What shortgage 421,306 homes built in a single year in france!

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

I did not say flats were the answer. We need more of all types of housing, detached semi terrace and flats

Oh and the reason families dont like flats in the UK is becuase Flats in the UK have traditionally been far far too small.

If you built 120sqm apartments, many families would love them

What is that obsession of 120sq meters my house is about 100sq meters and is plenty big enough for a family of 5. People in this country don't like flats because they like some private outside space.

Cornucopia

The least worse answer is to build-out from existing rural towns & villages, in a controlled way. New infrastructure needs to be co-ordinated with new housing.

I agree that self-build/mobile homes should be used to provide more affordable options.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

So you are advocating we concrete over the south east but leave 1km between each urban area and saying that if you place a new large urban area 1km from an existing one it will have no effect is nonsense.

You do not need to concrete over the south east or much of anywhere what you need is a simple understanding of math

London is home to 8.3 million in about 3.4 million homes on a land area of about 1,700 sqkm

OR 13% of the population lives and works on 0.7% of the land

What all that means is, you can probably comftably house 10 million people on 0.5% of the land as you dont need to replicate all of the other things london has, eg another hub airport or another parlement or another national history musium...etc


So your statement should be changed to

So you are advocating we concreate over 0.5% of the land to build 5 million homes to house 10 million people including all the other infrastrucutre needed.

Why yes that sounds quite reasonable. Also it would not be concreating 0.5% of the land as the majority of that 0.5% would be green, eg parks and gardens

cells

Cornucopia wrote: »

New infrastructure needs to be co-ordinated with new housing.

Yes and No

The biggest part of the need for more homes is not population increase but demographic change.

As an example, germany is expected to build 2-3 million homes over the next decade while it is expected to see its population decline by over a million. The result is that her people will live less dense.

Do these 2-3 million extra homes need more hospitals? there are a million less germans so no. Do they need more schools, no the population has fallen. Do they need more shopping centres or airports or ports or power stations or...no no no

So the amount of infrastrucutre you imagine may be needed is much much less than you would think.

The UK population may increase by 20% but in that sinario housing needs to increase by 39%. The need for additional infrastrucure would be 20%, ie the people, not 39% ie the houses. In fact even 20% is too high becuase lots of capacity in existing infrastrucure exists. eg luton airport went from 3 million to 10 million passangers in under a decade and it is expected to go up to 15 million in the future all with the one runway.

ukcarper

I'm sure that a lot of rural towns and villages could stand a small expansion done in a sympathetic manner. But it a lot of the areas where more property is needed it will not take much before the urban areas move.

It would good if someone looked at the whole area identified the areas that could be built on with the least impact and planned accordingly maybe putting new infrastructure to make area more suitable instead of the ad hoc system that operates now.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

What is that obsession of 120sq meters my house is about 100sq meters and is plenty big enough for a family of 5. People in this country don't like flats because they like some private outside space.

120sqm is the german and french average size for new builds

I agree 100sqm would seem like a big house to many considering most the nation lives in 70-80sqm homes

However there is no harm in building 120sqm homes, it doesnt mean more bedrooms or two kitchens it just means larger bedrooms and other rooms. That is no bad thing as most uk bedrooms are barely big enough for a double bed

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

So you are advocating we concrete over the south east .

The UK has more land used for horse grazing and golf courses than it does for residential housing.

Only around 3% of the UK is used for housing.

We could build housing for the next 50 years with just 1% more.

Leaving 96% for other things.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm sure that a lot of rural towns and villages could stand a small expansion done in a sympathetic manner. But it a lot of the areas where more property is needed it will not take much before the urban areas move.

It would good if someone looked at the whole area identified the areas that could be built on with the least impact and planned accordingly maybe putting new infrastructure to make area more suitable instead of the ad hoc system that operates now.

About 3 million homes can be added inside the M25 without increasing the density of London. That is 150,000 a year over 20 years

15 new towns of 150,000 homes each would be another 2.25 million homes or ~110,000 a year over 20 years

If existing settlements then add 0.5% pa to their stock that would be 140,000 a year. So a vilalge of 500 homes would need to allow 2-3 new homes a year.

Total is 400,000 a year for 20 years

OR

existing settlements allow 1.5% addition to their stock pa. That would be 410,000 homes a year

OR

lots of options however IMO the only one that isnt just a show piece lets investigate it for two decades before thinking about actually thinking about doing something would be a simple councils need to allocate 1.5% of their existing stock pa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

People seem to have no idea just how little of the UK is built on....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

How exactly is this "concreting over" under even the most hyperbolic use of the term?



97%+ of the UK is not used for residential housing.

We have more land used for golf courses than for housing.

And more land used for horses than for humans.