Getting on for a hundred years ago, America made a tragic mistake when designing a housing program to help out citizens who were suffering during the Great Depression.
The original thinking was to support the working classes with housing that they would be proud to live in for unlimited periods. But circumstances and politics conspired to build emergency housing for those temporarily facing hard times. It was built in quantity over the following decades.
Those who no longer needed housing assistance were escorted to the door of this ‘public housing.’ And who would want to live in housing that was built to grudgingly support the very poorest?
That attitude prevails to this day, with ‘public housing’ firmly defined in the community mind as built for cheats, losers and scam artists. Not upstanding citizens. 1
This attitude, which is validated at the highest levels, also hampers attempts to find alternative means of creating housing. More and more ‘average citizens’ are becoming unable to afford even the most basic shelter.
In the new ideas department ‘social housing’ in the United States is an example. It is new-name branded as both financially affordable for the poorest and, at the same time, of sufficient quality to attract those who will pay to stay.
Is there hope for publicly-funded housing support that will satisfy the essential needs of the poorest, while offering the livability to satisfy the truly desirable housing hopes of the middle classes?
There is some hope, if you’re prepared to look far enough. Read more about the possibilities on offer in Australia, from abc.net.au: Social housing that puts design first is creating communities and homes residents are proud of
Footnotes
- Marcia Fudge, the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (the agency responsible for Public Housing) embodied this approach. Try: Do Public Housing Tenants Really Need Continuous Ass-Kicking On Their Way Out The Door?
