|
stev posted:We can't build houses because we need to preserve the countryside, but I should have a house in the countryside. I have a rundown uninsulated cottage in a village full of racists nestled in the Cotswolds that's just perfect for you 😌 Oh poo poo, um, the Class 302 was an electric multiple unit introduced by British Rail in 1958 for outer suburban services on the London, Tilbury and Southend route! mrpwase fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Nov 23, 2019 |
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
I live in the Stone constituency and I looked up the past results and it's been held by conservatives since the dawn of time, with a huge majority. It's literally always been blue. So I've been putting my efforts into convincing my co workers, had a success with one guy who was torn between lib Dems and labour, in a seat where labour need to take 12% from Con and lib Dems had 1.5%. Had another say he'd vote labour if I shut up about it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Lafargue/status/1197998834682482688?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 11:51
|
|
|
Successfully got the missus to send her postal vote application for her parent's constituency, since she's not registered at my place yet (and officially doesn't live there). She put my flat to have the ballot pack delivered to, but for the reason she put that it's where she currently lives. Are they likely to reject it and say she should be registered at my address instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 11:54
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:fun fact: we're already basically there in terms of average house size, we just need to stack 'em up Singapore averages over 1100 sq ft - Hong Kong is another thing altogether the main thing discouraging the UK from having 'Singapore-style large social accommodation blocks', anyway, is not that the UK hates vertical housing as such, I think - but rather that the UK can't sustain the social consensus necessary to have public housing and transport infrastructure that the middle class would find acceptable. It's the 'Homes before Roads' problem, which has never really gone away: lord, giving me housing, but elsewhere. ronya fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Nov 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cynical_bathtub/status/1198192100438921217?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
Matt Forde is like if Robert Webb decided he just wasn't enough of a liberal twat
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
for anyone like me who didn't see it momentum are doing some great cuts https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1197976399744847872
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:100,000 new homes a year is ambitious, but environmentally we need to look at Singapore-style large social accommodation blocks built to an immaculate standard, each with community features gym, shops, etc). We're nothing like as geographically-constrained as Singapore, and high-rises hit diminishing returns on environmental friendliness real loving quick above about 20 storeys. You can fit 200,000 new homes into the brownfield sites in the inner London boroughs alone, *at current density levels* (~10k people/sq.km). Now admittedly this is a trick we can only pull off once because of the collapse of industry in London and the closure of so many gasworks, power stations, etc. but that buys us a good long time to start building the transport and other infrastructure we need to do the same trick in outer London and all of the non-London cities. However at that point you're looking at a London population of 15 million, with the West Midlands, Merseyside, and Manchester at 6m, and hell may as well just fill in the gaps in the South Yorkshire conurbation to give us 10 million there. There's room for a million apiece in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Bristol, Portsmouth and a dozen other regional cities and we've still not even touched any Green Belt or currently-rural areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
Jose posted:for anyone like me who didn't see it momentum are doing some great cuts Nice to see Mark Steel on their feed, he was obviously anti-Tory but that doesn't always translate to pro-Labour, let alone Momentum-adjacent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:25
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
we definitely do not need to build high rises. we just need to build......... actual homes imagine that
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:28
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:We're nothing like as geographically-constrained as Singapore, and high-rises hit diminishing returns on environmental friendliness real loving quick above about 20 storeys. if transport infrastructure is an option, improving links to commuter towns past the green belt would suffice but the easiest way to drain support for transport infrastructure is to condition it on having more residents to justify the capital investment
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
HJB posted:Nice to see Mark Steel on their feed, he was obviously anti-Tory but that doesn't always translate to pro-Labour, let alone Momentum-adjacent. Mark Steel is probably to the left of Corbyn/McDonnell
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
ronya posted:Singapore averages over 1100 sq ft - Hong Kong is another thing altogether  ) and bad road access are absolutely things that need consideration (although "what about the view / character of the area" perhaps less so)there's a development going up locally - one of the problems at the moment is bad traffic jams at school / rush hour on the only road out, the new housing will lead directly onto this road, and the developers' response was something along the lines of "well, actually, the average traffic shows the road can support the new housing  ". also similarly for expansion of GP office, number of school places etc. there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between housing and its non-direct support infrastructure (or at least, it's not explained well) which really doesn't help enthuse people
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
Jose posted:for anyone like me who didn't see it momentum are doing some great cuts Ninpo has the entire thing in per leader chunks on his Youtube, linked in this very thread, click my question mark for details We had a bit of an "election so far" round up at home last night and it turned into a bit of a "midway, so far so good" party. Ow, my head
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
the issue with high rise flats and tower block type buildings is that they often don't get maintained well and become towering slums, mismanaged by councils and used as a place to stick the impoverished and forget about them. plus they are extremely poor places to try and raise a family. plus as long as right to buy exists, you will further gently caress the state of ownership of the flats in them. there are cities with lots of high rise flats and apartments in them that are almost entirely empty because private landlord shitheads want to charge a fortune for a view, and that is across the whole market of flats not just the fancy poo poo like the mailbox and similar new apartment complexes in birmingham near five ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
Braggart posted:They call me Cum Tzu The Art of Phwoar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
ronya posted:if transport infrastructure is an option, improving links to commuter towns past the green belt would suffice Speaking as someone who's about to live in the most densely-populated square kilometre in the world*, gently caress commuter belt towns. * There's some disagreement over this but if you exclude the watery bits of the Isle of Dogs and the bits forbidden from building due to covenants like Millwall Park, and if all of the proposed developments are built on it - and are fully occupied - it will have a population of 300k in a land area of slightly over a square kilometre.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
Another Person posted:we definitely do not need to build high rises. we just need to build......... actual homes I was under the impression that high rises were a perfectly good way to build a lot of homes quickly and cheaply, as long as you provide the services they need. Like if you build a hundred two-bedroom detached houses and every house has a garden and a parking space, that's all very well. But what often happens is a high-rise block of a hundred two-bedroom apartments get built, but no park to replace the garden, or parking spaces for the cars, and things like that mean the apartments get seen as lovely places to live. I don't know poo poo about architecture, but it seems like three hundred people in individual housing units with individual heating, electricity and water provision has to be less efficient from an ecological standpoint that three hundred people sharing communal heating, water and electricity systems, too. Gort fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Nov 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
I don't understand why these new developments need sufficient road & parking provision for everyone to have a car. Surely expanded public transport would be a better solution? (this does not mean that adequate provision for necessary utilities like water & sewage & electrical & internet & schools & parks & GPs does not need to me made; I just don't think private vehicle ownership is an essential utility)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
ronya posted:Singapore averages over 1100 sq ft - Hong Kong is another thing altogether And ronya smoothly disengages from the point and moves on to... "It will be difficult and people will complain." Well yes, it's a leftist policy. I think we should do it anyway. Why do you never reply to my arguments against yours, ronya? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:52
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Mark Steel is probably to the left of Corbyn/McDonnell For someone who writes for the Independent and who I've seen play in a charity cricket match, that's quite something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
Gort posted:as long as you provide the services they need. thats the issue they dont get maintained properly inside by councils and housing authorities, and the surrounding locale gets ignored especially if it is in a poorer neighbourhood. the security is an afterthought too. highrises often have a courtyard at the bottom which never gets looked after which just becomes a hotspot for crime (at least back in Wales it did), and many parts of the interior can become a danger to wander alone in for minorities or women high rises probably could be good, but we just don't put the investment, time or forethought into them so they become places for forgotten people more often than not. doesn't take much to remind us all of grenfell. e; you edited in a bit about the ecology and i will surrender on that because i do not know much about that bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
CGI Stardust posted:tbf it would probably help new housing builds if infrastructure concerns were actually given public exploration and explanation. in the example given, poo poo drainage ( Well you see, the roads may be completely gridlocked for most of the day, but at night they're almost empty. So on average the road capacity is nearly adequate
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Speaking as someone who's about to live in the most densely-populated square kilometre in the world*, gently caress commuter belt towns. it's possible to be too dense... these massive Sovietesque developments all built at once to house five hundred thousand people in second and third-tier Chinese cities also have massive arterials, because if one packs all those people in one place, they'll also need to be able to get out of there during rush hour every day
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
HJB posted:Nice to see Mark Steel on their feed, he was obviously anti-Tory but that doesn't always translate to pro-Labour, let alone Momentum-adjacent. If I remember rightly in the Marx episode of The Mark Steel Lectures, he seemed broadly pro-communist and said that the fall of the Soviet Union felt like a personal defeat
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
Gort posted:I was under the impression that high rises were a perfectly good way to build a lot of homes quickly and cheaply, as long as you provide the services they need. Like if you build a hundred two-bedroom detached houses and every house has a garden and a parking space, that's all very well. But what often happens is a high-rise block of a hundred two-bedroom apartments get built, but no park to replace the garden, or parking spaces for the cars, and things like that mean the apartments get seen as lovely places to live. Plus I think you can get more density with low rises around a central green area than with high rises surrounded by greenery. Not as much as high rises with no light room/greenery, but those tend to suck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
I'll be interested to see what strategy Labour's new Department for Housing will pursue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:05
|
|
|
stev posted:Successfully got the missus to send her postal vote application for her parent's constituency, since she's not registered at my place yet (and officially doesn't live there). https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/councillors-and-democracy/elections/register-vote/second-homes-and-student-homes Didn't spot an obvious answer to this, so in short, it's legal to register at multiple addresses as long as they are both your place of residence (e.g. second homes, students/parents' accomms, etc), but you can only vote in national elections at one of them. If she's resident at both addresses she could and should register at both. If she's only resident at one of them, she should only register at that one. E: I'd appreciate it if we built more at least medium rises, given that it's almost impossible to find flat access accommodation that isn't blocks of flats, and unless they're 4 storeys or more there's no obligation to include a lift. My wife and I have absolute nightmarish times finding places to live as a result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
When I said Singapore-style blocks, I should have mentioned that would have include the actual maintenance and upkeep they do. Some of the state-funded housing there is luxury, especially the new stuff. I won't pretend to know much about urban planning (beyond my tsunami destroyed metropolis on Cities Skylines), but I know about environmental issues and we desperately need to start reducing our footprints. We need new homes, then we need to start building new ones that have the least impact overall, and to me that would be high quality towers. Reduced heatloss, shared utilities, etc, all make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:07
|
|
|
I can't find any UK specific data, but this low image-quality graph from a US study shows what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
80% of the population in Singapore lives in government built housing blocks, which helps. I think the MP's also have a admin role in running councils/doing upkeep in their constituencies aswell, which helps (they have 90ish MPs for 5 million people though, double our ratio).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Low rises with district central heating is the way you want to go for that then. Electricity systems are pretty centralized to the substation no matter how you go as long as it's not individual farmsteads, gas and district heating is fine to run along the base of rows of terraced housing/tenements, and it gets rid of most of the access issues of high rises. Thoughts on putting parks and gardens on top of low or high rises? It seems like a neat idea but I really don't have the expertise to evaluate it properly. Seems like a possible way to find space for more greenery in cities and to have those green spaces really close to where lots of people are living. Hell, maybe we could have bridges between them so you don't have to go down to street level if you don't want to 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
I dunno, would anyone ITT actually want to live in a highrise? If people could only own one home, bulldoze all the grotty housing full of black mould and rebuild better ones with decent windows and doors that didn't piss out heat, that'd be a good start. Any private homes that have acres land they don't use for agriculture or public use could also make good spots to build. I love the countryside but just having cities get denser and denser seems a bit poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
Braggart posted:Thoughts on putting parks and gardens on top of low or high rises? It seems like a neat idea but I really don't have the expertise to evaluate it properly. Seems like a possible way to find space for more greenery in cities and to have those green spaces really close to where lots of people are living. Hell, maybe we could have bridges between them so you don't have to go down to street level if you don't want to The reason I used Singapore as an example is I've spent a bit of time there, and a friend's dad actually works in the engineering aspect of garden buildings. Basically, it's mega expensive to implement, as you need to separate any flora from actual building materials, but it's doable. Personally, I'd like everyone to have an ground level allotment though...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/councillors-and-democracy/elections/register-vote/second-homes-and-student-homes Fair enough. Hopefully it won't be an issue then. We'll probably have moved before there's another election/referendum so I'll just pester her to register properly then. Her parent's place is a bit more marginal than mine anyway (both safe Labour though).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
justcola posted:I dunno, would anyone ITT actually want to live in a highrise? I would just like a place to live and call my own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mgajia/status/1198163521189662720?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:I would just like a place to live and call my own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1198195877338374144
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 13:18
|
|
