|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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? New build homes have a negligible effect on house values because they are a negligible proportion of thehousingstock. It would take many years of frantic building to have much effect on totalhousingstock supply. 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. In the case of London there is ample opportunity for "Transit Oriented Development". The principle behind ToD is that the area around transit nodes is densified while the hinterland remains the domain of single family homes and other lower density housing. For example major nodes like Camden Town, Clapham Junction, and West Hampstead would see high rise (32, 22, 12 floor, depending) condos over and around the mass transit stations. The hinterlands, Wandsworth, Hampstead, et al, would remain lower density family oriented areas. The dense housing supports flourishing retail at street (and possibly podium) level. A good example of this is the stretch of Finchley Road between Swiss Cottage and Finchley Road subway stations. While not "high rise", this sweep is densely populated. As a result the commercial life at street level is very good. It supports numerous retail outlets, restaurants, and other service facilities. This would include the O2 Centre just to the north of Finchley Road. It is a pity the centre is built on the old Midland siding, but that is progress. As housing becomes more available prices become more affordable. Folks needed to cover a wide range of employment opportunities are able to live within easy commuting distance of work. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 wrote:
For example major nodes like Camden Town, Clapham Junction, and West Hampstead would see high rise (32, 22, 12 floor, depending) condos over and around the mass transit stations. The hinterlands, Wandsworth, Hampstead, et al, would remain lower density family oriented areas. As a foreigner, I continue to consider curious to consider only the extrema of very high rise buildings and uni-familiar homes. Here in Italy in cities ("citta'" which for us can be cities or largish towns) the most common building range from 4 floor ( 1950) to 8 floor. Anything higher than that will be a "skyscraper" office building. Uni-familiar or bi-familiar homes are unusual in cities, and common instead in "paesi" (small towns or villages). |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
In message
, at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 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. -- Roland Perry |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 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. At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:10:26 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 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. 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. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...
In message , at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where I am now there are plans for a further 10,000-15,000 homes on two edge of town estates, to be linked to the town centre and main-line station by a "quality" bus service. There is a political campaign (by the party not in power) against this development because it doesn't include any new "jobs". Quite how a property developer (or a local council) are supposed to magically create some local jobs is beyond me! This is a dormitory town where everyone who lives here does so because it is cheap and they commute (by train or car) to somewhere else to work. ISTM that if there is a need for local improvements it is for the development to fund a new mainline station as one of the new estates is plonk by the railway line, but do they think this is necessary? No, of course not! tim |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 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 arne, 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. At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to rural sites. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote: On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 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 arne, 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. At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to rural sites. Some "brownfield" sites are rural. Old RAF airfields for instance I believe count as brownfield for the purposes of legislation. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. Stopping public money pouring into London would help in keeping people out of the Capital. 50% of the transport budget is spent in and around London. Moving the Capital out of London would greatly help - which is well overdue. In the case of London there is ample opportunity for "Transit Oriented Development". The principle behind ToD is that the area around transit nodes is densified while the hinterland remains the domain of single family homes and other lower density housing. That is the case for many cities. The dumbos in Liverpool pretend they do not have a large urban rail network - the largest outside London. New developments do not crowd around Merseyrail stations, or new stations on the lines. The disused underground Dingle station could have been reused and been the centre of the road it is on. But Tesco built a new store way up the road because no one seemed to realize there was a station ready to be used to regenerate the district. The network has great potential to project the city forwards but they just can't see it. It needs directives from Whitehall to force cities into TOC where possible - the environment gains are substantial. The infighting of councils can be destructive. Modern eco flat developments need little heating. Also apartments must be a minimum size, as most new apartments are poky holes with little sound insulation. Also they should be forced to be Commonhold not leasehold. Only England & Wales has leasehold which is rent and money for nothing for freeloading landlords. Introducing Land Valuation Taxation and relaxing planning laws will eliminate the housing problem and no state intervention will be needed. The private sector will take up the slack and ensure housing fulfils need and stays at a high quality of build. Look at houses on the Continent and the shabby rubbish dished out in the UK. snip good stuff |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:58:14 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote: On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote: On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 77002 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 arne, 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. At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to rural sites. Some "brownfield" sites are rural. Old RAF airfields for instance I believe count as brownfield for the purposes of legislation. 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!" |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. 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 overwhelmingly against urbanisation, which is why local authorities do it by stealth. We should be making sure that empty homes are brought back into occupation (compulsorily after a year, say), and discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit to two children per family and reducing immigration to below the emigration rate. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. We should be making sure that empty homes are brought back into occupation (compulsorily after a year, say), and Agreed. 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. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Optimist wrote:
"The green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it." Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as concreting over the countryside and urban sprawl. With only about 7.5% of the land settled, we can't concrete over the countryside even if we wanted to. About two thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on open countryside. 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. In olden times this hour was on foot or on horseback, now it is in cars or on public transport. So we can't "sprawl" too far either. In England the area of greenbelt has doubled since 1980, with nearly 21 million acres absorbed in total. The UKactually has greenbelt sprawl. Greenbelts, extensively introduced in the 1950s, were intended to be narrow and primarily used for recreation by the inhabitants of the towns and cities they surrounded. The belts were expanded in width, but continued to be used for farming. The shire counties used greenbelts to hold back the disliked populations of nearby towns and cities. Recreational uses disappeared and the greenbelts became green barriers to keep large numbers of urban inhabitants from mixing with a very small number of rural residents. This is a clear case of the few exercising their will over a massive majority. Often these greenbelts were not even green, containing industry and intensive industrial agriculture. Instead of being a sports jacket for the urban dwellers geenbelts became a straight jacket.. The biggest propaganda organs a the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Alliance. Green movements like Friends of the Earth have been accused of being fronts for large landowners. Large landowners use green groups to keep the population out of the countryside. The former is an organisation formed by large landowners and the latter is funded by large landowners. Their angle is keep the status quo by keeping townies out of the countryside, and also keeping villagers in villages. A Cabinet Office report described the countryside as, "the near exclusive preserve of the more affluent sections of society." The Council for the Protection of Rural England have protected little of the character of the English countryside since world war two, despite their claims. In 1940 the German air force took photo reconnaissance photos of largely southern England. The captured photos, when compared to the ordnance survey maps of 1870, 70 years before, clearly indicated there was little difference in topology. When compared to the ordnance survey maps of today, there are vast changes. The 1947 T&C planning act just allowed landscape raping agriculturalists, who contribute no more than around 2.5% to the UK economy, to go wild. The Council for the Protection of Rural England claim to be acting in the interest of the land, wildlife and the countryside in general. This is far from the case. It is the obscene profits of large landowners they are primarily interested in, protecting little of rural England. In Medieval times 100% of all taxes came from taxes on land. Up until the late 1600s 3/4 of all taxes came from land taxes. The aristocracy peeled back taxes on land and put it onto individual people's efforts, income tax. By the mid 1800s, only 5% of taxes came from land. The shift away from comprehensively taxing land created the scourge of the modern world's economy - boom and bust. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 08:51, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:58:14 +0100, Graeme wrote: On 30/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote: On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote: On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 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 arne, 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. At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to rural sites. Some "brownfield" sites are rural. Old RAF airfields for instance I believe count as brownfield for the purposes of legislation. 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? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Graeme Wall wrote:
At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. Brownfield sites cannot scrape the surface of the housing shortfall. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 10:25, News 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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:25, News 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. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 10:36, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote: At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. Brownfield sites cannot scrape the surface of the housing shortfall. Cite? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 10:44, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 10:25, News 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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:44, News wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 10:25, News 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. Such a wayward mind. The point is supercities. Duh! |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:36, News wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre jobs. Brownfield sites cannot scrape the surface of the housing shortfall. Cite? Fool. read what I wrote. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:40 +0100
"News" wrote: Optimist wrote: "The green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it." Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as concreting over the countryside and urban sprawl. With only about 7.5% of the land settled, 7.5%? Where did you get that figure from? Do farms not count as settled? 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 Are you trolling? You can't get across london in an hour never mind Toyko or mexico city. rest of drivel snipped I'm guessing you work for a developer and/or estate agency or have some other vested interest in building sprawl. In Medieval times 100% of all taxes came from taxes on land. Up until the late 1600s 3/4 of all taxes came from land taxes. The aristocracy peeled back taxes on land and put it onto individual people's efforts, income tax. By the mid 1800s, only 5% of taxes came from land. The shift away from comprehensively taxing land created the scourge of the modern world's economy - boom and bust. Right, because there was never crop failure or animal disease which meant peasents couldn't pay the tax was there, back in those bucolic times you apparently hark back to. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
"News" wrote: 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. 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. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:40 +0100 "News" wrote: Optimist wrote: "The green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it." Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as concreting over the countryside and urban sprawl. With only about 7.5% of the land settled, 7.5%? Where did you get that figure from? Do farms not count as settled? Urban, villages, towns, cities. Kate Barker report. This may help you: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html The Supporting Links are excellent. 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 Are you trolling? You can't get across london in an hour never mind Toyko or mexico city. Central Line will take you acroos London and also the new Crossrail even quicker. Now you know. I'm guessing you work for a developer and/or estate agency or have some other vested interest in building sprawl. We can't sprawl anywhere as there is just too much land in the UK. The place is empty. In Medieval times 100% of all taxes came from taxes on land. Up until the late 1600s 3/4 of all taxes came from land taxes. The aristocracy peeled back taxes on land and put it onto individual people's efforts, income tax. By the mid 1800s, only 5% of taxes came from land. The shift away from comprehensively taxing land created the scourge of the modern world's economy - boom and bust. Right, because there was never crop failure or animal disease which meant peasents couldn't pay the tax was there, back in those bucolic times you apparently hark back to. The peasants never paid any taxes, only landowners. You must try to get the points. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0100
"News" wrote: 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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. -- Roland Perry |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 but thats by the by. So where would you build on then? Central Line will take you acroos London and also the new Crossrail even quicker. Now you know. You ever been on the central line in rush hour? I'm guessing you work for a developer and/or estate agency or have some other vested interest in building sprawl. We can't sprawl anywhere as there is just too much land in the UK. The place is empty. 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. Sure , the highlands and central wales are pretty sparse but thats about it. Right, because there was never crop failure or animal disease which meant peasents couldn't pay the tax was there, back in those bucolic times you apparently hark back to. The peasants never paid any taxes, only landowners. *boggle* History not your strong point I see. I would suggest you google the peasants revolt. B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk