On Aug 23, 1:33*pm, "It's only me"
wrote:
Proper urban development will beget more business rates and council

tax, so there is local government interest here. *As more homes are

built the market loosens and becomes more affordable.

If there is *an oversupply of offices and shops, rents and therefore rateable values will decrease. There is no sense in having empty commercial properties unless rents are rising quickly. Remember Centre Point?
New build homes have a negligible effect on house values because they are a negligible proportion of thehousingstock. It would take many years of frantic building to have much effect on totalhousingstock supply.
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

In the case of London there is ample opportunity for "Transit Oriented
Development". The principle behind ToD is that the area around
transit nodes is densified while the hinterland remains the domain of
single family homes and other lower density housing.

For example major nodes like Camden Town, Clapham Junction, and West
Hampstead would see high rise (32, 22, 12 floor, depending) condos
over and around the mass transit stations. The hinterlands,
Wandsworth, Hampstead, et al, would remain lower density family
oriented areas.

The dense housing supports flourishing retail at street (and possibly
podium) level. A good example of this is the stretch of Finchley
Road between Swiss Cottage and Finchley Road subway stations. While
not "high rise", this sweep is densely populated. As a result the
commercial life at street level is very good. It supports numerous
retail outlets, restaurants, and other service facilities. This would
include the O2 Centre just to the north of Finchley Road. It is a
pity the centre is built on the old Midland siding, but that is
progress.

As housing becomes more available prices become more affordable.
Folks needed to cover a wide range of employment opportunities are
able to live within easy commuting distance of work.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 wrote:

For example major nodes like Camden Town, Clapham Junction, and West
Hampstead would see high rise (32, 22, 12 floor, depending) condos
over and around the mass transit stations. The hinterlands,
Wandsworth, Hampstead, et al, would remain lower density family
oriented areas.

As a foreigner, I continue to consider curious to consider only the
extrema of very high rise buildings and uni-familiar homes. Here in
Italy in cities ("citta'" which for us can be cities or largish towns)
the most common building range from 4 floor ( 1950) to 8 floor.
Anything higher than that will be a "skyscraper" office building.
Uni-familiar or bi-familiar homes are unusual in cities, and common
instead in "paesi" (small towns or villages).

In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.
--
Roland Perry

On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old
docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard
in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre
jobs.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:10:26 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to mass
immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an extra 2 million
people. If there was any justice in the world Tony Blair would be forced to
rent out the rooms in his mansions.

B2003

"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where I am now there are plans for a further 10,000-15,000 homes on two edge
of town estates, to be linked to the town centre and main-line station by a
"quality" bus service.

There is a political campaign (by the party not in power) against this
development because it doesn't include any new "jobs". Quite how a property
developer (or a local council) are supposed to magically create some local
jobs is beyond me!

This is a dormitory town where everyone who lives here does so because it is
cheap and they commute (by train or car) to somewhere else to work. ISTM
that if there is a need for local improvements it is for the development to
fund a new mainline station as one of the new estates is plonk by the
railway line, but do they think this is necessary? No, of course not!

tim

On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:s
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when the
residents would all need cars to get to jobs.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs arne, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old
docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard
in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre
jobs.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to
rural sites.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 30/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs arne, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old
docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard
in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre
jobs.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to
rural sites.


Some "brownfield" sites are rural. Old RAF airfields for instance I
believe count as brownfield for the purposes of legislation.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, Martin Edwards remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when the
residents would all need cars to get to jobs.

The aim of eco-towns is to get car journeys down to 50% of all trips.
I'm not sure if that counts very local trips, but they should be
provided with enhanced public transport in order to qualify for the
name.
--
Roland Perry