We are all going to starve

[big soft moose]

There are lot of ways we can make better use of existing housing, but in reality that will not solve the crisis of housing shortage. In the 1970s we were building about 300,000 new homes a year. It has fairly consistently been falling ever since so that now we build less than half that number. This is despite rising population and increased number of small households (people living longer etc).
Of course we are not going to build the houses we need. NIMBYism rules.

the answer to that is not to go on building houses until the whole country is covered in bricks and mortar , but to do something about the continually expanding population

 

[PatrickO]

the answer to that is not to go on building houses until the whole country is covered in bricks and mortar , but to do something about the continually expanding population

Complete nonsense. If we were to build 10 million houses tomorrow the area covered by houses would be tiny in comparison to countryside.

 

[big soft moose]

Complete nonsense. If we were to build 10 million houses tomorrow the area covered by houses would be tiny in comparison to countryside.

Really and what about the infrastructure required for another 10 million houses- and when those ten million had been bought would we then build another ten, and another and another ? the UK (indeed the world) only has a finite land area, and finite resources to support, feed etc the population - we can't go on growing the population indefinitely without experiencing a Malthusian crash

Also the flooding last winter showed why covering yet more land in tarmac and concrete isn't a good idea.

 

[Cobra]

I agree. There are small villages in Devon and Cornwall where the local facilities (shops) have closed down through lack of footfall trade. Often, the reason for that is because of a large proportion of the 'residents' are second/holiday homeowners who are not present for much of the year (especially throughout the winter months) so there are not enough people living there permanently there to make it worth keeping the shops trading.

I never think about that as a knock on effect of the second home owning fraternity.
But of course it all makes sense now, sadly

 

[viv1969]

For those panicking about the 93% non-urbanised area of the UK, perhaps the solution is to build up rather than out. ..and for people to change their expactations of home ownership accordingly.

 

[Cobra]

For those panicking about the 93% non-urbanised area of the UK, perhaps the solution is to build up rather than out. ..and for people to change their expactations of home ownership accordingly.

I think I read / heard somewhere, they've already started building downwards in prime locations, such as London?

 

[big soft moose]

I think I read / heard somewhere, they've already started building downwards in prime locations, such as London?

"ahh crap, darling there's a tube train in the lounge again"

 

[Cobra]

"ahh crap, darling there's a tube train in the lounge again"

 

[boliston]

For those panicking about the 93% non-urbanised area of the UK, perhaps the solution is to build up rather than out. ..and for people to change their expactations of home ownership accordingly.

I'd prefer to see more tall buildings built but planning regulations seem very restrictive in some places - for example here in rural somerset people make a fuss if anyone builds higher than about 2 to 3 storeys and claim the buildings are "eyesores" or "carbuncles" in the local paper.

 

[viv1969]

I'd prefer to see more tall buildings built but planning regulations seem very restrictive in some places - for example here in rural somerset people make a fuss if anyone builds higher than about 2 to 3 storeys and claim the buildings are "eyesores" or "carbuncles" in the local paper.

Kinda my point.

 

[Cobra]

I'd prefer to see more tall buildings built but planning regulations seem very restrictive in some places - for example here in rural somerset people make a fuss if anyone builds higher than about 2 to 3 storeys and claim the buildings are "eyesores" or "carbuncles" in the local paper.

Well here in good old MK-on mud,
when the centre was built, the "new church" spire aka cross, was supposed to be the tallest point in central Milton Keynes.
Now, not that I have any "feelings" towards Churches either way, but I'm sure that it would have been preferable to the carbuncle that is the snow dome.
Its looks like a giant Nissen hut (those of a certain age will know what I mean)
And can be seen from at least 5 miles away, and probably more like ten, from the "right area"
How the hell they got that passed the planners money God only knows!

 

[akr]

For those panicking about the 93% non-urbanised area of the UK, perhaps the solution is to build up rather than out. ..and for people to change their expactations of home ownership accordingly.

That certainly appears to happen in London. The issue where I live is that it appears to put extra train on hospitals, commuting to work etc as there seems to be a distinct lack of planning. The school catchment areas where I live are about 400 metres or less for some of the good schools and with more house being split into flats, it really does price people out of getting into some schools. The commute is getting worse and worse as more house and flats are squeezed in. If we don't invest in the core infrastructure in London, and certainly SE London where I live, it just won't work long-term. For new build areas and new towns it would make absolute sense.

As someone else has said, new builds need to cater for families, not just 1-2 bedroom flats and 'affordable' £400k 1 beds.

 

[LASTOLITE]

Too many breeding pairs.

Yeah! we cant have that! Hetrosexuals having children..........I mean its just not normal is it .


No No I am not a Hetrophobe before all the accusers chime up

 

[viv1969]

That certainly appears to happen in London. The issue where I live is that it appears to put extra train on hospitals, commuting to work etc as there seems to be a distinct lack of planning. The school catchment areas where I live are about 400 metres or less for some of the good schools and with more house being split into flats, it really does price people out of getting into some schools. The commute is getting worse and worse as more house and flats are squeezed in. If we don't invest in the core infrastructure in London, and certainly SE London where I live, it just won't work long-term. For new build areas and new towns it would make absolute sense.

As someone else has said, new builds need to cater for families, not just 1-2 bedroom flats and 'affordable' £400k 1 beds.

I completely agree re the infrastructure; however, a two bed apartment is fine for a reasonable sized family

 

[akr]

I completely agree re the infrastructure; however, a two bed apartment is fine for a reasonable sized family

I agree but some of the new builds have such small rooms / lack of storage I don't think they are as viable / as comfortable as they should be.

 

[Gremlin]

I completely agree re the infrastructure; however, a two bed apartment is fine for a reasonable sized family

Depends on a few considerations, one being gender of any children
and far more important, whether you want said kids to spend their lives
stuck inside because they have no access to a secure garden.
Yes I know you are going to say what about parks etc, but sometimes it's just nice
to relax knowing your kids are reasonably safe in their own secure area

 

[viv1969]

Depends on a few considerations, one being gender of any children
and far more important, whether you want said kids to spend their lives
stuck inside because they have no access to a secure garden.
Yes I know you are going to say what about parks etc, but sometimes it's just nice
to relax knowing your kids are reasonably safe in their own secure area

If there's just one child, the gender is irrelevant

And I wasn't even thinking about parks

 

[boliston]

Depends on a few considerations, one being gender of any children
and far more important, whether you want said kids to spend their lives
stuck inside because they have no access to a secure garden.
Yes I know you are going to say what about parks etc, but sometimes it's just nice
to relax knowing your kids are reasonably safe in their own secure area

The trouble with properties with a nice garden is that unless you have a lot of money to spend they are often in places that mean you are quite reliant on a car to get you or the kids anywhere. Apartments are often in more convenient locations where you can simply walk to most places locally - schools, library, shops, station etc without having to end up as an unpaid taxi driver the whole time.

 

[u8myufo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28003435

I blame the prolific use of good argicultural land for housing development for this. I see it all the time, Cala, Persimmon, Barrat all building new schemes in good land.

Do you not blame the use of good agricultural land being turned into solar panel gardens also then? Another crock of BBC Buls*** propagnda again. No sympathy for farmers me M8.

 

[Gremlin]

If there's just one child, the gender is irrelevant

And I wasn't even thinking about parks

So 2 kids is not allowed then, I never considered having just one, if I had any it was always going to be 2

The trouble with properties with a nice garden is that unless you have a lot of money to spend they are often in places that mean you are quite reliant on a car to get you or the kids anywhere. Apartments are often in more convenient locations where you can simply walk to most places locally - schools, library, shops, station etc without having to end up as an unpaid taxi driver the whole time.

It's what I grew up with, being rural born and bred, and in my last place very little in the way of public transport, I had a decent garden for the kids
and also loads of open space, but nice as it is to take them out, it's also nice to let them play in the safety of the garden

 

[viv1969]

So 2 kids is not allowed then, I never considered having just one, if I had any it was always going to be 2



It's what I grew up with, being rural born and bred, and in my last place very little in the way of public transport, I had a decent garden for the kids
and also loads of open space, but nice as it is to take them out, it's also nice to let them play in the safety of the garden

I never said not allowed.
if folks are worried about the continuing expansion of the population, then they perhaps might consider breeding within reason.

 

[Gremlin]

I never said not allowed.
if folks are worried about the continuing expansion of the population, then they perhaps might consider breeding within reason.

A married couple = 2 people, so 2 children is just perpetuating the population not increasing it

 

[Tigger.ufo]

So how is a married couple (2) who have 2 children (2) not increasing the population by 2?

 

[Gremlin]

So how is a married couple (2) who have 2 children (2) not increasing the population by 2?

Only on a temporary basis as the parents will die later in life and the offspring replace them.

Simple economics will tell you that we need to perpetuate the population, or pay far more taxes

 

[Tigger.ufo]

Simple economics also tells me that if the married couple didn't have children then they would probably pay more taxes into the system over their lifetimes.

 

[viv1969]

Simple economics also tells me that if the married couple didn't have children then they would probably pay more taxes into the system over their lifetimes.

Absolutely. And tax breaks for people simply because they choose to have kids?....that's a whole other thread right there.

 

[Gremlin]

Simple economics also tells me that if the married couple didn't have children then they would probably pay more taxes into the system over their lifetimes.

and when that couple get too old or infirm to continue working, who is going to pay for their care etc. if there are no future generations
to pay the taxes

 

[Tigger.ufo]

and when that couple get too old or infirm to continue working, who is going to pay for their care etc. if there are no future generations
to pay the taxes

....and the future generations we have at the moment who don't pay into the system are being paid for by the tax payers now so how is that going to work then?

 

[Gremlin]

There you go, misunderstanding what I am saying
If all couples only had 2 kids that would keep the population as is, I have two children, both in full time employment as am I.
No idea what these tax breaks are, I paid child care so I could continue to work for the first few years, I am assuming
the childminder paid taxes too, only benefit I got was the child benefit, which didn't amount to much, and I still say it should
be restricted to 2 children, if you want more then you should be able to afford them. So no idea what these tax breaks are
all about ?
The people you are talking about are those that don't and never will work, just keep producing kids who go on to produce
more kids and never work, so yes they are a problem but why should those of us that pay our taxes and work be stopped from having
children, so we can support those that don't want to work ?

 

[viv1969]

Child tax credits.
Childcare subsidies.

 

[Tigger.ufo]

I have absolutely no problem with people in your situation, Ingrid.

In your ideal world where everyone has 2 children and they all pay into the system it all works fine, but the reality is that it doesn't work like that.

I don't care how many children people have if they can afford them, however, I also think that people who do not have children should not be paying through their taxes for other peoples children, and I also do not see why my taxes should pay for people who think it is their "right" to have children.

 

[Gremlin]

Child tax credits.
Childcare subsidies.

In order to claim these I believe you have to be working ?
So if you have been working prior to having kids, work whilst claiming these benefits for say 18yrs then continue
to work through to normal retirement age I doubt you would have made much out of it.

Also back in the good old days your university education would be paid for by grants, now it's student loans
which have to be paid back

 

[viv1969]

No. You don't need to be working for chikd tax credit.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The world needs to wake up to the fact that growth is not something that can continue endlessly. For some reason we have our heads in the sand over this issue. We have economies based on continual growth, populations based in continual growth... everything is geared towards growth, and growth is a measurement of success. It is simply not sustainable.

We are a closed system with finite resources. Even water is finite. It's not easy to make water, it's a potentially dangerous process that needs massive amounts of energy... in fact, on any large scale it's impossible. There is enough water on the planet to comfortably sustain around 8 billion people... and as we approach that limit, the movers and shakers are still blissfully ignoring the issue.

Instead of looking for more land, or more aggressive farming methods, what we actually need, but no one wants to actually admit it, let alone make it some kind of policy, is population control (it smacks of communism, so we'll just rule that out as an option). We simply can't just carry on breeding at the rate we are... that.. is a fact.

 

[Stuart M]

Global thermal nuclear war ...that's the obvious solution. Either that or a new round of bubonic plague (aka The Black Death).

 

[viv1969]

Global thermal nuclear war ...that's the obvious solution. Either that or a new round of bubonic plague (aka The Black Death).

Plague would be no good as it's cureable now.
Ebola, however......

 

[Stuart M]

Plague would be no good as it's cureable now.

I don't see that as being too much of a problem. I'm sure science could come up with a new strain that is impervious to known cures. Scientists are, after all, the experts when it comes to creating weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Nod]

Have somebodies been reading Dan Brown's Inferno?

 

[viv1969]

Have somebodies been reading Dan Brown's Inferno?

After attempting a couple of his others, certainly not!

 

[Diving Pete]

I don't see that as being too much of a problem. I'm sure science could come up with a new strain that is impervious to known cures. Scientists are, after all, the experts when it comes to creating weapons of mass destruction.

they don't need to.. one little asteroid or another ice age will both do the job fairly...