Where in the South East shall we decree a glorious new conurbation with room for a million souls and easy commutes to London?

[Silas Loom]

My preference would be to link a cluster of skyscrapers, where the red dot is, to the A41 and A413 via an urban motorway, then fill the space in between with swathes of medium density new build affordable residential and commercial neighbourhoods, a mid-Bucks megacity to rival Xanadu, crisscrossed by tramways connecting to the West Coast Main Line hubs at Tring and Berkhamstead, and to Wendover, Amersham and the Missendens for the Chiltern Line, which would be extended beyond Marylebone either to Oxford Circus or to dovetail with the Liz Line at Bond Street.

There would, I suppose, have to be a country park somewhere. Perhaps even a small pond with ducks.




How would you make best use of the green belt and a comfortable Commons majority to solve the housing crisis? What corner of Surrey, Kent or Hertfordshire would you like to pave over? Shall there be dedicated fastways for e-bikes and scooters? A monorail?

 

[scifisam]

I know building on the greenbelt is your obsession, but it's not actually necessary (the building or the obsession). We have more brownfield land and empty homes to use before this is even a consideration.

 

[ChrisD]

I think Maplin sands has capacity for development....although climate change might make the lower stories a bit damp.

 

[Silas Loom]

I know building on the greenbelt is your obsession, but it's not actually necessary (the building or the obsession). We have more brownfield land and empty homes to use before this is even a consideration.

Why squeeze drab little flats into former industrial estates when your citizenry could stroll along handsome bouvelards from home to work or to shops and services, in a masterplanned and climate change futureproofed metropolis that will drive Londoners wild with envy?

 

[Silas Loom]

I think Maplin sands has capacity for development....although climate change might make the lower stories a bit damp.

Stilts and waterways?

 

[danny la rouge]

 

[Silas Loom]

View attachment 432562

A million, though? You’d need to build very high and even then the populace would have to be minced before they could be crammed in.

 

[ChrisD]

Stilts and waterways?

There must be a lot of small boats stored somewhere near Dover. Never mind Birmingham being " Venice of the North" this could be the Essex version of Bangladesh river delta.

 

[danny la rouge]

A million, though? You’d need to build very high and even then the populace would have to be minced before they could be crammed in.

Get George Clarke onboard.

 

[ska invita]

It would be nice if the new building wasn't in the SE for a change.

 

[mx wcfc]

Years and years ago, there was a proposal to fill a triangle drawn between Reading, Basingstoke and Bracknell with a new city. It never came to anything, but it's gradually being filled up.

 

[scifisam]

Why squeeze drab little flats into former industrial estates when your citizenry could stroll along handsome bouvelards from home to work or to shops and services, in a masterplanned and climate change futureproofed metropolis that will drive Londoners wild with envy?

If we're going for fantasy worlds then let's not just stop at a new town, let's have a mansion each with teleporters to access cities and countryside. I mean, you're thinking far too small, man.

 

[Silas Loom]

It would be nice if the new building wasn't in the SE for a change.

There should be one up North as well but it needs its own thread.

 

[maomao]

A million, though? You’d need to build very high and even then the populace would have to be minced before they could be crammed in.

Just build over the common. Richmond Park too. It's all just posh people and wombles.

 

[lazythursday]

I have no particular love for any part of the home counties, you can bang it anywhere really. As long as it's mostly built on nature-depleted tired out farmland and not on genuinely good ecological habitat.

We have to move away from the simplistic idea of green belt and brownfield. Plenty of brownfield land has become incredible urban wildlife habitat, while plenty of green belt has little value in terms of nature. We shouldn't be making decisions based on visual looks or romantic ideas about the countryside. There's no reason why you can't build high density and still include lots of natural areas and connecting green corridors to allow species movement.

 

[ska invita]

I have no particular love for any part of the home counties, you can bang it anywhere really. As long as it's mostly built on nature-depleted tired out farmland and not on genuinely good ecological habitat.

We have to move away from the simplistic idea of green belt and brownfield. Plenty of brownfield land has become incredible urban wildlife habitat, while plenty of green belt has little value in terms of nature. We shouldn't be making decisions based on visual looks or romantic ideas about the countryside. There's no reason why you can't build high density and still include lots of natural areas and connecting green corridors to allow species movement.

Nice idea but it's going to be loads of tacked on edge of town barrat style estates with no new amenities (I bet)

 

[zedr]

My preference would be to link a cluster of skyscrapers, where the red dot is, to the A41 and A413 via an urban motorway, then fill the space in between with swathes of medium density new build affordable residential and commercial neighbourhoods, a mid-Bucks megacity to rival Xanadu, crisscrossed by tramways connecting to the West Coast Main Line hubs at Tring and Berkhamstead, and to Wendover, Amersham and the Missendens for the Chiltern Line, which would be extended beyond Marylebone either to Oxford Circus or to dovetail with the Liz Line at Bond Street.

There would, I suppose, have to be a country park somewhere. Perhaps even a small pond with ducks.


View attachment 432554

How would you make best use of the green belt and a comfortable Commons majority to solve the housing crisis? What corner of Surrey, Kent or Hertfordshire would you like to pave over? Shall there be dedicated fastways for e-bikes and scooters? A monorail?

whilst im not big on building on the greenbelt, this would send my horrible tory grandfather spinning in his grave so sounds like a great plan!

 

[lazythursday]

Nice idea but it's going to be loads of tacked on edge of town barrat style estates with no new amenities (I bet)

Well it might well be but it doesn't have to be, and I suspect these new towns will have a whole lot more attention on them than the average development so will likely meet higher standards.

Biodiversity Net Gain is now happening, which does force developers to pay a lot more attention to the nature side of things, but too early to see if it's working.

 

[mx wcfc]

. Plenty of brownfield land has become incredible urban wildlife habitat,

We've got precisely that argument going on down here, on a WW1 army camp, that is now a (suburban) wildlife habitat.
But the developers scream "brownfield!" as if that entitles them to concrete over it.

 

[quimcunx]

It would be nice if the new building wasn't in the SE for a change.

Couple of massive skyscrapers in Harrogate, nice and convenient for tea and a scone at Betty's.

 

[lazythursday]

We've got precisely that argument going on down here, on a WW1 army camp, that is now a (suburban) wildlife habitat.
But the developers scream "brownfield!" as if that entitles them to concrete over it.

yep. we need urban green space and wildlife habitat. The binary between brownfield and green belt is so unhelpful.

Read something recently about Copenhagen, where they created 'fingers' of development outward from the main city along transport corridors, ensuring that plenty of green and natural space was retained between the fingers, so that development happened where there is good transport, plenty of high quality ecological space left, and also easy access for people to it. That's the sort of thing we need instead of an arbitrary green belt boundary.

 

[belboid]

View attachment 432562

Sacrilege!

Easy to find room for 300,000 tho

London golf courses could provide homes for 300,000 people, study says | Planning policy | The Guardian

Courses on public land could be used ‘in a more creative way’ to ease housing crisis and provide accessible green space

amp.theguardian.com

 

[DJWrongspeed]

No one is building on Chilterns AONB. What about disused army land around Farnborough & Aldershot.

There are vast areas of very low density housing in London with Infrastructure in place.

 

[WouldBe]

Manchester. Quick links to London when HS2 is finished.

 

[Silas Loom]

No one is building on Chilterns AONB. What about disused army land around Farnborough & Aldershot.

Ash Ranges? Fill in the gap between Aldershot and Woking? Yes, why not.

 

[scifisam]

yep. we need urban green space and wildlife habitat. The binary between brownfield and green belt is so unhelpful.

Read something recently about Copenhagen, where they created 'fingers' of development outward from the main city along transport corridors, ensuring that plenty of green and natural space was retained between the fingers, so that development happened where there is good transport, plenty of high quality ecological space left, and also easy access for people to it. That's the sort of thing we need instead of an arbitrary green belt boundary.

Retaining green space between developments is an excellent idea. This sounds like basically the same thing as the green belt but done differently because of existing buildings.

Some brownfield sites have very useful wildlife, agreed. That doesn't somehow mean the green belt is barren and useless, or that the protections for that space - which are not insurmountable anyway - should be removed.

I don't think I'm very good at arguing on this topic, TBH, because to me it's so fucking obviously stupid that it's like arguing against flat earthers, even though I know the people arguing it aren't as stupid as flerfers.

It's especially obvious that any consideration of building on "useless" farmland, if it ever happens, should come after utlitising actual buildings, and the many brownfield sites that don't offer much in terms of biodiversity. And also that said "useless" farmland should be better used as farmland if it turns out it isn't already.

 

[lazythursday]

Retaining green space between developments is an excellent idea. This sounds like basically the same thing as the green belt but done differently because of existing buildings.

Some brownfield sites have very useful wildlife, agreed. That doesn't somehow mean the green belt is barren and useless, or that the protections for that space - which are not insurmountable anyway - should be removed.

I don't think I'm very good at arguing on this topic, TBH, because to me it's so fucking obviously stupid that it's like arguing against flat earthers, even though I know the people arguing it aren't as stupid as flerfers.

It's especially obvious that any consideration of building on "useless" farmland, if it ever happens, should come after utlitising actual buildings, and the many brownfield sites that don't offer much in terms of biodiversity. And also that said "useless" farmland should be better used as farmland if it turns out it isn't already.

Farmland is graded. I wouldn't advocate building on the high quality stuff, we do need to grow food. But the stuff of poor agricultural quality that has often only remained farmland due to subsidies should be appropriately considered for returning to nature or development if it's in the right place.

 

[A380]

No one is building on Chilterns AONB. What about disused army land around Farnborough & Aldershot.

There are vast areas of very low density housing in London with Infrastructure in place.

Build all over Farnborough airfield. Then we could get back the huge chunk of airspace they nicked for their private jet tossers.

 

[scifisam]

Farmland is graded. I wouldn't advocate building on the high quality stuff, we do need to grow food. But the stuff of poor agricultural quality that has often only remained farmland due to subsidies should be appropriately considered for returning to nature or development if it's in the right place.

Or better farmland, surely.

 

[mx wcfc]

Or better farmland, surely.

Or solar farms, with wildflower meadow underneath, grazed by sheep in autumn?

(sorry, a bit idealistic - pissed again)