HOUSEBUILDING: A LOST ENGLISH ART?
description
Transcript of HOUSEBUILDING: A LOST ENGLISH ART?
HOUSEBUILDING:A LOST ENGLISH ART?
Professor Sir Peter Hall
Happold Memorial Lecture
London
27 November 2007
The Barker Challenge:Build More Homes
• Need for massive increase: 200k/yr > 240k/yr > ?400k/yr?
• Will need brownfield + greenfield
• “Political” attack by shires – “unholy alliance” with cities
• The architects’ crusade: “Barcelonise” our cities
Source: Kate Barker Review 2004
240,000 homes a year: not enough?
• UK population: sharp increase: 60.6m (2006) > 71.1m (2031): +10.5m (+19.1%)
• Huge increase on last projection (+6.1m, +10.2%)
• 5.6m (53.3% total) natural increase
• 4.9m (46.7% total) net migration
• England: +19.1%
Good and Bad Arguments
• Bad: we must save farmland• Good: we should give people choice of access to
public transport, shops, schools• By public transport as well as car• So: concentrate growth around transport
interchanges• And: raise densities there (“pyramids of density”)
UK: A barely developed countryside…
• UK: 14.3% developed; England: 19.1%
• These are overestimates:
• England: 10.6% 1991
• 1996-8: ca 8,000 hectares/year developed (=Runnymede)
Land Lying Idle…
• EU Set-Aside: June 2004, 476,000 hectares, almost 5.0% of England
• Greater SE: 100,270 hectares, 8.6% • Essex 10.7%• Hampshire 9.1%• Oxfordshire 11.4%• Bedfordshire 11.6%• Far in excess of most generous estimates of land
needed for housing!
A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test
Housing Completions: 1999, 2004
Total Brownfield Greenfield
1999 % 100 56 44
000s 140.0 78.4 61.6
2004 % 100 68 32
000s 152.9 104.0 48.9
1999-2004 % change
+9.2 +32.7 -20.6
A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test
1999-2004
Region Completions% change
Brownfield % change
Greenfield% change
North -8.3 +37.9 -39.5
North West 0.0 +27.5 -43.1
Yorks Humber +5.9 +52.9 -41.2
East Midlands -6.8 +31.7 -28.4
West Midlands -9.3 +18.3 -42.0
Eastern England +5.4 +8.4 +1.3
London +92.8 +104.5 0.0
South East +10.0 +25.9 -16.1
South West +1.9 +50.0 -28.6
England +9.2 +32.7 -20.6
Housebuilding: Houses v Flats1999, 2004
Dwellings: % of total
1999 2004
Houses Flats Houses Flats
North East 88 12 83 17
North West 85 15 73 27
Yorks Humber 93 7 71 29
East Midlands 93 7 86 14
West Midlands *88 *13 71 29
East of England *91 *10 78 22
London 41 59 20 80
South East 83 17 62 38
South West 90 10 74 26
England 84 16 66 34
Empty Land, Empty Homes
• Land banks: Are volume builders hoarding?• Buy-to-leave: 670,000 empty homes, 300,000
long-term• Joey Gardiner (R&R, 31 August): Central Leeds:
20% empty• Similar stories: Manchester, Salford, Birmingham,
Hull, London• Manchester: up to 40% (Ron Hack, Ecotec)• London: 70% bought off-plan
Future of the typical English town?
House prices/earnings 1999, 2006
What do people want?Earlier survey evidence
• Home Alone (Hooper et al 1998): only 10% want a flat; 33% won’t consider a flat
• CPRE (Champion et al 1998): people want to live in/near country
• Hedges and Clemens (q. Breheny 1997): city dwellers least satisfied
• Conclusion: we hate cities!
What do people want?MORI for CABE, 2005
• Over half the population want to live in a detached house
• 22% prefer a bungalow• 14% a semi-detached house• 7% a terraced house • Detached house most popular choice, regardless
of social status or ethnicity• Period properties (Edwardian, Victorian,
Georgian) most desirable overall: 37%
New Households, New Homes• 80% one-person• But only about one-third “single never married”• Will demand more space per household:
Separate kitchens/bathrooms/loos, Spare rooms, Work spaces
• Land saving reduces as densities increase:• 30 dw/ha yields 60% of all potential gains, 40
dw/ha 70 per cent• So biggest gains from minimising development
below 20 dw/h, not increasing 40 dw/ha+• So: go for 30-40 dw/ha with variations: higher
close to transport services (Stockholm 1952!)• But won’t achieve same person densities as
before!
Densification: Effects
Land needed to accommodate 400 dwellingsDensity
Area required, ha.Dws./ha.
Net
Gross
(with local facilities)
Land Saved
%
%
Land Saved
%
%
Total
Cumu-
Total
Cumu-
Saving
lative
Saving
lative 10
40.0
46.3 20
20.0
20.0
50.0
50.0
25.3
21.0
45.4
45.4 30
13.3
6.7
16.7
66.7
17.9
7.4
15.9
61.3 40
10.0
3.3
8.3
75.0
14.3
3.6
7.8
69.1 50
8.0
2.0
5.0
80.0
12.1
2.2
4.8
73.9 60
6.6
1.4
3.5
83.5
10.6
1.5
3.2
77.1
Density Gradient (Rudlin+Falk)
Lessons from Land Use• Public Transport needs
minimum density:• Bus: 25 dw/ha• LRT: 60 dw/ha• Exceed recent densities• Big gain from 30-35 dw/ha• Plus “pyramids” up to 60
dw/ha round rail stations• Urban Task Force• Traditional – Stockholm,
1952!• Or Edwardian suburbs!
Planning in Britain:A Verdict (1)
• Andrew Gilg: Planning in Britain: Understanding and Evaluating the Post-War System (London: Sage 2005)
Where Are We Now?Gilg’s Verdict
• Middle-class bias• Not always democratic• Balances economic growth, conservation: a
dilemma• Increasingly market-driven• No obvious alternative
Where Are We Now?Gilg’s Verdict
• Big Achievement: urban containment; preservation of countryside
• Big Failure: development not sustainable: work, homes separate
• Another Failure: transport not integrated; transport system overloaded
• Need: integrated development; New Towns• Compare: Containment of Urban England (1973)!
Making it happen:The 2004/2008 Acts
• Radical change – biggest for 35 years• Working through at regional strategic level• Planning Gain Supplement > Tariffs• Can it solve the “infrastructure deficit”?• The major issue in solving the housing crisis!• But also: the NIMBY factor – will get worse?• 2008: RSSs to RDAs
Where Are We Now?A 3-Pronged National Spatial Strategy
• 3 key needs:• “Grow SEE”: Better connections on
Sustainable Community Growth Corridors• “Shrinking the N-S Gap”: Bring North,
Midland Core Cities/City Regions closer to London
• “Grow City Regions” around Core Cities
South East England:Global Mega-City-Region
Urban Clusters (Hall+Ward 1998)
Sustainable Communities Corridors:Growing the SE into the Midlands…
Green Belt – or Green Blanket?
The Infrastructure Gap:Roger Tym Report
Planning Gain Supplement v. Tariffs
• Planning Gain Supplement: a national development land tax) on development gains
• Tariffs: similar, but levied by LPAs/vary LPA/LPA• Related to infrastructure costs of Local Development
Plan• “Section 106” retained: MK, Bedford…• Local versus regional investment: ‘local gain’ for ‘local
pain’ • But problem of regional infrastructure: New rail
connections; national motorway junctions (Article 14: A2, £92 million)
The North: Managed Decline?• The great Pathfinder row• How much to keep? How
much to demolish?• Are incentives perverse?• YES: SAVE Britain’s
Heritage• NO: ODPM• Family-Friendly Housing in
Cities• How much Greenfield?• Issues: VAT, Infrastructure
(Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool)
The Challenge
• Deliver the houses• Defend a “balanced portfolio”: Brown/Greenfield• Build sustainable suburbs• But: can be “New Towns” too (seldom just that)• Sustainable urban places – linked along transport
corridors• Fund the infrastructure/ Coordinate development,
transport• Countryside – for people!• A big challenge: equal to 1950s, 1960s• They did it – so can we!