4 ms·

The green belts need to go. Cities should be allowed to expand outwards.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
No thanks. There's no reason cities can't expand upwards. Besides that, there's plenty of brownfield sites that could be converted to housing if the desire to do so was there. The best option in reducing prices would be to invest more heavily in transport infrastructure so that towns on the periphery of cities became more attractive to live in, and therefore develop in. Investments are being made in national rail infrastructure, but less so on the local level. It's a real shame that the UK lost so much of its railway infrastructure during the push towards automotive transportation.
frede 9y ago
For London it would also help to increase the density of housing. Large areas of the city are still built with Victorian houses.
DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
Or upwards. London has a very low population density because of building height restrictions (now considered archaic, I understand). London has very few tall buildings and Canary Wharf is is closer to downtown Bellevue, WA than it is to Manhatten in terms of scale. Brits are somewhat opposed to "tower blocks" because they were a poorly-planned top-down social engineering experiment in the postwar years to deal with rehousing the residents of slums and other deprived areas. Modern "high-end living" flats in much taller, aesthetically pleasing, and most importantly: safer, structures are being built, but not at a sufficient pace. A reasons there hasn't been a total crash yet is because lovely, lower-density houses (think: 3 and 4 story spacious townhouses, not working-class 2-up/2-down terrace houses) are bought up for millions then internally gutted and remodelled into individual, modestly-sized flats to rent - sometimes barely larger than the size of a living room.
- hordeallergy 9y ago
  Do you think the transport system can handle increased density of upward building? It's not really coping with current levels, and in no way pleasant.
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    Not in the long-teen, no. There needs to be an expansion of the tube system to improve capacity. An alternative solution worth investigating would be to ease rush-hour by incentivising, or even restricting, companies from starting at 9am.
    - ukoki 9y ago
      I think it's already happening — the bad commutes are incentive enough. I've been at startup-like tech companies in Shoreditch where it's acceptable to swan into work any time before 11. Another anecdata is the large bank I worked at where it was expected that you would work from home 1-2 days per week.
  - poooogles 9y ago
    >Do you think the transport system can handle increased density of upward building? Depends if the rate of take up of cycling increases IMO. The year on year increases have been pretty consistent and don't seem to be slowing down. Sadiq putting on 'hold' (read cancelled) any new cycling infrastructure is likely to put an end to that though. Don't forget we've got Crossrail coming later this year as well. That should take some strain off the central line in the mornings at least. Quicker Crossrail 2 get's off the ground the better though as the Northern line is a living hell in the morning. Getting on at Clapham (anywhere) and going north just is a 5 to 15 minute wait.
    - isostatic 9y ago
      Crossrail is a massive, very expensive, 15 year project and it will 'take some strain off the central line in the morning'. Crossrail2 may help relieve the northern and Victoria too, but that's with normal growth rates. The soil beneath London isn't a infinite resource either, Crossrail 1 was threaded in between other underground services, with a margin of about 30cm in one case I believe. Mayors seem to have pet transport projects, Ken had buses, Boris had bikes, What's Sadiq's?
poooogles 9y ago
Or we need to build higher density housing. Once the greenbelts have gone, you won't be able to bring them back. Ever.
tim333 9y ago
I like the green belts. There are other options - upwards in London or allow more building outside of the belt. Personally I think tall residential buildings in London could work quite well. In places like HCMC, and China they are throwing up 30 story blocks like nobodies business - I think only planning restrictions stop that here. I live in a 5 story block in London and think no one would be much inconvenienced if it had 45 stories instead. Prince Charles might moan but who cares.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  Is the transport infrastructure of HCMC something you'd like to emulate too? http://static.thanhniennews.com/Uploaded/thuyhang/2016_01_06/ket_xe_o_hcmc_HRJI.jpg http://static.thanhniennews.com/Uploaded/thuyhang/2016_01_06... You shouldn't invest increased housing density without an increased investment in other types of infrastructure, including transport. Transport in London is already uncomfortable at peak times. It could be argued that having more people living in London would mean more people could walk / cycle to work, reducing the strain on public transportation, but it's not a gamble I'd be willing to make.
  - tim333 9y ago
    I was thinking of the new light rail and associated developments http://sggpnews.org.vn/hochiminhcity/first-metro-route-to-come-into-operation-by-2020-59169.html http://sggpnews.org.vn/hochiminhcity/first-metro-route-to-co... The stuff you linked is what they got from low rise sprawl and roads.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      Thanks for the link, good to see that the Vietnamese government is investing in light rail for HCMC.
- namelost 9y ago
  Wouldn't you rather have parks and green space inside cities, than wrapped around them? Green belts create an artificial pressure to turn green space inside cities into residential and commercial land. The green belts are a scam. They claim to protect something that doesn't need protecting (England is dominated by rural land that is not part of a green belt), at the cost of something that does (the quality of life for those inside the cities).
hordeallergy 9y ago
I'd like to highlight your word "cities", because every comment seems to suggest that there is only one - London. Why not expand the others before trying to make London even more dehumanising?

No thanks. There's no reason cities can't expand upwards. Besides that, there's plenty of brownfield sites that could be converted to housing if the desire to do so was there. The best option in reducing prices would be to invest more heavily in transport infrastructure so that towns on the periphery of cities became more attractive to live in, and therefore develop in. Investments are being made in national rail infrastructure, but less so on the local level. It's a real shame that the UK lost so much of its railway infrastructure during the push towards automotive transportation.

frede 9y ago

For London it would also help to increase the density of housing. Large areas of the city are still built with Victorian houses.

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago

Or upwards. London has a very low population density because of building height restrictions (now considered archaic, I understand). London has very few tall buildings and Canary Wharf is is closer to downtown Bellevue, WA than it is to Manhatten in terms of scale. Brits are somewhat opposed to "tower blocks" because they were a poorly-planned top-down social engineering experiment in the postwar years to deal with rehousing the residents of slums and other deprived areas. Modern "high-end living" flats in much taller, aesthetically pleasing, and most importantly: safer, structures are being built, but not at a sufficient pace. A reasons there hasn't been a total crash yet is because lovely, lower-density houses (think: 3 and 4 story spacious townhouses, not working-class 2-up/2-down terrace houses) are bought up for millions then internally gutted and remodelled into individual, modestly-sized flats to rent - sometimes barely larger than the size of a living room.

hordeallergy 9y ago
Do you think the transport system can handle increased density of upward building? It's not really coping with current levels, and in no way pleasant.
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  Not in the long-teen, no. There needs to be an expansion of the tube system to improve capacity. An alternative solution worth investigating would be to ease rush-hour by incentivising, or even restricting, companies from starting at 9am.
  - ukoki 9y ago
    I think it's already happening — the bad commutes are incentive enough. I've been at startup-like tech companies in Shoreditch where it's acceptable to swan into work any time before 11. Another anecdata is the large bank I worked at where it was expected that you would work from home 1-2 days per week.
- poooogles 9y ago
  >Do you think the transport system can handle increased density of upward building? Depends if the rate of take up of cycling increases IMO. The year on year increases have been pretty consistent and don't seem to be slowing down. Sadiq putting on 'hold' (read cancelled) any new cycling infrastructure is likely to put an end to that though. Don't forget we've got Crossrail coming later this year as well. That should take some strain off the central line in the mornings at least. Quicker Crossrail 2 get's off the ground the better though as the Northern line is a living hell in the morning. Getting on at Clapham (anywhere) and going north just is a 5 to 15 minute wait.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    Crossrail is a massive, very expensive, 15 year project and it will 'take some strain off the central line in the morning'. Crossrail2 may help relieve the northern and Victoria too, but that's with normal growth rates. The soil beneath London isn't a infinite resource either, Crossrail 1 was threaded in between other underground services, with a margin of about 30cm in one case I believe. Mayors seem to have pet transport projects, Ken had buses, Boris had bikes, What's Sadiq's?

poooogles 9y ago

Or we need to build higher density housing. Once the greenbelts have gone, you won't be able to bring them back. Ever.

tim333 9y ago

I like the green belts. There are other options - upwards in London or allow more building outside of the belt. Personally I think tall residential buildings in London could work quite well. In places like HCMC, and China they are throwing up 30 story blocks like nobodies business - I think only planning restrictions stop that here. I live in a 5 story block in London and think no one would be much inconvenienced if it had 45 stories instead. Prince Charles might moan but who cares.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
Is the transport infrastructure of HCMC something you'd like to emulate too? http://static.thanhniennews.com/Uploaded/thuyhang/2016_01_06/ket_xe_o_hcmc_HRJI.jpg http://static.thanhniennews.com/Uploaded/thuyhang/2016_01_06... You shouldn't invest increased housing density without an increased investment in other types of infrastructure, including transport. Transport in London is already uncomfortable at peak times. It could be argued that having more people living in London would mean more people could walk / cycle to work, reducing the strain on public transportation, but it's not a gamble I'd be willing to make.
- tim333 9y ago
  I was thinking of the new light rail and associated developments http://sggpnews.org.vn/hochiminhcity/first-metro-route-to-come-into-operation-by-2020-59169.html http://sggpnews.org.vn/hochiminhcity/first-metro-route-to-co... The stuff you linked is what they got from low rise sprawl and roads.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Thanks for the link, good to see that the Vietnamese government is investing in light rail for HCMC.
namelost 9y ago
Wouldn't you rather have parks and green space inside cities, than wrapped around them? Green belts create an artificial pressure to turn green space inside cities into residential and commercial land. The green belts are a scam. They claim to protect something that doesn't need protecting (England is dominated by rural land that is not part of a green belt), at the cost of something that does (the quality of life for those inside the cities).

hordeallergy 9y ago

I'd like to highlight your word "cities", because every comment seems to suggest that there is only one - London. Why not expand the others before trying to make London even more dehumanising?