Demolishing arguments

[scottieroader]

"Our rigid and nationalised planning system is also delivering the wrong kind of housing. In a March 2005 MORI poll, 50 per cent of those questioned favoured a detached house and 22 per cent a bungalow. Just 2 per cent wanted a low rise flat and 1 per cent a flat in a high rise block. But houses and bungalows use more land, so while in 1990 about an eighth of newly built dwellings were apartments, by 2004 this had increased to just under a half."

But you can't always have what you want... I've always thought it a little suspect to base things purely on what market research shows that people want.

Firstly... can all those people who want a detached house actually afford one, or are we just going to end up building loads of unaffordable homes.

Secondly... if everyone could have the home of their dreams, we'd quickly run out of land.

[Waterways]

But you can't always have what you want... I've always thought it a little suspect to base things purely on what market research shows that people want.

Firstly... can all those people who want a detached house actually afford one, or are we just going to end up building loads of unaffordable homes.

Secondly... if everyone could have the home of their dreams, we'd quickly run out of land.

Oh that old propaganda line!!! Only 7.5% of the land in the UK is settled including parks and gardens, which amount to about 5%, which makes only 2.5% paved.

Hit the link in my sig and go to the menu and the link to How Land Affects The Average Person. This will make matters clearer.

[scottieroader]

Oh that old propaganda line!!! Only 7.5% of the land in the UK is settled including parks and gardens, which amount to about 5%, which makes only 2.5% paved.

Hit the link in my sig and go to the menu and the link to How Land Affects The Average Person. This will make matters clearer.

Well very little of what you've said in it isn't propaganda. No mention of the lack of land caused by developer landbanking, no mention of the lack of affordable properties caused by developer unwillingness to build them, and exploitation of loopholes, no mention of the proliferation of tiny one-bedroom flats in city centres caused by developers building for the investor market (as opposed to the owner-occupier or buy-to-let markets)

Also... I think that while it is unfair that the majority of people subsidise the upkeep of the landed gentry's estates, you seem to be almost trying to give the impression that this is where most of the council tax goes.

And when you talk about how much land is available in the UK, do you remember to deduct unsuitable land. i.e:

Too hilly
Too boggy
Susceptible to flooding
Too far from the nearest local centre
Of historic/cultural value
National Parks
AONBs
SSSIs
Susceptible to coastal erosion
Too noisy
Too polluted
Too contaminated from previous uses
Those areas of greenbelt which really are necessary to prevent towns merging into one.

When you think of how much land is needed for housing, do you also think of:

Local convenience stores
Schools
Parks
Playing Fields
etc?

[Waterways]

Well very little of what you've said in it isn't propaganda. No mention of the lack of land caused by developer landbanking,

Nothing there is propaganda. An open policy of planning allowing people to build anywhere within reason, would reduce this developer practice to the point it is not worth it.

no mention of the lack of affordable properties caused by developer unwillingness to build them, and exploitation of loopholes,

Once again, An open policy of planning allowing people to build anywhere within reason would eliminate the large developers and put us in the same category of other countries

no mention of the proliferation of tiny one-bedroom flats in city centres caused by developers building for the investor market (as opposed to the owner-occupier or buy-to-let markets)

Once again an open policy of planning allowing people to build anywhere within reason will give people choice of where they want to live.

Also... I think that while it is unfair that the majority of people subsidise the upkeep of the landed gentry's estates, you seem to be almost trying to give the impression that this is where most of the council tax goes.

As 0.66% of the population own 70% of the land, it is going their way. I emphasised how the land subsidy acts against the people and favours the rich. We need a free market that caters for the vast majority.

And when you talk about how much land is available in the UK, do you remember to deduct unsuitable land. i.e:

Too hilly
....

Figures were given

Those areas of greenbelt which really are necessary to prevent towns merging into one.

The Greenbelt is a nonsense creating sterile dead zones. It is a mechanism to keep townies in towns - an physical act of discrimination. If towns merge into one then they merge. I see no problem in that, as it is happened all over the world throughout history.

When you think of how much land is needed for housing, do you also think of:

As only 7.5% of the UKs land is settled making London, Liverpool, Manchester, etc, and in fact every city, town and village, twice the size in footprint, still only 15% of the land is used. Simple arithmetic.

The UK has a surplus of Land.

Now read these, which were on a post down the thread:

Unaffordable Housing
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/143.pdf

Bigger Better Faster More
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/141.pdf

Better Homes, Greener Cities
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/137.pdf

[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...

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.

Also I still believe that unfair as it is, the flow of tax money towards wealthy landowners is not significant.

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 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.

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.

[Waterways]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. .

[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.

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?

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. .

[Howie]

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...

[Waterways]

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.

[Howie]

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

[Howie]

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...

[petromax]

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

[Kev]

CONDEMNED houses in Edge Hill were primed ahead of their imminent demolition yesterday. Read

[Ged]

Yes but 900 into 300 doesn't go

[marky]

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.