Doesn't Commute Anymore Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Did anyone just see the nimbyfest just now on BBC2 that was: The New Builds Are Coming: Battle in the Countryside Part One 9-10pm Tuesday 31st January http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/f56c69/the-new-builds-are-coming-battle-in-the-countryside--series-1-episode-1/ Summary in a tweet: Posh older population outside Oxford recoil in horror as 3500 houses are planned next to their homes Summary in a picture: Best moment: the old couple with the house in the middle of the proposed development hiding a huge smug face when given an above market price offer for their house (which they turned down for even more!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macca13 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) Homes for young people you say! You mean those slaves that pay my retirement.. ? i think we just pull out the plug and sink it.. U.K. is too far gone.. can’t be rescued.. See the remake of total recall last night.. slum part at the begining.. I think that’s kind of how the elites picture our future.. Edited January 31, 2018 by macca13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Wonderful, cheer on making a mess of the country please. The continued desire to make a mess of about the only thing left in the UK worth having - its countryside, is depressing in the extreme. I'd have a little bit more sympathy if there wasn't so much glee every time someone wants to generate another bit of souless hell, if the architecture was a bit better, and, most importantly, there was also a concrete (pun intended) plan to ensure that whilst there might need to be some more building now this is not a state of affairs that will continue. I can accept we've made such a ******* mess that even with the huge number of houses there are in Britain some places still lack supply, even with the large flabby belt of depressing development around every city, town and village. So stop the continual ever-increasing need for more then I can stomach a bit of catch-up as a necessary evil. Without that, to hell with everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 31 minutes ago, Riedquat said: there might need to be some more building now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I think I've said that before. I certainly don't like it, and take the view that house prices are largely credit driven but it is a real issue. It's just that the only way I can accept it even as a necessary evil without throwing up my hands in disgust is if it's not ever-increasing but more or less a one-off. Another thing I've said before is that my back yard (or just beyond it at any rate) wouldn't be a place I'd get annoyed at building on, as long as it isn't a tower block or something. Mind you right now it is a combination of ruined mill and scrap dump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 7 hours ago, Riedquat said: Wonderful, cheer on making a mess of the country please. The continued desire to make a mess of about the only thing left in the UK worth having - its countryside, is depressing in the extreme. You do know that only 11% of the UK is urbanised right ? (and urbanised includes all developed land including green sites such as parks). So a mere 1% increase would increase house stock by nearly 10% assuming the same housing:all-urbanisation ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afly Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, goldbug9999 said: You do know that only 11% of the UK is urbanised right ? (and urbanised includes all developed land including green sites such as parks). So a mere 1% increase would increase house stock by nearly 10% assuming the same housing:all-urbanisation ratio. The problem with this argument is that when it was 10% some clever person was positing exactly your argument and they will be doing so again unless we actually solve why so many houses are needed in this country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bsmf Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, afly said: The problem with this argument is that when it was 10% some clever person was positing exactly your argument and they will be doing so again unless we actually solve why so many houses are needed in this country If they cut housing benefit and tax credits the population likley won't increase beyond today's levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 hours ago, goldbug9999 said: You do know that only 11% of the UK is urbanised right ? (and urbanised includes all developed land including green sites such as parks). So a mere 1% increase would increase house stock by nearly 10% assuming the same housing:all-urbanisation ratio. I know that the depressingly high amount of 11% is urbanised (and remember that includes Scotland, which is a good chunk of the land area and not very densely populated). You do know that, say, France is roughly the same population and twice the area, and the difference is very noticable, and in France's favour? (against France is that their architecture is even more depressing than ours). I've never claimed that there isn't space physically, but to pretend that you can keep building without it having any real noticable effect is crazy. Just look at the difference compared to a mere century ago. If it was 1% now, that's it, it falls under the necessary evil category (still in the long term would aim for a gradual decline though). But what is it really going to be, 1% now, then another 1% in 10 years, then another 1% ten years after that, ad infinitum, until even you start to notice it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Ram Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 42 minutes ago, Riedquat said: I know that the depressingly high amount of 11% is urbanised (and remember that includes Scotland, which is a good chunk of the land area and not very densely populated). You do know that, say, France is roughly the same population and twice the area, and the difference is very noticable, and in France's favour? (against France is that their architecture is even more depressing than ours). I've never claimed that there isn't space physically, but to pretend that you can keep building without it having any real noticable effect is crazy. Just look at the difference compared to a mere century ago. If it was 1% now, that's it, it falls under the necessary evil category (still in the long term would aim for a gradual decline though). But what is it really going to be, 1% now, then another 1% in 10 years, then another 1% ten years after that, ad infinitum, until even you start to notice it? If you start from the position that nothing can get built then the problem is intractable. If you start from the position that cities can expand at the margins (preferably using the green fingers model) but must also densify within their current footprint then you start approaching a solution. I don't believe, however, that the second option is what NIMBYs or the 'oh-woe-look-at-the-architecture' crowd are really worried about. In most cases, it is self interest (the trade union of British homeowners) or simply not wanting any personal inconvenience to solve a collective problem from which they are insulated. Using public policy and tax to raise the cost of carry on existing housing (less densely developed, more valuable land would pay more) could do a lot to concentrate minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthamptonBear Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Allow new development when quality is better than existing local homes. Bigger, more garden, transport, energy etc. Let the NIMBY houses be the poorly regarded, shoddy ones! An MP or doctor might aspire to a 1 million quid house in London that a worker used to own. About time that reversed. Let new build houses be better than previous ones. Land value tax (just cos I like to remind...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 No problem with more freedom to self building. Or more pockets of smaller developments. However I can sympathise with anyone taking issue with yet another identikit barratt Estate of 3000+ Homes, especially if built upon existing infrastructure. They should be targeting nimpy’s second home ownership.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 People forget, the people who are complaining now about building live in the houses other people used to complain about building.......a good house lasts longer than a person ever will, we only borrow the space to live in for a short period of time....who are we to dictate to the future when we throw our non-recyclable plastics into the bin and conveniently forget about what it is doing to our planet..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 The elites don't want any building in the provinces - that's why the BBC makes this sh*te about the offended, placard waving residents "up in arms". The whole idea, if you want to know what's planned is to watch "The Hunger Games" and then you'll understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Darby Ram said: If you start from the position that nothing can get built then the problem is intractable. If you take the position that an permanent increase in the amount of built up area is fine then you're set down the path to a continual gradual erosion of quality of life. It's no better than "house prices can always go up." The increase that's happened in the last hundred years or so has been very noticable, and very unpleasant though, it's just been somewhat masked by material quality of life increasing in that time due to other, unrelated reasons. The way you'll get the best possible country to live in for as high a proportion of its population as possible, and for that to increase as time goes on, is to not increase the level of development but to decrease it (not down to a wilderness of course). Note that I've not said "nothing can get built." Even with no overall increase there's still some change as buildings fall beyond repairable, usage requirements in different areas change etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 28 minutes ago, winkie said: People forget, the people who are complaining now about building live in the houses other people used to complain about building.......a good house lasts longer than a person ever will, we only borrow the space to live in for a short period of time....who are we to dictate to the future when we throw our non-recyclable plastics into the bin and conveniently forget about what it is doing to our planet..... No, that's the "it all really the same" argument that gets used to justify absolutely anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Riedquat said: No, that's the "it all really the same" argument that gets used to justify absolutely anything. Not at all......it is the selfish way of looking at things, I'm all right Jack.......it was OK to build my home but not OK to build homes for others....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 42 minutes ago, winkie said: Not at all......it is the selfish way of looking at things, I'm all right Jack.......it was OK to build my home but not OK to build homes for others....... Only if all homes are exactly the same and the situation when they're built is exactly the same, which is most definitely not the case. You're implying a like for like comparison that doesn't exist. The numbers don't necessarily compare either, i.e. you're pretty much using building one house to justify building one hundred. The selfish ones are those creating a need for more housing, whether by wanting to import loads of people or having lots of kids, the consequence of which is a more unpleasant country for all. Both lack of housing and having as much, let alone more, than we've currently got are negatives. You can weigh them up and legitimately say the former is a bigger negative, but I'm still not going to react well to people who are perfectly happy with simply managing the rate of decline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 A mix of people require a mix of homes in one community......healthy communities are made up of a mix of ages, mix of types of people, families, skills, incomes etc.....trouble is we fear others we feel are or will be different to ourselves, never mind trusting them or respecting them......ghettos of all similar people in pockets would imo be the worst outcome and the worst possible place to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Yes, but I don't see what that's got to do with building per se. But on that subject increasing ghettoisation (if there is such a word) is probably inevitable. People will generally live surrounding by similar people given the chance, and the more you can travel easily the easier it is to do that (works another way too, poor areas get worse as wealthier people leave because they no longer have any practical need to live there, leaving the poorer places even poorer and more run down). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Riedquat said: Yes, but I don't see what that's got to do with building per se. But on that subject increasing ghettoisation (if there is such a word) is probably inevitable. People will generally live surrounding by similar people given the chance, and the more you can travel easily the easier it is to do that (works another way too, poor areas get worse as wealthier people leave because they no longer have any practical need to live there, leaving the poorer places even poorer and more run down). .....but if a poor person can move close to a rich person, the rich person can pull the poor person up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afly Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, winkie said: A mix of people require a mix of homes in one community......healthy communities are made up of a mix of ages, mix of types of people, families, skills, incomes etc.....trouble is we fear others we feel are or will be different to ourselves, never mind trusting them or respecting them......ghettos of all similar people in pockets would imo be the worst outcome and the worst possible place to live. There's a lot of nimbyism around here at the moment as we're having a 12,000 house estate built (redrow). Main complaints seems to be - loss of greenbelt (the last in our council border) - no extra infrastructure (school, doctors, hospitals, roads, transport) provided in an already over-burnded area. Yet to hear anyone complain about the "others" who might be moving in. The locals couldn't afford these houses going by the off plan prices so if anything they are likely to be the ones looked down upon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I only saw a few minutes but it showed the nimbies in full flow - 'we need more houses but not here'. I was amused that when the locals got together to discuss, none of them wanted to be leader - they all knew it would be s lot of work. Stopping the development is importantto them but not that important if it means doing any actual work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Ram Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Riedquat said: The increase that's happened in the last hundred years or so has been very noticable, and very unpleasant though, it's just been somewhat masked by material quality of life increasing in that time due to other, unrelated reasons. Eh? Are you a vampire or somesuch? How did you 'notice' what was happening over the last hundred years? Plain bonkers to think that quality of life increases are unconnected to larger populations and denser economic agglomerations, but whatever gets you through the Malthusian night I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpg50000 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 16 minutes ago, afly said: There's a lot of nimbyism around here at the moment as we're having a 12,000 house estate built (redrow). Main complaints seems to be - loss of greenbelt (the last in our council border)- no extra infrastructure (school, doctors, hospitals, roads, transport) provided in an already over-burdened area. Yet to hear anyone complain about the "others" who might be moving in. The locals couldn't afford these houses going by the off plan prices so if anything they are likely to be the ones looked down upon Bonkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.