There is no Crime! at New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 03-21-05
George Eliot on Billy Clinton:
“Oh, I know the type. They start out delivering fine speeches on the rights of man, and end up by murdering some wench.” ---- George Eliot, Middlemarch
Gypsies for Free enterprise!
British Conservatives show why they are a permanent minority party.
Faced with the most restrictive zoning practices in the free world the people of Britain seek to build their own homes on their own land even though they must do so without zoning approval from the government. The buyers, called ‘travelers’ by the British, purchase “greenbelt” land and then install a factory built home such as this one which is manufactured in Britain.
But note that the British Conservatives do not even question the government interference in the housing sector of the economy. They do not point out that greenbelt development is the natural consequence of the government’s restrictive zoning practices. Rather than siding with the people the British Conservatives side with the restrictive zoning.
This is why they are called Tories. But this comes as no surprise. For centuries the Tories profited from Royal monopolies and had no use for free enterprise; and still appear to have no use for free enterprise, or free markets, or for freedom at all.
See how the modern state’s oppression of the people harkens back to the age of royal oppression. Formerly dukes and duchesses lived off the people, who were not allowed to own the land, and now the modern state bureaucrats replace the old landed aristocracy and administer their former lands as “greenbelts”. The more things change the more they stay the same.
The alternatives ought not be limited to unauthorized building on the greenbelt or going homeless. Why must we be limited to these false alternatives? Why can’t the Conservatives stand for greenbelts and housing too?
But rather than side with the people against the restrictive, oppressive government, side with free enterprise over and against state control, the Conservatives openly rail against “gypsies” rather than against the government restrictions on development. For example why does the government not allow development within cities and towns?
Government restrictions on the housing market even within existing cities and towns is the cause of the unauthorized development. In London building height limits prevent development because personages such as for example, the Prince of Wales, do not like tall buildings. This is the same Prince of Wales who recently released a guide to “alternative health care,” you know, palm readers, aura readers, aroma therapists.
And again see how Britain’s ancient traditions tie into the new increasingly authoritarian state, with court astrologers advising the government on the Feng Shui of tall apartment buildings, and who should be granted a Royal Patent to build a bungalow.
To repeat the point: government edicts are not responsive to changing market conditions. Every day the market economy asks all the consumers: “Now comrade tell me, what do you really think?” But should the height restriction in the West End be the same today that it was last year? Have the town councils of Surrey and Kent taken into account the needs for housing in all of England? All of Britain? Have they thought about the people of Liverpool and Glasgow?
And day by day the politicians and their bureaucrats go about their routines unaware of the changing demands of the consumers because they are insolated from the market. They claim they are constantly reviewing their zoning restrictions but are they? How would we know?
The free market reexamines itself not every ten years, not every other year, not quarterly, not weekly, but every minute. And the reexamination is not conducted by a former solicitor who meets occasionally with the likes of the Prince of Wales for "advice", but by every consumer and producer.
And unlike the former solicitor and his bureaucrats, these consumers and producers are spending their own money. They may be mistaken in their views but at least we do not have to be concerned whether they are lying to us. But what do we know about these government men?
Do they really think all the land in Britain ought to be greenbelt? If not which acres should be available and which should not? Who decides? Have they, whoever they are, taken into account the height limit on apartment buildings in London?
What is the relationship between allowing another 60 feet on building heights and an acre of greenbelt in Surrey and the availability of housing in Liverpool? Difficult to say? But this is exactly what markets do; they collect, bring into the discussion, all of these concerns and seemingly unrelated factors, and a great many more besides, and thereby make economic calculation possible.
When a government man, Labour or Conservative, says he has considered all these things how do we know if he has? How much weight was given to the people of Liverpool, or Glasgow, and how much weight was given to the “concerns” of the Prince of Wales? This is the problem with government solutions, they are neither as comprehensive in their scope nor as constant in their reexamination as markets.
Yet do we hear the Conservatives make any of these points, just one of these points? No, they are all "gypsies" and “fair play.” Fair play? For whom? Because a bare majority has gotten control of the state, the planning board of Surrey or Kent, that makes it fair? Do the people of Surrey and Kent care about the people of Liverpool and Glasgow?
Are they all part of the same country? I know when Surrey and Kent needed to be defended they were all 'common bonds', 'one nation', King and Country. But now, after the men of Liverpool and Glasgow have done the dying, now that they are dead and buried, do the people of Surrey and Kent still concern themselves with their fellow countrymen? Do they care if they have homes? Really? How can we tell except that the housing is built?
The height limit on buildings in London? Is that fair? Why because powerful people do not want their view changed? Their views are worth more than housing for the people? The Prince of Wales, is he fair? You think so do you? Maybe you should have your aura reexamined.
Reported by the BBC today: (Rewrite by Plinio Designori)
Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said lighter UK planning restrictions attracted travellers from Ireland. Conservative leader Michael Howard is unveiling plans to make trespass by travellers a criminal offence.
Lord Falconer responded saying: "It is not caused by an unexpected increase in the number of gypsies or travellers. It is caused by the fact that people are developing unauthorisedly in breach of planning law." "What we are talking about here is people who buy land," he said. "How can you trespass on your own land?"
Mr Howard says in his advertisements: "If you want to build a new home you have to get planning permission first. But if you are a traveller you can bend planning law - building where you like thanks to the Human Rights Act."
On Sunday planning minister Keith Hill said the Tories were "tapping into the biggest vein of bigotry - prejudice against Gypsies and travellers". But Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition coordinator Andrew Ryder said Mr Howard was trying to "surf on the prejudice and hysteria stoked up" by the media and "score some cheap political points in the run-up to the election".
Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer also attacked plans to make trespass by travellers a criminal offence as "madcap".Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the Conservatives were pandering to a mistaken view that the Human Rights Act undermines British culture.
ps Please tell the Prime Minister our programme:
Point 1: The trees are alive;
Point 2: There is no crime;
Point 3: Universal love. --- Septimus Smith
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
http://www.m-house.org/press.php
The perfect house no 10: the m-house,
by Kevin McCloud
Despite appearances, this month’s perfect house is not actually a house. It’s a caravan. Albeit an incredibly well-designed, fully functioal, highly finished, immensely covetable caravan. (image) Above, two seamlessly-joined caravans combine to make the m-house, which incorporates mod-cons such as water, electricity and underfloor heating. (images) It mimics a build process used in the United States, where houses are prefabricated and finished in sections, then trucked to the site. How’s your space management? Do you need more? Have your children metamorphosed into smelly, hairy teenagers who want their own ‘personal space, dad’? Or have your local authority refused you permission for the extension? I have the answer: the m-house. This 1,000sqft piece of Californian cool is the brainchild of architect Tim Pyne.
And the most extraordinary thing about it, is that’s it’s not a house you need to move to. It’s not even a house. It’s a caravan. To be precise, it’s two caravans, which are seamlessly joined. So, if you have access 3m wide to your back garden, you can ship in the two sections of prefabricated building (each comes on wheels) and slip your ‘home extension’ through a rather large, silver-box-shaped loophole in the planning system. Providing you’re going to use your m-house ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse’ and it fits within the curtilage of your home, it can become part of your home. And it won’t feel like a caravan at all. This is partly because the m-house has a huge projecting apron, a deck under which its chassis and wheels are invisible, so it doesn’t look as though it’s going anywhere. It also won’t feel like a caravan because it can have mains water, electricity and drainage, underfloor heating, plus some cool domestic appliances. Also, unlike my parents’ Sprite Musketeer, the m-house has walls, which will take a hail to hang your pictures – they even conform to Part L of the building regulations.
All this means, of course, much improved lavatory facilities: no condensation on the loo walls, no having to wait for everyone to leave the vicinity before attempting a poo behind a foldaway 0plastic screen, and no chemical toilet to empty. It seems inappropriate to heap praise on anyone who has raised the standards of caravan design, because they are so dire. But Tim Pyne is worthy of much more, because he has created so much more, along with a team of collaborators, who between them, bring as much to the m-house party as Fat Boy Slim and Eminem might bring to any other kind of house party. It was partly inspired by Cedric Price, the father of Archigram; the planning issues surrounding the design were resolved and clarified by consultant barrister, James Hines; architect Michael Howe worked on the detailing of the building and Neil Thomas, a visiting professor of product design at the royal College of Art, supervised the engineering and manufacturing.
Of course, the real reason it doesn’t look or feel like a caravan is because it isn’t one. This home more closely resembles a Portakabin construction. More accurately, it mimics a build process used everywhere in the United States, where houses are prefabricated and finished in sections, then trucked to the site and assembled in a day or two. The perfect brilliance of the m-house lies in the level of thought that has gone into designing it – the quality of its factory manufacture and how Tim Pyne has used the product of this mix of new standards to address the crises facing Britain’s housing. We live in one of the most overcrowded countries in the world; we have a serious skills shortage in the housing industry, and our planning structure is creaking under the weight of applications. The m-house deals with these problems one by one. Admittedly it costs more than a caravan, at £150,000, but that’s inexpensive for a piece of couture architecture in a place where planning permission for a permanent residence might be unthinkable. I’m now wondering whether to leave my home in its entirety to the teenage children and move into one in a neighbouring field. (image) wheels of the caravan are concealed beneath a huge projecting deck apron; the kitchen has 8ft high ceilings and feels surprisingly lofty.
The bathroom – a far cry from foldaway plastic screens and chemical toilets; the living/dining area: the m-house can be clad in a variety of finishes. Tell us about it … Who are you? British architect Tim Pyne, designer of the m-house. What is the m-house? Pronounced ‘mouse’ it is an easy to assemble modernist kit-house. It needs no foundations, can be delivered within 12 weeks of ordering and comes in two pieces, which slot together on site. It has a variety of uses, including holiday home and granny annexe and, as the internal walls can be omitted, it can also be used as an office, studio or party venue. Classed as a caravan, the m-house can live anywhere: in the countryside, on urban brownsites, roofs, beaches and even on rivers. How did the idea for the house materialise? I saw a beautiful house for sale by the River Crouch in Essex, but you weren’t allowed to build on the site, only to park a caravan or mobile home. But when I looked to see what was on the market, there weren’t any mobile homes good enough.
So I decided to build my own – something that I’d like to live in. it is designed to very high specifications, there’s no stamp duty or VAT to pay, no problems with planning permission, no builders and best of all, if you move, you can take it with you. How much does it cost? The price of a two-bedroom m-house ready to move into is around £150,000. It will be absolutely suitable as a permanent residence and should be maintenance-free for around 100 years. Does it fee pokey? Not at all. The m-house provides over 1,000sqft of space, with 8ft ceiling height. It comes with a fitted kitchen with loads of worksurfaces and storage, a bathroom with shower and bath and even has kingsize bed decks with storage below. Can I have a look around? A finished and furnished ‘double-wide’ m-house is available for viewing in a meadow just outside Canterbury. Contact us and we’ll let you know where the key is and you can let yourselves in. Tim Pyne, m-house (020 7739 3367’ m-house.org)
Lecture Notes: 03-21-05
George Eliot on Billy Clinton:
“Oh, I know the type. They start out delivering fine speeches on the rights of man, and end up by murdering some wench.” ---- George Eliot, Middlemarch
Gypsies for Free enterprise!
British Conservatives show why they are a permanent minority party.
Faced with the most restrictive zoning practices in the free world the people of Britain seek to build their own homes on their own land even though they must do so without zoning approval from the government. The buyers, called ‘travelers’ by the British, purchase “greenbelt” land and then install a factory built home such as this one which is manufactured in Britain.
But note that the British Conservatives do not even question the government interference in the housing sector of the economy. They do not point out that greenbelt development is the natural consequence of the government’s restrictive zoning practices. Rather than siding with the people the British Conservatives side with the restrictive zoning.
This is why they are called Tories. But this comes as no surprise. For centuries the Tories profited from Royal monopolies and had no use for free enterprise; and still appear to have no use for free enterprise, or free markets, or for freedom at all.
See how the modern state’s oppression of the people harkens back to the age of royal oppression. Formerly dukes and duchesses lived off the people, who were not allowed to own the land, and now the modern state bureaucrats replace the old landed aristocracy and administer their former lands as “greenbelts”. The more things change the more they stay the same.
The alternatives ought not be limited to unauthorized building on the greenbelt or going homeless. Why must we be limited to these false alternatives? Why can’t the Conservatives stand for greenbelts and housing too?
But rather than side with the people against the restrictive, oppressive government, side with free enterprise over and against state control, the Conservatives openly rail against “gypsies” rather than against the government restrictions on development. For example why does the government not allow development within cities and towns?
Government restrictions on the housing market even within existing cities and towns is the cause of the unauthorized development. In London building height limits prevent development because personages such as for example, the Prince of Wales, do not like tall buildings. This is the same Prince of Wales who recently released a guide to “alternative health care,” you know, palm readers, aura readers, aroma therapists.
And again see how Britain’s ancient traditions tie into the new increasingly authoritarian state, with court astrologers advising the government on the Feng Shui of tall apartment buildings, and who should be granted a Royal Patent to build a bungalow.
To repeat the point: government edicts are not responsive to changing market conditions. Every day the market economy asks all the consumers: “Now comrade tell me, what do you really think?” But should the height restriction in the West End be the same today that it was last year? Have the town councils of Surrey and Kent taken into account the needs for housing in all of England? All of Britain? Have they thought about the people of Liverpool and Glasgow?
And day by day the politicians and their bureaucrats go about their routines unaware of the changing demands of the consumers because they are insolated from the market. They claim they are constantly reviewing their zoning restrictions but are they? How would we know?
The free market reexamines itself not every ten years, not every other year, not quarterly, not weekly, but every minute. And the reexamination is not conducted by a former solicitor who meets occasionally with the likes of the Prince of Wales for "advice", but by every consumer and producer.
And unlike the former solicitor and his bureaucrats, these consumers and producers are spending their own money. They may be mistaken in their views but at least we do not have to be concerned whether they are lying to us. But what do we know about these government men?
Do they really think all the land in Britain ought to be greenbelt? If not which acres should be available and which should not? Who decides? Have they, whoever they are, taken into account the height limit on apartment buildings in London?
What is the relationship between allowing another 60 feet on building heights and an acre of greenbelt in Surrey and the availability of housing in Liverpool? Difficult to say? But this is exactly what markets do; they collect, bring into the discussion, all of these concerns and seemingly unrelated factors, and a great many more besides, and thereby make economic calculation possible.
When a government man, Labour or Conservative, says he has considered all these things how do we know if he has? How much weight was given to the people of Liverpool, or Glasgow, and how much weight was given to the “concerns” of the Prince of Wales? This is the problem with government solutions, they are neither as comprehensive in their scope nor as constant in their reexamination as markets.
Yet do we hear the Conservatives make any of these points, just one of these points? No, they are all "gypsies" and “fair play.” Fair play? For whom? Because a bare majority has gotten control of the state, the planning board of Surrey or Kent, that makes it fair? Do the people of Surrey and Kent care about the people of Liverpool and Glasgow?
Are they all part of the same country? I know when Surrey and Kent needed to be defended they were all 'common bonds', 'one nation', King and Country. But now, after the men of Liverpool and Glasgow have done the dying, now that they are dead and buried, do the people of Surrey and Kent still concern themselves with their fellow countrymen? Do they care if they have homes? Really? How can we tell except that the housing is built?
The height limit on buildings in London? Is that fair? Why because powerful people do not want their view changed? Their views are worth more than housing for the people? The Prince of Wales, is he fair? You think so do you? Maybe you should have your aura reexamined.
Reported by the BBC today: (Rewrite by Plinio Designori)
Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said lighter UK planning restrictions attracted travellers from Ireland. Conservative leader Michael Howard is unveiling plans to make trespass by travellers a criminal offence.
Lord Falconer responded saying: "It is not caused by an unexpected increase in the number of gypsies or travellers. It is caused by the fact that people are developing unauthorisedly in breach of planning law." "What we are talking about here is people who buy land," he said. "How can you trespass on your own land?"
Mr Howard says in his advertisements: "If you want to build a new home you have to get planning permission first. But if you are a traveller you can bend planning law - building where you like thanks to the Human Rights Act."
On Sunday planning minister Keith Hill said the Tories were "tapping into the biggest vein of bigotry - prejudice against Gypsies and travellers". But Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition coordinator Andrew Ryder said Mr Howard was trying to "surf on the prejudice and hysteria stoked up" by the media and "score some cheap political points in the run-up to the election".
Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer also attacked plans to make trespass by travellers a criminal offence as "madcap".Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the Conservatives were pandering to a mistaken view that the Human Rights Act undermines British culture.
ps Please tell the Prime Minister our programme:
Point 1: The trees are alive;
Point 2: There is no crime;
Point 3: Universal love. --- Septimus Smith
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
http://www.m-house.org/press.php
The perfect house no 10: the m-house,
by Kevin McCloud
Despite appearances, this month’s perfect house is not actually a house. It’s a caravan. Albeit an incredibly well-designed, fully functioal, highly finished, immensely covetable caravan. (image) Above, two seamlessly-joined caravans combine to make the m-house, which incorporates mod-cons such as water, electricity and underfloor heating. (images) It mimics a build process used in the United States, where houses are prefabricated and finished in sections, then trucked to the site. How’s your space management? Do you need more? Have your children metamorphosed into smelly, hairy teenagers who want their own ‘personal space, dad’? Or have your local authority refused you permission for the extension? I have the answer: the m-house. This 1,000sqft piece of Californian cool is the brainchild of architect Tim Pyne.
And the most extraordinary thing about it, is that’s it’s not a house you need to move to. It’s not even a house. It’s a caravan. To be precise, it’s two caravans, which are seamlessly joined. So, if you have access 3m wide to your back garden, you can ship in the two sections of prefabricated building (each comes on wheels) and slip your ‘home extension’ through a rather large, silver-box-shaped loophole in the planning system. Providing you’re going to use your m-house ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse’ and it fits within the curtilage of your home, it can become part of your home. And it won’t feel like a caravan at all. This is partly because the m-house has a huge projecting apron, a deck under which its chassis and wheels are invisible, so it doesn’t look as though it’s going anywhere. It also won’t feel like a caravan because it can have mains water, electricity and drainage, underfloor heating, plus some cool domestic appliances. Also, unlike my parents’ Sprite Musketeer, the m-house has walls, which will take a hail to hang your pictures – they even conform to Part L of the building regulations.
All this means, of course, much improved lavatory facilities: no condensation on the loo walls, no having to wait for everyone to leave the vicinity before attempting a poo behind a foldaway 0plastic screen, and no chemical toilet to empty. It seems inappropriate to heap praise on anyone who has raised the standards of caravan design, because they are so dire. But Tim Pyne is worthy of much more, because he has created so much more, along with a team of collaborators, who between them, bring as much to the m-house party as Fat Boy Slim and Eminem might bring to any other kind of house party. It was partly inspired by Cedric Price, the father of Archigram; the planning issues surrounding the design were resolved and clarified by consultant barrister, James Hines; architect Michael Howe worked on the detailing of the building and Neil Thomas, a visiting professor of product design at the royal College of Art, supervised the engineering and manufacturing.
Of course, the real reason it doesn’t look or feel like a caravan is because it isn’t one. This home more closely resembles a Portakabin construction. More accurately, it mimics a build process used everywhere in the United States, where houses are prefabricated and finished in sections, then trucked to the site and assembled in a day or two. The perfect brilliance of the m-house lies in the level of thought that has gone into designing it – the quality of its factory manufacture and how Tim Pyne has used the product of this mix of new standards to address the crises facing Britain’s housing. We live in one of the most overcrowded countries in the world; we have a serious skills shortage in the housing industry, and our planning structure is creaking under the weight of applications. The m-house deals with these problems one by one. Admittedly it costs more than a caravan, at £150,000, but that’s inexpensive for a piece of couture architecture in a place where planning permission for a permanent residence might be unthinkable. I’m now wondering whether to leave my home in its entirety to the teenage children and move into one in a neighbouring field. (image) wheels of the caravan are concealed beneath a huge projecting deck apron; the kitchen has 8ft high ceilings and feels surprisingly lofty.
The bathroom – a far cry from foldaway plastic screens and chemical toilets; the living/dining area: the m-house can be clad in a variety of finishes. Tell us about it … Who are you? British architect Tim Pyne, designer of the m-house. What is the m-house? Pronounced ‘mouse’ it is an easy to assemble modernist kit-house. It needs no foundations, can be delivered within 12 weeks of ordering and comes in two pieces, which slot together on site. It has a variety of uses, including holiday home and granny annexe and, as the internal walls can be omitted, it can also be used as an office, studio or party venue. Classed as a caravan, the m-house can live anywhere: in the countryside, on urban brownsites, roofs, beaches and even on rivers. How did the idea for the house materialise? I saw a beautiful house for sale by the River Crouch in Essex, but you weren’t allowed to build on the site, only to park a caravan or mobile home. But when I looked to see what was on the market, there weren’t any mobile homes good enough.
So I decided to build my own – something that I’d like to live in. it is designed to very high specifications, there’s no stamp duty or VAT to pay, no problems with planning permission, no builders and best of all, if you move, you can take it with you. How much does it cost? The price of a two-bedroom m-house ready to move into is around £150,000. It will be absolutely suitable as a permanent residence and should be maintenance-free for around 100 years. Does it fee pokey? Not at all. The m-house provides over 1,000sqft of space, with 8ft ceiling height. It comes with a fitted kitchen with loads of worksurfaces and storage, a bathroom with shower and bath and even has kingsize bed decks with storage below. Can I have a look around? A finished and furnished ‘double-wide’ m-house is available for viewing in a meadow just outside Canterbury. Contact us and we’ll let you know where the key is and you can let yourselves in. Tim Pyne, m-house (020 7739 3367’ m-house.org)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home