On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
.. .



Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to 200K
(other price bands are available)

There is no silver bullet. It will take time for the free market to
find its equilibrium.

Because the private sector will have to build at today's land prices of 100K
per plot, plus 100K per build and be left with zero profit and zero
overhead for financing and sales costs. End result - bankrupt private
builder.

We have to break the high land costs before we can ask the private sector to
get involved. Nothing else will work (IMHO)

Then I have bad news for you: They are not making any more land. Its
price will rise.

And, tenants tend to respect another person
property, more so than public property.

I don't see how the builder of the property changes the owner/tenant
relationship

To be clear I was referencing the property owner. People tend, only
tend mind, to respect private property above public property. Not
saying that is right. It is the way it is.

We should be looking at a new crop of new towns.

That doesn't negate from my proposal

These could be at
key nodes on the East-West Rail link, extending down to Didcot at one
end and towards Felixstowe at the other.

But:

Nimbies!

I'll give you one example. I have just moved from a town that is about one
notch up from "you really don't want to live here unless you have to" and
the only reason people do live there is because it is "affordable" and has
excellent rail connections (to London). The town council have planes for a
20,000 estate on the edge of town.

And all the nimbies complain, "we don't want out town to get any bigger",
"it would change the character of the town" (like it had one to lose) etc...
None of the complaints are about "genuine" concerns like the towns
facilities couldn't cope, because they can, but that would be a major
concern in many places

That is an issue. But look at the original Garden Cities, and the
post WWII New Towns. They have worked pretty well. And they coped
with London's overspill.

The London Boroughs should be looking at densification around key
transit nodes with high rise developments for singles and empty
nesters.

High rises are the pits.

You think so?

Take a bus ride along Wilshire Blvd thru Century City, and thru the
border with Westwood, in Los Angeles County. It is lined with some of
the world's most desirable residences. And, they sure ain't low rise.

Even when well managed, which most aren't.

When a developer wants to build a new retail development, the
authority should ask "and how much commercial, and residential, space
to you plan to put above it.

Building residential property above commercial is not popular with
residents, particularly OOs. The need to manage the site as a single entity
but to different expectations make the costs of maintaining the properties
very expensive

S'funny you should say that. I own a unit above retail. In this
instance the space below is leased by Majestic Wine. And I am very
happy with it. It is just over four years old and in the past couple
of months all the communal areas have been redecorated.

Would be nice to have an onsite receptionist like the unit wherein I
once lived in downtown Los Angeles. But, then the service charges
would be a LOT higher. All in all I am very happy with my unit.