Size of London with No Green Belt (Since the 1940s)

[British Republic]

As you may or may not know, since the 1940s there has been a Green Belt placed around the London Urban Area and thus the size of it has more or less remained the same since then despite a rising population and thus an increased housing demand. Now in OTL this issue of housing has been addressed either with the New Towns programme to take on the overspill from London (With Mixed Results), High-Rise Housing (Which was largely unsuccessful to put it generously) or these days with a lack of houses overall being built in the London Metropolitan Region.

What if though the Green Belt was put into law and British Governments from the 1940s to this day (ITTL) had no objection to the expansion of the London Urban Area to deal with the post-war housing shortage and rather actually support its expansion with new suburbs (basically taking the place of the New Towns programme) to deal with the shortage to this day?

How would it affect the size of the London Urban Area to the present day? Of course it would expand from OTL, but I am unsure how much bigger it would be exactly so may I ask you all how under such circumstances how much bigger would the London Urban Area be than in OTL.

For the record I would guess (based on the need for housing in the region since WW2 to the present day) it would meant it would be extended as far as Southend on Sea-Chelmsford-Bishops Stortford-Stevenage-Luton-Tring-High Wycombe-Henley on Thames-Reading-Fleet-Farnham-Milford-Horsham-Crawley-East Grinstead-Royal Tunbridge Wells-Maidstone-Medway*, not sure how accurate it would be though (under these circumstances)...

Likewise I would also like to ask how it would affect local government reforms that would be coming up after WW2 (especially in the 60s and 70s) in the South East that reflects the London Urban Area** ITTL?
I mean with my own prediction over the size of the London Urban Area would that it would cover not only the entire Counties of London, Middlesex and Surrey. But also nearly all of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire as well as large sections of Essex, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, West Sussex and Kent plus the North-East Corner of Hampshire (Using Pre-1965 Local Government Boundaries).

*Chatham/Rochester/Gillingham in Kent

**In OTL, the Country of Greater London was established in 1965 that ended up covering nearly all (but not completely) of the London Urban Area.

**This involved absorbing the Counties of London (Formed in 1889 although it originated as the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1855, both bodies more or less covered what is now own as Inner London) and Middlesex (Minus a few areas such as Potters Bar and Staines which went either to Surrey or Hertfordshire) as well as large sections of Essex (East Ham, West Ham, Barking, Chingford, Dagenham, Hornchurch, Ilford, Leyton, Romford, Walthamstow and Woodford etc.), Surrey (Croydon, Sutton, Kingston, Wimbledon, Richmond, Surbiton, Merton etc.) and Kent (Beckenham, Bexley, Bromley, Orpington etc.) while Barnet was transferred from Hertfordshire.

 

[IanBertram]

...the entire Counties of London, Middlesex and Surrey. But also nearly all of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire as well as large sections of Essex, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, West Sussex and Kent plus the North-East Corner of Hampshire (Using Pre-1965 Local Government Boundaries).

Pretty much this and more I think. Parts of Oxfordshire, perhaps even into Wiltshire. Would the towns in the commuter belt, like Reading, Brighton etc also grow?

Without the sort of planning system that created the Green Belt, would there have been any central government support for commuter rail infrastructure?

 

[Simon]

In OTL, the Country of Greater London was established in 1965 that ended up covering nearly all (but not completely) of the London Urban Area.

Freudian slip?

 

[Devvy]

For the record I would guess (based on the need for housing in the region since WW2 to the present day) it would meant it would be extended as far as Southend on Sea-Chelmsford-Bishops Stortford-Stevenage-Luton-Tring-High Wycombe-Henley on Thames-Reading-Fleet-Farnham-Milford-Horsham-Crawley-East Grinstead-Royal Tunbridge Wells-Maidstone-Medway*, not sure how accurate it would be though (under these circumstances)...

I think this is somewhat over the top; I can't see London growing to this size. The OTL current radius of the London built up area is around 16 miles (as measured from Trafalgar Square); this means that the rough area is around 804 sq miles. Official figures put it the built up area (ie. not including parks etc) at 671 sq miles, so we are just over 100 miles over (16% smaller).

You are suggesting a London urban area out to around 30 miles radius; around double. This equates to around 2,827 sq miles, or about 2,431 sq miles, if we take off 16% again for parks and the like - almost four times the size of London OTL. That's an absolutely enormous area.

Results; well population density is slashed; London public transport outside of zone 1/2 takes a nose dive as people are far more spread out. I can't really see much different in terms of local government; I can't see why the same London County Council, then GLC, won't come into being as London slowly grows, before being ditched for the unitary authorities. And then a regional London authority again. Probably more bickering over airports, as more people live in their comfortable suburbanesque house around London, and nobody wants planes over their head all the time.

For the original PoD, I'm pretty sure I remember the green belt being a manifesto item during the elections; I can't see it actually never being passed. Maybe a bit later, which causes the green belt to be another 5 miles out or something, but not never. England has been protecting parks and countryside even before WWII, and the "Green green England" has that expectation.

What might be possible however, is something along the lines of a "fingered plan", similar to Copenhagen has. A green belt, but with development allowed along certain radial lines conforming to rail & motorway routes. M3, M4, M1, A1(M), M11, A12 and A2 corridors are all possible I guess.

 

[b0ned0me]

Results; well population density is slashed; London public transport outside of zone 1/2 takes a nose dive as people are far more spread out.

But that is assuming constant population. The biggest constraint on people moving to or remaining in london is the cost and quality of housing. More land, cheaper and better housing, more people will move to London looking for a job, more Londoners will stay rather than heading out looking for living room.

More people in London, more economic activity, more jobs created in or relocated to london, yet more people are attracted to london until it eventually succumbs to gridlock.

London is already in some ways the cancer that ate the British economy - make it even bigger and other British cities will really feel the pain. Although its worth noting that grottier parts of london will feel it too. If there is cheap housing available in more salubrious places, who is going move into Hackney or wherever and start gentrifying?

 

[British Republic]

Pretty much this and more I think. Parts of Oxfordshire, perhaps even into Wiltshire.

Well I have just realised that since it would extend as far as Henley, it would extend into at least part of Oxfordshire. For it to extend as far as Swindon and Oxford itself, it depend on various economic and population factors and what kind of suburbs are built.

Would the towns in the commuter belt, like Reading, Brighton etc also grow?

I would imagine so, I listed Reading as part of the ITTL London Urban Area (or so I think in this situation) and thanks to its good transport links I would imagine Brighton would also be bigger than ITTL as well.

Without the sort of planning system that created the Green Belt, would there have been any central government support for commuter rail infrastructure?

If a Government decided to build "Garden Suburbs" instead of New Towns and High Rises to deal with the housing shortage in major cities, transport links would have to be provided. This would either have to be rail based or based around the car, so it would depend on what are the preferences of the Governments at the time.

I would add that by the last years of BR, The London Rail Networks (NSE) where I think profitable in their own right (correct me if I am wrong) and if building more Motorway Capacity becomes politically unviable, then the railways would have to take the strain.

Freudian slip?

Well if you want evidence to show that the London Urban Area does extend outside the GLA area (not by a huge amount to be fair, but it still does). One might say its thanks to some Local Councils in Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire opting out of the "Greater London" proposal. But that is currently the case.

 

[Devvy]

But that is assuming constant population. The biggest constraint on people moving to or remaining in london is the cost and quality of housing. More land, cheaper and better housing, more people will move to London looking for a job, more Londoners will stay rather than heading out looking for living room.

I'd argue that unless you are also triple/quadrupling the population, which would make it on par with the most populous cities in the world, then the larger area would still mean a net reduction in population density which would make public transport less viable.

More people in London, more economic activity, more jobs created in or relocated to london, yet more people are attracted to london until it eventually succumbs to gridlock.

London is already in some ways the cancer that ate the British economy - make it even bigger and other British cities will really feel the pain. Although its worth noting that grottier parts of london will feel it too. If there is cheap housing available in more salubrious places, who is going move into Hackney or wherever and start gentrifying?

Completely agree with these parts though!

EDIT:

I would add that by the last years of BR, The London Rail Networks (NSE) where I think profitable in their own right (correct me if I am wrong) and if building more Motorway Capacity becomes politically unviable, then the railways would have to take the strain. .

Actually not, NSE was just short of covering it's expenses by 1993. If NSE had had a few more years, then it would probably have become viable/profitable. Maybe 1995 given the economic upswing, definitely by 2000.

 

[British Republic]

I think this is somewhat over the top; I can't see London growing to this size. The OTL current radius of the London built up area is around 16 miles (as measured from Trafalgar Square); this means that the rough area is around 804 sq miles. Official figures put it the built up area (ie. not including parks etc) at 671 sq miles, so we are just over 100 miles over (16% smaller).

You are suggesting a London urban area out to around 30 miles radius; around double. This equates to around 2,827 sq miles, or about 2,431 sq miles, if we take off 16% again for parks and the like - almost four times the size of London OTL. That's an absolutely enormous area.

Results; well population density is slashed; London public transport outside of zone 1/2 takes a nose dive as people are far more spread out.

Are you sure your figures for my suggested ITTL London Urban Area are correct, you mentioned 2 figured in Sq Miles?

Anyway, you have to take account that since "Garden Suburbs" would be built rather than New Towns and High Rises to replace/expand housing stock post-war.

Thus meaning that the London overspill will not be transferred to places such as Milton Keynes as well as fewer people commuting beyond the Green Belt area and in turn meaning that there would be more people in London who would be needing a place to live in the London Urban Area. Thus meaning the London Urban Area would need to be larger anyway.

Under these circumstances how much bigger would the London Urban Area be then?

I can't really see much different in terms of local government; I can't see why the same London County Council, then GLC, won't come into being as London slowly grows, before being ditched for the unitary authorities. And then a regional London authority again.

I was more thinking about how a ITTL GLC/GLA would turn out in terms of area and powers under these circumstances. Likewise the reason why the GLC met its demise was mainly due to political reasons, if more suburban areas join Greater London* then perhaps the Tories would have less reason to call for its scrapping since they would have more political strength in the London Urban Area.

Likewise such a change in planning policy (which would affect economic and housing policy) might even butterfly a Thatcher Government.

*As you may or may not know, one of the reasons the GLC came about was to increase the chances of the Conservatives of gaining power in London Local Government, thanks to some councils refusing to take part it did not really succeed

Probably more bickering over airports, as more people live in their comfortable suburbanesque house around London, and nobody wants planes over their head all the time.

Well if one looks at my own predictions on the size of the ITTL London Urban Area, it would mean that Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted would be almost completely surrounded by urban area.

Thus (Luton and Stansted only came about in the last 40 years) there is a chance that Heathrow and Gatwick might end up closing and thus there would need to be a need for new airport to be built in their place.

For the original PoD, I'm pretty sure I remember the green belt being a manifesto item during the elections; I can't see it actually never being passed. Maybe a bit later, which causes the green belt to be another 5 miles out or something, but not never. England has been protecting parks and countryside even before WWII, and the "Green green England" has that expectation.

What might be possible however, is something along the lines of a "fingered plan", similar to Copenhagen has. A green belt, but with development allowed along certain radial lines conforming to rail & motorway routes. M3, M4, M1, A1(M), M11, A12 and A2 corridors are all possible I guess.

Did the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties all state in their Manifestos (in 1945) that they where in favour of a Green Belt?

Anyway (and I admit here to my bias on the subject) I hold the view that you don't need a Green Belt to protect National Parks, Forests and other Areas of Natural Beauty in the first place, they can be protected though other means or are protected because of their status.

Rather what a Green Belt does is protect fields which would otherwise not be protected from development anyway and besides, from WW2 to the Thatcher era green fields such as these where developed anyway, it merely took place elsewhere rather than out of the London Urban Area directly.

 

[British Republic]

Actually not, NSE was just short of covering it's expenses by 1993. If NSE had had a few more years, then it would probably have become viable/profitable. Maybe 1995 given the economic upswing, definitely by 2000.

Ah I see, well I did read that NSE (Along with Intercity and I think Freight) where some of the more profitable sectors in BR in the 80s and 90s in comparison to Regional Railways. Agreed that it would certainly be profitable now and speaking of which the demise of NSE was one of the biggest of many mistakes caused by the demise of BR.

 

[British Republic]

I'd argue that unless you are also triple/quadrupling the population, which would make it on par with the most populous cities in the world, then the larger area would still mean a net reduction in population density which would make public transport less viable.

Many millions live in the Home Counties though (at least 6 million if one looks at the overall T2W Area and Urban Area), many of which would have otherwise lived in the London Urban Area had it been allowed to expand. Likewise you also need to take account of few if any High Rises being built and no New Towns being established to deal with the London overspill, that should add some more as well.

But that is assuming constant population. The biggest constraint on people moving to or remaining in london is the cost and quality of housing. More land, cheaper and better housing, more people will move to London looking for a job, more Londoners will stay rather than heading out looking for living room.

More people in London, more economic activity, more jobs created in or relocated to london, yet more people are attracted to london until it eventually succumbs to gridlock.

London is already in some ways the cancer that ate the British economy - make it even bigger and other British cities will really feel the pain. Although its worth noting that grottier parts of london will feel it too. If there is cheap housing available in more salubrious places, who is going move into Hackney or wherever and start gentrifying?

So you are saying that if the London Urban Area was allowed to expand to met demand, it might encourage more people to move to London compared to ITTL? Thus meaning more people live in London and the Home Counties?

Agreed that London would be even more dominant within the UK and I do wonder how the rest of the UK would take it ITTL? Perhaps more calls for devolution or even independence?

As for areas such as Hackney, well one must consider that there are Single & Young People who would find life more interesting in the Centre than in lets say Harrow who might prefer to live there after they leave school, then there are also factors such as the increased demand for housing compared to ITTL (as you seem to be suggesting) or even the expansion of the CBD into areas such as Hackney (and in the case of OTL, the Isle of Dogs), especially if London does better than OTL.

 

[b0ned0me]

I'd argue that unless you are also triple/quadrupling the population, which would make it on par with the most populous cities in the world, then the larger area would still mean a net reduction in population density which would make public transport less viable

Reduction in population density doesn't necessarily mean "slashed" though. Especially in the context of public transport. Say you end up with double the population over four times the area, that's probably still enough to make a mess of car traffic, and since most of the railway/tube lines used today were probably laid out before 1930, they will still be there, but with many more potential passengers.

As for areas such as Hackney, well one must consider that there are Single & Young People who would find life more interesting in the Centre than in lets say Harrow who might prefer to live there after they leave school, then there are also factors such as the increased demand for housing compared to ITTL (as you seem to be suggesting) or even the expansion of the CBD into areas such as Hackney (and in the case of OTL, the Isle of Dogs), especially if London does better than OTL.

Yes, but today if you want to live in central london most young &singles need to either live in a seriously crappy area, or be very well off. If there is more housing and lower prices generally, they can probably afford somewhere central that doesn't feature pavements covered in chicken bones, crack pipes and police 'did you witness' signs.
Generally, I think what you are proposing will result in greater supply of housing, which will drop prices and increase demand but I find it hard to imagine the increased demand will push the price level back up to where we are today (ie, insane levels).

 

[Devvy]

Are you sure your figures for my suggested ITTL London Urban Area are correct, you mentioned 2 figured in Sq Miles?

Anyway, you have to take account that since "Garden Suburbs" would be built rather than New Towns and High Rises to replace/expand housing stock post-war.

Thus meaning that the London overspill will not be transferred to places such as Milton Keynes as well as fewer people commuting beyond the Green Belt area and in turn meaning that there would be more people in London who would be needing a place to live in the London Urban Area. Thus meaning the London Urban Area would need to be larger anyway.

Under these circumstances how much bigger would the London Urban Area be then?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I was comparing the areas of your "Southend on Sea-Chelmsford-Bishops Stortford-Stevenage-Luton-Tring-High Wycombe-Henley on Thames-Reading-Fleet-Farnham-Milford-Horsham-Crawley-East Grinstead-Royal Tunbridge Wells-Maidstone-Medway" borders, compared to OTL London built up area.

OTL borders (around 15 mile radius from Traf Square)
My estimated total area (pi-r-squared, using a radius of 15): 804 sq miles
Built up area: 671 sq miles (671 is 83% of 804).

Your proposed borders (around 30 mile radius from Traf Square based upon the towns you mentioned above)
My estimated total area (pi-r-squared), using a radius of 30: 2827 sq miles
Calculation of total built up area (83% of above figure): 2346 sq miles

Hence my assertion that your proposed borders would result in nearly four times the built up area.

Well if one looks at my own predictions on the size of the ITTL London Urban Area, it would mean that Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted would be almost completely surrounded by urban area.

Thus (Luton and Stansted only came about in the last 40 years) there is a chance that Heathrow and Gatwick might end up closing and thus there would need to be a need for new airport to be built in their place.

Heathrow was only seriously developed as a primary air terminal in the early 1950s; there were other airfields well outside London which were considered (Blackbushe near Camberley was one serious proposition).

Did the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties all state in their Manifestos (in 1945) that they where in favour of a Green Belt?

The London Green Belt was apparently proposed pre-WW2, and partly enacted in the London & Home Counties Act 1938 (which allowed councils to purchase land with the intention of maintaining the countryside as a green belt). It was then finally enacted in the form we recognise in 1947 and 1955.

Ah I see, well I did read that NSE (Along with Intercity and I think Freight) where some of the more profitable sectors in BR in the 80s and 90s in comparison to Regional Railways. Agreed that it would certainly be profitable now and speaking of which the demise of NSE was one of the biggest of many mistakes caused by the demise of BR.

You're unfortunately confusing revenue and profit. Intercity was definitely the biggest earner, and was profitable as a business unit in it's final years. It was by far the biggest earner in terms of revenue to British Rail, followed by NSE - for which Regional Railways lagged far behind. Anyway, we digress.

 

[Simon]

Well if you want evidence to show that the London Urban Area does extend outside the GLA area (not by a huge amount to be fair, but it still does). One might say its thanks to some Local Councils in Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire opting out of the "Greater London" proposal. But that is currently the case.

I was making a joke about how you wrote 'In OTL, the Country of Greater London was established in 1965...' rather than County, which given some of your past pronouncements on London wasn't wholly out of character.

London is already in some ways the cancer that ate the British economy - make it even bigger and other British cities will really feel the pain.

Yeah, it's size and dominance of the political, financial and media fields has been pretty distorting. I've wondered in the past about how the UK might have looked had it followed closer to Zipf's law i.e. that roughly the second largest city in a country is half the size of the largest, the third largest is half the size of the second largest etc. So Greater London would have a population of roughly 8 million people, Birmingham and West Midlands area 4 million residents, Greater Manchester 2.5 million people, West Yorkshire region 1.6 million folks and so on. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or time to research something as large as that, but I digress.

 

[British Republic]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I was comparing the areas of your "Southend on Sea-Chelmsford-Bishops Stortford-Stevenage-Luton-Tring-High Wycombe-Henley on Thames-Reading-Fleet-Farnham-Milford-Horsham-Crawley-East Grinstead-Royal Tunbridge Wells-Maidstone-Medway" borders, compared to OTL London built up area.

OTL borders (around 15 mile radius from Traf Square)
My estimated total area (pi-r-squared, using a radius of 15): 804 sq miles
Built up area: 671 sq miles (671 is 83% of 804).

Your proposed borders (around 30 mile radius from Traf Square based upon the towns you mentioned above)
My estimated total area (pi-r-squared), using a radius of 30: 2827 sq miles
Calculation of total built up area (83% of above figure): 2346 sq miles

Hence my assertion that your proposed borders would result in nearly four times the built up area.

I made the comments after you said this:

This equates to around 2,827 sq miles, or about 2,431 sq miles, if we take off 16% again for parks and the like - almost four times the size of London OTL. That's an absolutely enormous area.

I was unsure which of those figures you where talking about since they are both in sq miles. Likewise I take your word on this matter since I came up with similar figures when tried to work out a "Base" Expansion of the GLA with a Green Belt elsewhere...

Heathrow was only seriously developed as a primary air terminal in the early 1950s; there were other airfields well outside London which were considered (Blackbushe near Camberley was one serious proposition).

Did not know that Blackbushe was considered to be London's Main Airport, likewise when it comes to my predicted ITTL London Urban Area. Funny enough it would be located at the edge of such an Urban Area (So it would be in a similar situation to Heathrow) if it where to be built.

Likewise if it did happen ITTL, it would mean the M3 (For the record, according to Google Maps its 75-90 minutes from Central London by Car) would likely have been built earlier than OTL at least up to the Airport while the SWML would have to be upgraded and include a branch to the airport. Likewise the furthest Orbital Motorway (Since it would to have to go around the ITTL London Urban Area) would also pass though the area.

The London Green Belt was apparently proposed pre-WW2, and partly enacted in the London & Home Counties Act 1938 (which allowed councils to purchase land with the intention of maintaining the countryside as a green belt). It was then finally enacted in the form we recognise in 1947 and 1955.

I thought it was enacted under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act and proposed by various people including Patrick Abercrombie (in 1944) and Herbert Morrison in the 30s. Anyway thanks to WW2 since there were no elections between 1935 and 1945 are you suggesting to me that the political parties of the day simply pushed this though without a mandate (Unless it was suggested in 1935)?

You're unfortunately confusing revenue and profit.

I don't think I was (Definitely something about gaining a surplus), rather I might have misheard or misread.

Intercity was definitely the biggest earner, and was profitable as a business unit in it's years. It was by far the biggest earner in terms of revenue to British Rail, followed by NSE - for which Regional Railways lagged far behind. Anyway, we digress.

Anyway thanks for telling me this information! After all it is coming from one of the better experts on the Railways on this Forum (I am a fan of your transport threads as well).

 

[British Republic]

I was making a joke about how you wrote 'In OTL, the Country of Greater London was established in 1965...' rather than County, which given some of your past pronouncements on London wasn't wholly out of character.

Oh I see, well I can tell you it was definitely a typo error from my perspective. Likewise if it where to have elevated into a Home Nation in its own right, I think "Province" would be the correct term.

Yeah, it's size and dominance of the political, financial and media fields has been pretty distorting. I've wondered in the past about how the UK might have looked had it followed closer to Zipf's law i.e. that roughly the second largest city in a country is half the size of the largest, the third largest is half the size of the second largest etc. So Greater London would have a population of roughly 8 million people, Birmingham and West Midlands area 4 million residents, Greater Manchester 2.5 million people, West Yorkshire region 1.6 million folks and so on. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or time to research something as large as that, but I digress.

For Birmingham, along with a "No Green Belt" POD perhaps another one could be in relation to Government Policy on the West Midlands Region, which in my view did a very bad job for the metropolitan area as a whole (While I don't have much in common with this magazine, this I do indeed agree on):

Birmingham: How to kill a city

THIS blog often makes the argument that Britain's planning laws all too often restrict and prevent investment which might create economic growth. It is worth remembering occasionally that things were once much worse. For proof of that, see this fascinating post on Birmingham's economy in the 1950s and 1960s, by Henry Overman, of the LSE's Spatial Economics Research Centre. It's worth reading the whole thing, but a cut down version of the post is copied below:

Birmingham itself was second only to London for the creation of new jobs between 1951 and 1961. Unemployment in Birmingham between 1948 and 1966 rarely exceeded 1%, and only exceeded 2% in one year. By 1961 household incomes in the West Midlands were 13% above the national average, exceeding even than those of London and the South East.
Declaring the growth in population and employment within Birmingham to be a "threatening situation", the incoming Labour Government of 1964 sought "to control the growth of office accommodation in Birmingham and the rest of the Birmingham conurbation before it got out of hand, in the same way as they control the growth of industrial employment". Although the City Council had encouraged service sector expansion during the late 1950s and early 1960s, central government extended the Control of Office Employment Act 1965 to the Birmingham conurbation from 1965, effectively banning all further office development for almost two decades.

Up until the 1930s it had been a basic assumption of Birmingham's leaders that their role was to encourage the city's growth. Post-war national governments, however, saw Birmingham's accelerating economic success as a damaging influence on the stagnating economies of the North of England, Scotland and Wales, and saw its physical expansion as a threat to its surrounding areas – "from Westminster's point of view was too large, too prosperous, and had to be held in check".
A series of measures, starting with the Distribution of Industry Act 1945, aimed to prevent industrial growth in the "Congested Areas" – essentially the booming cities of London and Birmingham – instead encouraging the dispersal of industry to the economically stagnant "Development Areas" in the north and west. The West Midlands Plan, commissioned by the Minister for Town and Country Planning from Patrick Abercrombie and Herbert Jackson in 1946, set Birmingham a target population for 1960 of 990,000, far less than its actual 1951 population of 1,113,000.

This meant that 220,000 people would have to leave the city over the following 14 years, that some of the city's industries would have to be removed, and that new industries would need to be prevented from establishing themselves in the city. By 1957 the council had explicitly accepted that it was obliged "to restrain the growth of population and employment potential within the city."

​

In the post-war era, there was a strong sense among British politicians that cities were slightly unpleasant things like mushrooms that ought not be allowed to grow too fast. Inspired by utopian city planners such as Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier, they decided that urban metropolises had to be cut back. Without much consultation, enormous numbers of people were "decanted" from inner-city slums to grey suburban council estates, where loneliness and crime thrived. Meanwhile, the city centres themselves were strangled with great elevated roads intended to get people in and out of the "commercial" zones. Birmingham probably suffered the worst of anywhere. Even Joseph Chamberlain's grand Council House was surrounded by roads.

The result was the doughnut city: a tiny commercial core, cut off from the rest of the city by ringroads and by a vast belt of derelict Victorian properties. In repopulated London, I have never felt unsafe walking home late at night. Even today, Birmingham's inner city has quite a different, emptier feel. Perhaps most outrageously, the restrictions on development didn't even save the city's architecture. The beautiful Victorian New Street Station was knocked down and replaced with a grim, urine-soaked box; the Edwardian shopfronts on New Street were replaced with plastic and concrete. Over time, that helped to turn Birmingham from the country's most successful big cities into one of its least.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/05/birmingham

 

[Devvy]

I thought it was enacted under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act and proposed by various people including Patrick Abercrombie (in 1944) and Herbert Morrison in the 30s. Anyway thanks to WW2 since there were no elections between 1935 and 1945 are you suggesting to me that the political parties of the day simply pushed this though without a mandate (Unless it was suggested in 1935)?

The 1938 Act didn't create a formal Green Belt; but it allowed local councils to purchase land and set it aside as protected land, which de facto created the same thing as a green belt (and apparently local councils did purchase significant amounts of land, although I can't find exact figures). That was then expanded into a formal green belt in 1947.

Anyway thanks for telling me this information! After all it is coming from one of the better experts on the Railways on this Forum (I am a fan of your transport threads as well).

Haha, thanks!

 

[IanBertram]

The idea was first put forward for London about 1935, but it is inherent in Howard's idea of a network of New Towns, each self contained and separated by farmland and recreation.

I agree that for London a 'green finger' approch like the Copenhagen Plan (also late 1940s I think) would have worked better. The housing that was built would have had better access to transport links and to open areas of countryside. This could also have allowed a 'polycentric' approach to development, with Reading, Oxford, Maidenhead etc all growing in their own right, linked to each other and to London by good transport.

 

[British Republic]

Generally, I think what you are proposing will result in greater supply of housing, which will drop prices and increase demand but I find it hard to imagine the increased demand will push the price level back up to where we are today (ie, insane levels).

Oh I agree that without a Green Belt (hence my support for its scrapping as well as a related expansion of the London Urban Area) prices would be far more sensible that than are now in OTL (And thank god for that). so you are correct on that.

The 1938 Act didn't create a formal Green Belt; but it allowed local councils to purchase land and set it aside as protected land, which de facto created the same thing as a green belt (and apparently local councils did purchase significant amounts of land, although I can't find exact figures). That was then expanded into a formal green belt in 1947.

So basically after Morrison suggested the idea, the Central Government at Westminster decided to allow it to come into law, this what Abercrombie suggested was already in place? I feel that in light of its huge impact on the lives of many Londoners (in relation to housing) there is an issue with democratic legitimacy with the Green Belt since it was never put before the British People in either a election or a separate vote.

Yes, but today if you want to live in central london most young &singles need to either live in a seriously crappy area, or be very well off. If there is more housing and lower prices generally, they can probably afford somewhere central that doesn't feature pavements covered in chicken bones, crack pipes and police 'did you witness' signs.

Well that is one of the advantages of not having the Green Belt, London's Resident's (and Especially its young) would have more choice when it comes to deciding where to live in areas such as Central London. However it would not exactly make places such as Mayfair that cheap to live, rather it would change from becoming "Unaffordable" to merely "Expensive".

Likewise even with the Green Belt, places such as Hackney and my home borough of Newham have remained (until recently and even then in some cases) undesirable places to live.