Need to know which cities WW cites for his examples of great planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Printable View
Need to know which cities WW cites for his examples of great planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Aah, Yes indeed :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
The Country associations have done a good job with their propaganda machines - you people the figures and they still can't accept it. I assume you mean the countryside. Again..only 7.5% of the land is settled, and only 2.45% paved. Do you understand that figure and how small it is? To make an impact we would need a population of about 300 million. We really have so much land. Read the linkQuote:
Originally Posted by kevin
Land and stuff and how it affects YOU
By your responsible I don't think you at all. Al you have done is spout propaganda issued by the Countryside organisations who are backed by large landowners. YOU have nothing to gain by keeping the status quo. Young people even less.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Pet campaign? You still don't understand. You don't even get the prime points for God's sake! Ask and I will help you on them . Do not come back with arrogant know-it-all-ness.Quote:
and I understand that you annexe any particular argument to bolster one of your pet 'campaigns' no matter how tenuous or otherwise the link.
Whatever that means...Quote:
In this case, you can't see the distinction between the politics of owbership in the countryside and the imperative for sustainable cities.
Once again read the link and the documents from the Policy exchange. Do not walk about with your head up..... YOU have nothing to again by keeping the existing system.Quote:
Once again. Thanks for your input.
I spent a LOT of time in Paris. It is densely populated for sure. But they manage it extremely well.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Most other medium sized cities are much better than UK cities. They had no inner-city blight. A UK phenomena, with parts of the USA too.
They built cities for people to live in, not a place for a workforce to live for the rich to make money from.
Paris has a small footprint. Nothing sprawls anywhere and never can in France with only about 3.5% of the land settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Paris! Managed it well! Surely not. It's a disgrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Are you getting this off the web WW, cos it does sprawl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Just about all compared to the UK. The UK has appalling cities. Look at Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Brum and Liverpool. Nice places eh! Only the smaller cathedral cities are nice, which in size are not cities, only towns. Although Liverpool is getting better in parts, it is still a dreary place in most parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Got to admit that the cities you mentioned aint nice. They're all getting better though. A few years ago, no one in would've lived in the inner cities. Now it's desireable. Europe or America aint no better though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
[QUOTE=Waterways;200963]By your responsible I don't think you at all. Al you have done is spout propaganda issued by the Countryside organisations who are backed by large landowners. YOU have nothing to gain by keeping the status quo. Young people even less.
I write for myself thanks. I don't regurgitate without thought - like yourself
I don't need your help, thank you. I am not even slightly interested in the primacy of your points or your patronising snipes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Why? Too hard for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I'm not interested in doing your donkey work for you. Why should I read what you have selected from an unaccountable reference when you clearly don't have the nouse to assess what you read critically and can't draw out your own conclusions succinctly and substantiate them by reference to credible sources? Perhaps you don't understand that burying people in undigested and questionable screeds convinces no one? Are you out of short pants yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
European cities have a better handle on inner city living and are genuinely less suburban. They accept denser living more readily and are also less hung up on ownership. Let's take the centre of Paris or Amsterdam for example...whoops, maybe not :PDT_Xtremez_42:Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
I agree our cities are gettting better and there's more people in them and it should be encouraged. I don't think suburbia is an appropriate model for the inner cities (as recently suggested by Beatrice Frankel's advocacy of the Eldonian Village).
Riots, Racial Tension, Burning Cars in the largest suburbia of any city in Europe?. Nah, lovely place, definitely no sprawl and managed so beautifully :PDT10Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I agree on the whole, the Europeans I met never seemed to travel to work as far as we do. Likewise in shopping, seem to be nearer their homes. We seem to be going the American way with out of town shopping areas. I'd like to see that stopped and the shops brought back into towns. We have to get away from the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
It's not so much more housing needed as less people. It's the infrastructure such as roadways and amenities such as energy and the services such as health and the unemployment due to an almost none existent manufacturing base that can't sustain millions of extra people.
don't think we're gonna get less people Ged. The population is gonna rocket one way or another. I think ther's enough land to build on in the city boundaries already, it just needs utilising better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Yes, rocket!, 'fraid so. We're gonna need more housing and less people and better urban design.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Hopefully we've seen the last of Project Jennifer (and people who say 'the high street is dead') but just look at the proliferation of bl**dy Tescoes. Take Old Swan for example - an urban crime. A new Trafford Centre on Bidston Moor... more and more cars and against all sense.
True. We appear to be going the American way but we don't have the land. There's gonna be more of these shopping villages that no one lives near. It'll be the death of towns if we let it happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Forget the stately homes and lavish public buildings, it's the everyday or vernacular architecture, which appeals to me. Its is functional and so much the better for a bit of decoration. Streets, shops, cinemas. A wealth of styles and, take cinemas for example, a generic style of their own. Often unrecorded, they are a snapshot of a vanished way of life.
It is not possible to preserve everything, but as long as they are photographed, future generations can see how things were.
We cannot produce plasterwork like the pic below, for ordinary buildings, but it is personally great for me to record all the detailing, before the wreckers ball gets it!!!
http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/r...08092009Me.jpg
The description of Paris is made up. I know the city very well. One of the finest in the world, if not the finest. I spent some time in the 15th and 16th.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
You incapable of any intelligent reasoning that is clear. All you have done is regurgitate propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
You should be as it affects even YOU. You are not bright enough to realise it.Quote:
I don't need your help, thank you. I am not even slightly interested in the primacy of your points.
Who is asking you to do research? You repeatedly prattled falsehoods and views based of falsehoods. I have pointed you on how to be educated on a point you basically know sweet nothing about. Yet you refuse and keep making yourself look foolish. You prefer to remain in ignorance. You are being screwed and like it and want it to continue. How odd. They love the likes of you. You keep them rich.Quote:
I'm not interested in doing your donkey work for you.
Oh No!! Another brainwashed one who refuses to believe reality. Once again...only 7.5% of the land in settled. THE UK HAS A SURPLUS OF LANDQuote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Please stop making a fool of yourself. They must love the likes of you, you keep them rich.
Don't think find out. Of the homes the UK needs only 14% can be built on brownfield sites. You have been told this a number of time and given referenced links.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
The UK is drastically short of decent, suitable,affordable homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
The country can easily support 100 million people. I am not saying
increase to that level, but the country has a land surplus and can
easily feed itself.
As the population increases the infrastructure increase with it. You areQuote:
It's the infrastructure such as roadways and amenities such as energy and
the services such as health and the unemployment due to an almost none
existent manufacturing base that can't sustain millions of extra people.
assuming nothing changes only more people come about. We are short of
millions of homes right now. The land and planning system chokes the
building of homes. The free market can deliver, if the market is opened
up. The state currently subsidises all homes.
- Tax relief on mortgages for private homes
- Direct subsidy for public housing.
There is better ways of spending taxpayers money, when the free market
with little state intervention can deliver.
Extracts: Unaffordable Housing - Report....
Moreover, as we have said, there are not enough existing
brown field sites to solve the problem. The Rogers Report,
which might be expected to take an optimistic view on the
subject, estimated that, during the period 1996 to 2021
there would be a demand for 3.8 million homes. Of these,
however, on their calculations, only some 531,000 could be
built on the sites of currently vacant land or derelict buildings,
that is about 14 percent of the total
There is no reason to suspect that the position has
changed significantly since Best carried out his research.
Indeed, given the stringency of the British planning system
the urban proportion has, if anything, increased far more
in other countries than in Britain. This was even confirmed
in the Rogers Report. Figure 8 is taken from the Report and
shows that the assertion that England is a country that is
slowly being buried under tarmac is simply not true. 35.1
million inhabitants live in cities of more than 20,000
inhabitants. These are roughly three quarters of the total
population. Yet, these people only use 7.2 per cent of the
land. What this means is that, contrary to popular belief,
we are not living on a crowded and urbanised island, but
only in crowded and extremely dense cities.
Read in Order:
Interesting. The buildings with the hands of the 'ordinary' people on them?? Very different from the likes of St George's Hall; the Architecture of Power!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirob
Is this the Apollo in Blackpool (according to the file name)? Is it still there?
I do not know what happened to the Apollo Bingo Club aka Palladium Cinema, Blackpool. The club closed at the beginning of September and the staff that were stripping it did not know either.
I left the file name so that anyone could see what it is.
Architecture for me is:
A corroded, black painted, foot-scraper sitting within a hollowed-out and back scuffed wall alcove. A witness to a time before long gone, when the sidewalk was paved, but the road was not.
I don't know about you guys, but I get stopped in the street all the time, by simple objects like these. It could be ornamental stone name plates; paint faded old advertisements on the side of buildings; datum marks; boundary stones; Georgian fanlight windows; cannons used as bollards; statues made from captured enermy ordnance.
Architecture, I think, represents all of these things - objects which embody meaning. It hasn't got to look pretty, or be expensive...but I think it's important that it tells some kind of story.
Sorry WW, I don't belive statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Sorry WW, brainwashed one? thanks. I don't believe statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Please do not be so childish. You are making yourself look silly. Hard figures are hard. Interpreted stats is another thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Where these days. They were everywhere when I was a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by darrenwhite100
I think the word you are looking for is heritage.Quote:
Architecture, I think, represents all of these things - objects which embody meaning. It hasn't got to look pretty, or be expensive...but I think it's important that it tells some kind of story.
Ha, I never make meself look silly. You stick to your statistics and I'll go for what I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Seeing you're bringing up statistics, how many people are on the dole.
Yeah Darren. I love seeing old walls utilising even older brick, cannibalised by newer builders. The Egyptians and Romans did it and you see parts of our past integrated into newer environments in Liverpool, particularly in Woolton, West Derby, Green Lane. In my neck of the woods, Lydiate, I keep seeing bits and pieces of the old Priory and Lydiate hall bricks integrated into old farm walls. Its funny how you can walk right past and not noticeQuote:
Originally Posted by darrenwhite100
You made yourself look very silly indeed. What you know? About this topic it isn't much at all and lacking basic knowledge of figures. Do not tell yourself lies and believe them.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
You have such a wandering mind. Talking stats, Petro was on about densities.Here are some figure which no doubt you will think are made up:Quote:
Seeing you're bringing up statistics, how many people are on the dole.
Compare some approximate population densities of English cities and continental ones:
Manhattan 27,500/km2
L.A. (city) 3,200/km2
Paris 25,000/km2 (including bois de boulogne and bois de vincennes)
Barcelona 16,500/km2
Stockholm 4,400/km2
Brussels 6,700/km2
Athens 7,600/km2
Naples 8,200/km2
Berlin 3,850/km2
Moscow 9,700/km2
Melbourne 1,600/km2
Greater London 4,800/km2
Liverpool (Borough & City) 4,200/km2
Metropolitan Borough of Manchester 3,800/km2
City of Nottingham 3,700/km2
Bristol 3,600/km2
Newcastle on Tyne 2,400/km2
City Borough of Salford 2,200/km2
Liverpool is not far behind London. They have a full metro system while Liverpool is not supposed to have the population to support one, while being denser than Berlin and they have an underground as well. Amazing what what some numbers can tell you.
Who looks silly now? It is NOT just about how stats are interpreted, but how they are gathered. It is so easy to build bias into questions to ensure that you get the hard figures you require.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
[QUOTE=Waterways;202444]Here are some figure which no doubt you will think are made up:
Compare some approximate population densities of English cities and continental ones:
Manhattan 27,500/km2
L.A. (city) 3,200/km2
Paris 25,000/km2 (including bois de boulogne and bois de vincennes)
Barcelona 16,500/km2
Stockholm 4,400/km2
Brussels 6,700/km2
Athens 7,600/km2
Naples 8,200/km2
Berlin 3,850/km2
Moscow 9,700/km2
Melbourne 1,600/km2
Greater London 4,800/km2
Liverpool (Borough & City) 4,200/km2
Metropolitan Borough of Manchester 3,800/km2
City of Nottingham 3,700/km2
Bristol 3,600/km2
Newcastle on Tyne 2,400/km2
City Borough of Salford 2,200/km2
[QUOTE]
Made up?
No.
But they can be manipulated according to the definition you use of 'resident' when you gather the figures. It's unlikely the figures are entirely accurate but they do have a use. As long as the figures are gathered in exactly the same way across all destinations you can get a comparative picture of density.
Raw data is well...raw data. Pablo is dismissing raw data. Well he is refusing to disbelieve what he has been believing for most of his life. They countryside is largely empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinMade up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
No.
But they can be manipulated according to the definition you use of 'resident' when you gather the figures. It's unlikely the figures are entirely accurate but they do have a use. As long as the figures are gathered in exactly the same way across all destinations you can get a comparative picture of density.
How data it is interpreted is another matter. As Ann Robinson in Watchdog would dismissed the percentage figures given by manufacturers. They would say only 5% of this product has had problems. That 5% maybe 100,000 items.
7.5% of 60 million acres is not much acreage at all.
The figure in question is 7.5% of the UK's land is paved. This is pretty well correct. Even Kate Barkers report of around 3 years ago put it at just under 8%. I state 7.5%, as do others, to round off as the figure is between 7.5 and 8. Most of this data comes from the Land Registry. I say most as those who owned land prior made sure their rolling family acres were not on it as they had a lot hide. But, a pretty educated estimate gets to 7.5% of the land. They know the figures for the urban land usage and deducting it from the total is easyQuote:
Originally Posted by kevin
BYTW, I am an academic too. I did stats at uni and have used them in the real work.
Hi Partsky, I wonder how much of Liverpool has been salvaged off to other parts of the city; other parts of the country? Well, even the Roman's were up to this kind of trick. In Pompei, they used old ['old' by their standards] stone column drums, as a threshold piece for doorways. The Coleseum, in Rome, was basically a quarry for the renaissance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Partsky
A word that should find it's way back into the Developer's [and council's, for that matter] dictionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways