On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:40:33 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:25:18PM +0100, e27002 aurora wrote:
wrote:
I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to build
on unless you first knock something down. ALL of the new developments
near my place - and there are a lot of them - are on the site of some
now demolished building.
Are you NUTS? I have lived in an unending urban sprawl, Los Angeles.
Green belt is the most wonderful blessing. IMHO it should not be
messed with in any way.

I like the green belt too - one of the reasons I chose to live in
Croydon was because I like having countryside nearby. However, I think I
like *more* the idea of people being able to afford to live in homes
that aren't just little flats crammed into any available space. I can
always travel a few minutes more to get to the countryside.

Your point is well taken. However, IMHO, there are better solutions
than destroying precious greenbelt. For many youngsters, singles
adults and empty nesters what is needed is a home not a house and
garden. There is ample opportunity to build TODs around key transit
nodes in London.

When Camden Town station is redeveloped to allow the Northern Line
split I would love to see it and the immediate surrounding streets
developed into a TOD.

And no, "move to Derby" (or wherever) isn't really a solution to the
problem. We already know that the demand is for homes in the south east.

Absolutely correct. There is a need for single family homes however.
And, these could be provided with a new generation of new towns. How
about "Didcot Garden City", "Calvert Garden City", "Sandy
(Bedfordshire) Garden City", etc., etc.?