The Economist: " Britain’S Home-Ownership Manias Serve The Next Generation Ill"

[lulu]

population density of Germany is about 229/sq km

population density of England is about 395/sq km

Scotland and Wales certainly have plenty of room for building, but that doesnt hold true for England , which is where the vast majority of the expected population increase will occur . Do you propose to scrap the Green Belt and create one vast suburb in the South East ? Quite a lot of people would find that unacceptable

That is not strictly true though. The bits of Scotland where people want/have to live, ie the Central Belt is very densely populated. Most of Scotland is unbuildable on even if the desire was there.

Edited August 16, 2010 by lulu

[Tired of Waiting]

That is not strictly true though. The bits of Scotland where people want/have to live, ie the Central Belt is very densely populated. (...)

Exactly. Even in large, spacious countries, such as the USA, China or Brazil, the population concentrates in a few large urban areas. That is normal.

In effect, what the "the owl of minerva" is saying is that, in areas of high population density, the population density is high...

[Tired of Waiting]

Why single out England? I'm sure there are parts of Germany which are more populated than others.

An LVT would encourage buildings and businesses to relocate to places other than London, if that is a concern.

Ha! I beat you to it! Take a look at my post just above yours (#82).

[Traktion]

Ha! I beat you to it! Take a look at my post just above yours (#82).

And you had some data to back it up!

In those areas which are less densely populated, surely the restrictions on building should be less too. Thankfully, they have relaxed them over here in NI again, but for a while they tightened them right up.

[eric pebble]

And you had some data to back it up!

In those areas which are less densely populated, surely the restrictions on building should be less too. Thankfully, they have relaxed them over here in NI again, but for a while they tightened them right up.

I agree with you. In SW England - they could EASILY release some land for building. In fact - what should happen is to build some more detached FAMILY houses - 4-5 bedrooms - WITH DECENT GARDENS - & the people who move into these would release the smaller properties for smaller families/retirees/single people...... It makes complete sense. And - STOP BUILDING SHITTY RABBIT HUTHCES. :angry: :angry:

[Tired of Waiting]

I agree with you. In SW England - they could EASILY release some land for building. In fact - what should happen is to build some more detached FAMILY houses - 4-5 bedrooms - WITH DECENT GARDENS - & the people who move into these would release the smaller properties for smaller families/retirees/single people...... It makes complete sense. And - STOP BUILDING SHITTY RABBIT HUTHCES. :angry: :angry:

Exactly. Good post.

Besides, it would be cost free for the government: Just allow some middle class people to build their own suburbs, not too dense, but not too wasteful of land either, sensible plots, with decent family homes, and these people will free and sell their current properties, probably a bit smaller, but still adequate, for people with a little less money - like us! I don't mind if they get better houses, and I get a cheaper terrace. Win-win!

[efdemin]

Exactly. Good post.

Besides, it would be cost free for the government: Just allow some middle class people to build their own suburbs, not too dense, but not too wasteful of land either, sensible plots, with decent family homes, and these people will free and sell their current properties, probably a bit smaller, but still adequate, for people with a little less money - like us! I don't mind if they get better houses, and I get a cheaper terrace. Win-win!

What about allowing working class people to build the houses that they want?

Besides, we have enough 4+ bedroom houses, it's 2-4 bedders with decent room sizes, decent parking and gardens that are lacking. Most of the new-build crap of the last 5-10 years doesn't count as it's too small, with too little parking or storage space.

I've been to view some older properties, 60's/70's semis, and quite a few have already been extended to their limit; some more successfully than others. There's not much point freeing them up as I don't want them - I want to be able to do my own extension if it's needed, to modern standards of build, design & insulation.

[Tired of Waiting]

What about allowing working class people to build the houses that they want?

Besides, we have enough 4+ bedroom houses, it's 2-4 bedders with decent room sizes, decent parking and gardens that are lacking. Most of the new-build crap of the last 5-10 years doesn't count as it's too small, with too little parking or storage space.

I've been to view some older properties, 60's/70's semis, and quite a few have already been extended to their limit; some more successfully than others. There's not much point freeing them up as I don't want them - I want to be able to do my own extension if it's needed, to modern standards of build, design & insulation.

Of course! That would be the ideal, and if we have a real liberalisation of planning controls, land would be much much cheaper, and we would be able to afford to build. That is my dream, and I've arguing for it in this forum for a long long time. I just doubt they will liberalise planning enough, unfortunately.

I completely agree that the new-build of the last 5-10 years is total crap - criminally small! Inhumanely small! I could not believe how much the Labour party (!) was squeezing the working class like 17th century peasants (by insisting on a minimum of 30 dwelings per hectare)! The b@stards!

And just because it was supposedly "green" to protect the "green fields"! Rubbish. We have loads of pastures around here, in the south east. 1 hectare can sustain just 1 cow (IIRC). But Labour has always put cows above human beings. Actually, they have been against putting 10 family homes in 1 hectare. Only 30 would be acceptable! Hence 1 cow = 30 families! Tha b@stards!

Edit: I said pastures, as they are a very inefficient, low yield use of land. And with low biodiversity too. Agricultural fields (with crops) cover just under a quarter of Britain. Most of the land is used for pastures.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[efdemin]

Edit: I said pastures, as they are a very inefficient, low yield use of land. And with low biodiversity too. Agricultural fields (with crops) cover just under a quarter of Britain. Most of the land is used for pastures.

I don't quite understand the 'pasture hate'. Meat is good, sirloin steak is good, and it needs pastures to grow the cattle for it. Are you vegetarian?

Edit: Arable fields are equally low in biodiversity I would have thought?

Edited August 18, 2010 by efdemin

[DeepLurker]

And just because it was supposedly "green" to protect the "green fields"! Rubbish. We have loads of pastures around here, in the south east. 1 hectare can sustain just 1 cow. But Labour has always put cows above human beings. Actually, they have been against putting 10 family homes in 1 hectare. Only 30 would be acceptable! Hence 1 cow = 30 families! Tha b@stards!

Thanks for that - a very striking image.

[Tired of Waiting]

I don't quite understand the 'pasture hate'. Meat is good, sirloin steak is good, and it needs pastures to grow the cattle for it. Are you vegetarian?

Edit: Arable fields are equally low in biodiversity I would have thought?

Firstly, I did not suggest to build in ALL of our pastures. As I wrote before somewhere, less than 1% of UK land would probably be enough to build a million family homes. Do the maths: Say plots of 5 x20m, for terrace houses = 100sq.m. A million plots would be = 100million sq.m = 10,000 hectares = 100 sq km. Then double it, for streets and "community" stuf = 200 sq.km. The UK surface is 245 , 000 (thousand) sq km.

So, my mistake. Not 1%, but a tenth of 1 percent.

That means that if we allowed plots of double that size, 200sq.m/plot, with a bigger gardens, semi-detached, etc., less cramped, we would still need only about 2 tenths of 1% of UK surface - for a million of these houses.

On your second point: I love beef! I want to be allowed to buy Argentinian beef, much better, and much cheaper than ours (naturally, as they have natural pastures there, the "Pampas", that are probably bigger than the whole western Europe!) But, unfortunately, the fecking Common Agriculture Policy makes it hugely expensive here. And we have pastures 40 miles from Trafalgar square. Madness.

Yes, arable fields are also very low in bio-diversity, but at least they produce much more food than pastures. (Most problems are affected by more than 1 factor.)

EDIT: Could someone please double check my maths? I did the same calculation sometime ago, but it still surprises me. Perhaps I am making some mistake there?

.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

Thanks for that - a very striking image.

You are welcome.

The 1 cow per hectare is approximate, and from memory. It may be even less productive than that. And it depends on the quality of the pasture, of course. But it is in the right order of magnitude. But if you want to be sure about it please double check that.

[Tired of Waiting]

Is this not what was happening in the pre planning days?

I love some of our town centres that have built up over 100's of years, with different styles of buildings lining the streets. Most of these areas are now conservation areas and are far more attractive than the identical urban estates you see around towns and cities up and down the country.

I would quite like to see a 'zoning' style policy laid out like you mention.

Good post.

[Tired of Waiting]

This is what they do in Spain - there are often networks of roads and street lights, with houses yet to be parked next to them.

Maybe the Spanish take this a bit far, but you could zone the land, then when someone wants a plot, build in the infrastructure (within reason) around that point.

Exactly!

Many countries do that. Actually, from my experience, MOST countries do that.

BTW, this thing about asking for "council houses" is such a.. bleeding medieval peasants' mentality! Just allow us to build our fecking homes, with our own fecking money! But planning restrictions are so absurdly tight that every tiny building plot ends up costing a bleeding fortune!!!

[Tired of Waiting]

good bear breakfast.Thanks

New forum members may appreciate this too.

(The posts below suggested that some were not familiar with this magazine liberal positions)

None of these "leading" economists suggested house prices were anything but a one-way bet in the boom years - why should we think they are any more correct now? (...)

Basically they have been full of shite for the whole decade - what they counted as growth was nothing but debt and that debt has wrecked the real economy and driven a lot of it abroad - what a result!