好色先生TV

Are we building too many blocks of flats in our towns and cities? This somewhat technical question of planning policy recently caused a panic over the death of the urban family home and the resultant deportation of the nation鈥檚 urban families into internal exile, possibly in the Lake District.

This is the latest twist in a story that stretches back to the slums of ancient Rome. In fact, blocks of flats have always had a surprising capacity to create anxiety in city dwellers, who instinctively regard them as the cause and the symptom of an insidious social deterioration.

This was the case back in January 1937, when one Thomas Adams wrote to the magazine to disagree with an article about 鈥渢he erection of flats by public bodies鈥�.

First, he raised the familiar question of urban alienation. 鈥淵ou mention 鈥榗ontact with one鈥檚 fellow beings鈥� as an advantage of flats. I lived in a block of flats for two years and had no social contact with any other tenants. As a resident in a house I have all the social contacts I want, and suffer from fewer beggars.鈥� Well, as Mr Adams lived in Bush House, Aldwych WC2, beggars presumably had to telephone to make an appointment.

Then there was 鈥渢he servant problem鈥�. 好色先生TV had pointed out that modern conveniences enabled the city dwellers to dispense with servants, but Mr Adams objected that this did not give 鈥渢he same advantages as personal service鈥�. Or, no matter how good your vacuum cleaner may be, you still have to push the wretched thing yourself.

This letter began a lively correspondence. Then as now, the case for flats (particularly those raised by 鈥減ublic bodies鈥�) was based on need. The relevant facts were supplier by Major HL Nathan (address: The Reform Club, Westminster), who pointed out that a 鈥渟urvey recently carried out revealed that there were 341,554 overcrowded families in England and Wales鈥�. The definition of overcrowding was 鈥渢wo persons older than 10, of the opposite sex and not living together as husband and wife sleeping in the same room鈥�.

The argument was that children used any time left over from falling down the stairs to contract polio

John G Martin, secretary of the National Housing and Town Planning Committee, then wrote to point out that if you counted overcrowding as somebody being forced to sleep in the living room, the true figure was 853,119.

In April, 好色先生TV discussed the question in its 鈥淏uilder debate鈥� column. One contributor attacked flats as 鈥渕onstrous temples to inconvenience鈥�. The argument (in a nutshell) was that children and flats don鈥檛 mix, as any time not spent falling down stairs is used to contract polio. Much better that the little tykes frolic in a sunlit garden suburb while mum kept on eye on them 鈥渇rom the scullery window鈥� before tucking them up for the night on the living room table.

The contrary opinion was that you鈥檝e got to do something with the working class, and if you located them in the terra incognita south of Croydon, dad had to spend three hours a day travelling to work and back.

After a further exchange on the pros and cons of slaving over a hot stove/working in a nice cool sewer, the argument moved to the Architecture Club in May (address: the Savoy Hotel, London WC2). The title of the discussion: 鈥淢odern flats: menace or necessity?鈥� The issue: was it worth being penned in a nest of tiny boxes, paying an extortionate rent, merely to save maids the trouble of lighting fires?

Yes, yes, but what about the role of flats in the war between the sexes? Mr TP Bennett deftly sidestepped the question of children to strike a blow for feminism. 鈥淲omen no longer wanted to spend their lives doing housework,鈥� he thundered. 鈥淭hey have other occupations 鈥� music, bridge, golf, visiting the sick or even earning a living.鈥� (Pause while the police are called.)

Little did the participants know it, but their discussions left out one advantage soon to be horribly relevant: living in a house with a garden gave you somewhere to dig your air raid shelter 鈥�