Will More Extreme Weather Conditions Influence Where You Choose to Live?

Davesnave

Money, I think traffic pollution has influenced some people's buying decisions, but most don't seem to worry about it greatly. Look at the competition to live in London.

Pollution levels in Bath, where we lived for 40 years, were sometimes very high in summer, but it didn't stop us living there.

On the subject of Boscastle, we were there about 6 months prior to the flood, having walked the cliff path from Crackington. The only thing I wanted at the end of that was a pint and a steak. The river went right through where I'd eaten that steak.... at ceiling level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxweiRNlHbo

The pictures of Boscastle focus on the lower village and harbour because they're the most dramatic, but people further up the valley, way above sea level and the stream were also affected badly, even though their flooding was not recorded in as much detail.

A similar thing happened in Clovelly more recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7mboc7IacE

gazter

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Well - any thought of confidence in town planners to make ANY right decisions ever sort of evaporated after reading an article in yesterdays (online) newspapers.

That article was about how student housing in York and a school someplace else in the country were about to be built by EXTREMELY busy roads. Roads that have too heavy car exhaust pollution to live by. The one where the school is going to be built by is one that had a school moved from that location a few years ago because of the level of pollution. Those planners, in their "wisdom" have decided it will be perfectly possible to do so after all if they make a rule that the developers aren't allowed to have opening windows in the properties and the school playground has to be at the back of the school. I instantly interpreted that article as the planners have decided to try and protect their backs against the risk of being sued for people making claims for damaged health and death due to traffic fumes. Mind you - they have rather overlooked the risk that those properties might have fires and so they will be at risk of being sued by relatives/friends of people who tried to escape through the windows and couldn't (ie because of them being non-openers).

Now did they make those decisions before or after recent research proved that a noticeable number of people are dying/having their health damaged each year in Britain because of road traffic pollution?:cool:

But - what do we expect except building in unsuitable areas - in view of the fact that we are trying to house too many people in this overpopulated country?

Is there anywhere that has more pollution than a decade ago? The amount of air pollution in the air is between 5 and 10 percent of what it was forty years ago.

LittleMax

I think it depends on how close you have been to flooding. We certainly considered it when we bought our first house 14 years ago, and again when we bought our current house. We were renting in Warwick during the Easter floods of 1998, and seeing houses just 2 streets away flooding was enough to make me thankful we were in a first floor flat. I think that is why it was important to me.

I don't pay much attention to environment agency data - I go back to the ordnance survey map and work out for myself what I think the risks are. I won't consider anything that is in the bottom of any kind of valley - no matter how far away from any water source it is.

That said , despite all this we did have a flood in our current house, a new build 6 months after moving in, when the connector on the mains water pipe popped off, and mains pressure water filled the ground floor whilst we were at work! It was awful, and that was clean water. I never ever want to face the devastation of having dirty water rise up into my home and my heart goes out to the people affected by the current floods.

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

Money, I think traffic pollution has influenced some people's buying decisions, but most don't seem to worry about it greatly. Look at the competition to live in London.

Pollution levels in Bath, where we lived for 40 years, were sometimes very high in summer, but it didn't stop us living there.

I tend to agree with you on that one Dave - and I know Bath and its a place I basically like personally.

I know I was living bang in the city centre in Home City - but it was a starter house and I had bought it honestly thinking I would only be living amongst all that pollution for just a few years (ie not long enough to harm my health). Part of the reason I sold it recently was because I had come to realise that I seemed to be "stuck" in amongst all that pollution from traffic fumes and had the nasty feeling it was starting to influence my health and my "genetic inheritance" is such I didn't dare gamble on that any longer (ie a grandparent dying from what they breathed in and I suspect one of my parents will as well). When you are all too well aware you could be killed by other people (and blow your interests personally) it doesn't half concentrate the mind...


There is an element of "swings and roundabouts" in that sort of equation. If one wants (needs) a certain amount of facilities/intellectual stimulation/etc/etc then that tends to mean imo that its necessary to put up with accompanying pollution levels. There are sometimes "trade offs" to do - ie where it isn't possible to get everything you personally need on the amount of money you personally have and hence part of why I found I had to move (because "my" Next Homes were out of my financial reach:mad::(:mad:).

London has the added factor of THE best place to pursue a career (rather than a job). I can understand why some people feel they have to live there regardless in order to have that career/"mix and match" with like minds/etc. The higher the level of job/career one has then the more one has to live "somewhere bigger". Unemployed people/retirees can live anywhere pretty much (as long as there are enough facilities to be able to manage for the "basics" and a social life if required).

moneyistooshorttomention

gazter wrote: »

Is there anywhere that has more pollution than a decade ago? The amount of air pollution in the air is between 5 and 10 percent of what it was forty years ago.

Yes - and I could quote you statistics from personal experience.

You know there is something very wrong when you are having to put a barrier of some description in between the air you are being forced to breathe and your nose (eg a scarf/mask/etc) and you dare not take a deep breath because it certainly won't be "air" you are breathing iyswim.

It is absolutely irrelevant what the "air" used to be like. The question is "Is it or isn't it good enough to breathe?". In the case of my Home City it has provably got worse/much worse:mad::( (I read the statistics and they were not pretty) and it really doesn't help one's "blood pressure" to know that is indisputably the case (ie I'd like to retain a marginal level of trust in human nature if I possibly can....:cool:).

SnooksNJ

Gigervamp wrote: »

I can imagine houses in flood prone areas might be tricky to sell, especially in Cockermouth (?) where they've had flood defences built after the last flooding there, but even those were overwhelmed.

I certainly wouldn't buy a house where there has been flooding not just once, but twice or more.

Also, I have to say, as much as I love living in Wales, I do get fed up with all the rain we get. It's especially annoying during summer when the south east is enjoying weeks of warm/hot sunshine and the best we get is that the rain lets up for a while, but we still can't see the sun!

Flood zone or not I would never live in a town called Cockermouth.

Davesnave

gazter wrote: »

Is there anywhere that has more pollution than a decade ago? The amount of air pollution in the air is between 5 and 10 percent of what it was forty years ago.

Getting rid of coal fires was a large step forward in cities, but I suspect particulates are still quite high close to main traffic arteries when conditions are poor. More stringent emissions standards have likely cancelled out the huge increase in vehicle numbers.

I can remember Mum and I attempting to go shopping in London during a smog in the 1950s. We got to the Bridgwater Road and it was impossible to see well enough to cross, so we went home!

Seeing old pictures of Bath still comes as a shock too. In the 60s/70s most of the buildings were literally black with grime. There was a decade or so of frantic cleaning, when in every old street, someone had scaffolding up and hoses running. What a difference today!

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

Getting rid of coal fires was a large step forward in cities, but I suspect particulates are still quite high close to main traffic arteries when conditions are poor. More stringent emissions standards have likely cancelled out the huge increase in vehicle numbers.

I strongly suspect you are correct Dave re the "particulates ..still quite high close to main traffic arteries" and it isn't just when "conditions are poor".

One "Daylight Dawning" episode (repeated for me on a variety of occasions) was walking down from the surroundings of Home City towards my home and realising I was getting more and more wary of taking a decent breath of air. That was because it wasn't air or anything remotely approximating to air:mad::(:mad:.

It really was a "road to Damascus" moment. It was repeated enough times that I could see that it wasn't my imagination/ a fluke/a one-off:(:angry::huh: and I personally couldn't handle the knowledge that "anonymous Others" were quite prepared to do that regardless......:mad::mad: