Further to this post on population increase, it’s useful to remember that despite the undoubted pressures population growth causes for public services and other facilities, it is not accurate to suggest that Britain “is full”. In fact there’s ample room for more people as even a cursory comparison of urban population density demonstrates. Chart?
Would it be disastrous if English (and Scottish!) cities were as densely populated as Boston or Chicago (12.75)? I suggest it would not. Indeed there’d be advantages to this. But that means reappraising planning and zoning regulations and permitting developers to build up as well as out. Otherwise there’s little alternative to suburban sprawl. Now sprawl is not universally a bad thing but it comes with trade-offs of its own. Not everyone will want to live in crowded cities but since it’s cities that drive ecoomic growth, increased population density in our major urban areas is not, per se, a dreadful thing either.
It’s true that the figures look a little different when one considers urban areas as a whole and not just the population living within city limits. Nevertheless and imperfect as Eurostat may be the population density of selected Larger Urban Zones within the EU look like this:
So, yes, current population density in major English urban areas is broadly comparable with, but often less than, that experienced in other parts of europe. That doesn’t mean there’s no “room” for growth; merely that some of that growth should be “up” not “out”.
Again, the questions those most concerned by population increase never answer are: What’s the “ideal” population level? How will you achieve your goal? What if “cutting off” immigration is not enough to get you to your ideal number? What will you do then?
Comments