-
Good post.
Personally I have always thought the whole "sink estate" thing was a bit of a red hearing. How come the Barbican, built on similar architectural lines as other estates, never became a sink estate?
Obviously, I do think that bad architecture can exacerbate existing problems, but I can't believe that it's not a variety of social and economic issues that's the real cause.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/squeeze-protest-david-cameron-live-bbc-andrew-marr-show-welfare-state
So ... the old dream of building 'good' or 'better' housing projects comes alive again. Never mind that the top-down approach to 'engineering out' social problems has almost always failed, no matter how good the design; the construction companies need work and while one is giving it to them one might as well tear apart established communities as they've had the temerity of being troublesome. Two boxes with one tick.
Needless to say, a lot of old estate infrastructure is very poor, as a result of the same top-down approach now being attempted again. Just as the preoccupations of the day resulted in poor housing then, so they will again ensure that a different kind of undue emphasis is given to new build. Judging by recent examples near where I live, not much has changed in fifty years, and there are still too few entrances, long internal corridors, social vacuums, non-mixed use, etc. Also, with eyes mostly on computers these days, 'eyes on the street' or social surveillance is potentially even worse than back then.
Never mind the architectural quality. The key (no pun intended) will of course be the contracts; the financing, the modalities of buying or renting, the form of governance and the setup of the organisations managing the housing. That's probably where most of the skulduggery will come in.