On 30/08/2012 23:17, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:40 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.


London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before
the limits of the greenbelt were set,

Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London"
usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity
in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than
straight on expansion makes it a more open question.

Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way.



As long as they were RTs.

or RLHs.

Don't think we had those in the wilds of Buckinghamshire.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 30/08/2012 23:18, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:29:29 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 30/08/2012 14:14, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
d wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...


They may howl but they have been effectively part of London for many
years. See also Salford/Manchester.

England and France also share a border.

Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 31/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:34:39 +0100, "News" wrote:

Optimist wrote:

"Oh look! We've got all those brownfield sites! Let's build over
the rest of XXXshire!"

Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be
built
on. Many think all new developments can be on brownfield sites
despite only
14% of demand being catered for on current brownfield sites. This
should be
resisted as we now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these
sites
vacant, cleaned up and made natural again by turning them into parks,
woods
and encouraging wildlife for the local population to enjoy.

This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the
quality of life of urban dwellers. Righting the wrongs of the
incompetent
planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath could be actively
encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The
deliberate differentiation between town and country requires
abolition as
the Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words
town and
country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate
societies. It creates distrust.

One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use
brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that
has been used for industry.

Also setting up electricity and water supply and sewers.


They'd have to do that for a greenfield site.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 31/08/2012 07:45, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 08:57, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland
wrote:

In , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, Martin remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where
they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when the
residents would all need cars to get to jobs.

The aim of eco-towns is to get car journeys down to 50% of all trips.
I'm not sure if that counts very local trips, but they should be
provided with enhanced public transport in order to qualify for the
name.

Policy should be to get the hundreds of thousands of empty homes back
into use, rather than consuming more countryside.

Very laudable in theory. In practice many of those empty properties are
in areas no one wants to live.

Outer city estates, yes, but many are in inner city areas where there is
a market.


Define many.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 31/08/2012 07:57, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 13:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.


London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and
villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another
before
the limits of the greenbelt were set,

Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are
"London"
usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local
identity
in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather
than
straight on expansion makes it a more open question.

Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way.



As long as they were RTs.


Most of the RTs in Watford were green, as I remember, and I am fairly
sure it is a town.


But, at that time, not London.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:40, News wrote:
d wrote:

If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to
mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an
extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony
Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions.

Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher
reinforced this act. Why? To keep house price high to appeal to
owner/occupiers to gain votes, while the country as whole suffered. The
state of the nation was throw out of the window.

The knock-on was that debt after debt was poured into land which
resulted in the Credit Crunch - a collapse.

Thatcher was a fan of Uncle Joe? I don't think so.

Get the point...."the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher
reinforced this act." Read it again.

Martin Edwards wrote:

Viz the Northern belief that the whole population from Milton Keynes
to Brighton are cockneys.

They are. They all say "Fink" instead of think. "Fireen" instead of
thirteen. Then they bust out with songs like "Boiled Beef and Carrots".

Roland Perry wrote:

Are all that lot included in the 2.5% (or the 7.5%) genuine question.

Read this - a good enlightening read. I have previously linked to it.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html

DATA ON LAND USAGE

The land cover of Great Britain is 23.5m hectares. Taken from the Office of
National Statistics, in 2002, usage was as follows:

* Settled land -1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass.
* Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass.
* Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m hectares.
29.78% of the land mass.
* Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass
* Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass.
* Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of the
land mass.

Note 1:
Many question the accuracy of the above figures as government departments
present differing figures. Nevertheless the figures are a good guide.

Note 2:
The settled land figure includes gardens and other green spaces, which are
estimated at around 5%. When adjusted a figure of only 2.5% of paved land
emerges.
---------------------

We have too much subsidized agricultural land. Our freedoms are curtailed as
we cannot build where want to - national parks, etc, excepted.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:06:55 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, News remarked:

As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry.
So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens?

Does it matter!

Yes, if you can't answer the question it looks rather like you are
making the numbers up.

See the link on my other post.

Martin Edwards wrote:

Social engineering. Hitler did that. It is best to have a self
controlling economic system - Geonomics.

Like in the Middle Ages, when the population was controlled by hunger,
disease and hanging.

You are very confused.