Bole Blasts Nimby Boomers with Brickbats

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

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?

The blocks are large in Australia because people want their quarter acre. There's nothing to stop people building to near the edge of their land if that's what the rules state though. The rules in Aus are normally that you can't build close to the boundary but it needn't be like that. In the UK it would be possible to encourage people to build 3 story houses rather than 2 to fit more houses on the available land.

Surely density should be decided by what's nice to live in given the desire to avoid urban sprawl whilst giving people enough space to let the kids play out the back in some sort of meaningful way.

Generali

A._Badger wrote: »

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.



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

You seem to love putting words into my mouth. I'll leave you to post the rest for me!:D

Wookster

The cost of building can also be reduced enormously through use of flat pack houses. Not only do they really reduce the risk and cost of building but they are generally much more energy efficient than brick & mortar houses.

Sadly planning laws mean that new builds must fit the character of existing buildings which means that very few flat pack houses are likely to be built.

kabayiri

Essentially I guess we are saying more houses in the S.E because that's where our future prosperity lies...

More houses => more people => more work will flock there => more people move there to get work => more houses .... (and repeat)

I guess it does solve the Northern problem by gradually expanding London northwards!

Rotor

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.


I don't think it is fair to call people who are opposed to significant development in their area as 'dumb'.


It is an entirely logical reaction to the concentration of the negative aspects of building in the local area. The benefits accrue to society as a whole ; the local area suffers.


I live in a village that has grown over 25% in the last 10 years and still another large development is proposed ; so , yes, i'm a nimby. But it is this village that will suffer the increased traffic congestion (and associated dangers) , difficulty parking , congested schools, lenghtened doctors waiting times, spoilt views and many other detriments.

I'm not sure I want to take a bullet for society just so most of society can avoid getting a little scratch!

the_flying_pig

Hoopie1 wrote: »

... If we want more homes then there's going to need to be more spent on the infrastructure to support that.

i'm not sure that's right.

people need infrastructure. houses, in the main, don't.

it's people who drive the cars that make the roads busy, who take up school places and hospital beds, who throw out rubbish that needs collecting & disposing of, who generate sewage & waste water, & so on.

a million people squashed into [say] 250,000 houses create more or less exactly the same pressure on infrastructure as a million people living comfortably in 400,000 houses. unless in the 'insufficient housing' scenario people are also banned from driving cars & so on.

the_flying_pig

kabayiri wrote: »

Essentially I guess we are saying more houses in the S.E because that's where our future prosperity lies...

More houses => more people => more work will flock there => more people move there to get work => more houses .... (and repeat)

I guess it does solve the Northern problem by gradually expanding London northwards!

so more houses will mean better living standards will mean more people - and this would be a bad thing?

you could make exactly the same point about anything that government might do to improve living standards [e.g. spending on health, education, roads, whatever] - there's no point because it'd just suck more people into the country.

by the same token we should reduce all wages and benefits to £1 a day. that'd properly demolish living standards. then no-one would want to live here and it'd be a paradise?

Radiantsoul

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.

Pretty much my idea!
People are always emotional about losing so much land, but in reality London is I guess around 400 square miles, so 20miles by 20 miles. Increasing that to 21miles by 21 miles increases the size by 10% and it is not like the land within a mile of London is really a rural iddle of outstanding natural beauty.

ruggedtoast

A._Badger wrote: »

Remind us where you live please, General.

You may as well remind us where you do.

If you're going to accuse people of hypocrisy it might serve you to remember it works both ways.

drc

Why didn't Labour (the party apparently for the poor and vulnerable) build any social housing or amend the planning laws when they were in power? Why did they instead oversee a huge rise in housing costs (both to buy and rent)? Why are the nasty party the ones that have capped subsidies for landlords (via housing benefit caps) and want to increase supply by changing the planning laws? Seems the political parties have swapped places where housing is concerned.