Social Housing; The Road to Freedom
Social Housing
The Road to Freedom
Diogenes: “You will take no thought for marriage or children or native land: all that will be sheer nonsense to you, and you will leave the house of your fathers and make your home in a tomb or a deserted tower or even a jar.” . . . “Leading this life you will say |
that you are happier than the Great King.” —Lucian, Philosophies for Sale 9; trans. A. M. Harmon, Loeb ed., 1929 Social Housing is commonly treated as an overused, ill-defined term adorning many books, articles, magazines as well as The Housing and Regeneration Bill10. The adjective social is meant as a linguistic means of emphasizing its detachment from the private housing, with a boundary that remains ambiguously not impermeable. While trying to identify what social housing may stand for and the varying models it includes, need is the one element that seems to unify the different concepts involved. A cornerstone whose form and relevance has changed over time. need seems to be the perfect instrument through which to investigate how social housing has evolved and the alterations it has undergone throughout history, in order to understand where it stands today. A question needs to be raised regarding this term. if it should adapt one more time to an ever evolving society whose needs have once again been put into question as it is faced with a global pandemic and significant political changes lurking in the background? By inquiring into the circumstances defining its evolution, we shall look at the different historical phases through a tri-fold lens of property, ideology and stigma In order to achieve a clearer understanding of how social housing was interpreted at different times in history, it is paramount to define as clearly as we can the main concepts which are directly related. One such ambivalent concept is that of home and its close connection to property and stigma. What differentiates home from house, and why is that important in our context? All of us – even the truly homeless – live somewhere, and each therefore stands in some relation to land as owner-occupier, tenant, licensee or squatter. In this way land law impinges upon a vast area of social orderings and expectations, and exerts a fundamental influence upon the lifestyles of ordinary people.6 Through this lens we will refer to property when discussing social housing in different time contexts and how the relation to different ownership schemes impacted the way similar social policies were offered to people and by whom. Assessing the relationship between home, house, ownership and time allows us to determine the emotional/humane value or lack thereof of social housing and the relevance of its name and substance today. We shall be looking to define who was in need of social housing or its equivalent social policies and who was deserving. Grey and Symes refer to the truly homeless in their passage above questioning how homelessness is defined and is everyone in need of social housing homeless. According to the Housing Act 1985 in Britain, a person is homeless if they have no accommodation in England, Wales or Scotland or have no accommodation to which they are legally entitled to occupy. 11 However, different historical examples, such as the industrial revolution, show that It was not just the homeless but also the working class living in slums demand to be part of the social housing schemes8, suggesting that the definition of homelessness and people in need of a home do not necessarily refer to the same preconditions but do suggest a similar legal need. Ideology helps us analyze the cultural and political context which would often enough determine who of these people in need deserved help from public or private entities. What were their rights as well as their obligations. It is closely connected to stigma, which offers a fuller picture and more insight into the popular perception of the people in need and their entitlements, which, as history suggests, would in turn be reflected into these social policies, as was the case in Ancient Greece where non-working poorer people were stigmatized as unworthy of help and received no social aid from the government. Having established the main concepts through which history will be observed in relation to social housing/equivalent policies, there are three main contexts worth discussing regarding ancient history . It is only logical to begin with Ancient Greece, as the earliest of these three examples. There is no evidence of any social policy extended to non-working adult men in Ancient Greece. According to Dionysius’s Lysias9, around the end of the 5th Century BC, there were some 5,000 Athenians (out of approximately 22,000 adult male citizens) who did not own land. With class distinctions between 595 BC up until 322 BC remaining somewhat the same, there were three main working classes excluded from land ownership; Slaves, Thetes and Hektemoroi10. They were all in some way or another dependent on the agathoi (the elite class) for wages and/or food and shelter. Where Slaves made up the agricultural working force as well as working in the domestic, Thetes offered skill-less manpower together with working as rowers or light-armed troops being mostly on the move. For where was a shortage of slaves in agricultural work, the Hektemoroi would work the land owned by another and pay off one-sixth of their produce annually. Failing to do so could result in them becoming slaves until the debt was payed off.11 It was common practice for young single men of the lower classes to work as thetes until they reached a marrying age when they settled down and led a local family life. This shift in lifestyle is highlighted by Hesiod’s description of thetes as houseless hierlings, thus emphasizing the transitory nature of these co-dependent agreements during the earlier years of their lives.12 Dependency or co-dependency for food and shelter was not directly related to the state but rather to private property owners. It existed as a well-established vertical structure run by households of various sizes on the basis of profit, sometimes mutual, rather than charity. There were, however, social relationships with the state where free citizens from these two lower classes would be sent to foreign lands controlled by Athens and be allowed to farm and own their allocated piece.13 Apart from citizens belonging to the different social classes, there was an outsider category, mostly concentrated in big cities, of homeless people consisting of beggars, thieves and prostitutes. While none of these people fulfilled any of the prerequisites to obtaining social help from the state or elites, the prostitutes (porneia) belonged to a unique category of Ancient Greece, excluded from the oikos14 and family life, but still quite relevant and present in the polis. What is even more interesting about their status, is how their places of work were frequently where they also resided in. Because of such a condition, and referring to the definition of home and house we gave previously, the Porneia belonged to the special category of people who were homeless and yet not houseless, which renders the brothels or porneion they lived in as houses for the homeless. While many believed that their quarters resembled dark and stinking holes15, an excavation by the German Institute in Athens revealed what is now called the Building Z (Image 2), a structure believed to have been a porneion, depicting quite a different visual of comforting living quarters. The building underwent two reconstructions after having been destroyed first by an earthquake and then again during the Peloponnesian War. It was finally established for the last time in the 4th Century where its size was increased together with its water supply which was collected by a well and three huge cisterns receiving rainwater from off of the surrounding roof. It is believed that looms were located in each room while large numbers of fine vessels used for drinking and eating were found in the premises. The whole building occupies 600m2 and in its earliest configuration was composed of 15 rooms surrounding two courtyards, where three of the rooms close to the central courtyard were believed to have been banqueting facilities. It was during the second and third restoration that the organization of the place started to resemble a porneion due to the increase in size. In terms of the ideological beliefs regarding the classes in need and deserving of land or home, family was at the center of all such arguments. Similar to property, it was seen as an essential and inseparable component of oikos, creating thus, a sense of legitimacy and belonging in an established household. Anyone found lacking of these, were considered as occupying a marginal place in the Athenian society.16 Work was another factor influencing distribution of help, be it by private entities or by the state. Considering there is no evidence of any social policy extended to non-working adult men, one might rightfully think it is partly because of a set of beliefs better explained in Hesiod’s poem Work and Days17, where he states that through adapting a state of work ethic one can avoid the threat of hunger, as well as achieve virtue and glory through becoming wealthy as a result of his work. There is also a notion of shame attached to the state of poverty in his poem, which reflects the stigma and shame culture in the Ancient Greece. Seneca, while encouraging giving alms to the poor “a hunch of bread or a farthing dole tossed to a beggar”18, did not consider it a beneficium action as the recipients were often “unworthy”. This was, however, not the case during the Republic of Rome. In its period of efflorescence,19 shelter, food and clothing were believed to be provided to a large number of citizens for extensive amounts of time20 As for property ownership conditions in the urban areas, the city of Hermopolis provides a somewhat good reference through its registers which show that only around 12 to 15% of the city’s citizens belonged to property owning households.27 Unskilled laborers, similar to the Greek Thetes, lived crammed with ten or more people in a room inside the dense high rise blocks called Insulae (Image 3). Insulaes much like Roman domestic architecture28 were highly concerned with social rank distinctions, and were organized according to household family size, occupation (dormitories) and wealth (The wealthiest households would live on the ground floor).29 Apartments above usually had no running water or a place for cooking and were separated from one another by wooden partitions. The buildings themselves were designed by inexperienced Slum Landlords who would use the cheapest materials and labor for construction. As Vitruvius has also remarked, the buildings faced a range of problematics such as subsidence of foundations as well as cracking and erosion of outer walls because of rain. 30 Moreover, considering the wage of an unskilled laborer was well below the price of rent for a room31 there were two possible solutions as to how life inside the insulae was provided; the first by simply sharing the price with as many people as possible in order to make it bearable but reducing the chances of creating a family, while the second is a bit more complicated. It might very well have been that the state would subsidize private landlords and help the people in need, unskilled laborers, pay their rents. A system quite similar to social housing schemes used today in the UK and EU. Overall, ideologically speaking, there is a shift to be observed in how and to whom Rome offered social help compared to Ancient Greece. Rome no longer restricts food or clothing to family people, or people who work, but rather provides it to anyone in need. When it comes to housing or property, however, a similar trend to that of Greece seems to continue, land offered to farmers and lower rent to laborers, but with one exception; Family was no longer a prerequisite for receiving state aid. Stigma around these people seems to have changed as well, with an epitah of the same time stating that a merchant who passed away was merciful and loving of the poor,32 thus evoking empathy as a virtuous feeling. The last context worth mentioning, bridging the gap between ancient and medieval history, is that of the early Islamic society in Medina. During its twenty-nine years of social prosperity under the rule of Prophet Mohammad and his caliphs, it became a society advanced through mutual aid and social justice (Rodinson 1966). The public treasury, was most probably the main established social tool used by the state to aid those in need through collecting taxes and then redistributing those resources to pay for pensions and necessities.33 Moreover, the relationship with property was slightly different from that of previous examples of ancient civilizations. Where in those contexts land was mostly concentrated into the hands of the elite and rented to farmers/workers with the state playing a secondary role, in Medina land was mostly owned by the state which would let it to its villagers in the form of small cultivators. There is a passage by Umar, one of the four caliphs, where he refuses to divide the land gained in Syria among the Arab conquerors, saying: If we were to divide these lands, nothing would remain for those who come after you.... What would be left of the lands for the orphans and widows of these countries?”34 It suggests that the state was offering land/property to some classes of people who were not workers, in contrast to the other cases discussed earlier. It is also thought that according to various chronicles there were no beggars in these communities during the reign of the prophet.35 Yet, in terms of ideology, apart from specific groups mentioned above protected in the Holy Koran like orphans, widows and the disabled, it was predominantly perceived that a person worthy of receiving help would be a person who worked or was inclined to work, as the Prophet stated: He who willingly works and does not have shelter, must be given shelter. If he is single, then he must be given a wife. If he does not have a camel let him claim one.36 It also becomes clear, that once again, the focus is put on the family, and a shelter or home being closely related to it. As for stigma, it doesn’t seem to appear that these communities had any strong convictions against the poor (there were no beggars), or even the non-Muslim ones, as chronicles from Umar’s life tell us of him inviting an old abandoned Jew to his home, giving him food and having the public treasury bestow upon him a pension until the end of his days.37 The concept of mutual aid was carried on to Medieval societies in the UK, which were characterized by endeavors of enhanced cooperation, custom and lordship. Regardless of their wealth, both smallholders and richer peasants belonged to the same social group of those who labored, with landless laborers being a minority.38 According to Helen Cam’s observations, such societies were stratified in solely three categories; those who labored, those who fought and those who prayed.39 In such compact and clearly defined societies, hardships were treated as challenges that tested community bonds and problems that should be solved from within. It only made sense considering there were no relief programs in the form of public funds or state agencies administered by the government to help peasants in need.40 Social welfare was a local matter, however, there was place for concern regarding tenurial security, especially considering farmers did not own the land they worked on. In this context, it was predicted under law that in specific instances such as that of a disabled cultivator, a caretaker had to be assigned who would take control over their land apart from a portion deemed appropriate to cover their necessities including food, clothing and shelter. 41 Looking at ideology, one thing was clear regarding English Medieval societies, meritocracy was at the forefront of deciding justly and rewarding of each according to his works.42 Where charity and empathy were highly encouraged, especially bestowed upon the softspoken and the weak, there was stigma surrounding defiant beggars and loudmouthed unthankful men, with any nonconforming behavior disturbing public life being frowned upon.43 Here we see how, what one might consider social housing/help, was not so much the obligation of the state but rather that of the community and then that of the feudal landlord. It makes for an interesting observation of local small scale societies where homelessness was not a prevalent issue, much like Medina, but slightly different from the urban city contexts of the ancient world discussed previously. It is only after the industrial revolution that social housing, and a society in need of it, began to take the form we acknowledge today. Its roots were found in the recognized problems of public health surrounding urban slums and poverty.44 There was much debate and experimentation regarding the appropriate models of housing which were to substitute the slums, while also being suitable enough in accommodating the English family. An ideology based on the popular belief of the pre-eminent importance of the nuclear family and its role in personal fulfillment. It is of interest to mention that social housing was extended only to the working class and would be managed by the local government making the state the official landlord. However, different from previous historical examples where such help would be offered solely on the bases of need, social housing became a means of social engineering, getting highjacked by coercive and idealistic conceptions of the radical educated classes. “Some Paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the objects of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion...' This less well-off working class was easily wooed by the simple promise of functional plumbing and higher technological standards into a social experiment on the Utopic ideal. The continued experimentation went on in terms of location, scale and type of estate, most notably high rise apartment blocks. It was the political situation from the 1960s until its culmination in 1977 with an Act making councils responsible for housing groups outside the working family45, that created a suitable environment for the high rise apartment buildings to flourish. Such was the case with Erno Goldfinger’s brutalist Trellick tower commissioned in 1963 as one of the first large social (subsidized) housing towers. Being inspired by Le Corbusier’s Unite d’Habitation for its dwelling units, the tower stands 322 feet tall with 31 stories. It is composed of two main interconnected volumes meant to create a separation between the living space and services. Numerous space saving designs were incorporated within the apartments, rendering them larger than conventional standards at the time. The building façade resembles a sever concrete armor softened by the geometrical colored windows projecting into the lobby. However, the unfortunate crime ridden atmosphere of the tower, partly made possible because of the narrow circulation spaces as well as the semi-isolated service block, together with the untimely conclusion of the building construction right after high rises had fallen out of favor regarding social housing, contributed to its nickname encompassing both architecture and social policies; The Tower of Terror (Image 4). During the 1980’s, under a new conservative government, the social housing feverish idealism faced a halt. With the aim of ending it as soon as possible on the bases of spreading home ownership, the government ceased further expansions as well as began transferring its stock to the tenures and Housing Associations by launching its “Right to Buy” scheme. It was by far the most significant change of tenure policy, with properties being sold at a discount of 60% for houses and 70% for flats. In less than two decades over 2 million dwellings were removed from its stock, most of them houses bought by middle-aged, skilled occupiers, thus leaving the social housing market to the poorest and most immobile tenants of former years. Unfortunately, not much later, the owner-occupier market in parts of the United Kingdom collapsed resulting in a rise of real rents and loss of value in ex-council houses46, creating thus, new opportunities for Housing Associations to purchase even more property at a discounted rate. With the council’s role diminishing, they became the new Social landlords and housing providers, resulting in invariably higher rents than those of the council due to their different funding structure. It finally becomes clear how the clash of two ideologies concerning property, ideology and stigma, led to a number of social experiments and unfortunate solutions. Beginning with discussions of who deserved housing help, what was the structure of their family and their working status, and carrying it on to ideological exercises on property ownership, it has been more than 200 years of trying to create one size solutions to a multi-dimensional problem. In the midst of a pandemic, where the value of home and homelessness is facing a new air of recognition encompassing mental health, comfort, family support and continuity, social housing remains a detached reality stashed behind well-meaning imperious thoughts. Through an extensive analysis of history, it becomes easier to define common trends relating to social housing in order to extract valuable insights with a prospect for the future. Firstly, social housing as a wide ranging scheme of providing houses to people in need never truly existed. A common understanding of the house as home with its relation to longevity, family life and work would have made it difficult to conceptualize a big scaled policy based on solely what it had to offer and to whom. The closest policy would have been land distribution to farmers, where once again it was not a house on offer but rather a job, considering farmers would need to build the house themselves. We see how different needs received different specific solutions, sometimes rent subsidies as it happened in Rome, or help with a home and a wife in Medina, even a caretaker and provided necessities in medieval England. In order to determine the relevance of social housing today, we need to ask the question; What are the specific needs of the different groups of people who are being offered social housing as a band aid solution to all? Is it a lack of home? A need for rehabilitation? A need for counseling? A need for a caretaker? A need for a job? Or a need for education? Image 2  Image 3  Image 4  Footnotes 1. Expert Participation, “Housing and Regeneration Act 2008”, accessed December 6, 2020 2. Brink, “Home. The term and the concept as seen from a linguistic and settlement-historical point of view”, pp. 17-24 3. Fox, “The Meaning of Home: A Chimerical Concept or a Legal Challenge?”, pp. 580-610, 4. Brink, “Home. The term and the concept as seen from a linguistic and settlement-historical point of view”, pp. 19-20 5. Dovey, Home and Homelessness, pp. 43 6. Gray and Symes, Real Property and Real People, pp. 4 7. Expert Participation, “Housing Act 1985” 8. Marcuse, Interpreting Public Housing History, pp. 224-225 9. Dionysius and Stephan Usher, Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Critical Essays in Two Volumes, pp. 31 10. Rosivach, "THE "THĒTES" IN THUCYDIDES", pp. 131-39 11. G. Schils, “Solon and The Hektemoroi”, pp. 75-90 12. Hesiodus and A. W. Mair, The Poems and Fragments 13. Bolkestein, Charity and Poor Welfare in Pre-Christian Antiquity: a Contribution to the Problem "Ethics and Society", pp. 248-251 14. “Definitions for OIKOS,” What does OIKOS mean?: An oikos is the ancient Greek equivalent of a household, house, or family. An oikos was the basic unit of society in most Greek city-states, and included the head of the oikos, his immediate family, and slaves living together in one domestic setting. Large oikoi also had farms that were usually tended by the slaves, which were also the basic agricultural unit of the ancient economy. 15. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus. Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens, pp. 156 16. Connor, The Razing of the House in Greek Society, pp. 79-102 17. Hesiod, WORK AND DAYS 18. Lampe, “Social Welfare in the Greco-Roman World as a Background for Early Christian Practice”, pp. 8 19. Jongman, “Gibbon Was Right: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Economy”, pp. 183-199 20. de Vries and van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy 21. Lampe, “Social Welfare in the Greco-Roman World as a Background for Early Christian Practice”, pp. 19 22. Bolkestein, Charity and Poor Welfare in Pre-Christian Antiquity: a Contribution to the Problem "Ethics and Society", pp. 248-251 23. Bowman and Wilson, Ownership and Exploitation of Land and Natural Resources in the Roman World, pp. 31 24. Lampe, “Social Welfare in the Greco-Roman World as a Background for Early Christian Practice”, pp. 21 25. Livy, The History of Rome, 35.6.4-5 26. Grainger, The Roman War of Antiochos the Great, pp. 57-60 27. Kehoe, “Property Rights over Land and Economic Growth in the Roman Empire”, pp. 114 29. Metraux, “Ancient Housing: “Oikos” and “Domus” in Greece and Rome”, pp. 400 30. Scobie, “Rich and Poor in the Roman World”, pp. 46 31. Scobie, “Rich and Poor in the Roman World”, pp. 46 32. McGuire, “Epigraphical Evidence for Social Charity in the Roman West”, pp. 146 33. Irani, Social Justice in the Ancient World, pp. 128 34. Irani, Social Justice in the Ancient World, pp. 119 35. Irani, Social Justice in the Ancient World, pp. 119 36. Hadith from the Koran 37. Hoveyda, “Social Justice in Early Islamic Society”, pp. 119 38. Clark, “Social Welfare and Mutual Aid in the Medieval Countryside” , pp. 384 39. Cam, “The Theory and Practice of Representation in Medieval England”, pp. 265 40. Skeat, “The Vision of William concerning Piers the Plowman”, pp. 72 41. Clark, “Social Welfare and Mutual Aid in the Medieval Countryside” , pp. 387 42. Skeat, “The Vision of William concerning Piers the Plowman”, pp. 258 43. Knowels, “The Monastic Constitution of Lanfranc”, pp. 89 44. Sutcliffe, Council Housing and Culture, pp. 47 45. Sutcliffe, Council Housing and Culture, pp. 837 Bibliography Ault, Bradley A., and Lisa C. Nevett. Ancient Greek Houses and Households Chronological, Regional, and Social Diversity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Barlow, James, and Simon Duncan. “The Use and Abuse of Housing Tenure.” Housing Studies3, no. 4 (1988): 219–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673038808720632. Blessing, Anita. “Magical or Monstrous? Hybridity in Social Housing Governance.” Housing Studies27, no. 2 (2012): 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.649469. Bolkestein, Hendrik. Charity and Poor Welfare in Pre-Christian Antiquity: a Contribution to the Problem "Ethics and Society". Utrecht: A. Oosthoek Pub. House, 1939. “Chapter 1. Thucydides’ History and Its Background.” Thucydides, 2006, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826797-004. Clark, Elaine. “Social Welfare and Mutual Aid in the Medieval Countryside.” The Journal of British Studies33, no. 4 (1994): 381–406. https://doi.org/10.1086/386062. Cole, Ian. “Hidden from History? Housing Studies, the Perpetual Present and the Case of Social Housing in Britain.” Housing Studies21, no. 2 (2006): 283–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030500484893. Cowan, D., and M. Mcdermont. “Obscuring the Public Function: A Social Housing Case Study.” Current Legal Problems61, no. 1 (2008): 159–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/61.1.159. “Definitions for OIKOS.” What does OIKOS mean? Accessed December 6, 2020.https://www.definitions.net/definition/OIKOS. Dench, Geoff. The Rise and Rise of Meritocracy. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Dovey, Kimberly. “Home and Homelessness.” Home Environments, 1985, 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2266-3_2. Economou, Emmanouil M. L., and Nicholas C. Kyriazis. “The Emergence and the Evolution of Property Rights in Ancient Greece.” Journal of Institutional Economics13, no. 1 (2016): 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137416000205. Erdkamp, Paul, Koenraad Verboven, and Arjan Zuiderhoek. Ownership and Exploitation of Land and Natural Resources in the Roman World. Corby: Oxford University Press, 2015. Fox, Lorna. “The Meaning of Home: A Chimerical Concept or a Legal Challenge?” Journal of Law and Society29, no. 4 (2002): 580–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00234. Fox, Lorna. “The Meaning of Home: A Chimerical Concept or a Legal Challenge?” Journal of Law and Society29, no. 4 (2002): 580–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00234. “Gibbon Was Right: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Economy.” Crises and the Roman Empire, 2007, 183–99. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004160507.i-448.38. Gilbert, Alan. “The Return of the Slum: Does Language Matter?” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research31, no. 4 (2007): 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2427.2007.00754.x. Gray, Kevin J., and P. D. Symes. Real Property and Real People: Principles of Land Law. London: Butterworths, 1983. Green, Lily Hunter. “Harvesting Stories: Home and Communities.” Thinking Home, 2020, 91– 95. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087212-7. Gurney, Craig M. “Lowering the Drawbridge: A Case Study of Analogy and Metaphor in the Social Construction of Home-Ownership.” Urban Studies36, no. 10 (1999): 1705–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098992782. HESIOD, HESIOD. WORK AND DAYS. Place of publication not identified: SMK Books, 2018. Hesiodus, and A. W. Mair. The Poems and Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. Heslop, Julia, and Emma Ormerod. “The Politics of Crisis: Deconstructing the Dominant Narratives of the Housing Crisis.” Antipode52, no. 1 (2019): 145–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12585. Irani, K. D., and Morris Silver. Social Justice in the Ancient World. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995. Kaelble, H. “Social History in Europe.” Journal of Social History37, no. 1 (2003): 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh.2003.0144. LeGates, Richard T., and Frederic Stout. The City Reader. London: Routledge, 2000. Malpass, Peter, and Ceri Victory. “The Modernisation of Social Housing in England.” International Journal of Housing Policy10, no. 1 (2010): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710903565647. Marcuse, Peter. “INTERPRETING ‘PUBLIC HOUSING’ HISTORY.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research12, no. 3 (1995). Metraux, Guy. “Ancient Housing: ‘Oikos’ and ‘Domus’ in Greece and Rome.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians58, no. 3 (1999): 392–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/991533. Moore, Tom. “In Defense of Housing: the Politics of Crisis.” Housing Studies33, no. 8 (2018): 1287–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2018.1504649. Neale, Joanne. “Homelessness and Theory Reconsidered.” Housing Studies12, no. 1 (1997): 47– 61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039708720882. Participation, Expert. “Housing Act 1985.” Legislation.gov.uk. Statute Law Database, October 30, 1985. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/part/III/crossheading/main- definitions. Participation, Expert. “Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.” Legislation.gov.uk. Statute Law Database. Accessed December 6, 2020. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/17/part/1/chapter/4/crossheading/social- housing. “The Poor in the City of Rome.” Poverty in the Roman World, n.d., 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511482700.003. Price, Zeena. “Resisting the Stigmas of Social Housing: Site-Specific Photography and the Visual Politics of Regeneration.” LIMINA: A Journal Of Historical & Cultural Studies, 2019. Ravetz, Alison. Council Housing and Culture: the History of a Social Experiment. London: Routledge, 2001. “The Right to Buy: the Housing Crisis That Thatcher Built.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, August 26, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/26/right-to-buy- margaret-thatcher-david-cameron-housing-crisis. Rostovtzeff, Michael Ivanovitch. The Social Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford, Clarendon Press <1964>, 1998. Schils, G. “Solon and TheHektemoroi.” Ancient Society22 (1991): 75–90. https://doi.org/10.2143/as.22.0.2005911. Schils, G. “Solon and TheHektemoroi.” Ancient Society22 (1991): 75–90. https://doi.org/10.2143/as.22.0.2005911. Scobie, Alex. “RICH AND POOR IN THE ROMAN WORLD.” The Classical Outlook60, no. 2 (January 1982): 44–46. Somerville, Peter. “Understanding Homelessness.” Housing, Theory and Society30, no. 4 (2013): 384–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096. Spiegeleer, Christoph de. The Civilising Offensive: Social and Educational Reform in 19th- Century Belgium. Berlin , Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2019. Turkington, Richard, Frank Wassenberg, and Ronald van Kempen. High-Rise Housing in Europe Current Trends and Future Prospects. Delft: DUP Science, 2004. Vliet, Willem Van, and Peter Saunders. “A Nation of Home Owners.” Social Forces73, no. 3 (1995): 1177. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580608. |
Comments
Post a Comment