What's so great about Old Buildings?

[petromax]

You do not read do you?...This is land certainly could be put to better use for the population of the UK... Much land could be turned over to public forests.

I've read what you've written which is almost entirely off the emerging particular point (of how big our cities should be).

There may indeed be better uses for agricultural land - restoration of primaeval forests, leisure - even second homes, but not spreading the population centres, wasting resources, producing very nasty places and a poor quality of life. Even from personal experience, I would say that living in sprawling cities is a wearisome and demoralising experience unless you live in the centre. Paris would be the nearest example but I don't know of any other European city that has its infamous banlieue. As you say, the Europeans tend to keep the cities in the cities and the country in the country.

Take the money from farmers if you can but not to despoil the nation's natural resource along the way; and do ensure that we employ less intensive farming methods which have been improving the environment and our diets for the last two decades (unless you shop in Lidl).

As for Westminster, it is a useful parallel as it has density on a par with a sustainable city and everyone knows what it looks like (more than Hackney for example) - hence no need to draw a picture.

The density of about 150 new dwellings per hectare would give rise to a 'district' with an average of 5 or so storeys allowing for 60% gardens, open space and roads. You could debate the most desirable building typology but suggest that the average dwelling would consist of an owner-occupied 3 storey, 10-room house possible with basement totalling 150sqm and two rented single storey apartments above plus a back garden and possibly mews cottage single accommodation.

At this density, building higher in certain 'hub' areas and relaxing the street pattern would enable open squares and other public amenities. Think Edinburgh New Town, Hackney, Clerkenwell or even our own Georgian Quarter. Sounds attractive to me and better than blasting the **** out of the environment and 'our' countryside.

[Waterways]

I've read what you've written which is almost entirely off the emerging particular point (of how big our cities should be).

You can't even get simple points. It is nothing to do with how big cities are. As far as I am concerned they can be as big as they want to be. They have a natural size before they tail off anyhow. The age old rule is that travel from one side to the other takes more than an hour (horse & cart in the old days) then they tale off.

The points are:

1. Freedom to access and build on land (SSIs ect , excepted)
2. Preventing the land being in the hands of a few people, creating artificial land shortages, ramping up land prices and hence house prices, reducing the quality of life of people

The above two points can be painlessly redressed by:

• Relaxing planning laws
• Introducing Land value Tax

As a nation we are being screwed big-time and that includes you, unless you are the Duke of Westminster.

The land must be used for the benefit of the population - keeping it idle and subsidised to do nothing by our taxes is not using it for the benefit of the people - in fact it is screwing them twice. Their money is used to create an artificial land shortage which makes their homes super-expensive.

Too Much Land - Before your mind goes into conditioned mode, we can't concrete over it as there is far too much of it. The figure of 7.5% settled is tiny - we have not even tinged the countryside and never can unless the population gets to around 150 million.

There may indeed be better uses for agricultural land - restoration of primaeval forests, leisure - even second homes, but not spreading the population centres, wasting resources, producing very nasty places and a poor quality of life.

Oh my God his conditioning is at it again. "nasty places", "poor quality of life". How can larger homes in more green settings give a "poor quality of life"? Beats me. What resources would be wasted? BS words. Mystifying.

Even from personal experience, I would say that living in sprawling cities is a wearisome and demoralising experience unless you live in the centre. Paris would be the nearest example but I don't know of any other European city that has its infamous banlieue. As you say, the Europeans tend to keep the cities in the cities and the country in the country.

I didn't say that all. The Europeans do not discriminate between town and country. Many families will have family living in the country. Here it is black and white, country families and urban families. None of my family lived in the countryside, although 150 years ago some did.

The Europeans know how to design cities properly. None had inner-city blight which affected every UK city to some degree. That may give you a clue. In France building is in the hands of the local community. If you want to build a house on the edge of a village, and think it is OK it gets built. In the UK we a centralised Stalinist system based on quota, which does not work as the country has a perennial housing problem. The quality of the homes is abysmal in size and building quality.

Living on the edge of a large city is not demoralising at all. It is split into small communities and many live and work locally.

Take the money from farmers if you can but not to despoil the nation's natural resource along the way; and do ensure that we employ less intensive farming methods which have been improving the environment and our diets for the last two decades (unless you shop in Lidl).

Take money off farmers? I would take the subsidies away. If they can't make it then hard luck. They should be treated like any other business. The steel business was allowed to disappear because of cheaper steel elsewhere, as was the coal industry and we have 60 years of coal under the country. WE import the vast majority of the our energy, we can do the same with food. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

"despoil the nation's natural resource along the way". I assume you mean build quality homes and settlements on the subsidised land. BTW, the British countryside is boring. Look at France, which pees all over the UKs in looks and they do not have the ridiculous land and Stalinist planning laws we have. It is a more free nation in that respect. The same for Germany, which is full of forests, and the same population density as the UK. You see no box paper thin walled Wimpey estates there.

As for Westminster, it is a useful parallel as it has density on a par with a sustainable city and everyone knows what it looks like (more than Hackney for example) - hence no need to draw a picture.

Westminster is probably the riches part of the UK (and world) which is totally unreflective of the UK. I know I have a place there. Many of my neighbours, and friends are stinking rich. It is also a family unfriendly place. Using Westminster as a yardstick is ridiculous.

I agree that in city centres land can be put to better use and be more dense in population. But open greens spaces are needed and the quality of the buildings has to be high, especially in soundproofing. We also need the laws changed on leasehold - which is rent. England and Wales are the only western countries that still has this means of exploitation in residential property.

At this density, building higher in certain 'hub' areas and relaxing the street pattern would enable open squares and other public amenities. Think Edinburgh New Town, Hackney, Clerkenwell or even our own Georgian Quarter. Sounds attractive to me and better than blasting the **** out of the environment and 'our' countryside.

More conditioning being expressed. Of the homes we need only 14% can be built on brownfield sites. This "blasting the **** out of the environment and 'our' countryside", your conditioning keeps locked in your head. At 7.5% settled and 5% parks and gardens we can't blast the *** out of anything - understand what 7.5% is!!!! Having large homes scattered in the countryside would improve the look from the boring landscape it is.

In 2007 the Telegraph had propaganda headline:
"Urban sprawl may eat up countryside by 2100"

The Torygraph spouted..

"The countryside is one of our greatest national assets. I am sure that the Government wants to protect it ? but these maps show the current pace of development is seriously eroding the countryside. More must be done to prevent what is left from further fragmentation.?

"The countryside is one of our greatest national assets", they state.

It isn't at all. It is just boring green fields in most cases. National Parks may be, but not the countryside in general. Countryside which we kept out of as it all owned by someone who keeps you off. We can look t it as we drive though, but can't freely walk on it.

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads? ? Henry George.

"Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands of the National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of England is `owned' by a few thousand families. These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms. It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling houses, and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can actually farm." ? George Orwell.

They went on..

"I am sure that the Government wants to protect it ? but these maps show the current pace of development is seriously eroding the countryside. More must be done to prevent what is left from further fragmentation.?

More propaganda being spouted. If it is repeated often enough it may sink in - only 7.5% of the land settled with 2.5% paved. Figures CPRE never ever state.

Unless the population got to 200 million it would be impossible to make an impact on the countryside. The Telegraph were quoting the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Backed by large landowners - who get stinking rich by taking rent. The Countryside Alliance is another propaganda outlet as is Friends of the Earth.

What is important is the quality of life of the vast majority of the population, not preserving the lifestyle of a chosen country dwelling few.

I repeated told you. Read the link properly, then read the documents linked to on the top left of the page in the order given. Objectively read them and get this conditioning out of your mind.

If the land ownership and planning laws are changed the quality of life of the vast majority of the people in the UK will rise substantially.

[kevin]

'Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone, you take paradise and put up a parking lot...'

With acknowledgement to Joni Mitchell.

[petromax]

...

I understand you perfectly well and I understand that you annexe any particular argument to bolster one of your pet 'campaigns' no matter how tenuous or otherwise the link.

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. Thanks for your input.

[pablo42]

Dunno WW, spent a bit of time in Paris and I don't think it's a model to follow. There are lots of modern slums there.

Berlin is probably a different story because it was hemmed in to a certain extent. There are more than enough modern slums there too.

Which European cities are you talking about.

[petromax]

Dunno WW, spent a bit of time in Paris and I don't think it's a model to follow. There are lots of modern slums there.

Berlin is probably a differnt story because it was hemmed in to a certain extent. There are more than enough modern slums there too.

Which European cities are you talking about.

No, I don't think Paris an example to follow or any other like it - I was saying that it's a city with poor conditions in its very large and sprawling suburban estates.

[pablo42]

No, I don't think Paris an example to follow or any other like it - I was saying that it's a city with poor conditions in its very large and sprawling suburban estates.

You wouldn't chuckle. The Paris estates are pretty much no go areas. Very poor example. Inner city Paris aint so bad, but like London ordinary people can't afford it.

[petromax]

You wouldn't chuckle. The Paris estates are pretty much no go areas. Very poor example. Inner city Paris aint so bad, but like London ordinary people can't afford it.

Yes, that's what I said. It is an example of very poor urban sprawl

[pablo42]

Yes, that's what I said. It is an example of very poor urban sprawl

Poor, reckon that's an understatement. Marseilles is the same, most of it is a no go area. Not a nice place at all.

[petromax]

Poor, reckon that's an understatement. Marseilles is the same, most of it is a no go area. Not a nice place at all.

no, not a nice place at all

[pablo42]

no, not a nice place at all

Need to know which cities WW cites for his examples of great planning.

[petromax]

Need to know which cities WW cites for his examples of great planning.

Aah, Yes indeed

[Waterways]

'Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone, you take paradise and put up a parking lot...'

With acknowledgement to Joni Mitchell.

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 link
Land and stuff and how it affects YOU

[Waterways]

I understand you perfectly well

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.

and I understand that you annexe any particular argument to bolster one of your pet 'campaigns' no matter how tenuous or otherwise the link.

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.

In this case, you can't see the distinction between the politics of owbership in the countryside and the imperative for sustainable cities.

Whatever that means...

Once again. Thanks for your input.

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.

[Waterways]

Dunno WW, spent a bit of time in Paris and I don't think it's a model to follow. There are lots of modern slums there.

Berlin is probably a different story because it was hemmed in to a certain extent. There are more than enough modern slums there too.

Which European cities are you talking about.

I spent a LOT of time in Paris. It is densely populated for sure. But they manage it extremely well.

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.