The solution to the housing crisis is within the Tories' reach

Some might regard it as an impossible dream, but let us suppose that Brexit is accomplished and politicians start to turn their attention to other matters. If on November 1st we find we are

once again an independent, self-governing, nation then what will our new Prime Minister actually do will all the new opportunities that result? What issues will the focus be on? Rising crime

is certainly a big concern, particularly in London.

But the biggest message to the Conservatives from the last General Election was that they need to sort out the housing shortage. So keen were many younger voters to “send a message” that

many non-socialists frustrated in their aspirations for home ownership voted for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. The Conservatives need to act on that warning before the next election or risk

a still greater revolt.

On the other hand, there was a contrary message from the local elections this year. A large number of council seats were gained by independents. This was partly an “anti politics” (or rather

anti party politics) mood. However, typically these various independents and residents groups were standing on an anti-development platform.

So it all begins to look a bit tricky. The Conservatives are losing one chunk of voters angry because not enough new homes are being provided. They are also losing another bunch angry who

are angry that too many are being built. Voters are even capable of being furious about both grievances at the same time. When I was a councillor, I once canvassed a woman who said she had

two concerns she wanted to raise. One was the housing shortage and the other was overdevelopment…

How can these seemingly irreconcilable grievances be reconciled? Jacob Rees-Mogg and Radomir Tylecote have had a pretty good crack at it in their paper Raising the Roof published this week

by the Institute of Economic Affairs. Beauty is really the answer.

The authors declare that it is “too easy, to criticise Nimbyism, which is a symptom, not cause, of our problems. But what if the market could induce the return of loved buildings, of widely

accepted architectural beauty?”

They add: “It is also certainly time to be more assertive about beauty itself. We can propose one way: take back pastiche. For too long, ‘pastiche’ has been a term of abuse. No longer. The

truth is that all good building is pastiche: Inigo Jones re-invented Vitruvian symmetry to create a (very inaccurate) pastiche of classical temple architecture. In turn, the Palace of

Westminster is a Victorian pastiche of Medieval Gothic. Within a few years, no one remembers that a building was pastiche. It is simply enjoyed for its beauty.”

One example they refer to of what goes wrong is depressingly typical: “When asked recently why the council he worked for had chosen for housing an incoherent jumble of glass and steel towers

instead of buildings local people wanted, one planner replied that the latter would win them no prizes from RIBA (one duly arrived). We seem to know this instinctively: when a traditional

building appears, the joke goes, nobody likes it except the public.”

Their free market approach leads them to conclude that planning both constrains supply while also causing what is built to routinely be pretty hideous. If traditional, attractive buildings

go up then they could be popular – even in the “Green Belt” (much of which is not green at all). Quite rightly the report highlights the large amount of surplus state owned land – held by

both local and central Government. Sometimes new homes are presented in the context of subsidies being needed and the pressure on public spending. But selling land would help, rather than

hinder, the public finances.

Nobody should underestimated the entrenched opposition to neo-classicism from establishment interests – both among planners and architects. It is not that they are unaware of public opinion.

It is that they are convinced they know better.

But the IEA report follows one from the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission co-authored by Nicholas Boys Smith, the founder of Create Streets. It comes up with practical proposals

for developing design codes that reflect popular local wishes.

Another publication they came out recently from the Princes Foundation showed pictures of some wonderful development projects. It says: “High-rise buildings in cities like London rarely make

good contributions to public spaces at street level, nor the skyline itself. Some of the most attractive places in London are made up of mid-rise mansion blocks. They are ideally suited to

hosting a wide range of unit types, making them highly flexible.”

The upshot of all this is that the problem is not insurmountable. The housing supply can increase if the market is freed. That can be done in a way that is popular way – if people rather

than “experts” decide what the new homes we need will look like.

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add info@thearticle.com to your safe list.