ABSTRACT
Suburban owner-occupation with government incentives was the most popular individualised response to ‘mass’ housing in the 1960s and 1970s. Each unit invariably had its own direct access and controlled space. Very local effort would involve residents, restoring a sense of confidence and generating new skills. There were no longer clear, generalised or ‘mass’ solutions to the myriad individual needs that made up each local community. Between 1850 and 1990, urban housing patterns and the role of the state in their development had followed a clear trend. Different factors reinforced each other and sometimes ran in parallel rather than in chronological sequence. While policy initiatives by governments helped to shape housing developments, organisational problems arose from the growing complexity of government involvement in urban systems. Social housing would continue to play an important role at the bottom of the market because social needs were multiplying, in spite of generally higher standards and growing affluence.
