Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

londonist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 220 posts

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#181

Post by pydry »

gadders wrote: post #171
pydry wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land usage is horrendously inefficient in the UK and that is largely by design. Immigration might exacerbate rent rises all other things being equal but as I said it could just as easily happen with net migration too. With Singapore you could argue that immigration is a key issue with their rising rents because proportionally it's so much higher than the UK, they make very efficient use of land and they are very much…

I'm not sure what distinction you are drawing between "immigration" and "net migration"? Net Migration is just all the people that have immigrated (moved to) to a country minus all those that have emigrated (left) a country. That is the figure of 600k for the UK currently. >> In the UK it's not an issue with immigration because other variables override it. Care to name some? I guess you could say that UK housing is "…

>I'm not sure making people live in tower blocks just so that more people from other countries can move here is all that fair of a solution

The only forcing going on in London is handing over between 30-50% of your paycheck just to have a roof over your head.

Nobody would have to be forced to live in an apartment. You just have to build them and people will rent or buy them.

As I said, unless you want to take this to a racist place it's not an issue of immigration. Not in the UK anyway.

>TBH property oligarchs would favour high migration

Yes, thats why the Tory party effectively used xenophobia to garner votes while simultaneously increasing net migration to the UK. It was all about throwing a racist bone to their voters who were heavily swayed towards UKIP before betraying them.

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#182

Post by barnabee »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #176
barnabee wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities like London could absorb pretty significant population growth with high quality, high density home building of the right type, in the right areas as long as they also invest in infrastructure and services too. Obviously making up the infrastructure and investment gap in other medium and large UK cities might make more sense. Most of the UK’s next 10-20 cities by size (at least) could probably take on a doublin…

At some point we perhaps need to ask ourselves if packing an ever growing number of people in ever denser and taller buildings is a positive.

Probably better to ask ourselves more holistically what good urban design looks like.

There are very pleasant and extremely livable high density cities (or areas within them) as well as many example of lower density urban and suburban environments that are awful.

Also, buildings are not really getting “ever denser and taller” except in the most extreme cases. In London, for example we’re usually talking about taking low density low quality housing or currently unused or underused ex-industrial land and turning it into higher density housing, offices, and retail. But this is not so high density that it icomes close to pushing the boundaries of what’s already known to be workable, especially when paired (as it usually is in London at least) with public space, local amenities, and transport upgrades.

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#183

Post by denton-scratch »

gadders wrote: post #92
NeoTar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep - Greater London does have some hills, especially in the outer boroughs, but most of the highest points that are not within a couple of kilometres of the border are all under 140m high.

Yeah - what's the big one nearby? Hampstead Heath? That seems to have views over London.

Yes, Highgate/Hampstead. Less-elevated are Highbury Hill, Muswell Hill and Ally Pally. Basically there's a row of hills across North London.

Most of London is flat because it's part of the estuary of a major river; the bedrock is buried under an awful lot of silt and clay.

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#184

Post by gadders »

pydry wrote: post #181
gadders wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what distinction you are drawing between "immigration" and "net migration"? Net Migration is just all the people that have immigrated (moved to) to a country minus all those that have emigrated (left) a country. That is the figure of 600k for the UK currently. >> In the UK it's not an issue with immigration because other variables override it. Care to name some? I guess you could say that UK housing is "…

>I'm not sure making people live in tower blocks just so that more people from other countries can move here is all that fair of a solution The only forcing going on in London is handing over between 30-50% of your paycheck just to have a roof over your head. Nobody would have to be forced to live in an apartment. You just have to build them and people will rent or buy them. As I said, unless you want to take this to…

Not wanting high net migration is not xenophobic though, however much you throw out your ad hominem attacks.

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#185

Post by Tarsul »

noelwelsh wrote: post #43
pydry wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the one kind of inflation which didn't bother me too much. I still go out just as much I just drink less. That's healthier. The property situation makes me far more angry. The UK construction and property industry completely lacks market discipline and quality regulations have been reduced (see: Grenfell where that literally killed people, but also the shocking build quality of most properties). Then there was…

Here's some data corroborating this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bull... As you can see, London rents are increasing at an accelerating rate.

thanks for the stats. Most often, rental stats are for new leases but actually those are numbers also for current renters (" The index not only measures the change in newly advertised rental prices, but reflects price changes for all private rental properties, including for existing tenancies."). 5% rent increases last year...

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#187

Post by briansm »

illwrks wrote: post #64
mytailorisrich wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Henry VIII rebuilt the church in 1542 ... at this time it was literally "in the fields", occupying an isolated position between the cities of Westminster and London. " In the 1550s the country was unrecognisable compared to now. England's total population was about 3 million, now London's population is 9 million (and was 100k then)... Edit: Apparently, wolves in England had just become extinct at the time...

It makes you wonder what it will be like in another few hundred years... When we first moved to London (Zone 2/3) the place we lived in used to be a large apple orchard 100-150 years prior. Where we moved to after was on the grounds of a former nunnery then recouperation hospital. And now the area we're in used to be grazing fields 100 years ago.

Atlantis.

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#188

Post by gadders »

denton-scratch wrote: post #175
gadders wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net migration of 600k/year also affects property prices.

> 600k/year That makes it sound as if it's 600k each year. It isn't - that's the figure for 2022. The figure for 2019 is 180k. Supposedly, the 2022 figure is inflated by official programmes encouraging immigration from Hong Kong and Ukraine.

2021 was 488k.

I look forward to the figure for 2024 being -800k or so to even things out but I won't hold my breath.

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#189

Post by kiba »

andsoitis wrote: post #162
kiba wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is because the elderly are dying, same as they always been dying through out the ages. The older you get the more likely you are to die. The current demographic trend is based on this assumption. It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death.

> It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death. What does “Meaningfully reducing the probability of death” mean? I thought death is certain. Do you mean pushing death further into to future, say by hundreds or thousands of years?

The probability of death is correlated to your chronological age. The older you are, the more likely you are to die.

Eliminating or reducing the probability of death correlated to chronological age means our average lifespan is likely to be thousand of years, but not unlimited since we will die to other causes, likely involving accidents and natural disaster.

Re: London Then and Now: Aerial Shots Show City Grow over Past Two Decades

#190

Post by mytailorisrich »

barnabee wrote: post #182
mytailorisrich wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point we perhaps need to ask ourselves if packing an ever growing number of people in ever denser and taller buildings is a positive.

Probably better to ask ourselves more holistically what good urban design looks like. There are very pleasant and extremely livable high density cities (or areas within them) as well as many example of lower density urban and suburban environments that are awful. Also, buildings are not really getting “ever denser and taller” except in the most extreme cases. In London, for example we’re usually talking about taking…

A pleasant environment is not too dense. People prefer less density, more space, more greenery.

At some point more people means quality of life has to go down.

Now, the UK's population does not even grow intrinsically, we're creating the problem by literally importing people.

Post reply on HN