Housing estate design of the last 20yrs - why so bad?
Discussion
cmvtec said:
I used to live on a development that had every single one of these ridiculous features.
The one that stands out the most as causing problems is the rear parking. Nobody wants to use their back door as the main access, nor do they want to park their car and walk all the way around the house. In the slightly less than desirable area I lived in, nobody wanted their car out of sight of their windows.
TBF I used to live in a 70s house and the garage block was bloody miles away.The one that stands out the most as causing problems is the rear parking. Nobody wants to use their back door as the main access, nor do they want to park their car and walk all the way around the house. In the slightly less than desirable area I lived in, nobody wanted their car out of sight of their windows.
Down and out said:
cmvtec said:
I used to live on a development that had every single one of these ridiculous features.
The one that stands out the most as causing problems is the rear parking. Nobody wants to use their back door as the main access, nor do they want to park their car and walk all the way around the house. In the slightly less than desirable area I lived in, nobody wanted their car out of sight of their windows.
TBF I used to live in a 70s house and the garage block was bloody miles away.The one that stands out the most as causing problems is the rear parking. Nobody wants to use their back door as the main access, nor do they want to park their car and walk all the way around the house. In the slightly less than desirable area I lived in, nobody wanted their car out of sight of their windows.
What I don’t understand near me is London Mayor wants to reduce car ownership so planning has restricted how many car parking spaces you can have per development. So there’s 1 space between 2 houses for example. But they’re not putting in pavements for people to walk on.
So you’ve got people encouraged not to own cars. Developments with minimum parking and roads without pavements for pedestrians.
Why!
So you’ve got people encouraged not to own cars. Developments with minimum parking and roads without pavements for pedestrians.
Why!
Here's an example from near me, the development is quite a sought after and prestigious one (Christ knows why, it's built on a pit head), but it is a stones throw from the beach. This is one of the main roads through the development and leads to the school and shops, so has a fair amount of traffic.
Every property has at least one parking space and/or garage to the rear, most have two. Yet, the road at the front...
Plan view, where all the rear parking is visible...
Every property has at least one parking space and/or garage to the rear, most have two. Yet, the road at the front...
Plan view, where all the rear parking is visible...
bigpriest said:
Why are windows so tiny in these houses? We seem to see every other modern design using 90% glass.
All to do with cost. It's largely about getting it thrown up as cheaply as possible using the cheapest design and materials you can get away with.Some of the large house builders own the companies producing the windows, doors etc Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey so you might get a nice composite door. Largely though if the company is building 100 houses then putting bi-folds and shop window floor to ceiling glazing in every property eats away at their margins.
I just don't understand why anyone even a first time buyer would want to buy one of those tiny window houses with little of no front or back garden, tiny rooms and a dozen other windows looking into your own.
I seem to remember years ago an architect covered up all the windows in his current house to the size of the average new build for a month. After he was accessed he was diagnosed with mild depression. They seemed to think the lack of light was having a impact on his overall mood.
Edited by EarlofDrift on Wednesday 10th July 03:06
Wow, very strange timing for this thread as I was nearly going to start a similar one myself.
Love our house but I'm always keeping an eye on the local market. A couple of houses from a recently (less than two years built) new Redrow development have appeared on the market and I checked out Google maps, as you do.
Just check out the abortion below! Those two houses squeezed in behind the row have turned what would be a relatively normal plan into a sardine tin clusterf
k.
Check out the garden sizes of the two houses to the right, they are half the footprint of the houses! Plus all the houses are pushed directly onto the road so no frontage at all.
It's a real shame as this development is in a historic village with some beautiful houses with tremendous plots and views, and they have not been sympathetic at all.
I had assumed they were chasing profit by squeezing as many houses into the available land as possible.
Love our house but I'm always keeping an eye on the local market. A couple of houses from a recently (less than two years built) new Redrow development have appeared on the market and I checked out Google maps, as you do.
Just check out the abortion below! Those two houses squeezed in behind the row have turned what would be a relatively normal plan into a sardine tin clusterf
k.Check out the garden sizes of the two houses to the right, they are half the footprint of the houses! Plus all the houses are pushed directly onto the road so no frontage at all.
It's a real shame as this development is in a historic village with some beautiful houses with tremendous plots and views, and they have not been sympathetic at all.
I had assumed they were chasing profit by squeezing as many houses into the available land as possible.
Equus said:
Actually, most of it is to do with principles of 'Urban Design' (a slightly different discipline from Architecture, administered by 'Urban Designers'), and mostly to do with trying to ensure that housing estates are not nominated by vehicle use and parking.
The (half baked) idea was that if car ownership and use was made inconvenient, more people would use public transport.
I'm a supporter of more use of public transport but even I can see that it's likely to be a lost cause for most new build estates. Bus services aren't going to be started up, or existing services diverted, unless it's a truly large development. Outside London, these are usually wholly commercial operations so there's a natural reluctance to take on fresh costs and risks.The (half baked) idea was that if car ownership and use was made inconvenient, more people would use public transport.
Even a moderately successful bus service during the week will probably struggle for custom on Sundays, and most evenings - so people buy a car anyway.......
One of the largest and more unusual developments (residential and commecial/industrial) I've seen in recent years is Buckshaw Village in Chorley. It is built on an old Royal Ordnance factory site and has a variety of buildings, built by different developers.
It appears, on the face of it, to be better than many other more modern developments, albeit with a little too much in the way of Poundbury/retro in places, but I've no idea what it might be like to live in.
It appears, on the face of it, to be better than many other more modern developments, albeit with a little too much in the way of Poundbury/retro in places, but I've no idea what it might be like to live in.
bigpriest said:
The real street names should be selected, agreed and used from the start of the development process. This would prevent the sickly marketing campaigns using names such as "Princess Meadow" or "Butterfly Mere" when in reality you are the owner of "21 Tower Hamlets Close". 
There's a development near Sandbach (pretty close to the M6) & I'm sure the first road onto it is called Filter Bed Way!MC Bodge said:
One of the largest and more unusual developments (residential and commecial/industrial) I've seen in recent years is Buckshaw Village in Chorley. It is built on an old Royal Ordnance factory site and has a variety of buildings, built by different developers.
It appears, on the face of it, to be better than many other more modern developments, albeit with a little too much in the way of Poundbury/retro in places, but I've no idea what it might be like to live in.
My friends lived there for a while, still not massive gardens and a little overlooked but overally pretty nice. They were in a 4 bed. He got so pissed off with a streetlight shning in the bedroom window he went outside and pulled something out in the little hatch, and half the lights in the street went off It appears, on the face of it, to be better than many other more modern developments, albeit with a little too much in the way of Poundbury/retro in places, but I've no idea what it might be like to live in.
bristolracer said:
Townhouses - horrible things
Useful if you have guests, as they can have the top floor to themselves. It also gets very warm up there, so ideal for drying clothes. Apart from that, we rarely use our top floor. Also, the older I get, the steeper the stairs seem to get 
EarlofDrift said:
.
I just don't understand why anyone even a first time buyer would want to buy one of those tiny window houses with little of no front or back garden,
Why do people say this? The smaller the gardens the better. Hardly any first time buyers want to be fafing about with a garden. Parking for 2 cars, and garden that can be maintained in 10 minutes every couple of weeks. That'd be ideal.I just don't understand why anyone even a first time buyer would want to buy one of those tiny window houses with little of no front or back garden,
Equus said:
egomeister said:
They seem to be full of details which may look good on plans but invariably age badly.
Absolutely everything on that list is a direct result of the 'PPG3' approach...Blame Prince Charles.
I can explain the reasoning behind each one, if you really want me to, though it would make for a very long and tedious thread... suffice it to say that the Developers had those features forced upon them by Planning, not the other way around.
House Builders Operate on a very low, fairly fixed margin.
Essentially we know what houses cost to build, we take a good guess at what they will sell for.
We simply work out what we can fit on the site, to find our total sales revenue - build cost - gross profit and what's left we bid for the land.
The real winner is the land owner who had a field worth say £10k an acre and is now getting £2M an acre as it has Planning consent.
Essentially if we don't maximise the square footage per acre we won't be able to buy the land, then we get into the house types - what makes money V what sells quickly
Essentially we know what houses cost to build, we take a good guess at what they will sell for.
We simply work out what we can fit on the site, to find our total sales revenue - build cost - gross profit and what's left we bid for the land.
The real winner is the land owner who had a field worth say £10k an acre and is now getting £2M an acre as it has Planning consent.
Essentially if we don't maximise the square footage per acre we won't be able to buy the land, then we get into the house types - what makes money V what sells quickly
My favourite annoyance is the current trend to move the garage from the side of the house to the back garden so developers can have 2 parking spaces in front to meet the off road parking requirement.
Tandem parking is another nonsense that should be banned.
Town houses with a bedroom on the first floor next to the living room are equally stupid. No wonder so many of them are for sale near me and not selling.
Tandem parking is another nonsense that should be banned.
Town houses with a bedroom on the first floor next to the living room are equally stupid. No wonder so many of them are for sale near me and not selling.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff