Boris Johnson as Mayor - what are the implications for London's development?

[potto]

Originally Posted by NCT

The UK has a pretty good welfare state that people can fall onto when they genuinely need it, and compared to most places it's relatively easy to grasp opportunities to improve your livelihood. The broader point is you can't have too many people dependent on the welfare state because then it becomes unaffordable.

What I'm saying is that for the current housing shortage in the UK, the market is part of the solution, but of course not the only part of the solution. I suppose what you really need is a rebalance of the economy away from London, but even then London will still be a global magnet and there will still be a housing conflict.

What has that got to do with minimum space standards?

[potto]

Even Boris agrees with the concept, no idea where that leaves are hardline Tory fringe on here

[Octoman]

I only agree with it for state provided housing. These are for 'forced buyers' who effectively have to take what they are given. For the private buyer they have discretion. I don't see why they need to be protected from substandard builds. They can defer the decision to buy or look at a different development.

[potto]

how can it be good for London to have sub-standard housing stock hanging around for decades?! Housing and food have already given this country a bad name for long enough.

Also, the only reason it wasn't phased into the private sector at the same time was that the house builders complained, no one else!

I am sure that London will introduce a minimum standard soon, even boroughs have been trying to phase it in.

[Octoman]

Why should the government get involved in the private property market? It is a private business transaction between a developer and a private individual. The government has absolutely no need and no right to interfere. Quite frankly it is none of the governments business.

[larven]

So should we just do away with the building regulations then?

[Langur]

Originally Posted by larven

Council 'flats' are a failure of the crap planning ideas of the 60's...

Originally Posted by larven

I'm all for taxpayers paying to build more social housing, the onus shouldn't be on private developers to pay for this whilst compromising their own developments as a result. Borrow at the historically low interest rates the UK currently enjoys and begin a house building programme of the like this country hasn't seen since the 1960's. You would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs at a stroke for many years to come.

Originally Posted by larven

Here's what happens to people who get left behind in one of the world's richest and most capitalist cities. Perhaps we should let things get this bad before we actually realise that applying standards to housing is actually a good thing and that the market should not be left on its own to just sort everything out?

First you rave against the horrors of 60s council flats. Next it seems you want to go back to the glory years of the 60s public housing boom?

By the way, we already have more than enough regulation to prevent cage homes like in Hong Kong. But what you and others are demanding is yet more regulation.

It's also worth noting that Hong Kong already builds tons of public housing in massive high-rise blocks (the kind of urban density that would give Potto or El Greco wet dreams). Yet overall Hong Kong still builds fewer units per year than London, despite a similar population size and growth. More public sector house building = less private sector house building, and the balance isn't necessarily positive.

And why reach for such an unimaginative solution with such a dubious record? I'm not against building codes per se, but I am suspicious of a new generation of council flats. Why not look at positive examples like Vancouver or Toronto? There you have large volumes of dense urban development by private sector builders. That's exactly what London needs, and is surely more attractive and viable than a new generation of council flats.

[Octoman]

@ Larven

Safety regulations are needed because a building that burns down because of dodgy wiring is not just a private issue. It affects those around them. Add that the average person is not capable of assessing structural integrity, electrical / gas safety etc and it makes sense to have some government expertise involved. I am under no illusion that there are some pretty unsavour characters out there fin the property world.

But anyone should be capable of judging if a flat is badly located, too small, flimsly and overpriced. I don't think the government needs to get involved at that level. I honestly believe that all other things being equal, the developer who produces more attractive homes (the type of thing you posted earlier in the thread) will do better than the developer turning out substandard crap. Surely it is better to have poorer developers willingly raise their game in persuit of better margins than force them to do the bare minumum via intrusive legislation?

[larven]

@Langur

Yes I want a public housing building boom but that doesn't have to mean it would largely be a pile of crap, like the horrible 60's tower blocks. There are plenty of regulations and good practice guides in place that would ensure that the housing would be of a good standard in well designed new settlements, or integrated into existing neigbourhoods.

So the solution isn't neccessarily unimaginative if it delivers huge volumes of good quality housing which is what this country desperately needs. I am also not in favour of more regulation, just the right kind of regualtion that is going to deliver both quality and volume. For a start I'd get rid of the affordable housing contribution which is an obstacle to delivering both for private sector developers, or certainly the ones I work with anyway.

@Octoman

Sadly many developers do not see the value added in producing something like the housing I posted previously. It is a market failure and so in this instance I support measures that make it mandatory for good design standards to be ingrained from the outset, like minimum size standards.

[potto]

This is a good report on the subject

http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/pl...-standards.pdf

There has been growing concern that the internal space of new dwellings may be
getting smaller. There is evidence that less family size housing is being provided. There
is however concern that internal space within both family and non-family homes may
also be reducing. This has implications for both accessibility and for sustainability and for
quality of life including health. In addition there is a relationship between size of units
and affordability. In recent years, Government targets have focused on unit output
rather than the quality of provision. The London Plan, while establishing general design
principles (including Lifetime Homes and wheelchair provision), does not give specific
guidance on standards. It is imperative that good quality housing is provided to create a
suitable and sustainable living environment for now and future generations.

..........

In the absence of controls, developers (both public and private sector) will tend to
reduce the size of dwellings being developed whilst trying to minimise any reduction in
value. Studies indicate a pattern of increased “cramming” of rooms
(such as additional bathrooms) into dwellings leading to smaller habitable rooms and
significant reductions in storage space.

[Langur]

@Potto
The latter problem could be elegantly solved by forcing all real estate advertising to include square feet/metres. It does not necessitate a new generation of public house building.

@Larven
Your argument is simply that "public housing will be better this time." You make no response to my argument that building lots of public sector housing may diminish private sector volume, nor any comment on the (imo more attractive) model of Toronto or Vancouver.

[potto]

Research on the effects of space standards on residents had tended (understandably) to
have focused on overcrowding. Altman (1975) outlines the effects:

“As the number of persons within homes increases:
‘* The number of social contacts increases
* ‘Privacy decreases
* ‘The number of unwanted social interactions increases
* ‘Parents may be unable to monitor the children's behaviour
* ‘Access to simple goals such as heating or watching television may be frustrated
* ‘Activities such as using the bathroom have to be coordinated with others
* ‘Sick persons may not receive the care they require.

Pressures arising from these situations may lead to interpersonal aggression, withdrawal
from the family, sexually deviant behaviour, psychological distress or physical illness.”

It is worth noting that these pressures would arise through living in cramped or crowded
conditions, or through being forced to live in more open-plan layouts. In fact, as we
have seen, these two factors (a reduction in space, and open-plan designs) tends to go
hand-in-hand, reinforcing these pressures.

It is difficult for causative links to be clearly identified, although there does appear to be
associative links:

* There is some limited evidence to support a relationship between overcrowding and
social and emotional development in children.

* The very limited evidence available points to an independent relationship between
overcrowding and educational attainment.

* the University of Glasgow SHARP project reported that a move from "tight" space
standards to more spacious dwellings significantly reduced family tensions.

It seems reasonable to assume that these pressures are not simply triggered at some
level of crowding, but are progressive, and that cramped living conditions will increase
stress and affect the mental health and well-being of residents, particularly children.

There also seems to be supporting evidence that both adults and children need to have
external recreational areas in which they feel safe and which they see as within their
"ownership". This may be gardens or communal play areas, or private balconies which
are large enough to fulfil their recreational function (as opposed to having to be used for
external storage).

The main issue seems to be that the individuals within the dwelling need sufficient
private space to be able to undertake the normal functions of living together with Page - 10 (crucially)
space for private recreational activity within the home and outside the home.

In accommodation designed for households of more than one or two people, this implies
that there are either two separate living areas, or the bedrooms are large enough to
allow the occupant(s) to use them for their private recreational activities or study/work
as well as places for sleeping, dressing etc.

In addition, residents need access to suitable private external space or as well as (ideally) private external
space that allows occasional (controlled) social interaction such as the equivalent to a conversation across a garden fence.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Langur

@Potto
The latter problem could be elegantly solved by forcing all real estate advertising to include square feet/metres. It does not necessitate a new generation of public house building.

I'm sure the advertising change would be useful! So what happened to the plan? Why is it taking so long?

As the report suggests the minimum space legislation would be a safety net to stop any developer or landlord from creating inhumane living space. Seems decent enough.

The issue of public house building is separate and more to do with housing supply.



Our proposals have been framed in the light of a number of principles, the most
significant of which are:

a) To propose "safety-net" standards rather than "good practice" standards i.e. to set
standards that would only impede the development of dwellings of such low space
standards that there is significant concern about their long-term sustainability and
suitability for the designed level of occupancy.

b) Standards should not unnecessarily inhibit designers’ ability to respond to market
demand in terms of how space in the home is – or can be – used.

c) Design efficiency is determined by the designer; space standards should not impose
inefficiencies

d) Minimum standards should address functionality issues only. Decisions on whether
to provide higher standards (such as additional ensuite bathrooms, utility rooms etc)
are solely commercial decisions.

e) Proposals should be easy for the designer to understand and for the planning officer
to implement.

There is a tension between ease of use and robustness. We have struck a balance
between these competing imperatives by proposing Baseline Standards which are very
simple to use.

We then propose some Additional Standards which could be adopted if it
is felt that their added complexity of implementation can be managed.

The Baseline Standards consist of:

x minimum floor areas for the combined cooking, eating and living areas (CEL areas,
the Kitchen/Dining/Living areas), allowing the designer to distribute the spaces
between these three areas as they wish.

x minimum floor areas for bedrooms (in order to comply with the Housing Act 1985
requirements regarding overcrowding), Page - 12

x aggregate bedroom floor areas to be achieved in a dwelling, but allowing flexibility
for the designer to distribute that space is as they wish (subject to meeting the
minimum floor areas derived from legislation).

x minimum floor area requirements for internal storage.


The Additional Standards address:

x minimum room dimensions and proportions

x "dirty" storage

x internal playspace

x external recreational space (balcony)

x mobility

[larven]

Originally Posted by Langur

@Larven
Your argument is simply that "public housing will be better this time." You make no response to my argument that building lots of public sector housing may diminish private sector volume, nor any comment on the (imo more attractive) model of Toronto or Vancouver.

Why should it diminish private sector volume?

There is a huge pent up demand that not even a huge public sector social housing building boom could cater for. To put it simply we are not delivering nearly enough social or private sector housing period so there is a need for both to raise their game considerably.

Why couldn't we have better private sector delivery based on the Toronto or Vancouver model coupled with a large social housing building programme?

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Why should the government get involved in the private property market? It is a private business transaction between a developer and a private individual. The government has absolutely no need and no right to interfere. Quite frankly it is none of the governments business.

because as you may have learned in a civics class, the job of the government is to protect people. this includes at a very basic level food and water, shelter and warmth, a few very basic human rights.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by larven

Why should it diminish private sector volume?

There is a huge pent up demand that not even a huge public sector social housing building boom could cater for. To put it simply we are not delivering nearly enough social or private sector housing period so there is a need for both to raise their game considerably.

Why couldn't we have better private sector delivery based on the Toronto or Vancouver model coupled with a large social housing building programme?

private sector construction was at its highest levels when council building were.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by gothicform

private sector construction was at its highest levels when council building were.

You'll need to show me some evidence for that. You look around our cities, and I find it hard to believe that private sector house building in the 1960s was anywhere near the level it was in the 1930s when so much of Britain's suburbia was built. I mean where are all these great swathes of private sector housing from the 1960s?

[Langur]

Originally Posted by larven

Why should it diminish private sector volume?

Do I really have to explain?

Originally Posted by larven

There is a huge pent up demand that not even a huge public sector social housing building boom could cater for. To put it simply we are not delivering nearly enough social or private sector housing period so there is a need for both to raise their game considerably.

Why couldn't we have better private sector delivery based on the Toronto or Vancouver model coupled with a large social housing building programme?

We wouldn't need loads of new council housing if our private sector was building the kind of volumes seen in Toronto and Vancouver. You seem to have this idea that the private sector always needs to be supplemented by large volumes of public housing, but often the private sector goes on an unsustainable orgy of house building. We've seen this in Spain and the US until recently, and the market in Australia and Canada is still frothy. Unfortunately we've got the exact opposite problem. Our own private sector housebuilders haven't built like that since the 1930s. We need to find ways of making them build more.

[kerouac1848]

Originally Posted by Langur

Do I really have to explain? We wouldn't need loads of new council housing if our private sector was building the kind of volumes seen in Toronto and Vancouver. You seem to have this idea that the private sector always needs to be supplemented by large volumes of public housing, but often the private sector can goes on an unsustainable orgy of house building. We've seen this in Spain and the US until recently, and the market in Australia and Canada is still frothy. Unfortunately we've got the exact opposite problem. Our own private sector housebuilders hasn't built like that since the 1930s. We need to find ways of making them build more.

But we're never going to see planning relaxed to the levels of the US, Canada, Spain, Ireland or Australia, that's the problem. Compare how easy it is for a Canadian or American to buy a couple of acres of land and then build on it to here, or at least most parts of the country. Distaste for tall buildings and large urban developments is far stronger here than in North America and ANZ, perhaps because historically we've never had the sky penthouses and luxury 'scrapers that have been common for over half-a-century there, certainly in the US. Generally though Brits are more conservative about housing and development - the ideal home for most is probably an old cottage in an older village served by country lanes and there is an increasing suspicion to grand projects led by government and big business.

The outcry over HS2, a potential new airport, Prescott's housebuilding plans across Southern and middle England (although admittedly flawed) and pretty much any sizable development in London which is not located in industrial 'wasteland' shows how little room there is politically for any government. We're a world away from the inter-war years, being far more affluent both individually and collectively meaning people won't be rolled over so easily. We don't have the space of the above mentioned countries and economically remain completely lopsided, dominated by one corner.

To tear up the planning system to the extent needed to increase supply enough is going to be a very hard political policy to sell I'm afraid, not least when the key voter age range of 40-70 don't suffer from a skewed housing market.

[larven]

Originally Posted by Langur

Do I really have to explain?

Please do because from where I'm sat there is a huge need for both social and private sector housing. Consider there are 5 million people on the waiting lists for social housing in the UK.

Originally Posted by Langur

We wouldn't need loads of new council housing if our private sector was building the kind of volumes seen in Toronto and Vancouver. You seem to have this idea that the private sector always needs to be supplemented by large volumes of public housing, but often the private sector goes on an unsustainable orgy of house building. We've seen this in Spain and the US until recently, and the market in Australia and Canada is still frothy. Unfortunately we've got the exact opposite problem. Our own private sector housebuilders haven't built like that since the 1930s. We need to find ways of making them build more.

Yes we do need to find ways to help them build more but I don't see why that couldn't go hand in hand with much more social housing too. It's a two pronged approach rather than relying on the private sector alone to build as many houses as we need, which is highly unlikely. Make no mistake the housing situation in this country is a crisis that is going to get worse if future demographics are taken into account. If we're prepared to chuck £45bn at a failed bank so why not invest public money in just about the safest long term investment there is, bricks and mortar.