Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It is cheaper for most people to live in the surrounding countryside and commute to work, there is already massive overpopulation in london and prices are more expensive in the city than surrounding areas. It is simply to expensive for people to live in London and it is a very attractive place for the rich to live which makes it even more expensive. Plus there is a lack of housing in London for lower/middle class people.

    Whilst what you say about Cars is true, lots of people use trains/tube,buses to get around.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    Thank you for your response.

    1) Forcing migration from rural areas to cities would deal nicely with this (until immigration eventually makes us a minority entirely - but this is another issue)
    2) I don't know much about why property prices are so high, but it probably has something to do with the fact that housing isn't being built to match demand. We could build a few new cities, with nice tall buildings, to house people. With rural types out of the picture, there'd be nobody to oppose such badly needed developments. We could regenerate city centres, replacing roads with buildings. There is a lot of space used by roads and motorways in urban areas.
    3) Cars are a major source of pollution; possibly the biggest local source of air pollution in cities. If we didn't need cars, there'd be a lot less.
    My point was more than I want to avoid the cities like the plague; unless you literally force me into it and chain me there I would never go.

    I see your points, they are valid, but they are too long term to happen in my life. If Khan gets in as London mayor an area which already makes me feel queasy would manage to go downhill in my view of it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't want to live in a city and even if I did, I'd still want to spend time in the countryside, so I would still need a car for travel. Some people work in the countryside - the rural economy is an actual thing that exists, and you can't just pick that up and transfer it to cities.

    Cars are going to remain essential for the foreseeable future, and probably well beyond then.

    Your idea is completely ridiculous, unworkable and illiberal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    With rural types out of the picture, there'd be nobody to oppose such badly needed developments. We could regenerate city centres, replacing roads with buildings. There is a lot of space used by roads and motorways in urban areas.
    What do you plan on eating when you have moved everyone into the cities?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    What do you plan on eating when you have moved everyone into the cities?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    x
    But that won't sustain livestock. Without meat and with forced urbanisation there would be civil unrest.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    But that won't sustain livestock. Without meat and with forced urbanisation there would be civil unrest.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143

    :sexface:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    That technology is a long way off being finished.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    That technology is a long way off being finished.
    And we are a long way from any ideal society you care to mention

    But if we confiscated the riches of Justin Beiber, and other 'people' like him, then we could speed it along a bit :mmm:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    And we are a long way from any ideal society you care to mention

    But if we confiscated the riches of Justin Beiber, and other 'people' like him, then we could speed it along a bit :mmm:
    So punish people for being successful? That will go down a treat.

    What next, disarming Britain?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    So punish people for being successful? That will go down a treat.

    What next, disarming Britain?
    Punishing people who don't contribute to society. Starting with degenerate pop musicians :rant:

    Billionaires such as Bill Gates are fine. They have earned their money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    Punishing people who don't contribute to society. Starting with degenerate pop musicians :rant:

    Billionaires such as Bill Gates are fine. They have earned their money.
    So how do you propose going about confiscating the private assets of a foreign citizen?

    Then how do you propose confiscating the assets of the armed population?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    So how do you propose going about confiscating the private assets of a foreign citizen?

    Then how do you propose confiscating the assets of the armed population?
    Get Beiber in court for crimes against human culture :mmm:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    Urban sprawl is a plague on the environment.
    It'd help if there was actually a consistent definition of urban sprawl. It seems to be used more as a term of prejudice against new development by the wealthy urban-centre dwellers and rural people. In reality, development at the fringes of cities is a good thing and absolutely essential to create viable communities within those cities. If you like urban living, to moan about "urban sprawl" is utterly pointless unless you want to force everyone to live in high-rise blocks: which, in general, folk don't like doing.

    Ever since the invention of the car, population density in cities in the West has decreased.
    It's got more to do with slum-clearance. These were high-density, unpleasant places that were demolished quite deliberately in favour of new towns, garden cities and other developments.

    Infrastructure built for cars reduced space for human habitation and services in cities. A thousand people making the same journey in cars spews out more pollution, and takes up more space, than the same number of people in buses, or trains.
    Yet people quite like having cars. As for reducing space for human habitation, I don't see that as being significant.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.