John Cartmell wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

In the 1800s, with nearly zero regulation, anything went, and
everything was built. The free market addressed quality issues as
usual. Generally the good stuff survives, and the bad is almost
entirely erased. The result was the country gradually built up an
increasing stock of quality builds.

Are you forgetting the people who lived at eg 22 Back Blacow Street Preston -

am not familiar with the address unfortunately. There was a lot of very
poor housing in Victorian times, and I believe I addressed that
question.

Firstly the financial situation is very different today, and we can
afford safe functional minimum standards. This is what housing regs
initially were. But they have mission crept a long way from that now.

Second, information is free flowing enough to permit widespread use of
independant standards companies for those who want better stadards than
basic. NHBC is one such organisation, not one I'd especially recommend,
but it does have certain standards and meansures for redress. Its a
fairly poor example, but its one standards option for buyers. If our
current regs were trimmed back to what is required, more such standards
companies would set up, including at least one that works to the
current national BRs.

Differing sets of standards would allow each new buyer to choose
according to their desires and budget, with safe and functional
building practice carried out in every case.

The array of standards would permit quicker open assessment of options,
and democratically chosen shifts in what standards are used. As an
example, the mandating of whole house RCDs would have been part of some
companies standards, rather than a nationwide requirement. The
requirement for 6' deep foundations on a 1 storey bathroom added to a
stable Victorian 9" founded building would again be part of some
companies standards, but not all. With the free flow of information
today, prospective buyers could easily either find out the merits and
issues with each company, or choose to simply go with a large well
known brand name. Or, if they have sufficient understanding of the
issues themselves, they would be free to specify what they wanted, if
they wanted.


Just because some of the houses that were built at the time - that my
g'g'g'grandfather couldn't afford to live in anyway - have survived OK doesn't
mean that there was anything good about non-regulation.

that much is fairly obvious.


If you have any doubt I could give you a detailed description of life in a
non-regulation house.

Uncoincidentally I lived in one for 9 months or so, and am glad I was
fortunate enough to do so. It was very basic, had a steel roof, and
enabled me to save up lots of money, which at the time was precisely
what I wanted. It really opened my eyes to this whole question to some
extent. Its an experience I'm fortunate to have had. It has eliminated
those illfounded fears most people today in Britain have.

As I said, the mistakes of the Victorian period are easy to avoid
today. What is I think not so well appreciated is that all the
complicating attempts to avoid minor issues today are ending up costing
us far more than living with the minor issues that were part of the
middle ground of Victorian buildings.

Lets say - and this is only a finger in the air for the moment, due to
the difficulty of putting exact figuers on it - I could buy a new build
in todays system for 200k, and work full time for 25 year paying it off
- paying aruond 400k in total due to interest over a long time. Or,
under the approach I suggest, I could buy the land for 30k, spend 6
months full time constructing my own house, for material cost of maybe
another 30k, and incur total additional downline costs of up to 5k in
maintenance/repair as a result. Now thats a total cost of 60 upfront, 5
downline, as opposed to 200 upfront, and will take me _less_ than 1/3
the time to pay off. I need hardly ask which is the better way to buy a
house!

Nor need I ask what numerous improvements in quality I could afford to
incorporate at those prices.

House building is a process clogged to near standstill by our current
level of regulation. For most of us on this ng our housebuilding plans
are stopped dead. For commercial builders they have to jump through so
many hoops that prices are truly excessive.

It all stems from the modern fashion for naivety and simplicity, the
expectation and desire for perfectly issue free lives. We have invested
so much in the quest for better housing that it has ended up costing us
out of all proportion to the initial problem. It has ended up causing a
far bigger cost problem than it is solving. Todays cure is worse than
the disease of imperfect housing. The cure is 5x the cost of the
problem.

Just ask yourself why we live in houses similar to 100 years ago,
despite the huge leaps in material wealth that have ben made since
then. Our housing policies are so inappropriate they keep us stuck some
ways in the Victorian era. The cart is now before the horse.

Drivel is right about planning and land ownership, if nothing else.


NT