"David" wrote things in message
...
In article 43a80604$0$34216

Mr Prescott has increased building
density to 14 houses per acre thinking
that more "units" would be built quicker
meeting their targets.

How does that work then John?

More an an acre. You are slow.

Bertie is suggesting quotas of use, etc.
Quotas never work. The free market
should take over. There should planning/building
control regs on minimum sizes of rooms,
ceilings, door widths, house proportion in
relation to garden, etc.

I'm not suggesting quotas at all, the
15% is house to garden proportion
as in many other countries but as
your in agreement with this anyway how
would this fit in with the 14 houses per
acre allowance that this
government has brought in?

Bertie, I said I did not agree with wonderful Prescott.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

[] :

I've never seen any disadvantage in strip development along roads,



Among the key disadvantages are the high infrastructure costs and the
fact that you need a certain number of people within walking distance
to support public transport, a newsagent or whatever. Spread out the
housing and you then need to use a car. Which may well cause problems
at the place all these suburbanites drive to.



Nothing wrong with strip development at all. What do people want?
Poeple, crammed into to high rises? The NUMBY bumpkins do.


Numpty/nimby cross?


If had my way, I would build a very high density Barrett estate with
ranch style fencing, next to you.

No room next to me mate. I'm surrounded by 2 up/ 2 downs, factories, run
down shops, and pubs you wouldn't venture into.

I hope it stays that way.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
It is right for some people, definitely not for families with
children. The reason that people here hate high-rise is that we made
such a mess of it in the 1960's: poor construction, poor management
and the wrong occupiers.

And no decent local infrastructure. You mentioned your place will be
within easy walking distance of where you want to go - ie nice shops,
restaurants, entertainment, etc. This wasn't the case with many high
density council estates.

How is it in your sink estate?

"David" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"David" wrote stuff in message
. ..
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

But the planning system herds us all into
dense towns and cities. preventing
the sales. Nevertheless the large
landowners will not sell up, or very
little of the land they own. They never
have and never will. They have to
be forced in some way, and LVT will
dwindle their stranglehold on the land
to greater good of us all.

"contrary to popular belief, we are not
living on a crowded and urbanised
island, but only in crowded and extremely
dense cities."

Only because people want to John,

Bertie, they don't. Currently you
don't have a choice. We are crowded into
urban areas. Read the links to the
documents Tony and I gave.

Given a free choice people will drive
just out of town until they find a
clear space and then build a house on it,

Bertie, some will.

it will mean all the large
cities and towns will just get
larger, most folk don't want to live in
the country they want to live in
towns and cities or on the edge of them

Bertie stop guessing, as yiou are a bad guessser. Read the documents.

"Our rigid and nationalised planning system is also delivering the wrong
kind of housing. In a March 2005 MORI poll, 50 per cent of those
questioned
favoured a detached house and 22 per cent a bungalow. Just 2 per cent
wanted
a low rise flat and 1 per cent a flat in a high rise block. But houses and
bungalows use more land, so while in 1990 about an eighth of newly built
dwellings were apartments, by 2004 this had increased to just under a
half."

"Our housing compares poorly by international standards too. Britain has
some of the smallest and oldest housing in Europe, and what is being built
now is even smaller than the existing stock. Yet despite this, house
prices in the UK have risen much more strongly than other developed
countries, meaning that despite real growth in our incomes we are not able
to afford more and better housing, in the way that we can afford better
cars
and food as we get wealthier."

"Recent research into the impact of increased urban densities concluded
that
'urban compaction' results in a loss of urban environmental quality and
'questioned whether the loss of environmental quality and urban character
in
low density housing areas is a price worth paying'. To put those questions
more directly than academic researchers might do: do we want gardens to be
more and more expensive and, eventually, built over? Do we want the few
low
density urban conservation areas we
have to be destroyed in order to preserve a few acres of countryside that
few can visit? Do we want the whole of every urban area to be covered in
tarmac? Should we not keep some trees in urban areas? Do we want playing
fields to gradually disappear as being uneconomic, given the price of
land?
Do we want future generations to live walled up in urban areas in blocks
of
flats? Do we want biodiversity to be reduced as the scientific evidence
shows that it would be?"

Most city folk just want a weekend cottage out of town.

And why not, we have an abundance of space for it, and it will create jobs
in country areas.

I believe in releasing more land for housing
but not just so that people can build/buy
houses as a second home,

Why not? What is wrong with that?

As far as I'm
concerned any thing after your main
residence should be taxed to the hilt.

Why? What harm is a nice house in the country doing? Bertie Read the
documents. Don't make things up.

[Dave Plowman (News)] :
And no decent local infrastructure. You mentioned your place will be
within easy walking distance of where you want to go - ie nice shops,
restaurants, entertainment, etc. This wasn't the case with many high
density council estates.

Agreed 100%. Where I will be there is a coffee/lunch shop with a direct
entrance from our foyer, 7/11 convenience store, great pizza place,
cafe, newsagents on the same block, tram stop outside the front door
(St Kilda beach 10 minutes, 8 trams/hour each way). The list of
amenities within 10 minutes walk is too long to recite. And when I get
old and decrepit there is a doctor's surgery across the road and
chemist on the next block. In this location owning a car will be pretty
pointless: I'll just hire one for a monthly 'big shop' or weekends
away.

There are loads of low density suburbs that Drivel would have us
believe are the way forward (Melbourne has roughly the same footprint
as Greater London and just 3 million people) which are fine if you have
a car, but if you can't drive for any reason then you would probably
feel pretty isolated.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

It is right for some people, definitely not for families with
children. The reason that people here hate high-rise is that we made
such a mess of it in the 1960's: poor construction, poor management
and the wrong occupiers.



And no decent local infrastructure. You mentioned your place will be
within easy walking distance of where you want to go - ie nice shops,
restaurants, entertainment, etc. This wasn't the case with many high
density council estates.


No problem with high rises in prosperous areas with owner occupiers.
Thatcher was right about that.


Are you actually saying she was right about something? Well she did
look after Bumpkins didn't she, as those retards voted for her.



Right about that, right about the unions, and probably right about the
poll tax.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

[] :

I've never seen any disadvantage in strip development along roads,




Among the key disadvantages are the high infrastructure costs and the
fact that you need a certain number of people within walking distance
to support public transport, a newsagent or whatever. Spread out the
housing and you then need to use a car. Which may well cause problems
at the place all these suburbanites drive to.




Nothing wrong with strip development at all. What do people want?
Poeple, crammed into to high rises? The NUMBY bumpkins do.



Numpty/nimby cross?



If had my way, I would build a very high density Barrett estate with
ranch style fencing, next to you.


No room next to me mate. I'm surrounded by 2 up/ 2 downs, factories,
run down shops, and pubs you wouldn't venture into.


I hope it stays that way.

Thank you for your kind wishes.