SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Bad Town Planning

22928 88
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.
1 - 6 of 6 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.
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.
I think it comes into its own as you get busier and maybe have kids. When I was single we all used to head off to the park (hence my fond memories of a certain Brunel viaduct near Ealing:) ) but these days its easier to grab a quiet cup of coffee in my own garden as and when. The kids have easy access to their toys and all in all I would not swop it for a flat for anything.

I wonder if the voices proposing loosing such a thing are wide eyed young, childless idealists?
If you have a nice back garden with some degree of privacy it makes life a lot more enjoyable and relaxing in the warmer months. I'm off to work shortly, but I'm just munching on some strawberries that I picked.

Would I ever go back to living in a boxy flat and having to put up with the noise of people surrounding me on all sides? Would I hell! :cheers:
Or a model train shed, a motorbike shed and a shed for tools :)

Whatever. It seems some people are keen to prescribe how the rest of us should live. Sure gardens may not be as big as we would like but houses are more expensive than we like. The answer is to build lots and lots of houses, with gardens, that are detached that families can afford not stick people in things they don't want.
You don't need children to see the appeal. Two cats and a classic car (in need of constant TLC) are all you need to want a house and garden :)
This is not popular. Not popular at all. Not even vaguely close to being anywhere near popular. In fact its unpopular. Very very very unpopular. As unpopular as a bacon sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah.

Ask anybody who would rather live in a flat or a detached house with a nice bit of garden.

New detached houses are massively more energy efficient than the victorian and edwardian houses that still make a majority of the housing stock.

Detached house use up more space sure. We have built on 5% of the UK, another fraction of a percent so we can live in houses we want to live in seems reasonable.

Do not try to dictate to the majority of the population, people don't want what you are trying to force upon them.
You cannot build lots and lots of detached houses - it uses up too much land, and too much energy.

You can build low-rise flats, mansion blocks and terraced two and three storey houses. That is sustainable and popular, I think. And of course, being on this board, you build in a mesh of good public transport, cycleways and footpaths.
No it would not. For the simple reason if it did then we would all be living in vast country estates! If we doubled, then doubled again then doubled about 10% would be built upon.

At the risk of bringing facts to a barroom argument: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

If the amount of building you suggested took place we could all live in 20 houses!!! Ridiculous!!
I like my garden, it's not full of rubbish. My front lawn is not paved over. I like the idea of the Green Belt and countryside - I use it a lot. I wouldn't want to live in a city whose houses lack gardens, even if people don't appreciate them. Perhaps its just me.

If it wasn't for planning restrictions, green belt and density protection, London would have a core as dense as New York's and be as populous as Tokyo, only it would stretch from Dover and Poole to Huntingdon and Bicester.
I can not speak for the others but have you been to San Jose? Seriously, dense?? You are having a right laugh! A couple of city blocks in the centre with vaguely high rise then mile after mile of suburbia.

3/4 acre lot is miles beyond what people in the UK can even dream of. Here 1/8 of an acre is far more likely, just the right size to let the kids loose and takes a hour to mow. Perfect.

I seriously doubt people in this country will ever prefer flats (call them apartments, lofts or anything other weasel politician word you like but they are, remain and will always be flats).
Ummm top 5 desires from the US house market in 2013 in a country with vast expanses of potential building land that invented the never ending sprawling suburbs of detached houses with gardens
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top