Britain - The Official Thread

[homeforsummer]

What's the deal with all these neighborhoods in British cities which are apparently private, with no Google access, and where it seems the houses all have their own gardens or tiny farms? They almost look like slums from above, with dirt roads, but they're clearly growing vegetables or something like that. They also seem to be single-family homes instead of the outrageously monotonous flats and duplexes. Is this community garden neighborhood concept a thing in Britain and Europe? It's common enough to notice it from above but I can't say I've seen anything like it here in the US. Are these areas part of the city or are they on their own?

Allotments?

^ Sounds like that.

Allotments have been a thing in the UK for hundreds of years. They grew massively during the war as growing your own fruit and veg helped mitigate rationing. Less common than they used to be, but common enough that it's easy to forget they exist. I walk and drive past these ones fairly regularly - is that the kind of thing you're on about @Keef?

Edit: Though if you mean something more like this (which have the single-family homes you describe, rather than the sheds in allotments) then it's probably a traveller/gypsy camp.

 

[UKMikey]

Is he a neurosurgeon whose hands were injured in a car crash, so he became the Sorcerer Supreme?

Or a prominent New Romantic singer whose band had hits in the 80s with "Fade to grey" and "Mind of a toy"?

 

[polysmut]

Though if you mean something more like this (which have the single-family homes you describe, rather than the sheds in allotments) then it's probably a traveller/gypsy camp.

If there are caravans (trailers) there then I'd guess they're traveller sites.

 

[Sprite]

What's the deal with all these neighborhoods in British cities which are apparently private, with no Google access, and where it seems the houses all have their own gardens or tiny farms? They almost look like slums from above, with dirt roads, but they're clearly growing vegetables or something like that. They also seem to be single-family homes instead of the outrageously monotonous flats and duplexes. Is this community garden neighborhood concept a thing in Britain and Europe? It's common enough to notice it from above but I can't say I've seen anything like it here in the US. Are these areas part of the city or are they on their own?

I have two within 5 minutes walking distance. If you’re talking about Allotments.

 

[polysmut]

I have two within 5 minutes walking distance. If you’re talking about Allotments.

Your home is pinned in that picture. It may have been deliberate but it seems risky to me.

 

[PeterJB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420

So it turns out Tim Farron does think gay sex is a sin. Not that it wasn't blindingly obviously already and he was clearly sidestepping the question when he was (I think) unfairly grilled over it all the time because he knew it would ruin both his career at the Lib Dems' reputation*

Assuming that's still possible...

 

[Sprite]

Your home is pinned in that picture. It may have been deliberate but it seems risky to me.

Nah, a quick google etc and people can find out more about me. I’m not too worried. Thanks for the heads up though. 👍

 

[Scaff]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420

So it turns out Tim Farron does think gay sex is a sin. Not that it wasn't blindingly obviously already and he was clearly sidestepping the question when he was (I think) unfairly grilled over it all the time because he knew it would ruin both his career at the Lib Dems' reputation*

Assuming that's still possible...

How was he unfairly grilled on it?

Given that he wanted to run the country at the time of the questions, and the answer had the potential to speak as to his views on a percentage of the voting public it's a perfectly fair pont to push for an answer on. Particularly given that he did all that he could to avoid answering it and when he finally did it turns out the answer he gave was missleading.

Seems the questions provoked the kind of reaction required to get in part to the character of the man.

 

[PeterJB]

How was he unfairly grilled on it?

Given that he wanted to run the country at the time of the questions, and the answer had the potential to speak as to his views on a percentage of the voting public it's a perfectly fair pont to push for an answer on. Particularly given that he did all that he could to avoid answering it and when he finally did it turns out the answer he gave was missleading.

Seems the questions provoked the kind of reaction required to get in part to the character of the man.

He was being constantly asked about his views on gay marriage and abortion, waiting for him to crack I suppose. This is despite the fact the Lib Dems have always been a pro-choice and pro-LGBT party. It could've been him simply hiding the truth, or him being professional and keeping his religion out of politics.

 

[Scaff]

He was being constantly asked about his views on gay marriage and abortion, waiting for him to crack I suppose. This is despite the fact the Lib Dems have always been a pro-choice and pro-LGBT party.

The Lib Dems were also the party who said they would not increase university course fees, that didn't turn out to be quite true. Aside from which a new leader of a party will often change the direction of said party to a greater or lesser degree.

The press were doing what the press should do.

It could've been him simply hiding the truth, or him being professional and keeping his religion out of politics.

That assumes he is able to do so, evidence we see now shows that he seems quite OK with having differing messages for differing groups. Nor would I even take his past voting record at face value either, as once again Lib Dems have a record of changing party stance on that once they have any degree of power.

As for wanting to keep his religion out of politics, in the UK that's impossible. We have bishops given automatic seats in the Lord's, utterly unelected.

If he wanted to keep his religion and religious views out of politics he picked the wrong job, he a public servant and was running for the highest office in the country. As such people have a very real right to know if those views could have an impact on them.

Flip it around, if an MP was running who had a background of firmly anti-religious rhetoric would you not want the press digging at that to bring them to light if they were the head of a political party in a general election?

 

[PeterJB]

That assumes he is able to do so, evidence we see now shows that he seems quite OK with having differing messages for differing groups. Nor would I even take his past voting record at face value either, as once again Lib Dems have a record of changing party stance on that once they have any degree of power.

As for wanting to keep his religion out of politics, in the UK that's impossible. We have bishops given automatic seats in the Lord's, utterly unelected.

...Not that they interfere much, at least on bills with any kind of religious connection, the gay marriage bill passed with a huge majority.

If he wanted to keep his religion and religious views out of politics he picked the wrong job, he a public servant and was running for the highest office in the country. As such people have a very real right to know if those views could have an impact on them.

It's fair enough to ask a public servant about their personal views when running for office, but with him it was relentless, it came up in every interview and every debate, usually taking centre stage. Overtly religious politicians tend not to have much problem speaking what they think about gay marriage and abortion etc., but I saw no indication from him or his party of opposition to LGBT rights in their legislation, despite what he thinks in his personal life.

Flip it around, if an MP was running who had a background of firmly anti-religious rhetoric would you not want the press digging at that to bring them to light if they were the head of a political party in a general election?

That depends if them or their party have a history of support of anti-religious legislation, though somehow I get the feeling that if that was the case the media and the general public wouldn't care nearly as much.

 

[Scaff]

...Not that they interfere much, at least on bills with any kind of religious connection, the gay marriage bill passed with a huge majority.



It's fair enough to ask a public servant about their personal views when running for office, but with him it was relentless, it came up in every interview and every debate, usually taking centre stage. Overtly religious politicians tend not to have much problem speaking what they think about gay marriage and abortion etc., but I saw no indication from him or his party of opposition to LGBT rights in their legislation, despite what he thinks in his personal life.



That depends if them or their party have a history of support of anti-religious legislation, though somehow I get the feeling that if that was the case the media and the general public wouldn't care nearly as much.

They had a track record of voting against university fees being introduced and initialy against increasing them, how did that work out when they got into power?

That's an aside from the fact that he kept getting asked because he kept trying to avoid giving a clear answer on it.

The questioning wasn't unfairly grilled about it at all, he was questioned on it to the degree that someone running for office and avoiding answering questions on a topic that affects voters needs to be. He doesn't get a free pass based on how the party voted before he lead it.

 

[Keef]

^ Sounds like that.

Allotments have been a thing in the UK for hundreds of years. They grew massively during the war as growing your own fruit and veg helped mitigate rationing. Less common than they used to be, but common enough that it's easy to forget they exist. I walk and drive past these ones fairly regularly - is that the kind of thing you're on about @Keef?

Edit: Though if you mean something more like this (which have the single-family homes you describe, rather than the sheds in allotments) then it's probably a traveller/gypsy camp.

These things.

I can't tell if they're houses or sheds. Some of these areas are quite large and appear to have houses in them. Are these gardens areas that people rent to grow their food, and they just visit to work it from time to time?

Also, I noticed a brand new neighborhood built in Horsham. Spanky new, not even on Google Maps. But it is on Streetview and...

It looks old! Like, this looks like some pre-war architectural style, and if even looks worn out because of all the dirt and dust from construction. What's the deal with this style of architecture? Is this some sort of heritage revival thing y'all have going on? Here in the miderwestern US we also love our red bricks, German heritage and all that, but when we build new buildings we don't specifically make them appear old. They're all red bricks but in a simple, more modern style, probably some glass, more and bigger windows, etc. We certainly don't hang old lady-style curtain things above the few, small windows. I just find it super interesting that this tiny city built an enormous new neighborhood all at once but chose to make it appear like it was already 70 years old.

I have two within 5 minutes walking distance. If you’re talking about Allotments.

View attachment 705830

Yes, those things. Are they just given to people or do you rent or buy the land or what? Who owns them, rich people, poor people, anybody? Was this their solution to not actually having yards in which to grow your own garden?

 

[Sprite]

Yes, those things. Are they just given to people or do you rent or buy the land or what? Who owns them, rich people, poor people, anybody? Was this their solution to not actually having yards in which to grow your own garden?

Allotments have to be applied for from the local authority and are quite popular. Its a long waitlist I'm my area. Being in Yorkshire most are used to grow Rhubarb as I'm smack bang in the middle of the famous triangle. Its a rentable plot, the below is the current rates from my local council:

Allotment rents cost 22p per sq.metre and this price is reviewed each year.

There is an additional £10.77 water charge if the site is below 125 sq. metre or £21.55 if the site is above 125 sq. metre for sites where water is provided.

A concession of 50 per cent on rent is available to plot holders who are able to evidence that they are:

• Of state pension age, or
• In receipt of benefits related to disability

My partner and I are looking at possibly getting one in the future as the house we're moving to only has a small yard at the back. So space to grow my own vegies and fruit is something we'd like. Anyone can get one and it was seen as a way for those with hardly any gardens to get some sort of green space. Nowadays even if you have acers or land you can still apply for an allotment. A lot of people hang round and share veg and fruit with each other and they have a real community. After a long day tending your plot you can just sit back in the fading sun and enjoy a glass of home made scrumpy or elderflower wine etc. and have a BBQ (if they allow).

 

[homeforsummer]

These things.

Yup, allotments. @Sprite has explained them pretty well above.

Also, I noticed a brand new neighborhood built in Horsham. Spanky new, not even on Google Maps. But it is on Streetview and...

It looks old! Like, this looks like some pre-war architectural style, and if even looks worn out because of all the dirt and dust from construction. What's the deal with this style of architecture? Is this some sort of heritage revival thing y'all have going on? Here in the miderwestern US we also love our red bricks, German heritage and all that, but when we build new buildings we don't specifically make them appear old. They're all red bricks but in a simple, more modern style, probably some glass, more and bigger windows, etc. We certainly don't hang old lady-style curtain things above the few, small windows. I just find it super interesting that this tiny city built an enormous new neighborhood all at once but chose to make it appear like it was already 70 years old.

It's one of my biggest frustrations with those kind of housing estates in the UK. You're right - they look old. In fact, they just look completely bland - no attempt to build anything that looks modern or innovative. They're usually out on a limb on some old brownfield site which also means people have to commute and further clog an already clogged road network, and most frustratingly for someone like me, there's never any attempt to build anything that isn't aimed at families. There's a massive problem in the UK at the moment for young people affording housing but developers aren't interested - they'd rather build massive red brick developments.

 

[Lizard]

These things.

I can't tell if they're houses or sheds. Some of these areas are quite large and appear to have houses in them. Are these gardens areas that people rent to grow their food, and they just visit to work it from time to time?

Also, I noticed a brand new neighborhood built in Horsham. Spanky new, not even on Google Maps. But it is on Streetview and...

It looks old! Like, this looks like some pre-war architectural style, and if even looks worn out because of all the dirt and dust from construction. What's the deal with this style of architecture? Is this some sort of heritage revival thing y'all have going on? Here in the miderwestern US we also love our red bricks, German heritage and all that, but when we build new buildings we don't specifically make them appear old. They're all red bricks but in a simple, more modern style, probably some glass, more and bigger windows, etc. We certainly don't hang old lady-style curtain things above the few, small windows. I just find it super interesting that this tiny city built an enormous new neighborhood all at once but chose to make it appear like it was already 70 years old.


Yes, those things. Are they just given to people or do you rent or buy the land or what? Who owns them, rich people, poor people, anybody? Was this their solution to not actually having yards in which to grow your own garden?

Yep they are allotments. The average person can buy/rent one to grow their own veg without having to buy an entire farm.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It looks old! Like, this looks like some pre-war architectural style, and if even looks worn out because of all the dirt and dust from construction. What's the deal with this style of architecture?

It's quite modern and cheap/quick to build. The style's a mix of 30s suburban and a few dodgy Georgian cues. It looks like every new estate where the builder hasn't bothered appropriating local stone for Olde Worldeness.

 

[ExigeEvan]

@Keef - Look at Swansea University's new Bay Campus. It's a classic example of a modern build made to look absurdly old.

Yup, allotments. @Sprite has explained them pretty well above.

It's one of my biggest frustrations with those kind of housing estates in the UK. You're right - they look old. In fact, they just look completely bland - no attempt to build anything that looks modern or innovative. They're usually out on a limb on some old brownfield site which also means people have to commute and further clog an already clogged road network, and most frustratingly for someone like me, there's never any attempt to build anything that isn't aimed at families. There's a massive problem in the UK at the moment for young people affording housing but developers aren't interested - they'd rather build massive red brick developments.

And it seems the trend is to have linear parking for 2 cars, no front garden and a road that isn't big enough for on-street parking that inevitability follows. Plus the rear gardens are all built on rubble/clay and are overlooked by half a dozen neighbours. We avoided new builds after the first couple of viewings. More and more friends are now also realising that a new build is no guarantee of quality or avoiding issues.

 

[polysmut]

I think generally if one is to buy a new build home, the general consensus is that it should be sold after five years before it starts to fall apart. Whereas something that was built in Victorian times is already standing up well to the test of time. There's some cynicism to it but it seems to be an accurate description of how houses were built then compared to now.

 

[mustafur]

Back in the day they had plentiful access to what would be stupidly expensive materials today.

 

[polysmut]

Back in the day they had plentiful access to what would be stupidly expensive materials today.

Is there something to attitudes being different in the past too? Regarding durability versus throwaway?

 

[mustafur]

Is there something to attitudes being different in the past too? Regarding durability versus throwaway?

Possibly but with land values like they are that tends to be the only source of real value in a property these days anyway regardless of what era property is on it.

 

[polysmut]

Possibly but with land values like they are that tends to be the only source of real value in a property these days anyway regardless of what era property is on it.

Freeholds are becoming a thing that developers hide from buyers now too. Possibly also a symptom of land value.
The land isn't getting any bigger but more people are around to share it now.

 

[homeforsummer]

And it seems the trend is to have linear parking for 2 cars, no front garden and a road that isn't big enough for on-street parking that inevitability follows. Plus the rear gardens are all built on rubble/clay and are overlooked by half a dozen neighbours. We avoided new builds after the first couple of viewings. More and more friends are now also realising that a new build is no guarantee of quality or avoiding issues.

It must just be a lowest-bidder thing. Bricks cost bugger-all, you can use the same design you've used in a dozen other estates, and you can cram as many houses as possible into as small a space as possible. Risk of living in a overpopulated country with large areas of greenbelt restricting space for development too.

The times you see anything different are rare. One I was intrigued by was "Graven Hill" near Bicester, where pretty much a whole new village is being built, there are various self-build options, they're using more modern materials, and housing styles vary quite significantly. Milton Keynes is about as modern as planned housing as got in the UK in the last 60 years...

 

[ExigeEvan]

It must just be a lowest-bidder thing. Bricks cost bugger-all, you can use the same design you've used in a dozen other estates, and you can cram as many houses as possible into as small a space as possible. Risk of living in a overpopulated country with large areas of greenbelt restricting space for development too.

The times you see anything different are rare. One I was intrigued by was "Graven Hill" near Bicester, where pretty much a whole new village is being built, there are various self-build options, they're using more modern materials, and housing styles vary quite significantly. Milton Keynes is about as modern as planned housing as got in the UK in the last 60 years...

I find it amazing that red brick is seemed to be cost efficient given how Labour intensive it is.

Every seen a big red brick house with little architectural value, tarmac drive and wrought iron gates with concrete animals on the gate post? I call that a bricky's house because it is nearly always someone from the trade that has built it as big and cheap as possible.

Same problem is seen in south Wales. I can only think of one affordable development which tried something different out of a dozen Cardiff commuter belt sites.

Back in the day they had plentiful access to what would be stupidly expensive materials today.

Materials today are better, but the speed at which contractors have to work is unprecedented. Also, the 'snag' list is now considered a post-dated activity with an indefinite end. Buyers are rushing into homes that are full of all sorts of issues.

That said, part of my parents' house is over 100yrs old and has 70cm thick walls of stone.

 

[Lizard]

Back in the day they had plentiful access to what would be stupidly expensive materials today.

Not so much that, more change in design needs.

It's like my mum's sewing machine, it does all these different patterns and it's light enough to carry to wherever you need it. Back in the day you got a cast iron lump with a needle and a wheel, which is neither light or feature full.

Cars, sure your modern car may have issues now and then but it has a lot better mpg and power, it has aircon, it has sat nav and 500 different settings for the seats and seat heaters, your old cars never had that. Also your modern cars are a lot safer.


Houses, old houses were made of thick brick as that was all that was around other than hardened mud and stone. Now buildings are made of all sorts like steel which means they are less likely to fall down, it's easier to create more and more open spaces, basically it's easier to create what people like in buildings.

 

[Wiegert]

I've been seeing more new builds throwing in asymmetric windows, treated wood cladding or single slope roofs to give them a vague sense of 21st century vogue, though they're dwarfed by the number of new red brick suburban sprawls popping up around the country. It seems that most developers are dead set on having them blend in with the pre-war architecture, but considering how poorly many of the "modern" '60s estates have aged I can sort of understand why. I just hope some of the more adventurous styling nowadays won't look nearly as shabby 50 years down the line.

Our council's also been pushing for more prefab developments as well as commissioning pre-built semis. But even these less conventional constructions look like the most bland 1950s council estate homes on plots half as big as the homes they're designed to resemble.

 

[Robin]

Also, I noticed a brand new neighborhood built in Horsham. Spanky new, not even on Google Maps. But it is on Streetview and...

It looks old! Like, this looks like some pre-war architectural style, and if even looks worn out because of all the dirt and dust from construction. What's the deal with this style of architecture?

In the UK we have very strict planning laws particularly when it comes to the look and style of what's being built, especially if it's a large multi home development. The term 'in keeping with' tends to be followed rather religiously here. If they don't they could be met with very strong opposition from the local council or residents.

We you are seeing is textbook mock architecture which is emulating either Georgian, Victorian, Tudor, Pre War, Inter War etc periods.

Another reason they build in this style, as any home builder will often say, is because people like it and it sells. They don't what something too out there or architecturally daring. Also it makes the house look established and more mature.

Buyers for the most apart want something that looks like it's been there for ages but with 21st century mod cons.

Also Red brick is a UK staple, nearly everything is Red brick unless you build in areas where you have to build in a certain material like Yellow stone in the Cotswolds.

It seems that most developers are dead set on having them blend in with the pre-war architecture, but considering how poorly many of the "modern" '60s estates have aged I can sort of understand why.

That's why we build the way we do. The last time Britain tried to go out there architecturally (the 60's) the majority of it ending up looking like an utter disaster years down the line. I think this new fad in wood cladding will also probably suffer the same fate.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The last time Britain tried to go out there architecturally (the 60's) the majority of it ending up looking like an utter disaster years down the line.

In fairness the brutalist bloom was partly a function of materials rationing - particularly of wood and steel. Concrete was quick and easy when there was a vast need for rebuilding.

I lived near Cuventraay when I was little so I definitely remember the worse side of concrete city centres.

 

[UKMikey]

Anyone interested in the current scandal over the UKIP leader's girlfriend's remarks? I'm perfectly prepared to give the whole subject a miss if all of you are. Maybe it should be in the political correctness thread.