What’s actually in the “Building Better Building Beautiful” Commission’s report?

Suburban densification: an artist’s impression. Image: Francis Terry, via London YIMBY.

I assumed the Commission to Build Bloody Bucketloads of Beautiful Houses had been named by Jonn Elledge, but – sadly – I had misheard.

The not-necessarily-more-grammatically-titled Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission [sic] was presumably christened by someone inspired by childhood lessons on alliteration, but who felt themselves above the pedestrian distinction between adjectives and adverbs.

You might see a parallel with the planning system’s lofty rhetoric and its abject failure to, well, actually get any reasonable number of decent homes built; I merely note a common origin somewhere in the bowels of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Orwellian riffs on that title I leave to you; I need to get to the point or my editor will cut this whole section. We all know what bowels produce, anyway.

Recovering from the linguistic atrocity at its birth, the Commission has proposed forty-five measures to improve what and how much we build, including a “fast track for beauty” featured in the Sunday papers.

Anyone who has seen a council planning committee might share my doubts whether beauty is the only concern of residents. Try to watch those meetings and to conclude they are a sane way for people to negotiate about what should be allowed. Congestion is another big objection. And don't forget the wheelie bins. Civilisation may end if you do.

“Some housebuilder[s]... believe they can build any old crap and still sell it.”

Senior executive in housing and development industry speaking to the BBBB Commission 

But the Commission has built an impressively broad consensus around some pretty sensible ideas.

Some of the underlying convictions peek through; for example, it would be fun to see the original description of highway engineers. The final, doubtless softer version suggests that the training of planners, architects and other related professionals – “particularly highway engineers” – should include the empirical research on what urban designs make people healthier and happier. Hard to disagree with that.

It proposes a range of things dear to urbanists: an end to suburban style parking requirements outside the suburbs (why not everywhere?), and an end to strict daylight/sunlight rules and large minimum distance requirements between homes – both of which are violated by every historic village anyway. We should also help high streets by encouraging gentle density around them.

On communities, the report presses for early engagement, more co-design and community-led development, including community land trusts, and to allow “intensification with consent”. The founder of HTA Design, Bernard Hunt, told them:

“My experience as a ‘community architect’ in both the public rented sector... and also in the owner-occupied sector... leads me to conclude that communities will actively support development/redevelopment IF there are clear incentives. Policy must be carrot- not stick-driven.”

In particular the Commission recommends trials to let individual streets vote to opt in to limited additional permissions, subject to design codes. This idea has got further than I expected, crazy though it seemed at the time. Perhaps I should write drunk more often.

It also argues that current methods of value capture to help local communities – Section 106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy – “tend to fall short of securing real consent, since they so often fail to prioritise what really matters to the public, which is the enhancement or degradation of a place.”


There is a welcome recognition that permitted development rights, if continued, should have better standards, particularly as to external appearance, and no longer be able to bypass required contributions for infrastructure and other things.

The additional two million street trees it calls for won’t help with the housing crisis, but they might help make some places much more liveable. 

With Nicholas Boys Smith of Create Streets as the surviving chair, no-one will be surprised by the emphasis on design codes and simple, visual, form-based codes to make building better but also easier and more predictable.

“We need to turn our planning system round, from its existing role as a shield against the worst, to its future role as a champion of the best.” Hard to disagree with that too.

Congratulations to the Commissioners. For their Herculean and unpaid labours, we all have much to be grateful. Even the highway engineers.

John Myers is co-founder of YIMBY Alliance and London YIMBY, which campaigns to end the housing crisis with the support of local people.

 
 
 
 

Home-working and uncertainty: How will coronavirus affect jobs around the country?

A quiet commute: the M8 motorway in Scotland. Image: Getty.

This week’s unprecedented announcement by the Prime Minister on how we need to live our lives over the coming weeks and months will have profound impacts up and down the country. The geography of this will vary depending on the structure of different local economies. This blog looks at three areas where this will play out – self-employment, the ability to work from home, and the rise of remote working.

Self-employed people in the North and Midlands are more likely to be in insecure, lower-paid roles at high risk from economic shocks

The economic impact of Coronavirus on self-employed people has received a lot of attention in recent weeks. And while the Chancellor stepped in to extend Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) to this group and people working on zero-hour contracts, they still stand to lose almost two-thirds of their current earnings.

Britain’s self-employed population is disproportionately located in London; of the almost 5 million self-employed people across the country, almost a million live in the capital. London accounts for just over 15 per cent of all workers in the UK, but for approximately 20 per cent of all self-employed people. Along with Worthing and Brighton, almost one in five people in work are self-employed in the capital. 

In contrast, self-employment is way less popular in other parts of the country: in Gloucester and Hull, for example, less than 7 per cent of people are self-employed.

But while cities in the North and Midlands might have lower rates of self-employment, those who are self-employed in these places are more likely to be in precarious situations. Of all the self-employed people in Burnley and Blackburn, only two in ten also have access to additional income as employees.

By contrast, four in ten do in Cambridge. In addition to that, they are also more likely to be in lower-skilled, lower-paid occupations, such as in the hospitality, personal care and transport sectors, meaning they are more vulnerable to economic shocks.

Share of self employed people that are self employed only. Image: Centre for Cities.

Cities in the Greater South East are more likely to be able to shift to working from home

The Prime Minister asked those who can work from home to do so. But how likely is this across the country?

The jobs that could be more easily done from home – such as consultants or finance – are concentrated in cities in the Greater South East (see the figure below). Assuming some sectors could completely shift to home working if necessary, up to one in two workers in London could shift to working from home. Meanwhile in Reading, Aldershot and Edinburgh over 40 per cent of workers could too.

On the other hand, less than 20 per cent of all workers in Barnsley, Burnley and Stoke could work from home, suggesting the economies of many northern cities are likely to be hardest hit by a complete lockdown. Manchester, Leeds, Warrington and Newcastle are the exceptions as they have a higher share of jobs that could shift to home-working, reflecting the slightly different structure of their economies compared to other northern cities.

Estimate of workers that could work from home 2018. Image: Centre for Cities.

Once Coronavirus has peaked, face-to-face interaction will continue to be more important than ever

The arrival of Coronavirus has sparked debate in the comment sections of newspapers about the benefits of home working.


This is nothing new. In the late nineties the death of distance was declared by many because of internet-driven improvements in communications. And yet, despite their further advancement since, jobs (particularly high-skilled ones) have continued to cluster in cities.

This is because of the benefits that cities offer – such as face-to-face interaction. While this might seem intangible, no doubt many readers who have been grappling with trying to communicate with colleagues working from home in recent days will now be all too aware of the benefits of being in the same room as their team. So, while technology no doubt makes this strange period a little easier than it would otherwise have been, by the end of it we are likely to be reminded of the value of face-to-face meetings to help us get things done.

Elena Magrini is a senior analyst at the Centre for Cities, on whose website this article originally appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.