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

191–200 of 220 posts

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

#191

Post by kiba »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #170
kiba wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have plenty of room on this planet, and upcoming medical technology may change the equation on the number of people dying. I hope to start a family before people start imposing measure to limit population growth.

Better medical technology means people die older. Older people already own most of the capital, having them live longer isn’t going to get us to a healthier society that’s not as biased towards existing capital versus innovation and income.

And older people passing their wealth to a newer generation isn't going to fix things either. All that changes is who will be ossifying society. At least, with medical technologies, people can't run away from the problem by dying of old age.

That's a separate problem to the population crisis. People thinks population's going to decline. I am not so sure. Things can change a lot in a few decade.

All we can say that at this current time, the trend is toward population decline.

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

#192

Post by WeylandYutani »

Seb-C wrote: post #125
WeylandYutani wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European cities have finally given up their architectural conservatism. You can do America (urban sprawl) or Asia (skyscrapers).

France hasn't unfortunately. I also wish we stopped giving more importance to preserving old buildings and architecture at the cost of making today's life hell for the residents.

Yes the Paris everyone sees today was the product of Hausman bulldozing the place. Cities are living creatures not preserved corpses in a mausoleum.

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

#194

Post by contingencies »

andromaton wrote: post #161

The picture labeled "Isle of Dogs" boomed. For us non locals: it seems that's mainly Canary Wharf, which Wikipedia says is next to Isle of dogs.

So named because it's where they keep the financial services people, who are now the only ones who can afford to make noise at 3AM.

Fun fact: if you head east from there, things get pretty damn ghetto pretty quickly. Like, you don't want your car to break down, "projects"-level ghetto. Then it all fades away to the peculiar English joy of Essex. But make no mistake, there's some serious ghetto really close to the money.

Note also, this is the area that was bombed most heavily during the war due to its position to the east of town. The German bombers would drop their loads and turn around ASAP to minimize time exposed to AA fire. A septuagenarian I know who grew up there described it as a child's playground composed of a wonderland of overgrown, bombed out buildings.

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

#196

Post by sealeck »

denton-scratch wrote: post #180
sealeck wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really because most good things in the UK are in London (theatre, sports, clubs, museums, architecture, etc).

Theatre: London is certainly better than the provinces, if you like that kind of thing. I don't. Sports: neither spectator nor participation sports are a London speciality. Clubs: if that means nightclubs, Manchester had a much better club-scene than London when I lived there (mid 90s). I'm too old for clubbing now! Museums and architecture: people visit museums and gawp at architecture when they're visiting a place.…

I find that people are much more friendly in London (they are certainly a lot less racist in general, which is lovely). It's the premier city in Europe, and very international which is lovely.

It has such a great mix of things – you are constantly surrounded by history and there is always something going on.

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

#197

Post by bandris »

kmlx wrote: post #103

i moved to London a decade ago, and it's incredible how much the city has changed. whole new neighborhoods have been built on the sites of former industrial parks. existing neighborhoods are expanding, and new skyscrapers are appearing all over the place. even new (and huge) infrastructure projects. as a european, this change is something special. in europe you will rarely find a city as big and important as London w…

Agree. Meanwhile the number of cars noticably decreased. Lower noise, better air, significantly more cyclists.

The 20mph speed limit certainly helped to achive this. (Too slow to move around with a car.)

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

#198

Post by flangola7 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #39
noelwelsh wrote: post #11

London really grew in the Victorian era. E.g. http://www.demographia.com/dm-lon31.htm Reading Dickens is one way to get a feel for this. Many locations in his books are not yet part of the London conurbation. IIRC, one book has a character walking over fields to get to Hammersmith, for example. Going back further there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Martin-in-the-Fields

" 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...

There are no wolves in England at all?

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

#199

Post by vidarh »

throwaway03626 wrote: post #177
RugnirViking wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

birth rates in pretty much every developed nation are below replacement level. Some countries are using migration as a sort of band-aid fixed but the worst fears are starting to come true recently. Previously some people had thought or hoped that falling birthrates was/is a natural concequence of becoming rich enough, that as countries develop kids are seen as less of a necessity. But iirc newer data shows falling bi…

In my opinion it could be solved by simply making it more attractive to have children, but it would require more equality and redistribution of wealth to cover the costs. There would still be billionaires, but the number of ultra-rich may be reduced. Women wants careers and equal opportunities. That means they wait longer and longer before they get children because they want to make sure they have a career to go back…

Norway is close to providing all of what you describe and still seeing well below replacement fertility rates. It maybe be a start, and it produces a far more pleasant society, but it's not enough.

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

#200

Post by vidarh »

mstade wrote: post #165
LilBytes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was your reason for loathing living in London? Edit: reason I ask is because I assume it's costs, I can't imagine your apartment was cheap. I don't see much evidence that even SWE's can comfortably live there.

It was a one bedroom rental in a newly developed skyscraper called the landmark, I think I paid about £1400/month. Cost was a thing, sure, but coming from Stockholm I was used to things being expensive and anyway the move to London effectively tripled my salary at the time. I was doing fine. After the year lease was up the estate agency wanted to jack the rent by 60%, which I then learned was par for the course in Lo…

Living in London is best done by moving progressively further out and treat going in to the centre as tourist trips. I spent my first couple of years at Marble Arch, and then moved to zone 3, and now I live in zone 5. I couldn't imagine living further in. Too little for the money, and too busy.

I only go in to the centre to go to fancy bars and restaurants for date nights etc., or for other touristy stuff.

Post reply on HN