Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:54:33 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 14:07:09 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, News 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.

So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens?

Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask
themselves where the food is to come from.

Read my post on this. All there.

d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100
Optimist wrote:
Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask
themselves where the food is to come from. We cannot

I think in the minds of these people it comes from some magic food
machine run by pixies

So senile. Sad

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.
--
Roland Perry

On 30/08/2012 17:55, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
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?

Fool!

We know you are, go and finish your homework.

--
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 13:27:40 +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.

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.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:58:20 +0100, "News"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:07:09 +0100
"News" wrote:
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.

Its not how much is physically buried under concrete that matters -
its how much is used. And there is VERY little land in the UK that
isn't used.

Read what I write you fool! This one is a total idiot. It bad enough with
the senile ones.

God, the little toley is getting boring.
*plonk*

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.

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

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.

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

On 30/08/2012 11:41, d 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. And don't even bother pretending the majority are hard
working intellectuals keeping our economy afloat. Thats utter BS.


No, they are hard working East Europeans who are doing the jobs the
Anglo-Saxons and the descendants of earlier immigrants will no longer
do. Shame on you, sir.


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