The boomers ate all the avocados
Comments
-
You are starting to sound like someone arguing against the idea of cities themselves.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There's plenty of space to build. That's not the problem. The problem is an entrenched idea that all development is Bad. Pick any week and you will be able to find an MP somewhere crowing about how they've managed to help block this or that development. Any other sector they'd be wanting to brag about helping it succeed but not development.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
On a more serious note than building on London's parks for housing you could far more conceivably reallocate road space. Something like the A12 gets up to four lanes wide in part, so could accommodate lots of blocks of flats, in prime central London locations, where you'd be nuts to use a car in the first place.
Fairly radical idea and I am sure it would never get past the "war on motorists" headlines but if you want density, that's how to do it, by smashing the idea that everyone needs a car.
0 -
Funnily enough I'm all in favour of cities, and to make Rick happy, with high rise flats.
Difference is I'd make them controlled pricing rentals. Smaller, denser, no need for cars. Work and play near home.
Oh, and lots of them so no centralisation on a nationwide scale.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Depends if you subscribe to Ricks wish of building them where people,e want them. Appears lots of people want them in London and the bits of the home counties close to London where there isn't always 'loads of space'.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's a huge housing estate right next Richmond Park with 13,000 residents. Again, there's no need to build over parkland. There is enough under utilised brownfield land in Greater London to build hundreds of thousands of additional homes especially in the outer suburbs.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes we shouldn't increase the population of a city while decreasing the recreational space.
Density is something the ex Tory MP Rory Stewart bangs on about. On his podcast he was arguing high rise isn't necessarily higher density than town houses and terraces built low and medium rise. He was actually arguing for the redevelopment of some low density areas of London with that kind of housing . Sounded quite persuasive but I've no background in planning/development.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I'll leave you dense folks to play sardines to your hearts content.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
less radical would be redeveloping some of the hundreds of acres of central london that are owned by the old estates - grosvenor, hdw, portman, cadogan etc., oh and there's the crown too
but they all seem happy with their long-term strategy, the money keeps rolling in over the centuries, no need to worry about density, and of course none of that pesky iht
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Yes. There is loads of space. Greater London is really not very dense outside Z1. A recent study found that lots of Z5 is down around 20 dwellings per hectare, and there are a lot of hectares.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was not an entirely serious suggestion.
I've worked in construction on central london large scale projects for the last 20 odd years, it's surprising how they keep finding sites for new flats.
0 -
Yes, sorry. I do think the Alton Estate is quite a good example - the population of a small town fitted into a relatively small space, but still feels very spacious.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No issues with using Brownfield sites and it would be great if it was just space, but I suspect that a lot of that is just existing property that is less dense than you'd like it to be. Which brings us backs to the point about compulsory purchases/confiscation of private property that Rick seems to favour.
And Zone 5 is home counties - I used to live in Zone 4 in Beckenham and that was a mile or so outside the London postcodes.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Given that there appears to be continuous building of new properties in London - some of which I have worked for, and the idea that building more properties will bring prices down, can anyone provide any examples of property prices going down where these new developments have gone up?
Wilier Izoard XP0 -
Which other cities are you thinking of?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Isn't Beckenham in the London Borough of Bromley? I would definitely class it as greater London.
0 -
I fully agree with this, but doesn't it also come back to the argument around location which all of us keep going over on various threads. Building houses is vital, but building them in places where there is little demand is surely an issue, and does not begin to solve the housing shortage (not saying Z5 would suffer from lack of demand, just a point in general).
I still have the fundamental impression, that the lack of housing stock argument is a bit more nuanced than this. There is surely spare housing stock around the UK that could be filled, but it is in places that people don't want to live.
As I have argued before, the reality is that in a free market there will never be enough supply to meet demand in desirable areas, so either people adjust their expectations and preferences and live in places where new housing can be built (even if it is not their first choice) or they go without a house. I am not saying this is right, but surely is it the reality for many?
0 -
i'd expect most have more diverse ownership of land and no leasehold system
differences in planning, regulation, tenant security, uk is pretty grim for the latter, which must drive the wish to own
it's an old city, if one were starting from scratch the result would be very different
much of central london is held by various estates, there's nothing in it for them to create higher-density housing, let alone cede control of land
a fair bit of suburban london grew as development followed transport links, creating a commuter belt of low density freehold housing outside the centre, seems pretty near impossible to change now and the sprawl continues to grow
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Yep, but it's also in Kent as mentioned.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
By "free market" do you mean with or without councils and MPs stopping development?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Well, about as 'free' as it gets in that respect! 😉
0 -
Except it isn't
0 -
This is the main development near me that is up for consultation - it basically replaces a surface car park near the station, and they keep having to shrink it to try to get it past planning. Originally proposed 445 homes, then 389, now 265. https://www.kingstongateproposals.co.uk/
First proposal was in 2019.
The 315 homes built just around the corner all sold.
0 -
How do you think it should be done in London? RJS knows more than I do on the subject and he has already suggested the number of brown field sites that could be used.
With respect to other countries, traditionally old Italian towns always had high population density more centrally and most businesses were based further out. So rush hour was people leaving the town centre to get to work.
0 -
I live in Z5. It comes under the GLA and is 45 minutes from central London. Same for somewhere like New Barnet. Not sure of the relevance of postcodes. They're both still part of Greater London.
There's no need for compulsory purchases. Developers can buy up property as it comes to market. The blockage is the planning system.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Don't understand your point.
I lived in Beckenham for over 20 years. It was in Kent and in the London Borough of Bromley. Clear enough to me.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You were the one saying it was outside of the "London postcodes".
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Kent and Surrey both have ceremonial and postal boundaries that are very different from the administrative boundaries. The Local Authorities are the relevant bodies as they deal with planning.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Currently wondering where the avocados go in all of this. 😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
