In 1909 the German Garden City Association visited the UK, including the garden village of New Earswick

I suspect we’ve gone as far as a 300 character exchange is going to take us. We may not agree on this but I appreciate the dialogue

They should be able to make a profit, but I am cynical of financial viability assessments that reduce responsibilities locally (and they will drop social housing first because the other amenities contributes to value of private housing) while still achieving v healthy profits overall

Yes, but if the developers don’t pay for wider facilities under S106 then the costs fall to local authorities or other parts of the public sector. Meanwhile the developers are still able to make decent profits nationally whole claiming locally that schemes aren’t viable if asked to meet these costs

The big house builders have operating margins between 12 and 20%. When they escape their responsibilities in providing basic amenities the money is not being spent on more social housing. Government subsidy for social housing is separate from the point that the Guardian article was making

But then I think you know all this. It seems unlikely that a Labour MP and a history graduate doesn’t have some sense of the problems created by housing developments built without facilities - or the logic of new towns in making sure that there are plans for these things

Houses without access to facilities, transport, employment opportunities, and community networks are unlikely to provide good homes. How people feel about their wider environment and circumstances shapes what goes on at home

Building housing without an eye to how the community will function is a false economy

Priorities are important but Bevan’s words still ring true: “while we shall be judged for a year or two by the number of houses we build… we shall be judged in 10 years’ time by the type of houses we build”