Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So came across Chafford Hundred for the first time in my life, a development of 5,000 new homes in 90s and 00s. Judging from the pictures this looks one of the most souless places I've ever seen - 90s planning at its worst surely:



It makes me want to cry.

Is this the best we can do? Does anyone know anything else about this location or other examples of poor modern town planning I can get upset by.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Only once people give up the fantasy that they can and should have their own 'castle' of a detached home will this sort of travesty no longer happen. They could have fitted in hundreds more families in that area in houses that could even be larger than what they have now if they had done it properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,998 Posts
So came across Chafford Hundred for the first time in my life, a development of 5,000 new homes in 90s and 00s. Judging from the pictures this looks one of the most souless places I've ever seen - 90s planning at its worst surely:

It makes me want to cry.

Is this the best we can do? Does anyone know anything else about this location or other examples of poor modern town planning I can get upset by.




This is Bing Map's view of that site. Your picture is taken from a higher-level road, off the left hand edge on this one.

Not sure what all the low-level buildings are - they don't seem to all have access as garages.

IIRC, space planning standards were swept away in the 1980s, and pokey-sized rooms were the result.


The layout gives variety, but only a bit of white rendering on a few frontages gives the buildings any variety, and they are still Lego blocks.

There don't seem to be any trees.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
IIRC, space planning standards were swept away in the 1980s, and pokey-sized rooms were the result.
Looking on rightmove the rooms are tiny - with lots of the houses having 6/7 or even 8 bedrooms. Why would you want 8 bedrooms?

COuld you directly link to the bing maps - I can't access tinypic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,998 Posts
Looking on rightmove the rooms are tiny - with lots of the houses having 6/7 or even 8 bedrooms. Why would you want 8 bedrooms?

Could you directly link to the bing maps - I can't access tinypic.

I don't know how to specify a URL on a particular Bing map, I'm afraid. All I can do is host a JPG somewhere, and I thought tinypic was okay.

Here's another tinypic from Kent, near Bluewater, which is better design - which you presumably cannot see either!:



It features in BBC FOUR's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01t8n4q/everyday-eden-a-potted-history-of-the-suburban-garden

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,410 Posts
Only once people give up the fantasy that they can and should have their own 'castle' of a detached home will this sort of travesty no longer happen. They could have fitted in hundreds more families in that area in houses that could even be larger than what they have now if they had done it properly.
Why should they give up such aspirations? Surely the problem is lack of supply; fixing the problem by reducing demand is the sort of thing they tried in the USSR and look how that ends up.

Given only 5% of the UK is build on what we need is lots more houses, with a minimum bedroom size, for a single of 9 by 14 feet and a double of 14 feet sq. Then the garden has to be twice the square footage of the entire house (not the footprint, the house across it's floors).

The reason more and more people want more bedrooms is very simple, and its why we bought a 7 bedroom house. I need an office, as I work from home at least two days a week. My wife sees patients in her office. My family live far away and visit often so a bedroom with an en suite where they can leave a small stash of clothes mean they can see the grand kids far easier. Oh yeah and the fact we have worked hard, saved up and bought a house we want.

Jobs a good un.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
In Bing maps you can click on the Envelope in the corner with share next to it. Then that gives a weblink (in shortern format) to the view you are looking at.

i.e. http://binged.it/1nRbem3

(note this view is of nothing specific - I was investigating how bad the local permeability was at Channock Hundred).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Why should they give up such aspirations? Surely the problem is lack of supply; fixing the problem by reducing demand is the sort of thing they tried in the USSR and look how that ends up.

Given only 5% of the UK is build on what we need is lots more houses, with a minimum bedroom size, for a single of 9 by 14 feet and a double of 14 feet sq. Then the garden has to be twice the square footage of the entire house (not the footprint, the house across it's floors).

The reason more and more people want more bedrooms is very simple, and its why we bought a 7 bedroom house. I need an office, as I work from home at least two days a week. My wife sees patients in her office. My family live far away and visit often so a bedroom with an en suite where they can leave a small stash of clothes mean they can see the grand kids far easier. Oh yeah and the fact we have worked hard, saved up and bought a house we want.

Jobs a good un.
Oh no, the 'castle' bit is the fact that one's house must be detached and has four walls and a roof of its own. This is despite the fact that these 'detached' houses are sometimes mere centimetres away from one another. On the same site, they could have fitted in either more houses or enlarged the houses if they had built them as terraces, preferably with more stories as well. Well-designed terraces can be much more energy efficient (2 walls rather than 4) and can still provide the same privacy and noise protection as these rabbit-hutch detached homes. Medium-high density living with large amounts of communal parkland and strong public transport provision is the best way to build homes.

If there is something that I hate above all else it is not the 'rabbit hutch' homes but the new-build £1.5m+ homes built using the same parts. Large homes require everything to be scaled up in proportion and these homes, apart from the areas used for entertaining guests, have rooms, ceilings and windows no larger than the hutch houses. It is the absolute worst of nouveau riche, resulting in ungainly homes that were not as much designed as plonked together by an uncaring builder making obscene profits off of people whose idea of style consists of a spec sheet of how much shiny granite (less than a mm thin) is slathered over the surfaces of their home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,998 Posts
Here's two examples of town planning:

Barnet Council turned this:

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/epw016830

into a very formal:

http://binged.it/1nRc1DF

where even the trees look regimented.


And here's a "new town" of Dickens Heath, in south Birmingham, which tries to reduce the impact of cars, and has an italianate town centre, leading down to the canal (which recently flooded many of the new buildings):

http://binged.it/1pMyuot

Whatever virtues such places have, I hate the look of a single developer on principle.


Each of these blocks near Browley-by-Bow station is apparently being designed by different architects on purpose:

http://binged.it/1pMyOn5


(On Bing Maps, how do you get rid of the big location block with its arrow, showing you the place is that you have searched for?

I end up moving to one side, and searching for something there, which gives a new block there, and then moving back to the original place.)


.
 

·
***Alexxx***
Joined
·
5,275 Posts
One of my gripes with modern town planning is that they seem to have forgotten how towns used to develop, and instead use newer designs. There is never a 'main road' or a natural centre with commercial space or any link/continuation from existing development.

Unless someone can show me an example of post 1950s development that has that.

Another thing that annoys me is also, what happened to the suburbs? I know space is a premium, and sustainability means things need to be denser, but rather then having apartments and terraces in the centre with spread out suburbs around the edge...its just a load of mini detached properties, all crammed in together, I'd rather they went the whole hog and built houses like late Victorian terrace houses!

And finally...the dark footpath between houses...why are these still being built!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,998 Posts
And finally...the dark footpath between houses...why are these still being built!
In terms of an opportunity for crime (which may not be what you were thinking of) probably not in London, at least.

The Met has produced a "Better by Design" (or similar wording) standard, which stops that.


Here's a ****-up of some sort from today's Evening Standard:



'Fort Dagenham' bungalow homes look nothing like artist's impression, say residents


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...artists-impression-say-residents-9549071.html


.
 

·
***Alexxx***
Joined
·
5,275 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,906 Posts
Why are developers so keen on blank canvases that they know will be covered in large graffiti in five minutes, and will stay unkempt- forever.



Type BT17 into Google maps, then ask for directions for White Rise to Ardcaoin Drive. 300 metres as the crow flies, 2.5 miles car journey in reality as they closed the path that links the two, presumably for some misguided security reasons. Virtually every estate of this kind in Ireland are designed with these ridiculous quirks that kill pedestrian traffic. And in this case the one gesture that acknowledges that most households don't have three cars in their driveway is killed off by the Secure By Design spirit. Because we all know there's nothing as welcoming as entering what looks like a through road only to be confronted by a brick wall at the end of a cul-de-sac.

I'd love to know more about Secure By Design as there's virtually nothing about it on the internet. As it's the child of the Metropolitan Police it's hard not to file it under 'potentially sinister' but I'd love someone to do a photo essay on it to show what it's all about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,998 Posts
.
The Royal Town Planning Institute has just published its first video since 2010.


I could have waited for something better.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
The problem with UK is a fascination with the back garden.

Dunno why people want to waste so much space merely for putting unused rubbish all over it (you can see when travelling on trains overlooking the gardens) - Only about 10% back gardens can be classed as beautiful.

And having back gardens in Zone 1 London is just batshit crazy !!

What we need here in London is high density in Zone 1

1> Start by giving planning permissions for high rises where ever a block of 50 m by 50m can be acquired.

2> Ignore planning heckles by surrounding residents that their gardens will be overlooked. This will reduce their property values and they will eventually sell creating more space for developers.

3> About the developers - place these restrictions

a> Apartments Only
b> Minimum height > the diagonal of the plot. Higher the better.
c> Minimum bedroom space (number of beds) created greater than 4 times what its is replacing.
d> Minimum Bed size = 15 by 15 ft
e> Minimum Living room = 20 by 15 ft (excluding kitchen)
f> Minimum Balcony = 10 by 15 ft (to serve as a small garden)
g> Minimum Parking (pref underground) = 1.5 times the number of apartments
h> Minimum Open Communal Area = 25% of plot size.
i> Lift required for all 4 stories and above (actually in practice only 4+ stories will be granted permission anyway)
 
1 - 20 of 89 Posts
Top