For starters, you could blow this up. Robin Hood 'Gardens'

The first lesson I learned in my intro to architecture class focused on Heidegger's Notion on Dwelling.  A little reading into that and it becomes fairly clear that what resulted from Corbu's concept of house as a machine was a form completely disconnected from what people require to create homes and communities.

It's like someone at Aeon read my mind, excellent read if you have time...

Link>>>  NOBODY IS HOME

I think the OP is framing the question completely wrong. Why not go to a place like Bath and ask the residents what they like and dislike about living there. For likes they would probably mention the beautiful and well maintained Georgian architecture, the parks and open spaces,  the university and its functions open to the public, the roman baths themselves available to all, the wonderful central town shopping area and so forth. Now go to a brutalist shithole like 'Robin Hood Gardens' and ask the same questions.

http://landonbonebaker.com/

Landon Bone Baker is a pretty good firm to study in how to design affordable housing while mitigating social problems. Also read up on Jane Jacobs, her book Life and Death of Great american Cities touches on design solutions for safety. Also the Social life of small urban spaces by Whyte

https://vimeo.com/111488563

part of the problem is the design fails to accommodate community behavior and the public spaces in housing estates are often designed to be hostile and unwelcoming, leading in part to social isolation.

Hope this helps

also publish the here on Archinect when you get it done.

Over and OUT

Peter N

interesting..never thought there's a connection between the two..actually was writing a piece on antisocial behavior for http://acewriters.org/ and came across lots of materials most of which I didn't use so just looked up in that folder and found two articles you may find quite useful http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/report-says-crime-can-be-designed-out-of-housing/6520398.article and http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qgs9f

best,

While environmental factors such as architecture and urban design certainly have an impact on crime and anti-social behavior, the effect is very minor compared to genetic and cultural behavior predispositions. Social engineering through architecture is a fool's errand.

I look at most of the current apartment towers going up and the only thing differentiating them from the above Gardens are the location,  finishes, and the additional "bumpiness" that "designers" add to make sure they don't get accused of recreating that Gardens thing.

So, Hans, I see you are beginning to get the International Style. Soon even the Englishers vill live this way! Remember 'Ornament is a crime'!                                                                

Hi all,

Firstly, thank you so much for the comments, feedback and advice you've all provided - so incredibly thankful! I am currently looking into the articles, and reading materials you've all provided. 

To the volunteer who mentioned that i'm framing the question wrong - could you please elaborate or further detail your suggestion. How would you frame the question?

I understand that Le Corbusier's earlier forms of social housing (like that in Pessac) were repetitive, lacked character and almost felt like a prison - is that not how those shunned to council houses feel when looking at their surroundings? 

Ultimately I agree that there are a number of factors that contribute to this notion of anti-social behaviour in council estates, such as social background, but through the theories developed by Alice Coleman, Jane Jacobs, Oscar Newman there are defensive design influences that can make residents feel safer; it is the extent to how effective they are.  

Completely agree with you Peter "part of the problem is the design fails to accommodate community behavior and the public spaces in housing estates are often designed to be hostile and unwelcoming, leading in part to social isolation." 

I am still in a bit of confusion as to how I can frame this question and the contents, but if anyone can help I would really appreciate it.

Rosh,

My understanding of the term 'council estates' implies a government subsidy to the occupants of the building, whether they are renters or are on some kind of purchase scheme. I may be wrong on that account. The point I was trying to make is that no one sits down with the future occupants and asks them what they want, need, or desire, or show them the kinds of architecture that are existent in the more attractive parts of the UK. A person would have had to have been brain-dead to think that the brutalist  'Robin Hood Gardens' would be anything but a disaster. Government can force this hideous architecture on people who have to have a housing subsidy to live, but no way would it get built otherwise because no one would sink their own money into something that ugly and inhumane.

Below are two photos of Bath. Would, or could, these be examples of what 'council estates' should look like? You might say they are too expensive, but you should consider that Robin Hood is likely a goner and will be torn down and replaced by something probably just as ugly. So would the costs of two Robin Hoods equal one decent project like those that are found in Bath?

Assuming OP has already read up on CPTED?

I would like to know the population density of 'Robin Hood Gardens' compared to the center of Bath. I would imagine they are not too far apart. Robin Hood Gardens is two ugly brutalist structures separated by an open lawn big enough for a regulation soccer field and then some. Unfortunately the architects who designed RHG piled debris from clearing the site along with left over debris from construction into giant mounds and covered them with earth, rendering the field useless for most pick up sports games. What could have at least been a good amateur sports venue for the residents was squelched so the developers would not incur the costs of properly cleaning up the site. How cheap can you get?

^ The correct (historical) term is "ghetto..." 

edit-

not "the -"

not "so -"

maybe "a -"

do the public housing projects in josh's neighborhood have a poor door?  i think they do in koz's area still, right?

Georgetown in DC was a slum in the 40s and 50s. If the brain trust of that era had gone in and flattened everything and built high-rise housing for the poor, it would probably be a slum today. Thousands of now beautifully maintained and upgraded Federal, Georgian, and Greek Revival and other homes along with their gardens and landscaping would have been forever lost.

We have to house the poor folks somewhere. This country has had and continues to have a lot of poor people who are one $200 disaster away from being homeless. As for Isolated Ghettos on the periphery not true some of the  most notorious housing projects in the US Cabrini Green, for example were in the center of the city blocks from tourist and high end shopping districts.

Most housing failed when the finding to maintain and keep in order the community disappeared. The design was also to blame in that it condensed hundreds of people into a few blocks and removed the stores and safe street life from the picture.

Housing projects with all of their flaws were intended to be a rapid humane response to a huge housing shortage that suddenly became a priority after World War 2. This shortage had existed during and before the depression and it was seen as a liberal progressive thing to do. It was done in a mostly disastrous way. I can think of a few exceptions, definitely not concentration camps;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langston_Terrace_Dwellings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Field_Garden_Apartments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar_Apartments

They were not as high concentration an they did not have an income cap. the problem we face in the US with the social safety net is if you reach a certain income or your kids grow up and become adults you suddenly lose a huge chunk of your subsidy, instead of gradually reducing the support as your are able to make it on your own it all goes in one huge daunting step. Losing benefits leads to people not taking jobs or getting off disability because getting benefits back is so darn hard. Also the social problems come about when people become successful hey have to move out of their community if they no longer meet the requirements to live there, be it family size or income. So there is a loss of elders and a loss of successful people who can be positive role models. Then add the fear of being kicked out of a housing project such as the scandalous situation with Cabrini Green were thousands were displaced and only a few were ever allowed to return, and their lease has some draconian and absurd rules that people with a choice in housing would not stand for. I would think that the failure of housing has as much to do with the environment as with the social policy and racial segregation.

Over and OUT

Peter N

As the snow flies On a cold and gray Chicago mornin' A poor little baby child is born In the ghetto And his mama cries 'Cause if there's one thing that she don't need It's another hungry mouth to feed In the ghetto People, don't you understand The child needs a helping hand Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day Take a look at you and me Are we too blind to see Do we simply turn our heads And look the other way Well the world turns And a hungry little boy with a runny nose Plays in the street as the cold wind blows In the ghetto And his hunger burns So he starts to roam the streets at night And he learns how to steal And he learns how to fight In the ghetto Then one night in desperation A young man breaks away He buys a gun, steals a car Tries to run, but he don't get far And his mama cries As a crowd gathers 'round an angry young man Face down on the street with a gun in his hand In the ghetto As her young man dies, On a cold and gray Chicago mornin' Another little baby child is born In the ghetto