“Brownfield” Prototype
COULD WE SOLVE THE “HOUSING CRISIS” BY BUILDING ON BROWNFIELD SITES..?
The Green lobby insists that Britain has enormous tracts of derelict “Brownfield” sites which, they confidently claim, could “save the countryside” from ugly sprawl development and solve the “housing crisis*“.
(*referring to the demand to build “300,000 new homes a year” that politicians with an eye on the “youth vote” are always agitating for.)
CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) research shows that there’s capacity for well over a million homes on brownfield land.
If the “housing” to be put on such sites is going to be conventional “hutch houses”, or even medium-density apartments, then the answer to the headline question is probably NO..! Developers are not keen to build residential house/flats on Brownfield sites, claiming that they are too costly to “de-contaminate” and also that people are reluctant to buy homes built on such sites – which is unsurprising considering all the media-muckraking scare talk about the alleged health risks of “contamination”. For this reason, Brownfield sites are usually re-purposed for commercial use – light industry, factory shops, shopping centres, business parks, etc., – perhaps because less expensive de-contamination is required for non-residential developments.
Any proposal to build an Oasis-City in “England’s Green & Pleasant Land” would face hysterical opposition from Nimbys. The irony being that an OA-City would occupy FAR LESS LAND land than a typical housing estate. Furthermore, given that 50% of its area would be allocated for gardens and woodland – an OA-City would not only help “save the countryside”, it would BEAUTIFY IT..!
Despite pioneering the Industrial Revolution and RAILWAYS – another civilisational game-changer – I don’t expect “modern” Britain to enthusiastically embrace Oasis-Cities,-at least not until more nimble (but far less nimby) nations have shown the way. If Nimby’s had to choose either Oasis-Cities – which could save millions of acres of green countryside from being submerged under dreary housing and their service roads – or a new Milton Keynes every year – which would Nimby’s opt for?
Planning regulations and nimbyism push up costs, with rail projects, road lanes or motorway bridges FAR MORE EXPENSIVE IN BRITAIN than in other countries. OA-Cities will be no exception..!
Despite obliterating 10x as much countryside, the Nimby mindset is drawn to the “devil it knows” – drearily unimaginative “Milton Keynes” look-alikes – as long as “Not In Their Back Yard” – the NITBY mindset..!
Nimbys, together with local government councillors (many of them Nimbys themselves), plus planning committees (also mainly Nimbys) are ALWAYS vehemently opposed to ANY big buildings, regardless of how inspirationally impressive.
To be fair, examples of inspirationally impressive new buildings are rare..!
A prototype OA-City would not need to be as large as the 10 hectare footprint “Deltapolis” but, if it is to contain the facilities of a small town, it would still need to be BIG A 7 hectare building – the footprint of Heathrow T5 – might suffice. Of course it would be taller and far more handsome than that giant shed – and big enough to contain 2,500 apartments (external and internal) and crowned with a 500-room hotel which, I am sure, would be always fully booked..! Everyone wants to see the future..!
SUCH A BUILDING WOULD IMMEDIATELY BECOME BRITAIN’S MOST VISITED ATTRACTION – EVERYONE WANTS TO SEE THE FUTURE..!
Recent Comments