Should housing built near railway stations be higher density?

[Meerkat]

Moderator note: split from

East-West Rail: Progress and updates

There's a few photos - including some aerial ones - searching Twitter for @networkraileus.

www.railforums.co.uk

I can't see a problem with a development there. The station is on the other side of the road bridge, if there was to be an expansion it'd be into the present car park. The land is not useful for anything else.

I don't think it's a particularly desirable housing location either, to be honest, but even so you'd probably sell a typical "Barratt's estate" out. Or social housing could be built there.

I was thinking a big block of flats - aimed at young folk who only want a flat and want to be very near the station. My home town is building hundreds of them - it’s a good way for the council to get large numbers of units built without encroaching on the green belt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was thinking a big block of flats - aimed at young folk who only want a flat and want to be very near the station. My home town is building hundreds of them - it’s a good way for the council to get large numbers of units built without encroaching on the green belt.

There are similar blocks of flats on Bletchley Park's old land the other side of the station (visible on the photos above) - but from what I can tell they aren't primarily accommodating commuters (you just don't see people flocking from those blocks to the station of a morning). I think Bletchley is just that bit far out for it to be a desirable commuter location. MKC might get away with it, though, due to the faster trains. FWIW, they're quite nice flats - very big inside and the style wouldn't look out of place in Germany.

TBH I suspect a "Barratt's estate" of townhouses and some flats similar to that by the Leisure Centre would be a more practical fit.

Even that block by the bus station is just social housing, not commuters.

 

[cle]

Surely people will have dispersed jobs - these conversations imply that employment spots are 1) predictable and 2) uniform when building housing!

Some will be very local, some in CMK, a few in London, or other places like Watford (25 mins and a lot of company HQs) or Luton - and then in time, Bicester and Oxford will become easy options too. Or different household adults will be working in different locations - Bletchley will be quite the intersection in that regard.

 

[Meerkat]

TBH I suspect a "Barratt's estate" of townhouses and some flats similar to that by the Leisure Centre would be a more practical fit.

We need to start upping housing density - anything that close to the centre should be at least four storeys of flats.

 

[hooverboy]

We need to start upping housing density - anything that close to the centre should be at least four storeys of flats.

After several weeks of lockdown,I wonder if the public appetite for flat dwelling will be somewhat diminished.If you have open space and a garden it's bearable,but being stuck in a one/two bedroom flat will give you a severe case of cabin fever.

 

[Meerkat]

After several weeks of lockdown,I wonder if the public appetite for flat dwelling will be somewhat diminished.If you have open space and a garden it's bearable,but being stuck in a one/two bedroom flat will give you a severe case of cabin fever.

That might reflect in prices, but there are too many of us to have what we want rather than what is available (restricted by green belts etc)

 

[Bletchleyite]

After several weeks of lockdown,I wonder if the public appetite for flat dwelling will be somewhat diminished.If you have open space and a garden it's bearable,but being stuck in a one/two bedroom flat will give you a severe case of cabin fever.

Depends on the flat. A good many modern blocks seem to have balconies, and TBH I'd rather a good balcony than having to cut the ******* grass again. Different for a family with kids, of course, but outside London families with kids don't generally live in flats in the UK.

It's only leasehold that puts me off flat purchase. If we switched to commonhold I'd give it consideration.

In MK there is no shortage of reasonably affordable houses if you'll compromise a bit on area, by the way. Flats can often be more expensive as the newer estates are more desirable.

 

[cle]

Young couples, sharing friends etc don't always want a garden. Or to own a roof etc - plus flats on upper floors have better security.

In any case, people aren't uniform and everyone has different needs and preferences. I think it's absurd old people don't live in walkable centres, but there you go. We don't get that much snow, I supposed - and Coronoa ripped through the urban elderly and multi-generationals in Southern Europe.

But I don't think 3/6/12 weeks of quarantine will long term impact people's appetite for apartment living. They just might prefer a park nearby! Or a railway station to get away! Full circle, there we go...

 

[si404]

We need to start upping housing density - anything that close to the centre should be at least four storeys of flats.

I don't think that's likely to occur - not because of lockdown cabin fever, but because the need to be close to the centre (or a station) will be reduced by a step change in the numbers of people working from home that has long been threatened, but now has been triggered and will likely continue even when its not forced.

The only way I see them getting taller is due to the demand for increased size (due to needing office space within the home, spending more time there, etc), but that's countered by the demand for office space being less, freeing up land in the locations where its done as office buildings and apartments have similar location desires.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't think that's likely to occur - not because of lockdown cabin fever, but because the need to be close to the centre (or a station) will be reduced by a step change in the numbers of people working from home that has long been threatened, but now has been triggered and will likely continue even when its not forced.

The only way I see them getting taller is due to the demand for increased size (due to needing office space within the home, spending more time there, etc), but that's countered by the demand for office space being less, freeing up land in the locations where its done as office buildings and apartments have similar location desires.

The population keeps rising and protection of green belt more popular, so space near stations should be reserved for denser housing. It’s the younger folk who will be less likely to WFH and want to be nearer the social action.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We need to start upping housing density - anything that close to the centre should be at least four storeys of flats.

Bletchley isn't really the "centre" of anything, it's a suburb of MK in practice. Most housing surrounding what you'd call the centre (a fairly weak shopping street) is 1930s semis.

Suggesting it should all be blocks of flats is a bit like suggesting the same around a random Merseyrail station or something.

 

[Meerkat]

Bletchley isn't really the "centre" of anything, it's a suburb of MK in practice. Most housing surrounding what you'd call the centre (a fairly weak shopping street) is 1930s semis.

Suggesting it should all be blocks of flats is a bit like suggesting the same around a random Merseyrail station or something.

Sounds like a good plan!

 

[cle]

Bletchley isn't really the "centre" of anything, it's a suburb of MK in practice. Most housing surrounding what you'd call the centre (a fairly weak shopping street) is 1930s semis.

Suggesting it should all be blocks of flats is a bit like suggesting the same around a random Merseyrail station or something.

If only we were discussing a transformational project which would make Bletchley the centre of something?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only we were discussing a transformational project which would make Bletchley the centre of something?

A country branch line, which is what it is, carrying a 3-car DMU to a couple of destinations each once an hour, is not a "transformational plan" for anything. Don't over-egg the pudding.

That's not to say I don't support it being built - I very much do - but it is not going to transform Bletchley in the way you suggest. It's basically comparable to "XC-lite", and I don't think anyone would say that the building of the extra platforms and flyover at Nuneaton transformed that.

 

[PartyOperator]

Traditional terraced houses enable reasonably high densities as well as private gardens, private front doors etc. Blocks of flats excel when you're trying to achieve high density and lots of room on the ground for cars, but if you're building in a place with good public transport and enough people who don't mind not having a car, the Victorian pattern of rows of houses on narrow roads with back gardens is still a sound approach. They remain extremely popular despite the poor insulation (heat and sound) and all the quirks of old buildings adapted to modern sanitation etc. Built to a good modern standard, there's very little not to like.

Obviously you wouldn't try to replicate central London on the outskirts of Milton Keynes, but some of the streets near Oxford station for example might be a reasonable model... Assuming even a small proportion of people want houses with easy access to stations and aren't too bothered about parking, this would seem to be a sensible way of maximising the value of development land around stations. There's plenty of space in Milton Keynes for the (perhaps large majority of) people who do want space for cars. The Goldsmith Street scheme in Norwich squeezed 100 dwellings into a 1.2 hectare brownfield site, for a modern example of what can be done.

Norwich housing scheme wins Stirling Prize

London Bridge station redevelopment and Macallan Distillery among beaten schemes

www.building.co.uk

https://www.norwich.gov.uk/info/20199/adopted_local_plan/1582/site_specific_allocations_in_the_remainder_of_the_city/27

Mikhail Riches and Cathy Hawley have won the 2019 Stirling Prize for Goldsmith Street, a highly sustainable council housing development in Norwich.

It is only the second time in the prize’s 23-year history that housing has won. The last time was in 2007, when Accordia, the Cambridge scheme designed by Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, Alison Brooks Architects and Maccreanor Lavington, lifted the trophy.

Costing £14.7m, Goldsmith Street was completed by local contractor RG Carter last December with others to work on the job including QS Hamson Barron Smith, clerk of works Enhabit and landscape architect BBUK.

Julia Barfield, chairman of this year’s jury, described Goldsmith Street as a “modest masterpiece” and an outstanding contribution to British architecture.

Consisting of nearly 100 houses and flats laid out in traditional terraced streets, the project meets rigorous Passivhaus standards, resulting in annual energy bills that are 70% lower than the average household’s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bletchley is not the place to build something like that, though. The local facilities are poor and the bus service similarly poor. That said, it won't happen - MK Council requires two parking spaces per dwelling now (something I am in favour of, as doing otherwise just results in on-street parking problems).

Like it or not MK is the "city" of the car. If you build anything that doesn't support that, what you'll get is a sink estate.

 

[si404]

The population keeps rising and protection of green belt more popular, so space near stations should be reserved for denser housing. It’s the younger folk who will be less likely to WFH and want to be nearer the social action.

All true, but new mid-rise development is still going to be less in demand and less likely to be built should the increase in working from home stick around once things get back to normal.

Even without this likely future change, if you are going to reserve an area by the station of a mid-size town for mid-rise development and block apartment blocks looking like this new one in Amersham (formerly an office building), then unless it's a small area, you are going to end up not densifying that near-station area much! Even large towns like Aylesbury or Wycombe would struggle to get much more mid-rise than now (Aylesbury redeveloped its former good yards relatively recently - all three-storeys or under, but dense development of townhouses and apartments nethertheless).

Obviously don't block mid-rise by the station, just don't insist on it in order to encourage density. It's not only unnecessary to have the density, but likely to hinder it as developments that meet the required height won't happen due to a lack of demand.

 

[Meerkat]

All true, but new mid-rise development is still going to be less in demand and less likely to be built should the increase in working from home stick around once things get back to normal.

Even without this likely future change, if you are going to reserve an area by the station of a mid-size town for mid-rise development and block apartment blocks looking like this new one in Amersham (formerly an office building), then unless it's a small area, you are going to end up not densifying that near-station area much! Even large towns like Aylesbury or Wycombe would struggle to get much more mid-rise than now (Aylesbury redeveloped its former good yards relatively recently - all three-storeys or under, but dense development of townhouses and apartments nethertheless).

Obviously don't block mid-rise by the station, just don't insist on it in order to encourage density. It's not only unnecessary to have the density, but likely to hinder it as developments that meet the required height won't happen due to a lack of demand.

I was thinking bigger than your example. The density is necessary, and the demand will be there because there is a shortage of homes - people will have to compromise, as usual.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was thinking bigger than your example. The density is necessary, and the demand will be there because there is a shortage of homes - people will have to compromise, as usual.

I'm not convinced the density is necessary in MK. It is expanding outwards quite happily and there's plenty of space for it to do so. If there's a need for more homes, just do that more rapidly.

 

[si404]

I was thinking bigger than your example.

I know, I gave it as an example of dense residential development near stations that you want to block because it's not tall enough. If you were in charge of planning at Chiltern District Council, you'd have stopped a net gain of 24 dwellings within a couple of minutes walk from the station because it's only the same height as a normal house! What a terrible way to solve the housing shortage...

Amersham has nearly doubled in population in the last 30-35 years despite the footprint being basically the same without any mid-rise, and mostly staying as semi- or detached houses. OK, it wasn't high density to begin with - despite being walkable and transit-orientated - as a lot of Metroland-era development was detached houses with really long back gardens and replacing them with barratt-box style close-together-ness and less excessive gardens has increased the number of houses on the area without much difficulty. As a typical example (albeit with an atypically small original building), this small bungalow has been demolished and it, and half of next door's garden are being replaced with a 3-bed detached house with 4 2-bed semis behind it all with decent-sized gardens.

The density is necessary

I wasn't doubting that - reading back the subject of my sentence wasn't clear. I meant "Mid-rises are not only unnecessary to have the density, but likely to hinder it as developments that meet the required height won't happen due to a lack of demand."

 

[The Ham]

I'm not convinced the density is necessary in MK. It is expanding outwards quite happily and there's plenty of space for it to do so. If there's a need for more homes, just do that more rapidly.

There's a settlement near where I live, which is classed as rural (population of less than 10,000), where there's flats being built within walking distance of the station. These are being built over 3 floors.

They are not the first flats (there's been some office conversions) recently, that's in addition to a total of 50 town houses and flats (which are slightly closer to the station).

Why would somewhere larger be exempt from such developments?

 

[ashkeba]

Why would somewhere larger be exempt from such developments?

Because MK was designed by car fetishests who saw the worst designed housing in Denmark and replicated it there, so any housing zone built without easy car parking and access is ignored in favour of sprawl suburbs and so becomes a "sink estate"?

Are the sprawl estates harder for cv to spread through or is driving to malls and hypermarkets helping it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's a settlement near where I live, which is classed as rural (population of less than 10,000), where there's flats being built within walking distance of the station. These are being built over 3 floors.

They are not the first flats (there's been some office conversions) recently, that's in addition to a total of 50 town houses and flats (which are slightly closer to the station).

Why would somewhere larger be exempt from such developments?

Because why would you live in a manky, tiny flat when there's plenty of decent, affordable (for the SE) houses available within walking or cycling distance of the station?

FWIW, if you're going to build over 3 floors (rather than say 5) you might as well build 3-storey townhouses (you know, the kind with a kitchen diner on the ground floor, lounge with juliette balcony on the middle floor and 2/3 bedrooms on the top floor), people prefer those and they don't actually take up any more space. There are a fair few of these in MK on newer estates.