I grew up in Indian high-rise housing. Common areas were alive, children playing, families celebrating, guards who knew your name. Moving to the UK, I kept asking: why does the same building type feel so different?
Research Question:
How do design, governance, culture, and emotional wellbeing affect vandalism and anti-social behaviour in high-rise housing, and how can comparisons with Indian housing societies help shape better approaches in UK estates?
This research builds on Alice Coleman's landmark study Utopia on Trial, which examined over 4,000 housing blocks and argued that architectural design, not just poverty, was a key driver of disorder. Long corridors, multiple entrances, poorly defined communal spaces, and lack of natural surveillance created environments where vandalism became almost inevitable.
But Coleman's critique, influential as it was, stopped short of asking a deeper question: what happens when the same building heights exist in a completely different cultural and governance context?
The Findings:
Three hypotheses were tested and confirmed. Design flaws, long corridors, multiple entrances, unclear communal ownership, increase vandalism risk. Strong governance, RWAs, guards, CCTV, rapid repair systems, reduces vandalism and moderates poor design. And emotional wellbeing, pride, belonging, joy, is the hidden but decisive mediator. Where fear and neglect dominate, anti-social behaviour escalates. Where pride and belonging are nurtured, communities thrive.
Recommendations for UK Housing:
The research proposes four concrete changes for UK architects and housing providers: compact circulation design to improve natural surveillance; integrated governance structures including resident committees and rapid repair systems; communal spaces designed for cultural activation, festivals, play, collective events; and emotion-focused design that treats wellbeing as an outcome of housing, not an afterthought. Embedding governance also creates local employment, strengthening community ties further.
What I explored:
Mixed-methods research design combining quantitative datasets and qualitative case studies · Alice Coleman's design critique extended through an Indian comparative lens · How socio-cultural context and governance interact with architectural design · Emotional wellbeing as a measurable outcome of housing design · Practical recommendations for UK architects and housing policy
Want to read the full research paper? You can find it here → [link]
And here are the pictures where I stayed as a child :
In India, 10–15 storey housing is common across cities like Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Delhi. But these buildings are organised as societies, gated compounds with 24/7 guards, CCTV, landscaped gardens, communal play areas, and Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) that oversee maintenance, enforce rules, and organise collective events.
The contrast with UK post-war estates is stark. Where UK estates suffered from weak council management, slow repairs, and anonymity, Indian societies created custodianship, pride, and belonging. Vandalism is rare — not simply because of cameras, but because residents feel emotionally invested in where they live.
Case Studies
To ground the research, I looked at four housing developments, two from the UK and two from India, chosen for how clearly they illustrate the contrast.
In the UK, Druids Heath in Birmingham and Red Road in Glasgow both followed the same post-war logic: build high, build fast, solve the housing crisis. Both became associated with vandalism, neglect, social isolation, and fear. Both have since been demolished or are being torn down. The buildings existed. The communities never quite did.
In India, Prestige Shantiniketan and Brigade Gateway, both in Bengaluru, are high-rise developments of similar density. But they function completely differently, gated, governed, alive with festivals and children and people who know their neighbours. Vandalism is almost nonexistent. Not because of cameras, but because people feel like they belong there.
What struck me most was that the buildings are not so different. The heights are comparable. The densities are similar. What is different is everything around and between the buildings, the governance, the culture, the emotional investment. That gap is where the real design problem lives.
The Data:
The hypothetical datasets constructed for this study reveal a clear pattern:
UK estates (Druids Heath, Red Road) showed corridor lengths of 55–65m, graffiti incidents of 95–110 per year, 29–32% of communal areas damaged, resident satisfaction of 4.3–4.7 out of 10, and fear of crime rates of 62–75%.
Indian societies (Prestige Shantiniketan, Brigade Gateway) showed corridor lengths of 28–30m, graffiti incidents of 3–4 per year, only 2–3% of communal areas affected, resident satisfaction of 8.1–8.5 out of 10, and fear of crime rates of just 12–18%.
The numbers tell a story that goes beyond design.
