Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
@contradevian

Let People Build Whatever They Like - Karl Sharro

Recommended Posts

with the knowledge of the dire taste of so many with more money than taste (william morris they are not) - this could be a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brickie-gone-bad.jpg

That sounds like a good idea!

Thats not something that would be prevented by planning, that's a building control issue. You could have BC without planning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with the knowledge of the dire taste of so many with more money than taste (william morris they are not) - this could be a disaster.

But with looser planning laws, you could buy it, knock it down and build what you wanted with no problems!

I think the point about why would people build rubbish if they wanted to live there was very strong.

Edited by renting til I die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But with looser planning laws, you could buy it, knock it down and build what you wanted with no problems!

I think the point about why would people build rubbish if they wanted to live there was very strong.

They are likely to build rubbish for other people to live in though. Hence beds in sheds and now cleared Dickensian slums. But as another poster has pointed out, you can standards without planning

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are likely to build rubbish for other people to live in though. Hence beds in sheds and now cleared Dickensian slums. But as another poster has pointed out, you can standards without planning

You can also relax planning for self-builds while maintaining it for large scale developments. Admittedly that wouldn't necessarily catch small developers but it would restrict the kind of properties the likes of Barratt can get away with, so would essentially be the opposite of the system we have now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this recently- take a small area the size of a village. Council to put in roads. Plan plot sizes, sell them off. No-one or no company to own more than one plot. This village is now a planning permission free zone where anyone can do what they want. Pretty small scale little experiment and would be fascinating to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are likely to build rubbish for other people to live in though. Hence beds in sheds and now cleared Dickensian slums. But as another poster has pointed out, you can standards without planning

If planning laws were relaxed and enough good housing was build then no-one would want to live in one of these converted sheds. Hence the point about people not building rubbish or not living in rubbish if there is greater choice of better housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this recently- take a small area the size of a village. Council to put in roads. Plan plot sizes, sell them off. No-one or no company to own more than one plot. This village is now a planning permission free zone where anyone can do what they want. Pretty small scale little experiment and would be fascinating to see what happens.

So run a small scale experiment to collect real world data and then develop evidence based policy? Sounds amazing. Depressingly also sounds like anathema to the idealogues in the mainstream parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So run a small scale experiment to collect real world data and then develop evidence based policy? Sounds amazing. Depressingly also sounds like anathema to the idealogues in the mainstream parties.

No need for the experiment. That's pretty much what they do do in Germany, and it works just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly we will probably have to wait until the Boomers and possibly also Gen X have died of old age before anything like this could be implemented in the UK. Too many of them have internalised the idea that even mediocre housing should be difficult and expensive for individuals to obtain and they will want to perpetuate the cycle of abuse. 'It was hard for me, so why shouldn't it be hard for you too?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That architect might feel a bit differently if a neighbour decided to build an eyesore right next door. I suspect it's rather a case of, yes, excellent principle - as long as it's nothing hideous in my back yard.

BTW while visiting friends in Mumbai not long ago we drove past that vast monstrosity twice - had to go twice since once was not enough to take in its vastness. Bit of an extreme example of what can happen with no planning, or a supposed system largely governed by brown envelopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That architect might feel a bit differently if a neighbour decided to build an eyesore right next door. I suspect it's rather a case of, yes, excellent principle - as long as it's nothing hideous in my back yard.

BTW while visiting friends in Mumbai not long ago we drove past that vast monstrosity twice - had to go twice since once was not enough to take in its vastness. Bit of an extreme example of what can happen with no planning, or a supposed system largely governed by brown envelopes.

All systems produce some bad outcomes. Unregulated planning might produce a few eyesores. UK-style planning where the primary function is to prevent rather than shape development is producing an entire generation of underhoused adults. The latter seems worse to me than the former. Ugly buildings can be knocked down, but you can't give people back the years of low quality of life that were forced on them by a lack of housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All systems produce some bad outcomes. Unregulated planning might produce a few eyesores. UK-style planning where the primary function is to prevent rather than shape development is producing an entire generation of underhoused adults. The latter seems worse to me than the former. Ugly buildings can be knocked down, but you can't give people back the years of low quality of life that were forced on them by a lack of housing.

Very well said sir! a few eysores - or - MILLIONS of young people exploited in expensive crap housing for YEARS!!! Which one is worse?? Take your pick!!!

And we do have PLENTY of space, like i explained before in my topic, houses take up just 1.1 percent of England land, and their gardens 4.26 percent, total = 5.36 percent. That fits about 20 million homes. If we allow 10 percent more homes with gardens we'll use up only 0.536 of Englands land. If we allow 20percent more = 4 million more homes with gardens, we'll use up only about 1percent of Englands land! I really don't understand why so many people don't want this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifteen minutes of thought provoking stuff from an architect

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047bzlx

"Nothing to fear from freedom"

Most people think we need planning because we are already too builtup, but its not true. Houses take up only 1.1 percent of England land, and their gardens 4.26 percent. Total = 5.36 percent. See this table, the bottom line...

LandUseinEngland_zps34e5892f.png

2 million new homes with large gardens would take up only 0.5 percent of Englands land.

We have to spread this information please, the link to this PDF image is this...

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d118/dylanjones44/LandUseinEngland_zps34e5892f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All systems produce some bad outcomes. Unregulated planning might produce a few eyesores. UK-style planning where the primary function is to prevent rather than shape development is producing an entire generation of underhoused adults. The latter seems worse to me than the former. Ugly buildings can be knocked down, but you can't give people back the years of low quality of life that were forced on them by a lack of housing.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.