Nimbys Trying To Turn Fields Into Village Greens

[(Blizzard)]

If you doubled the number of 'built up area' it would still be mainly green fields and woods.

But its such beautiful unspoiled countryside. It has glorious views to the west, across a 400kv electricity substation to the M1. Travel north and nestled against the M25 you find the industrial estate which is home to a self-storage facility rumoured to have been used to store the put-up-bed of Henry V after he left loughborough university. To the South you can see the waters of the hilford park reservoir lapping gently against the ******ing airport ******ing runway on its bank.

What's a few homeless people compared to all that glorious heritage?

[(Blizzard)]

That of course needs to be considered and is rather subjective.The point is, though, that it doesn't need a large proportion to have a significant effect. When it comes to housing the cost of building more to accommodate the people we've currently got is justifiable, even if it's something I'd rather avoid having to do. The problem is that it doesn't end there, which is why it ultimately comes back to needing to stop population growth.

Population growth isn't really the issue, debt growth and the rise of the landlord are.

However, there is a housing crisis and alleviating that is so much more important than protecting a few bits of wasteland, in a country with vast amounts of empty space.

At this point it is entirely obvious that the planning laws exist entirely to enrich a few landowners by creating artificial scarcity, without which the landlords and debt merchants would be lost.

It's not even a secret. Every NIMBY says it:

'If you build this school/hospital/bridge of light to a world of pure joy and happiness, it'll knock thousands of the price of houses in the area'

[Dorkins]

That of course needs to be considered and is rather subjective.The point is, though, that it doesn't need a large proportion to have a significant effect. When it comes to housing the cost of building more to accommodate the people we've currently got is justifiable, even if it's something I'd rather avoid having to do. The problem is that it doesn't end there, which is why it ultimately comes back to needing to stop population growth.

Population growth isn't even the biggest source of pressure on housing, it's mostly changes in household composition (more older people means more childless couples, more divorce means more singles) and changes in the geographical distribution of where people want to live (away from former industrial and mining areas, towards commercial centres where the jobs are now).

Why do we have the housing stock we have now? Because builders put houses where they were wanted or needed in the past. But it's not the past anymore, it's 2013 and we need a different housing stock from the one we needed in 1913.

This idea that we should simply stop responding to changes in housing need and force people to make do with what history happens to have bequeathed us seems very oppressive.

[Billy soy]

Population growth isn't even the biggest source of pressure on housing, it's mostly changes in household composition (more older people means more childless couples, more divorce means more singles) and changes in the geographical distribution of where people want to live (away from former industrial and mining areas, towards commercial centres where the jobs are now).

Why do we have the housing stock we have now? Because builders put houses where they were wanted or needed in the past. But it's not the past anymore, it's 2013 and we need a different housing stock from the one we needed in 1913.

This idea that we should simply stop responding to changes in housing need and force people to make do with what history happens to have bequeathed us seems very oppressive.

+1

Riedquat's ideas are not just wrong but tinged with a malevolence that's disconcerting.

If the problem in his eyes is future over population then why not campaign for a 1 child policy Instead of denying housing to those alive and not over populating this island today?

[mentalfloss]

+1

Riedquat's ideas are not just wrong but tinged with a malevolence that's disconcerting.

If the problem in his eyes is future over population then why not campaign for a 1 child policy Instead of denying housing to those alive and not over populating this island today?

Bit unfair I reckon. Riedquat has made it quite clear that their main political driver is in fact finding a solution to population growth. Its possible to do two things at once.

Personally I'm torn on this one. I live in the south east in a housing pressure hotspot. I'm sure given demand that developers would love to "help" by cramming a load of crappy slave boxes on top of what green space we have. Of course as previously without some sort of planning framework they'd do so with scant regard for local services. A few years hence the council would be horrified and surprised (like the idiots they are) as school, roads, hospitals etc. began to fail due to demand pressure.

Building purely to satisfy demand now or furpture demand extrapolated from infinite future growth seems dim to me. Once this green space is lost most of it won't ever be seen again. Some people are happy to live in urban / semi urban surroundings their whole lives. Personally the less I see the better. That's not to say I hate people or can't recognise a crisis when I see one. Just that knee jerking one way is as bad as nimnby madness on the other.

[Billy soy]

Bit unfair I reckon. Riedquat has made it quite clear that their main political driver is in fact finding a solution to population growth. Its possible to do two things at once.

Personally I'm torn on this one. I live in the south east in a housing pressure hotspot. I'm sure given demand that developers would love to "help" by cramming a load of crappy slave boxes on top of what green space we have. Of course as previously without some sort of planning framework they'd do so with scant regard for local services. A few years hence the council would be horrified and surprised (like the idiots they are) as school, roads, hospitals etc. began to fail due to demand pressure.

Building purely to satisfy demand now or furpture demand extrapolated from infinite future growth seems dim to me. Once this green space is lost most of it won't ever be seen again. Some people are happy to live in urban / semi urban surroundings their whole lives. Personally the less I see the better. That's not to say I hate people or can't recognise a crisis when I see one. Just that knee jerking one way is as bad as nimnby madness on the other.

We have had underbuilding for over 20 years. We have a supply side housing crisis.

We also are not about to hit some exponential population explosion and have plenty of land to address the housing backlog.

If you want to slow population growth stop mass immigration but do not stop building homes.

[Riedquat]

+1

Riedquat's ideas are not just wrong but tinged with a malevolence that's disconcerting.

If the problem in his eyes is future over population then why not campaign for a 1 child policy Instead of denying housing to those alive and not over populating this island today?

Melevolence? Such total disregard for the place we live in is what I find disconcerting, especially from people who then carry on making claims that are rather contrary to a lot of what I've posted. It's utterly beyond me that anyone could look around at the levels of development present throughout most of England and not realise how much more pleasant a place it would be to live in if it was lower. I want a greater quality of life for everyone. There's nothing wrong with what I'm saying, what is wrong are people who are blind to the issue.

Still, it looks like I'm going to have to repeat myself again - it's current overpopulation that's the issue, tackle population growth and then build enough to accommodate what we've currently got, and there's no need for any policies of dubious morality like forcing one child when getting a grip on immigration and removing some of the carrots for having lots of children would probably do the trick. Stuff like "denying housing" is claptrap you bring up just to try to denigrate me.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Riedquat

[Riedquat]

Population growth isn't even the biggest source of pressure on housing, it's mostly changes in household composition (more older people means more childless couples, more divorce means more singles) and changes in the geographical distribution of where people want to live (away from former industrial and mining areas, towards commercial centres where the jobs are now).

That's somewhat of a distribution problem, but it also implies that there's a housing excess in some areas, which with a few exceptions I just don't see. Things like ageing are a temporary phenomena if the population stablises (after a while it won't be putting on any additional pressure) and plenty of divorced people seem to hook up with someone else, so that's not quite as big a problem as it sounds. And again, with a stable population the effects of that will also stabilise.

Why do we have the housing stock we have now? Because builders put houses where they were wanted or needed in the past. But it's not the past anymore, it's 2013 and we need a different housing stock from the one we needed in 1913.

This idea that we should simply stop responding to changes in housing need and force people to make do with what history happens to have bequeathed us seems very oppressive.

I've never claimed that we should do that, only that we need to stop an ever-increasing amount of built-up land. Change to deal with how things have changed is fine, continual growth is not since we've long passed the point at which any increase of developed land can be viewed as more than a necessary evil (people in denial of that astound me).

[Dorkins]

Such total disregard for the place we live in is what I find disconcerting

Who has total disregard for the place we live in? We all want Britain to be a nice place to live. Some of us also want it to have a housing stock that meets the needs of the population. Houses are not evil flamethrowing robots, if done well they can add to the environment aesthetically.

[Riedquat]

We have had underbuilding for over 20 years. We have a supply side housing crisis.

We also are not about to hit some exponential population explosion and have plenty of land to address the housing backlog.

If you want to slow population growth stop mass immigration but do not stop building homes.

No, it needs to be stopped, not slowed, otherwise that's the same thing just happening more slowly (like all that clamouring about "look how good we're doing, we're trying to reduce the defecit" and people acting like the debt was going down).

There's plenty of physical land but surely you realise it's more than just the physical space - higher levels of development overall are a negative impact on the quality of life for an awful lot of people, and that can be as subtle as there being several large towns nearby instead of a few small ones.

As I've had to say more than once I'll not object to building homes as long as it's not a continual process of building more and more, exponential or otherwise. Even if you don't think there's any problem with the amount of development now there will be eventually if we keep your attitude, simply because of the rather obvious fact that continual growth can't actually go on forever.

[Dorkins]

I've never claimed that we should do that, only that we need to stop an ever-increasing amount of built-up land. Change to deal with how things have changed is fine, continual growth is not since we've long passed the point at which any increase of developed land can be viewed as more than a necessary evil (people in denial of that astound me).

Housing policy needs to deal with the population we actually have, not some fantasy of what we would like to have. It would be like refusing to build hospitals because in an ideal world nobody would ever get sick.

[Riedquat]

Who has total disregard for the place we live in? We all want Britain to be a nice place to live. Some of us also want it to have a housing stock that meets the needs of the population. Houses are not evil flamethrowing robots, if done well they can add to the environment aesthetically.

Once again I'm seeing yet another post that seems to have completely overlooked just about everything I've said. Don't you think that the level of development can make a difference on quality of life, no matter how well done it is? I'll say the same thing again - I'm fine with building enough for the current population, simply because it's needed, but that has to take into account the fact that it can't and shouldn't go on forever. Do you honestly think that there is no negative effect with building more?

Part of the problem is that they are rarely done well, particularly the sort that get built in the highest numbers.

[Riedquat]

Housing policy needs to deal with the population we actually have, not some fantasy of what we would like to have. It would be like refusing to build hospitals because in an ideal world nobody would ever get sick.

Oh FFS, try actually reading my posts.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Riedquat

[Guest eight]

Forget employment, forget much needed affordable housing for families, the need to preserve a dog walk area trumps all else!

Look, if people didn't walk dogs, how would murder victim's bodies ever be discovered?

[Dorkins]

I'm fine with building enough for the current population, simply because it's needed, but that has to take into account the fact that it can't and shouldn't go on forever.

What does this actually mean, in practical terms? How can you build houses in a way that "takes account of the fact that it can't go on forever"?

[Guest eight]

What's a few homeless people compared to all that glorious heritage?

I visited that part of the World for the first time in years recently. I don't know what I was expecting but I couldn't believe how green and undeveloped it all was. We actually went through Bushey on the train into Euston every day, basically once you're past Harrow it's mostly green fields. I reckon Teesside and North Tyneside have had it far, far worse in recent years.

[motch]

Look, if people didn't walk dogs, how would murder victim's bodies ever be discovered?

the posties would find them?

[Riedquat]

What does this actually mean, in practical terms? How can you build houses in a way that "takes account of the fact that it can't go on forever"?

Hence my points about population. Isn't that rather obvious? You'll still need to build some of course, as some get too old and need replacing or as the population shifts around.

[Billy soy]

Deal with future population growth before trying to constrain the current populations housing shortages by imposing even more building restrictions.

Or do you propose a future of Simon Jenkins style high rises or prince Charles suggestion that we should learn from the Indians and their Mumbai shanty towns are an answer?

[Riedquat]

Deal with future population growth before trying to constrain the current populations housing shortages by imposing even more building restrictions.

Or do you propose a future of Simon Jenkins style high rises or prince Charles suggestion that we should learn from the Indians and their Mumbai shanty towns are an answer?

No, dealing with the growth first is exactly what I want to do, hence all my posts that say that I don't actually have a problem with building enough to deal with the current population. SInce I've said this numerous times already I have to wonder why you're even asking.

[Quicken]

There's plenty of physical land but surely you realise it's more than just the physical space - higher levels of development overall are a negative impact on the quality of life for an awful lot of people, and that can be as subtle as there being several large towns nearby instead of a few small ones.

Hi Riedquat,

Can you explain how higher levels of development overall are a negative?

I grew up in the lake district but as an adult I've lived in a few cities in England. My favourite is Sheffield, which is basically Victorian terrace central but also features more trees and green spaces than the other big cities in the UK (someone earlier in the thread posted a population density plot from Shef). Sheffield grew massively in the 19th century (wikipedia says the population increased from 60,095 in 1801 to 451,195 by 1901). That expansion was over green fields and villages. The point is that it was rapid development in response to need. Our planning system has lost sight of that concept.

[Riedquat]

Hi Riedquat,

Can you explain how higher levels of development overall are a negative?

I grew up in the lake district but as an adult I've lived in a few cities in England. My favourite is Sheffield, which is basically Victorian terrace central but also features more trees and green spaces than the other big cities in the UK (someone earlier in the thread posted a population density plot from Shef). Sheffield grew massively in the 19th century (wikipedia says the population increased from 60,095 in 1801 to 451,195 by 1901). That expansion was over green fields and villages. The point is that it was rapid development in response to need. Our planning system has lost sight of that concept.

In purely those terms it isn't, but I feel strongly that living with a lower developed environment is a more pleasant one to live in, and it goes beyond the immediate surroundings. Don't you ever wonder how much more pleasant somewhere might've been before it got built up? And even if you can't actually see it from where you are it makes a difference whether it's a village or a city just out of sight. That's subjective of course but the same is true for just about everything that you could say makes life worth living, and the number of people who would like to live in such places suggests that it's a widely-shared view. Lower levels of development would mean a higher quality of life for an awful lot of people. Of course other things would too, far too much development from the 20th century onwards has been extremely dull and characterless, which doesn't help at all. And not providing sufficient quality housing for people has a more immediate negative impact on quality of life, which brings me around to my population points.

Our planning system has realised that expansion over green fields and villages is responsible for a slow, steady deterioration in the quality of our overall environment. That's good, and as you've probably realised I get rather angry at people who don't seem to have any problem with that. However I do realise that just concentrating on that and therefore refusing to provide sufficient accommodation isn't good either, although despite repeatedly saying this I keep getting accused of saying the opposite by people who I can only assume lack any comprehension skills. That is why I think it of utmost importance to try to achieve both by building good quality accommodation for everyone but removing the demand for that to continually increase. It still wouldn't be my ideal world (probably need half the population to vanish for that) but I doubt that there's any ethical way of achieving my ideal world and I'm not a proponent for unethical ones.