Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Admiral Yi]

Stop all this blagging.

Did I use it right?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Been thinking about the Prince Harry ruling because I think there's a bit of a tension there.

Probably just a nerdy observation of no interest to anyone else--but despite being a legal lay person I occasionally do read through court judgments in cases that interest me, so I have seen a good number of them--albeit mostly American (a few British / Canadian.) I found it surprising that even in the official legal record of the court, Harry's name is never even used, the claimants listing simply lists him as "The Duke of Sussex" and he is referred to as "the Duke" throughout the entirety of the document.

I guess it's the difference between knowing you Brits still have a legal, titled nobility and actually seeing it in operation.

[Josquius]

A lengthy lengthy read on the history of British planning and how its broken.

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-britain-doesnt-build/

Lots of known stuff but some interesting bits. Like the idea the UK loves houses because we were early to knock down our city walls - but the low countries?
I like the way it's put that we basically have a central planned system, which produced record building numbers when working as designed, but we don't centrally plan anymore.

[Gups]

A lengthy lengthy read on the history of British planning and how its broken.

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-britain-doesnt-build/

Lots of known stuff but some interesting bits. Like the idea the UK loves houses because we were early to knock down our city walls - but the low countries?
I like the way it's put that we basically have a central planned system, which produced record building numbers when working as designed, but we don't centrally plan anymore.

very good article which I have sent to all the lawyers in my firm. However, I think you have misinterpreted it. The record numbers were achieved in the inter-war preriod where there was virtually no planning restrictions (whether central or local). We have never had a centrally planned system. Ever since planning was introduced (in 1947), plans have always be local albeit with some degree of guidance from Central Government (and until Cameron, some regional policy).

[Josquius]

A lengthy lengthy read on the history of British planning and how its broken.

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-britain-doesnt-build/

Lots of known stuff but some interesting bits. Like the idea the UK loves houses because we were early to knock down our city walls - but the low countries?
I like the way it's put that we basically have a central planned system, which produced record building numbers when working as designed, but we don't centrally plan anymore.

very good article which I have sent to all the lawyers in my firm. However, I think you have misinterpreted it. The record numbers were achieved in the inter-war preriod where there was virtually no planning restrictions (whether central or local). We have never had a centrally planned system. Ever since planning was introduced (in 1947), plans have always be local albeit with some degree of guidance from Central Government (and until Cameron, some regional policy).

Sorry, meant post war.
Surely the inter war period was a bit of a one off time with such a perfect storm of circumstances, largely away from planning law, leading to urban foot prints blobbing out enormously in the period?
So many of the prime spots on the then-fringes of cities were used up and it necessarily couldn't really continue quite so well. The further out the sprawl would go the worse it would get.

Kind of hypberbole with the central planning there. Referring to new towns. How much say did locals get in these?

[crazy canuck]

A bit of information about the postwar period in Canada, housing construction that floored me. A house could be constructed in a few days. And many were. The secret was a prospective home owner chose from a pre-approved catalogue of homes on preapproved lots and the workforce was already mobilized in that area with all of the materials needed to build.

The rugged individualists will complain about having a house that looks exactly like another person's house, but it was highly efficient and cost-effective.

Our federal government is trying to roll out a similar plan, but the way they are approaching it, I don't think will be feasible.

[HVC]

Problem is with a lot of those houses is quality control. Builds take too long now (bill padding is a thing) but are better built.

Except condos. Those are not the best quality. It's like row houses now. Neighbourhood's go up fast but not well.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think you necessarily got a choice in the UK. There was a big boom in construction post-war but it was both recovery from the blitzed cities and also slum clearances (also true of the interwar building boom).

I think that is a really interesting idea. I've mentioned it before but pre-fab manufacturers have really struggled in the UK - but they're very popular in Germany and Japan. My understanding is that those German and Japanese companies that have tried to operate in the UK basically say it's difficult for their business model which ultimately relies on a steady stream of orders. The planning system in the UK is so stop-start and variable and unpredictable that their model doesn't really work here.

I think pre-approved models could help at least for the bones of the building. For all the criticism of planning in the UK certainly living in London, particularly in the borough I lived in, I think it is fair to say that the look of the new builds now is significantly better than ones from the 90s or 00s. I think part of that is that more work has gone into design codes etc. There is even talk of basically a new architectural style emerging I think from those improved designs.

In theory it should make it easier to get approval, I'm not sure if that works out. But it is striking how different boroughs are - I lived in Southwark and they've really gone all in on this style with lots of brick and even some tiling at ground floor level (which looks great) and, I think, with some exceptions generally pretty successful looking developments. I now live in Lewisham which does not seem as great at this.

In the UK I think part of the issue is also what's the right level for these decisions to be made - for example I think there's a really good case for, say, a London Plan, a Manchester Plan which would cover lots of different council areas.

Although is the issue really the rugged individuals? I'd always read criticism of "little boxes" style housing as more of a left criticism of conformity - and that the discourse against suburbia is still primarily from the left (I may even have indulged in a little bit of suburbia bashing from time to time ).

Edit: Having said that I find it interesting on architecture social media (never more than two clicks from fascism), how much of the RETVRN stuff is now anti-suburbia. I'm assuming it's mainly young wildly right wing Americans so it's an interesting turn to walkable, sense neighbourhoods (in a traditional/pastiche stlyle).

[Josquius]

I'm pretty sure my house from the 30s followed that same choose bits from a catalogue model-the houses on the street are all the same basic design but some have bay windows, one or two have different roofing material, and so on.
Though curiously they used to be social houses too. I think it was some kind of specific homes for shipyard workers dealie.

However decisions are made a top priority is that We have to destroy the power of nimbys in small villages with private train stations just a few miles outside city centres.

[Gups]

In the UK I think part of the issue is also what's the right level for these decisions to be made - for example I think there's a really good case for, say, a London Plan, a Manchester Plan which would cover lots of different council areas.

There is a London PLan which includes a chapter on design. Certain types of development can/are called in by the Mayor to decide. Interestingly the White Paper which was scrapped a couple of years ago (thanks to Villiers, Jenkins and the NIMBY cabal) was to include a design code.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-table-contents#chapter-3-design-177335-title

[Gups]

And the new NPPF bangs on and on about "beauty" but never defines it. Nobody in the planning world knows what it means but as I suppose it is in the eye of a beholder, it gives an opportunity for refusal or loading on costs to make development unviable.

[Sheilbh]

There is a London PLan which includes a chapter on design. Certain types of development can/are called in by the Mayor to decide. Interestingly the White Paper which was scrapped a couple of years ago (thanks to Villiers, Jenkins and the NIMBY cabal) was to include a design code.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-table-contents#chapter-3-design-177335-title

Yeah - but I also think as well as the plan decision there's an argument that more decision making should sit with the Mayor too at the London level (same for Manchester and some other cities). I know they can make certain decisions for strategically important decisions but I feel like maybe it should be done more generally at the metro level.

[crazy canuck]

Problem is with a lot of those houses is quality control. Builds take too long now (bill padding is a thing) but are better built.

Except condos. Those are not the best quality. It's like row houses now. Neighbourhood's go up fast but not well.

I think a lot of the improvement in quality was due to improvement in building materials.

A lot of my early work was construction related litigation. I'm not so sure that the quality of a building is proportional to the cost the contractors charge.

But of course, I was seeing a skewed sample of the construction projects that went wrong.

[crazy canuck]

I'm pretty sure my house from the 30s followed that same choose bits from a catalogue model-the houses on the street are all the same basic design but some have bay windows, one or two have different roofing material, and so on.
Though curiously they used to be social houses too. I think it was some kind of specific homes for shipyard workers dealie.

However decisions are made a top priority is that We have to destroy the power of nimbys in small villages with private train stations just a few miles outside city centres.

I'm pretty sure my house from the 30s followed that same choose bits from a catalogue model-the houses on the street are all the same basic design but some have bay windows, one or two have different roofing material, and so on.
Though curiously they used to be social houses too. I think it was some kind of specific homes for shipyard workers dealie.

However decisions are made a top priority is that We have to destroy the power of nimbys in small villages with private train stations just a few miles outside city centres.

Agreed. If time travel was possible, one of the priorities will be explaining all the unintended consequences to the people who thought extensive public engagement was essential to the process.

[HVC]

Better material and codes, definitely. But that costs more money and time. While I think that cookie cutter homes will help the planning and permitting stage immensely, I think the time to go up from sticks to bricks won't be comparable. 

*edit* without cutting corners that is.  You can build fast if you just plaster over shoddy quality (see those instant neighbourhoods again). So we have to decide, fast and cheapish but fills the quota type situation.