An Overcrowded Island? - The Great Myth of Urban Britain

[Guest]

An interesting piece by BBC's Mark Easton:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

[ahinton]

An interesting piece by BBC's Mark Easton:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Many thanks for posting this. It doesn't at all surprise me (especially as a Scot), although I suppose it will surprise others.

[Northender]

Very interesting - but then, I can't remember ever reading or listening to anything Mark Easton has ever written or said that hasn't been interesting.

[Serial_Apologist]

To me, not too well acquainted with "The North", the real shock is seeing on the map the extraordinary extensity in the conurbation of W. Yorkshire and Lancashire, representing a built-up area even larger than that of London, and with only a thin isthmus of Pennines separating the two.

[teamsaint]

plenty of land to build on...so that we can all have decent housing at sensible prices!!

The building land "shortage" is a myth designed to keep land prices high.

Don't want the whole country tarmaced over , obviously, but most of our land is owned by the powerful...aritocracy, agribusiness, the military, the crown, prince charles etc.

I expect to get lots of flak for this post !!

[amateur51]

plenty of land to build on...so that we can all have decent housing at sensible prices!!

The building land "shortage" is a myth designed to keep land prices high.

Don't want the whole country tarmaced over , obviously, but most of our land is owned by the powerful...aritocracy, agribusiness, the military, the crown, prince charles etc.

I expect to get lots of flak for this post !!

Come little friend, clamber 'neath my greatcoat (Neddy Seagoon voice, svp )

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The bit of tarmac you happen to live on is hardly the point. Britain is massively overcrowded because it cannot feed its population by growing food on its own land. To sustain a large population, you need huge areas of open land.

Simple mathematics.

[ahinton]

plenty of land to build on...so that we can all have decent housing at sensible prices!!

The building land "shortage" is a myth designed to keep land prices high.

Don't want the whole country tarmaced over , obviously, but most of our land is owned by the powerful...aritocracy, agribusiness, the military, the crown, prince charles etc.

I expect to get lots of flak for this post !!

I can't and won't speak for anyone else and what you might get from them about yourpost, but whilst the building land "shortage" is indeed a myth, one doesn't need it in order to keep the prices of it high - in fact, the more development that takes place, the higher those prices will rise and that would not be possible unless there were sufficient land to build on (subject to permission) in the first place. You have only to consider thatother myth -and this one really is a myth - of so-called "affordable housing" which is hardly ever affordable by the time it's built!

[vinteuil]

To sustain a large population, you need huge areas of open land.

Simple mathematics.

... poor old Singapore.

[salymap]

I'm very grateful to the 'Landed Aristocracy' of the past for leaving some beautiful large houses and parkland around here to relieve the monotony of all we small house dwellers. Danson Park, Hall Place, where Elizabeth I stayed, the Red House and gardens, largely built and planned by William Morris.
I am sure most outer suburbs have similar attractions and even if they are now garden centres, restaurants, counciul offices, they break up the endless motorways that now surround us.

I appreciate that I wouldn't be able to afford present day prices for a house or bungalow though and feel sorry for the young. There are lots of open spaces a little further down in Kent.

[Richard Tarleton]

One needs to take an holistic view of population and land area. It's not just a question of simple density. Mark Easton is the BBC's Home Editor, and takes an understandably anthropocentric view of things - I daresay the BBC's Science Editor, or its Environmental Analyst, might take different views.

This country's rapidly expanding population is having a disastrous effect on the environment. Much of the development in the last 50 years has been on flood plains, or in the SE where pressure on water supplies is leading to rivers running dry. Much of the area that is not occupied is empty for very good reasons - climatic, topographical. Ecosystems are becoming ever more fragmented, resulting in the loss of biodiversity as corridors between habitats are lost. A large number of coastal or low lying areas are under threat from sea level rise and settlements in many areas will have to migrate inland - no doubt MBers in coastal towns have been following their Shoreline Management Plan 2s with interest.

These islands are chronically overcrowded. France has a similar population in twice the land area.

For a contrary view, try Sir (or should it be St) David and co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Matters.

[jean]

To me, not too well acquainted with "The North", the real shock is seeing on the map the extraordinary extensity in the conurbation of W. Yorkshire and Lancashire, representing a built-up area even larger than that of London, and with only a thin isthmus of Pennines separating the two.

I haven't looked at the map, but I am very well acquainted with "The North" and I can say with confidence that any map that gives that impression is seriously misleading!

[Stephen Smith]

Soon after this benighted country received this coalition government ("because the people didn't deliver a majority that means we can fix up between ourselver what you are going to get") Grant Shapps - the housing minister did acknowledge (in radio interview at least) that the supply and price of land was a source of low housing availability. Not much heard from him since, which is surprising because he is known as an accomplished publicity seeker. I agree with the comments above - and would add its in the interests of the owners of vast amounts of land to drip feed the release of land as planning permission overnight hugely increases its value - and underpins the value (or potential value) of the stock of land they retain.
Against that, none of us want ugly development around our settled areas. Why are there no new towns / cities? (Milton Keynes is a success) - the reason is that its much more costly to build accompanying new hospitals, schools etc and much cheaper to overload existing infrastructure (our local roads, GP surgeries, secondary schools which can never meet in the hall because it only holds a quarter of the students).
I am bemused, I cannot understand why no political force has taken up this issue - because the grossly unreasonable (and its only getting worse, week by week) cost of housing, rented or otherwise, is seriously undermining the quality of life.

In particular this is to the great prejudice of the younger generation, and has been for ? 15 ?20 years (so its not just looking at todays 20 year olds). I really draw no comfort from the vaue of my house when I know my chidlren will have to move to lower cost area to afford to live. We have massively betrayed the younger generation, I am sure with no intention - we are told they, and their children are going to pay for the debt of banks, assumed by the state (with shareholders relieved of the risk) the ageing population, student debt, the costs of action to preserve the environmental (oh - and pay for another bunch of politicians in a second chamber). It seem to me that they will be living in a form of bondage or enforced servitude - both partners in a marriage will have no choice but to work, and not to live in comfort even then. Will they tolerate that ?(social analysts are already talking about tensions between the generations).

I remain to be persuaded that there is not the quantity of land to increase the supply of decent proportioned and sized housing and radically lower the cost. And the older generation need to fund their elderly care from the value of their houses where it has value, whether on an insurance basis or otherwise, and at the sime time accept the need for static house prices, for decades. I say static because it occurs to me that in the unlikely event of a radical (it would have to be unprecedently radical) increase in the supply of housing, a fall in the value of housing would cause even more instability in our commercial and financial system - because so much lending, (especially in the small and medium business sector) secures bank and other lending. If banks see the value of security falling, they will withdraw business finance even more than at present, with a direct effect on emploment. (Perhaps the Treasury has headed off any dangerous thoughts in this area).

I have been thinking along these lines for some years now, and the need for action, and real achievement, seems to get stronger as each month passes. If the land were to be acquired (and why not a development land tax?) and the housing and infastructure built, it would increase the activity in the economy - and much of the expenditure would not suck in imports.
Just my thoughts - I appreciate beauty and tranquillity very much- but a country is for living in and there must be a way to resolve these competing claims.

[MrGongGong]

... poor old Singapore.

indeed

simple mathematics

I think there is often a rather sinister agenda behind some of the folk who constantly go on about how "overcrowded" we are , "Migration Watch" being the most visible , some rather dodgy ideas hiding behind a think veneer of supposed "common sense"

[french frank]

I think that's rather an unfair comment, MrGG . It may be unreasonable - and selfish - to expect the green and pleasant land to remain unchanged and unchanging, but the UK would be generally rated, comparatively speaking, quite densely populated. I believe the Netherlands is moreso, as far as Europe goes.

In terms of population, I wouldn't mind turning the clock back 1,000 years. I'm working on it but I think it's a bit of a tough one in the light of present-day knowledge ...