daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area

London Metro Area London Calling...



Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old November 30th, 2012, 05:17 PM   #41
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,695
Likes (Received): 1636

Quote:
Originally Posted by ill tonkso View Post
And how do we feed them all? How do we provide enough resources to produce good for them all? How do we provide enough clean water for them all? Deal with their waste?
how do you think it happens now? Waste breakdown is just a normal biological process. You just build simple sewerage infrastructure.

We grow too much food that we have to subsidise farmers not too. So what if the price of beef goes up?

The Sun and moon are our energy resources and you are worrying exactly about what?
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old November 30th, 2012, 05:21 PM   #42
Octoman
Just Relax
 
Octoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,488
Likes (Received): 2292

Quote:
Originally Posted by potto View Post
Rural existence? Are you having a laugh? We are an urban population. I dont care if a rural eco-settlement exists to try and be self-contained out of personal ambition, but to pretend that a cottage in a village is rural is laughable.

Everything is urban. Villages and even isolated cottages are extensions of the urban. We are an urban people.
You seem to define rural as being crofters living off of the land coverered in mud and crap, wearing a smock and sucking on a piece of straw! A very typical stereotype coming from a city person who has no understanding of the rural life outside of day trips to marvel at houses that have thatch on the roof 'just like in the pictures'.

The village I spent a big chunk of my life and where my father still lives is most definitely rural. It is a Somerset farming community consisting of about 30 houses in a small valley and a local pub. Life there is so different to city living that there is almost no comparison. People from city backgrounds visit these sort of places and think that because there are buildings just like in a city life must be the same. Then they try and move out to the picturesque village of their dreams and find life is a disaster.

I wonder if this is one of the reasons city types have such dislike for the rural? These areas can be very unwelcoming or a challenge to integrate into. I would be fine in Somerset but I dont think I would want to try and live in a village in yorkshire.

Rural life most definitely goes on and there are a lot of people who prefer it.
__________________
Bring me the pies!

Last edited by Octoman; November 30th, 2012 at 05:29 PM.
Octoman está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 05:22 PM   #43
mouldss@hotmail.co.u
moulds
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by potto View Post
how do you think it happens now? Waste breakdown is just a normal biological process. You just build simple sewerage infrastructure.

We grow too much food that we have to subsidise farmers not too. So what if the price of beef goes up?

The Sun and moon are our energy resources and you are worrying exactly about what?
cheap safe organic food, we need more land for this.
mouldss@hotmail.co.u no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 05:22 PM   #44
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 16,901
Likes (Received): 1553

Quote:
Originally Posted by ill tonkso View Post
People need to get used to having less kids, like 2 per family to stabalise the population. Sounds inhuman and fascist, but again true.
So, let me get this straight, you believe people need 'to get used' to having less kids, but when we bang on about people needing 'to get used' to taking the bus, or public transport, over a private car, you immediately scream people have a right to get around a city how they like. Right.
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 05:34 PM   #45
larven
Registered User
 
larven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9,888
Likes (Received): 629

Quote:
Originally Posted by potto View Post
We grow too much food that we have to subsidise farmers not too.
In 2009 the UK threw away 17% of overall food purchases. More than enough to feed an extra 10 million people if used more efficiently.
larven no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 08:10 PM   #46
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 16,901
Likes (Received): 1553

Incidently, this is the development that was described as 'pig ugly'.



And I tend to agree! Everything summed up in one development that is wrong with British urban taste.
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #47
ill tonkso
Portsmouths Finest, Maybe
 
ill tonkso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A slab of Portsmouth with just a dash of Spalding
Posts: 15,110
Likes (Received): 790

Flat facade. Cheap materials. Expanse of Tarmac. No usable balcony/garden space.
ill tonkso está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 08:39 PM   #48
.Adam
Registered User
 
.Adam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,783
Likes (Received): 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarJoLe

So, let me get this straight, you believe people need 'to get used' to having less kids, but when we bang on about people needing 'to get used' to taking the bus, or public transport, over a private car, you immediately scream people have a right to get around a city how they like. Right.
Haha but what about all those estate agents and hairdressers that need their cars, maybe they're all driving home to the ten children they have at home

All your beliefs on car usage are decreasing people's life expectancy anyway , so that should help.
.Adam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 02:07 AM   #49
hifive605
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 398
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarJoLe View Post
Incidently, this is the development that was described as 'pig ugly'.



And I tend to agree! Everything summed up in one development that is wrong with British urban taste.
there's no discernible style to begin with..

basically the program concluded that UK new housing is ugly, small and over priced. Having lived on the continent for a while I can confirm all of this. But is it just that the developers don't give a shit?

NO, the british public simply don't place a high regard on aesthetics in the built environment, this is why I liked the minister for daring to suggest that a built environment could also be considered beautiful. For most of the brits an environment is either natural, untouched and therefore beautiful or the ugly shitty town filled with noddy boxes and flat roofed concrete 60's municipal builldings they live in.

most of the continentals take architectural aesthetics very seriously, this is why the average french/spanish/dutch/belgian/you-name-it town is invariably more attractive than its british counterpart.
hifive605 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 09:23 AM   #50
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 242

I've seen worse, but 'pig ugly' is certainly fair comment.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 01:16 PM   #51
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 123

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
Then you talk about people needing to get used to "having less kids", how about people needing to get used to living high? Makes more sense, no?
No, it doesn't make more sense. Far from it.

You can't build high-rise fields, and we're already destroying vast swathes of the remaining forests on the planet to grow palm oil and other crops to feed the mouths we already have... and a billion or more of those mouths are still going hungry each day.

Were everyone currently alive living the comfortable existence we enjoy in the developed world, then the demand for land to grow crops and resources such as timber would become even more intense, and the extinction event we are wreaking on the planet would become even more profound.

It's not just about food. The world is being severely degraded by many different aspects of human existence.

So in short, the question of family size is a moral one. No matter how environmentally aware you consider yourself as an individual, if you have a family which puts more people on this earth in the long term, you are effectively behaving in a way which is profoundly damaging to the planet. All parents who have larger family can share this blame. The impact of generations of such parents is the state of chaos we have today with climate change, the destruction of wild habitats and the promise of a world for our grandchildren whose riches have been plundered and which is left a shadow of its former self.

Who else can we blame for the population explosion but the parents?
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 01:28 PM   #52
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 123

Quote:
Originally Posted by larven View Post
In 2009 the UK threw away 17% of overall food purchases. More than enough to feed an extra 10 million people if used more efficiently.
And when 11 extra million people have been born... then what?

By all means argue for less wasted food. But the benefit of that should be that we halt the destruction of remaining natural wilderness, rather than making it easier for people to avoid their moral responsibilities for another generation not to push the population up even higher.

This argument reminds me of the credit card borrower who, though deeply in debt, keeps getting extensions on their credit, allowing them to hide for a few more months from the increasingly huge scale of the problem.

A simple trip round the planet with google maps shows the insidious impact of overpopulation.

Here: http://goo.gl/maps/dAqoV - we are carving gaping holes in one of the lungs of the world.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, we are carving gaping holes in another of the lungs of the world: http://goo.gl/maps/upVrK

These things are happening because we collectively as a species cannot think further than our own selfish needs.

The damage caused in the last 100 years has been profound. In just another 100 years, there will be very little left unless everyone starts to think about the effect of their existence on the planet and the impact of the decisions they make. The most environmentally useful thing anyone can do is to reduce their demand for large families. It eclipses all other choices impacting the planet.
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 01:37 PM   #53
cnapan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 123

Quote:
Originally Posted by ill tonkso View Post
Flat facade. Cheap materials. Expanse of Tarmac. No usable balcony/garden space.
The only flattering thing I can think of to say about this building is that 'it could have been worse'

Many of the current residents would have grown up in those worse buildings.

Things like this:



or this

[img]https://encrypted-tbn2.************/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW38Qw6f_4I78HxCAF_1g5RNHpDWiXDWwH9XiIDl0zHMYN4ELEAQ[/img]

or this



or this

image hosted on flickr


I don't think this is an unfair representation of much of the ordinary modern built environment that most of us have grown up with, and it is only because the bar is set so low that these flats have any appeal at all... oh and probably they got free new carpets!
cnapan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 11:15 PM   #54
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 242

I've finally got round to watching the Newsnight piece. Seems to me all the panel were talking sense except the Nimby woman (and the idiotic Paxo of course). The minister wants to free up land and simplify the planning system, the bald guy wants us to build better stuff like the Netherlands, the developer denies he's landbanking but admits he'd build far more if the planning system got freed up and more land was released. Get on with it, chaps (but not, any longer, Shapps).

Last edited by Officer Dibble; December 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 AM.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 11:31 PM   #55
Ebeneezer_Goode
Registered User
 
Ebeneezer_Goode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 814
Likes (Received): 218

I thought everyone wanted density? Freeing up more land isn't going to help with that.
Ebeneezer_Goode no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 11:54 PM   #56
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 242

I want density in London, and we're in the London forum. (By density I don't mean packing tiny flats in, which is too often what passes for density. I mean skyscrapers full of large condos, mansion blocks a la Paris, and terraces of traditional townhouses. All with high ceilings.)

Around 88% of the UK population doesn't live in London, however.

I'd like similar density in the other big cities, and I want to see all green-belt land around cities preserved. But I have no problem with freeing up more land nationally.

Last edited by Officer Dibble; December 2nd, 2012 at 09:32 PM.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2012, 01:01 AM   #57
cosmictanya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,600
Likes (Received): 2811

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnapan View Post
The only flattering thing I can think of to say about this building is that 'it could have been worse'

Many of the current residents would have grown up in those worse buildings.

Things like this:



or this

[img]https://encrypted-tbn2.************/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW38Qw6f_4I78HxCAF_1g5RNHpDWiXDWwH9XiIDl0zHMYN4ELEAQ[/img]

or this



or this

image hosted on flickr


I don't think this is an unfair representation of much of the ordinary modern built environment that most of us have grown up with, and it is only because the bar is set so low that these flats have any appeal at all... oh and probably they got free new carpets!
i think the top photo is rather unfair. it is one bombed block in the middle of kensington, surrounded on all sides by beautiful, high density historic buildings.
cosmictanya no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2012, 01:25 AM   #58
hifive605
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 398
Likes (Received): 32

^ not unfair, hes using it as an example of the predominant architectural language in the UK - and hes spot on
hifive605 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2012, 06:00 AM   #59
Langur
Londinium langur
 
Langur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9,070
Likes (Received): 812

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
It's not about running out of space but creating never ending sprawl. Why waste precious land on houses when you can build high density mid/high rises and house far more people this way than in suburbia of the same size. What is so wrong with flats?
But we're not creating "endless sprawl". London's built very little sprawl since the 1930s. Green Belt restrictions are in place. 90% of new homes in London are flats.
__________________
"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper
Langur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2012, 01:18 PM   #60
hifive605
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 398
Likes (Received): 32

first off if we stopped calling them flats but apartments instead I think then much of the sigma would go away. Secondly they should be spacious, millionaires live in apartments in cities - its just how it is done.

In all the big UK city centers there should be large, attractive apartment blocks like in barcelona combined with residential skyscrapers. Basically we need to drop this aversion to building up - even the smallest french town is often 3/4 stories on average - density is good for cities it creates energy and vitality
hifive605 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu