Prince Charles wades in

Graham_Devon

Even he appears to get it!

Prince Charles has warned that predicted house price rises for London are not sustainable and risk driving away young talent.

The prince said the hope of home ownership for those starting their careers in the capital was becoming further and further out of reach.
He was speaking as his organisation the Prince's Foundation for Building Community launched a report which suggested that mid-rise buildings could be the solution.

Addressing the Housing London Symposium, in east London, the prince said: "The National Housing Federation estimates that in only six years' time the average London house price will have risen 40% to £650,000.

"This isn't sustainable and risks driving away talented young individuals who are starting their careers in London and spending most of their income on rent.

"Home ownership for this generation is seemingly becoming further and further out of reach."

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/26/prince-charles-warns-rise-london-house-prices-young-talent

AndyGuil

Yet he opposes high density housing such as tower blocks. Although most young people are not buying the average property in London. They are buying flats or shared equity which is much cheaper, more like £200k.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Better get Charlie to build some more houses then...

I hear he has access to plenty of land. :whistle:




Prince Charles discovers a million new houses have to be built in and around London to keep house prices there from rising....

princeofpounds

Yet he opposes high density housing such as tower blocks.

Not entirely. He is specifically supporting mid-high density mid-rise housing (up to 6 stories).

I think that is a pretty sensible position to take actually. We've have 50 years now of building tall residential buildings and it's pretty clear that these sorts of developments tend to produce the best residential and environmental (in the amenity sense, not the green sense) outcomes.

I don't agree with every recommendation in the report, but I do with this.

Bantex_2

As someone who grew up on the Aylesbury Estate in Peckham, I can only view high density, low cost housing with contempt. It was a hell hole in hindsight.

Generali

The Barbican is very nice. A mix of high and low-ish rise buildings with plenty of green space in the middle.

St James' Palace and Buck House with grounds could probably make 5-10 Barbicans.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

The Barbican is very nice. A mix of high and low-ish rise buildings with plenty of green space in the middle.

St James' Palace and Buck House with grounds could probably make 5-10 Barbicans.

But this is just a soundbite isn't it?

As so could many other places which don't require demolishing 500 year old architectural and societal history.

Bit too easy to suggest they should just start building over royal grounds just because Prince Charles has identified a problem.

AndyGuil

princeofpounds wrote: »

Not entirely. He is specifically supporting mid-high density mid-rise housing (up to 6 stories).

I think that is a pretty sensible position to take actually. We've have 50 years now of building tall residential buildings and it's pretty clear that these sorts of developments tend to produce the best residential and environmental (in the amenity sense, not the green sense) outcomes.

I don't agree with every recommendation in the report, but I do with this.

6 storey isn't a high rise, but he does tend to recommend that the blocks are built with a mix of houses too. The average is really not dense. What will happen in London is everything within the greenbelt will fill up and then building will have to move out to the otherside of the greenbelt. Central London prices have risen a lot. The suburbs are rising a lot. Anything within the greenbelt is going to rise greatly and the shortage of housing will be unavoidable. Space is at a great shortage and other countries with this issue have opted for 30+ storey buildings.

AndyGuil

Bantex wrote: »

As someone who grew up on the Aylesbury Estate in Peckham, I can only view high density, low cost housing with contempt. It was a hell hole in hindsight.

Unfortunately high rises in the UK have been tainted with what happened in the 60s. If we look to the tower blocks in asia, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Korea etc... They are extremely pleasant. I have been a fair few of these and many have patios, gardens etc. What was also interesting to see was the local businesses could feed off just a few tower blocks of people. The businesses positioned themselves within or very local to the buildings.

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But this is just a soundbite isn't it?

As so could many other places which don't require demolishing 500 year old architectural and societal history.

Bit too easy to suggest they should just start building over royal grounds just because Prince Charles has identified a problem.

Good point Graham.

AndyGuil wrote: »

Space is at a great shortage and other countries with this issue have opted for 30+ storey buildings.

I'd dispute that.
Compared with other European major cities, London has a low density on the outer suburbs.
At my end of London (west) for example between Staines and Hounslow, Bedfont, West Drayton, further up towards Uxbridge there is immense capacity. This is not green belt.
Furthermore these places have - or could have - easy commuting into Central London.
Come off the M23 and drive towards Croydon, mile after mile of emptiness dotted with the odd miserable retail park. This is not green belt.
The argument that we need to touch green belt in order to massively increase London housing stock is a false one.

BillJones

Bantex wrote: »

As someone who grew up on the Aylesbury Estate in Peckham, I can only view high density, low cost housing with contempt. It was a hell hole in hindsight.

And yet, strangely, the towers round Canary Wharf go for an absolute fortune.

It's almost as though tall residential towers are great places to live as long as the residents are the right sort of people...