Discussion:
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
(too old to reply)
77002
2012-08-29 11:27:26 UTC
Permalink
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.
Giovanni Drogo
2012-08-29 12:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by 77002
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).
Roland Perry
2012-08-29 13:10:26 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by 77002
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
Graeme Wall
2012-08-29 13:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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>
Martin Edwards
2012-08-30 06:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 06:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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>
Optimist
2012-08-30 07:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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!"
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 09:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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>
Optimist
2012-08-30 13:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Optimist
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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?
No, that appears to be the way the thinking of the Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dem parties is going.
News
2012-08-30 13:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Optimist
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.
News
2012-08-30 09:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
"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.
Optimist
2012-08-30 13:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Optimist
"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.
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 13:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by News
Post by Optimist
"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.
One of the reasons planners want developers to use brownfield sites is
because they pay the cost of decontaminating the land.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
News
2012-08-30 16:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by News
Post by Optimist
"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.
Yep.
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by News
Post by Optimist
"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
News
2012-08-30 09:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
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.
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 09:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
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>
News
2012-08-30 10:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-29 14:57:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:10:26 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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
News
2012-08-30 09:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 10:41:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
Post by News
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
News
2012-08-30 11:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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!!!!!
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 12:03:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:33:00 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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!!!!!
Are you 12 or something? You sound like a schoolchild.
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
*sigh* Part of the problem was CDOs partially based on unsecured US mortgage
loans but thats not the same as land speculation and it wasn't the whole
story. I can't be arsed to argue this with a child, go read up on it.

B2003
News
2012-08-30 12:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:33:00 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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!!!!!
Are you 12 or something? You sound like a schoolchild.
"Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced
this" Only 7.5% of the land is settled.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
*sigh* Part of the problem was
Senile one, again ....
"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."
Optimist
2012-08-30 13:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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!!!!!
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
News
2012-08-30 16:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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!!!!!
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
We are in the phase of the owner/occupier. Owning land and extracting the
increased value, which the landowners did not created as it is community
created wealth, is freeloading. Cars (capital) drop in value, as do washing
machines, but house, well only the land, rise in value. We have a mentality
of freeloading. The population do not understand how the value of their
house rises (it is the land value not the bricks) but expect it to do so
every year. Parties pander to them to get their vote and bring down the
economy as a result. It is matter of change the psyche of the public that
they have no divine right to make money from nothing. Then laws can be
passed in introducing Geonomics. The LibDems are heavily into this behind
the scenes.

Look at this. This is a great overview of how the Credit Crunch came about,
although David Harvey does not go into land that much, but it is clearly in
the ring in banks using it as collateral. Thatcher is well in there in the
lead up in off-shoring to suppress labour costs - rigging the free-market:

Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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
tim.....
2012-08-29 15:11:22 UTC
Permalink
"Roland Perry" wrote in message news:***@perry.co.uk...

In message
Post by 77002
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
Martin Edwards
2012-08-30 06:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by 77002
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
Roland Perry
2012-08-30 07:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Roland Perry
Post by 77002
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
Optimist
2012-08-30 07:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Roland Perry
Post by 77002
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.
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 09:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Roland Perry
Post by 77002
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>
Optimist
2012-08-30 13:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Optimist
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Roland Perry
Post by 77002
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.
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 13:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Optimist
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Roland Perry
Post by 77002
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>
News
2012-08-30 16:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:51 +0100, Graeme
Post by Graeme Wall
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Roland Perry
Post by 77002
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.
News
2012-08-30 16:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Optimist
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.
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Optimist
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Roland Perry
Post by 77002
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
News
2012-08-30 07:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by 77002
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.
Post by 77002
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.
Post by 77002
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 >
Optimist
2012-08-30 08:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by 77002
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.
Post by 77002
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 08:46:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:09:54 +0100
Post by Optimist
Post by News
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.
Post by Optimist
We should be making sure that empty homes are brought back into occupation
(compulsorily after a year, say), and
Agreed.
Post by Optimist
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
Optimist
2012-08-30 09:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:09:54 +0100
Post by Optimist
Post by News
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.
Post by Optimist
We should be making sure that empty homes are brought back into occupation
(compulsorily after a year, say), and
Agreed.
Post by Optimist
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
Labour's attitude to open spaces is best summed up by John Prescott in a radio interview in January 1998 :

"The green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it."
News
2012-08-30 09:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
"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 are: 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.
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 09:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
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>
News
2012-08-30 09:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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.
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 09:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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>
News
2012-08-30 09:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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!
Tim Roll-Pickering
2012-08-30 11:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2012-08-30 11:58:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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.


G.Harman
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 12:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Charles Ellson
2012-08-30 22:17:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:40 +0100, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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.
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 12:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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. The political boundaries are, by definition, artificial and
don't necessarily map to the practical boundaries.
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
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.
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.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 12:46:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:02 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
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.

B2003
Tim Roll-Pickering
2012-08-30 13:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Graeme Wall
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
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 13:25:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Graeme Wall
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 :o)

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

B2003
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 07:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Graeme Wall
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 :o)
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
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 13:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Graeme Wall
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.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Charles Ellson
2012-08-30 22:18:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:29:29 +0100, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Graeme Wall
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.
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Graeme Wall
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
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 13:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:02 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
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>
News
2012-08-30 13:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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.
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 13:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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>
News
2012-08-30 16:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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!
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 19:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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>
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 07:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by News
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
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 10:37:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:40 +0100
Post by News
Post by Optimist
"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?
Post by News
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.
Post by News
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
News
2012-08-30 11:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:40 +0100
Post by News
Post by Optimist
"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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 12:01:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:10 +0100
Post by News
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?
Post by News
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?
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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
News
2012-08-30 12:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:10 +0100
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
So where would
you
build on then?
All the surplus land. The UK has a land surplus.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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?
Focus please. "Central Line will take you acroos London [in les than a hour]
and also the new Crossrail even quicker. Now you know."
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
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.

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

< snip drivel >
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 13:22:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:56:50 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:10 +0100
Post by News
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?
Post by News
All the surplus land. The UK has a land surplus.
Really? Where?
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
You ever been on the central line in rush hour?
Focus please.
Thats a "no" is it?
Post by News
"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.
Post by News
and also the new Crossrail even quicker. Now you know."
Crossrail doesn't exist yet.
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
Post by News
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
News
2012-08-30 16:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:56:50 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:10 +0100
Post by News
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
< snip total senile drivel >
Roland Perry
2012-08-30 12:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Do farms not count as settled?
In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 12:43:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.

B2003
News
2012-08-30 13:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 13:27:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:07:09 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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. Even
the hills are used for sheep farming. And don't give me that "we can spare
some agricultural land" crap. We can't. We're reliant enough on food imports
as it is.

B2003
News
2012-08-30 16:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:07:09 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
Charles Ellson
2012-08-30 22:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:07:09 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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*
Roland Perry
2012-08-30 14:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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?
--
Roland Perry
Optimist
2012-08-30 15:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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. We cannot
rely solely on imports, as the population rises in countries that normally export their surpluses. Soylent Green,
anyone? Land is also required for recreation and nature (unless you want to destroy national parks), transport, schools
and hospitals, shops, offices and factories, mines, reservoirs.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 15:51:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100
Post by Optimist
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 all pre packaged and labelled.
Post by Optimist
rely solely on imports, as the population rises in countries that normally expo
rt their surpluses. Soylent Green,
Given the droughts in eastern europe and the USA this year...

B2003
Graeme Wall
2012-08-30 15:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100
Post by Optimist
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 all pre packaged and labelled.
Where can I get a prepackaged pixie?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
News
2012-08-30 17:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100
Post by Optimist
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
Roland Perry
2012-08-30 16:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by Roland Perry
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
I'll ask questions like that when we get closer to understanding what
the percentages mean.
Post by Optimist
Land is also required for recreation and nature (unless you want to destroy national parks), transport, schools
and hospitals, shops, offices and factories, mines, reservoirs.
Are all that lot included in the 2.5% (or the 7.5%) genuine question.
--
Roland Perry
News
2012-08-30 17:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by Roland Perry
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
News
2012-08-30 17:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
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?
Does it matter! The percentage is still miniscule.
Roland Perry
2012-08-30 18:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Roland Perry
Post by News
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
Roland Perry
2012-08-30 14:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
You can count the farmhouse's garden (if it has one), but not the
fields, because they are a business.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 15:46:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:53:01 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
You can count the farmhouse's garden (if it has one), but not the
fields, because they are a business.
So? Don't office blocks count as settled land then? If not then most of central
london is available for housing.

B2003
Roland Perry
2012-08-30 16:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
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.
You can count the farmhouse's garden (if it has one), but not the
fields, because they are a business.
So? Don't office blocks count as settled land then?
I was merely remarking that a farmer's fields probably *aren't* within
this definition of "settled".

Whether office blocks etc *are* within is a good question. Over to the
man who first produced the numbers...
--
Roland Perry
News
2012-08-30 12:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by News
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.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Do farms not count as settled?
In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.
It is best you read what I wrote before making fool of yourself.
News
2012-08-30 09:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:09:54 +0100
Post by Optimist
Post by News
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.
Idiot, I am no lefty. But clearly no brainwashed right-wing sycophant. I
gave the FACTS and percentage of land usage in the UK. The UK IS EMPTY! I
am sure your brainwashing forced you to forget them immediately. Do you doff
your cap at the Toffs?
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Optimist
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 10:33:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Optimist
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
News
2012-08-30 11:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Optimist
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.
b***@boltar.world
2012-08-30 11:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Optimist
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
News
2012-08-30 12:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Optimist
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.
Thank you. Fact is fact.
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 07:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
Post by News
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Optimist
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
Martin Edwards
2012-08-31 06:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:09:54 +0100
Post by Optimist
Post by News
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
News
2012-08-30 09:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Optimist
Post by News
Post by 77002
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.
Post by 77002
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%.
Post by Optimist
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.
Post by Optimist
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.
Post by Optimist
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/papers/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."
Post by Optimist
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.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...