Architects for Social Housing (ASH) was set up in March 2015 in order to respond architecturally to London’s housing ‘crisis’. We organise working collectives of architects, urban designers, engineers, surveyors, planners, film-makers, photographers, web-designers, map-makers, artists, writers and housing campaigners that operate with developing ideas under set principles.

First among these is the conviction that increasing the housing capacity on existing council estates, rather than redeveloping them as properties for capital investment, is a more sustainable solution to London’s housing needs than the demolition of the city’s social housing during a housing shortage, enabling, as it does, the continued existence of the communities they house.

ASH offers support, advice and expertise to residents who feel their interests and voices are increasingly marginalised by local councils or housing associations during the so-called ‘regeneration’ process. Our primary responsibility is to existing residents – tenants and leaseholders alike; but we are also committed to finding financially, socially, economically and environmentally viable alternatives to estate demolition that are in the interests of the wider London community.

ASH operates on three levels of activity: Architecture, Community and Propaganda.

  1. We propose architectural alternatives to council estate demolition through designs for infill, roof extensions and refurbishment that increase housing capacity on the estates by up to 45 per cent and, by renting a proportion of the new homes on the private market, generate the funds to refurbish the existing council homes, while leaving the communities they currently house intact.
  1. We support estate communities in their resistance to the demolition of their homes by working closely with residents over an extended period of time, offering them information about estate regeneration and housing policy from a reservoir of knowledge and tactics pooled from similar campaigns across London.
  1. We share information that aims to counter negative and unfounded myths about social housing in the minds of the public, and raise awareness of the role of relevant interest groups, including local authorities, housing associations, property developers and architectural practices, in the regeneration process. Using a variety of means, including protest, publication and propaganda, we are trying to initiate a wider cultural change within the architectural profession.

Whether you are facing the regeneration of your estate and in need of advice, or whether you want to offer your skills, expertise and time to our many projects, please get in contact.


Facebook: ASH (Architects for Social Housing)


Architects for Social Housing is a Community Interest Company (CIC). Although we do occasionally receive minimal fees for our design work, the vast majority of what we do is unpaid and we have no source of public funding. If you would like to support our work, you can make a donation through PayPal:

Architects for Social Housing (CIC), company no. 10383452


Manufacturing Consent: GLA Capital Funding Guide: Section 8. Resident Ballots for Estate Regeneration Projects

Jeremy Corbyn launches the Labour Party’s local election campaign, April 2018

This is ASH’s brief commentary on the Greater London Authority policy on Resident Ballots for Estate Regeneration Projects, the recently published addendum to the London Mayor’s Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration, and the outcome of the promise to ballot residents made by Oh Jeremy Corbyn at the Labour Party conference back in September 2017. This is the policy document that has had Labourites panting with anticipation ever since as they look forward to what the Labour Leader promised would be estate regeneration ‘for the benefit of the local people, not private developers, not property speculators,’ with the added stipulation that ‘councils will have to win a ballot of existing tenants and leaseholders before any redevelopment scheme can take place. Real regeneration, yes, but for the many not the few!’ Unfortunately, like all the promises made by the Labour Leader, that hasn’t come true. As an example of the servile appeasement of property developers masquerading as resident empowerment this document will take some beating in the consistently appalling housing policy coming out of the GLA under the title of Homes for Londoners; but for those of us attentive to the yawning chasm between the socialist rhetoric of the Labour Party and the neo-liberal reality of its policies, this is both instructive and indicative of the extent to which Oh Jeremy Corbyn will be able to keep all his other pie-in-the-sky promises if and when he is elected to head the government of this country. A commentary on every implication of this former lawyer’s circumlocutions would, as in our commentary on the Labour Mayor’s Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration, be longer than the policy document itself, so I’ve confined myself to a series of questions which those Labour activists with access to Sadiq Khan may, given the chance, wish to address to him. These are followed by some of ASH’s policy proposals that need to become reality – and soon – if we are to see estate refurbishment and, where appropriate, infill become the enforceable default option for any council or housing association undertaking the regeneration of a housing estate.

8.1. Purpose

8.1.1. Since the GLA has made ‘Investment Partners’ rather than local authorities the agents responsible for conducting Resident Ballots as a condition of winning funding for council-led estate demolition schemes, why is this term not clearly defined in this document?

Why – by making ‘Investment Partners’ rather than local authorities the agents of Resident Ballots – is the GLA handing over responsibility for the future survival of London’s council and social housing to private interests rather than our elected representatives, which – much as they consistently fail to represent us – are still subject to a modicum of public scrutiny and accountability, as opposed to the entirely unaccountable and inscrutable property developers, housing associations, offshore investment companies and real estate firms that will presumably constitute these ‘Investment Partners’?

8.2. Context

8.2.3. Of what value is resident ‘input’ after a ballot has taken place if it does not have the power to influence a further ballot leading to a contrary result?

8.2.4. Why should the effects of regeneration plans on residents be limited to ‘long-term means of engagement’ rather than expanded to include the obligation to produce impact assessments of the financial, social and environmental costs of the demolition and redevelopment of residents’ estates that are made available to them before they are balloted?

8.3. Application of Resident Ballot Requirement

8.3.1. Why should ballots be arbitrarily restricted to redevelopment schemes of 150 dwellings or more, or is the GLA assuming that residents of small estates or parts of estates isolated and targeted for partial demolition have less rights than those on larger estates?

8.4 Voter eligibility requirements

8.4.2. Why should residents of either private or council housing bordering an estate targeted for demolition, or residents of the surrounding neighbourhood whose homes will be affected by the redevelopment, not also have a vote in the ballot, when such residents will, for instance, be subject to years and sometimes decades of living close to a building site, with all the pollution and noise and burden on their streets that will entail; to the increased burden a new and sudden increase in the local population will place on their already stretched public services; and when their homes and businesses and shops will be subject to higher rents and rates and prices consequent upon the resulting construction of high-value properties specifically designed to realise latent land values in London, and all the other negative effects of so-called ‘gentrification’ on their community?

8.4.3. Given that the process of estate regeneration includes councils exerting pressure on residents to take up early council offers of rehousing for tenants and compensation for leaseholders that reduces the number of secure tenancies and home-owners and their replacement with tenants in ‘temporary accommodation’ that the council has no obligation to rehouse, why should such residents not have a vote on the demolition of their homes when it will directly lead to their eviction and the prospect of homelessness or housing poverty on the private rental market?

8.4.10. Given that, under the Mayor’s newly-coined category of London Living Rent, buy-to-let properties are one of the forms of so-called ‘affordable housing’ that will replace the homes for social rent lost to estate demolition schemes, and that the majority of properties for market sale that typcially constitute 50 per cent and more of new developments are themselves bought by foreign investors and offshore companies and let on London’s lucrative and expanding private rental market, why are non-resident leaseholders similarly letting their homes out not given a vote on the demolition of their properties?

8.5. Arranging resident ballots

8.5.1. If the ballot must be held ‘prior to the procurement of a development partner’, who exactly are the ‘Investment Partners’ required to hold the ballot, given that private development partners are typically acquired by councils long before an estate regeneration scheme is announced to residents?

And if the ballot is held ‘prior to finalising the precise specification of works’, what exactly are the eligible voters voting on, and what measures are there to stop the Investment Partners changing their ‘Landlord Offer’ after the vote has been cast?

8.5.7. Is the ‘simple majority’ required to give consensus to demolition a simple majority of eligible voters or those who vote? Is there a minimal requirement for a percentage of eligible voters to vote before a vote becomes legitimate, or will councils be allowed to continue their current practice of making claims to resident consensus on the basis of tiny numbers of residents, as happened, for example, on the Joyce Avenue and Snell’s Park estate, for the demolition of whose 744 homes Enfield Labour council won 56 per cent of the vote in September 2017 from a ballot of 92 residents, meaning just 52 of the estate’s more than 2,000 residents produced a ‘yes’ result?

What kind of consensus is established by a ‘simple majority’ if, for example, 600 of the more than 1,200 residents on Central Hill estate in Lambeth oppose the demolition of their homes to no avail, and why, given the documented devastating consequences for residents of estate demolition and redevelopment, does a ‘yes’ vote not require a two-thirds majority at the very least?

8.5.11. Why does the ‘minimum’ information on which eligible voters are expected to cast a vote not include the single most important information that will determine whether they can take up their ‘right to return’: this being the increase in their rents,  mortgages and service charges, and the reduction of their tenancy rights and security?

In the absence of ‘Investment Partners’, how are these costs, or the ‘tenure’ of the properties they will determine, to be established with any veracity or accuracy, since those tenures and costs are established, under the current model of estate demolition, privatisation and redevelopment, by viability assessments dependent upon the investment and profits of those Investment Partners?

How are commitments to ‘open and transparent consultation and engagement’ to be met when Investment Partners are not subject to Freedom of Information requests, and all financial information determining the tenure and costs of the future development is withheld from public scrutiny behind the cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality’?

8.5.14. Why should the information given to eligible voters not include the effects of demolition on their fellow residents, or does the GLA believe that residents only care about themselves?

8.5.15. Can the ‘tailoring’ of the information given to, respectively, tenants, leaseholders and residents on the housing register be interpreted as anything other than an attempt to divide these groups from each other, to depict each group as in competition with each other rather than as part of an estate community, and therefore as an already cynical attempt to manipulate their votes that the GLA should be writing policy to prohibit, not encourage and condone?

8.5.17. In determining the time between the publication of the Landlord Offer and the ballot, why does the GLA use vague terms open to abuse like ‘appropriate’, ‘sufficient’ and ‘reasonable’, rather than a clearly specified time period, given that councils have in the past given residents as little as 5 days to vote on documents running to thousands of pages?

8.5.18. If the GLA expects residents to be updated on the ‘progress’ of the development, does that imply that progress equates to radical changes to the Landlord Offer – as seen, for example, in the ‘progress’ between the submission to Cabinet by Lambeth Labour council in November 2015 for the redevelopment of Knight’s Walk (with a tenure mix of 51 social rent, 7 freehold and 39 market rent) and the planning application made in December 2017 (9 social rent, 14 London affordable rent, 13 target rent, 12 intermediate rent, 6 freehold, 45 market sale) – what purpose does this serve, in the absence of any subsequent resident veto to such ‘progress’, other than to give a veneer of ‘transparent and open consultation’ to a process open to such manipulations and changes, and which this Resident Ballot Requirement contains nothing to stop?

8.5.20. If the GLA is not placing a limit on the number of ballots Investment Partners can use to gain consensus – as, for example, happened on the Excalibur estate in Lewisham, where between 2002 and 2010 residents were subjected to repeated campaigns of inducement by marketing professional and consultancies that saw the TRA that opposed the scheme disbanded by Lewisham Labour council and finally reduced an initial 93 per cent vote in favour of refurbishment to a marginal vote of 56 per cent in favour of demolition – why is this absence of limits not extended to further ballots in the event of a ‘yes’ vote that would compel Investment Partners, first, to make a Landlord Offer that more accurately reflects the actual outcomes of their schemes, and, second, keep them to the tenures and resulting costs to residents whose homes are subject to these schemes?

8.6. Exemptions to the Resident Ballot Requirement for projects

8.6.6. Given that 300 council-owned blocks are currently fitted with cladding systems that place their residents at the same risk as that which killed 72 residents of Grenfell Tower, does the exemption from resident balloting as a result of ‘resident safety issues’ open the demolition of estates to be implemented against the wishes of residents under false pretences, as is happening on, for example, the Chalcots estate in Camden, the Ledbury estate in Southwark, or the Broadwater Farm estate in Haringey, where residents have been decanted from their homes by Labour councils intent on demolishing them in their absence on the assertions that they are ‘unsafe’?

8.6.8. Given the cloak of confidentiality behind which estate regeneration is hidden from residents, and given the track record of Labour Cabinet Members for Regeneration claiming that mould, for example, is justification for demolishing residents’ homes, why does the GLA not require that the proof that Investment Providers have explored options other than demolition to address resident safety be made available to residents for their own judgement, and thereby adhere to its previously stated commitment to ‘transparent and open consultation’?

8.6.10. Why should residents in supported housing not have a veto on the demolition of their homes, when residents of Macintosh Court, for example, were quite capable of launching their own successful campaign to save their supported housing estate from demolition by Lambeth Labour council, or is the GLA implying that residents of supported housing aren’t capable of judging whether their own homes meet their own ‘needs’?

8.6.15. Why does the GLA consider that residents of the numerous estates condemned to demolition and redevelopment without their consensus should have less say over their futures than those on estates not yet condemned?

When no less than 34 estate demolition schemes have received GLA funding since Sadiq Khan drew the consultation on his Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration to an end in March 2017, and 16 of them since last December when he announced a moratorium on any further funding before the consultation on Resident Ballots was completed, why should residents of estates condemned to demolition by councils that acquired funding during this period of apparent inactivity have no vote over their futures, especially when so many of those estates – such as Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill, both in Lambeth – have conducted long campaigns of opposition to demolition and produced their own ballots showing that around 80 per cent of their residents are opposed to the demolition of their homes?

8.6.16. Why should the granting of planning permission on a project be a time limit beyond which residents have no veto over the demolition of their homes, or does this mean the GLA places the financial investment of Investment Partners above the rights of the Londoners the GLA is meant to represent and uphold?

More generally, why are there so many restrictions on the rights of residents in existing demolition schemes to veto those schemes if not because those schemes will result in the loss of thousands of homes for social rent and the social cleansing of their communities from the new developments, which from the Ferrier to Woodberry Down, the Heygate to West Hendon, has happened on estate after estate subjected to so-called ‘regeneration’ schemes?

8.6.18. Given that subsequent phases of redevelopment schemes are always subject to viability assessments which on estate after estate have seen social housing provision reduced to lower and lower levels unrecogniseable from what residents were initially promised, why are residents whose homes will be lost to such phases not given the right to veto their demolition in a Resident Ballot?

8.6.19. Since ‘affordable housing’ can and does include rent to buy products and shared ownership deals on properties on sale for £650,000 and higher in Inner London, why does the Resident Ballot only apply to voting on the demolition of so-called ‘affordable housing floorspace’, rather than on the replacement of homes for social rent with rental tenures and properties that in rent levels or investment bear little or no relation to what estate redevelopment schemes are currently demolishing in their tens of thousands?

8.6.20. Given the sudden rash of demolition schemes granted GLA funding in the months leading up to 18 July, 2018, can this exemption mean anything other than that the GLA has no confidence that the residents of these estate, if balloted, would overwhelmingly reject the disastrous regeneration schemes to which the GLA has given its financial support, and which will see them socially cleansed from their homes and the loss of thousands of homes for social rent during a housing crisis of affordability the GLA and its Labour Mayor are supposed to be writing policy to address, not accommodate and extend?

8.6.23. Can the lack of criteria for this catch-all exemption be anything other than an invitation to Investment Partners to manipulate and seek to circumvent the already ambiguously phrased requirements and myriad exemptions laid out in the Resident Balloting Requirement?

8.6.24. Will the reasons for exemption from Resident Ballots put forward by the Investment Partners be made available for public scrutiny, or will this too be withdrawn behind the cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality’; and, if the latter, how is this consistent with the GLA’s previously repeatedly stated but rarely honoured commitment to ‘transparent and open consultation’?

8.7 Cancellation and/or recovery of GLA funding

8.7.2. Why is the GLA’s powers to enforce compliance with the Landlord Offer to residents limited to the withdrawal of GLA funding, when the enormous profits being made by Investment Partners make such funding welcome but not necessary to the financial viability of their schemes, rather than being extended to the withholding of GLA planning permission?

8.7.3. Why are the ‘material deviations’ from the Landlord Offer the GLA anticipates grounds only for the withdrawal of GLA funding, and not extended to the re-balloting of residents along with the opportunity to veto the demolition of their homes, or is the GLA’s censure of such deviations limited to the recovery of public funds rather than stopping the social cleansing of Londoners from their communities consequent upon estate regeneration schemes in which the ‘right to return’ is contingent upon the financial capacity of tenants to afford the more expensive and less secure tenancies offered in place of their demolished council homes, in which the compensation offered to leaseholders is insufficient to own a property on the new development, in which the number of homes for social rent demolished are not being replaced but lost in their thousands, in which the number of new properties is tripled and dominated by properties for market sale and investment in order to accommodate the huge financial costs of replacing those demolished, and in which the tenure of the new development, even before being subject to viability assessments that are withheld from public scrutiny, is at least 50 per cent for market sale – in which, in short, all these outcomes of demolition and redevelopment are not the ‘deviation’ from what residents are promised but very much the norm?

Alternative policy proposals on Resident Ballots

In the form presented to residents by GLA policy, residents given a ballot on the demolition of their estate will be presented with a choice between, on the one hand, demolition and redevelopment, and, on the other, a continued lack of maintenance and managed decline. This is no choice at all. For ballots to constitute a genuine consensus from the community for an estate regeneration scheme, GLA policy should require that:

When proposing an estate regeneration scheme, a social landlord (council or housing association) and their Investment Partners must set aside sufficient funds for a refurbishment and infill option to be developed up to feasibility study stage, such as those developed by ASH for Central Hill and West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, to be designed, assessed and costed by a team of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors independent from the team given the brief for the demolition and redevelopment scheme.

An independent team must be given funds, from either the Investment Partners implementing the scheme or the Greater London Authority, to produce an impact assessment of the social, financial and environmental costs of demolition and redevelopment for existing residents, the local community and the landlord, and that its findings are made public before any resident ballot is taken on regeneration.

Enforceable target requirements must be set in GLA policy defining what a Landlord Offer is required to meet before receiving either GLA funding or local authority planning permission, laid out not in vague phrases about ‘like for like’ replacement of homes, residents’ financially contingent ‘right to return’ to them, or undefined proportions of promised ‘affordable housing’, but in non-negotiable, clearly defined numbers, proportions and rent levels that are not subject to, for example, the future viability assessments of Investment Partners.

If an estate community votes against a proposed demolition scheme, the council must carry out the refurbishment and continue (or in most cases restart) the maintenance of the estate at the least, and preferably to implement the infill options produced by the independent team, so that residents’ cannot be presented with a choice between the demolition of their estate and its managed decline.

The London Mayor must allocate sufficient funds through his Homes for Londoners programme, which at present are entirely lacking, for estate refurbishment and infill, and if the residents vote for this option require that these funds be made available to them, either working in tandem with the council or through the various forms of resident-managed and community-led models increasingly being explored by residents who have no confidence in the councils implementing the demolition and redevelopment of their homes for the benefit of their Investment Partners.

In the absence of the alternatives these policy proposals will make available to residents, what validity can the GLA’s Resident Ballot have beyond a choice between redevelopment and doing nothing? We advise residents to reject both, and instead to put pressure on councils, housing associations, their investment partners and the Greater London Authority to allocate the funds required to explore the refurbishment and, where appropriate, infill of their estates, which ASH has repeatedly demonstrated to be by far the most financially preferable, socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable model of estate regeneration – in the words of Jeremy Corbyn – ‘for the benefit of the local people, not private developers, not property speculators.’

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

Labour Blimps

On Friday 13 July thousands of Londoners took to the streets to protest the arrival of US President Donald Trump on these shores. Trump wasn’t in London, but having tea with the Queen in Windsor Castle. Undeterred, between 100,000 and a quarter of a million people attended the protest – mostly students, middle-class women and muslims – which was interpreted as a show of popular sentiment. A quick look at the numerous placards, however, showed that the protest was, in fact, a coalition of the usual suspects – the Socialist Workers Party, the People’s Assembly against Austerity, Unite the Union and Momentum, with the organisers a role-call of Labour politicians, Labour supporters and Labour-supporting unions. Typically for the left there are two organising groups, the SWP’s Stand Up To Trump and Owen Jones’ Stop Trump, both claiming precedence and neither talking to each other. In other words, this was another Labour political spectacle, and, of course, Oh Jeremy Corbyn was given a platform from which to blather on about ‘a world of justice’. I’ve written before about Labour’s appropriation of the language of street protest to its parliamentary aspirations, and this was no exception, with Trump’s presence offering another opportunity to attack the Conservative government of Theresa May – as if a Labour government under Oh Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t meet with the President of the USA on which so many of our post-Brexit trade deals will rely.

Besides the evangelical Labour leader, the centrepiece of the protest was a giant baby blimp of Trump, which was inflated in Parliament Square when the marching crowd arrived. Since this lies within the Government Security Zone, where the Metropolitan Police Force has free reign to arrest and otherwise beat the crap out of you on the mere suspicion that you’re about to do something anti-social let alone illegal, doing so required authorisation from another Labour politician, Sadiq Khan, who reportedly justified his decision by saying:

‘The UK, like the USA, has a long and rich history of rights and the freedom to protest and freedom of speech. The US ambassador himself commented that one thing the USA and the UK have in common is freedom of speech, and the idea of restricting that and the right to assemble because someone is offended by something is a slippery slope. When determining these things it should be about whether it is safe and peaceful. As a politician I should not be the arbiter of what is good or bad taste.’

This will be news to the hundreds of protesters who have been arrested by the Metropolitan Police Force for carrying placards or saying something the busies deem to be ‘offensive’, which under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is now grounds for arrest; and to the thousands of protesters who have been kettled for hours by the Met for holding protests in London without Sadiq Khan’s permission. Unsurprisingly, Trump responded by accusing the London Mayor of doing a ‘bad job’ on crime and terrorism, since when the handbags have continued to fly in ever greater assumptions of moral outrage – Twitter writ large on the world stage for everyone to see.

Now, regular readers of the ASH blog will appreciate the irony of Labour’s leaders assuming the mantle of moral superiority in the face of Donald Trump. Undoubtedly there are degrees of incompetence, corruption and appallingness in our political leaders, and compared to Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Theresa May anyone would look good. But that doesn’t mean the Labour Mayor and Council Leaders responsible for what’s happening across London’s 21 Labour-run boroughs have suddenly turned into saints, or that the obscenity of what’s being done in Tottenham, or at Woodberry Down, or at Blackwell Reach, or in Stratford, or in the Elephant and Castle, or in Brixton, or in Croydon, or in the Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area, represents some sort of model of political transparency and accountability to which we should aspire.

Unfortunately, we live in irony-free times, where the spluttering of the permanently offended constitutes what’s left of our political discourse. So continuing our commitment to providing design alternatives to the lies of Labour councils, ASH has designed these inflatable blimps of the politicians who have a rather more direct and immediate effect on the lives of Londoners than the President of the United States of America. Of course, I know that the middle classes like to keep their protests to issues that don’t call into question their own class position as homeowners, middle-income earners or mortgagors with the bank of mum and dad, and far prefer to get outraged about things happening on the other side of the world on which their protest will have not the least conceivable effect; but should Disgusted of Hackney, or Haringey, or Tower Hamlets, or Newham, or Southwark, or Lambeth, or Croydon care to focus their liberal outrage on what’s being done all around them by the Labour councils they’ve just re-elected to greater majorities in local government, we recommend these Labour blimps for their use. Oh, and when following Oh Jeremy Corbyn into the Promised Land, beware of golden calves, inflatable or otherwise.

Jeremy Corbyn Blimp

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

Dresden Diary: Architecture, History and Politics

Palace of Culture, Alstadt, Dresden

‘The city as a form of settlement did not arise by chance. The city is the richest economic and cultural form of community settlement, proven by centuries of experience. In its structural and architectural design the city is an expression of the political life and the national consciousness of the people.’

 – Government of the German Democratic Republic,
The Sixteen Principles of Urban Design (1950)

Architecture is the political art par excellence, and not only because, unlike painting or literature, architecture is a collectively consumed art, and therefore constitutes its audience as a mass rather than fragments it into the individual consumer. From this collective consumption, undoutedly, derives its social power to constitute a community of interest – with common goals, a shared history, and a collective future – from an undifferentiated and therefore potentially revolutionary society. ‘Architecture or revolution!’ was Le Corbusier’s warning to his paymasters – and he was right. But in addition to this power, which it shares with music and theatre – which are themselves dependent upon the architecture of their setting – architecture goes beyond the symbolic realm to mobilise the actual, realised referent: the human body. At once receptacle, vehicle and medium of the human mind, the human body is captured, subjected, moved, orchestrated, arranged, placed, situated, presented, configured and collectivised by architecture as a mass. Whether it is the willingly embraced community of the music festival, sports arena or religious event, or the enforced collectivity of the shopping mall, the rush-hour traffic jam or the public transport queue, this mass remains the object of political government, and architecture is the art that fashions that object: in the spaces of our dwelling, our labour, our consumption, our play, our entertainment, our celebration, our anxiety, our fear, our anger, our collective participation in the spectacle of society. Indeed, the increasing virtuality of our communities has only increased our nostalgic longing for architectural massing. To understand how this political object is constituted and deployed, governed and interrogated, controlled and dispersed, we should attend to the technique of architecture; for it is this tékhnē that will reveal to us the éthos of the polis. Architecture is always political.

Continue reading “Dresden Diary: Architecture, History and Politics”

Figs from Thistles: Labour’s Grenfell Opportunism

‘Never again will we allow this to happen. But what has been so despicable about this, is that this has happened in the richest borough, in the fifth richest country in the world, where we have a government and a local council more interested in saving money than saving lives. If there is anything we can do in terms of the Labour Party, let’s make it absolutely clear: we will stand up against austerity when we go into government, we will end it. But above all else you know why this was caused, because of the crisis in housing, and particularly in this capital city. When we go into power, let me give this commitment. Above all else, we will house people. We’ve said we’ll build a million new homes, and half of them we’ll be proud to call council homes again. The memorial to the 72 will be the generation after generation that comes, that will be housed decently in our capital city.’

– John McDonnell, Labour Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer,
speaking at the Justice for Grenfell Solidarity March (16 June, 2018)

Where to begin with this?

1. The technical conditions that led to the Grenfell Tower fire are in place across the city and country, where similar cladding systems are currently in place on around 300 council-owned blocks and 500 privately-owned blocks a year after the fire. So far from never allowing this fire to happen again, it is waiting to happen right now.

2. The austerity fiscal policies of the Conservative government have almost nothing to do with the technical, managerial or politicial reasons why this fire happened, and to say otherwise can only conceal what those reasons are.

3. A Labour politician isolating the fire to the actions of a single – conveniently Conservative – council ignores the fact that the same privatised managerial structures with the same unaccountability to residents and resistance to public scrutiny are not only already in place all over this city in boroughs run by Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, but are being replicated by those same councils through the estate regeneration programme that is privatising their council stock, transferring it to housing associations, subjecting it to cosmetic refurbishment schemes, or simply demolishing it and replacing it with high-cost, low-quality housing. In numerous examples across London, from Oval Quarter in Brixton to Orchard Village in Rainham, Solomon’s Passage in Peckham to Portobello Square in Notting Hill, residents of these new developments are complaining about the same threats to their safety as those the residents of Grenfell Tower complained about, and like them are being ignored by the private management organisations to which the councils are handing over its housing stock.

4. Calling new developments ‘council homes’ does not define their cost, tenure or management. The Labour Party’s manifesto on housing promises that half of its promised one-million homes will be ‘housing association and council homes’ – not just council homes – and that these will be for ‘genuinely affordable rent and sale.’ ‘Council homes’, therefore, includes all the myriad definitions of affordable housing – including homes for social rent (but rarely and in tiny numbers), London affordable rent at roughly 1.5 times social rent, London Living Rent at 1/3 of median household income in the borough (roughly double social rent), and shared ownership homes selling for around £650,000 in Inner London, plus all the other categories like tenancy strategy rent (around double social rent) and target rent (for which I still haven’t found a fixed definition). Labour’s Green Paper on housing indicates just how large a role it anticipates housing associations playing in fulfilling a Labour government’s housing quotas, and with every merger – whether it’s Circle with Affinity Sutton (125,000 dwellings), or London & Quadrant with East Thames (90,000 dwellings), or Notting Hill with Genesis (64,000 homes), or Peabody with Family Mosaic (55,000 dwellings), or Amicus Horizon with Viridian (44,000 dwellings) – it becomes more apparent that housing associations are beginning to exert as large a monopoly over the provision of social housing in England as builders like Berkeley, Persimmon, Barratt and Taylor Wimpey currently exert over the provision of private housing. Calling the three-quarters-of-a-million pound properties housing associations are currently building in London on Labour council-implemented estate regeneration schemes ‘council housing’ – proudly or not – won’t make them any more affordable, either to rent or to buy, for the council residents evicted to build them.

5. ‘Decently’ housing future generations in London means maintaining and refurbishing the council estates the current generation lives in, not stock transferring them en masse to housing associations, not demolishing them and replacing them with unaffordable properties for capital investment, buy-to-let landlords and wealthy home owners, and not privatising them through Private Finance Initiatives or Special Purpose Vehicles that will subcontract out their maintenance and management to exactly the same private contractors responsible for the Grenfell Tower fire.

6. If we are to ensure that ‘never again will we allow this to happen’, we need to start by seeing clearly through the lies not only of the successive Conservative and Labour governments that told us that privatising and deregulating the process through which compliance with building regulations is approved would make us safer, but also the lies of current Labour party politicians like John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Emma Dent Coad and all the others who are trying to make political capital out of this disaster at the expense of the truth about its causes, and in doing so concealing the threat this truth continues to hold for residents of social housing under Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat local authorities.

7. There is very little practical difference between the housing policies of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Parties, and McDonnell’s promises of what a Labour government will do are backed up neither by the present policies of Labour-run councils and the Labour-run Greater London Authority, nor by the housing policies of the Labour Opposition under Jeremy Corbyn.

8. ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruit will you recognise them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?’

– Matthew, 7:15-16

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

The Tower: Rewriting Grenfell. ASH response to Andrew O’Hagan

Most of us by now are familiar with how our national press and media worked to shape public opinion immediately after both the police assault on picket lines at Orgreave Colliery in 1984 that resulted in niney-five charges of riot being made against striking miners, and the death of ninety-six football supporters in the Hillsborough Stadium in 1989 that resulted in fans being accused of drunkenness and hooliganism, with neither injustice having subsequently led to a single policeman or politician being convicted of a crime. Since the Grenfell Tower fire officially left seventy-two people dead in June 2017, only six people have been convicted of criminal offences, and that for varying degrees of indecent or fraudulent behaviour in what were non-violent crimes. Reprehensible as their actions were and disrespectful to survivors and the bereaved of North Kensington, the fraudsters have been handed extraordinarily punitive sentences of between 18 months and 4½ years apparently designed to slake the public’s thirst for justice. These have echoes of the similarly exaggerated sentences handed out following the Tottenham riots in 2011, when within six months nearly a thousand working-class and black kids were given custodial sentences on average four times the length handed out for similar offences the year before, with one man jailed for six-months for stealing a bottle of water. It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that when property developers claim millions of pounds of public money for their private enterprises it’s called a Private Finance Initiative, but when the poor try to do the same it’s called theft and fraud.

In the meantime, not one of the more than sixty professional contractors, consultants, TMO board members, council officers, councillors, civil servants and politicians responsible in varying degrees for the Grenfell Tower fire that killed over seventy people and made hundreds homeless has even been arrested, let alone sentenced. The findings of the Grenfell inquiry, which only began to listen to evidence last week nearly a year after the fire, cannot rule on either civil or criminal liability even within its drastically narrowed terms of reference. And the Metropolitan Police Service has said that its detectives are a long way from handing over evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, and that the criminal investigation will take years. Again, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that the wheels of justice turn at very different speeds depending on who’s in their path. There’s a sizeable portion of the British public that wants – if not expects – that criminal investigation to be on charges of misconduct in public office or gross negligence manslaughter (both of which carry a criminal sentence) rather than corporate manslaughter (which only carries a fine). To prepare the way for that not to happen, and for the perpetrators of this crime to walk away free from the crematorium of Grenfell Tower, a radical change in the public’s opinion of those responsible will be required. Enter Andrew O’Hagan . . .

1. The Tower / 2. The Novella / 3. The Smear Campaign / 4. The Factoids / 5. The Evidence / 6. Who’s Guilty? / 7. Explaining a Few Things

1. The Tower

On Thursday, 22 June, 2017, in response to the Grenfell Tower fire the previous Wednesday, Architects for Social Housing held an open meeting in the Residents Centre of Cotton Gardens estate in Lambeth. Around 80 people turned up and contributed to the discussion – residents, housing campaigners, journalists, lawyers, academics, engineers and architects. The meeting was filmed by WoolfeVision, and has subsequently been viewed over 20,000 times on YouTube. On 21 July, five weeks after the disaster, partly in response to the disinformation being spread about the tower by Labour politicans who were trying to separate the disaster from the estate regeneration programme their councils are primarily responsible for implementing across London, ASH published its report, ‘The Truth about Grenfell Tower. We sent this report to Joe Delaney from the Grenfell Action Group, and both they and ASH submitted it for consideration as part of the consultation on the terms of reference for the Grenfell Inquiry, to whom the housing and human rights lawyer, Jamie Burton, wrote on our behalf:

‘This report deals with the causes of the fire at Grenfell. It also speaks to recent government policy, both central and local, towards social housing and council estates in particular. Notably, since the fire, many politicians and commentators have stated publically that the fire was in some way indicative of problems common to all tower blocks and council housing estates. Many of these people assume that council and housing association estates are unsafe, inherently flawed in their design, breeding grounds for anti-social behaviour, and generally undesirable places to live. In fact, the evidence clearly demonstrates the opposite to be true. When properly maintained and refurbished, council estates are excellent places for people to live. The problems that do exist in council estates stem not from their inherent design or purpose, but flawed government policy towards them and their residents  policy that the Grenfell Tower fire has brought into focus.

‘It is unclear whether or not the Grenfell Inquiry will consider existing public policy towards council housing and/or tower blocks generally. We consider that it should, as it is critical to a proper understanding of what happened to the residents of Grenfell Tower on 14 June, 2017. However, if the inquiry is not broadened in this way, then at the very least it must avoid adopting any of the unjustified assumptions some people hold about council housing estates and the tower blocks within them.’

Following the publication of the ASH report, which has since been visited over 15,000 times on our blog, we were contacted for interviews by a wide range of journalists and filmmakers, including from BBC Home Affairs, Panorama, Channel 4 News, the Financial Times, RT News, Al Jazeera, Novara Media, and many other people besides. These included two journalists from the London Review of Books, Josh Stupple and Anthony Wilks, to whom I gave a three-hour interview at the end of August that they filmed, they said, as part of the research they were doing for a long-form article on the fire to be published in the new year. As often happens, many of these interviews came to nothing: the sensationalist Panorama documentary went ahead, but without input from us; and when we refused to toe the Labour opposition’s widely accepted line that the Conservative government’s austerity cuts were to blame for the fire the interview requests dried up too. However, I’m a subscriber to the LRB, which I receive through the letter-box every fortnight, and when the new year had come and gone and the article still hadn’t appeared, I wrote to the editor in March, 2018, not in the hope of being published in its letters section, but as a genuine inquiry about their silence on this event:

‘I’ve lost track of how many articles on Brexit the London Review of Books has published since that fateful June day in the summer of 2016, so I was a little surprised to see yet another in the last issue (‘Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem’, vol. 40, no. 2, January 2018). But this one, at least, contained the first mention that I have read in your pages of that other incident in the history of the UK that occurred a year later, but about which the LRB has remained steadfastly silent. Following our report into its causes and those responsible, I was interviewed last year about the Grenfell Tower fire by an LRB journalist, who promised me an article would be out in the new year. Brexit, no doubt, has gripped the attention of the LRB’s middle-class readership, who might imagine themselves immune to the causes and consequences of this fire, but there can be few events in the past year on which so many strands of British life converge: the housing crisis, the privatisation of our public land and assets, unaccountability in local and central government, deregulation, foreign investment in London property, the mass loss of social housing, and the estate regeneration programme in which they all meet. For those who think the Golden Age of pre-Brexit UK is something to be missed, Grenfell is a sharp reminder to the contrary, and the failure of the LRB to report on this disaster has become something of an elephant in your offices, which I’ll hope you’ll soon chase away. This may help you.’

To which I attached the link to the ASH report. In reply I received an e-mail from Paul Myerscough, one of the senior editors at the LRB:

‘Thanks for your note. I can’t promise that we will rein in our coverage of Brexit, but I can promise that we shall carry something on Grenfell – by, I imagine, the writer who interviewed you – sometime in the next few months, and that it will be a substantial piece of work.’

As the anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire approached it became apparent that this would also be when the LRB broke its long silence. And sure enough, this Friday the expected feature-length article arrived, titled The Tower and written by the novelist and essayist Andrew O’Hagan, who is listed on the contents page as an editor-at-large. At nearly 60,000 words it’s twice the length of the ASH report, and according to the Channel 4 journalist, Jon Snow, whom it paints in unflattering colours, OHagan had a team of researchers at his disposal, presumably including the two I spoke to. Neither my interview nor the ASH report is referenced in OHagans article, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who has read the two texts, but he does make numerous references to the accusations levelled against Kensington and Chelsea council, which he dismisses as the ‘ingrained resentmentof ‘agitators’ and other, equally pejorative, descriptions of activists that wouldn’t look out of place in the Daily Mail. So I feel that, although O’Hagan has completely ignored all the evidence of the council’s responsibility for the fire that we compiled and discussed over the course of our report, the conclusions he reaches are very much directed at discrediting those we reached, and that we therefore have a case to answer. It isn’t hard to recognise an unflattering portrait of ASH among O’Hagan’s contemptuous description of what he calls the ‘battalion of “local experts” and “community leaders”, quite a few from other areas, keen to speak on behalf of the victims before appearing on the news to denounce the guilty parties.

More than this, though, Im genuinely surprised ‘The Tower has been published by the London Review of Books, which is itself something of an ivory tower of political correctness and middle-class consciousness, but is always assiduous in dotting the is in its well-mannered liberalism. OHagans article, by contrast, reads like something penned by Boris Johnson for the Telegraph. After writing the ASH report on Grenfell Tower I never wanted to return to it again; but this is such a hatchet job I feel I have to. Given the magnitude of what hes writing about and the flippancy of his argument, its one of the worst pieces of journalism Ive read written by a writer who, by his own admission, was looking to move on after the fallout from being Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s ghost writer, and was doubtless aware of the publicity hes now getting from being controversial about this most contentious of events. But equally probably, his article is also a strong indication of where the public inquiry will lead in apportioning blame and exonerating guilt. I had thought that one of the reasons the LRB hadnt written about the fire is that, strictly speaking, its a journal for book reviews. So this is my review which I will be submitting to the LRB of what I wouldnt be surprised to learn will turn into Andrew OHagans best-selling novel The Tower: Rewriting Grenfell.

Continue reading “The Tower: Rewriting Grenfell. ASH response to Andrew O’Hagan”

London’s Empty Housing: Causes, Existing Policy, Future Solutions and their Enforcement

Duke Lodge in Holland Park, whose 26 rental apartments have stood empty since 2013, when it was bought by the Guernsey-based CPC Group, an offshore company owned by billionaire property developer Christian Candy. In 2016 Kensington and Chelsea council granted planning permission for the demolition of the block and its replacement with 5 interconnected villas of 24 luxury apartments with no affordable housing.

1. Empty Housing

In January of this year the Liberal Democrat Party published data gathered from Freedom of Information requests to 276 councils revealing not only the number of empty dwellings in the UK and how long they have been left empty, but the lack of action by local authorities to bring them back into use during a housing crisis that is causing increased housing poverty and homelessess. Over the past five years only 19 of the 247 councils in England and Wales that responded to the FOI requests have made use of the Empty Dwelling Management Orders that would allow them to take over properties that have been empty for at least 6 months, and only 6 of those councils have done so in the past year. Describing this as a ‘national scandal’, Vince Cable, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, called for stronger powers for councils to bring empty properties back into use as homes – as he put it – ‘for some of the most vulnerable people in our society’. In March I was interviewed for a documentary on this issue by Designing Buildings Wiki, and this prompted me to research the causes of this national scandal and the failure of existing government policy to cover it up. In response, I have come up with some proposals for solving the problem of empty housing – which is neither a cause nor a symptom of our housing crisis but a product of it – and how those solutions can be enforced in practice through changes to legislation and policy.

The increasingly common sight of empty housing in the middle of a housing crisis is a global phenomenon, blighting the housing stock not only of London and Paris but also of Melbourne and Vancouver. Its causes, therefore, cannot be attributed to the local conditions of that housing crisis – to an excess of production or lack of supply, of having too little space or too few builders investing in either a boom or stagnant housing market. Rather, the phenomenon of large numbers of empty homes is a systemic problem produced by the current moment in world capitalism. Years of laissez-faire government policies and the resulting increase in the monopoly capitalism holds over housing means the production of residential properties in the world’s wealthiest cities is now driven not by their use-value as homes for the citizens of a country, but by their exchange-value as investment opportunities for global capital in search of high-growth commodities in secure markets underwritten by the state. Any government that seeks to bring housing back into use as homes for its electorate, therefore, must do so through housing policy that first loosens and finally breaks global capital’s hold over our nation’s homes, and in its place have the political will to take responsibility for housing the citizens of the nation into its own hands.

Unfortunately, in the UK today neither of the two political parties with expectations of forming a government now or in the near future has either this policy or this will. Indeed, the housing policies of both the Conservative and Labour parties – and, for that matter, the Liberal Democrats too – contain only more of the same abrogation of this responsibility to the market that has created the situation where, in England in 2017, 1.16 million households are on housing waiting lists and over 268,000 people are homeless in a country in which hundreds of thousands of homes stand empty at any one time. Data published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (Table 615: vacant dwellings by local authority district: England, from 2004) shows that, of the 23.3 million dwellings in England subject to council tax charges, 590,000, 2.5 per cent of the total, were empty in October 2016, with more than 200,000, 0.86 per cent, empty for more than 6 months, 60,000 empty for more than 2 years, 23,000 for more than 5 years, and over 11,000 for at least 10 years. Extraordinarily, nearly 48,000 of these homes, 8 per cent of all vacant dwellings, are in the social rented sector.

According to analysis by the charity Empty Homes, over 84,000 of the dwellings empty for more than 6 months, 42 per cent of the total, are in council tax band A, the lowest value properties (up to £40,000 based on 1 April 1991 values), with nearly 68,000, 34 per cent, in bands B and C (£40,001 to £52,000 and £52,001 to £68,000). However, the more than 2,000 empty dwellings in band H, the highest value properties (more than £320,000 in 1991), although only 1 per cent of the 200,000 dwellings empty for more than 6 months, represents 1.51 per cent of all dwellings in this council-tax band, the highest percentage of any band, and nearly double the total average of 0.86 per cent. Perhaps surprisingly, the lowest value empty homes represent 1.49 per cent of all properties in band A, the second highest percentage. In comparison, the empty homes in bands B to G constitute between 0.54 and 0.81 per cent of their respective bands. Empty homes, in other words, are proportionately in the highest and lowest value properties in England. Although London, with 19,800 long-term empty homes, has the lowest percentage (0.56 percent) of all the regions, and around half the 39,000 long-term empty homes in the North West (1.2 per cent of all homes in the region), this accords with the reasons why properties are being bought in the capital and by whom, and how this results in them being left empty, with 58,000 London properties (29 per cent of the total) standing empty in a city where 165,000 people are currently homeless.

The Carpenters estate in Stratford, where 90 per cent of the 700 council homes have been gradually emptied since 2004 by Newham council, who have tried to sell the land to various developers, including University College London. In 2014 one of the blocks was occupied for two weeks by the Focus E15 Mothers, who were being threatened with enforced relocation from Newham following the closure of their homeless hostel.

Continue reading “London’s Empty Housing: Causes, Existing Policy, Future Solutions and their Enforcement”

iMayor: The Ideology of GLA Housing Policy and the New Policy we need on Estate Regeneration

1. Cleaning Up

Recently I watched the film iBoy, which was first released by Netflix in January 2017. Based on the 2010 novel by Kevin Brooks, which is set in the fictional Crow Lane estate in South London, the film relocates the story to the Middlesex Street estate in Aldgate, just off the Petticoat Lane market. A lot of the film takes place on the raised walkways of the outer ring of low-rise blocks that surround the estate’s courtyard and central tower, and which are in turn surrounded by the encroaching monuments to capitalism of the adjacent City, which in the night scenes appear like alien spaceships expanding their intergalactic empire. Much is made visually of this juxtaposition between the dark, run-down, concrete council estate and the glittering metal and glass towers of the Gherkin, the Cheesegrater, the Walkie-Talkie, the Shard, and all the other cute names for the priapic emanations of Albion.

I won’t bother you with the story, which is drawn from the increasingly limited range of narrative film; but the basic conceit is that, following a gang shooting on the estate, the young hero has fragments of his iPhone embedded in his brain, and this allow him to access and control digital electronic devices. In their criticisms of the improbability of such a premise and the romantic clichés in which it is played out, what the critics all ignored was the ideological setting to the film, which like all ideology is transparent while at the same time being in plain view. The reason we don’t see it is because it’s so close to our vision as to be indistinguishable from it, like the internalised iPhone screen through which the hero views the world. The Guardian even accused the film of an excess of ‘urban realism’. The clichés no critic saw were those about council estates and the communities they house.

On this one, which is renamed the Crowley estate in the film, the residents are either criminals or victims of crime, their homes dirty, dark and ruled by gangs, the architecture conducive to alienation, despair and ‘anti-social’ behaviour, their community part of a network of organised crime, their mothers crack addicts and whores, their kids dealing or taking drugs, their behaviour only contained by heavily armed police, their proximity to the City of London incongruous and outdated, the existence of the estate futile, doomed and in need – as the heroine says – of ‘cleaning up’. In case the way to do this is in doubt, the file the hero downloads before calling in the riot squad for an early morning raid is titled:

Even if you haven’t seen the film, you won’t be surprised to learn that this characteristically middle-class perception of council estate communities – which has itself been formed through thousands of similar depictions in our press, media, news reports, reality TV shows, documentaries, housing policy documents, think-tank reports, developers’ press releases, estate agents’ adverts, councillors’ plans, housing ministers’ speeches and films like this – was written, acted and directed by a team of writers with a tin ear for the speech patterns of London’s working class (‘you think your drug dealing won’t escalate?’), actors whose occasional ‘sorted’ and ‘fuck offs’ couldn’t hide their Home County accents and RADA haircuts, and a director whose filmography is characterised by ‘gritty’ depictions of Inner City life which, unwittingly or otherwise, prepare the way for the plans of property developers and the planning authorities that are in their pockets. That the ‘breeding-ground’ – to use the sink estate terminology – for the criminality that afflicts our society should be located here, in this inner-city council estate, rather than in the financial district it borders, should be sufficient indication of whose interests are being served by this film. Apparently oblivious to the effect it will have on the community it depicts, iBoy would not look out of place in a property developer’s presentation to the City of London Corporation arguing why this ‘sink estate’ should be demolished and the immensely valuable land on which it stands handed over to them for redevelopment.
Continue reading “iMayor: The Ideology of GLA Housing Policy and the New Policy we need on Estate Regeneration”