The Industrial Revolution finally led to a better quality of life for most people. Hitherto, the alteration to this besides caused huge human agony. In Britain, the Industrial Revolution proved to be a assorted approval. Britain was among the first states in the universe to get down the industrial revolution. This was because of equal human labor, inexpensive and available agencies of conveyance and abundant natural resources ( Heon, 2007 ) . Scientific development in farming reduced the demand for people to work in their farms, and so, many people moved to the metropoliss as jobseekers ( Burnett 1986, p.36 ) . Many of the industrial metropoliss were ill-prepared for such a big inflow of people.

The population of England grew enormously, with the urban population growing rate outpacing the entire growing rate ( Burnett 1986, p.56 ) . Cities such as Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, all important to the Industrial Revolution experienced jobs non witnessed anyplace else in the universe at this clip. Throughout much of the 19th century, the premier metropolis of the universe, in footings of its population, was London. It was the first to make the charming figure of one million, a population non attained by Paris until the mid-nineteenth century ( Jones, 1988, p.97 ) .

Confronting the Housing Dilemma: The Response

As the Industrial Revolution continued, these metropoliss were in demand of inexpensive houses for the urban-working category. Minimal ordinances on edifices existed, and those that did be were frequently ignored. Therefore, builders had the freedom to construct as they wished. Making net incomes was their lone motive. As a consequence, houses were put up rapidly and cheaply- and as many were built as were possible. Burnett ( 1986, p.56-7 ) argued that architectural historiographers frequently ignored the topic of working-class houses for the mere truth that they were non “ architecture ” , they alternatively focused on the philanthropic organic structures that provided houses to the working category.

The Industrial Revolution saw the start of what was known as “ back-to-back ” patio lodging, with no garden and the lone portion of the edifice non connected to another house would be the forepart, the merely, entryway unless one was lucky plenty to populate in the terminal of the patio. The bottom room was the life room semen kitchen, while the two suites up the stairs served as sleeping rooms.

Others lived in cellar homes. These were a one underground-room, moistness and ill ventilated. The poorest people slept on hemorrhoids of straw because they could n’t afford beds. Those who could merely afford these homes lived in the worst possible conditions as moistness and wet would easy ooze in their floor boards. None of these places was built with a bathroom, lavatory or running H2O. Housing for the on the job category people was dreadful-so to state.

Space for new houses became a job. Existing edifices were modified to suit as many people as possible. Worker besides wanted to avoid long-walking hours to their work topographic points. For case in London, many houses were transformed into flats without even seeking the authorization of the landlords. No organic structure bothered about the life conditions ( Heon, 2006 ) . Streets were overcrowded with edifices as the desire for more houses rose.

Victorian slums characterized a big country of urban Britain. The slums, which arose as a consequence of rapid urbanisation and population addition, housed the urban hapless working category. Property proprietors and developers did non welcome intervention from any regulative organic structure and this meant that the hapless could merely populate in overcrowded and unhealthy slums.

Attendant Challenges and Problems

Reeder, et Al. ( 2004 ) argued that much urbanisation in London and other British metropoliss was achieved without much disbursement on substructure. Urban Torahs were ill-sorted to altering fortunes ; this was due to immigration to British metropoliss. Urban population addition between 1801 and 1830 was greater than the entire population of Britain in 1801 ( Reeder, et al. , 2004, p. 3-5 ) this was without the benefit of be aftering codifications, edifice ordinances and sewage and H2O supply systems

“ Slums and suburbs ” was a reaction to rapid urbanisation and monolithic population. London became a upland of small towns. London ‘s huge appetency for dwellers kept turning, people idea of good paying occupations at that place, a better wages for offenses and tonss of charities. ( Dyos and Reeder, 1973, P. 360-2 )

Cities lacked adequate houses and the necessary installations to suit the disconnected addition of population. Housing deficit led to Slum Housing. Sanitation and hygiene hardly existed and the fright of cholera and enteric fever was high. Toilets were nil more than cesspools, when filled, they were emptied and what was collected was dumped at a local river. This was done at dark as the malodor created by empting the cesspools could n’t be tolerated during the twenty-four hours. Sewage could frequently leak into the floor boards of those populating in basements. ( Heon, 2006 ) .

Drain was no better either. Drain pipes were made out of bricks and the working category hapless could non afford them. The rich were non willing to buy them as the drainage ne’er benefited them. Good drainage was a preserve of the rich merchandisers and business communities in the metropoliss.

Supply of Fresh H2O was hard to acquire to the hapless countries. The best people could trust for, was to go forth a pail out and cod rainwater. For those lucky plenty to entree wired H2O, opportunities were that it was contaminated by leaking cesspools. River H2O was besides contaminated as “ material ” emptied from the cesspools was dumped their. These are merely a few jobs that the urban working category experienced. Sociologists posit that societal upset and offense ensued in the engorged and ill planned industrial metropoliss.

Addressing The Problems: What Was Done?

The large inquiry is, Why was so small done to better towns and metropoliss in Britain ‘s industrial zones? The Millss and mills were all owned by affluent work forces who were besides extremely influential in a metropolis. Magistrates, who could guarantee Torahs were carried out, seldom did if merely the hapless were affected. Those with money lived good off from the countries the hapless lived in. Any money spent on bettering the workers populating countries would hold been seen as lost net income.

Fortunately, in the 1840s local councils passed by-laws forbiddance cellar homes, they besides banned any new “ back to dorsums ” . The old 1s were bit by bit demolished and replaced over the undermentioned decennaries. In the late nineteenth century, workers houses greatly improved, most towns passed edifice ordinances which prescribed conditions for improved lodging. By the 1880s most on the job category Victorians lived in houses with two suites downstairs and two or even three sleeping rooms. Most had a little garden. At the terminal of the nineteenth century, some houses for skilled workers were built with the latest luxury-an indoor lavatory.

The demand for reform in the lodging sector rose in the First World War. Those in power made bold promises, which could non be fulfilled due to economic adversities. The consequence was a sad feeling of defeat and desperation. The British authorities tried to work out the endemic job of familial Victorian slums that characterized big countries of urban Britain. ( Shapely, 2007 )

Housing reformists recognized that cardinal and local authoritiess were the lone agents capable of work outing slum lodging jobs. The conservative authorities recognized and supported place ownership by the working category population. The authorities introduced impressive house-building completion rates. It supported place ownership, reduced stump responsibility, and provided loans to constructing societies while at the same times advancing municipal edifice. Rent control was introduced during the First World War to ease the impact of a terrible deficit. In 1965 the authorities considered that up to two million houses were needed to replace the houses that were non slums but non deserving bettering, most houses were out of date- even if they were non wholly worn out ( Holmans, 1987, p.125 )


History is an debut of events and ideas that we may likely ne’er run into in our restricted lives. We can larn from history, as we make today ‘s determinations. The nineteenth century -British experience is being witnessed in other developing parts of the universe. Today ‘s modern Britain is a merchandise of difficult and acrimonious challenges and experiences that her “ state ” underwent in the nineteenth century.The desire to industrialise and make wealth has its ain costs and benefits. These may be alone and different from what Britain experienced but non excessively far from the challenges of the industrial revolution in 19th Century Britain. It is upon others to reflect on what they can larn from the British experience.