Available land for starter homes.

There were undoubtedly many badly designed and badly built tower blocks, just as there were thousands of badly designed and badly built houses both before and after the Second World War. But the well-designed blocks were popular with many families and were often rendered unattractive because they weren't maintained. In Sheffield, an award-winning enormous complex of flats ended up empty because of t.his. The complex is now listed, has been refurbished and is apparently very popular. Tower blocks are still being built in all our cities, but they are aimed at young, well-paid professionals or even retired people with hefty pensions. And students! And they have shops, spas, gyms, community space and live-in caretakers.

An interesting article about what is happening in London. I wonder how much land is held by Tesco in London.

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/04/28/the-fight-to-stop-london-becoming-a-city-for-the-rich

High rise is over 7 storeys and not many blocks of flats that tall being built anywhere. As several have stated these are fine for younger people without families but for the elderly they can be very isolating and the rental sector is now very large and what is needed most is housing for families, let at reasonable rents with security of tenure.

There can be nothing better, especially for the older person and couple with children, than terraced houses.The young can play safely in gardens, older people can stay in touch with what is happening around them and can also have a pet.

If younger people without families go in them, it means that they are freeing up housing elsewhere.

Flickety I don't know where you live, but they are still building blocks of flats of seven and more storeys in every city I visit.

London is the place I see most and I have certainly seen some going up and also blocks the councils no longer want sold to the private sector. Every time my train draws into Paddington and I see Trellick Tower I am amazed that anyone could want to live in such an ugly building. Even more amazed that it is listed.

However the presence of more of these buildings, suitable for the single and unencumbered does not meet the real housing need, which is homed for families with children and the very old and frail.

I agree entirely, Flickety. I'm not sure who they are designed for. I'm astonished at the number of studio 'executive' flats they keep throwing up. Who lives in them? I suspect they are mainly bought by people looking to do something creative with their capital. But I repeat: flats of the right kind are perfectly fine for any kind of resident as long as the lift works all the time and the flats and their surroundings are well-maintained.

Having lived for a while in high rise flats I can tell you that flats are not fine for any kind of resident.Plus the lifts will never work well all the time.Where I was , there was an old lady in her 80's who was almost blind and lived on her own with almost no visitors. there were young mothers struggling with a baby and a toddler and shopping.nobody was allowed a pet, not even a cat for company. No balconies, probably a safety issue, but flats where there are only about four floors often have them, where residents can put washing to dry or have pots with plants in.Here in the UK, where it rains a good deal of the time, these places can be as miserable as sin.I am not talking about luxury developments here BTW, but rental. The ideal, for a happier society, are building warm, Eco friendly terraced housing for a sense of community,
And low rise apartments, being careful what kind of residents go into them.
I think that even couple without children would be happier in the housing I mention, but as existing housing stock has to be used, then it should be only for these people, and for anyone else, only to occupy the first couple of floors.

Going back to the original question posed by gangy5, I could be wrong but thought there was already a law in place to stop developers buying land and then holding onto it for a long time?

No there isn't. Building developers like to have a five year land bank, which I think is reasonable. Councils can compulsorily purchase land and buildings, but only in certain restricted circumstances. The problem is there has to be a market for builders to sell into. I say market advisedly because it is not the same as need.

Our local Council has got into a lot of problems for not meeting its housing targets. Building on a very large development area (1000 plus houses) slowed down drastically during the recession because people were uncertain of the future so were wary of either buying their first house or trading up and with mortgage companies being much stricter about lending criteria, the market almost dried up. the need for housing, of course, did not.