Here's why few young people will never be able to buy a house

Scroll to see replies

FWIW I've found an interesting and fairly concise blogpost about the history of the greenbelt and it's effect on our lives...

There are greenbelts elsewhere that serve a slightly different purpose; to prevent the merger of settlements e.g. between Nottingham and Derby.

Reply 221

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Joinedup

FWIW I've found an interesting and fairly concise blogpost about the history of the greenbelt and it's effect on our lives...

http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/are-they-green-belts-by-accident.html

which also contains this delightful candidate for a sig file quite...

Interesting article. I like the bit about Vienna keeping city walls until 1857. Just in case needed. :teehee:

I suppose I assumed it was the old LCC that first promoted green belts in Britain, but Wikipedia suggests some much earlier efforts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt

The basic thrust of the article - that green belts were developed primarily as a form of classist exclusion of the poor from rural areas - has something going for it, but in the modern context, housing developments in green belts are always of the large detached sort that are sold to aspiring families. The poor have to be housed inside the large cities in the main, if market forces are left free to operate in the way they currently do. Unless we allow market towns and smaller cities around the edges of the green belts (or existing inside them as urban islands) to grow significantly. Some of the latter has been happening anyway.

If we abandoned all planning restrictions, the entire South East of England would be concreted and housed over in a heartbeat. I think we should ask ourselves if that's really what we want as a country. Much of the North would probably empty out of population, leaving behind Detroit-style abandoned cities.

Reply 222

Rakas21

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Interesting article. I like the bit about Vienna keeping city walls until 1857. Just in case needed. :teehee:

Lower housing costs would be an incentive to move south but I don't think it would be as stark as ending up with abandoned cities since London already has an incentive in higher wages. But I'd have no problem with less planning restrictions, the UK has more countryside than people say.

Reply 223

Reue

Original post by Rakas21

the UK has more countryside than people say.

It also has a huge abundance of brown field sites and derelict housing estates. Better to develop those first.

I sit on the front line of planning proposals and it is worrying to see some of the things developers are trying to push through. Major housing estates lumped onto the sides of villages without any consideration to the communities, roads, school places, doctors availability, waste transport etc etc.

It's all well and good pushing for more housing in the South-East, but the core infrastructure is often completely ignored.

Reply 224

Skeptique

Original post by nixy49

Their system requires inflation, ...

http://www.bullnotbull.com/archive/our-debt-money-system.html

I saw a very powerful documentary on that. Your right there is never enough money printed or even in circulation to cover the debt amount national banks owe the Rothschild Banks - its actually in the contract that national govt arn't allowed to print [their own money] in sufficient amount to repay the debt, ensuring that the debt is passed on to us. We pay this debt in the form of Taxes & Inflation, so in effect we are working for the Rothschild's global banking empire.

But who credit scores them? whos to say that they actually have these billions that they loan to govts?. It all stinks. Crypto currencies may be the way forward.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 225

Underscore__

It's so ridiculous to say that few young people will ever own a house. Many will through inheritance and many others will because outside of London house prices aren't particularly unreasonable

Posted from TSR Mobile