-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scottieroader
I understand that it is your point of view that in a world where regulations are relaxed, all the people free from them will start collectively acting in society's best interests...
Not in everything, but yes in land and planning.
Quote:
but I disagree with it. In my point of view relaxing regulations will benefit the big players more than that the small developers, and will not stop developers landbanking nor will it stop things such as buy-to-leave investors dictating the market and developers will still not care about things such as design, affordability and sustainability.
The UK is the only developed country where most of the houses are built by a few companies - the big players. It is clear houses are not affordable at all. The UK is always in a perennial housing crisis which need not be there. Look at the planning and land system and then see where the problems lay. Then think of how it could be rectified. Then look at how others do it - and there are some shining examples around.
Once the land is feed up and planning relaxed the construction will be in the hands of the market and small builders. Currently planning is Stalinist using central quotas - which clearly does not work. Look at the links I gave and how Germany and Switzerland plan and use land. Understand what I wrote - get the points and read the links.
Quote:
Also I still believe that unfair as it is, the flow of tax money towards wealthy landowners is not significant.
The flow of money to them is significant and just downright unjust and should be stopped ASAP. However that is not the main point. The point is that they hold most of the nations land and create via the planning system an artificial land shortage ramping up land prices and hence house prices.
Quote:
And as far as greenbelts and the desire to keep towns seperate is concerned. I would like them to say seperate, I see no reason that just because something has happened in the past and would happen without intervention it should automatically be seen as just and acceptable.
I see no reason to stop natural migration. It can benefit communities merging into larger units - or shrinking too. Your view is just subjective and nothing else with basis what
Quote:
I think where we disagree though is on wider issues and is not really reconcilable. So I'd rather draw a line under it and keep this topic on urbanism, and not stray into politics.
What issues bother you? What bothers me is that housing is poor in the UK and costs the earth. We live in small, poorly insulated pokey holes that cost a fortune. in general. Read what I wrote again that is clearly there. Then read the links too.
Quote:
For the record (and I'm assuming here you are an advocate of Adam Smith) He and Marx (of whom I'm an advocate) aren't too dissimilar. I think it is erroneous the way many thinkers present Smith as the realist as opposed to Marx the idealist. They were both idealists, Smith spoke of a perfect market which in practice cannot exist.
I couldn't care about Smith and Marx. Again understand the issues presented and how it affects you and everyone else. They are clearly put forward. The people would clearly benefit greatly if Land & planning was in a free market, and not rigged to benefit large rich landowners and few very large construction companies. .
-
Your argument is starting to get aggressive waterways. I've said already that this is a discussion of politics and it is best not to get into it on this forum.
You just don't stop saying... read this that I've written, read it again, read it again and understand it this time. I understand it, I just don't believe it. I have different views to you. I fail to see how developers, with restrictions lifted wouldn't just take off into ever increasing spirals of buying land, building unsustainably on it and forcing people into poverty. You see it differently, but that is about values not understanding.
And please... I don't buy into to conspiracy theory that the landed gentry are somehow exerting an influence in the planning system.
So demolition... I suggested elsewhere that even though demolishing old, attractive houses to build bland tat (you can dress it up however you like but none of the visualisations for Edge Lane look at all pleasing to the eye) may cost more. This is a cost that we should meet. I don't think it should be about the money. Where do you stand on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Waterways
Not in everything, but yes in land and planning.
The UK is the only developed country where most of the houses are built by a few companies - the big players. It is clear houses are not affordable at all. The UK is always in a perennial housing crisis which need not be there. Look at the planning and land system and then see where the problems lay. Then think of how it could be rectified. Then look at how others do it - and there are some shining examples around.
Once the land is feed up and planning relaxed the construction will be in the hands of the market and small builders. Currently planning is Stalinist using central quotas - which clearly does not work. Look at the links I gave and how Germany and Switzerland plan and use land. Understand what I wrote - get the points and read the links.
The flow of money to them is significant and just downright unjust and should be stopped ASAP. However that is not the main point. The point is that they hold most of the nations land and create via the planning system an artificial land shortage ramping up land prices and hence house prices.
I see no reason to stop natural migration. It can benefit communities merging into larger units - or shrinking too. Your view is just subjective and nothing else with basis what
What issues bother you? What bothers me is that housing is poor in the UK and costs the earth. We live in small, poorly insulated pokey holes that cost a fortune. in general. Read what I wrote again that is clearly there. Then read the links too.
I couldn't care about Smith and Marx. Again understand the issues presented and how it affects you and everyone else. They are clearly put forward. The people would clearly benefit greatly if Land & planning was in a free market, and not rigged to benefit large rich landowners and few very large construction companies. .
-
Battle to save piece of history
Feb 8 2008
by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo
A VICTORIAN community centre in Liverpool could be bulldozed to make way for student flats.
But Wavertree residents are fighting the plans to demolish Gregson memorial institute, built in the late 1890s as a small museum and art gallery.
More...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scottieroader
Your argument is starting to get aggressive waterways. I've said already that this is a discussion of politics and it is best not to get into it on this forum.
You just don't stop saying... read this that I've written, read it again, read it again and understand it this time. I understand it, I just don't believe it. I have different views to you. I fail to see how developers, with restrictions lifted wouldn't just take off into ever increasing spirals of buying land, building unsustainably on it and forcing people into poverty. You see it differently, but that is about values not understanding.
You clearly don't understand market forces....or not else for that matter. Read the links I gave and understand them.
-
Anfield homes a model of success
Jun 16 2008
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post
A ROW of Victorian terraced houses in the centre of North Liverpool, that were saved from demolition and restored to their former glory, have become a role model of success.
A unique private investment scheme from the Affordable Housing Development Company (AHDC), saw every three and four-bedroom property on Tancred Road, in Anfield, transformed and put back on the market.
The pioneering project will now be used as a model for redevelopment across the country.
AHDC was formed to participate in the enormous task of regenerating areas of deprivation in England’s cities.
Ian Robinson, chief executive of AHDC, said: “AHDC anticipates investing in excess of £20m to totally transform areas across the UK in a roll-out programme using the Tancred Road scheme as a role model.”
Source: Liverpool Daily Post
-
MPs slam housing renewal
Jul 3 2008
by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo
HOUSING bosses today hit back at a government report questioning whether a massive demolition scheme was working.
An inquiry by MPs found the number of homes flattened by housing market renewal projects, such as Merseyside’s NewHeartlands, dwarfed new ones built.
It also found waiting lists for rented properties in housing regeneration areas had doubled.
More...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Waterways
Not in everything, but yes in land and planning.
Just picking up on this one point to refute (of many possible candidates ); what leads you to think that anyone outside of Utopia is going to drop their primeaval territorial instincts and selflessly act for the greater good?
To allude to another which appears similarly myopic; if anyone might build wherever anyone wanted 'within reason' (whatever that might mean), what effect due you think that this unbridled urban sprawl would have an our collective carbon footprint?
It would help considerably if you could distill the no-doubt cogent arguments in the accompanying links to screeds of closely type argument into a few sentences for all our benefit
-
CONDEMNED houses in Edge Hill were primed ahead of their imminent demolition yesterday. Read
-
Yes but 900 into 300 doesn't go :rolleyes:
-
A short video of the demolition is here:
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...ctures/videos/
It shows Hawthorn Grove area. I was here a few weeks ago and the pavements had already been tinned-up.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ged
Yes but 900 into 300 doesn't go :rolleyes:
Lets not forget that there aren't even 300 who live there anymore, there's only about 70! This is about creating safe sustainable modern housing with gardens, open space and community facilities. If 900 houses where replaced with 900 houses, they would have to build terraces with no gardens, no off street parking, no facilities and no open space. Basically what is there now, which is what people don't want.
-
Yes but to put 300 into spaces that once held 900 means people are inevitably shipped out and will they all be sustainable affordable houses because out of the 90 scheduled for the Grosvenor st area, two thirds will be private. It is the continuity of depopulating inner area to outer areas.
-
Wavertree Streets demolition
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
petromax
Just picking up on this one point to refute (of many possible candidates ); what leads you to think that anyone outside of Utopia is going to drop their primeaval territorial instincts and selflessly act for the greater good?
Few will, that is why we have governments.
Quote:
To allude to another which appears similarly myopic; if anyone might build wherever anyone wanted 'within reason' (whatever that might mean),
Not in National Parks, near nuclear power stations, etc.
Quote:
what effect due you think that this unbridled urban sprawl would have an our collective carbon footprint?
As only 7.5% of the land mass is settled, we can't "sprawl" anywhere. There is just too much land in the country, to use the emotive propaganda word, "sprawl" onto.
Quote:
It would help considerably if you could distill the no-doubt cogent arguments in the accompanying links to screeds of closely type argument into a few sentences for all our benefit
What I put forwards was simple to understand:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html
We all have lots to gain - even you.
-
All hope is lost for city?s derelict row
Dec 6 2008
by Marc Waddington, Liverpool Echo
A NOTORIOUS row of derelict houses will be bulldozed despite years of campaigning to save them.
Many of the homes, in Prescot Road and Prescot Drive, Fairfield, were boarded up in 2000 with the aim of redeveloping them in the future.
They subsequently fell victim to vandals and arsonists, and now only a handful of people still live in the row, which is on a busy commuter route into the city centre.
Campaigners claim they were assured one day they would be brought back to use and would be part of the regeneration of the area around Newsham Park.
Now, after years of sitting empty, about 40 properties will face the wrecker?s ball.
Cllr Louise Baldock, chairman of the Newsham Park steering group, said the news was received with dismay.
More...
-
Unfortunately, they have been left too long! The Prescot Drive properties in particular are more likely to fall down on their own accord rather than with the assistance of the wrecking ball. Most of them have roofs that have caved in, subsequently meaning the floors have collapsed under the strain.
It has after all been 8 going on 9 years since some of these houses were occupied, perhaps even longer since anyone repaired or cared for the buildings.
-
Any pics of them as they are now?
-
-
nice photos Russ, those homes have been going down the nick for 15 years to my knowledge
-
Some are salvageable, other are not.
-
Demolition notices threaten Liverpool cultural gem
Sep 3 2009
by Ben Schofield, Liverpool Daily Post
A CITY university is pushing ahead with plans to tear down crumbling city centre buildings, despite fears the work may also bring down a neighbouring cultural gem.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM) say 31 Pembroke Place ? which is opposite their new campus ? is a danger to the public and needs to be demolished.
But the owner of number 29 next door ? the site of historic Galkoff?s butchers ? says his building relies on 31 for structural support.
The shop, first opened in 1907 and now Grade II-listed, is renowned as the only surviving example of a tiled Kosher butchers in the UK. Original owner Percy Galkoff was also thought to be the first meat seller to use a fridge.
Now LSTM has notified the council it will be pulling down number 31.
The owner of Galkoff?s, Rob Ainsworth, has also been notified by LSTM under Party Wall legislation about the imminent demolition.
LSTM says it will do it all it can to support the party wall, but Mr Ainsworth remains unconvinced.
Galkoff?s has already lost support to one side. Number 27 was knocked down to make way for a block of apartments and shops in the mid-1990s.
Fears over the safety of the building then prompted builders to drive bolts through 29 and 31?s adjoining wall to stop Galkoff?s toppling over.
Mr Ainsworth said last night: ?As my property was built as part of a terrace, I don?t think it will survive as a stand-alone building.
?It?s already lost the support 27 provided before it was demolished in 1994. The loss of the building mass of 31 and weathering problems to the exposed gable wall, plus wind suction, means it doesn?t bode well for Galkoff?s.
?Something might also go wrong in the demolition ? an ?enthusiastic demolition?, they call it.?
Continues >>
