Home ownership is a real issue. But we are a crowded island and countryside is precious. The answer is surely towers in the SE esp London. Build UP, build lots and lots of towers until flats in them are affordable for 20-somethings
Young people really don’t mind living in towers if the location is decent. Towers can be glamorous. Manhattan is glamorous, so is Hong Kong. They just want to own not rent
Then when they move into their 30s and 40s the youngsters will already be on the property ladder and they can shift to something suburban with a garden for the kids
Some older people - childless or empty-nesters - would be quite happy with towers as well. IF the location is right
There. Sorted
Not sorted until you can persuade the banks to offer mortgages on high rise flats.
Set up a national mortgage lender if the private ones won’t do it. This is a massive national issue and a generational problem for the Tories. We need to get home ownership rising again. We need it heading to 80% not sliding to 50%
Let the young buy flats in sexy towers. Problem solved. Now I’m off for a haircut
How do you stop buy to let in your new towers?
Change the law. This isn’t hard. The builders only get planning permission if the flats are sold to owner occupiers. SORTED
Yes this will piss off the class of rentier landlords, but, you know, World’s Tiniest Violin etc
There is at least one nice development in central Manchester which is only available to owner occupiers. I don't know how they police it but it is not without precedent.
Most young Londoners would jump at the chance of owning rather than renting. They wouldn’t give a damn if it’s a flat on floor 23. Just make it a reasonably cool location. East London is the obvious place, especially with the Liz Line
Build a million flats in 10,000 towers. Build so many the price of an E London 2 bed falls to £150,000 and anyone on an average salary can buy one, certainly any young couple
Build them in proper elegant clusters, with one or two super tall central towers, and shorter towers surrounding. Build the infrastructure to go with them, from pubs to shops to gyms. Forget about providing car parking. These are for young urbanites who don’t want to drive
Also relax the insanely cautious height restrictions in London, allow towers up to 1500 feet
I could sort this all out over a brief lunch
Point of order, most flats are leasehold, therefore you don't own them. You just have a very long lease, coupled with unlimited service charges and unlimited liability when things go wrong (as people caught up in the cladding scandal have found out).
There's a reason why the housing market is booming but leasehold flats aren't selling.
Get rid of leasehold. Fuck the landlords
Make everything freehold from now on, make it insanely easy to change from leasehold to freehold if that’s where you are now
Yep.
That would be the system that literally THE ENTIRE WORLD has apart from England (and yes, Scotland doesn't have it either).
This is the best thread I have ever read on leasehold that pretty much sums up what a grift it is.
Again, England is the ONLY place in the entire world that still has this stupid grift. The fact that we don't change it tells you everything you need to know about who donates to what political party and why.
We have, on this thread, proposed more interesting policies than Keir Starmer has managed in his entire tenure in Shadow Cabinet, whether as LOTO or shadow minister for Fuck Democracy Let’s Have a “2nd” Vote
Why aren’t labour coming up with eye-catching idea like this? I might even vote for them if they showed a bit of imagination and energy. They are inert
Commonhold is no panacea. It's been available since 2002, but few people opt for it.
The twitter thread is simplistic, and inaccurate in places. And, honestly, if you choose to buy a flat in a building that's 75% commercial, you own that mistake.
The best course of action is for tenants to buy out the freeholder, by way of a private limited company, in which they have shares. It's not very difficult, these days.
It's actually incredibly difficult when half the leaseholders are foreign buyers renting out the properties. You've no way of getting in touch with them and, even if you can, most of them aren't interested in the differences between freehold/leasehold/commonhold. They're just using the properties as places to park cash and earn a yield - they don't notice the bills, or how badly the properties are being managed.
Changes to the law won't solve the problem of absentee flat owners.
Changes to the law might stop managing agents charging unlimited amounts, using dodgy "long term qualifying agreements" to avoid putting work out to competitive tender, taking kickbacks from insurers for choosing over expensive insurance policies, etc.
At the moment leaseholders have absolutely no way to challenge any of this save tribunals that are expensive, time consuming and practically impossible for lay people to navigate without forking out even more money on costly lawyers. Oh, and the freeholder can tack their lawyers bill onto your service charges, too.
As I say, it is a grift, plain and simple. There is a reason why leasehold flats aren't shifting, even in an overheated housing market. People have cottoned onto the fact that it's a con.
Adding legal costs to service charge bills ought indeed to be outlawed.
But as to the rest, if the government grants you rights (to challenge service charges etc.) it has to be up to you to enforce them. The government can't enforce them for you.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Its worth noting that even in New York while Midtown Manhattan may be very high rise, even that is the exception and not the norm. Much of Manhattan itself isn't as high rise as stereotyped, but Manhattan too is the exception, five times as many New Yorkers live in Long Island as live in Manhattan.
Plenty of New Yorkers do indeed live in a detached house with a garden and a car on Long Island and commute into Manhattan - or move even to other nearby states and not just New York as a solution.
The problem we have in this country is people wanting to ensure that all the construction only occurs in what is designated as "London" instead of the regions that people can commute into London where there is far more space available.
Building high absolutely should be an option for the small minority who want to live high, but we should respect that either here or there most people do not want to live high and we should offer options that are not high rise for those that don't want it. Let the public choose what they prefer for themselves.
Anyone who proposes a one-sized-fits-all approach is kidding themselves.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
Worse for the Met. Didn't they realise that photos would come out and people will be asking how it is that these incidents are not breaches of the rules?
The PM will say that the Met has investigated and their decision should be respected. The Met meanwhile will say ..... well what?
Meanwhile I fully expect someone like that Jolyon character to try and judicially review the Met's decision not to fine.
All of what you say there is correct but I’ll repeat again, London is low-rise. Including “central London”, depending on how you define it.
I used to live in Hackney, an “inner borough”. I reckon the average footprint is 3 floors, maybe even less.
Building higher centrally doesn’t mean the end of suburbia.
If people want to build high and there is great demand to live in the Grenfell Towers of the future, then nothing should prevent such high rises being built.
If they don't, then nothing should prevent suburban homes with a garden from being built.
Let the public choose what they want for themselves. It shouldn't be up to a man in Whitehall to decide for them.
Home ownership is a real issue. But we are a crowded island and countryside is precious. The answer is surely towers in the SE esp London. Build UP, build lots and lots of towers until flats in them are affordable for 20-somethings
Young people really don’t mind living in towers if the location is decent. Towers can be glamorous. Manhattan is glamorous, so is Hong Kong. They just want to own not rent
Then when they move into their 30s and 40s the youngsters will already be on the property ladder and they can shift to something suburban with a garden for the kids
Some older people - childless or empty-nesters - would be quite happy with towers as well. IF the location is right
There. Sorted
Not sorted until you can persuade the banks to offer mortgages on high rise flats.
Set up a national mortgage lender if the private ones won’t do it. This is a massive national issue and a generational problem for the Tories. We need to get home ownership rising again. We need it heading to 80% not sliding to 50%
Let the young buy flats in sexy towers. Problem solved. Now I’m off for a haircut
How do you stop buy to let in your new towers?
Change the law. This isn’t hard. The builders only get planning permission if the flats are sold to owner occupiers. SORTED
Yes this will piss off the class of rentier landlords, but, you know, World’s Tiniest Violin etc
There is at least one nice development in central Manchester which is only available to owner occupiers. I don't know how they police it but it is not without precedent.
Most young Londoners would jump at the chance of owning rather than renting. They wouldn’t give a damn if it’s a flat on floor 23. Just make it a reasonably cool location. East London is the obvious place, especially with the Liz Line
Build a million flats in 10,000 towers. Build so many the price of an E London 2 bed falls to £150,000 and anyone on an average salary can buy one, certainly any young couple
Build them in proper elegant clusters, with one or two super tall central towers, and shorter towers surrounding. Build the infrastructure to go with them, from pubs to shops to gyms. Forget about providing car parking. These are for young urbanites who don’t want to drive
Also relax the insanely cautious height restrictions in London, allow towers up to 1500 feet
I could sort this all out over a brief lunch
Point of order, most flats are leasehold, therefore you don't own them. You just have a very long lease, coupled with unlimited service charges and unlimited liability when things go wrong (as people caught up in the cladding scandal have found out).
There's a reason why the housing market is booming but leasehold flats aren't selling.
Get rid of leasehold. Fuck the landlords
Make everything freehold from now on, make it insanely easy to change from leasehold to freehold if that’s where you are now
Yep.
That would be the system that literally THE ENTIRE WORLD has apart from England (and yes, Scotland doesn't have it either).
This is the best thread I have ever read on leasehold that pretty much sums up what a grift it is.
Again, England is the ONLY place in the entire world that still has this stupid grift. The fact that we don't change it tells you everything you need to know about who donates to what political party and why.
We have, on this thread, proposed more interesting policies than Keir Starmer has managed in his entire tenure in Shadow Cabinet, whether as LOTO or shadow minister for Fuck Democracy Let’s Have a “2nd” Vote
Why aren’t labour coming up with eye-catching idea like this? I might even vote for them if they showed a bit of imagination and energy. They are inert
Commonhold is no panacea. It's been available since 2002, but few people opt for it.
The twitter thread is simplistic, and inaccurate in places. And, honestly, if you choose to buy a flat in a building that's 75% commercial, you own that mistake.
The best course of action is for tenants to buy out the freeholder, by way of a private limited company, in which they have shares. It's not very difficult, these days.
It's actually incredibly difficult when half the leaseholders are foreign buyers renting out the properties. You've no way of getting in touch with them and, even if you can, most of them aren't interested in the differences between freehold/leasehold/commonhold. They're just using the properties as places to park cash and earn a yield - they don't notice the bills, or how badly the properties are being managed.
Changes to the law won't solve the problem of absentee flat owners.
Changes to the law might stop managing agents charging unlimited amounts, using dodgy "long term qualifying agreements" to avoid putting work out to competitive tender, taking kickbacks from insurers for choosing over expensive insurance policies, etc.
At the moment leaseholders have absolutely no way to challenge any of this save tribunals that are expensive, time consuming and practically impossible for lay people to navigate without forking out even more money on costly lawyers. Oh, and the freeholder can tack their lawyers bill onto your service charges, too.
As I say, it is a grift, plain and simple. There is a reason why leasehold flats aren't shifting, even in an overheated housing market. People have cottoned onto the fact that it's a con.
Adding legal costs to service charge bills ought indeed to be outlawed.
But as to the rest, if the government grants you rights (to challenge service charges etc.) it has to be up to you to enforce them. The government can't enforce them for you.
So I get a 10k bill for a section 20 notice. Do I pay it, or do I cough up another 10k on lawyers, as well as spend countless hours out of my own life doing the necessary research and paperwork... all while knowing the law is stacked in the freeholder's favour, who can in any rate employ the best legal counsel in the land, then charge it to me?
I and some other leaseholders challenged a section 20 for my building a few years ago, so I know of what I speak. Reform to improve access, reduce costs and simplify the process is desperately needed.
But the proof is in the pudding. If you ask most leaseholders, they will simply shake their heads and say "never again".
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
I thought they were having wine, not spirits. (Sorry not sorry, much like the Prime Minister).
What do we know of the Met's investigation? Did it extend further than a set of questionaires saying "Should we give you an FPN for the XX event on YY? YES / NO"?
All of what you say there is correct but I’ll repeat again, London is low-rise. Including “central London”, depending on how you define it.
I used to live in Hackney, an “inner borough”. I reckon the average footprint is 3 floors, maybe even less.
Building higher centrally doesn’t mean the end of suburbia.
If people want to build high and there is great demand to live in the Grenfell Towers of the future, then nothing should prevent such high rises being built.
If they don't, then nothing should prevent suburban homes with a garden from being built.
Let the public choose what they want for themselves. It shouldn't be up to a man in Whitehall to decide for them.
This is lovely in abstract, but planning happens pretty much everywhere. It’s not about no regulations, it’s about which ones.
As many of you have probably guessed, the Elizabeth Line has been rushed into opening in time for the Platinum Jubilee without it all functioning as one cohesive service.
So, from tomorrow, the central section east of Paddington (low level) including the branch from Whitechapel to Canary Wharf, Custom House, Woolwich and Abbey Wood, will not yet be connected to Stratford in the east, and Acton in the west. Bond Street platforms are also not ready. But the connections and Bond Street should be ready "by the autumn". Hmmm,,, we'll see!
Also, if you're into trying to take pics of trains arriving/leaving at the stations from Paddington to Canary Wharf, as well as Woolwich - don't bother! Platform edge doors similar to those on the Jubilee line will prevent you having a clear view of the trains or the tracks!
Best places to see the trains on the section that's opening tomorrow are Custom House and Abbey Wood, which are out in the open. Also, there's a footbridge at Silvertown, near LCY Airport, affording views of the route.
Journey time is 29 minutes from Paddington to Abbey Wood. And the frequency is every 5 minutes. Not bad at all for a "main line" service.
Personally, travelling in from Ilford, I aim to change trains at Liverpool Street, head southeast to Abbey Wood, then visit each station on the way back to Liverpool Street, head west through to Paddington (low level), then visit the remaining two stations in Zone 1 (Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon) on the way back to Liverpool Street, thereby doing the route and all nine stations opening tomorrow.
Also, it's bound to be full of media-people and fucking Youtubers tomorrow, so I'm seriously mulling delaying my expedition until Wednesday when it's bound to be less busy. But then, that's just me!
Have been reading about the typical British stupidity with regards to ticketing. Its a National Rail service which means their Conditions of Travel apply. In parallel pricing in the core is the same as tube fares. But despite the NRCoT rules being clear and absolute I am already reading that confusion means that people trying to do break of journey will be stopped, that x to London Terminals tickets won't be valid from say Greenhithe to Liverpool Street despite LST being a London Terminal etc etc etc.
Supposedly Great British Railways was supposed to do a big fares bonfire to fix all this. Instead its on an indefinite delay with only a long list of Tory MPs trying to secure its HQ to their constituency to show it even exists.
London Terminals has always meant "only London Terminals you can reach directly" - based on Thameslink I would expect Abbey Wood to Liverpool Street would be fine on a London Terminals ticket but Paddington wouldn't. Unless NR have changed their rules to exclude this - however from some reading I've done it seems more likely that TFL's media people don't understand London Terminals tickets.
I would just use a Contactless bank card to do Abbey Wood to Paddington!
Worse for the Met. Didn't they realise that photos would come out and people will be asking how it is that these incidents are not breaches of the rules?
The PM will say that the Met has investigated and their decision should be respected. The Met meanwhile will say ..... well what?
Meanwhile I fully expect someone like that Jolyon character to try and judicially review the Met's decision not to fine.
So on it goes.
IANAL but could it possibly be because the Met have looked into it and come to the conclusion that you have reached yourself that alcohol itself is not a breach of the rules?
Which could be the same judgement reached with the comparable picture for Keir Starmer drinking alcohol in lockdown?
I agree 100% with what you said in the other thread recently, in my own words the laws were an ass, the way they were rushed through Parliament was disgraceful, the way the Police abused their powers was dreadful but characteristic for the Police and the fact we still disagree years later on what was or was not actually against the law shows they were not fit for purpose - and the PM deserves to go for passing them.
We should learn lessons from this and absolutely say "Never Again" but hopefully the politicians getting burnt by their own badly designed laws will get them to stop and think twice next time rather than just ripping apart due process and civil liberties without a care in the world.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
These are some of the guys most forcibly arguing abortion bans. This would seem to indicate their utter disregard for women's interests.
Southern Baptist leaders covered up sex abuse, kept secret database, report says Among the findings was a previously unknown case of a pastor who was credibly accused of assaulting a woman a month after leaving the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/05/22/southern-baptist-sex-abuse-report/
There is nothing new about bad people attaching themselves to a cause. Nor are ad hominem points a novelty.
The interesting discussion, as always, is between decent people, who apply rules to themselves as well as others, think there is a case for both sides on tricky questions, don't demonise others as extremists and are prepared to change their minds.
Religious people who support choice and feminists who are anti abortion are more interesting places to look than narcissistic fundamentalists.
The problem with seeking balance here is there isn't any. The situation is inherently unbalanced because one of the extremes (Abortion = Murder so the unhappily pregnant woman must be completely subjugated to the foetus she carries) has become a realistic legislative target in many parts of the US.
The fact that extreme views exist and are promoted shows the importance of the discussion also taking place between non extremes. The denial of the validity of any view apart from one's own is itself an extreme mindset. I think we are agreed about that in all probability. So I don't really see your point, though I share your angst.
My point is that the debate for all practical purposes is between an extreme position of banning abortion and a moderate nuanced consensus position of not banning it but having some controls. The opposite extreme - abortion totally fine in all circumstances and right up to point of natural delivery - has no real world traction. Hence the equivalence between the 2 extremes is there only in theory. In practice it isn't. The 'Pro Life' extreme is the one to worry about because its proponents are numerous and influential and are hell bent on implementing it. It's an extreme that's gone mainstream in many US states and in one of that country's 2 main political parties.
No doubt all this happens. I pay political attention to it but not philosophical/ethical attention - there is nothing much to attend to. The discussion as between moderates who take differing positions needs to be carried on despite the rhetoric from all quarters.
There is also a sub-question of who decides the balance to be struck. For the UK it is parliament. In the US the SC has a decisive role. SFAICS they can, if they wish, effectively ban women's rights or compel women's rights in the matter. This encourages militancy. I prefer our tradition. It should be for parliament.
BTW, in the USA it is impossible in practice in the long run to ignore the voters. It is a democracy. Unless people are prepared to defend their liberal positions by turning up and voting they will lose out to extremes. It is not the job of courts, even the SC, to do the voters' job for them.
Well moderates can have that discussion - how to balance the competing rights, term limits, etc - but what they need to do at the same time is fight the Pro-Life extremist position since otherwise it'll become law. And, yes, by 'fight' this includes voting. If enough vote against, it's less likely to happen. I agree with you there.
However there are some fundamentals which imo should be protected regardless of how people vote and one of them is a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. You can argue about the controls needed - this being part of our 'moderates discussion' above - but you can't just go banning abortion because you've won an election. It's on a par with banning girls going to school. It's not on.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
There is a fallacy in your thinking, the people you are surrounded by are happy to live there, which is why they have chosen to live there.
The people who wouldn't be happy to live there, don't live there, so you aren't surrounded by them, so you can't ask them.
Most New Yorkers, let alone most Americans, have chosen not to live in high rises and the Upper East Side of Manhattan isn't even representative of New York State let alone the USA.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
So we have an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand the Met have decided to fine everyone who was at this party but not the PM (who was "present but not involved"). On the other hand we have photographs showing him illegally partying.
I assume we can now expect a week of Hate Mail front pages demanding the police investigate this clear lack of justice.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
Campaigning events were legal in April 2021.
Working in person if required (like in Downing Street) was equally legal in November 2020.
If being there for work (campaigning) makes alcohol (Starmer) legal then how is that any different to being there for work (Downing Street) makes alcohol (Johnson) legal?
You keep trying to claim Keir's beer is campaigning, but the Downing Street stuff is a party. What is the distinction though, other than the fact you don't like Boris?
If Boris didn't think that was a party and thought it was work, as Keir thought [and you still think] Keir drinking was work, then how is it a lie? 🤦♂️
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
New York is not Manhattan.
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
So we have an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand the Met have decided to fine everyone who was at this party but not the PM (who was "present but not involved"). On the other hand we have photographs showing him illegally partying.
I assume we can now expect a week of Hate Mail front pages demanding the police investigate this clear lack of justice.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
New York is not Manhattan.
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
If you can show me where I suggest “make all of London high rise” you might have a point.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
Given what you've written on this thread, I don't think you're in a position to accuse others of 'misrepresenting!'
So I will ask you a simple question: how much will liveable flats in these tower blocks with guaranteed lift access cost?
I love that your ideal appears to be the sort of places multimillionaires like Yoko Ono and Diana Ross live in!
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
New York is not Manhattan.
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
If you can show me where I suggest “make all of London high rise” you might have a point.
As usual though, you are pointless.
May I ask you a question: in your view, what mistakes were made in Britain's post-war high-rises that generally made them poorly-regarded places to live?
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
New York is not Manhattan.
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
If you can show me where I suggest “make all of London high rise” you might have a point.
As usual though, you are pointless.
May I ask you a question: in your view, what mistakes were made in Britain's post-war high-rises that generally made them poorly-regarded places to live?
This is a good question.
Essentially, I think that Britain used the high-rise form to try and solve a social housing problem. This, and the inevitable shoddiness of such development, plus the prevailing brutalist aesthetic…basically fucked the British attitude to “high rise”.
Paris built their Haussmann blocks in the 1850s and 60s, at a height that delivers urbanity and density at a human scale.
The Manhattan brownstones are of a similar height, and date roughly from the 1870s to the 1910s. As I mentioned earlier, the “high rises” then kicked off from the 1890s. Starting, interestingly, with the Dakota Building, still inhabited by Ms Ono.
Both Paris and New York provide very interesting urban form which can be studied for clues on how to deliver humane and appealing density. As can denser parts of London, like South Kensington.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
New York is not Manhattan.
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
If you can show me where I suggest “make all of London high rise” you might have a point.
As usual though, you are pointless.
May I ask you a question: in your view, what mistakes were made in Britain's post-war high-rises that generally made them poorly-regarded places to live?
This is a good question.
Essentially, I think that Britain used the high-rise form to try and solve a social housing problem. This, and the inevitable shoddiness of such development, plus the prevailing brutalist aesthetic…basically fucked the British attitude to “high rise”.
Paris built their Haussmann blocks in the 1850s and 60s, at a height that delivers urbanity and density at a human scale.
The Manhattan brownstones are of a similar height, and date roughly from the 1870s to the 1910s. As I mentioned earlier, the “high rises” then kicked off from the 1890s. Starting, interestingly, with the Dakota Building, still inhabited by Ms Ono.
Both Paris and New York provide very interesting urban form which can be studied for clues on how to deliver humane and appealing density. As can denser parts of London, like South Kensington.
Thanks for that. But using an area like South Kensington as an example is problematic, given the prices of that area.
It's a bit like comparing Skenfrith House (*) with Trellick Tower. Both of which were built within a few years of each other, on either side of 1970, in uncompromising brutalist style.
An example of the latter: £675,000 for a 2-bed flat (with a £3,000 annual service charge). for the former sh*thole, £200k for a one-bed flat; £275k for a 3-bed.
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
New York is not Manhattan.
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
If you can show me where I suggest “make all of London high rise” you might have a point.
As usual though, you are pointless.
May I ask you a question: in your view, what mistakes were made in Britain's post-war high-rises that generally made them poorly-regarded places to live?
This is a good question.
Essentially, I think that Britain used the high-rise form to try and solve a social housing problem. This, and the inevitable shoddiness of such development, plus the prevailing brutalist aesthetic…basically fucked the British attitude to “high rise”.
Paris built their Haussmann blocks in the 1850s and 60s, at a height that delivers urbanity and density at a human scale.
The Manhattan brownstones are of a similar height, and date roughly from the 1870s to the 1910s. As I mentioned earlier, the “high rises” then kicked off from the 1890s. Starting, interestingly, with the Dakota Building, still inhabited by Ms Ono.
Both Paris and New York provide very interesting urban form which can be studied for clues on how to deliver humane and appealing density. As can denser parts of London, like South Kensington.
Thanks for that. But using an area like South Kensington as an example is problematic, given the prices of that area.
It's a bit like comparing Skenfrith House (*) with Trellick Tower. Both of which were built within a few years of each other, on either side of 1970, in uncompromising brutalist style.
An example of the latter: £675,000 for a 2-bed flat (with a £3,000 annual service charge). for the former sh*thole, £200k for a one-bed flat; £275k for a 3-bed.
My argument is not really about high-rise council estates.
The average height of London zone 1, 2 and perhaps some of 3 is probably 2.5 floors.
Compare with the similar areas of Paris, New York, Berlin, Barcelona, Milan, Chicago, Boston, Amsterdam etc etc etc etc.
So if people say, “let’s build more suburbs”, which is the Barty Bobbins suggestion, I say, why? Why don’t we plan to raise the average height of inner London to 5 floors?
We don’t necessarily need high rise, but we do need 6-8 storey medium density housing to maximise the use of space while keeping the scale human.
As an aside, tower blocks may not be very liveable for everyone. In my first year at uni, I lived on the ninth floor of a student tower block in South Woodford. I was on crutches for the last term, and when the lift broke down (frequently, for prolonged periods), I would have to go up and down the stairs on crutches.
Not too bad for an otherwise fit 19-year old, but if you are elderly or infirm you are somewhat reliant on 100% working lifts.
So fix the lift, don’t use this as a reason to build two bed semis across the entire country.
I am surrounded by elderly, infirm Jewish people. It is likely the densest concentration of such outside of Tel Aviv.
They all live in apartments.
The special pleading on here is laughable.
It is ridiculous. “The British won’t live in flats, and what if you break an ankle”
Young families ideally need gardens, for everyone else they are nice-to-have, that is all
And given a choice between a flat on floor 28 with a spectacular view of Shoreditch - a flat that you OWN - compared to perpetually renting a bedsit in south Croydon in a low rise ex council block, then 99% of young people will say LET ME OWN
I doubt Jeremiah Jessop has ever been to London.
To give you an answer you don't deserve:
I spent four and a half/five years living in London.
A year in South Woodford. A year in Stepney Green. A year at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs. A few months in a flat on the Old Kent Road. About a year in a room in Chelsea.
So yeah, I've never been to London. Evidently.
I don’t doubt it. I am deliberately being scabrous because I think your arguments against higher density development is petty.
There are certainly things that need to be sorted out (my 16 floor block has a normal lift and a service lift) but if other countries can sort it out, I’m sure Britain can.
It isn't petty, and as I say below, your arguments are exactly the ones that led to the disastrous developments of the fifties, sixties and seventies - the developments that led to the reputation of tower block developments getting trashed for decades.
I was talking to Mrs J about this, and in Turkey the blocks (not high rise; usually four or five storey) often have a 'manager' in them; a family who look after the block. They organise repairs and do minor ones, get to know the residents, get shopping for people who are ill, etc, etc. The good ones become part of the families who live in the block; the poor ones are... poor.
I think the same is true of France and some other countries. But that's not the way we generally operate, and the 'managers' of blocks AIUI can be rather (ahem) distant individuals.
And the higher you build, the worse the problems.
No, my argument is not the same one that led to disastrous developments. Please show me that argument.
I merely note that
1. UK has v high house prices 2. Demand is in London / SE 3. Building in the countryside is unpopular 4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
I prefer to go “up” than “out”, especially in a densely populated region like the South East, which is - besides - internationally renowned in terms of its amenity value.
You then chip in and say but what about the lifts! Now, apparently, I’m responsible for Ronan Point.
This is trifling stuff, compared with the macro question of how to provide decent housing for people while avoiding urban sprawl.
Your 'argument' (and it is so brain-dead if could scarcely by called that) is that I am being ridiculous for pointing out that people get old and/or ill. You call this 'special pleading'.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
We’re back to the beginning.
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change. The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
How many floors are on the high-rise they live in?
16. Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
Ah, so were talking about very expensive, ultra-luxury apartments then. Not the dirt cheap, built-down-to-a-cost ones you would inflict on people.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
What cheap ones? Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise. My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
New York is not Manhattan.
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
If you can show me where I suggest “make all of London high rise” you might have a point.
As usual though, you are pointless.
May I ask you a question: in your view, what mistakes were made in Britain's post-war high-rises that generally made them poorly-regarded places to live?
This is a good question.
Essentially, I think that Britain used the high-rise form to try and solve a social housing problem. This, and the inevitable shoddiness of such development, plus the prevailing brutalist aesthetic…basically fucked the British attitude to “high rise”.
Paris built their Haussmann blocks in the 1850s and 60s, at a height that delivers urbanity and density at a human scale.
The Manhattan brownstones are of a similar height, and date roughly from the 1870s to the 1910s. As I mentioned earlier, the “high rises” then kicked off from the 1890s. Starting, interestingly, with the Dakota Building, still inhabited by Ms Ono.
Both Paris and New York provide very interesting urban form which can be studied for clues on how to deliver humane and appealing density. As can denser parts of London, like South Kensington.
Thanks for that. But using an area like South Kensington as an example is problematic, given the prices of that area.
It's a bit like comparing Skenfrith House (*) with Trellick Tower. Both of which were built within a few years of each other, on either side of 1970, in uncompromising brutalist style.
An example of the latter: £675,000 for a 2-bed flat (with a £3,000 annual service charge). for the former sh*thole, £200k for a one-bed flat; £275k for a 3-bed.
My argument is not really about high-rise council estates.
The average height of London zone 1, 2 and perhaps some of 3 is probably 2.5 floors.
Compare with the similar areas of Paris, New York, Berlin, Barcelona, Milan, Chicago, Boston, Amsterdam etc etc etc etc.
So if people say, “let’s build more suburbs”, which is the Barty Bobbins suggestion, I say, why? Why don’t we plan to raise the average height of inner London to 5 floors?
IMV the answer is to do both.
I have less problem with 5 floors than I would 8+ - as it happens I wouldn't call 5 floors 'high rise'
Comments
My son, who is coming up to 3, is doing my fucking head in. I hadn’t fully realised that boys are of course slower…
But as to the rest, if the government grants you rights (to challenge service charges etc.) it has to be up to you to enforce them. The government can't enforce them for you.
Haha.
As we see from this thread, not enough has been done.
To foreigners (like me and Cory Doctorow), it’s a batshit grift from start to finish.
Plenty of New Yorkers do indeed live in a detached house with a garden and a car on Long Island and commute into Manhattan - or move even to other nearby states and not just New York as a solution.
The problem we have in this country is people wanting to ensure that all the construction only occurs in what is designated as "London" instead of the regions that people can commute into London where there is far more space available.
Building high absolutely should be an option for the small minority who want to live high, but we should respect that either here or there most people do not want to live high and we should offer options that are not high rise for those that don't want it. Let the public choose what they prefer for themselves.
Anyone who proposes a one-sized-fits-all approach is kidding themselves.
It is *exactly* the argument that led to the awful developments. "People will live how we say they will live."
Note: I'm not saying we can't build high - though the higher you build, the harder the problems become. Just that if you do build high and/or high density, you need to work blooming hard (and spend money) to ensure the place you build is liveable for all. And that costs money. Which is why it is frequently not done.
I've said passim that a major problem with housing in this country is the 'dream' of a semi with garage and garden. That's what many people want - especially when they have kids. Fixing the problem will involve either matching that mindset or accommodating it- and if you are building high-rise, that involves a lot of costs.
Apart from the fact you like Keir and hate "Bozo"?
All of what you say there is correct but I’ll repeat again, London is low-rise. Including “central London”, depending on how you define it.
I used to live in Hackney, an “inner borough”. I reckon the average footprint is 3 floors, maybe even less.
Building higher centrally doesn’t mean the end of suburbia.
The PM will say that the Met has investigated and their decision should be respected. The Met meanwhile will say ..... well what?
Meanwhile I fully expect someone like that Jolyon character to try and judicially review the Met's decision not to fine.
So on it goes.
If they don't, then nothing should prevent suburban homes with a garden from being built.
Let the public choose what they want for themselves. It shouldn't be up to a man in Whitehall to decide for them.
I and some other leaseholders challenged a section 20 for my building a few years ago, so I know of what I speak. Reform to improve access, reduce costs and simplify the process is desperately needed.
But the proof is in the pudding. If you ask most leaseholders, they will simply shake their heads and say "never again".
I am surrounded by old people. They are quite happy to live here.
As to your point that building costs money, I mean, sure, er, OK.
The mindset you refer can change.
The number of people living in apartments on the Upper East Side in 1890 was around 5%. By 1914 it was over 80%, it was highly desirable.
What do we know of the Met's investigation? Did it extend further than a set of questionaires saying "Should we give you an FPN for the XX event on YY? YES / NO"?
Which could be the same judgement reached with the comparable picture for Keir Starmer drinking alcohol in lockdown?
I agree 100% with what you said in the other thread recently, in my own words the laws were an ass, the way they were rushed through Parliament was disgraceful, the way the Police abused their powers was dreadful but characteristic for the Police and the fact we still disagree years later on what was or was not actually against the law shows they were not fit for purpose - and the PM deserves to go for passing them.
We should learn lessons from this and absolutely say "Never Again" but hopefully the politicians getting burnt by their own badly designed laws will get them to stop and think twice next time rather than just ripping apart due process and civil liberties without a care in the world.
However there are some fundamentals which imo should be protected regardless of how people vote and one of them is a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. You can argue about the controls needed - this being part of our 'moderates discussion' above - but you can't just go banning abortion because you've won an election. It's on a par with banning girls going to school. It's not on.
Next door is higher; Diana Ross lives there and she’s getting on in years. Yoko Ono is down the road, I think her block is probably only 10 or something.
The people who wouldn't be happy to live there, don't live there, so you aren't surrounded by them, so you can't ask them.
Most New Yorkers, let alone most Americans, have chosen not to live in high rises and the Upper East Side of Manhattan isn't even representative of New York State let alone the USA.
(And I bet Yoko Ono and Diana Ross also have places outside the city they live in.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
That's not even what New Yorkers live in, but nevermind. 🤨
This thread has been photographed at a Downing Street "strategy meeting"!
I assume we can now expect a week of Hate Mail front pages demanding the police investigate this clear lack of justice.
Why on earth do you keep misrepresenting me?
London is low-rise.
My house in Zone 2 (Zone 1 borders) was 3 floors, the bottom a basement level,
Paris, and indeed much of Manhattan, operates on a 5 or 6 storey norm. London operates on a 2 or 3, with tower blocks clumped into wherever planning permission can be had.
I noted earlier that true high rises should be in the highest value areas. Not that I expect you to read every post I make but I would prefer it if you didn’t just make stuff up.
Working in person if required (like in Downing Street) was equally legal in November 2020.
If being there for work (campaigning) makes alcohol (Starmer) legal then how is that any different to being there for work (Downing Street) makes alcohol (Johnson) legal?
You keep trying to claim Keir's beer is campaigning, but the Downing Street stuff is a party. What is the distinction though, other than the fact you don't like Boris?
If Boris didn't think that was a party and thought it was work, as Keir thought [and you still think] Keir drinking was work, then how is it a lie? 🤦♂️
That some of one part of New York is high rise, why should that make all of London high rise?
As usual though, you are pointless.
So I will ask you a simple question: how much will liveable flats in these tower blocks with guaranteed lift access cost?
I love that your ideal appears to be the sort of places multimillionaires like Yoko Ono and Diana Ross live in!
Essentially, I think that Britain used the high-rise form to try and solve a social housing problem. This, and the inevitable shoddiness of such development, plus the prevailing brutalist aesthetic…basically fucked the British attitude to “high rise”.
Paris built their Haussmann blocks in the 1850s and 60s, at a height that delivers urbanity and density at a human scale.
The Manhattan brownstones are of a similar height, and date roughly from the 1870s to the 1910s. As I mentioned earlier, the “high rises” then kicked off from the 1890s. Starting, interestingly, with the Dakota Building, still inhabited by Ms Ono.
Both Paris and New York provide very interesting urban form which can be studied for clues on how to deliver humane and appealing density. As can denser parts of London, like South Kensington.
It's a bit like comparing Skenfrith House (*) with Trellick Tower. Both of which were built within a few years of each other, on either side of 1970, in uncompromising brutalist style.
An example of the latter: £675,000 for a 2-bed flat (with a £3,000 annual service charge). for the former sh*thole, £200k for a one-bed flat; £275k for a 3-bed.
https://www.wowhaus.co.uk/2020/05/25/apartment-erno-goldfinger-trellick-tower-london-w10/
(*) Where I lived for a period.
The average height of London zone 1, 2 and perhaps some of 3 is probably 2.5 floors.
Compare with the similar areas of Paris, New York, Berlin, Barcelona, Milan, Chicago, Boston, Amsterdam etc etc etc etc.
So if people say, “let’s build more suburbs”, which is the Barty Bobbins suggestion, I say, why? Why don’t we plan to raise the average height of inner London to 5 floors?
I have less problem with 5 floors than I would 8+ - as it happens I wouldn't call 5 floors 'high rise'