Do We Hate High Density Housing?

[Hypognosis]

I've been waiting for an excuse to start a thread about this for some time and found just the thing I needed

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1302400-3.html

emmie wrote:-
//from figures elicited some time ago to the same sort of thread, 70 percent on UK is farmland, so suggest we start getting rid of much of it and build more houses, because that is what we will have to do, and i reiterate i was not just talking of London, where the majority of you don't live, and it has never been as cosmopolitan as it is now. //

Why pave over yet more fields? Goodness knows with the world's population heading for 11 billion by 2050, we're going to need all the growing capacity we've got AND continue to import vast quantities from overseas.

Don't forget that, in WWII, farmers were pretty much ordered (by the Ministry) to bring all their scrubland, marshy and semi-useless marginal farmland into producing some crop or other. Even though the population, then, was less than it is now, we were still heavily dependent on imported food.

To my mind, we became overpopulated in the first place because we had the empire and had the collective wealth to support large families all round.

I think the mistake Britain made was to build tower blocks and put the poor people into them, whilst the middle class retained their ideal of own-house-with-garden.

In America, they had the sense to build apartment blocks for the wealthy and make a packet in the process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/realestate/a-sellers-market-for-manhattans-new-luxury-condos.html?adxnnl=1&;adxnnlx=1388241201-dVG0uSYZxh1ZC4Rt/e3fQg

I'd welcome your thoughts. I wasnted to ask "Why do we hate high density housing" but let's first establish whether we do or we don't, eh?

[jomifl]

One of the problems with post war high rise housing was the lack of appreciation of the need for more than enough rooms to live in. Most people who had not been brought up in high rise carried with them a need for additional facilities, somewhere to dry or air their laundry, to carry out their hobbies, somewhere to sit outside in the summer, somewhere to keep their bike, tools for DIY etc.
I don't know what facilities modern high rises have but the post war high rises were very restrictive and made some of the inhabitants feel like 2nd class citizens.

[emmie]

as a family growing up we were put into social housing, as were some of our neighbours, when the streets we lived in were pulled down.
All those people worked, they weren't abject poor, so to suggest that those in social housing caused the problem is not quite correct,
once those people moved away, the families having grown up and wanted a different life, space, some to live outside of the capital, then those properties were left to rot by the idiot councils, many of the estates were poorly built, and did start to crumble and had to be demolished, those that didn't ended up being used for druggies, criminals, and unemployed, so the whole thing spiralled out of control.

[woofgang]

why did you need an excuse?

[emmie]

plenty of housing in the capital was perfectly usable, if the councils had the nous to actually modernise them, those that were bombed obviously couldn't be saved, by many streets went west because of poor planning by local authorities, thinking to house families in brand new homes.
high rise flats do not suit everyone, i hated one place we were in on the 7th floor, where the lift broke down regularly... so schlepping up and down 7 floors was mad, carrying bags, shopping a nightmare.

[Hypognosis]

@ ladybirder

//Doesn't that depend on how they got their money? //

I like that question. :)

Money is money. Class is about behaviour and how you treat others (especially those not related to you). Getting the two mixed up is an easy mistake to make.

[emmie]

just one part of this massive estate, its now mostly covered with graffiti


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=heygate+estate&client=firefox-a&hs=Aoz&;rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&;tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=ngCIYIm3Njio7M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQAVJCgKlEyB5DuCMWTNeT6TbLZUeKkatq7kPr9yn2LAqtZxSE6Kg%253B1600%253B1200%253BXHk-GpDeUyagmM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fsouthwarknotes.wordpress.com%25252Fheygate-estate%25252F&sa=X&ei=aX7BUvigI9LxhQev04DoCw&ved=0CD0Q9QEwAg&;biw=1076&bih=402&dpr=1.25#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ngCIYIm3Njio7M%3A%3BXHk-GpDeUyagmM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsouthwarknotes.files.wordpress.com%252F2009%252F12%252Fheygateblock.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsouthwarknotes.wordpress.com%252Fheygate-estate%252F%3B1600%3B1200

[emmie]

woof, what that directed at me?

[emmie]

some i have known who had so much money they didn't know what to do with it, were ***, those i have known with little were kindness personified, money isn't the problem, it's how you use it.

[Hypognosis]

I acknowledge that it is important to re-examine the notable failures of the past but the 'monstrosities' and communities dragging themselves downhill and all that negative imagery - was that entirely because it was state intervention and social engineering at work?

If it involves privately owned inner-city land, privately funded design and construction and an apartment price tag that would make house-in-the-country types wince, would that overcome our reservations about returning to schemes like these.

When any other city is featured on the news, it seems to be tall buildings everywhere. In London, it seems no-one is allowed to build anything which might blot out the view of St Paul's.

Unless they're a bank or a mega-corp... (grin, duck and run)

[Hypognosis]

@woofgang

by 'excuse', perhaps I meant 'a prompt'. I spend so much time reading other threads I forget about the things I want to ask. Doh!

[Zacs-Master]

//Our capitals parklands should be left alone for those of us who wish to get some much needed rest and recuperation, even for a hour or so.//
A sort of Inverted NiMBYism in evidence there emmie

[emmie]

we have many new private housing developments going up in the capital, most out of the reach of ordinary folk, the cost of buying is prohibitive. You can buy if prepared to do so with several others, partner or friend, but a singleton couldn't have a hope, our property prices have shot through the roof, as has rents, its a place people want to live in, but joe bloggs is being priced out. Many of these new builds are being sold to foreign companies to rent out, as investments. And social housing is not being kept up, repaired, our borough has had a policy for a long while, longer than Mrs T and right to buy, of flogging off social housing.

[emmie]

why, parks should be as intended, to walk, admire the greenery, and indeed laze in, the capital is excessively noisy, so if you can find some peace, even for a little time why should it be spoiled. I love our parks, especially Regents Park, its beautiful and needs cherishing. Hyde Park has seen so many concerts, gigs, that's its a wonder anyone still lives in the area, and as you know it's not all posh bods.

[emmie]

not so, much of the Thames is being or been redeveloped, Canary Wharf for business and living, and many many new office buildings have gone up, not least the Shard, personally i find these glass boxes or towers an eyesore, used for office workers alone. Many of our beautiful and historical buildings like St Paul's are being dwarfed like NY with these edifices. Stand on Waterloo Bridge and look towards Canary Wharf and you would see what i mean, the gloves are off by way of building tall towers,

[Zacs-Master]

Emmie, if you dislike where you live so much, why do you still live there?

[Hypognosis]

There was that thread about cycling in London recently, which I didn't have time to read in full. All the same, my immediate thought turned out not to be an original one after all...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25549789

Somewhat disappointingly, the proposal is into the 3-digit millions in terms of cost and and unbelievable 20 fridging years to complete.

If we had the common sense to live close to where we worked, we wouldn't need all this infrastructure.

On the other hand the standard equation is that the corporations want the pool of labour and talent to be as big as possible and as close to their HQ as possible. Bad news if you live in a peninsular (and, I fear, they see Scotland as one big pensinsular). (Try not to get sidetracked by this comment, if you can chastise me elsewhere, I'd be obliged).

Solving the equation by moving workers to an accommodation block right next door solves the commute problem but can have a nightmarish quality whereby the employer owns your house.

In the USA, the employer only owns their health insurance. Look how compliant they all are.

[emmie]

i love and hate it in equal measure, the biggest reason for not moving is money. if i win the lottery, or inherit i probably would.

[emmie]

thats the problem - many years ago most people did live near to where they worked, if you worked on the land generally you lived near by, if a factory, many towns were built to accommodate the workers, same for the mines, our families all worked in similar businesses, and lived, socialised together, we now have a much more mobile society, indeed world, getting on a plane is easy peasy, getting on a train the same, finding work in another area would depend on what one does, but the world has changed from what our grand parents did, as one would expect.

[Zacs-Master]

It's not good to even half hate where you live. I could turn you into a bitter individual. Surely you could afford to move? As you have stated, prices are sky high so surely the garden if England could offer you some sanctuary.

[emmie]

some of our land you can't build on, because it's designated areas of outstanding beauty, national parks, New Forest, surrounding small towns by the Lake District, and then as i said before farmland. If they did start buying it up, or the farmers can't afford to keep it on, what happens about supply of home produce, do we keep on importing ever more, big problem...