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)
I like the way you think, but points g and h I would change to maximum 1 car parking space per apartment and the "Open Communal Area" would be better handled as public parks on separate lots.
Yeah I have to agree with that. I don't understand our obsession with back-gardens either when, in the most part, people will only spend a few hours at best there per week. Most back gardens are just used for storing rubbish.
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:
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
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.
Apartment blocks in Berlin (possibly the rest of Germany - I've only been in Berlin) are built as a sort of ring with a communal area in the middle. It's actually rather nice. Was invited downstairs to a neighbours barbecue the other day so it does encourage an actual community. I think it would be a good design to emulate.
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.
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.
This is not popular. Not popular at all. Not even vaguely close to being anywhere near popular. In fact its unpopular.
5. Urban Homes With Amenities
Home buyers used to covet a three-quarter acre lot. Today’s buyers — both the Gen X and Gen Y generations as well as empty-nest retirees—see that same lot and think “maintenance.”
Instead, they’re opting for city living, in big cities like New York as well as smaller urban centers such as Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and San Jose. These buyers seek active lifestyles and opportunities to socialize. They want to be near transit hubs. And they’re looking for buildings with amenities.
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
Do not try to dictate to the majority of the population, people don't want what you are trying to force upon them.