What is particularly frustrating about the housing issues in Stoke is that through their 'regeneration' agenda, they are in the process of creating an affordable housing problem via the demolition of the area's affordable housing.

The developments that replace them always contain affordable housing, either for rent or shared-ownership. Most people do not want to move from a home they owned into a home for rent for obvious reasons, and if offered the shared-ownership option, they often would not be able to afford/access a mortgage for their part of the property. They would not be able to get onto housing waiting lists as they would be deemed to have intentionally made themselves homeless by refusing to chose a rent option. This would mean trying to buy a home in an area where they would probably not be able to afford, or drifting into private rented accommodation that is quite often in a condition worse than the property they have been turfed out of for being in a poor condition!

It really is a horrible approach, and is one of the reasons why many people in the Potteries are sick to the back teeth of 'regeneration'; what is being done in places really gives regeneration a bad name.

 
"creating an affordable housing problem
via the demolition of the area's affordable housing"

I started my career in private sector housing renewal at Newcastle-under-Lyme BC, and we had a policy of renewal rather than clearance, which was really a last resort, and made grants to allow people to improve their properties. It worked, and I believe that this is far more sustainable than clearance when you take into account embodied energy and the like.

There are serious issues in Stoke, but they appear to target areas where land values are likely to be highest (i.e. around key assets such as canals, hence the reason why Pyenest Street went, and parks - see Eaton Street in Northwood).

 
Eaton Street houses opposite Northwood
 

Pyenest Street houses and the Caldon canal behind
 

What the Pathfinder ought to have been doing is tackling the root causes of housing issues, primarily sorting out the economy and what is needed to make the economy work. In terms of housing, a policy of renewal would have seen the creation of a sustainable supply of quality affordable housing. If this was added to by building larger family dwellings in high quality surroundings, with good transport links, Stoke would no doubt have a rejuvenated housing market (not withstanding the current economic climate of course).

In short, they ought to have been tackling:

1. The economy (including education, skills, etc.)
2. The public transport system
3. The local environment

If they had have gone after tackling those problems, they would probably have had the support of 100% of the city's population. Instead, they went on create a huge clearance programme (the target was to demolish c12,000 terraced properties) which has simply alienated local people, created a future housing problem, and continued the erosion of the area's character. There is another way, but you may as well talk to the wall.

faceless houses await demolition in Wellington and Middleport areas of the city

The architect of Government thinking on housing market renewal, as it was termed, was a very influential character, who actually originates from Stoke. He carved himself a very nifty position as an 'expert' on such issues, and visited Stoke very early on in set-up of the pathfinder. He did a presentation on Stoke's problems and solutions, some of which were contemptible; he actually stood there and suggested that there was no reason for Fenton to exist (obviously a student of Priestley, Pevsner or Crossman). Incredibly there were officers and elected members who sat there nodding in agreement; these people should hang their heads in shame. My former line manager actually found it hilarious. I have never disagreed with the need for some major change in Stoke, but there are ways and means of doing it, and demolishing everything in sight is not the answer. 

There are some very good people involved in the regeneration programme in Stoke, but there are also some cowboys whom I wouldn't trust as far as I could kick: a friend of mine works for a planning consultancy, and was interviewed for a commission to develop some regeneration plans in Stoke, and as he explained his approach, he talked about building on the city's unique character. The Chief Exec of the NSRP, who was on the interview panel, allegedly stopped him and said "what character".

Stoke-on-Trent has huge potential, and given its strategic location between Manchester and Birmingham on the West Coast Mainline (and with great connections to London), it should be thriving. It isn't, thanks to appalling leadership, both from officers and elected members, and a complete lack of vision.