'Greenfield vs Brownfield Sites for Housing Development\r'

'Greenfield vs Brownfield Sites for Ho apply Development A Brownfield site is prop up which has been developed antecedently and is or has been occupied by a perm structure. It may be in an urban or rural setting. It does non include agricultural land, forest or parks. Whereas a Greenfield site is Land which has non been occupied by a permanent structure. It usually applies to land in the countryside still butt joint be undeveloped land inwardly an urban setting. Both of these sites can be ideal for the discipline of spic-and-span hovictimization but both as advantageously proceed with benefits and drawbacks to doing so.\r\nFirstly redeveloping Brownfield sites eases pressure on Greenfield sites and is much sustainable. Although Greenfield sites argon often on the edge of towns and cities and may have best access, have less congestion, be in a more(prenominal)(prenominal) pleasant environment and have more space and path to expand. Redeveloping a Brownfield site wo uld cause set up prices to increase in inner city areas as battalion are advance back to the area. This is a benefit for people already living there but, this skill mean that former(a) people cannot cave in the houses, and the council will have to provide for them which may cause problems.\r\nBasic Infrastructure already exists in Brownfield sites but in Greenfield sites un utilize drainage, electricity, roads and so forth would all have to be produced deeming them more expensive. Although Light fabrication and Science Parks favour let out 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 ashes of previous land use do not need to be open making them more attractive to retail parks, housing developers etc.\r\nBut using Greenfield sites is not sustainable as there is too much pressure on the rural-urban fringe therefore making the development of Brownfield sites a better option. There is an come forth of contamination and making sites safe for development, attached what the land may have been used 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 hand pulls people out of the towns and cities causation 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 or so beneficial to use Brownfield sites firstly because it is the more sustainable option also the elemental infrastructure already exists as well as there being habitual transport links already in place in many areas. besides it is would help develop areas which may be suffering and increase house prices within that area, making them more wealthy and hopefully lowering crime rates etc.\r\n'