To Fix London House Prices, We Should Learn From The 1930s

[llamaorama]

Modern London buildings look like the same stuff being built in Toronto or Australia or parts of the US now.

Blah

Originally Posted by Crawford

You can't build new housing for 250k in Columbus.

I beg to differ, you can in fact buy new construction detached single family homes in the Houston area starting at $180k-190k. Of course these tend to be in nasty and/or inconvenient locations and are unusually small for new stuff. They might not have a garage or the garage might take over the entire front of the house with just a door on the side.

If you didn't have the ugly garage and made these semi-detached or terraces then maybe they'd work for London. Except you'd have to repeal all building codes, and bring in illegal aliens willing to work under the table. I guess that's another thing, I wonder how the cost of construction will fare with Brexit cutting off the supply of Poles and Bulgarians who'd do all the dirty work for a fraction of the cost.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Modern London buildings look like the same stuff being built in Toronto or Australia or parts of the US now.

Blah



I beg to differ, you can in fact buy new construction detached single family homes in the Houston area starting at $180k-190k. Of course these tend to be in nasty and/or inconvenient locations and are unusually small for new stuff. They might not have a garage or the garage might take over the entire front of the house with just a door on the side.

If you didn't have the ugly garage and made these semi-detached or terraces then maybe they'd work for London. Except you'd have to repeal all building codes, and bring in illegal aliens willing to work under the table. I guess that's another thing, I wonder how the cost of construction will fare with Brexit cutting off the supply of Poles and Bulgarians who'd do all the dirty work for a fraction of the cost.

You can even find some stuff like this in Houston, which is more urban in form.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8...75821067_zpid/

But I suspect perhaps it's cheap because it lies in a floodplain.

[muppet]

The 'new London vernacular' is said to come from the warehouse conversions during the 80s and 90s, when 1/8 of the city's land was derelict, but changed hands for yuppies moving into the East End and Docklands (and the establishment of Canary Wharf). Vast swathes of the city were converted in that time, including some districts that became the world's most expensive land by the noughties.
This in turn made the warehouse look desirable.


https://imganuncios.mitula.net


Before:



After




Now we're getting new builds actively bringing up an industrial format, almost faked although everyone knows they're new. Note the factory style windows and zig zag roofs, metal girders or windowless bulk.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b240764c_h.jpg


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...412600/page-19

https://i.imgur.com/W41DIag.jpg, https://i.imgur.com/r7vCPKd.jpg


https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7847/...f3d4a9df_b.jpg

[muppet]

The other trend is neo brutalism, in part thx to Mark Chipperfield who keeps winning design awards for it. Be afraid:


https://i.imgur.com/ikI2yvI.jpg https://i.imgur.com/XDH4Lj8.jpg






https://i.imgur.com/c1wg62j.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/LbMi8tS.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/aiwop73.jpg


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...5079/page-1237

[llamaorama]

OK, so I don't totally hate "Neo-Brutalism". It does at least one thing right in contrast with generic 2010's modernism, and that is it uses normal-looking exterior materials like white or beige painted concrete as opposed to foam stucco or panels painted odd colors. It's also exhibits a little more symmetry.

My least favorite current architectural trend is when you have a building that's covered in EIFS or something with navy blue or brick red siding in certain areas. Or a building is all glass with concrete balconies and the balconies stick out different ways and the facade changes halfway up and the structure looks like it's leaning or made of boxes stacked on each other.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

You can even find some stuff like this in Houston, which is more urban in form.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8...75821067_zpid/

But I suspect perhaps it's cheap because it lies in a floodplain.

I'm unsure about the flooding potential, but that is definitely a high-crime area with bad schools and a good distance from major white-collar employment centers. A lot of people who would be in the market to buy a house could drive another 20 minutes south to League City or Pearland.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I'm unsure about the flooding potential, but that is definitely a high-crime area with bad schools and a good distance from major white-collar employment centers. A lot of people who would be in the market to buy a house could drive another 20 minutes south to League City or Pearland.

Based on this:
(from https://fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/we...06419b287e2049 )

it's less than ideal.

[Minato Ku]

Despite the visibility of all those projects in London, Paris is building more housings than London.
In 2018, the construction of 45,000 dwellings have been started in Metropole du Grand Paris (314 sq mi) (The City of Paris and its inner suburbs).
Obviously, this doesn't includes the many suburbs outside of it. It's a total of 84,500 dwellings in Paris region.
See this thread

Here I wonder if London faces the same issues as some North American cities. A lack of medium sized developments.
It's more effective to build medium sized buildings a bit of everywhere than just high-rises in a few major development schemes.

[Crawford]

I'm sorry, that London construction is 90% shit. That may play a role in relative NIMBYism.

But usually NIMBYs don't even care about design, they're just selfish bastards who don't want their views blocked, or don't want to hear construction noise for a few months.

And, yeah, Paris has a lot of new construction, but it's lower profile, because it's mostly on the city fringes and suburbs, and is generally less out-of-place (which, granted, is easier to do when the built context is midrise housing blocks). Paris new construction is generally pretty pleasing, IMO.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I beg to differ, you can in fact buy new construction detached single family homes in the Houston area starting at $180k-190k. Of course these tend to be in nasty and/or inconvenient locations and are unusually small for new stuff. They might not have a garage or the garage might take over the entire front of the house with just a door on the side.

I meant builder-grade subdivision construction, like stuff from Toll Brothers or Pulte, not one-offs in the ghetto or something. Like a new 400-home development in a decent Houston sprawlburb, with attached 2 or 3 car garage, will not have $180k homes.

Also, keep in mind that advertised new construction pricing is a joke. You'll see a sign "new homes from the mid-300's" which basically means you're gonna pay 500k. They usually don't include any upgrades, appliances, basement and the subdivision usually requires a good 50k in outside work (lawn, landscaping, patio/deck, shrubbery, lighting, fencing, etc.). So, yeah, the base for the shittiest, smallest model is 350k, but that gives you a box with next-to-nothing inside or outside.

[muppet]

LOL< make up you own minds folks:

London construction thread (current page):

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...5079/page-1239

highrises only

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...5079/page-1235

[chris08876]

Just allow absurd amounts of micro units and lax the occupancy rules. Make it profitable to build by allowing aggressive zoning, cut community input and power when it comes to unit counts or feedback in general... and give developers some benefits versus hostility for building. Also might help to have city officials that don't make it harder to build... that would help.

And not just in London, but in other places. A lot of the supply issue is self induced. Its like hey... we need supply... but before you go out and build it, we are going to make it harder for you to build and limit the potential, because we are masochists that deprive pleasure from limiting supply and causing further issues and than talking about it, and continuing the cycle.

[muppet]

The developers are actually a big part of the problem (if not the biggest) -they don't want to build. They sit on land and follow an algorithm to only underbuild the right amount every year so that demand stays high, and prices keep climbing. The mayor's been trying to implement a new law that will fine them for sitting on land for no good reason. If you want to start building mass housing you'll need the state quangos to roll on up, then try and dodge the exorbitant fees contractors will charge (known in London as 'gold leafed infrastructure'), or the shoddily built crap council housing magicks up -sometimes you get worst of both world's, i.e. Grenfell Tower's refurb. In short we'll need a whole new dept and minister for the job.

[chris08876]

Well thats odd. Usually in the U.S, the community and politics of "X" city/regulation/silly caps are the issue... but that is indeed odd.

Yeah hopefully the mayor can get his way.

[muppet]

Yep, we get that too on top of the corruption. Even though London's building like crazy, bear in mind it's been growing by over 100,000 in population each year (pre-pandemic), so is a fraction of what needs to get done really. Instead people just subdivide and subdivide again, and housing gets ever more cramped yet expensive, while landlords have a ball. Another spanner is how a chunk of all real estate is money parking, where no one lives.

This is why shanty towns have returned as a phenomenon in the last decade -the illegal 'beds in sheds' hidden away in the back gardens of leafy suburbia. In them you'll find everything from illegal migrants to students to white collar workers eking it out at more affordable pricing. They can be utter caravans, or with all mod cons.




Vice runs a funny blog on the 'London Rental Opportunity of the Week', and the prices they charge:

https://www.vice.com/en/topic/london...ty-of-the-week

$1100 a month

[l3g0]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You can't build new housing for 250k in Columbus, Ohio, so you aren't gonna be able to do it in central London, obviously.

I don't really understand the point of the article as there are obvious reasons why it was easier to build in the 1930's as opposed to today. You could never replicate that era under the current framework.

You can build anything for any price.

Nationalization of construction companies might be necessary.

This seems a place ripe for elon type disruption. I am sure the people who play with real estate on this forum know of the massive con job going on.

[Commentariat]

Originally Posted by muppet

This picture illustrates everything wrong with housing in the UK - tiny houses with wasted backyards, and the only possible densification opportunities are to cram more people in to what is already there or illegally rent out a shed. It’s total madness. Small developers should be able to buy a few adjoining properties, knock them over and build low rise apartments. But that form of infill is basically banned across the UK.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Commentariat

This picture illustrates everything wrong with housing in the UK - tiny houses with wasted backyards, and the only possible densification opportunities are to cram more people in to what is already there or illegally rent out a shed. It’s total madness. Small developers should be able to buy a few adjoining properties, knock them over and build low rise apartments. But that form of infill is basically banned across the UK.

Those narrow backyards are so long, there could be another street with houses on both sides right in the middle of the two existing streets (eating the back two-thirds of all those back yards on both sides). Basically doubling density.

Such thin, long backyards. I would guess many people never even bother walking to the end of them.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by lio45

Those narrow backyards are so long, there could be another street with houses on both sides right in the middle of the two existing streets (eating the back two-thirds of all those back yards on both sides). Basically doubling density.

Such thin, long backyards. I would guess many people never even bother walking to the end of them.

Yeah, it seems like completely insane design. If they had a back alley that would open up tons of possibilities.

[10023]

Yes. That whole neighbourhood should be razed and redeveloped by an enterprising developer, especially if it’s near transit (which most of London is).

Even more central parts of London are full of streets like this, with small, sub-standard and overpriced Victorian terraced housing in locations that should become significantly denser:
https://goo.gl/maps/oqH8NTaMa97jEGjd8

Hopefully the link let’s you pull out to the map. That’s a little pocket of not particularly nice workers’ cottages wedged between a low-end high street and one of the UK’s largest shopping malls. But it has excellent transit connections (3 tube lines, Overground trains and access to the Westway).

In contrast the neighbourhoods to the east, between this and the West End, are not really candidates for development (and is mostly denser anyway, with much larger structures even when they are SFHs). But London is bound to be a multi-nodal city, with pockets of density where it makes sense (and can replace things that aren’t really worth saving).

[Crawford]

I wonder why, back in the 19th century, the UK didn't develop the model of Schrebergärten, which are those little garden colonies with sheds you see on the fringe of cities in Germanic (and I think Nordic?) Europe.

When Germany was urbanizing/industrializing in the 19th century, the new apartment dwellers bought mini-plots of land in larger fringe community gardens, which ended up being lifesavers during WW2, as urbanites could still grow their own food. And the sheds serve as mini-getaways, like man caves or she-sheds in the U.S.

Brits are known as green thumbs, so some concept of community garden might have prevented the need for those long back yards.

https://www.dw.com/en/a-brief-guide-...ies/a-39133787