Good old Vince.

[RSoovy4]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

People are living in sheds because of the huge numbers of illegals being brought in.

Google maps of Hounslow are interesting.

[fido]

McWigglebum4th said:

Build a stload of council houses

Stick the doleites in them

Problem is that we'll then have a huge sink estates full of feckless wasters. There is the minor upside that they'll be somewhere else other than near prime parts of London and not stabbing random people in Victoria Station or Oxford Street. But I'd rather they spent any re-generation funds to provide nice new homes for working people e.g. shared-ownership.

[RSoovy4]

fido said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Build a stload of council houses

Stick the doleites in them

Problem is that we'll then have a huge sink estates full of feckless wasters. There is the minor upside that they'll be somewhere else other than near prime parts of London and not stabbing random people in Victoria Station or Oxford Street. But I'd rather they spent any re-generation funds to provide nice new homes for working people e.g. shared-ownership.

This.

They should build massive supervised halls of residence for feckless wasters, with secure accomo and decent food, and good education for their kids. They can be put to work to pay for it.

[MX7]

RSoovy4 said:

This.

They should build massive supervised halls of residence for feckless wasters, with secure accomo and decent food, and good education for their kids. They can be put to work to pay for it.

Kim Jong-Soovy.

[RSoovy4]

MX7 said:

RSoovy4 said:

This.

They should build massive supervised halls of residence for feckless wasters, with secure accomo and decent food, and good education for their kids. They can be put to work to pay for it.

Kim Jong-Soovy.

And with the money we save, we can provide decent housing for hard wokring families who behave themselves, and some decent healthcare for the elderly.

It's about time that rights are given only when responsibilities are discharged.

Behave yourself, work hard and add to society and you will have a good life.

Be a scumbag, don't add to society, then we'll find somewhere for you to live and something for you to do, but don't expect it to be confortable.

Edited by RSoovy4 on Thursday 7th March 13:46

[chrisw666]

RSoovy4 said:

And with the money we save, we can provide decent housing for hard wokring families who behave themselves, and some decent healthcare for the elderly.

Bit radical there. Can we not limit it to ex offenders, those who are alcohol dependant lesbians and eastern europeans?

[vodkalolly]

RSoovy4 said:

And with the money we save, we can provide decent housing for hard wokring families who behave themselves, and some decent healthcare for the elderly.

It's about time that rights are given only when responsibilities are discharged.

Behave yourself, work hard and add to society and you will have a good life.

Be a scumbag, don't add to society, then we'll find somewhere for you to live and something for you to do, but don't expect it to be confortable.

Edited by RSoovy4 on Thursday 7th March 13:46

I agree but what are we going to do with the 10 million feckless lazy idle civil servants and quangocrats?

[Twincam16]

AndyClockwise said:

munky said:

Yes, but i've been to Poundbury, which is Prince Charles' pet housing project in Dorset. It is modern housing, designed to look old, and all the houses are slighly different. And so it manages to not look like concrete blocks, identikit glass towers, or dismal housing estates. It is essentially a village or small town, with a town square and a village shop. It's worth a look.

Something needs to be done in London, there just isn't enough housing to meet demand. Hence why there are people living in garden sheds for £500 a month.

Poundbury is a very "Marmite" place; personally I really like it and although the concept might be slightly flawed in its execution at least the PoW is actually trying to do something about a subject he clearly feels passionate about.

My girlfriend lives in one of the villages on the outskirts of Dorchester and really dislikes the place - as I said "Marmite"

Thing is though, where do you stop?

Housing evolves to suit the people living in it. It's the reasons why doors are no longer 5ft tall and we don't have outside toilets and coal chutes. However, by clinging to very old-fashioned-looking houses, we condemn them to having small windows, poky rooms and little scope for modification or extension.

Prince Charles' ideas are totally daft. If he feels this way about the landscape why doesn't he demand that car manufacturers make all their models look like the ones they were building in 1955 for fear of offending his delicate sensibilities? I really don't see why I should be prevented from living in a completely up-to-date modern house with a flat roof, solar panels and huge panoramic windows by some grumbling Mail-reader who thinks that the world will end if anyone implements an original idea.

[DJRC]

Twincam16 said:

AndyClockwise said:

munky said:

Yes, but i've been to Poundbury, which is Prince Charles' pet housing project in Dorset. It is modern housing, designed to look old, and all the houses are slighly different. And so it manages to not look like concrete blocks, identikit glass towers, or dismal housing estates. It is essentially a village or small town, with a town square and a village shop. It's worth a look.

Something needs to be done in London, there just isn't enough housing to meet demand. Hence why there are people living in garden sheds for £500 a month.

Poundbury is a very "Marmite" place; personally I really like it and although the concept might be slightly flawed in its execution at least the PoW is actually trying to do something about a subject he clearly feels passionate about.

My girlfriend lives in one of the villages on the outskirts of Dorchester and really dislikes the place - as I said "Marmite"

? The houses are modern. They are all built to the latest standards.
Thing is though, where do you stop?

Housing evolves to suit the people living in it. It's the reasons why doors are no longer 5ft tall and we don't have outside toilets and coal chutes. However, by clinging to very old-fashioned-looking houses, we condemn them to having small windows, poky rooms and little scope for modification or extension.

Prince Charles' ideas are totally daft. If he feels this way about the landscape why doesn't he demand that car manufacturers make all their models look like the ones they were building in 1955 for fear of offending his delicate sensibilities? I really don't see why I should be prevented from living in a completely up-to-date modern house with a flat roof, solar panels and huge panoramic windows by some grumbling Mail-reader who thinks that the world will end if anyone implements an original idea.

[Twincam16]

DJRC said:

Twincam16 said:

AndyClockwise said:

munky said:

Yes, but i've been to Poundbury, which is Prince Charles' pet housing project in Dorset. It is modern housing, designed to look old, and all the houses are slighly different. And so it manages to not look like concrete blocks, identikit glass towers, or dismal housing estates. It is essentially a village or small town, with a town square and a village shop. It's worth a look.

Something needs to be done in London, there just isn't enough housing to meet demand. Hence why there are people living in garden sheds for £500 a month.

Poundbury is a very "Marmite" place; personally I really like it and although the concept might be slightly flawed in its execution at least the PoW is actually trying to do something about a subject he clearly feels passionate about.

My girlfriend lives in one of the villages on the outskirts of Dorchester and really dislikes the place - as I said "Marmite"

Thing is though, where do you stop?

Housing evolves to suit the people living in it. It's the reasons why doors are no longer 5ft tall and we don't have outside toilets and coal chutes. However, by clinging to very old-fashioned-looking houses, we condemn them to having small windows, poky rooms and little scope for modification or extension.

Prince Charles' ideas are totally daft. If he feels this way about the landscape why doesn't he demand that car manufacturers make all their models look like the ones they were building in 1955 for fear of offending his delicate sensibilities? I really don't see why I should be prevented from living in a completely up-to-date modern house with a flat roof, solar panels and huge panoramic windows by some grumbling Mail-reader who thinks that the world will end if anyone implements an original idea.

? The houses are modern. They are all built to the latest standards.

Standards, yes, but not styles or layouts. Why should places be straitjacketed into a kind of visual time-freeze just because one particular person doesn't like a particular kind of architecture? I think some people are just terrified of change, but of course the absurd thing is that the type of architecture they will laud was inevitably shocking and radically different whenever it first appeared compared to what had gone before. Hampton Court and Blenheim Palace were considered vulgar when they were new.

Attitudes to 'preserving the character of the local area' in this country are absurd. Characters change almost by default, based largely around the people living there. Why can't planning laws reflect this?

there's an affordability point too. Pitched shingle roofing and redbrick structures are very labour-intensive ways to build houses, driving the price up and reducing the profit margins for building firms. If they used more modern techniques, with more structural use of wood, glassfibre, flowcast concrete and so on, then the houses could be more energy-efficient, cheaper to buy and build, quicker to erect and possibly nicer to live in.

But ooh no, can't have anything that doesn't look like the same dreary Thirties metroland vernacular or it'll hurt our poor delicate eyes and cause people to do corrupt and degenerate things

It's the attitudes of the likes of people like Prince Charles that make me want to buy a house in one of those Kensington Mews places and repaint the front door in metalflake purple with the house number written out phonetically in Bauhaus MT. Sideways.

[Guybrush]

Yes we must borrow more than we are already doing... http://www.debtbombshell.com/ what an excellent idea.

[McWigglebum4th]

Twincam16 said:

Thing is though, where do you stop?

Housing evolves to suit the people living in it. It's the reasons why doors are no longer 5ft tall and we don't have outside toilets and coal chutes. However, by clinging to very old-fashioned-looking houses, we condemn them to having small windows, poky rooms and little scope for modification or extension.

Prince Charles' ideas are totally daft. If he feels this way about the landscape why doesn't he demand that car manufacturers make all their models look like the ones they were building in 1955 for fear of offending his delicate sensibilities? I really don't see why I should be prevented from living in a completely up-to-date modern house with a flat roof, solar panels and huge panoramic windows by some grumbling Mail-reader who thinks that the world will end if anyone implements an original idea.

His idea of what looks good might be out of kilter but for fk sake look round suburbia. fk those houses are depressing pieces of st.

bring in a bit of variety

[CommanderJameson]

RSoovy4 said:

Brilliant.

The household is in debt it can't pay.

I thought there was a significant difference between a household and a government.

The latter issues debt in its own currency and can print more money, whereas the household can't do either.

I'm not sure they're analogous.

[Twincam16]

McWigglebum4th said:

Twincam16 said:

Thing is though, where do you stop?

Housing evolves to suit the people living in it. It's the reasons why doors are no longer 5ft tall and we don't have outside toilets and coal chutes. However, by clinging to very old-fashioned-looking houses, we condemn them to having small windows, poky rooms and little scope for modification or extension.

Prince Charles' ideas are totally daft. If he feels this way about the landscape why doesn't he demand that car manufacturers make all their models look like the ones they were building in 1955 for fear of offending his delicate sensibilities? I really don't see why I should be prevented from living in a completely up-to-date modern house with a flat roof, solar panels and huge panoramic windows by some grumbling Mail-reader who thinks that the world will end if anyone implements an original idea.

His idea of what looks good might be out of kilter but for fk sake look round suburbia. fk those houses are depressing pieces of st.

bring in a bit of variety

I'd say that's precisely the problem. Suburbia is stuck in the '30s vernacular. I'm looking at houses at the moment and all the modern stuff suffers from the same design flaws as my parents' place, which was made in 1930, mainly because they're still clinging to the same kind of design that results in poky little rooms and streets so dull and uniform you'd run the risk of accidentally walking past your own front door.

The average mainland European house has a lot more room in it, it's much more airy and light, and chances are there will be an open-plan ground-floor layout so people can adapt it to the way they live. OK, so it won't look like a sandblasted metroland boredom-box, but surely that's a good thing?

But no. Mention radical modernist housing in Britain and an army of people with Rovers and a collection of brass trinkets on their mantelpiece will noisily moan about 'monstrous carbuncles' and claim that Ronan Point and every other collapse-tastic concrete sink-estate mistake of the Sixties is representative of all postwar architecture styles.

I find it absurd that our city centres can be glitteringly regenerated with some of the most daring architecture around, and yet as soon as you get beyond any given ring-road planning authorities suddenly end up staffed by members of the Flat Earth Society.

[Bluebarge]

Twincam16 said:

. However, by clinging to very old-fashioned-looking houses, we condemn them to having small windows, poky rooms and little scope for modification or extension.

I really don't see why I should be prevented from living in a completely up-to-date modern house with a flat roof, solar panels and huge panoramic windows by some grumbling Mail-reader who thinks that the world will end if anyone implements an original idea.

1. Poundbury is a sort of faux-Georgian style, which was known for its large windows, high ceilings and lots of space. You're thinking of "mediaeval hovel" style, which hasn't quite caught on yet; besides, the shape and size of houses is determined these days by planning regs (building density etc) and energy efficiency, so regardless of what architectural style you adopt on the outside, massive rooms and windows are not likley to catch on in the mass market;

2. your ideal house sounds great on the right plot, but wouldn't work on a high-density site and would have mortgage lenders running for the hills.

[DJRC]

Twincam16 said:

DJRC said:

Twincam16 said:

AndyClockwise said:

munky said:

Yes, but i've been to Poundbury, which is Prince Charles' pet housing project in Dorset. It is modern housing, designed to look old, and all the houses are slighly different. And so it manages to not look like concrete blocks, identikit glass towers, or dismal housing estates. It is essentially a village or small town, with a town square and a village shop. It's worth a look.

Something needs to be done in London, there just isn't enough housing to meet demand. Hence why there are people living in garden sheds for £500 a month.

Poundbury is a very "Marmite" place; personally I really like it and although the concept might be slightly flawed in its execution at least the PoW is actually trying to do something about a subject he clearly feels passionate about.

My girlfriend lives in one of the villages on the outskirts of Dorchester and really dislikes the place - as I said "Marmite"

Thing is though, where do you stop?

Housing evolves to suit the people living in it. It's the reasons why doors are no longer 5ft tall and we don't have outside toilets and coal chutes. However, by clinging to very old-fashioned-looking houses, we condemn them to having small windows, poky rooms and little scope for modification or extension.

Prince Charles' ideas are totally daft. If he feels this way about the landscape why doesn't he demand that car manufacturers make all their models look like the ones they were building in 1955 for fear of offending his delicate sensibilities? I really don't see why I should be prevented from living in a completely up-to-date modern house with a flat roof, solar panels and huge panoramic windows by some grumbling Mail-reader who thinks that the world will end if anyone implements an original idea.

? The houses are modern. They are all built to the latest standards.

Standards, yes, but not styles or layouts. Why should places be straitjacketed into a kind of visual time-freeze just because one particular person doesn't like a particular kind of architecture? I think some people are just terrified of change, but of course the absurd thing is that the type of architecture they will laud was inevitably shocking and radically different whenever it first appeared compared to what had gone before. Hampton Court and Blenheim Palace were considered vulgar when they were new.

Attitudes to 'preserving the character of the local area' in this country are absurd. Characters change almost by default, based largely around the people living there. Why can't planning laws reflect this?

there's an affordability point too. Pitched shingle roofing and redbrick structures are very labour-intensive ways to build houses, driving the price up and reducing the profit margins for building firms. If they used more modern techniques, with more structural use of wood, glassfibre, flowcast concrete and so on, then the houses could be more energy-efficient, cheaper to buy and build, quicker to erect and possibly nicer to live in.

But ooh no, can't have anything that doesn't look like the same dreary Thirties metroland vernacular or it'll hurt our poor delicate eyes and cause people to do corrupt and degenerate things

It's the attitudes of the likes of people like Prince Charles that make me want to buy a house in one of those Kensington Mews places and repaint the front door in metalflake purple with the house number written out phonetically in Bauhaus MT. Sideways.

Eh? Have you been round many newbuild estates recently? I have. A lot. The neo-classical, Georgian, double fronted and porticos are standard staples of every home builder now. Have a little bloody knowledge of what you are talking about first ffs. "Mews style" cottages and townhouses sell faster than acid in Manchester!

[sugerbear]

Twincam16 said:

DJRC said:

Forgive me, but is the govt not committed to new infrastructure projects then?

Look around the country sometime. There is more new housing being built and brought to the market than at anytime in the last 5 yrs. Rail has had MASSIVE injections of investment and new rail infrastructure is currently the subject of a rather bitter battle. There was massive capital investment into London for the Olympics before the election and continued after it.

The govt announced the largest rail investment in a century and half the country exploded in anger!

IMO one of the biggest barriers to infrastructure projects is NIMBYism.

I'm absolutely sick to death of Prince Charles types demanding that the country must resemble a twee little chocolate box stuck visually in the late Forties/early Fifties. We must protect the countryside, but we must also improve our infrastructure and build houses suited to modern living, otherwise we'll end up properly stuck in the Fifties while the rest of the world moves on.

I agree 100%. Prince Charles thinks poundsbury is the future. He doesn't live there of course, he just think that everyone else should live in high density housing where everyone is on top of one another and there isn't enough room to swing a hamster.

Personally I think low density housing is the future, but that would upset the people that live in the country side and developers wouldn't be able to squeeze the money out of the existing plots of land that they currently do.

[anonymous-user]

i've got a better idea. use the welfare budget instead of borrowing more

[Twincam16]

DJRC said:

Eh? Have you been round many newbuild estates recently? I have. A lot. The neo-classical, Georgian, double fronted and porticos are standard staples of every home builder now. Have a little bloody knowledge of what you are talking about first ffs. "Mews style" cottages and townhouses sell faster than acid in Manchester!

I know precisely what I'm talking about because you've just reinstated my point that modern homebuilders are stuck in the past, right there, behaving as though I said the exact opposite, for some bizarre reason.

[munky]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A good start, but not enough and as you say, likely to be expensive.