Looking back I think one of the reasons was the houses were costing too much too maintain But like as been said they were never replaced by councils. Instead PRIVATE builders eg Barrets and Wimpey built houses and apartments. This in turn led to people buying them to let. And that is where some of the extortionate rent payments came from.
And another thing, why were council houses built to look so damned ugly? Was this a deliberate policy to depress the people who lived in them?
A private housebuilder would never build properties which looked like many council houses, because no-one would buy them, and it can't be down to cost of making something look ok, the extra cost (if any) must be tiny
Originally Posted by Iani
certainly was the case back in the 1950s, Ian ... when the amount of standardised funding allocated to local authorities by central post-war governments proved woefully inadequate to meet the construction costs of widespread, large-scale council housing developments using anything other than the cheapest building materials.
Don't agree there, I'm afraid... from what I've seen here in Perth, the bulk of private sector housing nowadays is becoming increasingly similar in appearance to the above-mentioned '50s style council estates. Seems to me, the days of the substantial, infinitely more pleasing to the eye, stone~built, detached villa and/or bungalow - so reminiscent of the earlier 20th century - are long since gone!
in many council areas, the maintenance was put out to private contract, instead of direct works,
some contractors ripped off councils, so became more expensive, also when parts of council estate houses are sold, it means that the council houses are not side by side so to speak, and makes for more expense to maintain
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
