What do you think?
Rate this book
Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing
Municipal Dreams presents an alternative history of the United Kingdom. This history begins in the slum clearances of the late nineteenth century and the aspirations of those who would build anew. John Boughton looks at how and why the state's duty to house its people decently became central to our politics. Traversing the UK, Boughton offers an architectural tour of some of the best and most remarkable of our housing estates, as well as many accounted ordinary; he asks us to understand better their complex story and to rethink our prejudices. His accounts include extraordinary planners and architects who wished to elevate working men and women through design and the politicians, high and low, who shaped their work, the competing ideologies which have promoted state housing and condemned it, the economics which has always constrained our housing ideals, the crisis wrought by Right to Buy, and the evolving controversies around regeneration. He shows how the loss of the dream of good housing for all is a danger for the whole of society - as was seen in the fire in Grenfell Tower.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published April 17, 2018
127 people are currently reading
1720 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews
March 6, 2018
The book is impeccably researched and written with genuine heart, but it's a painstaking read. Facts and figures consistently take priority over any narrative or argumentative structure.
July 16, 2018
This is a concise and very readable history of council housing in England from 1890 to late 2017. Because it is concise, it raises issues that could easily generate extensive debate and leaves these for others to resolve. That is not a fault in the book. It is just something to appreciate.
The UK has been in the grip of a neoliberal ideology since 1979, determined to invoke market forces as the only acceptable remedy for social ills, and industriously experimenting with one after another irrational – and often plain vindictive - initiative designed to create the longed for, magical free market conditions. In the case of housing policy, the later part of this history identifies the reasons why these initiatives are destined to fail, where they have not failed already. The early part of the history reminds us that they have for the most part been tried before and failed before.
The fact is that the three post World War II decades in Britain were exceptional. Previously, Britain was second to none in its obsession with liberal, free market ideology and over time its various governments did in fact make all sorts of unsuccessful efforts to address aspects of the chronic housing needs of its population without undue deviation from the tenets of liberalism. For Britain’s housing, it was not just housing markets that failed – it was also a full range of central and local government housing initiatives that failed, until council housing emerged as the one remedy that was effective in achieving the objectives set by government. The first may date from the 1890s and many were built between the two world wars, but it was in the thirty years from 1945 that council housing had its greatest impact, within the wider context of economic planning.
For all its attention to earlier and subsequent history, the real importance of this book is to investigate whether the council housing built in this era was a failure, as alleged by those dismantling the investment, or if it was instead a success, contrary to media and party political presentations. The neoliberal agenda since 1979 is based on the contention that it was a failure and this agenda was not abandoned under New Labour. This book analyses and refutes the main allegations made against council housing, without neglecting its failings, and in doing so is obliged to confront head on the misinformation and misrepresentation on which the neoliberal attacks have been constructed. Like all so called revisionist history, it is obliged to undertake this task in the teeth of a well established and popular narrative that is very difficult to shake off. We think we know what went wrong with council housing because we have been exposed to such a relentless misinformation campaign. It is not acceptable to recycle such ill informed contemporary accounts as though the passage of time and endless repetition transformed them into history. The myths were insufficiently challenged at the time and this book sets out to challenge them firmly now.
It is important to revisit all this history because otherwise we will be unable to appreciate how important government intervention and planning in general, and council housing in particular, must remain to any future housing policy. The challenge of securing for the people decent, affordable housing is not, never has been and never will be fulfilled by the market. Government intervention has been successful in the past and can be so again.
But of course, it is no secret that the neoliberal agenda does not envisage decent or affordable housing for the majority. The cynical and vindictive nature of many recent government decisions is exposed in this volume.
in its early years it housed a relatively affluent working class, those in steady employment who could be reliably expected to pay its comparatively high rents. In this sense, councils were like any other landlord: they wanted ‘respectable’ tenants for their housing and a guarantee that its capital costs would be paid off and running expenses met...council housing is not, in any meaningful sense, ‘subsidised’. Construction loans are repaid and, in most cases, the homes themselves become an asset, not only to those who live in them but a financial – and income-generating – asset to the local authority. [p231]
The true story of ‘Broken Britain’ is not failed council estates but an economy that failed their residents. [p48]
In their groundbreaking book, Family and Kinship in East London, Peter Willmott and Michael Young went on to lament what the residents, mostly from London’s old East End, had lost: ‘Instead of the sociable squash of people and houses, workshops and lorries, there are the drawn-out roads and spacious open ground of the usual low-density estate.’ To many that might seem an improvement but Willmott and Young mourned, in particular, the loss of the old matriarchal kinship networks which had, they contended, previously sustained community life. They seem blind to the bleak uniformity of the old terraces and have been criticised since for a much romanticised view of that supposedly ‘sociable squash’ and a selective use of evidence to support it. Still, it was an influential early sally against the legion of planners whose drawing board plans were held by critics to have decimated the working-class communities they had set out to rescue. [p72]
It was an undeniably suburban Arcadia, of course; indeed, that was its raison d’être. As such, it has probably fulfilled the hopes of its builders who believed simply that decent living conditions would support lives lived decently, but it taunts those who wanted this new world to be something more radical, something more ostensibly ‘modern’ and urban. As Matthew Hollow has pointed out, Britain’s early post-war planning has been criticised both for its naïve utopianism and its too timid pragmatism. The apparent contradiction can be resolved, he suggests, if we stop treating ‘utopianism and pragmatism as two mutually exclusive concepts’. There was clearly a genuine idealism and ambition on the part of planners and politicians but it was, unavoidably and properly, shaped by the material constraints and cultural realities of its day. It was, in the end, a grounded and very British utopianism. [p73]
...the reflex to blame the design of modernist council estates seems simplistic – and too convenient to those politicians seeking not only a scapegoat to blame for social disorder but an opportunity for a little real estate redevelopment. [p248]
A strategy that emphasised private sector and housing association involvement was one that encouraged redevelopment – new houses built for sale and shared ownership which would reward investors – rather than refurbishment of existing properties. Comprehensive improvement schemes had worked elsewhere and ‘selective redevelopment might have been justified by social and environmental objectives’, but leveraged capital demanded its profit. [p185]
The reality of residualisation was powerful enough; the social problems of many council estates – not most, and where significant caused by a minority of residents – were real enough (though sometimes exaggerated by the media). But the causal chain was vital. Right-wing politicians blamed council estates – their form, their management, their population – for the problems they suffered. This was an analysis rooted in and reflecting their opposition to all forms of state intervention (except those, we might add cynically, such as MIRAS, which helped the middle class). It was also one that conveniently shifted responsibility from the structural causes of poverty and inequality – which it had been thought in the past the duty of the state or government to address – to supposedly failing neighbourhoods. Academics have a posh term for this: ‘locality managerialism’ – an operating assumption that ‘problems of dilapidation and deprivation have predominantly spatial causes and can be tackled through area-based programmes’. [p196]
All this was an approach broadly shared by New Labour. Council estates remained a problem, inherently flawed, requiring systemic reform. An explicit and strengthened ‘social exclusion’ agenda would focus on rescuing its marginalised communities in order to integrate them into the new, highly competitive globalised economy. The focus on environmental and managerial reforms would continue, but a lot of council housing and a great many council estates would be significantly improved [p197]
The fault lies not necessarily, or not always, in intent but rather in a public investment strategy tied to the demands and interests of private capital and in a poverty reduction programme which in practice is as focused on removing the poor as it is in reducing their poverty, and in an approach premised on the belief that council estates themselves are part of the problem rather than an essential element of any genuinely inclusive solution... Here the New Labour government, for all its genuinely progressive politics and more radical policy ambition, shared in essence the presumptions of its Conservative predecessors. [p206]
Currently, the government pays around £9.3 billion a year in Housing Benefit to private landlords supporting some 1.5 million households, almost half of whom are in work. If all these people were renting socially, we’d be saving £1.5 billion on benefits payments ... [p240]
Council housing’s record has been much maligned. The form and nature of council housing has been unfairly blamed for problems entrenched in our unequal society and exacerbated by the politics which reflect it. [p260]
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister in the coalition, recalls a leadership meeting at which he proposed building more social housing: One of them [David Cameron or George Osborne] – I honestly can’t remember whom – looked genuinely nonplussed and said, ‘I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing – it just creates Labour voters.’ They genuinely saw housing as a Petri dish for voters. It was unbelievable. [p239]
The UK has been in the grip of a neoliberal ideology since 1979, determined to invoke market forces as the only acceptable remedy for social ills, and industriously experimenting with one after another irrational – and often plain vindictive - initiative designed to create the longed for, magical free market conditions. In the case of housing policy, the later part of this history identifies the reasons why these initiatives are destined to fail, where they have not failed already. The early part of the history reminds us that they have for the most part been tried before and failed before.
The fact is that the three post World War II decades in Britain were exceptional. Previously, Britain was second to none in its obsession with liberal, free market ideology and over time its various governments did in fact make all sorts of unsuccessful efforts to address aspects of the chronic housing needs of its population without undue deviation from the tenets of liberalism. For Britain’s housing, it was not just housing markets that failed – it was also a full range of central and local government housing initiatives that failed, until council housing emerged as the one remedy that was effective in achieving the objectives set by government. The first may date from the 1890s and many were built between the two world wars, but it was in the thirty years from 1945 that council housing had its greatest impact, within the wider context of economic planning.
For all its attention to earlier and subsequent history, the real importance of this book is to investigate whether the council housing built in this era was a failure, as alleged by those dismantling the investment, or if it was instead a success, contrary to media and party political presentations. The neoliberal agenda since 1979 is based on the contention that it was a failure and this agenda was not abandoned under New Labour. This book analyses and refutes the main allegations made against council housing, without neglecting its failings, and in doing so is obliged to confront head on the misinformation and misrepresentation on which the neoliberal attacks have been constructed. Like all so called revisionist history, it is obliged to undertake this task in the teeth of a well established and popular narrative that is very difficult to shake off. We think we know what went wrong with council housing because we have been exposed to such a relentless misinformation campaign. It is not acceptable to recycle such ill informed contemporary accounts as though the passage of time and endless repetition transformed them into history. The myths were insufficiently challenged at the time and this book sets out to challenge them firmly now.
It is important to revisit all this history because otherwise we will be unable to appreciate how important government intervention and planning in general, and council housing in particular, must remain to any future housing policy. The challenge of securing for the people decent, affordable housing is not, never has been and never will be fulfilled by the market. Government intervention has been successful in the past and can be so again.
But of course, it is no secret that the neoliberal agenda does not envisage decent or affordable housing for the majority. The cynical and vindictive nature of many recent government decisions is exposed in this volume.
in its early years it housed a relatively affluent working class, those in steady employment who could be reliably expected to pay its comparatively high rents. In this sense, councils were like any other landlord: they wanted ‘respectable’ tenants for their housing and a guarantee that its capital costs would be paid off and running expenses met...council housing is not, in any meaningful sense, ‘subsidised’. Construction loans are repaid and, in most cases, the homes themselves become an asset, not only to those who live in them but a financial – and income-generating – asset to the local authority. [p231]
The true story of ‘Broken Britain’ is not failed council estates but an economy that failed their residents. [p48]
In their groundbreaking book, Family and Kinship in East London, Peter Willmott and Michael Young went on to lament what the residents, mostly from London’s old East End, had lost: ‘Instead of the sociable squash of people and houses, workshops and lorries, there are the drawn-out roads and spacious open ground of the usual low-density estate.’ To many that might seem an improvement but Willmott and Young mourned, in particular, the loss of the old matriarchal kinship networks which had, they contended, previously sustained community life. They seem blind to the bleak uniformity of the old terraces and have been criticised since for a much romanticised view of that supposedly ‘sociable squash’ and a selective use of evidence to support it. Still, it was an influential early sally against the legion of planners whose drawing board plans were held by critics to have decimated the working-class communities they had set out to rescue. [p72]
It was an undeniably suburban Arcadia, of course; indeed, that was its raison d’être. As such, it has probably fulfilled the hopes of its builders who believed simply that decent living conditions would support lives lived decently, but it taunts those who wanted this new world to be something more radical, something more ostensibly ‘modern’ and urban. As Matthew Hollow has pointed out, Britain’s early post-war planning has been criticised both for its naïve utopianism and its too timid pragmatism. The apparent contradiction can be resolved, he suggests, if we stop treating ‘utopianism and pragmatism as two mutually exclusive concepts’. There was clearly a genuine idealism and ambition on the part of planners and politicians but it was, unavoidably and properly, shaped by the material constraints and cultural realities of its day. It was, in the end, a grounded and very British utopianism. [p73]
...the reflex to blame the design of modernist council estates seems simplistic – and too convenient to those politicians seeking not only a scapegoat to blame for social disorder but an opportunity for a little real estate redevelopment. [p248]
A strategy that emphasised private sector and housing association involvement was one that encouraged redevelopment – new houses built for sale and shared ownership which would reward investors – rather than refurbishment of existing properties. Comprehensive improvement schemes had worked elsewhere and ‘selective redevelopment might have been justified by social and environmental objectives’, but leveraged capital demanded its profit. [p185]
The reality of residualisation was powerful enough; the social problems of many council estates – not most, and where significant caused by a minority of residents – were real enough (though sometimes exaggerated by the media). But the causal chain was vital. Right-wing politicians blamed council estates – their form, their management, their population – for the problems they suffered. This was an analysis rooted in and reflecting their opposition to all forms of state intervention (except those, we might add cynically, such as MIRAS, which helped the middle class). It was also one that conveniently shifted responsibility from the structural causes of poverty and inequality – which it had been thought in the past the duty of the state or government to address – to supposedly failing neighbourhoods. Academics have a posh term for this: ‘locality managerialism’ – an operating assumption that ‘problems of dilapidation and deprivation have predominantly spatial causes and can be tackled through area-based programmes’. [p196]
All this was an approach broadly shared by New Labour. Council estates remained a problem, inherently flawed, requiring systemic reform. An explicit and strengthened ‘social exclusion’ agenda would focus on rescuing its marginalised communities in order to integrate them into the new, highly competitive globalised economy. The focus on environmental and managerial reforms would continue, but a lot of council housing and a great many council estates would be significantly improved [p197]
The fault lies not necessarily, or not always, in intent but rather in a public investment strategy tied to the demands and interests of private capital and in a poverty reduction programme which in practice is as focused on removing the poor as it is in reducing their poverty, and in an approach premised on the belief that council estates themselves are part of the problem rather than an essential element of any genuinely inclusive solution... Here the New Labour government, for all its genuinely progressive politics and more radical policy ambition, shared in essence the presumptions of its Conservative predecessors. [p206]
Currently, the government pays around £9.3 billion a year in Housing Benefit to private landlords supporting some 1.5 million households, almost half of whom are in work. If all these people were renting socially, we’d be saving £1.5 billion on benefits payments ... [p240]
Council housing’s record has been much maligned. The form and nature of council housing has been unfairly blamed for problems entrenched in our unequal society and exacerbated by the politics which reflect it. [p260]
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister in the coalition, recalls a leadership meeting at which he proposed building more social housing: One of them [David Cameron or George Osborne] – I honestly can’t remember whom – looked genuinely nonplussed and said, ‘I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing – it just creates Labour voters.’ They genuinely saw housing as a Petri dish for voters. It was unbelievable. [p239]
July 4, 2019
Municipal Dreams - The Rise and Fall of Council Housing’ (VERSO, 2019). What an amazing exploration of Britain’s social history through its council estates. Part of my pet project reading on ideology and town planning and architecture (including urbanization and urban class warfare under capitalism). Obviously, democratic town planning and public housing are staples of any socialist agenda and ambitious council housing projects of the 20th century are a great reminder of actual attempts to build this kind of utopia in which the ‘working class’ had a right to decent and modern housing. As the book shows, the planners and architectures behind some of the most remarkable housing estates in Britain, aimed to elevate the working class through design, going beyond what Marx calls ‘the realm of necessity’ to enable ordinary people to build communities, engage in politics, arts and other pursuits (hitherto reserved for the elites). Of course, with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and the massive neoliberal revolution that followed, the conservatives systematically dismantled all things public, building their dream of a proper owning democracy in which the left-over council houses in de-industrialized Britain have become synonymous for unemployment and crime. Nowadays, the idea of a city that belongs to all rather than being a centre of global finance may sound utopian but the architectural remains of an era in which large parts of this utopia were made a reality are a great reminder that better futures can actually be built. With rising inequality and cities growing through processes of dispossession and displacement of the poor, cities, rather than factories, may actually become the frontiers of class struggle in the 21st century.
November 7, 2022
My god this book is good.
It's a perfectly structured, rich, in-depth and accurate view of the politics of council house building over the last century plus, and how we got into this mess. Even better it's interspliced with the just the right amount of detail about specific estates, their socio-economics, history and architecture.
I was shocked to see a number of negative reviews, given how I feel, but - full disclosure - I am a planner who specialises in housing (incl affordable housing) so perhaps for the less involved reader it might be a bit dry. For that reason I actually thought I'd find nothing new here - which in part I didn't - but the compact explainers of government reforms and the economic agendas that framed them are so well set out (in a linear but comparative format) that if you want to understand social housing's role in the wider housing crisis, this one is a must. If you are able to take the broad facts and processes of each time period, which he helpfully summarises at regular intervals, you have a really good book that covers so many of the key factors - albeit not from the perspective of land markets or demand side economics which must be considered if you want true understanding of what's going on. But that's ultimately not the purpose of the book.
The only thing that might have added context is London's population fluxes and the consequent threat of local level housing targets, which pressurises more modern estate regen proposals.
Unlike a lot of smug housing crisis texts, the author clearly understands and articulates councils' bent over a barrel position of the last 50 odd years and for a very very refreshing change actually has the right enemies in all of this: neoliberal bullshit and it's promotors.
It's a perfectly structured, rich, in-depth and accurate view of the politics of council house building over the last century plus, and how we got into this mess. Even better it's interspliced with the just the right amount of detail about specific estates, their socio-economics, history and architecture.
I was shocked to see a number of negative reviews, given how I feel, but - full disclosure - I am a planner who specialises in housing (incl affordable housing) so perhaps for the less involved reader it might be a bit dry. For that reason I actually thought I'd find nothing new here - which in part I didn't - but the compact explainers of government reforms and the economic agendas that framed them are so well set out (in a linear but comparative format) that if you want to understand social housing's role in the wider housing crisis, this one is a must. If you are able to take the broad facts and processes of each time period, which he helpfully summarises at regular intervals, you have a really good book that covers so many of the key factors - albeit not from the perspective of land markets or demand side economics which must be considered if you want true understanding of what's going on. But that's ultimately not the purpose of the book.
The only thing that might have added context is London's population fluxes and the consequent threat of local level housing targets, which pressurises more modern estate regen proposals.
Unlike a lot of smug housing crisis texts, the author clearly understands and articulates councils' bent over a barrel position of the last 50 odd years and for a very very refreshing change actually has the right enemies in all of this: neoliberal bullshit and it's promotors.
February 3, 2021
What a dull read, but then again I don’t know what I expected out of a book about council housing.
No wait, I know what I expected: some humanity, at the very least. The history of council housing in the UK is an emotive and polarising subject. However, rather than focus on the lived experience of the tenants, Boughton reduces it all to an endless drawl of facts and figures with a bit of weird architectural critique thrown in.
I realise that the author is generally in favour of council housing, but there is something a bit off-putting about this historian taking the reader on a virtual safari through various estates in Derby or Birmingham or London, describing “front and back-gardened two-story houses...in the conventional boxy neo-Georgian style” or droning about “gable and hipped ends, first-floor eaves, dormer windows and mansard roofs”. There’s no attempt to talk to the people who lived in those homes, so this isn’t really a social history so much as a lofty political and architectural history, with a bit of a paternalistic undertone.
Still I realise it’s a great piece of scholarship and it’ll make a good reference book I suppose, but perhaps ironically given the subject matter, it’s definitely not very accessible to the interested layman.
No wait, I know what I expected: some humanity, at the very least. The history of council housing in the UK is an emotive and polarising subject. However, rather than focus on the lived experience of the tenants, Boughton reduces it all to an endless drawl of facts and figures with a bit of weird architectural critique thrown in.
I realise that the author is generally in favour of council housing, but there is something a bit off-putting about this historian taking the reader on a virtual safari through various estates in Derby or Birmingham or London, describing “front and back-gardened two-story houses...in the conventional boxy neo-Georgian style” or droning about “gable and hipped ends, first-floor eaves, dormer windows and mansard roofs”. There’s no attempt to talk to the people who lived in those homes, so this isn’t really a social history so much as a lofty political and architectural history, with a bit of a paternalistic undertone.
Still I realise it’s a great piece of scholarship and it’ll make a good reference book I suppose, but perhaps ironically given the subject matter, it’s definitely not very accessible to the interested layman.
October 11, 2023
“The true story of ‘Broken Britain’ is not failed council estates but an economy that failed their residents.”
Boughton gives a fairly thorough account of council housing, focusing largely on England rather than the UK. Apparently it was almost universally the case that council estates in their earlier years, well into post-1945 era were the home of relatively affluent and aspirational working class.
“I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing-it just creates Labour voters.”
That was a rare moment of truth from either David Cameron or George Osborne, apparently then Dep PM Nick Clegg couldn’t remember which one.
We see how the devastating and close to terminal impact of full-throttled Thatcherism had on council housing and all the greed and opportunism that came along with it, by 1997 over 1.8 million council homes had been sold, as part of her Right to Buy scheme, around a quarter of the total, council houses had previously formed around 31% of the housing stock, though now it hovers around 20%.
He also gets into the consequences of Blair’s mass back door privatisation project and his huge increase in the use of PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) which seemed to do little more than enrich greedy, deceiving investors at the expense of saddling the state with phenomenal debt. Between 1988 and 2008 saw 1.4 million homes transfer from council to housing association ownership, around 80% took place under New Labour.
So there is a lot of really good stuff in here, Boughton can be a tad dry at times, but overall this makes for really good reading and reminds you how awful successive Conservative governments have been and how they’ve manipulated and gamed the system to effectively make a cruel game of ridiculing and punishing the most neediest in society.
Boughton gives a fairly thorough account of council housing, focusing largely on England rather than the UK. Apparently it was almost universally the case that council estates in their earlier years, well into post-1945 era were the home of relatively affluent and aspirational working class.
“I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing-it just creates Labour voters.”
That was a rare moment of truth from either David Cameron or George Osborne, apparently then Dep PM Nick Clegg couldn’t remember which one.
We see how the devastating and close to terminal impact of full-throttled Thatcherism had on council housing and all the greed and opportunism that came along with it, by 1997 over 1.8 million council homes had been sold, as part of her Right to Buy scheme, around a quarter of the total, council houses had previously formed around 31% of the housing stock, though now it hovers around 20%.
He also gets into the consequences of Blair’s mass back door privatisation project and his huge increase in the use of PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) which seemed to do little more than enrich greedy, deceiving investors at the expense of saddling the state with phenomenal debt. Between 1988 and 2008 saw 1.4 million homes transfer from council to housing association ownership, around 80% took place under New Labour.
So there is a lot of really good stuff in here, Boughton can be a tad dry at times, but overall this makes for really good reading and reminds you how awful successive Conservative governments have been and how they’ve manipulated and gamed the system to effectively make a cruel game of ridiculing and punishing the most neediest in society.
June 27, 2021
Erm, ok. So this ended up being quite a dry book with far too much quoting of figures and statistics.
Whilst the premise was good, the finished article was a drab and somewhat dreary look at different council housing around the UK.
Some issues were overexposed and mined for information, whilst some elements were overlooked.
I'd say this book would be useful as an academic reference text, but for "pleasure" reading, nah.
Straight to the library for donation for you my lad!
Whilst the premise was good, the finished article was a drab and somewhat dreary look at different council housing around the UK.
Some issues were overexposed and mined for information, whilst some elements were overlooked.
I'd say this book would be useful as an academic reference text, but for "pleasure" reading, nah.
Straight to the library for donation for you my lad!
September 28, 2023
Amazingly comprehensive history of the development of and need for council housing, as well as the unearned stigma of estates and the cycle of poverty this can perpetuate.
Only issue is with the way it was written, due to the material it's rather dense with a lot of figures and names, and I found myself having to go back and re-read a lot.
Only issue is with the way it was written, due to the material it's rather dense with a lot of figures and names, and I found myself having to go back and re-read a lot.
February 13, 2024
Very good book about a subject that has been basically ignored in this country for a good 35 yrs. Probably suffers a bit from being written directly after Grenfell because it seems to think that event might change things (it did not! Sad! Many such cases!)
Edit: reviews saying it's dense and stat-ridden are completely baffling to me. It's pretty much as concise as it could be without disintegrating into incomprehensibilty
Edit: reviews saying it's dense and stat-ridden are completely baffling to me. It's pretty much as concise as it could be without disintegrating into incomprehensibilty
July 15, 2025
Lovely, impassioned book, with a well-managed balance of welcome wonkery re: specific legislation and acute descriptions of actual council homes and their mixed (though, as he points out, overwhelmingly positive!) legacies. A more UK-wide focus might have been nice - I don't think he ever ventures out of England - but the North East receives fairly generous coverage (Cruddas Park, Meadow Well and of course Byker Wall) so I'm not inclined to complain too much.
December 23, 2021
so dull and disappointing
August 22, 2025
Basically tells the fascinating story of how the idea of social housing came about as a solution to the slum conditions of the victorian urban poor, how that idea was co-opted by utopian technocrat architects and planners in the post-war reconstruction and finally how it was neglected and then abandoned due to the political will of the Conservative and new Labour governments of the late 20th/early 21st centuries.
June 10, 2021
Housing is really interesting !!!
This book does not make it so!
The middle is really boring - just lists and lists of council estates and their architectural features. The end two chapters pick up as we start to talk about the ravages of Thatcherism and new Labour and the mass selling off and displacement of estates these days. However he is a Labour fanboy who respects the police and takes concepts such as "racial tensions" and crime at face value.
Indeed I appreciate that it's not just focussed on London, that the earlier chapters talk about the ideals of the architects and planners behind housing for all. I like the photos, and his obvious passion.
Recommended as a good history but I wish it had a bit more meat or direction.
This book does not make it so!
The middle is really boring - just lists and lists of council estates and their architectural features. The end two chapters pick up as we start to talk about the ravages of Thatcherism and new Labour and the mass selling off and displacement of estates these days. However he is a Labour fanboy who respects the police and takes concepts such as "racial tensions" and crime at face value.
Indeed I appreciate that it's not just focussed on London, that the earlier chapters talk about the ideals of the architects and planners behind housing for all. I like the photos, and his obvious passion.
Recommended as a good history but I wish it had a bit more meat or direction.
June 28, 2021
This book makes no bones about its viewpoint. The author describes himself as a loyal "foot soldier" for the Labor Party, and spends much of the first half of the book lamenting that anyone could ever doubt that government-built housing was the best kind of housing, and the latter half of the book denouncing every move towards "privatization" after Margaret Thatcher came into power He admits that most council-housing residents loved the 1980 "Right to Buy" scheme, and the further 1984 Act that increased the "discounts" on purchases to 60% and allowed renters with only two years residence to buy. Yet the real tragedy to him was that 1.8 million homes, a fourth of the council housing stock, was sold off. Public housing went from a third to a fifth of Britain's housing stock, a level that would make many Americans blanch.
Most criticisms, however, merely assume that the reader must agree with them, and provide no evidence for their claims. His description of sociologist Alice Coleman, who adopted Oscar Newman's "Defensible Space" theories in her "Utopia on Trial" book, as "literally" a Thatcherite, shows that he considers such people almost a foreign species. He thus is suspicious of every new attempt to devolve management, even the Tenants Management Organizations, set up by Labor in 1975 to given tenants a voice and expanded by Thatcher. The AMLOs, HATs, PFIs and other new managers with tenant-voice all seem like a step away from justice to the author, although he doesn't really explain why.
The bigger problem with this book is that its spends most of its pages on detailed descriptions of individual council estates. Although sometimes this can give one a detailed insight into new movements, such as how the Somerford Estate in Hackney, which pioneered the "mixed development" with varied housing in 1949 (although Hackney's labor councilors stipulated that no housing should be above three stories, demonstrating labor's long-time demand for suburban cottages for workers.) More often the book shines when it describes major shifts in housing policy. For instance, the 1930 Housing Act incentivized slum clearance and a 1933 Housing Circular said that henceforth all municipal housing should be devoted to clearing slums. When a 1956 Housing Act gave extra subsidies the higher homes went, the boom for high-rises was on. A 1963 Conservative White Paper on housing development (led by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan) required a certain percent of houses be constructed using industrialized methods, later raised to 40% by the Labor party. This led to a rash of jerry-rigged high-rise estates, starting with the "Large Panel System" used in Southwark in that same year, that were soon dilapidated or bulldozed. He also explains how the 1977 Housing (the Homeless) Act, led to the influx of last resort individuals into housing estates and caused an increase in crime and disorder.
A little less polemicism and a little less of a travelogue of housing estates would have improved this book immensely.
Most criticisms, however, merely assume that the reader must agree with them, and provide no evidence for their claims. His description of sociologist Alice Coleman, who adopted Oscar Newman's "Defensible Space" theories in her "Utopia on Trial" book, as "literally" a Thatcherite, shows that he considers such people almost a foreign species. He thus is suspicious of every new attempt to devolve management, even the Tenants Management Organizations, set up by Labor in 1975 to given tenants a voice and expanded by Thatcher. The AMLOs, HATs, PFIs and other new managers with tenant-voice all seem like a step away from justice to the author, although he doesn't really explain why.
The bigger problem with this book is that its spends most of its pages on detailed descriptions of individual council estates. Although sometimes this can give one a detailed insight into new movements, such as how the Somerford Estate in Hackney, which pioneered the "mixed development" with varied housing in 1949 (although Hackney's labor councilors stipulated that no housing should be above three stories, demonstrating labor's long-time demand for suburban cottages for workers.) More often the book shines when it describes major shifts in housing policy. For instance, the 1930 Housing Act incentivized slum clearance and a 1933 Housing Circular said that henceforth all municipal housing should be devoted to clearing slums. When a 1956 Housing Act gave extra subsidies the higher homes went, the boom for high-rises was on. A 1963 Conservative White Paper on housing development (led by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan) required a certain percent of houses be constructed using industrialized methods, later raised to 40% by the Labor party. This led to a rash of jerry-rigged high-rise estates, starting with the "Large Panel System" used in Southwark in that same year, that were soon dilapidated or bulldozed. He also explains how the 1977 Housing (the Homeless) Act, led to the influx of last resort individuals into housing estates and caused an increase in crime and disorder.
A little less polemicism and a little less of a travelogue of housing estates would have improved this book immensely.
August 12, 2022
An incredibly detailed story of British council housing, albeit probably too much. The author spent too much of the book on the minutia of specific housing estates - their builds and modifications - where I would have preferred some more on the story of conservative opposition and the positive/negative impacts on local communities that the estates had. Where those aspects were discussed, I found the book great. When it switched back to the specific funding method and redesign of a London estate, I found the book hard to keep reading.
I loved the pictures of the estates included, and would have loved them in color (maybe the other edition's are in color?); I would have also loved some graphs to help visualize the story of council estates. Maybe builds per year, to really show the effect Thatcher and Right to Buy had. Maybe child poverty over time, to investigate a causal link between that and housing builds per year. I found myself taking this book very slowly, highlighting and even googling terms (I think he assumes a baseline British knowledge of these things, which is fine), but I'm not sure I can say I left this book having really learned all that much.
I just think there is a lot of good avenues for this topic to go down that the book didn't quite do. At times Boughton begins to make a defense of council housing, slipping into the first person, but I would have liked to see him go further in his defense. He is clearly passionate on the subject, and I respect that, but I'm not sure he wrote the best book he could. I'd give it a 3 or 4 stars.
I loved the pictures of the estates included, and would have loved them in color (maybe the other edition's are in color?); I would have also loved some graphs to help visualize the story of council estates. Maybe builds per year, to really show the effect Thatcher and Right to Buy had. Maybe child poverty over time, to investigate a causal link between that and housing builds per year. I found myself taking this book very slowly, highlighting and even googling terms (I think he assumes a baseline British knowledge of these things, which is fine), but I'm not sure I can say I left this book having really learned all that much.
I just think there is a lot of good avenues for this topic to go down that the book didn't quite do. At times Boughton begins to make a defense of council housing, slipping into the first person, but I would have liked to see him go further in his defense. He is clearly passionate on the subject, and I respect that, but I'm not sure he wrote the best book he could. I'd give it a 3 or 4 stars.
Read
November 13, 2018Really interesting argument and history of UK public housing, a kind of stubbornly unfussy radicalism. (Recommended for Jan-Maat)
Read
March 4, 2020reads a bit like a triple-decker victorian novel - the beginning is great and then it gets a little dense and slow in the middle, but if you can get through that it's worth it for the the ending, which is deftly and precisely executed.
covering such a broad topic does mean that the book sometimes reads like a survey, but generally i think there is enough analysis that this isn't a huge issue. overall i think municipal dreams an excellent example of engaging history for a non-academic audience that doesnt compromise attention to its sources or nuanced analysis.
i do wish it was less focused on london (and more on scotland, although that does stand outside boughtons remit) and that it incorporated race more fully into its analysis rather than restricting it to one chapter section, but i generally it's a great text for anyone who wants to learn more about the social and political history of english council housing.
if anyone has any recommendations for similar books that cover scotland specifically i would love to hear them
covering such a broad topic does mean that the book sometimes reads like a survey, but generally i think there is enough analysis that this isn't a huge issue. overall i think municipal dreams an excellent example of engaging history for a non-academic audience that doesnt compromise attention to its sources or nuanced analysis.
i do wish it was less focused on london (and more on scotland, although that does stand outside boughtons remit) and that it incorporated race more fully into its analysis rather than restricting it to one chapter section, but i generally it's a great text for anyone who wants to learn more about the social and political history of english council housing.
if anyone has any recommendations for similar books that cover scotland specifically i would love to hear them
January 2, 2021
The research interesting; it's presentation turgid.
Sometimes I don't need to know which specific housing association applied for which specific grant. Where he advocates for council-provided homes it flows more readily.
Beware of the creeping nouns: deindustrialisation, destigmatisation, privatisation, welfarisation, regeneration, residualisation, locality managerialism, and architectural determinism, to name a few.
Sometimes I don't need to know which specific housing association applied for which specific grant. Where he advocates for council-provided homes it flows more readily.
Beware of the creeping nouns: deindustrialisation, destigmatisation, privatisation, welfarisation, regeneration, residualisation, locality managerialism, and architectural determinism, to name a few.
September 8, 2018
This does rely quite heavily on statistics and figures, which makes the narrative quite slow. Overall though, it is a brilliant history of social housing which comes full circle and leaves much to think about.
July 27, 2025
Insight into the history of social housing in England. Defends the traditional, aspirational concept of social housing. Premise: 'duty of the state to house its people well'.
1. first council estate was the Boundary Estate, Bethnal Green [8]
2. 1919-39, c.1.1m new council homes built [31]
3. Addison Act 1919: alll councils to survey local housing needs & 'implement concrete [nice] plans to tackle them' [35]; 'Demands for slum clearance & rehousing central to Labour's rise in power';
4. Addison Act ineffectual (only 213k homes of 500k target) due to the Geddes Axe [41]
5. Era of the 'high idealism' of the Garden City' [41]; emphasis on cottage homes [54]
6. 'mobilising myth of WWII' [60]; 'social solidatority & shared purpose', 'spirit of '45' -> 'win the peace' [67]
7. Town & Country Planning Act 1947: 1.4k (!) planning authorities reduced to 145 [2025: 337]
8. New Towns Act 1946: Durham's 2, Newton Aycliffe & Peterlee; also Stevenage, nick-named Silkingrad - Lewis Silkin's plan opposed by 6k residents of old Stevenage {law firm f.by his son, John} [79]
9. English urbanism "has an innate love of nature" - Frederick Gibberd, Harlow's master planner [82]
10. old ambitions... 1951 election Conservative pledge to build 300k pa, actually built 318k in 1953 [105]
11. shift to see social housing as safety net for the poorest in society, not aspirational working class... Housing Subsidies Act 1956 abolished the general means subsidy - new council housing reserved to the elderly or those displaced by slum clearance [107]
12. Adoption of high-rise in the late 1950s: realisation that a large no. on waiting list didn't need traditional fam. homes [115]
13. The Barbican was built for affluent leaseholders {never social housing, just assume it is because associciate modernism/brutalism w. social housing [120]
14. slum clerance drive of the 1960s [160]
15. Su Rogers criticising estates for being too nice? "the utopias of the LAs" [161]; 'uopian' became a term of abuse, 'conservatism' the new buzzword ie rehabilitate rather than demolish [163]
16. 5m council homes built 1945-81 [162]
17. Housing Act 1988 'tenants' choice' - right to transfer homes to another social landlord eg housing association [176]; in practice, used by councils themselves; justified by competition - best management practices prevail; New Labour seemed to agree that councils were poor landlords & housing associations better [210]
18. 'defensible space' argument ("checks & inhibitions exerted by [the] eye-policed city street"/"natural surveillance" lacking) = 'architectural determinism' [183]; real factor for crime = poverty [198]
19. Decent Homes Standard, 200-: 1.6m social rented homes non-decent in 2001; by '09, 1.4m LA homes improved [245]
20. 1997-2010, only 0.3% of 2.6m new homes by LAs (7,870); meanwhile, housing associations built 350k
21. Grenfell managed by a tenant management organisation (TMO), resident-led body that manages housing on behalf of a LA [254]
22. Neoliberalism: public spending is evil; ruthless economising is virtuous; but, cost-cutting on cladding...
23. Message from Right to Buy: social renting housing is only for the poorest; if successful, you should buy [261]
1. first council estate was the Boundary Estate, Bethnal Green [8]
2. 1919-39, c.1.1m new council homes built [31]
3. Addison Act 1919: alll councils to survey local housing needs & 'implement concrete [nice] plans to tackle them' [35]; 'Demands for slum clearance & rehousing central to Labour's rise in power';
4. Addison Act ineffectual (only 213k homes of 500k target) due to the Geddes Axe [41]
5. Era of the 'high idealism' of the Garden City' [41]; emphasis on cottage homes [54]
6. 'mobilising myth of WWII' [60]; 'social solidatority & shared purpose', 'spirit of '45' -> 'win the peace' [67]
7. Town & Country Planning Act 1947: 1.4k (!) planning authorities reduced to 145 [2025: 337]
8. New Towns Act 1946: Durham's 2, Newton Aycliffe & Peterlee; also Stevenage, nick-named Silkingrad - Lewis Silkin's plan opposed by 6k residents of old Stevenage {law firm f.by his son, John} [79]
9. English urbanism "has an innate love of nature" - Frederick Gibberd, Harlow's master planner [82]
10. old ambitions... 1951 election Conservative pledge to build 300k pa, actually built 318k in 1953 [105]
11. shift to see social housing as safety net for the poorest in society, not aspirational working class... Housing Subsidies Act 1956 abolished the general means subsidy - new council housing reserved to the elderly or those displaced by slum clearance [107]
12. Adoption of high-rise in the late 1950s: realisation that a large no. on waiting list didn't need traditional fam. homes [115]
13. The Barbican was built for affluent leaseholders {never social housing, just assume it is because associciate modernism/brutalism w. social housing [120]
14. slum clerance drive of the 1960s [160]
15. Su Rogers criticising estates for being too nice? "the utopias of the LAs" [161]; 'uopian' became a term of abuse, 'conservatism' the new buzzword ie rehabilitate rather than demolish [163]
16. 5m council homes built 1945-81 [162]
17. Housing Act 1988 'tenants' choice' - right to transfer homes to another social landlord eg housing association [176]; in practice, used by councils themselves; justified by competition - best management practices prevail; New Labour seemed to agree that councils were poor landlords & housing associations better [210]
18. 'defensible space' argument ("checks & inhibitions exerted by [the] eye-policed city street"/"natural surveillance" lacking) = 'architectural determinism' [183]; real factor for crime = poverty [198]
19. Decent Homes Standard, 200-: 1.6m social rented homes non-decent in 2001; by '09, 1.4m LA homes improved [245]
20. 1997-2010, only 0.3% of 2.6m new homes by LAs (7,870); meanwhile, housing associations built 350k
21. Grenfell managed by a tenant management organisation (TMO), resident-led body that manages housing on behalf of a LA [254]
22. Neoliberalism: public spending is evil; ruthless economising is virtuous; but, cost-cutting on cladding...
23. Message from Right to Buy: social renting housing is only for the poorest; if successful, you should buy [261]
August 21, 2019
Having made an enormous contribution to meeting housing, transforming the lives of many millions for the better, and providing a decent and secure home across the decades, “council housing’s record has been much maligned. The form and nature of council housing has been unfairly blamed for problems entrenched in our unequal society and exacerbated by the politics which reflect it.” With a changing political landscape and people once again interested in council housing, John Broughton aims to provide accessible information on the "past a achievements and current follies".
The book charts how in the early years council tenants were the relatively affluent working class (those in steady employment able to pay comparatively high rates). In the 1930s slum clearances and the great depression brought a poorer working class into council housing for the first time. After the Second World War there was a mood towards providing for a relatively prosperous and aspirational working class. The period of the 1950s and 1960s saw a feverish building spree when all the progress of the age still left families in slums. There was a drive to high rise, motivated by positive political and architectural considerations , compelled by hard circumstances and the lure of modernity.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 cemented needs-based allocations and was central to the switch towards council housing for the less well off. Right To Buy, the cessation of building, and industrial collapse led to residualisation. Boughton explains how “regeneration” projects, “mixed community” arguments, and the move to housing associations have been important parts of forcing council tenants out of desirable areas.
It is worthwhile pausing over one such regeneration strategy: In Woodberry Down, Hackney, the “tenure mix of the estate would shift from 67 per cent social rented to 34 per cent socially rented, 65 per cent privately owned. The latter made the scheme self-financing and gave the developers, Berkely Homes, a contractually guaranteed 21 per cent profit.”
One idea that Broughton takes to task (repeatedly) is the idea that “sink estates” caused crime, highlighting the more central role of economic collapse rather than sky bridges.
Municipal Dreams does show that there was some ideological differences, particularly between the Conservative idea that councils should only house the poorest and the Labour belief in general provision. However, the lack of ideological substance over the decades is clear, as well as a noticeable ambivalence towards European trends (probably to blame for the dull suburbia that supposedly fitted the environment) and the long-lasting Victorian do-gooder attitude.
Would recommend to a friend interested in housing.
The book charts how in the early years council tenants were the relatively affluent working class (those in steady employment able to pay comparatively high rates). In the 1930s slum clearances and the great depression brought a poorer working class into council housing for the first time. After the Second World War there was a mood towards providing for a relatively prosperous and aspirational working class. The period of the 1950s and 1960s saw a feverish building spree when all the progress of the age still left families in slums. There was a drive to high rise, motivated by positive political and architectural considerations , compelled by hard circumstances and the lure of modernity.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 cemented needs-based allocations and was central to the switch towards council housing for the less well off. Right To Buy, the cessation of building, and industrial collapse led to residualisation. Boughton explains how “regeneration” projects, “mixed community” arguments, and the move to housing associations have been important parts of forcing council tenants out of desirable areas.
It is worthwhile pausing over one such regeneration strategy: In Woodberry Down, Hackney, the “tenure mix of the estate would shift from 67 per cent social rented to 34 per cent socially rented, 65 per cent privately owned. The latter made the scheme self-financing and gave the developers, Berkely Homes, a contractually guaranteed 21 per cent profit.”
One idea that Broughton takes to task (repeatedly) is the idea that “sink estates” caused crime, highlighting the more central role of economic collapse rather than sky bridges.
Municipal Dreams does show that there was some ideological differences, particularly between the Conservative idea that councils should only house the poorest and the Labour belief in general provision. However, the lack of ideological substance over the decades is clear, as well as a noticeable ambivalence towards European trends (probably to blame for the dull suburbia that supposedly fitted the environment) and the long-lasting Victorian do-gooder attitude.
Would recommend to a friend interested in housing.
May 19, 2022
Great explanation of the history of public housing in Britain - quite pleasant to read and with very little jargon. I wish, however, that the book contained more pictures of the discussed estates and designs so that I wouldn't have to interrupt my reading by having to google them all the time. I would also be curious to learn more about recent development examples in London. Especially when discussing the post-1997 history, not many examples from outside the capital are discussed. The problems discussed are probably typical to London due to its economic development compared to the rest of the country, but would nonetheless be interesting to learn more about other cities. All in all, nice book!
August 12, 2025
Uma investigação muito bem feita sobre a evolução da política habitacional no Reino Unido, nomeadamente como a crise da habitação já se encontrara resolvida no inter e pós-guerras, numa lição que ecoa de forma assustadora ao considerar o que aconteceu a partir dos anos 70. Hoje, os problemas são os mesmos que no início do século XX, o que faz pensar sobre quais serão as soluções e se, a meio do caminho, nos perdemos nas nossas ambições do que deveria ser ou não o Estado.
Para quem gosta de política urbana e arquitetura, é um doce, com descrições e ilustrações dos vários projetos de habitação pública.
No entanto, por vezes falta fio condutor, com certas partes a redundarem numa enumeração de projetos com uma linha temporal por vezes confusa. O conteúdo é muito bom e faz refletir, mas a experiência não é a mais agradável, fazendo parecer que o livro precisava de mais uma revisão antes de ser publicado.
Para quem gosta de política urbana e arquitetura, é um doce, com descrições e ilustrações dos vários projetos de habitação pública.
No entanto, por vezes falta fio condutor, com certas partes a redundarem numa enumeração de projetos com uma linha temporal por vezes confusa. O conteúdo é muito bom e faz refletir, mas a experiência não é a mais agradável, fazendo parecer que o livro precisava de mais uma revisão antes de ser publicado.
July 1, 2019
A really well researched and passionate look at the progress of social housing, I spent most of the back half of this book shaking my head as I was reading about the 40 year long war on social housing as a concept and on those that occupy the properties perpetrated by successive governments, where we are currently is a very sad state of affairs.
August 2, 2025
Very comprehensive review into the history of council, social, and affordable housing in the UK.
Slightly bland writing style, with a clear left leaning bias toward their approach to housing. However, being from that political persuasion myself, I can’t complain.
Slightly bland writing style, with a clear left leaning bias toward their approach to housing. However, being from that political persuasion myself, I can’t complain.
March 3, 2023
Interesting and informative but perhaps a little lacking in direction at points.
March 29, 2024
A thoughtful history of council/social housing in the UK. Made me sad/mad that it was written just after the 2017 election and thus ends on a more hopeful note than perhaps is warranted at present...
December 27, 2024
4.5 rounded up. (Not enough illustrations!). Turn left and then left again. I hope Sir Keir and Ms Rayner have read this.
November 28, 2025
Could have done with more of a structure
August 9, 2021
Growing up in Blair's Britain, I have assumed an ideal society was one where social housing was not necessary and non-existent. This book argues why in fact it is integral for a functioning society with a thorough and well researched examination of Britain's social policy. The first half I found quite fact and figure heavy, but the 1970s onwards I was hooked with interest. From the end of the 19th century to today, economic theory, political messaging, public perception, architectural visions and the working class are all discussed through the topic of housing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews