| |
|
A Wythenshaw towerblock, which is distinctly less so. This is a way of life invented for the moneyed middle classes, this is not worler's accomodation.
What makes you say that? I'm not disagreeing necessarily, just wondering... This is from an article on housing from a Aufheben #13 - unfortunately they haven't put the full thing up on their website yet:
The 1960s saw the beginnings of the transformation of Britain's urban centres. Over the next two decades the old, predominantly Victorian, town centres were to be town down and replaced by highly profitable shopping centres and office blocks, replete with ring roads and multi-storey car parks. However, for such urban regeneration to take place the first step was the rehousing of largely working class populations that still lived in city centres. This required the continued expansion of council housing. In order to contain the costs of these major rehousing programmes, local and national government readily adopted a strategy of high-density high rise building, which was being vigorously promoted by large-scale construction firms and modernist architects. It was hoped that modern building techniques would contain building costs, while the high densities allowed by high rise housing would reduce the amount of land required by the rehousing programmes, thereby saving land costs. As a consequence, the 1960s became the decade of high-rise blocks of flats, which sprang up across Britain's towns and cities.
However it was not long before the adoption of the high-rise strategy proved to be a monumental economic and social disaster. The new, often untried, building techniques failed to contain the rise in construction costs. Instead, to remain within budget and under pressure from property developers pressing for an early start to the urban regeneration schemes, local authorities sanctioned crude cost cutting. Ther vertical communities, replete with communal facilities, which had been envisaged by the modernist architects of the 1950s, were reduced to little more than vertical dormitories. Cutting corners led to shoddy construction. In 1967 the high-rise boom was brought to a sudden halt by the collapse of the Roman Point tower block, which killed four people.
One thing explored in the rest of the article is the general increase in owner-occupancy among the middle-class over the past century, with all the implications that has for rented and council housing. By the 1960s, council housing of this sort wasn't really intended for the middle-classes, which is why I'm a bit confused as to what you mean here? Unless you're suggesting that this sort of housing would be better suited to the middle-classes, and was designed (though not built) with them in mind?
Also, I wonder if you could develop this a little:
And I think kids are clever enough to realize that this, as a priority, is bullshit - there just isn't any other option: conformity, or the violent apathy and stasis of gangs and religious organisations. Because there's so much emphasis on business and things that contribute to business, and not enough on the liberal arts, if you aren't the sort of kid who wants to get very rich or who has skills in that direction no-one wants to know about you.
I think I see where you're coming from, but what role do you think the 'liberal arts' have to play in all this? I mean, are you suggesting that disaffcted young people are all frustrated liberal arts scholars? If more school-time were devoted to the liberal arts, what results would you expect? |
|
|
