s

WHY ENGLAND..? 

See also THIS PAGE

I am writing this with a particular emphasis on Britain, and specifically England, as that is the country I am most familiar with, one of the most urbanised, and the one that is arguably more “built-over” or “messed-with” (up to 20%, depending on definition) than any other.   Having said that, I do NOT EXPECT that England will quickly adopt the idea as, being the archetypal  NIMBY NATION it will drag its reluctant (to embrace new ideas) feet over this game-changing – civilisation changing – city concept.   Many countries will not be so loath and will quickly grasp the ball and run with it, as Oasis Cities can be tailored to suit all climates and even most cultures.

From a young age it has always distressed me to see lush green countryside being swallowed by the cancerous growth of creeping suburbia.    I was told “the population is growing and people need houses to live in”.   When I said “why can’t they live in tall blocks of flats which occupy far less space?”  (I liked tall buildings back in the day) I was told “most people, especially young families, don’t like flats as the children have nowhere to play.”  Besides which those tall council-built blocks of flats are ugly and mostly inhabited by low-class ruffians.   And they were right, the tall blocks of flats being built in the 60’s were ugly.  But must it always be like that?

England, where nearly 60 million people inhabit 50,000 sq miles of (largely) prime agricultural land, is one of the most densely populated countries on earth.  France, with a similar population, is more than 4 times the size. Given this land  scarcity, you would expect that English towns and cities would have adopted high-density town planning, such as in Spain a country with 30% less people in a much larger territory.  The converse is true, English cities (even London, which might surprise many) have the lowest population density of any major European country. This is insanity. It is also the main factor driving up its already high land and housing costs. And the high cost of land and housing increases all other costs and makes the country un-competitive and in-efficient. Hotel and guest-house prices, for example, are higher than those on the continent, even Switzerland might be cheaper. Or was before recent sterling devaluations.

And what does the British govt do to “solve” the housing situation? Through misguided obsession with “getting on the housing ladder” and via subsidises and tax breaks it has encouraged people, who often couldn’t really afford to do so, to BUY rather than rent. Everyone was happy as long as property prices continued to boom, but when the bubble bursts the last punters (and that is what they are) to jump aboard will lose heavily. Its not that much different from a chain-letter or a Ponzi scheme.

One of the problems with the UK housing market is that, although there are numerous laws to protect tenants rights, residential landlords (almost all of them individuals) only offer short leases because they want to keep their options open – either moving in themselves or more likely the big cash profits to be made selling during one of the all-too-frequent property booms. A potential owner-occupier does not want to buy a property with a 5-year lease tenant inside. None of this favours renters, just another reason why people are so desperate to buy.   Except for those at the very exclusive top of the price spectrum, RENTERS are widely considered to be LOSERS..!   “Buy-to-let” landlords, who only offer short leases and whose main motive is speculative profits, should thus be discouraged. The govt should be promoting co-operative-type organisations who would build good quality apartments with resident managers to be made available on long leases. Small investors who wish to invest in property should be directed towards co-operatives or other property-owning funds or trusts rather than single properties – it just makes so much more sense and it will iron out the boom and bust cycle.
Long secure leases will be just one of the myriad benefits of DSC.

Although not spoken of as such, the biggest and most recent home-ownership subsidy was the govts decision to cut interest rates to virtually zero, even with CPI inflation running at 4% or so. Again, although obviously left unsaid, this was done to save the banks from financial ruin which a massive property sell-off would probably have meant. It was hoped that zero-interest would stave off a housing price-collapse or even better, stimulate another boom. In truth the banks and mortgage companies don’t offer loans at “virtually zero”, because they have to make a profit, yet they PAY virtually zero interest to savers. What this means in effect is that those with net savings are having their money eroded away in order to prop up the banks and the legions of mortgage debtors, net debtors being far more numerous than net savers most of whom also have houses they don’t want to see lose value. Savers have thus become the victims of the vote-buying myth promoted for decades by governments of every stripe – that property is a “safe” and “secure” investment. It is not – and a major property crash is still very much on the cards.

And it gets worse – for what remains of our wildlife, fast dual-carriageway roads and especially motorways have effectively chopped the country up into hundreds if not thousands of separate enclaves (like islands) which render it as impossible for animals to cross as a minefield in Afghanistan.

Cities were originally conceived to be finite entities where citizens could gather for mutual support and security – now they have become ever-expanding dirty puddles of anonymous humanity.

Mad Cars Disease – cars create sprawl, more cars create ever more sprawl,

Cars are the Catalyst for Sprawl

Planet Enemy No1 – Urban Sprawl
Planet Enemy No 2 – Individually-Owned Vehicles
Planet Enemy Nos 3,4,5,6,7, etc – eliminate PE 1 & 2 and all the others will be taken care of