Millipede promises to drive stake through heart of Middle England support base

cells

nickj wrote: »

how much of that land can you actually build on , we've seen places where houses have been buitl on flood plains , you build more houses you'll have more flooding
on the other hand the south east water supply come mostly from underground qualifiers , concrete over the fields means that there's less land to soak uo the rain , but at the same time you are increasing demand , at the last water shortage it only took a few months without rain and the aquifiers and reservoirs were seriously depleted
where i live there's lot's of construction work going on at the local town , the centre of the town is the equivalent of being at the bottom of a funnel , there are hills surrounding the town which are gradually being built over and then everyone is surprised when after a heavy down pour there's flooding

All of that has happened with the current system with councils by and large dictating where buildings should be constructed.

Trying to equate a higher build rate with lower quility locations or lower quility builds is just propaganda.

A much better system would be to allow permitted building on the lines of permitted development. Ie you don't wven need to apply for planning permission if your build neets the criteria set out in permitted building. In that you can have minimum size and standards. Minimum distances from adjoining homes. Minimum distance to roads and eg shops schools etc. Even a guid design framework. Eg in location A you van only use brick of color x etc. That way the country can build as many as required without putting an artifical limit in it

cells

N1AK wrote: »

I generally get the train to London when I go for work but I regularly use the M25 to get around London to visit sites.

I'm all for trying to drive growth in other areas (though frankly it's naive to think London won't still need some housing growth). The question is how and who has the political will to do it? So for example a plan might include:

• A new large international airport between Birmingham and Manchester
• HS2 pushed through ASAP with links to the new airport and Heathrow
• A new mega port in or near Liverpool
• Major rail and road investment between Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham
• A new economic development zone with cut taxes for businesses coming there

It'll cost a couple of hundred billion pounds, take a decade or two and be incredibly unpopular to the rural areas involved.

A similar plan could be considered for Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield with a port on the humber. With Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough.

All silly ideas.

People congregate together becuase it is more productive.

Moscow is more densely populated than London evwn those those Russians have a land masss as large as a whole continent. Why don't they all spread out? ?

The only way to 'spread the wealth' is to form a city larger than London somewhere in England. Eg expand Birmingham to be a 15 milliom city rather than 1 million. That way new busineas start ups will opt for Birmingham instead of London for the same reason they opt for London over other cities now...to be as close as possible to the largest number of customers.

A port or train line in another part of the country qill not unseat London as the olace to base a new business. Even tax inventives will not work becuase there is already a huge incentive. A 100sqm store in central london paya £500k in business tax while a 100sqm store in Blackburn oays £500

Its just more sane to accept that the largest concentration of people, eg London is where most new businesses want to be based and ia where the highest paid jobs will be. There is no way to counter it. if anything accept the productivity of mega cities and allow London to grow to 10m and even beyond

michaels

cells wrote: »

All silly ideas.

People congregate together becuase it is more productive.

Moscow is more densely populated than London evwn those those Russians have a land masss as large as a whole continent. Why don't they all spread out? ?

The only way to 'spread the wealth' is to form a city larger than London somewhere in England. Eg expand Birmingham to be a 15 milliom city rather than 1 million. That way new busineas start ups will opt for Birmingham instead of London for the same reason they opt for London over other cities now...to be as close as possible to the largest number of customers.

A port or train line in another part of the country qill not unseat London as the olace to base a new business. Even tax inventives will not work becuase there is already a huge incentive. A 100sqm store in central london paya £500k in business tax while a 100sqm store in Blackburn oays £500

Its just more sane to accept that the largest concentration of people, eg London is where most new businesses want to be based and ia where the highest paid jobs will be. There is no way to counter it. if anything accept the productivity of mega cities and allow London to grow to 10m and even beyond

And the market does create a mechanism to spread the wealth - London is so expensive the investing in housing becomes a surogate pension and that pension is realised by downsizing to the coutry/coast on retirement where wealth is then spent on local services.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

There are plenty of places in London with the space

About 700km2 inside the m25 is empty fields rhat alone is enough space to build 3 million homes (london currently has 3.5m homes)

also the transport issue is a red herring.
Build a million homes and add a million people to London. Those million people aren't all going to work in central London. Adding a million people will add close to zero additional jobs to central London becuase central London caters for the whole nation and even other parts of the world. Hence doubling London does not double the jobs in centeal London.

Also a big reason for the peak time teavil blues is exactly because there isn't enough homea in centeal London. Centeal Paris is built at a home density of 20k people per sqkm while inner London ia built at a figure less than half of that.

Add a million homes to inner London and you can cut train bus and tube miles by billions of miles a year as people walk or rake shorter journeys

Are those fields in inner London from what I can see most are outside in areas with poor transport links. Even if the jobs are not in central London the road and rail networks is stretched to the limit and almost all the rail lines go into central London with very few going around.

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

I generally get the train to London when I go for work but I regularly use the M25 to get around London to visit sites.

I'm all for trying to drive growth in other areas (though frankly it's naive to think London won't still need some housing growth). The question is how and who has the political will to do it? So for example a plan might include:

• A new large international airport between Birmingham and Manchester
• HS2 pushed through ASAP with links to the new airport and Heathrow
• A new mega port in or near Liverpool
• Major rail and road investment between Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham
• A new economic development zone with cut taxes for businesses coming there

It'll cost a couple of hundred billion pounds, take a decade or two and be incredibly unpopular to the rural areas involved.

A similar plan could be considered for Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield with a port on the humber. With Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough.

I agree it would be very difficult to drive the growth to other areas and I'm not saying that there should be no building in London or the surrounding areas. I'm not totally apposed to building on some green belt but it needs to be planned carefully and the required infrastructure needs to be put in place. If past experience is anything to go by that is not what will happen.

N1AK

cells wrote: »

All silly ideas.

People congregate together becuase it is more productive.

Moscow is more densely populated than London evwn those those Russians have a land masss as large as a whole continent. Why don't they all spread out? ?

A stupid and incorrect point

America has 5 large cities within a very small region of the North East of the country.

China has Shenzen, Guangzhou, Donguan and Hong Kong in one quite small area while Beijing and Shanghai are miles away but also have large cities near them.

Germanies largest city is Berlin but the North Rhine-Westphalia state includes 4 of the largest cities in the country.

You can't draw any conclusions on city development and population migration based on one other country or even a small selection and to think you can is naive.


People move where there is work, and to some extent work moves to the people. If work magically followed people then the Northern towns that died when mines were closed would still be thriving because they had people

As to the idea that incentives don't work. I'd suggest you do even a modicum of reading into how exactly that process has been used by Korea, China, Malaysia, Singapore, USA, Canada, UAE and dozens of others as part of long term plans to broaden and grow their economies.

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not totally apposed to building on some green belt but it needs to be planned carefully and the required infrastructure needs to be put in place. If past experience is anything to go by that is not what will happen.

The point is that you are, by definition for:
1/ Building a million+ of homes in south east in the next few years
2/ Massive overcrowding and property inflation in the South East
3/ In favour of destroying the economy by forcing us into net emmigration
4/ In favour of some alternative, rapid and likely vastly expensive/politically unpopular plan to solve the issue

Most people in my experience are supporting 2/ or 3/ because they either refuse to build but won't think about the consequences or blame everything on immigration and don't realise that aggressively cutting it will trash the economy.

So what's our cunning 4th alternative?

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Are those fields in inner London from what I can see most are outside in areas with poor transport links. Even if the jobs are not in central London the road and rail networks is stretched to the limit and almost all the rail lines go into central London with very few going around.

Peak time travel into the centre is congested

Non peak times public transport is sparsely used. Ive been on buses that can seat a hundred with just me and the driver. I've been in tube carriages that hold 200? at capacity with just me and one or two others.

Adding more people to London isn't going to much increase peak time travel into central London because adding a million people to London does not add half a million jobs to the industries in central London.

As for the roads. Again its largely a peak time problem. Also it makea no sense for TFL to vw in chargw of London roada imo they screw up roads ob purpose to force more people onto thw tube and buses.

However as noted before. If you build mire in central London theb you qill reduce miles traviled and the stress that places onto the roads and rails. Build 500k homes in inner London and you have 1 million workers within walking/cycling distance of the centre eather than living 30 miles away in some 'commuter town'

You will here no doubt pounce and cey there is no space in inner London. However look at Hackney they have added about 25% to their housing stock over the last 14 years. If all of inner London had done the same london would today have 400k more homes close to the centre

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

The point is that you are, by definition for:
1/ Building a million+ of homes in south east in the next few years
2/ Massive overcrowding and property inflation in the South East
3/ In favour of destroying the economy by forcing us into net emmigration
4/ In favour of some alternative, rapid and likely vastly expensive/politically unpopular plan to solve the issue

Most people in my experience are supporting 2/ or 3/ because they either refuse to build but won't think about the consequences or blame everything on immigration and don't realise that aggressively cutting it will trash the economy.

So what's our cunning 4th alternative?

I'm not sure there is any plan that will bring London house prices down to a level where (for want of a better word) ordinary people can afford to buy. As you say what is that magical 4th plan

cells

N1AK wrote: »

A stupid and incorrect point

America has 5 large cities within a very small region of the North East of the country.

China has Shenzen, Guangzhou, Donguan and Hong Kong in one quite small area while Beijing and Shanghai are miles away but also have large cities near them.

Germanies largest city is Berlin but the North Rhine-Westphalia state includes 4 of the largest cities in the country.

You can't draw any conclusions on city development and population migration based on one other country or even a small selection and to think you can is naive.

People move where there is work, and to some extent work moves to the people. If work magically followed people then the Northern towns that died when mines were closed would still be thriving because they had people

As to the idea that incentives don't work. I'd suggest you do even a modicum of reading into how exactly that process has been used by Korea, China, Malaysia, Singapore, USA, Canada, UAE and dozens of others as part of long term plans to broaden and grow their economies.

I didn't say the work moves to the people I said new business will opt where possible to be as close to as many customers as possible.

In the uk that meana London becuase it is home to 8.5 million customers wirh another 10 million not far away.

In other countries the largeat city isn't the capital amd the largeat city has this magnetic effect not the smaller capital.

Alao I have looked at other rich countries and guess what they are all highly urbanised none of thwm arw rural only poor nations arw not urbanised.

A country like china or India isn't comparable bwcuase they are more like twenty countries. they can and do have multiple mega cities.

England cannot have two london sized cities and certainly you can't magic up london mark 2 overnight it would take 50-100 years.

What is certain is that urbanisation equals more wealth as its more productive. Your only question theb remains does england have onw mwga ciry or two. Wven if you want a second one its gona take many decades. A port in Liverpool isn't goinf to magically propell it past London. A high speed teaib line to Manchester isn't going to five Manchester all the high paid jobs. The wealth qill be qith the megacity