High rises work well only if the tenants are educated, civilised,
responsible people. If the tenants are the slob/yob element,
the shared sections like the lifts, stairs and doorways, become
"polluted" - I won't go into details - and the other tenants stop
caring and the whole building, indeed estate, becomes a slum.

Blocks of flats in Kensington are immaculate and much sought
after because of the people who live in them.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:27:09 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
High rises work well only if the tenants are educated, civilised,
responsible people. If the tenants are the slob/yob element,
the shared sections like the lifts, stairs and doorways, become
"polluted" - I won't go into details - and the other tenants stop
caring and the whole building, indeed estate, becomes a slum.

Blocks of flats in Kensington are immaculate and much sought
after because of the people who live in them.

Ditto the Barbican. However scum will ruin an area no matter what the
architecture, its something neither the 60s planners nor the people now
obsessed with knocking down the 60s blocks and replacing them with houses seem
to understand.

--
Spud

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:44:57 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...



Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in
order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to 200K
(other price bands are available)

There is no silver bullet. It will take time for the free market to
find its equilibrium.

well yes

that is why I said they were failing to solve it.

It will take a big crash with a lot of casualties to get back to
equilibrium. I thought 2007 was it, but no the Tories managed to magic up a
new boom (as the only way that they were going to get re-elected)

The socialist Gordon Brown was in office in 2007.

About fifteen years back Japan was in trouble. Several banks were
illiquid. Instead of following Milton Friedman advised the Japanese
Government to allow the banks to fail, take the pain and move on.

Instead Japan took the Keynesian approach, printed money and bailed
out the banks. Their economy has stagnated since.

In 2008 RBS and HBOS were illiquid. Having seen Japan's follow HMG
followed their example. Had we let RBS and HBOS fail the guilty would
have been punished. The depositors were insured anyway. The pain
would have passed. We would now be in recovery.

On the basis of past evidence, I don't expect it in my lifetime (not my
problem)

Because the private sector will have to build at today's land prices of
100K
per plot, plus 100K per build and be left with zero profit and zero
overhead for financing and sales costs. End result - bankrupt private
builder.

We have to break the high land costs before we can ask the private sector
to
get involved. Nothing else will work (IMHO)

Then I have bad news for you: They are not making any more land. Its
price will rise.

As I said previously, I don't care

They may not be making any more land but they could double the amount that
is built on and only the Nimbies would notice

And, tenants tend to respect another person
property, more so than public property.

I don't see how the builder of the property changes the owner/tenant
relationship

To be clear I was referencing the property owner. People tend, only
tend mind, to respect private property above public property. Not
saying that is right. It is the way it is.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating sale or rental, just an increase in overall
supply

We should be looking at a new crop of new towns.

That doesn't negate from my proposal

These could be at
key nodes on the East-West Rail link, extending down to Didcot at one
end and towards Felixstowe at the other.

But:

Nimbies!

I'll give you one example. I have just moved from a town that is about
one
notch up from "you really don't want to live here unless you have to" and
the only reason people do live there is because it is "affordable" and has
excellent rail connections (to London). The town council have planes for
a
20,000 estate on the edge of town.

And all the nimbies complain, "we don't want out town to get any bigger",
"it would change the character of the town" (like it had one to lose)
etc...
None of the complaints are about "genuine" concerns like the towns
facilities couldn't cope, because they can, but that would be a major
concern in many places

That is an issue. But look at the original Garden Cities, and the
post WWII New Towns. They have worked pretty well. And they coped
with London's overspill.

and look at all the shouting from the Nimbies when they proposed a dozen new
locations for the incorrectly names Ecotowns

The London Boroughs should be looking at densification around key
transit nodes with high rise developments for singles and empty
nesters.

High rises are the pits.

You think so?

Sure.

The high rise units going up in Battersea have no shortage of buyers.
Your taste is not universally shared.

Let me emphasize high rise living is not for families of five. They
are for singles and couples whose children have grown.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:04:25 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:
In 2008 RBS and HBOS were illiquid. Having seen Japan's follow HMG
followed their example. Had we let RBS and HBOS fail the guilty would
have been punished. The depositors were insured anyway. The pain

Insured only up to a certain amount. I see no reason why people should lose
some of their life savings because of a bunch of greedy sociopaths in the
City.

would have passed. We would now be in recovery.

And plenty of ordinary savers would be ruined.

Let me emphasize high rise living is not for families of five. They
are for singles and couples whose children have grown.

Works in the far east. But there tends to be less loutish behaviour in those
societies.

--
Spud

In article , d wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:04:25 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:

Let me emphasize high rise living is not for families of five. They
are for singles and couples whose children have grown.

Works in the far east. But there tends to be less loutish behaviour in those
societies.

Works to a limited extent in Scotland - 3-5 story tenements are common
in cities, villa flats (often look like large semis, but made up of 4
flats) are common further out.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

In article ,
e27002 aurora wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
.. .



Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to 200K
(other price bands are available)

There is no silver bullet. It will take time for the free market to
find its equilibrium.

I hesitate to wade in here, but I see no reason to suppose that a free
market should ever find an equilibrium per se.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:44:57 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
m...



Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million
houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in
order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to
200K
(other price bands are available)

There is no silver bullet. It will take time for the free market to
find its equilibrium.

well yes

that is why I said they were failing to solve it.

It will take a big crash with a lot of casualties to get back to
equilibrium. I thought 2007 was it, but no the Tories managed to magic up
a
new boom (as the only way that they were going to get re-elected)

The socialist Gordon Brown was in office in 2007.

I know

I wasn't referring to GB saving the world

I was referring to the magical rabbit that the Tories pulled out of the hat
in revamping the housing market in 2013. (After the initial dip it had been
flat as a pancake for 5 years)

Up until then, they were odds on to lose the next election

High rises are the pits.

You think so?

Sure.

The high rise units going up in Battersea have no shortage of buyers.
Your taste is not universally shared.

Let me emphasize high rise living is not for families of five. They
are for singles and couples whose children have grown.

Even to these demographics they are less than desirable if they are not very
well kept.

And they are impossible to escape from if there's a fire :-(

tim

"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
In article , d wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:04:25 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:

Let me emphasize high rise living is not for families of five. They
are for singles and couples whose children have grown.

Works in the far east. But there tends to be less loutish behaviour in
those
societies.

Works to a limited extent in Scotland - 3-5 story tenements are common
in cities, villa flats (often look like large semis, but made up of 4
flats) are common further out.

I wasn't considering 5 stories as high rise. I have twice lived in a block
this size, but whenever I have viewed a block say 20 stories it has never
appealed - there are just too many minuses

tim

"tim....." wrote

Let me emphasize high rise living is not for families of five. They
are for singles and couples whose children have grown.

Even to these demographics they are less than desirable if they are not
very
well kept.

And they are impossible to escape from if there's a fire :-(


30-floor office blocks are death-traps ?

Evidence ?

Mind you you have to allow for wheelchair users and indeed mothers who can't
afford to move elsewhere.

--
Mike D

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote

Let me emphasize high rise living is not for families of five. They
are for singles and couples whose children have grown.

Even to these demographics they are less than desirable if they are not
very
well kept.

And they are impossible to escape from if there's a fire :-(


30-floor office blocks are death-traps ?

You don't sleep in office blocks

The occupants are expected to be able to evacuate the building before the
fire is established - but it doesn't always happen.

This isn't the case in domestic property


Evidence ?

your own intelligence

just try it. go and look at the average high rise property for sale/rent
and ask yourself "how would I escape from a fire in the middle of the night
which stated whilst I was asleep?"

tim