Financial watchdog tells the elderly to downsize to tackle housing shortage

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

But homes always get built in the same places leading to more overcrowding, more over demand in that area, pressure on infrastructure.

Could spread the building out more, instead of (figures out of imagination) 1,000 new houses in one place, build 10 new houses in 100 smaller places. Spreads load, provide homes for "locals". Down side is these are spread out where jobs aren't but many towns are becoming more dormitory areas anyway with people working elsewhere and just sleeping in the houses.

And look at some of the builds, 5 bed houses with little or no garden.

Perhaps if we didn't have the most economically dominant capital in the entire first world, with public spending there several times other parts of the country, a good part of the South-East wouldn't be a giant dormitory for it and jobs would be more distributed throughout the country and with them demand for housing.

There is work in progress to sort this. HS-2 should ensure that everything as far as Leeds and Manchester joins the London commuter belt.

EDIT: Sass aside homes have to be built where jobs are. People jump up and down screaming when builders look at the green belt, despite it having doubled in size in the past 36 years, it actually doubled between 1979 and 1993 alone, which reduces options further. My own home city is doing its bit and is pretty much the big private sector economic success story outside of London as far as England goes, and we have the housing demand to match but are doing what we can to fulfil it. There are a number of local authorities in South-East England that should be ashamed of their housing policy, it being geared more towards protecting equity than housing people.

May I suggest that housing should go where the infrastructure is. There's tons of extremely drab land, some of it formerly industrial, very close to transport and other infrastructure inside the M25. Would seem to make sense to get that built, unless the CPRE are trying to say that tyre yards are now part of the 'lungs' of the nation.

[Chrysalis]

HS2 doesnt benefit everywhere ingiition e.g. although its runs through Leicestershire we have been disallowed a station. Its one reason I am against HS2 as it benefits so few areas.

Because if it stopped in too many places, it wouldn't be HS.....

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

HS2 doesnt benefit everywhere ingiition e.g. although its runs through Leicestershire we have been disallowed a station. Its one reason I am against HS2 as it benefits so few areas.

Where in Leicestershire would it stop? The main point of High Speed rail is to connect the hubs around the country and reduce the travel time between them rather than act as a commuter service. Too many stops undermines the point of the network, it's the same issue Eurostar face when adding a new station.

I think they need to be more aggressive in getting HS all the way to Scotland. That's when the real benefit of the network would be felt as the time between Glasgow/London would be drastically improved.

[Chrysalis]

if you only have a few stops then it doesnt really solve much, instead of one super city aka london, we have 2 or 3 super cities instead. I understand why one train cannot stop everywhere but they could have alternate trains at alternate stops.

Really I need to move as my city is a dead zone for investment. But family has kept me here.