On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 remarked:s
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.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

In message , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, Martin Edwards 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.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, Martin Edwards 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.

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.

--
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 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 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:51 +0100, Graeme 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.

For "loads" read "some".

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

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:51 +0100, Graeme
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.

For "loads" read "some".

NO! Read loads.

Optimist wrote:

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.

Land Valuation Taxation would sort that out. Full tax is paid only on the
LAND's value. The building is not taken into account - it could be an empty
plot. They soon get the building profitable. The laws relating to land
were forced through by landed vested interest over the centuries.

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.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

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