How Many Abers Actually Like To Watch...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Do We Hate High Density Housing?
94 Answers
I've been waiting for an excuse to start a thread about this for some time and found just the thing I needed
http://
emmie wrote:-
//from figures elicited some time ago to the same sort of thread, 70 percent on UK is farmland, so suggest we start getting rid of much of it and build more houses, because that is what we will have to do, and i reiterate i was not just talking of London, where the majority of you don't live, and it has never been as cosmopolitan as it is now. //
Why pave over yet more fields? Goodness knows with the world's population heading for 11 billion by 2050, we're going to need all the growing capacity we've got AND continue to import vast quantities from overseas.
Don't forget that, in WWII, farmers were pretty much ordered (by the Ministry) to bring all their scrubland, marshy and semi-useless marginal farmland into producing some crop or other. Even though the population, then, was less than it is now, we were still heavily dependent on imported food.
To my mind, we became overpopulated in the first place because we had the empire and had the collective wealth to support large families all round.
I think the mistake Britain made was to build tower blocks and put the poor people into them, whilst the middle class retained their ideal of own-house-with-garden.
In America, they had the sense to build apartment blocks for the wealthy and make a packet in the process.
http://
I'd welcome your thoughts. I wasnted to ask "Why do we hate high density housing" but let's first establish whether we do or we don't, eh?
http://
emmie wrote:-
//from figures elicited some time ago to the same sort of thread, 70 percent on UK is farmland, so suggest we start getting rid of much of it and build more houses, because that is what we will have to do, and i reiterate i was not just talking of London, where the majority of you don't live, and it has never been as cosmopolitan as it is now. //
Why pave over yet more fields? Goodness knows with the world's population heading for 11 billion by 2050, we're going to need all the growing capacity we've got AND continue to import vast quantities from overseas.
Don't forget that, in WWII, farmers were pretty much ordered (by the Ministry) to bring all their scrubland, marshy and semi-useless marginal farmland into producing some crop or other. Even though the population, then, was less than it is now, we were still heavily dependent on imported food.
To my mind, we became overpopulated in the first place because we had the empire and had the collective wealth to support large families all round.
I think the mistake Britain made was to build tower blocks and put the poor people into them, whilst the middle class retained their ideal of own-house-with-garden.
In America, they had the sense to build apartment blocks for the wealthy and make a packet in the process.
http://
I'd welcome your thoughts. I wasnted to ask "Why do we hate high density housing" but let's first establish whether we do or we don't, eh?
Answers
The race to modernise the housing stock in the 1960s and 1970s resulted imn many mistakes. Communities were forced out of slums, but the modern blocks were often built in the wrong places, and away from amenities. Over the next 20 years they failed to develop into communities and were badly maintained. The result was that no one wanted to live there. The worse...
11:35 Mon 30th Dec 2013
The glib statement that we should start building on farmland shows, as you point out, a distinct lack of appreciation for the fine line our planet is treading regarding feeding our ever growing population.
I believe food wastage should be tackled to ensure that what is grown is eaten. One way to do this would be for supermarkets to ensure that food is sourced locally and thereby has a longer shelf life.
I disagree with your suggestion that the population explosion was due to Britain's empire and would propose that it had more to do with ensuring a household income through large families who's children could start earning a wage at 10 or 11.
I believe food wastage should be tackled to ensure that what is grown is eaten. One way to do this would be for supermarkets to ensure that food is sourced locally and thereby has a longer shelf life.
I disagree with your suggestion that the population explosion was due to Britain's empire and would propose that it had more to do with ensuring a household income through large families who's children could start earning a wage at 10 or 11.
Hi Zacs,
//I disagree with your suggestion that the population explosion was due to Britain's empire//
What was Manchester before the cotton industry? Where did the cotton come from? Want it dyed with indigo?
Teasing aside, I do agree to a great extent with your next bit
// and would propose that it had more to do with ensuring a household income through large families who's children could start earning a wage at 10 or 11. //
Back in the days of 'cottage industry', you needed to grow your own workforce and train them up in the family skill. (Hence our nation's love of the closed shop!?!)
//I disagree with your suggestion that the population explosion was due to Britain's empire//
What was Manchester before the cotton industry? Where did the cotton come from? Want it dyed with indigo?
Teasing aside, I do agree to a great extent with your next bit
// and would propose that it had more to do with ensuring a household income through large families who's children could start earning a wage at 10 or 11. //
Back in the days of 'cottage industry', you needed to grow your own workforce and train them up in the family skill. (Hence our nation's love of the closed shop!?!)
The race to modernise the housing stock in the 1960s and 1970s resulted imn many mistakes. Communities were forced out of slums, but the modern blocks were often built in the wrong places, and away from amenities. Over the next 20 years they failed to develop into communities and were badly maintained. The result was that no one wanted to live there.
The worse offending blocks were tore down. Imaginative schemes to rejuvenate some of the better ones had some good results such as Park Hill in Sheffield.
http://
If we do build high density again, we must build for people not for architects to win worthless prizes.
The worse offending blocks were tore down. Imaginative schemes to rejuvenate some of the better ones had some good results such as Park Hill in Sheffield.
http://
If we do build high density again, we must build for people not for architects to win worthless prizes.
Excellent summing up by Gromit.
People were moved from inner city slums into " country slums."
It is not the buildings that are the problem but the people that live in them and just try visiting someone in high rise flats at night, then and now.it was extremely scary in the 60's but much worse on the last 20 years or so.
I would HATE to live in a high density area, not because of the buildings, but because of the kind of people that love there....in the main.
The American,s built high rise apartments for the middle classes and we built slums for the " working classes."
People were moved from inner city slums into " country slums."
It is not the buildings that are the problem but the people that live in them and just try visiting someone in high rise flats at night, then and now.it was extremely scary in the 60's but much worse on the last 20 years or so.
I would HATE to live in a high density area, not because of the buildings, but because of the kind of people that love there....in the main.
The American,s built high rise apartments for the middle classes and we built slums for the " working classes."
Even the middle/high income 'condo' lifestyle has its sinister side. If film/TV drama is anything to go by - assuming it is meant to portray and critique real-life goings-on then the US system does seem to entail a 'residents committee' arrangement, in each individual apartment block.
Less of a place to live and more of a private members club. In an egalitarian society then ability to pay the purchase price should be the only criteria for entry. Whether that's the way it pans out, over there, is anyone's guess. It's almost a microcosm of the "moving out of London to buy a cottage in Devon" cliché. And we've so far discussed, at length, what that means. :-/
Less of a place to live and more of a private members club. In an egalitarian society then ability to pay the purchase price should be the only criteria for entry. Whether that's the way it pans out, over there, is anyone's guess. It's almost a microcosm of the "moving out of London to buy a cottage in Devon" cliché. And we've so far discussed, at length, what that means. :-/
We talk about a house and garden but that can be misleading as estates that have open plan Front gardens, ie. No proper dividing lines (fences , hedges , low walls etc ) are not as successful as those with them.
When people move into these open plan areas , the first thing they do ,if allowed to, is to stake out their plot, even if it's only a single line of stones.
When people move into these open plan areas , the first thing they do ,if allowed to, is to stake out their plot, even if it's only a single line of stones.
It's not a proper paradox but, human nature being what it is, the way to get people to respect boundaries and not deposit their mess on other people's patch appears to be that you give them their own patch to look after. Any infraction creates the jeopardy of the same being done to them.
Just think how many centuries elapsed before anyone needed a police force.
Just think how many centuries elapsed before anyone needed a police force.
//In America, they had the sense to build apartment blocks for the wealthy and make a packet in the process. //
But only really in new york. The US is a vast country and does not have our problem. Most of their trash live in trailers, not sure that is much better.
Our mistake was to build high-rises with hidden alleys and connecting bridges which made it ideal for scum to carry out illegal activites and not be caught.
I'm not sure building on green belt would help much, unless there were jobs to go to.
But only really in new york. The US is a vast country and does not have our problem. Most of their trash live in trailers, not sure that is much better.
Our mistake was to build high-rises with hidden alleys and connecting bridges which made it ideal for scum to carry out illegal activites and not be caught.
I'm not sure building on green belt would help much, unless there were jobs to go to.
//unless there were jobs to go to. //
And you've hit the nail on the head there. If we build on the green belt, what do we get - more commuters.
It goes without saying that anywhere that is already bad on the roads and standing-room only on the bus/train/tube in the mornings and evenings is going to become intolerable.
Net result is that the 'commuter belt' has to shrink. Last time I worked in London, I knew one person who commuted in from Southampton. When I tried to use that story to impress someone, they just told me that the southbound London train was standing room only from York onwards...
We insist on living at A (rural, distant, peaceful & quiet) and expect to be able to work at B (oodles of money). If you live 20, 30 miles outside the Green Belt then you should regard it as your problem that they plan to build on it, because it's you who will be left with no 'life' outside the grind of sleep-commute-work-commute-eat-shower-collapse.
Good point about space not being at a premium in the USA. This makes the choice to build skyscrapers slightly puzzling, other than maybe it's a solution to the problem of chronic commuting problems caused by a city reaching a certain size?
And you've hit the nail on the head there. If we build on the green belt, what do we get - more commuters.
It goes without saying that anywhere that is already bad on the roads and standing-room only on the bus/train/tube in the mornings and evenings is going to become intolerable.
Net result is that the 'commuter belt' has to shrink. Last time I worked in London, I knew one person who commuted in from Southampton. When I tried to use that story to impress someone, they just told me that the southbound London train was standing room only from York onwards...
We insist on living at A (rural, distant, peaceful & quiet) and expect to be able to work at B (oodles of money). If you live 20, 30 miles outside the Green Belt then you should regard it as your problem that they plan to build on it, because it's you who will be left with no 'life' outside the grind of sleep-commute-work-commute-eat-shower-collapse.
Good point about space not being at a premium in the USA. This makes the choice to build skyscrapers slightly puzzling, other than maybe it's a solution to the problem of chronic commuting problems caused by a city reaching a certain size?
given that many of our London parks are being turned into music venues,
Hyde Park being one, and other reasons, where are we going to stroll, walk, and idle the day away, admiring the flowers and taking some time out. Our capitals parklands should be left alone for those of us who wish to get some much needed rest and recuperation, even for a hour or so.
Hyde Park being one, and other reasons, where are we going to stroll, walk, and idle the day away, admiring the flowers and taking some time out. Our capitals parklands should be left alone for those of us who wish to get some much needed rest and recuperation, even for a hour or so.
@TTG
I hoped I'd covered that angle by suggesting that the wealthy move into high density (see the NYT article I linked to).
Not that they're necessarily immune to playing loud music from time to time.
If I think about it, there is a certain aspect of tyranny in living in an environment where fear of offending the neighbours by just being yourself (if you play drums or any equally noisy musical instrument, for example) controls every aspect of your behaviour.
For the purposes of the thread, let us assume that no expense will be spared in the construction materials and/or technological noise-cancelling methods that the architect uses to do away with such problems. The price tag means that every resident knows what class of person they'll be living next door to.
I hoped I'd covered that angle by suggesting that the wealthy move into high density (see the NYT article I linked to).
Not that they're necessarily immune to playing loud music from time to time.
If I think about it, there is a certain aspect of tyranny in living in an environment where fear of offending the neighbours by just being yourself (if you play drums or any equally noisy musical instrument, for example) controls every aspect of your behaviour.
For the purposes of the thread, let us assume that no expense will be spared in the construction materials and/or technological noise-cancelling methods that the architect uses to do away with such problems. The price tag means that every resident knows what class of person they'll be living next door to.
like it or not the capital is high density, it does spread out a lot, but much of our inner city is high rise flats, and those nice Georgian houses have been turned into flats. The acoustics in many places would prohibit the playing of drums, but the noise levels can be intolerable, as i can testify, from neighbours who have no compunction of continuing their DIY late into the night, or screaming children, running around after midnight, then the rubbish cart, one of which comes out just after 5am.
yes, emmie. And we all know what happens when they threaten to 'redevelop' a much-loved city park...
http://
http://
some of those with lots of money who live in the capital are creating merry hell for some neighbours by converting their basements into leisure areas, involving digging out the whole area, causing subsidence and cracks in houses either side - they shouldn't get permission, they do it because there is a limit i believe on the height that one can add onto one's house. we have had neighbours from hell, noisy, smelly and caused the entire street to be infected with vermin, by their anti social behaviour.
i don't want our lovely parks to be used for anything other than that which i have said, the residents around Hyde Park have complained of the noise from the concerts that have been held there, it's a huge money making exercise, why don't they leave well alone.
If you look at Heygate estate near Elephant and Castle its the most disastrous monstrosity ever to be built. it's coming down i believe, but how they expect people to live in such rat holes is beyond me.
If you look at Heygate estate near Elephant and Castle its the most disastrous monstrosity ever to be built. it's coming down i believe, but how they expect people to live in such rat holes is beyond me.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.