Henry Ford once said “you cannot build a reputation on what you are going to do”. That is so true, especially when it comes to politicians, who expect us to believe that what they are going to do is more relevant than what they have done.
As we begin the long slog to the general election on 5 May 2015, the news will be full of great intentions as a substitute for action. Times are very difficult at the moment, not just at home, but in other parts of the world, be it the Ukraine, Iraq or West Africa where the Ebola crisis is set to explode.
Tackling these issues requires strong leadership and positive actions and at the moment the response has been more about not making any waves lest the electorate is upset.
Not upsetting the electorate also seems to be guiding domestic policy. The latest announcement by the government that it intends to pump £200m into brownfield sites to avoid development of the countryside plays well with rural voters, but fails to address the issue that the rural economy is short of low-cost housing.
"There is nothing fundamentally wrong with high-rise, high-density living. Judging by the number of high end towers going up in London, it works for the rich so why not the poor?"
Under the scheme, councils will be given the chance to bid to set up 10 new housing zones in urban areas across the UK and the local authorities will have to commit to building between 750 and 2,000 new homes.
Overall, that means at best 20,000 new homes and at the worst only 7,500. I suppose it is not to be sniffed at but it is hardly ambitious.
I have recently returned from Hong Kong where we had the final of the CIOB Global Student Challenge. We visited the redevelopment of the former Kai Tak Airport, a brownfield site that has been set aside for low cost housing.
The four blocks we visited housed the equivalent of the population of Stratford-upon-Avon, more than 32,000 people. That’s ambition, and the plan is to do it twice over on the remaining site.
Compared with London, these homes are lived in, they are connected to the excellent public transport system and are geared to creating a community.
Perhaps we should return to high density living spaces and enable us to maximise the number of people who can live in these spaces. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with high-rise, high-density living. Judging by the number of high end towers going up in London, it works for the rich so why not for the poor?
It might simply be a case of building to a better standard than the 1960s high rises, but also better education and preparation for living in such spaces.
