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

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

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

Where in central London do you propose to build.


PS you are going to have to do something about your typing as your posts are getting very difficult to read.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

Past experience has been with the current system ubless your old enough to remember pre 1947 construction

Let the builders build where they deem fit if they don't plan it well they can't sell the homes. If they plan it well they can sell and sell at a good price.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Where in central London do you propose to build.

PS you are going to have to do something about your typing as your posts are getting very difficult to read.

Inner London not just central London

Hackney is a good example.
She knocked down old stock and built more units at better quality
Per capita Hackney over the last 15 years has built at French type levels
She is also now one of the most densely populated boroughs now
So where there is a will there is a way.

The other 20 or so inner London boroughs can do the same.
In some boroughs MORE THAN 50% of the homes are social estates

The Hackney model could add circa 400k homes to inner London.

Outer London has no problen it can add many millions rhere is plenty of space

N1AK

cells wrote: »

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

Wrong again, Quelle surprise!, cities have a magnetic affect and that is actually more true in developing countries than developed ones. People do not simply look on the map for the largest city and go there as would be incredibly obvious to you if you looked at the real world.

There are multiple cities growing faster than London in the UK. New York isn't even close to the fastest growing city in America. People move to vibrant cities where their are jobs and prospects, obviously a large proportion of large cities today fit that category but it's still naive to think it is purely being the largest that defines where people move.

Manchester is already growing very nicely, so why not turbo boost it and the other surrounding cities to spread the load?

MFW_ASAP

cells wrote: »

Inner London not just central London

Hackney is a good example.
She knocked down old stock and built more units at better quality
Per capita Hackney over the last 15 years has built at French type levels
She is also now one of the most densely populated boroughs now
So where there is a will there is a way.

The other 20 or so inner London boroughs can do the same.
In some boroughs MORE THAN 50% of the homes are social estates

The Hackney model could add circa 400k homes to inner London.

Outer London has no problen it can add many millions rhere is plenty of space

Knock down 2 or 3 storey buildings that have been converted to housing and put up high rise purpose built apartments (and not the cheap, crappy stuff built in the 70s which gave them a bad name).

I'm talking about buildings of the same quality as Beetham_Tower in Manchester. £165k for a 1 bedroom apartment in there:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38286104.html

michaels

N1AK wrote: »

Wrong again, Quelle surprise!, cities have a magnetic affect and that is actually more true in developing countries than developed ones. People do not simply look on the map for the largest city and go there as would be incredibly obvious to you if you looked at the real world.

There are multiple cities growing faster than London in the UK. New York isn't even close to the fastest growing city in America. People move to vibrant cities where their are jobs and prospects, obviously a large proportion of large cities today fit that category but it's still naive to think it is purely being the largest that defines where people move.

Manchester is already growing very nicely, so why not turbo boost it and the other surrounding cities to spread the load?

Manchester and Birmingham airports already run at a small precentage of capacity - will adding more airport capacity to the region do anything other than add a white elephant? - look what happened in Spain with all the infracructure that was built but never used.

In France the high-speed rail lines appear to have pulled business from the regional cities into Paris.

Road_Hog

N1AK wrote: »

So what's your cunning alternative?

It doesn't have to be cunning, it is very simple.


Stop immigration, except for specific jobs where we have a skills shortage.


There aren't enough jobs for those that already live here (we have about 4 million unemployed, underemployed or stuck on some government scheme). There isn't enough housing, school places or NHS places.


We don't need more people. The indigenous birthrate is 1.6, it would need to be 2.1 to maintain the current population.


They don't build land anymore, we only have so much and there does come a time, where we say, we have enough people.


There may be some land left, but unfortunately nobody wants to go and live in Scotland or Wales, they all want to live in the South East or the Midlands.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I'mpopulation sincwthere 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

Oh how we forget recent history

London 1951 had 8.2 million people
Fast forward to 1991 and it had 6.9 million people
During those 40 years London lost 1.3 million people but importantly it still built homes about 800,000 more homes.

Such that in 1991 London had more homes per capita than all the other regions in England.

Aa such to buy a home in London in the eaely to mid 90s was affordable.

You could buy an ex council 4 bed flat in inner London eg Hackney for £20k as an uncle of mine did in the early 1990s

Fast forward to 2013 and the popularion since 1991 has gone up by 1.4 million yet only about 0.3m homes have been built. As such London niw has the least homes per head of any othr region and as a result homes are expensive. That £20k flat now costs £400k

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Oh how we forget recent history

London 1951 had 8.2 million people
Fast forward to 1991 and it had 6.9 million people
During those 40 years London lost 1.3 million people but importantly it still built homes about 800,000 more homes.

Such that in 1991 London had more homes per capita than all the other regions in England.

Aa such to buy a home in London in the eaely to mid 90s was affordable.

You could buy an ex council 4 bed flat in inner London eg Hackney for £20k as an uncle of mine did in the early 1990s

Fast forward to 2013 and the popularion since 1991 has gone up by 1.4 million yet only about 0.3m homes have been built. As such London niw has the least homes per head of any othr region and as a result homes are expensive. That £20k flat now costs £400k

Probably the only time since war and that is in one of the no so good boroughs. The Property was cheap in the 90s for more reasons than the population at the time.


It's one thing saying you can build and it's another saying to can demolish existing stock and build at a higher density. If the property was of a good design and standard that would be a good idea but it's not going to happen especially in the gentrified boroughs.

N1AK

Road_Hog wrote: »

It doesn't have to be cunning, it is very simple.


Stop immigration, except for specific jobs where we have a skills shortage.

It does have to be cunning, because invariably the simple ones turn out to be obviously flawed. In this case a prime example of the third option I mentioned in the same post and you seem somehow to have missed.

3/ In favour of destroying the economy by forcing us into net emigration

Our entire economic model is based upon expanding the number of workers by immigration. You can't stop that without a fundamental change in economic plan, and by this I mean vast increase in taxes or additional huge cuts to services.

If someone suggested killing anyone who makes it to 75 and heavily restricting immigration then I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd have to accept that might be economically feasible (not politically or realistically mind). Just saying cut immigration is about as informative as saying we should mine to the centre of the earth and sell the unobtanium we find there to fund retirement and world peace.