Housing-led regeneration: the Glasgow experience Nick Bailey Department of Urban Studies University of Glasgow In Özdemir, D., Özden, P., & Turgut, S. (eds) (2006) Istanbul 2004 International Urban Regeneration symposium, 207-213. Istanbul: Kucukcekmece Municipality Publication. Introduction As other papers in this Symposium argue, the problems found in many deprived areas are complex. The causes of deprivation are seen as being multiple and overlapping, with origins in economic systems based on markets, state welfare and service provision systems, and social structures. As a result, solutions are seen to require a complex range of interventions. These may cover different sectors (housing, education, health, crime, economic development, training, and so on) and they may require actions at different levels (local, city-regional, regional, national or European). At the local scale, the basic mechanism for ensuring coordination between these different sectors has come to be seen as the partnership, now ubiquitous in British urban policy. More recently, we have seen the emergence of strategic approaches to urban regeneration, involving local authority-level partnerships (SEU, 2001; Scottish Executive, 2002). There is increasing emphasis on the importance of co-ordination of policies and strategies at metropolitan and regional tiers as well. There is much in this analysis which is to be welcomed, not least because it stems from a systematic review of experience accumulated from past efforts at urban regeneration. There is a danger in such analyses, however, that they make the problem seem intractable and action seem futile. This paper suggests one starting point housing renewal. Housing renewal policies were originally developed with quite narrow objectives; they were a means of eradicating sub-standard housing. As the problems of deprived areas began to be seen in more multi-dimensional terms, so it was argued that housing renewal could play a role in promoting the wider regeneration of deprived neighbourhoods (Kleinman and Whitehead, 1999). This paper looks at one city, Glasgow, and at its experience of using housing renewal as the basis for wider regeneration of neighbourhoods and it attempts to draw out some 1
broader lessons from this. The main argument is that there is a great deal we can achieve through housing-led interventions. Context It is useful to begin by examining briefly the context within which housing renewal policies in Glasgow were operating from the 1970s onwards. Some (very general) comparisons can be made with the situation in Kücükcekmece and in Istanbul now. There are some similarities but also significant differences of which we should be aware. At the city-regional scale, Glasgow was a city in decline from the 1970s. It had seen explosive growth during the nineteenth century as it had become one of the world s leading industrial centres, specialising in heavy engineering and most particularly shipbuilding. Its population had reached a peak of around 1.2 million in the 1950s but had begun to fall sharply from the 1960s. This had accelerated in the 1970s (2.5 per cent per annum) and continued through the 1980s and 1990s, albeit at a lower rate (1 per cent per annum). By 2002, the city s population was below 0.6 million. Much of this loss occurred through decentralisation of the population to surrounding areas but even at the city-regional level, population fell by around 20 per cent after 1971. Figure 1: Glasgow's population, 1901-2001 130% 120% Index (1901 = 100%) 110% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Glasgow Greater Glasgow 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Source: Population Census 1901-81; mid-year estimates (re-based) 1981-2001. 2
These figures portray Glasgow as a declining city in a declining region. If that were the case, the contrast with Istanbul could not be greater. Istanbul has been experiencing a high rate of population growth for many years (UN, 2001) and this is reflected in many ways including illegal occupation of municipal and private land, and dense and unsatisfactory forms of building as the background papers for the conference illustrate. While such forms of development did not exist in Glasgow (at least not at this period), Glasgow was still faced with a major housing problem in the 1970s due to the continuing legacy of sub-standard and over-crowded housing from its earlier period of growth. The reduction in population offset the need for new building and helped to ease problems of overcrowding, resulting in a gradual thinning of the population rather than the abandonment of whole neighbourhoods. The number of households in Glasgow fell during the 1970s but rose thereafter (Bailey et al, 1999). In addition, planning policies were acting to reduce rates of decentralisation from the 1970s onwards to emphasise re-concentration of development into the city. The problems faced in many of the older, inner city neighbourhoods were not so different to those in parts of Istanbul. Although the very worst areas had been tackled by the start of the 1970s through clearance schemes, Glasgow still had large areas of older housing in poor physical condition. Policy was moving away from the earlier clearance approaches, however, for a number of reasons (Balchin and Rhoden, 2002). First, they were seen as resulting in very high costs for Central Government. While new designs and building techniques had been promoted partly on the basis of lower costs, these had not been realised in practice. Second, the process of clearance was increasingly being criticised for the social disruption of communities which resulted. Third, there was a growing resistance to clearance from consumers. This was driven in part by a growing unpopularity of some of the new housing areas. It was also the case that clearance programmes had begun to move into slightly better quality housing stock where residents were less keen to move and where the case for demolition was more marginal. From the early 1970s, therefore, policy makers were looking for new ways of tackling problems of sub-standard housing in the city. The physical form of these older neighbourhoods was fairly uniform within Glasgow and other Scottish towns and cities. They were dominated by high density developments of nineteenth century tenement housing: usually of three or four storeys, with six to 16 flats; often lacking basic modern amenities (inside toilets, adequate water supplies or washing facilities); frequently very small (one to three rooms); and in a poor state of repair. Similar 3
types of housing exist in some of the neighbourhoods within Kucukcekmece although there is perhaps more variety here as well. In addition to the problems of physical decay, these areas were characterised by high levels of poverty, unemployment and so on. The list of problems is similar to those present in the deprived neighbourhoods of Kucukcekmece. Individual ownership of properties was generally quite clear in the Scottish context and there was not the problem of illegal occupation of land to contend with that there is in parts of Istanbul. There was however the challenge created by multiple ownership of flats. Ownership of the flats in each block might be under the control of single private landlord but frequently it was divided between a number of owners (a condominium arrangement, although the term does not exist in Scottish law). Multiple ownership makes the organisation of major repairs or improvements that much more complicated. In Scotland, there was frequently a need to carry out works to improve structural stability of buildings as well as work to repair major elements, notably roofs. In Istanbul, there is the added problem of the threat of earthquakes. In Turkey, at least, there is a clear statutory framework for condominium ownership (van der Merwe, 1994). In Scotland, the law regarding repair and maintenance obligations for common property remains unclear in places and subject to variation by individual contracts (title deeds). Enforcement of common repair obligations can be extremely difficult, particularly in older properties (Bailey and Robertson, 1997a). One area where there does appear to be a marked difference between Glasgow and Istanbul was in regards to the degree of state intervention in housing provision and subsidy. There is a long history of state housing provision in Scotland with the state being the dominant provider of housing for low income groups. At its peak in the late 1970s, local authorities owned more than half of all dwellings in Scotland. While there has been significant decline as individuals have been encouraged to buy their dwellings at discounted prices, this social rented housing sector remains at 29 per cent today. Even by UK standards, that is high; in England the peak was 30 per cent while the current figure is 20 per cent (Wilcox, 2004). While the state has sought to limit its role in direct provision since the 1970s, subsidies for housing continue to form a major area of state expenditure. Housing renewal was intended to be a cheaper solution to the problems of slum housing than clearance. Nevertheless it involved large amounts of subsidy per dwelling, at least in the initial phases. 4
Objectives of neighbourhood regeneration Before looking at the approach to housing renewal and its impacts, it is worth considering what the objectives of neighbourhood regeneration schemes are and, in particular, how we would measure a successful outcome. Regeneration is a term with many positive connotations but it is also a rather slippery term. In the British context at least, it is clear that there are significant differences of opinion as to what the term means and how we should identify success (Bailey and Robertson, 1997b). One view focuses on the place itself and regards the upgrading of the neighbourhood as the main concern. For housing renewal initiatives, problem areas are usually seen as being those with high concentrations of sub-standard housing so the solution involve the improvement or removal of that housing stock while success is measured in terms of the physical characteristics of the housing stock. A similar approach can be adopted by wider regeneration initiatives. Problem neighbourhoods are those with a high concentration of unemployment, poverty, poor health, low educational attainment, high crime and so on. So successful regeneration might be measured in terms of a reduction in these problems in the area over time. In both cases, it is the area which is seen as being the subject of renewal and measures of success focus on the characteristics of the area. An alternative view focuses on the people who live in these areas the community. From this perspective, the aim of renewal is to improve living conditions for this group of people. Regeneration or renewal should not lead to the disruption of existing social networks or communities for low income groups. Earlier approaches to housing renewal, based on clearance, were criticised for the social dislocation they caused (Young and Wilmott, 1957). The more gradual approaches of housing renewal were supported on the basis that they were more likely to enable communities to be maintained (Thomas et al, 1987). From this perspective, a key issue is ensuring that existing community is not displaced through the process of renewal. This might involve improving housing but ensuring ownership remained with the existing occupier. Success would be measured by improvements in the welfare of this group over time, implying a more longitudinal approach. However, neighbourhood strategies also need to recognise that there is an inter-dependence between places and people. The quality or characteristics of the area shapes who chooses to live there and who can afford to live there. At the same time, the social composition of an 5
area is an important part of its characteristics. An improvement in the physical characteristics of an area through housing renewal will have consequences for the social composition of the area. The impacts may not be immediate. Physical upgrading can occur without immediate social change. But if a disparity is created between the market value of housing in the neighbourhood and the income levels of current residents, a gradual process of adjustment will tend to occur over time through the process of residential turnover. New residents moving into the area will tend to be more affluent than those moving out and a form of indirect displacement then occurs. As a result, there is a third perspective on small area interventions which focuses not on the community resident at one point in time but on the ability of low income groups in general to secure a decent standard of housing in a reasonable neighbourhood environment. From this perspective, the key question is whether low income groups can continue to access neighbourhoods once places have been upgraded. From this perspective, measures of success would need to look longer term at how the area developed after housing renewal had been completed. Housing renewal two approaches This section of the paper explains the approach which was taken towards securing the renewal of many older, inner city neighbourhoods in Scotland and in Glasgow in particular (Robertson and Bailey, 1996). It is important to recognise that the approach was not produced in its final form at the start of the process; there was no instant recipe. Rather it evolved over time and in response to a number of factors. There was a process of learning about the practical challenges involved in co-ordinating major improvements in dense neighbourhoods. There were variations in response to local physical and social conditions. In different contexts, individual owners and residents made quite different choices about how they participated in the process. Local political contexts shaped how the framework was used as different local authorities used the framework in quite different ways. In practice, this variation meant that two different approaches emerged: a private or marketled approach and a social approach. In brief, with the market approach, the local authority offers grants to individual owners to improve their properties. With the social approach, the housing stock is expropriated by the local authority and given to independent, voluntary 6
organisations. They receive a grant to improve the housing and to rent it out at below-market rents. Formal framework At a national level, the framework for housing renewal consists of two distinct. The first element is a mechanism for local authorities to take action to improve sub-standard housing on an area basis (the Housing Action Area). The justification for the area approach is that there is a basic market failure in neighbourhoods with high concentrations of sub-standard housing. Individuals may wish to make improvements or carry out repairs but they are discouraged from doing so. There is a concern that the value of their property will not rise as a result of their investment because of the poor quality of neighbouring properties. While all owners are better off if all the houses are improved, no one wants to start the process because the highest risks are carried by those who improve first. The most rational response is to wait or to move. An area approach is designed to remove that element of risk or at least reduce it significantly. Local authorities are able to require that all properties in a designated area are brought up to a required standard in a specified time. (Where some properties are in particularly poor condition, they can require that these are demolished.) To encourage owners to carry out the necessary works themselves, the local authority is able to offer cash grants to cover a proportion of the costs of the works; the local authority, in turn, can claim a subsidy for this from Central Government. This is the basis of the private or market-led approach. To ensure that owners carry out improvements, the local authority has the power to expropriate properties if they do not; owners are paid market value for their property. The second element of the housing renewal framework is a mechanism for improving housing where private owners do not wish to do so themselves and it is this which forms the basis of the social approach. Various approaches might have been used, including having the local authority improve the properties and then sell them on the open market or having the local authority sell unimproved dwellings to private developers to carry out the necessary works. The approach adopted in practice was for Central Government to provide subsidies for voluntary organisations called housing associations to buy and improve properties, in order to rent them out at subsidised levels in other words, to de-commodify part of the housing stock. It is this social approach which formed the basis of housing renewal actions in Glasgow. 7
Housing associations are voluntary organisations in the sense that they are run by an independent committee of interested individuals. In many parts of the UK, these associations had existed for many years prior to the 1970s, reflecting philanthropic efforts by middle class people to do something to help meet the housing needs of particular social groups (the elderly or those with disabilities, for example). Within Glasgow, these associations were set up to be community-based ; that is, they were controlled by a committee composed of local residents. It is this institutional arrangement which has had such a positive impact on the regeneration of many neighbourhoods within the city. Practice Describing the framework in these terms, however, says little about how it operated in practice. The impacts of such an approach would obviously depend on the balance between a number of factors: the required or minimum standard to be achieved and hence the overall cost of works; the level of grants for private owners; the extent of practical support for those owners; the strength of enforcement powers; the willingness of local authorities to use these; and local conditions in the neighbourhood. To start with, setting the required standard higher or lower would determine how easy it was for owners to comply. In practice, the required standard was a relatively basic one, covering the need to have adequate sanitation facilities, structural stability and a suitable surrounding environment. Similarly, offering higher or lower levels of grant would determine whether owners on lower incomes were able to carry out required works. The generosity of the grants varied over time but, in the initial phases, could amount to as much as 90 per cent of total costs. A further factor was the extent to which local authorities actively sought to encourage owners to participate through the provision of advice and support services. Such services could cover: the analysis of problems and the specification of required works; identification of a suitable contractor; contracting and managing works; and securing grants and dealing with the finances. The strength of the enforcement powers was a also major factor determining whether owners were likely to respond or not. In Scotland, there was a choice to have strong enforcement powers which were easy to use (Robertson, 1992). This was necessitated by the physical form of the housing stock. With flats, there is usually a need to co-ordinate improvements between several owners, particularly with structural works or major works to common elements. 8
Owners often have different incomes and different attitudes to investing in their properties. Without a means of ensuring compliance, one or two individuals could prevent whole blocks from being improved. In practice, it is worth noting that these powers were little used, perhaps because the threat of compulsory purchase was such a credible one. At the same time, the willingness of local authorities to use (or threaten to use) compulsory purchase powers was dependent on there being a means of dealing with any stock that they acquired as a result. So the availability of quite generous subsidies for housing associations to encourage them to take on such stock was another key factor shaping outcomes. Finally, it is worth noting that the response of private owners was obviously conditioned by the particular context of the neighbourhood or area in which they lived. In the earliest phases of improvement in a particular neighbourhood, few owners tended to participate. In part, this tended to be because local authorities targeted the worst housing stock first, so greater expenditure was needed to bring properties up to standard. The worst stock tended to have owners on the lowest incomes and they were least able to afford to participate. In part, it was because market conditions tended to be weakest at this time and owners saw little prospect of an economic return on their investment. As improvement progressed through the neighbourhood, that balance shifted. Hence, the role of public investment was to get the process of renewal started, overcoming the market failure, but then to withdraw gradually. It is worth noting that there is a tension here between what individuals may want and what generates the greatest public benefit. Individuals would usually prefer greater investment in the internal amenity of the dwellings. The greatest public benefits are generated by improvements in the external appearance (Maclennan, 1985). Impacts One can measure the impacts of the housing renewal programme in several ways. First, in terms of physical improvement, it is clear that the programme achieved its aims and that the market-led and social approaches were equally effective. Problems of sub-standard housing were effectively eradicated within the targets areas. Demand for housing in these areas has risen and that is reflected in house prices for properties in these areas (Bailey and Robertson, 1997b). What is more, the public investment in these areas has clearly had positive spillover effects, stimulating private investment by individual owners in neighbouring areas and contributing to rising prices there as well (Maclennan, 1985). Housing renewal areas have 9
acted as focal points for the regeneration of the wider neighbourhood. Indeed, it has been argued that the physical upgrading of these older, inner neighbourhoods has occurred on such a scale that it is seen as having had a positive impact on the city as a whole (Scottish Office, 1988; Maclennan and Gibb, 1988). Second, in terms of social change in the neighbourhoods, the two approach to housing renewal have had quite different impacts. Where the market-led approach was used, the population profile of the area has changed over time. Unemployment has fallen, as have problems of poor health or low educational attainment while average incomes have risen. From one view, at least, these can be seen as positive outcomes and as evidence of regeneration (measured in terms of the characteristics of the area before and after renewal). The availability of generous grants has meant that many people on low incomes could afford to participate in the renewal process, and they saw their living conditions improve as a result; another means of measuring success. But it is also clear that the rising value of the housing has meant that low income groups are no longer able to afford housing in these areas. These areas are now home to a very different section of the population compared with 20 years ago. Any sense of a traditional community has disappeared. While this process of gentrification is not due to housing renewal alone, the private approach has acted to encourage or accelerate it. Where the social approach was operated, the picture is quite different. The characteristics of the neighbourhoods have changed relatively little over time. Although great physical improvements have occurred, these areas are home to a similar population to that of 20 years ago. Process of change or gentrification which were evident in some target areas before intervention have been slowed or even halted. The social approach has not simply preserved an unchanging community, but it has enabled lower income groups to continue to access these neighbourhoods after they have been upgraded. It is important to note that the role of these housing associations has always remained a minority one in each neighbourhood. Their efforts were focussed on the worst housing in each case and they do not owned the majority of the housing in each neighbourhood. As a result, the low-income owners within the housing association stock live alongside more affluent groups in private housing. These areas are not extensive ghettos for poor households in the way that many local authority housing estates are. Rather, they function socially mixed communities (Bailey and Robertson, 1997). 10
Third, the social approach to housing renewal has had major impacts on the development of the local community or community capacity. As noted already, the Glasgow housing associations are governed by a committee composed largely or solely of local residents. Setting up these associations was time-consuming and involved significant input from government in the form of community development work. Volunteers from the local community required extensive training in their new roles. As associations received significant sums of money from government, they were also subject to continuing monitoring and regulation. In the longer term, however, this approach has provided enormous benefits. It is easy to talk about working with the community in deprived neighbourhoods but it is often difficult to engage with the community in a meaningful way. Many people are reluctant to become involved or unable to commit the time. Those that do come forward may lack the necessary skills or experience. And it is difficult to start the process of engagement with discussions of the whole range of complex problems faced by an areas. The very immediate problems of poor quality housing have therefore provided a clear focus for initial discussions and for the development of local capacity. Many individuals who participate in the work of the housing associations gain skills, experience and confidence which can benefit them in other spheres. More broadly, the housing association has helped develop a sense of community and a sense of what collective action can achieve change. There is a local capacity to act which did not exist before. While housing associations were set up to promote housing renewal and that remains at the core of what they do, the capacities they have developed have been directed to many different ends. First, as they have a financial stake in these areas, they have a clear incentive to ensure that the physical improvements achieved through renewal are maintained. They can take on a role as property managers both responding to requests from individual owners but also acting to protect common property and common interest. To make this possible, however, it is essential to have an appropriate legal framework for the ownership and management of common property. Without this, free rider problems occur as individual owners seek to avoid paying their share of common costs. Second, housing associations can take on responsibility for the improvement and maintenance of the wider physical environment a neighbourhood management role. In the UK, research has shown how important the quality of the physical fabric is for people s 11
perceptions of their neighbourhoods. The local presence of housing associations and their local knowledge makes them (potentially) more efficient and effective agencies for environmental management than more distant local authorities. Third, housing associations can act as a starting point for actions on a much wider range of problems beyond housing. If housing renewal is successful and property values are rising, they have an asset base on which they can draw. They also have valuable institutional capacities which enable them to engage with local and national government in ways which individual community members would find impossible. They can develop the knowledge and the reputation to lever in funding from local, national and European sources. In Glasgow, and in Britain more widely, housing associations have become increasingly involved in activities well beyond the provision of housing. Responding to local pressures or demands, these have included as the development of social amenities (recreational facilities, children s play areas, etc.) as well as economic development activities (workspaces, training and employment initiatives, etc.). In other words, housing associations have moved on from a concern with housing alone to address a wider range of issues the more complex, multi-faceted problems of poverty or deprivation. But it was housing which provided the initial focus to mobilise people and to establish a local capacity to act. Fourth, housing associations provide the neighbourhood with a collective voice to represent its interests. They may enter into negotiations with local government on behalf of the neighbourhood over the quality and quantity of local services, for example. They may represent local community interests in discussions over planning policies or decisions. Conclusions There are many challenges in trying to learn lessons from the experience in Glasgow and transfer them to the Turkish context. There are differences of history and of culture which may make the meaning attached to home or neighbourhood quite different. There are differences in the roles of government, in the details of law and practice, and in the availability of public resources which would also be critical factors. Knowing very little about Istanbul and its neighbourhoods, it would be wrong for me to try to draw out detailed lessons if indeed there are any but it may be possible to offer some general comments. 12
One important message might be the need to build local community capacity. It is easy to talk about the community of a neighbourhood but such entities do not automatically exist in urban areas or they exist to varying degrees. If planners are serious about engaging with the community and giving them a central role in the regeneration process, then time and resources are needed to ensure that capacities are developed. Ideally, that needs to happen before detailed plans are developed and it needs to be supported on an on-going basis. It is easy to think of the community as a single entity, implying everyone within an area belongs to the same group by virtue of their residence there. And it is tempting to think in this way, in the rush to find an authentic local voice with which one can consult. Planners also need to be sensitive to the fact that areas may contain multiple communities and that the voices of all groups need to be developed and given the chance to be heard. The role of planners should not be to reinforce the dominance of majority groups over minorities. One of the most powerful factors in the Glasgow model has been the fact that the community have ownership and control of a very significant asset in the housing association s stock. While there are many restrictions on what they can do with this, it does provide an independent source for resources to enable them to pursue new areas of work or respond to local demands. It seems unlikely that the same model would be developed in Istanbul but here the state does own large sections of land on which properties have been built illegally. Perhaps there may be scope to transfer that land (or a share in the value of that land) to collective organisations rather than to individual owners. A second message is that there is a need to work with the market. This is perhaps even more important in the Turkish context given that public resources are likely to be more limited. There is a value in concentrating limited resources into specific areas and in doing enough to overcome market failures and get market processes working. There is a need to resolve issues of ownership and title so that markets can operate more effectively. It is also important to provide a legal framework for the on-going management of these neighbourhoods. Condominium law provides a framework which recognises the inter-dependence of flat owners within a block so that owners can take collective action in relation to property maintenance. There may be a value in ensuring that similar frameworks exist in relation to groups of properties within a neighbourhood and that they cover issues such as the management of the wider environment. 13
At the same time, there is a clear risk with market-led approaches that neighbourhood regeneration leads to the displacement of lower income groups if not immediately, then over time. It is difficult to see means of preventing this from happening entirely. Perhaps one strategy is to ensure that areas contain a mix of house types or sizes which will be attractive to a range of groups. A third message is that housing renewal is not enough on its own to solve the problems facing low income households. In Britain, deprived neighbourhoods frequently have problems with the poor quality of public services in an area, notably education and health serices. They may suffer from high levels of crime and inadquate levels of policing. Unemployment is high. The paper is not trying to suggest that housing renewal is a panacea. Rather the argument is that housing may offer an important starting point and a focus around which communities can be mobilised. In the longer term, actions will be needed across a wider range of issues. A final message might be the reminder that even wider actions across a range of local problems will not be enough, on their own, to solve the problems of deprived neighbourhoods. The root causes of neighbourhood problems lie outwith the neighbourhoods themselves. Social inequalities are produced primarily by wider market processes (particularly labour markets) and by state welfare systems. The urban system turns those social inequalities into spatial inequalities rich and poor neighbourhoods. Actions are needed to reduce social inequalities but these are outside the realm of urban planning. More directly, planners can try to limit the extent to which more affluent groups are able to separate themselves off from less affluent. In this sense, problem neighbourhoods are not just those where there are concentrations of poverty, but also those with concentrations of wealth. 14
Bibliography Bailey, N. and Robertson, D. (1997) Housing renewal, urban policy and gentrification, Urban studies 34 (4): 561-78. Bailey, N. and Robertson, D. (1997) Management of flats in multiple ownership: learning from other countries. Bristol: Policy Press. Bailey, N., Turok, I., and Docherty, I. (1999) Edinburgh and Glasgow: contrasts in competitiveness and cohesion. Glasgow: Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow. Balchin, P. and Rhoden, M. (2002) Housing policy: an introduction. 4th edition. London: Routledge. Kleinman, M. and Whitehead, C. (1999) Housing and regeneration: the problem or the solution, National Institute Economic Review (170): 78-86. Maclennan, D. and Gibb, A. (1988) Glasgow: No Mean City to Miles Better. Discussion Paper 18. Glasgow: Centre for Housing Research, University of Glasgow. Robertson, D. (1992) Scottish home improvement policy, 1945-1975: coming to terms with the tenement, Urban studies 29 (7): 1115-36. Robertson, D. and Bailey, N. (1996) Review of the impact of Housing Action Areas, Research Report No. 47. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes. Scottish Executive (SE) (2002) Better communities in Scotland: closing the gap. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Office (1988) New life for urban Scotland. Edinburgh: SO. Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2001) A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal: national strategy action plan. London: Cabinet Office. United Nations (UN) (2001) World urbanisation prospects. 1999 revision. New York: UN. Van der Merwe, C. G. (1994) Apartment ownership, in Yiannopoulos, A. N. (ed) International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Volume VI: Property and Trust, Chapter 5. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Wilcox, S. (2004) UK housing review 2003/4. York: JRF. Young, M. and Willmott, P. (1957) Family and kinship in East London. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 15