What percentage of England is "overcrowded"?

Nikkster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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"?

I was just being 'ambitious'

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

But that is because there are more flats in those cities where do you suggest they build those houses in London Regents park maybe.

How far do you consider a 45min drive is in the London suburbs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am sure concreteing over lots of Hertfordshire would have many more unforeseen consequences

Well one of the consequences of fully concreting over tiny little old Hertfordshire, is that if you did so, you could provide more housing than the entire UK will need for population growth in the next 20 years.

In just one tiny area measuring far less than 1% of the size of the UK..... You could build enough housing for the entire country's population growth for two decades.

Remarkable.

Not that we'll ever need to do so of course, as most people would want to live somewhere else. And even if you doubled the population of Hertfordshire, you would still have the vast majority of it unbuilt on and left as natural space.

But it's an interesting example nonetheless.

Graham_Devon

Empty space is fantastic.

But you can't live in it.

You can only live in areas where housing and infrastructure has been built, therefore, the percentage of land built on is neither here nor there. Not unless backed up with a plan to actually use it.

I fail to see the point of the OP, other than "look we have all this land, we can allow loads more people into the country".

If you are going to define overcrowded, you need to look at the available infrastructure, and look to see how that is used....not the amount of land.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well one of the consequences of fully concreting over tiny little old Hertfordshire, is that if you did so, you could provide more housing than the entire UK will need for population growth in the next 20 years.

In just one tiny area measuring far less than 1% of the size of the UK..... You could build enough housing for the entire country's population growth for two decades.

Remarkable.

Not that we'll ever need to do so of course, as most people would want to live somewhere else. And even if you doubled the population of Hertfordshire, you would still have the vast majority of it unbuilt on and left as natural space.

But it's an interesting example nonetheless.

Being 500 miles away it is of no concern to you so it is of no consequence.;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I fail to see the point of the OP

I fail to see the point of people describing a country that is 97.5% empty as "full up" or "overcrowded"

But they do...

If you are going to define overcrowded, you need to look at the available infrastructure, and look to see how that is used....not the amount of land.

We have more than enough empty space to build whatever infrastructure we need.

[Deleted User]

Hi,

I just think England is 100% too much, except for 6 relations I've got in Greater Manchester.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We have more than enough empty space to build whatever infrastructure we need.

It one thing having space to build infrastructure but that space needs to be where it is needed.

The trains into London are very overcrowded and there is no easy was of increasing the capacity and as it can easily take over an hour to drive 10 miles cars are not an alternative.

The 10 lane M25 around Heathrow is often at a standstill so wouldn't it be better to try and relocate some of the work and people outside of the southeast.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I fail to see the point of people describing a country that is 97.5% empty as "full up" or "overcrowded"

They are talking about the infrastructure Hamish.

No one is seriously saying the land mass is overcrowded, and I fail to see how you have taken it that people are.

Unless of course you are just being awkward.

It's alright sitting there and saying "yer, but you can build on it"...but that misses another point...and I can't believe you are are dumb enough (after all the talk of your amazing IQ) that you believe it's as simple as "just build".

As I say, for a man with your own confessed IQ, you do come across as rather naive.

It's like campaign against the 3rd runway at heaththrow by saying "theres plenty of space for planes in the sky". That's about as much use to the planes wanting to land as it is saying "theres loads of empty land" to all those who need a house or all those stuck on congested roads.

sheffield_lad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Hang on if we take out small islands, principalities etc we (England), are the 6th most over populated in the WORLD not just Europe.

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/what-have-immigrants-ever-done-for-us/is-the-ukengland-the-most-densely-populated-country-in-the-world/