle classes at the other end. The council would built separate schools for the two estates, with the consequence that there was much reduced social interaction, between the families of council tenants, and families of owner/occupies.

Inner city re-purposed properties

The high taxation rates during the era of the Keynes-Beveridge consensus meant that the top decile of the income distribution could not afford to live in the city mansions build in the era of laissez faire. They could not afford to employ servants, so had no need of housing with servant quarters. They could not afford the rates for a mansion. This made such properties cheap. They were purchased by speculative builders and converted into flats. Before this could be done planning permission had to be obtained, and the council would only approve plans which met space and size standards. The newly created flats would be sold to owner/occupiers. The typical two bedroom flat, in the inner city created by such a conversion, would cost between in real terms £(2012)40,000-60,000.

Not all two down two up dwellings which created the slums were demolished in clearance programs. Those in the best condition were extended and renovated. The housing Act 1957 set mandatory standard for such renovations. The minimum standard required: running hot water, inside or "readily accessible" toilet, and artificial lighting and heating in all rooms.^[44]

The modernized two up two down terrace house has proved to be design which has stood the test of time.^[45] As a dwelling for a family it has proved to be more satisfactory than an apartment in a multi-story block.^[46] Access to an outside back yard which provides pre-school children with access outdoor play area is particularly valued. There are though defects in the design. The most serious of which relate to energy efficiency (see energy efficiency of pre-1914 housing stock). Privacy is also a problem, as conversations can be heard, through the single brick tier partition walls separating the houses.

New Towns

The post war shortage of housing in London, prompted the Attlee government to plan and build completely new towns to house what was called 'London's over spill', and reduce the population density of inner London. To this end, the New Towns Act 1946 was passed. The plans for the new towns were inspired by the Garden City movement. They were designed to be low density developments, nearly all the dwellings were to have gardens, and there were to be ample public spaces.

Private property developers were not involved in the design of the new towns. Instead for a new town, as there was not an existing council, for each new town a government development corporation was created which purchased the required land, designed the town. and appointed the building and infrastructure contractors.^[47] All the housing built was owned by the town's development corporation, and rented to its residents.

Uniquely in England, the new towns are not segregated on class lines,as the development corporations did not specify different districts for different classes. There were no owner occupier estates and council estates. In effect, all estates were council estates, or more accurately development corporation estates.

The record of the New towns is mixed with both failures and successes.^[48] Believers in the Thatcher-Blair consensus, cite new towns where there have been poor social outcomes as the enviable consequence of government planned, rather market driven urban development. In particular it is claimed that as the only form of tenure was rented public housing, new towns became, 'working class enclaves'. This meant that social mobility was reduced, as there was no opportunity to 'better oneself'' by becoming a home owner, and thereby moving up the social ladder.^[49][50] The example used to support this case is Corby.

The claim is, that as Corby is a working class enclave, there has been low educationalal achievement in the town. According to the 2001 Census, the Corby has the lowest proportion of the working age population with degree-level qualifications (8.5%) in England and Wales. Corby is also in the group with highest percentage of the population with no no GCSE-equivalent qualifications at all.^[51]

Defenders of new towns, suggested that the poor outcome in Corby is the result of the town being designed to provide a dwellings for the skilled workforce required by a steel mill, and steel processing plants..And that when the government closed the steel mill, it was bad planning not to provide equivalent well paid employment, as those wanting well paid work had to leave Corby.

Those who believe that governments not markets should plan housing, cite different new towns.^[52][53] In particular,

Stevenage is used to show the success of a government planned town.^[54] The case for new towns is well made by John Gardner, deputy leader Stevenage Borough Council. Gardner suggested that the politician Lewis Silkin(1889-1972) responsible for the new towns should be commemorated. His argument was:

Lewis Silkin [told parliament] “In the long run, the new towns will be judged by the kind of citizens they produce, by whether they create this spirit of friendship, neighbourliness and comradeship. That will be the real test, and that will be my objective so long as I have any responsibility for these new towns.”

I think the majority of us fortunate enough to live in one of the new towns can say: Lewis, your hopes have been achieved many times over, thank you. Maybe we could make 1 August New Towns Day, to be celebrated in the 32 towns, from the first, Stevenage, to the largest, Milton Keynes.^[55]

A central belief of the era of the Thatcher-Blair Consensus is that Government borrowing is undesirable. The ideal is a balanced budget, and at a minimum public sector debt must not increase as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product. To achieve this end councils were no longer permitted to fund housing construction from loans. And as a consequence the building of council houses came to a virtual end (see graph: history of new dwellings by purchasing sector).

Another of the core economic beliefs of this period is that all forms of subsidy are undesirable (see the Thatcher Blair Consensus on Ending Subsidies for further information). The consequence of this belief was that building of dwellings for sale to a first time owner/occupier buyer, had by, the 2010s effectively ceased. It proved not to be possible to build the typical bungalow without the subsidies for providing services (roads, drains, sewers, water, gas , electricity) at a price which was affordable to a first time buyer on average earnings.

In this era far from subsidizing newbuild, it is taxed. It is believed that tax on expenditure is preferable to tax on income, as taxing income is deemed to have demotivating effects.^[56] Although newbuilt is not subject to VAT it does incur what is called Community Infrastructure Levy.^[57] Taxes on newbuild, or any form of development have been criticized as they add a cost to the construction of new dwellings. Those who make this argument claim that a land value tax is preferable taxes on development as it promotes building of new dwellings.^{[58] [59]}

One of the theories for the fourfold increase in real house prices during the era of Thatcher-Blair consensus(see history of real purchase price of dwellings) are the taxes on newbuild. In 2015 the average selling for a newly build dwelling wast £294,000, whilst pre-owned homes cost 2% less at £288,000.^[60] The argument is that pre-owned dwellings are always slightly cheaper than newbuild dwellings. And although newbuild dwellings, are only small proportion of the market, if they are present in volume, as they were in 1950s, this will lower that price of pre-owned dwellings. In support of this theory, it is noted that at the start 1950s, real houses prices were £(2012) 50,000 and during the 50s they declined^[61]. The theory is that mass production of bungalows (encouraged by ending of development taxes) meant that economies of scale let to fall in building costs, and this let fall in real house prices.

Housing built for the Global Rich

The consequence of high real price for dwellings is that it is no longer profitable to build a house or a bungalow for first time buyers on average earnings. Instead what has become profitable is building luxury dwellings for the global rich. In the UK there are no restrictions on foreign purchase of property. This has made the UK an attractive location for second and holiday homes for high net worth individuals.

An illustration of the the consequences of this change is seen on the Sandbanks peninsular, a residential area near the sea side resort of Bournemouth on the south coast of England. In the 1950s this was developed, mainly with bungalows, which were owned and were the main home for locals. By the 2000s, the area had become the fourth most expensive real estate area in the world.^[62] The bungalows were demolished and replaced by mansions which provide holiday residences for the global elite.^[63]

For example, one of the properties, a bungalow called Harbour Edge was purchased by John Lennon of the Beatles for his Aunt Mimi (see here for a picture). In 1994 this bungalow was demolished and replaced by a mansion valued at £4.2 million.^[64]

There is a problem in estimating the increase in the size of the housing stock in the era of the Thatcher-Blair consensus, as many of the new dwellings are built for status display, and replace less luxurious dwellings. The interest of successful Russian Entrepreneurs in the UK property market has been a factor in this trend.^[65] On occasions buildings only a few years old are demolished to make way for a new mansion.^[66]

The registered owner's of the new mansions are typically trusts and private companies registered in off shore tax havens. This ensures that owners are not liable for death duties. This ownership structure also provides privacy, so it is not normally possible to discover the main country of residence of the owner or how many other homes he or she owns. It is also not possible to discover how many of the mansions which have been built in era of the Thatcher-Blair consensus are the primary residents of British citizens.

There are concerns that there is a market failure, and the construction sector of the British economy is building property for the global elite, whilst ignoring the needs of ordinary British citizens.^[67]

Dwellings built for middle income groups

The era of the Thatcher-Blair consensus has seen the return of the private landlord. Slum landlords gave landlords a undesirable reputation, and the these days landlords prefer to known as buy to let investors. In the era of laissez faire, wages were not high enough to allow a worker on average earnings to become an owner/occupier of a newly built dwelling. Instead new dwellings were sold to investors for letting. The increase in real house prices (see history of real purchase price of dwellings) has meant this is again the situation in the UK.

The optimum design of a dwelling built for sale to a buy to let investor, differs to the design of one for sale to an owner/occupier who intends the dwelling to be a family home . As noted above, the bungalow can provided an optimum design for a family home, but it is a sub-optimal design for a buy let investment property.

The buy to let investor prefers property which is targeted at a demographic sector known as DINKs (Dual Income No Kids). As households in this sector has a dual income there is less likelihood of rent arrears. This group is not interested in safe outdoor playing space for children, hence buy to let investors prefer property with car parking spaces rather than gardens. Also as a buy to let investor do not intend to use the property they purchase as their home, there has also been a trend for newbuild to have fewer rooms and smaller room sizes.

Prior to 1979 national regulations were a major factor in determining the size and quality of new dwellings. The regulations for newbuild council houses set a minimum standard. The council would not give planing approval to any dwelling lower than this standard. . In the era of the Thatcher-Blair consensus it is held that regulations lower the efficiency of the market (see Thatcher Blair Consensus on deregulation for further information), and the requirement to build to the Parker Morris standard was ended. There is no longer regulations that specify the requirement for a bathroom with a bath, or a separate wash basin to the kitchen sink.

The housing crises has meant that very small apartments near central London can command high rents, For example, in 2015 the rent for a 6.7m² (72ft²) apartment in Kessington and Chelsea was £3,878pcm(£895pw).^[68]

Although deregulation has meant that small spaces can be converted into dwellings, there is concern that modern dwellings will not enable the same quality of life as those built to the Parker Morris standard.^[69] It is suggested that the legacy of of what is being built in the 2010s is that the next generation will have to live in 'rabbit hutch' dwellings.^[70]

There is also a trend to provide newbuild one and two bed apartments in high rise multi-storey blocks. Although apartments in high rise blocks cost more to build, and have higher maintenance costs, they have advantages to buy to let investors. Many such investors are now foreign nationals, who purchase the property from seeing pictures of it in a show room in Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.. Such investors want a standardized unit.^[71] This is desirable as standardization provides liquidity in the market.

There is a fear that the new multistory apartment blocks will become new slums in the sky.^[7] It has been noted that,

...these new multi-storey flats are worse [than the original slums in the sky]. 1960s apartments were large. New ones are much smaller...Unsurprisingly, many flat-purchasers in the new developments don’t actually want to live in them. They are investors who wish to let them. This has all the makings of a future slum.^[7]

The slums of the laisser-faire era, caused illness by lacking basic hygiene. This will not return. But slums in the sky can be a contributory factor to child morbidity, as they can deny children access to safe out door play areas. In the UK, where there is shortage of winter sun. children spending to long indoors can lead to rickets.^[72] Lack of outdoor play results in reduced physical activity which is associated with childhood obesity.^[73] The World Health Organization (WHO) considers 'childhood obesity as one of the most serious global public health challenges for the 21st century'.^[74]

Dwellings built for low income families

The view held on who should be entitled to live in a government built house changes depending on the theory of economic believed in by the politicians in power. As noted above, Bevan believed that all citizens should be entitled to a council house. And he hoped to build council houses of such quality that middle classes would want to live in them. The view in the era of the Thatcher-Blair consensus is different. In this era it is held that public housing should only be provided to poor families in housing need. It is held that this group has an entitlement to what is called 'social housing'.^[75] In many ways this concept is a return to idea of providing almshouses for the poor.

As noted above, government borrowing, and property taxes are no longer used to fund construction of new dwellings, instead there is a development tax. How this can work in practice is that to get planning permission the developer has to agree to specific conditions. For example, property developers can be required to provide a number social housing units proportional to the number units they build for sale. There are concerns that system is being abused by property developers, 'resulting in local communities being destroyed, and unsuitable housing being provided to the poorest families in country'.^[76]

Bevan feared that if public housing is just built for poor people it will end up as poor quality housing. It would appear that Bevan's fears have foundation, as the social housing units provided by property developers, have on occasions, been found to have design deficiencies.^[77]

For example, in many developments, separate entrances and lifts are provided for the social housing units and those sold on the open market. Such buildings are said to have poor doors. In the worse case the poor door provides access to inadequate facilities, unreliable lifts, and no safe entrance for unaccompanied children.^[78][79]

Dwellings built for the top income decile

In era of the Thatcher-Blair consensus, it is held that private sector is inherently more efficient than the public sector. A consequence of this belief is that councils no longer have large town planing departments for designing council estates, and urban infrastructure. Instead this task is performed by property developers. The design brief the property developers give the architects they employ is to maximize the return on their investment. External costs, such as whether a design generates more car traffic than road infrastructure can handle are not considered. Also the dwellings the developer builds, are those with greatest profit margin, which might not correlate with those needed by the community. There are claims, that in London, the property developer led design paradigm, is producing undesirable results.^[80][81]

For a property the dwellings with the optimum profit margin are those sold to the top income decile. In London there is a demand from this group for second homes to be used during the working week.^[82] The family home would often be out in the country not within easy commuting distance of London. The a profitable design a residential building in Central London, is a gated development, with secure parking, and multi-storey block of one and two bedroom luxury apartments. The dwellings are not intended as family homes so there is no need for gardens.

There are concerns over the social consequences of new gated apartment blocks with their private security arrangements. It is claimed that 'gated communities are a social ill', which create paranoia, fear of crime and mistrust of ones neighbours.^[83] The suggestion on is that the social well being of a neighbourhood were doors are left unlocked, and windows unbarred is higher than that of gated neighbourhood.^[84] The town planners of the 1970s, after the mistakes of the tower blocks, devised designs which produced crime free estates.^[85] They used what is called CPTED (Crime prevention through environmental design) to achieve this.^[86] Paradoxically, security gates can increase crime, and the fear of crime, as they reduce social interaction, and natural surveillance .^[86]

There is also objections to making the car the main method of access for a dwelling. In central London only a minority of journeys are by car. But this minority of car journeys impose a cost on other citizens, by causing pollution and traffic congestion. It is suggested that is better urban design is to design estates, which encourage walking and cycling rather than driving.^[87] And this can be done by not having a car park at the centre of the estate^[88]

Although most states have adopted the neoliberal agenda, the politicians in power in the United Kingdom are exceptional in their strong belief in markets rather than planning. There are however some states where city planning is still considered desirable. For example, in Helsinki, Finland are planing to house an extra 250,000 thousand people in inner Helsinki, and same time reduce car traffic^[89]. To achieve this, it is planned that the new dwellings will be on housing estates in the inner city, that are designed to be car free.^[90]

Privatization of council housing

The era of the Thatcher-Blair Consensus has seen the privatization of the major portion of the stock of council provided dwellings for rent. This was done under Right to Buy legislation, which gave council tenants the opportunity to purchase the dwelling they lived on a mortgage which required no deposit at between a 35% to 50% discount on the market price.^[91] The discounted price was less than the replacement cost. Understandably right to buy was popular with council tenants and many took advantage of this privatization program. Councils were not permitted to replace the dwellings sold with new publicly owned property, and between 1980-2002, the public sector lost a net total of 750,000 dwellings.^[92]

An obvious beneficial effect of privatization of public housing was that it reduced the visual monotony of council estates. The new owners added features to their properties which added variety to the urban landscape.

It is argued that the main beneficiaries of the privatization of public housing have been buy to let investors who now own a two out of five ex council dwellings, and who have also benefited from the four fold increase in real rents, and real house prices( see Generation rent for further information).^[93] The main losers have been new households being formed in the bottom half of the income distribution, who used to be able to rent a good council house for at approximately one twelfth of average male earnings, and now have rent a small flat privately for four times as much.^[94]

The council dwelling privatization program has also severely effected council finance. Councils lost their rental income and were left paying off loans on property they no longer owned. The council also lost property which provided good returns, whilst being left with loss making property, The standard semi detached council house had low maintenance costs, and rent from such property provided a useful revenue stream for the council, which was lost when the property was sold. On the other hand, flats in tower blocks often had higher maintenance costs than rents, and these flats were not sold. Councils found they no longer had the revenue stream to do necessary maintenance and repairs on their property

Council Estate Regeneration (Gentrification)

In the era of the Thatcher-Blair consensus councils lost the power to raise a property tax, and lost their rental income from council housing. which meant they did not have the revenue stream to fund the refurbishment of 1960s tower blocks. The solution found to this funding shortfall was to sell council dwellings to property developers who would demolish the dwellings then and replaced them by newly build luxury apartments for sale to the upper income deciles.

The innovator of this policy was Dame Shirley Porter, Leader of Westminster City Council (1983-1991). The policy was called 'Building Stable Communities'. When a council dwelling became vacant, rather being repaired and re-let, it was boarded up and sold. In July 1987, the council resolved to sell 9,360 properties, 40% of its housing stock.^[95] Westminster City council rented property in outer London boroughs to house those it had a duty to provide a home. The council noted that there was no longer any need to provide housing for the bottom half of the income distribution in central London, workers could commute into London rather than live there. Selling its stock of council houses enabled reduction in local taxes. In 2016 Westminster Council has the lowest council tax in London, with a top annual rate of £1,337.62, whilst Kingston on Thames, were some of the displaced residents were sent, the top rate was nearly three times that at £3,365.^[96]

The Building Stable Communities policy did cause hardship to some of the displaced families, as they were cut of from relatives and support networks, and this in known to adversely effect well being.^[97] Further the bottom half of the income distribution only benefited by few hundred pounds in reduced Council Tax, but lost many thousands in increased rents.

There was argument as to whether the Building Stable Communities policy was legal. The case went to the house of Lords, and in 2001 it was determined some aspects of the policy were illegal. The illegal aspect was targeting policy at marginal constituencies so as reduce the Labour vote. It was however if was not found to be illegal, to fail to maintain council property, to sell rather than repair it, and house residents of Westminster with a right to a council dwelling outside the borough.^[98]

Selling rather repairing council property, and moving residents with a right to social housing away from their home borough has become standard policy, for both Conservative,and New Labour councils in Central London.^[99] The policy is no longer called Building Stable Communities but 'Council Estate Regeneration'.^[100] Whereas the Building Stable Communities policy involved moving people to outer London, tenants are now sent much further afield. In 2015 nearly 500 families a week were sent away from London, often to place hundreds of miles from London, such as Pembrokeshire, Bradford, Plymouth.^[101]

A standard Council Estate Regeneration program is a partnership between a property developer and a council.^[102] A typical program would required; clearing the site by demolishing the existing dwellings, building two blocks of of apartments , in the prime area of the site, apartments in a gated development for sale; and in the sub-prime area a block of social housing units.^[103] For an example,see approved estate regeneration plan for Cressingham Gardens (a video of residents views available here) .

The proportion of social housing units provided varies. Lambeth council say they have an aspiration that for every five council dwellings demolished, one new social housing unit will be provided.^[102] Lambeth council that this is better than that achieved by their neighbouring council, Southwark for its Council Estate Regeneration program at the Elephant and Castle.^[104]

Although the Council/Property developer use the term Council Estate Regeneration for their plans, for many this is considered just be a PR (Public Relations) term. And it is more accurate to describe the process as Gentrification, as the plans involve demolishing the dwellings built for, and lived in by ordinary people and replacing them with dwellings for the rich.^[105] In London considerable hostility is developing to gentrification as people find their neighbourhoods are being changed, and shops and services are being provided for the rich rather than ordinary people.^{[106][107][108]}

Some politicians have used stronger language than gentrification to describe what has happened in London. Borris Johnoson, when campaigning to be Mayor or London said he would end what he called the social cleansing of Central London. The allegation is that, councils are evicting low income families from their boroughs so as to reduce council expenditure, enabling a lower council tax. Johnson said: 'On my watch, you are not going to see thousands of families evicted from the place where they have been living and have put down roots.'^[109]

Johnson on becoming Mayor, was not successful in ending the evictions.^[110] The reason he identified was that the Mayor did not have the fund raising powers to ensure property was repaired rather than demolished.^[111] There are suggestions that gentrification of central London is now irreversible.^[112]

.

• www.example.com