Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

The Duke of Dogsh1t Drive


scepticus
 Share

Recommended Posts

scepticus

The first and last Daily Mail article I will ever post:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9269237/Robert-Jenrick-praises-radical-plan-replace-post-war-bungalows-Georgian-style-terraces.html

"Robert Jenrick praises radical plan to replace rows of post-war bungalows with Georgian-style terraces seen in Netflix series

Soon you too could own a 4 storey georgian style pile in a convenient suburban location. Suit you sir?

Oh wait, you'll need to live in Capitol...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noallegiance

I see the property random number generator is in overdrive:

"The authors estimate that a community in New Barnet, Enfield, of 26 bungalows each worth £530,000 could increase its joint value by £44million by erecting Georgian terraces - equating to an uplift of about £1.7million for each homeowner."

Space is sooooo overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yadda yadda yadda
2 hours ago, scepticus said:

The first and last Daily Mail article I will ever post:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9269237/Robert-Jenrick-praises-radical-plan-replace-post-war-bungalows-Georgian-style-terraces.html

"Robert Jenrick praises radical plan to replace rows of post-war bungalows with Georgian-style terraces seen in Netflix series

Soon you too could own a 4 storey georgian style pile in a convenient suburban location. Suit you sir?

Oh wait, you'll need to live in Capitol...

 

You can rent a flat in one of these is more likely. So long as you keep up with your regular livestock vaccinations. You won't own a car either, you will rent by the minute. That is the vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of building a bunch of new Georgian style terraces all over the place is a very good one. They are genuinely high density while also being very attractive and not oppressive.

However, the idea of achieving this end by rewarding the already wealthy with a shitload more unearned wealth is fucking shit.

Here's a better idea: slap a big Land Value Tax on people in the most desirable locations and then watch them clamour to be allowed to share the burden with other people by building a mansion block where their house sits. I would normally prefer a carrot rather than a stick approach, but in the case of land hoarders, fuck off.

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lightscribe

Well it sums it all up doesn’t it. People can no longer afford London Georgian houses, so they would rather make theirs into Disney land pretend ones. Akin to the Ferrari Testarossa body kits for old MR2s in the 90’s. Just a bit shit and mildly sad.

Living the dream and the illusion of ‘success’ to family/friends/neighbours above all else in priority than lower down in the pecking order of things like practicality and use. 2020 build quality compared to 1920, it doesn’t bear thinking about, I’d stick with the bungalow.

  • Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the developers don't tend to build bungalows anymore, I think that this is a dreadful idea. 

If this was built on some other brownfield site that wasn't already housing then Ivd say go ahead. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Hovis
6 hours ago, UmBongo said:

Given the developers don't tend to build bungalows anymore, I think that this is a dreadful idea. 

If this was built on some other brownfield site that wasn't already housing then Ivd say go ahead. 

Agreed it is a horrendous idea.

One of the huge advantages in living in a street of bungalows, as I do, is how quiet it is precisely because of the very low housing density.  As well as the floorplan and the surrounding garden reducing the physical density you also tend to have lower occupancy.  I'm in a run of four bungalows three of which have one person and one having two people.

You are also well set back from the street; I could not imagine living in one of those houses where the front of the house is only three feet from the pavement or even directly abutting it.

A lot of the big areas of new housing, including private, is this multi floor terracing; it may look okay driving past but you wouldn't want to live in it.

Here's a four bed freehold house for £190k in Camborne (one of the cheapest areas in Cornwall).  Look how narrow it is and the state of the render.  These date from about 2013/14 so aren't even ten years old.

My modest hatchback car is longer than that house is wide.  A four bed house is probably going to have three cars at least so where are they going to park?

(though problem solved when every car is an EV because they won't have a car)

 

image.png.aa9b6836fc7b60eaf08e64bbf536cf53.png

https://www.primelocation.com/for-sale/details/56789097?search_identifier=2da433be7eb9ed47b4a0fb114bf9fb8b

 

  • Agree 4
  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, scepticus said:

The first and last Daily Mail article I will ever post:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9269237/Robert-Jenrick-praises-radical-plan-replace-post-war-bungalows-Georgian-style-terraces.html

"Robert Jenrick praises radical plan to replace rows of post-war bungalows with Georgian-style terraces seen in Netflix series

Soon you too could own a 4 storey georgian style pile in a convenient suburban location. Suit you sir?

Oh wait, you'll need to live in Capitol...

 

Does London have many bungalows?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rave said:

The idea of building a bunch of new Georgian style terraces all over the place is a very good one. They are genuinely high density while also being very attractive and not oppressive.

Of course it isn't if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. Georgian houses are as fantastic inside as they are outside, the detailing on the cornicing / architrave / etc, the spacious rooms and room height, the large windows. None of these things will be achieved if they are to build "mock Georgian" houses now, they will just be cheaply built, cramped slaveboxes like the below, that won't be around in 100 years.

https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/23/81/2238143_018e40a8.jpg

What used to be called a "townhouse" is being rebranded here as a "Georgian house", essentially it's a slightly larger than average slavebox where there are three floors but each floor only has a handful of rooms on each level. No front gardens and the rear gardens are terribly overlooked, and probably get very little sun given the height of the properties. They are an awful, awful idea.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jenrick the sayanim is the most reckless politician for the past 20 years or so.

Edited by spunko
  • Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Agreed it is a horrendous idea.

One of the huge advantages in living in a street of bungalows, as I do, is how quiet it is precisely because of the very low housing density.  As well as the floorplan and the surrounding garden reducing the physical density you also tend to have lower occupancy.  I'm in a run of four bungalows three of which have one person and one having two people.

You are also well set back from the street; I could not imagine living in one of those houses where the front of the house is only three feet from the pavement or even directly abutting it.

A lot of the big areas of new housing, including private, is this multi floor terracing; it may look okay driving past but you wouldn't want to live in it.

Here's a four bed freehold house for £190k in Camborne (one of the cheapest areas in Cornwall).  Look how narrow it is and the state of the render.  These date from about 2013/14 so aren't even ten years old.

My modest hatchback car is longer than that house is wide.  A four bed house is probably going to have three cars at least so where are they going to park?

(though problem solved when every car is an EV because they won't have a car)

 

image.png.aa9b6836fc7b60eaf08e64bbf536cf53.png

https://www.primelocation.com/for-sale/details/56789097?search_identifier=2da433be7eb9ed47b4a0fb114bf9fb8b

 

One of the unwavering laws of the universe is that people who support the building of "high density" housing never live in them.

  • Agree 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, spunko said:

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jenrick the sayanim is the most reckless politician for the past 20 years or so.

Thats taking his incompetence a bit far as the winner of the has to be Boris, May or Blair. Though he has got time on his side as no doubt he'll climb the Tory party ladder even higher than he already has 

But he is truly a repugnant an individual, he is like an unfunny version of a Harry Enfield character that mocks the rich; its as if the Tory party have hired him purely on the basis the want to hand voters to the other teams.

Nicest thing I wish him is an early death before he does any more destruction, as on top of all that he is corrupt fucken rat.

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Agreed it is a horrendous idea.

One of the huge advantages in living in a street of bungalows, as I do, is how quiet it is precisely because of the very low housing density.  As well as the floorplan and the surrounding garden reducing the physical density you also tend to have lower occupancy.  I'm in a run of four bungalows three of which have one person and one having two people.

You are also well set back from the street; I could not imagine living in one of those houses where the front of the house is only three feet from the pavement or even directly abutting it.

A lot of the big areas of new housing, including private, is this multi floor terracing; it may look okay driving past but you wouldn't want to live in it.

Here's a four bed freehold house for £190k in Camborne (one of the cheapest areas in Cornwall).  Look how narrow it is and the state of the render.  These date from about 2013/14 so aren't even ten years old.

My modest hatchback car is longer than that house is wide.  A four bed house is probably going to have three cars at least so where are they going to park?

(though problem solved when every car is an EV because they won't have a car)

 

image.png.aa9b6836fc7b60eaf08e64bbf536cf53.png

https://www.primelocation.com/for-sale/details/56789097?search_identifier=2da433be7eb9ed47b4a0fb114bf9fb8b

 

State of that render. Only been there once. Drunks staggering about.

  • Agree 1
  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scepticus
40 minutes ago, Hancock said:

But he is truly a repugnant an individual, he is like an unfunny version of a Harry Enfield character that mocks the rich; its as if the Tory party have hired him purely on the basis the want to hand voters to the other teams.

Surely the key qualities for any housing minister in our great land?

  • Agree 1
  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scepticus
22 hours ago, Loki said:

No driveways, that will be good for the electric cars we're supposed to charge at home overnight.

Horse and carriage* sir.

* pedal-taxi

  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scepticus
5 hours ago, spunko said:

Of course it isn't if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. Georgian houses are as fantastic inside as they are outside, the detailing on the cornicing / architrave / etc, the spacious rooms and room height, the large windows. None of these things will be achieved if they are to build "mock Georgian" houses now, they will just be cheaply built, cramped slaveboxes like the below, that won't be around in 100 years.

https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/23/81/2238143_018e40a8.jpg

What used to be called a "townhouse" is being rebranded here as a "Georgian house", essentially it's a slightly larger than average slavebox where there are three floors but each floor only has a handful of rooms on each level. No front gardens and the rear gardens are terribly overlooked, and probably get very little sun given the height of the properties. They are an awful, awful idea.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jenrick the sayanim is the most reckless politician for the past 20 years or so.

Quite so, however that picture does seem to have the high windows on the ground floor does it not? There are four ways this can go, two bad, two good.

a) Its a mock georgian McHome with all he attributes you suggest above. Bad (and sad). A variant of this options is that they are built with the intention of being identikit flats. This will guarantee you get option a.

b) Its done really nicely, high ceilings on the bottom floor, contemporary neoclassical styling (yes there is such a thing, just google for it), and an attic floor with appropriate Georgian dormers. The housing replaced was previously affordable (relatively speaking of course) and now is not. Bad. If what was replaced was old bungalows, we get this option.

c) Its done really nicely, etc etc. The housing replaced was previously unaffordable but now looks a damn sight better. Good.

d) Its done really nicely, etc etc. However they are built as flats, and feature a classic georgian foyer and nice staircase as a shared space. The top floor flat is affordable, the bottom one isn't. You can live out your whole property ladder climbing career just be aiming to buy downstairs. Probably good, on balance.

I don't think you can class a 3 storey town house as 'high rise', that is stretching things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spunko said:

Of course it isn't if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. Georgian houses are as fantastic inside as they are outside, the detailing on the cornicing / architrave / etc, the spacious rooms and room height, the large windows. None of these things will be achieved if they are to build "mock Georgian" houses now, they will just be cheaply built, cramped slaveboxes like the below, that won't be around in 100 years.

What used to be called a "townhouse" is being rebranded here as a "Georgian house", essentially it's a slightly larger than average slavebox where there are three floors but each floor only has a handful of rooms on each level. No front gardens and the rear gardens are terribly overlooked, and probably get very little sun given the height of the properties. They are an awful, awful idea.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jenrick the sayanim is the most reckless politician for the past 20 years or so.

So essentially your argument is as follows: "we shouldn't let them try to solve this problem because they'll only fuck it up" ?

I agree that modern houses are shit. But they don't have to be. If you were to sharply reduce the cost of building land, then there'd be more money left in the pot to build homes to a higher standard. And it would be a piece of piss to reintroduce a requirement that all new builds meet the Parker Morris space standards.

 

8 hours ago, spunko said:

One of the unwavering laws of the universe is that people who support the building of "high density" housing never live in them.

Well the person I saw promoting this scheme on Twitter was Sam Bowman. As far as I know he lives somewhere like Brixton or Stockwell, which is chock full of Victorian mansion blocks and three/four story terraces.

It's true that on balance I personally would not want to live in an urban mansion block, but that's because I like riding mountain bikes and working on shitty old cars, and so I need a driveway and a shed (and would like a garage). However for people whose tastes in leisure activities are more along the lines of going to restaurants, shows, concerts, pubs etc. then I daresay that trading off outdoor space for a convenient location close to the action will be perfectly acceptable.

My best mate has just bought a 3 bed semi in the outer SE London Suburbs because he wanted a little more space than his previous 2-bed flat allowed...but he's not at all into gardening and nor does he have a car, so his driveway and garden are of no real use to him. He might have the odd barbecue here and there, but he could do that on his old flat's terrace. He also, sensibly enough, wouldn't want to buy a leasehold under the current system...but were that to be reformed, I really think he'd be perfectly happy living in a mansion block as long as the flat was spacious enough. His old flat was by no means bad either, it was well built and there were no noise problems with the neighbours.

My dad and his second wife live in what is effectively a terraced town house- converted from a Victorian reform school, I think it is. They've a vestigial strip of garden between their front door and the pavement, and a tiny courtyard out the back which is just about big enough to park a motorbike in...but the house itself is lovely, bright and spacious, with big rooms, big windows, and high ceilings. The lack of a proper garden doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest.

The point that I am trying to make with this waffle is that clearly there are plenty of people who would gladly live in a mansion block flat if it was built to a high enough standard. There's also no suggestion that building them would be to the exclusion of other types of home, the idea is merely to cram more homes into areas where there is high demand. There is nothing to say that people who are prepared to trade an easy commute for more space and solitude by moving out of town will be prevented from doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rave said:

So essentially your argument is as follows: "we shouldn't let them try to solve this problem because they'll only fuck it up" ?

 

The house price problem is nothing to do with how many stories a house can be or how many they can cram into on top of a load of bungalows.

Only thing that'll resolve it is the end of cheap loose debt, and the Tory party using taxpayers money to prop it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Hancock said:

The house price problem is nothing to do with how many stories a house can be or how many they can cram into on top of a load of bungalows.

Only thing that'll resolve it is the end of cheap loose debt, and the Tory party using taxpayers money to prop it up.

The house price problem, sure.

But it doesn't solve the problem of there not being enough nice, spacious homes, unless I'm missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reformed nice guy
48 minutes ago, Rave said:

The house price problem, sure.

But it doesn't solve the problem of there not being enough nice, spacious homes, unless I'm missing something?

Get rid of the millions that shouldnt be here, that would help

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rave said:

So essentially your argument is as follows: "we shouldn't let them try to solve this problem because they'll only fuck it up" ?

I agree that modern houses are shit. But they don't have to be. If you were to sharply reduce the cost of building land, then there'd be more money left in the pot to build homes to a higher standard. And it would be a piece of piss to reintroduce a requirement that all new builds meet the Parker Morris space standards.

 

 

I wish I were as hopeful as you. If the raw costs were reduced, greedy housebuilders would simply make a bigger chunk of profit. Regulation might change their practices, rather than costs which they can just make up for, but to regulate the housebuilding industry would require a massive swamp draining which will sadly never happen, particularly with Lib/Lab/Con in charge, who are pretty much funded by the housebuilders and landowners.

The optimum solution to this problem is, at the risk of sounding trite, shutting the borders.

 

10 hours ago, Rave said:

The point that I am trying to make with this waffle is that clearly there are plenty of people who would gladly live in a mansion block flat if it was built to a high enough standard. There's also no suggestion that building them would be to the exclusion of other types of home, the idea is merely to cram more homes into areas where there is high demand.

I surmised from that article going by the photos of the interwar semi detached houses & bungalows being knocked down/rebuilt as "Georgian town houses" (lol) that was precisely what their intention was. Perhaps I was wrong.

In any case, why exactly are they looking to the past to build homes? If there is going to be a revolutionary plan in place to rebuild housing stock I would rather it wasn't some pastiche of old styles from 250 years ago but something more "forward thinking" and modern. The reason is of course because modern homes are shit, and this is a tacit acceptance by the government of this fact. Most of the government I would wager live in houses built during the golden years i.e. Georgian - Edwardian periods.

"The proles are only permitted to have a cheap and flimsy version of my period house, they cannot afford the real thing". Fuck 'em all.

Edited by spunko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, scepticus said:

Quite so, however that picture does seem to have the high windows on the ground floor does it not? There are four ways this can go, two bad, two good.

a) Its a mock georgian McHome with all he attributes you suggest above. Bad (and sad). A variant of this options is that they are built with the intention of being identikit flats. This will guarantee you get option a.

b) Its done really nicely, high ceilings on the bottom floor, contemporary neoclassical styling (yes there is such a thing, just google for it), and an attic floor with appropriate Georgian dormers. The housing replaced was previously affordable (relatively speaking of course) and now is not. Bad. If what was replaced was old bungalows, we get this option.

c) Its done really nicely, etc etc. The housing replaced was previously unaffordable but now looks a damn sight better. Good.

d) Its done really nicely, etc etc. However they are built as flats, and feature a classic georgian foyer and nice staircase as a shared space. The top floor flat is affordable, the bottom one isn't. You can live out your whole property ladder climbing career just be aiming to buy downstairs. Probably good, on balance.

I don't think you can class a 3 storey town house as 'high rise', that is stretching things...

Take a look for yourself at what was built in this style only 5 years ago.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/74452173#/

While it's an okay house, it has all the shortcomings of every other modern build from the past ~15 years... Pokey rooms, no gardens, very overlooked.

Of course there are people who don't mind this sort of thing, but I'm sure they'd prefer to have what you mention above for the same price!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scepticus

Its hard to see why the gardens would be any smaller than those enjoyed by the properties they replaced, its not like each dwelling has a particularly large footprint, given its using 3 storeys. Also I don't think period Georgian townhouses had much in the way of gardens either.

I guess they may have lost some garden to hard standing for parking, but I'd blame that on cars, not the house itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/02/2021 at 00:31, reformed nice guy said:

Get rid of the millions that shouldnt be here, that would help

This.

Of course it will be shit. It's always shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...