Affordable Housing, Efficiency and Social Justice - Case Study Example

Affordable Housing, Efficiency and Social Justice: A Case Study of Oxford’s Affordable Housing in 1938 By Introduction Affordable housing is a social justice strategy since it is expected to provide low income families with greater financial flexibility and reduces poverty (Anderson, et al., 2003). In the absence of access to affordable housing, low income families have little, if any funds left to pay for healthcare, education and food (Anderson, et al., 2003). In the meantime, social justice is further achieved through affordable housing because it promises to reduce residential segregation on the basis of income (Anderson, et al., 2003). Thus tensions created by class distinctions and marginalization should be reduced, if not, eliminated within communities in which low income families have access to affordable housing. However, due to cost cutting initiatives to cover the low cost of selling or renting residential homes, the quality and value of affordable housing is sacrificed. As a result, individuals occupying affordable housing often find structural problems compromising efficiency which increasing their electric and water bills (Campaign Brief, 2012). It can therefore be argued that community and/or social tensions on the grounds of class distinctions may be present as a result of the inefficiency of affordable housing. Additional tensions are created within the affordable housing communities since it is typically a magnet for migrants seeking low cost housing, As a consequence, affordable housing communities are typically characterized by either diversity or are ‘ethnic enclaves’ that are segregated from neighbouring communities (Liu and Geron, 2008, p. 18). This research paper explores the issues and the intersection of social justice and efficiency associated with affordable housing through a case study of Oxford’s affordable housing programme of 1938. The focus of the case study is the Florence Park residence. The main question is whether or not it is possible to effectively provide housing that is both affordable and efficient and thus achieve social justice through the reduction of community tensions and household expenses. Background and History During the height of the Great Depression in 1938, Morris Motors in Oxford, employed upward of 10,000 workers. With unemployment increasing during this period, large numbers of persons seeking employment migrated to the area. In order to respond to the growing population, housing was constructed in places such as Florence Park. The Florence Park residence quickly became a disappointment to its occupants. The housing facilities were constructed hastily and a number of problems were observed. Residents experienced flooding, had to cope with a water heating system and the unsanitary placement of the cooker next to the bathroom. In addition social tensions were present with the historical hostilities between the Welsh and the English. Fed up with their living conditions, the residents of Florence Park staged a strike, refusing to pay rent until the housing was repaired and improved (Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society, 2006). In the rent book created by the residents of Florence Park, the problems with housing were traced back to 1935 as one note contained in the rent book indicated: For these houses, which are scarcely better than condemned slums we have to pay rent which is in no case less than 13/6 a week as well as rates (including the rates for 6 months before the houses were built) in addition to doing our own repairs (Florence Park Rent Book, 1935). Thus, discontent was brewing at home where workers would typically expect to escape the abrasive outside world. Discussion The Florence Park problem starts with resident dissatisfaction with their own homes, specifically the squalid conditions in which they lived. This is a timeless problem which no doubt affects home owners and/or occupiers at all times. For example, a study conducted by Rohe and Stegman (1994) revealed that “regardless of tenure” one’s housing conditions has a corresponding impact on ‘both self-esteem and life satisfaction’ (p. 173). These findings are especially important for low income homeowners. It is generally thought that when low income individuals own a home, they will generally experience improved lifestyles, self-esteem and feel more in control. The study compared low income owners with renters. The results of the study showed that while low income home owners did not experience improved self-esteem or a heighten sense of control, although they did experience greater satisfaction with their lives (Rohe and Stegman, 1994). In other words, simply owning a home is not enough to satisfy the housing needs of individuals. Housing conditions are everything. Where housing conditions are squalid, the resident will brood over its conditions and this can create tensions that will likely spill over into the community. In a newsletter created by the Florence Park tenants in 1935 titled Women’s News, it was obvious that tensions were building over housing conditions. As the newsletter observed: But the woman’s struggles are not ended when she has put up with these small things. She has a heavier burden – she to pay 13/6, 14/6, and 16/6 a week for the privilege of gazing at her streaky walls, for the privilege of living near unhealthy drains, for the privilege of letting her children play in the garden, being certain that she won’t be able to find them when she wants them (The Florence Park Women’s News, 1935). There is obviously a lot of dissatisfaction with the living conditions and as the rent book note states, the conditions of the housing in Florence Park were such that the residents saw them as nothing short of slum. Affordable housing at this point did not achieve the twin goals of social justice and efficiency as residents were not delivered from poverty and instead were put to greater expense as they were left to cover the cost of their repairs despite the fact that they were paying rent. This can negatively affect the way that residents in affordable housing view their homes. For example, an article in the Financial Times reveals that where residents in affordable housing are satisfied with their homes and see value in it they do things to the home that reflect their pride in and value for the home. In one affordable housing community residents planted flowers and erected fences. This too was said to be an effective method of deterring crime as it sends a message to would be criminals that the occupant values the home and takes great pride in it and will very likely protect it from unwanted criminal intrusions (Ellwood, 2008). Ellwood (2008) also reports that housing conditions are not limited to disrepair. Even choice of material can have a negative psychological impact on the owner and/or occupier’s attachment to affordable housing. Today’s public housing is often constructed with quite durable material and this sends a message to occupants that they are ‘not trusted’ (Elwood, 2008). It would therefore appear that while housing conditions in Florence Park in the 1930s were especially poor and unhealthy, and today’s housing is durable, they both established a feeling of discontent and a lack of pride in and value for the housing facilities. Both living conditions appear to be gloomy. Florence Park cultivated a feeling of degradation and today’s affordable housing for the most part fosters an institutionalized environment for occupants. Moreover, giving the conditions of affordable housing in Florence Park and today, affordable housing was and remains inconsistent with the goal of eliminating class segregation. According to Nguyen (2005) many of the homeowners in surrounding neighbourhoods are opposed to affordable housing on the grounds that it is expected that their own houses will diminish in value. Nguyen’s (2005) review of 17 studies on the impact of affordable housing on the value of nearby homes shows that affordable housing does have a negative impact on the value of surrounding homes. However much depends on both housing management and how it is designed (Nguyen, 2005). Florence Park’s affordable housing were both poorly designed and poorly managed. The poor design is evidenced by the rent book report cited above and the excerpt from the Women’s News. The fact that the residents had to resort to a rent strike is evidence of poor management. Today’s affordable housing appears to be designed in an entirely unpleasant way and quite likely fosters a feeling of entrapment on the part occupants. There is obviously no pride in or value for these kinds of affordable housing to the extent that occupants are unlikely to contribute to domestic improvement and community cohesion. As disenfranchised occupants tensions within the community and between the housing community and their neighbours are bound to grow. As seen in the case of Florence Park, tension not only grew between the occupants and their landlords, but also between the diverse ethnic groups occupying the housing facilities. Solutions Moving Forward In order to foster a feeling of community, solutions to housing must begin with improving the comfort level of occupants of affordable housing. This comfort will come from the design and structure of the home. A healthy and efficient affordable housing facility will not only improve upon the comforts at home, but will also reduce occupants’ expenses in having to pay increased energy and water bills. Occupants will also take more pride in and value their homes and as such will likely take steps to improve their homes through decorations and fixings that send a message to would-be criminals that the house is valued and protected. When occupants of affordable housing feel that the housing is neglected and nothing short of a slum they are more likely to adopt to their homes in a corresponding manner (Ellwood, 2008). In order to avoid disrespect for, a lack of pride and value in affordable housing, affordable housing should be designed in such a way that it resembles home and provides for energy efficiency. By taking this approach the cost of repair will be reduced and therefore the cost of building efficient affordable housing will be off-set by the cost of making repairs. Moreover, when occupants have pride in and value their homes they will be more likely to take care of the home and ensure that repairs are rarely a problem requiring the landlord’s intervention. It can therefore be concluded that not only is affordable and efficient housing possible, but it is necessary to reduce financial and social costs. Conclusion This research study demonstrates that the cost of affordable housing are reduced if housing is both affordable and efficient. This is because there are social and economic costs when affordable housing is poorly designed, constructed and managed. The low cost facilities may only save money in the short term. However, once affordable housing is occupied, those costs will escalate as the home falls into a state of disrepair. Moreover, unhappy occupants will not be inclined to take steps to avoid disrepair. Social costs are perhaps more damaging. With occupants within the affordable housing community growing increasingly unhappy with the state of disrepair that they find themselves living with and the high cost of energy, tensions are bound to rise between the diverse occupants within and outside of the affordable housing community. As the value of affordable housing declines, surrounding neighbours become resentful and this causes additional social tensions. Overall, affordable housing from the Florence Park era to date, illustrates that the time for establishing affordable and efficient housing is long overdue. Not only can affordable and efficient housing be achieved, it is necessary to save cost in the long term. Affordable and efficient housing is also necessary for removing class distinctions between occupants and in doing so reducing social tensions that inevitable harms communities. Affordable and efficient housing will also reduce poverty. As seen in the Florence Park case, substandard housing did not reduce poverty, but instead appears to have increased poverty and was therefore counterproductive. Bibliography Anderson, L.M. 2003. Providing affordable family housing and reducing residential segregation by income: A systematic review. American Journal of Prev Med, 24(3S), 47-67. Campaign Brief: US Green Building Counsel. March 2012. Green affordable housing. http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs18605.pdf [1 December 2014]. Ellwood, M. 24 May 2008. All in the detail. Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/655f2be6-2796-11dd-b7cb-000077b07658.html [2 December 2014]. Liu, M. and Geron, K. 2008. Changing neighbourhood: Ethnic enclaves and the struggle for social justice. Social Justice, 35(2), 18-35. Nguyen, M.T. August 2005. Does affordable housing detrimentally affect property values? A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(1), 15-26. Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society. 2006. Oxoniensia, Vol. 70-71. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rhoe, W.M. and Stegman, M.A. 1994. The effects of homeownership: On the self-esteem, perceived control and life satisfaction of low-income people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), 173-184. The Florence Park Rent-Book. 1935. http://www.yourhouse-myhouse.org/fpark/f11.htm [2 December 2014]. The Florence Park Women’s Newsletter. 26 May 1935. http://www.yourhouse-myhouse.org/fpark/f11.htm [2 December 2014]. Read More