Some of your proposals extend existing cities and towns. But most just provide housing, I guess the usual housing estate accompaniments of a primary school and a local shop, maybe, for the bigger, a secondary school and a doctors' practice. But, apart from the jobs needed for those, you write very little about work. The postwar new towns provided employment as well as homes outside congested, worn-out, bomb-damaged cities. Later, that faded, and London, and to a lesser extent Birmingham and Glasgow, dominating the regional labour market, sucked in commuters. The time and cost of that travel makes the proposition much less attractive, financially, socially and environmentally. Better to plan and build settlements that are closer to self-sufficient, reducing the need to travel not making it inevitable. JM
I think it's right to have mixed-use communities with offices, shops, and other workplaces within the new towns. But it is also important to avoid creating new towns that are meant to be fully self-reliant. We already have cities with great job markets so building the new towns within easy access to the cities will allow more people to be able to get a well-paying job. The first generation of new towns are more successful than the second generation because many of the first were built much closer to existing cities.
Great post. You say "The median house price in London is £535,000, but it only costs roughly £250,000 to build a new home in London. Therefore, a single new home in London is expected to produce £285,000 of surplus value." Quick question: does this surplus value include a profit allowance for the landowner? (I'm assuming the build cost of £250,000k includes a profit allowance for the developer).
It doesn't include the 'hope' value of land as I'm expecting that Labour will reform the compulsory purchase order process that will limit the excess profit that landowners will make. For example in Cambridgeshire if a hectare of land gets planning consent, the value of it can increase by 100x, so land costs is not that significant of a factor. I think the surplus value calculations should be thought of as rough estimates rather than concrete predictions considering they don't account for sale price of new versus median homes nor how elastic house prices are when new supply is built. We did the calculations as a guide for which towns and cities we should lean towards building in first and then looked for individual areas that are best suited for a new town.
Some of your proposals extend existing cities and towns. But most just provide housing, I guess the usual housing estate accompaniments of a primary school and a local shop, maybe, for the bigger, a secondary school and a doctors' practice. But, apart from the jobs needed for those, you write very little about work. The postwar new towns provided employment as well as homes outside congested, worn-out, bomb-damaged cities. Later, that faded, and London, and to a lesser extent Birmingham and Glasgow, dominating the regional labour market, sucked in commuters. The time and cost of that travel makes the proposition much less attractive, financially, socially and environmentally. Better to plan and build settlements that are closer to self-sufficient, reducing the need to travel not making it inevitable. JM
I think it's right to have mixed-use communities with offices, shops, and other workplaces within the new towns. But it is also important to avoid creating new towns that are meant to be fully self-reliant. We already have cities with great job markets so building the new towns within easy access to the cities will allow more people to be able to get a well-paying job. The first generation of new towns are more successful than the second generation because many of the first were built much closer to existing cities.
Great post. You say "The median house price in London is £535,000, but it only costs roughly £250,000 to build a new home in London. Therefore, a single new home in London is expected to produce £285,000 of surplus value." Quick question: does this surplus value include a profit allowance for the landowner? (I'm assuming the build cost of £250,000k includes a profit allowance for the developer).
It doesn't include the 'hope' value of land as I'm expecting that Labour will reform the compulsory purchase order process that will limit the excess profit that landowners will make. For example in Cambridgeshire if a hectare of land gets planning consent, the value of it can increase by 100x, so land costs is not that significant of a factor. I think the surplus value calculations should be thought of as rough estimates rather than concrete predictions considering they don't account for sale price of new versus median homes nor how elastic house prices are when new supply is built. We did the calculations as a guide for which towns and cities we should lean towards building in first and then looked for individual areas that are best suited for a new town.
Thanks for clarification