Do people think native English people will be forced to move to out of London?

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

Sorry, but this post is just silly.

what part/s are silly

London experienced a building boom and population crash so that by the 1990s London has fewer people per house than any other region of England. The capital was housed less densely than anywhere else!

That started to reverse from 2000 to Now.

London went from an excess to a shortage. Especially true for inner London.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

@lisyloo

I don't really know what is possible in London aside from what is desirable. There should be a lot of new stock coming to the city over the next few years as I see a lot of building going on.

I think it would be great if low or high rises were built in places to the east of the city in zone 2, with decent cycle routes constructed linking the working hubs. Cycling to work (safely) is a boon I miss about my previous life.

there looks to be a lot of building but its only about 25,000 units net a year.

London wants to grow even faster than the 100,000 people a year but high prices is limiting it. It may well grow by 200,000 people a year if it was encouraged to do so.


This wont happen but imo would be a good outcome would be to rebuild zone 2 at 3 x the density and get rid of cars (not taxis) in Z1&2 (bicycle walk bus taxi or scooter). The council estates are the easy one to start with the rebuilding but the privately owned homes too need to be bought up as whole blocks knocked down and rebuilt. A 50 year project to take inner London from about 3.3 million people towards 10 million and outer London towards 6 million.

westernpromise

cells wrote: »

imo would be a good outcome would be to rebuild zone 2 at 3 x the density and get rid of cars (not taxis) in Z1&2 (bicycle walk bus taxi or scooter). .

TFL has taken the statistics down now, perhaps because they were so embarrassing, but it has been clear for a long time that as car journeys into central London reduce, traffic slows down. The policy response is to make it even worse for cars to come into London which makes the traffic even slower, and so on.

What happens is that people displaced from cars use buses and bikes instead (which unlike trains still have unused capacity). Buses block the whole width of the road and force all other vehicles behind them to stop whenever they do, and buses and bikes alike occupy a disproportionate amount of road space. Not only are there largely empty lanes for them both, but a cyclist three feet out from the kerb to whom you allow two feet of passing space is a six-foot-wide obstacle (tne same width as a Ford Focus) that carries a maximum of one passenger and comes to a near standstill on most slopes. It's not hard to see where traffic jams come from, as both buses and bikes are, basically, rollng roadblocks.

If you go back to say 1982 you find that the traffic has got slower at the same time as car journeys have fallen by well over 50%. The only other plausible factor that might explain this is if the various traffic management schemes that have proliferated since then themselves cause traffic jams.

If we removed those, and got people out of buses and back into their cars, London traffic would move a lot faster; air quality would also be improved by the removal from the road of filthy diesel buses.

CLAPTON

adindas wrote: »

Well, London is an international city. London has benefited from super rich people coming from around the world, especially from Middle East, Russia, East Asia, Wealthy people.

Not all but native English who cannot compete internationally will be forced out …

in what way have ordinary UK born people benefited from the, large stolen money, of the super rich?

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

TFL has taken the statistics down now, perhaps because they were so embarrassing, but it has been clear for a long time that as car journeys into central London reduce, traffic slows down. The policy response is to make it even worse for cars to come into London which makes the traffic even slower, and so on.

What happens is that people displaced from cars use buses and bikes instead (which unlike trains still have unused capacity). Buses block the whole width of the road and force all other vehicles behind them to stop whenever they do, and buses and bikes alike occupy a disproportionate amount of road space. Not only are there largely empty lanes for them both, but a cyclist three feet out from the kerb to whom you allow two feet of passing space is a six-foot-wide obstacle (tne same width as a Ford Focus) that carries a maximum of one passenger and comes to a near standstill on most slopes. It's not hard to see where traffic jams come from, as both buses and bikes are, basically, rollng roadblocks.

If you go back to say 1982 you find that the traffic has got slower at the same time as car journeys have fallen by well over 50%. The only other plausible factor that might explain this is if the various traffic management schemes that have proliferated since then themselves cause traffic jams.

If we removed those, and got people out of buses and back into their cars, London traffic would move a lot faster; air quality would also be improved by the removal from the road of filthy diesel buses.

Interesting ideas. I often think TFL which is in charge of the roads as well as the tube/buses intentionally screws up the road system for the cars so as to 'encourage' people onto fee paying buses/tube

Personally I think the best long term future for inner London would be to car free (except taxis) to be mostly replaced by walking.

The higher density would allow more infrastructure closer to homes so walking to the local supermarket which might be 20 minutes away would become 10 minutes away etc

CLAPTON

adindas wrote: »

Just a few examples Harrods, Easyjet, Chelsea FC. Not in London but it applies the same principle, the owner of Leicester City FC and many more. How many Londoners are working in their business ??

In what way would Harrods have stopped trading or Chelsea stopped playing football if foreigners hadn't bought them: how many extra people have they employed due to foreign ownership?

Easyjet is an example of a new company although now a PLC.

Most of the super rich don't bring jobs

Conrad

botchjob wrote: »

For anyone really interested in being informed about modern London, infrastructure, and immigration, there are two very good books which have recently been published on the subjects. Ben Judah's THIS IS LONDON provides a brilliant look at the real lives of immigrants in the city (away from Daily Mail and message board bigotry); and Rowan Moore's SLOW BURN CITY looks at how the fabric of London has changed in recent decades, and the outlook for the future.

Of course, some may prefer to fire off poorly formed opinions about things they don't really understand. Two dimensions are so much simpler than three.

I see the reality through my work and its a million miles from anything these sweetly naive middle class luvvies would even know existed.


Does he know about the cash concealment trade between London and Turkey for example, I very much doubt it.

Conrad

adindas wrote: »

Just a few examples Harrods, Easyjet, Chelsea FC. Not in London but it applies the same principle, the owner of Leicester City FC and many more. How many Londoners are working in their business ??

It's a wonder this country gave birth to the industrial revolution, was the original high seas trading nations, invented industry after industry, gave the world so many invention, and became highly ordered and civilised without the last 30 years wave of plucky immigrants. How did we cope! All those pluky Brits that built order wherever they landed.


And prior to this we had incredibly low DNA drift and were basically a nation of people from N West Europe only, yes, yes, with the odd minuscule wave of Huguenot's or Jews.


Most obesity takeaways and fast food joints are indeed started by migrants, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the obesity


Also if migrants are so incredible, how is they wanted to 'escape' the chaotic places most came from? You would think their societies were incredible, the way people go on.


The English set -up the likes of HK and Singapore, and opened up so much world trade and colonised nations that immigrants now want to settle in. We over-threw India with a couple of thousand troops.


Also if you look at Russian Oligarchs for example it's largely theft and crooked money, modern day !!!!! that built their wealth, not much to admire and another reason their own nations are not fully prospering and ordered

lisyloo

mwpt wrote: »

People will eventually make the correct choice to not move to London and businesses will make the correct choice to relocate.

Private Businesses couldn't care less as long as they can recruit the right staff. Currently the chances of getting top talent are greatest in London than any other city.

We made the choice to move because it was where there was work.
I can't see us making a different choice if there isn't a broadly comparable job elsewhere. People won't move away if it means being unemployed.

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

Private Businesses couldn't care less as long as they can recruit the right staff. Currently the chances of getting top talent are greatest in London than any other city.

We made the choice to move because it was where there was work.
I can't see us making a different choice if there isn't a broadly comparable job elsewhere. People won't move away if it means being unemployed.

People make the choice all the time to move to, from or ignore London. 55 million people in the UK don't live there. An order of magnitude more in the rest of the EU don't live there.

For those that do live in or near London for work, my guess is over 80% of them could reasonably get another job elsewhere for adjusted pay but choose not to.