Glasgow 1960s and what was called ‘redevelopment’

[RDR]

Thank you RDR. I shall use that Govanhill analogy the next time I bump into one of the many tenemental lovers who reminisce from a semi in the suburbs. There's a lot to like about Govanhill but it is certainly a living example of some of the drawbacks to living up a close.

We lived in Hickman Street, Dex, the 'scheme' in Govanhill.
Nowadays I think people are thinking of the tenements along Alison Street, Westmoreland Street, when they talk about Govanhill. These seem to be all private lets with a very poor reputation.

[Dexter St. Clair]

The Housing Association are taking over the factoring of a number of the private lets. Too many absentee landlords and chancers acting as letting agents. They're moving to Paisley Road West and letting out property there. There's several community initiatives on the go and lots of local shops. It's lively and could be called over crowded but I liked it.

[escotregen]

Bridie I have a differing view on what space was available to save the original housing stock. You were right to ask whether there would be room to put a bathroom in every flat. But that would have been wrong to ever attempt. A great part of the success of the community based housing association and a Glasgow based architects (maybe ‘Assist’?) was the removal of the third. Usually single-end, on each landing. That created the space to extend the remaining two flats – including a bathroom each!

Moreover, the Corporation ought to had perceived the folly of seeking to play the numbers game and recognised the city’s true predicament and inevitable falling population.

RDR pointed out that not all the stock was good or worth saving. However, the Corporation’s approach was wholesale area ‘clearance and demolition’. The very sound of that is chilling. It meant the loss of much of the wholly saveable original stock along with the bad and irretrievable. Matters were then comp[pounded with the replacement of the old good and bad stock with cheaply built, cheaply maintained (maintained?) flats in ‘the schemes’. I wonder if it is possible that the number of ‘new’ slums created by the Corporation in the post WW2 period equaled the number of truly unsaveable old slums? (and many of those ‘new’ slums had to be modernised, sometimes re-modernised, or even demolished within a short life time.

RDR is right to doubt that the Gorbals tenements wer rotten for the start. In fact the Gorbals was at the time a progressive, well designed and built new ‘suburb’ of Glasgow for the growing prosperous middle classes. Unfortunately there immediately followed the era of ‘King Cholera’ – the great terror of Victorian industrialised cities. The Gorbals was built on what had been marshland and was therefore prone to the likes of Cholera, typhus etc. The consequence was that the middle classes turned instead to the ‘healthier’ heights of the West End etc.

That left a great many large many roomed apartment building vacant and unwanted. In another especially cruel twits of fate, it was also the period of Ireland’s Great Famine. There was a sustained influx of the very poorest or destitute Irish famine refugees. Opportunistic landlords packed ‘em into the cheaply available Gorbals tenements, sometimes whole families to a room within what had once been extensive apartments for a single wealthy family. The rest, as they say, was history. The dangers of ‘cheap’ housing and yet another warning from Glasgow’s earlier history?

The City’s history might have been very different had the City Fathers got beyond their ideological commitments and invested more in retaining and upgrading the much of the existing stock – and its accompanying social and community infrastructure – including proper trusteeship of the private (and rented) sector. After all, Edinburgh, and possibly Dundee, made a much better job of that wit an assertive and pro-active stance on common property maintenance (the factoring fess scandal in Edinburgh has been a bad negative, but a retrievable one). Had Glasgow's Corporation and City Council taken a similar stand to Edinburgh would Govanhill have deteriorated to where it is today?

I earlier quoted Harvard’s Glaester when he, did argue very persuasively that the biggest mistake most urban redevelopment and regeneration decision-makers made across the world was the destruction of local housing markets and the mass provision of city-owned, cheaply built, cheaply rented housing. Sounds familiar?

[RapidAssistant]

RDR pointed out that not all the stock was good or worth saving. However, the Corporation’s approach was wholesale area ‘clearance and demolition’. The very sound of that is chilling. It meant the loss of much of the wholly saveable original stock along with the bad and irretrievable. Matters were then comp[pounded with the replacement of the old good and bad stock with cheaply built, cheaply maintained (maintained?) flats in ‘the schemes’. I wonder if it is possible that the number of ‘new’ slums created by the Corporation in the post WW2 period equaled the number of truly unsaveable old slums? (and many of those ‘new’ slums had to be modernised, sometimes re-modernised, or even demolished within a short life time.

Equally, an observation I made last night when driving along the M8 was reflecting on some of the '60s high flats that are gone, condemned, and probably will be soon (Red Road, Royston/Rosemount St, Gallowgate Twins, Pinkston/Sighthill, Hutchie E), is that there is a counterargument that they are making the same old mistakes all over again - demolishing many buildings purely because they have become unfashionable and suffer from problems which are nothing to do with the buildings themselves (OK the ones I've quoted DO have their fair share of architectural and structural maladies admittedly, but there are other 60s/70s housing projects that were perfectly OK yet have been flattened anyway), and I may be letting my fondness for Brutalism get in the way, but that apart from the emotional aspect of trashing an architectural legacy, are we needlessly destroying the buildings of today as well?

[escotregen]

RapidAssistant your right of course to warn against just repeating the mistakes and getting rid of today's worthwhile heritage as much as yesterday's.

I have several images of what are IMO outstanding examples of the period - one survives, one has been... ahem... 'modernised'.

The surviving example is the HQ of South Lanarkshire Council in Hamilton. OK it belongs to the headcase, headlong, era of big spending local authorities, but it's also an example of civic architecture, of the time, of the highest quality (just a pity that it is set in an utterly unsuitable location).

The other example is the County Inn pub on Dukes Road/Cambuslang Road. It was until the late 90s a beautiful example of late 60s interior pub design - all ceiling hangings, coloured plastic sculpted figures and semi-booths enclosed in coloured glass bricks (other aspect of the time was that the public bar was really basic, lino floored, heavy with smoke; very much for 'the workers' from Hoovers, Rolls Royce etc. in the days of 'full employment'). Then there was the farce that was 'Celtic are moving to Cambuslang'; some would-be specualtors moved in and bought the pub. They spent a small fortune tearing out the heart and in creating a soulless 'could-be-anywhere' interior ('twas ironic that they later sold at a loss if I'm correct when the Celtic move never materialised).

But on typical public or private housing of the time I'd want saved, I'm struggling to recall.

[Bridie]

... The consequence was that the middle classes turned instead to the ‘healthier’ heights of the West End etc.

and look who was designing them - Charles Wilson, Alexander "Greek" Thompson etc - not too many "mistakes" made or corners cut then
Did any of the "big boys" ever design housing for the non-rich?

I am still fairly impressed looking at the layout and appearance of some the new build in social housing that I've seen in places like Drumchapel and going back to that virtual walk I did in Possil - one side of the road was derelict however the other side has attractive,well- spaced semi's and blocks of two storey flats.

No idea what they're like to live in but it certainly looks better than what I've seen in Possil in the last forty years with the exception of the last red sandstone tenement standing - with half- tiled entrance.

[Celyn]

... The consequence was that the middle classes turned instead to the ‘healthier’ heights of the West End etc.

and look who was designing them - Charles Wilson, Alexander "Greek" Thompson etc - not too many "mistakes" made or corners cut then
Did any of the "big boys" ever design housing for the non-rich?...

It's interesting, isn't it? I mean, insofar as becoming a very famous architect would tend to go along with (not always go along with, but would tend to go along with, designing for the rich and noticeable people.

I realise it's not the period you were talking about, Bridie, but Basil Spence was quite a "big boy" in his day, but that didn't do Hutchesontown C much good.

... but it certainly looks better than what I've seen in Possil in the last forty years with the exception of the last red sandstone tenement standing - with half- tiled entrance.

ONE sandstone tenement still standing? Good grief, is the idea to keep it as a museum piece or what? Unless all sandstone tenements were lacking in sanitation, which I doubt, why have ALL gone apart from one single survivor?

[SomeRandomBint]

I realise it's not the period you were talking about, Bridie, but Basil Spence was quite a "big boy" in his day, but that didn't do Hutchesontown C much good.

Fair point. Obviously I wasn't around at the time of all this development, but from what I've read, a lot of the drive behind it was to "modernise" the way we lived our lives - cities in the sky, all amenities on your doorstep. It went hand in hand with the rise of the supermarkets instead of the grocers' shops.

Whilst the point made above about the issues being caused by the dwellers of the buildings, rather than the buildings themselves, I think it's really hard to divorce the two from each other - the issues were magnified by the layout of the building I think, and the overall breakdown of the community "spirit". What I find most interesting is that all these communities are now trying to regenerate themselves with community initiatives at the heart of it.

ONE sandstone tenement still standing? Good grief, is the idea to keep it as a museum piece or what? Unless all sandstone tenements were lacking in sanitation, which I doubt, why have ALL gone apart from one single survivor?

Sandstone tenements cause problems when you're looking to make the best use of space in an area which has a lot of residents. They have large rooms and high ceilings, which creates a lot of wasted space. They're not very environmentally sound either - you can fit uPVC windows etc, but they don't work very well with the construction, which needs to be able to "breathe". A fairly stark example of this fact is that I moved from a 1980s house in the East End, with 2 bedrooms and a back garden, to a Victorian tenement in the city centre. The latter has twice the amount of space, despite one less bedroom. Beautiful though my house is, it just doesn't fit the aspirations of the young family from the 60s/70s who were being sold on the dream of having a separate room for the kids, and your own front door.

[rabmania]

What a fine thread this is turning out to be.

[RDR]

The Housing Association are taking over the factoring of a number of the private lets. Too many absentee landlords and chancers acting as letting agents. They're moving to Paisley Road West and letting out property there. There's several community initiatives on the go and lots of local shops. It's lively and could be called over crowded but I liked it.

Interesting what you say about Paisley Road West. My daughter has personal experience of a rogue landlord there and is moving back to Shawlands this month.
My memory of Alison Street in the 60's was that it had a vibrant immigrant community at that time as well. A big Jewish community with a number of delis that you could, for the time, get very unusual foods, such as salt herring. I'm pretty sure the Unique Fish and Chip shop was Jewish owned and there was Geneen's kosher restruant, which was originally in the Gorbals. So, immigrants in Govanhill isn't a new thing.

[escotregen]

SomeRandon you’ve perhaps got the thing about space and the environment and tenements the wrong way around?

Sandstone tenements are in fact a very efficient use of space in dense urban settlements. Tenements are possibly our best urban compromise. That’s why all of Northern Europe adopted the format (except of course, as usual, England). I can recall reading an industry paper some years ago in which the analysis showed that once you have taken into account the necessary surrounding open space and inhospitable micro climate (not to say shadows cast) and ongoing heavy maintenance costs, high rise offers no great advantage over ground use than traditional medium rise.

The large rooms and high ceilings of old tenements are not ‘a lot of wasted space'. They are well proportioned for a healthy and normal family lifestyle and for a sense of adequate and living internal space and wellbeing (well done Victorian and Britain). Modern homes were and are built to the minimum tolerable standards – all in pursuit of ‘cheapness’. We some time ago reached the stage where typical UK new build internal space and standards are the smallest and meanest in the EU. You cite a small Victorian tenement in the city centre not suitable for the aspirations of young people. I can equally point to young friends starting out home-ownership in a gloriously huge apartment in an improved tenement in Bridgeton. I have other friends who live in a state-of-the-current-art apartment in fashionable Hyndland; I can only say I would die happy in such a huge and beautiful apartment.

As for the environment, as I mentioned already the tenement is a very efficient use of ground. Those tenements that survived demolition by the Corporation/Council have already proved their environmental worth and sustainability – they are still here ready for recurrent adaptation, modernisation and re-use. That’s unlike many of their long-since demolished modern counterparts that have proved wasteful of the environment.

On upvc and tenements breathing, upvc is not at an environmentally friendly material in either manufacturing or ultimate disposal. In all my housing experience I’m nor aware of any widespread problems of ‘breathability’ in traditional tenements cause by modern installations (I’d suspect the installation and the method of installation first). On the other hand the materials and methods used in many modern housing construction is damaging to both environment and health. The scourge of asbestos and it’s human consequences in modern buildings are well known. I suspect that that problem has never been fully mapped or fully addressed. There could, therefore, be residents exposed to considerable risks in modern modern homes on this count. A problem that the public is less aware of is toxic emissions from some of the materials used in some modern homes. I’m aware of at least two long running cases of formaldehyde emissions. All hardly good for the environment or peoples’ health.

All-in-all I's still suggest that the tenement in comparison has stood well the tests of use, re-use and time.
(PS In case this post is repeated, I tried to post last night but the original’s not appeared)

[The Egg Man]

............

The large rooms and high ceilings of old tenements are not ‘a lot of wasted space'. They are well proportioned for a healthy and normal family lifestyle and for a sense of adequate and living internal space and wellbeing (well done Victorian and Britain). ..........................................

Large rooms and high ceilings can pose problems re heating bills but, specifically on the 'normal family lifestyle' point, I wonder how many traditional tenements actually house families.

Around me, on the edge of the comprehensive development area, there are very, very few families with kids and not many couples.

[Bridie]

Modern homes were and are built to the minimum tolerable standards – all in pursuit of ‘cheapness’. We some time ago reached the stage where typical UK new build internal space and standards are the smallest and meanest in the EU....

I am not surprised in the least to read that about the UK having the smallest and meanest sizes in Europe for new build.

The lack of space in new build is a disgrace. Designing a box to make maximum profit where it’s dictated on paper - exactly to the nearest cm where you can put your two-seater (no room for anything larger) sofa - a dining table in a kitchen that allows a tiny space between chair and wall (no weight gain allowed here) and a Hall the size of a stamp seems to have been the norm for a few years. Comfort and even giving the householder bit of space for imagination doesn’t come into the equation.

On another issue,I’ve visited a few new build, starter show homes and in devilment, asked the rep where the communal drying area was. The backcourt was something all tenements, old and new, rich or poor had in common. It was an environmentally sound way to dry clothes (ok even in this climate) and it was used, in rota by everyone and it probably contributed to a more social atmosphere in the close - something else that’s disappeared and not necessarily looking with rose-tinted specs.

Reports have said that drying clothes indoors is detrimental to health and causes dampness in the home. Also, running a tumble dryer for hours uses vast amounts of electricity.

There are probably more reasons than just space and profit that prohibits communal drying areas, lifestyle and aesthetics being some of the other reasons. I was surprised though when I shared a flat (built in the late seventies) in Julian Avenue, Kelvinside and found that they have a communal drying area.
It is well situated out of view of the main building – incorporating a bit of exercise backwards and forwards and it seemed to be used on a regular basis.

I wonder if it will ever make a comeback maybe even in a covered,rainproofed version?

[escotregen]

Egg Man true on the heating bills, but that's no reason to force lower income people into ever-smaller flats. The real imperative has to be continuing work on improving insulation and the efficiency of heating systems. In my household we have been very quick on the uptake and jumped into a couple of Scottish Government schemes over the past two years. First we got several hundreds pounds of a grant towards installing a new far more efficient CH boiler. I reckon that has cut our bills by something like a quarter in the first year (mind you I probably should more accurately say it has cut the increased cost by a quarter!). More recently we spotted a free cavity-fill insulation scheme and are taking advantage of that. Again there will be substantial savings from that (albeit this example is not relevant for a tenement, but insulated internal wall sheeting can be).

The recently legislation for Scottish Housing Standards will drive up all the standards in insulation and energy efficiency. That's the commendable direction for the Scottish Government to continue on.

On your point about family housing, the long-term trend in the UK has been for smaller and smaller households. Nevertheless, there is a growing shortage of family housing in the UK across all sectors and all house types. That is in large part due to the weird British obsession with the mythology of home ownership - thankfully there is a dawning realisation of just how damaging that has been to the economy and society of the UK. As a result of that obsession we have built houses almost entirely not only with smaller internal space, but also with less rooms - all with the delusion that we were producing 'affordable' home ownership.

Returning to the theme proper, On a further incidental point on heating costs, the traditional tenement style is just about one of the most efficient formats you can have, with minimal cold external wall exposure. Much of the energy efficiency and conservation research that has been going on with BRE etc. has been with a view to creating an 'envelope' of a building with maximum retention and re-use of energy - that will be something that tenements will be especially suited for.

[Bingo Bango]

In my household we have been very quick on the uptake and jumped into a couple of Scottish Government schemes over the past two years. More recently we spotted a free cavity-fill insulation scheme and are taking advantage of that. Again there will be substantial savings from that (albeit this example is not relevant for a tenement, but insulated internal wall sheeting can be).

Someone earlier mentioned the danger of repeating the mistakes of the past, intentionally or unintentionally. I am of the opinion that the sort of scheme you are referring to will be one that will be looked back on in years to come as a bad move with negative consequences for the occupants and the built environment in general.

Poorly executed, inappropriate cavity insulation schemes can cause more problems than they solve with increased condensation, corrosion of fixings in the cavity, lack of breathability all leading to negative environmental (in the sense of the environment of the house) legacy.

Likewise, schemes for solar panels, promising free money and buy-back periods of just a few years and all the free electricity you can eat are ruining the visual appeal of many streets and will leave homeowners with outdated, poorly maintained technology in only a few years.