Where Would You Build?

[OnionTerror]

Where are the best places around the country to build a mass amount of housing? Sustainability seems to be the key word these days (jobs, commuting, transport links, available services, etc), so where would be the ideal/desirable locations? Would the SE be out, to prevent even more overcrowding?

The CPRE map highlights National Parks, so these specific areas will most likely be out of bounds...

Edited July 5, 2011 by Dave Beans

[efdemin]

All the jobs are in the SE so, until that changes, that's where the homes are needed.

Proper 30-40 storey residential blocks similar to Asian countries. Quality construction, not the poorly made 'vertical cities' of the 50's/60's. Within the M25 at least, the north circular if possible. The Shard has broken the taboo of tall skyscrapers in London so the only way is up (baby).

I don't live in London btw so I don't really care for the architectural Nimbys like Prince Charles. Just keep the sprawl out of the rest of country, ta.

[leicestersq]

Where are the best places around the country to build a mass amount of housing? Sustainability seems to be the key word these days (jobs, commuting, transport links, available services, etc), so where would be the ideal/desirable locations? Would the SE be out, to prevent even more overcrowding?

The CPRE map highlights National Parks, so these specific areas will most likely be out of bounds...

Dave,

it is difficult isnt it?

Building anywhere but the South East, and why would you want to live there? If people dont have work, they like to live next to green areas or the sea. If you do a mass building project, you end up with housing suitable for people who want to work, not those who want and can afford a life of leisure due to retirement or good luck. And if you build new homes where the jobs are, that is going to be around the South East or Aberdeen is it not?

I dont envy those making this decision.

[Unsafe As Houses]

On green belts.

[OnionTerror]

On green belts.

So would be in favour of expanding existing settlements, or build a new town / several new towns from scratch?

[Unsafe As Houses]

So would be in favour of expanding existing settlements, or build a new town / several new towns from scratch?

I would be favour of expanding exisitng cities on a large scale - that is where the demand for housing is. Building modern day Milton Keynes settlements would have additional problems such as people need work there to go to and commercial businesses may be more reluctant to invest in such an area.

[OnionTerror]

I would be favour of expanding exisitng cities on a large scale - that is where the demand for housing is. Building modern day Milton Keynes settlements would have additional problems such as people need work there to go to and commercial businesses may be more reluctant to invest in such an area.

..although if you did start somewhere from scratch, you can zone the areas properly, and have a proper transport management plan, such as putting in trams and wotnot in...much harder to do, when expanding an existing settlement...

[silver surfer]

Good post.

The answer's as plain as a pikestaff. Build in Essex. No areas of outstanding beauty, no national parks, convenient for London jobs. Drop an airport in the Thames estuary and the job's done.

[libspero]

I don't live in London btw so I don't really care for the architectural Nimbys like Prince Charles. Just keep the sprawl out of the rest of country, ta.

+1

Plenty of room left inside the M25 apparently.. build whatever you like there

[Tired of Waiting]

(...) Would the SE be out, to prevent even more overcrowding? (...)

Bad housing doesn't prevent overcrowding.

Besides, only central London is "overcrowded" (and one of the most desirable areas to live in the world. Same for Manhattan, New York.)

The rest of the south-east just has bad housing.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

+1

Plenty of room left inside the M25 apparently.. build whatever you like there

Good! We finally found some common ground libspero.

[Tired of Waiting]

I would be favour of expanding exisitng cities on a large scale - that is where the demand for housing is. Building modern day Milton Keynes settlements would have additional problems such as people need work there to go to and commercial businesses may be more reluctant to invest in such an area.

+ 1

We have enough schools/hospitals/places to work, etc. We just need better housing: bigger, better and cheaper houses.

And probably not that many more. I guess some 5% or 10% increase in supply - in the areas with greater demand - would be enough to bring prices down considerably.

[OnionTerror]

Bad housing doesn't prevent overcrowding.

Besides, only central London is "overcrowded" (and one of the most desirable areas to live in the world. Same for Manhattan, New York.)

The rest of the south-east just has bad housing.

I personally wouldn't want to commute hour & half / 2 hours each way to get into CL...which is what it would mean if you lived in the SE/home counties...sod that...

MK has gone from virtually nothing to 300k in 30 years...loads of large businesses there...although I wouldn't want to live there...

Edited July 5, 2011 by Dave Beans

[libspero]

Good! We finally found some common ground libspero.

To think, all we needed was a suitable patsy!

I feel an overwhelming sense of camaraderie. Consider yourself fully reinstated on the Libspero Christmas card list.

You can call me Libs

Edited July 5, 2011 by libspero

[Tired of Waiting]

I personally wouldn't want to commute hour & half / 2 hours each way to get into CL...which is what it would mean if you lived in the SE/home counties...sod that...

MK has gone from virtually nothing to 300k in 30 years...loads of large businesses there...although I wouldn't want to live there...

No, I didn't mean commuting. The majority of people living in the south-east don't commute to central London.

[Tired of Waiting]

To think, all we needed was a suitable patsy!

I feel an overwhelming sense of camaraderie. Consider yourself fully reinstated on the Libspero Christmas card list.

You can call me Libs

OK then, libs.

[mfp123]

generally the north is shrinking or fairly static.

london is where the greatest demand will be and i think its fine to build upwards in london.

people half expect it anyway.

place are also crowded because people want to be there.

america has massive amounts of land but people still cram themselves into cities in dense areas because that where they want to be.

[Tired of Waiting]

generally the north is shrinking or fairly static.

london is where the greatest demand will be and i think its fine to build upwards in london.

people half expect it anyway.

place are also crowded because people want to be there.

america has massive amounts of land but people still cram themselves into cities in dense areas because that where they want to be.

Hear him, hear him.

[OnionTerror]

I personally would be very wary of expanding existing large towns & cities...Take Bristol for instance..there are rumours that they want to put 100,000 homes on the southern edge...Ever tried to get around Bristol? The traffic is appalling, and further growth will make the problem a lot worse...Take the A37 which is the main road through the south part of Bristol - its not even fit for purpose at current levels... Expect two hours queues trying to get into the centre..

The problem will be the same throughout the country...major money would have to be spent on putting tramlines etc in (which was cancelled in Brizzle)...

Edited July 5, 2011 by Dave Beans

[silver surfer]

The majority of people living in the south-east don't commute to central London.

But I bet even the ones who don't commute ultimately depend on someone who does!

[libspero]

I personally would be very wary of expanding existing large towns & cities...Take Bristol for instance..there are rumours that they want to put 100,000 homes on the southern edge...Ever tried to get around Bristol? The traffic is appalling, and further growth will make the problem a lot worse...Take the A37 which is the main road through the south part of Bristol - its not even fit for purpose at current levels... Expect two hours queues trying to get into the centre.

That would be my argument against also. Much harder to expand infrastructure in an existing city. You only have to look at the state of Leicester compared to, for example, Peterborough which is a new city..

That said.. IF we better manage our population this will be a mute point. But that's a pretty big if.

[Riedquat]

I personally would be very wary of expanding existing large towns & cities...Take Bristol for instance..there are rumours that they want to put 100,000 homes on the southern edge...Ever tried to get around Bristol? The traffic is appalling, and further growth will make the problem a lot worse...Take the A37 which is the main road through the south part of Bristol - its not even fit for purpose at current levels... Expect two hours queues trying to get into the centre..

But if you build somewhere else then you get the same queues, they've just got further to travel. Unless, of course, new jobs appear with your new building, but why can't the same be true for your new suburb? There aren't many parts of England where towns are too far apart to commute to each other (which is why I find most of the country crowded), so you need to be wary of just adding to that. Wherever and whatever the new developments are the jobs need to be a part of them.

That would be my argument against also. Much harder to expand infrastructure in an existing city. You only have to look at the state of Leicester compared to, for example, Peterborough which is a new city..

The difficulty and inconvenience of improving the infrastructure shouldn't rule it out. The chaos that was caused by building the first Tube lines certainly paid off in the long run, for example. Hell, perhaps even the hopeless mess the Edinburgh tram works have turned into will be forgotten some day, although that's possibly being rather too optimistic.

That said.. IF we better manage our population this will be a mute point. But that's a pretty big if.

Unfortunately true, because that's what's driving it all. It shouldn't reall be a big if when the impact of having to deal with an increasing population is mostly unpopular.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Riedquat

[OnionTerror]

But if you build somewhere else then you get the same queues, they've just got further to travel. Unless, of course, new jobs appear with your new building, but why can't the same be true for your new suburb? There aren't many parts of England where towns are too far apart to commute to each other (which is why I find most of the country crowded), so you need to be wary of just adding to that. Wherever and whatever the new developments are the jobs need to be a part of them.

The difficulty and inconvenience of improving the infrastructure shouldn't rule it out. The chaos that was caused by building the first Tube lines certainly paid off in the long run, for example. Hell, perhaps even the hopeless mess the Edinburgh tram works have turned into will be forgotten some day, although that's possibly being rather too optimistic.

Its much more expensive in working around existing infrastructure (be it housing office blocks, etc)) than it is, to start afresh - a blank canvas. It will be interesting to see what the final bill will be for Crossrail...

Moulding new roads into existing roads inevitably cause bottlenecking...when starting afresh, you can plan traffic flows, put in dual carriageways where needed, etc.. Jobs and housing are often planned together, however, people will always still travel into the centre...

[jethrotull]

Where are the best places around the country to build a mass amount of housing?

Most of the outer London suburbs from the 1890's to 1920's are now looking a bit tired and low density.

South London council estates near the Thames, as there is no point subsidising the ultra-poor to displace the working people of central London.

The London green belt.

The only real solution is to put in the transport links (including runways), to balance out London. The Heathrow side is too overdeveloped.

[Executive Sadman]

Build wherever the worst/least productive agricultural land is.

Which probably means halfway up a mountain.

Wales is pretty empty. We could build a Mountain city.