How different would the UK have been without the Green Belt?

Zachariah

Zachariah

Banned
In the UK, the Green Belt policy came into force in the late '40's, with the purpose of quelling the growth of its largest cities through urban sprawl. Today, the green belt covers roughly twice as much land as all of the UK's urban areas combined. How different would the UK have been without it?
main-qimg-557763f82d70560bc33c706ee612cb64
 

OldNavy1988

Without it, I guess the English countryside that I often hear about in books, TV and movies would be ancient history, correct?
 
Zachariah

Zachariah

Banned
OldNavy1988 said:
Without it, I guess the English countryside that I often hear about in books, TV and movies would be ancient history, correct?
Click to expand...
Actually, no. Largely due to the green belt, in England, 78.6% of urban areas is designated as 'natural' rather than 'built'. Since 'urban areas' only cover about a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is actually built upon is a mere 2.27%. And arguably, this would be even less if large towns and cities had been allowed to expand and amalgamate more freely, as opposed to stunting them permanently and pushing expansion out into even larger commuter belts. How much smaller might the yellow areas on that map have been if it weren't for the swathes of green belt?
 

OldNavy1988

Zachariah said:
Actually, no. Largely due to the green belt, in England, 78.6% of urban areas is designated as 'natural' rather than 'built'. Since 'urban areas' only cover about a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is actually built upon is a mere 2.27%. And arguably, this would be even less if large towns and cities had been allowed to expand and amalgamate more freely, as opposed to stunting them permanently and pushing expansion out into even larger commuter belts. How much smaller might the yellow areas on that map have been if it weren't for the swathes of green belt?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...not entirely sure of the yellow bits.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Zachariah said:
Actually, no. Largely due to the green belt, in England, 78.6% of urban areas is designated as 'natural' rather than 'built'. Since 'urban areas' only cover about a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is actually built upon is a mere 2.27%. And arguably, this would be even less if large towns and cities had been allowed to expand and amalgamate more freely, as opposed to stunting them permanently and pushing expansion out into even larger commuter belts. How much smaller might the yellow areas on that map have been if it weren't for the swathes of green belt?
Click to expand...

OldNavy1988 said:
Hmmm...not entirely sure of the yellow bits.
Click to expand...

Are the yellow areas built up?
 

merlin

I suspect that 'new' towns like Milton Keynes, Telford, other overspill towns like Borehamwood, Hemel Hempstead would be still villages, and Luton being much smaller. While places like Croydon would be part of London.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top