Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SavingBear

Fourteen garden villages are to be built across England

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SavingBear said:

Even Prince Charles' efforts looked like a Disney legoland execution so no chance. Communities mature over centuries with a mix of houses etc. Anything put up in a hurry has zero soul however much money you throw at it.

I think extensions to towns or enlarging existing villages is the better way forward utilising the infrastructure already in place.

In my nearest town they are putting 500 homes in an old quarry/ another 500 on a greenfield site adjoining the town elsewhere but without overly damaging the drsmatic scenic environment. Existing communities can easily absorb the housing units required

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the buildings are scaled up but on the same sized plots with large taxpayer begging incentives:

article-2335693-1A2377AF000005DC-821_964

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously an upscale of that would cost in the millions per unit, not going to happen in thr 21st century.

That's the fantasy model village of Victorian magnets and dukes which occassionally did get built.

The church alone would cost several million

 

 

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welwyn and Letchworth Garden Cities have become a bit of a joke (some of "The World's End" was shot in WGC) but they're still better than Poundbury, which is like Thomas Hardy's vision of a Barratt estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the way this will work is the locals will allow small areas (flood risk land ?) and developers will cram in as many units as possible. As the houses will be surrounded by miles of fields at least one car will be required per household. There will be extra traffic on the roads  (morning exodus) which will annoy the locals but is the end result of restrictive development policies back in the towns. Maybe they will add infrastructure e.g. New schools. Though they might just add an extra class in the nearest school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 48,000 new homes provided by the 14 "garden" villages will provide about one quarter of one year's supply of the new homes generally estimated to be needed for the next few years.

Great image at the start of the guardian article of a roundabout - and 2 or three reasonably nice large detached houses with trees galore.  Not that they'll be trying to mislead with imagery of course.

Mind you between the guardian article and the telegraph article it had changed from garden villages to garden town villages so give it a few days and it'll all have changed again.

Indeed the way the housing problem is being handled is pathetic.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

My money is on the housing having precious little in the way of  'gardens'.

No, these new towns are going to be built in the gardens of existing houses.

Joking aside the current solution is just cram as many units as possible into the smallest space. In fact this developer wishes that the already tiny size be reduced still further and is actively companing to do so. Locally despite there being wide spread parking issues the local council are planning to build on all existing tube station car parks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, its a measure of a society in decline that relies on 100 year old fantasies instead of having fantasies of its own. The impulses behind this suburbanism was a reaction to industrialisation and a growing professional middle class. In fact, the complete opposite of the way society is heading now. Even worse, if these things are built they will be the antitheses of any community ideals that may have been held within the originals; just twee, gimmicky trappings to jack up the price of  poorly constructed new builds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

My money is on the housing having precious little in the way of  'gardens'.

 

The 'garden' in the original Garden City movement referred to the chains of market gardens that were supposed to be established around them to help feed the inhabitants, not gardens for individual houses.

In fact most houses were built with decent gardens too, but more because it was unthinkable then not to, rather than an exciting new innovation.

These new 'garden villages' just sound like normal modern developments appropriating the 'garden' name to make them sound more acceptable. I agree there will be little by way of gardens, or even the planned town centres, shops, work units, schools, GP surgeries etc that were planned into the original garden cities.

Edited by RentingForever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wonder why nobody builds affordable housing....is it because the people that require affordable housing  don't earn the wages to afford to buy them.........they are not going to give it away.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Errol said:

Why none in Kent?

Kent is huge, loads of empty space and good road/rail links etc.

I'd guess because of Ebbsfleet. Which is still in progress. And as RF correctly stated above, is a prime example of a normal modern development. In this case built in a hole full of people living there as a compromise. I.e. It's convenient. 

My employers company is involved up there and it's scary how much power the developers hold. Design codes are ignored, and the design committee responsible for ensuring codes are adhered to are walled all over. 

It will be making some people a lot of money though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all hot air, nothing will be built.  Look at Ebbsfleet -  Warning Daily Fail link. 15,000 houses being built at a rate of 25 per year. 

favourite planner quote: 'The mechanisms we used successfully up to Milton Keynes...'

odd definition of success. all those postwar new towns from  Cumbernauld to MK are absolute 5hitholes.

Favourite resident quote:  'There will be a nice community but only for a short time. That will be lost with the beginning of Paramount.' 

lived there all of five minutes and already they are nimbys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2017 at 11:37 AM, stormymonday_2011 said:

My money is on the housing having precious little in the way of  'gardens'.

 

Yep, the should all have 70meter gardens, I'd move there then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Errol said:

Why none in Kent?

Kent is huge, loads of empty space and good road/rail links etc.

The trains are not that fast.  I am not sure about the space bit - I think some of it we use for  growing food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very well but 200000 is enough for a decent-sized city - when will they realise that building at that rate is absolutely bonkers, so must tackle the need for it by getting to grip with population growth?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   72 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.