<< Previous || Next >>

3. The problems of Tower Blocks

The issue of suitability was a primary concern of the National Tower Block Network (NTBN). The network was established in 1984, growing out of residents’ campaigns against the inadequacies that they found in their blocks. It campaigned for the demolition of structurally unsound and socially unacceptable blocks, and to secure alternative housing choices for families who did not want to be in high rise accommodation. It did much valuable work in assessing conditions across the UK and giving some very scattered organisations a common focus and identity. The network folded in the early 1990s, largely due to its funding from the Department of the Environment being cut (6).

3.1 The core problems
The Network was focused very much on resolving problems. Over nearly a decade of working with tower block communities the NTBN identified the following as being the problems associated with living in a tower block:
• inadequate heating systems
• lack of safety for children
• tenant isolation / depression
• inadequate play facilities
• asbestos
• lack of community facilities
• poor fire safety
• racism / racial harassment
• inadequate or unreliable lifts
• dampness / condensation
• building defects
• lack of security
• poor layout / environment of estates
• cockroaches
• other vermin (7)
This list dates from 1992. Eight years on, the first seminar of the National Sustainable Tower Block Initiative brought together residents and professionals with an interest in tower blocks. They added some more difficulties to the list:
• Noise, litter, and refuse – problems resulting from a ‘clash of lifestyles’ which is less easy to escape because people are living in such close proximity.
• Fear of crime as well as crime itself.
• Poor reputation and stigma.
• The range of different interests involved – the tenants, the landlord, funders, and contractors all have a stake of some sort. They have different agendas which must all be reconciled if they are not to cause friction and frustration.
• Allocations policies – the tenants’ priority will be to get a suitable resident, but for financial reasons the landlord may simply want to let the flat as quickly as possible.
• Enforcing obligations and responsibilities of contractors. The landlord may find it difficult to monitor performance properly.
• Timescales – providers and receivers of services have different expectations about what constitute reasonable timescales for the provision of services.
It is perhaps significant that this new list shows a change of emphasis, from basic physical inadequacies to problems in the relationships between tenants, landlords and contractors.
3.2 Problems related to social exclusion
To this list we could add the more general problems which are common on disadvantaged estates up and down the country. These are problems of:
• poor health
• high unemployment
• poor services (including shopping facilities and transport links in and out of the estate), crime and other such facets of social exclusion.
These are of course not problems for every block, but are certainly contributing to damaging the quality of life for people living in blocks in areas where these are problems. There are several other important factors that are crucial to the chances of developing a sustainable community in a tower block.
There is a balance to be maintained between supply and demand for housing. If demand falls far short of supply (leading to empty estates), then this will be reflected in the allocations policy – the housing manager will be much less selective about who they offer homes to. Equally if demand outstrips supply then households may be offered quite unsuitable accommodation. These issues can affect people’s perceptions of their neighbourhood.

3.3 The image of Tower Blocks
A further problem is the image of tower blocks locally and nationally. Different forms of housing carry various associations in people’s minds that relate to their own housing aspirations. These associations can be different in different parts of the country. In many places tower blocks have a very negative image and are seen as one of the least desirable forms of housing, although there are areas where their reputation is higher. Image is important because it affects whether people will choose to live in high rise accommodation.
With a reasonable image tower blocks stand a better chance of attracting a good social mix. Otherwise they may develop as concentrations of people suffering from disadvantage, unable to assert their own housing preferences. The question of how landlords should deal with social problems and anti-social behaviour is very sensitive. Many tower blocks have a preponderance of one bedroom units and are therefore used to house young people or vulnerable people living on their own, including people with mental health problems. Such physical considerations can restrict the options for allocations.

3.4 Resident turnover
The issue of resident satisfaction has been discussed above. The turnover of residents is extremely important in determining the prospects for sustainability. In some blocks most residents stay where they are for at least a few years; but in others a high proportion are transient, moving on again after just a year or so without having had time (even if they had the inclination) to become integrated into the community.
Stability can provide the social circumstances in which a stronger community can grow. Transience, on the other hand, gives rise to void flats leading to loss of rental income for the landlord and the need to allocate budgets to redecorating and repairing flats left in a bad condition. In general, blocks with older residents tend to display a stable community while transience can be a major problem in blocks catering for young people.
The mobility and choices of individuals do create a need for short-term accommodation in the rented housing sector, and housing authorities use tower blocks to help meet this need. To an extent this is appropriate, but in placing new tenants regard must be had for their impact on the tower block community. It must be recognised that the physical nature of a block magnifies both the problems and benefits of having other people around. Tower blocks are more vulnerable than most forms of housing to anti-social behaviour. A high turnover of residents requires better resourced and more intensive housing management.

3.6 Service provision
Finally, a key part of the picture, and a consistent problem, is the way that services are provided. Usually they are all provided through the landlord. In terms of housing services – management, repairs, grounds maintenance and so forth – the work is carried out by the local authority or housing association, or by a private company contracted by them. With other services such water and power, provision will be organised for the block as a whole by the landlord. This may work perfectly well, but often it does not; and it adds to a culture of dependence. It removes the responsibility of individuals for choosing and arranging their services.
There is a huge spread of performance within the housing services provided by local authorities. While many tower blocks receive a highly satisfactory package, others are badly let down. According to Keith Jacobs and Tony Manzi of the University of Westminster (2), tower blocks are products of a modernist culture of “bureaucratic decision-making, involving professional control and rational organisation.”
“These methods were adopted to ensure economies of scale and efficient allocation of resources. However, these managerial techniques were discredited as bureaucracy became identified with rigidity and unresponsiveness. Local authority housing departments were distinguished by a managerial style equated with inefficiency and paternalism.”.
Jacobs and Manzi are describing a picture from the 1950s, 60s and 70s; but this culture has been slow to die in many local authorities, and over several decades it has had an insidious effect upon the fibre of communities. Moving into tower blocks was supposed to free people of the day-to-day headaches of sorting out the problems associated with the older dilapidated back-to-backs. Everyone’s needs would be attended to on a systematic basis by the local authority. In many ways this constituted a big improvement in housing conditions. But the terms of the deal – that you didn’t do things for yourself, the council did it all for you – led to an erosion of responsibility and personal investment, and of purpose, independence and confidence. When it proved impossible to maintain the efficient, scientific service systems tenants found themselves in a vulnerable position without the capacity to do much about it.
Heat and power, grounds maintenance, and waste management can be picked out as services with a high significance for the environment which have also caused problems in tower blocks. Poor heating systems were one of the most common complaints identified by the National Tower Blocks Network. In a block everyone is reliant on the same system, and if that is inadequate, residents are left with cold, damp homes and high fuel bills. The grounds around the base of tower blocks are often bleak, windswept places. They were rarely designed to cultivate a sense of ownership or privacy, and the landlord usually employs a standardised, low maintenance approach for their upkeep. This impersonal, uncared-for environment attracts litter and debris. Yet, as discussed in sections 4 and 6 below, all these ‘environmental services’ have the potential to be turned around so as to make a big contribution to the sustainability of tower blocks.