Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

ex-green

Members
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ex-green

  1. I included gardens too. If we exclude gardens, then the total actually "concreted over" for Britain as a whole, including not only dwellings but also workplaces, roads, everything, should be around 37% lower than England's 4.2%, so around = 2.7% of Britain's land. Really surprising, isn't it?! Thanks for working in this direction by the way, i had not thought of it. Really interesting.
  2. Much less than that. For England it is 4.2% actually "concreted over" + 4.26% of gardens = 8.42%. But for Britain as a whole it should be around 37% lower, so 8.42 x 0.63 = 5.33%? If i got the maths right?
  3. In England domestic buildings cover only 1.1 percent of land. For Britain as a whole this number must be even lower, probably around 0.7 percent, since Britain's population density is 37% lower than England's (662/sq mi as opposed to 1054 according to Wikipedia). Land use in England: rural and urban combined (Total): Buildings and Roads: Domestic buildings % = 1.1 Non-domestic buildings % = 0.65 Roads % = 2.22 Paths % = 0.1 Rail % = 0.13 Total "concreted over" = 4.2 percent Green spaces: Domestic gardens % = 4.26 Greenspace % = 87.46 Water % = 2.59 Other land % = 1.39 Total green spaces = 95.7 percent I've posted the tables on your Charts thread. Post # 1110. The bottom line of that table has the info I've copied above. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/117772-post-your-favourite-charts-here/?p=1102536668 If all homes in England, some 20 million homes, cover only 1.1 percent of its land, then of course we have plenty of space to allow the building of more homes for the younger generations. Two million more homes would use only 0.1 percent of England's land! Even if we also allowed 2 million gardens they would need less than 0.4 percent of England's land. The NIMBYs are wrong, on facts. It is oficial, since this report. My 1st post about it: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/198883-domestic-buildings-cover-only-11-percent-of-land-in-england/
  4. It's actually only 0.7% of UK land. I'll post the numbers and sources again, replying to the OP.
  5. Yes they are. Actually you are being too generous.
  6. We had the same problem years ago after moving into a rental. We lost our best clothes. And it was not easy to get rid of the problem permanently. We had to Google about it, and buy some specialist product.
  7. But why is she in such a hurry? Can't she wait a week or 2? Worst case scenario, you can hire a moving company with storage facilities, and stay a week or 2 in a hotel? It'll be a hasle, for sure, but it is a roof over your head...
  8. That's a very good advice. I must remember that myself, i tend to get upset when people are bastards. It doesn't hlep.
  9. Good point. A good bargain chip to get the deposit back?
  10. Did the landlord signed that postcard? You also have the old lady gardner as a witness of the original arrangement. And maybe you could also use all that on a small claims court?
  11. So there are empty council houses? How much are the rents for these maisonettes?
  12. Agree 100%. It is simple. I really don't understand why they don't do that. I bet they would recoup the money in less than 10 years. Perhaps they have NIMBYs there too?
  13. agree 100 percent. The numbers of immigrants is not as high as people think, and they don't use as much housing as a normal British couple or family would. Like you say we could easily build more than enough to supply the demand. Perhaps home owners ARE doing that on purpose? being against house building to extract this extra ransom like the article says? I don't know. Difficult to believe.
  14. We don't have thousands of homeless because young people are sharing, staying with parents, delaying starting a family, and young families are living in small flats, large families in small houses, etc. And if people want a little more living space they are forced to pay that ransom the article says. And all that is much worse for young people of course. We surely don't have a housing shortage for older people, lots of space there.
  15. Good news. And about time. Should of being done years ago actually.
  16. I think on this point bomberbrown is right. Immigrants may be renting, from landlords who have the 3000,000 quid. But there numbers are much lower than the tabloids make you think. And they live 6 to a flat.
  17. A few weeks back someone posted a link to a wikipedia page comparing population growth in different countries. I was really really surprised to see how low Britain actually was. I could not believe it. Yes, i found the page, take a look... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate I think that surprised me even MORE than when i found out how little "concreted over" England actually is. Our media doesn't have a clue. Or perhaps they do know it, but just lie like pure evil effing bastards, just to sell more papers. Incredible. Sometimes i feel like i am living in a mad country, where peoples views just don't match reality. Isn't that the definition of madness?
  18. Yes, some mistake there, by someone. The numbers don't match. Then again, that is the imaginary wealth anyway. The actual houses are the same, the only difference is how much people imagine they are "worth".
  19. Comparing UK and US, value of houses are similar, both around 80 % or 90 %, but residential land values are world apart, around 40 % in the US but around 200 % here.
  20. Yeah, i noticed that too. But i don't think these two things are necessarily connected. We should target BOTH, tax the 1 % AND let people build more houses.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.