Renewing Europe's Housing 9781447310136

Table of contents :
RENEWING EUROPE’S HOUSING
Contents
List of figures, tables and boxes
Figures
Tables
Boxes
Contributors
1. Introduction
Background
Why is renewal important?
Origins and explanations
The challenge of housing renewal
Structure and content
2. From physical improvement to holistic renewal: the Danish experience
Introduction
Housing in Denmark
Energy consumption and energy saving measures
An historical perspective on housing renewal in Denmark: changing policies and key turning points
Social housing estates and the development of area-based initiatives
Outcomes
Case study: the Bispehaven estate, Aarhus
Conclusions and lessons learned
3. Housing renewal in England
Introduction
The housing stock
The policy background
Developing the area approach to housing renewal
Decent homes
Fuel poverty, energy efficiency, the Green Deal and housing
Case Study: Summerfield, Birmingham
Conclusions
4. Making new from old in France: urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts
The winding road of housing renewal policy
Two examples of housing renewal in Paris
Conclusions and lessons
5. Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands
Continuous renewal
General characteristics of Dutch housing and society
Housing and urban renewal since the Second World War
Trends in housing renewal
Current policy and practice
Housing renewal at the crossroads
Future prospects
6. Estonia: learning through ‘societal experiment’
Introduction
Historical background
Policy in the 1990s: establishing the institutional framework
Policy in the 2000s: moving towards energy-efficient housing renewal
Case studies in Tallinn and Rakvere
Concluding thoughts
7. Housing and urban renewal: the case of Germany
Introduction
West Germany: urban reconstruction and the integration of refugees (1945–64)
West Germany: the era of large new housing estates (1958–80)
The implementation of urban renewal in West Germany (1968–90)
The decline of social housing in West Germany and the rise of the Social City programme (1990–2010)
The special case of East Germany
Recent trends in a unified Germany
Conclusions
8. Housing renewal in Hungary: from socialist non-renovation through individual market actions to area‑based public intervention
Introduction
Background
Changing conditions for the renewal of residential areas in Hungary
Housing policy approaches to renewal in post-socialist Hungary
The case of Budapest: gradual policy development towards area-based urban renewal
Summary and outlook
9. From isolated programmes to an integrated approach: the case of La Barceloneta, Spain
Introduction
The housing situation in Spain: the principal problems and policies
Housing renewal policies in Spain
Area-based interventions in Spain
From isolated interventions to an integrated approach in Catalonia: the Neighbourhood Law (2004)
La Barceloneta neighbourhood
Neighbourhood Law applied to La Barceloneta (2008)
Grants for housing renewal in La Barceloneta
On sustainability at La Barceloneta
Conclusions
10. From squatter upgrading to large-scale renewal programmes: housing renewal in Turkey
Introduction
The evolution of housing renewal policies in Turkey
From foundation to transformation: 1923–45
Planning of urbanisation and housing as a policy: 1945–60
Squatter upgrading and clearance: 1960–80
Housing improvement and rehabilitation: 1980–99
Large-scale renewal programmes: 2000 onwards
The Istanbul experience: renewing the Historic Peninsula
Housing in the Istanbul Historic Peninsula
The housing renewal framework in the Historic Peninsula
Lessons learnt: future prospects for housing renewal in Turkey
11. Changing approaches to policy making in housing renewal
Introduction
Policy issues
Policy making
Other approaches
Conclusion
12. Conclusions
Background
The evolution of housing renewal
What has been achieved?
The future for housing renewal
References
Index

Citation preview

RENEWING EUROPE'S HOUSING EDITED BY RICHARD TURKINGTON CHRISTOPHER WATSON

RENEWING EUROPE’S HOUSING Edited by Richard Turkington and Christopher Watson

First published in Great Britain in 2015 by Policy Press North America office: University of Bristol Policy Press 1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press Bristol 1427 East 60th Street BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA UK t: +1 773 702 7700 t: +44 (0)117 ​954 5940 f: +1 773 702 9756 [email protected] [email protected] www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu © Policy Press 2015 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested. ISBN: 978 1 44731 012 9 (hardcover) The rights of Richard Turkington and Christopher Watson to be identified as the editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the contributors and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design by Policy Press. Front cover: image kindly supplied by Richard Turkington Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners.

Contents List of figures, tables and boxes v Contributors ix one Introduction Christopher Watson and Richard Turkington

1

two

From physical improvement to holistic renewal: the Danish experience Hedvig Vestergaard

21

three

Housing renewal in England Christopher Watson and Richard Turkington

41

four

Making new from old in France: urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts Claire Lévy-Vroelant and Yankel Fijalkow

75

five

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands Frank Wassenberg

97

six

Estonia: learning through ‘societal experiment’ Katrin Paadam and Liis Ojamäe

123

seven

Housing and urban renewal: the case of Germany Jürgen Friedrichs, Rolf Müller and Wendelin Strubelt

143

eight

Housing renewal in Hungary: from socialist non-renovation 161 through individual market actions to area‑based public intervention Iván Tosics

nine

From isolated programmes to an integrated approach: the case of La Barceloneta, Spain Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway and Montse Simó-Solsona

187

ten

From squatter upgrading to large-scale renewal programmes: housing renewal in Turkey Zeynep Gunay, T Kerem Koramaz and A Sule Ozuekren

215

eleven Changing approaches to policy making in housing renewal 245 Tim Brown and Richard Turkington twelve Conclusions Richard Turkington and Christopher Watson

259

References 275 Index 307

iii

List of figures, tables and boxes Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2

Number of persons per dwelling in Denmark, 1930–2012 Dwellings in Denmark by tenure, January 2012 Types of dwellings by year of construction, Denmark, 1900–2011 Bispehaven before renewal Bispehaven after renewal Examples of housing renewal in the Summerfield area, Birmingham Making new from old in La Goutte d’Or, Paris La Tour Borel, Porte Pouchet, Paris, 2012 Housing stock in the Netherlands by tenure, 1947–2010 New and old in Amsterdam Housing demolition in the Netherlands, 1960–2010 Housing renewal in Delft The demolition of social sector housing in the Netherlands, 1971–2010 House price development by period of construction in the Netherlands, 2005–09 Creating differentiation in Groningen ‘Human scale’ housing in Lelystad Potential roles for local government in future urban renewal in the Netherlands Dwellings in Estonia by period of construction, 2011 Number of blocks renewed by year and period of construction in Estonia, 2003–11 Map of the city of Tallinn, 2012 A renovated villa in Kadriorg, Tallinn, 2011 Historic housing renewed in Kalamaja, Tallinn, 2011 Renewed apartments in Paldiski Road, Tallinn, 2010 Seminari Street, Rakvere before renewal, 2009 Example of a protest by tenants, Cologne Germany: federal financial aid for renewal and development to 2009 Block 15, the only block of flats which was renovated under the pilot programme, Budapest Block 15, Budapest, after renovation

23 23 25 36 36 65 85 88 99 102 108 108 109 110 111 116 117 124 130 131 132 132 136 138 149 157 166 166

v

Renewing Europe’s housing 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7

10.8 10.9

vi

Renewal in District IX, Middle Ferencváros, Budapest Rundown housing at the periphery of District IX, Middle Ferencváros, Budapest The Budapest Urban Renewal Programme The distribution of planned area-based schemes of the Budapest Urban Renewal Programme, 1996–2001 The distribution by district of the condominium subsidies of the Budapest Urban Renewal Programme, 1997–2001 Constructed 120–100 years ago, buildings typical of the Magdolna area, Budapest which have never been renovated The internal courtyard of an unrenovated building, Budapest Comprehensive renewal in Budapest using EU funds Total unsubsidised and subsidised housing starts, Spain, 2001–10 Subsidised renewal, total homes renewed, Spain, 1991–2010 The La Barceloneta neighbourhood, Barcelona Division and enlargement of the original plot Rebuilding on top of the original house Examples of the original typology and later division of houses at La Barceloneta, Barcelona Main interventions in La Barceloneta under the Neighbourhood Law La Barceloneta: organisational chart Housing renewal in Ankara: Bahcelievler and Saracoglu Complete demolition for the opening of Ataturk Boulevard in Zeyrek, Istanbul in 1941 First squatter settlements in Ankara, Altindag and Istanbul, Zeytinburnu Demolition for the widening of Tarlabasi Boulevard in 1986–88, Istanbul New developments in Istanbul, Atasehir and Ankara, Altindag Population density and floor area ratio in the Istanbul Historic Peninsula Istanbul: before and after housing maintenance, repair and restoration projects by TOKI credits in Samatya, Kadirga and Suleymaniye World Heritage Sites (UNESCO/WHC) and Renewal Sites in Istanbul Historic Peninsula Istanbul: housing renewal through complete demolition, Suleymaniye, Sulukule and Ayvansaray, before demolitions and present situation

172 173 174 175 176 180 180 182 192 192 202 203 203 204 206 209 219 220 221 224 226 230 235

238 239

List of figures, tables and boxes

Tables 1.1 3.1 3.2 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5

10.6 12.1 12.2

Population, housing and housing conditions in Europe 4 (European Union, EEA, EFTA and EU candidate countries) 2013 Dwellings by tenure and age: England, 2011 43 Housing renewal: area-based initiatives in England, 1969–2012 47 Housing and urban renewal policies since the Second World 101 War: the Netherlands Housing renewal: state-level financial support schemes 129 for flat-owners, Estonia, 2012 Public financial support issued in Estonia, 2003–11 129 Examples of new peripheral housing estates in Germany 146 The housing stock in West and East Germany, 1990 153 Models of housing renewal in Budapest: 1920 to 2012 164 Budapest districts in different positions regarding the 170 likelihood of housing renewal from the 1990s Comparison of the different types of potential urban 178 renewal policies in Budapest Policy trends influencing the evolution of housing renewal 218 in Turkey, 1923–2010 Number of functional building units in the Istanbul Historic 229 Peninsula Building condition in the Istanbul Historic Peninsula 229 Housing renewal approach in the Istanbul Historic Peninsula 232 Number of TOKI credit assignments and implemented 234 projects for the maintenance, repair and restoration of historic housing in Turkey KUDEB-approved housing renewal permits, Istanbul Historic 236 Peninsula, 2008–11 Housing renewal in nine European countries: origins, 264 development and present focus Housing renewal in nine European countries: main 266 approaches adopted, 2013

Boxes 3.1 5.1 5.2 5.3

Case study: Summerfield, Birmingham, 2002–11 Housing associations in the Netherlands Measures in 1970s–80s neighbourhoods to prevent the need for major renewal intervention Klushuizen (‘do-it-yourself’ houses)

62 100 115 119

vii

Renewing Europe’s housing 9.1 9.2 9.3 11.1 12.1 12.2

viii

The main national regulations concerning renewal in Spain, 2011 Possibilities for intervention under the Neighbourhood Law (2004) in Catalonia The six areas of activity in La Barceloneta Influences on policy making in housing renewal Main approaches in implementing housing renewal Evaluating housing renewal projects and programmes

194 198 207 247 269 272

Contributors Tim Brown is Senior Research Associate in Housing and Local Government, Department of Politics and Public Policy, De Montfort University, Leicester Yankel Fijalkow is Professor of Social Science, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture, Paris Val de Seine Jürgen Friedrichs is Professor Emeritus, Institute for Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne Zeynep Gunay is Associate Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Istanbul Technical University T Kerem Koramaz is Associate Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Istanbul Technical University Claire Lévy-Vroelant is Professor of Sociology, University of Paris 8 Saint-Denis Rolf Müller is Head of Sub-department Housing and Property, Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Regional Planning, Bonn Liis Ojamäe is Associate Professor of Sociology, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology; and Tallinn University A Sule Ozuekren is Professor, Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University Katrin Paadam is Professor of Sociology, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway is Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Barcelona Montse Simó-Solsona is Post-doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Barcelona

ix

Renewing Europe’s housing

Wendelin Strubelt is Vice President and Professor of the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (retired); and Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Sociology, University of Bonn Iván Tosics is Managing Director, Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest Richard Turkington is Executive Director of Housing Vision; and Honorary Research Associate, Centre for Comparative Housing Research, De Montfort University, Leicester Hedvig Vestergaard is Senior Researcher, Town, Housing and Property, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University Frank Wassenberg is Programme Manager Research, Platform31, The Hague; and guest researcher at OTB Research Institute, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology Christopher Watson is a former Director of the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies; and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Housing and Communities Group, School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham

x

ONE

Introduction Christopher Watson and Richard Turkington

Background In the aftermath of the Second World War, a priority for many governments in Europe was to tackle the problems of housing shortage arising from war-time destruction and the lack of new building during the war years. In most countries, large-scale housing programmes were developed and supported by governments. In the socialist countries of eastern and central Europe, the emphasis on new building continued for more than 40 years. In other countries, especially those of northern and western Europe, the high cost and growing unpopularity of slum clearance and large-scale housing developments, and the sense that the main post-war housing shortages were being overcome, led governments to look for ways to reduce their financial commitment to slum clearance and rehousing. The result was a shift from bricksand-mortar subsidies to personal subsidies; a focus in some countries on encouraging owner occupation; and a re-think about the future of older housing as public and political support for slum clearance declined. From the 1970s onwards, many countries in northern and western Europe adopted area-based approaches to the improvement of older housing considered suitable for modernisation, and although these approaches were limited in their scale and coverage, physical housing conditions were improved for many occupants. In northern and western Europe, an ‘area approach’ was applied also to the improvement of large post-war public sector housing estates which, by the 1980s, were showing serious physical, management, social and economic problems. The financial resources, however, were not there to deal fully with these problems and although estate renewal and regeneration have often been highly successful, the need for further action remains substantial. Throughout Europe, and notably in post-socialist countries, the situation has been complicated by the adoption of privatisation policies, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, and in some countries the virtual withdrawal of public funds for older 1

Renewing Europe’s housing

private housing improvement has made it difficult for lower-income households or their landlords to contemplate such work. In the early twenty-first century, many countries in Europe have a shortage of good quality affordable housing; considerable problems with much of the post-war social housing stock, especially where it has been transferred to individual private ownership; and the longstanding problem of nineteenth and early-twentieth-century housing which still requires modernisation. At the same time, there are growing concerns about the environmental sustainability and poor energy performance of housing of all ages and types. All these problems have been exacerbated by the financial crisis that began in 2007, which has led to uncertainty about the future prospects for housing renewal, especially through public funding.

Why is renewal important? Housing production has three main elements: demolition, new building and renewal. Each is important, all are interrelated, and all form part of a balanced housing policy. Housing renewal is an established feature in all European countries but the emphasis given to it has varied over time and from country to country, reflecting the history of housing and of housing policy development; and the influence on these of social and economic factors, and changing political perspectives. In northern and western Europe, the improvement of nineteenth and early twentieth century housing began in many countries before the Second World War and was complemented from the 1980s onwards by the renewal of post-war social housing estates. In eastern and parts of central Europe, the renewal of older housing was not generally a feature of housing policy from the 1940s to the 1980s: rather, the emphasis at that time was on the production of large-scale housing, much of which has been or is now a target for extensive renewal, especially with regard to energy efficiency. In parts of southern Europe, rapid economic development and internal migration have placed great demands on housing systems, in some situations providing a focus for housing renewal and in others resulting in large-scale speculative building for owner occupation. In many countries throughout Europe, though to varying degrees, the conservation aspects of renewal have received attention as older housing is perceived to have a heritage value, often for reasons of culture rather than antiquity, though the two sometimes overlap. Despite its importance as a housing activity, housing renewal tends to be less prominent in the housing debate than other aspects of policy, 2

Introduction

such as new building and housing affordability. Whenever there is said to be a ‘housing crisis’ it is seldom seen as a crisis of housing renewal: and the subject has been relatively neglected in political and academic circles, especially since the global financial crisis and the Eurozone crisis in the late 2000s. Yet, as European Commission statistics show (Eurostat, 2011), 30 million people, or 6 per cent, of the EU population in 2009 suffered from ‘severe housing deprivation’ defined as the percentage of the population living in a dwelling which is considered to be overcrowded and with at least one of the following situations: (a) a leaking roof, or damp walls, floors, foundations, or rot in window frames or floor (referred to subsequently as ‘a leaking roof, dampness or rot’); (b) neither a bath nor a shower, nor an indoor flushing toilet; and (c) where darkness in the dwelling is considered a problem. Figures for the EU-27 and individual countries (Table 1.1) show that in 2011, 16 per cent of the EU population deemed ‘a leaking roof, dampness or rot’ to be a problem, while 3 per cent lacked the basic amenity of a bath or shower within their dwelling. For individual countries the figures vary widely, for example, ‘a leaking roof, dampness or rot’ affects 6 per cent of the population in Finland and 8 per cent in Sweden, compared with 16 per cent in the United Kingdom (UK), 22 per cent in Hungary and 39 per cent (2007 figure) in Turkey. ‘Housing condition’ and ‘housing deprivation’ are complex matters and it is not the intention to read too much into these figures: nevertheless, they indicate a substantial problem of housing quality throughout the European Union and more widely within Europe, and are an important issue for public policy. For contextual purposes, Table 1.1 also gives information on population, tenure and dwelling type in the EU and EU candidate countries, the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). The names of the countries featured in later chapters of this book are highlighted. The main aims of this book are to provide contemporary accounts of housing renewal policy and practice in nine European countries; to see how individual countries’ approaches developed over time; and to bring together information and ideas on how the renewal of older housing, including its physical, social, economic, community and cultural aspects, can achieve more prominence in the policy agenda in Europe. In short, the aim is to raise the profile of housing renewal as a focus for policy: the need for this is evident not only from the figures in Table 1.1 but also from the detailed accounts that follow of the situation in selected countries. In developing the book, we have taken the view that although the market is predominant in the provision of housing throughout much of Europe, a market approach has not been 3

4

502,623

 11,095

  7,327

 10,505

  5,574

 81,844

  1,294

  4,583

 11,290

 46,196

 65,328

 59,394

  0.862   2,042

EU-27

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Cyprus Latvia

Country

Population 2012 (millions)

74 83

73

63

83

76

70

84

53

67

80

87

72

71

10  8

13

19

 9

17

15

 3

40

33

13

 2

19

18

16 10

14

18

 8

 7

15

14

 7

*

 7

11

 9

11

23 65

48

33

65

60

 4

65

54

28

52

42

21

41

47 31

24

45

14

32

36

30

29

59

37

48

37

34

28  4

27

22

21

 9

60

 5

16

 0

10

 9

42

24

 1 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

 2

13

*

 1

*

 1

30 26

23

11

16

15

11

19

14

16

12

15

21

16

(continued)

 1 18

*

 1

*

 1

 6

11

*

 3

*

15

 1

 3

Share of population with certain problems or lacking some housing items Dwelling type Tenure 2011 2011 2011 (percentages) (percentage of population) (percentage of population) Leaking roof/ SemiTenant paying Tenant Owned damp walls/floors/ Lack of bath detached/ a reduced paying at outright foundation or rot in or shower in terraced price or free Detached market or with a dwelling window frames house Other accommodation Flat house price mortgage

Table 1.1: Population, housing and housing conditions in Europe (European Union, EEA, EFTA and EU candidate countries) 2013

Renewing Europe’s housing

Population 2012 (millions)

  3,004

  0.525

  4,398

  9,932

  0.418

 16,730

  8,443

 38,538

 10.542

 21,356

  2,055

  5.404

  5,401

  9,483

 63,457

Country

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Croatia

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

UK

68

70

74

90

78

97

75

82

58

67

81

90

92

68

92

13

30

10

 8

 6

 1

12

 4

26

32

 2

 3

 2

27

 1

19

*

16

 2

17

 2

13

15

16

*

17

 7

 6

 5

 7

14

40

33

48

29

38

40

47

42

18

47

29

22

33

58

27

51

47

50

67

61

41

49

43

16

 6

65

72

42

35

59

 9

19

 2

 4

 2

19

 4

14

61

47

 5

 6

25

 7

*

*

 1

*

*

 0

*

*

1

 4

 1

 1

*

*

*

16

 8

 6

 8

35

18

21

12

14

15

10

22

15

16

19

(continued)

*

 1

 1

*

 1

37

 1

 5

*

*

*

 4

 1

*

16

Share of population with certain problems or lacking some housing items Dwelling type Tenure 2011 2011 2011 (percentages) (percentage of population) (percentage of population) Leaking roof/ SemiTenant paying Tenant Owned damp walls/floors/ Lack of bath detached/ a reduced paying at outright foundation or rot in or shower in terraced price or free Detached market or with a dwelling window frames house Other accommodation Flat house price mortgage

Introduction

5

6

  4,986

  7,955

  0.621

  2.060

  7,241

 74,724

Norway

Switzerland

Montenegro

Macedonia (c)

Serbia

Turkey

78

61(a)

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

84

n/a

11

24(a)

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

11

n/a

11

16 (a)

n/a

n/a

n/a

 5

 6

n/a

(a) 2006 figure (b) 2007 figure (c) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Total figures for ‘EU-27’ do not include Croatia which joined the EU in 2013 *0.5% or less Source: Eurostat: demo_gind; ilc_lvho01; ilc_lvho02; ilc_mdho01; ilc_mdho02

  0.320

  0.036

Iceland

Liechtenstein

European Economic Area, European Free Trade Area and EU candidate countries 2013

Country

Population 2012 (millions)

?

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

 8

n/a

45

?

n/a

n/a

n/a

25

62

n/a

35

?

n/a

n/a

n/a

12

19

n/a

19

?

n/a

n/a

n/a

 3

11

n/a

*

39(b)

n/a

n/a

n/a

11

 8

n/a

16

6(b)

n/a

n/a

n/a

*

*

n/a

*

Share of population with certain problems or lacking some housing items Dwelling type Tenure 2011 2011 2011 (percentages) (percentage of population) (percentage of population) Leaking roof/ SemiTenant paying Tenant Owned damp walls/floors/ Lack of bath detached/ a reduced paying at outright foundation or rot in or shower in terraced price or free Detached market or with a dwelling window frames house Other accommodation Flat house price mortgage

Table 1.1: Population, housing and housing conditions in Europe (European Union, EEA, EFTA and EU candidate countries) 2013 (continued)

Renewing Europe’s housing

Introduction

effective in dealing with many serious housing problems, including the problem of what the European Union describes as ‘severe housing deprivation’, in which housing quality is an important element. The book will argue that the question of housing renewal remains a serious challenge in Europe, and that many present-day policy approaches do not give sufficient attention to the scale of the problem and its longer term consequences for the quality of the existing housing stock and its effects on the lives of the people who live there. Another aim is to bring the cross-national literature on housing and urban renewal up-to-date, building on previous work by Priemus and Metselaar (1992) and Skifter Andersen and Leather (1999). Priemus and Metselaar’s study investigated ‘urban renewal’ in nine western and northern European countries, mainly through the analysis of questionnaires completed by the relevant Ministry or government agency in the countries concerned. Priemus and Metselaar found little agreement on the meaning of ‘urban renewal’, no generally applicable model for action, and no common understanding between countries about the scale and nature of the problems that housing and urban renewal were intended to deal with. On the other hand, many of the countries had large and vigorous renewal programmes, in some cases seeing urban renewal as an important contributor to business activity and employment; and with a role in the development of environmental protection. Only one country, the Netherlands, said in 1992 that its financial concern with urban renewal was ‘finished’ while many others expected to intensify their urban renewal activity in the future (pp 39–42). Skifter Andersen and Leather, through their involvement in the European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) Working Group on Urban Renewal and Housing Rehabilitation, edited contributions from nine countries: Sweden, the UK, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Scotland, each written to a common format covering general societal conditions for housing in the country; housing market conditions and housing policy; problems of urban decay and housing deterioration; political objectives for and types of public measures used in urban renewal and housing rehabilitation; and experiences with the effects and efficiency of policies (Skifter Andersen and Leather, 1999, 4). Considerable divergence was found between the countries studied, attributed to ‘several different but connected problems and activities’ with the result that ‘the way different countries [had] chosen to deal with the situation [was] dependent upon their particular context’ (p 241). Another reason for divergence was said to be the uncertainty among policy makers in different countries on the fundamental causes of urban problems 7

Renewing Europe’s housing

and what role the public sector should play in defeating them. It was concluded that: there are no clear answers to the basic questions of why market forces are not always able to create the necessary renewal of housing and urban areas, and how governments can regulate the market efficiently so that renewal takes place. Consequently, urban renewal has sometimes been organised as an isolated public task, planned and implemented by public agencies as if market forces did not exist. Even though all the countries discussed have found it necessary to establish special subsidy programmes and public regulation of urban renewal and housing rehabilitation, it seems that in many countries there has been a lack of clear understanding of the purposes of these policies and the extent of their application. (Skifter Andersen and Leather, 1999, 242–3) Looking in more detail, Skifter Andersen and Leather noted that the political objectives for urban renewal and housing rehabilitation policies often stemmed from other policy areas such as general housing policies, general urban economic and social policies, energy conservation policies, and policies for health and social care. Compared with Priemus and Metselaar, they identified a much larger number of objectives which have been central to the design of policies in the field, including: economic revitalisation of cities and districts, better quality of urban life and environment, preservation and enhancement of historic buildings and the character of older areas, maintaining a supply of cheaper housing, transfer of dwellings to owner occupiers or cooperatives, better housing for the elderly and disabled, influence for residents on the renewal process, and involvement of the private sector and the development of public–private relationships (pp 254–5). This multiplicity of objectives, not all of which can necessarily be pursued at the same time, provides a broad basis for an approach to housing and urban renewal that is suited to the national, regional or local context for which it is intended.

Origins and explanations The idea for the present book grew out of the response to a paper by Turkington and Watson, ‘Area-based intervention in England: have we learnt the lessons?’ presented in September 2010 at the conference 8

Introduction

Housing: The Next 20 Years organised by the University of Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research. In view of the interest expressed in the paper, especially by conference participants from other European countries, it was decided to invite contributions for an edited book on renewing housing in Europe. Most of the contributing authors are members of the European Network for Housing Research; and all the chapters reflect authors’ research interests in housing renewal in their own countries and more widely. The selection of countries for inclusion in the book was guided by the editors’ wish to ensure a broad and varied geographical, cultural and political coverage of Europe and to reflect different national experiences in the development of housing policy. To include all or most European countries would have resulted in many short and possibly superficial chapters; therefore it was decided to select nine countries. Four are from ‘northern and western’ Europe (Denmark, England, France and the Netherlands); three from ‘central and eastern’ Europe (Estonia, Germany and Hungary); and two from ‘southern’ Europe (Spain and Turkey). Some of these countries were included in the publications referred to previously but for Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Spain and Turkey, this is the first time an account of their housing renewal policy and practice is presented in a publication of this kind. The regional dimension in the choice of countries is of interest because of the varied political and economic history of Europe during much of the period covered by the book. Some of the present-day countries did not exist in their present form in the nineteenth century; all were affected by the two World Wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45; some experienced urban and industrial development at different timescales; many were affected by the political divisions of Europe that followed the Second World War; some experienced long or shorter periods of non-democratic government; many now are members of, or are close to being members, of the European Union. Given this variety of history and experience, it is appropriate and of interest to view present-day housing systems and policies in the context of the historical and political pathways that individual countries have followed; and to see the continuing effects of these pathways on the differences and similarities that have developed over time in their approaches to housing and urban renewal. The individual ‘country chapters’ (Chapters Two to Ten) are research-based but the book as a whole is not the outcome of a crossnational research project with common objectives, methodology and definitions, unlike some other studies that have resulted, for example, from research funded by the European Union (such as those 9

Renewing Europe’s housing

by Van Kempen et al, 2005; and Musterd and Murie, 2010). The countries featured in this book are not a ‘scientific’ sample nor is it the intention to generalise from their experience in a way that would be representative of all countries in the EU or other political and economic groupings in Europe and neighbouring countries. The project was designed, however, to locate housing renewal within an understanding of the housing system of each country (Stephens, 2011), while recognising that although ‘housing’ is a national rather than an EU competence, there are EU policies that impinge upon or have consequences for housing renewal, notably those on energy efficiency, and social protection and inclusion. An outline structure was suggested to the authors of the country chapters, covering the evolution of housing renewal, approaches to housing improvement and area renewal, changes of emphasis over time in renewal policy and practice, lessons learnt and questions for the future. Authors were free to adapt this structure to the circumstances of their own country and those who wished were encouraged to illustrate their account through one or more case studies of housing renewal in action. An authors’ meeting, hosted by the Danish Building Research Institute, was held in Copenhagen in November 2011. Presentations were made on the country chapters and consideration given to the issues likely to be included in the Introduction and Conclusions.

Definitions As previous studies have noted, the intertwining of housing improvement with broader policies for urban development and renewal makes it difficult to distinguish ‘housing and urban renewal’ from other policies or activities; and there is no consistent terminology in different countries for describing them (Skifter Andersen and Leather, 1999, 2). Many terms are used for the process of improving the existing housing stock. In England by the 1970s, for example, what had been referred to in the past as the ‘reconditioning’ or ‘patching’ of individual houses or groups of houses was succeeded by a policy of ‘house improvement’ involving internal and external repairs and the installation or modernisation of basic amenities. Where streets or blocks of houses were improved this was referred to as ‘area improvement’: often, it was part of a process of ‘gradual renewal’ designed to upgrade dwellings of a particular type, occupied by people of a similar socio-economic status. As the policy of renewal developed, attention was given also to housing from the inter-war or post-Second World War years, involving 10

Introduction

(a) the modernisation of facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms, heating and insulation; and (b) the renewal of larger estates, mainly of public or social housing. As well as the improvement of dwellings and their surroundings, renewal may include the selective demolition of housing that is beyond repair, or on sites needed for other forms of housing, community services, infrastructure improvements and other facilities. The complete demolition of housing in an area and its replacement by modern development is best described as ‘clearance’ not ‘renewal’. Other terms such as ‘urban renaissance’ (Urban Task Force, 1999) and ‘urban regeneration’, which ‘has come to represent strategies to change the built environment to stimulate economic growth’ (Jones and Evans, 2013, 3) have tended in practice to have a strong emphasis on economic and business development, often involving substantial clearance of existing buildings, rather than the community or neighbourhood focus which is an important characteristic of the area-based approach to housing renewal. The approach adopted in this book was to provide the contributing authors with suggested definitions as explained above while recognising that they would use the terminology as understood in their countries, explaining its usage where appropriate.

The challenge of housing renewal Different dimensions of the contemporary crisis in housing renewal in Europe can be seen in the individual chapters that follow. A combination of factors means that countries have an ageing housing stock, much of which is energy inefficient and affected by social, technical and physical obsolescence, and parts of which are poorly maintained. Different costs and problems are associated with the age of the properties, their types of construction, their history of use and their state of repair. The scale, cost and complexity of problems in multifamily and multi-storey blocks, especially where older prefabricated industrialised construction methods were used, is often greater than for single family housing. In the former case, fragmented ownership and uneven capacity to meet a share of the costs of repair and improvement add further complications, while legal and organisational arrangements are sometimes unclear and unhelpful. In all property types, where dilapidated housing is occupied by elderly and low-income households, whether owners or tenants, problems are less likely to be remedied quickly.

11

Renewing Europe’s housing

This inefficient and run-down part of the housing stock tends to be unattractive to middle- and higher-income groups that might invest in it, and thus is accessible to lower-income people who cannot afford to repair, maintain or upgrade it, or to pay the high heating costs involved. The concentration of poorer households in poor quality housing adds to the problems and disadvantages they face: it affects their health, education and employment and is a continuation from previous eras of the problem of slum housing, where overcrowding, sharing, dampness, infestation and the lack of basic amenities are prevalent and in some cases increasing. This continuing problem exists alongside public policies that in many countries have led to the reduction or withdrawal of state funds for housing renewal and a tendency to expect owners and occupiers to resolve problems for themselves. Many governments are reluctant to develop coherent policies and appear unable to deliver integrated approaches that halt or manage decline. A dominant view, typified by the argument for ‘austerity’, is that governments, especially those favouring a neo-liberal, ‘shrink the state’ approach, lack the funds to affect outcomes: they are unwilling for ideological reasons to take the political decision to tackle the growing problem of older, inadequate and low value housing in a way that safeguards the interests of local residents, especially those on lower incomes and with limited resources. This leads to an over-reliance on the private sector to achieve results, in spite of historical and contemporary evidence that the market will not respond to the need for repair and maintenance and will continue to manage and take profits from substandard housing. In some cases, long-term neglect and decline in property values may trigger a process of reinvestment associated with gentrification and displacement of lower-income residents, who move to other low price and low quality housing elsewhere. In these cases the lengthy delay before upgrading, the displacement of residents, and the loss of important cultural and community environments have high social and economic costs. The following chapters show a variety of responses to this growing challenge. Over time and particularly from the 1990s onwards, housing and urban renewal have evolved from being a mainly physical intervention, or property-based activity, to one with more holistic aims, in which social, economic, environmental, community and cultural aspects are taken much more fully into consideration than in the past. This is a positive development, including different levels of government or its agencies and a variety of private and third sector organisations, but it is taking place within an increasingly fragmented 12

Introduction

housing system. What seems to be lacking now are the comprehensive approaches used in the past, with their strategic understanding of the complementarity of different elements of housing activity; the interactions between different parts of the housing system; and the centrality of housing to wider social and economic concerns. The problems outlined here typify the challenge of housing renewal in Europe. The book provides important lessons from the experience of individual countries; considers contemporary literature relevant to that experience; and provides analysis and conclusions to encourage and inform debate about the future of housing renewal in Europe, especially in its urban context.

Structure and content Northern and western Europe There are 12 chapters. Following the Introduction, Chapters Two, Three, Four and Five deal with countries of northern and western Europe. In Chapter Two, Hedvig Vestergaard looks at the progression in Denmark from physical improvement to holistic renewal; and at the adoption in recent years of a neighbourhood renewal approach to the large non-profit social housing estates built in the 1960s and 1970s, where many of the country’s most difficult housing and social problems are concentrated; and which have often been stigmatised in political debate. Housing built before the First World War was partly dealt with through slum clearance from the 1940s to the 1960s; but in 1977 it was estimated that about 20 per cent of the national housing stock was in need of repair and upgrading. In following this programme, care was taken to avoid the displacement of local residents, businesses and jobs but progress was slow and often costly. Since 1961, energy conservation measures have been mandatory for new building: building regulations do not yet enforce these standards in housing renewal, though their adoption is strongly encouraged. In Denmark, the focus of housing and urban renewal has moved from physical intervention, demolishing and upgrading buildings, to an integrated multi-sectoral approach in the form of overall plans to advance social sustainability. These principles are illustrated through a case study of the Bispehaven estate in Aarhus. The empowerment of and capacity building among local residents have been key issues, and renewal has become a process undertaken with residents, not to or for them. Now, the whole housing stock in Denmark is seen as a potential target for refurbishment and energy efficiency measures. 13

Renewing Europe’s housing

In Chapter Three, Christopher Watson and Richard Turkington consider the development of housing renewal in England, beginning in the 1860s with the first steps towards the improvement of housing and, by the 1970s, leading to the adoption of the ‘gradual renewal’ of older housing as an alternative to policies of slum clearance and redevelopment. A large number of approaches to ‘area improvement’ were devised from 1969 to the early 2000s and these are reviewed. The initial focus of housing renewal in England was on the improvement of nineteenth and early twentieth century private housing but over time, attention has been given also to the renewal of social housing built from the 1960s onwards. Housing renewal has been continually affected by changes in housing policy including, in the 1990s, the introduction of means testing and the eventual withdrawal of individual grants for private house improvement; and the adoption in the 2000s of the ‘decent home standard’ as a new approach to assessing housing conditions. An important government programme launched in 2000 aimed to bring all social housing to the decent home standard within a 10-year period but at the same time, funding for private sector renewal was gradually withdrawn, with the result that in 2011, 24 per cent of housing in England was below the decent home standard, much of it in the private sector. Energy efficiency in housing and fuel poverty among households have been important policy concerns since the 1980s: many people cannot afford to make the necessary improvements to their housing, yet are badly affected by ever-rising energy costs. The chapter includes a case study of area improvement in the Summerfield area of Birmingham. As shown in Chapter Four by Claire Lévy-Vroelant and Yankel Fijalkow, France has a long history of housing renewal and of ‘making new from old’. The first legislation dealing with substandard housing was in 1850 but it was after the Second World War that both selective and larger-scale slum clearance and redevelopment programmes got underway. This led to the building of large social housing estates, in the modernist style, on the outskirts of the major cities. By the 1970s, however, a policy of rehabilitating older housing was introduced, and the National Housing Agency (ANAH) was created to promote the improvement of the stock of older private dwellings. There were differences of view about the approach to be adopted: some emphasised the heritage value of older housing and its traditional function in the housing market; others wanted to restore the appearance of older buildings, while rehousing their residents elsewhere. The abandonment in the 1970s of the construction of large social housing estates and the subsequent focus on poverty in urban areas gave further support 14

Introduction

to policies for the renewal both of older private housing and of the ‘towers and blocks’ of the social housing estates; and to concerns for less segregation and a better ‘social mix’ in housing. The implementation of these policies is illustrated through case studies of two housing renewal areas in Paris: La Goutte d’Or in the eighteenth arrondissement, an area of poor quality late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century working-class housing with a large minority ethnic population; and Porte Pouchet in the seventeenth arrondissement, a 1950s–60s social housing development of towers and blocks close to the city boundary. The two areas exemplify different approaches to housing renewal and their contrasting outcomes. In Chapter Five, Frank Wassenberg explores the development of housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands, the country with the highest population density in Europe. Housing shortage was for many years one of the top issues on the national policy agenda and 80 per cent of the present housing stock has been built since the Second World War. Contemporary urban renewal has focused on deprived areas from the 1950s and 1960s where there are many multi-family dwellings in the social rented sector. In line with trends in other countries of northern and western Europe, large-scale urban slum clearance and redevelopment in the Netherlands ended in the early 1970s and the focus switched to small-scale renewal, renovating old houses in old neighbourhoods, with residents’ participation. In the larger-scale renewal projects from the 1990s onwards, an integrated renewal policy was developed encompassing physical, social and economic goals, in which the involvement of local people and greater responsibility for local government as mediator between local interests were important. A ‘big city policy’ from the mid1990s targeted renewal in the country’s largest towns and cities. The national government’s financial contribution to this programme ended in 2014, suggesting that housing renewal is now at a crossroads. Because of the severe economic crisis, renewal projects across the country are being slowed down, frozen, delayed, reconsidered, or cancelled. The sale of housing has stagnated, waiting lists for rented housing have increased and housing associations, which no longer receive public subsidy, are generally reluctant to invest. Will civil society step in to fill the gap left by government? Is there a future for an area-based approach to housing renewal? Will creating a wider social mix continue to be an aim of policy or will the trend to separate lifestyles continue? These and other questions are examined in the light of a situation from which the national government seems intent on withdrawing. 15

Renewing Europe’s housing

Central and eastern Europe Chapters Six, Seven and Eight look at housing renewal in three countries of central and eastern Europe: Estonia, Germany and Hungary and emphasise the distinctive course taken by former socialist countries. Chapter Six by Katrin Paadam and Liis Ojamäe explains the consequences for housing renewal in Estonia of the two fundamental and interlinked transformations of Estonian society since the Second World War. The expropriation of land and property under the socialist regime was reversed in the restitution and privatisation of the majority of housing in the early 1990s. From 1944 to 1991, the socialist system had concentrated on new construction rather than the restoration or renovation of the older, nationalised housing stock, which deteriorated from lack of investment throughout the period. The 1990s saw the establishment of a new institutional and legislative framework for housing policy; a concern for the preservation of heritage buildings; and a realisation of the difficulties in getting flat owners to collaborate in the management, maintenance and renewal of their housing. By the 2000s, housing improvement was being encouraged, though on a small scale, by the provision of grants and loan guarantees; and in response to concerns about the need for energy efficiency in housing. The emphasis in policy is, however, still on the renewal of single blocks rather than areas of housing. An assessment has been made of the improvements required in different types of blocks but there is no comprehensive estimate, as yet, of the number requiring improvement and the likely costs involved. To illustrate the process of ‘societal experiment’ in Estonia’s housing renewal, the chapter presents three case studies from Tallinn and Rakvere: one in a district with housing of heritage value; one in an area of large-scale standard housing blocks from the 1960s–80s; and one, still in the planning stage, in an area of mixed housing, which takes the neighbourhood as a starting point for the improvement of residential quality. In Chapter Seven, Jürgen Friedrichs, Rolf Müller and Wendelin Strubelt discuss the evolution of housing and urban renewal in Germany, with an emphasis on the period following 1949 when the two post-war German states were founded and subsequently followed quite different policies until the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. The development of housing policy in the former Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was dominated initially by the shortage of housing following the Second World War and the influx of refugees from former German territories. Continuing population increase led in the 1960s and 1970s to the building of many new single family houses and large-scale peripheral 16

Introduction

housing estates. Proposals in the late 1960s to demolish many of the older houses in inner city areas were strongly criticised by residents and others concerned with the loss of heritage, leading in the 1970s to a popular movement to save the cities from further destruction. From 1971 to 1990 a programme co-financed by the FRG and the constituent states (Länder) supported housing renewal in many older inner city areas and historic towns. As housing supply increased to meet the needs of the population, greater attention was given to housing renewal, especially in deprived areas, under the Social City programme introduced in 1999. The German Democratic Republic (GDR) founded in 1949, faced similar housing problems to the FRG but the strategies to deal with them were different. New housing was constructed, using industrialised methods, mainly in the inner cities and peripheral locations, while existing housing was neglected and suffered steady deterioration. By 1988, only 9 per cent of housing in the GDR was considered to be in ‘good condition’. Renewal became a primary focus for urban policy in the former GDR following the reunification of Germany in 1990, with an almost complete redevelopment of the inner cities and the renewal, including demolition, of system-built housing estates. Meanwhile, demand for single family private housing led to a growth of suburbanisation. In 2005, the federal government embarked on the further decentralisation of housing responsibilities to the Länder, including support for modernising the housing stock which in turn supports the urban renewal process. The future for renewal in Germany appears very positive, with a strong emphasis on measures to improve energy efficiency; to preserve the built urban heritage; and to continue the Social City programme for deprived neighbourhoods. Chapter Eight by Iván Tosics explains that, for over 40 years, housing policy in Hungary ignored housing renewal. As in many other parts of central and eastern Europe, socialist policies from 1948 to 1989 at first did not deal with housing at all while later they were concentrated on new housing development, further neglecting the existing stock. Older housing from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries built originally for private rental was nationalised at the end of the 1940s. Only limited small-scale attempts were made in the socialist period in the 1980s to renovate older properties (financed entirely by public funds), by which time the stock had become badly deteriorated through lack of maintenance and repair. The transition in 1990 to a market-oriented system under a multi-party democracy meant that most flats were transferred into condominiums, and thus returned to private ownership. The legal structure was modified in 2004 to 17

Renewing Europe’s housing

facilitate decision making on housing renewal. In 2005, financial incentives were introduced for energy efficiency improvements in multi-family buildings, which speeded up the renovation of systembuilt housing on large housing estates: this was further helped after 2007 by the availability of EU funding to support the work. Case studies from Budapest illustrate the different extent and types of housing renewal in the city: they are influenced by a combination of property ownership and values, and the social composition of residents. In the mid-2000s a new policy was introduced to manage the growing inequalities in the city, targeting renewal efforts to deprived areas, with a larger role for the municipal (city-wide) government. Pilot projects for socially sensitive renewal were supported by EU structural funds. By the mid-2010s, however, financial, political and organisational changes suggest that area-based programmes are likely to diminish: housing renewal will be focused once more on the improvement of individual buildings, and will become increasingly dependent on the uncertainties of private financing.

Southern Europe Chapters Nine and Ten examine housing renewal in two countries of southern Europe, Spain and Turkey. Chapter Nine by Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway and Montse Simó-Solsona looks at the progression in Spain from isolated programmes of renewal to an integrated approach, taking as a case study the example of the La Barceloneta neighbourhood in the city of Barcelona. One of the most controversial aspects in Spain is the historical dominance of owner occupation in the housing system, the shortage of social housing and the continuing decline in private rented housing. The bursting of the house price bubble in 2007 gave added weight to this controversy but until then, a booming real estate sector meant that housing renewal was a minor consideration in Spanish policy, while there was no tradition of demolition as a means of achieving housing and urban renewal. More recently, the role of housing within a wider process of sustainable renewal strategies has gained favour in the political debate. The latest national housing programme includes several measures aimed at promoting renewal policies, with an emphasis on sustainability and energy saving in buildings. Grants and subsidised loans are available to support the programme. Area-based interventions do not follow a general pattern in Spain as public policy for them has been devolved to regional and local government, under the umbrella of a range of national subsidies for policies including renewal. The tier of government which 18

Introduction

should take the lead in neighbourhood renewal is not clearly defined, however, and there is often a multiplicity of public actors involved. Thus, a defining feature of Spain’s urban and housing renewal processes is their diversity. Catalonia’s 2004 Neighbourhood Law is recognised as a leading instigator of innovation in neighbourhood level regeneration, under which local governments in the region are responsible for implementing comprehensive renewal projects, for example in the neighbourhood of La Barceloneta, which the chapter examines in detail as an example of good practice but also as a project from which lessons can be learnt for the future, especially about the benefits of citizen participation and of public sector support for renewal. Chapter Ten by Zeynep Gunay, T Kerem Koramaz and A Sule Ozuekren explores the evolution of housing renewal in Turkey, from squatter upgrading to large-scale renewal programmes. Since the establishment of the modern Republic in 1923, Turkey has experienced rapid population growth through natural increase and rural–urban migration, especially from the east to the west of the country, placing great demands on housing resources. Housing was developed in the past through both formal and informal means, but from the 1990s onwards, attention has been given to the need for housing renewal both to improve living conditions and to mitigate the risks from natural disasters such as the Marmara earthquake in 1999. Housing renewal policy shifted from the squatter settlement upgrading programmes that began in the 1960s to a much more comprehensive approach in the 2000s, with major concerns being social exclusion, forced evictions, the conservation of historic buildings and environmental sustainability. An account of the development of housing renewal policies from 1923 to the 2010s is followed by an exploration of present-day housing renewal, taking as an example the Istanbul Historic Peninsula. The two main approaches here are ‘bottom up’ with loans, grants and other incentives for rehabilitating individual houses, and ‘top down’ using large-scale renewal under the 2005 Renewal Law. Individual renewals attract government support for the maintenance, repair and restoration of historic housing, including technical and professional assistance and training workshops for craftsmen. More substantial and extensive housing renewal takes place through the large-scale areabased urban renewal programmes which are designed to consolidate the urban structure for earthquake risk mitigation and to ‘transform’ especially the deprived neighbourhoods of the historic centre through the creation of mixed-use development. This requires extensive clearance which is often controversial, raising many concerns about the management approach and processes involved. These issues are 19

Renewing Europe’s housing

especially sensitive because of the historic character of the area and its place in the city’s cultural heritage. A major weakness has been the lack of opportunity for public involvement, though this is beginning to change. The poor structural quality of much of the housing stock in Turkey means that renewal cannot avoid demolition and rebuilding but it is argued that future policy needs to give greater weight to the importance of rehabilitation and upgrading and to the participation of local residents in renewal strategies.

Concluding chapters The conclusions of the book are presented in Chapters Eleven and Twelve. Chapter Eleven by Tim Brown and Richard Turkington, ‘Changing approaches to policy making in housing renewal’, begins with an overview of the development and implementation of housing renewal in the nine country chapters. Although there is a common concern in all countries with improving the quality of the housing stock and the living conditions of the population, the extent to which these objectives are prioritised varies, and is influenced by different traditions and capacities; by changes over time in the form of and commitment to state intervention in housing; and by the interaction of factors such as ownership, policy pathways, financial arrangements and targeting which can vary from country to country. This discussion is followed by a consideration of ideas about policy making that are relevant to present-day housing renewal in Europe. Among the topics examined are the long-standing recognition of the competing choices that affect decisions on the purpose and approach to renewal; and more recent issues such as the influence of neo-liberalism; the sustainability of the environment and of communities; and the geography and style of contemporary governance. Chapter Twelve, ‘Conclusions’ by Richard Turkington and Christopher Watson looks at the way ‘housing renewal’ is understood in the countries under study; and at the origins, development and present focus of renewal policies. It concludes that, in contrast to what was shown in previous studies, there is now much greater agreement on the purposes of housing and urban renewal, and on the approaches to it that are likely to be successful. This understanding seems to override the political and economic pathways that individual countries have followed. A consideration of what has been achieved through renewal, especially in the nine countries featured in the book, leads to a discussion of the future prospects for housing renewal and its continuing importance for public policy in Europe. 20

TWO

From physical improvement to holistic renewal: the Danish experience Hedvig Vestergaard

Introduction Urban and neighbourhood renewal in Denmark first became of public interest and the subject of legislation in the early twentieth century. Concern was based on health, fire and sanitation issues with the focus on the condition of individual dwellings. It was not until the early 1940s that the first urban quarter in Copenhagen was renewed through demolition and rebuilding. Based on legislation from 1939, with revisions in 1959 and 1969, the slum clearance approach was strongly criticised for disrupting local life and destroying cultural assets. It was not until 1983 that more sensitive policies were adopted, when new legislation opened the way for urban and housing renewal programmes which established the rights of residents and provided subsidies for improvement work. At the same time, large non-profit social housing estates, built in the 1960s and 1970s, came under scrutiny. Initially, these modernist-style estates were labelled ‘neighbourhoods with construction problems’ which needed attention to their flat roofs and crumbling concrete but it was not long before the housing management and life opportunities of residents were also being questioned. A neighbourhood renewal approach was then developed which combined a focus on the social integration of immigrants and their children with local involvement, resident participation and the physical improvement of housing and its environment. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, local and areabased initiatives became the established approach to creating ‘inclusive neighbourhoods’ and changing the social mix. The open stigmatisation of deprived neighbourhoods as ‘ghettos’ by the government and political leaders worked against the combined efforts of municipalities, residents and housing organisations to create positive solutions. At 21

Renewing Europe’s housing

the same time, housing renewal programmes began to include rural as well as urban areas and now almost the entire housing and building stock in Denmark is considered a potential target for refurbishment and energy efficiency measures. The challenge for housing renewal is to achieve a balance between the preservation of the built heritage, sustainability, innovation, job creation and demolition. Since 2007, the financial and economic crisis and the accompanying reduction in private investment have impeded progress. Population loss and the economic recession prevalent in western and southern Denmark have reduced regional housing demand. These situations have become major concerns for the municipalities affected, and proposals for demolishing empty houses in villages and rural areas are under active consideration. Both larger and smaller social housing estates in areas losing population are difficult to let, and the housing organisations that own them would like to be able to demolish housing or change its use without having to bear the cost of outstanding loans. This chapter considers how a market consisting of regulated private rented housing, non-profit social housing with regulated cost rents, a free market owner-occupied housing sector, and private rented housing built since 1991 can be renewed. A case study of Bispehaven in the western part of the city of Aarhus illustrates the challenges faced in renewing large-scale social housing estates over the past 30 years.

Housing in Denmark The average household size in 2012 was about 2.1 people with an average floor space of about 52m² per person. Figure 2.1 shows changes in the average number of persons per dwelling from 1930 to 2012. In 2012, Denmark had 2.7 million dwellings. As shown in Figure 2.2, 52 per cent of the housing stock is owner-occupied; 20 per cent or 540,000 dwellings belong to non-profit social housing organisations and about 2 per cent to public authorities including the government and local authorities. The non-profit social housing sector constitutes about 57 per cent of all rented dwellings; about 70 per cent of this non-profit housing has been built since 1960 and 70 per cent of it is multi-storey. The non-profit social housing organisations are self-owned with governing boards overseeing the affairs of their estates. Residents are in the majority on these boards, and are elected at an annual General Assembly. Local decision making is through estate residents’ boards, 22

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal Figure 2.1: Number of persons per dwelling in Denmark, 1930–2012 3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5 1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Source: Danmarks Statistik, 1931, table 4, s41; Danmarks Statistik, 1942, table 5A, s96;

Danmarks Statistik, 1953, table 4A, s104; Det økonomiske Råd, Formandskabet, 2001, s224; Statistikbanken, 2010, 2012.

Figure 2.2: Dwellings in Denmark by tenure, January 2012 Other and not stated 3% Owned by public authorities 2%

Social housing 20% Owner-occupied 52% Privately rented 15%

Co-operative hou sing 8%

Source: Danmar ks Statistik, Stat Bank Denmark: BOL101

23

Renewing Europe’s housing

also elected at an annual General Assembly, with referenda held on local issues. To a large extent, Denmark has a dual function housing market, with one market for rented housing, mainly flats, and one for owner-occupied housing, mainly single family detached houses. The functional division between the two has been such that when the economy is performing well, owner-occupied housing is considered more attractive, and rented flats in social housing become more difficult to let. When the economy is in recession, however, the situation is reversed. Whenever the Danish economy has approached the bottom of the business cycle, as in 1974/75, 1982/83, 1992/93 and 2007 onwards, enforced house sales and social rented flats that remain empty have become political problems, and new policy initiatives have been introduced with a view to improving the situation (Vestergaard, 2004). Legislation in the 1970s and early 1980s introduced subsidised energy measures for individual dwellings, and this was followed by urban renewal schemes and a more comprehensive refurbishment of the older private rented housing stock. Attempts to improve deprived 1960s and 1970s social housing estates were backed by legislation in 1985, 1993 and later. Such initiatives have been continuous but largely ineffective. In the recession of the early 1990s, mortgage lending institutions became concerned that neighbourhoods with single family housing could become the slums of the future and took steps to research the market (Jørgensen, 1995; Vestergaard, 2006a; 2006b). As the economy boomed in the early twenty-first century, housing issues lost their political focus but this returned when real estate values began to fall after 2007, creating negative equity. Since 1981, about 60 per cent of all Danes have lived in owneroccupied housing, although, by 2011, only 46 per cent of the 20–39 age group owned the dwelling they lived in compared with 62 per cent in 1981. By 2012, 54 per cent of people aged 65 and over lived in owner-occupied houses compared with 47 per cent in 1981. These trends reflect a continuous process of young people moving to towns and cities with educational provision, including universities, such as Copenhagen and Aarhus, where the housing stock is made up of rented housing and co-operatively owned private housing. Thirty per cent of the housing stock in Copenhagen city used to be in private rented estates but much housing now is owned co-operatively by private housing societies. Over time, traditional regional building technologies such as timber frame have been replaced, first by bricks and mortar then by concrete 24

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

and lighter construction materials. Wood has become an important construction material again. The large housing estates from the 1960s and 1970s were promoted to increase productivity and innovation in the Danish building sector. Currently, lighter technologies and energy efficient buildings are dominant, accompanied by a restructuring of the existing building stock. This includes the refurbishment of social housing including the possibility of demolition in low-demand areas, and the conversion of private rented and former municipally owned rented housing into private housing, accompanied by refurbishment and energy conservation measures. Housing has become progressively more expensive to produce and consume. This is partly because, as incomes increase, people tend to consume more and better housing; but also because the building sector has become less productive, making housing relatively more expensive than other consumption goods. Construction productivity has not increased significantly since the 1970s and, in contrast with much of manufacturing industry, the standard and quality of construction has remained largely unchanged since that time (Larsen, 2006). Figure 2.3 shows changes in the pattern of construction by property type since 1900.

Figure 2.3: Types of dwellings by year of construction, Denmark, 1900–2011 Detached houses

Linked or semi-detached houses Multi-dwelling houses

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1900- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 20001919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2011 Source: Danmarks Statistik, Stat Bank Denmark: BOL101

25

Renewing Europe’s housing

As Figure 2.3 demonstrates, from the mid-1970s, and following the first oil crisis, the nature of housebuilding changed from constructing large-scale housing estates and separate areas with detached houses to producing more small-scale estates and semi-detached houses. Emphasis was given to improving energy efficiency and re-investing in the existing housing stock. Despite economic growth and high employment in the 1990s, investment in the construction of new housing was low compared to re-investment in the existing stock, and the renewal of and extensions to well-located detached houses became prevalent (Andersen et al, 2001). In the early twenty-first century, investment took off in the new urban neighbourhood of Ørestad between Copenhagen city and the airport, and new housing promoted by speculative investors was built in and around urban growth areas. This investment boom, which also involved harbour areas and very prestigious reconstructions, lasted until 2007. Since then, there has been an oversupply of housing and a mismatch between supply and demand. An increasing amount of housing is for sale as more households are looking for dwellings to rent. Steep house price falls had not alleviated this situation by 2012.

Energy consumption and energy saving measures Between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of total energy consumption in Denmark is used for heating, ventilating and lighting buildings. Changes in building technologies have progressively reduced energy use. The first energy saving requirements were introduced in 1961 using Danish Building Regulations (Wittchen et al, 2011). By 1973, Denmark was importing 90 per cent of its energy and was acutely affected by the oil crisis of that year.1 Since then, Danish Building Regulations have been tightened five times, and while housing renewal is not yet governed by such controls, all houses sold since 1997 have had to be energy certificated. With its responsibility for the country’s Building Regulations (Danish Building Regulations, 2010), the Danish Energy Agency plays an important role in ensuring that new construction and the renewal of existing buildings reduce energy consumption. A range of special programmes promotes and subsidises the effort to achieve sustainable energy production and consumption (Danish Energy Agency, 2012). One example from 2011 is the co-operation between the Danish Association of Construction Clients (DACC) and the Danish Landowners’ Investment Foundation (GI) which established a ‘think tank’ to determine how to promote sustainable investment in 26

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

the existing building and housing stock. An important motive was the need to overcome a maintenance and renewal backlog in an energy efficient way. Investment in new construction had declined from its peak in 2007 and the resulting spare capacity in the industry could then be used to improve the existing building and housing stock. According to this ‘think tank’, Denmark has 2.52  million buildings with a total floor space of 716  million square metres (Bygherreforeningen og Grundejernes Investeringsfond, 2011, 7). In 2010, the valuation of the total building stock was estimated to be 3.7 trillion DKK (€0.5 trillion). The equivalent of 2.4 per cent of total building asset value, or 87.5 billion DKK (€11.6 billion), was reinvested in the building stock in the form of repairs and maintenance. In addition, 50 billion DKK (€6.7 billion) is estimated to have been reinvested in repairs and maintenance through ‘do it yourself ’ or undeclared work, mainly in the owner-occupied sector. Since the financial crisis of 2007, repair, maintenance and building materials have accounted for about 50 per cent of total building and construction sector production; new building accounts for less than 25 per cent; and the remainder is infrastructure investment, for example in roads, railways, airports and harbours. Looking ahead, the main challenges for renewing Denmark’s housing include: • providing incentives to achieve co-ordinated and energy efficient renewal in a housing market in recession; • securing design changes which allow accessibility to all buildings; • overcoming a reluctance to invest in older private rented dwellings; • improving the housing stock of the non-profit social housing organisations and securing its future, using the sector’s funds to re-design housing and implement efficient energy measures; and • balancing the need to improve energy efficiency in the existing and especially the older housing stock against the risk of stifling investment through applying overly restrictive building regulations. Meeting these challenges is a major task, especially reducing domestic energy consumption, which has remained at its present level since 1981 (Gram-Hanssen and Christensen, 2011). Wittchen, Krag and Jensen (2011), however, have shown that the energy consumption of buildings including housing can be reduced by one third through the use of energy saving measures, with a payback time of 20 to 25 years. 27

Renewing Europe’s housing

An historical perspective on housing renewal in Denmark: changing policies and key turning points Developments before 1960 Until the Second World War, housing and urban renewal were not major concerns in Denmark (Skifter Andersen and Hansen, 1999). Greater priority was given to slum clearance (sanering), which was established by law in 1939 with revisions in 1959, 1969 and 1973. The first clearance scheme was the demolition in the early 1940s of 2–3 storey half-timbered houses in the inner city quarter of BorgergadeAdelgade in Copenhagen, and their replacement with new ninestorey modernist-style blocks (Thomsen, 2012). Dronningegården and Christiansgården, constructed between 1944 and 1958, are the first examples of how a major urban renewal plan resulted in the displacement of local and low-income populations to other slum areas in Copenhagen (see Dansk Ikon Arkitektur: http://arkark.dk). A rent freeze introduced in 1939, and a housing shortage which lasted beyond 1970, effectively put a stop to further slum clearance for at least 30 years. The rent freeze made investment in the older private rented housing stock unprofitable for owners and as a result, run-down housing accumulated in old towns throughout Denmark and in the inner city of Copenhagen.

Developments from 1960 Beginning around 1960, the whole country experienced an economic boom which lasted until 1973. Tight controls over economic activity, dating from the Second World War, were lifted at the end of the 1950s and international trade resumed. Growing exports and expanding industries created new job opportunities, and the resulting movement to urban areas created a demand for individual dwellings from single people and for larger and better housing from families. Assisted by access to credit and by direct and indirect subsidy programmes, independent non-profit social housing organisations and private investors and developers responded quickly to the imperative to increase housing supply. The 1973 oil crisis resulted in an abrupt recession and the building boom came to an end in 1975. Evidence of an oversupply of single family houses and modernist-style flats in the suburbs of Copenhagen and the outskirts of larger provincial towns took the housing and building sectors by surprise. These empty housing units were new, 28

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

spacious and well equipped but were the most expensive on the market. In the rental sector, rent regulation meant that newly built flats could not compete with older and cheaper stock. In the owner-occupied sector, many new purchasers of single family housing experienced foreclosures, capital losses and falling prices. Faced with the economic situation after 1975, the highly regulated social housing sector tried to defer its problems by awaiting a market solution to the low demand caused by the high rents charged for new housing. The National Building Fund,2 local municipalities and mortgage lending institutions joined forces to develop bespoke assistance packages for individual estates, including the provision of temporary loans to cover operational costs, but these simply postponed finding a lasting solution (Vestergaard, 1985, 28; Landsbyggefonden, 2013). A major concern was the loss of jobs in the building sector and it was realised that energy saving measures and repairs to the existing housing stock could provide alternative employment opportunities. Short-term subsidy programmes were introduced, and an investigation into promoting investment in improving existing housing identified substantial employment opportunities. In 1977, around 400,000 housing units or about 20 per cent of the total stock were considered to need repair and upgrading of basic amenities such as central heating, bath and/or WC, with large urban areas in greatest need of housing renewal (Vestergaard, 1977).

Progress with urban renewal and housing improvements Due to political disagreement and grassroots resistance, new legislation for urban renewal did not take effect until 1983.3 There was a fear of repeating past mistakes which had resulted in local residents, businesses and especially jobs being displaced. The comprehensive demolition of the Copenhagen quarters of Borgergade-Adelgade, Nørrebro and Christianhavn were held up as negative examples of renewal (Vagnby and Jensen, 2002). As a result, the programmes of the 1980s and 1990s had prolonged periods of planning and implementation, resulting in higher costs. The Ministry of Finance began to question whether the assumed economic stimulus of such intervention was effective (Finansministeriet, 1999). For example, the more sensitive renewal of the inner-city Vesterbro quarter in Copenhagen was criticised for being more expensive than building new homes, with more than half the costs spent on planning and administration. Furthermore, despite the careful planning process and the involvement of local residents, the 29

Renewing Europe’s housing

area’s working-class and vulnerable populations were largely replaced by educated middle-class residents (Dengsøe, 2000). In the meantime, large subsidies and high levels of investment had gone into provincial towns where the priority was often improving run-down commercial rather than residential areas.

Social housing estates and the development of area-based initiatives Programmes to improve social housing date from 19854 when about 100 social housing estates were identified as being in need of renewal (Christiansen et al, 1993). An area-based approach was introduced in 1994 by the new government’s Urban Committee which had been given the responsibility of developing a programme to solve Denmark’s so-called ‘ghetto’ problems (Vestergaard, 1998). The Committee wanted to change the strategy from an ‘indirect’ approach, based on general subsidies to the non-profit social housing sector, to a more ‘direct’ or targeted approach to solving technical and social problems. A package of assistance for problem housing estates was launched which included physical renewal, re-financing options, the possibility of debt relief and the deployment of 100 social workers. A budget was allocated also to support a broad range of social activities. Taking place from 1993 until 1998, the Urban Committee Initiative (Byudvalgsinitiativet) was an ambitious programme, covering 500 estates (Vestergaard, 1998; Andersen, 1999). It was jointly funded by the state, the National Building Fund of non-profit housing organisations, and local municipalities. In the initial phases, the state provided most funding but over a four-year period, the balance was gradually reversed so that local municipalities and housing organisations would carry the full costs. Added to this, loans to social housing estates dating from around 1970 were rescheduled which enabled rent reductions, and funding for physical improvement and social initiatives. The Urban Committee’s programme required joint applications by housing estates and local municipalities, and only when detailed plans identifying tasks and costs had been submitted could projects be funded. A formal willingness and ability to cooperate to solve problems had to be demonstrated at the local level before projects could be supported. A very premature evaluation of the Urban Committee Initiative concluded that the main effect of all the measures implemented was that the situation on these estates had not become worse (Andersen, 1999, 12). 30

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

An important dimension of the programme was the funding of ‘model projects’ which took a ‘bottom up’ and holistic approach to tackling local problems (Vestergaard, 1996; Vestergaard et  al, 1997). Starting in 1996 and running for over 10 years, this approach resulted in the Danish Urban Regeneration Programme (Kvarterløft) consisting of experimental projects in 12 areas with a total population of 120,000, five of which were in Copenhagen. The aim was to turn negative development into positive. It became an experiment in citizen participation and aimed to integrate and coordinate urban regeneration in the 12 selected areas. The purposes were partly to improve the individual residential areas as a whole and partly to provide models for urban policy in the future. Funding was provided by central government, local municipalities and from involvement of the third sector; two thirds was targeted towards the renewal of run-down areas and the remainder towards activities in fields such as education, employment, the environment and the integration of minority ethnic groups. Area-based initiatives have continued to be applied in Denmark for as long as troubled social sector housing estates have been an issue, especially in relation to social and ethnic segregation. Such segregation, however, had emerged long before it became a general political issue in the early 1990s. In 2001, in order to change housing policy towards a more market-oriented approach, the new Liberal-Conservative government abolished the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs and distributed responsibility for housing issues across various government departments including the Ministries of Economic and Business Affairs; Social Affairs; Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs; Environment; and Finance (Nielsen, 2010). Housing returned to the stage only when troubled housing estates became a political issue. The ‘ghetto problem’ was announced in 2004, and the resulting stigmatisation of 29 housing estates was confirmed by the Prime Minister when, in his speech opening Parliament in October 2010, he described them as ‘black spots on the map of Denmark’ (Regeringen, 2004; 2010; Statsminister, 2010). The centre-left government which took office in 2011 adopted a more cautious rhetoric when discussing vulnerable housing estates. A Ministry for Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs was re-established in the same year, whose Minister focused attention on vulnerable housing estates and the sustainable development of rural areas. The National Building Fund, the National Building Fund of non-profit housing organisations, and various local social housing funds were directed towards both vulnerable housing estates and investment in the energy 31

Renewing Europe’s housing

efficient and sustainable renewal of the housing organisations’ stock (Bech-Danielsen et al, 2011). Rural areas and villages, experiencing continued depopulation and the centralisation of farming-related industries, have been the focus of a temporary and limited demolition grant programme administered by municipalities to remove run-down houses and buildings (Nørgaard, 2011).

Outcomes Formal evaluations There is a long tradition in Denmark of formal ex-post evaluations of renewal programmes, area-based projects and initiatives to improve troubled housing estates (see Kirkegaard et al, 1988; Christiansen et al, 1991; 1993; Andersen, 1999; Engberg et al, 2000; Ærø et al, 2008; Vestergaard, 2009a; 2009b). These have consistently established that: • Partly as a result of gentrification arising from housing renewal, the social makeup of older inner urban renewal areas has changed with younger and middle-class households taking over from older working-class residents. • From a sustainability perspective, the focus in the 1980s and the 1990s was placed on the appearance of housing to the detriment of the technical quality of the building renovation implemented. • Troubled housing estates continue to be troubled, and the same estates are the target of repeated improvement programmes. The technical state of buildings and areas often remains low; the management of the areas has not met local needs and residents have higher levels of problems including poor health, low incomes, drug abuse, unemployment, crime and delinquency. The standard of public institutions such as schools and kindergartens remains low in these areas. More recently, it has been questioned whether there has ever been a causal relationship between the problems identified in troubled housing areas, the prescribed cures and the outcomes achieved (Christensen, 2013). Uncertainty as to the most important outcomes of place-based initiatives in Denmark has been further discussed by Larsen and Agger (2011).

32

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

Thirty years after: the situation in 2012 By 2012, the focus was mostly on the same troubled housing estates as in the 1980s, and some estates built since then also have become troubled. Many of these estates have received financial support for major refurbishment at least once in their lives. Problems are not necessarily those of scale, since smaller estates in smaller towns and villages have also lost out in the market and become stigmatised as local ghettos. At present, the financing of improvement programmes and of new non-profit housing are supported by the National Building Fund formed from a proportion of the rental income of non-profit social housing built before 1963. The size of this fund is growing rapidly as the 50 year loans for building non-profit housing after the Second World War are being paid off while contributions to servicing debts are still being received.

Stigmatisation and political image making Troubled housing estates have been increasingly stigmatised by government policies and have become a political battlefield in relation to crime policies and the integration of minority ethnic groups. From 2004, a new procedure was introduced of ranking housing estates according to the proportions of residents who were from minority ethnic groups; received low average incomes; were in receipt of temporary transfer incomes, such as social security and unemployment benefits; and who had a criminal record. This list was published on a government web page and revised once a year. Normal allocation procedures were waived in agreement with the local municipality: the named estates were allowed to ignore rules requiring new lettings to be made to the next household on the local social housing waiting list; and lettings could even be made to households who were not on the waiting list at all. In effect, this became a list of the worst estates in Denmark, a list of ‘ghettos’ re-published in the press every time an estate experienced an incident of crime or anti-social behaviour. Suddenly, estates which had never or had hardly ever been mentioned as troubled began to be referred to negatively over and over again and labelled by the press as ‘ghettos’. Searching for the name of any one of the estates on the internet brought up the entire list on the Ministry webpage. It also became quite common for politicians to profile themselves as being anti-crime and anti-ghetto by making high profile media33

Renewing Europe’s housing

covered visits to troubled housing estates, promising to reverse their negative status and saying that the behaviour of young people, especially those from minority ethnic groups, would not be tolerated. For example, a conflict between a local Protestant vicar and some young people resulted in the vicar moving from his house and the Prime Minister and other politicians taking part in a Sunday church service on the estate (Kristeligt Dagblad, 2009). The centre-right government, in office from 2001 to 2011, can be criticised for having used troubled housing estates as a platform for re-election and the two sides in parliament tried to outdo each other in proposing measures to combat these ‘ghettos’ (Regeringen, 2010; S and SF, 2010). In October 2011, however, the new Social Democrat Minister of Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs and the Copenhagen Mayor of Employment and Integration issued a press release announcing an end to the use of the stigmatising word ‘ghetto’. There would be no more ‘ghetto lists’ or ‘ghetto strategies’ (Hansen and Allerslev, 2011).

Case study: the Bispehaven estate, Aarhus Introduction Located in the western part of Aarhus, Bispehaven provides a good example of the 35 year renewal history of a troubled social housing estate (Vestergaard, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2009a, 2009b; Christiansen et al, 1991, 1993). Built between 1969 and 1973, Bispehaven was a relatively large estate of almost 900 dwellings, some of which are in high-rise blocks. The built-up area is densely utilised and part of the estate is dominated by underground parking from which the main entrances to the high-rise blocks could be accessed without control. The estate had a difficult start being located on the very outskirts of Aarhus, the second largest city in Denmark. The project was initiated by the small municipality of Hasle in an attempt to increase the local population and to maintain its position as an independent municipality. This strategy failed and Hasle was merged with Aarhus in 1970 when a national municipal reform resulted in the merger of more than 1,000 Danish municipalities into 277. The estate was originally planned as part of a major centre with extensive shopping and public transport facilities but it was not until about 20 years later that these began to match what originally had been planned. In 2007, the estate had 2,418 residents, 0.7 per cent of all residents in Aarhus. Compared to Aarhus, there was an overrepresentation of children, young people, single parent households and residents from 34

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

non-western countries. Second generation immigrants and nonwestern residents comprised 70  per cent of the local population compared with 10 per cent in Aarhus. Five per cent of all those in Aarhus who receive disability pension and social security benefits reside in Bispehaven and only 30  per cent of the residents are in employment, compared with 50 per cent for all of Aarhus. Bispehaven has been through two major renewal programmes, the first at the end of the 1980s when some of the larger flats were subdivided into two smaller flats; flat roofs were repaired; eye-catching coloured parapets were mounted on balconies and the landscaping improved (Christiansen et al, 1993). Despite this subdivision of some flats into smaller units, the estate still has many relatively large flats for families. The second programme was completed in 2009. Here the focus was on strengthening social life and communication. The programme also included adding new façades; glazed balconies; insulation and heating systems; door telephones; renovated entrances and parking facilities. Buildings for common use were the subject of major refurbishment with intensive social work and counselling provided for residents (Vestergaard, 2009b). In 2013 a new three-year programme was introduced with the aim of enhancing the quality of life of residents, to make Bispehaven a safe and attractive residential area (Østjysk Bolig, 2013). Figures 2.4 and 2.5 provide an indication of the impact of the renewal work undertaken prior to 2013.

The turnaround of Bispehaven Bispehaven has always had a low status in the local housing market, and only its location in a large, growing city with Denmark’s second largest university has saved it from having serious letting problems. The policy of the estate in the 1990s was to offer good housing at a discount price, and because of this, it was known as the ‘Netto of the housing market’. Until the renovations were completed in 2009, the waiting list for the estate had been relatively short. To a large extent, its tenants had been people wanting a foothold in the local housing market when moving from elsewhere in Denmark, or who had ended up there as they needed to live in social housing. Benefiting from the spacious flats, one of the largest concentrations of Somalis in Denmark lives there and the estate hosts the Aarhus Somali Women’s Association. The estate’s social problems were unaffected by the first renewal programme. Over 80 per cent of the residents remained dependent on benefits and 20 per cent remained unemployed. An increasing number of residents had a refugee background. A concentration of 35

Renewing Europe’s housing Figure 2.4: Bispehaven before renewal

Photo: Claus Bech-Danielsen

Figure 2.5: Bispehaven after renewal

Photo: Claus Bech-Danielsen

36

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

anti-social young people adversely affected the area and criminal incidents ruined its reputation, but the situation then changed due to a new and more professional management approach introduced after the physical improvements had been made. The estate and the housing organisation to which it belongs were almost synonymous, and until the early 1990s they were run by the same group of people. The tenants’ board had failed to get a grip on managing such a large and technically complex estate and, as social problems escalated in the early 1980s, the situation deteriorated. There were several attempts by the tenants’ and the organisation’s boards to improve the situation by starting new social activities, but they always failed due to internal conflicts and employees leaving. Things started to improve only when a new manager was employed from outside the housing organisation. This led to a more professional approach to meeting social problems, with new staff such as social workers employed by the housing organisation. A local authority social services office was established on the estate at the request of the housing organisation, to meet the needs of refugee children.

Conclusion Since the latest renovation project was completed in 2009, Bispehaven has been performing well compared with neighbouring estates which are now attracting more negative attention. Bispehaven has a strong management team dedicated to standing up for the estate and improving its image including meeting the press in person. The managers are accessible to residents who in turn support their work. The allocation system has changed so that applicants who live on benefits or who do not have a connection to the labour market cannot get a flat even if they are next on the waiting list. Finally, the municipality does not use its right to allocate a tenant to every fourth vacancy. Applicants are referred instead to a flat in a less deprived housing estate in Aarhus. The programme introduced in 2013 is evidence of the continued commitment to meeting challenges on the estate and to improving residents’ everyday lives.

Conclusions and lessons learned Housing renewal in Denmark was until 1983 a rather isolated activity, mostly concentrated on individual buildings and less on wider areas or neighbourhoods. Until that year, the aim was to bring older dwellings up to a modern standard through the provision or improvement of 37

Renewing Europe’s housing

basic amenities. Demolition followed by new construction had become very unpopular. An additional focus after the oil crisis of 1973 was on improving energy efficiency and the aim in the twenty-first century is to reduce consumption of non-renewable energy by 75 per cent by 2020. More than 90 per cent of the housing stock that Danes are going to live in by that year has already been built so renovation to reduce energy consumption is very important. Local municipalities and housing organisations have much more responsibility to involve local residents than before. The Urban Renewal Law introduced in 1983 and residents being given a majority on the boards of social housing organisations in 1984 opened up genuine resident participation. Holistic plans concentrate effort on spatially defined areas but with a wider focus, often including local democracy and participation, culture, education and job training. Urban renewal policy has changed from a short-term emphasis on housing renewal to a more long-term and continuous effort to promote sustainability and improve residents’ quality of life in lowincome areas with poorly designed and badly constructed housing, and where management and maintenance are inadequate. In Denmark, the focus of housing and urban renewal has moved from physical intervention, and demolishing and upgrading buildings to an integrated multi-sectoral approach to advance social sustainability. Empowerment and capacity building have become key issues: renewal is now a process undertaken with residents and not to them or for them. The successive improvement programmes developed for the Bispehaven estate since the 1980s can be seen as a transition to a permanent and overall plan. The main lessons learnt from renewal policy, programmes and schemes can be summarised as: • Working with residents can secure better results and reduces the potential for conflict. Residents’ involvement and participation in planning and decision making have advanced housing renewal. In turn, area-based initiatives in troubled housing estates have enhanced the responsibilities of municipalities and housing organisations. • Despite the economic recession since 2007, tenants’ democracy and the accumulation of money in the National Building Fund are making possible the refurbishment of social housing, including energy efficient renewal programmes.

38

Denmark: From physical improvement to holistic renewal

• Reinvestment in the existing stock in the form of housing renewal, refurbishment and area improvement has received greater political priority during periods of recession, for example, since 2007. • Successively tightened energy performance specifications in the Danish Building Regulations have promoted energy efficient new building since 1961. Tightened specification on energy performance is required when refurbishing older housing to ensure better energy performance in the longer run. • Keeping a balance between investment costs and the value of energy savings is very important in order not to arrest re-investment in the housing stock. Although such activities are promoted through various subsidies, consultancy and promotional activities, energy measures in the existing stock are not yet mandatory. • The construction sector and construction workers lobby for reinvestment when private households and investors are reluctant to invest in a declining market. On the one hand, under-used capacity in the construction sector can be utilised, on the other, households and private investors are reluctant to invest when real estate values are falling. Special subsidies and tax deductions can help to promote employment as well as environmentally sustainable renovations. • Securing and improving the quality of the existing housing stock is essential to maintain a supply of good quality housing. The level of new construction is insignificant compared with the total supply of housing from the existing stock. Notes Resulting from decisions by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the supply of oil to many western countries was dramatically reduced, leading to a quadrupling of oil prices in 1973–74, with further inflationary effects not only in Western Europe but across much of the developed world. The background to this was largely political, relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict and to the abandonment in the early 1970s of fixed currency exchange rates which had resulted in a decline in dollar oil revenues to OPEC countries. 1

The National Building Fund [Landsbyggefonden] (originally named The National Building Fund of Non-Profit Housing Organisations [Boligselskabernes Landsbyggefond]) was established following a major political agreement on housing in 1966. The aim of the Fund is to increase

2

39

Renewing Europe’s housing self-financing in the non-profit housing sector. The fund is a self-owning institution established by non-profit housing organisations and set up by law. Lov om byfornyelse og boligforbedring, lov nr. 300 af 9. juni 1982. I kraft 1. januar 1983 [Law on Urban Renewal and Housing Improvement. Law number 300 of 9 June 1982. Became effective from 1 January 1983.] 3

Lov om omprioritering m.v. af visse almennyttige boligafdelinger og om ændring af lov om realkreditinstitutter og lov om boligbyggeri, Lov nr. 248 af 6 June 1985 [Law on refinancing etc of certain non-profit housing estates and amending the law on mortgage credit institutions and the law on housing, Law number 248 of 6 June 1985]. 4

40

THREE

Housing renewal in England Christopher Watson and Richard Turkington

Introduction In England in 2011, nearly 5 million dwellings, or 21 per cent of the housing stock, had been built before the end of the First World War and almost 60 per cent were more than fifty years old. It is not surprising, therefore, that the renewal of housing has been and remains an important focus for public policy. The earliest policies, developed from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, were a response to the inadequate and often life-threatening conditions under which many people lived, and led to the clearance or reconditioning of some of the worst housing. This process continued into the early part of the twentieth century and was followed after the Second World War by large-scale programmes of slum clearance and redevelopment. Then came a period when much of the older housing stock was seen as a national asset to be protected and improved, with substantial public resources being provided for housing and environmental improvement, first in the private and then in the public sector. By 2010, nearly threequarters of the housing in England met the statutory ‘decent home standard’ but over a quarter (nearly 6 million dwellings) did not. These non-decent dwellings are found in all tenures but 87 per cent of them are in the private sector, including 23 per cent in the private rented sector. The poor quality of this non-decent housing is reflected in the high carbon emissions attributable to housing in England; and in the problem of fuel poverty, estimated to affect 2.3 million households in 2012. These are serious issues which have become more serious over time as housing renewal policy, especially in the private sector and particularly from the 1990s, has had less prominence than in the past. Against this background, the chapter has two main aims: first, to summarise the principal housing renewal interventions, especially since the 1960s, in terms of innovations and policy themes, tracing in particular the progression from approaches that were mainly propertyfocused to those of a more holistic nature. The intention is not to 41

Renewing Europe’s housing

review each intervention in detail but rather to highlight the main changes of emphasis in policy over time. The second aim is to review recent developments in housing improvement and renewal policy, especially those that have come into force in the early years of the twenty-first century. The main part of the chapter is structured around topics that have characterised housing renewal policy in England from the 1960s onwards. These are: the development of the area approach to housing renewal in both the private and public sectors; changes to and the eventual withdrawal of the grant system for private sector renewal; the change from the ‘unfitness’ standard to the ‘decent home standard’; and the development of policies relating to fuel poverty and energy efficiency in existing housing. A case study of area improvement in Birmingham is followed by a concluding section on the continuing scale of the problem of housing conditions in England, and prospects and questions for the future. Throughout the UK, a similar policy framework exists and similar approaches to housing renewal have been followed but this chapter refers mainly to England, reflecting that housing, planning and local government in other parts of the UK are among the policy areas devolved since the late 1990s to the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Government.

The housing stock According to the English Housing Survey 2011 (DCLG, 2013) there are an estimated 22.8 million dwellings in England. The largest single property type in 2011 was terraced houses (28 per cent) followed by semi-detached (26 per cent), detached houses (17 per cent) and bungalows (9 per cent). Twenty per cent of all dwellings were flats, most of which were purpose-built and low rise. Only 4 per cent of housing consisted of converted flats and 2 per cent were purpose built high-rise flats. At the 2011 Census, 63 per cent of households in England were owner occupiers and the rest were tenants, split between the private rented (17  per cent) and social rented sectors (18  per cent). The tenure profile has changed significantly since the previous Census in 2001. Households renting privately have increased from 2.0 million in 2001 to 3.7 million in 2011; and the proportion of households in owner occupation has fallen from 69 per cent in 2001 to 63 per cent in 2011. In 2001, 2.7 million households were local authority tenants (13 per cent of all households) but by 2011 this had reduced to 42

Housing renewal in England

2.1 million (9 per cent of households), mainly through the transfer of local authority housing to housing associations. Over the same period, the number of households renting from housing associations increased from 1.2 to 1.8 million. Twenty-one per cent of dwellings were built before 1919 with marked variations by tenure (Table 3.1). The highest proportion of older housing built before 1919 is in the private rented sector (37 per cent) followed by the owner-occupied sector (20 per cent). Seventeen per cent of all housing dates from 1919-44 and 20 per cent from 194564. Table 3.1: Dwellings by tenure and age: England, 2011

Age of dwellings

Tenure Rented Rented from from housing All local Owner- Privately occupied rented authority association tenures Percentages (rounded)

Pre-1919

 20

 37

  5

  9

 21

1919–44

 19

 13

 15

  9

 17

1945–64

 19

 12

 38

 24

 20

1965–80

 21

 15

 34

 25

 21

1981–90

  9

  7

  6

 12

  8

Post 1990

 13

 17

  2

 22

 13

All dwellings Number of dwellings (’000s)

100

100

100

100

100

14,765

4,017

1,883

2,090

22,754

Source: English Housing Survey: Homes 2011 (DCLG, 2013)

The policy background Since the mid-nineteenth century, problems of housing shortage and housing quality have been at the heart of housing policy in the UK. The links between bad housing conditions, inadequate sanitation and the poor health of the population gave rise to the concept of housing ‘unfit for human habitation’. The Artisans and Labourers Dwellings Act 1868 (the Torrens Act) empowered local authorities to close, demolish or require owners to improve insanitary housing. An important principle was that the Act placed responsibility on the landlord or owner for the state of their dwelling: if it was ‘unfit’ they could be required to repair it, failing which the local authority could condemn and demolish it without compensation, leaving the owner with the land (Yelling, 1992, 11). These measures were used widely 43

Renewing Europe’s housing

in towns and cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds (Moore, 1980) and many houses were subject to ‘reconditioning’ rather than closure or clearance. The Artisans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act 1875 (the Cross Act) sought to provide new housing in areas of slum clearance, but housing reformers, notably Octavia Hill, argued for reconditioning as a more effective way of improving the housing of the poor than creating new tenancies in newly built housing (built to the higher standards resulting from the Public Health Act 1875) which could not be afforded by those on lower incomes. Later legislation, in particular the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, supported the practice of reconditioning which continued well into the twentieth century. In Birmingham, for example: [using the 1890 Act] the City carried out a large programme of private sector improvement, compelling or persuading owners to thoroughly repair and improve their property with the installation of damp proof courses and basic amenities. By 1913, over 28,000 houses had been ‘completely repaired’ in this way. (Briggs, 1952, 86) In the 1920s and 1930s, reconditioning continued to be favoured by local authorities in preference to slum clearance and the often costly and sometimes politically contested development of council housing, and for the same reason: poor households could not afford the relatively high rents of the newly built council houses. At this time, although in many towns and cities reconditioning took place on a large scale there were no grants for improvements and repairs, except in rural areas following the Housing (Rural Workers) Act 1926. In the period from 1919 to 1930, according to Bowley (1945, 147): only 17,000 persons had been rehoused under slum clearance schemes…more progress had been made in reconditioning houses and in forcing landlords either to carry out repairs and alterations or to repay local authorities who did the work – about 300,000 houses had been made fit for habitation in this way each year. Legislation in the 1930s was marked by renewed emphasis on slum clearance and the relief of overcrowding but the Housing Act 1930 (the Greenwood Act) provided also for the declaration of ‘improvement areas’ in which dwellings would be raised to statutory fitness standards, 44

Housing renewal in England

overcrowding abated and environmental improvements carried out (Murie, 1983, 44). According to Moore (1980, 48) between 1930 and 1936 (the improvement area provisions were repealed in 1935), 123,000 properties were made fit as a result of formal action under the Act and a further 332,000 made fit outside the provisions of the Act. Typically, the reconditioning work included repairs and improvements such as the addition of sculleries, bathrooms, internal water closets and food stores, and improvements to the environment of the housing, with selective demolition where necessary (Moore, 1980, 77). One of the factors favouring reconditioning was that the 1930s were a time of ‘savage public expenditure cuts’ (Moore, 1980, 45), following a period of rising expenditure by local authorities in the 1920s and the effects of the depression of the 1930s. A feature of the period from the 1860s to the Second World War was the variety of approaches adopted by local authorities to the problem of poor quality housing in their areas. Some favoured clearance and new building, while others preferred reconditioning, or a mix of both approaches. These different practices at local level, often reflecting different political perspectives, were influential over time in shaping the development of policies at national level. After the Second World War, the country faced a serious housing shortage: there was a determination by many politicians and their advisers to create a ‘new world’ in place of the old. New housing was to be provided on a large scale, new towns established and the condition of the existing housing stock was to be improved to higher standards than in the past. The Housing Act 1949 enabled local authorities in both urban and rural areas to provide discretionary grants for private sector house improvement. The grants were not for repairs but for ‘improvement’ including the installation of basic amenities such as a bath, a water closet and a piped water supply. This did not, however, benefit the worst of the housing stock and improvement standards were relaxed in the Housing Repairs and Rent Act 1954 and again in the Housing Financial Provisions Act 1958. Many of those who benefited from these changes were neither private tenants nor their landlords but rather owner occupiers, many of whom had bought their houses as sitting tenants in anticipation of or following the rent deregulation provisions of the Rent Act 1957. A further attempt to encourage improvement was made in the Housing Act 1964 which enabled local authorities to declare ‘improvement areas’ but it did little to tackle the scale of the problem. The Labour Government elected in 1964 appointed a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee to review the situation 45

Renewing Europe’s housing

and to make recommendations (MHLG, 1966). These formed part of the background to the Housing Act 1969 which put forward the concept of the ‘gradual renewal’ of areas of older housing, and began a shift of emphasis from slum clearance and new building to a process of housing and environmental improvement. The process was aided by both mandatory and discretionary grants to owners for the improvement and repair of older housing that did not meet modern standards but which was judged capable of a ‘useful life’ for at least another 30  years. Residents were to be consulted in this process, both individually and through public meetings arranged by local authorities. These changes brought a new participatory dimension to housing and urban policy.

Developing the area approach to housing renewal Table 3.2 summarises area-based initiatives in England in the period from 1969 to 2012. Thirteen initiatives are listed, in chronological order of their introduction. For each initiative, the aim is summarised, showing for example, an emphasis on the improvement of older housing, as with the General Improvement Areas (GIAs) and Housing Action Areas (HAAs) of the 1970s and 1980s; on regeneration which was the aim of most initiatives from 1988 onwards; or most recently, on housing market renewal, through the Housing Market Renewal Areas, from 2002 to 2011. The housing tenures to which the initiatives were addressed are indicated and the geographic scale of each initiative can be judged from what is shown about its location or focus. Table 3.2 indicates also the emphasis of each initiative: for example, a concern for treating the ‘worst first’, or endeavouring to attract ‘private sector involvement’. Initiatives fall into two main categories. First are those focused mainly on older private sector house improvement and area renewal, from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. The second group, from the late 1980s onwards, developed a more holistic approach, linked to other areas of policy such as employment, training, social services, transport, retailing, environmental improvement and health. Policy aims and issues are summarised, showing where policies such as competitive bidding for government funding, or the meanstesting of eligibility for house improvement grants, were introduced. Community or resident involvement is a theme running throughout the period and this is indicated on a simple scale of ‘consultation’, ‘participation’ or ‘control’.

46

Period

1969–89

1974–89

1979–87

Initiative

General Improvement Areas (GIAs)

Housing Action Areas (HAAs)

Enveloping

Older housing (pre‑1919)

Location/focus

Housing Street blocks of improvement/area mainly terraced renewal older housing (pre‑1919)

Housing and Older housing environmental (pre‑1919) improvement/area renewal

Improvement of housing and its immediate environment

Aims

Private

Private

Private

Policy aims and issues

Consultation

Community involvement

Experimental approach to neighbourhood renewal, with an emphasis on supporting owner occupation.

Implemented by local authorities acting as agents on behalf of owners, especially in major cities. External and environmental works were done. Internal repairs and improvements were the responsibility of the owners and could be grant-aided.

(continued)

Consultation

Gradual renewal/more Some housing association Consultation holistic area focus. Size: involvement. about 500 houses. Stronger criteria for selection/anti-gentrification objectives. Saving housing from demolition.

Property focused. Small A major shift in housing areas of 300–800 policy. Renewal not houses. replacement. Gentrification became an issue.

Tenure Emphasis

Table 3.2: Housing renewal: area-based initiatives in England, 1969–2012

Housing renewal in England

47

48

Regeneration/new homes

1989–date

City Challenge

1991–98

Design-led improvement

1989–94

Design Improvement Controlled Experiment (DICE) Renewal Areas (RAs)

Housing Action Trusts (HATs)

1986–94 (then became part of SRB) 1988–2007

Estate Action Programme (EAP)

Location/focus

Regeneration

Housing improvement/area renewal Regeneration/new homes

Public

31 deprived areas

135 older housing areas

5 housing estates

Mixed

Private

Public

Worst first. Holistic focus, including jobs, training and economic development. Private sector involvement. To examine the influence of spatial organisation and design on social behaviour. More holistic than previous GIAs and HAAs. Size: 1,000 to 3,000 dwellings. Holistic, with employment and housing as prominent elements. Private sector and local community involvement expected.

Worst first. Local management. First public sector housing estates renewal. Worst first.

Tenure Emphasis

317 housing estates. Public 490,000 dwellings improved 5 housing estates Public + Liverpool tower blocks

Housing 20 housing estates improvement/area renewal

1979–87

Priority Estates Project (PEP)

Aims

Period

Initiative

Means testing of grants: improvement has declined ever since. Local authorities initiate and manage RAs. Competitive bidding for financial resources. Local authorities have central role in management.

Design-led improvement and project evaluation.

Competitive bidding for funds. Design improvement. Private sector involvement sought. Creating estate-based, nonlocal authority control. High level of resources. 10 year timescale.

Problem estates. Focus on effective management and use of existing resources.

Policy aims and issues

(continued)

Consultation

Consultation

Consultation

Control, for example, through ballots.

Consultation

Participation/ representation

Community involvement

Renewing Europe’s housing

Period

1994–2008

1995–2000

1998–2010

2002–11

Initiative

Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (ERCF)

New Deal for Communities (NDC)

Housing Market Renewal Areas/ Pathfinders (HMRAs)

Housing market renewal/new homes

Social inclusion regeneration/new homes

Regeneration/new homes

Regeneration

Aims

9 + 3 pathfinder areas in the Midlands and North of England containing 970,000 dwellings. By 2011 108,000 had been refurbished and 30,000 demolished; and private investment had been attracted for over 15,000 new homes.

39 housing estates/ areas

38 housing estates/45,000 dwellings

Older areas

Location/focus

Mixed but mainly private

Mixed

Public

Mixed

Reposition areas in the market. Each area contained at least 80,000 and in two cases as many as 130,000 dwellings.

Worst first. Inclusive and holistic.

Private sector involve­ ment encouraged. Brought together many existing government budgets into one programme. Worst first. Private sector involvement.

Tenure Emphasis

Subsidy (‘dowry’) to enable transfer. Competition for funding. Private sector involvement expected. Community engagement. 10 year time-scale. Aimed to achieve many placerelated and people-related improvements. Focus on large areas of low demand and housing abandonment. Housing investment linked with economic development and strategic planning. A 15 year time-scale was envisaged but the programme was ended prematurely, with limited funding for transition.

Focus on social, economic, housing and health issues: the first really holistic approach.

Policy aims and issues

Consultation

Control, for example, through ballots.

Control, for example, through ballots

Consultation

Community involvement

Housing renewal in England

49

Renewing Europe’s housing

Improving public sector housing When area-based improvement policies were introduced in 1969, their main target was poor quality older private housing in urban areas. This remained the case throughout the 1970s and much of the 1980s. Alongside this, however, following research by the Department of the Environment on difficult-to-let council estates (DoE, 1981) a small experimental programme was started in 1979: the Priority Estates Project (PEP) which focused on public sector housing and the improvement of housing management by decentralisation and tenant involvement. The focus on council housing was an important change of direction and although the government continued to support and to encourage private sector house improvement throughout much of the 1980s, these initiatives in the public sector influenced housing management practice more generally by showing that the design and management of housing were important factors affecting its popularity and acceptability to tenants. Another example was the Estate Action Programme introduced in 1986, which gave local authorities the opportunity to bid for capital resources to improve difficult or ‘problem’ estates and encouraged housing associations to become involved in their improvement. This was a time when government was trying to begin the large-scale voluntary transfer of local authority housing into the ownership of new housing organisations, including housing associations created for the purpose, and problem estates were seen an obstacle to this process.

The role of housing associations Housing associations, many of which had their origins in the nineteenth century, played a small but important part in the provision of rented housing including the improvement of older housing between the wars, especially in major cities such as London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds. At the time of the Housing Act 1974 which, among other things, strengthened the role and financing of housing associations, there was a view that associations might eventually take over from the then rapidly declining private rented sector to provide low-cost rented accommodation in urban areas, but many ‘new-build’ associations, mainly those established in the 1960s and later, did not have a major role in GIAs and HAAs and were reluctant to become landlords of older properties. By the late 1980s, a very different future for housing associations was in sight (Pawson and Mullins, 2010), with 50

Housing renewal in England

opportunities for them to work alongside or to take the place of local authorities in improving some of the worst public sector housing estates in the country. Later initiatives, including both the Housing Action Trusts, initially put forward in 1988, and the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (ERCF) from 1995 involved improvement and investment, but only if there was a transfer of local authority housing to new social landlords and the encouragement of tenure diversity through the provision of housing association and private sector housing in their designated areas. ERCF was designed for estates with a negative market value, requiring government to pay a ‘dowry’ as part of a business plan involving the transfer of ownership of the stock and a programme of repair and modernisation. Of benefit here was the ability of housing associations from 1988 to access private sector funding for their work, which made them attractive partners, especially when local government funding was limited.

Community involvement An important change of emphasis over time was in the level of community involvement in housing renewal. Public participation had been a theme of housing and planning policies in the 1970s and the GIA and HAA programmes involved not only consultation with individual households but also public meetings of local residents. Because of the nature of the project, a higher level of resident involvement came with the Priority Estates Project in the 1980s. By the 1990s, the new ‘entrepreneurial’ culture favoured by the Conservative government gave rise to ‘competitive bidding’ in which local authorities with the most serious problems were ‘invited’ to bid for government backed financial resources. To do this, evidence was required of the involvement of local communities. This approach strongly encouraged local authorities to work differently: they had to put together plans to regenerate neighbourhoods and areas, in partnership with businesses, the community, the voluntary sector and other public bodies (Atkinson and Cope, 1997, 211). The strongest level of community involvement in all the initiatives reviewed here was in the Housing Action Trusts (HATs) (Beazley and Smith, 2004; Mornement, 2005), the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (ERCF) projects and, more recently, the New Deal for Communities (NDC) (Batty et  al, 2010a; 2010b). In the HATs and ERCF, the support of tenants through ballots to approve housing stock transfers was essential to the success of the projects. 51

Renewing Europe’s housing

The scale of intervention Area-based interventions have differed considerably over time in their geographical scale. General Improvement Areas were envisaged as quite small areas containing between 300 and 800 houses. Housing Action Areas were to consist of about 500 houses. Renewal Areas, their successor under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, were, however, to have a minimum of 1,000 and possibly up to 3,000 dwellings, while the Housing Market Renewal Areas (HMRAs) introduced in 2002 were much more ambitious: each included within their boundaries at least 80,000 dwellings and in two cases over 130,000 dwellings. Most public sector housing estates targeted for renewal have tended to include larger numbers of dwellings than most private sector schemes. For example, the Priority Estates Project, which began in 1979, focused initially on 20 estates ranging in size from about 270 to 1,900 dwellings, while the NDC areas of 1998 to 2010 averaged about 3,000 dwellings. These differences reflect the evolving objectives of the different programmes and their increasingly holistic nature over time, although at the operational level, however large the programme as a whole, the neighbourhood invariably is seen as the appropriate scale at which to develop interventions, especially if the community is to be fully engaged.

The focus of intervention Some housing renewal policies have been national in their focus and others much more targeted. General Improvement Areas, Housing Action Areas and Renewal Areas were nationwide policies in that any local authority could declare such areas if the specified criteria could be met and if the declaration was approved by the government. Other interventions have been applied more selectively. The Priority Estates Project and the Design Improvement Controlled Experiment (Table 3.2) were on quite a small scale and were intended as demonstration projects that might be followed elsewhere. The ‘competitive’ programmes such as City Challenge and the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund involved bidding for limited resources and could not be implemented widely. The later initiatives, New Deal for Communities and Housing Market Renewal, were targeted on specific areas determined by central government. In fact, targeting, whether of individuals (for example, through means-tested improvement grants) or areas became an intrinsic part of the approach to housing renewal in England. 52

Housing renewal in England

Many area-based interventions since the late 1980s have focused on problematic public sector housing. The problems of older private sector housing continue to be addressed in Renewal Areas, introduced in 1989; and were central to the HMRAs introduced from 2002 and terminated in 2011 by the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government formed after the election of 2010. The Housing Market Renewal Programme was a response to long standing processes of decline and abandonment in parts of the Midlands and North of England. Nine ‘HMR Pathfinders’ were created, and three further areas were added in 2005. These areas had ‘high concentrations of people with low incomes, high levels of worklessness, high vacancy rates and low house prices relative to surrounding areas. They contained 42 per cent of the most seriously deprived neighbourhoods in England’ (Leather et al, 2012, 6). Eight of the nine pathfinders covered parts of more than one local authority, making collaborative or partnership working essential, not only between local authorities but also with other organisations. Pathfinder boards included representatives from regional bodies, developers, financial institutions and consultants. Like the New Deal for Communities, the HMR programme was about much more than housing, though it was concern about housing problems that gave rise to the programme in the first place. Pathfinders were charged with ‘the development and delivery of wide-ranging strategic plans for their housing markets, to deal with the root causes of problems and not just displace them’ (Audit Commission, 2011). It was envisaged that funds would be allocated to the programme for a period of 15 years. In many respects, HMR Pathfinders were very successful. Unusually, their strategies were developed locally, rather than under a blueprint laid down by central government, and they were generously funded. The designated areas contained a mix of tenures, including older private housing, both owned and rented, and social housing. There were criticisms, however, for example of the extent of demolition proposed and carried out, while English Heritage, the government agency responsible for the historic environment, raised concerns ‘that the architectural and historic significance of target areas (many of them highly valued by the local community, despite suffering severe economic and environmental losses) needed to be assessed before redevelopment master plans were formulated in detail’ (English Heritage, 2010, 4). More strident criticism came from the campaign group Save Britain’s Heritage, while some academic commentators argued that the plans developed for the pathfinders were contrary to the wishes of local people, and that the ‘evidence-base’ of the 53

Renewing Europe’s housing

programmes was interpreted in one way by the professionals and in another by residents, with the outcomes being unwanted demolitions and state-led or state-facilitated gentrification. For a review and discussion of these critiques, see Cole (2012). By the time the programme was prematurely terminated in 2011, over £2.2  billion had been invested directly in it, with a further £1  billion of investment through public and private partners. By March 2011 (Audit Commission, 2011, 4), pathfinders had refurbished more than 108,000 existing homes; attracted private investment to complete over 15,000 new homes; readied substantial sites for future development through selective acquisition and clearance of up to 30,000 properties; generated some £5.8  billion of economic activity across the economy; created some 19,000 jobs in construction and related industries; and helped maintain over 2,600 jobs in the construction industry each year.

Private sector grants As noted earlier, legislation enabling local authorities to give grants for private sector improvement was introduced in 1926 for housing in rural areas; and in 1949 for housing in all areas. In 1969, the scheme was made mandatory, to support the policy of gradual renewal for both individual properties and areas of older housing; and the availability of grant aid for improvement and repair was an important factor in the success of the programme in the 1970s and 1980s, including experimental schemes where grant aid was pooled to improve housing externally on a block-by-block basis.1 In a significant change of policy, however, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 introduced means-testing for improvement and repair grants, though mandatory grants continued to be available for those living in ‘unfit’ property whose incomes qualified them for assistance. Further legislation in 1996 made all grants discretionary, except those to install facilities for the disabled. The view developed over the previous decade (a view similar to that which underlay the Torrens Act of 1868) was that owners should have the main responsibility for the improvement and repair of their housing, a position reinforced in the 1990s by the positive effects of house price inflation on the asset value of most properties. This view did not change with the transition from a Conservative to a Labour government in 1997. The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) 54

Housing renewal in England

(England and Wales) Order 2002 (HMSO, 2002) repealed previous provisions on grant aid for house renovation; gave discretionary powers to local authorities to provide assistance ‘in any form’ (including grants and loans) and to ‘any person’ for the purposes of acquiring, adapting, repairing or improving living accommodation and to demolish and reconstruct residential accommodation. Inadequate government funding to local authorities for private sector housing renewal and the unwillingness of financial institutions to become involved in lending for the improvement of older housing, even before the financial crisis of 2007 onwards, meant, however, that these measures were not very successful (Groves and Sankey, 2005; Groves, 2008). To make a bad situation worse, the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government elected in 2010 ended funding for private sector renewal work with effect from March 2011, as part of its ‘comprehensive review’ of public spending.

Decent homes The gradual withdrawal of private sector improvement grants from the 1990s onwards was followed by a significant change in the definition and assessment of the condition of housing. Until 2001, the standard of ‘fitness for human habitation’ was the minimum standard for housing in England. This standard, first introduced in the nineteenth century and modified occasionally since then, provided the basis for decisions on clearance and improvement. It was essentially a public health standard and was widely criticised as no longer an adequate standard for the twenty-first century. It applied to all housing in all tenures and although it was used mainly to assess conditions in the private sector, the regular national house condition surveys showed that unfitness was also present in the social rented sector: for example in 1996, 7 per cent of local authority housing and 5 per cent in the housing association sector was unfit. The corresponding figure in the owner-occupied sector was 6 per cent and in the private rented sector, 19 per cent (ODPM, 1998). In 2001, the Labour Government introduced the ‘decent home standard’ requiring a dwelling to meet the current minimum standard; to be in a reasonable state of repair; to have reasonably modern facilities and services; and to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. At the same time, proposals were being developed for a new system of assessing the condition of the housing stock. Introduced following the Housing Act 2004, the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), was designed to evaluate the effects of 29 55

Renewing Europe’s housing

potential hazards on the inhabitants of a property. The HHSRS is not a minimum standard but a means of avoiding or at least minimising potential hazards (DCLG, 2006a: 5; ODPM, 2006); it uses a risk assessment approach to enable risks from hazards to health and safety in dwellings to be minimised. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System since 2006 has contributed to the decent home standard. For a dwelling to be considered ‘decent’ it must • meet the statutory minimum standard for housing; dwellings posing a Category 1 hazard2 under the HHSRS are considered ‘nondecent’; • be in a reasonable state of repair; • have reasonably modern facilities and services; • provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. (DCLG, 2012a, 59) In 2000, the government made the commitment, through the Decent Homes Programme, to bring all social sector housing up to the decent home standard by 2010. The scale of the problem was evident in the statement that ‘it would cost about £19 billion just to bring the worst council housing up to a decent modern standard’ (DETR, 2000, 8). The number of non-decent local authority dwellings in 2001 was just under 1.2 million, or 42 per cent of all local authority dwellings. In the housing association sector, there were 472,000 non-decent dwellings, or 33 per cent of a total of 1.4 million housing association dwellings. Making a home decent can involve work in any or all of the four categories that comprise the definition of a ‘decent home’ (for example, DCLG, 2006b), including dealing with inadequate or unsatisfactory building components, making the house energy efficient with adequate heating facilities, replacing outdated kitchen and bathroom amenities and rewiring. These are or can be substantial activities and substantial resources were required to achieve them. By 2011, the proportion of dwellings that were non-decent had fallen to 18 per cent in the local authority sector and 16 per cent in the housing association sector. The proportion of all non-decent housing by tenure was 61 per cent owner-occupied, 26 per cent private rented, 6 per cent rented from local authorities and 6  per cent rented from housing associations (DCLG, 2013). The decent home standard applies to housing in both public and private sectors but there has been no centrally planned programme to bring all private housing up to the standard. Reviewing progress towards the Labour government’s target of ‘a decent home for all’, the 56

Housing renewal in England

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee published in 2010 their report on the future of the Decent Homes Programme (House of Commons, 2010). Referring to the work done in the social housing sector, the committee concluded: The decent homes programme has had a dramatic, positive effect on the living conditions of almost all social housing tenants by putting very significant resources into tangible improvements to social housing. We applaud the Government, local authorities and their partner organisations for the tenacity with which they have pursued the ten year goal and the results they have achieved. The decent homes standard is, nonetheless, a low standard, which makes it all the more shocking that nearly 40 per cent of social homes were below that level in 2001; and all the more encouraging that so many landlords have gone beyond the standard in the improvements they have carried out. (p 14) Among issues still to be tackled were: how the backlog was to be dealt with; and what could be done to ensure that, once improved, housing did not slip back into ‘non-decency’. By contrast, the Committee’s conclusions are striking on the relative lack of progress in the private sector: [It is] a huge missed opportunity that the considerable political will demonstrated by the Government in raising social sector housing to the decent home standard has not been matched by similar energies with respect to the private sector; and that the policy in the private sector appears to have failed. (p 78)

Fuel poverty, energy efficiency, the Green Deal and housing Issues of energy efficiency in housing, fuel poverty among households and affordable warmth (Boardman, 1991) have become important policy concerns over the past 30 years and are within the remit of several government departments, at present the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Communities and Local Government. Following the UN conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the adoption of Agenda 57

Renewing Europe’s housing

21 as a global plan of action to achieve sustainable development in the twenty-first century, the coming into force of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 placed a duty on local housing authorities to reduce CO2 emissions in the housing sector by 30 per cent over a period of 10 to 15 years. In 1998, a White Paper Saving lives: Our healthier nation (DH, 1999) said: Many people live in homes which do not use energy efficiently. This pushes up the cost of household fuel bills. These people are likely to be the most vulnerable members of society – those with low incomes, families with young children and older people. We have reviewed our entire fuel poverty policy to see how we can bring extra help to those vulnerable people. (para. 4.31) The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 required the publication of a strategy to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that no one lives in fuel poverty. The UK Fuel Policy Strategy was published in 2001 (DTI, 2001). It defined a household as being in fuel poverty if it needed to spend more than 10 per cent of its income on fuel to maintain satisfactory heating: usually 21 degrees Celsius for the main living area, and 18 degrees for other occupied rooms. On this definition, the number of fuel-poor households in England was estimated at 5.1 million in 1996, 1.7 million in 2001 and 1.2 million in 2004, rising to 4.0 million in 2009 and 3.5 million in 2010. These fluctuating trends reflected changes in and interactions between incomes, fuel prices and fuel consumption – which is dependent on the lifestyle of the household and the characteristics of their dwelling (DECC, 2012a: 3–4) – and caused the definition to be questioned, as well as suggesting that the target adopted in 2001 of eliminating fuel poverty within 15 years was unlikely to be attained. A new definition was proposed (Hills, 2012) and a new indicator adopted in 2013, under which a household is considered fuel poor if (a) their income is below the poverty line,taking into account energy costs; and (b) their energy costs are higher than is typical for their household type. The indicator also uses a fuel poverty gap: this is the difference between a household’s modelled energy bill and what their bill would need to be for them no longer to be fuel poor. Using this measure, it is calculated that 2.5 million households in England were fuel poor in 2010, with a total fuel poverty gap of £1 billion or £405 per household in fuel poverty.3 A consequence of the new definition, and one of the reasons for adopting it, is that fuel poverty can be seen not as a problem to be 58

Housing renewal in England

eliminated by a specific date but rather as one that requires an ongoing effort to mitigate (DECC, 2013b: 11-13). Thus, under the Energy Act 2013, there is to be a new strategy for addressing fuel poverty in England (DECC, 2014a). Many households at risk receive personal financial assistance with heating costs through benefits such as the Cold Weather Payment (CWP), introduced in 1986 and the Winter Fuel Payment (WFP), introduced in 1997.4 These are important contributions. However, one of the main conclusions of the Hills review of fuel poverty (Hills, 2011, 2012) was that improving the housing of those at risk of fuel poverty is the most cost-effective way of tackling the problem and of cutting energy waste, ‘with large long-term benefits to society as a whole’ (DECC, 2012c). The Decent Homes Programme has played a significant role in improving energy efficiency in the social housing sector. Although the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating5 in all tenures has increased since 1996, it has risen in the social rented sector from 48.6 in 1996 to 61.4 in 2010 and in the private sector from 43.5 in 1996 to 53.7 in 2010 (DCLG, 2012a: 91). In the private sector, measures taken to achieve ‘affordable warmth’ following the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 included the Warm Front scheme, introduced in 2000 to provide insulation and heating improvements in private sector homes, both owned and rented, occupied by people on low incomes. The scheme, funded by the government and delivered by the private sector, closed in 2013. From its inception to the year 2011/12, more than 2.3 million households had been helped with a range of measures including cavity wall insulation (491,000), loft insulation (722,000) and boiler replacements (479,000) (DECC, 2013a). Although the first step in placing energy savings obligations on supplier companies in the UK was in 1994, a ‘supplier obligation’ (SO) has developed over time as the main instrument to reduce carbon emissions in the national housing stock (for a detailed account see Rosenow, 2012) and is administered by the energy industry regulator Ofgem (the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets). Supplier obligations have required energy companies to promote measures which improve domestic energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions and reduce the cost to households of heating their home. The larger companies, those with over 250,000 domestic customers, are responsible for delivering these obligations and financing them through a levy on consumers’ energy bills. No government funding was intended, nor has it been provided.

59

Renewing Europe’s housing

Two recent supplier obligations on energy companies to reduce carbon emissions from homes, CERT and CESP,6 which ran respectively from 2008 and 2009, came to an end in 2012 and a new SO, the Energy Companies Obligation (ECO) was introduced in 2013. This was not like previous obligations with carbon goals able to be achieved across all households. The new targets apply only to lowerincome and vulnerable households and/or certain property types, such as those needing solid wall insulation (DECC, 2011b: 3). There are three ECO schemes: (a) Affordable Warmth, successor to the previous government-funded Warm Front Programme, for improvements to private sector housing that can help low-income and vulnerable households heat their homes better; (b)  the Carbon Emissions Reduction Obligation, which aims to improve energy efficiency in hard to treat properties such as those requiring solid wall insulation;7 and (c) the Carbon Saving Communities Obligation (CSCo), under which at least 20 per cent of the carbon savings measures must be in low-income communities. A sub-objective requires energy suppliers to deliver at least 15 per cent of their CSCo obligation to rural, lowincome households in settlements with a population below 10,000.8 With its emphasis on the needs of lower-income and vulnerable households, the ECO supports the government’s ‘flagship programme’, the Green Deal, which aims to deliver energy efficiency to homes and buildings across the country. Introduced in the Energy Act 2011, the Green Deal came fully into effect in 2013. Its purpose is to enable energy customers (owners or tenants) to receive loans to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes. Services to potential customers are offered by energy advisers and building companies and the Green Deal Finance Company provides ‘low-cost loans’ (the opening interest rate was just under 7 per cent) to the ‘widest possible’ range of consumers. Loans are attached to the property rather than the individual customer; they are repaid as part of the electricity bill and can pass to future occupiers or bill payers. Thus the repayments are always linked to the property that has been improved. There is a so-called ‘golden rule’ that, on average, the repayment instalments should not exceed the savings in energy costs resulting from the improvements carried out. The ECO is intended to underpin the Green Deal for those who cannot afford to take out a loan, and in other cases where the golden rule cannot be met, for example, where required improvements are ‘harder to treat’ and thus more costly than the average. Initial take up of Green Deal plans has been low.9 Incentives were introduced in a ‘cashback’ scheme which in 2014 was succeeded by the 60

Housing renewal in England

Green Deal Home Improvement Fund, where participating domestic energy consumers could receive up to £1,000 ‘money back’ on the costs of installing a minimum of two specified energy improvement measures10 and/or up to £6,000 for installing solid wall insulation.11 Another incentive was the Green Deal Communities scheme which has encouraged local authorities to bid for funds to roll out energy efficiency measures to households on a street-by-street basis. With a budget of £80 million in 2013/14, it was announced that around 32,000 properties in 24 local authority areas in England would benefit from the first round of the scheme which, although on a small scale, is designed to show how communities, especially those living in streets or areas of ‘hard to treat’ properties, can benefit from the Green Deal, thus encouraging further participation. It remains to be seen how effective the various strands of the policy will be, especially among what should be the prime target of low-income fuel-poor owner occupiers and private tenants. In the private rented sector, under the Energy Act 2011, it will be unlawful from April 2018 to rent out a property that does not meet a minimum energy efficiency standard.12 This is intended as a further incentive for Green Deal, ECO and other improvements in the private rented sector. The policy assumes that although the rents of improved properties may increase, the improvements will see a saving in tenants’ energy costs.

Case Study: Summerfield, Birmingham To illustrate the nature of many of the problems that remain and the action that can be taken to deal with them, Box 3.1 presents a case study of housing renewal in the Summerfield area of Birmingham from 2002 to 2011. Summerfield in 2001 was typical of many of England’s older inner urban neighbourhoods. It had nearly 400 late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century terraced and semi-detached houses, many of which were dilapidated and lacking investment. The area was dissected by a busy road and the street scene was dominated by neglected front gardens, litter and parked cars. There were other features, both positive and negative. Summerfield was well located in relation to the city centre. There was a functioning church on a central green surrounded by a triangle of houses, many of which had a grandeur reflecting their original status. In contrast, the area was well known for drug abuse and anti-social behaviour, enabled by the subdivision of houses into flats; and by the presence of hostels, reinforcing a growing sense of transience and insecurity.

61

Renewing Europe’s housing

Box 3.1: Case study: Summerfield, Birmingham, 2002–11 Summerfield is an area north-west of Birmingham city centre consisting of about 400 late nineteenth and early twentieth century terraced and semidetached houses of the Victorian era, many of which were dilapidated and lacked investment. There were three phases of activity: Phase 1: getting started By 2002, local housing and regeneration officers from Birmingham City Council knew that, without intervention, the Summerfield area was in danger of entering a spiral of decline. A central government initiative, the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), provided the opportunity for action when a scheme was funded for the area of north-west Birmingham in which Summerfield is located. The city council and its partners, including Family Housing Association (FHA) which had properties in the area, began discussions with local residents and in 2003, a second government initiative, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) provided funding for detailed consultation with residents. This identified problems with: • • • • • •

high population turnover; anti-social behaviour and drug abuse; environmental problems, including rubbish dumping; traffic and parking problems; the poor appearance of homes and streets; remote private landlords neglecting properties and applying lax lettings policies; • the cost of heating large Victorian homes which caused fuel poverty; • the poor reputation of the area; and • a loss of confidence in the area and frustration about not being able to influence change. In the same year, a third government initiative, the Housing Market Renewal Programme, established the Urban Living scheme for north-west Birmingham and Sandwell, including Summerfield. For almost a decade, this was to provide very significant resources for renewal and the basis for partnership working. Based on a previous residents’ group, the Summerfield Residents’ Association (SRA) was formed in 2004, and a three-way partnership of the SRA, the city council and FHA was established to address local people’s concerns. Phase 2: the programme of intervention A renewal programme was implemented in 2005–06 which combined well established with less conventional interventions, all designed to be highly visible and to tackle the poor perceptions of the area. These consisted of:

62

Housing renewal in England • the restoration of property frontages, with high quality boundary walls, fences and side entry gates in keeping with the Victorian character of the houses. This was applied to all 396 properties irrespective of ownership and was an innovative approach to reclaiming the area’s character, improving security and building local confidence. • the purchase by FHA of a group of 14 homes in the same road, previously used by a private landlord to house asylum seekers, and their conversion into modern family housing for affordable rent or sale. • the purchase by FHA of 10 properties containing over 50 flats and bedsitting rooms to create large family homes for shared ownership. • bringing empty properties back into use, such as the refurbishment of a five-bedroom house for shared ownership, an ‘eyesore’ property which had been boarded-up for 10 years; and • the refurbishment of the church community hall as a meeting place for the SRA, strengthening the Association’s status as a partner in the renewal process. In 2005 and 2006, two social and technical evaluations were undertaken (Housing Vision, 2005a and 2005b) which assessed: • the impact of focusing multiple investment on a single neighbourhood; • the benefits of enabling residents to voice their concerns and be involved in the decision making process; • the effect on longer term and new residents’ satisfaction and perceptions locally; • the changed housing market position of the area; and • the extent to which investment has driven wider change in the area. Problems were reported with unimproved properties, poor environmental maintenance and anti-social behaviour; but the positive impact of intervention was clearly identified: it had strengthened the community and helped secure the future of Summerfield. The area was quieter and safer, housing turnover had reduced and choice increased. Estate agents and lettings agents recognised that the area’s position in the housing market had improved, with private landlords and owners now investing in their properties. Phase 3: establishing an ‘eco-village’ The ‘eco-village’ concept emerged from resident’s concerns over fuel poverty and rising energy bills, and from the promotion of Summerfield as a sustainable neighbourhood. The idea was to apply new technologies to improve existing housing; to improve the physical environment and promote greener lifestyles. An ‘eco show home’ was completed in June 2006 which influenced the deconversion of five Victorian houses to create large family ‘eco-homes’ to let as social housing. The new homes featured green technologies, including recycled

63

Renewing Europe’s housing denim and wool for insulation; air source heat pumps; high-frequency lighting; 100 per cent recycled kitchens; sun pipes and solar panels. An ‘eco-office’ was established in the Church Hall to demonstrate the technologies and provide advice. The ‘eco-village’ has combined specific measures to improve properties with encouraging energy awareness including: • the free installation, in 329 homes where gross household income is less than £20,000 per annum, of solar panels, low-energy heating and super insulation. The panels can deliver up to 60 per cent of each household’s hot water and reduce fuel bills by up to £150 per year (2008 prices); • installing ‘smart meters’ in 50 homes to measure energy efficiency; and • providing ‘eco-packs’ to over 500 households containing energy efficiency information. Links: www. oursummerfield. info/?page_id=73 and www. family-housing.co. uk/Eco+Projects/

The lessons learnt The success of Summerfield as an improvement area and the reason for including it as a case study in this chapter is that it epitomises much of what has been learnt from almost 45 years’ experience of area-based housing renewal in England. Between 2004 and 2010, Summerfield was rated the most improved of 32 neighbourhoods in the ‘Urban Living’ (Birmingham and Sandwell) Housing Market Renewal Area, moving from a ‘marginal’ to a ‘secure’ rating in terms of ‘neighbourhood sustainability’ (Bunker and Browne, 2011). This transformation was made possible through systematic and sustained intervention (Figure 3.1). Summerfield is a prime example of the potential of such an approach for renewing areas of older housing: it is a contemporary embodiment of experience gained and lessons learnt from the many approaches that have been followed in a variety of area-based interventions in England. None of these, nor any of the other approaches discussed in this chapter, has provided all the ‘answers’ but the knowledge and experience gained through them provides important evidence of what works and what does not work in practice. In particular: • A neighbourhood approach: although part of a larger area of similar housing, Summerfield constituted a neighbourhood whose identity was defined by local residents, local government and housing association officers and local property agents. The neighbourhood provided a focus for activity which benefited from the commitment 64

Housing renewal in England Figure 3.1: Examples of housing renewal in the Summerfield area, Birmingham

continued

65

Renewing Europe’s housing Figure 3.1: Examples of housing renewal in the Summerfield area, Birmingham (continued)

Photos: Christopher Watson

and resources of the local community and other agencies. Smallscale neighbourhoods of this type, with about 400 properties, have been shown repeatedly to be an appropriate size for effective action, even when such neighbourhoods are part of much larger projects. • Initiators and partnerships: using their familiarity with the area and access to housing intelligence, the initiative to intervene came from locally based municipal housing and regeneration officers who recognised Summerfield as a vulnerable area with potential for renewal. The good working relationship with the locally based Family Housing Association enabled the application of a partnership approach to intervention in a neighbourhood with a meaningful identity. Many other agencies became involved, contributing expertise and money and often both, but the project remained locally grounded throughout its life. • Local consultation and involvement: the local Residents’ Association provided a locally representative third partner to work alongside the local authority and the housing association; to inform intervention; and to help identify and agree priorities, drawing on regular consultation with those living and working in the area. 66

Housing renewal in England

• Vision, ambition, commitment and action: the three-way partnership of the local authority, the housing association and the residents continued to develop a vision for the area; it drove the ambition for and provided a long-term commitment to the achievement of change. Action on the ground was essential in building local confidence, and especially to stimulate private sector activity. These processes are time consuming. It takes a minimum of five years to achieve tangible change while some other programmes, such as the Housing Action Trusts and Housing Market Renewal Areas, were designed with 10 and 15 year timescales respectively. • An intelligence-based approach: based on past experience with other projects and programmes, the renewal of Summerfield was characterised by systematic social and technical evaluation of problems, options and intervention: four research reports were commissioned between 2005 and 2011. These provided evidence to inform actions and the resources required; to monitor impact; and to satisfy sponsors of the effectiveness of their investment. • Resources: none of the achievements in Summerfield would have been possible without significant public and private sector resources (Box 3.1). Looking more widely at the experience of housing renewal in England, it is evident that successful schemes generally owe their success to the involvement of the public sector as initiator, catalyst, part-funder and often political risk-taker. The partnership of a local authority, a housing association and local residents, especially with the political and financial backing of central, regional or local governments, can be an incentive for the private sector involvement and funding that is often essential to success.

Conclusions Issues and problems Alongside new building and demolition, housing improvement has been an important part of housing policy and practice in England for almost 150 years. In the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries, ‘reconditioning’ was favoured by reformers as an effective way of improving housing conditions for the poorest households but in the 1920s and 1930s many proponents of council housing argued that slum clearance and rehousing, if it could be afforded, would make a more lasting contribution to the housing 67

Renewing Europe’s housing

needs of lower-income people. Such debates have continued and form part of the controversy surrounding housing renewal. For example, what are the costs and benefits of clearance versus renewal? Does house improvement represent ‘value for money’ and what value should be placed on the supposed benefits of keeping communities together in familiar supportive surroundings? Is gentrification an inevitable consequence of renewal: if so, should it be resisted? Or is improvement a means of promoting ideological goals around the extension of home ownership and the creation of more socially mixed communities? To what extent, if at all, should private sector house improvement be grant-aided and should grants be means tested? Is it likely that private owners and landlords may profit from the public funding of improvement or should the role of the housing stock as a national asset override such concerns? Renewal policy is about property and people: can both be served simultaneously or will ‘property’ and ‘profit’ always tend to prevail? To what extent does renewal cause conflict between politicians, professionals and residents? Looking back at a century or more of housing renewal, the policy has had mixed fortunes and many unresolved issues remain. Much has been achieved but much remains to be done. According to the English Housing Survey: Homes 2010 (DCLG, 2012a, 59), looking at the housing stock as a whole, the proportion of dwellings failing the decent home standard declined from 45 per cent in 1996 to 28 per cent in 2005. Since 2006, when 35 per cent of all dwellings failed the updated standard, the rate of failure decreased progressively to 27 per cent in 2010. Between 2006 and 2010, the largest improvements were in the local authority rented sector. Over the same period, the proportion of homes failing the thermal comfort criterion of the decent home standard was reduced from 17 per cent to 10  per cent (DCLG, 2012a, 58). These recent improvements can be attributed in part to the Decent Homes Programme in the local authority and housing association rented sectors and to the implementation of energy conservation measures under the ‘supplier obligation’ (SO). Despite these achievements, England still faces a large and serious problem of housing quality. In 2011, 5.4 million dwellings (24 per cent of the housing stock) failed to meet the decent home standard. Of these non-decent homes, 12 per cent were in the social sector, 61 per cent were owner-occupied, and 26 per cent privately rented. Thirty-eight per cent of those failing the standard were built before 1919 and 19 per cent between 1919 and 1944 (DCLG, 2013: 77 and Annex Table 3.16). Looked at another way, 22 per cent of owner68

Housing renewal in England

occupied dwellings, 35 per cent of privately rented and 17 per cent of social sector dwellings were non-decent in 2011 while 43 per cent of all dwellings built before 1919 were non-decent, as were 27 per cent of those built between 1919 and 1944. The English Housing Survey: Households 2010–11 (DCLG, 2012b) shows the link between vulnerable households and poor housing conditions, for example: • Households with one or more persons aged 85 or over were more likely to live in homes with poor energy efficiency. • Households from a minority ethnic group were more likely to live in homes with problems relating to damp and disrepair, to live with problems in the local environment, and to live in overcrowded conditions. • Households living in poverty13 were more likely to live in homes with significant outstanding repairs and damp problems than households not in poverty. These disparities were seen in both private and social sectors. • In the private sector, those in poverty were more likely than other households to live in a home with poor energy efficiency or that failed the decent home standard. These disparities were not evident in the social sector (pp 86–7). The estimated cost of carrying out all remedial works to non-decent housing in 2010 was around £32.9  billion, 92  per cent of which was required to deal with problems in the private sector. Although private sector homes made up 83 per cent of the housing stock, they accounted for around 90 per cent of the total expenditure required for basic repairs. Dwellings built before 1919, which comprised 22 per cent of the total stock, accounted for over 40 per cent of total basic repair costs. Compared with the estimated cost in 2000 of £19 billion to bring the worst local authority housing up to a decent modern standard, the 2010 estimate of £32.9 billion for remedial work on the remaining non-decent housing in all sectors indicates the scale of the problem that remains. Since most work is required in the private sector, there is the added complexity of a multiplicity of ownership and a lack of the political will and resources to address the problem in the way required. With new building in all sectors reduced to about 100,000 completions a year, the continued neglect in policy of the existing 69

Renewing Europe’s housing

housing stock as a resource and asset that should be safeguarded and improved exemplifies the inability of the market to deliver good quality housing for all.

Prospects and questions This chapter has shown the persistence of the problem of older housing in England. This situation reflects, in part, the improvement of standards over time and is a reminder that policy can seek to mitigate but can never eliminate the problem of ‘bad housing’ which is an ever-moving target. The link between poor housing and health, from which housing policy in Britain developed in the nineteenth century, remains important in the twenty-first century. A significant development since the late 1990s has been the growing emphasis of policy on energy efficiency in housing and the contribution it can make in a range of policy areas, for example, towards national targets for reducing carbon emissions, reducing fuel poverty among vulnerable households, and reducing costs to the National Health Service resulting from excessive cold in housing. The introduction of the decent home standard and its incorporation of housing, health and safety rating issues was a step forward in this respect. The condition of the housing stock is a concern across several government departments, including those responsible for housing, local government, energy, climate change and health; and across a range of functions at local authority level, including housing, environmental services and public health. The term ‘older housing’ typically has been used to refer to housing built in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, to the end of the First World War in 1918. Over one-fifth of the country’s housing dates from this period: much of it is in good condition and some is not, although ‘older’ refers equally to housing built between the two World Wars and more recently. Much of the renewal and redevelopment that has taken place in public sector housing, including the improvement of properties to the decent home standard, has been in areas built from the 1960s onwards. In the private sector too, government-initiated energy conservation measures including cavity wall and loft insulation have benefited many dwellings built in the relatively recent past. The safeguarding and improvement of national standards in housing is a government responsibility: this was clearly understood when the policies of gradual renewal and area improvement were being developed in the 1960s and 1970s, though the policies drew heavily on the experiences and initiatives of local authorities in tackling the 70

Housing renewal in England

problems of their own areas. At this time, the housing stock was seen as an asset, which it was not in the national interest to neglect. This was one of the reasons for grant aiding private housing improvement and for devising approaches to housing renewal that were area focused. The area approach was seen as a way of giving coherence to projects and of using resources, including grants, in an effective way. The more individualised approach that developed from the 1990s onwards, beginning with the means testing of grant eligibility and leading to the eventual withdrawal of financial support for all but the most vulnerable households, means, however, that most private sector households are reliant on their own resources for house improvement, including measures covered by the government’s Green Deal. Especially at risk are tenants in the private rented sector where landlords may be unable or unwilling to carry out improvements to older tenanted dwellings. This is likely to be a growing problem. In contrast to previous trends, the number of households in private rented dwellings in England increased from 2 million in 2001 to 3.7 million in 2011: 53 per cent of these dwellings were built before 1945 and 63 per cent before 1965. England’s ageing society is another concern. Older people are increasingly likely to live in older private sector housing, a sector associated with housing in poor condition. Three quarters of those aged 65 and over were owner occupiers in 2001, a figure which is projected to exceed 80 per cent by 2021. Of older owners, over 80 per cent own their homes outright and have the potential either to release equity to improve their homes or to move to a smaller dwelling. The propensity of older people to move is low, however: less than 2 per cent of those aged 65 and over moved in 2009–10, according to the English Housing Survey (DCLG, 2012b). The future of housing renewal in England has become less certain as a result of the financial crisis, the recession and consequent reductions in public expenditure. It is to be hoped, however, that future national and local housing strategies can be developed to focus not only on the requirement for new building and an increase in the supply of affordable housing but also on the needs of the existing housing stock, especially in the private sector. Area-based renewal, drawing on the political and practical experience gained over many years, remains an essential part of the approach to future housing renewal in England. Notes Known as ‘enveloping’, this scheme enabled local authorities to rehabilitate the external fabric (‘the envelope’) of entire streets of older, usually terraced 1

71

Renewing Europe’s housing houses at minimal cost to the owners and improved whole neighbourhoods in an efficient and effective manner. Internal repairs and improvements remained the responsibility of the owners, and grants for this work were available in most circumstances. This period (from 1979–87) of substantial spending on improving older private housing in some of the major English cities, Birmingham being a prime example, was a short lived but important intervention, partly influenced by the government’s support for home ownership: private sector improvement was seen as a way of reducing the need for demolition and rehousing by local authorities. The cost of the programme, however, meant that enveloping did not survive, as other changes in housing improvement and renewal policies took effect from the mid-1980s. If the HHSRS assessment produces a high score (Category 1), the local authority has a duty to take appropriate action, for example, by requiring an owner to carry out improvements to the property, such as installing central heating and insulation to deal with cold, fixing a rail to a steep stair to deal with the risk of falls, or mending a leaking roof. In extreme cases, the authority may serve an enforcement notice, for example, requiring the dwelling to be improved, declaring a clearance area, prohibiting the use of the dwelling or restricting the number of people allowed to live there. 2

In England in 2012, the average ‘fuel poverty gap’ (the difference between the required spending faced by fuel-poor households and the median level) was £443 per household. The number of households in fuel poverty in England in 2012 was 2.28 million, representing approximately 10.4 per cent of all English households (DECC, 2014b: 5). 3

CWP is paid to certain recipients of social security benefits. It is a payment for a fixed amount (£25 a week) and is triggered when the average temperature at a specified weather station is recorded as, or forecast to be, 0°C or below for seven consecutive days. WFP is a tax-free non means-tested benefit for households with at least one person aged 60 or over. The standard annual rate is £200 per household, or £300 for a household with a person aged 80 or over. 4

The English Housing Survey 2010 (DCLG, 2012a: 145) defines SAP as follows: ‘The energy cost rating as determined by Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP)…is used to monitor the energy efficiency of dwellings. It is an index based on calculated annual space and water heating costs for a standard heating regime and is expressed on a scale of 1 (highly inefficient) to 100 (highly efficient with 100 representing zero energy cost).’ 5

The Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) and the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT).

6

7

For example in older properties built without cavity walls.

72

Housing renewal in England In introducing these changes, particularly the industry funded Affordable Warmth scheme (as a successor to the government-funded Warm Front programme), it was expected that the energy suppliers would take on both the obligation and the financial responsibility for the ‘warmth needs’ of lower-income and vulnerable households, with the cost being met through the bills of energy consumers, as had been the case under previous supplier obligations. But in the few months since the ECO was introduced and in response to growing public concern about rising energy bills, the financing, timescale and other aspects of ECO policy became subject to further policy review and consultation (DECC, 2014c). 8

Figures for the first year of the scheme in February 2014 were: 883 ‘live’ or completed Green Deal plans; 163,096 Green Deal assessments lodged; and 1,754 Green Deal plans in progress (DECC, 2014d). 9

The approved list is of 12 measures covering insulation, heating, draughtproofing, double glazing and renewable energy generation such as solar panels or heat pumps.

10

The GDHIF for the financial year 2014/15 was introduced in June 2014 and closed to new applications seven weeks later, in July 2014 as the allocated budget had been reached, due to ‘overwhelming popular demand’ (www.gov. uk/government/news/applications-to-the-green-deal-home-improvementfund-close).

11

The Energy Efficiency Rating is on a scale from A (very energy efficient) to G (not energy efficient). The average rating for a dwelling in England and Wales is D. It is expected that an EPC rating of E will be set as the minimum standard for private rented residential premises from April 2018.

12

It is estimated that 17 per cent of households were living in poverty (below the threshold of 60 per cent of median income levels) in 2010–11.

13

73

FOUR

Making new from old in France: urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts Claire Lévy-Vroelant and Yankel Fijalkow Urban transformation in France has a long history but its ideas, methods and objectives have changed over the past 20 years (Driant and Lelevrier, 2006; Lévy-Vroelant, 2007; Deboulet, 2008; Lelevrier, 2010). A distinction should be made between ‘urban renewal’, which corresponds to the more common notion in English-speaking countries of the ‘urban regeneration’ of older sectors of the city, and urban redevelopment, a political notion associated with government intervention in France since the 1950s and 1960s, and then officially designated in the 1970s as la politique de la ville. The principle of intervention to achieve urban and housing renewal is well established and now takes the form of a contractual arrangement between administrative areas (municipalities, urban areas, conurbations) and the Agence Nationale pour la Rénovation Urbaine (ANRU) (National Agency for Urban Renewal), created by the Act of 1 August 2003 on the orientation of planning for cities and urban renewal, sometimes referred to as the ‘Borloo Law’. It is a high-cost programme: the work scheduled for the period 2009–14 is valued at nearly €40 billion, with ANRU contributing up to €10.9 billion.1 It consists of large-scale projects, including demolition, for renewing urban areas dating mainly but not exclusively from the post-Second World War reconstruction period (1950–60). The areas are selected and defined on criteria such as levels of poverty, the concentration of populations of migrant origin, and the prominence of older social housing units. Zones urbaines sensibles (vulnerable urban areas), of which there are 751 across the whole country, are the target of the ANRU-approved programmes, where a policy of social mix is explicitly provided for by law,2 using social housing on the one hand and promoting home ownership on the other, with a view to achieving a tenure and a socio-economic ‘rebalance’ aimed at greater ‘social mixing’.

75

Renewing Europe’s housing

Present-day urban renewal in the broadest sense (namely, beyond ANRU operations) includes not only the transformation of old and outdated dwellings into modern housing but also the renewal of urban space already allocated for housing, under powers vested in municipalities or groups of municipalities.3 Under the notion of ‘residential itineraries’ land can be used for a succession or chain of housing purposes, often culminating in home ownership. This calls for a variety of funding mechanisms over time including government subsidies to builders; the combination of private and mixed capital, private companies’ funds, and tax exemptions (Pollard, 2011; Driant, 2011), as well as the provision of local authorities’ subsidies and assistance to households (Fijalkow, 2011). Furthermore, the 2003 Act strengthened the contribution of an important player, the Foncière Logement,4 a non-profit organisation created by companies and trades unions to provide financial support for the construction of rental housing mainly for private sector employees, in locations including ANRU urban renewal areas. These financial mechanisms are subject to government regulation and approval (Donzelot and Epstein, 2006); they are clearly defined and have a specific focus. Their modes of operation, however, along with the decentralisation process, take the form of arm’s-length or ‘remote government’ (Epstein, 2005), marking a break with the previous authoritarian and centralised methods of post-war planning and renovation which prevailed in France until the end of the 1970s. The situation in France is characterised both by a shortage of affordable rental housing, reflected in the 4 to 5 million people who are badly housed, or the 130,000 who are homeless (Fondation Abbé Pierre Annual Report, 2013)5, and by a housing stock enlarged by mass construction from 1965 to 1985. Thus, the issue in France, at least in part, is that of overhauling an abundant but ageing stock, 34 per cent of which was built before 1948.6 It is against this background that the chapter presents examples of recent policy, through case studies of two urban renewal areas in Paris. Paris is one of several major cities in France that are well known for their modernisation, from the nineteenth century to the present day, through the adoption of public health and planning principles, such as those of Baron Haussmann, which remain highly valued (Rossi, 1966; Loyer, 1987). On the other hand, despite its modernisation, the city continues to be marked by inequalities and contrasts (Pinçon-Charlot and Pinçon, 2004): these are a major challenge for urban and housing renewal. So, too, is the fact that problems are often more extreme in Paris than elsewhere: for example, 60 per cent of the city’s housing stock was built before 1948, 76

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

compared with 34 per cent in France as a whole, yet it has to deal with all the pressures and imperatives of being a global city, without losing its social identity. The case studies presented in this chapter are in two rather different Parisian districts. La Goutte d’Or in the 18th arrondissement appears from previous studies (Toubon and Messamah, 1990; Bacqué and Fijalkow, 2006) to be an ideal case for interpreting area-based policies in older working-class districts. Located in intramural Paris, about 3 km north of the city centre, most buildings in La Goutte d’Or date from before the Second World War and some from the nineteenth century. Much of the housing is very run-down. The area has been inhabited for decades by working-class people, including many of immigrant origin, especially from Africa, and in recent years, it has become a key target of urban policies. By contrast, the other case study of Porte Pouchet in the neighbouring 17th arrondissement illustrates another area-based policy in a more recent housing development built in the 1960s. Here, some radical choices have been made, including mass demolition, demonstrating that although both case study areas are ANRU-supported projects,7 the approach and solutions adopted reflect differences between the areas. The remainder of the chapter has three parts. A brief review of the development of housing renewal policy in France is followed by an account of the two case study areas in Paris. Finally, the chapter considers the social transformations brought about by renewal in the case study areas, where the dominant emphasis is on the renewal of housing.

The winding road of housing renewal policy Legislation on housing renewal in France can be grouped into three main categories: (a) laws relating to public health, expropriation or compulsory purchase, aimed at improving the management of already developed sites; (b) laws relating to town planning, including planning for redevelopment, such as building standards and spatial planning; and (c) laws with social goals including social mix, ‘rebalancing’ and local development. These policies have evolved over time, usually in fits and starts, depending on the issues of the moment and the weight of different lobbies. The aim here is not to present a detailed account but rather to highlight significant points in the evolution of policy over time.

77

Renewing Europe’s housing

From the nineteenth century to the aftermath of the Second World War The first Act dealing with substandard or ‘unhealthy’ housing was in 1850. It was introduced as part of a process of identifying old buildings and dilapidated areas which needed to be demolished. It followed a public health way of thinking, combining medical knowledge and urban engineering, especially in Paris where city development efforts were associated with statistical measurement of housing conditions (Fijalkow, 1998). The 1850 Act led to housing being considered a public matter, on which anyone could express a view and where local power struggles enabled the inhabitants of well-to-do districts to complain about undesirable neighbours (Kalf, 2008). The spread of public health ideas thus went along with the spatialisation of urban policies. The clearance of unhealthy housing areas, whose boundaries were based on the incidence of deaths from tuberculosis, was implemented, however, only from 1945 onwards under authoritarian procedures initiated by the war-time Vichy government towards private property. In the post-Second World War period, selective clearance, often by small developers and property agents, led to the de-densification of the built-up areas and of the population, for example in the Marais district of Paris; while much larger-scale clearance was seen elsewhere, as in the 13th arrondissement to the south-east of the city centre (Coing, 1966). Everywhere, such demolition resulted in reduced housing and population densities and the rejection of the poor (Lévy-Vroelant, 1999). In the early years following the Second World War, France faced a housing crisis: 20 per cent of the housing stock had been destroyed or damaged, and the population was growing rapidly. House building between the wars had been insufficient, especially in urban areas, and a policy of rent control had made investment in housing unattractive to landlords. Through a government charge on rented property, a fund was established in 1945 for the improvement and maintenance of rural and urban housing; it was managed by Crédit Foncier. Because of the housing shortage, however, the Rent Act 1948 maintained rent control for buildings constructed before that date, providing a continuing disincentive to housing maintenance and accelerating the transfer of property ownership in old districts (Lévy and Saint Raymond, 1992). From then on, modernist trends in French society, following the principles of the 1933 Charter of Athens put forward by Le Corbusier, began to regard older built-up areas as antiquated and degraded. These trends led to large amounts of new construction, 78

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

especially in the 1950s and 1960s, but the relatively central location and modest rents of the older properties continued to be attractive to many people, even though the condition of the properties was often extremely poor.

From the 1950s to the late 1970s The ability of the state to compulsorily acquire land for redevelopment was strengthened by an Act in 1957 which enabled the creation of ‘priority urbanisation zones’ (ZUPs or zones à urbaniser en priorité). The Act gave authorities the means to acquire sites for building both on the outskirts of towns and cities, and in the heart of old districts. Using industrialised building methods, large-scale rental estates, often of poor quality, were developed. These were sometimes used as ‘transit’ areas, causing a sense of instability or impermanence for residents. The measures did nothing to improve the quality of the remaining older housing (Topalov, 1995) which large social landlords preferred to demolish and ‘re-urbanise’. For example, the Amandiers district in the 20th arrondissement of Paris was extensively cleared in the 1960s: older housing was replaced with social housing and apartment blocks, with community facilities including schools following many years later. Much of the original population was re-housed outside Paris, for example at Sarcelles in Val d’Oise where there are many social housing units; only a few residents, often the better-off, were re-housed within Paris itself. This type of town planning, strongly linked with unrestricted real estate speculation, faded away by the end of the 1970s. A new deal resulted from several factors: the traumatising experience of redevelopment on the people affected; the complexity of having a multiplicity of organisations involved; the decline of state funding through a reduction in the financial assistance offered to home owners; and the emergence of an eco-cultural dimension in urban and housing affairs. In 1967, the introduction of concerted development zones (ZACs or zones d’aménagement concerté) encouraged the public and private sectors to work together in development planning, with the aim of sharing costs more equally between them. In 1970, the ‘Vivien Act’ introduced a policy of rehabilitating unhealthy housing, requiring its improvement, closure, or transfer to another owner, as appropriate. This was followed in 1971 by the creation of L’Agence Nationale pour l’Amelioration de l’Habitat (ANAH, the National Housing Agency) from the former National Fund for Housing Improvement (FNAH). Its brief was to rehabilitate and improve the stock of private sector 79

Renewing Europe’s housing

dwellings, as an alternative, in suitable circumstances, to slum clearance and redevelopment (Gaudin, 1995; Bourdin, 1984; Joseph, 1998). By the end of the 1970s, real estate speculation had not abated and the consequent reallocation of properties from public to private ownership displaced local populations. This became a structural problem and public authorities were criticised for acting as prime movers in a situation where private actors, especially landlords, were free to increase rents for each new tenant in line with the increased value of the improved properties (Authier, 1995), leading to the exclusion of poorer households. Through the 1970s, the main participants in renewal and redevelopment were no longer the public or semi-public builders, such as the SCIC (Société Central Immobilière de la Caisse de Dépôts, a subsidiary of the state finance house and the leading building promoter in France) which had transformed workingclass areas by building mainly for affordable home ownership. The new context was marked by a scarcity of building land as well as changing attitudes to old districts, which by the 1970s were considered to be part of the national heritage and hence to have intrinsic value. Private owners, estate agents and mixed economy companies now had the upper hand. For a while, real estate speculation was fuelled by seemingly limitless city financing (Renard, 2008) but it aroused opposition and alternative views on urban planning (Biau and Tapie, 2009). By gaining significance and value, heritage designation implied shifting the power struggles towards culture and memory, or rather to antagonistic cultures and memories: national, immigrant, and subordinate, and often rooted in the colonial past (Hayden, 1994; Massey, 1995; Lévy-Vroelant, 2011). The heritage movement was already well on its way because of the Malraux Act of 1962 which, among other measures, enabled the creation of conservation areas and gave tax advantages to landlords who improved old buildings to let. The Act was supported by those who wanted the protection of heritage to go beyond the preservation of historic monuments. These ‘conservatives’ or ‘conservationists’ opposed the modernists and their desire for the wholesale clearance of older housing areas. Since 1967, when the first concerted development zones (ZACs) were introduced, the idea was endorsed that a zone might retain older built-up areas; and in French town planning, a consensus was established around this view, in favour of heritage designation. The process was thwarted, however, by the 1970 Vivien Act which reinforced procedures for dealing with unhealthy housing, including ‘adapting older areas to modernity’ by eliminating housing

80

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

deemed to be beyond rehabilitation. This approach was in line with the thinking of the national housing renewal agency, ANAH. Through these differences of policy and approach, the notion of ‘rehabilitation’ became heavy with symbolic meaning: it was said that it could ‘return value’ to what had ‘gone to pot’; restore the image of an area; and ‘reintegrate into the market’ what had become antiquated, degraded and unworthy of the modern city. Where buildings were improved, the aim was to provide comfortable housing, to strengthen building structures and to give them a proper facelift. Yet many of the processes carried out by powerful operators were also emblematic of a certain vision of the city, in which all that remained of an area’s heritage were the restored façades of older buildings in which few, if any, of the original residents still lived. The modernist tendency received a big setback in 1973 when the Guichard ministerial circular announced the decision to bring to an end the construction of large social housing estates, or grands ensembles, in order to counteract social segregation. The government wanted to draw a line under town planning based on towers and blocks: les tours et les barres. The circular led to a renewed emphasis on the future of small-scale older housing, which could be rehabilitated through a reconsideration of its heritage value. In the Programmed Housing Improvement Operation (OPAH) introduced in 1977 and supported by ANAH, the aim was to massively upgrade the private rental stock and to integrate older housing districts within the wider process of urban change and development.

Towards a new urban policy: from the 1980s to the 2000s In 1981, policy turned to the question of poverty in urban areas, looking positively at the physical and human resources of older housing areas and the opportunities to improve them. In the context of the first disturbances or ‘riots’ in a suburban ZUP in Lyon (les Minguettes, Vénissieux) the idea was not only to repair the housing and to re-establish the social fabric of the city in districts by-passed by modernity, but to create a new sense of place for these areas. Social development, working with local residents, was at the heart of the approach. The late 1980s saw further attempts to tackle the problems of older areas: in particular through the treatment of substandard housing (1989) and new legislation on urban redevelopment (2003). The socialist government at this time, inspired by pre-war public health legislation and on grounds of social justice, attempted to eliminate bad 81

Renewing Europe’s housing

practices by landlords in the older rented stock by strengthening the legal and regulatory framework against inadequate and unsatisfactory housing. This policy, first implemented by left-wing municipalities, was gradually adopted by all the municipalities containing the more than 700 districts identified by the state as ‘underprivileged urban areas’ (ZUSs). The government remained highly critical of the modernist urban planning of the 1960s; it did not see the large housing estates as ‘heritage’; and was aware that 10 to 20 per cent of estates (LévyVroelant, 2009, 113) were areas with major public safety concerns. Combating segregation and insecurity would require ‘multifaceted action, closely coordinated at national and local level’ (Peyrat, 2002, 95). The combination of issues affecting both older and more recent housing areas lay behind the ‘return of the state’ in local affairs. Thus, housing production and the eradication of sub-standard housing are initiated by public authorities and carried out locally, taking account of the endogenous dynamics of the districts concerned. This process is followed in Paris where much of the housing is old and often substandard: a matter of concern for the socialist municipality since the turn of the 2000s (Dietrich-Ragon, 2011). The policies adopted are a mixture of coercion and incentives, but because of housing market pressures it is seldom possible for households with low to average incomes to afford social housing built in areas where older housing has been demolished. In this respect, intramural Paris is different from its suburbs, having at present a higher percentage of non-working-class tenants in social housing (Pinçon, Préteceille and Rendu, 1986). This has led to a mix of activity where ‘very social housing’ and ‘standard’ social housing are provided for different income groups, alongside ‘intermediate’ private renting for middle income households and rehabilitation schemes run by private investment.8 In 2009, loans for ‘very social housing’ (PLA-1) accounted for 22 per cent of social housing production in Paris, compared with 18 per cent nationally. This emphasis on trying to increase the provision of affordable housing for low-income households is characteristic of the social housing sector in Paris (Dumont, 1992; Flamand, 1999), when compared with most other large and medium sized towns in France. It reflects the policy that a large part of Paris has been designated by the city authorities as an area within which social housing is expected over time to account for at least 25 per cent of all housing in estates larger than 800 m², and for 20 per cent of the entire housing stock by 2014, a target that has been met and may even be increased in future.

82

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

Two examples of housing renewal in Paris New from old: La Goutte d’Or La Goutte d’Or/Château Rouge district in the 18th arrondissement lies between Boulevard de la Chapelle to the south, Rue Ordener to the north and Rue de Clignancourt to the west. The Gare du Nord is nearby and the railway lines running into the station form the eastern boundary of the district. Renewal activity in the area combines renovation and rehabilitation involving multiple partners who have worked together on a comprehensive programme aimed at improving housing, educational, social and neighbourhood facilities. These partners include local community or neighbourhood associations that have supported change, while attempting to limit its segregative effects. Since the Second World War this district, where more than 90 per cent of the buildings date from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, has specialised in housing people first of North and then of West African origin, and in providing multi-occupied dwellings (Toubon and Messamah, 1990). Flats have been divided into individual furnished rooms: this takes them out of rent regulation and makes them profitable for their landlords (Faure and Lévy-Vroelant, 2007). Between 1962 and 1982, there was no public intervention in the area, even though it would have met the criteria for declaration as a slum. As early as 1962, the demography reflected migration into the district; and over time, La Goutte d’Or gradually accommodated the highest proportion of international migrants in the whole of Paris: nearly 12 per cent of household heads in 1962 rising to 35 per cent in 1982. It was also a strongly working-class district, with workers accounting for 51 per cent of the economically active population in 1962 and 49 per cent in 1982. The housing stock consisted mainly of old, small rental units with no internal plumbing: for example, 50 per cent were without an inside water closet in 1962, and 30 per cent in 1982. The area was losing population, with 38,000 inhabitants in 1962 and 29,000 in 1982. By 2006, according to the Census, there were 22,000 inhabitants, 14 per cent of housing units lacked basic amenities, compared with 7 per cent in Paris as a whole; and 32 per cent of residents were of international origin, compared with 19 per cent in Paris. These trends are persistent in spite of the other changes that have taken place in the area over the past 50 years or so. In the early 1980s, the city of Paris began to implement a comprehensive improvement project for the area, consisting of three main actions. The first was ‘hard’ renovation, resulting in the 83

Renewing Europe’s housing

demolition of some 1,400 rooms and their replacement by 900 social housing units, among which were a number of large flats. This work was carried out by the most prominent social landlord in Paris, a partner of the municipality. It swept away a whole sector in the south of the district that had functioned as a kind of informal social housing area for people on very low incomes in very old and poor quality buildings, but with high rents per square metre. The redevelopment turned the sector into an area of conventional social housing, financed by a single lender and subject to rent regulation. The second action was to apply procedures from the Malraux Act (1964) and the Vivien Act (1970) to more than 30 buildings. These allowed the municipality to compel home-owners to carry out improvement work, failing which the properties could be compulsorily acquired, on the grounds of their ‘heritage status’ or ‘improvement potential’. The success or otherwise of these measures was hardly assessed in the face of the municipality’s determination to see the process through to the end. It was the third action, the Programmed Housing Improvement Operation (OPAH), applied to the district from 1987 onwards, which aimed to induce private landlords to make improvements, assisted by grants from ANAH, the National Housing Agency. The goal was to improve the condition and comfort of a stock of 14,000 housing units to provide quality housing in the rental market, in place of a degraded working-class habitat. After six years of relatively slow progress, however, Semavip, a joint development company of the city of Paris, took charge of the acquisition and demolition of 45 older buildings considered obsolete and unsuitable for improvement. They were replaced by social housing units intended for middleclass occupants so as to diversify the population, especially in the southern part of the district (Figure 4.1). Thus it can be seen that, in the pressurised context of the Parisian housing market, private and public investment has tended to favour the middle classes in various ways, and has brought new people into La Goutte d’Or/Château Rouge through gentrification (Chabrol, 2011). Even though housing costs in the district remain among the cheapest in Paris, their rate of increase has been spectacular: from an average of €1600/m² in 2000 to €6000/m² in 2012. In 2006, according to national fiscal statistics (INSEE IRCOM, 2009), the income gap between the richest households (bottom decile) and the poorest households (top decile) by person was 11.3 in La Goutte d’Or compared to 9.2 for the whole of Paris. The city’s plan for the renewal of La Goutte d’Or district, beginning in the 1980s, aroused considerable opposition, especially from the 84

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts Figure 4.1: Making new from old in La Goutte d’Or, Paris

Photo: Claire Lévy-Vroelant

numerous local associations that were formed to defend the interests of the people who lived and worked in the area. Criticisms centred on: too much renovation, too little respect for the heritage of the area, uncontrolled rent increases, and lack of consideration for people living in rooming houses who at the time had no legal right to be rehoused. These protests were often successful and the City authorities back-pedalled more than once in the face of such opposition: for 85

Renewing Europe’s housing

example, by developing programmes to improve older housing, by implementing an exception regime for the occupiers of rooming houses, and by integrating the district into the national programme for improving older housing. A process of consultation developed between the associations and the public authorities on issues such as security, education services, employment, cleaning and health. In this way the associations could exercise leverage in promoting the district, making it more ‘liveable’ for existing residents, and ‘attractive’ to new ones, although in 2000, when the municipality went to the left, the new residents of the district created their own associations. They wanted to break with the image of La Goutte d’Or as a ‘special district’ due to its large and well-established population of migrant origin. They argued for ‘the right to a quiet neighbourhood’, ‘the right to French shops’, ‘the right to a quality public space’, and ‘the right to mixed schools’. Many of these claims were legitimised at the highest level by government (Peyrat, 2002) and endorsed locally. Programmes for the area were refocused on possibly less contentious objectives, which were more environmental than social. The ANRU programme, for example, led to more demolition rather than the improvement of unhealthy housing, the smartening up of public areas, and the building of social housing to promote social mix, in particular by attracting average income households (Launay, 2010).

‘Revitalisation’ through demolition: Porte Pouchet The renovation of the Porte Pouchet district in the 17th arrondissement is governed by two schemes: an Urban Contract for Social Cohesion (CUCS)9 associated with the national urban policy, and a Major Urban Renewal Project (GPRU)10 under the national Urban Renovation Programme created by the Act of 1 August 2003 to undertake the demolition and reconstruction of so-called deprived areas. The renovation includes activity at three different spatial levels: the city perimeter, the district and the housing itself. In some respects, Porte Pouchet is characteristic of many developments on the perimeter of the city of Paris. With a population of about 13,000, the area is enclosed to the north by the Boulevard Périphérique at the boundary between the city and the neighbouring municipalities of Saint-Ouen and Clichy. To the south, the area extends slightly below the Boulevard Bessières, one of the Boulevards des Maréchaux which also encircle Paris, into the district of Porte de Clichy. The land between the two major roads bears the mark of different phases of urbanisation, in particular the ‘pink belt’ of HBM 86

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

(Habitations à bon marché) buildings from the 1930s and the towers, blocks and cul-de-sacs from the mass housing programme of the late 1950s/early 1960s. ‘Green belt’ features include sports grounds, gardens and other green spaces, but these sit alongside unattractive but necessary municipal services such as a car pound and parking for heavy goods vehicles. The peripheral highway, completed in 1970, acts as a barrier and heightens the isolation of the area from its neighbours. At the meeting place of well-to-do and working-class districts of the capital, Porte Pouchet is distinguished by its poor quality urban and architectural character. Unattractive and seen as a ‘dead end’, the area is ‘weakened by its downtrodden image and looked down on by outsiders’.11 Thus, at the city scale, the aim is to revitalise Porte Pouchet as one of a large number of run-down peripheral urban areas, by making it more attractive as a place to live, creating job opportunities, and developing high quality public spaces. At the social level, the city’s policy for Porte Pouchet is focused on the district. In the early 2000s, as part of a CUCS,12 a specialist team of three salaried staff was assigned by the city to coordinate social activity across the whole project. The team is based locally; its mission covers employment, education and housing. Working to a Head of Project located outside the area, it has prepared reports, organised meetings and developed information campaigns during the whole demolition/ renovation process (Dietrich-Ragon and Fijalkow, 2013). Throughout the district, social fragility is expressed in many ways: for example, there are large proportions of young and of elderly people (30 per cent aged less than 25 years and 20 per cent aged over 60 years); an overrepresentation of large families with three children or more; a high proportion of single parent families (39 per cent); and problems of integrating migrants at school and in the job market. Economic fragility is another issue: according to Paris-Habitat, the main social landlord of the area, 10 per cent of households have no income except social subsidies (compared with an average of 8.5 per cent in the 14 other CUCS districts in Paris); and more than 70 per cent of tenants have net incomes below the qualifying level for ‘very social housing’. The integration difficulties experienced by many young people lead to intergenerational cohabitation: 39 per cent of children who live with their parents are over 20 years old. At the level of the housing itself in Porte Pouchet, it can be said that the dominance of social housing is part of the area’s problem. In tenant surveys prior to ‘revitalisation’, social researchers found sometimes contrasting views about the buildings of the area.13 For example, before its demolition in 2014, the Borel tower (Figure 4.2), overlooking the 87

Renewing Europe’s housing Figure 4.2: La Tour Borel, Porte Pouchet, Paris, 2012

Photo: Claire Lévy-Vroelant

Boulevard Périphérique, was said by residents to have ‘satisfactory social functioning’ while being ‘exposed to unbearable traffic noise’. The design of housing units, especially of kitchens and bathrooms, was strongly criticised; so too was the dilapidated condition of the buildings and the parking difficulties in the area. The Bois le Prêtre tower was said to be ‘socially problematic’ with prostitution and squatting, and general degradation of the common areas. Moreover, the presence 88

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

of several large families was criticised for causing ‘neighbourhood feuds associated with noise and different ways of life’. According to the housing managers, these social tensions were ‘made worse by insufficient maintenance and management of the building’. People living in the Borel block expressed ‘feelings of insecurity’ and concerns about poor physical conditions. In the surveys of these three buildings, nearly three-quarters of tenants favoured demolition and rebuilding to obtain better housing, the exception being the Bois le Prêtre tower where 50 per cent of the tenants, especially those who had lived there for more than 30 years, argued for its retention and refurbishment: this was done. The authorities decided to demolish Borel tower and to completely refurbish the Borel block, and tenants were offered transitional or permanent re-housing across the whole of the 180,000 social housing units in Paris, in advance of the building of new housing within the Porte Pouchet district, either at the newly created Rue Pierre Rebière, or in a neighbouring project.14 Reconstruction is a long process and this new housing is not apparently intended first and foremost for the previous inhabitants of the low-rent housing at Borel tower and Borel block: prices are definitely too high for them.

Conclusions and lessons The choice of renovation and/or rehabilitation15 The two districts La Goutte d’Or and Porte Pouchet form part of the city’s urban programme. The formal relations between the local communities and the state are conducted through the parastatal agencies ANAH and ANRU, and through the involvement of mixed economy development companies such as Semavip. Land acquisition and re‑housing projects follow strict procedures. Nevertheless, the governance of a project is more formal and rigid when social housing is dominant in an area and managed by a single developer, as in Porte Pouchet, where all parties, including tenants, must follow a process agreed by the landlord and the development company as a means of achieving the future plan for the district. By contrast, in La Goutte d’Or, the importance of the private rented sector and the recent involvement of a number of social landlords appear to give greater flexibility in terms of renovation or rehabilitation choices, but also less certainty about what, in effect, will happen in the future. In both districts, the institutional framework of the city’s urban policy has supposedly strengthened the contacts between the municipality, other agencies and the residents. In La Goutte d’Or, the weight of the 89

Renewing Europe’s housing

residents is real: they influence the direction of change by questioning the analysis and assumptions on which proposals are based. In Porte Pouchet, the agencies are less evident and residents are consulted through opinion polls and neighbourhood meetings organised by the landlord. Since residents are not party to the professional diagnosis of the area’s problems and have no control over future implementation, however, their participation levels are rather low and the influence of public meetings on planning decisions seems limited. An exception was the influence of residents on the decision to rehabilitate the Bois le Prêtre tower, and their involvement is held up now as an example of ‘good practice’ for the whole district (Gromark and Paadam, 2012). When comparing the results of both renovation and rehabilitation, consideration must be given to the diversity of the actors involved, the duration of the work from decision to completion, and the social cost to the local population. The decision to renovate or rehabilitate is influenced strongly by the condition of the existing housing stock although a true diagnosis requires the cooperation of the people who live there. The social aspect is sometimes ignored or given insufficient weight by the agencies responsible. For example, when renovating La Goutte d’Or, the agencies had to cope with the problem of large-scale sub-letting, a practice which was well-known but ‘ignored’. Subtenants without a legal occupancy title were considered at first not to have a right to re-housing, even when they had been living in their flats for many years. Other problems were in condominiums with lowincome owner occupiers, often a majority of those living there, who could not afford the housing to which they were expected to move; and in situations where gentrification had resulted in the amalgamation of neighbouring flats: this process was not financed, nor could it be controlled by the public authorities. Finally, households with children affected by lead poisoning, mainly from lead-based paint in housing built before 1948, may have strategies for using the situation as a stepping stone to re-housing in the social sector, or for the palliative improvement of their existing accommodation. This poses difficulties for housing organisations that prefer to create homogenised ‘solutions’ rather than to treat individual situations on their merits (DietrichRagon, 2011). The decision to demolish Borel tower in Porte Pouchet stemmed from a technical plan based on a sample survey, consultation and information exchange with residents and neighbourhood meetings. Little account was taken of the advantages of the tower: a good view over Paris and the relatively spacious flats. The decision was influenced by concern about the noise from the peripheral highway, 90

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

the perception of the district as being disadvantaged by its isolation, the presence of young adults living with their parents, and of singleparent families. A long time elapsed before the tower was demolished; its residents were re-housed and most did not expect to return. The demolition itself was presented by the authorities as the symbol of a new future for the area, though many residents remain in doubt about the eventual outcome of a project that has been in progress since the early 2000s. In La Goutte d’Or, new residents were ‘waiting for gentrification’ (Bacqué and Fijalkow, 2006) while for existing residents, renovation and rehabilitation did not follow the same pace. Renovation was initiated by the public authorities to their timescale, while rehabilitation was dependent on the take-up of financial incentives by landlords and residents: often, the latter wished to see the effects of the renovation before agreeing to move. Over time, the area has become more gentrified, with a noticeable and perhaps symbolic dichotomy between the housing, now occupied increasingly by the middle class, and the public space, with its many ethnic shops (Chabrol, 2011).

Changes in the local population In La Goutte d’Or, a major effect of the renewal programme has been the growth in the provision of social housing in the area, which increased from 1 per cent to 13 per cent of the housing stock between 1982 and 2010. Most of the new provision has been financed as ‘standard’ social housing (‘PLUS’ housing) to which maximum social rents apply, thus favouring middle- to higher-income people, rather than those on lower incomes. This housing is mainly in the south part of La Goutte d’Or, whereas in Château Rouge intermediate social housing (‘PLS’ housing) has been built for middle-income households. There has also been a trend for some of the older flats in Château Rouge to be sold at a premium: for example, prices trebled from 2000 to 2005 as local residents and landlords sold to incoming buyers in middle-class occupations (Bougras, 2008). During this period, half the flats sold in Château Rouge lacked basic amenities such as a bath or shower but prices were 30 per cent higher than in the rest of the district as the potential for housing improvement was recognised by incoming buyers. In these ways, a noticeable differentiation has been created over time between parts of La Goutte d’Or/Château Rouge district. In Porte Pouchet, the changes of population resulting from renovation are still too recent to be analysed in detail. The social 91

Renewing Europe’s housing

housing programme in ANRU’s pipeline included the replacement of 140 housing units through the demolition of 96 units in Borel tower and 44 in Borel block. Their replacement was to include 92 social housing units and 49 housing units for owner occupation, including some for first-time buyers. The use of PLUS financing for the new social housing and the introduction of owner occupiers into the estate suggests that the new residents are in higher income groups than those who lived there before; and that a gentrification process is at work within the renovated project. Moreover, the introduction of owner occupation, even on a small scale, has been seen as a driving force for the whole area, and has tended to pull the market upwards, through the combined activities of the architects and developers, and some tax incentives for building owner-occupied housing within an ANRU project. Environmental innovation such as vegetal façades, and energy efficient dwellings are seen by the developer Semavip as an important argument to justify the large scale of the work.

Concluding comments By the early 1990s, the action taken to achieve the gradual improvement of older housing in parts of La Goutte d’Or was seen as an example for many other working-class districts in the eastern/ northern part of Paris. It appeared to be an endogenous approach, developed from within, using the local resource of the existing builtup area to produce high quality urban space. The public authorities at this time acted as a catalyst, encouraging private action to achieve better housing conditions. Local community associations were brought into the process. They supported the idea of improving the existing housing, rather than viewing it as antiquated and suitable only for demolition, which had been the prevailing view in the 1950s and 1960s. In this way, social development and partnership in the cause of social integration indirectly served the market and was seen as a boost for what the area had to offer. Sometimes, however, too much was done to promote a new image: for example, in the installation by the city of Paris of a ‘fashion street’ in La Goutte d’Or where the products of fashionable milliners seemed out of place with the character of the district. Similarly, a centre for music making, established on the initiative of the municipality, attracted people mainly from outside the district, and was criticised for that reason. Views and attitudes on such matters have often been contradictory. Sometimes the district is portrayed as a ‘den for drug addicts’; and sometimes as a place that is ‘on the move’, or becoming more ‘liveable’ (Bacqué and Fijalkow, 92

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts

2006). Some local residents’ associations are strong supporters of existing populations, such as teenagers or African communities, others have developed a discourse on the quality of ‘living together’ in the district, while others prefer to emphasise the area’s ‘problems’. In the 2000s, the renewal of Porte Pouchet did not develop from the ‘bottom-up’. The project created new streets, such as Rue Ribière. The public areas and shops were ‘reconfigured’ and may even have been the inspiration from which the whole renewal project stemmed. An alliance to promote the development and to ‘look at the area in a different way’ was formed between the main actors: the architects Périphériques, the real estate company Nexity, the semi-public development company Semavip, the social housing organisation ParisHabitat, and the municipality. Existing and potential future residents were not really part of this process. In La Goutte d’Or, by contrast, residents and community associations have had an influence on rehabilitation policy and on the integration into the area of middle-class inhabitants. This has brought in other actors such as the mixed economy company Société immobilière d’économie mixte de la Ville de Paris (SIEMP) which builds, improves and manages housing projects on behalf of the city of Paris. In 2003, SIEMP was designated by the city as the coordinating agency for the improvement of ‘degraded habitat’ in Paris. Semavip is also active in neighbouring Château-Rouge, where it is building a foyer for elderly migrants. Ultimately, the choices for locating urban renewal either in an old densely built up district (La Goutte d’Or) or close to the city boundary (Porte Pouchet) more or less follow the same strategies: taking account of social aspects, such as a target of, say, 25 per cent of social housing in all arrondissements while maintaining a ‘middle-class element’; and increasing the attractiveness of run-down areas without discouraging private property investment. In this respect, Porte Pouchet has been successful in attracting private investment while still providing opportunities for those who need social housing. On the other hand, developers have not rushed to La Goutte d’Or at any time in the 20 years since the first shovelful of earth was turned. The district will long maintain the exotic and transnational cachet inherited from its history as a cornerstone for attracting global urban culture. In housing and area renewal the political nature of the project is vitally important. The fragile boundary between the ‘social’ and the ‘free market’ is clearly visible and there are steadily increasing discrepancies among and between districts. Everything unfolds as if some areas were destined to keep the immigrants, the poor and the 93

Renewing Europe’s housing

key-workers, while others were meant to house the middle classes, with their limited but generally secure incomes. In this scenario, the former areas are partially written off. As shown by Neil Smith (1996), however, the social destiny of districts as regards urban gentrification is not fixed in advance; the cultural choices of households and their economic status, especially when the structure of property prices is reversed, remain key factors enabling the middle and upper classes to live in old working-class districts. Notes ‘At 1 September 2009, a total of 375 projects had been approved by ANRU and 335 agreements signed relating to 196 priority sites in 474 districts. These projects represented work valued at €39.8 billion programmed over five years and covering a population of 3.2 million. The projects were to be financed by a contribution from ANRU of €10.9 billion allowing the construction of more than 120,000 social housing units, the rehabilitation of about 300,000, the demolition of 130,000 and the improvement (called “residentialisation”) of more than 300,000 housing units of this type.’ National Urban Renewal Programme, www.senat.fr/rap/a09-105-8/a09-105-85.html. 1

One of the aims of the Law 2000-1208 of 13 December 2000 on Solidarity and Urban Renewal was to establish greater social mix: Article 55 set 20 per cent as the minimum level for social housing in urban municipalities. 2

So-called EPCI, établissements publics de coopération intercommunale, adopted in 2000 by the Reform of Local Authorities. 3

Foncière Logement is a non-profit organisation created in 2002 by companies and trades unions under an agreement with the state. It aims to ‘produce rental units for wage-earners so as to diversify housing supply in areas being rehabilitated, and in others where housing supply is scarce’ (www.foncierelogement.fr/Qui-sommes-nous/Moyens-9.html). Through investment in its property portfolio, Foncière Logement benefits the supplementary pension schemes of private sector employees. It uses nonagricultural private employers’ payroll contributions (formerly known as the one  per cent housing fund and today as Action Logement (Housing Action)) to fund its work, much of which is in urban renewal areas. Foncière Logement commissions housing in new schemes and in existing schemes with renovation work, and contracts the management of the housing to professional organisations in the private or social sectors. 4

The exact figure is a matter of debate but the source is considered authoritative.

5

94

France: Urban change through housing renewal in two Parisian districts La structure du parc de logements en 2011, Chiffres et Statistiques n°341, August 2012. 6

Both districts, La Goutte d’Or/Château Rouge and Porte Pouchet, as well as being ANRU projects, are part of the City of Paris grand projet de renouvellement urbain (GPRU), which focuses on 11 priority areas across the city: see www. paris.fr/projetsurbains.

7

Social housing for different income groups is financed by three main types of housing loan. PLA-1 loans finance ‘very social housing’ for lower-income households (max 5.67 Euros/m2 in Paris); PLUS loans are for ‘standard’ or general social housing, where maximum rents apply (max 6.38 Euros/m2); and PLS loans are for ‘intermediate’ housing (max 12.45 Euros/m2), often provided by private landlords rather than social housing organisations. Income ceilings in 2011 for a couple with two children were 28,000 Euros a year for PLA-1 housing, 52,000 Euros a year for PLUS housing, and 67,000 Euros a year for PLS housing. PLUS is the core funding for social housing organisations. 8

As part of a nationwide programme, 14 districts in Paris with a combined population of 300,000 or 14 per cent of the total for the city were covered by the contrat urbain de cohésion social (CUCS) under which seven priorities were identified: employment, social inclusion and economic development; the development of social cohesion, access to law and citizenship; improving housing, living conditions and urban renewal; education, youth and sports; health; delinquency prevention; and culture. Starting from the idea that the targeted districts were not doing well on these points, the aim was to turn them into districts ‘just like the others’. The CUCS programme was extended to 2014 by Ministerial Decision. 9

10

See note 5.

According to a 2003 study by the city council’s local development team (source: unpublished internal working document).

11

12

See note 9.

In 2003 the Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment conducted a preliminary study with a sample of 50 tenants. In the same year, OPAC (l’Office Public d’Aménagement et de Construction de Paris), now ParisHabitat, conducted a social survey with all the tenants of the project, as well as a technical survey of both the Borel and Bois le Prêtre towers.

13

A proposal was submitted to the City of Paris in March 2013 and has been adopted. See http://bit.ly/1l0L7uM

14

The term ‘renovation’ in this context means the clearance of older housing and its replacement by new building. ‘Rehabilitation’ is the improvement

15

95

Renewing Europe’s housing of older housing to a modern standard, sometimes with infilling by new dwellings.

96

FIVE

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands Frank Wassenberg

Continuous renewal Renewal has radically transformed many neighbourhoods across the Netherlands in recent decades. Unpopular houses, old blocks, derelict streets and deprived areas have been refurbished, rehabilitated, renewed, transformed or rebuilt. Despite such achievements, the character of renewal is likely to change in the future, not because every problem has been solved, but because the state’s role is likely to diminish and to be replaced by communities, citizens, civil society and market participants. Much is expected of them, but how realistic is this? Are these actors willing and able to contribute and cooperate? What social trends will affect the renewal of towns and cities? What does improving ‘quality of life’ – a guiding principle of renewal – mean in this context? These are essential questions affecting the future of renewal in the Netherlands and, arguably, in all European countries. Depending on the user, the target audience and the period, a range of terms has been used to refer to the process of changing towns and cities, including urban renewal, neighbourhood regeneration, housing renewal and urban restructuring (Droste et al, 2014). Urban renewal is used here to refer to all the spatial and physical activities that change a city, in close connection with social, economic and other perspectives. As a policy letter to the government stated (TK, 2010): ‘The central objective of urban renewal is to eliminate physical disadvantage and improve the living conditions in cities and neighbourhoods.’ In Dutch, the words stadsvernieuwing, stedelijke vernieuwing, herstructurering and wijkenaanpak are used interchangeably, with some minor different connotations, but all referring to the planned renewal or regeneration of a city, words which can be used interchangeably.

97

Renewing Europe’s housing

Renewal as a policy and as an activity In housing and urban renewal, a distinction can be made between formal and informal activities. The first refers to the policies that governments develop; the second to what actually happens on the ground, through the contributions of local people, the market sector and other partners. Governments may set down policies on paper, yet in the meantime, renewal progresses organically: for example, local people make the streets greener, paint their homes and organise social activities. Some enthusiasts build themselves a new house while others enlarge theirs with an extra floor; a housing association refurbishes a block, or demolishes another and replaces it with new housing; elsewhere, a developer builds a new block for sale, an old shopping centre is re-developed and a park is updated. The city is never finished, it is renewed constantly. It is important to emphasise that many homes and areas of all ages are performing from ‘satisfactory’ to ‘very well’, they are constantly being updated and do not need major redevelopment. This is true for older pre-Second World War housing, post-war estates and brand new neighbourhoods. Routine maintenance and some minor updates are all that is needed in most of these cases. Although the policies applied have changed over time in terms of target areas, approaches, actors, goals and means, in renewal policy most attention has been concentrated on housing estates with problems. Before giving a brief review of housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands it is appropriate to provide some general background about Dutch society and housing.

General characteristics of Dutch housing and society What makes Dutch society and its housing special? Three features have been identified (Wassenberg, 2008). First, the Netherlands’ population density, with 491 inhabitants per km², is the highest in Europe. With a high population growth of 15 per cent since the mid1980s, with similar prospects for the next 25 years and especially in the central regions in the country, meeting the increase in the number of households is a dominant element of housing policy. Housing has been a major dimension of urban planning since the early 1950s. Continuing housing shortages were one of the top five issues on the national agenda in the post-war decades, becoming less important only in the 1980s when direct shortages were being overcome. Housing scarcity defined urban policy and still does. In some countries, market 98

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands

pressures determine that more houses will be built in times of scarcity and rising prices, but in the Netherlands, planning restrictions often prevent the construction of large numbers of new dwellings. A second distinctive feature is the profile of the housing stock. There were 7.3 million dwellings in 2012, of which 60 per cent were owneroccupied and 40 per cent rented. The tenure of housing has changed over the years, as Figure 5.1 shows. Owner occupation has increased steadily, mostly at the expense of the private rented sector. In 2012, about three quarters of the rented stock, or 2.3 million dwellings, were in the social rented sector. Mostly owned by housing associations, there has been only a slight decrease in the sector since the 1990s with new construction and acquisitions almost equalling losses through demolition and sales. Despite the country’s high population density, single family houses dominate the housing stock, even in medium sized cities. Only the larger cities such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam have a high proportion of multi-family housing. Nationally, 70 per cent of all houses are single family houses, the majority in rows or terraces, with a small garden at the front and a larger garden at the back. The terraced house has been called the ‘evergreen’ feature of Dutch housing, being built for decades in all price classes and in constant demand from new generations of housing consumers. The housing stock has a remarkably young age profile: 80  per cent of all dwellings have been built since the Second World War. Housing production peaked in the 1960s and early 1970s when over Figure 5.1: Housing stock in the Netherlands by tenure, 1947–2010 % 100

Social rented

90

Privately rented

80

Owneroccupied

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1947 1956 1967 1975 1985 1993 2005 2010

Source: Elsinga, 2011

99

Renewing Europe’s housing

150,000 dwellings a year were built, more than double the present annual output. Contemporary urban renewal policies have focused on deprived areas dating from the 1950s and 1960s which include many social rented multi-family dwellings. Most of these areas were built in the post-war years when the large-scale construction of social housing was given priority. As a result, housing associations are major players in housing renewal in the Netherlands and have major assets in all renewal areas. In contrast with many other European countries, housing associations are financially independent of the government. This means that their ‘business model’ is based on a balance between expenditure (on maintenance, renewal, new construction and acquisitions) and income (from rents and sales). There are no public subsidies. When the housing market is stagnant, as in the late 2000s and early 2010s, the decline in sales puts pressure on the associations’ business model. Box 5.1 provides further details of the role and significance of housing associations in the Netherlands. Box 5.1: Housing associations in the Netherlands Housing associations are very prominent in the Netherlands, more so than in any other European country. They own 2.3 million dwellings, a third of all Dutch housing, and three-quarters of all rented housing. In 2012, there were just over 400 housing associations in the country, owning from 200 to 80,000 dwellings. The larger ones are powerful professional organisations, often better equipped to deal with housing issues than their local government counterparts, especially outside the major cities. Housing associations position themselves as hybrid organisations: namely, social entrepreneurs with a social or non-profit aim. Although housing association tenants are generally below the welfare average, they are not typically poor, deprived or stigmatised. Since 1995, housing associations have been independent of state subsidies: the government provides no financial support to them, including support for the building of new social housing. Since gaining financial independence, housing associations’ economic position has improved as general rises in property prices have increased the value of their stock (Ouwehand and van Daalen, 2002; Wassenberg, 2008). The financial position of the housing association sector remains generally strong but has been weakened by the post-2007 economic crisis and by reduced opportunities to sell homes and generate finance for expensive investment in renewal. The debate now is about their role and position in society; whether they should keep to their core business of renting decent housing and being controlled by public authorities, or adopt wider responsibilities for the well-being of tenants, and the liveability of their neighbourhoods.

100

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands

Another feature which helps to explain to Dutch approaches to urban planning is the country’s tradition of being a ‘consensus society’. Decisions are taken usually by many actors and collaboration in planmaking lies at the heart of Dutch society (Healey, 1997; Hall and Rowlands, 2005). Explained by the agreement that is needed among land owners to make a polder, the ‘polder model’ of decision making became well known throughout the world in the late 1990s. The consensus society has both strong and weak features, for example, decision making can take a long time – creating opportunities for plenty of opposition – but the outcome is often long-term public support through a coalition of partners.

Housing and urban renewal since the Second World War As summarised in Table 5.1, there have been several major periods in renewal policy. In the years immediately after the Second World War, housing renewal meant repairing war damage as almost one-fifth of all dwellings had been destroyed or were badly damaged during the conflict. This period was followed by renewal in the form of city expansion, modernisation, urban reconstruction and slum clearance. As Table 5.1: Housing and urban renewal policies since the Second World War: the Netherlands Lead responsibility

Key issues

Period

Area

Policy

War damage, housing needs, city modernisation

1945–70

Central areas

Reconstruction, Central slum and area government clearance

Housing quality

Early 1970s– Nineteenthmid-1990s century areas, pre-Second World War

Urban renewal, Central housing government, renewal local governments

Housing environment, quality of life

1980s–90s

Old areas, highrise flats

Living environment

Local governments, housing associations

Attractive cities, undivided cities, deprived areas

Mid-1990s– 2000s

Post war areas, mass housing

Area-based approaches, integrated policies

Housing associations, local governments

Growing diversity, economic crisis, demographic changes, care, sustainability, finance

2010 onwards

Whole cities, selected areas

Less steering, more facilitating

Market, civil society, local governments, housing associations

101

Renewing Europe’s housing

in many other countries, local governments developed major schemes to build large motorways into and through old neighbourhoods, right to the heart of the city. Many old areas were dominated by neglected and deteriorating private rented housing in poor condition. Maintenance was often neglected as these old areas were expected to be demolished to make room for modern developments.

Urban renewal versus housing renewal In a major change of policy, large-scale urban development stopped quite suddenly in the early 1970s and the focus moved from large-scale programmes to the small-scale renewal of urban neighbourhoods with residents’ participation. Rather than being driven by planning issues, urban renewal was now led or dominated by housing renewal. The emphasis changed to renovating old houses in old neighbourhoods. Old private rented housing was acquired or expropriated, and then either demolished and rebuilt or refurbished (Figure 5.2), and handed Figure 5.2: New and old in Amsterdam In the 1970s and 1980s, many old private rented housing blocks were purchased or expropriated then either refurbished or demolished and replaced by new social sector housing. So, old blocks from the late nineteenth century are standing alongside blocks from the late twentieth century, as this example shows from Amsterdam

Photo: Frank Wassenberg

102

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands

over to housing associations. The provision of affordable housing was a key feature, resulting in social sector rented housing being built on a large scale, mainly for existing residents. In cities such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam this resulted in almost 100 per cent of low-cost social housing being rebuilt. It took some years for such an approach to take off. While debates were prominent in the 1970s, the largest amount of housing was renewed during the 1980s, and between 1980 and 1989, over 40 per cent of all Dutch dwellings were improved to some extent (Priemus et al, 1992). About half were built before and the remainder after the Second World War. While most owner-occupied housing was improved without subsidies (85 per cent, or 550,000 dwellings), most improvement of rented housing was subsidised. Of all pre-Second World War social housing, 56  per cent was improved (125,000 dwellings), while 158,000 private rented dwellings were improved (two thirds of which was non-subsidised), and another 83,000 private rented dwellings were purchased and improved then handed over to housing associations.

From the environment to ‘housing plus’ During the 1980s, greater attention was given to environmental issues including pollution, vandalism and personal safety. The theme of urban renewal broadened from a preoccupation with housing to encompass the overall living environment. Problems had emerged in large, spacious post-war estates dominated by social sector housing, especially in common green spaces, meeting places and the many semipublic areas such as galleries, staircases and entrances (Wassenberg, 2013). Around 1990, social renewal measures became more important, with policies for social inclusion and improved social relations between different groups.

Integrated policy During the 1990s, the idea took hold that neither physical improvement nor social or socio-economic measures were enough in themselves. Even when physical and social approaches were successful, cities ended up with a concentration of lower-income households in improved low-cost neighbourhoods, while the middle classes, including families with children, left for, or as some would say ‘fled’ to, suburbs or neighbouring towns with family housing. The least popular areas proved not to be the old pre-war neighbourhoods with 103

Renewing Europe’s housing

their central location and improved housing stock, but the post-war areas dominated by standardised mass housing (Rowlands et al, 2009). Urban sociologists began to talk of the ‘doughnut city’ (Schoon, 2001): an expensive city centre core surrounded by poor neighbourhoods with wealthier areas at the periphery. In this context, urban renewal gradually became an integrated policy that encompassed physical, social and economic goals and strategies, a trend that can be identified in most European countries (Wassenberg et al, 2007).

A turning point? Housing and urban renewal is at a crossroads in the mid-2010s, major changes are taking place in a society still dominated by the economic crisis that began in the late 2000s. With the resulting financial restrictions, there is stagnation in the housing market and in the development and implementation of renewal schemes. Economic recovery has not led to the revival of the renewal strategies of the early 2000s. Climate change, demographic trends and migration flows all add to a sense of uncertainty and unpredictability.

Trends in housing renewal The previous section has demonstrated how housing and urban renewal has changed from a straightforwardly technical approach to a more complex and multi-dimensional process involving more actors, more activities, more strategies and more methods at a range of spatial scales. Several authors have identified how this has resulted in changes in governance, in the focus, content and organisation of policies in the Netherlands and elsewhere (Van Kempen et al, 2005; Wassenberg et al, 2007; Tosics, 2009; Rowlands et al, 2009; Wassenberg and van Dijken, 2011; Wassenberg, 2013; Droste et al, 2014). Three dimensions are particularly important: • The territorial (area- or neighbourhood-based) approach focuses on disadvantaged areas where problems are concentrated. Dealt with in greater detail below, an area-based approach targets measures and activities and connects policy making more directly with implementation. Area-based approaches have gained prominence across Europe, largely because they provide a framework for concentrated action to counteract multiple deprivation (Wassenberg et al, 2007).

104

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands

• The integrated or holistic approach understands that problems are often ‘wicked’ with no easy or universal solutions. A combination of physical, social, cultural and economic policies and targets is required, shifting from sectoral to cross-departmental work. At different times and depending on local political priorities, there have been several variants of such policies including socio-economic, socio-cultural or physical-economic approaches (Verhage, 2005). • The shift from government to governance. Well before the current economic crisis, there was an increasing trend towards establishing public–private and other partnerships, encouraging cooperation between different actors, agreeing local contracts and including citizens in decision making processes. Top-down steering and government leadership are being replaced by participation and collaboration between a range of residents and market actors.

Area-based intervention In the Netherlands, as in many European countries, there is a long tradition of area-based renewal policies and in a Europe-wide analysis of 50 schemes, Wassenberg et al (2007) distinguish five types of renewal area: • • • • •

central urban areas and city centres old deprived urban areas around city centres post-Second World War areas large high-rise housing estates old industrial, harbour, military or railway areas.

There are examples of all types of renewal area in most Dutch cities, but priorities differ locally. Beginning in the early 1970s, Rotterdam was one of the first cities in the Netherlands and Europe to implement a new approach to urban renewal (stadsvernieuwing). This was called bouwen voor de buurt or ‘building for the neighbourhood’ of local people, almost all of whom (eventually) lived in social housing. Resident participation was considered essential although the role of housing associations was still limited. In order to address wider ‘liveability’ problems, the focus of urban renewal broadened in the 1980s from housing to include the wider residential environment. Some of the worst problems were in recently built high-rise housing estates, the best known of which was the Bijlmermeer on the outskirts of Amsterdam. This area evolved from 105

Renewing Europe’s housing

being regarded as the best designed to the most problematic, and became the country’s largest renewal area. Wassenberg (2013) describes the particular glorious rise, the tremendous fall and drastic recovery of this area. In the 1980s, applying a general policy of devolving responsibility to a lower level, responsibility for renewal moved gradually but only partially from national towards local government. From 1984, several national subsidy schemes were combined into an urban renewal fund to be spent by local authorities, although renewal was still a topdown process, with national government formulating the goals and policies. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the idea took hold that ‘wicked’ problems needed more comprehensive solutions. Wider socioeconomic measures were required, and the emphasis shifted towards transforming the entire city, not just its ‘deprived areas’ but also its middle-class inhabitants. Housing renewal and urban regeneration emerged as an integrated policy with a focus on physical, social and economic goals and strategies. The remainder of this section examines recent area-based policies and approaches in more detail.

Dutch city policies In the Netherlands, Grotestedenbeleid or GSB (‘big city policy’) was developed from the mid-1990s onwards in an attempt to integrate the three pillars of renewal: • Physical renewal or Stedelijke vernieuwing was the successor to Stadsvernieuwing and both can be translated as ‘urban renewal’ but is now applied to more areas of the city including post-war flatted areas, and not mainly to the older housing stock. • Social renewal is aimed at improving schooling, safety, liveability and social care. • Economic renewal has an increased focus on work and the economies of cities. The programme was targeted at 25 and finally at 37 of the largest towns and cities in the Netherlands. A quarter of the budget was shared by the 12 provinces, and was intended for physical renewal in smaller towns and villages: for example, converting an old milk factory or providing a bypass, but also tackling ‘big city problems’ on a smaller scale. The GSB has been updated and adapted four times; the final tranche of finance runs until the end of 2014 when general 106

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands

urban renewal subsidies from central government will cease. It is now just called ‘City Policy’ as budgets have been cut and the economic pillar is no longer part of the programme.

More focus on selected areas In 2003 the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) felt that the GSB policy needed greater focus and 56 neighbourhoods were chosen in consultation with 30 GSB target towns and cities. Problematic areas with prospects for improvement were selected, but in 2007, a new Minister selected the 40 worst neighbourhoods in the country based on ‘objective’ criteria combining social, physical and liveability indicators. These 40 neighbourhoods are located in 18 cities with only a partial overlap with the former 56 target areas. In both sets of areas, social housing is dominant which gives housing associations a leading role. In the 40 selected neighbourhoods, a policy known as wijkenaanpak (the neighbourhood approach) is being implemented. Despite cutbacks, this programme will be continued until 2018, though with less government support, financial assistance or feedback than in the previous decade. Some commentators have focused on the preliminary promising results, while others have noted the impact of heavy financial cutbacks and the reduced commitment to the programme. From the start in 2007, the 40 target neighbourhoods were the focus for a range of integrated measures intended to improve quality of life, and since then, new tasks and new areas have been added. Comparable problems became apparent in other, sometimes adjacent areas that were only slightly less deprived, and these are called the ‘40+ areas’. Shrinking areas on the periphery of the country – a new phenomenon in the Netherlands – asked to be included, so the initial focus has widened to include more neighbourhoods in the same and other cities, and more remote regions.

The impact of renewal policies and programmes Refurbishment, improvement and demolition all increased during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Figure 5.3 shows the increasing rate of demolition, which, in the 2000s, even exceeded the level associated with the 1960s’ slum clearance. While most demolitions during the 1960s and 1970s were of privately owned or privately rented housing, demolitions in the new millennium were focused on social rented housing (Figure 5.4). 107

Renewing Europe’s housing Figure 5.3: Housing demolition in the Netherlands, 1960–2010 Total

Owner-occupied

Privately rented

Social rented

30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: CBS, Statline, Statistics Netherlands

Figure 5.4: Housing renewal in Delft This 1950s’ block of flats in Delft is to be replaced by single family housing, while the flats at the rear will be renovated

Photo: Frank Wassenberg

108

Housing and urban renewal in the Netherlands

After 1990, demolition was targeted at mainly old, pre-Second World War housing then changed towards houses built during the post-war years, the period of mass housing. As indicated in Figure 5.5, the demolition of social housing reached record levels in 2006–09, illustrating the ambitions and capacities of housing associations in those years. More recently, however, the economic downturn has undermined their strong position, resulting in decreasing demolition rates. Figure 5.5: The demolition of social sector housing in the Netherlands, 1971–2010 1971 and later

1945-1970

pre-1944

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

Source: CBS, Statline, Statistics Netherlands

Evaluation Evaluations of the effectiveness of the national urban renewal schemes, GSB (Big City Policy) and ISV (Budget for Urban Renewal), have focused on measuring quality of life, the satisfaction of residents, housing prices and community safety (RIGO, 2012; CFV, 2012). Not all areas have improved in all respects but in general there have been some beneficial changes. All property prices are measured each year. Figure 5.6 shows changes in property prices between 2005 and 2009. It can be seen that prices exceeded the average in older areas but remained below average in areas built from the 1960s onwards. In 2013, the wijkenaanpak (neighbourhood approach) policy was evaluated; Permentier et al (2013) concluded that there have been 109

Renewing Europe’s housing Figure 5.6: House price development by period of construction in the Netherlands, 2005–09 0.1

G4

0.08

G32

0.06

Netherlands

0.04 0.02 0 –0.02 –0.04 –0.06 –0.08 –0.1