Let’s Build!

' . . . - were they allowed to - impoverished farmers, land-strapped greenfield house builders and would-be homeowners could solve each others problems at a stroke.'
(Martin Pawley quoted in Let's Build! p87)


Why we need five million new homes in the next 10 years

James Heartfield
Foreword by Robert Bruegmann
Edited by Kate Moorcock-Abley

You have been told that the housing market is booming. So why are there no houses that you can afford being built?
You want to know why house prices have spiralled out of control. House building is lower than it has been since the Second World War, and there are not enough homes being built to meet the demand.
You have been told that developers want to concrete over the countryside. It is not true. No more than one tenth of Britain is developed.
Far from being in short supply, land is going to waste, because the law stops it from being developed.
This book explains why Britain stopped building homes for its citizens to live in. For too long government policy has been in the grip of officials who want to stop new building.
Let’s Build! explains why all the reasons for not building new homes - the scare stories about the environment, about suburbia, about social cohesion - are just excuses.

James Heartfield is a director of Audacity, the campaigning company that advocates developing the man-made environment. He writes and lectures on development and regeneration, and is currently based at the University of Westminster's Centre for the Study of Democracy. You can email James on Heartfield@blueyonder.co.uk and visit his web page at www.heartfield.org

Robert Bruegmann is an historian of architecture, landscape and the built environment. He is professor and chair in the Art History Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he is also professor of Architecture and Urban Planning. His book Sprawl: A Compact History was published by the University of Chicago Press in November 2005.

Audacity organises authoritative international research, large conferences on pressing development issues, has a provocative website - www.audacity.org - and publishes a dynamic school of writers, public speakers and photographers.

Let’s Build! is sponsored by the Modern Masonry Alliance. They develop and promote masonry construction – the bricks, blocks, and stone; the cement and mortar which bind them together; the researchers and technicians advancing the industry; the men and women who build masonry homes, buildings and structures. For more information visit www.modernmasonry.co.uk

ISBN 0-9553830-0-5
Price: £15.00

*
James Heartfield's Let's Build! was launched at Superbia - The case for suburbia, at the Centre for Suburban Studies, Kingston on 23rd September 2006.

http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/research/centres/suburban_studies/index.shtml


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Let-Build-Million-Homes-Years/dp/0955383005/sr=8-1/qid=1157931876/ref=sr_1_1/202-2638536-9012643?ie=UTF8&s=gateway

Bring it on home

This piece is a ramble through 'my own backyard', a shameless adventure of sorts and shamelessly repeated from an old blog though 'soon' to be updated . .

*My house

(*Strictly speaking the house isn't mine - it belongs to the Bank - although they had precious little to do with building it.)


' If the street was called something other than Industrial St. then the estate agent said it would probably add £2000 to the value.' (neighbour.)

'Like - Shit farm at the end of the St.?' (me.)

Of all the houses looked at this one had instant appeal as it fit in with what I assumed to be needs at the time - close enough to family and work and with enough surrounding facilities to keep ourselves occupied. The backgarden faces easterly, receiving plenty of sunshine throughout most of the day. The bulk of residents 'love it down here' and it's not too hard to see why.

Initially the desire to have a place where my immediate family - 2 rather grown up 'children' - could come and stay meant that the structure of the house would have to change - watch out Heath Robinson!

The loft as it is is too small for any meaningful conversion. However, there is sufficient ceiling heights on both levels to lower floors and gain loft space and a 'cabin' bedroom and sundeck. Of course there would be an issue of privacy but then knocking down the neighbour's houses at the back would go some way to alleviate that (see N#3 'Border dispute').
Taking out floors does seem like a mighty task but with organisation, method and understanding neighbours it wouldn't prove too difficult. In my most recent employment, a welder/fabricator in the modular building industry, such things are done in a relatively short space of time. For instance if a roof is welded on the wrong way around (I'm not the only one to have done this!) it is easy enough (despite the ball ache) to grind it off and spin it around, albeit with use of an overhead crane. (see forthcoming N#? for 'The future of building: Prefabs?').

A partition wall between kitchen and living room that never looked right was removed making the downstairs open plan. It also revealed a stone slab floor that had been partially brutalised by fitting a gas supply for the fire. Potentially lovely and offering some continuation of the house to the patio via the newly fitted patio doors. It's coldness in winter was to be alleviated by installing underfloor heating thus giving a reservoir and even spread of heat. Time and money are lacking so this idea has been shelved. A quickfix solution is to board over the floor but I'm in more than two minds about this hence the gap above the patio doors (infilled with Kingspan insulation panels) allows the finished floor to be any height required.
Then of course there is all the rewiring and plumbing, etc but one thing at a time (or not). All this work on a house that is some 100 years old!

Despite the uniform appearance of the street from the front the houses have been built in fits and starts and probably for workers that supplied local industry its labour. Humble in their origins and never anything that special they have taken on new significance due to the prominence of housing in the economy and our lives. The build quality is nothing special either despite the solidity of traditional materials. This last point can be thrown into perspective by a comparison with 'temporary' housing built for railway construction workers about the turn of last century at Dodworth, Barnsley. South Yorkshire Buildings are built to similar standards as these workers' cottages yet still exist today and are 'worth' considerably more than was originally intended.

These days there are many people extending and 'modernising' their houses, in fact it's a continuous phenomenon so God help those working the nightshift let alone anyone wanting peace and quiet. It doesn't need to be this way.
When the amount of work upgrading old housing stock is considered against the efficiency of factory built housing it makes one wonder.


See also -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12krugman.html?8hpib

Border dispute.









Despite the cosiness of the neighbourhood private property issues do surface. We all like our own space from time to time and our private concerns clash with others. 24/7 living and working means that people come and go all times of day or night, Canadian geese honk in excitement(!?!) as they approach Pugneys Lake (an ex quarry), kids playing out, the relentless DIY and garden maintainance or just playing music.

The neighbourhood is more or less constantly 'active'.
Weekend mornings become slowly disturbed as someone dares to break the relative peace and tranquility. Usually about half past nine the first few lump hammer and bolster chisel blows or power tools can be heard only to die off for a sheepish half hour as the slumbering neighbourhood resigns itself to arousal.

One of the chief culprits is Dave (whose bloody kids make World War 3 sound as though it's going off in my backyard - bless 'em).
When fixing the fence in my lower garden he asked if I could do something about the privet hedge that threatened to push out the wall into his backyard.
Pfff, go on then. As the fence was being held up by the bush they both went. Dave and family got used to the increased light and openess and I couldn't be arsed rebuilding a fence so everything turned out well.

When a new neighbour dropped a row of leylandii things got even better - much more openess. It led me to think of how we view our territory and the uses we put it to.
When we consider that, at a guess, some two thirds of homes all have common features in their gardens - shed and tools, benches, etc and the occasional use we put them to it seemed like a good idea to have all the gardens minimised opening up to parkland and backing on to the pub. Do away with all the replicated junk that we horde and have a proper public house and 'garden'. It would be even nicer to move the adjoining pallet yard and follow through to the River Calder's edge, perhaps build a boathouse.

To the front of the Pub and behind the old Post Office (now closed) there used to be a Foundry - a longstanding bone of contention to residents. Now closed down the land is to be used for yet more houses. Not a village green then.

Back to the real world.

The local pub is undergoing a fair amount of renovation as the landlord approaches retirement age and is considering selling up. Part of this is the erection of a new wall dividing the offset gardens and the pub's beer garden. Long established and overgrown hedges that had formed a natural barrier gave way to a border dispute, lines were drawn and some choice cussing was to be heard.

Bollocks!


Go wild in the country.








The route to and from work can be a particular joy - especially this time of year with the fields, meadows, wetlands and woods all in brilliant colour. On good days the whole area comes alive - joggers, fishermen, canoeists, barges, 'mountain' bikers, dog walkers and so on.
It teems with wildlife and farm animals - heron, kingfisher, woodpeckers - in fact more birds than I could throw a stick at (jus' kidding) let alone name - even a couple of rare (to these isles) stork. Then there's mink, shrews, mice, bats and the occasional deer . . one could go on.

Oh, and wild cherries grow around the sewage treatment plant - tasty.

Despite all this though in real terms the area is nothing special. Disused railway lines, quarries, tips and crumbling old buildings show that we've been here before. When the motorway network was in its infancy a proposed link road was outlined to join the M1 and M62 from Dewsbury to Wakefield. Though such a scheme would likely cause a great deal of protest today. Myself, despite being pro-industry and for development wouldn't particularly want to live that close to a major road either - who does?

But then nobody should really have to. There is no shortage of available land - according to the government Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1)only 10.6% of UK landmass is built upon. This figure is from 1991 but since then most development has occured on previously developed sites - 'brownfield'. Far from covered in concrete then and plentiful land so that we shouldn't have to live on top of one another. (Not that there is anything wrong in particular with high rise, hustle and bustle city living but that is a different matter.)

Many problems face those that wish to live in the countryside. One respondent had the good fortune to acquire some old buildings but nature and officialdom won the day. Not only did the old, listed buildings have to be rebuilt to specification but since Bats moved into the residence the new owner was not allowed to occupy it!

(1)http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/land/lduse.htm
(2)See also http://www.newstatesman.com/landreform/lrindex.htm

The future of building - Prefabs?

According to a Times Bricks and Mortar supplement some 67% of us are disappointed with our houses. Whether respondents were transplacing other feelings onto their houses or whether this relates to the houses themselves is a moot point. It could be the spiralling cost or some concern over where society is headed. Astute buyers may have made a killing on the back of an inflated market but one does wonder what sort of dwellings our children or grandchildren may inhabit. Houses built at todays level of output would have to stand for 1500 years! Somehow can't see that happening by any measure as modern housing lacks the solidity of its predecessors and merely apes the style, particularly mass built housing.

Most modern housing is stuck in a timewarp. New developments of mock tudor or georgian 'style' are hastily built on any scrap of land where demand is high. New environmentally sensitive regulations call for higher density build so we still live unnecessarily in the lap of our neighbours.

Despite many improvements in materials and construction methods new housing still attempts to replicate the old. Where factory built housing components are manufactured they still resemble brickwork and little genuine prefabricated work exists particularly in the UK. Even manufacturers of prefabricated buildings still feel the need to encase buildings in brick tiles for that traditional look ie. to make them look like something that they are not.

This is pathetic but understandable in a culture that dare not face the future and seeks comfort in an imagined past.

What of bolder visions?

Although some architects may produce expensive and gimmicky one offs there are houses designed and built with increased specification and functionality, relatively simple in design and execution yet far from commonplace. Frank Lloyd-Wright with his Fallingwater house, for one, showed that nature should not bind us to limitations . . .

View/read on:
http://www.audacity.org/Acrobat%20Reader%20files/Housing%20Forum%202002.pdf
http://www.lmearchitecture.com/houses.htm
http://brasembottawa.org/cd/1arq_3.9.2.res_macab_helio.htm
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=falling+water+house&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://www.treehugger.com/files/prefab/index.php
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/diyandbuilding/buildinghouse/kit_homes.html

Letter to Sp!ked* - density of housing

Another equally alarming aspect to the dismal amount of new house build is the density and poverty of spirit in the build. Sure, there are some nice houses out there but many are built on poor quality land with limited additional infrastructure and stacked quite high (it's nice sunny day imagery but it doesn't last).

One of the first things noticed when returning to old travelled roads was the patches of newbuilt houses dotted around. After a while you get to notice previous expansions maybe by style, layout or materials used, etc. But still largely around a decrepit road system - if it's not being dug up then it's getting speed bumps and cameras.
The wry tone of the Heineken advert appeals - the hole dig where all the services - gas, cable, electricity and even the undertaker eye it up. If only, eh? The fact that it seems to make sense shows that we actually have a pretty low outlook but gives the nod to reality.
Would it be too much to ask tomorrow's developers to put services in a seperate conduit rather than alongside or underneath roads and paths?

Why do we accept this pack 'em in tight, fill in all the gaps, crappy transport system philosophy? One that puts humanity beneath nature, and a 'disneyfied' version at that. Defra's land use statisics quote 10.6% urbanised land, though as they admit not totally accurate but obviously plenty of land even in densely populated Britain. (1)

The urban sprawl is more like urban squeeze, replete with ubercontrolling asbo, convention and diktat. Hardly a single normal activity is without an annoyance factor and chance to bellyache - the neighbours' exuberant children, the necessary DIY and constant upgrading of old housing stock, cars, old people doing 8 miles an hour, the cat always teasin' ma dawg, and so on - take your pick.

Until we overturn the view that man ought to be subservient to nature then we are forever stuck to this kind of build. Newer housing designs are about but sadly rare on the ground. These often simple, airy and spacious designs easily lend themselves to mass production - and with good liveable quality too.
Some contemporary homes show simple ingenuity even in what could be called difficult locations, in short there's nothing much out there that is a barrier. Of course simplicity isn't always a gift and significant inroads into new technologies promise plenty.




*www.spiked-online.com
(1) www.defra.gov.uk

RRRRs . . .

I love the countryside - its sights, smells and away from it allness. Having said that l think we give all this mud, trees, rocks, insects and animal life too much reverence - something we should see as a resource rather than something to be preserved as is and forever. Environmentalist thinking seeks to do just that - put a stop to real development and settle for, or hark back to, some imagined equilibrium with nature, minimize our footprint and then tread warily.

The 4Rs campaign takes this up - reduce, re-use, recycle, repair.

I was brought up in a make-do-and-mend environment, grew to love the great outdoors, became a teenage vegetarian and avid reader of John Seymour's Self sufficiency books (1). Like many others, the great escape from the ratrace beckoned - if today it was the allotment then tomorrow it was most certainly a farflung croft. . .

. . . growing your own food, rearing your own livestock, the natural cycle and handicrafts. Idyllic, the work seemingly its own reward and the chance to sit on some red-skyed hilltop basking in some romantic oneness with it all at the end of a back-breaking day's toil. But then the quest to make it all work seemed to involve writing books for romantic urbanites with evermore ridiculous advice as to how to be more self sufficient.

Such pearls as chopping wood for fire is of double benefit as you get warm chopping it as well as burning it. And another being a way of getting free hot water on a sunny day - chopping the bottoms out of bottles, sliding these over a hosepipe with slow-running water passing through and goodbye gas bill. Other heating beauties were the use of woodburning stoves (no, not the trees!) or peat - erm? . . . ancient flora and fauna. In the end it all appears to be 'let's see how many things we can produce for ourselves' - self-sufficiency for the sake of it; a microcosm of life in one family plot, all very nice hard labour and getting nowhere fast. If ever subject to a risk assessment most allotments and smallholdings would be shut down. Although many an opening for insurance services, licensing and hot air carbon offsetting schemes.


The four Rs prove to be just as much romantic erm? . . . rubbish really.

For starters 'reduce' would seem to be at odds with the consumerist nature of even our uncertain society. We do like to shop and, considering Big Business is becoming unfashionable, retail looks to feature heavily in most's plans.

Even the most ardent environmentalist benefits from an abundance of consumer goods and services, most pay lipservice and are well stocked up even if it is with organic 'alternatives'.


'Recycle'

I hate rubbish. Kids casually dropping litter as they idle along their way, bad boy racers chucking MacDonalds/KFC/etc. packaging out of their car windows, man-made detritus strewn along river banks . . . . and the lack of bins in public places. The last point first noticed umpteen years ago in Leeds rail station. Nowhere to put an apple core. Pocket? Walk around with it in my hand until l find a bin? Yeah, right.
Noticing the same lack of bins in Wakefield Westgate station l was informed by a very dapper station attendant that bins were no longer provided due to Terrorism. Hmm . .

It gets worse, in London we have the anally retentive bin inspectors making sure us punters put our rubbish in the correct bin - or risk a hefty fine. Apparently someone recently received a £5o fine for putting a letter in a street litter bin and obstructing other litter. Some people ought to get proper jobs.

l do hate litter and am not opposed to recyclng per se. One of the last Tomorow's World programmes l saw featured a massive processing machine that with use of magnets, cyclones, blowers and filters, etc. seperated household wastes into a few basic elements, all of which were apparently useful. The technophobe l was thought that like the washing machine/tumble dryer combo of the time this was a snarl-up waiting to happen. True, they did and even full scale industrial processes have their breakdowns and hold-ups where one operation failure holds up the whole process - but also provides a chance to get ahead with other parts of the operation. Likewise modern machines like the car carry many interconnected operations; complex machinery works and even with down time is superior to previous operations.

Instead though recycling is done inefficiently in the home. Every process carried out indepently - washing, seperating, storing and transporting to the correct bin and arguably wastes more resources, time and energy than is saved by recycling.

And what of the end products? Aluminium (and possibly plastics and glass) maybe the only real candidate as all the other stuff is likely produced cheaper or more efficiently from raw materials. Much of the other stuff is recycled into material that then has to have a use found for it or is a compromise or expensive - and thus requiring our extra labour to purchase; our labours seemingly the only thing considered to be abundant.


Consider that all of the American waste of the 21st century will fit into a single landfill, using just 26% of Woodward County in Oregon. Of the entire US landmass, the landfill would take up about one-12,000th or less than 0.009 percent (2). That's America and without using other methods of waste disposal.

'Reuse' covers quite some remit - everything from our houses, body parts and materials. To the homeowner it can be any number of tips from Viz or erm . . women's mags. Anyone familiar with the hoarding of things that may come in handy will be blessed with sheds, attics and/or cellars full of things that can be repaired or used for something else. lf you can find, fix or match them up that is. Frustrating, arduous and inefficient.

The beachcomber/skiprats amongst us may pick up the odd find or draw some personal pleasure out of fixing something up or improving it. But then for that one there are plenty of others that disappoint, many an oddly patched up item and nothing matching.
lt is interesting being inventive but any product worth fixing usually becomes mass produced, has many forms and develops and older stuff becomes obsolete. The original intentions behind extending something's use being to make a saving become lost and the path taken becomes the focus.



(1)http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Environment/WasteServices/facts.htm

(2)http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0751364428/qid=1137940226/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_3_2/026-8287842-2278834
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Politics/Quotes/Lomborg.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article340238.ece
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA841.htm

What's working?

It seems a bit rich the government launching another review of the benefit system and hassling the unemployed. Sure, everyone should work and that work should be beneficial, progressive and rewarding and maybe people shouldn't be 'wasters'. Ok, notwithstanding the usual antagonisms of the employer/employee relationship and some utopian vision of a better society then surely official ideology should be held up to more scrutiny?

Whilst far eastern economies are beginning reaping the rewards of progressive development the angst of our western leaders stifles much that is forward. Itself mocking New Labour's slogan 'Forwards, not back' and, indeed, 'Thiiings can only get bettter'.

Yeah, right, it would be hilarious if the consequences weren't likely to be disastrous. Britain is stuck in the mud and our leaders seem to like wallowing in it or being beholden to the stuff (mayan rebirthing and environmentalism (1).

UK industry is in a right state - it cannot use the talents of the workforce properly, is mired in reams of bureaucracy (what happened to saving the rainforest?) and 'real' jobs are losing out to low skilled work or growth in layers of admin.

The benefit system is not one that offers a decent existence and to some could be a cop out but given that the powers that be seem to be doing their utmost to hamper everything progressive maybe they should give themselves a looking over while they are at it.

What are our MPs for anyway? (2)

Of further interest -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4617308.stm
http://www.instituteofideas.com/transcripts/policywatch12.pdf

Cheap shots -
(1)http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume118issue2_comments.php?id=8_0_2_0_C
(2)http://www.wakefieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=702&ArticleID=1308889

Off the shelf housing (event)

A discussion on prefabrication in the UK market

Friday 29 September 'o6
18.00, The Old Truman Brewery, 146 Brick Lane, E1 6QL

‘Traditional architectural practice is based on service to an individual client and care for a particular site. But what if the client is an impersonal market sector and the building must be adaptable to any site? Architects claim authorship of their designs, as if they were poets or painters, but who is the author of a building that has been developed and refined through various versions by production engineers and market analysts?’ Colin Davies, The Prefabricated Home

Organised by the RIBA Trust, this discussion will focus on the future of prefabrication in the UK and how a developed collaboration between architects and the building industry can lead to innovative and provocative solutions.

Speakers:

Alex de Rijke of dRMM, presented their latest project, Naked House, a prefabricated sustainable timber house whose window ‘cut-outs’ fold into the interior to become furniture.

Kjetil Thorsen of Snøhetta, who will expand on their Løvetann modular home on display during the debate as part of the ongoing exhibition 100% Norway at the Old Truman Brewery.

Dickon Robinson, Chair of Building Futures

Colin Davies, author of The Prefabricated Home

Chaired by James Woudhuysen, Professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort University, Leicester, and director of audacity. (www.audacity.org)

For more information on the 100% Norway exhibition please visit:

www.norway.org.uk/100percent

NIMBY

Whilst there is no objection to the developer building (particularly as he is a generous donor of a football team once 'hung around' with . . ) it’s more that we should be a bit more selfish about what goes on in our backyard. After all our houses have considerable influence in our lives and possibly set to be even more so. Therefore isn’t it timely that we consider what informs house building practice and its relevance to us?


*

This open letter forms the basis of an objection to planning application No. 06/99/484444/B - an outline proposal for the development of 27 apartments, off Millfield Road on land previously used as factory space.

This is a NIMBY complaint and deliberately so, although it aims for a wider remit. Versions of this letter will be widely dispersed and a housing survey is forthcoming.

As yet this letter forms no public campaign. Given the choice the local community would likely prefer housing instead of a working factory and all its busy comings, goings and 'intrusions'. Why not do everyone a favour and move the remaining industry to the ex-Bombardier works?

This objection is based on the notion that this type of housing and its siting is unnecessary, overpriced, old hat, based on false premises and represents a disservice to us, the taxpayer, and the wider community. More so than that, it neither bodes well for the would be occupants nor the notions behind it for the economy paying for it.
Overpriced rabbit hutch housing plus an economy aiming for diminished wants, the creation of erstatz heritage and legalised community.

Unnecessary because there is no actual shortage of land - merely a question of how it is used as a resource. In supposedly overun Britain we are merely 12% 'built", the rest - 75% Agriculture, and the other 13% preserved, relic and other.
'Other' including such gems as The Yorkshire Dales National Park. Something of a favourite of mine. Wide valleys carved by glacier , natural forestry removed for sheepfarming and early source of Yorkshire prosperity, inclusive of many a ruin of earlier occupation, development and industry; erratics and other features. Now, farmed and preserved in some incoherent view of history.

Constant gains in agriculture mean that what we view as a traditional farming landscape is obsolete - a romantic idyll; a man-made, inefficient patchwork, and all supported by the taxpayer.

Ah, the taxpayer!
5% of the population in this way own 95% of the land, the EUs farming budget eats 40% of the total and we live in old and/or expensive houses.

Even the Royal family receive farming rebates (of one form or another) and farmers are paid compensation to leave land to return to the wild.
Telling figures - African farmers receive $200 conditional subsidy per year whereas european cattle are subsidised to the tune of $937. Here too domestic influence is reflected by its continental counterpart and the vision of restricted development for what is ironically refered to as the developing world.
A developing Africa would unlock huge land and other natural resorces/raw materials. That is if it shakes off the white man's burden in the phantom of sustainable development. And corrupt, self serving government.


Back home.

At home this deliberate restriction of land means that prices are unnecessarily high and for what can be poor quality. And the resultant houses and landworks 'jerry built' as what is known as The building lndustry goes gung-ho to make its rapacious gains.

l don't think they're rapacious enough. Design criteria and density regulations mean that they are forced to operate within narrow confines and UK design and build though capable of remarkable things is largely haphazard at best but outmoded and inefficient in the main.
Bearing in mind the central role that housing plays in the economy methinx this doesn't bode well for the long run and Britain will be outpaced by external developments.

This at a time when there is plenty of room for maneouvre but just a niggardly view of our impact on the environment. As such it displays intellectual bankruptcy, moral cowardice and a lack of will.

Practical objections to this proposed development are the quality of land and accompanying infrastructure that is archaic and overburdened - this in 'affluent' Horbury.
This type of build needs rejecting everywhere as an unneccesary intrusion and the developments returrned to open areas, parkland and amenities - living room.
My own pet project is landscaped parkland down to the riverfront. Perhaps a floodplain bay area and boathouse.

There is neither a genuine objection to housing going on any of this land. l'd be happier if experimental forms in housing were tried, maybe with landscaping; either as temporary exhibition and showcase for UKs latent design capacity and to act as fillip for industry.

Perhaps it's worth considering how we live positively affects further innovation and development.

Coxley Valley is a local area of some 'natural' beauty and is an attraction for many. But anything special? Other than mud, trees, babbling brooks, wildlife and swooping farmland, not really.
Officially it's use is limited yet it has long been a playground for the rambler, cyclist, dogwalker and dambuilder - we do like the countryside and many of us dream of living nearer or in it. And why not? Coxley Valley could support some highly desirable residences and very nice locations; or perhaps landscape more Coxleys with housing.

A transitional program could see the destruction of swathes of old stock housing, bulk modernisation of others with more open spaces and a rebuild program. Newer developments in housing, urban and rural planning could also reinvigorate road and transport design and drive the UK out of its demoralising slumber.

A huge undertaking? Possibly so, but the UK, for whatever reason, still features large in the world. Apart from the negatives there is the 2012 Olympics, the possibility of a World cup and who knows what else in the pipeline?

Rethinking Earth.

Bad Days?

Quite enjoyed BBC2s Meltdown and was encouraged most of the way through. l nearly even dropped my bacon sarnie when they brought on the Danes and all the talk of longer glaciers, ie. we've been here before, the climate changes for whatever reason and conflating the two our Viking forebears coped and part got us where we are today. What would a contemporary Viking do today? I'd say the cnutters anongst them would be eyeing up the planets. When you consider their technology and the conditions and then consider ours today then it ought make us wonder. There may have been some berserkers amongst them but l dare say the odd clever bastard.

Instead today we're incontinent with fear; the skies falling in and it's all our fault, we're in for some very stormy weather and can't go on as we are, etc.
The name should have given it away really - Meltdown; and l was expecting gloom. After what appeared an objective opening, the final third of the programe seemed to go slightly awol all of a sudden and take up a less optimistic view. It seemed to read too much into just 2000 years of human history, skipped over changes in how climate has been recorded, didn't allow for the fact that we are still developing our understanding of the world and superimposed the perceived effects of the industrial revolution into one hockey stick when there have been quite relatively sudden changes in the earth's climate over it's existence as much as the longer gradual ones and anomalies within them. Whole species and life forms have been wiped out and the conditions for others have arisen, continents have shifted and so what if the earth and indeed heavens move?

Maybe we should get back to calling the planet The World as it is far more than just 'earth'. And likewise the solar system - various other planets and things we don't even know about yet and couldn't possibly imagine with our current navel-gazing, anal retentive and backward outlook - liquids, solids, gases, detritus, maybe even other forms of life.
But then no real spirit of adventure anymore?

Not seemingly so amongst our western leaders. l hope the east does rise; if l could draw cartoons l'd have a Hyundai Moonweekender c/w bumpersticker saying 'the other pod's a Honda' flying past a clapped out spaceshuttle. One day spaceshuttles may even be the equivalents of Volkswagen camper vans and the preserve of doom-mongering, unwashed space-hippies - "No! stoppit - you'll destroy the universe!'

That's not to say that the The World is doomed and we need to get off it. It will likely resemble something different over the following millenia; whatever. Even at todays worst predictions of, l think, a 70 metre rise in sea level there would still be a huge amount of land available; and if it was warm as well then hello watersports and new environment. And if it gets cold we have the technology. . . .
That's assumed of course that any of these worse-case scenarios bear out. Given that these are various hypothesis based on unknown unknowns and a liberal splash of doom and gloom mongering then the outome is likely to be more of the same.
Others have said that these bleatings merely add to the catalogue of gloom and misery everywhere - SARS, birdflu, asteroids, obesity, smoking, pervs, paedos and other assorted weirdos and god only knows what else can be summonsed.


So what if our activities effect the planet? Part of discovery and enterprise is dealing with side effects and quantifying their importance and if necessary developing the means to deal with them. Usually we find that other innovations come as a result. Further than that though is the recognition that if we can effect such things as climate by accident then we can also do so by design.

If it really was the case that we are heading for a catastrophe of our own making then surely the most powerful people on earth, the great and the good, would hold a moratorium of sorts and discuss the most beneficial way to take things forwards.

Oh, they are trying/ Those who cry Kyoto . . .

They talk of leaving a legacy for future generations, a cleaner, more habitable environment and a vision of heaven on earth whilst all the time telling us that we're hellbound if we don't mend our ways. This is a time standing still argument and one that is not likely to arm our future generations with the capacities to deal with a world that has, is and will change and sometime may even die out.
That doesn't mean humanity has to though, which arguably it would if the current argument was taken to its logical conclusion.

In short we seem to have leaders that have ran out of ideas - others have said todays pessimistic outlook probably originates from todays elite running out of steam. Yet seeing as how it's business as normal and there are bills to pay and all of the rest of it this doom-mongering effects all of our actions, how business operates or not and represents a pitiful legacy.

Our future generations may look back on this period as one when the western world entered a dark age of its own choice rather than one that put humanity at the forefront and heralded a brighter future. As such climate change represents an apt metaphor for the ever decreasing circles that our leadership set out for us but also themselves.


Meltdown? Read on -

(1)http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/programmes1.shtml
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4753876.stm

2004 local election leaflet.

My aim in standing in these elections is to counter some of the myths and misinformation that poses as politics. As such, I do not concern myself with the 'bean count' that is the scrabble for apparently scarce resources. I am more concerned with raising the level of discussion above this and its meagre outlook. One thing is clear - the distinct lack of vision and principle at the heart of politics today. This displayed quite readily from the top down with debate at the petty level of the playground. Little wonder then that many of us choose to ignore the bigger picture, shrug our shoulders and acquiesce. Such apathy, though understandable, does not bode well for the immediate and long term future. Instead of a progressive, dynamic culture we have one of limits - an increasingly regulated and constrained society seeking accomodation to an imagined 'golden age' and largely afraid of its own shadow.


What kind of world do we want to live in?

Environmentalists and other commentators make much of the 'fact' that we are overcrowded. This is only true to the extent that new build largely equates to urban regeneration and increased population density. This make do and mend approach needs binning. Misplaced concern for the environment above our need has lead to a chronic shortage of available and decent land for housing and the subsequent, and likely, unsustainable increase in house prices. New and readily available technologies could do much to alleviate this crisis. Instead we are faced with a more compact and constrained society - evermore regulated, watched, held back and looking to the illusory comforts of the past rather than confidently going forwards. Yet close to 90% of this green and pleasant land (most of it man made) is undeveloped, ie. non-urban. There is no shortage of space - just a lack of political will.
Similar anti-human sentiment holds back much that is progressive, be it GMO food technology, medical experimentation or dams in developing countries. we live longer and healthier than ever before precisely because of our control over nature. That some people would not only hold up progress but question the achievements made thus far betrays a lack of confidence in ourselves. Nature is both creative and destructive, but it is no coherent or stable force. We should have no worries nurturing that that is beneficial to us and progessing.


Work.

The workplace is of major concern to me. Often it is just something we put up with before going home or out to spend our hard earned cash. Job satisfaction goes out of the window as you wait for the next element of control - be it petty disciplinary, misplaced criticism or myopic helth and safety initiative.
The forthcoming bonus review where I work is not likely to be more money, more time to enjoy nor universally applied. This despite a 50% increase in productivity over the past 4 years. So how come more production equals less money? It is often the case that you have to fight to get the job done as organisation is poor. Either that or go through the motions as part of the machinery.
This is not to single out my present empolyer - such a scenario can be pretty much applied to most jobs.
The world of work ought to be an enjoyable, productive and well rewarded experience rather than the source of frustration that it frequently is.
The announced job losses at Bombardier, Sirdar and The Post Office need some serious consideration. If it is the case that the labour market is set to expand and suitable well paid employment is to be had then fair enough. Otherwise not.
Blame for the current state of affairs can largely be attributed to the old Labour party and co. for never holding out for the interests and aspirations of its constituents. The current out of control version does much to hamper with an endless array of target driven initiatives, flip charts and an accompanying army of bureaucrats.
The unions spend far too much time discussing management concerns and keeping their members in the dark, offering little more than excuses or financial or legal services. In their current form they are worse than useless.
We need to build better ones that serve our interests.


Immigrants.

Be they economic migrants, asylum seekers or refugees - these people should be made welcome here. Too often immigrants are made scapegoats for a society ill at ease with itself and not the cause of its problems. From Doctors to construction workers, and many more besides, more immigrants are a requirement and much is to be gained either way from this.
Not much of an outcry is made when UK citizens go to live the ex-pat life in Spain or as health tourists to France or Hungary. To castigate others for wanting to lead a healthier life is hypocritical to say the least. It does none of us any favours to accept that people should live in poor conditions - wherever that may be.


Iraq.

For a good year leading up to the war, and since the occupation, many a poor reason has been given as to why war in the first place. There has been a long history of western involvement overseas - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Somalia and Sierra Leone to name but a few of the most recent. And none of these countries any better for it. Criticism of our Governments involvement is either superficial, one-sided or avoids the issue.
Much of what is happening in Iraq shows just how directionless our leadership is - a poorly considered venture, on suspect grounds and no positive end in sight. That we allow this to continue is shameful.


Faith in Humanity.

According to some we are own worst enemies - selfish, destructive and heading for disaster unless guided by some higher order, be that a god or government. Society, such as it is, does have its fair share of problems although arguably not those often presented. There are some that see teenagers as hooligans, foreigners as grabbing scroungers and a paedophile or mugger lurking around every corner. What are we scared of here? We could be forgiven for thinking that we are on the verge of complete moral collapse, yet vthis is far from the case. Theses are largely overblown fears. An informed discussion would serve us better and not the kneejerk response that is.
Ultimately, the problems we face can all be overcome - by our involvement in the workings of society. Consequently we should have no faith in religion, nor those that would have us be subservient. That denies our personal responsibility.


Community.

It's pretty safe to argue along the lines of the honourable Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher, that there is no such thing as the community or indeed society. Leastwise not one that acts out of common interest and certainly not in an effective manner. We face pretty similar concerns at a basic level yet choose to ignore them and hope the bad stuff 'goes away', or better still never happened in the first place. This is 'not in my backyard', 'not in my name', 'I'm alright, Jack' thinking - a fairy story and we must take the blinkers off.

If we are ever to build a community or greater society then we must stop avoiding the issues and get a grip of events.

Astrays

A selection of items that went astray either because of my own pc ineptitude or just weren't published.


Reply to MP. Mary Creagh, W/Express, June 28th. 2005.

It’s good to see that Wakefield MP, Mary Creagh, is taking an interest in school meals but it must be asked as to what is meant by ‘junkfood’. Is there any significant nutritional difference between say an Allum’s pork pie (1), one of Jamie Oliver’s mate’s organic sausages or the sausage rolls banned at St. John’s school, let alone chips and burgers?
It’s becoming a well used cliché that we are living longer and healthier lives despite our supposedly bad diets and everything else we do.
Intensified agriculture, industrialised food processes and greater transport links have given us a wide variety and abundance of foods. Much more than small scale production, which I hope is not what Ms. Creagh means when she states that under her bill children will be taught how to grow food. It would be good if that meant GMO food technology but in these wary and backward looking times that seems unlikely.
Food quality and availability has increased to the point that we probably don’t need three square meals a day and can actually do quite well on mass produced and relatively inexpensive snack food - as well as the odd square meal. Testament to this is the earlier onset of puberty in kids. It’s just a pity that this earlier physical maturing isn’t matched by social maturity. That is something for adults to deal with.
Thankfully we are not all the same and to some extent have different needs and wants. That kids choose so called junk food over ‘proper’ food isn’t really the problem and is something they will likely grow out of.
Behind this lies New Labour’s agenda to micro manage ever more aspects of our behaviour, lifestyle and choices. This isn’t forwards, it’s back.


(1) see Mary Creagh’s weblog.

*

BBC fox hunting response: Open season on Politicians?

A one time veggy (5yrs of crap food and many a broken tooth - that's lentils for you) and still a nature lover I think some of the respondents are getting their arguments mixed up. Others hit the nail on the head re importance of other issues. In truth the hunting issue is about much more than how it is presented.
It is a classic Labour fudging issue, a delaying tactic. Why rerun this non issue when there is an election next year and UK presidency of the European Union? Blair proposes having a referendum after the election, but what does he stand for now?
It is also a sop to Labour's sentimental middle class support but has 'radical' chic for bashing the rich. Revenge by proxy for the miner's strike? In this though it catches all, convention paves the way for legislation that extends to all our liberty. The state establishes the right to intervene in our lives. Heads are cracked and peoples lives are severely disrupted, and over what?
We afford nature sentiment that it doesn't have - witness leopard seals after fulfilling their immediate needs playing with dead penguins - Oi! no, cut it out!, or a penguin chick finding itself well down the pecking order and the subject of digestion at dinner. These animals have no morals and no manners, perhaps ALF et al could discuss this with the lions - that would make interesting conversation I'm sure. Or even our friend Basil, the cunning fox, a beautiful creature but full of disease, will he thank us? Unless you are a Doolittle he'll be rummaging through your bins or, in the case of where I live - twixt town and country - killing your chickens. Of course he's more likely to be secretly fraternising with his canine cousins and forming a resistance movement. Then we'll really be in trouble - the pavements will run with . . . .
Hunting, shooting 'n' fishing are fine, bull fights aren't particularly my thing but neither was cricket, a cock-fight? - perhaps, but I'm not too sure about badger baiting - maybe Sky could give it an image makeover.
As a means of pest control fox hunting must rank pretty expensively but then it's no more about that than the ban is about it being cruel. The ignorant should take their blinkers off and take a look at what's going on then we might be able to address some real issues for a change.

*

A response to Mick Hume's column in The Times -'Buy a fish and become a potential abuser'.

Recent events have fair made me want to go and join my 'local' hunt - after all, that seems to be where all the action is. And what could be more fun? A license to do what the bally heck one likes, though mayhaps with a certain etiquette. Even better - the assorted toffs and yeomanry - our country cousins - prepared to stand up and say they'd had enough - had enough of playing by the rules, doing the decent thing, following procedure and getting nowhere for it. And this because the Labour party, when not dragging it's feet over something important like Europe flails around for some self fulfilling mission that has us all for fools.
For a start, since when has nature afforded itself the comforts that we would seem to bestow upon it? Never! Nature may have it's beauty but it will always be savage - witness any quality wildlife programme for details. The current state of affairs risks putting all humanity below nature. Nature has definitely not asked to be liberated - it's too busy eating itself. Are we to assume that the feeding frenzy that is nature will adopt civilized rules? We may as well throw those to the lions that think they come up with a convincing enough argument.
New Labour - take 'em with a pinch of salt.

*

To the Wakefield Express.

Your Express comment of last week - 'Build on brown sites, not green' raised some interesting points. However, I contest developing brownfield sites for housing. They would be much better put to use as parks and recreational areas and we should turn our attention to some fresh material - the countryside.
It is a myth that we are overcrowded and destroying the 'natural' environment. UK agriculture is productive enough to free up vast areas of land so that we could spread out, live in the countryside and with plenty of room too. This would not see everywhere covered in concrete - far from it. Some 75% would remain 'untouched' even at the highest build rates.
Current policy is to cram more people (taxpayers/consumers) into higher density urban housing, limit car use and impose a set of rules and regulations as to how we should be living our lives. The housing market is inflated by low interest rates, high demand and limited supply - coupled with the backward nature of the construction industry and stifling officialdom, development falters.
That this is happening at a time when we have never had it so good and is based on some romanticised, pastoral idyll more reflects todays pessimistic outlook than anything else. Do we really have such a low opinion of ourselves that we believe we are out to spoil the world we live in

The end of the world is nigh?

Our hedonistic plunge into all things Sodom and Gomorrah is apparently upsetting more than your average priest/mullah/rabbi (delete where applicable (Spoilt for choice really). Doom laden predictions of the future come from all quarters. Not so subtle Tv programmes, books magazines and articles abound on 'healthy living' and how cool it would be to 'save' the planet.
For those spared a creationist or unchanging view of the world it ought to come as no surprise that it is in plain organic fact constantly changing (1). From Tsunamis, volcanoes, 'freak' weather and everything inbetween the earth gets a battering and is constantly on the move. Mother nature is somewhat schizophrenic and we should get used to it.

It's not all bad. There are two good things to come out of the doom laden whingeing of eco warriors. One being an acceptance that the earth is changing, at whatever pace, and therefore we really shouldn't view our lives as static, although significant changes are unlikely to occur over an individual's lifetime (unless with human agency). And, two, the paucity of ideas from the let's panic brigade - limited at best and nigh on fatalistic otherwise. Definitely not an aspirational vision.

What if the climate heats up and the seas rise? (I think that's still the latest prediction.) Do we suddenly forget how to cope with living under different conditions? After all, human beings survive in more habitats than any other species being able to adapt the environment to suit. Isn't it also the case that a warmer or more varied climate encourages and supports more species? (2)

What if . . we didn't bury our heads in the sand and made a pre-emptive strike (albeit by a few millenia)? The oceans are vastly unexplored for starters and developing craft and structures for their study may shed great light for our future descendents should their world shrink but also be of benefit should we take the leap into space. There are possibilities for living by, in or underwater (3).

What of vast civil engineering works? - irrigating wilderness, carving vast inlets into continents, desalination plants? (4) Surely that would leave the world in a better state for future generations. Although I'm not so sure that is what our noble leaders mean when they use such phrases.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,782628,00.html
http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/IPN_impacts_report_embargoed.pdf
(1)http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm
http://images.google.com/images?q=rising+sea+levels&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/4176182.stm
(3)http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf030915.htm
http://www.poseidonresorts.com/virtualtour.html
(4)http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/
http://www.hitachizosen.co.jp/english/solution/en_solu5-e.html