|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2022 14:14:34 GMT
I'm sorry you feel that way RM. Thought it was fairly clear from the context that you "attacked" my argument. As you used to run this site, I'm sure you know where the "ignore" button is. Dearie me. If you are such a snowflake about your arguments being 'attacked', why are you even making them public? You have the right to your opinions, as do all of us. We also have the right to criticise each others opinions. I will never complain about my arguments being attacked, because if I am incapable of defending them, that tells me I need to rethink my arguments entirely.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706 
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 21, 2022 14:25:21 GMT
I'm sorry you feel that way RM. Thought it was fairly clear from the context that you "attacked" my argument. As you used to run this site, I'm sure you know where the "ignore" button is. Dearie me. If you are such a snowflake about your arguments being 'attacked', why are you even making them public? You have the right to your opinions, as do all of us. We also have the right to criticise each others opinions. I will never complain about my arguments being attacked, because if I am incapable of defending them, that tells me I need to rethink my arguments entirely. Did you read what I wrote? How can you possibly get so offended by it? And you accuse _me_ of being a snowflake. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2022 14:56:15 GMT
Did you read what I wrote? How can you possibly get so offended by it? And you accuse _me_ of being a snowflake.  Offended? Not in the slightest. On the contrary, I find your repeated whinging about your beliefs being 'attacked' quite hilarious
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 21, 2022 18:44:56 GMT
There are too many houses and too many people in the UK. Opinion stated as fact with no supporting evidence. That's one take, registerme, which unfortunately went on to generate some heated feelings in others. That wasn't your intention, but the law of unintended consequences at work. To me personally, the nature of a forum is that views expressed should be taken as opinion by default, and only exceptionally as fact (when accompanied by links and references). It's good that we challenge and 'peer review' like it's a scientific paper, but maybe we all need to cut some slack on occasion. With the UK the third most densely populated country in Europe (of any notable size), by the law of averages michaelc's opinion above will obviously be shared by many others. I suspect what he was really alluding to, rather than the strictest interpretation of dwellings- or persons-per-km 2, was the lack of supporting infrastructure, like shops/doctors/dentists/hospital beds/schools/police and other services, which doesn't seem to be keeping pace with an ever-expanding population. New estates are shooting up all over the land, completely unaccompanied nowadays by any of this supporting infrastructure, which has consequently been left to wallow and is now at breaking point. I can see how the picture begins to emerge of "too many houses, too many people", at least in some parts of the country.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 21, 2022 19:12:22 GMT
With the UK the third most densely populated country in Europe (of any notable size) Yes, it is... but let's put some numbers to that. NL - 508 people/km2 B - 383 UK - 280 D - 240 CH - 219 I - 209 So it's a LONG way behind the top two, and not that far ahead of the next few. France is a similar population, but over twice as much land area. Italy is very similar to the UK - slightly fewer people, slightly more land - and nobody thinks of that as overcrowded. The UK's population density is mainly in just one corner. And that's the corner that a lot of people pay a lot of money to choose to live in... and is still less crowded than NL - SE UK, 450 people/km2. London, otoh is 10x NL's density...
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 21, 2022 19:23:40 GMT
Opinion stated as fact with no supporting evidence. That's one take, registerme , which unfortunately went on to generate some heated feelings in others. That wasn't your intention, but the law of unintended consequences at work. I'm not sure with whom it generated any 'heated feelings'. To me its fairly clear that the view of 'there are too many people and too many houses' is a widely shared and easily felt one. Personally I took it to be an expression of emotional feeling, and therefore an opinion. It is one that many many feel and one which essentially finds its way into politics and UK planning and housing policy. Hell, I'd certainly prefer my neighbourhood wasn't concreted over. I hope against hope that the 2000+ houses that are being proposed to be built on greenfield site not far from me, which is on the route of all my cycle rides, doesn't go ahead. I feel that from the perspective of immediate impact on ME. Still, precisely because it is a matter which impacts considerably on public policy, and an issue which is hugely more complex than single throwaway lines, is a reason to have much deeper conversations than can possibly be encapsulated in "there are too many....". If that sentiment is just followed through at face value, it has wide ranging long term impacts for all of us as a society, very many of them considerably negative. That justifies a need or expectation of rationalisation and justification. And if we are not going to have discussions and sharing of different perspectives, we might as well all sign up to Trumps new 'Truth Social' and publish single sentence 'Truths'. "Too many houses in the UK - Truth" "Too many people in the UK - Truth" "Too few care home workers in the UK - Truth" "Too few young people to support an aging population in 10 years time- Truth" "People don't want more houses in their backyard - Truth" Any of these inter related or impact on each other - nah, lets not have that discourse.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 21, 2022 22:26:46 GMT
With the UK the third most densely populated country in Europe (of any notable size) Yes, it is... but let's put some numbers to that. NL - 508 people/km2 B - 383 UK - 280 D - 240 CH - 219 I - 209 So it's a LONG way behind the top two, and not that far ahead of the next few. France is a similar population, but over twice as much land area. Italy is very similar to the UK - slightly fewer people, slightly more land - and nobody thinks of that as overcrowded. The UK's population density is mainly in just one corner. And that's the corner that a lot of people pay a lot of money to choose to live in... and is still less crowded than NL - SE UK, 450 people/km2. London, otoh is 10x NL's density... That would be because the population density of Italy maxed in 2014 and has been steadily dropping ever since. As I say though, I suspect the driver behind the original comment may have been less about population density per se and more about the worsening paucity of population services.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 21, 2022 23:19:33 GMT
That's one take, registerme , which unfortunately went on to generate some heated feelings in others. That wasn't your intention, but the law of unintended consequences at work. I'm not sure with whom it generated any 'heated feelings'. To me its fairly clear that the view of 'there are too many people and too many houses' is a widely shared and easily felt one. Personally I took it to be an expression of emotional feeling, and therefore an opinion. It is one that many many feel and one which essentially finds its way into politics and UK planning and housing policy. Hell, I'd certainly prefer my neighbourhood wasn't concreted over. I hope against hope that the 2000+ houses that are being proposed to be built on greenfield site not far from me, which is on the route of all my cycle rides, doesn't go ahead. I feel that from the perspective of immediate impact on ME. Still, precisely because it is a matter which impacts considerably on public policy, and an issue which is hugely more complex than single throwaway lines, is a reason to have much deeper conversations than can possibly be encapsulated in "there are too many....". If that sentiment is just followed through at face value, it has wide ranging long term impacts for all of us as a society, very many of them considerably negative. That justifies a need or expectation of rationalisation and justification. And if we are not going to have discussions and sharing of different perspectives, we might as well all sign up to Trumps new 'Truth Social' and publish single sentence 'Truths'. "Too many houses in the UK - Truth" "Too many people in the UK - Truth" "Too few care home workers in the UK - Truth" "Too few young people to support an aging population in 10 years time- Truth" "People don't want more houses in their backyard - Truth" Any of these inter related or impact on each other - nah, lets not have that discourse. I hear you, but there's something in me that just doesn't like seeing people under the cosh and I felt michaelc was getting a bit of a pummelling, not especially deserved. I happen to agree with him on one point especially... as do you from what you posted elsewhere in this thread... that we could do with more space per person in some respects. Have you seen the postage stamp back gardens that greedy builders - and that's most of them - are now providing on new build estates? 5m x 3m is not unusual (front gardens of course no longer exist in the headlong pursuit for profits). Families are expected to bring up their kids with a play space smaller than my garage. That's an appalling legacy for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 22, 2022 8:10:04 GMT
I'm not sure with whom it generated any 'heated feelings'. To me its fairly clear that the view of 'there are too many people and too many houses' is a widely shared and easily felt one. Personally I took it to be an expression of emotional feeling, and therefore an opinion. It is one that many many feel and one which essentially finds its way into politics and UK planning and housing policy. Hell, I'd certainly prefer my neighbourhood wasn't concreted over. I hope against hope that the 2000+ houses that are being proposed to be built on greenfield site not far from me, which is on the route of all my cycle rides, doesn't go ahead. I feel that from the perspective of immediate impact on ME. Still, precisely because it is a matter which impacts considerably on public policy, and an issue which is hugely more complex than single throwaway lines, is a reason to have much deeper conversations than can possibly be encapsulated in "there are too many....". If that sentiment is just followed through at face value, it has wide ranging long term impacts for all of us as a society, very many of them considerably negative. That justifies a need or expectation of rationalisation and justification. And if we are not going to have discussions and sharing of different perspectives, we might as well all sign up to Trumps new 'Truth Social' and publish single sentence 'Truths'. "Too many houses in the UK - Truth" "Too many people in the UK - Truth" "Too few care home workers in the UK - Truth" "Too few young people to support an aging population in 10 years time- Truth" "People don't want more houses in their backyard - Truth" Any of these inter related or impact on each other - nah, lets not have that discourse. I hear you, but there's something in me that just doesn't like seeing people under the cosh and I felt michaelc was getting a bit of a pummelling, not especially deserved. I happen to agree with him on one point especially... as do you from what you posted elsewhere in this thread... that we could do with more space per person in some respects. Have you seen the postage stamp back gardens that greedy builders - and that's most of them - are now providing on new build estates? 5m x 3m is not unusual (front gardens of course no longer exist in the headlong pursuit for profits). Families are expected to bring up their kids with a play space smaller than my garage. That's an appalling legacy for the future. I'd agree that lack of garden space is not a great legacy. However, previous attempts to provide low cost housing in this country resulted in large qty of 'housing units" being provided via a rampant building of tower blocks with no gardens whatsoever with the result of a legacy of council 'sink estates'. To those people, having a smaller than previous garden is a bit of a 'middle class problem'. Is building low rise buildings with small gardens a 'rush for profits' (I'm sure it helps), or a way of providing greater number of housing units in a restricted space without resorting to dense high rise buildings on estates for the 'lower classes'. Most housing developments these days require the provision of a certain proportion of 'social housing', often mixed in or close proximity to the non-social housing. One might reasonably argue that the nature of current developments is a response to public policy which is trying to avoid quite such a "them and us" landscape, and to provide better quality housing environment - including some semblance of a private outdoor space - for a greater number of family units. Of course one outcome of that is that overall you can't get so many total housing units into the same footprint (compared with building up). Therefore it puts further pressure on the value of land, and therefore increase price attached to those units that are built with larger gardens. You could say that compared with previous policies / strategies, this is kind of a redistribution of land from the richer to the poorer. Also local authorities are on the one hand required to make provision for a certain number of new houses, and on the other under pressure from the current residents to minimise impact (keep the footprint low). That is another pressure to maximise the number of units in a given piece of agreed development land (and therefore squeeze the size of private gardens). When people talk about 'there are too many houses', what the tend to mean is there is 'too much building on green space'. So if one has a foot in that camp, and a foot in the camp that says 'gardens are too small', the unfortunate consequence of that is one is arguing for less total housing units to be made available. Or perhaps to ensure that the 'middle classes' can have family houses like they used to have, while those that can't afford it get put into more tower block/no private space housing developments. A hark back to the 60's and 70s'. There are no simple answers here. So if we are going to 'rage against the machine', lets all be adults and at least be honest about the implications of what we are really arguing for. We may find the process enlightening and give us new perspectives, assuming we don't get 'offended' in the process. The above is written with no deep knowledge of the planning process, national and local objectives, or insight into developers. It has simply been reasoned from 'first principles', and therefore may be wrong in some or all aspects. But at least it is an attempt to rationalise the situation 'on the ground' (pun intended).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 22, 2022 9:01:03 GMT
Yes, their population peaked and is now dropping VERY slightly. Net migration to Italy is around the same as the UK, so the change is negative natural population growth. More people dying than being born. Well, we do insist on repeatedly voting for people who are underfunding public services left, right and centre... while blaming migrants...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 22, 2022 9:01:34 GMT
I happen to agree with him on one point especially... as do you from what you posted elsewhere in this thread... that we could do with more space per person in some respects. Have you seen the postage stamp back gardens that greedy builders - and that's most of them - are now providing on new build estates? 5m x 3m is not unusual (front gardens of course no longer exist in the headlong pursuit for profits). Families are expected to bring up their kids with a play space smaller than my garage. That's an appalling legacy for the future. Perhaps if people refused to buy those properties...? But, no, they fight to pay top whack for them. You can't blame builders for building what buyers want, can you?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 22, 2022 12:38:24 GMT
I happen to agree with him on one point especially... as do you from what you posted elsewhere in this thread... that we could do with more space per person in some respects. Have you seen the postage stamp back gardens that greedy builders - and that's most of them - are now providing on new build estates? 5m x 3m is not unusual (front gardens of course no longer exist in the headlong pursuit for profits). Families are expected to bring up their kids with a play space smaller than my garage. That's an appalling legacy for the future. Perhaps if people refused to buy those properties...? But, no, they fight to pay top whack for them. You can't blame builders for building what buyers want, can you? I don't think it's a case of what buyers want, I can't see anyone wanting to live in a cramped little house with a tiny garden. I see it more as a "least worst" option for many people. Heading into our dotage, my wife and I moved to a new build because we wanted a house designed from the floor up with proper insulation and one that hopefully needed fewer repairs in our remaining lifetime. We were lucky to be able to afford one of the larger houses on our development, but I feel for some of the families less fortunate. I was lucky enough to grow up in a 1950s council house semi, solidly built with nice large front and rear gardens to play in with friends and siblings. The equivalent social housing since then has taken a real nosedive in my opinion, which is a great shame in a wealthy developed nation.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 22, 2022 12:48:38 GMT
Perhaps if people refused to buy those properties...? But, no, they fight to pay top whack for them. You can't blame builders for building what buyers want, can you? I don't think it's a case of what buyers want, I can't see anyone wanting to live in a cramped little house with a tiny garden. Well, nobody held 'em down, and shook £300k out of their pockets, did they? No, they bought it voluntarily... People buying new-builds are not doing so instead of being in a council house or flat.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 22, 2022 13:11:11 GMT
I don't think it's a case of what buyers want, I can't see anyone wanting to live in a cramped little house with a tiny garden. Well, nobody held 'em down, and shook £300k out of their pockets, did they? No, they bought it voluntarily... People buying new-builds are not doing so instead of being in a council house or flat. They very much are doing just that. Almost all new estates for many years now have been obliged to provide a proportion of affordable and social housing. Some are shared ownership, to make the proposition viable, and some are pure rental, typically from a housing association. These are people like my parents who would have been in council houses at one time, when they were possible to get.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 22, 2022 13:42:36 GMT
I happen to agree with him on one point especially... as do you from what you posted elsewhere in this thread... that we could do with more space per person in some respects. Have you seen the postage stamp back gardens that greedy builders - and that's most of them - are now providing on new build estates? 5m x 3m is not unusual (front gardens of course no longer exist in the headlong pursuit for profits). Families are expected to bring up their kids with a play space smaller than my garage. That's an appalling legacy for the future. Perhaps if people refused to buy those properties...? But, no, they fight to pay top whack for them. You can't blame builders for building what buyers want, can you? Surely you're not suggesting people with the funds to buy a house don't actually buy one? Or wait half their lives until they can afford a bigger one? Builders are building small because land is expensive. Which of course brings me back to my (surprisingly to me highly controversial) first point about population density.
|
|
