# Does your country have a green belt or similar thing in place?



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Does your country have a green belt or similar thing in place?

England surprisingly has some of the most suburban sprawling cities in Europe which is odd as there are such tight controls over the green belt - or at least that is the idea haha.

It was brought in, in the 1940s - I think. The green belt is London's fault! During the 1920s-1930s London grew hugely which huge sprawling suburbs in the north in places around Harrow, Pinner and Uxbridge etc. Now pretty much every city has one.

The idea is to keep cities separate, although in most cases it has failed...(Liverpool-Manchester, Leeds-Bradford, The whole west midlands etc)

Is it a good thing? Well I like the idea but where I live in Cheshire is in the south Manchester green belt, and more and more houses are being built or planned.

Green Belt map...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gr...8387/Interactive-map-Englands-green-belt.html

Discuss!


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ interesting, why no green belt around Glasgow and Edinburgh?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Yeah I noticed that, planning seems different there anyway like Glasgow building an urban motorway recently which would never happen in England haha


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

It has it's advantages, but I am not an adherent of that idea. First of all, the Green Belts in the UK seem very strict to me, for example London has no chance at all to expand anymore, which, for a growing city, means exploding property prices and the need to leapfrog the inner suburbs and expand the exurbs outside of the green belt which means that people have to commute larger distances than they want.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Toronto

Mississauga directly west of Toronto was largely farm land just 40 years ago, but grew to a suburb of 800,000 people. Some of the best farmland in the country surrounds Toronto and there was a fear that if sprawl wasn't contained that very little would be left 30-40 years from now. Created by legislation passed by the Government of Ontario in 2005, the Greenbelt surrounds Toronto on all sides and covers 1.8 million acres (7300 km²).

The establishment of the Green Belt has severely reduced the amount of land that developers could build on. Attention has now turned to intensification. Toronto is now getting denser rather than increasing its geographic footprint. Approximately 9 million people live in the Golden Horseshoe, roughly 7.5 million sandwiched between the Green Belt and Lake Ontario.











*Holland Marsh below is some of the land that's now part of the Green Belt*








Courtesy of geovisuals


----------



## julesstoop (Sep 11, 2002)

Map from the Amsterdam structural vision 2040:


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Chrissib said:


> It has it's advantages, but I am not an adherent of that idea. First of all, the Green Belts in the UK seem very strict to me, for example London has no chance at all to expand anymore, which, for a growing city, means exploding property prices and the need to leapfrog the inner suburbs and expand the exurbs outside of the green belt which means that people have to commute larger distances than they want.


I think it depends on circumstances, for an urban area with a history of sprawling development which maybe has much derelict or empty land in the central areas then imposing a green belt can be a useful tool for regenerating and densifying those inner areas and it is generally working in that sense I think in the cities of northern and central England.

Where London differs is that the green belt has been there longer, it is already denser and the regeneration of the urban core has been happening for longer. That means that the easy opputunities for extra residential development inside the greenbelt are becoming exhausted which in turn leads to the skyrocketing prices and long commutes you mentioned.

So in the case of London I think that some parts of the green belt immediately bordering the current urban area should be released for development, maybe those alongside existing rail infrastructure to relief that pressure. I wouldn't abandon the system altogether though and I'd keep it for other cities but review it every 5 years or so for signs that it may be creating those London-style problems.

The expanding areas beyond the greenbelt btw aren't really exurbs in the American sense of the word but commuter towns which can often be relatively dense in their own right with little extensive sprawling due to their own planing policies which don't allow you to simply buy a field build on it even outside designated green belt land.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Chrissib said:


> It has it's advantages, but I am not an adherent of that idea. First of all, the Green Belts in the UK seem very strict to me, for example London has no chance at all to expand anymore, which, for a growing city, means exploding property prices and the need to leapfrog the inner suburbs and expand the exurbs outside of the green belt which means that people have to commute larger distances than they want.


Thats true, a lot of new towns going built outside the green belt from the 1920s onwards, I think Letchworth was the first


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

It depends; if the London green belt is just fields that can be found elsewhere in more remote distances (creating therefore more compact cities and a bigger countryside just outside of those limits), I find that useless, as it creates longer commuting times, while I disagree with building on trees and forests, that must be absolutely spared from developments.. also, we should find a smarter way in building suburbs, like good implemented terraced houses like the Dutch way, avoiding taking huge spaces.. however I find that UK has a good planning in regards to building houses all next to each other, what is more prevalent in UK is that detached/terraced houses are the primary source of housing, and it's been like that before everywhere else in Europe, so that they're much more widespread and can be found in a huge number even within city limits.. flats are rarer or set in a bad way that end up in crime ghettos (with exceptions like the ones I saw in London)


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ Share of people living in apartments is low in the UK, even in cities, but apartments are not exclusively 'ghetto' by any means, there are plenty of nice apartment neighbourhoods and some of the most 'ghetto' type areas are made up of either run-down victorian terraced housing or post-warpublic housing estates made up ofterraced, semi-detached and even detached council housing.

The apartment share is getting bigger though, in part no doubt because of the difficulty of building on green belt and other rural land.

Here's some housing type figures from the 2011 census (top) and 2001 census (bottom). The first three columns relate to my own town, county and region but the fourth is for England as a whole.










As you can see, the total number of households in England grew by some 800,000 over the decade, and over 70% of that increase was in households living in apartments which increased by around 565,000.

By contrast numbers of households living in detached houses grew only by 173,000, those in semi-detached houses increased by 177,000 and those living in terraced houses actually decreased by 98,000 as there were more demolitions of those homes than constructions. 

There were also numerous demolition projects of 1950s/60s social housing apartments so the numbers of new apartments constructed were greater than the 565,000 net increase.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> The idea is to keep cities separate, although in most cases it has failed...(Liverpool-Manchester, Leeds-Bradford, The whole west midlands etc)


I am curious about these cities in Europe that have grown together, do they retain their individual identities or do they retain separate cultures? 

I think one big difference between those cities and US "twin cities" is that each of those cities have their own major soccer team/stadiums, where fort worth/dallas, st. paul/minn, st pete/tampa, etc share sports teams so the region unites to support 1 team rather than being rivals. Do developers there try to build malls, concert venues, etc between the cities to try and pull from both populations?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> London has no chance at all to expand anymore


Why should it expand? Its sprawling already and sprawl is never good. Cities should be compact and dense and not all over the place.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

> if the London green belt is just fields that can be found elsewhere in more remote distances (creating therefore more compact cities and a bigger countryside just outside of those limits), I find that useless, as it creates longer commuting times,


In the case of London's greenbelt a lot of it is just "fields that can be found elsewhere", though the area is still made up of hundreds of ancient towns and villages and their surrounding countryside. Understandably the inhabitants don't want to be subsumed into Greater London. Arguably these unremarkable rural areas are left undeveloped while more picturesque countryside beyond the Greenbelt is built on.

That said I support the concept for a country such as the UK, both to encourage inner city development and prevent endless sprawl that one could get away with in other countries.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

weava said:


> I am curious about these cities in Europe that have grown together, do they retain their individual identities or do they retain separate cultures?
> 
> I think one big difference between those cities and US "twin cities" is that each of those cities have their own major soccer team/stadiums, where fort worth/dallas, st. paul/minn, st pete/tampa, etc share sports teams so the region unites to support 1 team rather than being rivals. Do developers there try to build malls, concert venues, etc between the cities to try and pull from both populations?


Leeds and Bradford or pretty different, Leeds is a lot nicer imo, Liverpool and Manchester are also pretty different, as Liverpool is more of a port city and Manchester is industrial with Cheshire influences


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Neither of those examples are completely merged though, there is plenty of undeveloped land between the edge of the Manchester urban area and the edge of the Liverpool urban area even if there is some overlap of commuter belts, same for Leeds and Bradford.

Birmingham and Wolverhampton though for example are completely joined by development.

As for the question, it's often difficult because of planning regulations to build malls, stadiums etc in the middle of two close cities but you can build in the edge of the urban area closest to the nearby city. 

I think for example that's why the Trafford centre in Manchester was built on the side closest to Liverpool rather than the side facing the wilds of the Pennines so that the potential customer base was maximised to include shoppers from Merseyside.

But there is no way that Liverpool and Manchester United fans for example are going to give up their teams and follow a ' Manchester-Liverpool Metro Area United' team anyway. That idea is a total non-starter! :lol:


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Rascar said:


> In the case of London's greenbelt a lot of it is just "fields that can be found elsewhere", though the area is still made up of hundreds of ancient towns and villages and their surrounding countryside. Understandably the inhabitants don't want to be subsumed into Greater London. Arguably these unremarkable rural areas are left undeveloped while more picturesque countryside beyond the Greenbelt is built on.
> 
> That said I support the concept for a country such as the UK, both to encourage inner city development and prevent endless sprawl that one could get away with in other countries.


Surely some mistakes were done in the planning of this, something "in between" would've been much better.. Anyways, you're right, UK is also quite densely populated, therefore a more "imaginative" planning is what is needed  .. I think it's much better in UK than in other English speaking countries, bigger and less densely populated, that sprawl for miles free standing houses that take a lot of space; I think having a huge space does not justify at all what is being done there..


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

weava said:


> I am curious about these cities in Europe that have grown together, do they retain their individual identities or do they retain separate cultures?
> 
> I think one big difference between those cities and US "twin cities" is that each of those cities have their own major soccer team/stadiums, where fort worth/dallas, st. paul/minn, st pete/tampa, etc share sports teams so the region unites to support 1 team rather than being rivals. Do developers there try to build malls, concert venues, etc between the cities to try and pull from both populations?


Europe is something not comparable to US standard of city and metropolitan areas.. the latter one is just a very new concept for Europe, and indeed, not much valued, as the inhabitants of these towns have a long story as separate identities from the cities (even the very small ones); they're not just endless suburbia, they have a historical centre, an identity etc. although some of its character dies out as city population shift to these places to live (London and other big cities are rampant examples of this), abandoning what they consider the "crowded city", still there's an unbreakable local sentiment.. Let's not even consider examples of close big cities like Manchester/Liverpool or all those cities built near the Rhine, there the "competition" and the local proud is something that no development will never break up..


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

El_Greco said:


> Why should it expand? Its sprawling already and sprawl is never good. Cities should be compact and dense and not all over the place.


That would work if there weren't protected low density victorian buildings all over London. I mean, if they were allowed to tear down everything then of course they can turn London into a Hong Kong or Paris very quickly. Since that is not the case, controlled sprawl should be allowed in London's case.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Everyone must have the right to have a garden and an open space if he/she wants to; I'm against the other extreme, like making everyone live in a flat (although appartments are not that bad) or even worse, the wet ideas of some to put everyone in an ugly residential skyscraper.. What is wrong is in the planning, sometimes newly built houses take a lot of space; I'm on the idea of having suburbian areas with good low-rise (2 or 3 storeys) and terraced houses (better structured than the run down or just abandoned around British/Belgian cities) with their backyard..


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> That would work if there weren't protected low density victorian buildings all over London. I mean, if they were allowed to tear down everything then of course they can turn London into a Hong Kong or Paris very quickly. Since that is not the case, controlled sprawl should be allowed in London's case.


Don't exaggerate. There's loads of brownfield sites and acres upon acres of areas that consist of nothing but modern 2 storey suburban houses, even in inner city (Wapping & Rotherhithe for example).



AmoreUrbs said:


> I'm against the other extreme, like making everyone live in a flat (although appartments are not that bad) or even worse, the wet ideas of some to put everyone in an ugly residential skyscraper..


Why exaggerate? Late 19th century continental European urbanism with its dense 5-8 storey apartment blocks (Haussmann's Paris or Barcelona's Eixample) would be enough. That's probably the best kind of urban planning too.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

People want some contact with nature, a garden or something like that, few really want to live in a flat for the rest of their lives.. we must not forget that we've become almost completely urbanised only recently, we lived a rural life back then.. As not many people want to go back to that rural life (sadly I add), they obviously want something in between; sure I'm very very against something like what is done in the US and its corporate traps like autocentric sprawl, but something more "normal" that mixes the two things is obviously what people need.. Transports also must be good connected... For example, here in this part of Italy many people have a second (detached) house in the countryside (something fossilized in the originally "rural" mentality), despite living in a flat, so surely what I'm proposing it's the lesser of the two evils..


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Cities have parks. If you want more then live in a village. But they don't want to, do they? They live in cities because of all the things that cities provide, yet they hate urbanity. That's the type of person who becomes a NIMBY and tries to stifle development by opposing everything and anything.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Not everyone is like that, not everyone wants to live in the (big) cities for the rest of their lives, already a town is something much better; parks (especially in some big cities) are not something quickly associated to the "calm" green space that especially families want.. As I said, what is wrong is in the creation of these places; I oppose NIMBY as well, although sometimes there is a reason to block some environmentally catastrophic projects..


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

AmoreUrbs said:


> not everyone wants to live in the (big) cities for the rest of their lives


Then they shouldn't live in cities. City is by its very nature urban and as such should not be forcefully made into rural.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

But the suburbs aren't the city, they are the suburbs. Being different to the city is even in their name. They are between urban and rural by definition. Nobody is bringing their "garden" to the actual city.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> Then they shouldn't live in cities. City is by its very nature urban and as such should not be forcefully made into rural.


Some people like city amenities but also the suburban dream


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

El_Greco said:


> Then they shouldn't live in cities. City is by its very nature urban and as such should not be forcefully made into rural.


Are you maybe scared of the some "nature"? As already said, suburbs are not cities, and if I was an urban planner, I'd make sure to make them more like big "villages", little towns with their green spaces and a more rural character with local/artisan non-corporate shops nearby (greengrocer etc.), instead of the endless and lifeless sprawl we see, especially in US and Australia..


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

AmoreUrbs said:


> People want some contact with nature, a garden or something like that, *few really want to live in a flat for the rest of their lives..* we must not forget that we've become almost completely urbanised only recently, we lived a rural life back then.. As not many people want to go back to that rural life (sadly I add), they obviously want something in between; sure I'm very very against something like what is done in the US and its corporate traps like autocentric sprawl, but something more "normal" that mixes the two things is obviously what people need.. Transports also must be good connected... For example, here in this part of Italy many people have a second (detached) house in the countryside (something fossilized in the originally "rural" mentality), despite living in a flat, so surely what I'm proposing it's the lesser of the two evils..


On what basis do you say that? I think many would love to live in an apartment for their whole life, what limits it is rather the availability of good quality apartments and price.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Are you maybe scared of the some "nature"? As already said, suburbs are not cities, and if I was an urban planner, I'd make sure to make them more like big "villages", little towns with their green spaces and a more rural character with local/artisan non-corporate shops nearby (greengrocer etc.), instead of the endless and lifeless sprawl we see, especially in US and Australia..


I like nature but I don't want it in the city. A few large parks are enough. 

Suburbs are cities, since they are very much part of them. Indeed in some places you'll find low-rise suburbs right beside the city centre. 

Rural is rural and urban is urban.



poshbakerloo said:


> Some people like city amenities but also the suburban dream


Exactly what I was saying earlier. They want all the goodies that come with living in the city but don't want the urbanity. So we get ugly sprawl and endless opposition to everything and anything.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> Suburbs are cities, since they are very much part of them. Indeed in some places you'll find low-rise suburbs right beside the city centre.
> 
> Rural is rural and urban is urban.


Err, no, suburban is not urban, it's _sub_urban. It's bellow urban in terms of what defines urbanity (density, planning, architecture, etc.) Literally. Why is that so hard to accept.

@AmoreUrbs: I disagree suburbs should be like villages, they should have established urban centres with all that implies, and some areas with detached houses with gardens too. Mixity is usually the right answer in everything.

Edit: As for keeping people who want a bit of garden in villages, in the modern developed world there's no need for more than about 5% of the population to live in villages. It's not feasible and rational to keep them there. You don't have jobs to give them there, for starters. And you can't legislate wanting a garden out of them, either. The solution lies in compromise, otherwise it's totalitarian planning.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Galro said:


> On what basis do you say that? I think many would love to live in an apartment for their whole life, what limits it is rather the availability of good quality apartments and price.


Few, given the choice for a house (terraced or detached), even within the city limit (like London), would go for a flat, let's be real.. Staying in a flat is not bad, but, it's also something someone is "forced" to do.. Also, when you have a family, things like space, a bit of green etc. become more comfortable, and you start to enjoy them more..


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Few, given the choice for a house (terraced or detached), even within the city limit (like London), would go for a flat, let's be real.. Staying in a flat is not bad, but, it's also something someone is "forced" to do.. Also, when you have a family, things like space, a bit of green etc. become more comfortable, and you start to enjoy them more..


It depends. I would, of course, prefer a house over a flat at a given location. However, if I had to chose between a flat 20 minutes from the city center and 15 minutes from my job, and a house 40 minutes from the city center and 30 minutes from my job, I would opt for the flat. Those extra minutes of commute add up...


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

El_Greco said:


> I like nature but I don't want it in the city. A few large parks are enough.
> 
> Suburbs are cities, since they are very much part of them. Indeed in some places you'll find low-rise suburbs right beside the city centre.
> 
> ...


I must repeat the part that : I hate endless sprawl like the US one? Also, suburbs are not exactly cities.. moreover, if something like I proposed is a city, then I must assume that we should consider also a village as a city, which would make no sense..


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Err, no, suburban is not urban, it's suburban. It's bellow urban in terms of what defines urbanity (density, planning, architecture, etc.) Literally. Why is that so hard to accept.


Let's not pretend suburb exists in its own little universe. It's very much a part of city.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> Let's not pretend suburb exists in its own little universe. It's very much a part of city.


If it's in the city then it's not suburban, sorry. I'll agree with you that cities need to be that, urban. But not the suburbs too.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Err, no, suburban is not urban, it's _sub_urban. It's bellow urban in terms of what defines urbanity (density, planning, architecture, etc.) Literally. Why is that so hard to accept.
> 
> @AmoreUrbs: I disagree suburbs should be like villages, they should have established urban centres with all that implies, and some areas with detached houses with gardens too. Mixity is usually the right answer in everything.


Well, since my definition has been very vague and not quite defined, I must say I definitely agree with you and it's what I meant.. maybe it has to do with the slightly different definition of "village" in my language (Italian).. Anyways I want to emphasize on the local shops thing, which is being missing more and more


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Robi_damian said:


> It depends. I would, of course, prefer a house over a flat at a given location. However, if I had to chose between a flat 20 minutes from the city center and 15 minutes from my job, and a house 40 minutes from the city center and 30 minutes from my job, I would opt for the flat. Those extra minutes of commute add up...


True, that's why they should be located close to the cities.. of course, I also agree that we must encourage living in flats, which as I said, it's not bad, especially if good structured .. it's just I don't believe it's what everyone wants for the rest of its life


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

alexandru.mircea said:


> If it's in the city then it's not suburban, sorry


Sure it is. Places like Barnet or Bexley in London are part of the city and are always referred to as suburbs. Even places like Walthamstow and Hamstead are.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> Sure it is. Places like Barnet or Bexley in London are part of the city and are always referred to as suburbs. Even places like Walthamstow and Hamstead are.


There's world outside of London, though, and there are many countries in the world where the suburbs are distinct from cities. They are outside, have their own administrative entity, their own services, etc. That includes the country I am from, the country I live in and the country I want to visit next. Also, if a suburbs is nicely drawn apart from the city, the fact that the city has it in its administrative units doesn't make it "in the city" at all, it's just a specificity of the administrative logic of that place. 
Now as for your example, I never studied the English administrative model closely so I don't know much about it. So if these places that you mention are actual city districts then I'm fine with you wanting them more urbanized. But if they are de facto suburbs, outside of the actual city and with their own (partial) administrative unit for local matters and only placed under the larger "London" umbrella for overall coherence, then I can't really find them to be "in the city". 
The fact that they are "referred to" as suburbs doesn't matter at all in this discussion, I've seen Bucharest's commieblock districts referred to as suburbs so many times despite them being extremely urban: they are in the city, are very dense and tall, don't have administrative entities, they just are peripheral.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Few, given the choice for a house (terraced or detached), even within the city limit (like London), would go for a flat, let's be real.. Staying in a flat is not bad, but, it's also something someone is "forced" to do.. Also, when you have a family, things like space, a bit of green etc. become more comfortable, and you start to enjoy them more..


I'm not sure why you say that. Flats are incredibly popular up here at least and probably planned urban neighbourhood and towns are generally more expensive than suburban neighbourhood equally far out. The most expensive neighbourhood in Norway is the relatively un-central, but dense Frogner neighbourhood, while detached houses in the same position on other side of the city are _much_ cheaper. The arguments I usually hear for moving out in suburbs is that they have to as central areas simply are too expensive, and then they usually prefer to settle in smaller towns with urban cores and apartments living (which we sadly have way too few of) like Drøbak ... And we are now getting urban developments pretty much everywhere in order to meet the massive demands for apartments and urban cities. The reality in which I live does not seem to correspond to the idea of flat-living being undesirable.

If had to bring up a child, then I would prefer to do in a well-planned, urban 'hood with closed off blocks where my child could safely roam around in the background, while dense enough to it being some shops and cafés around which we could visit, and close enough to others so that he/she could meet friends. I consider a neighbourhood like this to be pretty much perfect to bring up a child in ... As long as the apartments are big enough.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Few, given the choice for a house (terraced or detached), even within the city limit (like London), would go for a flat, let's be real.. Staying in a flat is not bad, but, it's also something someone is "forced" to do.. Also, when you have a family, things like space, a bit of green etc. become more comfortable, and you start to enjoy them more..


Actually, in many cities there is a rise in the number of people who want apartments. In Japan the real estate market recently has shifted from the previous focus on buying houses to buying "condominiums" (apartments). Here in Sweden, the best and most high-end developments being built in Stockholm are apartments - in fact apartment building here outnumbers houses by a long, long way. Most of these apartments are larger and cater for families rather than single, young people. These are just two examples off the top of my head.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Not once I said flats are bad or are unlivable; I lived in one of them for years, and I always felt good, I like my city/town vibe, the fact I can do so many things without not using cars etc. it's just that every family if they want to and have the money to spend on them (or as a second home for the weekends/summers, like I do here), must have a more "rural-like" house, and given suburbs still have an appeal, they have to be planned to not take a lot of space, with more greenery and more local services and transports (especially for the city) than the current ones.. living in a suburb doesn't mean one has to automatically isolate from the others.. As far as "space" is concerned, let's remember again, that villages alone would not be able to contain a such big population, therefore suburbs are needed, but (I'll repeat it) have to be much better planned


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Svartmetall said:


> Actually, in many cities there is a rise in the number of people who want apartments. In Japan the real estate market recently has shifted from the previous focus on buying houses to buying "condominiums" (apartments). Here in Sweden, the best and most high-end developments being built in Stockholm are apartments - in fact apartment building here outnumbers houses by a long, long way. Most of these apartments are larger and cater for families rather than single, young people. These are just two examples off the top of my head.


Never doubted it.. but the people do it for the city life, not because they love the life in an appartment .. without a doubt, I'll say it again, they're not bad places, actually they are far from being so, it's just that it's understandable how someone (especially and maybe exclusively the ones with a family) want a larger space.. I never said that flats were getting less popular (although they're more popular for the youth and the city dwellers), don't get me wrong, I love city life (although I hate the very chaotic cities)


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Looking over Barnet on the map makes the claim that it is "in" the city ridiculous. It doesn't matter what are the administrative arrangements, that's just not "in" the city, it's at its outskirts. I would suspect it's a town in its own right that was at some point taken over administratively by London. From what I see on Wikipedia it seems so, yes, it was an independent (including administratively) town up until 1965.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Never doubted it.. but the people do it for the city life, not because they love the life in an appartment .. without a doubt, I'll say it again, they're bad places, actually they are far from being so, it's just that it's understandable how someone (especially and maybe exclusively the ones with a family) want a larger space.. I never said that flats were getting less popular (although they're more popular for the youth and the city dwellers), don't get me wrong, I love city life (although I hate the very chaotic cities)


The thing is, the preference these days is more towards connectivity, minimising commutes, amenities nearby and more "close" living. This is why I said that new apartments are largely catering for larger families - 4 bedroom apartments are frequently marketed in the new developments. Therefore, an apartment does not mean less space. The quality of the infrastructure, parks and public spaces tend to be better in the city than the suburbs too, hence the rise in popularity.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Never doubted it.. but the people do it for the city life, not because they love the life in an appartment .. without a doubt, I'll say it again, they're not bad places, actually they are far from being so, it's just that it's understandable how someone (especially and maybe exclusively the ones with a family) want a larger space.. I never said that flats were getting less popular (although they're more popular for the youth and the city dwellers), don't get me wrong, I love city life (although I hate the very chaotic cities)


But living in apartments is an inherent part of city life. Without apartments there would not be the necessarily density to create a proper city. Of course if you remove all positive aspect of city life, then no, not many would perhaps want to live in an apartment. But if you removed the quietness, the space, the greenery and everything else normally associated with suburban living, how many would like it then?


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Svartmetall said:


> The thing is, the preference these days is more towards connectivity, minimising commutes, amenities nearby and more "close" living. This is why I said that new apartments are largely catering for larger families - 4 bedroom apartments are frequently marketed in the new developments. Therefore, an apartment does not mean less space. The quality of the infrastructure, parks and public spaces tend to be better in the city than the suburbs too, hence the rise in popularity.


That's true, and that's also because of the bad planning in our suburbs (some more than others), and even more wrong the connection with transports (maybe not so much in Blighty).. also, suburbs can be depressing (especially the ones in US/Australia), because of the concept on which they were created: isolation .. That's why I want suburbs to be friendlier, more rural (with a more village friendly approach) but also more urban (in the sense that you must not take the car for a milk bottle or some vegetables)


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

AmoreUrbs said:


> That's true, and that's also because of the bad planning in our suburbs (some more than others), and even more wrong the connection with transports (maybe not so much in Blighty).. also, suburbs can be depressing (especially the ones in US/Australia), because of the concept on which they were created: isolation .. That's why I want suburbs to be friendlier, more rural (with a more village friendly approach) but also more urban (in the sense that you must not take the car for a milk bottle or some vegetables)


The difficult point with villages like that is where is the employment? People will probably still have to commute out of the villages to work. This is especially true if you are advocating a hot real estate market with highly desirable properties, they have to afford them somehow, and thus must have a good job, something a village cannot provide. 

Actually, I'd disagree that it is not the case in Britain - villages are often quite isolated there with infrequent bus services connecting them. I had a hell of a time seeing my family in a large village attached to a small town. The bus service was awful.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Galro said:


> But living in apartments is an inherent part of city life. Without apartments there would not be the necessarily density to create a proper city. Of course if you remove all positive aspect of city life, then no, not many would perhaps want to live in an apartment. But if you removed the quietness, the space, the greenery and everything else normally associated with suburban living, how many would like it then?


City will always be able to appeal someone, always, and that won't change.. I'm not saying that everyone must move in the suburbs, yet, if someone wants to live in the suburban environment, let them do it (in the way I wanted them to do it)


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Looking over Barnet on the map makes the claim that it is "in" the city ridiculous.


What's ridiculous is your claim that Barnet is not in London. Everything within M25 is London. It's as simple as that. Administration is irrelevant, even Westminster and City have their very own councils, in which case we should probably count them as suburbs as well. Suburb is basically everything beyond the inner-city, whether high-rise or low-rise.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

AmoreUrbs said:


> City will always be able to appeal someone, always, and that won't change.. I'm not saying that everyone must move in the suburbs, yet, if someone wants to live in the suburban environment, let them do it (in the way I wanted them to it)


I think people should generally be free to live where they want as long as they don't expect the larger society to subsidize it. I'm just saying that it appears like many - at least here in Norway - does not want to live in "green" suburbs, but rather in urban cities.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Svartmetall said:


> The difficult point with villages like that is where is the employment? People will probably still have to commute out of the villages to work. This is especially true if you are advocating a hot real estate market with highly desirable properties, they have to afford them somehow, and thus must have a good job, something a village cannot provide.
> 
> Actually, I'd disagree that it is not the case in Britain - villages are often quite isolated there with infrequent bus services connecting them. I had a hell of a time seeing my family in a large village attached to a small town. The bus service was awful.


This "rurban" environment, of course, has to be connected with good transports for the jobs in the city, so avoiding the very ugly car dependency.. Anyways I wasn't pointing on the original British villages, but rather on the British (or non-British) suburbs, those have to be slightly densier and with a friendlier "village-like" approach, and the current suburbs in Britain seem more or less linked with railways to the city.. I can imagine how isolated are the real "original" villages 
Anyways I'm not saying nothing dramatic, and as you can see I'm quite moderate.. actually I believe there are a lot of planners that want to do similar things with the suburbs (and even better ones)


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> What's ridiculous is your claim that's its not in London. Everything within M25 is London. It's as simple as that. Administration is irrelevant, even Westminster and City have their very own councils.


Barnet is NOT "_in_ the city" - which is what we were arguing - because if so then the city would be seen around it. However around it there's fields and woodland. We need to agree on what a "city" is otherwise it's staring heading into walls. A city is a "city" regardless of its administrative so and so. 

Just recently I was arguing in a thread here another Englishman who was dismissing French cities as small cities because administratively they are split into several units and he would only take into account the area and population of the unit that has the name under which the whole urban unit is known for. Now you do the exact opposite and count up as "the city" even the most remote localities, only because they have been annexed administratively by the city. This shows quite well the absurdity of internet disputes, where everyone will distort notions according to his own interest, regardless of the reality. 

If that place was in France not only would Barnet be a town itself but between it and London there would be several other towns and cities independent of London. Which only shows we need to go beyond how various school of administrative thought and talk things as what they actually are.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Barnet is NOT "in the city" - which is what we were arguing - because if so then the city would be seen around it. However around it there's fields and woodland. We need to agree on what a "city" is otherwise it's staring heading into walls. A city is a "city" regardless of its administrative so and so.


:cripes:

Which part of everything within M25 is London do you not understand? That includes Barnet, which is not surrounded by fields but is connected to the centre by continuous built up area (ie the rest of the city). It is a suburb and also a part of London.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

The fact that it may be connected doesn't mean that it's necessarily urban.. Political boundaries are just "political", the reality is far from them; it's a very simple concept to grasp, yet, either distorted or confused by forumers..


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

AmoreUrbs said:


> urban...


Define urban.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Without urban character/densities/facilities/activities/jobs to be considered urban.. some of these boroughs are just detached houses with their green in between..


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Without urban character/densities/facilities/activities/jobs to be considered urban.. some of these boroughs are just detached houses with their green in between..


You'll find all of that in both Barnet and in The City.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Well, since my definition has been very vague and not quite defined, I must say I definitely agree with you and it's what I meant.. maybe it has to do with the slightly different definition of "village" in my language (Italian).. Anyways I want to emphasize on the local shops thing, which is being missing more and more


Yes, I think it's because villages in Italy are bit different to those to the North-West, they are more like mini-towns. For example, there are such mini-towns in France too, but a lot of villages are completely devoid of life - just roads with houses behind walls and doors. All you see is walls, fences and garage entries. No people on the roads, no boardwalks, no administrative offices, no school etc. - what to say about, newspaper stands, shops, restaurants, basically what makes a "centre". This kind of village is basically just for those who want a quiet life somewhere far away (but still in reasonable reach of cities by car, even if not necessarily for commute).


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

El_Greco said:


> You'll find all of that in Barnet and in The City.


Yeah, I was in The City and Westminster, if I didn't know that I was there I would've been thinking of being in rural Norfolk..


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Yeah, I was in The City and Westminster, if I didn't know that I was there I would've been thinking of being in rural Norfolk..


Now you're being absurd again. You'll find density, jobs, facilities and activities in both Barnet and The City. Equally you'll find greenery and detached houses right next to the city centre (Wapping and Rotherhithe). In other words suburb does not = lack of urbanity, suburb is everything beyond the inner city. And whether its high-rise or low-rise, the suburb is also sprawl and sprawl should be avoided.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Nothing you won't find in other suburbs of Southeastern centres economically connected to London it seems.. I don't understand why denying that cities naturally concentrate on their centre, as a matter of fact, London is not entirely metropolitan everywhere (like any city)..


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

I think we can just put this down to differences between countries when it comes to definitions on what belongs to a city and what doesn't.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

That's true, sometimes Britain feels less "urban" than the rest of Europe (in the meaning of dense, and "higher", not that it's a bad thing), but naturally you won't find the same atmosphere in every borough of London.. London has been annexing what initially were towns, and, of course, what you get in these parts of London is a more suburban feeling..


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> The difficult point with villages like that is where is the employment? People will probably still have to commute out of the villages to work. This is especially true if you are advocating a hot real estate market with highly desirable properties, they have to afford them somehow, and thus must have a good job, something a village cannot provide.
> 
> Actually, I'd disagree that it is not the case in Britain - villages are often quite isolated there with infrequent bus services connecting them. I had a hell of a time seeing my family in a large village attached to a small town. The bus service was awful.


I think that increased frequency of home-working with the internet provide an opportunity for such village to have employment without commuting but yes, they will always have a share of people commuting to larger settlements.

In terms of connections you will find many villages and small towns with a train station, and those that do tend to attract the commuters more and see higher real estate prices. Of the 2,500 UK rail stations probably the majority are in small towns and villages.

http://guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/19/train-stations-listed-rail


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> Exactly what I was saying earlier. They want all the goodies that come with living in the city but don't want the urbanity. So we get ugly sprawl and endless opposition to everything and anything.


Tree lined road, nice detached homes, gardens and country lanes are not ugly. A concrete jungle isn't too pretty


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

*São Paulo* has a "natural" green belt:



Serra do Mar (south) and Serra da Catareira (north). They're mountain ranges covered by the Atlantic Rainforest which pretty much block any further development. East and westwards, the terrain is very hilly, which doesn't help urban sprawl either. 

São Paulo is, therefore, "boxed" and there is few room available to physically expand. Much of today's demographic and economic growth is taking place outside the green belt, on Campinas (north), Sorocaba (west), São José dos Campos (east) and Santos (coast) regions.

Here the growth dynamics:

*------------------------------------------------------------- 2010 ------- 2000 ------ Growth*

São Paulo (city) ------------------------------------------ 11,253,503 --- 10,434,252 --- 819,251 --- 7.85%

São Paulo Metro Area (official) ---------------------------- 19,683,975 --- 17,878,703 --- 1,805,272 --- 10.10% 

São Paulo Metro Area (_de facto_, my own definition) -------- 22,433,448 --- 20,279,627 --- 2,153,821 --- 10.62%

São Paulo Macrometropolitan Area ------------------------- 32,270,229 --- 28,860,351 --- 3,409,878 --- 11.82%

São Paulo (state) ----------------------------------------- 41,252,160 --- 37,032,403 --- 4,219,757 --- 11.39%

BRASIL -------------------------------------------------- 190,732,694 --- 169,799,170 --- 20,933,524 --- 12.33%


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


P.S. El Greco hatred on suburbs is irrational. People should look for more balanced views. People should live, respecting some parameters, the way/where they want to.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

As São Paulo, *Londrina* is on the Atlantic Rainforest domain. However, unlike São Paulo, the land is rather flat, with small hills, meaning the forest is all but completely gone. 

No green belt in place in Londrina, and despite her very impressive dense skyline, the city is sprawling widely, specially in form of upmarket gated communities (southwest):










Londrina is not growing that much:

*-------------------- 2010 ---------- 2000 ---- Growth %*

Londrina _Metro_ --- 1,087,815 --- 968,226 --- 12.35%
Londrina _City_ ------ 506,645 --- 447,065 --- 13.33%

The number of new households (occupied), however, skyrocketed: *29.1%* of growth in the past decade (for *13.3%* of population growth). In 2011 and 2012, *12,767* new residential electric connections were made, implying 12,767 new occupied households in this two-year period.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

AmoreUrbs said:


> That's true, sometimes Britain feels less "urban" than the rest of Europe (in the meaning of dense, and "higher", not that it's a bad thing), but naturally you won't find the same atmosphere in every borough of London.. London has been annexing what initially were towns, and, of course, what you get in these parts of London is a more suburban feeling..


What I noticed about British cities on SSC and on Google maps is that cities in the Southern parts of the UK are more urban, in that urbanity is intact for miles(or km) while those in North are more suburban and auto-centric once you leave the city center. Cities in Scotland are an exception in this. This is generalization of course, but it's something I noticed.


----------



## Eric Offereins (Jan 1, 2004)

The Netherlands have their own green hart between the major cities:










It has an agricultural function.









www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl


----------



## Babser (Feb 13, 2011)

How does it work in the Netherlands? I guess the green heart must be under great pressure from eager developers.

In Copenhagen the green wedges in the so-called "finger plan" are under a lot of pressure from developers and cash strapped municipalities.


----------



## davilote (Dec 30, 2008)

Zaragoza,Spain.

Sorry,are in Spanish Language.

http://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/medioambiente/anillo_verde/Trazado.pdf


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

We have the forest boundaries surrounding Oslo were nothing is allowed to get built - not even walking paths. 

The gray area is Oslo urban area. The outlined areas are protected forests. The pink areas are patches of forest where there is some controversy whether it should be built upon, be kept or what to do. 








http://www.hoyre.no/Feil+om+markagrensa+i+Lier.d25-T2djS3k.ips


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

There is something similar in Bergen, Norways second largest city, too called the "city mountain boundaries" (byfjellsgrense in Norwegian) - I was unable to find any maps of it, but it basically means that the city can't grow further up on the mountains that surround it. Which in turns means that the only which it can grow is through densification as it have basically outgrown where it is allowed to, as shown by the pictures: 









Bergen seen from Vidden by Espen Haagensen










Mt Ulriken and Bergen  by Espen Haagensen










Sunset from Fløyen by Espen Haagensen


----------



## Eric Offereins (Jan 1, 2004)

Babser said:


> How does it work in the Netherlands? I guess the green heart must be under great pressure from eager developers.
> 
> ..


A lot of protection by law and national urban planning.
Some municipalities are keen on preservation, because of tourism or environmental reasons.
The general public in those municipalities don't want large scale developments either.


----------



## Babser (Feb 13, 2011)

Nice! It's really a gigantic Central Park of the Netherlands


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

No, there is to much green in this country!


----------

