View previous topic | View next topic

Building bigger cities

Page 1 of 9
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

GuyBarry
1320589.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:22 am Reply with quote

From post 1320120:

dr.bob wrote:
Interestingly, one way to help the environment would be to encourage everyone to move to a big city. On an episode of 50 Things That Made the Modern Economy the point was made that cities are generally better for the environment than rural communities. This is because people who live in cities are much more likely to travel by public transport. Indeed, the density of population makes mass transit systems like underground trains possible. Density of housing and retail also means that walking or cycling are much more practical. On average, the amount of energy use per person, and the consumption of petrol, are way lower in big cities than in rural environments.


See also:
post 1320500
post 1320522
post 1320528
post 1320547
post 1320548
post 1320550
post 1320576
post 1320582
post 1320583

 
GuyBarry
1320591.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:55 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

GuyBarry wrote:

Although I would love to know whether dr. bob's plans involve evacuating Bath completely or incorporating it into his new utopian "Greater Severnside Megalopolis" :-)


Maybe the former.


I find that suggestion absolutely extraordinary. Bath is a city of about 89,000 people. It has a good network of cycle paths and footpaths, including the first-ever purpose-built cycle path - the Bristol & Bath Railway Path - and the widely acclaimed Two Tunnels Greenway. It has a pretty good local bus service, and direct rail connections to London, the South Coast and South Wales. It also has the River Avon and the Kennet & Avon canal as alternative transport routes. It has its problems with traffic congestion of course but I would have thought it's probably one of the easier places in the country to get round. Certainly easier than Bristol (which I presume you'd be in favour of expanding).

And you'd genuinely support moving all 89,000 residents out of here and putting us in some anonymous purpose-built suburb in the middle of nowhere? Breaking up communities, and possibly friendships and families as well?

And what exactly would the boundaries of the "Greater Severnside Megalopolis" be, in any case? To quadruple the area of Bristol, you'd need to build outwards so far that you'd take in the whole of Bath anyway. So why not leave Bath as it is? Or are you proposing flattening it and replacing it with tower blocks and new railway lines?

It's a UNESCO World Heritage Site, attracting hundreds of thousands of international visitors each year. Would you just leave the Royal Crescent and the Circus as museum pieces for visitors to look at? What about all the people living here whose livelihood depends on tourism? Would they have to commute in from the other side of Bristol every day?

That's just scratching the surface. Your proposal raises so many questions that I can barely begin to think about all its consequences for the city where I live.

Quote:
It'd even help to solve the current housing crisis in the UK


If you think that taking all 89,000 people out of their homes and leaving them empty would somehow solve the housing crisis in Bath, you've got some very strange ideas.

 
Alexander Howard
1320601.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:00 am Reply with quote

Great Britain is a crowded island, with heaving cities and satellite towns, barely able, probably unable, to grow food to feed all those mouths.

To build these new British cities, we would need to find another island, large enough to take them, preferably with some infrastructure already laid down and an existing English-speaking base population to get it moving. Hmm...

 
GuyBarry
1320615.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:44 pm Reply with quote

Can I ask dr. bob whether he would abandon the green belt policy that has restricted urban sprawl since the 1950s? About 13% of the land area of England, mostly around the major conurbations, is green belt land on which inappropriate new development is restricted (see map). Parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have similar policies.

Were it not for the Avon Green Belt, it's quite likely that Bath actually would be a suburb of Bristol by now. I can't begin to imagine what this area would be like if all that green belt land were built over. I certainly wouldn't want to live here.

 
dr.bob
1320627.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:38 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Bath is a city of about 89,000 people. It has a good network of cycle paths and footpaths, including the first-ever purpose-built cycle path - the Bristol & Bath Railway Path - and the widely acclaimed Two Tunnels Greenway. It has a pretty good local bus service


Sorry Guy, but a few cycle paths and a "pretty good" bus service aren't nearly as good for the environment as a fully integrated bus, tram and underground railway network. You're in a better place than me to know but I'm going to hazard a guess that most people in Bath get around by car. Certainly I'll bet that more people travel by car in central Bath than in central London or Manhatten.

GuyBarry wrote:
And you'd genuinely support moving all 89,000 residents out of here and putting us in some anonymous purpose-built suburb in the middle of nowhere? Breaking up communities, and possibly friendships and families as well? 


The communities, friendships and families are a genuine problem and obviously causes practical problems. I've already admitted this is is a thought experiment rather than a practical suggestion. The only point I'm trying to make is about the benefits to the environment. If you want to argue about any of the individual practicalities then that's obviously going to be shooting fish in a barrel.

GuyBarry wrote:
Your proposal raises so many questions that I can barely begin to think about all its consequences for the city where I live.


The only consequences I'm trying to suggest are the long-term consequences forn the environment.

Alexander Howard wrote:
Great Britain is a crowded island, with heaving cities and satellite towns, barely able, probably unable, to grow food to feed all those mouths. 

To build these new British cities, we would need to find another island, large enough to take them


This is about as far from the truth as it's possible to get. Many people may be surprised to find that, according to this study, the amount of the UK covered by large cities is only 0.1%. Even if you add in suburbs and rural towns, the amount of the UK that's "crowded" is only 5.3%.

Plenty of room for new cities.

GuyBarry wrote:
Can I ask dr. bob whether he would abandon the green belt policy that has restricted urban sprawl since the 1950s?


Definitely! One of the counter intuitive aspects of cities is that, if more people live in high density areas like London, the amount of land required to house everyone is much less, so all of those rural areas that are currently covered in minor roads and houses can be completely turned over to nature. That would create much larger green areas than the Green Belt policy.

 
dr.bob
1320628.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:04 pm Reply with quote

Apologies in advance for the posting blitz. I'm interested to see where this discussion goes, but I'm about to disappear on holiday, so I'm just trying to make sure things don't spiral into a pointless dead end.

PDR wrote:
But I'm genuinely interested to know how we would grow and sustain food if no one lives in the food-producing areas,


I already covered that in post 1320522 when I said "I'm sure it wouldn't be practical for some people. You've got to imagine that the environment wouldn't be helped if farmers had to commute from city centres, for instance." Clearly some people will still need to live outside cities.

However, there are plenty of people who choose to live in rural areas for a different quality of life. These people are unable to use underground railways and properly integrated public transport systems because such things are impractical in those areas. Two points to say about these people:

1) Obviously such people would not be keen to move to a big city so, if anyone wants to argue that my suggestion is stupid because I'll never be able to convince those people to move house, don't bother. It's patently obvious.

2) The point I'm simply trying to make is that IF, by some miracle, all those people suddenly moved into magically created new and/or larger cities, the long-term effect on the environment would be beneficial.

PDR wrote:
So what would be the sustainable proportion who could live in the cities - 50%? 75%? Has this analysis been done?


As far as I'm aware, this analysis hasn't been done. However it'd be interesting to know what proportion of the UK population currently works in, say, farming. Maybe someone else can google that while I'm away.

PDR wrote:
I look around the world at all the large cities and I don't see any examples of this claimed eco-haven


I have never claimed that cities are eco-havens. My point is that people living in cities have a smaller impact on the environment as a whole. They use less energy and produce less CO2. So, while their immediate environment might not be perfect, they're contributing far less to large-scale damaging effects like global warming.

 
GuyBarry
1320629.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:39 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Bath is a city of about 89,000 people. It has a good network of cycle paths and footpaths, including the first-ever purpose-built cycle path - the Bristol & Bath Railway Path - and the widely acclaimed Two Tunnels Greenway. It has a pretty good local bus service


Sorry Guy, but a few cycle paths and a "pretty good" bus service aren't nearly as good for the environment as a fully integrated bus, tram and underground railway network.


But Bristol hasn't got a fully integrated bus, tram and underground railway network either! How would turning Bath into a suburb of Bristol help to alleviate Bath's transport problems?

I agree with you that public transport needs to be improved round here, but I really can't see how creating even more urban development between here and Bristol is going to help matters. All it would do would cause more congestion on the A4 and on the main Bristol-Bath railway line.

And I don't like your characterization of Bath's cycle network as "a few cycle paths". The whole National Cycle Network began with the Bristol & Bath Railway Path back in 1979, and spread out from there. That's why Sustrans is based in Bristol. There's a good case for arguing that the whole "sustainable transport" concept was invented in this part of the country.

Quote:
You're in a better place than me to know but I'm going to hazard a guess that most people in Bath get around by car.


A lot of them do. They also do in Bristol. I wouldn't like to say which city is more congested.

Quote:
Certainly I'll bet that more people travel by car in central Bath than in central London or Manhatten.


Well you've got the congestion charge in London of course, but more importantly you've also got a far more comprehensive public transport system than you've got here.

If you expanded Bristol to the size of London it wouldn't suddenly develop an Underground network and the DLR and the rest of London's transport infrastructure. These things have to be built.

I can't believe I'm having to make such an obvious statement. You can't just create another London out of nothing, even if you wanted to (which I certainly wouldn't).

I used to live in Plumstead, in south-east London. It's about as far from central London as Bath is from the centre of Bristol. The public transport connections there were probably worse than they are in Bath. Just because somewhere is part of London doesn't mean it suddenly gets brilliant public transport services. A lot of the outer suburbs are pretty ill-served.

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
And you'd genuinely support moving all 89,000 residents out of here and putting us in some anonymous purpose-built suburb in the middle of nowhere? Breaking up communities, and possibly friendships and families as well? 


The communities, friendships and families are a genuine problem and obviously causes practical problems.


Well that's an understatement if ever I heard one. It would be absolutely devastating for people who've grown up here and dedicated their life to the community. A city isn't just an economic unit - it's a social unit.

Quote:
I've already admitted this is is a thought experiment rather than a practical suggestion.


Then I suggest you think about it a lot harder.

Quote:
The only point I'm trying to make is about the benefits to the environment.


Which would be highly questionable at the least.

Quote:
Plenty of room for new cities.


Of the size you're suggesting? I don't think so. Unless you're prepared to build over the whole of South East England, plus the entire Severnside area from Bath to Cardiff, the Midlands from Worcester and Northampton up to Stoke-on-Trent and Nottingham, the whole M62 corridor from Merseyside right across to the Humber, the entire North East region from Newcastle down to Middlesbrough, and the whole of central Scotland from Kilmarnock and Peebles right up to Greenock and Dundee (at a rough guess).

Can you conceive of what an awful place this country would be to live in?

Quote:
One of the counter intuitive aspects of cities is that, if more people live in high density areas like London, the amount of land required to house everyone is much less, so all of those rural areas that are currently covered in minor roads and houses can be completely turned over to nature. That would create much larger green areas than the Green Belt policy.


With no one in them. So they'd end up as complete wilderness. Goodbye to the English countryside and everything else that makes this country an acceptable place to live.

 
GuyBarry
1320630.  Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:54 pm Reply with quote

post 1320522

dr.bob wrote:
When I said "everyone" I literally meant "everyone".


post 1320628

Quote:
Clearly some people will still need to live outside cities.


Quote:
I'm just trying to make sure things don't spiral into a pointless dead end.


Looks as though you've already got there.

 
barbados
1320640.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:48 am Reply with quote

Surely the thing to do is to have literally everyone living in a city, except those that are living outside the city.
Now if only there was a way to join those cities and rural areas together it will be problem solved surely?

 
dr.bob
1320646.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:01 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
But Bristol hasn't got a fully integrated bus, tram and underground railway network either! How would turning Bath into a suburb of Bristol help to alleviate Bath's transport problems?


The reason that neither Bath not Bristol have fully integrated transport systems is that there is not a sufficiently high concentration of customers to make it financially viable. In order to create such systems in a sustainable manner you need the kind of density of population that is found in central London or Manhatten.

GuyBarry wrote:
And I don't like your characterization of Bath's cycle network as "a few cycle paths".


I apologise for any offence. I'm sure Bath's cycle network is excellent. However there are plenty of people who either can't cycle everywhere or choose not to. For this reason, a cycle network, no matter how good, cannot save the planet on its own.

GuyBarry wrote:
Well you've got the congestion charge in London of course, but more importantly you've also got a far more comprehensive public transport system than you've got here.


And the reason why there's a far more comprehensive public transport system is a direct result of the density of population

GuyBarry wrote:
If you expanded Bristol to the size of London it wouldn't suddenly develop an Underground network and the DLR and the rest of London's transport infrastructure. These things have to be built.


Of course. I've already said, several times, that this is a thought experiment not designed to consider every tiny practical detail. Although, if you built a new city from scratch, you would at least be able to build all these things in from the start, rather than trying to retrofit them. Imagine how much easier Crossrail would've been if it didn't need to be threaded through all the existing infrastructure!

GuyBarry wrote:
I used to live in Plumstead, in south-east London. It's about as far from central London as Bath is from the centre of Bristol. The public transport connections there were probably worse than they are in Bath.


That's a good point, so thanks for making it. I've been talking a lot about "London" when clearly I should've specified that the environmental benefits come from the very high density population you only find in the very centre of London.

GuyBarry wrote:
It would be absolutely devastating for people who've grown up here and dedicated their life to the community.


I've already pointed out that my argument is solely focused on the environmental benefits of city living. There are obviously lots of other downsides and if you just want to discuss them, then I have nothing to add since they're fairly obvious.

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
The only point I'm trying to make is about the benefits to the environment.


Which would be highly questionable at the least.


Why are they highly questionable? Most of the objections you've raised seem to relate to the costs involved or the effects on people. As far as I can tell, you've not really explained why it wouldn't benefit the environment. Which is a shame since it's the only point I'm trying to make.

If you compare the leafy suburbs of Surrey to the concrete jungle of central London, most people would assume the former is better for the environment than the latter, so it's a bit of a surprise to find that the opposite is true.

GuyBarry wrote:
Of the size you're suggesting? I don't think so. Unless you're prepared to build over the whole of South East England, plus the entire Severnside area from Bath to Cardiff, the Midlands from Worcester and Northampton up to Stoke-on-Trent and Nottingham, the whole M62 corridor from Merseyside right across to the Humber, the entire North East region from Newcastle down to Middlesbrough, and the whole of central Scotland from Kilmarnock and Peebles right up to Greenock and Dundee (at a rough guess).


Please don't guess. I've already shown that a mere 0.1% of the country is used for high density cities, and only 5.3% is covered by suburbs and rural towns. What on earth makes you think we'd have to build on that kind of scale to house our current population?

GuyBarry wrote:
So they'd end up as complete wilderness. Goodbye to the English countryside and everything else that makes this country an acceptable place to live.


But good for the environment, which is my only point.

 
dr.bob
1320647.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:04 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
post 1320522

dr.bob wrote:
When I said "everyone" I literally meant "everyone".


post 1320628

Quote:
Clearly some people will still need to live outside cities.


Quote:
I'm just trying to make sure things don't spiral into a pointless dead end.


Looks as though you've already got there.


I'm sorry you think so.

When I posted my first remark I literally meant everyone. When you queried me about it, I thought about it in more detail and realised I was mistaken. It's a shame if you think that's caused the discussion to spiral into a pointless dead end.

 
barbados
1320649.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:27 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

The reason that neither Bath not Bristol have fully integrated transport systems is that there is not a sufficiently high concentration of customers to make it financially viable. In order to create such systems in a sustainable manner you need the kind of density of population that is found in central London or Manhatten.



Interesting, because Edinburgh has a pretty good transport system, we discussed it a while ago when the trams were being put in. However, the population of Bristol is 20% greater than that of Edinburgh. While Edinburgh (264KM2) is around twice the size by area than Bristol(110KM2)

src - http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/bristol-population/ & http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/edinburgh-population/

 
GuyBarry
1320650.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:03 am Reply with quote

I'll go through dr. bob's post in detail a bit later, but I'm just gobsmacked by this bit:

Quote:
I've been talking a lot about "London" when clearly I should've specified that the environmental benefits come from the very high density population you only find in the very centre of London.


Would you like to see what the London Underground map really looks like, dr. bob? This is to scale:

http://i.imgur.com/Qxbza.gif

That high-density population area in the centre with lots of intersecting lines is tiny by comparison with the total area served. Vast areas of suburban London are served very poorly by the Underground, and most of south-east London has no Underground service at all. The conventional Tube map is a topological distortion that makes the central area look much larger and the suburbs much smaller.

But on another point, isn't that a rather different attitude from the one you were taking in the previous debate? E.g. post 1320400:

Quote:
It's a meaningful test of whether the phrase "protestors have brought the whole transport system to a standstill" is correct or merely melodramatic, since anything less than 100% shows that "the whole transport system" was not affected. [...]

1) How much of the map that you've linked to would you see as a reasonable interpretation of the phrase "the whole transport system"? Judging from your arguments, you and I seem to have radically different interpretations of that phrase. I'll let other readers of this thread (if any remain) make their own interpretation.

2) Are you seriously suggesting that the area that is known as "London" doesn't include London Zoo, Lord's Cricket Ground, Stamford Bridge Football Ground, Canary Wharf, and Battersea Power Station? If your argument is based on such a warped and arbitrary moving of the goalposts, there's little point in having this discussion.


And that's just one of many, many posts where you reiterated the same thing, over and over again.

And now you're suddenly saying you meant the opposite?


Last edited by GuyBarry on Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
barbados
1320653.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:21 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
I'll go through dr. bob's post in detail a bit later, but I'm just gobsmacked by this bit:

Quote:
I've been talking a lot about "London" when clearly I should've specified that the environmental benefits come from the very high density population you only find in the very centre of London.


Would you like to the what the London Underground map really looks like, dr. bob? This is to scale:

http://i.imgur.com/Qxbza.gif

That high-density population area in the centre with lots of intersecting lines is tiny by comparison with the total area served. Vast areas of suburban London are served very poorly by the Underground, and most of south-east London has no Underground service at all. The conventional Tube map is a topological distortion that makes the central area look much larger and the suburbs much smaller.

But on another point, isn't that a rather different attitude from the one you were taking in the previous debate? E.g. post 1320400:

Quote:
It's a meaningful test of whether the phrase "protestors have brought the whole transport system to a standstill" is correct or merely melodramatic, since anything less than 100% shows that "the whole transport system" was not affected. [...]

1) How much of the map that you've linked to would you see as a reasonable interpretation of the phrase "the whole transport system"? Judging from your arguments, you and I seem to have radically different interpretations of that phrase. I'll let other readers of this thread (if any remain) make their own interpretation.

2) Are you seriously suggesting that the area that is known as "London" doesn't include London Zoo, Lord's Cricket Ground, Stamford Bridge Football Ground, Canary Wharf, and Battersea Power Station? If your argument is based on such a warped and arbitrary moving of the goalposts, there's little point in having this discussion.


And that's just one of many, many posts where you reiterated the same thing, over and over again.

And now you're suddenly saying you meant the opposite?

I think at the time I suggested that perhaps dr.bob is blissfully unaware of the size of the transport infrastructure run by TfL, to the extent that they have control over some services that run from Casablanca (among other places) so the "whole system" run by TfL is huge, and not something that can be easily grouped in such a sweeping statement.
I have a suspicion that the point he was trying to make was one that he is correct, while PDR isn't - which I think is also the same conclusion you came to Guy, yet having been directed to points where this is evident, he seems to deflect.

Although it is a very valid topic, I'm not convinced that the answer is to urbanise the UK, but more to find a way to make use of what is available.

 
GuyBarry
1320657.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:05 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
But Bristol hasn't got a fully integrated bus, tram and underground railway network either! How would turning Bath into a suburb of Bristol help to alleviate Bath's transport problems?


The reason that neither Bath not Bristol have fully integrated transport systems is that there is not a sufficiently high concentration of customers to make it financially viable.


That's not true. It's largely political.

In London there's one transport authority - Transport for London - that has control over the buses, Underground, trams, the Docklands Light Railway, TfL Rail (the embryonic Crossrail) and some of the suburban rail services (London Overground). Even then it doesn't control most suburban rail services, which are the responsibility of several different train operating companies.

This would be impossible outside London, because buses outside London are deregulated, and local authorities mostly have no power over them. So those cities that have developed local tram or metro systems - such as Manchester - have no power to integrate their operation with the local bus services.

I understand that there's a petition under way to allow Bristol City Council (and the new West of England Combined Authority) to take back control of the local bus service and establish a bus franchising scheme similar to the one in London:

https://www.change.org/p/bristol-city-council-take-control-of-bristol-s-buses

Quote:
In order to create such systems in a sustainable manner you need the kind of density of population that is found in central London or Manhatten.


No you don't. Newcastle used to have an integrated bus and Metro system before the buses were deregulated.

Quote:
I've already said, several times, that this is a thought experiment not designed to consider every tiny practical detail.


"A thought experiment considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences" (Wikipedia). Isn't that the whole point? If you don't think through the practical details, then it's not a thought experiment - just a fantasy.

Quote:
Although, if you built a new city from scratch, you would at least be able to build all these things in from the start, rather than trying to retrofit them. Imagine how much easier Crossrail would've been if it didn't need to be threaded through all the existing infrastructure!


Crossrail would have been unnecessary if the existing infrastructure weren't there. No one would go to the expense of building an underground railway on a greenfield site.

Any planned city wouldn't need underground railways. You would presumably have a system of surface railways and plan the development around them. Much cheaper.

Quote:
I've been talking a lot about "London" when clearly I should've specified that the environmental benefits come from the very high density population you only find in the very centre of London.


You see, this is why I'm having difficulty making sense of your thought experiment. If you increased the size of London by building outwards (assuming the green belt was scrapped), the population densities wouldn't be anything like what they are in central London - they'd be comparable to the suburban population densities. By making London bigger, you wouldn't increase the overall population density - you'd actually decrease it, because the built-up central area would be a smaller proportion of the overall area.

So what are you suggesting? Making London smaller so that the population is more dense? Or leaving London the same size but cramming more people into it? The latter is happening anyway - it doesn't need any encouragement from anyone. And I really don't think that anyone can claim that population growth is improving the environment in London.

Quote:
I've already pointed out that my argument is solely focused on the environmental benefits of city living.


Do you regard cramming more and more people together into a small space as an "environmental benefit"? I certainly don't. I would say that high population density can have a highly damaging effect on the environment, in terms of the amount of waste produced, the increased wear and tear on resources, increased likelihood of infectious diseases any many other things.

Quote:
Most of the objections you've raised seem to relate to the costs involved or the effects on people. As far as I can tell, you've not really explained why it wouldn't benefit the environment.


What exactly do you mean by "the environment" then? Google says "the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates", which is the sense in which I'm mainly using it.

It gives a second definition: "the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity". I rather suspect you're concentrating on the second definition at the expense of the first. The two are equally important as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
If you compare the leafy suburbs of Surrey to the concrete jungle of central London, most people would assume the former is better for the environment than the latter, so it's a bit of a surprise to find that the opposite is true.


Well yes, and it was worth pointing out. But it does not therefore follow that increasing the population density of Surrey to the population density of central London would be good for the environment.

Quote:
I've already shown that a mere 0.1% of the country is used for high density cities, and only 5.3% is covered by suburbs and rural towns. What on earth makes you think we'd have to build on that kind of scale to house our current population?


I didn't realize that you meant increasing the population density to that of central London. My guess (and it was purely that) was based on the combined population density of the major conurbations. I figured that since the total population of the ten biggest conurbations is about a quarter of the UK population, you'd need to increase the size of the ten biggest conurbations by a factor of four to fit everyone in.

But if you were planning to squeeze them all in with the same population density as central London, you'd need far less space. I've no idea how you'd do it, though. You certainly couldn't do it by expanding the existing conurbations, because they're mainly laid out on the pattern of a central area with suburban development around it. You'd basically have to knock down all the existing conurbations and rebuild them from scratch.

Quote:
But good for the environment, which is my only point.


"The environment" means nothing except in relation to those who inhabit it. There's precious little point in doing things to improve the natural environment if they make the human environment unbearable.

 

Page 1 of 9
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group