Okay, I look forward to seeing fully argued, well-researched and
evidence-based analysis in the journals. Perhaps that will then get through to
the policy-makers. In the meantime I hold on to the discourse that it is not a
good idea to build relentlessly estate after estate of so-called cheap housing
on areas of land that are likely to flood.
On the other argument, I know personally lots of people here in Bristol
that are doing-up houses. In some cases they are investment jobs for resale
and in others they are recreating family houses for living in themselves. It's
definitely happening in this city. In South Wales for nearly twenty years
there's been a wave of refurbishing old mining houses to bring them
up-to-scratch and habitable for modern families. I helped do-up three
myself!
best
Nick
While
I'm not convinced that new-build would be too expensive, a
similar
point about cost can be made about existing urban structures. A lot
of what
is empty and derelict is not habitable, and if it is older stock,
is
unlikely to be environmentally friendly. The cost of renovating
existing
urban structures might therefore be prohibitive in the manner you
suggest.
It may be that a significant portion of new accomodation are
temporary,
portable, and so on in order to work within the various
restirctions of
cost, sustainablity, location.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for critical
and radical geographers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Nick James
Sent: 24 July 2007 11:15
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UK flooding - Housing &
Population
Yes but ...
if they did it properly, safely, sensibly it
would be too expensive!
Therefore with all the constraints including the
continued likelihood of
flooding on floodplains and the like it is not
viable. Let's go back to
Ince's point about empty houses within
cities.
Nick
In a message dated 24/07/2007 11:06:07 GMT Standard
Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Nothing
inherently wrong with building on flood plains,
estuaries,
swamps,
bayoux, deltas, fenlands and other wet
places. It's more a question
of what
gets built, how it's
built, and the manner of services provided and
lifestyles
catered to, which is in turn a function of what's allowed
under
planning law. I would guess that an expanded range of
'waterside'
developments would be a developer's dream.
Granted that these could
not be
the usual converted
actories or suburban tract houses, but a lower
density,
lower impact style of building.
dp
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam Kinsley
Sent: 24 July 2007 10:28
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UK flooding -
Housing & Population
[snip]
2) In the green paper on planning to address the
serious shortfall
in
housing presented to parliament
yesterday there was a statement that
building new housing on
flood plains is 'not ruled out':