Should suburban densification be part of the solution to the housing shortage?

andrewf75

stator wrote: »

We already have some of the smallest houses in europe.
Councils have already started knocking down decent houses and replacing them with twice as many matchbox houses with matchbox gardens and I think it's disgusting.
The answer is to build big houses in new estates. There is plenty of space to build, it's just politicians and middle class/rich folk stopping development.

Yes we have the smallest houses in Europe, but we are also unusual in the way we build outwards rather than upwards. The last thing we need is more estates because that just expands the urban area into the countryside. Housing should IMO be denser and on brownfield sites within existing urban areas building upwards - not huge tower blocks but 4-5 storey apartments with balconies within existing cities with parking underground. Its a far more efficient use of space and we are a densely populated country. The added bonus is that with this kind of development people are less likely to need to commute by car.

michaels

Bungalows in back gardens are OK but the street scene should be preserved

kabayiri wrote: »

What are the opportunities presented by new technology. Not todays; but technology in 5/10/15 years time ?

What about different models to car ownership/ride sharing ; autonomous vehicles ; hybrid tram buses ; extended transport links out of London ; using pricing+subsidy to steer lower income workers into cheaper outlying areas ; a much greater push on telecommuting.

I think people would accept new towns if they felt the priority was quality over cost.

The autonomous vehicle revolution is coming and many see this as leading to a wholesale switch to 'car transportation as a service' but I don't think much thought has been done on what this might mean for urban and suburban design. However it could indeed mean that infill bungalows without parking spaces might be exactly what is needed by downsizers and would encourage communities to remain mixed rather than having a single demographic.

(Plural of anecdote doesn't equal data: On one nice street near us the widow in one of the houses decided to downsize only when the one bungalow on the road came up for sale and she could move from her 5 bed detached to a 2/3 bed converted bungalow, its usp for her being that it was on the street where she had always lived and her friends still lived.)

michaels

Bungalows in back gardens are OK but the street scene should be preserved

andrewf75 wrote: »

Yes we have the smallest houses in Europe, but we are also unusual in the way we build outwards rather than upwards. The last thing we need is more estates because that just expands the urban area into the countryside. Housing should IMO be denser and on brownfield sites within existing urban areas building upwards - not huge tower blocks but 4-5 storey apartments with balconies within existing cities with parking underground. Its a far more efficient use of space and we are a densely populated country. The added bonus is that with this kind of development people are less likely to need to commute by car.

This is very much happening in our local town as described in the OP. Problem is this just draws in more commuters as the flats and apartments are near the station and it is prime commuter territory.

Problem is these commuters then have kids and want to move somewhere a bit further out where they can have a garden and a car parking space and be near a good school. But the number of new semis/detached houses being built is minimal as there is not loads of brownfield land in such locations, just established streets and farmland. This has led to new housing coming from schemes such as the local school giving up its playing field for 100 houses whilst getting a new playing field in the adjoining farmland.

These same 100 houses could have been built by redeveloping existing streets (for example knocking down detached bungalows and building 2 semis on the plot, building bungalows in back gardens, demolishing semis and replacing them with terraces of 3 etc) but there is very little appetite for such changes to get planning approval. Personally I don't like the appearance when the odd pair of semis has been demolished to be replaced with something of higher density but would accept small back garden development especially of bungalows as in reality the remaining gardens will be just as big as those of he new builds.

The problem will be that whilst only say 2 homeowners will benefit (financially) from using parts of their gardens for such a new property, 5 or 6 will be (marginally) impacted by the new property being visible and audible.

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

The autonomous vehicle revolution is coming and many see this as leading to a wholesale switch to 'car transportation as a service' but I don't think much thought has been done on what this might mean for urban and suburban design. However it could indeed mean that infill bungalows without parking spaces might be exactly what is needed by downsizers and would encourage communities to remain mixed rather than having a single demographic.
...

It's clearly difficult and complex, and some solutions will lead to new problems we never imagined.

It all sounds like the ideal backdrop to some well funded and extended full sized trials to me. Isn't this what we did in the past with garden cities like Welyn Garden City and Letchworth?

A government which claims to solve the problem by throwing cash at it in one term (like Jezza might) is lying. Maybe we should separate short term problem management with longer term planning/vision.

kabayiri

Self declaration moment.

I live on a road with just one house - mine. I'll admit. It was one of the appeals when we bought.

Every one of the adjoining gardens on the corners has since been approached by developers to buy the land and put a house on it. I know at least 2 of the proposals were for bungalows.

They were all rejected. The village doesn't need more bungalows, especially isolated ones. There are some very good retirement complexes, with thought for nearby facilities.

Additionally, only a handful of miles away, there are plans underway for another ~5000 homes.

These make much more sense to me than relying on some ad-hoc piecemeal development. It's not like the South East up here. We need garden space for the shed full of flat caps and whippets

stator

No. Any development /redevelopment will ruin the character and lead to overcrowding

andrewf75 wrote: »

Yes we have the smallest houses in Europe, but we are also unusual in the way we build outwards rather than upwards. The last thing we need is more estates because that just expands the urban area into the countryside. Housing should IMO be denser and on brownfield sites within existing urban areas building upwards - not huge tower blocks but 4-5 storey apartments with balconies within existing cities with parking underground. Its a far more efficient use of space and we are a densely populated country. The added bonus is that with this kind of development people are less likely to need to commute by car.

We have too much countryside full of subsidised unproductive farms.
Better to build more houses and have fewer farms

andrewf75

stator wrote: »

We have too much countryside full of subsidised unproductive farms.
Better to build more houses and have fewer farms

I agree about the farms being unproductive but I’d rather see them turned into productive ones and more space given back to nature. There is plenty of scope for building new houses within urban areas if we use space more wisely like other densely populated countries.

stator

No. Any development /redevelopment will ruin the character and lead to overcrowding

I'd rather have unused space in cities turned into parks and expand the city into neighbouring farmland, with plenty of new woodlands and parks in and around the city.
I don't care for in-fill as there is only limited space and it often comes in useful.

andrewf75

stator wrote: »

I'd rather have unused space in cities turned into parks and expand the city into neighbouring farmland, with plenty of new woodlands and parks in and around the city.
I don't care for in-fill as there is only limited space and it often comes in useful.

Can’t entirely disagree with that as inner city parks are important as well, but it depends where in the country you are. I guess it’s all a question of balance

Cornucopia

The important thing for me is that any developments should be properly planned for amenities, transport and jobs - ideally mixed development capable of a level of local self-sustainability.

All too often, our Powers That Be seem to either plan without forethought.