<< Previous || Next >>

4. The potential of Tower Blocks

4.1 An integrated approach
The problems on tower block estates referred to above are well rehearsed. Unfortunately, much less is made of the advantages of high rise accommodation. As a result we now have a situation in which the baby is being thrown out with the bath water as innovation and emerging good practice is ignored. In too many cases policy makers and housing authorities are giving up on tower blocks and looking to demolish them because this appears to be easier, even cheaper, than developing solutions to complicated social problems.
As we have already argued, in some cases demolition is necessary, but a far better answer lies in working out effective approaches to the following:
• Long-term community development,
• The provision of good quality services, and
• Physical improvements to the stock.
This three-pronged approach can be more expensive than demolition; but here, as is all too often the case, the real costs of a policy choice are not fully reflected in the price tag picked up by one agency or authority. Keeping those tower blocks that can be saved is more efficient than demolishing them. With the number of new households projected to grow by 4.4 million – the increase consisting largely of single people – central and local government cannot afford to carry on cutting into the stock of around 400,000 homes in Tower Blocks.
On these grounds we recommend that these three prongs be underpinned by changes to the funding regime to strengthen all forms of incentives for local agencies to develop sustainable solutions for tower blocks.

4.2 The potential for sustainability
The NTBN list of problems (3.1 above) relates to primary day-to-day needs, and clearly if these needs cannot be met, then prospects for sustainability are very limited. But a sustainability perspective can also focus on longer-term development. Tower blocks have some distinctive features that can be advantageous for developing sustainability:
• As a high density form of housing they allow housing need to be met while keeping land use to a minimum, freeing up green space which would otherwise be required for low density housing development. While opinions differ about how far carefully planned low-rise housing can deliver the same density as tower blocks, the potential is great. A block in Wolverhampton provides 250 flats near to the town centre on a mere quarter of an acre (9). Some regeneration projects (e.g. Holly St. in Hackney) have managed to create attractive open spaces by keeping and refurbishing tower blocks as part of a new development and thus maintaining the required density.
• Tower blocks can provide security from crime. So long as the problem stems from individuals living outside rather than inside the block, then it can be kept out. This depends upon the use of effective security provisions, based on the proven effectiveness of concierge-style systems (9). These are expensive, but the problems caused by allowing crime into a tower block are likely to cost a great deal more. Security measures such as CCTV can also help create a less favourable environment for crime in the surrounding area.
• Tower blocks have the potential to leave a smaller ‘ecological footprint’ in other ways as well. They can be made much more energy-efficient than a comparable number of conventional homes. Good insulation should capitalise on their characteristic low surface area to volume ratio; and towers are well suited to the application of group heating and combined heat and power (CHP) schemes. Within one building systems for waste management and other services can be made more efficient.
• The defining feature of a multi-storey block – many homes within a common building – gives it special qualities, forming a self-defined unit. The size – typically around 100 households, similar to a small village – is small enough for people to know each other and feel a sense of community; while big enough to give residents some power if they work together to deal with agencies. Compared to a street, a tower block – with its obvious boundaries, and shared facilities and services – forms a more distinct and self-contained unit within which residents can interact with each other. It is also large enough to be multi-functional, with the scope to combine living, working, recreational, private, and public space all within the same building.
• The size and fabric of a high-rise block also means that it can be the host for a range of economic opportunities. The fact that they are big buildings, which often need a good deal of work doing to them, presents opportunities for training and employment. This could be combined with housing a foyer scheme in the block.
• The possibilities for operating common systems within one unit can have benefits in anti-poverty terms. The living costs of individual households can be reduced through energy-saving, buying in common, the use of communal facilities, food growing and food co-operatives, and a range of other schemes. Buying in common can secure services as well as goods at favourable prices for residents (11). Communal facilities such as laundries can reduce the number of separate appliances acquired by people for their own homes, so helping to save them money and reduce resource use (12). In a tower block such facilities can be easier for people to access than in more disparate forms of housing. There are also opportunities for saving resources through reuse, repair and recycling for instance through a furniture & white goods swap shop. Action against poverty could be backed up by developing the base of the block as a place for economic and social activity, including ‘one stop’ housing and advice shops.
• The least complicated and most easily enjoyable advantage of a tower block is, of course, the view. This is a major part of the everyday experience of residents and while some may feel cut off and distant from the world down below, others love it.
• Some residents argue that tower blocks have considerable potential for forging communities. The nature of the space – with a shared front door and communal areas indoors and possibly outdoors as well – provides greater possibilities for social interaction than in a more spread out environment. From this follow opportunities for some sense of collective responsibility for the communal areas and for each other. Residents still have their own private space and can choose the extent to which they take part socially. Tower blocks can be laid out to include good quality social space. However it is also clear that such community-building is mostly happening where physical improvements have been completed: many projects report difficulty in getting residents to participate in discussions on redevelopment.
Tower blocks can give their communities a distinctiveness and a clear identity. Because of their high density they can have a significant impact on the profile of the community. Very few estates are only tower blocks and most are linked in to other types of housing. Towers can be a resource for surrounding housing, since the large number of housing units can provide an economic base for better support schemes and help to attract resources and services into the area.

4.3 What price tower blocks?
Saving a tower block can be very expensive. Refurbishment can cost up to £5 million or more, demolition perhaps not even a tenth of that. There is a danger that this situation makes demolition appear the only available low cost option. The figures differ across the country, and agencies and researchers have varying opinions as to how the figures stack up. In London there are strong financial pressures working in favour of high density housing, and the replacement costs of a tower block are relatively high. But where land is available more cheaply, new housing units can be less expensive than the unit cost of refurbishment.
This is compounded by the funding regime in the social housing sector. Finance is easier to come by for housing association new-build than for the refurbishment of local authority stock. This acts as a strong financial incentive. The basic truth is that under current funding arrangements local authorities and other housing agencies cannot afford to upgrade more than a fraction of their high-rise stock – only an exceptional few will attract £5 million worth of improvements. This is a problem that needs the attention of central government.
The only alternative to refurbishment – demolition – simply means that more new houses will have to be built, usually requiring more land for development. From this perspective, at a time of housing expansion tower blocks become more obviously an asset – a great space-saving housing resource that the country cannot afford to lose. There is a serious challenge here for urban regeneration funding programmes to develop ways to support work on preserving the viability of tower blocks.
As suggested above in 4.1, besides physical improvements, the key ingredients for sustainable tower blocks are better services and long term community development. Neither of these comes cheap: both require proper resourcing, primarily to meet the revenue costs of employing staff. Nevertheless, over time they have the potential to realise efficiency savings (9).
Thus suitable funding systems are needed to provide for both running costs and capital costs. In general, rental income is consumed by running costs while most of the other forms of funding that are available are intended for capital projects. Local authority landlords can draw on the following sources of capital funding:
• Housing Investment Programme (HIP) – funding from central government with a fixed limit on what each council can spend.
• Private Finance Initiative (PFI) – funding raised from the private sector.
• Voluntary Stock Transfer – this involves transferring ownership of the stock to a housing association, in return for an undertaking to finance physical improvements to the stock and carry out housing management services.
• Revenue Contributions Capital Outlay (RCCO) – surplus rental income, of which there is usually none.
There are various other sources of funding which may be available, largely depending on whether the estate is covered by the relevant funding programme. Some of the schemes and funding sources are as follows: European Union funding, Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), New Deal for Communities, Health Action Zone (HAZ), Environmental Action Fund (EAF), lottery funding including the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). On a smaller scale, residents groups can raise resources through local fund-raising, or through developing income-generating community enterprises.