Best Of

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.

Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article

New blocks of flats in Ilford North right next to Barkingside tube, and a big development in Ilford South not far from Goodmayes Elizabeth line.

On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.

That's the problem with the rise of NOTA parties, whether on the left or the right.

It's perfectly understandable that people are a bit miffed with the state of the nation after decades of the old parties in charge. (I'm not sure that we are entitled to be more than a bit miffed- we may no longer be winning top prize in the lottery of life, but we have still got a pretty solid luxury hamper, or a gift voucher for a restaurant we actually want to eat at.)

But most of the solutions put forward by these parties don't stand up to scrutiny. They're not really meant to, because these parties aren't really in it to win it- not on a national level. So it doesn't matter what the policies are. That's certainly true for the Greens and Nats. Realistically, it's where the Lib Dems are right now. And I would (more tentatively) put Reform in the same category.

And the problem with being a NOTA party? What happens when you win and become an AOTA party?

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.

High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

Ah, the Winchburgh Station saga. Permission granted in 2012, no one's bothered to fund it, massive congestion in the west of the city.