The recent tragedy of Grenfell Tower - the burning inferno that reflected deep rooted issues with urban planning and government housing regulation - raised some equally burning questions about the place of the council block in modern society and its symbolism for the forgotten poor of Britain. That council estates are in need of serious renewal and reconsideration is no new debate. For decades, slum clearance projects since Thatcherite policy initiatives have become the sombre symbol of the social and economic disparity between the haves and have-nots. The incident at Grenfell overturned the proverbial rock under which was hiding the weeds of faulty planning, untenable building infrastructure and poor regulation.
For many, the fire cast a sharp light on the downfalls of architectural austerity measures and council planning that falls more than short of adequate. It is far from controversial to say that the tragedy could and should have been avoided by improved structural foresight and increased spending on safeguarding measures. However, a more contentious debate would be whether or not structures such as Grenfell should even exist in such socioeconomically advanced conurbations as London. The council block narrative sparks multifarious views and sentiments from the public; on the one hand, we have our champions of social housing paying homage to their virtues as providers of shelter to the most vulnerable and least well-off amongst our communities. On the other hand, however, we have the staunch critiques who hold policies surrounding social cramming and council estate construction in deep disdain as inhumane monoliths of habitation - such proponents tend to be against the concept of the council block due to its sheer brutality and the arguably deplorable idea that the state can simply place people into blocks and expect them to live satisfactorily on top of one another like confined ants.
Most us would indeed concede to the view that social housing is a must, even as a temporary solution. What creates more division, though, is why such council blocks are indeed the way they are today; in other words, why are we still surrounded by what many see as architectural eye sores that seem barely fit as a place of residence for human beings. Many adversaries of the social cramming problems that grew out of the 60s are concerned with what social researchers have termed 'social residualisation', the effect of crime and poverty worsening in areas of social housing because of the homogeneity of problems and demographics that the estates perpetuate once wealthier residents begin to flee the area. This means that social stigma is furthered and that council tenants find it near to impossible to escape the poverty trap that these concrete jungles quickly degenerate into. A perusal of Lynsey Hanley's latest work entitled 'Estates' is a recommended purchase for anyone interested in the social history of council estates and the ethics of social housing policy; in light of such events as the Grenfell fire, the book serves as a much-needed investigation into social policies from both Labour and Conservative and the housing pandemic that continues to plague modern Britain.
Critiquing and criticising policies, building and regulation decisions is one thing, but providing a tenable alternative is a completely separate issue. Indeed, what are some of the alternatives to such structures as Grenfell Tower? One viable option we are seeing increasingly employed by local councils is individual houses or flats rather than tower block structures. Moving away from the somewhat bureaucratically fetishized tower block structure offers a refreshing compromise between social housing and standard housing. Indeed, much of the modern, forward-thinking social housing structures we are seeing in suburbs such as Twickenham and Kingston are barely distinguishable from the private housing structures to which they stand adjacent. Firstly, such a move allows us to break away from the mould of negatively perceived aesthetic brutalism that screams gloom. Secondly, the trend would neutralise the risk of residualisation and stigma in granting council tenants a decent living condition which integrates into the fabric of the area both socially and architecturally.
The road to recovery in the context of social cramming and inadequate structures is a long one, but a sensible direction for the government to take would be to rethink the structural essence of council housing.