What's so great about Old Buildings?

[petromax]

More myths. Concreting over the countryside. Urban sprawl. Emotive terms ...

...Land reform must mesh with decent relaxed planning laws that allow the population to build on all land...

...Building on a larger mass of land will eliminate the unappealing high density, high impact developer estates; the sort that make people shudder, with many having to buy as they have Hobson?s choice....

...Best read the links I give. It will become clearer.

This is politicised, un-knowing and irresponsible nonsense.

The UKGBC (amongst others) publish figures of our carbon footprint and how we generate it.

A consistent statistic is that we generate about 40% of our carbon footprint by building our buildings, making the bricks, cutting timber etc and a further 25% in transportation between home and work.

Dispersing the cities into the countryside not only generates a lot of damage to the environment through the creation of new building materials and building operations but also greatly increases travel carbon by increasing distance, erodes carbon capture potential and displaces agriculture overseas thus generating more carbon footprint bringing our food in from around the globe (apart from that it's fine!)

On the face of it, we would do rather better to convert existing buildings (even if stuffing them with insulation) in inner city brownfield sites rather than endless and anonymous suburban sprawl; along the way creating vibrant and appropriately dense and enjoyable city communities.

Liverpool is not that densely populated in any event. Its previous density has fallen from 20,000 plus people per square mile to about 11,000 ie., there is plenty of room in the inner city; just take a walk around the North End for brownfield sites or Smithdown Road for boarded up houses; where as Inner London including all those ugly, rich, conservative-voting people in Mayfair and Fulham has fallen to about 23,000 and beautiful those areas are too.

Spreading the cities is killing the planet.

[pablo42]

I don't believe all that rubbish about carbon footprint Petro, just a way to increase control and taxes. I agree with you about building on the countryside though. We got more than enough land in the towns, just need using better.

[Waterways]

I don't believe all that rubbish about carbon footprint Petro, just a way to increase control and taxes. I agree with you about building on the countryside though. We got more than enough land in the towns, just need using better.

Of the homes the UK needs only 14% can be built on brownfield sites. The brownfield sites should be mainly used for openness in urban areas.

Only 7.5% of land is settled in the UK. FACT!! We have a surplus of land. FACT!

Land is for the use of the population, not to lock up for the profits of large landowners.

[pablo42]

Of the homes the UK needs only 14% can be built on brownfield sites. The brownfield sites should be mainly used for openness in urban areas.

Only 7.5% of land is settled in the UK. FACT!! We have a surplus of land. FACT!

Land is for the use of the population, not to lock up for the profits of large landowners.

Sorry WW, I never believe statistics. We gotta use better what we got. It's not hard.

I don't think the large landowners are making vast profits. The bulk of investment goes to the financial institutions. They are the new elite.

[Waterways]

This is politicised, un-knowing and irresponsible nonsense.

Not another one that has been sucked in. Sad

Scandinavia and North America successfully build houses predominately of wood. Growing tress absorb CO2. So larger forests can be planted that peopel can use while tress grow.

Large wooden based prefabbed section can be the basics of a house.

Getting existing buildings to a decent insulation level would be difficult and expensive. So much it is cheaper to demolish and start again. The UK has Europe's oldest housing stock.

Once a buildings is built its carbon footprint is zero. It is a one off.

Dispersing people into the country side improves the environment. Urban environments improve wildlife.

The secret in lower carbon by transport is getting people out of cars and into electric trains, with electricity generated by zero emission tidal lagoons and nuclear.

Displacing economivcally performing agriculture overseas mean we can concnetrate on using land for more prductive mean and living on it am amongst the countryside.

"endless and anonymous suburban sprawl" Not that emotive propaganda term again. The 1920-30 suburbs received the same scorn as new houses do today. Today they are desirable places to live with their own centres and many with their own indudtry/commerce for employment.

Liverpool is not that densely populated in any event. Its previous density has fallen from 20,000 plus people per square mile to about 11,000. Yep the city was too densely populated. It is getting about right now, except in the centre and inner cities which need more people.

Spreading the cities is killing the planet.

No one is advocating spreading cities. New towns and villages can be built. What style do you want? Tudor? You got it. Cornish village? You got it.

Read the links I gave. It will become clearer then.

--------

?But what I?m really concerned with is the environment.
You can?t argue that a town is better for birds and
animals and plants than the countryside?

Actually we can, and the evidence is pretty conclusive that
a town which has plenty of garden space will have a high
level of biodiversity, far higher than some farmland after
the pests and birds and weeds have been got rid of in
order to maximise agricultural production.

The Royal Horticultural Society recently commissioned
a study by University of Sheffield biologists
Kevin Gaston and Ken Thompson. They analysed the
biodiversity of a selection of English gardens and
concluded that ?our 61 gardens contained nearly as
many plants as the native flora of the British Isles. We
trapped and identified over 37,000 individual invertebrates,
individual animals, that?s at the last count. We
positively identified 786 species of invertebrates in our
gardens . . . Gardens are brilliant for wildlife . . . We
would simply say gardens are England?s most important
nature reserve?.

Another RHS study was done by Dr
Andrew Evans, head of terrestrial research at the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, which dealt with the
importance of gardens for birds. He emphasised the
positive role that gardens play when it comes to saving
species of birds from extinction.

Evidence from Germany confirms these findings.
Professor D. K. Hofmann, a biologist at the University of
Bochum, found that ?from a biologist?s point of view, living
on the outskirts of cities has created niches for plants and
animals that would not have prospered in agricultural
areas? and concluded that low density ?sprawl?, or what
would have been called ?garden cities? in the early twentieth
century, are settlement patterns that provide favourable
living conditions for a wide variety of species.

One interesting finding of biological research in
Germany was that the number of bird species increased
with population. The Bavarian city of Passau had
40,000 inhabitants and 65 species, Nuremberg had
493,000 and 105 species, Munich 1.2 million and 111
species and Berlin had 141 species with a population of
3.6 million. Biologist and ecologist Professor Josef
Reichholf counted the butterfly and moth species in
Munich and surrounding areas and found that the
lowest number of different species was to be found in
the agricultural areas surrounding the city. These
agricultural areas had fewer than 10 per cent of the
species that were found in low-density ?sprawl? areas,
and even the city centre itself had greater biodiversity
than the agricultural areas. Reichholf also systematically
analysed the link between biodiversity and
settlement patterns. His results were unequivocal:
where there are only green fields and agricultural land
void of any villages, there are only a few species to be
found. Where, however, human settlement has taken
place, biodiversity will be much higher.

Far from being monocultural and environmentally
unbalanced places, modern cities are places in which the
human race is just one amongst many species. Professor
Bernhard Klausnitzer, a biologist from Leipzig, estimates
that a typical European city is home to no less than 18,000
different species. When the environmental authority of
Frankfurt am Main actually counted through separate
genera, their results identified 102 bird, 14 amphibian,
2,000 beetle and 33 ant species ? one of the most diverse
places being a used car market.

Thus the scientific evidence shows that urban areas
have a greater biodiversity than rural areas where man is
concerned to ensure maximum food production for
himself, rather than any other species. And relatively low
density urban development may actually be the best sort
of development for biodiversity whilst high density urban
blocks of flats surrounded by intensively farmed fields
may actually be worst of all. Yet that is the pattern of
development which is en route to being achieved.

?but what I really
wanted to say was that what is really important is global
sustainability. I think the planners are onto something here.
We need to live at high densities in small homes in order to
minimise the use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions.We
have to do our bit for the global environment?

We see what you mean, but you have to be careful.When
planners talk about sustainability, they may not be talking
about global sustainability. Indeed, we are not sure that
they know themselves what they mean by the term.
Sometimes it seems to be used because it is thought to be
something we are all in favour of; ?motherhood and apple
pie? as the Americans would put it. Sometimes it seems to
mean that a community is socially mixed, and sometimes
it seems to refer to the characteristics of the local
economy. But you are right, what the general public takes
it to mean is the sustainability of the global economy. So
in both the Rogers Report and the Urban White Paper it
is taken as axiomatic that using land intensively helps
sustainability in that the use of fossil fuels is reduced.

The only evidence that is presented in either document
is a diagram of the kind reproduced here as Figure 10. This
shows that, using data for a number of cities across the
world, there is a simple negative correlation between urban
density and the use of petrol. Unfortunately simple correlation
proves nothing as to the direction of causation. It is
like demonstrating that there is a simple negative correlation
between the sales of bikinis and the sales of sweaters,
and then going on to tell the clothing stores that since
bikinis have a higher profit margin they should try to sell
fewer sweaters. Of course such an argument is silly, and we
know it is because we know there is a third variable,
seasonal temperature, which determines both the others.

In the case of density and fuel consumption there is
also a third variable, the price of fuel, and this also determines
the other two. In the cities of the USA and Australia
petrol prices are low, and have been lower than elsewhere
for many years. Because prices are low people use more,
by, amongst other things, buying larger vehicles. And
because petrol prices are and have been low, densities
have been low. Research has shown that once prices are
taken into account variations in density contribute
almost nothing to any statistical explanation of variations
in fuel use.

One would have thought that this was a simple
argument and easy enough to understand. It is, however,
somewhat more complex than the observation of a
simple negative correlation would suggest. Once the
simplistic level of thinking involved in this argument is
realised, then the fact that the thinking behind other
policies is equally simplistic can be better appreciated.
Thus current planning policies encourage the
construction of housing near to public transport. But
they cannot make people use public transport. So the
construction may, or may not, result in greater use of
public transport. For example the Oxfordshire Structure
Plan of the early 1990s required that housing be encouraged
to be built outside Oxford where space was
restricted by its Green Belt, and primarily in the four
towns of Banbury, Bicester, Didcot, and Witney, where
public transport was available. Later researchers at
Oxford Brookes University surveyed those who had
recently moved into new housing in these towns to ascertain
whether their use of cars to go to work had been
affected. In all cases people used a car more after they
moved than before. The extreme case was Didcot where
70 per cent travelled to work by car before they moved
there and 98 per cent after. The authors surmised that
many journeys to work were across the Oxford and
London Green Belts and that car usage would be reduced
by allowing more development on the inner edge of these
green belts.

Such a major change in policy is, of course, unlikely to
happen, and one has to presume that neither the government
nor the planning profession are actually serious
about the use of planning policies to reduce fuel usage. The
current stress on the use of brown field sites, wherever they
may be, demonstrates another facet of this lack of direction.
Brown field sites occur where they occur, and they
may or may not be near public transport. In one case that
we know, a hotel site in the middle of the London Green
Belt has been redeveloped at a high density. Since there is
no public transport within two miles all travel to and from
the site will be by private transport. Thus the objective of
maximising the use of brown field sites is achieved but at
the cost of what one is led to believe are supposed to be the
primary objectives, preservation of the countryside and the
minimisation of fuel use!

The use of planning policies to try to reduce fuel use
reveals in itself a lack of seriousness of purpose with
regard to fuel use. Planning policies can only affect new
development. But new development is only a tiny fraction
of the stock of buildings already in existence. Thus
anything that is done through the planning system has
little effect on total fuel consumption in the short run. As
Kate Barker notes in her report, given the scale of current
new building it would take 1,200 years to replace the
current housing stock. Expressing concern over global
sustainability but then embarking on policies which
would take hundreds of years to have any noticeable effect
indicates, at best, a lack of seriousness of purpose or a
misunderstanding of the nature of the remedies being
applied, and, at worst, gesture politics.

To have an immediate effect it would be necessary to
use taxation. Increased taxation on petrol affects
everyone, not just those moving into new homes. It has an
immediate and measurable negative impact on consumption.
And certainly in the late 1990s taxes were increased
in order to reduce consumption. But a public and well publicised
consumer revolt in 2001 slowed any further
increases in taxes. So the planners are allowed to get on
with policies because they affect few people and so no
revolt is likely. But, of course, leaving fuel consumption to
be dealt with by the local planning system means that the
policies will be ineffectual and ineffective in actually
reducing consumption.

Finally, there is a question as to whether such policies are
actually in the national interest. The evidence quoted
earlier shows that Britain is building smaller houses than in
the rest of the pre-enlargement European Union, and we
also know that they are smaller than in Japan or the USA.
No other country, with the possible exception of South
Korea, constrains development in a similar way.

But if constraint is being carried out in the interest of global
sustainability, then constraint by Britain alone has a negligible
and scarcely noticeable impact on the global
economy. If no other country thinks it worthwhile why do
we do it? Maybe we are wrong and everybody else is right.

?You raised this question of brown field sites. Surely it
can?t be wrong to build on brown field sites, whatever you
say. At least then we aren?t building on green field sites?

The difficulty with this is that the brown field sites do not
necessarily tend to be where the demand for housing is,
and, besides, there are not that many. Even if nobody
cared about the location of his or her house there would
still be a problem. But location matters, both to people
and the firms that employ them. The success of the industries
which dominate the economy of southern England,
particularly the City of London, one of the three major
world financial centres, means that the demand for
housing is high and increasing in the South. On the other
hand, because of the decline of mining and manufacturing,
industries which have been dominant in the rest
of the UK, the demand for housing has been lower
outside the South.

You can take what appears to be the planners? view that
if you prevent development in the South, where there are
few brown field sites, then it will take place in the North,
where there are more. But to do so you have to think
through the economic forces which would cause this, to
understand that what you are engaged in is a kind of
house price-based regional policy. Demand in the South
coupled with the restricted supply of land means that
house prices rise there. This discourages firms from
expanding there, and discourages people from moving
there. At best this would mean that the economic development
which is discouraged in the South would occur
elsewhere in Britain leading to the physical development
of the brown field sites there. At worst, at least from a
British viewpoint, the expansion is simply choked off in
the South and occurs elsewhere in the world where people
are less concerned about brown field sites. A policy of this
kind has a cost to the nation which is concealed but
certainly exists, and it may be substantial.

Moreover, as we have said, there are not enough existing
brown field sites to solve the problem. The Rogers Report,
which might be expected to take an optimistic view on the
subject, estimated that, during the period 1996 to 2021
there would be a demand for 3.8 million homes. Of these,
however, on their calculations, only some 531,000 could be
built on the sites of currently vacant land or derelict buildings,
that is about 14 per cent of the total. Another 1.5
million they calculated could be built on so called ?windfall
or other sites?, which means land which is not currently
vacant, but where it is estimated that developers will find it
profitable to demolish the existing buildings and redevelop
the site. Thus even on the Rogers Report?s own estimates
very little development could take place on genuine brown
field sites, that is those which are currently vacant and
derelict. Most would take place on sites in urban areas
where the local inhabitants are as likely to object as any
country dweller.

[Waterways]

Sorry WW, I never believe statistics.

The 7.5% of land settled is hard fact. It is not a wishy-washy figure.

We gotta use better what we got. It's not hard.

You still do not get it. We can only supply 14% of homes on brownfield sites. I was brought up with no green around me. I do not wish that on others, so some large money=grabbing landowners can stay rich. We need green inside urban areas.

I don't think the large landowners are making vast profits.

Do not make it up. Read Who Owns Britain. Read the ST Rich list. The richest man in the UK is the Duke of Westminster, a rent taker. Large landowners are amongst the riches people in the UK, by doing nothing except take rent. Land Value Tax will sort that out. Only 0.66% of the population own 70% of the land. They are mainly large land owners.

We are being ripped off big style, yet few people realise it under a propaganda cloak of eco organisation like Friends of the Earth, and country organisation like The Countryside Alliance and The Council for the Protection of Rural England. Backed by large landowners. These are to keep townies out of the country and ensure large landowners keep their lucrative land.

I care more about the over 90% of people who are crammed into urban settlements, living in pokey, underinsulated super-expensive homes, because an artificial land shortage has been created.

[pablo42]

Phew! Sorry WW, I don't believe any, really any, statistics. They can say whatever you want. I'm not advocating people live in slums. I want people to live near open country. It's getting harder but it's achievable. I have flown all over the World and below me was mostly green. I don't believe the Greens statistics neither. I usually believe what I see, I've seen quite a bit.

[Waterways]

Phew! Sorry WW, I don't believe any, really any, statistics. They can say whatever you want. I'm not advocating people live in slums. I want people to live near open country. It's getting harder but it's achievable. I have flown all over the World and below me was mostly green. I don't believe the Greens statistics neither. I usually believe what I see, I've seen quite a bit.

I have flown over the UK many times and driven all over it. The bro-in-law, a pilot with the RAF, agrees with me, that the UK is mainly fields. For 30 years he flew over it. Get off the M and A roads and drive the Bs, and all you see is field after subsidised field and no one on the roads. It is another world on those roads- not the England I know. Settlements spring up around communications: M and A roads and rail, this gives the wrong impression of the UK

Getting harder to live in the country? Near impossible unless you have money. Over 90% of us live in towns and cities. I would say 25% of them would run into the country if they could.

The 7.5% settle of the UK is a very hard figure. The average person thinks 60% is built on the propaganda is so effective.

We should not be in the business of making large land owners super rich. And creating a situation where we can't even walk on the land.

Once again we cannot sprawl anywhere, as there is just too much land.

A matter of basic freedom. If I want to build a house and live in the middle of a field I should have the right to do so - SSI, national parks excepted of course. We live in a controlled state. No government wants to give that control up.

Speak to a brainwashed bumpkin about opening up land and more than likely he will immediately spout that you are a commie or something for taking away the riches of the large land owners. They do not know what freedom means.

[pablo42]

I have flown over the UK many times and riven all over it. The bro-in-law, a pilot with the RAF, agrees with me, that the UK is mainly fields. For 30 years he flew over it. Get off the M and A roads and drive the Bs, and all you see is field after subsidised field and no one on the roads. It is another world on those roads- not the England I know. Settlements spring up around communications: M and B roads, this gives the wrong impression of the UK

Getting harder to live in the country? Near impossible unless you have money. Over 90% of us live in towns and cities. I would say 25% of them would run into the country if they could.

The 7.5% settle of the UK is a very hard figure. The average person thinks 60% is built on the propaganda is so effective.

We should not be in the business of making large land owners super rich. And creating a situation where we can't even walk on the land.

Once again we cannot sprawl anywhere, as there is just too much land.

A matter of basic freedom. If I want to build a house and live in the middle of a field I should have the right to do so - SSI, national parks excepted of course. We live in a controlled state. No government wants to give that control up.

Speak to a brainwashed bumpkin about opening up land and more that likely he will immediately spout that you are a commie or something for taking away the riches of the large land owners. They do not know what freedom means.

I agree WW, I have flown all over the World and I concurr, it's all green. All I say is, what we have isn't dense housing. It's designed rubbish. to get more people in without imagination. We need new architects, with vison, proper vision, to design the next generation of buildings.

76% of architects agree according to Washington University.


See what I mean about statistics.

[Waterways]

I agree WW, I have flown all over the World and I concurr, it's all green. All I say is, what we have isn't dense housing. It's designed rubbish. to get more people in without imagination. We need new architects, with vison, proper vision, to design the next generation of buildings.

76% of architects agree according to Washington University.

See what I mean about statistics.

Planners are the ones that matter. They execute the framework created by the politicos. The Town & Country Planning Act prevent architects designing buildings in setting not set put by the planners - the Local Plan.

This cascades down to the fact that approx 2/3 of the value of the average UK home is the land. This mean a massive constraint is put on the building. It then get cut back to the bare minimum. UK home are all mainly made on the cheap.

[pablo42]

Planners are the ones that matter. They execute the framework created by the politicos. The Town & Country Planning Act prevent architects designing buildings in setting not set put by the planners - the Local Plan.

This cascades down to the fact that approx 2/3 of the value of the average UK home is the land. This mean a massive constraint is put on the building. It then get cut back to the bare minimum. UK home are all mainly made on the cheap.

Yes WW, can't argue with that. That's why we need new planners/architects to break the mould of these little boxes. The Tenements were better than what they're building now. With new houses you can hear your neighbour on the toilet. That's not right.

69% of people agree.

[Waterways]

Yes WW, can't argue with that. That's why we need new planners/architects to break the mould of these little boxes. The Tenements were better than what they're building now. With new houses you can hear your neighbour on the toilet. That's not right.

69% of people agree.

It is the planning laws that will change matters - the politicos can only change that.

As regards to paper thin walls, the building regulations cope with that - or not cope with it. The building regulations are law.

The House Builders Federation oppose most changes in building regs. They said that the 1990 increase in insulation levels was a "cosmetic exercise". They will fight anything that makes building a house more expensive. They do not have the intelligence to copy the Americans and Scandinavians and prefab a lot of the construction.

The point is that the land is so expensive they have to cut back to the bare bones to get a decent affordable house. Maybe there is some justification there - or just a poor excuse. So that land again!!!

If land was cheaper more money will be available to build larger, higher quality homes - and soundproof ones too. I believe the regs in Scotland are far higher regarding sound infiltration.

How do you get land to be cheaper? scupper the artificial shortage and allow more freedom to build on land.

[Partsky]

Quite agree with your last paragraph WW. Our urban and greenbelt environments have their own secrets. When I worked in housing I saw so much "land banking" of sites, green and brownfield and a lot of this stuff is still not built on, years later, despite demand.. Where I live in Lydiate, the majority of the surrounding land, whilst still relatively untouched after the Scotch Piper Pub on the Southport Road, is actually owned by builders or similar who have bought the land and the resident or tenant farmer is allowed to rent the land back whilst the true owners await the a change in planning or green belt legislation.

[Waterways]

Quite agree with your last paragraph WW. Our urban and greenbelt environments have their own secrets. When I worked in housing I saw so much "land banking" of sites, green and brownfield and a lot of this stuff is still not built on, years later, despite demand.. Where I live in Lydiate, the majority of the surrounding land, whilst still relatively untouched after the Scotch Piper Pub on the Southport Road, is actually owned by builders or similar who have bought the land and the resident or tenant farmer is allowed to rent the land back whilst the true owners await the a change in planning or green belt legislation.

They are awaiting the extension of the local plan. They buy on the edge of towns and cities knowing eventually the planning limits will expand. Planning and land allocation is rigged, according the Kevin Cahill in Who Owns Britain.

In most of Europe homes are selfbuilt. That is, they get the land, design the house and have it built by a builder (or yourself if you are up to it). That is why you do not see the vast developer estates, filled with pokey little houses feet apart, like in the UK.


You do not see this in Germany, which has the same population density as the UK

Approximately 80% of all homes built in the UK are built by about only 20 companies. In no other country in the western world does such a monopoly exist. The sort of situation seen in banana republics. The House Builders Federation influences the building regulations so heavily in order to maintain the status quo that the UK is backwards in house building technology compared to large parts of Western Europe, Scandinavia and North America.

See:
How land affects us all

[pablo42]

They are awaiting the extension of the local plan. They buy on the edge of towns and cities knowing eventually the planning limits will expand. Planning and land allocation is rigged, according the Kevin Cahill in Who Owns Britain.

In most of Europe home are selfbuilt. That is they get the land, design the house and have it built by a builder (or yourself if you are up to it). That is why you do not see the vast developer estates, filled with pokey little houses feet apart, like in the UK.

Approximately 80% of all homes built in the UK are built by about only 20 companies. In no other country in the western world does such a monopoly exist. The sort of situation seen in banana republics. The House Builders Federation influences the building regulations so heavily in order to maintain the status quo that the UK is backwards in house building technology compared to large parts of Western Europe, Scandinavia and North America.

See:
How land affects us all

Agree with you there WW.