4 ms·
This article is severely tilted nonsense with a weird ideological bent. The author sneers against regulatory rules to limit suburban sprawl but really none of
by Tiktaalik 2y ago
This article is severely tilted nonsense with a weird ideological bent.
The author sneers against regulatory rules to limit suburban sprawl but really none of that has anything to do with a housing shortage.
It is entirely possible to denser and taller buildings, having both compact communities, green space, farms and forest and also addressing housing needs. UK hinders its economy by declining to do so (as do so many other places with housing shortages).
- ascorbic 2y agoThe UK needs to do both. It needs to allow denser development, but that isn't enough. It is also possible to expand the green belt without causing suburban sprawl.
- devnullbrain 2y agoThere's not one green belt. There are a number of green belts, typically constricting our biggest economic centres, but the spaces between allow development. This leads to situations like Oxford where people working in the university that gave the city its current fame can't afford to live in it. Instead they live in suburban towns outside of Oxford's green belt and commute in - through it. Ironically, there is now an incentive for the same number of people to sprawl over a larger area, requiring more railways, roads and parking. Many locals in Oxford's new sprawl expect a non-existent greenbelt to protect their areas and are left disappointed. The real rub is that England lacks Scotland's right to roam. So protecting all this green land doesn't even give us the right to walk in it. Only to gaze from a passing window.
- automatic6131 2y ago>It is entirely possible to denser and taller buildings Yes, but you're not allowed those either.