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. ..

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.

Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?

If it's matched with decent cycling infrastructure the radius can be up to 2 miles.* That's a very large area, particularly if you have reasonable population density - in Edinburgh that's 100,000 to 200,000 people (Midlothian 20-30,000).

*I think that's the max on multi-modal commutes. 1 mile is probably more reasonable.

Indeed, my point was in response to @DecrepiterJohnL's concerns about inadequate car parking.

Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.

I may be being unfair to the people who do this work but anything they come up with can never be checked so how do we know if the resultant images are any better than a random face?

I suppose a test might be to give, say, five top facial image makers the same basic information: skull shape, DNA, etc. and let them independently create their images. If they all look quite similar then, fair enough I'd find that convincing.

You can give them the skull of someone recently deceased and then see if their reconstructions match pictures of the person. Indeed, this is what happens because there isn’t a big marker in reconstructing archaeological discoveries, but the police do find human remains and want to know what the person looked like. In some cases, the identity of the remains is later identified and we can check how closely the reconstruction matches.

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.

Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?

If it's matched with decent cycling infrastructure the radius can be up to 2 miles.* That's a very large area, particularly if you have reasonable population density - in Edinburgh that's 100,000 to 200,000 people (Midlothian 20-30,000).

*I think that's the max on multi-modal commutes. 1 mile is probably more reasonable.

Accidental racism from Starmer.

https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/2001262534545092623

Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."

I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.

One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class

Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.

I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?

Wallets? What are they? I keep my keycard round my neck for the simple reason I've too often been locked out on my way back from the gents.

Just mulling over how the discussion has shifted from lanyards (still mentioned as if they were somehow evil, the Mark of the Beast) to the lords of private sector creation who can keep their passes in their pockets. Allegedly on anecdata.

Sometimes PB can seem very male.

Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo

It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.

It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.

Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.

I've never trusted snicko, much preferred hotspot.

None of which excuses a poor batting and bowling performance. If the Ashes are to remain the "be all and end all" for English cricket then the squad have to play warm-up games in Australian conditions.

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.