Around London SE1 there are at least half a dozen large sites (some under construction) being used to build vast amounts of purpose built student housing, for students at King's College London, London South Bank University and University of the Arts London which are all nearby. There are predictable complaints from locals asking "Why aren't they building housing for*us*?" This is understandable but wrong headed. The mass of students currently live in the local community, mainly in the rental sector, so creating thousands of new student rooms frees up space in the private rented sector and exerts a downward gravitational pull on demand and prices. More housing is good for those who need housing, even if the new housing is not directly available to them.
Currently fighting a town expansion in Hertfordshire. It's all "garden town" this and "sustainable travel" that. My complaint is first that the new build estates are so damn ugly. And second that the big money for the developers is executive houses in cul-de-sacs where you need a car to buy a pint of milk. I can accept the need to build houses, and especially homes for social rent rather than "affordable" but they should be built for 100-150 years, long after private transport. And they exist in the current world where the roads are already grid-locked. It's not just YIMBY. It's also do it right as best as we can.
Help to buy and all those other schemes are really developer profit subsidies. If the gov throws in £5000 and helps the customer save £5000 on a bad savings deal, the developer just bumps the price by £10,000 pure profit because the costs didn't change.
You may be getting the celebrations going a bit early. Local newspaper sites still fan nimbyism, let alone Facebook groups, even where the admins are future focused. Lib Dems and Greens use nimbyism, and I'm thinking that Tories will follow to keep some seats, where Trussism doesn't work (everywhere).
Around London SE1 there are at least half a dozen large sites (some under construction) being used to build vast amounts of purpose built student housing, for students at King's College London, London South Bank University and University of the Arts London which are all nearby. There are predictable complaints from locals asking "Why aren't they building housing for*us*?" This is understandable but wrong headed. The mass of students currently live in the local community, mainly in the rental sector, so creating thousands of new student rooms frees up space in the private rented sector and exerts a downward gravitational pull on demand and prices. More housing is good for those who need housing, even if the new housing is not directly available to them.
Currently fighting a town expansion in Hertfordshire. It's all "garden town" this and "sustainable travel" that. My complaint is first that the new build estates are so damn ugly. And second that the big money for the developers is executive houses in cul-de-sacs where you need a car to buy a pint of milk. I can accept the need to build houses, and especially homes for social rent rather than "affordable" but they should be built for 100-150 years, long after private transport. And they exist in the current world where the roads are already grid-locked. It's not just YIMBY. It's also do it right as best as we can.
Help to buy and all those other schemes are really developer profit subsidies. If the gov throws in £5000 and helps the customer save £5000 on a bad savings deal, the developer just bumps the price by £10,000 pure profit because the costs didn't change.
You may be getting the celebrations going a bit early. Local newspaper sites still fan nimbyism, let alone Facebook groups, even where the admins are future focused. Lib Dems and Greens use nimbyism, and I'm thinking that Tories will follow to keep some seats, where Trussism doesn't work (everywhere).
And maybe get the archaeologists on board, like your Rochester example on a main Roman road, could usefully be excavated.