Wow, I didn't know any of this. Makes perfect sense (while being rather stupid, given the examples of ridiculous architecture you cite).
One more thing that seems weird to me is how 80% of London housing is in 2-3 storey buildings. Totally underbuilt space and inefficient, too -- just about every flat my daughter (who's been living in the city for about a decade) has had included a staircase, no matter how small the total area. Tokyo has small efficient houses, efficient streets and great public transport, and subsequent low housing costs. London in some respects seems to be the opposite?
I know, we should have more medium-height housing (4 to 6 storeys).
But we have some of the oldest housing stock in the world with so many houses built in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. It's one of the very few disadvantages of not being flattened by bombers in the Second World War.
Plus, when it comes to housing in London, one has to be aware of the green belt rules. Every major city in the UK has a green belt around it to preserve nature and reduce sprawl. This is why UK cities don't look like the terrible mess you have in the US. In the green belt only very limited housing can be built. This reduces the available land and increases house prices inside the green belt. But of course, the right reaction to that would be to build taller buildings inside the green belt but that would require us to tear down Victorian houses that are more than 100 years old...
PS: My house in London is Victorian and was built in 1905 and it definitely has much more charm than any new built house. But I guess, that removes my right to complain about London housing and high house prices...
You are correct about the bizzare and capricious UK planning system, which IMHO holds back the whole country GDP.
However high-status star architects resulting in higher buildings? could it not be that the causal link is the other way around i.e. these "stars" are more likely to get hired for the bigger and more prestigious projects rather than causing them to be big and prestigious?
Wow, I didn't know any of this. Makes perfect sense (while being rather stupid, given the examples of ridiculous architecture you cite).
One more thing that seems weird to me is how 80% of London housing is in 2-3 storey buildings. Totally underbuilt space and inefficient, too -- just about every flat my daughter (who's been living in the city for about a decade) has had included a staircase, no matter how small the total area. Tokyo has small efficient houses, efficient streets and great public transport, and subsequent low housing costs. London in some respects seems to be the opposite?
I know, we should have more medium-height housing (4 to 6 storeys).
But we have some of the oldest housing stock in the world with so many houses built in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. It's one of the very few disadvantages of not being flattened by bombers in the Second World War.
Plus, when it comes to housing in London, one has to be aware of the green belt rules. Every major city in the UK has a green belt around it to preserve nature and reduce sprawl. This is why UK cities don't look like the terrible mess you have in the US. In the green belt only very limited housing can be built. This reduces the available land and increases house prices inside the green belt. But of course, the right reaction to that would be to build taller buildings inside the green belt but that would require us to tear down Victorian houses that are more than 100 years old...
PS: My house in London is Victorian and was built in 1905 and it definitely has much more charm than any new built house. But I guess, that removes my right to complain about London housing and high house prices...
very weird indeed, if office buildings within the Green Belt were allowed to be built hi-rise, but not residential buildings.
1905 = Edwardian
This is the most English response I have ever received on my Substack :-D I love it.
You are correct about the bizzare and capricious UK planning system, which IMHO holds back the whole country GDP.
However high-status star architects resulting in higher buildings? could it not be that the causal link is the other way around i.e. these "stars" are more likely to get hired for the bigger and more prestigious projects rather than causing them to be big and prestigious?
Possible.