This piece frames local resistance to development as irrational “stagnation,” but I think that oversimplifies the real issue. Growth isn’t inherently good if it primarily benefits developers and investors while sidelining the needs of local communities. Often, people aren’t opposed to building in principle—they just want it to be thought…
This piece frames local resistance to development as irrational “stagnation,” but I think that oversimplifies the real issue. Growth isn’t inherently good if it primarily benefits developers and investors while sidelining the needs of local communities. Often, people aren’t opposed to building in principle—they just want it to be thoughtful, sustainable, and actually beneficial to those who live there.
The article dismisses environmental and aesthetic concerns as mere red tape, but who decides what gets built, where, and for whose benefit? A lot of large-scale projects prioritize short-term profit over long-term livability. Housing, for example, isn’t just about quantity—it’s about quality, affordability, and integration into existing communities. The UK’s problem isn’t just not enough housing, but too much bad, profit-driven development that ignores local needs.
Deregulating planning laws won’t fix deeper issues like underinvestment in public infrastructure, austerity-driven decay, and a financialized economy that prioritizes speculation over sustainable development. If we want to improve infrastructure and housing, we need democratic decision-making that includes local voices, not just top-down deregulation that gives corporations even more power to reshape communities without accountability.
This piece frames local resistance to development as irrational “stagnation,” but I think that oversimplifies the real issue. Growth isn’t inherently good if it primarily benefits developers and investors while sidelining the needs of local communities. Often, people aren’t opposed to building in principle—they just want it to be thoughtful, sustainable, and actually beneficial to those who live there.
The article dismisses environmental and aesthetic concerns as mere red tape, but who decides what gets built, where, and for whose benefit? A lot of large-scale projects prioritize short-term profit over long-term livability. Housing, for example, isn’t just about quantity—it’s about quality, affordability, and integration into existing communities. The UK’s problem isn’t just not enough housing, but too much bad, profit-driven development that ignores local needs.
Deregulating planning laws won’t fix deeper issues like underinvestment in public infrastructure, austerity-driven decay, and a financialized economy that prioritizes speculation over sustainable development. If we want to improve infrastructure and housing, we need democratic decision-making that includes local voices, not just top-down deregulation that gives corporations even more power to reshape communities without accountability.
Growth for whom? That’s the real question.
If you build quickly enough at the high end, the buyers won’t bid up the lower end.