Jump to content

Same old arguement -


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems the Council's new Local Plan has drawn the predictable objections from the usual lobby groups - the enviromental lobby wishing to protect the Green Belt and countryside; whilst developers want more housing. Problem is; as the population grows demand for "affordable" houses increases, but space to build them is finite. Thus the choice is fairly clear, you can either keep building outward on our green and pleasant land, until eventually urban sprawl joins towns with other towns OR you can start to build UP. However, "high rise" doesn't appear to suit the British ideal of the sub-urban semi with it's own garden - but there comes a point where needs must. The bonus of course with "high rise" would presumably be a reduced cost per housing unit provided by higher living densities, which would enable the increasing demand for single occupancy units to be satisfied. It would also allow the re-population and re-generation of our abandoned Town Centres. Of course, one would need to be carefull to avoid the problems associated with the high rise Council developments of the 60's. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bonus of course with "high rise" would presumably be a reduced cost per housing unit provided by higher living densities,

 

So how come all the new build 1 and 2 bed flats in four storey blocks which have have gone up around the town in recent years sell or rent for pretty much the same prices as a 2-up, 2-down terrace in the same area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely, there are many folk who have no probs living in high rise; the Yanks have done it for decades and the demographic demand is for more single occupancy units. However, a clear choice exists - build OUT or build UP OR, as Bill suggests, reduce population levels! This generation may choose to fudge the issue, as with many issues; but eventually circumstances will force a decision. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many empty office buildings are dotted throughout the area along with half empty industrial units that could be built on.

 

Thinking of those near the motorway around I think birchwood which seem to have about three offices filled and about twenty or thirty or so buildings that have permanent to let signs on them.

 

Bonus being that the road infrastructure is already there as well as the drainage and utilities unlike some of the sites that have been proposed for building on. Then there is that large space on winwick road near la bowl that is being demolished or at least looks as though it is being demolished. Seems to have had work ongoing there for about two years and doesn't seem to be any further along.

 

To me would be a better idea than converting old barns, mind you might not be trendy enough for todays market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably, they're both 2 storey buildings?!

 

Nope. Read my post before replying to it.

 

The majority of the new build blocks of flats are at least 3 storey, more usually 4. And the square footage of each unit is lower than that of a 2 bed house.

 

But the price is the same, which proves that higher densities do NOT reduce prices.

 

Plus there are the hidden costs of service charges and maintenance to communal areas for anyone considering buying a flat to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the point that the two-up, two-down terraced houses are probably all well over 100 years old now while the higher-rise flats are relatively new and should (please note italics!) require less maintenance.

 

I think Bill is right. We need to start encouraging families to take steps to reverse population growth and a good start would be to stop paying people to have more children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds counter intuitive - so I presume landlords are milking the market. For a given footprint, logic suggests the more units there are, the cheaper they will be per unit? :unsure:

 

Many things in life appear counter intuitive if you haven't bothered to think them through properly.

 

Your incorrect presumption completely ignores the massively increased cost of steelwork and other structural elements in taller buildings. The increased cost of fire prevention, detection and escape systems. The increased cost and complexity of plumbing systems to provide usable water pressure to higher floors and for adequate removal of waste. The cost of space lost providing communal areas. The cost of complying with the latest building regulations concerning electrical installations, energy performance and sound proofing. The cost - and land requirements - of meeting the regulations on providing off street parking for residents and for the provision of adequate shared outdoor space.

 

When all these are considered, high rise buildings are neither cheaper to build nor more efficient in their use of space than traditional terraced housing.

 

That fact is reflected in selling prices, which obviously knocks on into rental prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...