Housing estate design of the last 20yrs - why so bad?

[Equus]

popeyewhite said:

... while still ensuring the builders take home their vast profits.

Obviously, with building land in short supply, there is intense competition among the housebuilders to buy it.

Google 'residual valuation', but what this means in practice is that the profit margins that developers work to are the minimum sustainable by their business (before the last downturn, I know that some of the big boys were buying sites on a gross margin of 15 or 17.5%, but they got their fingers badly burned when the market fell).

The money goes to the landowners.

[blueg33]

These threads always degenerate into - House builders are ripping people off and sitting on vast landbanks.

Neither of which are true and some of the reasons have already been given. People really have no clue about housebuilding, the risks, the cash tie up etc.

Steve Morgan CEO of Redrow stated on R4 a couple of year ago that it would be impossible for him to start another Redrow now because of the amount of cash it takes and the amount of time the cash is tied up for through planning etc.

At my last company, one of our businesses was developing apartments for people with disabilities. A typical development was 16 apartments. Just to get to the point of a planning application submitted it cost us a minimum of £125,000. For the business to work employing just 10 people we needed to do a minimum of 15 developments a year. That is an at risk cash tie up of nearly £2m. On our elderley persons developments the cash tie up is nearly £750k before the land is bought.

Now think about the big builder with 80 staff in a region building 800 units per annum how much cash is at risk? Even 15 years ago, my abortive cost budget in my region of that size was nearly £200k, the cash tied up many many millions.

[Herbs]

popeyewhite said:

ben5575 said:

‘Housing Shortage’ or ‘Housing Requirement’ etc are simple generic terms applied as shorthand by the government or the press that cover both housing need and demand.

My point is that the phrase bandied is 'housing shortage'. There are, in fact, plenty of houses. Given the tiny percentage of affordable houses (that are actually affordable to those less well off) that developers include as part of a new development it means half the country would have to be covered in concrete before everyone possible is housed - while still ensuring the builders take home their vast profits, often at the government's expense. Might be quicker all round if legislation was passed limiting % profit on new build estates.

I agree with your sentiment but it's more involved than that as whatever is built will end end aligned with the rest of the housing market and if it doesn't then you have basically built a slum (a la 1970's).

The only way round it would be that whoever bought one at fixed profit/subsidised rate had to live there/own it for x amount of years before they could sell it otherwise they forfeit the uplift in price.

Subsidised housing is the best solution which is what council houses were back in the day until they sold them off for a quick pay day,.

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

Now think about the big builder with 80 staff in a region building 800 units per annum how much cash is at risk? Even 15 years ago, my abortive cost budget in my region of that size was nearly £200k, the cash tied up many many millions.

And remember that when we're talking about developer typically working on a 25% (or whatever) margin on an individual site, that's a gross margin.

The costs the blueg33 is talking about here are regarded as operating overheads, and are subtracted from that gross margin to give a much lower net margin for the business overall.

[blueg33]

Equus said:

blueg33 said:

Now think about the big builder with 80 staff in a region building 800 units per annum how much cash is at risk? Even 15 years ago, my abortive cost budget in my region of that size was nearly £200k, the cash tied up many many millions.

And remember that when we're talking about developer typically working on a 25% (or whatever) margin on an individual site, that's a gross margin.

The costs the blueg33 is talking about here are regarded as operating overheads, and are subtracted from that gross margin to give a much lower net margin for the business overall.

Yes typical net margin EBITDA 10% to 16% approx

[Equus]

What do we think to this scheme?



Shortlisted for this year's RIBA Stirling Prize.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 18th July 16:09

[Mark Benson]

Shortlisted for it's eco-credentials rather than aesthetics I assume?

The brick colour and uniformity says "Moscow suburb, 1983".

[Equus]

Mark Benson said:

The brick colour and uniformity says "Moscow suburb, 1983".

That's harsh... if I was was a suburban Muscovite, I'd take offense to that!

"... Awarded to the UK's best new building...The RIBA Stirling Prize is judged against a range of criteria including design vision; innovation and originality; capacity to stimulate, engage and delight occupants and visitors; accessibility and sustainability; how fit the building is for its purpose and the level of client satisfaction."

link to what the RIBA thinks of it

Given the criticism of developer public domain landscaping earlier on this thread, I'm sure we'll all find the pedestrian links on this scheme particularly delightful and stimulating spaces for the residents to spend their time:

[Robertj21a]

Somebody has lost the plot - and I don't think it's me !

[Harpoon]

Looks perfect for mugging old ladies and the like!

[skinnyman]

They're building a few thousands new homes across 6 develops in the suburb of Derby that I live in. Due to liking the area and schools the kids are in we'd want to stay in the area when we move, but when you look at what's available, its 90% new builds, and every single one I have issue with. Along with the development in general being as described by the OP, the houses themselves are just as bad. I couldn't stomach paying £350-£400k for a house, to then have a 'one car behind the other' driveway down the side of the house, most of the time the driveway is directly attached to next doors too. I don't want to pay that money to pay car shuffle every morning, and also run the risk of getting car park door dings on my own driveway!

Right now we're in a 1970's 4 bed detached, with a double width driveway to the front, as well as a driveway down the side to the garage in the rear garden, and a proper front garden. It cost us £230k 3yrs ago. To get a new build of equivalent size its an extra 50% on top of ours, plus you get a smaller plot. So I've really no idea who is buying these new builds, but someone is, as they're building thousands of them!

[ben5575]

Equus said:

Yes that's particularly unsuccessful isn't it?

I love brick in the same way some people love concrete. I also really like mews houses so this should be right up my <cough> alley.

The judges talk about an 'instantly recognisable urban layout'. Well yes it is instantly recognisable in Manchester/Coronation St, but from what I can see it simply sits in splendid isolation with the neighbouring grain. Despite its density, it's a small scheme so lacks the critical mass so set its own precedent.

It's also incredible mean without giving back any additional private amenity to the residents.

And don't get me started on the mutha funking bollards!!!

It's awful isn't it.

[healeyfan]

"Design vision, innovation and originality". Just looks like Victorian back to back housing to me with a zig zag path between instead of a straight one. Has architecture not really moved forward in all those years?

[MC Bodge]

Equus said:

That's harsh... if I was was a suburban Muscovite, I'd take offense to that!

"... Awarded to the UK's best new building...The RIBA Stirling Prize is judged against a range of criteria including design vision; innovation and originality; capacity to stimulate, engage and delight occupants and visitors; accessibility and sustainability; how fit the building is for its purpose and the level of client satisfaction."

link to what the RIBA thinks of it

Given the criticism of developer public domain landscaping earlier on this thread, I'm sure we'll all find the pedestrian links on this scheme particularly delightful and stimulating spaces for the residents to spend their time:

You've picked the worst photo there. It looks better than many other schemes and they should be cheap to run.

[Equus]

MC Bodge said:

You've picked the worst photo there.

Yes, obviously... but it's still an image that the Architect themselves chose to (presumably) present as one that shows the development in its best light, and in terms of layout design (which is what this thread is about), the design is pretty grim all round, IMO.

And remember this is a RIBA Stirling Prize nominee... it's being put forward as one of the best examples of architecture of any type in the UK.

[healeyfan]

Just been talked about on Radio 4 and yes the 75% energy saving was particularly noted. All very laudable but it does still look like a very dense development and the design is hardly world defining.

[aeropilot]

Equus said:

What do we think to this scheme?

Just look like traditional Victorian 'back to back' layout, just without the outside lavs

[MC Bodge]

healeyfan said:

Just been talked about on Radio 4 and yes the 75% energy saving was particularly noted. All very laudable but it does still look like a very dense development and the design is hardly world defining.

Which programme? PM?

[healeyfan]

Front row 19.15

[Tlandcruiser]

Equus said:

What do we think to this scheme?



Shortlisted for this year's RIBA Stirling Prize.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 18th July 16:09

What I find the issue with these kinds of awarding winning designs is in the eyes of architects, RIBA and others alike, it's most likely an amazing design and innovation housing development. But it will not be to normal peoples tastes

My first thought was that it reminded me of a prison, and in a few years time people will be lighting portable bbqs, bikes chained to lamposts and other items discarded around the communial areas. I would rather we moved forward instead of trying to recreate modern designs of historic housing.

Edited by Tlandcruiser on Friday 19th July 07:19