How London can solve the housing shortage

cells

The only way this can be done is for councils to be much more ambitious about their own estate renewals. Instead of knocking down 1000 flats and building 2000 in its place they should knock 1000 down and build 10,000 in its place.

Some councils own nearly 50% of the housing stock in their areas (Islington Hackney etc) so they could push towards 20,000+ persons per km2 but it ain't gona be cheap

princeofpounds

Its an ok idea to say build more dense but in reality it is very hard because land in London is owned by so many different individuals.

This is a fair point, and I have quite purposefully been conservative in three respects


- I talk only about increasing the density of inner London. Actually the impact could be even greater if we replace parts of the endless suburbs of Greater London.


- I use the most dense area in London as the base figure, not the average - indeed raising the average this much does not even require doing anything which has not already been done in specific areas of London


- And of course I did not even dare to suggest we actually approach the Paris figure.


The whole thing is really a mental exercise to point out how poorly planning is using our urban and suburban resources, rather than to really solve the entire housing crisis by London alone.


Whilst it is difficult to increase density from fragmented ownership, it happens in all cities that are not centrally planned over time.


The key is that you have economic incentives that are sufficient to make it logical for those fragmented owners to either develop themselves or sell. High property prices already make the conditions ripe - planning is the drag.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

I'm curious about the people who aspire to be a planning officer.

Failed architects and admin clerks promoted beyond their capabilities.

princeofpounds

I should have become a planning officer. I reckon some of them do quite well on departing the job.


Mind you, I don't think I would have fitted in with the groupthink.

cells

princeofpounds wrote: »

This is a fair point, and I have quite purposefully been conservative in three respects


- I talk only about increasing the density of inner London. Actually the impact could be even greater if we replace parts of the endless suburbs of Greater London.


- I use the most dense area in London as the base figure, not the average - indeed raising the average this much does not even require doing anything which has not already been done in specific areas of London


- And of course I did not even dare to suggest we actually approach the Paris figure.


The whole thing is really a mental exercise to point out how poorly planning is using our urban and suburban resources, rather than to really solve the entire housing crisis by London alone.


Whilst it is difficult to increase density from fragmented ownership, it happens in all cities that are not centrally planned over time.


The key is that you have economic incentives that are sufficient to make it logical for those fragmented owners to either develop themselves or sell. High property prices already make the conditions ripe - planning is the drag.

In this respect I don't think planning is the drag. I would even go so far as to say you would be the inner London councils best friend if you could buy a km2 knock down the 5k homes and build 20k homes there (plus the other infrastructure)

The problem is you or anyone else simply can't do that there are two nearly impossible tasks. The vaat sums of money needed and the nearly impossible task of getting 10,000 tittle owners to all sell up to you


however if you want to move in that direction you need effectively state/coincil command economy to compulsory purchase thousands of homes. And you also need to get rid of the 50% subsidised homes figures else the only way to male it happen is if the end product flats sell for in the region of £1m apiece

cells

Its a good idea but its just not realistic.

Maybe given huge sums of money (£100B +) and legal powers the mayor of London could force it through but the end product would be expensive. If you knock down a £500,000 house and build two in its place you have started your project for two new homes with a ~£550k cost before you lay a single brick.

you could however try to build v.dense on brownfield or greenfield in London.

padington

We need to start building super high or super deep. Ideally both.

... and link the towers up with zip wires. Get the tourists to pay through the nose just to play on them.

Also start building green skyscrapers with windows that flip inside out so you can water the plants.

With some vision we could make these towers new wonders of the world.

stator

Move all government departments out of London. Relocate each government department to a different City in need of regeneration. London will survive.

ging84

They could do with what they do when they have too many eastenders characters, kill them or send them to manchester.

princeofpounds

If you knock down a £500,000 house and build two in its place you have started your project for two new homes with a ~£550k cost before you lay a single brick.

That is the cost of the land; regardless of whether you build one home or six flats on a site, the land will cost that much.


Actually buying a building on a site in London makes relatively little difference to the cost. If you buy an industrial brownfield plot, it's going to cost you a very similar amount of money.

The vaat sums of money needed and the nearly impossible task of getting 10,000 tittle owners to all sell up to you

Again, the thinking here is all about big, state-driven schemes. Forget trying to compulsory purchase thousands of plots to build grand schemes full of state interference.


I am talking about things like buying four plots, and building able to build 16-24 flats (four - six stories) or 8-12 house-sized duplexes.