Still, it was better than nothing, better than the places poor workers lived in before. But should it have been done better? No question. Yet again, was it more of a money question or a planning question? I tend to believe the latter. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The problem seems more about how to keep these places functioning, clean and save after several decades. Maintenance and construction are not the same budget.
PFI grapples with the same issues - what kind of services will be provided for the duration? The HLMs show that rules or regulations from 20 years back are not always applicable - or enforced.
The problem is not public or private ownership, PFI or public housing - it's how to run these things over long periods when there is little benefit (political or monetary) for anyone to do it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
However, for a few brief years before and after the regime change, at least here in Hungary, things changed: newly built public housing became more liveable, with roofs and fewer floors and gardens and such.
Then again, a few years later, public housing construction came to a virtual standstill. And private investors on the housing market focus on rich customers. Thus the old concrete high-rises remain as affordable housing, one of ever lower quality.
Germany, of course, took a very different path: with incredible amounts of money, the construction of private homes and the dismantling of concrete block houses was supported. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
