Closing Parks and Building Houses In Them

The council owns a huge number of parks which take up space and cost a lot of money to maintain.

It would be best if they were sold of or at least half the park was sold of and used to build new houses and shopping centres inside the parks.

People would want to live in them because of the scenery.

This would create jobs and generate a vast amount of money for the council.

The housing build in these park would be very high quality and sold at exclusive prices at a very high premuim to generate maximum revenue.#

For instance a single 3 bedroom house would be sold at not less then at £500000 and a 4 bedroom at least £1000000.

A new banding would also be created for such houses in parks such Band I which would be at least £20000 per annum Council tax.

A high security fence would be constructed so that the privacy of those inside would not be disturbed by sightseers and other curious onlookers.

Why the contribution is important

This would generate lots of revenue for the Council and save money in park maintence.

by Moneysaver on September 28, 2016 at 11:06AM

Current Rating

1.0
Average score : 1.0
Based on : 6 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Gary October 04, 2016 at 20:28

    This is a terrible idea.

    There are plenty of brownfield and other sites available for housing and shopping centres.

    Parks are a valuable resource for residents and if managed well can provide education and health opportunities in terms of the natural environment and physical activity.

    Public space should be protected, not privatised.

    "People would want to live in them because of the scenery."

    Scenery that would be ruined if we used 'half' of Glasgow's parks for large houses with 'high security fencing'.
  • Posted by Moneysaver October 05, 2016 at 13:12

    The fencing used would be greenish in colour to blend in with the trees or simply use giant hedges.

    The large size of a park means most of it is wasted and a threat to safety as bad people could attack unwary people by hiding in isolated areas and then pouncing on them.

    There have been a huge number of attacks and murders in parks that I don't go in them anymore.

     A smaller park would encourage intimacy and line of sight safety.

    It is much easier to hear a scream at 1 mile then 2 miles away.
  • Posted by Ernie October 06, 2016 at 11:43

    This Moneysaver person is filling this consultation with utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. His submissions are intended to disrupt the entire consultation process and I ask that the Council treat his ramblings accordingly.
  • Posted by Moneysaver October 12, 2016 at 13:00

    "This Moneysaver person is filling this consultation with utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. His submissions are intended to disrupt the entire consultation process and I ask that the Council treat his ramblings accordingly".

    This is YOUR opinion.

    This consultation forum was largely inactive before my posts. I encourage discussion and I propound innovative and original ideas. The tyranny of the majority can result in moribund thinking. Do you realize that all the major advances and innovations were by people who challenged established thought processes?

    In any case which of my above statements is untrue?
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas