Radical housing

The government minister John Hayes is 59 years old. Is he really right to say that “most of what’s been built in my lifetime could be demolished without aesthetic cost”? It seems a drastic judgment, particularly as his blast is deliberately intended to echo that previously made by Prince Charles, who in 1984 famously criticised the proposed National Gallery extension as “a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a muchloved and elegant friend”. Ironically that design was then changed, to great effect, so proving that contemporary architects are still capable of sympathetic, harmonious projects.

Of course, leading architects of whatever era have always sought to push boundaries, make controversial statements – and a name for themselves. That is not new. Flagship projects of any age, including our own, may be brilliant innovations, or self-regarding white elephants. Yet while the past does not have a monopoly on beauty, what has certainly changed is our ability to create mass housing that is both practical and pretty. Our cities are filled with street after street of Victorian and Georgian terraces that have shaped our idea of what such housing should look like. Mr Hayes is right that shoddy, identikit boxes of characterless apartments do not match up in craftsmanship, or looks.

But we face a housing crisis. Nothing and no one has more power to address it than the government of which Mr Hayes forms a part. Perhaps it should launch a major state-backed house-building campaign, selling on what it builds to fund the next developments? Then it could ensure standards – both aesthetic and practical – were met. Sometimes, radical thinking is just what’s needed.