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 30/08/2012 09:46, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:09:54 +0100
Optimist wrote:
act prevents building on green fields. Only 7.5% of the UKs land mass is
settled and that figure includes green spaces and gardens which brings
masonry on land to about 2.5%. Ignore right-wing propaganda that we are
concreting over the Countryside.

England already has over 400 people per square kilometre, one of the most
crowded in Europe. As we have to import much
of our food, we are vulnerable to worldwide food shortages. Over-development
is causing problems with the hydrology, as
heavy rainfall is flushed out to sea rather than recharge the aquifers. Much
of the undeveloped land is not suitable
for building on, unless you propose to put new towns on moorland and on the
Pennines. Opinion in this country is

Careful, you're trying to argue with a lefty using facts. They don't like
that and get all confused. Bluster, dogma and empty rhetoric they're much
more comfortable with.


Yawn.


--
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 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.

One could have a more than semantic discussion about what "London" is - very
few people use "Manchester" to mean the whole Greater Manchester area, and
try applying "Birmingham" to the West Midlands county, but with London it's
somewhat more confused with the two terms frequently used interchangeably
(look for instance at the current government arrangements with the "Greater
London Authority" consisting of the "Mayor of London" and the "London
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.

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

--
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 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.

--
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 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...

Just so, and even places like Bushey which are in Herts but in the Met
Police area.

--
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 14:25, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100
"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...

Tough )

Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the
way to central london.

B2003


Crap, there is farmland on both London Road and Oxhey Lane.

--
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 20:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
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.

Calm down. Even I make typos and I went to Watford Grammar.

--
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 12:55, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0100
"News" wrote:
d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
"News" wrote:
discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit to
two children per family and reducing immigration to
below the emigration rate.

Cue mass wailing from Liberty and similar human rights bed wetters.

Another Hitler fan.

I see Godwin is called upon already today.

You muppet.

You are senile.

Wow, killer putdown there. Did you think that up all by yourself or did you
have a team to help you?

B2003

Okay, you are not senile. What is the actual diagnosis.

--
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 10:21, News wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:46:05 +0100, "News"
wrote:

77002 wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:33 pm, "It's only me"
wrote:
Proper urban development will beget more business rates and
council

tax, so there is local government interest here. As more homes are

built the market loosens and becomes more affordable.

If there is an oversupply of offices and shops, rents and therefore
rateable values will decrease. There is no sense in having empty
commercial properties unless rents are rising quickly. Remember
Centre Point?

Centre Point was a ploy to not pay any taxes to the council as the
building was not completed and waiting because the land prices were
rocketing because the boom in the economy meant community created
economic growth soaked into the land and crystallized as land
values. That is where land values come from - economic community
activity not the landowner. In short the landowner was freeloading.

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.

I lot of sense in that. But the archaic Stalinist Town & Country
Planning act prevents building on green fields. Only 7.5% of the
UKs land mass is settled and that figure includes green spaces and
gardens which brings masonry on land to about 2.5%. Ignore
right-wing propaganda that we are concreting over the Countryside.

England already has over 400 people per square kilometre, one of the
most crowded in Europe.

That figure is meaningless. Again... Only 7.5% of the UKs land mass is
settled and that figure includes green spaces and gardens which brings
masonry on land to about 2.5%.

As we have to import much of our food, we
are vulnerable to worldwide food shortages.

There are never world wide food shortage, only regional crop failures.
Fast ships mean we can import food from around the world preventing
famines.

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over
subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used
economically in commerce and for much needed spacious higher quality
homes for the population. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of
our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import
most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP). CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country
dwellers in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime
function.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually
killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created
great misery and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is
subsidised to the hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be
better utilised for the greater good of British society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat.
We also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and
steel industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from
abroad, and especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping
up an economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that
certainly could be better used? What is good for the goose is good for
the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is
£5 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per
annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural
industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres
agriculture absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic.
Apply real economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million
acres, which is near 27% of the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the
population of the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live
amongst nature is highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land
prices. This means lower house prices which the UK desperately needs.
Second country homes could be within reach of much of the population, as
in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and construction industries,
and keeping the population in touch with the nature of their own
country. In Germany the population have access to large forests which
are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation
and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned
over to public forests.

Over-development is
causing problems with the hydrology, as heavy rainfall is flushed out
to sea rather than recharge the aquifers.

As only 2.5% of the UK has masonry on it that is far fetched to say the
least. New developments have separate rainwater drains that feed water
that is used for potable uses.

We should be making sure that empty homes are brought back into
occupation (compulsorily after a year, say),

Land Valuation Taxation does that - payable land only not the building,
even if a building is not on the plot. Harrisburg, and other towns and
cities in the USA, cleared up derelict buildings that way bringing them
back into use.

Harrisburg....
http://www.labourland.org/downloads/...chapters/3.pdf
"Furthermore, crime has fallen by 58 per cent, and the number of fires
has been reduced by 76 per cent, which the authorities say is due to
more employment opportunities, and the elimination of derelict sites,
making vandalism less likely."

and discourage the
growth of population by limiting child benefit

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.

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

In message , at 07:39:50 on Fri, 31
Aug 2012, Martin Edwards remarked:
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.

You have to do that on greenfield sites too.
--
Roland Perry