Its scary what folks believe about their environment...

axisus

Wolfetone said:

Kilgore said:

I'm only interested in these kinds of stats if they're measured in double decker buses.

...or anything that references Wales or the Isle of Wight

It's a little know fact but the Isle of Wight has been measured as exactly the size of one Isle of Wight.

Funkfingers

Chalky said:
It's scary what folks believe.

Full stop.

munckee

axisus said:

Wolfetone said:

Kilgore said:

I'm only interested in these kinds of stats if they're measured in double decker buses.

...or anything that references Wales or the Isle of Wight

It's a little know fact but the Isle of Wight has been measured as exactly the size of one Isle of Wight.

Its a little known fact that not everyone could stand on the isle of wight simultaneously as per mile its the most expensive ferry crossing in the world to get there and 80% of the worlds population just couldn't afford it.

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

The UK is set to have the largest population in Europe within 20 years.

I'm a bit wary of predictions like that - as demonstrated by the Economist in 2006:

http://www.economist.com/node/5624861

Statistical analysis (look at the hyperbolic curve) predicted the razor singularity in 2016, when we were due to witness the release of a razor with an infinite number of blades...

True. They never saw hipster's coming with their designer beards that required clippers rather than razors to keep fashionably trimmed.

digitalscream

Bygone_Tones said:

Just have a look on google earth for the true picture.

That article is a bit 'click baity' in my opinion. Roads and motorways are not shown for a start. Gives the false impression the UK is mostly wild green space and humans have hardly touched it, but yes some people clearly need to get out into nature a bit more if they think so much of it has been concreted over.

It's not clickbait-y, it's just drawing entirely the wrong conclusion. People will naturally perceive the environment they spend the most time in as representative of the entire country. When the bulk of the population live in cities and towns, and only venture outside them when travelling to another city or town, that's how they're going to see it (especially since humans don't perceive distances greater than about half a mile particularly well).

As you implied...this is really just a measure of whether people get out much.

Garthy

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I think land is expensive because the houses that get built on it are seen as "investments" not as places to live. Land you can't build houses on is cheap by comparison.

Well why would you buy land you cannot do anything with? Near me the residents can buy 'lots' of our local woods or even the whole lot if you wish, nobody has done so because you can't do a damn thing with it, not even put up a dog litter bin.

How much would you pay for an acre of land that will just *be*? Now compare that to the cost of your house.

axisus

Is there concrete evidence of this? and if so, was it counted?

p90fool

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

The UK is set to have the largest population in Europe within 20 years.

I'm a bit wary of predictions like that - as demonstrated by the Economist in 2006:

http://www.economist.com/node/5624861

Statistical analysis (look at the hyperbolic curve) predicted the razor singularity in 2016, when we were due to witness the release of a razor with an infinite number of blades...

There was a similar prediction around the same time, which said at the current rate of growth something like one in five of us would be an Elvis impersonator by 2020. 

Phil_aka_Pip

Garthy said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I think land is expensive because the houses that get built on it are seen as "investments" not as places to live. Land you can't build houses on is cheap by comparison.

Well why would you buy land you cannot do anything with? Near me the residents can buy 'lots' of our local woods or even the whole lot if you wish, nobody has done so because you can't do a damn thing with it, not even put up a dog litter bin.

How much would you pay for an acre of land that will just *be*? Now compare that to the cost of your house.

You can grow food on it, but that's nowhere near as profitable, even if it's an even more basic requirement than building a house. House prices are artificially inflated for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to

• greed (mainly of estate agents and mortgage companies) but also of "developers" who will not put up houses on some sites because cleaning them up first will eat into their profits
  
• the notion that prices will always increase so you're not just buying a place to live in, you're "investing"
• demand-pull caused by social factors - each family that splits due to divorce or some other reason) results in the need for 2 houses not one; each young person that "can't live" with their parents needs a separate dwelling, etc; immigration

AFAIK the cost of rebuilding my house if it burnt down would be just under half what I could get for selling it. In other words the land it is on is "worth" more than the house itself. I don't think there's a good reason for that.

robgilmo

I think this journalist may well be selling some of his building plots! That's how it works in this day and age, politics making decisions to make money privately, governments using the ''terrorist'' card to invade and sell bullets,  the media pressing fake news because they have financial gain from doing so, and us , the sheep , lap it all up!

Chalky

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Garthy said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I think land is expensive because the houses that get built on it are seen as "investments" not as places to live. Land you can't build houses on is cheap by comparison.

Well why would you buy land you cannot do anything with? Near me the residents can buy 'lots' of our local woods or even the whole lot if you wish, nobody has done so because you can't do a damn thing with it, not even put up a dog litter bin.

How much would you pay for an acre of land that will just *be*? Now compare that to the cost of your house.

You can grow food on it, but that's nowhere near as profitable, even if it's an even more basic requirement than building a house. House prices are artificially inflated for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to

• greed (mainly of estate agents and mortgage companies) but also of "developers" who will not put up houses on some sites because cleaning them up first will eat into their profits
  
• the notion that prices will always increase so you're not just buying a place to live in, you're "investing"
• demand-pull caused by social factors - each family that splits due to divorce or some other reason) results in the need for 2 houses not one; each young person that "can't live" with their parents needs a separate dwelling, etc; immigration

AFAIK the cost of rebuilding my house if it burnt down would be just under half what I could get for selling it. In other words the land it is on is "worth" more than the house itself. I don't think there's a good reason for that.

Man shouts at cloud?

axisus

Phil_aka_Pip said:

AFAIK the cost of rebuilding my house if it burnt down would be just under half what I could get for selling it. In other words the land it is on is "worth" more than the house itself. I don't think there's a good reason for that.

So if I want to move I should burn my house down instead of selling it?

Phil_aka_Pip

axisus said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

AFAIK the cost of rebuilding my house if it burnt down would be just under half what I could get for selling it. In other words the land it is on is "worth" more than the house itself. I don't think there's a good reason for that.

So if I want to move I should burn my house down instead of selling it?

Well if you burnt it down the insurers would only pay to put another one up just like it in the same place - assuming you convince them it was an accident and not deliberate. I can't see how you would be advantaged.

ToneControl

I was encouraged to see this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42591494

Phil_aka_Pip

ToneControl said:

I was encouraged to see this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42591494

I suppose it make a change from building a wall ...

stickyfiddle

Fretwired said:

Interesting stats:

Population density of UK 271 per square kilometre
Population density of England 440 per square kilometre
Population density of Scotland 69 per square kilometre
Population density of Wales 149 per square kilometre
Population density of Netherlands 414 per square kilometre
Population density of Belgium 373 per square kilometre
Population density of Germany 232 per square kilometre
Population density of France 123 per square kilometre

Elsewhere:

Population density of Islington 15,600 per square kilometre
Population density of Tower Hamlets 15,404 per square kilometre
Population density of Hackney 14,358 per square kilometre
Population density of Luton 5,000 per square kilometre

Where I live the population density is 941 per square kilometre - it's quadrupled in 20 years

As of June 2016, it was estimated that there were 54,786,300 people living in England. The UK is set to have the largest population in Europe within 20 years.

I'm not sure that any conclusion can be drawn from those figures. Cairo has a density of 18k, Paris 21.5k, and my 2-bed flat is 13k (or 26k if you count the cats) 

London really isn't that densely populated in the grand scheme of things. I'd suggest that inequality and an self-inflating housing market are bigger causes of problems than the overall number of people.