Getting on the property ladder

[reds4ever]

"Space" is thing. I've been over to Canada and everyone in the 'burbs has got a swimming pool!! Seems that if you can get out of the cities the land is cheap,

[Provost Harrison]

I have successfully managed to avoid areas like this...Thamesmead is an example - it's been around for decades, and is quite a large town in it's own right, but some of the 60s stuff was awful concrete blocks, and since then there has been the usual homogeneous sea of Barratt houses - with next to no public transport connections...just a lengthy walk or bus ride to Abbey Wood/Plumstead/Woolwich stations...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
You guys have too much room to need tight terraces. When you've got ~60 million people on a small island, space becomes a premium. I expect only Japan is more dense.

We've got residential buildings here* that are over 40 storeys. Those probably taller than commercial buildings in smaller cities.




* Not Japan

[DanS]

I think it has been pointed out before, but just to reiterate: high rises are not the most dense way to arrange housing. Anything above about 10 storeys doesn't increase density. Case in point is Chicago, which has lots of skyscraper residences of 60 to 80 storeys, but is not terribly dense of a city. In contrast, Paris mostly consists of 4-6 storey buildings and is very dense.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And this is exactly the problem. Use those brownfield sites first of all...

while it's certainly true that a lot more could be done to (re)develop brownfield sites, this in itself raises a whole raft of issues which could probably take up several threads of their own. for example, it's said that there are nearly a million empty properties in the UK, so just get people into moved in to them et voila, no more housing shortage, right? the problem is that many of these properties are in areas with little in the way of infrastructure, jobs, and with high levels of crime and depravation. in short places where no one with the wherewithal to buy a house would want to live. these 'slums' can be cleared and redeveloped with new housing, new schools, places of work, roads and other infrastructure etc. but this is of course extremely expensive both in absolute terms and in terms of cost/new homes built.

But if new areas are going to be built, they need to be comprehensive and structured with new transport links and facilities. I was reading about some of these new Thames Gateway developments, and they sound like hellholes because there has just been absolutely no strategy...

totally agree with that.

infrastructure (the lack of it) is also a major issue with rural development. where i live and the surrounding villages have seen over 50 new homes built in the last couple of years, most of these are examples of good brownfield development, there are fact almost no brownfield sites left in the local area now. however as a result the area's infrastructure has nearly reached its limits, if another 50+ homes were built then the local school, doctor's surgery etc. would struggle to cope and the roads would become more congested. the same is more or less true for taunton (nearest town to me), there are around 50,000 people there and it's a nice place to live/work but i'm absolutely certain that the road network especially could not cope with significant new development and the extra people that would bring (i don't know about the schools etc.). the point here is that these places, and i would imagine most rural areas could not cope with a lot of new building without a very significant investment in infrastructure.

[Standup]

Surrey isn't gonna be covered with Barrat homes, and in fact it's too hard to build in rural Britain. That's partly why the cities are choking, because of the Nimbyism of people who've moved out of town and want it all to themselves. The Greenbelt thing has become a dogma

It is Nimbyism and that's why I partly feel selfish but I don't believe more houses if the answer. The train i catch into London is so crowded that you can't get off some days if you want to get off before the final destination. The local school is vastly over subscribed, The local doctors has just doubled in size and you still struggle for appointments.

As cockney says you need to do a whole lot more to solve this than just build in the greenbelt.

population density

Interesting reading. The UK is number 33.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
I think it has been pointed out before, but just to reiterate: high rises are not the most dense way to arrange housing. Anything above about 10 storeys doesn't increase density. Case in point is Chicago, which has lots of skyscraper residences of 60 to 80 storeys, but is not terribly dense of a city. In contrast, Paris mostly consists of 4-6 storey buildings and is very dense.

You don't know dense until you have visited here.

[Jon Miller]

I thought I had heard once that Porta-Prince Haiti was the densest place in the world

JM

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Standup


Until a recent change in the way credit ratings were done people living at the same address as you but with no financial connection could get you a bad credit rating. Supposedly this has been resolved now so your lodger/brother/girlfriend ect shouldn't mess your change of getting credit..

Thats just nasty. I'm guessing with those rules, all students wanted to keep their parent's address for as long as possible.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


One thing to note is that sometimes there is a danger discount in the city in the US that might not exist in London, for instance. As stated, my apartment was in a marginal area.

I think every town/city has less desirable areas. In Calgary there is a noted crack whore area thats much cheaper and places near the airport always seem to go at a bit of a discount.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Standup

The train i catch into London is so crowded that you can't get off some days if you want to get off before the final destination. The local school is vastly over subscribed, The local doctors has just doubled in size and you still struggle for appointments.

In calgary the local commuter train is starting to experience "backwards riders". Since too many jobs are congregated in the downtown core, during rush hour people closer to downtown can't even squeeze on the train. So many of them hop the train in the opposite direction for a few stops just to get on . . .

Its actually made the closer in housing (thats not quite in the core) LESS desirable (especially in winter when walking/cycling is less attractive)