![]()
Part 1
The basics
![]()
1 Housing and home
What do we mean when we say ‘housing’? This sounds like a very silly question, because we all think we know. After all, we live in the stuff. But is it really as straightforward as we might think?
The first issue is that the word ‘housing’ can be used as both a noun and a verb. It can be used to describe a thing but also an activity. So we can suggest that housing is both a collection of dwellings and the activity of providing, managing and maintaining a collection of dwellings. Housing, then, is both a thing and something that people do.
But note also, then, that, in defining housing, we used the word ‘dwelling’. We did this to make it clear that we are not merely referring to ‘houses’ but to a range of different forms of accommodation. Most definitions of dwelling refer to it as a building or structure. Again, we cannot presume it is a fixed building, but it might also include a mobile home or caravan, a tent or the use of a natural structure such as a cave.
An alternative way of defining housing might be to refer to it as shelter, and this has the advantage of having no specific connotation to a particular built form or structure. But shelter is also used in different ways depending on the context. The word ‘shelter’ can be suggestive of an existential need. Shelter is something that helps to keep us alive by providing the basics of warmth, security and protection from the elements. But shelter can also refer to a temporary or immediate respite from the elements. We take shelter from the rain under a tree or in a shop doorway. This form of shelter is not intended to provide us with a permanent solution.
But housing is more than just building. We are also concerned with who can live in it and whether it is sustainable as a permanent residence. We are interested in how it is paid for and whether all households can afford access to housing that is of decent quality. Hence, housing is also an activity that concerns itself with these things. And, because these activities involve skills, judgement and analysis on the part of those tasked with them, we can also talk of housing as being a profession, or perhaps better as a series of professions that includes developers, housing management and estate and residential letting agents, as well as those involved in planning and maintenance.
So, for many of the chapters in this book, we shall be referring to housing as a verb, as an activity that is concerned not just with things, but with the activities that create and sustain those things. Hence much of what interests us is to do with finance, legislation, regulation and the institutions that undertake these tasks.
But there is still more to housing than this. We need the structures to shelter us and we need them to be well built, well maintained and affordable. But most of all we have to be able to use the structures. Housing can all too easily be seen as an end in itself. We often hear people state that we need more housing. But what do we need it for? The answer to this is that housing is what we use in order to make homes for ourselves. A home is a place of nurture and a store of memories. It is a place where we can be intimate with those we love and who love us. It is where we raise children and also a place where we can be ourselves, secure in a private space that we control and that we are able to use as we see fit. Housing therefore allows us to live as private beings, to nurture the next generation and to live in security, peace and comfort.
So much of what matters about housing can only take place once the door is firmly shut and the rest of the world is excluded. It is this exclusion that allows us to make and maintain a home, and this is what housing is really about. All the technicalities, the policies and the financial models exist only to allow households to make a home.
But there has been something of an unfortunate shift in recent years, in that we do not talk so much about housing or dwellings any more, but rather about homes. The housing and building professions, as well as politicians, now commonly use ‘home’ instead of ‘house’ when they refer to physical structures. Social landlords manage and build homes and not dwellings or houses. The reason for this is clearly that home is a warmer, more evocative concept, which converts a brick box into something with a much stronger emotional resonance. Accordingly, when we discuss those lacking a dwelling, we call them ‘homeless’ to emphasise the full import of what they are suffering and the full possibility of its redemption. ‘House’ is a cold and empty word, which becomes inhabited and warm when translated into ‘home’.
Speaking only of homes adds a greater significance to what housing and building professionals are doing: they are not building or managing brick boxes, but creating something warm and welcoming to residents. But, in doing so, are we taking something away from the concept of home itself? It is no longer a place of nurturing and comfort, but now a physical structure.
Our home is, we hope, a store of memories. It is a place that is comfortable and comforting and provides us with security. It is a both a refuge and a nest, and each one is unique to those who live there. Thus the misuse of the word ‘home’, so that it refers to physical structures, diminishes what it ought to signify. The aim of adding significance to the quotidian tasks of managing and building reduces the idea of ‘home’ to something empty and cold.
This misuse is significant in another sense, namely that it implies that homes are ‘made’ by those other than the household. Homes, we are now led to believe, are made by professionals, ready-made for people to live in. The household no longer has to create or make the home; the work has been done for them. This situation has several consequences. First, because home is ostensibly created by professionals, this implies that no effort is needed on the part of the household. The suggestion is that homemaking is easy to achieve and can be readily done for us. Second, this view carries the apparent belief that home is transient. Building homes implies that we move from home to home and do not take it with us. Third, this idea implies the standardisation of homes according to professionals’ understanding of their clients’ needs and aspirations. The result is the provision of identikit homes, based on standard design briefs and models. This creates an increasing homogeneity of styles aimed to fulfil standardised purposes. We need only think of terms such as ‘starter home’ and ‘executive home’ to see this process of standardisation. Fourth, this will tend to impersonalise the notion of home and dwelling more generally: it becomes a commodity that is bought and sold and treated as such. Housing is commodified according to economic rather than human values. Lastly, but implicit to all the above, this notion of home assumes the professionalisation of the role of homemaking: homes can only be made by others, by ‘the experts’. Professionals tell us what we need or, in other words, they actually deem to tell us what home is.
So we should be careful with words and we should certainly insist on a separation between housing and home: they are two different things. This, though, does not in any way diminish the importance of housing. Separating it from the idea of home does not mean that there is nothing left for professionals to do. Instead, we need to remember that the use of housing – and therefore the need to create it, manage it, finance it and so on – is ubiquitous. We all need it and will continue to need it. Our housing may differ in terms of style and size, from an igloo to a twenty-first-floor flat, but it is still housing, and the process that creates it is also housing.
Housing fulfils a basic need or needs, for shelter, security, autonomy and so on. We most certainly cannot manage without it. But we are not merely satisfied by the basics. We have particular standards, expectations and aspirations. We expect heating, running water, space, and if these are not present then the house is determined to be unfit or uninhabitable. We want something much more complex than basic shelter. We actually want a sophisticated machine, or rather a collection of machines, which all work for us seamlessly and without causing us any trouble. But this takes money, a legal system, regulations and planning, and only when these are present can we truly forget the complexity of the activity of housing and properly call it our home.
Discussion points
1 What is home?
2 How does housing differ from home?
3 Is the distinction between housing as a noun and a verb an important one?
See also
Chapter 13 Desire
Chapter 27 Boom and bust
Chapter 33 Development
Chapter 35 Architecture
Further reading
Bachelard, G. (1969): The Poetics of Space, Boston, MA, Beacon Books.
Blunt, A. and Dowling, R. (2006): Home, London, Routledge.
Clapham, D. (2005): The Meaning of Housing: A Pathways Approach, Bristol, Policy Press.
King, P. (2004): Private Dwelling: Contemplating the Use of Housing, London, Routledge.
![]()
2 Quality and access
Housing is one of the most important items that we human beings need. There are many things that we would find difficult, if not impossible, to do without good quality housing. We might find it hard to get and keep a job, to learn, to maintain our health, to vote, to claim benefits that we are entitled to and to initiate and maintain stable relationships.
But, just because something is important, this does not mean that it is always available. Like most commodities, housing comes with a price tag attached. If we want decent housing, we have to pay for it. It also follows, broadly speaking, that the better the standard of housing we want, the more it will cost us. Therefore, as standards rise, so does the cost.
One of the most important issues, then, is how we can afford the sort of housing that we want. We could say that this is simply a case of matching up our income with our aspirations and expectations and buying the best dwelling we can afford. This may be an option for those on reasonable incomes, but not for those on low incomes. Many households will lack sufficient income to provide them with a dwelling that meets their expectations. It may well be that they could find housing of some sort, but this might not be of a standard that they, or the society of which they are a part, find acceptable.
This implies that two issues are of supreme importance. The first is quality. We are not content with just any type of housing; we want good quality housing that allows us to live a civilised and healthy existence. We therefore require housing to a modern standard of amenity. This standard, of course, is a relative one, in that it depends on general expectations that exist here and now. It is no good saying that households elsewhere in the world manage with less or that our grandparents were brought up without central heating and modern appliances.
The second issue follows on from this and is about access. We might readily agree on what constitutes a good quality dwelling for us here and now. We can describe the particular amenities and standards that the modern dwelling should have. But that does not mean that everybody has such a dwelling. Many households might not be able to afford one.
There is a clear trade-off between quality and access, in that, generally speaking, the higher the quality, the fewer will be able to gain access to it. Quality comes at a cost, and this limits access. There is, then, a gap that needs to be filled between the aspirations that people have for good quality housing and their ability to access it because of a lack of income. This gap is what the activity of housing is meant to fill.
Discussion points
1 Why does it matter what quality of housing we provide?
2 How do we know what constitutes good quality housing?
3 How do we ensure that everyone has access to good quality housing?
See also
Chapter 18 Fairness
Chapter 22 Sources of finance
Chapter 30 Government
Chapter 33 Development
Further reading
King, P. (2009): Understanding Housing Finance: Meeting Needs and Making Choices, 2nd edn, London, Routledge.
![]()
3 The past
It is difficult to discuss the history of housing in general terms because each country has developed their provision differently according to their own priorities, culture and political and social structures. However, it is possible to make some points that apply in many, if not exactly all, cases, and it is important to do this because it tells us something about the nature of housing. Despite the differences between countries, there are a number of factors that are common.
In some ways we can characterise the development of housing as periodic shifts between quantity and quality. In some periods there is a shortage of housing and so the emphasis is on increasing the quantity of housing available. At other times the emphasis is on housing quality, with concern about overcrowding, lack of amenities and poor standards. These standards tend to be relative rather than absolute, and so what might have been seen as eminently acceptable, or even desirable, in one period is considered a problem at a later time.
One of the common causes of shortage is migration, either internal within a country or external from other countries. In particular, many countries saw internal migration as a result of industrialisation leading to urbanisation. The development of new cities...
