Tower blocks in Great Britain

In many cases, tower blocks were seen as a "quick-fix" to cure problems caused by the existence of crumbling and unsanitary 19th-century dwellings or to replace buildings destroyed by German aerial bombing.

It was argued that towers surrounded by public open space could provide for the same population density as the terraced housing and small private gardens they replaced, offering larger rooms and improved views, whilst being cheaper to build.

Later, as the buildings themselves deteriorated, they grew a reputation for being undesirable low-cost housing, and many tower blocks had rising crime levels, increasing their unpopularity.

[1] Postwar Britain was the stage for a tower block "building boom"; from the 1950s to the late 1970s, as a dramatic increase took place in tower-block construction.

During this time, local authorities desired to impress their voters by building futuristic and imposing tower blocks, which would signify postwar progress.

[2] Both Patrick Dunleavy and Lynsey Hanley agree that architects and planners were influenced by Le Corbusier's promotion of high-rise architecture.

[3][4] The modern tower blocks were to include features that would foster desired forms of resident interaction, an example being the inclusion of Le Corbusier’s streets in the sky in some estates.

[11] Although architects and local authorities intended the opposite, tower blocks quickly became, as Hanley sharply stated, "slums in the sky".

[4] Due to demanding deadlines, complicated construction practices were rushed, and many tower blocks experienced structural decay as a result – roofs leaked, concrete suffered spalling, steel corroded, and damp penetrated the buildings.

The tower blocks quickly lost their "futuristic" look; concrete turned from the crisp white the designers had imagined to a dull grey, stained by pollution.

To contain disruptive behaviour, local authorities began to place "problem families" in the same blocks; Hanley argues that this policy only led to "further alienation ... nihilism and a creeping sense of lawlessness".

[27] Compliant protections for residents in tower blocks can be very expensive to retrofit, and lessors (such as local authorities) have been sued for lack of a current fire-safety inspection, or implementation of its recommendations.

Member of Parliament for Kingston and Surbiton, Ed Davey, commented regarding a life-claiming 2009 fire that many blocks in the UK remained inadequate.

[31] Recent studies [32][33] have investigated the combined use of egress components (e.g., stairs and elevators) to enhance the effectiveness of evacuation strategies in case of fire.

Plans have been made to redevelop the Little London and Lovell Park areas on the fringes of Leeds city centre into luxury flats for 'young urban professionals'.

[38] Glasgow itself has taken a more measured approach to its high-rise housing stock, eschewing the mass demolition programmes being practiced in other British cities – favouring selective refurbishment of estates with secure futures and on buildings in good structural condition, only razing towers where absolutely necessary.

The Mailbox, others are student accommodation), Cardiff, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Coventry (which at one point was building towers at a rate of one every month).

Tonight with Trevor McDonald highlighted that in Leeds and Manchester (perhaps the cities that had seen most development) only approximately half were occupied and with owner occupation often being as low as 10%.