4 ms·

Housing is low density because you can't build higher by law, in most cases. It's one of the socialist aspects of the UK.

sgt101 7y ago
That was true in the last century, but it just isn't the case now. It's rather the structure and economics (artificial) of the market that are creating this particular inefficiency.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Could you point out what law you're referring to? Some early 20th century (and some earlier) housing in my UK city is 3 or 4 storeys. Many of the newer buildings are 4 storey, a few tower blocks (60s/70s).
- michaelt 7y ago
  National laws, not so much that I know of. But if you read through The London Plan [1] policy 7.6 says: "Buildings and structures should [...] not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. This is particularly important for tall buildings" So if you're filling in a gap in a Victorian terrace, planning officers will be checking whether you're going to be able to see into your neighbours' gardens more than existing buildings can, or cast shadows onto other homes. Meanwhile, policy 7.7 calls for "tall and large" buildings to "generally be limited to sites in the Central Activity Zone, opportunity areas, areas of intensification or town centres that have good access to public transport" and to "only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building" And as some sources describe a tall building as "1½ times or more the height of their context" [2] tall building rules are easily activated in a two-storey area. Of course, it's not completely restrictive - if an existing Victorian terrace has two-storey buildings with lofts, I've seen people get permission for a building with a basement, three above-ground stories and a flat roof - and if it's a house rather than a block of flats, that's a lot of stairs already. [1] https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2016_jan_2017_fix.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_pla... [2] https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485.1/PDF/-/Building_Height_in_the_Royal_Borough_SPD__Adopted_September_2010.pdf https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485...
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
    UK law respects property rights of the neighbours including e.g. right to light. This is explicitly not socialism.
- eru 7y ago
  That's all pretty low. You could build ten storey building everywhere in London and have enough demand to sell them profitably.
altacc 7y ago
> socialist aspects of the UK I think you're thinking of the other UK, the imaginary one that right-wing commentators make out to be a hellish nightmare of bad teeth inflicted upon the populace by fiendishly free health care. Instead of the real UK, with it's right-wing, capitalist, free-market friendly, populist government. Building regulations aren't in any way socialist, they are pretty much global and many countries, including the "freedom" loving USA, have extensive government-mandated building codes which include height restrictions or mechanisms to limit height.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- eru 7y ago
  You are right that building codes aren't a sign of socialism at all. The UK however has a pretty interventionist state. (But yes, they are less interventionist than eg the French. Low bar, though.) And eg re-nationalising the railways is perennial popular with the population. Luckily, no government has been crazy enough to do it, nor has it even featured much in election campaigns.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Not sure that's right re railways. Railtrack was de facto renationalised by the Blair government (becoming Network Rail) in the early 2000s, and we had an election one month ago where the main opposition party campaigned on a promise to not relet the private sector passenger franchises, ie de facto take them back into public ownership at the end of their terms. That isn't quite all of the railways (you've still got a few privately owned pieces of infrastructure, freight operators and rolling stock leasing) but it's pretty close.
    - eru 7y ago
      Interesting, thanks! Please imagine I added the appropriate hedge words in my comment above. With your corrections, it does move Britain a bit more into the interventionist state direction.
andybak 7y ago
> It's one of the socialist aspects of the UK. Yes because building density regulations are one of the hallmarks of socialism. Wat?
lawtalkinghuman 7y ago
No, the reason people don't build taller residential buildings is because a lot of mortgage providers often won't lend to leasehold buyers in high-rises, which limits residence to cash-only buyers and council tenants.

sgt101 7y ago

That was true in the last century, but it just isn't the case now. It's rather the structure and economics (artificial) of the market that are creating this particular inefficiency.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Could you point out what law you're referring to? Some early 20th century (and some earlier) housing in my UK city is 3 or 4 storeys. Many of the newer buildings are 4 storey, a few tower blocks (60s/70s).

michaelt 7y ago
National laws, not so much that I know of. But if you read through The London Plan [1] policy 7.6 says: "Buildings and structures should [...] not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. This is particularly important for tall buildings" So if you're filling in a gap in a Victorian terrace, planning officers will be checking whether you're going to be able to see into your neighbours' gardens more than existing buildings can, or cast shadows onto other homes. Meanwhile, policy 7.7 calls for "tall and large" buildings to "generally be limited to sites in the Central Activity Zone, opportunity areas, areas of intensification or town centres that have good access to public transport" and to "only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building" And as some sources describe a tall building as "1½ times or more the height of their context" [2] tall building rules are easily activated in a two-storey area. Of course, it's not completely restrictive - if an existing Victorian terrace has two-storey buildings with lofts, I've seen people get permission for a building with a basement, three above-ground stories and a flat roof - and if it's a house rather than a block of flats, that's a lot of stairs already. [1] https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2016_jan_2017_fix.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_pla... [2] https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485.1/PDF/-/Building_Height_in_the_Royal_Borough_SPD__Adopted_September_2010.pdf https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485...
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
  UK law respects property rights of the neighbours including e.g. right to light. This is explicitly not socialism.
eru 7y ago
That's all pretty low. You could build ten storey building everywhere in London and have enough demand to sell them profitably.

altacc 7y ago

> socialist aspects of the UK I think you're thinking of the other UK, the imaginary one that right-wing commentators make out to be a hellish nightmare of bad teeth inflicted upon the populace by fiendishly free health care. Instead of the real UK, with it's right-wing, capitalist, free-market friendly, populist government. Building regulations aren't in any way socialist, they are pretty much global and many countries, including the "freedom" loving USA, have extensive government-mandated building codes which include height restrictions or mechanisms to limit height.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eru 7y ago
You are right that building codes aren't a sign of socialism at all. The UK however has a pretty interventionist state. (But yes, they are less interventionist than eg the French. Low bar, though.) And eg re-nationalising the railways is perennial popular with the population. Luckily, no government has been crazy enough to do it, nor has it even featured much in election campaigns.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Not sure that's right re railways. Railtrack was de facto renationalised by the Blair government (becoming Network Rail) in the early 2000s, and we had an election one month ago where the main opposition party campaigned on a promise to not relet the private sector passenger franchises, ie de facto take them back into public ownership at the end of their terms. That isn't quite all of the railways (you've still got a few privately owned pieces of infrastructure, freight operators and rolling stock leasing) but it's pretty close.
  - eru 7y ago
    Interesting, thanks! Please imagine I added the appropriate hedge words in my comment above. With your corrections, it does move Britain a bit more into the interventionist state direction.

andybak 7y ago

> It's one of the socialist aspects of the UK. Yes because building density regulations are one of the hallmarks of socialism. Wat?

lawtalkinghuman 7y ago

No, the reason people don't build taller residential buildings is because a lot of mortgage providers often won't lend to leasehold buyers in high-rises, which limits residence to cash-only buyers and council tenants.