I would personally like to see higher buildings with parks around them rather than having houses packed.
More space, higher density. Win, win.
More space, higher density. Win, win.
The worst thing about all of this is that the irresponsible borrowers have in many cases come out on top. People earn more from their house than they do by going to work.
This more than anything made realize that the UK has a broken system, and hard work and talent don't really pay off. Most people who are wealthy in UK either had dumb luck (e.g. those who are able to retire off of their house values despite anything else they did in life), or cheated the system somehow (tax evasion/avoidance, unfair laws that benefit the few, etc.).
The rest of us suffer under oppressive income taxes and punitive walls (the standard allowance reduction, lack of joint tax burden for families), that make it very hard to ever climb out of the gutter.
I've wondered before whether the IR35 tax rules were introduced because too many common folk were making good money in IT, whereas your average posho is more likely to be in politics, law, City etc. Can't have the plebs getting ideas above their station!
While this does impact the common-or-garden IT contractor, it protects the ‘self employed’ nursery worker as well.
Many companies, including the government, employ contractors when they ought to be employing employees on fixed contracts. Once you start factoring umbrella companies, limited companies and all the employer liability, unless you’re really expensive there’s not a great deal of benefit to be had these days.
While there is a lot of accuracy to this (disguised employment via a limited company has been a rampant problem in the IT industry), the fact is it is targeting specifically one of the few ways for a middle class person to escape the income tax trap.
There is a lot of systematic tax avoidance in the UK that is entirely ignored by the government. Much of London's service economy is driven by such wealth management schemes. Consider for example the network of crown territories which the wealthy use to avoid paying taxes (as, e.g. the Panama papers showed even David Cameron benefiting from this). Why doesn't the UK crack down on these mass tax avoidance loopholes used by the wealthiest? What about the policies propping up a property market that is impossible to get into for my generation, and supports the wealthiest in the country (including most of the Royal family). Why do leaseholds exist?
It feels like the middle class are truly hated upon in the UK. Labour thinks anyone who makes over 60k is "super wealthy" and should be heavily taxed. Tories on the flip side focus their support on the wealthiest and increase taxes specifically for the middle class only.
It is perfectly possible to build good flats.
Because millions and millions of people live in nice flats all over the world. Just look across the channel: In France there are plenty of nice flats and most newly developed flats there put what exists in the UK to shame.
Your comment somewhat illustrates my point about the negative perception of flats in the UK, and the strange idea that the horrible estates of the 1960s are the only way to build flats.
Personally I would like to live in a detached house though. I currently live in a flat, but I'd like to have a garden.
I know of course that with the amount of space existing, and the need for people to live in cities, a detached house with a garden is for the few only that can afford it.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaarndammerbuurt
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luchtfoto_Spaarndamm...
>The workers' houses were primarily intended for port workers, who found their work in the nearby ports. [...]
>The most famous buildings in the Spaarndammerbuurt are the workers' houses designed by Michel de Klerk in the style of the Amsterdam School, located at the Spaarndammerplantsoen. Three blocks designed by him were erected here in the 1920s. The most striking design is 'Het Schip', located along the Zaanstraat. The houses were 'palaces for the workers'. Never before had so much care been given to the design of workers' houses. A post office was also part of the block. After the post office in 2000 had closed its doors, has been here since 2001 , the Museum Ship located. Other striking architecture came in the 1920s by KPC de Bazel at Zaandammerplein and by HJM Walenkamp at Zaanhof.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdamse_School_(bouwstijl)
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_Klerk
>Housing architecture
>Since his assignment for a block of labor residences on Johannes Vermeerplein, his name would remain associated with public housing. His most famous work is Het Schip, a complex workers' housing in the Spaarndammerbuurt in Amsterdam, built for the Eigen Haard housing association. Together with Kramer, De Klerk also designed a large complex for the social-democratic General Workers' Cooperative De Dageraad on PL Takstraat, also in Amsterdam. Klerk's socialist views have undoubtedly played a role in obtaining these assignments.
https://www.hetschip.nl/socialhousingfestival/events/spaarnd...
>Treasures of social housing: tour (walking, Spaarndammerbuurt) - Museum Het Schip
>Join us on a tour of the Spaarndammerbuurt, the revolutionary neighbourhood that stands as a living and breathing, architecturally fascinating relic to the Netherlands’ incredibly forward-thinking social housing drive of the early 20th century. A walk through the area will illustrate a combination of the subtly intricate designs of the Amsterdam School’s architecture and the socially progressive, ambitious goals of Dutch social housing. Stops along the way will convey some of the fascinating features, such as the Amsterdam School architecture of Michel de Klerk, the palatial courtyards of the Zaanhof, and the thriving community spaces of the Zaandammerplein.
The gardens at Het Schip:
https://amsterdamse-school.nl/Content/images/Building/2373/_...
https://amsterdamse-school.nl/Content/images/Building/2373/_...
Compared to most European cities, London has very few good quality apartment buildings. British people see this, and conclude that they're not possible.
Some older (1930s etc), good quality buildings exist in London, and newer "luxury" ones. I used to live in one, and it was very nice — no garden I needed to maintain, no space wasted by an individual heating system (and nothing for me to maintain). It was in a medium-wealthy area, with a price to match.
I wouldn’t even call it owning a property, when you are obliged to pay £200+ in rent and charges, £100+ in council tax, etc. in perpetuity.
The key point seems to be that although these flats were originally undesirable social housing, their spacious, unspecific layouts + somewhat reduced density from WW2 bombing allowed the transformation to the opposite: Expensive gentrified housing in very high demand.
NB I don't know it would be economically feasible to replicate the New Town - but it does demonstrate to me that if you get the layout and quality right then people will happily live in an environment like that.
The 1960s high rises were trying to build vertical communities but failed vertical separation seems to matter and it was just too dense. Ironically I think the reason why the new multi-million pound high rise apartments are popular today is because of their seperation from the community.
Granted I would hate living in a place where you don't have any green as well. I don't get the factors that pull people into the city beside job opportunities.
In the past cities were cultural centers without alternatives, but that fundamentally changed with modern information logistics and individual transport.
I am still living in a city but most people leave at one point in their lives and I plan to do the same. The often proclaimed mega cities of the future sound rather outdated already.
As a counter-anecdote, I would hate having to live on the ground floor. I would constantly worry about thieves breaking into the apartment through some cracked-open window.