(24-07-2023, 12:42 PM)dken31 Wrote: It isn't economical for a developer (including KO) to hold up a development for the sake of even a few thousand dollars from selling the windows or timber. Although it seems like ready money, the delays will impose more cost than the proceeds from sale of recycled materials. Not everything should be purely about money, however there is currently a lot of public appetite for bringing lowering housing costs, whereas forcing developers to recycle will increase costs. It's also worth pointing out that although a lot of developers have enjoyed periods of high profitability over the past 10 years or so, they're currently struggling as they're caught between the massive increase in build costs and decrease in property values. So, imposing an additional compulsory recycling cost is going to dissuade even more developers from building the houses that we need.
Exactly.
Overall, I love old things but we have to be reasonable. sometimes an outwardly beautiful old house is as rotten as a rusty classic car. The last couple of paragraphs in the article are key.
"... another important aspect of the debate, having inspected the inside of many character villas - the health of the occupants.
While many villas look postcard perfect on the outside, Robertson commonly sees wet houses with dripping windows and black mould from poor insulation. Many walls are soft, some with holes where the damp has rotted wood.
In his mind, creating modern, warm, efficient housing with a thoughtful design is a win-win.
There is a demand from younger people for an economically attractive home as they try to get on the property ladder, and he is fulfilling that need.
“Unfortunately developers get a bad reputation which I think is unjust.”
Robertson said he tried to relocate the old villa, but its height meant it would have to be cut in two - and that wasn’t financially feasible."
People love to criticise developers but it's the owner who chose to sell to the developer and the developer who takes the biggest risk. Just because they win big time sometimes doesn't mean they always win and when they lose a lot of people get dragged down with them. So they need to be reasonable in how they operate.
For those who would keep the house, what do they do with it? Spend more than it's worth bringing it up to a standard where it is liveable? To rent it out they would have to. To live in in themselves they either have to spend huge money or suffer ongoing heating bills etc. Some people choose/can afford either of these options, but most people want to enjoy a house that's comfortable and economical to live in without having to over-capitalise on maintenance alone.
It's very sad to see old houses with history "go", but if we're going to keep increasing our population at the rate we are, and make travel to work, shopping and leisure viable whilst also maintaining rural and natural areas, we do need to accept intensification.
At the end of the day it's up to owners. They do what they need to do.