Why are council estates in UK generally such grim and usually nasty places?
It generally seems to be the case in UK that council estate tend to be places that are dirty, grim and nasty, most usually not a very nice place to live.
Many tend to be off low quality and poorly maintained (though rents for them isn't necessarily cheap)
A significant majority of social housing also tends to be places that were built with scant regard for anything other that it being a box with a roof.
I've seen social housing in many parts of the world, in Hong Kong over 90% of its residents live in social housing and most of the newer ones while small in unit sizes they are mostly fairly pleasant and isn't crime infested areas.
Singapore is also another place where there 80% of the populace live in social housing, the main difference being the vast majority are owned by the occupiers. These estates tend to be extremely clean, well organized and for the most part fairly comfortable places to live.
Norway also has some interesting arrangements in terms of social housing, Oslo especially has plenty of housing association flats that though mostly lived in by the poorest of the population of mostly immigrant backgrounds, these estates tend to be very clean, green and surprisingly very well maintained, some obviously lack any architectural elements to it as they were mostly built in the 50s and 60s, many have since been refurbished and are in fairly good condition. Plenty of the older ones are being torn down too especially in Oslo as they are building them to be taller and more spacious.
Now the question, why is it those in UK isn't anywhere near as good?
Many tend to be off low quality and poorly maintained (though rents for them isn't necessarily cheap)
A significant majority of social housing also tends to be places that were built with scant regard for anything other that it being a box with a roof.
I've seen social housing in many parts of the world, in Hong Kong over 90% of its residents live in social housing and most of the newer ones while small in unit sizes they are mostly fairly pleasant and isn't crime infested areas.
Singapore is also another place where there 80% of the populace live in social housing, the main difference being the vast majority are owned by the occupiers. These estates tend to be extremely clean, well organized and for the most part fairly comfortable places to live.
Norway also has some interesting arrangements in terms of social housing, Oslo especially has plenty of housing association flats that though mostly lived in by the poorest of the population of mostly immigrant backgrounds, these estates tend to be very clean, green and surprisingly very well maintained, some obviously lack any architectural elements to it as they were mostly built in the 50s and 60s, many have since been refurbished and are in fairly good condition. Plenty of the older ones are being torn down too especially in Oslo as they are building them to be taller and more spacious.
Now the question, why is it those in UK isn't anywhere near as good?
I suppose it could start as a nice place, but then unpleasant people can move in and some of the nicer people move out because they don't like it. This can keep happening until eventually not many people we could consider as 'pleasant' live there. Because there are less well off people living there they may turn to crime for money or even fun.
Also, many people in council estates are receiving benefits. In the UK it's never been very hard to get benefits so some people just rely on them and abuse them and if they don't have enough money the can turn to things like drug dealing, which may also drive the neighbours out. Benefit systems are much stricter in other countries, they're no nonsense, so people use there money for better use.
Also, here the councils tend to turn a blind eye to problems in council estates, whereas in other countries you will be evicted straight away for things.
I keep reading this back and wondering if I've actually answered the question or not, but hey... I've typed it all now!
Also, many people in council estates are receiving benefits. In the UK it's never been very hard to get benefits so some people just rely on them and abuse them and if they don't have enough money the can turn to things like drug dealing, which may also drive the neighbours out. Benefit systems are much stricter in other countries, they're no nonsense, so people use there money for better use.
Also, here the councils tend to turn a blind eye to problems in council estates, whereas in other countries you will be evicted straight away for things.
I keep reading this back and wondering if I've actually answered the question or not, but hey... I've typed it all now!
The slavic ones are the worst.
I live on a ''council estate'' (sort of - the majority of the houses are owned by the council and there are a few here and there that aren't) and it's actually pretty nice. Not grim, no "troubling youths" and all the houses are of adequate sizing so I must be in this small group of exceptions haha.
It's a public policy thing. Council estates are intended as a last resort for people who can't afford anything else, so they make them unpleasant so people move out as soon as they're able. This clears space for new tenants.
I must say I prefer Norway's approach though.
I must say I prefer Norway's approach though.
I live on a council estate, not grim. No anti social behaviour, houses are excellent size compared to London.
Not sure what estate you went to but its definitely not the case. Many people want to live on our estate, nice drives, local shops, decent housing etc
Not sure what estate you went to but its definitely not the case. Many people want to live on our estate, nice drives, local shops, decent housing etc
Original post by Alfissti
It generally seems to be the case in UK that council estate tend to be places that are dirty, grim and nasty, most usually not a very nice place to live.
Many tend to be off low quality and poorly maintained (though rents for them isn't necessarily cheap)
A significant majority of social housing also tends to be places that were built with scant regard for anything other that it being a box with a roof.
I've seen social housing in many parts of the world, in Hong Kong over 90% of its residents live in social housing and most of the newer ones while small in unit sizes they are mostly fairly pleasant and isn't crime infested areas.
Singapore is also another place where there 80% of the populace live in social housing, the main difference being the vast majority are owned by the occupiers. These estates tend to be extremely clean, well organized and for the most part fairly comfortable places to live.
Norway also has some interesting arrangements in terms of social housing, Oslo especially has plenty of housing association flats that though mostly lived in by the poorest of the population of mostly immigrant backgrounds, these estates tend to be very clean, green and surprisingly very well maintained, some obviously lack any architectural elements to it as they were mostly built in the 50s and 60s, many have since been refurbished and are in fairly good condition. Plenty of the older ones are being torn down too especially in Oslo as they are building them to be taller and more spacious.
Now the question, why is it those in UK isn't anywhere near as good?
Many tend to be off low quality and poorly maintained (though rents for them isn't necessarily cheap)
A significant majority of social housing also tends to be places that were built with scant regard for anything other that it being a box with a roof.
I've seen social housing in many parts of the world, in Hong Kong over 90% of its residents live in social housing and most of the newer ones while small in unit sizes they are mostly fairly pleasant and isn't crime infested areas.
Singapore is also another place where there 80% of the populace live in social housing, the main difference being the vast majority are owned by the occupiers. These estates tend to be extremely clean, well organized and for the most part fairly comfortable places to live.
Norway also has some interesting arrangements in terms of social housing, Oslo especially has plenty of housing association flats that though mostly lived in by the poorest of the population of mostly immigrant backgrounds, these estates tend to be very clean, green and surprisingly very well maintained, some obviously lack any architectural elements to it as they were mostly built in the 50s and 60s, many have since been refurbished and are in fairly good condition. Plenty of the older ones are being torn down too especially in Oslo as they are building them to be taller and more spacious.
Now the question, why is it those in UK isn't anywhere near as good?
It is mostly a housing management failure. They weren't always like this. Much council housing was built between the 1930s and 1960s. It was let most to people in regular and reasonably well paid employment who had come to the top of a genuine queue.
Today most properties are let to people who are living on means tested benefits and who are in one way or another dysfunctional.
If you look at those housing associations that are not council house stock transfers but who are making their own letting decisions, you will see examples of what good social housing is like. Effectively they are cherry picking tenants.
Hpwever, with regard to size, council houses are usually bigger and with bigger gardens than private houses and often have better build quality if not fit out.
(edited 10 years ago)
If Norways so great why dont you go visit a norway student room eh!?!
The working class built Britain, based in social housing!!
The working class built Britain, based in social housing!!
Original post by Bill_Gates
If Norways so great why dont you go visit a norway student room eh!?!
The working class built Britain, based in social housing!!
The working class built Britain, based in social housing!!
Prefer something in English
There was a documentary about the rise and fall of council housing on the BBC a few years back - it's not on iplayer anymore but you can listen to the writer, michael collins talking about it on this podcast... http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zzqy9#threeG
council house bit starts at 34 mins and he gets on to the causes of the beginning of the precipitous decline of council housing in the 70's and 80's at 37:24
pay attention to the bit about the 1977 housing act and the shift to a 'priority need' based system.
fwiw some council seem to have an unofficial policy of putting the crazies together on a sacrificial estate so the traditional decent working class type of tenants can more or less live in peace.
council house bit starts at 34 mins and he gets on to the causes of the beginning of the precipitous decline of council housing in the 70's and 80's at 37:24
pay attention to the bit about the 1977 housing act and the shift to a 'priority need' based system.
fwiw some council seem to have an unofficial policy of putting the crazies together on a sacrificial estate so the traditional decent working class type of tenants can more or less live in peace.
Original post by Alfissti
It generally seems to be the case in UK that council estate tend to be places that are dirty, grim and nasty, most usually not a very nice place to live.
They aren't. You're probably thinking of inner city estates, which don't form the majority of social housing.
Many tend to be off low quality and poorly maintained (though rents for them isn't necessarily cheap)
The post-war social housing stock (semi-detached suburban semis) is some of the best and most durable housing stock we have in this country. It's also more sizeable that what you tended to get in the private market in the latter half of the 20th century (for the price).
Original post by Jibola240
They are mostly filled with people on benefits; they shouldn't be nice places to live in.
Yeah, evil bastards! How dare they rot on the lowest rung of the social ladder? Best pack them away to a ghetto.
Original post by Alfissti
It generally seems to be the case in UK that council estate tend to be places that are dirty, grim and nasty, most usually not a very nice place to live.
Many tend to be off low quality and poorly maintained (though rents for them isn't necessarily cheap)
A significant majority of social housing also tends to be places that were built with scant regard for anything other that it being a box with a roof.
I've seen social housing in many parts of the world, in Hong Kong over 90% of its residents live in social housing and most of the newer ones while small in unit sizes they are mostly fairly pleasant and isn't crime infested areas.
Singapore is also another place where there 80% of the populace live in social housing, the main difference being the vast majority are owned by the occupiers. These estates tend to be extremely clean, well organized and for the most part fairly comfortable places to live.
Norway also has some interesting arrangements in terms of social housing, Oslo especially has plenty of housing association flats that though mostly lived in by the poorest of the population of mostly immigrant backgrounds, these estates tend to be very clean, green and surprisingly very well maintained, some obviously lack any architectural elements to it as they were mostly built in the 50s and 60s, many have since been refurbished and are in fairly good condition. Plenty of the older ones are being torn down too especially in Oslo as they are building them to be taller and more spacious.
Now the question, why is it those in UK isn't anywhere near as good?
Many tend to be off low quality and poorly maintained (though rents for them isn't necessarily cheap)
A significant majority of social housing also tends to be places that were built with scant regard for anything other that it being a box with a roof.
I've seen social housing in many parts of the world, in Hong Kong over 90% of its residents live in social housing and most of the newer ones while small in unit sizes they are mostly fairly pleasant and isn't crime infested areas.
Singapore is also another place where there 80% of the populace live in social housing, the main difference being the vast majority are owned by the occupiers. These estates tend to be extremely clean, well organized and for the most part fairly comfortable places to live.
Norway also has some interesting arrangements in terms of social housing, Oslo especially has plenty of housing association flats that though mostly lived in by the poorest of the population of mostly immigrant backgrounds, these estates tend to be very clean, green and surprisingly very well maintained, some obviously lack any architectural elements to it as they were mostly built in the 50s and 60s, many have since been refurbished and are in fairly good condition. Plenty of the older ones are being torn down too especially in Oslo as they are building them to be taller and more spacious.
Now the question, why is it those in UK isn't anywhere near as good?
In the case of Hong Kong & Singapore wouldn't the lack of crime be due to the fact you're talking about East Asians? There are significant differences in crime rates by ethnicity (Population and Environment July 2002, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 501-511 Cross-National Variation in Violent Crime Rates: Race, r-K Theory, and Income). There's an interesting example of Chinese in San Francisco in the 1960's having the lowest income, most crowded housing, high unemployment and almost non-existent crime rates (p 32, Walsh 'Crime: A Bio-social Analysis 2004).
That said, they should be maintained to a livable level obviously. There then has to be tenant responsibility to maintain them, although the reality is in some cases the residents will neglect them.
(edited 10 years ago)
There is a class problem in my opinion. English people stopped climbing out of their estates into being upper middle class people, working in the private sector, at some point in the 80s. Now things are pretty fixed and hip hop ghetto culture and done a lot of serious damage, damage that wont get mentioned in any left wing social science nowadays.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
