Can Corruption be Prosperous?

Byker Wall. Newcastle Upon Tyne
Ralph Erskine, 1967

The Byker wall has a lot of of controversy surrounding it. The project was opened up due to corrupt council member Dan T. Smith’s (who was arrested on charges of corruption due to a housing scandal), approval for the demolition of 25% of the areas housing stock. Now with all of this free space, the Byker wall had space to stretch its industrious arms over the clay bones of its predecessors, along with the existing social dynamics. So wrote Newcastle’s city planning official Wilfrid Burns: 

“In a huge city, it is a fairly common observation that the dwellers in a slum are almost a separate race of people with different values, aspirations and ways of being. One result of slum clearance is that a considerable movement of people takes place over long distances, with devastating effect on the social groupings built up over years. But one might argue that this is a good thing when we are dealing with people who have no initiative or civic pride. The task is surely to break up such groupings, even though the people seem to be satisfied with their miserable environment and seem to enjoy an extrovert social life in their locality.”

At the start of the Byker redevelopment over 17,000 residents lived in Byker. Once the wall was built, only 20% of the residents were retained. The irony of this is that in 2007, the wall was given a Grade 2 listing, which protects it from any sort of demolition. I have mixed feelings on this. With individual housing units I think there’s a sense of ease when it comes to displacing individuals. However with a large singular building, you make it nearly impossible to demolish which can be good if it’s effective architecture. For example it’s easier to give out one grade 2 permit instead of 200 of them. Even if you protect some of the housing, a government entity could certainly trim some fat if needed. 

In this instance, a corrupt politician was a driving factor to replace existing housing with a singular large structure. This could have been for motivations of control, a change in the demographic of citizens within the community, monetary drivers, etc. With all of these things taken into account on the former community end, can this be viewed as successful architecture? Can it be considered successful even if the community now were to be prosperous?