Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
The most wrong opinion ever voiced on PB. I don't even know who you people are anymore.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
The main thing about tall Georgian houses is the horribly poor quality of the build - they were the thrown up speculative rot-boxes of their day.
What do you think they were covered in 'plaster' in various forms to hide, and fall down almost at random somewhere every year?
Well-off Londoners never looked horses in the mouth.
Well I'm sitting right now, typing, in a classic London late-Georgian terrace house, Grade 2 listed, nearly 200 years old, and it isn't falling down as far as I can see
And the windows are lovely and BIG, floor to ceiling, letting in tons of light. I love them, and I love my flat. Why shouldn't everyone have this?
Survival bias.
But yes, as well built modern version with proper insulation. 👍
Is it just me or does SKS talking about a decade in power (which implies at least two and may three, general election wins) before he's even won his first election seem kind of hubristic?
Almost shades of Labour in 1992 and 2007... He should have a razor sharp focus on winning Election 24 and nothing else... The time for a victory rally/speech is after the victory, not before it...
Presumably you'd prefer "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for a rocky couple of years propped up by Scots and Liberals, before an exhausted return to opposition by 2027 at the latest".
Is there a sense that the SNP has failed in its mission (independence) and now Scots are looking for parties better able to match their needs? Has the whiff of scandal and the loss of Sturgeon had an effect? Was Rutherglen a reaction bad covid behaviour?
My sense is that quite a few Scots - 45% or so - still rather fancy indy, but it is now, for many a vague aspiration, not a pressing concern (see the granular polling on who wants a vote NOW, who think it is a massively important issue)
There is a core vote of about 30% (maybe there always was) which still DO see indy as THE issue and want a vote ASAP. That is the SNP's floor. 30%
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
The main thing about tall Georgian houses is the horribly poor quality of the build - they were the thrown up speculative rot-boxes of their day.
What do you think they were covered in 'plaster' in various forms to hide, and fall down almost at random somewhere every year?
Well-off Londoners never looked horses in the mouth.
Well I'm sitting right now, typing, in a classic London late-Georgian terrace house, Grade 2 listed, nearly 200 years old, and it isn't falling down as far as I can see
And the windows are lovely and BIG, floor to ceiling, letting in tons of light. I love them, and I love my flat. Why shouldn't everyone have this?
Survival bias.
But yes, as well built modern version with proper insulation. 👍
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
Yes, those are nice, in a more modern way. Quite Dutch or German?
Our continental cousins are often way ahead of us on urbanism, we need to humbly learn from them
Yes, modern, but slot in quite nicely to the Georgian-ish terraces beside (not that there are many of those in inner Salford).
How is your Georgian house for heat retention? My understanding is that they're not generally that good for that - but I'm sure there is a way we can use modern building technology with Georgian design to get a best-of-both-worlds. (Though it must, in general, be more heat-efficient to build in terraces rather than semi- and detached houses.)
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
Yes, those are nice, in a more modern way. Quite Dutch or German?
Our continental cousins are often way ahead of us on urbanism, we need to humbly learn from them
Yes, modern, but slot in quite nicely to the Georgian-ish terraces beside (not that there are many of those in inner Salford).
How is your Georgian house for heat retention? My understanding is that they're not generally that good for that - but I'm sure there is a way we can use modern building technology with Georgian design to get a best-of-both-worlds. (Though it must, in general, be more heat-efficient to build in terraces rather than semi- and detached houses.)
It's pretty good for heat, in fact I'd say very good - but only because it is a small flat and it has two massive floor to ceiling sash windows in the living room facing due south, so they catch any sun - even on a winter's day - and transmit it to the rest of my gaff. There are cold sunny winter days where I barely have to put the heating on
If there is no sun at all then it does need quite a lot of energy to heat, but overall it's cheap to run
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
The most wrong opinion ever voiced on PB. I don't even know who you people are anymore.
(I should clarify, in case it's needed, that fried Christmas pudding is a breakfast thing.) While I'm on about frying Christmas foods, frying sprouts (with pancetta and pine nuts) is a fine way to make your sprouts palatable.
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
The most wrong opinion ever voiced on PB. I don't even know who you people are anymore.
(I should clarify, in case it's needed, that fried Christmas pudding is a breakfast thing.) While I'm on about frying Christmas foods, frying sprouts (with pancetta and pine nuts) is a fine way to make your sprouts palatable.
Even better is to fry them with chestnuts and pancetta and then discard the sprouts...
Joking aside, I actually quite like sprouts and anticipate the season each autumn.
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
As you imply, why would you? I use silicone egg holders and boiling water - takes a few minutes to perfect poached eggs.
Mrs C uses a frying pan of onions, fennel, capers, and hot smoked salmon as the (admittedly rather lumpy) working fluid, to be served with pasta. Even simpler.
PS I forgot the aubergines or courgettes! Idiot.
Talking of courgettes, I recently did a Red Thai curry (Aldi meal kit for 2) using sliced chicken breast and courgettes / sweetcorn / celery (of all things) and it came out tasting really summery, which is just what I need at present.
And still talking of air fryers, I'm just discovering how many glass oven->freezer with dish washable lid food containers I am going to need to buy, and it will cost nearly as much as the air fryer did. But will give me a couple of dozen crumbles in the freezer for the winter months.
Those air fryer things are on the front page of the Lakeland website. Might have a look myself.
My wife bought one recently , Ninja something, absolutely brilliant. It has probe so you can cook joints , steaks etc to perfection.
Speaking of political careers: The Bush family pattern seems like a good one: Get married, make enough money to support your family, and then about the age of 40 go into public service. That describes what GHWB, GWB, and Jeb all did.
(GHWB and GWB all started with low-level jobs, which also helps.)
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
1996 was around the time when we had just the right amount of technology.
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
The most wrong opinion ever voiced on PB. I don't even know who you people are anymore.
(I should clarify, in case it's needed, that fried Christmas pudding is a breakfast thing.) While I'm on about frying Christmas foods, frying sprouts (with pancetta and pine nuts) is a fine way to make your sprouts palatable.
I grate them and make fritters - used teff flour and a little berbere spice to give a bit of an Ethiopian flavour.
Is it just me or does SKS talking about a decade in power (which implies at least two and may three, general election wins) before he's even won his first election seem kind of hubristic?
Almost shades of Labour in 1992 and 2007... He should have a razor sharp focus on winning Election 24 and nothing else... The time for a victory rally/speech is after the victory, not before it...
Presumably you'd prefer "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for a rocky couple of years propped up by Scots and Liberals, before an exhausted return to opposition by 2027 at the latest".
I think talking about a decade in power helps to manage Labour activists who may get twitchy about needing short term radical changes. It says be patient, we will get in and then treat this as a long term plan, we don't need to put everything in our 2024 manifesto.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
Yes, those are nice, in a more modern way. Quite Dutch or German?
Our continental cousins are often way ahead of us on urbanism, we need to humbly learn from them
A very Adolf Loos feel to these - personally like a bit more ornament and tchotchke in my architecture, but better than the brutalist blocks or the Barrats.
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
The most wrong opinion ever voiced on PB. I don't even know who you people are anymore.
(I should clarify, in case it's needed, that fried Christmas pudding is a breakfast thing.) While I'm on about frying Christmas foods, frying sprouts (with pancetta and pine nuts) is a fine way to make your sprouts palatable.
Even better is to fry them with chestnuts and pancetta and then discard the sprouts...
Joking aside, I actually quite like sprouts and anticipate the season each autumn.
I read somewhere about how the aggressive sulphuric bitterness has been effectively bred out of sprouts now - the popular dislike is a combination of meme and folk memory.
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
Poached is currently winning in the WhatsApp poll I have set up.
However, that's what woke people think is woke. I would be interested to hear what the semi-conscious think.
Incel eggs are "cornflakes with monster".
Joking aside, I think poached eggs have a whiff of luxury because many of us can’t be bothered with the massive trail of excess white in the pan, and want to tap in to the magic powers of chefs instead.
I always order poached when out for brunch for the same reason.
Fried during the week, scrambled at the weekend. I eat about 20 eggs a week. The vegans hate me.
The 'secret' to poaching in water without any fancy gimmicks is fresh eggs. Fresh eggs stay together, no mess. Supermarket ones are hit and miss (depends how long they've sat before buying). The ones from the farm down the road, laid that day of the day before, are good for up to about a week before they start coming apart too much on poaching.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
Yes, those are nice, in a more modern way. Quite Dutch or German?
Our continental cousins are often way ahead of us on urbanism, we need to humbly learn from them
Yes, modern, but slot in quite nicely to the Georgian-ish terraces beside (not that there are many of those in inner Salford).
How is your Georgian house for heat retention? My understanding is that they're not generally that good for that - but I'm sure there is a way we can use modern building technology with Georgian design to get a best-of-both-worlds. (Though it must, in general, be more heat-efficient to build in terraces rather than semi- and detached houses.)
If I recall it retained heat exceptionally well when it was really hot. I recall @Leon 's comments.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
If it needs paying for then everyone should pay for it, if it's public infrastructure.
Don't want to pay for new schools? Then we need to live in a state without population growth. But if we live in a state with population growth then absolutely everyone in that state should pay their taxes not just a minority.
There's no pollution or externality from new homes. Extra people bring extra demand but cramming those extra people into overcrowded slums doesn't cut demand. A child living in an overcrowded home needs a school just as much, and needs extra support from teachers/schools/taxpayers because they don't have space of their own at home to study.
Your position fosters the very NIMBYism you profess to hate.
Say there is a need for 50k homes across two adjacent local authority areas.
If you just say the 50k homes pay Council Tax, but all the capital cost of infrastructure to support 100k+ new residents falls on taxpayers in the area as a whole, it's just deeply unattractive to have those new homes in your area. Not only do you get your area built on, but you pay a fortune for the privilege. Much better to put every obstacle in the way of it happening so the neighbouring authority has to deal with it.
If, however, the buyers of the homes (via the developer) pay a levy for additional infrastructure (as well as expanding the tax base), sure you've still got some NIMBYs complaining. But some of the people in the area, and certainly councillors and the Council think, "Hang on, we're going to get that new school people want, plus a road upgrade nearby and a leisure centre... so maybe we can face down the people whining about a new estate being built because we all get an infrastructure upgrade".
I never said it should be funded by Council Tax. Nor should it be funded by those paying new buildings alone.
It should be funded by the entire country. Central funding, in a grant if needed, based on the changing circumstances.
If a new school is needed, that should be funded by the Department for Education, centrally.
And that should be done based on the number of children in the area, not the number of houses. 10,000 children in 5,000 houses need the same education as 10,000 children in 50,000 houses.
So yes, say that people will get the school, the leisure centre etc but send that bill where it belongs, don't have a tiny fraction of locals paying for it while the rest of the country does nothing.
Almost all taxes go to the Chancellor, centrally. The local authority budget should be to maintain and operate services not account for rampant population growth that's been determined by central government policies to which central government is taking the taxes.
Why should only a fraction of taxpayers shoulder the entire burden of population growth? It should be consistent and applied to all.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so. The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and notwithstanding some great contributors, is a vile, bigoted, small-minded rag run by toffs who laugh at their petit bourgeois, Hyacinth Bouquet readership.
How do you know if you never read it?
I read it from time to time. The writing is great and they have some great writers. Ultimately, it was those Charles Moore editorial/front pieces that did it for me. Your dear friend writes for it; you know I am not wrong.
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
The most wrong opinion ever voiced on PB. I don't even know who you people are anymore.
(I should clarify, in case it's needed, that fried Christmas pudding is a breakfast thing.) While I'm on about frying Christmas foods, frying sprouts (with pancetta and pine nuts) is a fine way to make your sprouts palatable.
Even better is to fry them with chestnuts and pancetta and then discard the sprouts...
Joking aside, I actually quite like sprouts and anticipate the season each autumn.
I read somewhere about how the aggressive sulphuric bitterness has been effectively bred out of sprouts now - the popular dislike is a combination of meme and folk memory.
Which is a bit of a shame. I've always liked them.
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
Is it just me or does SKS talking about a decade in power (which implies at least two and may three, general election wins) before he's even won his first election seem kind of hubristic?
Almost shades of Labour in 1992 and 2007... He should have a razor sharp focus on winning Election 24 and nothing else... The time for a victory rally/speech is after the victory, not before it...
Presumably you'd prefer "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for a rocky couple of years propped up by Scots and Liberals, before an exhausted return to opposition by 2027 at the latest".
I think talking about a decade in power helps to manage Labour activists who may get twitchy about needing short term radical changes. It says be patient, we will get in and then treat this as a long term plan, we don't need to put everything in our 2024 manifesto.
I think it’s also savvy messaging. The basic gist is “I need two terms to fix this.” That not only downplays expectations of how quickly “it” can be fixed, but also fires the starting gun on GE2028/29 - the “give me an extra term to finish the job” pitch.
The other thing Starmer doesn’t want to imply is that he’s dispensable. The country has gone through changes of leadership too often of late, and we could really do with the stability afforded by someone staying in office for a little more than 2/3 years on average. By creating a two term strategy, Starmer is tying himself to a long term “project”, and giving himself more job security.
I will say that Starmer is a savvy tactician if nothing else. He does not get enough credit for that in the mainstream media (though it has been long noted on here).
Brussel sprouts are big in America. Brussel sprout consumption per capita must be off the charts.
They are all fried or roasted, with bacon, or parmesan, or chilli, or walnuts, or some combination thereof.
A rare highlight of American cuisine.
I once did a court case about Brussel sprouts and crop spraying. More than 90% of the sprouts eaten in the UK are (or were at that time) eaten in December. Crops had to be sprayed to help them reach maturity in time for that. The main consumer of sprouts in January, and much of the rest of the year, are pigs. They lose almost their entire value if they are not ready for Christmas. Tricky business.
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
And an owl
Perhaps they will engage Crispin Odey as a design consultant for the owl house.
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
Everyone except Bart. He's getting his own motorway with a new-build semi and six parking spaces thrown in.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so. The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
Needn't be huge, just classily proportioned. Houses like this shouldn't cost a couple of million;
And the main part of making them happen is to not waste space on so many cars. But if you have sufficient gentle density, people can do the things they want without driving everywhere. Which is why the current estate model doesn't work and why the good things in life have to be there before residents move in, even if it's not commercially viable for a bit.
What, vehicles ground to a complete halt whilst these ******** cyclists surround them making it impossible to move?
I'm trying (and failing) to decipher the eight letter expletive. 'infernal' fits, but isn't normally censored. 'dratted'? 'damnable'? Or am I thinking wrong and it's 'gorgeous'? Or something that you have to censor on here, Naughtie rhyming slang for 'Huntlike'?
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so. The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
Is Meades that much a of a Corbusian?
Meades made an entire documentary series paying tribute to Brutalism ('Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloodymindedness'), and singled out Georgian architecture as particularly vapid.
I agree with him to a certain extent that the Georgian style (and NeoClassicism in general) is rarely used imaginatively, but a more essential factor in good architecture would seem to me to be appeal.
What, vehicles ground to a complete halt whilst these ******** cyclists surround them making it impossible to move?
It's the junction at London Bridge and Monument. Those bikes are coming from/going to Bank junction along King William Street. Bank is car-free so I don't get what the issue is.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so. The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
Is Meades that much a of a Corbusian?
He did a show on Brutalism for the Beeb. It's on YouTube if you're so inclined
Is it just me or does SKS talking about a decade in power (which implies at least two and may three, general election wins) before he's even won his first election seem kind of hubristic?
Almost shades of Labour in 1992 and 2007... He should have a razor sharp focus on winning Election 24 and nothing else... The time for a victory rally/speech is after the victory, not before it...
Presumably you'd prefer "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for a rocky couple of years propped up by Scots and Liberals, before an exhausted return to opposition by 2027 at the latest".
I think talking about a decade in power helps to manage Labour activists who may get twitchy about needing short term radical changes. It says be patient, we will get in and then treat this as a long term plan, we don't need to put everything in our 2024 manifesto.
I think it’s also savvy messaging. The basic gist is “I need two terms to fix this.” That not only downplays expectations of how quickly “it” can be fixed, but also fires the starting gun on GE2028/29 - the “give me an extra term to finish the job” pitch.
The other thing Starmer doesn’t want to imply is that he’s dispensable. The country has gone through changes of leadership too often of late, and we could really do with the stability afforded by someone staying in office for a little more than 2/3 years on average. By creating a two term strategy, Starmer is tying himself to a long term “project”, and giving himself more job security.
I will say that Starmer is a savvy tactician if nothing else. He does not get enough credit for that in the mainstream media (though it has been long noted on here).
I can see a narrative developing that ascribes almost Seldonian powers of foresight and long-term planning to Starmer, but I don't really see it. He was right there, as Shadow Brexit Secretary, when Labour completely failed to have any influence on Brexit, despite the government being epically split and losing numerous Commons votes.
I know we all want to believe that things will get better, even just a little, for a while, with a change of government, but it's starting to get a bit absurd.
What, vehicles ground to a complete halt whilst these ******** cyclists surround them making it impossible to move?
I'm trying (and failing) to decipher the eight letter expletive. 'infernal' fits, but isn't normally censored. 'dratted'? 'damnable'? Or am I thinking wrong and it's 'gorgeous'? Or something that you have to censor on here, Naughtie rhyming slang for 'Huntlike'?
Alternatively, the number of asterisks may have been marginally random.
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
And an owl
How is Labour going to permanently record these policies so the public can hold them to account?
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so. The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
The main thing about tall Georgian houses is the horribly poor quality of the build - they were the thrown up speculative rot-boxes of their day.
What do you think they were covered in 'plaster' in various forms to hide, and fall down almost at random somewhere every year?
Well-off Londoners never looked horses in the mouth.
Well I'm sitting right now, typing, in a classic London late-Georgian terrace house, Grade 2 listed, nearly 200 years old, and it isn't falling down as far as I can see
And the windows are lovely and BIG, floor to ceiling, letting in tons of light. I love them, and I love my flat. Why shouldn't everyone have this?
I wonder if yours benefits from being nearly Victorian? eg regular high quality manufactured bricks made in brick factories came in in the 1820s.
Aesthetics, liveability and practicality are different things, and I think King Charles (& you?) are largely reacting mainly on aesthetics. If you do that without the others, it can have horrible results - I have seen "Georgian style" (ie posh pastiche) buildings where there are floors seen going through the middle of the tall elegant windows.
As an urban planning exercise, Poundbury is not that good.
I'll go with you on light and proportions, but that does not need to be Georgian - it can be 14C churches, Elizabethan prodigy houses or any period since. Modernists are very good at it - try eg Highpoint 1 and Highpoint 2 in Highgate.
When I lived in that area (South Hampstead) one of my most memorable architectural trips was a half day at the London Open House (did you do anything last month?) looking at 4 or 5 different types of Council Flat built by Camden in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.
Personally my favourite architect for the last few years has probably been Peter Aldington, who built his own house simply at Haddenham, Bucks in 1967-9 simply in a modernist / arts & crafts approach (as I call it - perhaps humanist modern is a better phrase), and is still living there with his wife. An inspirational place to visit.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
It's quite a neat trick.
I suspect the point behind this is density. Which is as it should be.
But by saying "look, we want to build in a Georgian style" everyone gets distracted by saying "cor, look at the stucco on that", rather than the real message which is building European-style high density urban settlements instead of American-style suburban sprawl.
What, vehicles ground to a complete halt whilst these ******** cyclists surround them making it impossible to move?
I'm trying (and failing) to decipher the eight letter expletive. 'infernal' fits, but isn't normally censored. 'dratted'? 'damnable'? Or am I thinking wrong and it's 'gorgeous'? Or something that you have to censor on here, Naughtie rhyming slang for 'Huntlike'?
Alternatively, the number of asterisks may have been marginally random.
It did occur to me, but I thought with you having a precise, incisive legal mind you wouldn't be putting in random numbers of *.
Maybe time to simply admit you can't ******* spell *******?
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
Needn't be huge, just classily proportioned. Houses like this shouldn't cost a couple of million;
And the main part of making them happen is to not waste space on so many cars. But if you have sufficient gentle density, people can do the things they want without driving everywhere. Which is why the current estate model doesn't work and why the good things in life have to be there before residents move in, even if it's not commercially viable for a bit.
"classically proportioned" means a 22ft drawing room, a pantry, a sitting room, several bedrooms and the rest.
But yes - looks great and those I'm sure in your pic cost around £2m.
Is it just me or does SKS talking about a decade in power (which implies at least two and may three, general election wins) before he's even won his first election seem kind of hubristic?
Almost shades of Labour in 1992 and 2007... He should have a razor sharp focus on winning Election 24 and nothing else... The time for a victory rally/speech is after the victory, not before it...
Presumably you'd prefer "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for a rocky couple of years propped up by Scots and Liberals, before an exhausted return to opposition by 2027 at the latest".
I think talking about a decade in power helps to manage Labour activists who may get twitchy about needing short term radical changes. It says be patient, we will get in and then treat this as a long term plan, we don't need to put everything in our 2024 manifesto.
I think it’s also savvy messaging. The basic gist is “I need two terms to fix this.” That not only downplays expectations of how quickly “it” can be fixed, but also fires the starting gun on GE2028/29 - the “give me an extra term to finish the job” pitch.
The other thing Starmer doesn’t want to imply is that he’s dispensable. The country has gone through changes of leadership too often of late, and we could really do with the stability afforded by someone staying in office for a little more than 2/3 years on average. By creating a two term strategy, Starmer is tying himself to a long term “project”, and giving himself more job security.
I will say that Starmer is a savvy tactician if nothing else. He does not get enough credit for that in the mainstream media (though it has been long noted on here).
I can see a narrative developing that ascribes almost Seldonian powers of foresight and long-term planning to Starmer, but I don't really see it. He was right there, as Shadow Brexit Secretary, when Labour completely failed to have any influence on Brexit, despite the government being epically split and losing numerous Commons votes.
I know we all want to believe that things will get better, even just a little, for a while, with a change of government, but it's starting to get a bit absurd.
I think you misunderstand. I am not suggesting that Starmer has always been right, or that he is some political colossus who will lead us into the sunlit uplands (jury very much still out on that, and I’m far from convinced). But since the polls turned in Labours favour it is undeniable that he has generally played his hand very, very well.
I suspect being ahead in the polls has a positive effect on him. When he is behind, I am not sure he demonstrates the same resilience and fleetness of foot (could be a portent of trouble ahead).
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
It's quite a neat trick.
I suspect the point behind this is density. Which is as it should be.
But by saying "look, we want to build in a Georgian style" everyone gets distracted by saying "cor, look at the stucco on that", rather than the real message which is building European-style high density urban settlements instead of American-style suburban sprawl.
But then how do you deal with "everyone wants their own garden" objection?
(My answer to that is: "no, a lot of them don't - they want a small private outside space to eat out and catch sun in sometimes".)
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
The main thing about tall Georgian houses is the horribly poor quality of the build - they were the thrown up speculative rot-boxes of their day.
What do you think they were covered in 'plaster' in various forms to hide, and fall down almost at random somewhere every year?
Well-off Londoners never looked horses in the mouth.
Well I'm sitting right now, typing, in a classic London late-Georgian terrace house, Grade 2 listed, nearly 200 years old, and it isn't falling down as far as I can see
And the windows are lovely and BIG, floor to ceiling, letting in tons of light. I love them, and I love my flat. Why shouldn't everyone have this?
I wonder if yours benefits from being nearly Victorian? eg regular high quality manufactured bricks made in brick factories came in in the 1820s.
Aesthetics, liveability and practicality are different things, and I think King Charles (& you?) are largely reacting mainly on aesthetics. If you do that without the others, it can have horrible results - I have seen "Georgian style" (ie posh pastiche) buildings where there are floors seen going through the middle of the tall elegant windows.
As an urban planning exercise, Poundbury is not that good.
I'll go with you on light and proportions, but that does not need to be Georgian - it can be 14C churches, Elizabethan prodigy houses or any period since. Modernists are very good at it - try eg Highpoint 1 and Highpoint 2 in Highgate.
When I lived in that area (South Hampstead) one of my most memorable architectural trips was a half day at the London Open House (did you do anything last month?) looking at 4 or 5 different types of Council Flat built by Camden in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.
Personally my favourite architect for the last few years has probably been Peter Aldington, who built his own house simply at Haddenham, Bucks in 1967-9 simply in a modernist / arts & crafts approach (as I call it - perhaps humanist modern is a better phrase), and is still living there with his wife. An inspirational place to visit.
It says very little about the beauty of said building that the website organisers have chosen an external shot where it's almost completely hidden with (beautifully cultivated) vegetation.
Modern buildings can be beautiful of course, but there are objective beauty standards with buildings, as much as there are with humans, and for much the same primal reasons. We should ensure that buildings quench the desire for beauty; then they can be as modern as they wish.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
It's quite a neat trick.
I suspect the point behind this is density. Which is as it should be.
But by saying "look, we want to build in a Georgian style" everyone gets distracted by saying "cor, look at the stucco on that", rather than the real message which is building European-style high density urban settlements instead of American-style suburban sprawl.
Those in favour of more traditional styles of architecture have long argued this practical advantage - not only is 'suburban sprawl' unappealing, it's also space inefficient. I think the general unappealing quality of most new builds must also be a contributing factor to Nimby-ism in general.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
It's quite a neat trick.
I suspect the point behind this is density. Which is as it should be.
But by saying "look, we want to build in a Georgian style" everyone gets distracted by saying "cor, look at the stucco on that", rather than the real message which is building European-style high density urban settlements instead of American-style suburban sprawl.
But then how do you deal with "everyone wants their own garden" objection?
(My answer to that is: "no, a lot of them don't - they want a small private outside space to eat out and catch sun in sometimes".)
Exactly that. I'm sure David Wilson will still be building garden'n'double driveway houses for those that want them. But plenty of people would be happy with a small outside space and a decent municipal park.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
It's quite a neat trick.
I suspect the point behind this is density. Which is as it should be.
But by saying "look, we want to build in a Georgian style" everyone gets distracted by saying "cor, look at the stucco on that", rather than the real message which is building European-style high density urban settlements instead of American-style suburban sprawl.
But then how do you deal with "everyone wants their own garden" objection?
(My answer to that is: "no, a lot of them don't - they want a small private outside space to eat out and catch sun in sometimes".)
Exactly that. I'm sure David Wilson will still be building garden'n'double driveway houses for those that want them. But plenty of people would be happy with a small outside space and a decent municipal park.
Is there a sense that the SNP has failed in its mission (independence) and now Scots are looking for parties better able to match their needs? Has the whiff of scandal and the loss of Sturgeon had an effect? Was Rutherglen a reaction bad covid behaviour?
My sense is that quite a few Scots - 45% or so - still rather fancy indy, but it is now, for many a vague aspiration, not a pressing concern (see the granular polling on who wants a vote NOW, who think it is a massively important issue)
There is a core vote of about 30% (maybe there always was) which still DO see indy as THE issue and want a vote ASAP. That is the SNP's floor. 30%
Wanting a big policy thing and voting don't always go in synch. For decades loads of people wanted to either leave or radically reform the EU but mostly carried on voting for the mainstream. It took a force of nature to change that.
It can happen the other way. The SNP has been a force of nature, but missed the big chance in 2014, and missed the chance to run the party and country well enough. Independence ain't happening for decades. Everyone knows that. So in the future it's quite possible that a big minority will want independence and most of them vote Lab/Con.
So have I got this right? The winning Labour policy, applauded by all on here, to sweep all before it at GE2024, is to give everyone a six bedroom Georgian house with formal gardens and a ha-ha?
Needn't be huge, just classily proportioned. Houses like this shouldn't cost a couple of million;
And the main part of making them happen is to not waste space on so many cars. But if you have sufficient gentle density, people can do the things they want without driving everywhere. Which is why the current estate model doesn't work and why the good things in life have to be there before residents move in, even if it's not commercially viable for a bit.
"classically proportioned" means a 22ft drawing room, a pantry, a sitting room, several bedrooms and the rest.
But yes - looks great and those I'm sure in your pic cost around £2m.
That's your problem.
A developer can build a 3-bed house for a *build*-cost of perhaps £100k (haven't checked, but not so long ago it was a lot less than that).
If you require custom designed highly-proportioned dwellings that meet your standards of beauty, proportion and space, you will be adding 25-40% (guestimate) to the cost of every new house coming onto the market.
Since this is all so serious, can we have a lighter thread too?
Has ANYONE on PB, EVER, managed to cook a decent poached egg in an air fryer? How?
Youtube is full of Soccer Mom's demanding how easy it is, and how perfect they are if you do thisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthisandthis.
My current view is that a small pan of water is twice as easy, three time as quick, and works.
Why use an air fryer? I get perfect poached eggs in a poacher - set white, runny yolks. Every time.
(My boiled eggs are similalry reliable with solid white, runny yolks. I get our eggs from ex-Strictly dancer Flavia, which are often double-yolkers.)
I get mine from hens.
Where is all this love for poached eggs coming from? Aren't they just a kind of woke, low fat, poor man's fried egg, consumed by incel men in three quarter length jeans with avocado on a piece of sourdough? No wonder this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no truck with any cultural developments since about 1996, and, moreover, will fry pretty much anything*, but poached is my egg of choice.
*fried Christmas pudding is a boxing day treat. Along with fried potatoes.
The most wrong opinion ever voiced on PB. I don't even know who you people are anymore.
(I should clarify, in case it's needed, that fried Christmas pudding is a breakfast thing.) While I'm on about frying Christmas foods, frying sprouts (with pancetta and pine nuts) is a fine way to make your sprouts palatable.
Even better is to fry them with chestnuts and pancetta and then discard the sprouts...
Joking aside, I actually quite like sprouts and anticipate the season each autumn.
I read somewhere about how the aggressive sulphuric bitterness has been effectively bred out of sprouts now - the popular dislike is a combination of meme and folk memory.
I think that's true, although people still differ in how they taste to them. My wife, probably a supertaster (finds cauliflower full of flavour for instance) can't stand sprouts. I love them, on the whole.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
If it needs paying for then everyone should pay for it, if it's public infrastructure.
Don't want to pay for new schools? Then we need to live in a state without population growth. But if we live in a state with population growth then absolutely everyone in that state should pay their taxes not just a minority.
There's no pollution or externality from new homes. Extra people bring extra demand but cramming those extra people into overcrowded slums doesn't cut demand. A child living in an overcrowded home needs a school just as much, and needs extra support from teachers/schools/taxpayers because they don't have space of their own at home to study.
Your position fosters the very NIMBYism you profess to hate.
Say there is a need for 50k homes across two adjacent local authority areas.
If you just say the 50k homes pay Council Tax, but all the capital cost of infrastructure to support 100k+ new residents falls on taxpayers in the area as a whole, it's just deeply unattractive to have those new homes in your area. Not only do you get your area built on, but you pay a fortune for the privilege. Much better to put every obstacle in the way of it happening so the neighbouring authority has to deal with it.
If, however, the buyers of the homes (via the developer) pay a levy for additional infrastructure (as well as expanding the tax base), sure you've still got some NIMBYs complaining. But some of the people in the area, and certainly councillors and the Council think, "Hang on, we're going to get that new school people want, plus a road upgrade nearby and a leisure centre... so maybe we can face down the people whining about a new estate being built because we all get an infrastructure upgrade".
I never said it should be funded by Council Tax. Nor should it be funded by those paying new buildings alone.
It should be funded by the entire country. Central funding, in a grant if needed, based on the changing circumstances.
If a new school is needed, that should be funded by the Department for Education, centrally.
And that should be done based on the number of children in the area, not the number of houses. 10,000 children in 5,000 houses need the same education as 10,000 children in 50,000 houses.
So yes, say that people will get the school, the leisure centre etc but send that bill where it belongs, don't have a tiny fraction of locals paying for it while the rest of the country does nothing.
Almost all taxes go to the Chancellor, centrally. The local authority budget should be to maintain and operate services not account for rampant population growth that's been determined by central government policies to which central government is taking the taxes.
Why should only a fraction of taxpayers shoulder the entire burden of population growth? It should be consistent and applied to all.
You've changed your position from earlier in the debate, which is progress at least.
You had said, "Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job" and indicated you thought s106/CIL should simply be abolished.
Now you appear to accept that councils don't have the money for that investment, and say central Government should write a fat cheque to local authorities based on homes taken. That's fine - I'm not sure councils care that much who signs the cheque.
Then it's a question of how you fund it given it ultimately falls on the taxpayer and there are very few "good" taxes. It wouldn't be ludicrous to do it via a levy on sales of new build properties. If you want to do it via income tax, corporation tax, or VAT, knock yourself out - but you do need some kind of adequately funded system to replace the current one.
Brussel sprouts are big in America. Brussel sprout consumption per capita must be off the charts.
They are all fried or roasted, with bacon, or parmesan, or chilli, or walnuts, or some combination thereof.
A rare highlight of American cuisine.
I once did a court case about Brussel sprouts and crop spraying. More than 90% of the sprouts eaten in the UK are (or were at that time) eaten in December. Crops had to be sprayed to help them reach maturity in time for that. The main consumer of sprouts in January, and much of the rest of the year, are pigs. They lose almost their entire value if they are not ready for Christmas. Tricky business.
Having tried growing them on the allotment I would agree. Far too often mine tend to be very open (not the nice, closed, tight sprout you want). Also grow for an absolute age and are dirt cheap in December.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
- Times £££
Yes, me too.
It's so utterly ridiculous we aren't doing this already. Look at the places where people REALLY want to live, they are full of tallish period houses from the 18th and 19th centuries. That's what people WANT, trouble is they are so desirable they are too expensive for most
So build more! DUH
King Charles was right all those decades ago. Well done Starmer and Labour - if they actually do this
They'll have to slap the developers who want to build cheap shoddy redbrick boxy @BartholomewRoberts shit and make as fat a profit as possible, but fuck em
The main thing about tall Georgian houses is the horribly poor quality of the build - they were the thrown up speculative rot-boxes of their day.
What do you think they were covered in 'plaster' in various forms to hide, and fall down almost at random somewhere every year?
Well-off Londoners never looked horses in the mouth.
Well I'm sitting right now, typing, in a classic London late-Georgian terrace house, Grade 2 listed, nearly 200 years old, and it isn't falling down as far as I can see
And the windows are lovely and BIG, floor to ceiling, letting in tons of light. I love them, and I love my flat. Why shouldn't everyone have this?
I wonder if yours benefits from being nearly Victorian? eg regular high quality manufactured bricks made in brick factories came in in the 1820s.
Aesthetics, liveability and practicality are different things, and I think King Charles (& you?) are largely reacting mainly on aesthetics. If you do that without the others, it can have horrible results - I have seen "Georgian style" (ie posh pastiche) buildings where there are floors seen going through the middle of the tall elegant windows.
As an urban planning exercise, Poundbury is not that good.
I'll go with you on light and proportions, but that does not need to be Georgian - it can be 14C churches, Elizabethan prodigy houses or any period since. Modernists are very good at it - try eg Highpoint 1 and Highpoint 2 in Highgate.
When I lived in that area (South Hampstead) one of my most memorable architectural trips was a half day at the London Open House (did you do anything last month?) looking at 4 or 5 different types of Council Flat built by Camden in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.
Personally my favourite architect for the last few years has probably been Peter Aldington, who built his own house simply at Haddenham, Bucks in 1967-9 simply in a modernist / arts & crafts approach (as I call it - perhaps humanist modern is a better phrase), and is still living there with his wife. An inspirational place to visit.
In my part of Scotland every attempt by the Council to impose decent conditions on the local volume housebuilder seems to be overturned when said builder appeals to ScotGov. The whole thing is a mockery and the result is a horrible rash of bogstandard housing estates radiating out from our historic towns. They've even managed to get the road verges designated as "green corridors" in order to get round that condition.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so. The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
Is Meades that much a of a Corbusian?
Meades made an entire documentary series paying tribute to Brutalism ('Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloodymindedness'), and singled out Georgian architecture as particularly vapid.
I agree with him to a certain extent that the Georgian style (and NeoClassicism in general) is rarely used imaginatively, but a more essential factor in good architecture would seem to me to be appeal.
Agree with him or not (Blimey, he's 76 ! - just checked.), the personal taste of a few isn't the point. This is worth a read.
Unlike nearly all other arts, architecture is inherently public and shared. That means that buildings should be designed to be agreeable – easy to like – not to be unpopular works of genius. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/making-architecture-easy ...I believe that the ‘traditionalist’ framing is indeed a mistake, and that there is no reason to favour traditional styles per se. But there are important reasons why we should favour some architectural styles over others – reasons that are special to architecture, and that set it apart from music, literature, painting or film. Architecture is a public art, a vernacular art, and a background art: it is created by a huge range of people, and experienced involuntarily by an even wider one. This means that we need architectural styles that are as accessible as possible, to the full range of people who live with what we build, and to the full range of builders who create it. Some ‘traditional’ styles might well be useful in achieving this, but it is not their being traditional that matters: any style with broad and deep appeal will do just as well..
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
It's quite a neat trick.
I suspect the point behind this is density. Which is as it should be.
But by saying "look, we want to build in a Georgian style" everyone gets distracted by saying "cor, look at the stucco on that", rather than the real message which is building European-style high density urban settlements instead of American-style suburban sprawl.
Density is preferable anyway. Just make it agreeable, and most people will want to live there.
IF Starmer actually does this, and gets rid of the Barratt style redbrick boxes blighting our fair land, I will vote for him TOMORROW
"Sir Keir Starmer will pledge to build Georgian-style townhouses in urban areas and a string of new towns as he sets out plans for a decade in power."
Guidance will specify a focus on “gentle urban development” emulating five-storey townhouses built during the 18th and 19th centuries."
- Times £££
YES!
There would be few things more satisfying than for the Corbusians to witness their final defeat at the hand of, of all things, a self-described Socialist government. It would be the final defeat of the Modern movement's creepy mid-20th Century utopianism. By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings. Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so. The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
Comments
But yes, as well built modern version with proper insulation. 👍
Scrambled eggs. Crack some eggs. Scramble them.
No fancy tools required. No added ingredients necessary.
There is a core vote of about 30% (maybe there always was) which still DO see indy as THE issue and want a vote ASAP. That is the SNP's floor. 30%
How is your Georgian house for heat retention? My understanding is that they're not generally that good for that - but I'm sure there is a way we can use modern building technology with Georgian design to get a best-of-both-worlds. (Though it must, in general, be more heat-efficient to build in terraces rather than semi- and detached houses.)
If there is no sun at all then it does need quite a lot of energy to heat, but overall it's cheap to run
While I'm on about frying Christmas foods, frying sprouts (with pancetta and pine nuts) is a fine way to make your sprouts palatable.
In fact, I thought his response was pretty good given his personal circumstances: https://twitter.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1711368333579207117?t=GH-gSPhzchMKPNwCLrOhCw&s=19
Generally, I think he's done ok since coming in. I don't think the current SNP polling is down to anything he has done as FM.
Joking aside, I actually quite like sprouts and anticipate the season each autumn.
What a transformation. And without any of @BartholomewRoberts new roads!
(GHWB and GWB all started with low-level jobs, which also helps.)
Not the only good one, I hasten to add.
And absolutely gorgeous Almond Bitter, which I am sitting here crunching.
It should be funded by the entire country. Central funding, in a grant if needed, based on the changing circumstances.
If a new school is needed, that should be funded by the Department for Education, centrally.
And that should be done based on the number of children in the area, not the number of houses. 10,000 children in 5,000 houses need the same education as 10,000 children in 50,000 houses.
So yes, say that people will get the school, the leisure centre etc but send that bill where it belongs, don't have a tiny fraction of locals paying for it while the rest of the country does nothing.
Almost all taxes go to the Chancellor, centrally. The local authority budget should be to maintain and operate services not account for rampant population growth that's been determined by central government policies to which central government is taking the taxes.
Why should only a fraction of taxpayers shoulder the entire burden of population growth? It should be consistent and applied to all.
By all means let Jonathan Meades, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton live in blighted concrete bomb shelters if they want; yobs like me want a bit of ornament in our buildings.
Georgian Neoclassicism is very agreeable and appealing, though if Sir Keir had really wanted my pupils to dilate, he'd have pledged to make those buildings Gothic Revival. Perhaps that would have been too divisive.
On the Sunak vs Starmer ratings: one trick that Sunak has rather bizarrely missed is to set himself against Truss. He predicted exactly what would happen, did not serve in her ministry (not that she'd have asked him), and came to power precisely because his prediction came true. He could contrast this against Starmer serving Corbyn up until the bitter end, and only discovering the man was racist and loathsome when it was personally politically expedient to do so.
The only reason I can find for Sunak not to do this is so as not to upset the grassroots of his own party - a sign of weakness.
I've always liked them.
Brussel sprout consumption per capita must be off the charts.
They are all fried or roasted, with bacon, or parmesan, or chilli, or walnuts, or some combination thereof.
A rare highlight of American cuisine.
The other thing Starmer doesn’t want to imply is that he’s dispensable. The country has gone through changes of leadership too often of late, and we could really do with the stability afforded by someone staying in office for a little more than 2/3 years on average. By creating a two term strategy, Starmer is tying himself to a long term “project”, and giving himself more job security.
I will say that Starmer is a savvy tactician if nothing else. He does not get enough credit for that in the mainstream media (though it has been long noted on here).
https://www.poachies.com/
He's getting his own motorway with a new-build semi and six parking spaces thrown in.
And the main part of making them happen is to not waste space on so many cars. But if you have sufficient gentle density, people can do the things they want without driving everywhere. Which is why the current estate model doesn't work and why the good things in life have to be there before residents move in, even if it's not commercially viable for a bit.
I agree with him to a certain extent that the Georgian style (and NeoClassicism in general) is rarely used imaginatively, but a more essential factor in good architecture would seem to me to be appeal.
I know we all want to believe that things will get better, even just a little, for a while, with a change of government, but it's starting to get a bit absurd.
https://vimeo.com/93963469
Aesthetics, liveability and practicality are different things, and I think King Charles (& you?) are largely reacting mainly on aesthetics. If you do that without the others, it can have horrible results - I have seen "Georgian style" (ie posh pastiche) buildings where there are floors seen going through the middle of the tall elegant windows.
As an urban planning exercise, Poundbury is not that good.
I'll go with you on light and proportions, but that does not need to be Georgian - it can be 14C churches, Elizabethan prodigy houses or any period since. Modernists are very good at it - try eg Highpoint 1 and Highpoint 2 in Highgate.
When I lived in that area (South Hampstead) one of my most memorable architectural trips was a half day at the London Open House (did you do anything last month?) looking at 4 or 5 different types of Council Flat built by Camden in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.
Personally my favourite architect for the last few years has probably been Peter Aldington, who built his own house simply at Haddenham, Bucks in 1967-9 simply in a modernist / arts & crafts approach (as I call it - perhaps humanist modern is a better phrase), and is still living there with his wife. An inspirational place to visit.
https://www.turnend.org.uk/the-trust
I suspect the point behind this is density. Which is as it should be.
But by saying "look, we want to build in a Georgian style" everyone gets distracted by saying "cor, look at the stucco on that", rather than the real message which is building European-style high density urban settlements instead of American-style suburban sprawl.
Maybe time to simply admit you can't ******* spell *******?
But yes - looks great and those I'm sure in your pic cost around £2m.
I suspect being ahead in the polls has a positive effect on him. When he is behind, I am not sure he demonstrates the same resilience and fleetness of foot (could be a portent of trouble ahead).
(My answer to that is: "no, a lot of them don't - they want a small private outside space to eat out and catch sun in sometimes".)
Modern buildings can be beautiful of course, but there are objective beauty standards with buildings, as much as there are with humans, and for much the same primal reasons. We should ensure that buildings quench the desire for beauty; then they can be as modern as they wish.
I think the general unappealing quality of most new builds must also be a contributing factor to Nimby-ism in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhJ3AFxflLo
Complete with protester.
It can happen the other way. The SNP has been a force of nature, but missed the big chance in 2014, and missed the chance to run the party and country well enough. Independence ain't happening for decades. Everyone knows that. So in the future it's quite possible that a big minority will want independence and most of them vote Lab/Con.
A developer can build a 3-bed house for a *build*-cost of perhaps £100k (haven't checked, but not so long ago it was a lot less than that).
If you require custom designed highly-proportioned dwellings that meet your standards of beauty, proportion and space, you will be adding 25-40% (guestimate) to the cost of every new house coming onto the market.
How will you make that work?
SKS handled it well – said: "Protest or power? That's why we changed our party."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhJ3AFxflLo
You had said, "Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job" and indicated you thought s106/CIL should simply be abolished.
Now you appear to accept that councils don't have the money for that investment, and say central Government should write a fat cheque to local authorities based on homes taken. That's fine - I'm not sure councils care that much who signs the cheque.
Then it's a question of how you fund it given it ultimately falls on the taxpayer and there are very few "good" taxes. It wouldn't be ludicrous to do it via a levy on sales of new build properties. If you want to do it via income tax, corporation tax, or VAT, knock yourself out - but you do need some kind of adequately funded system to replace the current one.
NEW THREAD
This is worth a read.
Unlike nearly all other arts, architecture is inherently public and shared. That means that buildings should be designed to be agreeable – easy to like – not to be unpopular works of genius.
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/making-architecture-easy
...I believe that the ‘traditionalist’ framing is indeed a mistake, and that there is no reason to favour traditional styles per se. But there are important reasons why we should favour some architectural styles over others – reasons that are special to architecture, and that set it apart from music, literature, painting or film. Architecture is a public art, a vernacular art, and a background art: it is created by a huge range of people, and experienced involuntarily by an even wider one. This means that we need architectural styles that are as accessible as possible, to the full range of people who live with what we build, and to the full range of builders who create it. Some ‘traditional’ styles might well be useful in achieving this, but it is not their being traditional that matters: any style with broad and deep appeal will do just as well..
Just make it agreeable, and most people will want to live there.