Opinions on London

[FutureImperfect]

Originally Posted by outofcontext

I think London is undoubtedly one of the best world capitals (with NY a close second), but I do think that our extremely conservative architectural culture is a problem - and increasingly so. One of the greatest environmental planning challenges is the densification of our major cities and that means more residential high-rise in our inner-London boroughs, and yet opposition to them is vociferous.
London has such a shortage of housing that the think-tank IPPR is forcasting a shortfall of some 325,000 homes by 2025 (I reckon that equivalent to a city almost the size of Birmingham!). This shortage is principally the reason that London has some of the most unaffordable home prices of anywhere in the world. But conservative opposition to even modest high-rise developments in inner-London makes addressing this shortage virtually impossible and so we're now relaxing planning laws to make it easier to create low-rise urban sprawl over greenbelt (along with the new roads and carbon-emitting commutes that they bring) which the European Environment Agency describes as "the worst-case scenario".
Our architectural culture is entrenched in the aesthetic values of a provincial heritage town rather than a world capital with a dire housing shortage - and that will prove a big problem for London's future.

Well, NYC is not a capital city so, and I'm surprised this tagline is not commonly used already, is London the 'World's Greatest Capital City'?

[PadArch]

well i'm not sure if it needs the qualifier of capital city to be greatest, i think its a good runner for the main category.

[outofcontext]

Does one have to be a national capital in order to qualify as a world capital? Isn't "capital of the world" a tag long associated with NYC?
http://moreintelligentlife.com/node/3756

[potto]

Originally Posted by larven

^Oh dear that is a travesty...

Seriously what is the point of that?

Student accommodation! Nearly as bad as "Budget Hotels" for blights on the landscape.

Wouldn't be so bad if they actually were student digs and cheap hotels.

As opposed to the reality of expensive per square floor accommodation for confused foreign students and multi-million pound profit making hotel chains with a marketing ethos to look as cheap as possible!

[potto]

Originally Posted by outofcontext

I think London is undoubtedly one of the best world capitals (with NY a close second), but I do think that our extremely conservative architectural culture is a problem - and increasingly so. One of the greatest environmental planning challenges is the densification of our major cities and that means more residential high-rise in our inner-London boroughs, and yet opposition to them is vociferous.
London has such a shortage of housing that the think-tank IPPR is forcasting a shortfall of some 325,000 homes by 2025 (I reckon that equivalent to a city almost the size of Birmingham!). This shortage is principally the reason that London has some of the most unaffordable home prices of anywhere in the world. But conservative opposition to even modest high-rise developments in inner-London makes addressing this shortage virtually impossible and so we're now relaxing planning laws to make it easier to create low-rise urban sprawl over greenbelt (along with the new roads and carbon-emitting commutes that they bring) which the European Environment Agency describes as "the worst-case scenario".
Our architectural culture is entrenched in the aesthetic values of a provincial heritage town rather than a world capital with a dire housing shortage - and that will prove a big problem for London's future.

I agree with this, I also think a lack of interest in maintaining a certain level of quality will come back and bite us especially with increasing international competition in urban liveability.

Something that was considered relatively recently as the sole expertise of the West.

And what you have pointed out as the overt obsession over external visibility with detriment to the internal quality and accessibility to the inhabitants.

[danm]

Originally Posted by outofcontext

Does one have to be a national capital in order to qualify as a world capital? Isn't "capital of the world" a tag long associated with NYC?
http://moreintelligentlife.com/node/3756

Very true. Although that article you posted concludes that London is the capital of the world.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by potto

Student accommodation! Nearly as bad as "Budget Hotels" for blights on the landscape.

Wouldn't be so bad if they actually were student digs and cheap hotels.

As opposed to the reality of expensive per square floor accommodation for confused foreign students and multi-million pound profit making hotel chains with a marketing ethos to look as cheap as possible!

Student accommodation isn't necessarily poor quality. Look at New Wakefield Street in Manchester for example.

[potto]

usually poor though! And looking at the prices students pay for these things, someone is laughing all the way through the planning system and to the bank!

[cybertect]

Originally Posted by ArsenalUpNorth

How has London changed in the years since you've lived there?

There's much less dog poop on the pavements than there was in the 1970s, but very little of what there is is white these days.

Consequently, I'm less wary about buying shoes with a deep tread sole than I used to be.

[Dreamer]

The main thing I hate about London is the amount of disused land and empty space above shops - it makes no sense for a city which has the highest house prices in the world not to maximise every available space. People will live anywhere in London so shy not build more? This helps to bring down prices and increases stock. The quality of new flats is poor and they are far too small - we need to increase the legal minimum space requirements. Also the off the shelf windows are crap and far too small. Also get rid of the street clutter and build more towers in the City and cut gang crime please.

[SW London Wolf]

Originally Posted by Dreamer

People will live anywhere in London so shy not build more? This helps to bring down prices and increases stock.

You inadvertently hit the nail right on the head there, Dreamer.

Developers know very well that building more stock will bring down prices, that's why they don't build more. Most large developers/house building companies are sitting on large land-banks and drip-feeding the market to artificially keep prices high.

What is the answer? Maybe some sort of Government legislation along the lines of: you develop the land within a certain time frame or it gets Compulsary Purchased? Not much chance of that while the Tories are still pulling the strings, I'm afraid.

[SW London Wolf]

What I love about London: bouncebackability.

The Blitz
-bounced back.
Strikes
-bounced back.
Recession
-bounced back.
IRA bombs
-bounced back.
1985 riots
-bounced back.
Black Wednesday
-bounced back.
7/7
-bounced back.
2011 riots
-bounced back.
Recession again
-will bounce back, massive construction projects are proof of ongoing confidence.

[outofcontext]

I would have thought it had more to do with conservative Nimby groups who make large scale development extremely difficult. Take a look at this opposition group who have just persuaded local councillors to refuse permission to an 18 storey development in Dalston against the recommendation of their planning office;
http://opendalston.blogspot.com/2012...t-respect.html
London is full of them and they're usually made up of well-heeled and comfortably housed residents who have a vested interest in keeping housing scarce and prices high.

[danm]

Originally Posted by SW London Wolf

Not much chance of that while the Tories are still pulling the strings, I'm afraid.

...and Labour resolved that problem did they?

[SW London Wolf]

Originally Posted by danm

...and Labour resolved that problem did they?

Please don't make the mistake of presuming I'm a Labour supporter, or Conservative, or any party for that matter. History shows that any Compulsary Purchase made to the detriment of developers/house building companies is far less likely under the current regime than a Labour Government.

[Required]

______________________________

[mouldss@hotmail.co.u]

______________________________

[jamiefearon]

What I love about london is that so many people want to buy properties here because it is a sound investment. London properties is like a new kind of currency.

[SW London Wolf]

Originally Posted by outofcontext

I would have thought it had more to do with conservative Nimby groups who make large scale development extremely difficult. Take a look at this opposition group who have just persuaded local councillors to refuse permission to an 18 storey development in Dalston against the recommendation of their planning office;
http://opendalston.blogspot.com/2012...t-respect.html
London is full of them and they're usually made up of well-heeled and comfortably housed residents who have a vested interest in keeping housing scarce and prices high.

Good point. But some large developers/house building companies are sitting on land with planning permission and not developing.

[mouldss@hotmail.co.u]

_____________________________________