Tom Murtha writes that “the very nature of housing association development today leads to gentrification”.
I am sometimes accused of having a rose-tinted view of the past when I talk about housing associations losing their social purpose and traditional values. I find this strange, as I am one of the few still active who witnessed the post 1960s growth of the sector.
Many new housing associations were formed at that time. They were mainly divided into two types: those housing associations which were established by estate agents and developers to house mainly middle-class people. Their motives were profit and self-gain and were known at the time as the rip-off association.
The others were the inner-city associations set up following the showing of Cathy Come Home. They were often funded by Shelter and HACT, and were driven by a strong social purpose and a desire to help those in the greatest housing need.
For most of the last quarter of the 20th century the latter group prevailed as the sector grew. But, in the last 20 years, I believe we have seen a resurgence of the former. For several reasons – which I have discussed elsewhere – many housing associations have moved away from their original social purpose and values; something I have called the slow death of social housing.
I now believe we are witnessing a new phenomenon: the gentrification of housing associations.
Some years ago, I appeared in a documentary called Dispossession, which linked estate regeneration projects across the country to social cleansing and gentrification. It showed how existing social tenants were moved out of estates which were modernized or rebuilt, and let or sold to more affluent tenants or leaseholders.
A number of housing associations were mentioned in the film; it caused much debate at the time, as housing leaders denied this was taking place. There is growing evidence that they were wrong, and that the very nature of housing association development today leads to gentrification.
In a recent article in The Guardian, Chakrabortty wrote about the gentrification of inner London areas where poor people are driven out by the development of homes that are too expensive to rent or buy. His focus was on schools, which are closing because of this.
A number of housing associations were mentioned in the film; it caused much debate at the time, as housing leaders denied this was taking place.
There is growing evidence that they were wrong, and that the very nature of housing association development today leads to gentrification.
But what about the housing developments themselves? Many are built in partnership with housing associations, who then let them at so-called affordable rents or sell them in shared ownership packages – both of which are too expensive for those on low or no incomes. In fact, minimum income requirements bar many poor people from applying for them. The result is that the properties are let or sold to middle income earners, who often reflect the make-up of executives and boards of most large housing associations.
Even where some are let at lower rents, the developments are often accessed by so called ‘poor doors’. This accentuates the segregation. Ghettos for the poor, set among the housing for the rich. This is gentrification, by any definition, and housing associations play a major role in it. A far cry from the social purpose and values of the past.
I once wrote that housing associations were going the way of building societies, which were established in the 19th century with mutual objectives of self-help. Now because of merger, deregulation and commercialisation, many have become simply banks. Only a few retain their original status and purpose. We can see this happening today in many housing associations. I now fear they have gone further as some take on the appearance of estate agents and developers. Just like those that started out in 1970s.
All this has happened at the expense of existing social housing tenants and some leaseholders. We have developed a financial model that builds new homes with rents that are not affordable, funded by some of the poorest in society who could never afford to live in those new homes. We are redistributing wealth upwards. This is ethically wrong and in the long term not sustainable. A leading consultancy recently recommended guaranteed inflation proofed rent increases to ensure this funding for new development could continue. There was no mention in the report of the impact of such rent increases on existing poor tenants, whose real incomes are falling. They seem to have been forgotten.
Recent events have shown that existing tenants pay in other ways. The prioritisation of growth and development has led to service failures. Existing tenants were left to live in unfit and unsafe homes, and their cries for help were ignored.
Grenfell and Rochdale were just the tragic tip of the iceberg; the number of service failures show that it is almost endemic in some organisations. For many years housing leaders have been in denial about this. My own comments about it were ignored and criticised by many. It took the work of two people to expose the failures; this has led to a change in legislation and the strengthening of regulatory powers.
A recent independent review has revealed the extent to which some associations have failed to deliver their basic core purpose. What an indictment: that associations now must be reminded of and forced to carry out the job that they were set up to do. One that they appear to have forgotten as their eyes were focused elsewhere.
There was no mention in the report of the impact of such rent increases on existing poor tenants, whose real incomes are falling. They seem to have been forgotten.
Some blame a lack of government funding for this – but this is only half of the story. The move away from social purpose has taken place over many years. The process is often described as mission creep: small decisions are made by executives and boards for good reasons, but these incrementally build up until you have an organisation that has changed completely. Just like the frog in a slowly heating pan of water, those involved often don’t know it is happening until it’s too late. But for some it was a strategic choice to move upmarket at the expense of existing tenants. It suited the role they wanted to play.
As organisations have become more complex, the makeup of boards and senior management have changed. Many no longer have real lived experience of social housing. The culture reflects this change. What they build and for whom they build changes too. The priority is homes for middle class people who can afford them. More and more poor people are excluded. Social purpose, if it exists at all, is ghettoised into charitable foundations and is no longer a part of the core business.
This is the face of some housing associations of today. With the growth of not for profits, this is the face of many more tomorrow, just as it was for some when we began this journey in the 1970s. And we are left with the question we asked then:
Who in the future will provide a decent warm and safe home for poor working-class people at a price they can genuinely afford?
This article was originally published in Housing View
Labour Campaign for Council Housing 