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

N1AK

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

This is one point I actually completely agree with. You could certainly add a couple of hundred thousand houses to inner London if we wanted to. At the same time we need to look at spreading the work out over a wider area rather than being so focused on the centre of inner London which is causing the transport bottlenecks.

I'd much rather that we made better use of the land we're already using, remaining brown field sites etc than just pave over the countryside because it is is easier; that said, being pragmatic means accepting that we'd still see hundreds of thousands of houses built near London as well.

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

I'm not so sure. There's still plenty of bits of inner London that could take more housing. Greenwich is going to increase considerably anyway. Kensington & Chelsea is already the highest population density area and it's hardly a slum now is it

If Greenwich ended up with the same population density as K&C that would mean 400,000 more people living in Greenwich alone :beer:

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

I'm not so sure. There's still plenty of bits of inner London that could take more housing. Greenwich is going to increase considerably anyway. Kensington & Chelsea is already the highest population density area and it's hardly a slum now is it

If Greenwich ended up with the same population density as K&C that would mean 400,000 more people living in Greenwich alone :beer:

I'm sure in could be done and in many ways it's the best solution, but that doesn't mean there is the will to do it. If it did happen there would still me a need for more affordable housing as I don't think it would reduce prices to where someone below average earnings could buy.

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

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.

Probably an exaggeration too far?

A better immigration policy could be part of the solution. One where we import economically productive labour and decline the services of the rest. Feeling flush whilst in London the other day I splashed out and bought a sandwich in Pret - not a single employee was British. Do we really need to import people to work in sandwich shops and provide additional benefits like access to the NHS, working tax credits and the like?

The whole country contributes, as far as I see, to help ensure that Londoners keep a lid on their coffee and sandwich costs.

Immigration is part of the solution but badly managed immigration is also part of the problem.

cells

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?

Your talking crap

How many new compabies have started up in london over the last 5 years vs Manchester?

Its a simple fact. New businesses favour being close to customers rather than far away and the largest concentration of customes in a given area in England is London.

Thay doesn't mean every new business will want to go set up in London. It just means enough will favour it such that london becomes the nations biggest city and once thw biggest city it will likely stay as such for the samw reason.

If you want to disproveithis rather than sporting 'your wrong your wrong you are' why not list a plave qhere the second or third city has taken over the firat city? ??????

For each one you can find ill fins you ten qhere it haa bit happebes. Here are two straight away for free. London and Paris

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

Probably an exaggeration too far?

A better immigration policy could be part of the solution. One where we import economically productive labour and decline the services of the rest. Feeling flush whilst in London the other day I splashed out and bought a sandwich in Pret - not a single employee was British. Do we really need to import people to work in sandwich shops and provide additional benefits like access to the NHS, working tax credits and the like?

The whole country contributes, as far as I see, to help ensure that Londoners keep a lid on their coffee and sandwich costs.

Immigration is part of the solution but badly managed immigration is also part of the problem.

Not entirely. You for example, make a more nuanced case for the limitation of immigration which has value. Simply saying we should stop the vast majority of immigration (without expecting the economic apocalypse) doesn't have that virtue.

I'd rather pay for a Pole who comes here, works and pays taxes to get healthcare than some !!!!less native who has decided to live on benefits. The fact that the pole is also less likely to stay here and consume services in old age makes me like them even more by comparison.

Ultimately there is a reason why there are Brits unemployed while other people are coming to this country and getting jobs and it isn't the foreigner that's to blame.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

You miss the point entirely

London had a good supply of homes in 1991 and prices were affordable

The reason they had a good supply is that they both built a good supply between 1951-1991 and the population decreased a lot during the same time.

As such the occupancy rate in London was lower than the other regions of England lower than Scotland lower than Wales and even lower than France.

The conclusion is thus simple if you want affordability to rerirn to 19991 levels tou need to go back to an occupancy rate in London of what it was back then ie about 2.0

Rhat meana righr now this instance lindon would need to create 700k bew homes and sprwad the existing population ibto those homes. If that happened prices would be fae far morw affordable

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

You miss the point entirely

London had a good supply of homes in 1991 and prices were affordable

The reason they had a good supply is that they both built a good supply between 1951-1991 and the population decreased a lot during the same time.

As such the occupancy rate in London was lower than the other regions of England lower than Scotland lower than Wales and even lower than France.

The conclusion is thus simple if you want affordability to rerirn to 19991 levels tou need to go back to an occupancy rate in London of what it was back then ie about 2.0

Rhat meana righr now this instance lindon would need to create 700k bew homes and sprwad the existing population ibto those homes. If that happened prices would be fae far morw affordable

Nothing to do with the fact that the house market was in the biggest slump it has been in since war.

N1AK

cells wrote: »

Your talking crap

How many new compabies have started up in london over the last 5 years vs Manchester?

Its a simple fact. New businesses favour being close to customers rather than far away and the largest concentration of customes in a given area in England is London.

Thay doesn't mean every new business will want to go set up in London. It just means enough will favour it such that london becomes the nations biggest city and once thw biggest city it will likely stay as such for the samw reason.

If you want to disproveithis rather than sporting 'your wrong your wrong you are' why not list a plave qhere the second or third city has taken over the firat city? ??????

For each one you can find ill fins you ten qhere it haa bit happebes. Here are two straight away for free. London and Paris

I can't even understand half of what you posted here, not that I think I'll have lost much value.

The fact you're too blinkered to your own version of the world won't make it true. I've pointed out repeatedly the nonsense your talking, and I've called it nonsense rather than being more polite because you've shown no inclination to be polite so I see little reason to do you that courtesy.

Obviously London is attractive to people and companies, it would take a particularly poor interpretation of anything I've said to think I've even implied otherwise. What I've said is that assuming that big cities attract people simply because they're big, what you've stated, is nonsense.

If you can be bothered to raise the level of your debate and the clarity of your writing then I'll be happy to carry on, otherwise my work here is done.

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

This is the oldest line in the book but fails for me because I already sense the Human footprint where ever I go in the South East especially with the road congestion and building ever more housing and roads will solve nothing as you'll just attract even more people to Britain.


How far do you want to go? Will you be happy when the south east is grid locked even more than it is now?


Where's the limit to the expansion of the Human pest?


We are custodians passing through, we do not own the planet.

The actual figure for the built on land mass in the UK is 2.5%.

What's required is better use of the available land. Not everyone can have a house with an acre of garden.

Redevelopment of large town\city centres. With plenty of affordable property is one measure that will come to the fore.

Trouble with Millibands plan is also that property needs to be built where the jobs will be. Over the past 200 years we've seen the rise and fall of populations as industry and commerce has evolved. So merely building doesn't solve the lack of housing either. Has to be part of a much larger fully integrated plan. Unlikely at the moment as Labour is taking a very anti business stance. So won't encourage major companies and corporations to invest.