Bole Blasts Nimby Boomers with Brickbats

The_White_Horse

one of the problems imo is builders having to build "houses for scum" as part of getting permission to build. It reduces their profits but more importantly, space is wated on wastes of space. Where I used to live had "houses for scum" around the back. In there were all sorts of neer do wells that sat about all day, with their pet dog. If they had built houses for real people, we could have had decent working people living there instead.

these non working scum bags DO NOT NEED TO LIVE IN OR NEAR LONDON. they can sit on their behinds in the middle of nowhere. Let people who want to work and live in London (or other cities) live there and remove the scum to big projects out of sight.

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

Why does that make a difference? There are plenty of people that don't want to see small terraces or small low rise flats built on large blocks of land in suburban Sydney. I think they are just as dumb as the British NIMBYs.

An expanding population means you need more homes or more people per existing home. I prefer the former solution, presumably those who oppose more building want more people per home as it's the only logically consistent alternative outcome.

It makes a significant difference.

Presumably you left the UK because you found another country preferable to live in? Now that might have been due solely to climatic conditions, but I would very surprised if all (or even many) of the British ex-pats who leave for Australia do so without some sour thoughts about the state their homeland has descended into.

A lot of what is wrong with the quality of life in the UK, including poor health care, education and transport, is due to an over-burdened, creaking infrastructure.The South East is at breaking point. Littering it with more housing estates and warehouse developments isn't going to help.

vivatifosi

princeofpounds wrote: »

Oh, and I live in the SE. There is loads of space around here. You just aren't allowed to build on it for a variety of reasons.

Seconded. They are building a new estate near me, not big enough and the next proposed one is moving too s-l-o-w-l-y but it is the right thing to do. Yes there's a need for more infrastructure in the area, but it isn't insurmountable and it should happen.

What they are doing is building houses on farmland that abuts the town. Providing the farmers are happy with the deal and well rewarded, I have no problem with that. It's the right thing to do. The only problem being that there's been a good 15 years here with very little development, so there's still all the interim pent-up demand to satisfy as well as building what should be built.

Incidentally, yes I'm a boomer, yes this is close to where I live and yes I think there should be more of it.

Generali

Here's an idea.

The Government targets a series of areas which are possibly suitable for building on. They then buy up the local land, with a CPO if necessary. The Government then sells individual plots of various sizes to individuals, the price of the plot including a mark-up over the cost of farmland to include building local amenities such as schools, roads, putting in utilities etc.

People have xx months to build on the land before it reverts to the Government at the original price paid to be resold to prevent land hoarding.

That's pretty much how new suburbs are built in Aus and it works jolly well. For people lower down the 'housing ladder', part of the new suburb/town could be sold to builders for the construction of flats or terraces. These places would have an effective price cap put on them by the availability of larger, generally more desirable plots.

Hoopie1

Generali wrote: »

More houses should be built in SE England. It's where the jobs are and where people want to live. It's near impossible to build houses in that part of the country at present.

The Government have this one absolutely spot on. You can't just not build houses for people to live in. It's a ludicrous idea.

You can build a house for £50-£100,000 easily plus land. If the price of building land falls, which is what will happen if more is made available by changing planning rules, then more houses can be built at a price people can afford.

We'd be in a better place if successive governments hadn't shoved all their eggs into the South East of England shaped basket. If we want more homes then there's going to need to be more spent on the infrastructure to support that.

Generali

A._Badger wrote: »

It makes a significant difference.

Presumably you left the UK because you found another country preferable to live in? Now that might have been due solely to climatic conditions, but I would very surprised if all (or even many) of the British ex-pats who leave for Australia do so without some sour thoughts about the state their homeland has descended into.

A lot of what is wrong with the quality of life in the UK, including poor health care, education and transport, is due to an over-burdened, creaking infrastructure.The South East is at breaking point. Littering it with more housing estates and warehouse developments isn't going to help.

You are wrong about why I left the UK and I harbour no ill will towards the country or its people. I saw the GFC coming and when it hit I guessed how big it would be and decided that living poverty in Aus was a better proposition than in London, especially with kids. Poorer families have a better life in Sydney than they do in London IMHO.

Not building houses that people need to live in is hardly going to make the UK more livable!

A._Badger

Hoopie1 wrote: »

We'd be in a better place if successive governments hadn't shoved all their eggs into the South East of England shaped basket. If we want more homes then there's going to need to be more spent on the infrastructure to support that.

And it never is. All that happens is the property spivs move in, acres of productive farmland are ploughed-up so that rabbit hutches can be plonked down without the slightest thought to considerations of water supply, transport, work, health care or just about any other needs.

The evidence is there for anyone to see. It began in 'planned' hell holes like Stevenage and Harlow and is being continued today in dumps like Ashford and Crawley.

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

You are wrong about why I left the UK and I harbour no ill will towards the country or its people. I saw the GFC coming and when it hit I guessed how big it would be and decided that living poverty in Aus was a better proposition than in London, especially with kids. Poorer families have a better life in Sydney than they do in London IMHO

I didn't say ill will towards its people. I said harbouring negative thoughts about the state of the country..People rarely leave somewhere they are very happy to live in.

Generali wrote: »

Not building houses that people need to live in is hardly going to make the UK more livable!

An neither will turning the South East of England into another Croydon.

MacMickster

Generali wrote: »

Not building houses that people need to live in is hardly going to make the UK more livable!

Failure to build is also going to make Britain increasingly uncompetetive.

A decent home is pretty much a minimum requirement for someone working full-time. While decent housing remains in short supply it will remain expensive, whether to buy or to rent. Consequently, British workers will need to be paid more than otherwise necessary in order to be able to meet that basic need.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Here's an idea.

The Government targets a series of areas which are possibly suitable for building on. They then buy up the local land, with a CPO if necessary. The Government then sells individual plots of various sizes to individuals, the price of the plot including a mark-up over the cost of farmland to include building local amenities such as schools, roads, putting in utilities etc.

Not sure about that one Generali. If you are selling plots to individuals, surely they will put a detached house on it? Realistically in the South East at least, I'd argue that you want something higher density than that. How does it work in Australia?

Back in the mid 1970s the local council where I was living had a scheme whereby they got tradespeople together who had little work to build their own homes. They worked as a team and built some of the nicest houses in the town. They are terraced and semis, but really well thought out, with some unusual features that builders wouldn't normally put in, IIRC such as the second floor being slightly smaller to allow for a walk out balcony from the main bedroom.

I don't know what the answer is, but there does need to be more out of the box thinking. So rather than there being what used to be termed "Barratt boxes" everywhere, we have interesting, different and appropriate solutions. Not just freeing up the land, but looking for interesting ways to use that land. Houses on stilts in flood plains; conversion of 1960s office blocks to flats; maybe micro-housing..