Building Houses
The Telegraph - Homefront. By James O’Shaughnessy
An Englishman’s home is a broom cupboard
(”The author is head of research at Policy Exchange. ‘Better Homes, Greener Cities’ is available at www.policyexchange.org.uk“)
But it hasn’t always been like this. Those lucky enough to live in homes built before the 1940s enjoy high architectural standards in well-designed homes. We rarely think of these as sullying the local environment. Yet they were built on what was green field land once, too.
When did new buildings stop being beautiful? When state socialism got at them. The nationalisation of house-building brought about by the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act heralded the darkest period in Britain’s architectural history. Like so many similar post-war reforms, the centralisation of this major national industry produced mind-numbing uniformity and the standard of new buildings plummeted.
(ninme cheers)
But it doesn’t have to be this way. In many European countries with a similar density of people per square mile, such as Germany or Switzerland, spacious homes in green neighbourhoods are the affordable norm. Planning is controlled locally, so development is sensitive to the local environment. Communities have clear incentives to develop at a rate with which they are comfortable.
Council spending is financed from local taxes, so the new revenue brought by each additional inhabitant compensates communities for the social and environmental costs of building new homes - and can be used to improve local services or even to cut taxes.
What is more, house-building is almost a cottage industry, with thousands of small developers and architects providing innovation and diversity beyond the financial reach of most Britons. The result is a wonderful array of high-quality homes and communities, in contrast to Britain’s monotonous estates of bog-standard boxes. …
British planning should be made local again, so that development is controlled by communities, able to grow organically rather than having John Prescott drop 10,000 new houses on their doorsteps.
A tariff of £500,000 per hectare should be levied on development land and retained locally, compensating residents for the costs of development and giving communities the incentive to build. And, by putting local people in charge, the grip of big house-builders would be broken too.
Hmm.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
From peeking at Google Earth it looks like the newer suburban parts of the UK have taken on the worse aspects of the US version and combined them with a lack of mini-marts.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Yeah. They’re doing it all wrong. It’s so depressing. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion from the scene of another, slightly smaller one.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:59 am
You guys are so right. Thank Heaven I live in Edinburgh. Even if it is in the suburbs.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:46 am
Thank heaven you live in Edinburgh for other reasons than that, I’d say.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:09 am
Which I do. Regularly. Bright, sharp sunlight today in the freezing cold. My favourite Edinburgh, the shadows all sharp.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:39 am
Sigh…
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Sorry about that….
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:25 am
Not your fault my ancestors were forced out by famine, poverty, or the English. Anyway, if they hadn’t been, I’d have big Viking bones to match my hair, rather than little French bones. I like my little French bones.
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:05 am
You’ve got big hair amd little bones? Better than the other way round, I suppose.
The French blame les Anglais and by extension les Americains for everything. What’s French for “get over it” I wonder?
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:56 am
No red hair. Red hair comes from the Vikings.
I don’t know, but tais-toi will probably fill the gap.