Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
dryrot

Radio 5Live Phone-In @ 9 - Should We Build On Green Belt

Recommended Posts

Green belt is relevant to London discussions but in many other areas of the country the debate is framed to give the impression that a house on anything other than brownfield is all on greenbelt, whereas this is not the case.

As to the London situation, BBC states in another article that 1 million homes can be built by extending the edge of the city by 1 mile is a total no brainer, if the stats are correct.

London diameter is approx. 40km looking at Google earth, so extending that to 41.6km adds an area of pi(41.6^2-40^2)/4 =~ 100 sq km, or about 25,000 acres meaning a density of approx. 40 homes/acre, which seems a bit high to me but consistent with current building practices as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherever they're going to be built the land needs to be cheap cause at the most the problem is affordability. That problem is going to increase with MMR and the return of normal interest rates.

Green belt can never be replaced so let's legislate that the needed housing will be very low density and held by the state as social housing never to sold privately and an asset for the nation. If its low enough density it can still act as green belt if large tracks of the land is wooded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
London diameter is approx. 40km looking at Google earth, so extending that to 41.6km adds an area of pi(41.6^2-40^2)/4 =~ 100 sq km, or about 25,000 acres meaning a density of approx. 40 homes/acre, which seems a bit high to me but consistent with current building practices as I understand it.

Why did you divide by four? The correct increase in the area is pi*41.6^2 - pi*40^2 so you are out by a factor of four. A million extra homes should be easily possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green belt is relevant to London discussions

There's something like 30 British towns and cities that now have green belts, and more are coming all the time. Voters love them.

I think green belts are just wrong minded and socially destructive. The countrysides' enemy isn't housing, it's agribusiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well lets hope someone points out that this endangered green belt has actually been increasing in size since the 70's to the point that it covers either 12-14% of the uks land.

That UK urban area is only 10% of which most of is actually green spaces, parks, gardens, lakes, canals, rivers and reservoirs.

Only 2.7% is actually housing and it houses 64 million people.

This obsession with the green belt by the boomer NIMBY brigades is pretty regressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a mass of green belt around London where the main housing problem is. There's masses of open space inside London itself as well

The media are always keen to project the idea that people should have to live in tower blocks but they're never keen to see that for example the river Thames offers a huge area of space that could be bridged over and built on top of just like many of the old rivers running into the Thames were built on top of.


http://

www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/london/9197314/Londons-lost-rivers-the-hidden-history-of-the-citys-buried-waterways.html

That project alone could provide sufficient area for at least about 200,000 houses.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a mass of green belt around London where the main housing problem is. There's masses of open space inside London itself as well

The media are always keen to project the idea that people should have to live in tower blocks but they're never keen to see that for example the river Thames offers a huge area of space that could be bridged over and built on top of just like many of the old rivers running into the Thames were built on top of already.


http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Green_Belt

http://

www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/london/9197314/Londons-lost-rivers-the-hidden-history-of-the-citys-buried-waterways.html

That project alone could provide sufficient area for about 200,000 houses.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first introduce some incentives for landlords to start selling their stock. That would provide 4,000,000 homes for FTB at greatly reduced price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build on top of the Thames? Are you mad?

No. Why.

Are you mad?

As I explained all the other London rivers have already been built over to accommodate housing, offices, streets and roads etc so it's just a natural and reasonable extension of that policy to build on top of the Thames.

It'll soon become even more necessary if the official predictions for increases in UK population are accurate.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Why.

Are you mad?

As I explained all the other London rivers have already been built over to accommodate housing, offices, streets and roads etc so it's just a natural and reasonable extension of that policy to build on top of the Thames.

It'll soon become even more necessary if the official predictions for increases in UK population are accurate.

And it's a natural and reasonable extension of your policy to build on top of the English Channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's a natural and reasonable extension of your policy to build on top of the English Channel.

No it's not at the moment because there is no London house price mega bubble and similar shortage of property/land in areas near to the English Channel. The mega bubble is concentrated in and around London.

That's not to say that extensions to the UK land maybe into the Channel won't have to be considered some time in the future if official predictions for the UK population are anywhere near accurate but it's certainly not necessary right now. Plenty of other nations have extended their land outwards in the past. They've often described it as reclaiming land. The Netherlands for instance.

There are plenty of other open spaces in and around London available as well as the Thames. The Channel is well down the list.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Why.

Are you mad?

As I explained all the other London rivers have already been built over to accommodate housing, offices, streets and roads etc so it's just a natural and reasonable extension of that policy to build on top of the Thames.

It'll soon become even more necessary if the official predictions for increases in UK population are accurate.

Lol

You couldn't make it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol

You couldn't make it up

That's an infantile remark isn't it.

The best you have to offer to solve London's mega house price problems?

No doubt some people made similar remarks when the proposals to build over the other London rivers were made in the past but they considered it necessary and they did it.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an infantile remark isn't it.

The best you have to offer to solve London's mega house price problems?

No doubt some people made similar remarks when the proposals to build over the other London rivers were made in the past but they considered it necessary and they did it.

If an airport can built on the Thames why not a few developments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Why.

Are you mad?

As I explained all the other London rivers have already been built over to accommodate housing, offices, streets and roads etc so it's just a natural and reasonable extension of that policy to build on top of the Thames.

It'll soon become even more necessary if the official predictions for increases in UK population are accurate.

The other London rivers are a lot smaller than the Thames, the cost of spanning such a large river would be a prohibitive and needless expense and really plays into the hands of the erroneous NIMBY meme that the UK is "full" and everything natural is about to disappear under a sea of concrete. We've only built on 2.7% of the actual land as hans kammler points out (leaving 97.3% of it available to be built on were planning permission liberalised) and London is in any case currently littered with empty properties and new developments under construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an infantile remark isn't it.

The best you have to offer to solve London's mega house price problems?

No doubt some people made similar remarks when the proposals to build over the other London rivers were made in the past but they considered it necessary and they did it.

Too much of the housing stock/land is under utilised or has been co-opted into outright speculation or speculative rentierism (i.e. rentierism that only generates a profit with HPI). The constriction in supply is due to this not an actual shortage of houses (witness how the number of people living rough has not shot up - most people are "housed" it's just that less of them have the will/opportunity to buy said housing at current prices). A HPC will cure this as speculators attempt to flee the market and realise their gains. The situation is already precarious it just needs the smallest thing to spark it off. Sentiment always turns on any bubble eventually. Going forward a land value tax to reduce this kind of speculation and maximise land utilisation would be the most helpful move to prevent another bubble forming on such a damaging scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


billybong, on 20 May 2014 - 1:24 PM, said:snapback.png

No. Why.

Are you mad?

As I explained all the other London rivers have already been built over to accommodate housing, offices, streets and roads etc so it's just a natural and reasonable extension of that policy to build on top of the Thames.

It'll soon become even more necessary if the official predictions for increases in UK population are accurate.

Lol

You couldn't make it up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Embankment

If you class the marshland as part of the river.

Edited by Ames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green belt is relevant to London discussions but in many other areas of the country the debate is framed to give the impression that a house on anything other than brownfield is all on greenbelt, whereas this is not the case.

As to the London situation, BBC states in another article that 1 million homes can be built by extending the edge of the city by 1 mile is a total no brainer, if the stats are correct.

London diameter is approx. 40km looking at Google earth, so extending that to 41.6km adds an area of pi(41.6^2-40^2)/4 =~ 100 sq km, or about 25,000 acres meaning a density of approx. 40 homes/acre, which seems a bit high to me but consistent with current building practices as I understand it.

I would interpret extending the edge by 1mile as an increase in diameter of 2miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Why.

Are you mad?

As I explained all the other London rivers have already been built over to accommodate housing, offices, streets and roads etc so it's just a natural and reasonable extension of that policy to build on top of the Thames.

It'll soon become even more necessary if the official predictions for increases in UK population are accurate.

I don't want to be pedantic but not all the other London rivers have been built over.

The Thames certainly won't be built over. Not even the Japanese built over Tokyo's large rivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.