tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post2835543526457086440..comments2024-03-17T00:10:44.022+00:00Comments on From Arse To Elbow: Loosening the GirdleDavid Timoneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-89078139652690043442015-10-12T08:28:58.098+01:002015-10-12T08:28:58.098+01:00Cars (or more precisely, private motor vehicles in...Cars (or more precisely, private motor vehicles in general including the two-wheeled variety) may be "wasteful" when it comes to their consumption of space (both when moving and when parked), but they beat public transport hands down when it comes to liberating the masses from the tyranny of rent, as public transport is only efficient when a large number of people are moving along the same route at the same time. The alternative term "mass transit" popular in American English is instructive here.<br /><br />Doesn't concentrating employment in city centres (an objective often pursued by planners with the aim of making public transport more viable) cause far more losses to business (through higher location-based rents at the favoured locations) than are gained by the improved transportation efficiencies.<br /><br />And although this article is looking only at the <i>London</i> Green Belt, I'd argue that a global city like London (where the main income generators are finance and bureaucracy -- both of which use very little space -- and where there are lots of third-world immigrants to do the menial jobs who are used to living in disgusting overcrowded conditions) is less harmed by the Green Belt's inflating of land prices, than ordinary utilitarian industrial cities such as those in the North and Midlands.George Cartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170378024031141482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-60606713765142410352015-10-11T13:16:08.413+01:002015-10-11T13:16:08.413+01:00"but I do take issue with the dichotomy of na..."but I do take issue with the dichotomy of nature vs the man-made, which the green belt embodies, essentially because the "countryside" is a construct that privileges wealth."<br /><br />As long as we remember that wealth is also a construct!<br /><br />I also think the "the dichotomy of nature vs the man-made" is most manifest when people forget that humans are part of nature and their actions impact upon it! It is when humans treat nature with no sense of responsibility or no conscious thought about the affect activities have upon it that this dichotomy is at its greatest. And just to label the point even more, man maybe free when he has mastery over nature but the danger with it is that the dangers of this dichotomy are forgotten!<br />Herbie Casuses Extinctionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-794703845466531292015-10-11T12:37:54.004+01:002015-10-11T12:37:54.004+01:00I'm not oblivious to our responsibilities for ...I'm not oblivious to our responsibilities for the environment, but I do take issue with the dichotomy of nature vs the man-made, which the green belt embodies, essentially because the "countryside" is a construct that privileges wealth.<br /><br />There are very few parts of this country that are truly "natural", in the sense of not having been formed by human activity. The shift from forests to pastures grazed by imported sheep was a far more profound ecological change than the subsequent building of houses on those pastures.<br /><br />The issue - as ever - is not what we must do (we must build more houses as the population grows) but how the costs and benefits of that action are distributed across different social groups, not just in the UK but globally (i.e. because of climate change). The green belt was initially democratic in intent but has since been turned to reactionary ends.David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-41482794601449221112015-10-11T12:09:30.240+01:002015-10-11T12:09:30.240+01:00"The point about agglomeration is superficial..."The point about agglomeration is superficially counter-intuitive"<br /><br />It isn't really one thing or the other, it all depends on what drives the system. For example a system that is profit driven and hierarchical will have a different response to one which is use value driven and egalitarian. <br /><br />I accept ypour criticism of green belt, I am just thinking in terms of co-existence with nature and acknowledgment of it. Reduction of habitat, that sort of thing. I don't think humans should just talk about what nature can do for us without talking about our place in nature and our responsibility to it.<br /><br />There is always the danger that critics just end up within the the terms of reference dictated by the system logic.Herbie Casuses Extinctionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-80079805051477990292015-10-09T12:32:35.556+01:002015-10-09T12:32:35.556+01:00The point about agglomeration is superficially cou...The point about agglomeration is superficially counter-intuitive - you would expect that email would reduce the need to co-locate - but the facts on the ground are clear. Instead of everybody working from home, we continue to huddle together in city centres and global-scale cities, like London, are expected to continue growing in size.<br /><br />One explanation is that people still like face-to-face meetings, however the bigger factor is scale, which is facilitated by communications. This creates larger commercial networks, which in turn generates greater turnover through established nodes. As the market expands, it attracts industry entrants (as well as support services) who want to be close to the action. This clustering effect, which is observed in many naturally-occurring scale-free networks, follows a power-law distribution. In other words, as the network grows in size it produces even greater growth at the key nodes.<br /><br />I didn't mention the car precisely because it is a wasteful means of transport: we need more railways. In terms of efficiency, the real issue with cars is not in city centres - where roads are busy (i.e. capacity is being maximised) - but in the exurban area. Much of the green belt is actually tarmac that serves relatively few people. David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-52155104026602776982015-10-08T19:01:57.424+01:002015-10-08T19:01:57.424+01:00Stellar article, just a few quibbles.
“improveme...Stellar article, just a few quibbles.<br /><br /><br />“improvements in communication have amplified the value of agglomeration in city centres,”<br /><br />I would have thought the opposite.<br /><br />“The green belt also provides the opportunity to build a high-speed orbital rail line linking London's airports “<br /><br />I would have thought improvements in communication would make us question why rail and air travel is not going down!<br /><br />“The solution to the housing crisis, particularly in London, requires us to return to a view of the green belt as a resource”<br /><br />I don’t really agree with this. There is a lot that can be done before we reach this point, empty homes etc<br /><br />And no mention in the article of the most inefficient form of transport, the motor car. That seems like one hell of an omission to me.<br /><br />If you hadn’t been so quick to reach conclusions I would have given this 9 out of 10!<br /><br />Leave the conclusions for the detailed and well funded review!<br />Herbie Causes Extinctionnoreply@blogger.com