Architectural Designs

Should we build to the sky to stop the greenbelt problem?

Following on from my last question about wether we should build into the greenbelt areas to stop the housing problems....the next question is.."should we start building taller buildings in the Cities to stop the expansion into green belt areas and solve the housing crisis this way? Sky scrapers? Now this would worry the government because it means destroying the sky line...but..surely if they designed them to ensure it was not an eye sore...could that work? Then ask...but what if people want to live in the country more? Well to be honest, not many people actually 'live in the country' very few do...there are many smaller towns and cities that could be expanded without going in to greenbelt areas. What about the argument that cities are already too crowded? Is that not what cities are about anyway? If we build up though we would have to create a fairer system so people could afford it, we already have affordable housing..which by the way is NOT affordable..is £300,000 affordable to you Maybe thats why people are moving out of Cities, because they cant afford to live there, so is this whole mess the Governments fault...and are they now trying to solve there mess by building into Greenbelt areas, knowing that no one will kick up a fuss?

Public Comments

1. Why not, we've reached for the stars.
2. yerr why not go all the way up to space ,the planes wont hit buildings it might take a year to go to work and back ,but hey got to live somewhere don't we.why not go underground,at least you won't have a problem with keeping it cool.lol.....
3. Tower blocks were built in abundance in the 1950's - whole streets were knocked down and people re-housed in the blocks. The whole community was effected and it caused real problems - hence, they are being knocked down again! If we need more houses then there is no option. I live in a city and it makes my blood boil when the country folk start banging on that they don't want any houses in their back yard! Boo Hoo - we are running out of land so have a taste of what has been going on in towns and cities - they are at bursting point. Contrary to popular belief, green belt land is not areas of outstanding natural beauty - they were originally the pieces of land that split the country from the cities. Quite often, the land is waste or scrub land. It needs to be built on - if they country folk don't like it they can always move to a more isolated area.
4. Two words -Population control.
5. there are problems by environmental .To build anywhere no respect the Law 's of Protection Environmental.The green areas would must more be , so The peoples must to realized no destroyed.this is one by many problems by environmental protection.
6. Have you heard of arcologies? They've been mooted for a while now... They're like whole towns contained in one tall building (almost like mini eco systems). Apparently, they can be built in out of the way areas, and could comfortably house thousands of people in a relatively small area.
7. I personally believe the government is in a lose - lose situation with the housing crisis in this country. Where ever they build, it is going to be in "someone’s back yard". The housing isn't going to be built on good land either because obviously all the optimum sites are already in use - hence the decision to build on flood plains and now on some green belt sites. I agree, taller builders are definitely a way to combat the problem. More homes can be built on the same amount of land which is why we're seeing more and more flats and apartments being built and of course the trend for new build three or four storey homes. Sky scrapers or tower blocks are also a solution however, they too come with their problems - main social. They were built in abundance following the war - "streets in the sky". They fell into disrepair quite quickly and soon became nothing more than eyesores and not particularly pleasant places to live. I think if the government were to go down this route again, they need to address these issues. Personally I want to see more Brownfield land being used. On my way to work I actually pass about 7 disused sites where the building are falling down and full of pigeons. They actually turned some land near by into some really nice flats which not only has got rid of the derelict building, its provided homes. Like you say though, I'd love to see more "affordable housing"!!! £200,000 for a two bedroom house with a patio for a garden and one parking space is not my idea of an affordable family home!!
8. Why build up? Why not down? It keeps things more appealing and aids in heating and cooling, saving energy. Keep in mind that the recent government regulations don't follow any logic other than the whims of who is in power. Consider how we 1st build 4-8 lane highways to alleviate traffic congestion; then we later put traffic signals every block to slow them down. People usually move out of the city because of crime and congestion. When this happens, crime actually goes up, because they also take the local economy with them. Cost of housing is determined by supply & demand. Unfortunately, "Zoning" also enters into it. Do you want to live next to "Low cost housing"?
9. I agree with lucky man, England is over populated, control that and we wont need to build on every square inch of Land.
10. Mass immigration has exacerbated the problem. Take a look at the link below.
11. We had the right idea in the 50s and 60s. Tower blocks full of the poor. Only when we blow them up this time dont move the poor out first.