Now that’s a claim!!!
Hondo's plans for a huge tower on Pope's Road, Brixton and the Brixton Project
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
No. With more housing new people can live in the new housing. No one needs to leave.
If enough new space were build then everywhere would be affordable.
The cancelling the Hondo Tower development will result in increased local rents for office space. The way to lower the price of property isn't to complain to the Landlord or the government, the way to lower property prices is to build more. Lots more. Everywhere.
editor
hiraethified
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
How so?
editor
hiraethified
So who's queuing up to build all this affordable office space and housing, only to be thwarted by NIMBYs? Not Hondo for sure, because there was ZERO affordable office space and housing offered in their development.
And his begs the question: can you name these local affordable office space and affordable housing projects that have all been recently cancelled because of these supposed NIMBYs?
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by affordable?
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
It's a critical point. People who oppose local development genuinely believe they're doing good. They can't see the harm they cause.
Keir Starmer gets it, and Michael Gove gets it, and they both make big speeches on the need for more development, but developments are all to often thwarted by local NIMBYists.
More housing, more offices, more . . . . music recording studios, would be a wonderful thing for London and for the country. NIMBYists can't see that the future could be so much better than the present.
editor
hiraethified
So now you're reduced to semantics,
Let's try again: can you name any of what you believe to be local affordable office spaces and affordable housing projects that have all been recently cancelled because of these supposed NIMBYs?
editor
hiraethified
Seeing as we're in the midst of a deepening climate crisis, have you any thoughts about the hugely negative environmental impact 20 storey blocks like the Hondo Tower create?
Or as this all just trifling nonsense to be batted away when there's high-end office space and profit to be had?
Here. Read:
University College London’s authoritative research on the environmental performance of taller buildings highlights the rapidly increasing rates of energy use and CO2 emission per sq.m, as buildings rise from an optimum of compact development at 6 floors, virtually doubling by the time buildings get to 20 storeys. Lambeth Council proudly claim to be the first borough to have declared a climate emergency but it does not seem to have adequately considered the high-rise development’s environmental impact. Raising the question of whether they are serious about meeting their climate change targets.
Professor Philip Steadman, Emeritus Professor of Urban and Built Form Studies at UCL, said, ‘A recent study at the Energy Institute, University College London, has shown that office and residential buildings use more energy in operation, per square metre of floor area, the taller they are. If office buildings on 20-storeys and above (‘high-rise’) are compared with offices on 6-storeys and below (‘low-rise’), electricity use in high-rise, per square metre of floor area, is found to be nearly two and a half times that in low-rise. Gas use also increases with height, by around 40%, going from low-rise to high-rise. As a result, total carbon emissions from the two fuels together are twice as great in the high-rise buildings. At 20-storeys, the Hondo tower rises well above surrounding buildings, and will be exposed to the strong winds and more sunshine that seem to cause these energy effects. It is also highly glazed, which will exacerbate the problems.’
Stephen Hill, Director of C2O futureplanners and a sustainable planning advocate, asks, ‘Are we serious about the Climate Emergency and sustainable development, or not? What possible justification can there being for designing, let alone approving tall buildings, when Prof. Steadman’s evidence shows how environmentally damaging and wasteful they are? Going ahead with any new tall building means building something that may well be environmentally obsolete from Day 1, and will simply make it harder to reach the zero carbon goals of the future, without further expensive investment. And who will pay for that, and how? It’s no excuse to say that we have done this before, or others are still doing it. One more tall building is a step in the wrong direction.’
editor
hiraethified
OK. Now you're definitely trolling. Brixton nearly lost its last rehearsal room precisely because of a greedy developer.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Only a few have been built, so I'd say 99% of them have been cancelled.
If Taylor McWilliams had popular support he'd be building towers all over the place, I assume. He'd keep building until the price came right down, and there was no more profit to be made. Then everything would be affordable, like it was in the 1970s.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
I objected to the tower mostly on environmental and pollution grounds. Central Brixton air quality is dire. Building such a massive tower and all the dust and traffic involved would be horrible.
I love Brixton market but it is a shadow of it former self. The resurfacing of electric ave, evictions in the arches, rent rises and policies that have favoured the 'nighttime economy ' have hit it hard. The building of a whacking enormous tower might just finish it off.
I love Brixton market but it is a shadow of it former self. The resurfacing of electric ave, evictions in the arches, rent rises and policies that have favoured the 'nighttime economy ' have hit it hard. The building of a whacking enormous tower might just finish it off.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
Surely since the plague and the increase of WFH more office space isnt needed?
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Brixton nearly lost its last rehearsal room because the landlord put up the price and they couldn't find anywhere else to go.
If there had been more space available then it wouldn't have been an issue. A shortage of supply gives landlords power, but building more takes that power away from Landlords. I'd have thought you'd have been in favour of that. I know I am.
NIMBYists empower existing landlords by keeping supply low and therfore rents high.
I wrote you paragraphs and paragraphs on this just a few weeks ago, but you refused to even read it. You asked for a summary.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
That's a question for developers. If they're wrong they stand to lose millions.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Building a tower near the market might have led to its renaissance - Borough Market is overlooked by the Shard.
Oh yeah, Borough market, a market for the local people.
You're ridiculous. But then you have cited Michael Gove as an example.
Fuck off with your fake politeness to try and conceal the fact that you champion the greedy rich.
editor
hiraethified
So you can't actually name a SINGLE local affordable office space or affordable housing project that had been recently cancelled because of these supposed NIMBYs?
If you can't back up your claims and keep trying to blame an anonymous group of people, you really haven't got much of an argument at all, have you?
editor
hiraethified
So you literally don't care about the environmental impact?
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
None has got off the drawing board, let alone got as far as being rejected because of NIMBYs. It's a chiiling effect. Silence the NIMBYs and the developments will come.
I very much care about the environmental effect, but towers overall are much better for the environment than suburban developments.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, no incomers. I forgot your rule.
And Keir Starmer. And I fogot to mention four of the seven members of Lambeth Council's planning committee who voted in favour of the Tower. And the Mayor of London suppoted it, until he didn't. You're so tribal you think that if Michael Gove supports something it must be wrong. You can't allow for the possibility that sometimes he's wrong and sometimes he's right.
I'm not championing the greedy rich, I'm championing people who want to live in adequate housing and work in affordable local offices.
I'd apologise for offending you by being too polite but . . . you know.
editor
hiraethified
Oh right. So these mysterious NIMBYs are in fact a silent, untraceable, totally secret but incredibly powerful force that can overturn major affordable housing and office developments - even ones promoted by wealthy multi national developers backed by immense investment funds - without leaving a trace of their existence? Marvellous stuff!
I'm sure you'll have the hard science to hand that backs up that claim, yes? Looking forward to it.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Planning policy isn't really as cut and dry and some are making out. There's always a political element so NIMBYism is a thing and it does have an effect. There were plenty of grounds on which the sort-of similar high rise development now being built in Loughborough Junction could have been refused. It wasn't in the end because there is sufficient leeway for subjective interpretations to be made.
The general move in planning policy at the moment is to allow many more tall buildings in London, in locations where they previously just wouldn't have been accepted. That includes a change in attitude to the amount of visual "harm" done by having very tall buildings looming over much shorter ones. Including heritage assets, conservation areas etc.
I would not be all that surprised to see a new application appear, maybe a token couple of storeys lower, and get opermission.
Of course the term NIMBY comes with negative connotations, mainly that objections come from a self centred point of view that ignores wider benefits. With tall buildings though, they do have significant impacts. Not just aesthetic ones. They don't conjure up living or working space by magic, they do it by occupying airspace that's a kind of common good, that supplies others with daylight and sunlight, and less quantifiable things like not feeling enclosed or overlooked.
It's kind of silly to present all development as automatically good, as if there are no reasonable objections, only selfish reactionary ones.
There's always going to be an argument about the cost/benefit equation (I don't mean the financial one) for tall buildings and it's never going to be the case that everyone will agree. What I think anyone trying to make a judgement should do, is go down to nine elms, have a walk around there in the housing estates just to the south of the new towers there and have a think about the psychological effects of that development, it's a relatively extreme example (for now) but this is the direction things are going.
The general move in planning policy at the moment is to allow many more tall buildings in London, in locations where they previously just wouldn't have been accepted. That includes a change in attitude to the amount of visual "harm" done by having very tall buildings looming over much shorter ones. Including heritage assets, conservation areas etc.
I would not be all that surprised to see a new application appear, maybe a token couple of storeys lower, and get opermission.
Of course the term NIMBY comes with negative connotations, mainly that objections come from a self centred point of view that ignores wider benefits. With tall buildings though, they do have significant impacts. Not just aesthetic ones. They don't conjure up living or working space by magic, they do it by occupying airspace that's a kind of common good, that supplies others with daylight and sunlight, and less quantifiable things like not feeling enclosed or overlooked.
It's kind of silly to present all development as automatically good, as if there are no reasonable objections, only selfish reactionary ones.
There's always going to be an argument about the cost/benefit equation (I don't mean the financial one) for tall buildings and it's never going to be the case that everyone will agree. What I think anyone trying to make a judgement should do, is go down to nine elms, have a walk around there in the housing estates just to the south of the new towers there and have a think about the psychological effects of that development, it's a relatively extreme example (for now) but this is the direction things are going.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
What you mean to say is that increased density of buildings tends to allow greater energy & transport efficiency and sustainability.
A tower housing X number of people might be better than a suburban development housing the same number - but not because it's a tower.
editor
hiraethified
Here's the reality why we shouldn't be building more high rise buildings:
theconversation.com
The conclusion reached by researchers is that a chain of skyscrapers generates 140% more total emissions during their service life compared with an area with lower buildings with the same number of inhabitants.
tomorrow.city
www.theguardian.com
www.bloomberg.com
Cities and climate change: why low-rise buildings are the future – not skyscrapers
New research has found that low-rise urban environments are more space and carbon efficient than high-rise buildings which have a drastically higher carbon impact.
theconversation.com
The conclusion reached by researchers is that a chain of skyscrapers generates 140% more total emissions during their service life compared with an area with lower buildings with the same number of inhabitants.
Are skyscrapers an example of sustainable urban planning?
What is the environmental impact of skyscrapers? We analyze their materials, the impact on the landscape, pollution from their construction and more.
tomorrow.city
Wasteful, damaging and outmoded: is it time to stop building skyscrapers?
Tall buildings are still deemed desirable, even glamorous, but experts are drawing attention to the high environmental cost of building them
The Best Cities for Low Carbon Emissions Aren’t the Tallest
A dense urban layout of low-rise buildings is more climate-friendly than one packed with skyscrapers, a new study says.
www.bloomberg.com
Claiming its a factor (though really not in this case) would be okay but you said it was the only reason. Plenty of other things make housing unaffordable such as the cost of land, cost of construction & what people are being paid. There’s no utopia where if we just allowed building everywhere it would all be fine.
editor
hiraethified
Makes you wonder how so many big towers get built all over the UK every year when there's supposedly an all-powerful set of NIMBYs who can crush any development at will.
Or is it only the ones offering affordable housing and office space?
You know, the ones that no one ever gets to hear about because the NIMBYs have somehow g0t the plans crushed before they've even been publicly proposed.
Or is it only the ones offering affordable housing and office space?
You know, the ones that no one ever gets to hear about because the NIMBYs have somehow g0t the plans crushed before they've even been publicly proposed.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And the context was a tower block.
editor
hiraethified
That contained zero housing, affordable or otherwise.
Similar threads
