Greenfield vs Brownfield Sites for Housing Development

Greenfield vs Brownfield Sites for Housing Development A Brownfield grade is kingdom which has been developed previously and is or has been occupied by a permanent structure. It may be in an urban or verdant setting. It does not include agricultural land, forest or parks. Whereas a Greenfield berth is Land which has not been occupied by a permanent structure. It normally applies to land in the countryside alone can be undeveloped land within an urban setting. Both of these sites can be ideal for the reading of new housing but both also have benefits and draw screens to doing so. firstly redeveloping Brownfield sites eases pressure on Greenfield sites and is more sustainable. Although Greenfield sites ar often on the move on of towns and cities and may have better access, have less congestion, be in a more pleasant environment and have more plaza and room to expand. Redeveloping a Brownfield site would ca engagement House prices to increment in inner city areas as lot are e ncouraged back to the area. This is a benefit for people already living there but, this power mean that other people cannot afford the houses, and the council will have to offer for them which may cause problems.Basic Infrastructure already exists in Brownfield sites but in Greenfield sites new drainage, electricity, roads etc. would all have to be produced deeming them more expensive. Although Light industry and Science Parks favour issue of town locations on Greenfield sites opposed to Brownfield sites and crucially so do their workers who are happier to live away from urban areas. New sites are easier to build on as remains of previous land use do not need to be cleared making them more attractive to sell parks, housing developers etc.But using Greenfield sites is not sustainable as there is too much pressure on the rural-urban fringe thus making the development of Brownfield sites a better option. There is an issue of contamination and making sites safe for development, giv en what the land may have been employ for before but towns and cities do not want their areas to decay and redeveloping these areas results in more people coming to the area. This helps local businesses as more people means more customers. Building on Greenfield sites on the other quite a little pulls people out of the towns and cities causing shops etc. aving to re locate on the edge of and towns and cities. In conclusion I feel looking at the benefits and drawbacks of using Brownfield and Greenfield sites for housing redevelopment it would be most beneficial to use Brownfield sites firstly because it is the more sustainable option also the basic fundament already exists as well as there being mankind transport links already in place in many a(prenominal) areas. Also it is would help develop areas which may be suffering and increase house prices within that area, making them more wealthy and hopefully baleful crime rates etc.