On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:33:00 +0100
"News" wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
"News" wrote:
d wrote:

If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to
mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an
extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony
Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions.

Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher
reinforced this

Thanks, but I'd prefer to settle for not welcoming all the scum of
the world onto this island.

What the f**k are you on about oh senile one? Duh!!!!!

Are you 12 or something? You sound like a schoolchild.

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

On 30/08/2012 12:36, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.


London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before
the limits of the greenbelt were set, and then later local government
reorganisation came along and fused them together. It's somewhat different
from a town expanding outwards until it hit its limit.

London expanded outwards and absorbed towns and villages around it.
Those towns and villages largely expanded as dormitories dependant on
London as a source of jobs rather than the expansion being driven by
internal activity. It is debatable as to whether it has yet hit it's
limit. The political boundaries are, by definition, artificial and
don't necessarily map to the practical boundaries.


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

On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.


London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before
the limits of the greenbelt were set,

Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London"
usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity
in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than
straight on expansion makes it a more open question.

Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way.



As long as they were RTs.


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

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

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

Another Hitler fan.

I see Godwin is called upon already today.

You muppet.

You are senile.

Wow, killer putdown there.

Thank you. Fact is fact.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:37:59 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, d remarked:

With only about 7.5% of the land settled,

7.5%? Where did you get that figure from?

I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me.

Do farms not count as settled?

In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.

Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean the house
it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't count gardens
as settled land either.

B2003

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:37:59 on Thu, 30
Aug 2012, d remarked:

With only about 7.5% of the land settled,

7.5%? Where did you get that figure from?

I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me.

Do farms not count as settled?

In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.

It is best you read what I wrote before making fool of yourself.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:02 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

B2003

d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:10 +0100
"News" wrote:
Urban, villages, towns, cities. Kate Barker report. This may help
you: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html
The Supporting Links are excellent.

# Settled land - 1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass.
# Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass.
# Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m
hectares. 29.78 % of the land mass.
# Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass
# Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass.
# Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of
the land m ass.

I'd count agricultural as settled

I fallow field has people on it? Boy you are slow.

So where would
you
build on then?

All the surplus land. The UK has a land surplus.

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."

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

d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:33:00 +0100
"News" wrote:
d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
"News" wrote:
d wrote:

If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open
to mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with
housing an extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in
the world Tony Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his
mansions.

Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher
reinforced this

Thanks, but I'd prefer to settle for not welcoming all the scum of
the world onto this island.

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.

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."

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:28:41 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 30/08/2012 08:51, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:58:14 +0100, Graeme wrote:

On 30/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs arne, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old
docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard
in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre
jobs.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to
rural sites.


Some "brownfield" sites are rural. Old RAF airfields for instance I
believe count as brownfield for the purposes of legislation.

Soon fields just after ploughing will be included in the definition of "brownfield".

"Oh look! We've got all those brownfield sites! Let's build over the rest of XXXshire!"

Is that UKIP policy then?

No, that appears to be the way the thinking of the Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dem parties is going.