HOUSING IN THE UK: Further ongoing research

• Placeholder images [...]

[edit] INTRODUCTION

This article is the last part of a two part summary of research on housing in the UK and as such is based on the hypothesis constructed in the first part, namely:—

• ... that the series of recommendations and legislation starting with the Tudor Walters Report in 1918 was governed by a recursive principle which determined how each instance in the series depended on or was produced by its predecessor.
• (See section headed 'INFINITE REGRESS ARGUMENT', in Housing in the UK)

The first part of this research also evidenced the fact:—.

• ... that there was no last member in the series of recommendations and legislation which started with the Tudor Walters Report in 1918 and continued until the publication of 'Space in the Home' in 1968.

However, this second part of this research makes an assumption, namely:—

• ... that there are competing ways out of this seemingly endless spiral.

Thus the purpose of this article is:—

• to bring the investigation into housing in the UK up to date./ future outline?

[edit] A CHRONOLOGY...

Learn More

[edit] • Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act 1944 According to Wikipedians:— "The Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act 1944 (7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which was passed in order to provide solutions to the housing crisis which occurred at the end of World War II. The Act was the responsibility of the Ministry of Reconstruction, and came in response to the recommendations of the Burt Committee, which had been established in 1942. The government aimed to provide enough homes for each family who required an individual dwelling, which it perceived had been the situation in 1939 prior to the outbreak of war. However, the Blitz had rendered some 450,000 homes either completely destroyed or uninhabitable. A secondary intention of the act was the completion of the pre-war slum clearance project." (Wikipedia, 2023, ' Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act 1944 ') • Front elevation of Arcon Mark V bungalow. Source: RIBA 38732 • Plan — Source: Ministry of Health/Ministry of Works via Brenda Vale, p.3 According to Brenda Vale:— "Ultimately, the most sophisticated arrangement of the standard two bed-room accommodation was probably that of the Arcon Mark V bungalow. The two-bedroom Arcon had all rooms, apart from the kitchen, leading off a hall which contained the WC and a built-in meter and coat cupboard. The airing cupboard, which was part of the prefabricated bathroom/kitchen unit, also gave into the hall. Partitions between the living room and bedroom 1 and bedroom 2 and the hall were partly composed of cupboard units. The kitchen, apart from its cooker, sink etc, which were combined with the bathroom plumbing and wiring, also contained a larder with ventilation direct to the outside, and a folding table. A separate shed was to be provided in the garden space for the storage of bicycles and tools. All the bungalows were variations of similar accommodation." (ib., p.2) Learn More

[edit] MAJOR COUNCIL HOUSING PROGRAMMES

[edit] UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS OF THE INFINITELY REGRESSIVE HOUSING SYSTEM

In October 1971, Cedric Price described the system as:—

• "a self-perpetuating and exclusively interlocking supply system reinforcing the existing categories with which it is linked."
• ('Housing', AD 10/71, p.619)

...and in the same article, he claimed:—

• "This interlocking and constrictive system can be broken apart at a key point by changing one of the fundamental rules of the game — the notional 'life' nof the building."
• (ib. p.620)

[edit] A PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENT

In January 1972, Norman Fellows began work on Domestikit following the publication of the second part of the summary by Cedric Price, namely:—

• 'Housing'
• (Cedric Price Supplement No.5, AD 1/72, pp.24-29 and 38-43)

In January 1978 Norman Fellows introduced an alternative, namely:—

• 'Domestikit'.

The original introduction to Domestikit began as follows:—

• "The continuing design of council houses by local housing authorities and their architects does not represent to me a particularly meaningful distribution of National resources.
• (Norman Fellows, 1978, 'Domestikit')

However, the first iteration of Domestikit did not include an explanation..

[edit] IDENTIFYING AN INFINITE REGRESS

A study of the domain of official recommendations, standards and legislation published since the Tudor Walters Report was published in 1918 indicates:—

• ... that by 1968, when 'Space in the Home' followed up the Parker Morris Report of 1961, there was no still last member in the domain.

Thus this article concludes:—

• ... that there
• this infinite regress in housing in the UK from Tudor Walters to Parker Morris is a sufficient reason to reject the design theory in use between those years.

... that further ongoing research is required to bring ... up to date.

[edit] CONCLUSION

In September 1969, Architectural Design published a special issue guest edited by Roy Landau:—

• "DESPITE POPULAR DEMAND... ...AD IS THINKING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING"

The overall title implied:—

• ... that there was a relation (R) between popular demand and architecture & planning; and
• ... that there was something wrong with either popular demand or architecture & planning or both;
• ... that the latter required a re-think.

The issue also contained an outline taken from Cedric Price's then current housing study (late sixties), namely:—

• 'EXPEDIENCY'
• (AD 9/69, p.493)

The outline implies:—

• ... that there was a relation between the socio-political causatory climate and housing in the UK; and
• ... that there was something questionable about the relation between the socio-political causatory climate

and housing in the UK.

In 2021, in 'Infinite Regress Arguments', Daniel Bonevac identified three possible premises:—

1. (the non-emptiness premise) ... that there is something in the set;
2. (the seriality premise) ... that everything in that domain stands in that relation to something—i.e. every object like (the) one that we start out with stands in the relation to something else and of course that thing might well then stand in the relation to something else and so on;
3. (the finiteness premise) ... that this can’t go back to infinity or, to put it in somewhat more sophisticated terms, we can say there are no infinite descending R chains – that is to say, you don’t have infinitely many things going back in the relation.

See '‘Infinite Regress Arguments’ by Daniel Bonevac – with Transcript'. [1]

[edit] Notes

[1] Daniel Bonevac's lecture on infinite regress arguments, as transcribed on the Extremely Provocative blog, offers a structured framework for understanding and analyzing such arguments in philosophy.

[edit] Structure of Infinite Regress Arguments

Bonevac identifies two fundamental components in these arguments:

1. Domain (D): A set of entities under consideration, such as beliefs, actions, or objects.
2. Relation (R): A binary relation that connects elements within the domain.

The argument is built upon three key premises:

• Non-emptiness Premise: Asserts that the domain contains at least one element.
• Seriality Premise: Every element in the domain is related to another element via relation R.
• No-Termination Premise: There is no initial or foundational element that terminates the regress.

When these premises are accepted, they lead to an infinite regress, where each element depends on a preceding one ad infinitum.

[edit] Evaluating Infinite Regresses

Bonevac emphasizes that not all infinite regresses are problematic. The critical issue is whether the regress is vicious, meaning it undermines the explanation or leads to contradictions. For instance, in epistemology, an infinite regress of justifications may prevent any belief from being adequately justified, posing a significant problem. Conversely, some infinite structures, like the sequence of natural numbers, are considered benign and do not pose such issues.

[edit] Addressing Infinite Regresses

To resolve or avoid vicious infinite regresses, philosophers have proposed several strategies:

• Foundationalism: Posits the existence of basic, self-justified beliefs or elements that do not require further justification.
• Coherentism: Suggests that beliefs are justified by their coherence within a system, rather than by linear justification chains.
• Skepticism: Rejects the possibility of certain knowledge, thereby denying the initial premises that lead to the regress.

Bonevac's framework aids in pinpointing which premise to challenge when confronted with an infinite regress, facilitating a clearer analysis of complex philosophical arguments.

[edit] Bibliography

John Temple (2023) 'Slaying Squalor: An assessment of Labour's housing record, 1945 to 1951', ResearchGate

[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings

DOMESTIKIT: UK

Housing in the UK

Housing Research by Cedric Price

The Commons

[edit] Import text test

Prefabricated housing 1945 to 1951

Prefabricated housing played a significant role in the Labour government's housing strategy from 1945 to 1951. In the aftermath of World War II, Britain faced a severe housing crisis due to widespread destruction and a shortage of materials and labor. Prefabricated homes, often referred to as "prefabs," were seen as a quick and efficient solution to address the urgent need for housing.

1. ## ### Key Aspects of Prefabricated Housing (1945-1951):

1. **Rapid Construction**: Prefabricated homes were designed to be manufactured off-site and assembled quickly on location. This allowed for faster construction compared to traditional building methods, which was crucial given the urgent demand for housing.

2. **Types of Prefabs**: The government introduced various types of prefabricated homes, including the "P.E. (Permanent Erected) Houses" and "Airey Houses." These homes were made from materials like steel, concrete, and timber, and were intended to provide temporary or semi-permanent housing solutions.

3. **Government Support**: The Labour government actively promoted the use of prefabricated housing as part of its broader housing policy. They provided financial support and incentives for local authorities to adopt prefab construction methods.

4. **Temporary Solution**: While prefabs were initially intended as a temporary solution to the housing crisis, many remained in use for decades. They were often seen as a stopgap measure, and the government aimed to replace them with more permanent housing as resources became available.

5. **Public Reception**: The public response to prefabricated housing was mixed. While many appreciated the quick availability of homes, others criticized the quality and aesthetics of the prefabs. Over time, some prefabricated houses became associated with substandard living conditions.

6. **Legacy**: The use of prefabricated housing during this period left a lasting impact on British housing policy. While many prefabs were eventually replaced or upgraded, some remain in use today, and the concept of prefabricated construction has seen a resurgence in modern housing solutions.

In summary, prefabricated housing was a crucial component of the Labour government's efforts to address the housing crisis in the immediate post-war years. It provided a rapid response to the urgent need for homes, although it also highlighted the challenges of delivering quality housing under constrained circumstances.