Demolishing housing estates

In my opinion we need to accept society has broken down

No such thing as society; just a load of individuals. Can't remember who I am paraphrasing.

Perhaps we need to think about what we can do to mend it, if we want to mend it.

Demolishing houses to improve areas with social problems has been tried several times by both main parties and it didn't work. Why do it again? It doesn't work.

Do something else and stop wasting taxpayers money on futile gestures aimed at enriching developers.

Is it really true that it hasn't worked? It may not have solved all the problems there were but is it true to say none of the problems of poverty have been solved? Are so-called sink estates anything like as bad as city slums used to be?

A different type of 'bad' I'd say.

In the city slums people were poor and had no gardens or inside loos; sink estates can have drug dealers, high unemployment, many fatherless children, vandalism, litter, anti-social families, and general lawlessness.

www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/right-to-buy-or-the-right-to-lifelong-debt

An interesting take on right to buy. I always assumed that people my age would have paid off their mortgages, but it's not so, according to the NEF.

www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/for-regeneration-to-work-residents-need-to-be-in-control

Cameron's idea sounds very 19th century philanthropy. However, he is not putting his own money in.
At least the Rowntrees et al built the houses first before moving people out of the slums/sink estates.
Actually, they were moved from the very places in York which have been flooded now.

I still have a few years left to pay on my mortgage.

Those who take advantage of the Right to Buy scheme will at least be paying less monthly than they did in rent, and will eventually own their own homes.

Elegran Of course she is, did you think I expected anything else?

durhamjen families like the Rowntrees, Cadburies, and Peabody estates in London did much to give their workers and others decent homes when much housing was appalling, but it is worth remembering that residents were expected to look after their properties and lead acceptable lives, within the mores of their time. If not tenants were at best 'encouraged' tomove out, at worst evicted. Those who built the estates made sure they did not have the problems we now have with estates with high levels of deprivation.

thatbags I think there is very little evidence that demolition and rebuilding helps levels of deprivation. Yes, the properties have more services built in than similar dwellings would have had 100 years ago, electricity, gas, running water, sanitation, central heating, but 100 years ago many quite upmarket houses lacked a lot of these facilities. The dwellings planned for demolition have all these services now as do many small 19th century properties that were built without them but have installed them since.

I think you are fairly new to this thread, but some distance up I posted these two links
www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/the-estate-we-re-in-lessons-from-the-front-line
www.policyexchange.org.uk/media-centre/blogs/category/item/britain-s-sink-estates-can-and-must-be-turned-around.

I am sure that refurbishing such housing and the introduction of landscaping can do much to improve an area and raise morale but there is little evidence that demolishing adequate but rundown properties and replacing them has any effect at all.

npi.org.uk/publications/housing-and-homelessness/paying-high-price-faulty-product/

It's not just a few rogue landlords.
This report was commissioned last year by Citizens Advice.
These are the main findings of the report.

There are more than 100,000 households who pay more than £900 per month to live in an unsafe private home.

The average monthly rent for an unsafe home in the private sector is £650, not much lower than the average overall cost of £720 for a home that meets minimum standards.

Just 210,000 of the households in unsafe privately rented homes have no one in work or are of pension age.

Private renters in England spend £4.2 billion a year to live in unsafe homes that fail to meet legal standards.

Half a million children live in unsafe privately rented homes.

Monica, policy exchange is a Tory thinktank, so not exactly objective.

Have you got any proof, Monica, of residents being evicted from New Earswick? I would be interested to know of your sources.
I lived near there for over ten years,and had an aunt and uncle who lived in New Earswick, and have never heard of it before. The house I lived in used to belong to the Rowntree family.

MOnica could you remind me what I said to which you answered "Of course she is, did you think I expected anything else?" I don't remember and can't find it.

Elegran After I commented that DD had sucessively owned 2 ex-council houses and was very happy in both you posted, as below. I got the feeling that you thought I was surprised by DD's experience and expected her to find council tenants somewhat 'other'. I assure you I did not expect her to find her neighbours any different to what they are, generally, pleasant and friendly people. Which is what I would say of my own neighbours, none of whom are council tenants.

She is no doubt living surrounded by a whole lot of nice, ordinary people in nice ordinary houses. Council tenants are not some strange alien tribe, they are the people you meet in shops, hospitals, buses.

durhamjen In relation to housing built by Rowntrees et al. I was referring to rules that existed when the housing was built. Obviously these kind of rules do not apply now and haven't for many years.

As far as think tanks go, practically all think tanks have a political view. This does not mean that, regardless of political persuasion, the research they do is of dubious quality. Yes, it can be sometimes, but it is not inevitable

I assume you had a look at the two links I posted and noted that the policy they are advocating is in direct conflict with the policy announced by David Cameron. They are recommending social solutions to social problems and give several examples of where such policies when applied have been successful. Doesn't that actually support the arguments you are putting forward?

Lots of students live in horrible rented properties with unhelpful landlords. Building great big housing estates was never a great idea - a response to the desperate housing crisis after WW2.
Reading Jennifer Ward's books about midwifery in the East End opened my eyes to how truly awful East End slums were in the 1950s.
I wonder if maybe the worst thing about the most difficult estates is drugs not the buildings.

Monica I was being perfectly serious, and I didn't think anything of the kind.

What rules, Monica?
There were none as far as New Earswick was concerned, as far as I can find out. The houses were rented out to 1/3 Rowntree employees, and the rest came from the slums. The rent was 20% of their pay, definitely better than now.

As far as think tanks are concerned, I look at www.thinktankreview.co.uk which checks up on the work of lots of think tanks every week.
One that is run by Tories would not be my first choice to look at.

JessM, just been watching Shetland. Nothing wrong with the buildings there, but the drugs....
Sorry, I know it's fiction.

npi.org.uk/files/8314/4827/0203/Final_MPSE_Findings_2015.pdf

Monica, I think you should read this, as I have just read your links.

Why should people on housing estates not take drugs when many pop singers on drugs, been on drugs, died from drugs are admired? Was not that singer Lemmy hailed a genius and praised heaped upon him whilst his drug taking was put forward as amusing, Amy Winehouse - may have the surname wrong, following her death her drug addiction wasn't criticised , sympathy poured forth that she had battled with drugs , either it's acceptable for all or not to be tolerated no matter the fact the addict is famous.

Same with alcoholics, if famous their addiction is accepted, if not they are drunks and a waste of space.

Drink and drug addiction is fine if you don't live on a housing estate , if you do you are a problem

Good post, Annie.

Thank you Jen, I so dislike it's fine for some but not for all

durhamjen I have no argument with any of the figures in the link you put up, regardless of its political leanings, but this thread is about solutions. The Policy Exchange suggested solutions and ones that are proven to be effective. My argument has always been that demolition solves nothing and social problems are answered by social solutions. There was nothing in your link that contradicted that.

I didn't look for any particular type of think tank. I just googled on solutions to deprivation. In fact when I read these two reports I assumed Policy Exchange must be left of centre. But surely this is one of the big problems, we put the political views of any person or corporate body ahead of reading and assessing the validity of their arguments or solutions. I read the reports first and if they appear well reasoned and valid I really do not give toss whether they are from a right wing or left wing organisation. Neither of them has a monopoly of truth - or untruth.