How we think about Brutalism and social housing is changing, but this isn’t helping the homeless

Adverts at tube stations in London are promoting walking along the eastern section of the Thames as a fun family day out for middle-class Londoners. This only shows how much the area, or at least our perception of it, has changed. There was a time when walking near the estates of far East London would be described as the opposite of a fun, family day out. The place was thought of as more La Haine and less like the Cotswolds.

The area is dominated by the notorious Thamesmead estate. When people think of this vast area, which was mainly social housing when it was constructed, they’re probably thinking of the Thamesmead South terraces that formed the original development and consist mainly of Brutalist concrete buildings. These were constructed as part of the post-war social housing boom.

Fun, stimulating and culturally enriching

Thamesmead became a byword for all the problems associated with both Brutalism as an architectural style and post-war social housing development as a political project. The name is a synecdoche for alienation, deprivation, crime, bad design and remote overbearing local authorities filled with middle class do-gooders deciding what sort of dysfunctional but artistically innovative housing it’s best that poor people have, before retiring to their tasteful Georgian or Victorian townhouses.

Stanley Kubrick filmed A Clockwork Orange there, which encapsulates both how it was thought of in the 1970s and how it has been thought of ever since. When we say Brutalism, Thamesmead is often what we are thinking about.

Today, however, our perception of this much maligned architectural style is changing. Even to the point where middle-class people are being encouraged to take their family for a lovely walk down to one of the most famous - or infamous - Brutalist sites as part of a fun, stimulating and culturally enriching day out. Way better than plonking the kids in front of Amazon Prime all day.

A crime against art and heritage

The changing perception of this area of London is not the only example of how Brutalism’s status is changing. Balfron Tower in Poplar - that’s East London for those of you not fortunate enough to live in the world’s greatest city - is being redeveloped as luxury flats after the social housing tenants were moved out. This building, and its associated other buildings in London, was once so hated that Iain Fleming named the villain in his novel Goldfinger after its designer, Ernő Goldfinger.

It’s worthy of note that Goldfinger's house in Hampstead is now a museum containing his art collection and his other buildings, such as Trellick Tower North Kensington and Metro Central Heights (aka Alexander Fleming House) in Elephant and Castle, are now desirable places for the artistically enlightened and tasteful set to live in. Y’know, the set that has poured scorn on Brutalism as an architectural style for decades.

This is not the first time our perception of an architectural style has changed over time. Victorian Gothic Revival buildings such as The Palace of Westminster and St Pancras Hotel were disliked when they were built, but are now beloved national treasures and icons of London. The fact that many iconic Victorian Gothic buildings were pulled down is now seen as a crime against art and heritage.

From Ronan Point to Byker Grove

The mythical person in the street’s dislike of the aesthetics of Brutalism is difficult to disentangle from the public perception of the failures of the post-war social housing projects. A dislike of the avant-garde use of concrete is often combined with a negative perception of local authority housing, but this lazy stereotype overlooks the fact that many of the worst or most infamous failures of post-war social housing weren't Brutalist buildings.

Brutalism, where concrete is typically poured on site for a more sculptural effect, is often confused with system built buildings, where prefab panels are made in factories to be assembled on site. The two styles of construction are similar, but crucially different. Brutalist buildings are much rarer, but why should facts prevent the development of a popular prejudice?

Ronan Point wasn’t a Brutalist building, whereas the desirable and thoroughly middle-class Barbican is a Brutalist building(s) and doesn’t generate the same ire. The popular dislike of social housing also overlooks the fact that a lot of the surviving post-war social housing estates, most of them privatised in the 1980s, are now desirable places to live, like Byker Wall in Newcastle (yes, site of the infamous grove) or the Alexandra Road Estate in London.

An age of rising homelessness and increasing insecurity

We can also question the degree to which the post-war housing project was a failure. Everyone hates tower blocks, the symbols of deprivation and neglect, where councils moved all their problem tenants to be forgotten, but this was a side effect of an ambition to house everyone. There were notable failures, such as Thamesmead, but this ambition to provide everyone a home is better than the free market, let everyone fend for themselves, devil take the hindmost, attitude of the 1980s onwards.

In an age of rising homelessness and increasing insecurity for private renters, we are rethinking this noble project to make sure that everyone has a secure home if they can’t afford to buy a property. In this light, how we think about post-war social housing is changing, from thinking of it as authoritarian, disconnected from the needs of everyday people and poorly executed, to thinking of it as compassionate, paternalistic, grand in scale and optimistic in outlook.

Centre Point reborn

Thamesmead is becoming an increasingly desirable place to live, which might have astonished Stanley Kubrick, if he was alive today. The Peabody housing association is expanding the range of homes that are available there and the buildings added to the estate have been well received.

This is also true of another of London’s Brutalist icons, Centre Point. This huge sculpted concrete tower sits on top of Tottenham Court Road tube station and is a symbolic (although certainly not geographical) centrepiece for London. This former social housing tower block has been refurbished and turned into new luxury flats, which are being sold to overseas property investors for huge sums of money. As we rethink the merits of Brutalist architecture and social housing, housing for the poor is becoming an investment for the rich.

Although, it turns out these luxury flats aren’t selling well. They might be overpriced or the turmoil in the global financial market following the pandemic might be making the buyers, who have these vast sums of money, nervous. The poor selling hasn’t stopped the flats being marketed as a cool, modern, urban, desirable place to live, which is not something we typically associate with Brutalism.

From Victorian Gothic to Brutalism

A pattern has been established: a formerly hated Brutalist building has become an iconic part of London, which means it's being sold to foreign billionaires to bring in money. This has happened to Centre Point, Balfron Tower and is probably the future for Metro Central Heights at some point, as it’s in zone one. Ugly concrete is now trendy urban living.

This happened to the Victorian Gothic buildings before. Buildings like St Pancras Station or the revamped Palace of Westminster were hated when they were built and described as “Gothic monstrosities” but are now icons of London. The hotel on top of St Pancras Station, once slated for demolition, most likely to be replaced by something similar to the current Euston Station, is now a luxury hotel for the well to do. The building has gone from hated to loved; from eyesore to serious money maker.

Revaluating Brutalism

We are reevaluating how we see the political and architectural projects of the past, such as Brutalist post-war social housing. This reflects a broader psychological change in society. After years of austerity and now a cost-of-living crisis, the idea that the state should provide things like safe and affordable housing for all its citizens has new credence. What is needed is for politicians on the left to pick up the desire and turn it into action.

It’s good that we are re-considering these often maligned buildings, but it does mean that they have become desirable places for billionaires to park their wealth. Changes in opinion can drive a revaluation, which in turn can change tastes more widely, but this has so far only resulted in the architecture now being cool and thus increasing the value of the properties within these buildings.

We are living through an age where huge numbers of people are homeless, and many more are living in insecure substandard housing. If we are going to change how we think about architectural projects that were previously thought of as failures, then maybe we should look at the philosophy behind them and what their creators were hoping to achieve, i.e. a secure and affordable home for all. Better housing is needed by lots of people and if these people’s housing situation can be improved, then this is the best outcome of the ongoing shift in architectural taste.

"Balfron Tower" by LoopZilla is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.