Beauty? Pah! Houses with decent gardens

Rather a deckchair and Titanic arrangement here:

Beauty must be a priority for new council homes to avoid a repeat of the “eyesore” housing estates of the 1960s, a report has said.

New-builds should be designed with consideration for aesthetic appeal to avoid more “concrete eyesores”, Policy Exchange recommended.

Labour MPs and a former communities secretary under Tony Blair backed the think tank’s 35-point blueprint for attractive social housing.

We’ve made clear before our view of the council housing of this past century. It is, in fact, illegal currently to build what was considered the minimum necessary for the working man that 100 years back. That, we insist, is rather more important than mere beauty.

That before we get to what architects consider to be beauty of course - the proliferation of rain stained concrete monstrosities that have won awards tells us that architects are not as other beings in their evaluations of that “looks nice” stuff.

As we’ve also said many a time. Housing is a technology and for technologies to work we must have all the moving parts. A steam boiler on its own drains no mines, it’s necessary to have the pump as well. There are, broadly, two housing technologies. Flats in town plus access to some dacha/chalupa/granny’s old peasant cottage out in the country as is true of most of Europe. 90% of Czechs have such access, 30% of Italian households a second home, 25% of the twin Iberians. Britain near entirely lacks such shacks in Angleterre Profunde and our technological solution was always houses with decent sized gardens. That 1920s standard of Homes for Heroes detailed quarter acre gardens - the minimum the working man needed. As we say these are illegal to build these days. As are the second homes that make the flat alternative technology work.

So, if we’re going to worry about the housing that is being built - before we hyperventilate about the quantity - let us actually make our decision about which technology we’re going to use. Either allow those gentle densities of 6 and 10 to a hectare which allows those gardens or, as an alternative, the proliferation of those country places which match up with flats in town. They’re both valid technologies but as technologies they both need all their moving parts. Houses plus good gardens - and thus low density - or flats plus the second home in rural. Choose.

Of course, it’s also possible to simply have a free market here and allow both builders and us - we out here, we Britons - decide which suits us as individuals. You know, choice rather than imposed central planning.

Tim Worstall