Just the other day I went for an architecture talk at the Glasgow School of art on the Architecture of Mass Housing. It was an interesting one because I started to understand a little bit more about urban development, and have developed a strange love hate relationship with the Glasgow Housing Association.

Why? Ian Wall was the speaker that spoke about housing in Glasgow. And the things he talks about makes me want to punch him in the balls, at the same time, it makes so much sense.

Mass Housing in Britain took place in 3 periods. 1917, 1945, and 1968. Since then, quality of mass housing descended rapidly. After second world war in 1945, the country developed a control of capital, mass action in mass development. Thus this led to mass social housing. 85% of all houses in Scotland were mass public housing.

During the time, the success of the reformist was much greater. So everyone focused on making profit on real estate. Cost was the sole determine on the economy despite the fact that these mass social housing had no variety or quality.

They had a saying, cheaper they are, more we produce, better it is.

It was soul destroying for people who live in it. The houses were badly built, badly maintain, no social facilities. Most of these were ring fencing public housing, but not privatized housing.

The GHA always did two things to maintain the “heritage” or however they define it. Either to refurbish the flats, or DEMOLISH! Haven’t they heard of Enbloc?

Public housing now is known as the house of last resort. In the past, most people lived in public housing. Now, living in a public housing is like a disgrace. I hope singapore won’t sink into such a state. *prays*

Housing is all about the people. There is no need for series of layers. All you see is rolling ground, then house of flats. The series of layers of trees and gardens are socially useless, and cost money to maintain because they are only objects.

-Ian Wall

Doesn’t that make you want to kick him in the balls? Yes. Housing may be all about people. But it is also the developer/architect/government’s job to make it hospitable for the people isn’t it? If they have any love for the people of course. If not what is there a need to appoint for a leader to guide the country? What is an architect for? What is a developer there for? If every developer in the world had that sort of mindset(all about money for maintainance), then any tom dick and harry can be a developer and hire any man who has a licence to approve plans to built a block of flats that is totally useless.

I feel it is more about maintanance. Yes, housing may be all about people. But how is it possible for people to make it a home when they’re not even given even the least decent environment to create a community? Social amenities are much more then just decorations in the streets, but it helps create a social community. It allows people to have a sense of belonging within the neighbourhood thus it makes them more protective of their territory, which lead to lower crime rate. If developers/government/architects give them housing without thinking of or respecting the tenants social issues, how do they expect the tenets to respect the flats they’re given?

I remember when I first came to scotland, I was so facinated by the culture. But looking at certain areas in the city certainly makes me feel so depressed. At first, I thought it was because mass housing was just not possible in the west because of the culture. But after sitting for this lecture, I take it back. Frankly, if France can do it, Singapore can do it, America can do it, I don’t see why Britain can’t. Social Amenities may cost money. But I think it is an extremely good investment in a country. Maybe instead of wasting money on booze, invest some in making better neighbourhood for lower income folks?