Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
You just need to allocate more land for housing as part of a co-ordinated growth strategy. The solution is better planning.
Yes - but then you run into the problem that people want to limit house building, but want mass immigration.
There seems to be an absence of people who want mass house building and mass immigration.
Myself - if the forecast is 300,000 increase in population next year, then building 300,000 bedrooms should be started. If you can't live with building on that scale....
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
I think that this type of housing is also going become unviable due to the building safety bill. Housing over 6 storeys high will involve prohibitively high service charges and won't really be an option outside very high value areas. The actions over cladding have not helped.
Where is Sunak? He has been very very quiet of late.
On maneuvers in Catterick. Look at the fucking size of him. The British public will not vote for a Borrower as PM. This has profound betting implications.
Where is Sunak? He has been very very quiet of late.
On maneuvers in Catterick. Look at the fucking size of him. The British public will not vote for a Borrower as PM. This has profound betting implications.
Sadly I don't think wikipedia lists all British PMs by height as it does for US Presidents. To my chagrin, even considering people being shorter in the 18-19th century in general only 3 US Presidents were shorter than me. the last being in 1893.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Go move into a high rise yourself and then say that you raging hypocrite.
If I was still in my 20s or early 30s I would be very happy to live in a London high rise apartment, I now live surrounded by greenbelt and want to protect it
Why don't you buy it then? In a free market you can buy land and not develop it.
If the answer is its too expensive, then sorry but that's exactly what you're saying to people who want to buy homes today so how is your plight in a free market any worse than theirs today?
Where is Sunak? He has been very very quiet of late.
On maneuvers in Catterick. Look at the fucking size of him. The British public will not vote for a Borrower as PM. This has profound betting implications.
Theresa May's spidey ambition sensors have picked up that Johnson may be a broken reed and a vacancy may be about to open up.
Arresting national treasures like Lloyd Webber, broken industries like travel and hospitality, and bloody riots outside nightclubs that decided to open anyway are not a good look.
Didn’t someone once give someone a box-set of some TV show? It felt like a calculated snub.
Obama to Gordon Brown, was it? There have also been problems with high value gifts being taken by the government rather than the recipient, which can look like a snub to the giver. Really, if our embassies cannot agree gifts beforehand, diplomatic gifts should use Secret Santa rules: each PM/President gift must cost £500, give or take £50.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
It is a diametric incorrectness to say that population isn't growing. Births per mother is only one factor.
In 2011 the UK population was roughly 63.2 m. In 2019 it was roughly 66.8 m.
Why? Because of increased immigration this government is only starting to take measures to control and reduce
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
If Boris really did not care about the Good Friday Agreement he would have gone to No Deal Brexit with the EU and imposed a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic patrolled by the armed forces and police with watch towers and border posts and customs checks. He would also then have shut down Stormont and imposed direct rule from Westminster.
The above might have been a DUP wet dream but would have been a disaster for the peace process
Even more interestingly he could have fallen out with no deal, and NOT imposed a hard border, and patrolled it with the lollipop lady from St Patrick's primary school in Crossmaglen.
And waited to see how high the EU barbed wire is and whether the EU valued their red lines or peace on the island of Ireland more.
Where is Sunak? He has been very very quiet of late.
On maneuvers in Catterick. Look at the fucking size of him. The British public will not vote for a Borrower as PM. This has profound betting implications.
"Borrower". Fair play. That made me laugh out loud (for real)
And you're right, it is an issue. My agent said over lunch the other day, apropos of zip, that she quite fancied Rishi - until she realised he was a highly numerate leprechaun, and she went right off him
He is just too small. He makes Sarkozy look like Robert Wadlow
Where is Sunak? He has been very very quiet of late.
On maneuvers in Catterick. Look at the fucking size of him. The British public will not vote for a Borrower as PM. This has profound betting implications.
It's the old "near", " faraway" trick. He's really 7ft 3!
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
You didn't answer the question....have you ever lived in one. Most people don't see an issue till they have to live in one. Most people who have lived in one thats not high end cannot wait to escape
Quite liked ‘Ship got real’. Be interesting to see who they get to play Aubrey & Maturin. Crowe and Bettany pretty much pulled it off and M&C is a very decent film even on its own terms.
Killick should have his role beefed up - David Threlfall was like my mind’s version of him -a great performance - but needed more lines as the relationship between him and Aubrey is a great exploration of class structures of the time and provides some good comic interludes.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
That is council flats, you can have high rises which are mainly filled with private leaseholders (some privately rented out) or which are collectively owned by the residents via commonhold
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
I doubt there will be much of a hit, as tough measures are still most popular, but it is getting to the point where sizable numbers will be angry when we don't unlock properly on June 21st, but sizable numbers will also be angry if we do unlock, given all the trailed stories about rise in cases etc.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
You didn't answer the question....have you ever lived in one. Most people don't see an issue till they have to live in one. Most people who have lived in one thats not high end cannot wait to escape
If you want to escape when you have a family then save up to move to the Home Counties, the main demand for new property at the moment is amongst under 40s and the area where the fewest own a property is London, so that is where we need to build most in the capital and high rise is the best way to do it.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
They also look surreal, when viewed from the surrounding countryside.
Where is Sunak? He has been very very quiet of late.
On maneuvers in Catterick. Look at the fucking size of him. The British public will not vote for a Borrower as PM. This has profound betting implications.
It's the old "near", " faraway" trick. He's really 7ft 3!
Is it just me or has Rishi got no knees? Or is he in fact goose stepping?
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Speaking from experience?
I've lived in a flat, when I was single and when we were childless it was fine. Once you have children, nothing beats having your own property and a garden.
So once the 20-somethings in London become 30-somethings with children and want a home of their own with a garden, what do you propose then?
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Go move into a high rise yourself and then say that you raging hypocrite.
If I was still in my 20s or early 30s I would be very happy to live in a London high rise apartment, I now live surrounded by greenbelt and want to protect it
I'd happily live in a tower now if it was luxe and well located
"BREAKING NEWS" news. A bold claim from wee Neil, even bolder than his insistence that a sense of Britishness was felt by the Neolithic constructors of Skara Brae.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
That is council flats, you can have high rises which are mainly filled with private leaseholders (some privately rented out) or which are collectively owned by the residents via commonhold
Which are just as bad. You think private leaseholders somehow don't behave antisocially? For most people home is where you go when you want to get anyway from idiots. Can't do that in a high rise
It is very sad, but if he wants to he can self isolate, surely. And the government can and should assist him in this.
Yes, unless the government wants to start rounding up refuseniks this is an irrelevant point.
Even if we get everyone including kids done, there will always be the anti vaxxers who pose a risk to those who can’t get the vaccine.
I think if 60%+ of over 18s take a double-dose vaccine that's even only 80% effective at preventing severe cases that will be still be sufficient (population wide) to prevent any new exponential growth of anything.
It won't stop *all* hospitalisations and deaths, however, and that is a risk calculation that some in SAGE seem to struggle with.
Vaccine uptake only 53% in men 30 to 34. Vaccine uptake has been dropping substantially as we have gone down age groups
The vaccinations have only be open to 30-34 for a relatively short while. Just because they open up a lower group for bookings doesn't mean that they have completed the previous group.
In the period between 27th May and 10th June, for England, using NIMS, increases in 1st vaccinated -
Age Band Increase Under 30 1.93% 30-34 8.77% 35-39 3.38% 40-44 0.96% 45-49 0.59% 50-54 0.27% 55-59 0.26% 60-64 0.21% 65-69 0.07% 70-74 0.02% 75-79 0.00% 80 plus 0.00%
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
Completely agreed. Up here you get flats built (not especially high rise) as "affordable housing" within new housing estates far too often.
No reason for it whatsoever - and it makes absolutely no sense. Just use a bit more land and build more mews or semi detached housing.
Vaccine uptake only 53% in men 30 to 34. Uptake is dropping substantially as we move down age groups and will drop further as we move into those in 20s
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
And yet people live in them in plenty of cities - NY, Hong Kong, Shanghai - and they are perceived as glamorous and desirable?
Vaccine uptake only 53% in men 30 to 34. Vaccine uptake has been dropping substantially as we have gone down age groups
The vaccinations have only be open to 30-34 for a relatively short while. Just because they open up a lower group for bookings doesn't mean that they have completed the previous group.
In the period between 27th May and 10th June, for England, using NIMS, increases in 1st vaccinated -
Age Band Increase Under 30 1.93% 30-34 8.77% 35-39 3.38% 40-44 0.96% 45-49 0.59% 50-54 0.27% 55-59 0.26% 60-64 0.21% 65-69 0.07% 70-74 0.02% 75-79 0.00% 80 plus 0.00%
Also as admitted by the government total, supply is constraining the roll out.
I wonder how soon all those 1 million 20 somethings that signed up in a day are getting their jabs? I presume they are having to wait a bit.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Go move into a high rise yourself and then say that you raging hypocrite.
If I was still in my 20s or early 30s I would be very happy to live in a London high rise apartment, I now live surrounded by greenbelt and want to protect it
I'd happily live in a tower now if it was luxe and well located
If Boris really did not care about the Good Friday Agreement he would have gone to No Deal Brexit with the EU and imposed a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic patrolled by the armed forces and police with watch towers and border posts and customs checks. He would also then have shut down Stormont and imposed direct rule from Westminster.
The above might have been a DUP wet dream but would have been a disaster for the peace process
Even more interestingly he could have fallen out with no deal, and NOT imposed a hard border, and patrolled it with the lollipop lady from St Patrick's primary school in Crossmaglen.
And waited to see how high the EU barbed wire is and whether the EU valued their red lines or peace on the island of Ireland more.
Sometimes I wish he had.
That’s almost certainly what would have happened.
There was no way we were going to be the ones building fences, and I’m pretty sure Dublin wasn’t going to build them either.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
That is council flats, you can have high rises which are mainly filled with private leaseholders (some privately rented out) or which are collectively owned by the residents via commonhold
Which are just as bad. You think private leaseholders somehow don't behave antisocially? For most people home is where you go when you want to get anyway from idiots. Can't do that in a high rise
Utter rubbish, if you live in a global city you are going to be surrounded by noise anyway regardless.
If you want peace and quiet then save up to buy an existing house in the country, we do not need all the countryside concreted over because you don't like high rise, tough.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
Completely agreed. Up here you get flats built (not especially high rise) as "affordable housing" within new housing estates far too often.
No reason for it whatsoever - and it makes absolutely no sense. Just use a bit more land and build more mews or semi detached housing.
There are effectively two or three different housing markets, and enlightened planning philosophy addresses each differently.
Greater London. Other metros. “Country”.
Although it is much better than it used to be, a lot of issues in this country just seem to be caused by shite development, in turn in response to various perversities in the system.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
And yet people live in them in plenty of cities - NY, Hong Kong, Shanghai - and they are perceived as glamorous and desirable?
Some in those cities are glamourous and desirable, a lot more of them aren't however. I haven't lived in NY or Shanghai but have in hong kong pre 97 and can definitely say none of the appartements I saw there could be described as glamourous or desirable. Certain highrises certainly were but not the sort of company I mixed in so never saw them inside. Maybe 5 to 10% glamorous and desirable the rest were were the proles lived
Where is Sunak? He has been very very quiet of late.
On maneuvers in Catterick. Look at the fucking size of him. The British public will not vote for a Borrower as PM. This has profound betting implications.
It's the old "near", " faraway" trick. He's really 7ft 3!
Is it just me or has Rishi got no knees? Or is he in fact goose stepping?
The tories never bend the knee. Not even while walking. That's how much they fucking love this country.
If Boris really did not care about the Good Friday Agreement he would have gone to No Deal Brexit with the EU and imposed a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic patrolled by the armed forces and police with watch towers and border posts and customs checks. He would also then have shut down Stormont and imposed direct rule from Westminster.
The above might have been a DUP wet dream but would have been a disaster for the peace process
Even more interestingly he could have fallen out with no deal, and NOT imposed a hard border, and patrolled it with the lollipop lady from St Patrick's primary school in Crossmaglen.
And waited to see how high the EU barbed wire is and whether the EU valued their red lines or peace on the island of Ireland more.
Sometimes I wish he had.
That’s almost certainly what would have happened.
There was no way we were going to be the ones building fences, and I’m pretty sure Dublin wasn’t going to build them either.
That was my suggestion - A wall, a ditch full of salt water crocodiles, armed guards, sentry guns etc.
All paid for out of construction budget of 1 euro. And contracted out to the people who did Berlin Airport.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Speaking from experience?
I've lived in a flat, when I was single and when we were childless it was fine. Once you have children, nothing beats having your own property and a garden.
So once the 20-somethings in London become 30-somethings with children and want a home of their own with a garden, what do you propose then?
Most people own their own property by 40 so it is not an issue, it is the 20s and early 30s who have the most need for new property
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
That is council flats, you can have high rises which are mainly filled with private leaseholders (some privately rented out) or which are collectively owned by the residents via commonhold
Which are just as bad. You think private leaseholders somehow don't behave antisocially? For most people home is where you go when you want to get anyway from idiots. Can't do that in a high rise
Utter rubbish, if you live in a global city you are going to be surrounded by noise anyway regardless.
If you want peace and quiet then save up to buy an existing house in the country, we do not need all the countryside concreted over because you don't like high rise, tough.
We don't need the green belt protected because you prefer your leafy suburb tough.....see what I did there?
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Speaking from experience?
I've lived in a flat, when I was single and when we were childless it was fine. Once you have children, nothing beats having your own property and a garden.
So once the 20-somethings in London become 30-somethings with children and want a home of their own with a garden, what do you propose then?
Nobody here is arguing against all development. Just that (some of us) wish to preserve green belt policies.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
Completely agreed. Up here you get flats built (not especially high rise) as "affordable housing" within new housing estates far too often.
No reason for it whatsoever - and it makes absolutely no sense. Just use a bit more land and build more mews or semi detached housing.
There are effectively two or three different housing markets, and enlightened planning philosophy addresses each differently.
Greater London. Other metros. “Country”.
Although it is much better than it used to be, a lot of issues in this country just seem to be caused by shite development, in turn in response to various perversities in the system.
Agreed. Far too much of our regulations or principles are thought of by people who live in or commute to London and think that what works there applies to the rest of the nation.
In towns across the nation you can plot welfare, crime, economic development etc, etc, etc almost perfectly to housing density. The more dense the housing, the more the welfare dependancy, the more crime etc
In my ideal world in towns all new houses would be at least semi-detached with 2 off road parking spaces each.
Vaccine uptake only 53% in men 30 to 34. Vaccine uptake has been dropping substantially as we have gone down age groups
The vaccinations have only be open to 30-34 for a relatively short while. Just because they open up a lower group for bookings doesn't mean that they have completed the previous group.
In the period between 27th May and 10th June, for England, using NIMS, increases in 1st vaccinated -
Age Band Increase Under 30 1.93% 30-34 8.77% 35-39 3.38% 40-44 0.96% 45-49 0.59% 50-54 0.27% 55-59 0.26% 60-64 0.21% 65-69 0.07% 70-74 0.02% 75-79 0.00% 80 plus 0.00%
Thanks for these, very interesting. Looks like there’s not much movement on 50+, which is a shame.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
If you live in a high rise anywhere that the maintenance is shit so the lifts don’t work or stink of piss. People above, below, and either side. Nowhere safe for your kids to go outside, no let up in noise then you would not want to live there. Why do you now live in a semi rural area?
Mr. kle4, could be wrong but I think the general assumption people were shorter in the past is largely flawed. Those with sufficient wealth to ensure a continuous and stable diet were pretty much the same height, I think.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Speaking from experience?
I've lived in a flat, when I was single and when we were childless it was fine. Once you have children, nothing beats having your own property and a garden.
So once the 20-somethings in London become 30-somethings with children and want a home of their own with a garden, what do you propose then?
Nobody here is arguing against all development. Just that (some of us) wish to preserve green belt policies.
Preserving the green belt seems unable to match with ending the housing crisis given current population levels though.
Considering the massive increase in population that has already occured, without either engaging in mass deportations or Soylent Green, if you can give a good alternative to greenfield land to ensure that anyone who wants to is able to buy a home with a garden then I am all ears.
Please don't say brownfield, there isn't enough brownfield to cope with today's population figures, that's the issue.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
Completely agreed. Up here you get flats built (not especially high rise) as "affordable housing" within new housing estates far too often.
No reason for it whatsoever - and it makes absolutely no sense. Just use a bit more land and build more mews or semi detached housing.
There are effectively two or three different housing markets, and enlightened planning philosophy addresses each differently.
Greater London. Other metros. “Country”.
Although it is much better than it used to be, a lot of issues in this country just seem to be caused by shite development, in turn in response to various perversities in the system.
Agreed. Far too much of our regulations or principles are thought of by people who live in or commute to London and think that what works there applies to the rest of the nation.
In towns across the nation you can plot welfare, crime, economic development etc, etc, etc almost perfectly to housing density. The more dense the housing, the more the welfare dependancy, the more crime etc
In my ideal world in towns all new houses would be at least semi-detached with 2 off road parking spaces each.
Was with you until para 2. Density itself doesn’t increase crime etc. Again, Sth Ken and Notting Hill are not slums.
Where I think we might agree is that high rise is harder to make work for social housing; however even here there have been some v attractive developments in London over the last decade or so.
In fact, much of the best architecture where I live (Hackney, Islington) is via council-led densification of existing housing estates.
The demolition and rebuild of the Packington Estate, close to Angel tube, is an exemplar.
If I was still in my 20s or early 30s I would be very happy to live in a London high rise apartment, I now live surrounded by greenbelt and want to protect it
I think you have a problem there, young HY. Your wish to protect the green belt runs completely against government policy. Local people no longer have any say, still less control, over what happens in their area.
Time to reconsider your support for the Conservative Party, I think!
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
That is council flats, you can have high rises which are mainly filled with private leaseholders (some privately rented out) or which are collectively owned by the residents via commonhold
Which are just as bad. You think private leaseholders somehow don't behave antisocially? For most people home is where you go when you want to get anyway from idiots. Can't do that in a high rise
Utter rubbish, if you live in a global city you are going to be surrounded by noise anyway regardless.
If you want peace and quiet then save up to buy an existing house in the country, we do not need all the countryside concreted over because you don't like high rise, tough.
We don't need the green belt protected because you prefer your leafy suburb tough.....see what I did there?
Yes but currently we Tories in rural and suburban areas have the majority not Labour voters in urban areas, so to get re elected with a majority the government has to listen to its core vote
Well this evidence is anecdotal but a young guy was queuing for vaccine in a very multicultural area...zero people from ethnic minorities...I think that says it all
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
If you live in a high rise anywhere that the maintenance is shit so the lifts don’t work or stink of piss. People above, below, and either side. Nowhere safe for your kids to go outside, no let up in noise then you would not want to live there. Why do you now live in a semi rural area?
That is mainly council flats, most privately owned high rise flats are not like that
Well this evidence is anecdotal but a young guy was queuing for vaccine in a very multicultural area...zero people from ethnic minorities...I think that says it all
I think you are lost. Try Guido Fawkes or perhaps the Daily Mail comments board?
Well this evidence is anecdotal but a young guy was queuing for vaccine in a very multicultural area...zero people from ethnic minorities...I think that says it all
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
That is council flats, you can have high rises which are mainly filled with private leaseholders (some privately rented out) or which are collectively owned by the residents via commonhold
Which are just as bad. You think private leaseholders somehow don't behave antisocially? For most people home is where you go when you want to get anyway from idiots. Can't do that in a high rise
Utter rubbish, if you live in a global city you are going to be surrounded by noise anyway regardless.
If you want peace and quiet then save up to buy an existing house in the country, we do not need all the countryside concreted over because you don't like high rise, tough.
We don't need the green belt protected because you prefer your leafy suburb tough.....see what I did there?
Yes but currently we Tories in rural and suburban areas have the majority not Labour voters in urban areas, so to get re elected with a majority the government has to listen to its core vote
Yes but now we have wfh we are moving into your territory and we won't be voting tory so tough luck
Vaccine uptake only 53% in men 30 to 34. Uptake is dropping substantially as we move down age groups and will drop further as we move into those in 20s
If I was still in my 20s or early 30s I would be very happy to live in a London high rise apartment, I now live surrounded by greenbelt and want to protect it
I think you have a problem there, young HY. Your wish to protect the green belt runs completely against government policy. Local people no longer have any say, still less control, over what happens in their area.
Time to reconsider your support for the Conservative Party, I think!
No, it is actually the view of most Home Counties Tory MPs, hence the government will not be able to get through the Commons a vast increase in building in the Home Counties.
Plus even on current proposals the government has agreed to Zones protected from development
Well this evidence is anecdotal but a young guy was queuing for vaccine in a very multicultural area...zero people from ethnic minorities...I think that says it all
In other words, your 'stats' are anecdotal garbage.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
Completely agreed. Up here you get flats built (not especially high rise) as "affordable housing" within new housing estates far too often.
No reason for it whatsoever - and it makes absolutely no sense. Just use a bit more land and build more mews or semi detached housing.
There are effectively two or three different housing markets, and enlightened planning philosophy addresses each differently.
Greater London. Other metros. “Country”.
Although it is much better than it used to be, a lot of issues in this country just seem to be caused by shite development, in turn in response to various perversities in the system.
Agreed. Far too much of our regulations or principles are thought of by people who live in or commute to London and think that what works there applies to the rest of the nation.
In towns across the nation you can plot welfare, crime, economic development etc, etc, etc almost perfectly to housing density. The more dense the housing, the more the welfare dependancy, the more crime etc
In my ideal world in towns all new houses would be at least semi-detached with 2 off road parking spaces each.
Was with you until para 2. Density itself doesn’t increase crime etc. Again, Sth Ken and Notting Hill are not slums.
Where I think we might agree is that high rise is harder to make work for social housing; however even here there have been some v attractive developments in London over the last decade or so.
In fact, much of the best architecture where I live (Hackney, Islington) is via council-led densification of existing housing estates.
The demolition and rebuild of the Packington Estate, close to Angel tube, is an exemplar.
South Kensington and Notting Hill don't have the density of eg Tower Hamlets, but are themselves the exception that proves the rule.
Plus I specifically said towns. They're part of a city not a town aren't they?
Can you think of any town anywhere in the country where the low-crime, low-deprivation areas are the high density areas and the high crime, high deprivation areas are the low density ones?
James Melville @JamesMelville · 1h Replying to @EssexPR Almost everyone I have spoken to are saying the same thing. They will end their conformity on June 21st. We’ve done all we can do. #EnoughIsEnough
21st June is going to be "interesting", as in the Chinese proverb.
But what 'even more' is sufficient? It's never going to be everyone.
The obvious answer is vaccinate until we reach herd immunity. But the fear is hesitancy and antivaxxers will combine to make that unachievable, particularly with the newer more transmissible variants becoming dominant.
The other problem is these unvaccinated people are concentrated in the big cities like london and manchester where uptake is substantially lower
Not necessarily the case. The city vaccination rates are done by GP registrations - which can substantially over-estimate population - in Cambridge's case by nearly 50% vs the ONS data.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.8.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Apart from most people don't really want to live in high rises. I have met many that expressed a desire for a detatched house never yet have I heard anyone yearn to live on the 20th floor of nelson mandela towers
Plenty of people would be happy to have an apartment in a Manhattan or Singapore style skyscraper however
Sure - and they are being built on every available piece of land. The thing is that they are not for everyone.
Also when you say manhatten and singapore you are speaking mostly of high rises designed and built for the rich with a concierge and security, which are a lot different to the one bed flats that the average person would be living in where the lifts will be out of service on week in 10 and even when they work will stink of urine and the people below are belting out radiohead cranked to 11 till 4 in the morning
That is council flats, you can have high rises which are mainly filled with private leaseholders (some privately rented out) or which are collectively owned by the residents via commonhold
Which are just as bad. You think private leaseholders somehow don't behave antisocially? For most people home is where you go when you want to get anyway from idiots. Can't do that in a high rise
Utter rubbish, if you live in a global city you are going to be surrounded by noise anyway regardless.
If you want peace and quiet then save up to buy an existing house in the country, we do not need all the countryside concreted over because you don't like high rise, tough.
We don't need the green belt protected because you prefer your leafy suburb tough.....see what I did there?
Yes but currently we Tories in rural and suburban areas have the majority not Labour voters in urban areas, so to get re elected with a majority the government has to listen to its core vote
Yes but now we have wfh we are moving into your territory and we won't be voting tory so tough luck
No evidence of that on the current polling and even if you do manage to afford to wfh and move to the Home Counties you in turn will then become Nimby to protect the view from and value of your house and will vote for the party that promises to protect the greenbelt
They were £50,000,000 - which I readily accept is not cheap - but you could probably snap one up for £100k now, no more than a terrace in Workington
The price was farcical - for that money you can buy a huge house in central London, with a garden you could place tennis in. And double the cost rebuilding it...... and still have money left over.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 1h Replying to @EssexPR Almost everyone I have spoken to are saying the same thing. They will end their conformity on June 21st. We’ve done all we can do. #EnoughIsEnough
21st June is going to be "interesting", as in the Chinese proverb.
Comments
There seems to be an absence of people who want mass house building and mass immigration.
Myself - if the forecast is 300,000 increase in population next year, then building 300,000 bedrooms should be started. If you can't live with building on that scale....
If the answer is its too expensive, then sorry but that's exactly what you're saying to people who want to buy homes today so how is your plight in a free market any worse than theirs today?
Arresting national treasures like Lloyd Webber, broken industries like travel and hospitality, and bloody riots outside nightclubs that decided to open anyway are not a good look.
Not a good look at all.
And waited to see how high the EU barbed wire is and whether the EU valued their red lines or peace on the island of Ireland more.
Sometimes I wish he had.
And you're right, it is an issue. My agent said over lunch the other day, apropos of zip, that she quite fancied Rishi - until she realised he was a highly numerate leprechaun, and she went right off him
He is just too small. He makes Sarkozy look like Robert Wadlow
Even if we get everyone including kids done, there will always be the anti vaxxers who pose a risk to those who can’t get the vaccine.
People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
I've lived in a flat, when I was single and when we were childless it was fine. Once you have children, nothing beats having your own property and a garden.
So once the 20-somethings in London become 30-somethings with children and want a home of their own with a garden, what do you propose then?
A bold claim from wee Neil, even bolder than his insistence that a sense of Britishness was felt by the Neolithic constructors of Skara Brae.
It won't stop *all* hospitalisations and deaths, however, and that is a risk calculation that some in SAGE seem to struggle with.
In the period between 27th May and 10th June, for England, using NIMS, increases in 1st vaccinated -
Age Band Increase
Under 30 1.93%
30-34 8.77%
35-39 3.38%
40-44 0.96%
45-49 0.59%
50-54 0.27%
55-59 0.26%
60-64 0.21%
65-69 0.07%
70-74 0.02%
75-79 0.00%
80 plus 0.00%
No reason for it whatsoever - and it makes absolutely no sense. Just use a bit more land and build more mews or semi detached housing.
I wonder how soon all those 1 million 20 somethings that signed up in a day are getting their jabs? I presume they are having to wait a bit.
There was no way we were going to be the ones building fences, and I’m pretty sure Dublin wasn’t going to build them either.
If you want peace and quiet then save up to buy an existing house in the country, we do not need all the countryside concreted over because you don't like high rise, tough.
Greater London.
Other metros.
“Country”.
Although it is much better than it used to be, a lot of issues in this country just seem to be caused by shite development, in turn in response to various perversities in the system.
All paid for out of construction budget of 1 euro. And contracted out to the people who did Berlin Airport.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/jun/11/clarksons-farm-review-jeremy-the-ignoramus-rides-again
Just that (some of us) wish to preserve green belt policies.
Will they have boosters ready for September/October?
In towns across the nation you can plot welfare, crime, economic development etc, etc, etc almost perfectly to housing density. The more dense the housing, the more the welfare dependancy, the more crime etc
In my ideal world in towns all new houses would be at least semi-detached with 2 off road parking spaces each.
This year’s @G7 Summit will be all about how we #BuildBackBetter
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1403298431788105729?s=20
The Welsh figures are interesting
"The prime minister respects the rights of all people to peacefully protest and make their feelings know about injustices," his spokesperson says.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1403313660584464392?s=20
Why do you now live in a semi rural area?
Considering the massive increase in population that has already occured, without either engaging in mass deportations or Soylent Green, if you can give a good alternative to greenfield land to ensure that anyone who wants to is able to buy a home with a garden then I am all ears.
Please don't say brownfield, there isn't enough brownfield to cope with today's population figures, that's the issue.
Density itself doesn’t increase crime etc.
Again, Sth Ken and Notting Hill are not slums.
Where I think we might agree is that high rise is harder to make work for social housing; however even here there have been some v attractive developments in London over the last decade or so.
In fact, much of the best architecture where I live (Hackney, Islington) is via council-led densification of existing housing estates.
The demolition and rebuild of the Packington Estate, close to Angel tube, is an exemplar.
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/packington-estate-is-this-the-model-for-regeneration-61670
Time to reconsider your support for the Conservative Party, I think!
"THAT'S A BIT RICH! Mega-rich buyers are snubbing luxury apartments in The Shard because they ‘don’t want to live south of the river’"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3956616/mega-rich-buyers-are-snubbing-50million-luxury-apartments-in-the-shard-because-they-dont-want-to-live-south-of-the-river/
They were £50,000,000 - which I readily accept is not cheap - but you could probably snap one up for £100k now, no more than a terrace in Workington
The scariant condition enables the powers that be to 'devalue' the vaccination's freedom power whenever they want.
Just like PHE are doing at the moment to prevent re-opening.
The 'scariant' condition is the ultimate poison pill to the roadmap.
Whoever inserted that clause knew precisely what they were doing.
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1403281062525034500?s=20
May, acutely aware of the main chance as ever, senses it.
It won't be long before others do.
Plus even on current proposals the government has agreed to Zones protected from development
In other words, your 'stats' are anecdotal garbage.
Glad we have cleared that up.
Plus I specifically said towns. They're part of a city not a town aren't they?
Can you think of any town anywhere in the country where the low-crime, low-deprivation areas are the high density areas and the high crime, high deprivation areas are the low density ones?
@JamesMelville
·
1h
Replying to
@EssexPR
Almost everyone I have spoken to are saying the same thing. They will end their conformity on June 21st. We’ve done all we can do. #EnoughIsEnough
21st June is going to be "interesting", as in the Chinese proverb.