George Miles
VERDICTS0N1HE MMMOA* ?* rwm ???? W v.! c Oh, ye canny fling pieces oot a twenty storey flat,
Seven hundred hungry weans will testify tae that,
If it’s butter,cheese orjeely,if the breid is plain or pan, The odds against it reaching us is ninety nine to wan
The refrain from the lJeely Piece Song’ by Adam McNaughton - quoted in full in Pearl Jephcott’s splendid book* - tells in humorous and vivid language of a child’s reaction to living on the nineteenth floor of a tower block.The Song harks back to the practice in the old Glasgow tenements of mothers throwing pieces of bread and jam from the windows of the third or fourth floors, to outstretched hands in the yard below.
The pros and cons of living in a multi-storey block have been well aired but Miss Jephcott has made a fascinating contribution with her study (undertaken in the Department of Social and Economic Research of Glasgow University with the financial support of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust). The work was done from 1966 to 1969 when 1,321 people were interviewed - the support and assistance given by the Corporation of Glasgow is noteworthy.
A dozen housing schemes incorporating multistorey blocks in various parts of Western Europe (including this country) were studied too and information was gleaned from as far apart as Melbourne and Moscow. But the study is essentially one of Glasgow’s use of the multi-storey block as an answer to their housing problem.
Although Miss Jephcott does not deal specifically with mental illness which might be attributed to life in high-flats, the detailed commentary on social and architectural factors will be of immense value to ah those involved with the problems of housing and design. The book is thoroughly readable, well illustrated, full of good advice and detailed research. The footnote references and appendices form an excellent bibliography for further study.
The tenants’ response to being interviewed was extremely good - ‘We didn’t know anyone at the University bothered with us’, seems to have been the reaction. Out of an initial sample of 374 households 1nterviewed in 1967, 95% took part, as did 90% of the * Homes in high flats by Pearl Jephcott with Hilary Robson ublished by Oliver & Boyd at ?1.75.
main sample of 692 in 1968. A good deal of material in both formal and informal interviews was provided by men. They represented 38% of the total figure for the two samples. This point is stressed by the author because so much of the existing material on the social aspects of high flats reflects the woman’s point of view.
Some 90% of those interviewed answered ‘Yes’ to the question - ‘On the whole, are you satisfied with living here or not?’ Typical remarks made by householders were - ‘I love my home’ - ‘grand here, quiet and peaceful, nothing upsets you’. The exception was families with children under 5 - the general opinion in these cases was that a high flat was ‘nae place for bairns’.
Perhaps this general satisfaction is to some extent a natural reaction to their previous living conditions which, on the whole, had been nothing short of abyssmal. Nevertheless, some missed the neighbourliness of the old tenements where, on a summer’s night, they could take a chair on to the pavement and chat with passers-by.
It is interesting to note that, although the Ronan Point disaster occurred during the study, the interviewees did not seem worried about the safety of tower blocks.
Pearl Jephcott makes some sound recommendations on overall planning considerations - for example, the provision of lavatories at ground level for tenants or children using the space provided for sitting out or playing. Balconies came in for much criticism, they were an anxiety for mothers with young children, although useful for tenants wanting to grow plants.
The study also comes up with the suggestion of some kind of enclosed glass-sided room of sufficient size to be shared by all households on one floor.
Lifts were not large enough to take stretcher cases.
Operating buttons were usually too high for small children to reach comfortably. A mother with three or four children, pram and shopping has a tight squeeze in the average lift and fills the lift for the whole of one journey leaving other people with the choice of walking upstairs or a long wait.
Play is also a problem. Noise from children’s games made ground floor flats particularly unpopular. Cooped up in a small flat, children are particularly excitable when they get outside. A great deal is said on the need for the provision of suitable external play areas and quotations from children’s essays on the ‘ideal playground’ make constructive reading! As with so many new housing schemes, the social amenities provided were inadequate and proper provision often takes years to materialise. It’s nice to have a new shining bathroom, but queuing in the rain for a bus or having to buy from a mobile shop, which tends to increase the cost of the family’s grocery bill, are only two examples of discontent. Tenants were concerned about the upkeep of the estate and its landscaping and were very resentful of vandalism. Graffiti was a problem too.
Multi-storey living appeared on the whole to suit older people, although loneliness could be a terrible problem for some - ‘If only someone would knock on my door more often’ was one response. Another old lady of 70 burst into tears when a research worker called - ‘it was just hearing my bell ring’ she said. Old people enjoyed the security of a flat and liked the views although in some cases the design of window and balcony balustrade meant that, when sitting in a chair, they could only see the sky! Communication in case of emergency was a further problem for the elderly.
It would appear, to quote Pearl Jephcott, ‘that the families most likely to make a success of multi-storey life were those whose interests did not centre on their home; who had plenty of personal resources; and were relatively well educated and well off. Would it, perhaps, be a fair assumption that “living high” caters best for the household and individual who, in very broad terms, prefers order to growth?’ This would seem to imply that high-rise housing is not the answer to the living requirements of the average lower income group family - the very people who go to make up the bulk of high-flat dwellers at the moment.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.