The housing crisis (London and beyond)

[editor]

That's not what I said, but laugh all you want, although Vienna is a YIMBY paradise according to this podcaster.

If we had less NIMBY attitudes we could build as much housing as Vienna. There's no reason we couldn't. It just needs normal people to understand the issue.

You keep banging on about NIMBYs but most people have no clue how to complain about proposed developments.

Perhaps you could provide a list of local affordable housing developments that have recently been quashed by all these NIMBYs?

 

[Tulster218]

You keep banging on about NIMBYs but most people have no clue how to complain about proposed developments.

Perhaps you could provide a list of local affordable housing developments that have recently been quashed by all these NIMBYs?

As I've explained before my definition is of NIMBY is anyone who opposes new building development, and that includes people who implicitly oppose new building by remaining silent. That is to say most people are NIMBYs because they don't speak up in favour of new buildings. Governments react to public opinion, and assume that most people don’t want more buildings. By keeping quiet NIMBYs are responsible for the shortage of housing (and commercial space). If there were more development, housing would be better and cheaper. Households would be less crowded and better off financially.

 

[klang]

In fairness, I'm a bit of a nimby when it comes to empty yuppie dwellings and overpriced student blocks.

 

[Tulster218]

In fairness, I'm a bit of a nimby when it comes to empty yuppie dwellings and overpriced student blocks.

Empty dwellings make up a very small part of housing. You've probably been influenced by what you've read or heard rather than what you've experienced.

I think by overpriced you mean expensive, and the answer to expensive housing is to build more, so that tenants can play landlords off against each other. If tenants left to go elsewhere then landlords would soon lower the price or increase the quality. Abundant housing is the best way to keep landlords in check. By being a nimby you're just allowing existing landlords to make more profit, at the expense of students and tenants.

 

[klang]

I think you're putting a bit too much trust into the free market controlling itself.

 

[Tulster218]

I think you're putting a bit too much trust into the free market controlling itself.

The free market isn't controlled. That's why it's free. It accepts that people act in their own self interest.

'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. '

It's better to trust in a system which accepts that people act in their own self interest, than in a system which requires people's generosity and altruism.

 

[teuchter]

On other threads Tulster218 has had some consistency problems in deciding whether they think there should be any development control, through things like the planning process, at all.

Because even if you accept the argument that London's housing prices could be brought down by increasing supply, there's still the question of where that new housing should be built and what form it should take.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Someone's very pleased with themselves for finishing chapter one of Economics for Dummies aren't they.

 

[Tulster218]

On other threads Tulster218 has had some consistency problems in deciding whether they think there should be any development control, through things like the planning process, at all.

Because even if you accept the argument that London's housing prices could be brought down by increasing supply, there's still the question of where that new housing should be built and what form it should take.

Ahh yes, the people who claim to support development, "but not this development and not in my back yard". And they never demand more housing. It's always less housing.

 

[klang]

Please don't make side with nimbys

 

[teuchter]

Ahh yes, the people who claim to support development, "but not this development and not in my back yard". And they never demand more housing. It's always less housing.

So, do you think there should be a planning system that decides what goes where, or not?

 

[Tulster218]

Someone's very pleased with themselves for finishing chapter one of Economics for Dummies aren't they.

Page one. Not even the whole chapter. Page one. Which seems to be more than anybody else has ever read.

 

[Tulster218]

So, do you think there should be a planning system that decides what goes where, or not?

It's true that most of the best buildings around were built before there was much of a planning system: the Trinity Almshouses on Acre Lane in Brixton, the Peabody estates, the gorgeous streets Georgean housing. Old buildings are often the most popular, and they never went through the planning system. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what might get built nowadays if we allowed absolutely anything to be built. I'm a bit of an anarchist at heart. I see favelas and slums in some countries, and they have a certain appeal.

If it were up to me, I'd replace our current discretionary system for a more rules-based system (like Japan or New Zealand). Developers would know in advance what would be acceptable. They'd just have to follow the rules. I'd want a focus on beauty, especially at street level, but most importantly the rules would be much more liberal than they are at the moment.

 

[Gramsci]

I see Tulster218 has brought their free market libertarianism from Brixton forum to here. Good. Tired of getting Tulstars its residents stopping developers housebuilding posts every time a planning issue in Brixton comes up.

 

[Gramsci]

What's needed is to sweep away the restrictions on private enterprise ( ditch planning rules- which are consulted on ) and all would be well.

 

[Gramsci]

I have dealt with planning issues in Brixton area.

Imo planning for all it's faults is part of the democratic process.

Watering it down and making out this is progressive is one of the ways the right make out they are boltstering freedom against the dead hand of vested interest groups like residents .

I

 

[teuchter]

It's true that most of the best buildings around were built before there was much of a planning system: the Trinity Almshouses on Acre Lane in Brixton, the Peabody estates, the gorgeous streets Georgean housing. Old buildings are often the most popular, and they never went through the planning system. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what might get built nowadays if we allowed absolutely anything to be built. I'm a bit of an anarchist at heart. I see favelas and slums in some countries, and they have a certain appeal.

If it were up to me, I'd replace our current discretionary system for a more rules-based system (like Japan or New Zealand). Developers would know in advance what would be acceptable. They'd just have to follow the rules. I'd want a focus on beauty, especially at street level, but most importantly the rules would be much more liberal than they are at the moment.

Would be interested to hear about how a rules-based system with a "focus on beauty" would work, exactly. You would have fully objective beauty-measures so developers would know for sure what was and wasn't acceptable, I assume.

 

[Tulster218]

Would be interested to hear about how a rules-based system with a "focus on beauty" would work, exactly. You would have fully objective beauty-measures so developers would know for sure what was and wasn't acceptable, I assume.

It works fine in Poundsbury. It's not to everyone's taste, but the principal shows that a clear design code can work. It's popular too, at least with the people who live there.

My own views have been shaped by Ruben Hanssen's blog. He says:

• Organise your facade in a clear, readable way, so people can make sense of how load bearing features connect to each other
• Apply some form of ornament to connect separate parts of the building and to offer the fractal & symmetrical qualities people subconsciously connect to
• Prevent the creation of large blank walls or glass facades at eye level. Glass is hard to ‘read’ – people can’t focus their eyes well on it as it is partly reflective, partly translucent.
• Apply (local) symmetry in your design. The building can be asymmetrical if building volumes on both sides of a central axis are ‘balanced’
• Richly detail the facade if possible, with details on various levels of scale, or utilise materials with some pattern to offer fractal qualities in the surface
• Build according to local preferences, history, culture – study the ‘Genius Loci’.
• Use curves in your design wherever possible

I would write a design code, like Poundsbury's but using these ideas. My design code would allow for skyscrapers, obviously.

But although beautiful housing is better than ugly housing, any housing is better than no housing, and at the moment there is almost no new housing being built where it's needed, and that needs to change.

 

[MickiQ]

Oh yes, greedy landlords! It's always greedy landlords.

View attachment 417369

In Urban mythology Landlords are responsible for all the world's ills, if you look closely enough you will see that the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and even the Baltimore bridge collapse can be blamed on them. It's another word for demon around here.
Love the graph by the way.

 

[Tulster218]

Love the graph by the way.

I got it from someone on twitter, who got it from someone on reddit.

 

[Gramsci]

It's true that most of the best buildings around were built before there was much of a planning system: the Trinity Almshouses on Acre Lane in Brixton, the Peabody estates, the gorgeous streets Georgean housing. Old buildings are often the most popular, and they never went through the planning system. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what might get built nowadays if we allowed absolutely anything to be built. I'm a bit of an anarchist at heart. I see favelas and slums in some countries, and they have a certain appeal.

If it were up to me, I'd replace our current discretionary system for a more rules-based system (like Japan or New Zealand). Developers would know in advance what would be acceptable. They'd just have to follow the rules. I'd want a focus on beauty, especially at street level, but most importantly the rules would be much more liberal than they are at the moment.

This isn't anarchism.

Anarchism isn't about letting developers do what they want.

What your saying here is that planning regulations and the planning system as it works now should be scrapped.

Local Plans for each Council require consultation with local residents among others.

Once finalised each planning application has to go through a process of consultation where local residents have right to put in comments and right to speak at a planning committee meeting to oppose or support an application.

Also there is list of local amenity groups for each Council borough who are statutorily consulted on applications. Also consulted on updating of a boroughs Local Plan for that area.

What your really saying is that this aspect of local democracy which so irks people like you should be scrapped and replaced with some kind of rules based system.

This is the opposite imo to democratic participation and miles away from any sort of anarchism.

 

[Gramsci]

Local Plans are there to at least attempt to ensure development is well rounded and things like green space / amenities/ etc are balanced with developers needing to make a profit.

 

[Gramsci]

Btw design isn't just about external appearance.

It's also about space standards for residential flats for example.

Access to balcony space or other outdoor space in a block of flats.

Things like dual aspect flats.

None of which Tulstar is that interested in

As it's not a build them high cram then in side of design.

 

[Gramsci]

If we are on design I'd like to see improved space standards. Some recent flats near me in Brixton and I was told by someone looking at them to buy and they are quite small.

 

[teuchter]

An "anarchist at heart" who takes Poundbury as their model for urban design. Okey dokey.

 

[Elpenor]

My understanding is that the build quality at poundbury especially with the rendered buildings is not exactly fit for a King

 

[Tulster218]

An "anarchist at heart" who takes Poundbury as their model for urban design. Okey dokey.

That's not what I said at all.

What I said that the design code for Poundbury seems to work okay, and I'd use that system for a design code, which would be much more liberal than Poundbury and our present system. I'd include skyscrapers.

The point is that we need more housing. Millions of new homes. People like you quibbling over the minutia of the design is part of the problem. It's because of people like you that we have a housing shortage.

 

[Tulster218]

My understanding is that the build quality at poundbury especially with the rendered buildings is not exactly fit for a King

Irrelevant (even if it's really true).

 

[Gramsci]

The point is that we need more housing. Millions of new homes. People like you quibbling over the minutia of the design is part of the problem. It's because of people like you that we have a housing shortage.

Now we're getting to it.

The housing crisis is caused by whingers.

 

[Gramsci]

Btw Tulstar I know has me on ignore