On the first day of the holidays, a load of people rock up at a camp site, with a rolled up tent for each couple or family in their rucksacks.
Unfortunately it starts pelting with rain after the first tent has been pitched. So they all squeeze into that tent, with their rucksacks and their rolled up tents, and huddle together for the night.
The next morning is fine and sunny, so they all spread out a bit and pitch the rest of their tents.
Does the camp site become more or less crowded on the next day?
Friday, 16 October 2009
Imagine a big camp site ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It's no different
Duh.
No, but it looks different. There's less grass visible. Housing NIMBYism is mainly about looks and views, what the new houses look like and in whose view they lie.
When I saw the headline in my side bar. I immediately thought of this
It may or may not be any different, but isn't the NIMBY's point that in spreading out like this, you open the opportunity for each of those new tents to become crowded with more campers, who then spill out and fill up the space, which leaves room in even more tents for more campers, who then. . .
So it's a case of giving the opportunity for more overcrowding, rather than the single event resulting in immediate overcrowding.
AVI
AVI, that is indeed one of the NIMBYs' points.
But assuming we end mass immigration, what the NIMBYs are really saying is "we want to make it difficult for young people to buy a house and start a family".
The site as a whole is equally vrowded. The average distance between people is, however, much shorter.
When the campers spread out, how much of the previously green field becomes pathways for them to get between their tents? Does this reduce the size of the rounders area?
NC, do you mean before or after?
CFF, there would be more paths, that is true. I'm assuming that there is a dedicated area for rounders before or after. The value of such communal areas (be it a kids' playground, duck pond, football pitch, whatever) increases in direct proportion to how many people can conveniently use it, so there comes a stage where it is worth more as a communal area than it is as a pitch for an additional tent. So campers would happily budge together a bit on the remainder.
OK
1 - The numbers are the same in both scenarios
2 - If the people were initially close together then they were more crowded before they spread out
3 - Metaphorically speaking is it better to have densely populated urban spaces with open countryside or to spread everything out.
4 - But then as the population spreads out new cities grow and you are back to square one......
This is much more than simple economics - space is important for many reasons such as our well-being.
Anon, "space is important for many reasons such as our well-being."
Exactly, that's what I'm talking about - people's well-being. I don't think it does our well-being any good at all to restrict homes and gardens (and residential roads, playgrounds etc) to about five per cent of England by surface area.
Sure there are trade off's, if we spread out evenly with two acres for each family then life would be pretty miserable as well. But cramming everybody into 'rabbit hutches' is awful.
Is it really such a mad idea allowing that five per cent to grow to, say, five-and-a-half per cent? Would that not improve people's well-being?
"But then as the population spreads out new cities grow and you are back to square one......
Well, no, actually. The ideal place for people to 'spread out' is around existing towns and cities, and that is exactly where people would build houses if you let them (or home builders would build). We probably have too many small cities, if you ask me, but each to his own.
NB, for the purposes of this discussion I am assuming stable population and no more mass immigration.
Post a Comment