Net Contribution to the Age-appropriate Supply of Housing...

... or  NCASH.

The sadly-limited range ....

<autobiographical-note type="I can remember when all this was fields">
When I moved out of London nearly 40 years ago Spencers Wood was semi-rural.  Now it's almost exclusively urban – with few of the benefits of a largely green environment combined with the drawbacks of nose-to-tail traffic,  precious few buses, and a dearth of social and commercial infrastructure.
</autobiographical-note>

...of walks in my vicinity  include routes through two housing estates (well several, actually, but two of relevance here) , one developed in the 1970-'80s and one developed more recently (and still they come). The older one has a fair few bungalows; in fact it has a range of building types. The newer one is a mono-culture suitable for families (young and established) with a few flats for young professionals. Nothing suitable for older people; I shudder to think what it'll be like in 50 years.

An article in the latest edition of Third Age Matters mourns the lack  of suitable new housing for the less spritely:

...Third Agers often feel that suitable smaller housing is not available. The much maligned bungalow is still the housing of choice for many older people as they usually have all the facilities of a house, including private garden and off-road parking, but with the additional benefit of single-level living. But they are in short supply.

It goes on to discuss the reasons for this, which all boil down to one thing: the planning system is seriously flawed. It is based on a single-minded, short-term,, simplistic metric: occupancy per hectare . The only way to get more people onto each hectare is to build upwards. So older people can't buy new  properties –  except in purpose-built ghettoes...

<old-joke> 

Some wag doctored a road sign marking Dover for the Continent and Eastbourne. The additional words were for the incontinent.

</old-joke>

... – either these, or sheltered housing/assisted living/...<insert-euphemism-here>.

Meanwhile, older householders are rattling around in multi-storey houses that they can't maintain and want to move out of; as that article says:                        

Press reports have highlighted the massive amount of housing space tied up by pensioners, often living alone in four-bedroom houses. A report from Legal & General estimated some 7.5 million rooms could be available if the occupiers were to downsize to smaller accommodation.

But old people need to live with young people, and vice versa. My family home in the '60s-'70s was a sort of informal youth club, open all hours, to the benefit of all involved whatever their age.

<modest-proposal comment="This is my theory, and it is mine. Ahem.">
To ensure a healthy mixture of young and old in new housing estates (which will not be new for long, and  they need to continue to house a mentally healthy population) occupancy standards need to be changed to take into account the net effect of new developments. If a developer can arrange for an old householder to buy a bungalow, they should be able to factor that person's property into their calculations: planning standards must be based on NCASH.
</modest-proposal>

And fonally ...

<sic> 

This isn't a typo, or rather it was a typo in 1972 in a script I contributed to a review called 'How Big Were Luther's Theses?' – but ever since then whenever I think 'And finally' my private monologue misreads it.

</sic>

...

My habitual equanimity is frequently disturbed in the last few weeks by the TV trailer for the new series of  Waterloo Road, which has a voiceover saying 'At Waterloo Road we pride ourselves in (sic)...'.

At this stage I lose focus, and can't take in what they're proud about, because in my world you 'pride yourself on something'. I suspected when I first heard this that there had been interference –  or crosstalk –

<autobiographical-note>
'Crosstalk' is a bit of jargon I came across when my middle brother (RIP) was an apprentice at DECCA. In a vinyl record, the interference between one groove and its neighbouring groove is crosstalk. Come to think of it, it's not a very  illuminating metaphor; it's just a memory that   occurred to me, and I thought I might as well clutter your minds up with it too.
</autobiographical-note>

... from the expression 'take pride in', which just happens to inhabit the same semantic area (although not being a synonym). And having thought this, I felt I should put some numbers on it. Here they are, based on two corpuses (or corpora if you must   –  ...

<autobiographical-note>
I've been suspicious of $10 words like that ever since a GP diagnosed my unexplained slight temperatures (in boyhood) as 'PUO'. 'PUO' stands for Pyrexia of Unknown Origin, or in other words 'he has a temperature and I don't know why'.
</autobiographical-note>

 .... Fancy words are often a disguise for ignorance) the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American.

First pride ourselves *n (the * is just a wildcard; I could make the enquiry more general: pride *sel* *n, to include myself, themselves... etc, but I've already spent too long on this):

This seems fairly clear, In an admittedly small corpus (relatively small, that is, among corpuses, but still pretty extensive), 'Pride ourselves on' outnumbers the 'in' version 10:1  (11:1 if you include 'upon').

And the 'take pride in' expression is more unanimous; nobody says 'take pride on' (well not yet anyway).

Meanwhile in COCA the difference is less marked, though still over 4:1.

And the 'take pride *n' variants are pretty unanimous, although a tiny percentage of users (0.0022%) have written 'take pride on' (which I'd put down to interference in the opposite direction – from 'pride oneself on' to 'take pride in').

But this is beginning to fail in the 'So What? Stakes'.

b

Update: 2023.01.12.20:55 – Added PS

PS
I can't be the only one who found 'pride ourselves on' disturbing (or at least distracting). There's now a new version of the trailer, with the same images but a new opening line.