UK building density

[hammerman]

Does anyone know how much of the UK....in particular England has been built on ?

The reason i ask is that i was looking at google earth the other day and was (pleasently) surprised just how much fields there are compared to urban areas.

There only looks like about 5% has been built on.

[jake-the-peg]

Here is a list of countries ordered by population density:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries _by_population_density


We are 34 with 246 people per square KM
383 if you just take England

There is plenty of room for building it's just that the planning organisation favours trying to increase population densities (which seems crazy to me but then I'm not a planner)

[beegeebee]

I do recall something similar being asked in America a couple of years ago and, a study was done by a university. They found that in the whole of America something of the order of 80,000 square miles of the country had been 'concreted' over, which was the equivalent to the state of Idaho.

[ludwig]

'There is plenty of room for building' - yes in comparison to Monaco, Hong Kong, Vatican City and the Maldives.
I find that list of population densities a bit depressing to be honest. Are you in the building trade Jake?

[jake-the-peg]

No - I live in the countryside

It takes me half an hour to drive into work - no traffic-nothing.

246 per sqare Km that's nearly a square 65 meters on each side for every man woman and child

It never ceases to amaze me how people - especially those who live in towns think their experience is representative of the whole country.

The problem as I see it is that planners insist on trying to grow cities rather than bite the bullet and build complete new towns from scratch.

There's plenty of room to plop down a few new "Milton Keynes"

We don't all have to live inside the M25 - it's not the law

[Octavius]

Around 87% of land in the UK is �greenfield�. That is land which has never previously been developed, or fully-restored former waste disposal landfill sites or minerals extraction land. This could be both within and outside built-up areas.

The remaining 13% is either developed or is deemed as �brownfield�. Brownfield is often referred to as previously-developed land, is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including land within boundary of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This could include vacant and derelict sites and buildings, or land that used for alternative uses, such as employment.

The current Government drive is to build houses upon brownfield sites whilst retaining as much Greenfield, or green belt as feasibly possible. Unfortuately as I have noted above there is more greenfield land available and this becomes the target of many a developer.

[ludwig]

Jake - I don't live inside the M25. I live in suburbia in the midlands. You're very lucky to live out in the open and have such a nice drive to work - but that experience isn't representative of the whole country either -it's representative of hardly anyone.

A relative of mine (who's Swiss) said to me once 'Scotland is much nicer than England - at least you know when you've left the city'. I know what he means.

[jno]

true, jake, but if everyone moved to the countryside then (a) they'd be in cities and (b) there'd be traffic. Is it maybe better to keep most people inside the M25 and leave the rest of the country lightly occupied, perhaps?

[jake-the-peg]

It's madness to keep increasing the population density in cities.

Look at Paris - they have some of the highest population densities in Europe and some of the worst trouble.

The problem is not the number of people in the country - for goodness sake Belgium has a higher population density than us.

The problem is everyone trying to squeeze into the same part of the country

[jno]

but people go to cities for a reason: the streets aren't paved with gold exactly, but that's where the work and the money are. It may be that with the growth of cyberspace this will some day no longer be necessary. A couple of people 'in my office' are actually hundreds of miles away (but fully online), and one is even in Canada. But I suspect in general it will take quite a while for this to work through into the residential property market.

[Octavius]

Recent trends are showing that people living in the commuter belts of London are moving back into the central area because of rising commuting costs. It appears what they would save on travel costs outweighs the higher cost of buying or renting smaller properties in walking distance from their workplace. You have to appreciate how expensive public transport is in London to understand.

Whilst a few years back many considered that the ideal work/life balance was to commute into the city and be out of it for evenings and weekends, that costs and benefits are proving otherwise.

Personally I would hate to live in the congested smog of Central London, but I am fortunate in that I have decided to quit the city anyway and relocate. Again a reassessment of my work/life balance has told me that 2.5hours standing on the Central Line every day, makes for a grumpy blighter.

...and relax....

[jno]

population density doesn't necessarily cause trouble. Paris is tightly packed and has trouble, Tokyo is too and doesn't. LA reaches halfway to Las Vegas but has occasional riots. Living cheek-by-jowl isn't the only factor in urban unrest and possibly isn't even a big one; I suspect poverty and discrimination play bigger parts.

[WoWo]

"Recent trends are showing that people living in the commuter belts of London are moving back into the central area because of rising commuting costs."

Thats exactly what we did, we moved from London to South Kent, advertised train times were 1 hour to central London, in reality it was a minimum of 1h 30m often much longer. The move was mainly to tap in to cheaper property costs but any benefit on that front was eaten up by stupidly high transport costs.

We moved back into London and our qulity of life has improved dramatically.