I don’t endorse this article but it is a thought-provoking take. Personally, I think instead of “densifying” cities we should be doing the opposite - incentivize building new homes and business investment in lower-populated areas of the country.
Personally, I think instead of “densifying” cities we should be doing the opposite - incentivize building new homes and business investment in lower-populated areas of the country.
Why? More low density development means more car dependency and less green space.
Perhaps OP means densify lower population towns, i.e. build them upward, not outward.
Build up, create new green focused mixed-use dense town centres with street votes to involve the local community in the planning stages, particularly with the aesthetics and amenities.
I’d be in favour of both because we need another mega city/cities in the north to redress the power imbalance that skews heavily towards London and it’s commuter belt.
The two finest innovations of postwar British planning were green belts and urban conservation areas.
Lol. There’s no hope for rational discourse, if this is the starting point of your opponent.
Green belts (and restrictive planning policy more generally) have been a disaster for the country. They are directly responsible for our crushing housing costs, poor housing quality, terrible urban design, and the stranglehold over our built environment that is held by a handful of gigantic, pointless building companies.
Remember the game Lemmings?
