Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 12:36, 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, and then later
local government reorganisation came along and fused them together.
It's somewhat different from a town expanding outwards until it hit
its limit.

London expanded outwards and absorbed towns and villages around it.
Those towns and villages largely expanded as dormitories dependant on
London as a source of jobs rather than the expansion being driven by
internal activity. It is debatable as to whether it has yet hit it's
limit.

No. There are still pouring money into the place at the detriment to all
else.

Optimist wrote:

Soon fields just after ploughing will be included in the definition
of "brownfield".

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

Is that UKIP policy then?

No, that appears to be the way the thinking of the Conservative,
Labour and Lib-Dem parties is going.

The sooner the better.

d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:37:59 on Thu, 30
Aug 2012, d remarked:

With only about 7.5% of the land settled,

7.5%? Where did you get that figure from?

I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me.

Do farms not count as settled?

In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.

Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean
the house it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't
count gardens
as settled land either.

As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:33:00 +0100, "News" wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
"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

Thanks, but I'd prefer to settle for not welcoming all the scum of
the world onto this island.

What the f**k are you on about oh senile one? Duh!!!!!

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

An interesting rewrite of recent economic history.

The root of the recent bust was because of LAND SPECULATION. Debt after debt
was poured into tax free land. Your knowledge of economics is zero.

Why is why the old parties love it, they get so much of their funding from developers.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:51 +0100, 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.

Like central London, you mean? There are loads of houses in the most expensive areas which have been boarded up and the
sanitary fixtures destroyed to make them uninhabitable.

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.

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...

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On 30/08/2012 13:46, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:02 +0100
Graeme 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.


As a first order practical definition it will do. However there are any
number of London dormitory towns outside the M25.

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

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:56:50 +0100
"News" wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:10 +0100
"News" wrote:
Urban, villages, towns, cities. Kate Barker report. This may help
you: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html
The Supporting Links are excellent.

# 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 m ass.

I'd count agricultural as settled

I fallow field has people on it? Boy you are slow.

If people own the land and live on it then yes, its settled. If I have a
10 acre garden does that make the garden settled or not settled land?
What if its 10 square feet? Where do you draw the line?

All the surplus land. The UK has a land surplus.

Really? Where?

You ever been on the central line in rush hour?

Focus please.

Thats a "no" is it?

"Central Line will take you acroos London [in les than a hour]

No. It won't. Across london is epping to west ruislip and it doesn't have
a hope in hell of doing that in an hour even late at night.

and also the new Crossrail even quicker. Now you know."

Crossrail doesn't exist yet.

Perhaps when you've finished being a know it all student get yourself
a proper job by a car and drive around this country like I have then
you see how empty it isn't.

I advise you to get off the A road and onmto the B. Nothjing is there -
empty. I advise you to fly over it and look down.

Done all of that. Unlike you I suspect.

The South East is unerpopulated. Most popukated is the North West. (Kate
Barker report)

Well thats utter crap. The southeast has triple the population of the
northwest to start with.

B2003

On 30/08/2012 14:04, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 12:36, 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, and then later
local government reorganisation came along and fused them together.
It's somewhat different from a town expanding outwards until it hit
its limit.

London expanded outwards and absorbed towns and villages around it.
Those towns and villages largely expanded as dormitories dependant on
London as a source of jobs rather than the expansion being driven by
internal activity. It is debatable as to whether it has yet hit it's
limit.

No. There are still pouring money into the place at the detriment to all
else.


There are what still pouring money in?

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