beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,019
I always find these type of comments amusing. Whenever I fly over Sussex I look down and nearly all I see is fields/open spaces and a 'relatively' small amount of land that is actually built on. (I accept that local services need to be upgraded as well, but that's a separate issue).
i cant recall the exact number, but its between 8-9% of the country is "developed". and that included anything and anything non-argricultral: roads, airports, old industrial sites, parks!, in additional the obvious houses. it follows that if we increased the size of every town and city by ~10% we'd build upon <1% of the countryside lost. but people like their fields, hedgrows and woods. even when they live in a nice house that didnt exist 20, 40, 60 years ago, they want to preserve some nearby fields or trees. of course building on green field isnt the only option, but if you try and build on a brown field you have to pay to clear and clean it (so its expensive) or you cant go about 3-4 stories otherwise everyone cries its an eyesore and blocks a view of such and such. the view of historic buildings, built when there weren't such strict regulations, must be preserved over affordable housing.