Politics Thread!

[k345y]

But now a developer may be able to build swathes crap houses with no supporting infrastructure and no thought given to area plans. In 20 years they'll be problems estates and then slums.

Kinda what I was about to say.

[Dio]

More likely, in London, it'll be about huge skyscrapers with no consideration of the environmental impact and no social or affordable housing provision. The councils have been fighing those for ages.

[pogo]

More likely, in London, it'll be about huge skyscrapers with no consideration of the environmental impact and no social or affordable housing provision. The councils have been fighing those for ages.

Good. As to me “environmental impact” is often code for “nothing must change”, i.e. precisely the thing to invoke if you want no houses built. As for affordable housing, all you need to do is build more houses. Build enough and prices will come down to more reasonable and eventually affordable levels.

I don’t see it leading to huge skyscrapers though. Developers would be allowed to extend buildings. Even if there’s a nearby tower block you are not going to add a dozen floors onto a three storey house: it would not be structurally sound. You would need to demolish it and build new but that as new build would presumably need permission.

[tufty]

<facepalm>

[gravy]

This man used to teach our kids

[pogo]

This man used to teach our kids

Not yours no. Yes, inelegantly expressed but my point was that I dislike people invoking “environmental impact” when objecting to housing. There’s no way we will build the houses we need without some environmental impact. And there’s also no need to bring up affordable housing, which just skews incentives when required of developers. Build enough houses and they become affordable, as cheap even as around here where demand has been depressed for a while.

[zip accident]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

[Dio]

As for affordable housing, all you need to do is build more houses. Build enough and prices will come down to more reasonable and eventually affordable levels.

I don't think that buildings entirely composed of luxury apartments designed to be sold to foreigners are really what London needs, but that's exactly what builders want to build and what councils want to stop.

[tufty]

'sheds with beds' … Even better if you can do it within the planning laws, so safe and legal, and probably charge even more.

Are you somehow missing the "are London's modern day slums" bit on the end of the title of the video you linked, or are you too fixated on the "rented at £800/week" bit? Actually, don't bother answering that. I think we all know the answer.

Architecturally, it's a disaster waiting to happen. There's a lot of architecture in London that deserves to be protected and / or treated with respect. Slapping extra floors on it all is not going in the right direction. That's part of the "environmental concerns". Extra floors == less sky, less light, as well. that's environmental, too.

As has been pointed out, the idea of the 50s and 60s tower block developments was "villages in the sky", and we know how they ended. What you're cheering here is nowhere near as idealistic - rather a carte blanche for the unscrupulous to install tenements on their rooftops.

London's already crammed with shitty flat conversions. It doesn't need more crap shoved on the top..

[pogo]

'sheds with beds' … Even better if you can do it within the planning laws, so safe and legal, and probably charge even more.

Are you somehow missing the "are London's modern day slums" bit on the end of the title of the video you linked, or are you too fixated on the "rented at £800/week" bit? Actually, don't bother answering that. I think we all know the answer.

They are slums because they are illegal. There is no incentive to make them safe and homely as if a building inspector comes to check he will soon be on to the planning dept, and maybe immigration enforcement. Plus providing too many facilities such as proper plumbing, a full kitchen etc. will make it much harder to convince planners that they not illegally occupied.

Remove planning restrictions and with more and more legal extensions, extra floors and rooms being added and there will be much less need for sheds with beds. Eventually they should disappear though it might take a while: it needs rents to come down to levels so paying £800/m to live in a shed no longer attractive.

[(o)(o)]

They are slums because they are illegal.

Not any more!

Now slum landlords will be able to stack tenants skyhigh whilst extracting exorbitant rents. The landlord forums are already buzzing about it.

Isn't this about building downwards as well?



Here's a clue for you pogo :

Rolex maintain high prices and an 8 year waiting list by controlling supply. It's very VERY deliberate.

Customers don't get any say in the matter.

Just think about that for a second.

[pogo]

Rolex maintain high prices and an 8 year waiting list by controlling supply. It's very VERY deliberate.

Customers don't get any say in the matter.

Just think about that for a second.

The difference is though that Rolex can control the supply of watches, to artificially maintain prices. But there’s no-one in a similar position WRT property. There’s only the government who have overall control of the planning laws. And if they decide to dramatically loosen them it can have a dramatic effect on supply and so prices.

We’ll see what effect it has, but it at least seems like they are doing something, not just making vague promises to get more houses built.

[(o)(o)]

The difference is though that Rolex can control the supply of watches, to artificially maintain prices. But there’s no-one in a similar position WRT property. There’s only the government who have overall control of the planning laws.

Yeah it's not like there's any connection between land owners, developers, financiers, and policy makers.

[(o)(o)]

Gosh!

[(o)(o)]

Crumbs!



etc...