Housing Prefrences: MORI for CABE, 2005 • Over half the population want to live in a detached house • 22% prefer a bungalow • 14% a semi-detached house • 7% a terraced house • Detached house most popular choice, regardless of social status or ethnicity • Period properties (Edwardian, Victorian, Georgian) most desirable overall: 37%
New Households, New Homes • 80% one-person • But only about one-third “single never married” • Will demand more space per household: Separate kitchens/bathrooms/loos, Spare rooms, Work spaces • Land saving reduces as densities increase: • 30 dw/ha yields 60% of all potential gains, 40 dw/ha 70 per cent • So biggest gains from minimising development below 20 dw/h, not increasing 40 dw/ha+ • So: go for 30 -40 dw/ha with variations: higher close to transport services (Stockholm 1952!) • But won’t achieve same person densities as before!
Densification: Effects Density Dws. /ha. Net Land Saved Land needed to accommodate 400 dwellings Area required, ha. Gross (with local facilities) % % Land Saved Total Cumu. Saving lative 10 20 30 40 50 60 40. 0 % % Total Cumu. Saving lative 46. 3 20. 0 50. 0 25. 3 21. 0 45. 4 13. 3 6. 7 16. 7 66. 7 17. 9 7. 4 15. 9 61. 3 10. 0 3. 3 8. 3 75. 0 14. 3 3. 6 7. 8 69. 1 8. 0 2. 0 5. 0 80. 0 12. 1 2. 2 4. 8 73. 9 6. 6 1. 4 3. 5 83. 5 10. 6 1. 5 3. 2 77. 1 Source: Llewelyn Davies
Density Gradient (Rudlin & Falk) Source: D Rudlin, N Falk (1999) Building the 21 st Century Home
Lessons from Land Use • Public Transport needs minimum density: • Bus: 25 dw/ha • LRT: 60 dw/ha • Exceed recent densities • Big gain from 30 -35 dw/ha • Plus “pyramids” up to 60 dw/ha round rail stations • Urban Task Force • Traditional – Stockholm, 1952! • Or Edwardian suburbs!
Urban Clusters
The Infrastructure Gap (1) Orbital Connections • Polycentric structure - reinforce • So: orbital as well and radial links • Stressed in SE RSS • But: where’s the plan? • Df. T not interested
The Infrastructure Gap (2) Growing the South into the North
The Infrastructure Gap: Roger Tym Report
Making it happen: The 2004 Act • • Radical change – biggest for 35 years Working through at regional strategic level Still to work through at local level Planning Gain Supplement Can it solve the “infrastructure deficit”? The major issue in solving the housing crisis! But also: the NIMBY factor – will get worse?
Planning Gain Supplement v. S 106 • Planning Gain Supplement (i. e. development land tax) on windfall gains by developers • Could vary locally: brownfield v. greefield • Can it meet the “infrastructure gap”? • Or are existing mechanisms as effective? • MK, Bedford… • So retain “Section 106” as an alternative? • Local versus regional investment: ‘local gain’ for ‘local pain’ (retention of PGS; higher proportion of Council Tax receipts from new housing) • But problem of regional infrastructure: Bypasses v. new rail connections… • Need for better integration ODPM/Df. T! SE Orbirail, Manchester Metrolink, etc…
Скачать презентацию Housing Prefrences MORI for CABE 2005 Over
cf304db904f9a0117682c8cc974062fa.ppt