Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Another Government policy that's failing - From Prezza!
Daily Telegraph (Online): For sale: too many flats, not enough houses
Funny old thing, a Government policy that has caused a balls up, this time from John Prescott. His policy has resulted in over supply of flats because too many homes had to be built per acre. More government involvement and more cock-ups. If the price of flats falls through the floor, will it drag the price of 3-bedroom houses with it?
Posted by talking rot @ 06:02 AM (45 views) Add Comment
34 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
1. japanese uncle said...
Look! what about property snake? The majority of the properties on the site, or rather all of them seem to be houses rather than flats, if I am not mistaken! Don't worry Two-Jag buffoon, HPC will be heralded regardless whatsoever of whether houses or flats. But those newly built giant concrete toilet type of flat blocks will be more heavily discounted, by 70% easily, possibly 80% I guess.
2. paul said...
On the way to Atariya to get mackerel sashimi I went past some shiny new 1 and 2 bedroom flat complexes, complete with trimmed hedges in West London and thought "I nearly bought one of those".
Good lord I am so glad I've managed to stick this out and not succumb to buying something that is probably losing value as we write.
3. Pr said...
Victorian and Georgian terraced properties, often preferred by families average about 200-400 dwellings per hectare, sometimes quadruple the modern minimum requirement. The London Borough of Wandsworth, London's most densly populated inner Borough is primarily Victorian and Edwardian Terraces. Prescott made sure that dwellings should be more than 25 dwellings/ha. It was poor urban design standards and an over focus on cul-de-sacs and detached properties, resulting in concreting of countryside with densities of 10-20 dwellings/ha that triggered this planning regulation. It simply wasn't sustainable and these developments rarely had the densities required to sustain public transport or facilities like schools and healthcare. Does TR really want the endless car dependent suburbs of the US or Australia? Or should we follow the European tradition of sustainable urban planning, found in our most cherished cities like Bath. If places like Wandsworth and other London Boroughs had 20 dwellings/ha they would have 10% of its current population, wouldn't sustain a train or bus system and London would be over run by freeways, as found in LA.
The current over provision of flats is driven by the market, not planning, planning authorities at the moment are fighting developers to force them to provide family sized units, with planning policies that seek a dwellings mix consistent with local needs, whilst owners of houses are converting family dwellinghouses into flats. Developers pander to the BTL investor (who purchases off plan, unlike families, who do not have that luxury) because cashflow is king, when developers get the majority of their finance from high interest loans. So it is more planning control, not less that is needed, more control over flat conversions and more power to demand a suitable dwelling mix. Hopefully Planning Policy Statement 3 will meet that demand.
Maybe, as a planning officer, I'm biased, but be wary when planners, or any single profession is blamed for the ills of society, particularly when it comes from a politically motivated vested interest. Remember the reason for planning in the first place. It was the uncontrolled ribbon development in the 1940's that destroyed previously pleasant rural districts like Bexley, cutting through swathes of countryside with identikit houses without the slightest consideration for local character. With the car, people can live anywhere, but developers should not be able to put houses wherever at whatever density the desire.
4. japanese uncle said...
Mackerel is not quite good for sashimi, I am afraid. Unless you soak it in vinegar (Shimesaba), you might possibly be in trouble. Look out for Anisakis simplex.
5. tyrellcorporation said...
Flats are like 'investment tokens' nothing more, nothing less. They're built by developers who's market is investers - simple as that. That market has been shrinking for 12 months and now the outlook is very bleak for this sector.
Yet another cock-up from Prezza. You have to admire this bafoon though, he's managed to stay in office despite the hurricane trail of incompetence, lies and corruption. I read of a story yesterday about a Japanese minister embroiled in a scandal - he actually committed suicide over it. Now that's obviously honour taken to the Nth degree but our politicians don't even have the guts to say 'I messed up' or 'sorry', let alone resign or break out the Lugar!
6. mrmickey said...
tyrell the days of our politicians resigning after some monumental cock up are long gone. To resign you must first take responsibility for your actions and have some sense of shame this current crop of crooks have none of these human qualities.
7. tipping point said...
PR. Surely the answer is to make the market encourage sensible development. If council tax was based both on property area (not including farm land, forestry etc for obvious reasons) and inversely on dwellings per hector within 500 meters, then the market would increase the demand for flats and terrace houses accordingly.
Even though MPs usually live in the latter it would be a definite vote winner in urban areas and should prove more popular than the banding revaluation currently going on.
It might even put a few planners out of a job!
8. talking rot said...
Pr
You said "Does TR really want the endless car dependent suburbs of the US or Australia?" No. I just want a house large enough for my family and close enough for my children to walk to school. I don't care whether it is detached, semi-detached, terraced, bungalow or whatever. Just home would suffice.
Just for the record, having witnessed souless towns like
9. talking rot said...
Pr
I don't recall stating I wanted endless suburbs in the style of the US or Australia.
You said "Does TR really want the endless car dependent suburbs of the US or Australia?" No. I just want a house large enough for my family and close enough for my children to walk to school. I don't care whether it is detached, semi-detached, terraced, bungalow or whatever. Just home would suffice.
Just for the record, having witnessed souless towns like Milton Keynes, Telford and Swindon, planning officers ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. I don't recall pleasent cities, like the one you quoted (Bath), being designed by town planners. No, the way for pleasent towns is to GET RID OF THE LIKES OF YOU and let property companies build homes which the public want unfetted by esoteric building constraints, which appear only designed to stifle innovation and keep a town stuck in ages past. (There was a time when the delightful Bath was new and so, just maybe, new things are not bad afterall.) Town Planners are generally poor; if I ran a business as badly as they do planning, I'd be broke.
A classic example: My parents built a conservatory with modern glass. They were told by their planning officer their extention could not be open plan because of the amount of heat energy that would escape through the glass. The glass had better thermal properties then the brick house they live in! The Planning Officer was a complete and utter noshbag who was morribound by rules; totally inflexible; and not capable of permitting an innovative thought.
Another classic example: Salisbury. Friends bought land and requested planning permission to build a family home. This was denied because of the detrimental effect it would have on the local area. Within 108 feet (measured by my friends) a property developer built 4 cookie-cutter houses resulting in 8 cars blocking the road and causing a waterway ditich to overflow every winter. The difference between the applications. The property development company promised to build a small roundabout at a junction of 3 roads. Spookily, the planning officer lived down one of the 3 roads.
Yet Another Example. A420, near Shrivenham. Just off the A420 a Grade 2 listed building was pebbled-dashed in the 1960s. A few years ago, the new owner wanted to strip off the pebbledash to reveal the lovely brickwork underneath. HE WAS PREVENTED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE! This constituted a change to the building. Hang on: when it was first built, it had sod all pebbledash.
I repeat: The only way to pleasent surrondings and sustainable communities is to remove planning officer and let builder construct homes that people want to live it.
10. talking rot said...
Sorry chaps
I don't know what happened for comment 8 to be generated. My dial-up connection broke before I had finished typing the first attempt. It shouldn't have been posted. Any clues how to delete it?
Pr - the country would be better off without planning officers imposing rules which result in cookie-cutter houses, on souless developments with insufficient infrastructure and poor communication links.
You're a planning officer. These developments could not happen without you granting planning consent. You are therefore wholly responsible.
Please take account for your actions and the consequences of your actions. Or are you like the politicians and other public servants who can never be held to account?
11. george monsoon said...
Lets face facts...
Following the end of british farming as a viable business, there must now be an abundance of unused rural space. Prescott himself has acknowledged a need for more housing, we know that an abundance of housing would help re-balance prices to a sensible level, and also if we build on this untapped land, then we could even build houses with proper gardens and reasonably sized rooms. (i.e. where you can't touch both sides when you spread your arms..!!!)
Yes i would agree that Britain has a large population for the given landmass, but hang on, many other countries with lower people per sq mile have a lot of open space which is completely uninhabitable. Britain however has a lot of green space that is perfect for building on. What is this hang up with small houses in unused wasteland within towns? I hate towns. who the hell wants to live in a concrete jungle?
rant rant.....
12. fahrenheit451 said...
PR you gotta be wrong. Who wants to live in an overcrowded getto, cos that's what they're specifiying when you have to have more than 25 dwellings per ha (that's 61.7 dwellings per acre in old money) or 162 sq m each, including infrastructure such as roads, turning areas, on-street parking for visitors, any communal gardens/parks/playgorunds. The facts speak for themselves.
"Mr Prescott's policy has been, superficially, a success, with the number of homes built per hectare up from an average of 25 in 2000 to 41 last year. Equally the number of flats being built each year is up from 23,626 to 56,823." - Just who are you kidding that this is in any way reasonable, its a recipe for disaster.
What happens when there is urban over-crowding - basic human instinct makes people defensive of their territory, from which you then get lack of sensible communication, gangs on the street, high profile street art, etc. If you fail to deliver a sensible public transport policy don't make excuses, get on with the job or get sombody else who can.
Not providing buses is just another way of forcing people to buy cars.
Not providing trains is just another way of justifying Congestion Charge.
Decentralise from the few big metropolises, use technology if you have to.
There is no reason why in today's world everyone needs to be in the centre of a few major urban habitats.
Life in the concrete jungle is not all that its cracked up to be, planners and local government are deluded when they say that you need more than x,000 to justify a hospital or a school. It's just using statistics to cast the blame away from ignorance or plain bad ideas.
An ex-friend said to me he was rude/arrogant because he came from Yorkshire and you should call a Spade a Spade, I said to him that's no excuse for bad manners and I have many friends up north who are polite, witty and intelligent. But unfortunately sometime people are so thick skinned that some straight talk is necessary. So, sorry about the direct approach, but the ideas supporting high density populations are fundamentally flawed unless everyone is always polite, curtious and pleasant to commuicate with. And you know that does not happen and never will, take for example, the London Underground. When was the last time you saw sombody offering their seat to another person who was pregnant, elderly, or disabled. That's why they brough in special seat for them, because most other people are rude and selfish. And even then the special seats are used by able bodied people who do not even get up when they are politely asked, and only give abuse in return for a reasonable request.
We desperately need LOWER densities, not HIGHER.
13. Wage Slave said...
PR,
Please could you answer me this.
In the town where I live a motorway was put through in the early 70s. The land backing onto the motorway (previously gardens) has been recently built upon with new housing. How can a planning system allow houses to be built where human beings are exposed to noise and air pollution 24x7 ?
And yet, not more than a few miles away, there will be farmers getting subsidised to do nothing with the land that people actually want to live on.
I'm afraid that until the planning system provides people with homes they want to live in, in an area where they want to live it will always have a dirty name.
14. Pr said...
It is planners who stop developers from building on the countryside and fight against cookie cutter homes. Honestly, if you saw the types of developments that we get submitted. Usually, what you get is a huge development of single bedroom flats with terrible urban design, cramped living conditions, no amenity space and demolition or harm to historic buildings on the site. The planning officer will then tend to negotiate decent sized units, force the developer to provide family sized units and amenity space, provide some protection for heritage on the site and ensure a better quality of design. We now seek 10% renewables and ensure that affordable housing is provided in developments. By the way, it is the building control surveyors, via Part L of the building regulations who are limiting glazed extensions because they do take more energy to heat than solid masonry.
And, by the way, I happen to know most of the planning officers in Salisbury, used to work there. No doubt, the design of your friend's house wasn't suitable for the character of the area, it is a very special place and only decent quality buildings should go up in many parts of the district, your friends won't have to pay their neighbours compensation for any loss of value to the street as a whole from a poorly designed building, which is why planning controls are required to stop neighbourhoods going down hill. Get the design right and they will get an approval.
With regards to the roundabout, contributions to infrastructure should not be used to 'buy' planning consent. Unfortunately, whilst your friends would have been able to appeal against refusal of their house to the secretary of state, neighbours do not have a 3rd party right of appeal against approvals, as in Ireland and many other country's, but to call for that would be a tightening of planning control. You have indeed given an example of how developers squeeze things in. Note that you ask for planners to refuse such applications in one sentence, and ask for the abolition of planning in another. The truth is, that the buildings close to your friends house would have been worse, more densely packed and would not have included highway improvements had there been no planning control.
Think about it, without planning control, you could demolish the whole of Salisbury and build Milton Keynes over the remains of the Cathedral and Medieval Timber Frame cottages, and you could concrete over the entire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with no obligation to provide infrastructure. Then you would come asking for more planning controls. If there's a problem, its a lack of investment in local authority planning, skills being leached to the private sector, and a weak planning system that makes it hard to require quality design from developers, through fear of loosing appeals, tight target deadlines giving little time for negotiations and the risk of costs being awarded against councils for taking a stand.
15. fahrenheit451 said...
PR you are doubly wrong, sorry guys about the repeat posting.
You yourself say that the Victorian Terraces are desirable, but then go on to say that identikit ribbon developments are bad. You can't have it both ways. You continue to describe the conversion of these terraces into flats as bad. Again wrong, let market forces take their turn, you will soon find that some (not all) will be reconveted back into single use. Every time government and planners interfere with what people want, they make it worse, because they prevent the situation self-correcting itself.
Remember when Planning was invented, it was in the liberal period post-war, when the structure of society was rapidly changing, There may have been a need for a Planning Department then ...
Let people decide what they want, by all means slow down the rapid changes and give people time to think, but that does not mean stop them or make them go at snails pace. It will sort itself out, developers normally get it right, otherwise they go bankrupt. And do not forget the bad management of the economy and money supply is the underlying cause of BTL getting out of control.
And that goes straight to Gordon Brown.
He should resign before he makes matters worse.
16. Cstanhope707 said...
I can certainly attain to this theory we in Peterbourough we definitely have a massive glut of flats, nice ones too. Again Political Incompetance comes through.....
17. Orwell said...
Sorry TR there is a certain amount of truth in what PR says. It is down to us (lawyers) who help developers design their own planning regulations. For example, (other than with green belt of course (and that in itself is always open to changes in the structural and local plans)), A developer applies to build, planning authority turn them down, through the goodness of the community or bribes or whatever, then the lawyers circle around and finish the planning authority off with Judicial Review (i.e. as with the RICS and HIP's). Not even the most asset rich Local Authority (bar possibly the City of London Corporation) can match a determined developer with several 10's of million of pounds at stake!
18. Pr said...
Look guys. All that Prescott said, was that more development should go on vacant inner city land to avoid suburban sprawl. Us planners tend to fight developers to reduce densities on inner city sites top achieve decent living conditions, and enforce the provision of family units and amenity space. With regards to house conversions, the standard London policy is, that you can only convert a house into flats if it is large enough to still provide a family sized unit with a garden, most developers do that reluctantly and this is exactly what you guys are asking for. So, when your neighbour builds a three storey rear extension that cuts out your light and gets rid of all the family sized units in your street, you'll be asking for planning control.
Remember that the article is from the Torygraph and that Tories do support planning when it suits them. The fact is, that tory council's have lost out to the brownfield agenda, because it puts voters in urban districts that tend to be labour or liberal, rather than in greenfield sites, which tend to be the rural tory county districts. This debate is no clearer than in Oxfordshire, where the Green, Liberal, Labour Oxford City wants to expand into the Greenbelt, to provide a more sustainable city, where demand is soaring, but the Tory County Council won't allow it and wants major development in countryside around the rural towns in the Tory District Council's, that aren't served by decent public transports, from where people will have to commute into Oxford (where all the jobs are) by car. Planning is a complex issue with a long history. It cannot be blamed for all market problems and it isn't going to go away, because it is how we extend democracy to the most important part of our lives, the places we live. Would you rather unelected developers make decisions without being checked by elected councillors, regardless of the limitations of democracy, an economic dictatorship of the minority able to control capital and development doesn't bear thinking of.
19. paul said...
Atariya only sells shimesaba - I certainly wouldn't eat it raw.
Prescott was heard to mutter " 'Ere, ah don't fancy tha' depyootie prahm ministurs job. Fook! That me? Where's me baihk. I mean jag. Yer know twin cam un. Ahm off t'play crockett on' lawn"
20. talking rot said...
Pr
You said "And, by the way, I happen to know most of the planning officers in Salisbury, used to work there. No doubt, the design of your friend's house wasn't suitable for the character of the area, it is a very special place and only decent quality buildings should go up in many parts of the district, your friends won't have to pay their neighbours compensation for any loss of value to the street as a whole from a poorly designed building, which is why planning controls are required to stop neighbourhoods going down hill. Get the design right and they will get an approval."
BUT THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY THE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE CRAP WHEN MY FRIENDS WERE STOPPED! The question I put to you is why?
21. Talking Rot said...
Pr
You said "Note that you ask for planners to refuse such applications in one sentence, and ask for the abolition of planning in another. The truth is, that the buildings close to your friends house would have been worse, more densely packed and would not have included highway improvements had there been no planning control."
Look - kindly read what I have written and reply to that. Please do not reply to what you think I am insinuating.
I HAVE NOT ASKED FOR PLANNER TO REFUSE IN ONE SENTENCE AND ASKED FOR THE ABOLITION OF PLANNING IN ANOTHER.
I am highlight real inconsistencies between the failure of application my friends made and the success of the application made by property developers.
22. talking rot said...
Pr
I think you are missing a basic point. Salisbury Cathedral and the Medieval Timber Frame cottages were built BEFORE Town Planners were invented. They look that way because of the available materials and because people wanted to live in them.
Let's go back to that day. We do not need Town Planners. Who says you are capable of making a better design then a public company who exists to meet public demand. People will not want to buy crap unless that's is the only thing available; as is the case today. And all the rubbish that is around was authorised by Town Planners. Clearly they are not doing their jobs correctly. With the rubbish that is around today, clearly Town Planners must be held responsible because you have the power to prevent it being built. Look at the state of the modern housing around Chippenham, Wiltshire, and around Bedale, North Yorkshire. Look at the plans for building tens of 1,000s of new homes on the disused barracks around Aldershot. It is appaulling.
23. talking rot said...
Orwell
Ah. Point taken.
Pr
I can now see why the property developers were successful where my friends failed. I still stand by my point that what you value today was once new and was built to meet the demands of people. Planning regulations, designed to keep an area looking is a particular way, are fundamentally wrong. If towns and cities were not allowed to develop in a way that people wanted, we'd still be living in mud huts! Town planners are a recent invention and one typical of an over-centralised society. I believe people are actually rather good at deciding how they should live and in what manner. They don't need a big-brother to tell them. Lets just agree to disagree on this one.
24. Pr said...
I don't know the specific cases, so I can't respond about them, all I'm saying is, that the development of the site close to your friend would been worse without planning, I agree that planning can be inconsistent, but this is only because developers have greater resources to get what they want, which merely justifies giving local authorities and local people more power and resources to question developers, via stronger planning controls. I have never known Salisbury to refuse a well designed house in a defined urban area, and they would loose such at appeal if they tried.
By the way, with regards to historic places like Bath and Salisbury, and indeed the historic parts of London (many cherished, but still at constant threat from developers) it is only planners who stop the old valued buildings and historic places from being demolished and make sure that new buildings are sympathetic to the historic character and grain, these buildings would be demolished without protection, as occured during the 1960's prior to Conservation Areas being brought into the planning system. Protection of historic areas is an integral part of planning (I specialise in historic conservation). Planning is a complex field that is undervalued and underinvested in. Sorry to rant so, but its been one against the hoard, but, as a planner, I'm used to this in my daily job. We get blamed for everything, but the public, at the same time, expect so much from us. I for one try damn hard to push it as far as I can to the needs of the community, but its like an ongoing battle.
25. Pr said...
Planners aren't a recent development. The previous system was undemocratic planning by rich land owners. It is a myth that planning is new. Planning is a symptom of democracy, the alternative is dictatorship by landowners, central government or the minority who have enough capital to invest in property. It is the families, you refer to, the voters, who planning stand up to. If you care so much, get involved, become a planner, become a councillor, lobby your councillors, join an interest group, vote in elections, answer planning letters and public consultation adverts and site notices that ask YOU for YOUR opinion about development that affects YOU!!
26. japanese uncle said...
I knew Atariya in Finchley, which was reputable. Maybe owned by the same person possibly non-Japanese. Actually Atariya may not be a perfect naming. In Japanese 'ataru' could mean 'get poinsoned by bad food', believe it or not. 'Atariya' sounds like selling out bad food. 'Thus shops selling raw fish tend to avoid this parituclar name. You can appreciate how alarming it may sound, if an 'Atariya' is selling mackerel sashimi!!! To my knowledge 'Atariya' was always the name of Udon (noodle) shops in Japan, historically. 'Atari', also means hitting the target, which is why in the Japanese costume dramas, udon stands are always decorated with the mark of a archery target.
27. Pr said...
A small note, in a sellers market, people buy what they can get their hands on. Developers try to produce builldings with sub-standard light and substandard room sizes, without amenity space and without contributing to infrastructure, because it lets them pack more units onto a block of land and because people will buy them. BTL's usually who don't have to live in them buy the substandard accommodation, let it out for a fortune and then get stung themselves with negative equity. The developer, who you suggest meets all needs by virtue of representing the 'market' is the only one who does well from from a lack of planning control. Anyway, I think I've said enough for today, I guess that we can agree to disagree and others can make up their mind. Thanks for the lively debate!
28. Cyril said...
@Pr - you must be new to these pages, otherwise you would know that you never defend John Prescott, who is everyone's pet hate.
I think the reason you have touched a nerve is because planning is basically a socialist idea and most of the posters tend to be fairly right wing types.
But to be fair to the anti-planners, you must admit that in the heydey of planning (1960s and 70s), many nice towns were ruined with new ring roads, tower blocks and all the rest of it. Yuk!
But regulars on this site will have seen a piece about housing in the 1930s (before the advent of planning as we know it today) and look what happened (outer London)
Nowadays, planning is mostly about redevelopment and tinkering around, and the results can be quite good. Anyone been to Sheffield lately? The town centre's a big improvement I think (not sure about the employment prospects though).
29. talking rot said...
Pr
As I said, let's agree to disagree. GET RID OF TOWN PLANNERS AND LET THE MARKET PROVIDE THE HOMES AND TOWNS PEOPLE WANT.
I don't need OR WANT some unelected bureaucrat making decisions for me. Planners are unelected. Britain is best when people have the freedom to make their own decisions.
I think you comment that the previous system was undemocratic planning by rich land owners is rot. Those who could afford to buy land, could build to meet their needs and desires. The problem was that not enough people were rich enough to buy the land they needed. It was nothing to do with "undemocratic planning" and everything to do with wealth.
30. The Capitalist said...
Dear Planning Department
Please find enlcosed a complete set of "UK's Crap Towns".
I hope it will be of use in your decision-making process and perhaps be a nostalgic reminder of how your predessors thought we should all like to live. Plus ca change?
Yours etc
31. fahrenheit451 said...
Oh dear PR ...
QED ... the "nice, quaint, ye olde places" are that way because over the Centuries, the bad buildings were pulled down and new were built in their place. Hence only the desirable buildings from any one age remained and at any one time in history there were always "bad" buildings. The trouble we have now is that Planners interfere with the natural course of things, you Should be able to "Crash & Build" and help the urban life move on. Your main problem is one of lack of vision, you need a perspective, and leave the future to look after itself. You show me a workng crystal ball and "I'll eat my hat".
It remains the main problem, one of over zealous tinkering with everything. From new laws, to monetary policies. And most of the time its just to keep people in work, who should be out of that job and doing something they are good at, whether it be building new houses or driving buses.
The problems today are many, but by far the worst is a breakdown in family values, leading to bad social behaviour / overcrowded city centres / Huge blocks of flats / etc. looking at the microcosm of a single planning issue may illustrate a point (and very valid it its too) but if you do not learn from the inner city mistakes of hte 60's and 70's how do you expect to survive the future.
The Post-War period brought an era of unkown peace and fraternity, but out of this trust came the Nanny State which was good in parts (NHS, Public Transport, etc),; indifferent in parts (over regulation, Planning started out benevolently, etc) and bad in parts (commuting, easy migration to a new job - I'm talking about anything over 30 miles here, geographic poplulation shifts - economic migration today). Previously a mason would go to Flanders or Italy, etc to learn the best of his trade and rise above the expertise offered locally. Now anyone can go to university and study anything even if they are destined to be Bad at it.
Everything goes round in circles, learn from your mistakes (I try to, but to fail is human, but at least I try), you only "reap what you sow".
32. Pr said...
OK, so, keeping terraces in Bath was bad vision, keeping the georgian buildings in Edinburgh New town was bad vision, keeping the tower of London did the capital badly, coz we need another skyscraper, keeping the Victoria Quarter in Leeds was bad, coz who needs to attract Harvey Nicholls, stopping people from building all over national parks like the Lake District was pointless, coz cunstable is so passe, and demolish Paris, who needs Prague, forget the Medieval core of Barcelona, who needs the cremlin, camden town market would be much better developed as a shopping mall, Winchester Cathedral should be knocked down coz it doen't meet modern church requirements, dig up all our archeaology, coz its all so last century, let developers put cattle ranches accross the amazon, coz who needs nasty creepy crawlies, knock down covent garden and replace it with a shopping mall, Brick Lane would be much better with shiny new glass boxes, get rid of the last remaining cobbled streets, replace all the victorian warehouses of shoreditch and thameside with shiny boxes.
My good god, now we have vision. You've convinced me, lets buldoze the lot and be like los angeles, lets build low scale bungalows all over the countryside that are so low density that developers can't subsidise education, where buses can't run, where trains can't serve, then build loads of highways and fight wars to get enough oil to feed our suburban spral. infact, lets let big industry pump out CO2 for their hearts content, coz the market will protect the earth if it has any value, and anyway, we can always move to the moon, and don't give social security to those in poverty, especially children, they are so lazy, let the market kill them off, give the entrepreneurs what they want and cheap labour down the coal mine, don't give people holidays, let the market decide and we can have an american style 1-2week paid holiday a year, let the market decide, let the developers build a squillion houses and result in the biggest housing crash in history, like is happening in America, but its ok, coz its the market.
I'm living in a material world and I'm a material guy, forget centuries of campaigning for rights, justice, democracy and equality, coz I'm a neoliberalist T+*t
And yes, physical determinism of the type that led to 60's tower blocks has been learned from if you had followed anything about modern planning, social housing is now pepperpotted within private developments, subsidised by the developer and state to provide mixed communities. I've been open with you about my profession, let me know yours, are you a member of a right wing fascist group? A vested interest developer? Or just plain ignorant?
33. Pr said...
I'm not saying that planning is perfect, far from it, and it continues to evolve over time, big changes over the past 10yrs and these will continue, and it will never be perfect to any one group, because it mediates between so many interests, but please, anybody listening, realise that anybody who blames all the ills of society on one professional group is, by the law of averages, speaking a half truth only, especially for a phenomenon like town planning, in which everybody in society plays a part, government, purchasers, financiers, BTL's, renters, key workers, social security recipients, tradesmen, planners, lawyers, environmental pressure groups, house builders federation, private planning consultancies, etc, etc,.
34. Renting Russ said...
Pr, thanks for your informative comments. It's funny how people won't let the truth get in the way of a good story - this all started with you pointing out that the regulations referred to are entirely unconnected with the current trend for building dense block of flats!