Mindless people

[keithmac]

How much does a house have to cost to be "not cheap"?.

 

[Drago]

I don't know. I'm no expert, I only own two.

 

[Grant Fondo]

How much does a house have to cost to be "not cheap"?.

£300k in the North? Add a Nought for London, of course.

 

[Electric_Andy]

Another vote for buying a real camera. What you do with the evidence is up to you.

 

[jonny jeez]

There are benefits, but crime levels isn't one of them.

Most council planning offices no longer make developers take the advice of the councils 'designing out crime' officer, because most councils no longer have them. It ised to be mandatory in most L.A. areas until c.2005ish. As a consequence, estate design has reverted somewhat to a time more akin to the early seventies in terms of the problems they're designing in.

Multiple alleyways, giving villains easy unobserved access and egress.

Clever stuff, like making the layout so no ones house directly overlooks anyone else's. Very pretty compared to a uniform Legoland layout, but it deprives residents of natural surveillance opportunities, making it both easier and more reassuring for Fingers the Thief.

Lack of car parking within the boundaries, makes vehicles vulnerable when parked in the road or, even worse, blocks of parking bays away from the houses.

And houses crammed in tightly, maximising cover and concealment for herberts.

And so on...

Of course, you can see your chums and the shops are just around the corner. However, I don't have any chums, and Fortnum and Mason now deliver. I don't live on an estate, and still have neighbours and the esprit de corps of community living.

New estates do seem to be going "backwards" in planning terms. Designs, finishes and materials are all coming along but basic planning is still driven by the economics of packing them in.

How did developers in the 1900-1970's all manage to make a profit I wonder.

I do agree with your comments on new developments but some of the older stuff is wonderful.