Same old arguement -

[observer]

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.

[Bill]

Of course they could use the same logic as the road planners and do absolutely nothing in the hope that the subsequent high prices and overcrowding will dissuade people from having families.

 

Bill

[inky pete]

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?

[observer]

Presumably, they're both 2 storey buildings?! A 15 storey building, would presumably deliver a higher return for the same foot-print?

[Dizzy]

15 storeys 'a higher return' yes for the footprint but not a place most people/familes would want to live in Obs..... the word 'hell' suddenly springs to mind

[observer]

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.

[Evil Sid]

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.

[inky pete]

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.

[observer]

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?

[Egbert]

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.

[Cleopatra]

Good idea! Reduce childbirth to leave space for the immigrants. How about stopping immigration instead? That may reduce the demands for accomodation, eh?

Blimey! I'm surprised observer didn't think of that!

[observer]

That's part of the reason for my objections to immigration in the first place Cleo - there's simply not enough seats on the UK lifeboat.

[inky pete]

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?

 

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.

[Lt Kije]

Flats in high rises are normally cheaper to rent or buy that other flats, with the exception of flats in big cities such as London.

[observer]

With more folk living above a given building footprint, I would think your fair points are balanced by reduced land take, and thus land costs, plus the surrounding road, lighting infrastructure etc.

[Cleopatra]

What's with the footprint observer? Have you learned a new word or summat?

[inky pete]

The building footprint itself may be smaller, although for a four storey block (the highest likely to get planning permission in most places) there's not much in it.

 

The footprint of the building plus the parking space and shared outside space required by building regulations is not.

[observer]

Back to the original post: we can either build OUT or UP.

[Evil Sid]

or down

[wolfie]

Or down and out.

[Davy51]

Is the block of flats still on the corner of Kingsway & Grange Ave. & am i right in thinking that is the only high rise block in Warrington ?

[Cleopatra]

There is also Peninsula House in O'Leary Street Orford.

[observer]

Seems the Government are going to pre-empt this debate, by opening up a free for all development of Green Belt Land - typical Tory myopia.

[grey_man]

It's not myopia. They know exactly what they are doing. It's the result of a powerful lobby of developers who donate to Tory party funds. The same lobby that has been encouraging the government to sell off school playing fields.

[observer]

Which amounts to the short term interests of their Party trumping the long term interests of the nation - myopic.