Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

So they'll be demolishing their property and returning it to its natural state and relocating to a 100 storey tower block?

Thought not.

Im alright jack would have been a lot quicker way of saying it than writing a whole article on it...and, shocker, its another senile old fart who doesnt have to worry about housing a family.

Even a land tax would drive these people crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought NIMBY was a misnomer. It's not actually their back yard they want to preserve, it's somewhere near to it that they don't own but demand a veto on.

Admittedly not-in-the-field-that-I-don't-own-that's-next-to-my-back-yard isn't quite as catchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true comment...

A brown field site being defined as someplace the hell away from me and my property.

This is the general knee-jerk reply to housing problems around Cambridge, "cant they put it on brownfield land"

WHAT BROWNFIELD LAND?!

Cambridge was never an industrial city. What little there was has long since been built on. Might work up north, but very few places south of the midlands ever had sprawling warehouses and factories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought NIMBY was a misnomer. It's not actually their back yard they want to preserve, it's somewhere near to it that they don't own but demand a veto on.

Admittedly not-in-the-field-that-I-don't-own-that's-next-to-my-back-yard isn't quite as catchy.

Yes, you can tell from his writings he doesnt get the whole 'property rights' thing.

He is, by definition, demanding the right (or more to the point assuming the right) to violate other peoples property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically journalist lives in a nice place and doesn't want any one else to have the same opportunity.

For justification the following reasons are used :

Some dead scholar liked the landscape a lot, just to point out the journalist lives on a patch of land that was developed while said scholar was alive. So we should be knocking your house down and restoring it too nature.

It is being used as farmland and should continue to be as this is as nature intended, err no farmland by definition has been developed by the farmer. If it was as nature intended it would be a forest, demonstrated by the remaining patches of woodland that isn't farmland.

This makes me so mad, not only is it very poor journalism at best, blatant vested interest propaganda at worst.

At some point we are going to have to build on more of the country, when we do I would rather the development has lots of green spaces and trees with space for people to truly live.

People that express these NIMBY views are hypocrites, they should all be force ably relocated to inner cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically journalist lives in a nice place and doesn't want any one else to have the same opportunity.

Yes, but he writes in the guardian, so obviously his reasons are completely environmentalist. Nothing to do with his selfishness or those crude, cruel NIMBYs who write in the Telegraph...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there are the plain ignorant comments...

Once it's gone it's gone forever and we will never get it back.

Uhuh. And once Britain was 90 odd percent woodland. Thats its natural state. We can still plant over fields and reclaim woodland.

Or how about thousands of 'disappeared' roman villages, now invisible. Nature certainly got those back.

Nature will reclaim. Its not 'gone forever'. In fact its a 100% certainty that nature will reclaim any deserted housing estates.

We need houses now. We can demolish them and plant woods over them in 100 years if needs be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought NIMBY was a misnomer. It's not actually their back yard they want to preserve, it's somewhere near to it that they don't own but demand a veto on.

Dangerous as it may be to interrupt a HPC two minute hate, not everyone who has concerns about unlimited development is a NIMBY.

I happen to live in central London, I'd have to drive for an hour to see anything resembling a field, and anyway I'm not exactly a tree-hugger. However the vision of mile upon mile of ugly Barratt boxes is hard to support.

Partly my objective is simple aesthetics (most new housing estates are ugly), but I also have a problem with politicians taking the easy way out. It is largely their fault that UK housing demands are rising so dramatically, and rather than take any tough decisions on difficult issues such as immigration, family break-up, and welfare, they would prefer to sacrifice even more green space.

Some of the objectors to development may well be hypocrites, but that doesn't make them the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people that whinge on about the environment I hope have sold all their cars and walk/bike everywhere and if not. why not?

They will also be knocking down their own house and reverting the land back to the natural woodland and dense forests that covered England for thousands of years I hope.

The modern day country side is every bit as artificial and man made as Oxford Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there are the plain ignorant comments...

Once it's gone it's gone forever and we will never get it back.

Uhuh. And once Britain was 90 odd percent woodland. Thats its natural state. We can still plant over fields and reclaim woodland.

Or how about thousands of 'disappeared' roman villages, now invisible. Nature certainly got those back.

Indeed. Or my personal favourite being the villages of Derwent and Ashopton which were drowned to create Ladybower Reservoir in the early 40s. For a time the church tower was visible when the water level was very low. Amazing how the landscape can be changed. Maybe the journo should be thankful they only want to build a few houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problems the UK house building industry faces is the housing densities that have been forced upon builders. building homes 42 dwellings per hectars ends up with ugly estates that no one wants near them and nobody would live in out of choice.

I can understand high density in city location, but when you get into small villages and towns in the suburbs we should be building house at 5/10 per hectare with plenty of garden and green space between them.

I give a couple of examples.

Example 1, new housing estate from hell:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=whitfield+dover&hl=en&ll=51.150225,1.29452&spn=0.008884,0.021994&sll=36.759054,-81.581904&sspn=11.609913,22.521973&t=h&hnear=Whitfield,+Kent,+United+Kingdom&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.149928,1.294264&panoid=0DSCPywagx60LJtnwDp8Zw&cbp=12,272.77,,0,10.33

Building an estate like the above should be a criminal offense and certainly should not be promoted.

Example 2, a perfectly designed estate that is still under construction:

https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=galway&ll=53.184385,-8.913774&spn=0.033946,0.087976&hnear=Galway,+County+Galway&gl=ie&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.18441,-8.913927&panoid=iOXH8D0x-QjBTe5LtSiyIQ&cbp=12,296.21,,0,19.24

If you zoom out on both maps you can see that both areas have vast amounts of countryside surrounding them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true comment...

A brown field site being defined as someplace the hell away from me and my property.

This is the general knee-jerk reply to housing problems around Cambridge, "cant they put it on brownfield land"

WHAT BROWNFIELD LAND?!

Cambridge was never an industrial city. What little there was has long since been built on. Might work up north, but very few places south of the midlands ever had sprawling warehouses and factories.

Even brownfield developments get shut down by the nimbys. They are a stronger force than is actually recognised imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even brownfield developments get shut down by the nimbys. They are a stronger force than is actually recognised imo.

+ 1

Just one example:

Ford's abandoned World War II airfield was a proposed site for an Eco Town. No longer. Main reasons below:

eco_1379698c.jpg

Campaign site: http://nofordecotown.blogspot.com/

And another moron b@stard:

"Ben Fogle attended the protest with his father, who lives nearby."

_44726541_fordprotest_fogle226.jpg

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most on here are missing the point not only is the writer concerned about the destruction of the countryside but he knows that the push to build more has nothing to do with providing affordable housing and everything to do with profiteering by landowners and developers.

Bear in mind that this won't be inexpensive social housing in an area with many homeless poor. More of an explanation is provided by the estimable Bath Chronicle: the "land is owned by the Hignett family, who are keen to see it developed for housing" – well, they would be, wouldn't they? – while the site "was allocated after a government inspector questioned whether the authority had done enough to deal with predicted demand for new housing". That is a story now repeated weekly across the country, with the weasel words "predicted demand" actually meaning: central edict under intense pressure from the building lobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problems the UK house building industry faces is the housing densities that have been forced upon builders. building homes 42 dwellings per hectars ends up with ugly estates that no one wants near them and nobody would live in out of choice.

I can understand high density in city location, but when you get into small villages and towns in the suburbs we should be building house at 5/10 per hectare with plenty of garden and green space between them.

I give a couple of examples.

Example 1, new housing estate from hell:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=whitfield+dover&hl=en&ll=51.150225,1.29452&spn=0.008884,0.021994&sll=36.759054,-81.581904&sspn=11.609913,22.521973&t=h&hnear=Whitfield,+Kent,+United+Kingdom&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.149928,1.294264&panoid=0DSCPywagx60LJtnwDp8Zw&cbp=12,272.77,,0,10.33

Building an estate like the above should be a criminal offense and certainly should not be promoted.

Example 2, a perfectly designed estate that is still under construction:

https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=galway&ll=53.184385,-8.913774&spn=0.033946,0.087976&hnear=Galway,+County+Galway&gl=ie&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.18441,-8.913927&panoid=iOXH8D0x-QjBTe5LtSiyIQ&cbp=12,296.21,,0,19.24

If you zoom out on both maps you can see that both areas have vast amounts of countryside surrounding them.

+2 Completely agree with you, housing estates like the first in an area with plenty of space should be criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often came up against these views in my previous work. I soon realised the following.

It is not always in the general public's interest to focus development on 'Brownfield sites'. In urban and urban fringe areas brownfield areas have often developed naturally into pleasant, accessible spaces where locals (often with no gardens themselves) can walk the dog, play, relax, fish etc. Wildlife often does well here too as the land is not covered in chemicals which is often the case in the farmed countryside. Parts of the the Lee Valley (pre Olympics) for example offer pretty good examples of well used and well loved brownfield site. Most towns or cities will have something like this which is valued by the local community. Greenbelt land, on the contrary, is often inaccessible, bland, untidy, underused and subject to marginal activities (eg illegal pony grazing) beyond any planning control.

There are tried and tested 'scientific' criteria for ranking the suitability of land for development for those that care to look. These take into account many environmental, economic and social criteria (including landscape value, amenity of local people and wildlife). The selection of land for possible housing development is rarely a free for all, most planning authorities do use these criteria to develop a hierarchy of sites for possible development. Unfortunately those with the most cash, time and the loudest voices (the classic NIMBY) are often able to kick up such a fuss that the poor beleaguered planner will look for a path of less resistance rather than take them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most on here are missing the point not only is the writer concerned about the destruction of the countryside but he knows that the push to build more has nothing to do with providing affordable housing and everything to do with profiteering by landowners and developers.

As already eloquently argued by others on this thread, the "destruction of the countryside" argument is a dog that won't hunt. Would anyone in their right mind starve for lack of arable land in order to preserve some trees? Of course not. Hence the existence of millions of acres of arable land under the plough and the disappearance of medieval forests. Should our children now raise families in 2-bed flats with no garden in order to preserve farms raising cash crops of oil-seed rape? They shouldn't, and they won't.

There is a lovely line in a Randy Newman song, addressing Karl Marx, "They tried out your plan, it brought misery instead. If you'd seen how they worked it, you'd be glad you were dead." What the British have done with the provision of shleter has delivered the same lesson to the ghosts of Milton Friedman, Frederich Hayek and all their utopian fellow travellers. As an exercise in pure reason responding to the worst excesses of 20th Century collectivism, a unquestioning faith in the market to best central planning seemed like a good idea at the time. In reality, once pure reason met with some pr!ck local councillor looking for the main chance, what we have is the worst of all possible worlds - the complete freedom of some economic actors to create and then enjoy economic rents coupled to the sclerotic dead hand of politically motivated planners (operating at a local level largely spared the reality of vigorous democracy) earnestly creating opportunities for others to create and enjoy economic rents.

Suggesting that others have "missed the point" is misguided. There is no point! There is just a mixture of necessity and coincidence beating an uncertain path from there to here. We could have had an industrial policy trying to push jobs out of the South East. We could have resisted the root and branch financialisation of our economic lives. We could have let insolvent banks fail. We could have resisted the broader international economic forces which have turned swathes of our capital city's residential property into a globally accessible warehouse facility for capital. We could have kept a check on the extent to which transfer spending through housing benefit began to play such a significant role in the cost of housing.

There are so many different places where the line could be drawn, that the suggestion that the line should be drawn here and not there is self-evidently facile. Where you draw the line speaks only to your values and your narrative.

We need to attack this bubble from every quarter. We need to stop supporting zombie banks with FLS. We need to stop throwing wealth at private landlords with housing benefit. And we need to stop enforcing an artificial scarcity of housing in the South East by allowing anyone with the means and inclination to build on green-belt land. Arguing that we shouldn't because some clown builder might profiteer is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Edited by ChairmanOfTheBored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangerous as it may be to interrupt a HPC two minute hate, not everyone who has concerns about unlimited development is a NIMBY.

I happen to live in central London, I'd have to drive for an hour to see anything resembling a field, and anyway I'm not exactly a tree-hugger. However the vision of mile upon mile of ugly Barratt boxes is hard to support.

Partly my objective is simple aesthetics (most new housing estates are ugly), but I also have a problem with politicians taking the easy way out. It is largely their fault that UK housing demands are rising so dramatically, and rather than take any tough decisions on difficult issues such as immigration, family break-up, and welfare, they would prefer to sacrifice even more green space.

Some of the objectors to development may well be hypocrites, but that doesn't make them the enemy.

No-one is arguing for unlimited development, but the crisis is creating an opportunity to move the debate forward and create a vision of well-designed new towns and suburbs. I am willing to trade off fields for new, well-housed communities. After all, every single house that exists today was built on what was once green space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true comment...

A brown field site being defined as someplace the hell away from me and my property.

This is the general knee-jerk reply to housing problems around Cambridge, "cant they put it on brownfield land"

WHAT BROWNFIELD LAND?!

Cambridge was never an industrial city. What little there was has long since been built on. Might work up north, but very few places south of the midlands ever had sprawling warehouses and factories.

Curiously, the brownfield site near Cambridge that should not have been built on (the old Fisons/Agrevo plant at Hauxton) has had housing put on it, when everyone in the neighbourhood said it should be developed as industrial space. Totally unfair to park families over decades of waste chemical dumping.

I'd be OK with development around my village provided it was in keeping with the 60s/70s estates that exist - reasonably sized houses with gardens. However, the developers are forced by the government (via the planners) to shoehorn in the absolute maximum number of hutches, projected at prices that my (grown) children can't afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say he could almost be an anti-nimby pro-hpc mole. My wife happened to read the article and, despite not normally being that concerned about the issue, was fuming. I believe she called him a very rude word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 241 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.