In article , Doctor Drivel writes
and what has this government done to improve matters? they have made it worse by increasing permissible density, they're your government of choice John, have you written to your pal two jags?
Among the key disadvantages are the high infrastructure costs and the fact that you need a certain number of people within walking distance to support public transport, a newsagent or whatever. Spread out the housing and you then need to use a car. Which may well cause problems at the place all these suburbanites drive to.
Nothing wrong with strip development at all. What do people want? Poeple, crammed into to high rises? The NUMBY bumpkins do.
In article , Doctor Drivel writes
Whats that, Not Under My Back Yard? and how is strip development in someone's back yard? you're not getting confused with infill are you? Strip development is the not the best use of the land though is it John?
BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
Numpty/nimby cross?
As I may have said before my Melbourne flat, hopefully my next home, is one of 305 on a one acre site - 31 storeys (nothing compared with the
88-storey Eureka Tower under construction across the river). When I get to live there my quality of life will be much higher than here, mainly because of having so much within walking distance.
Just hope that walking doesn't include the stairs because the lifts don't work for whatever reason...
"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
Roger England/Wales doesn't have mountains.The place is rather flat.
"Roger" wrote overt Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
Roger, you are answering yourself? Well this is Rogerness.
"David" wrote stuff in message news: snipped-for-privacy@chapelhouse.demon.co.uk...
Bertie, they don't. Currently you don't have a choice. We are crowded into urban areas. Read the links to the documents Tony and I gave.
"Our rigid and nationalised planning system is also delivering the wrong kind of housing. In a March 2005 MORI poll, 50 per cent of those questioned favoured a detached house and 22 per cent a bungalow. Just 2 per cent wanted a low rise flat and 1 per cent a flat in a high rise block. But houses and bungalows use more land, so while in 1990 about an eighth of newly built dwellings were apartments, by 2004 this had increased to just under a half."
"Our housing compares poorly by international standards too. Britain has some of the smallest and oldest housing in Europe, and what is being built now is even smaller than the existing stock. Yet despite this, house prices in the UK have risen much more strongly than other developed countries, meaning that despite real growth in our incomes we are not able to afford more and better housing, in the way that we can afford better cars and food as we get wealthier."
"Recent research into the impact of increased urban densities concluded that 'urban compaction' results in a loss of urban environmental quality and 'questioned whether the loss of environmental quality and urban character in low density housing areas is a price worth paying'. To put those questions more directly than academic researchers might do: do we want gardens to be more and more expensive and, eventually, built over? Do we want the few low density urban conservation areas we have to be destroyed in order to preserve a few acres of countryside that few can visit? Do we want the whole of every urban area to be covered in tarmac? Should we not keep some trees in urban areas? Do we want playing fields to gradually disappear as being uneconomic, given the price of land? Do we want future generations to live walled up in urban areas in blocks of flats? Do we want biodiversity to be reduced as the scientific evidence shows that it would be?"
And why not, we have an abundance of space for it, and it will create jobs in country areas.
I stayed there in a short-stay unit and friends from London were there at the same time. For security you have a tab on your keyring that lets you take the lift to the car park, ground floor, swimming pool and your own floor only. So to get to my friends who were 2 floors up I went in to the fire escape stairs. As the door shut I realised that there were no handles on the inside (thinking about it, if there were it would render the lift security useless) so it was down 20 flights to the ground. You only make that mistake once!
In my university days I lived for a year on the 9th floor of Reading's Sibly Hall. Having to go up nine flights of stairs was a regular occurrence.
"David" wrote stuff in message news: snipped-for-privacy@chapelhouse.demon.co.uk...
Bertie I agree with you, and they are doing just a crap job as every government since 1945. BUT!!!! They are doing research into why the planning system does not deliver the required homes at affordable prices. Since they came into power the situation has not improved, and they are wanting to know why. Read the links to the think tank documents. The final one suhhestion the way forwards is yet to be published, and that will create a stir when released. The centralised Stalinist planning system, which Thatcher reinforced, yes Thatcher, was clearly the blame. Once the government has some concrete research to fall back on it can act without criticism and has ammunition to shoot down dissenters.
It looks as it the planning system will be substantially liberalised under this government, as they have promised to sort out housing. How much? Your guess is as good as mine. The Swiss Federal system assists in promoting high quality low priced, spacious homes. As we are to have regional assemblies we may by default end up with a planning system that eventually delivers.
Mr Prescott has increased building density to 14 houses per acre thinking that more "units" would be built quicker meeting their targets.
Bertie is suggesting quotas of use, etc. Quotas never work. The free market should take over. There should planning/building control regs on minimum sizes of rooms, ceilings, door widths, house proportion in relation to garden, etc.
That is what we have right now.
If had my way, I would build a very high density Barrett estate with ranch style fencing, next to you.
..and you propose that that is the solution to Britain housing needs? People here HATE high rise.
"David" wrote sort of stuff in message news:Z1ZesfB+ snipped-for-privacy@chapelhouse.demon.co.uk...
Bertie. You fail to see the big picture. Initially this government in 1997 commissioned Richard Rogers to do a study of UK housing. He proposed high densities for active urban communities. Prescott went along with this an dhence the high densities, because one of the world's top architecst said so. Rogers, an architect, got it very wrong, as house building by the private sector was still abysmal, being only twice that of Ireland (3.3 million, UK 60 million). Rogers never took into account the economic aspect, especially macro economics.
The government then looked at it again and got independent economists to look at the problem and the Kate Barker report came; works for the Bank of England. Not bad but still flawed, and hinted on LVT as a solution, and many other problems. The current research by the Policy Exchange Unit is taking on board the two investigations and broadening its research, actually visiting other countries and how they do, it. They are praiseworthy of the Swiss and Germans, scornful of the UK, Ireland and Australia, who restrict land for building.
This government is looking into the situation and very seriously too, and moreso than any other in the past 45 years. The current problem is "affordable" housing for key workers. This is a firefighting measure (as most housing initiatives have been over the past 50 years, with the exception of Thatcher who pandered to her NIMBY voters) until something realistic is implemented, which should hopefully reduce, or eliminate, government interference in housing.
In a free market none of these things would be controlled.
It is right for some people, definitely not for families with children. The reason that people here hate high-rise is that we made such a mess of it in the 1960's: poor construction, poor management and the wrong occupiers.
Go to my building in Melbourne and you can't get in without a key or resident letting you in. A concierge is on duty in the foyer from about 0600-2200, CCTV monitoring of common parts - which are finished to a similar standard to a nice hotel. It's a world away from Ronan point style blocks with feral youths roaming the stairs and urine smelling lifts. Sure this level of management costs, but for a lot of people paying for the security and convenience is well worth it. You will see a lot more high-rise in the UK in the future once old notions are left behind.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.