comparison, over fifty years ago, the tower blocks were built as an affordable way of living. Now they just build them for the wealthier population.
Policy Exchange
In 2013, Policy Exchange published a report arguing that the high-rise social housing blocks should be knocked down to create real streets made of low rise flats and terraced housing that would “improve the lives of thousands of people who suffer from living in multi- storey housing”[21].
The report states that studies have shown occupants living in high-rise blocks suffer from stress, mental health difficulties and neurosis. In addition, tower blocks encourage crime and social alienation. Residents of high-rise blocks are more liable to stress, mental health difficulties, and marriage breakdowns. Children living in tower blocks suffer from increased hyperactivity, hostility and juvenile delinquency. The findings show that tower blocks aren’t even that good at providing high-density housing. With all the unused land that surrounds their footprints, their average density – 75 to 200 flats per hectare – is lower than terraced houses. For instance, London alone could “build an additional 260,000 new and better quality homes over the next seven years by knocking down the unpopular, ugly, high rise tower blocks and estates of the 1950s, 60s and 70s”[22]. It claims that terraced houses are not perfect and outdated, however, they are cared for and loved by the
tenants.
Conclusion
The tower blocks delivered a good and fast solution for the problems caused by the war. The pressure to accommodate people grew and with limited space available, building vertically was the best solution. Public, planners, councils and architects welcomed this new innovation with great excitement. However, the next six decades saw the rise, fall and rise again of the tower block. This architectural solution to post- war issues has divided opinion and that is due to personal preferences in most cases. The high-rise living provided better quality of living at the time for people living in slums and homes damaged during the war. The problem was the expectation that everyone had, and failure to meet that expectation ended in disappointed. The councils commissioned projects and created flawless reputation for tower blocks.
The fast transition from traditional to high-rise living played a significant part in the fall of popularity. The period between 50s to 70s saw a major change in living. Traditions that people were accustomed to were challenged by the new innovations provided by the industrial revolution. There possibly was a sense of loss of identity.
The quick process of bringing buildings up caused many shortcuts to be taken and the quality of some structures has been poor, resulting in demolitions. What if the development took longer and allowed people to grow a bond to tower blocks instead of being forced to the idea. Maybe the attitude would not have changed so dramatically as it did in 1970s. Longer transition would mean longer process of designing and construction resulting in better quality of living?
After forty years since the collapse of confidence in high-rise buildings, current generation seems to not be worried about socialising issues or not having a garden. Social media allows us all to be connected wherever we are. Current generation has been born into a world of flats and homes with many being brought up in both. In modern day, people are concerned about the rise in rent and house prices. The needs of the public have changed and the tower blocks that have survived have adapted well to time with the help of renovation. Now they are as much desirable to live in just like the traditional homes. High-rise buildings are now once again on the rise.