We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What percentage of England is "overcrowded"?
Comments
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Except the government just changed the planning rules so that significantly more land will be available for housing.
Scotland's trajectory shows a lack of ambition.
But you haven't answered the question.
How much of the 2.27% of England that is built on, do you think is currently "overcrowded"?
But that's not the point is it? In Hertfordshire, I attended a focus meeting organised on development. I'm not against more planned development here, but the big issue is that there has to be infrastructure in place to support it. We're already in a county where the traffic patterns are 15 years ahead of what is experienced in the rest of the country*. We're behind the curve in terms of what we need because of years of procrastination, but we both know that what will be required in London and the South East will be well in advance of 19% more.
As you've already shown, there's plenty of room for development in Aberdeen, but when I'm stuck in a traffic jam for 30 minutes trying to get into an old town with a pre-car road network and not a lot of scope to develop I really don't see where you can put that many more houses. Yes the population density in Aberdeen is relatively high (of course, it is a city, albeit a small one), but once you get out into Aberdeenshire you have 000s of sq km, literally for expansion. The population of Aberdeen + Aberdeenshire is just over 450k. The population of Hertfordshire is about 1.12m, in about 1/10th of the land mass. So no, I don't see things the same way as you on this one, nor will I ever.
*ETA: should have mentioned 15 years ahead of traffic plans on average. Clearly London and other areas of SE also have issues here.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
I was observing life from the top deck of a number 5 London bus earlier today and all I could think was, how can people live in such cramped conditions? No space, miniscule gardens (if that) of extortionately expensive housing stock set on dirty streets.Value-for-money-for-me-puhleeze!
"No man is worth, crawling on the earth"- adapted from Bob Crewe and Bob Gaudio
Hope is not a strategy
...A child is for life, not just 18 years....Don't get me started on the NHS, because you won't win...I love chaz-ing!0 -
It all depends on how you look at it currently England is the most overcrowded country in Europe if you look at people per square mile.0
-
vivatifosi wrote: »I really don't see where you can put that many more houses.
I've found a good place to start is usually all the empty spaces between towns.
Having looked on a satellite map as well, it seems doubtful that even tiny little Hertfordshire, with it's million or so people, is much more than 30% urban space, with maybe half that built on.Yes the population density in Aberdeen is relatively high (of course, it is a city, albeit a small one), but once you get out into Aberdeenshire you have 000s of sq km, literally for expansion.
The same thing holds true of most cities in the UK.
There are vast open spaces, and indeed existing cheap housing, within a 45 min drive of almost every city in Britain.So no, I don't see things the same way as you on this one, nor will I ever.
I'd think the same way if I lived in Hertfordshire.
Because I know full well that the vast majority of space in Hertfordshire is not built on, as is the case in most of the UK.
By all means build more transport infrastructure. It's absurd that NIMBY's have blocked roads and rail for decades now..... but we simply can't afford to limit our growth because of it.
So build away, and when those 30 minute traffic jams turn into an hour or two hours, then eventually the NIMBYS will be forced to concede, or outvoted by more rational folks who see the need to upgrade road and rail capacity.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
What is the definition of overcrowded?0
-
What is the definition of overcrowded?
Up to you I suppose.
Tell me ILW, what percentage of the 2.27% of built up land in England do you think is overcrowded?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
It all depends on how you look at it currently England is the most overcrowded country in Europe if you look at people per square mile.
No it isn't.
Not even close.
Malta has the highest population density in Europe by far. England is similar to Holland or Belgium. Britain as a whole ranks well behind both.
London doesn't even make the top 50 most densely populated cities in Europe, let alone the World.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Given the shift to internet shopping, it makes sense to convert a lot of redundant retail space to residential.
This I completely agree with - I think 'brown field' sites should be a priority for new residential developments.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I've found a good place to start is usually all the empty spaces between towns.
How attractive is this likely to be in reality? As it gets more expensive to fill up the car, it doesn't seem to make much financial sense to move to a new estate in the middle of nowhere, where you have to travel however far to do your grocery shopping/ get to work etc. (I'm not thinking of people who have a truly rural lifestyle here, more people who would have rather lived in a town but have ended up in this development as perhaps it is a little cheaper than living in an established town).
Having said that remote working could be helpful here (but then also opens up the jobs to people who remain based in other countries/continents).
Also who owns these empty spaces? Farmers? I personally think we should be looking to become more self-sufficient as a country and less reliant on imports (food and energy) rather than less.0 -
The fact that a good proportion of the land isn't readily developable, mountains, moors, bogs etc. Good proportions are in high risk flood zones and behind inadequate sea defences. We have land erosion.
We need land for arable crops and pasture/animals. We need to be come more self sufficient we can't keep shipping produce all round the world, it will become unaffordable soon.
We need land to soak up the rainfall before it hits river valleys at a torrent sweeping all and sundry away. We need clean water catchment areas to fill resevoirs and aquifers.
We will need land for ever more windmills, landfill and incineration. We need land to extract minerals and soon to be fracking. We have redundant land as a result of such activity.
There are large areas of no demand. Develop remote areas and then high transport costs make them unviable in addition to infrastructure construction and th environmental consequences.
So more than 2.5% of truly available/viable land is used.
It is time to shift the areas of demand. I am sure concreteing over lots of Hertfordshire would have many more unforeseen consequences but why bother worrying about those eh?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Also who owns these empty spaces? Farmers? I personally think we should be looking to become more self-sufficient as a country and less reliant on imports (food and energy) rather than less.
Time to get fracking then.
And from the other thread....
Even if we doubled our current population, we'd only need to go from having 2% of England "concreted over" to 4% of England "concreted over".
How can you describe 4% as being "the lot of it"?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards