The centre of town is a dead shopping mall, and you have to drive everywhere because its largely unwalkable.
That being said, I’m all aboard for building new towns, houses.
Yeah, it was very much built in the car-is-king era, which has left its scars. I’ve never lived there but I visit fairly regularly. It’s not perfect but it’s got a lot going for it. Cycle provision seems to be getting a lot better, for one thing!
Agree. All low cost parking zones now marked as premium, just to make sure that there’s no sign of life.
RIP physical shops.
I don’t understand why LAs don’t understand that you pay for the parking space by having a thriving town centre. Making wandering around the shops an expensive expedition means people only come when they have a specific reason to.
Low footfall kills shops, and kills towns, so don’t make parking a money making scheme. Size it appropriately for the town, make it free, and maintain it. That’s it.
Upvoted to the heavens. Well, one anyways.
Cf. Governments for the last twenty plus years failing to understand that taxation receipts are not inelastic wrt to tax levels (excuse triple negative). “Increasing taxation far beyond the average individual’s ability to sustain is never going to affect receipts.”.
Never occurs to them that maybe why Gen Z sees no interest in working. Not sure I don’t agree.
Is that not one lesson learned in the 80s when Mrs T/Lawson(?) slashed tax rates (from 97% income tax) and doubled tax receipts.
The parking in Chorley town centre is well priced and it’s always got a healthy amount of people shopping there. It’s something like £1 for up to 2 hours in the town centre, and pretty much a similar price in the longer stay car parks.
w.r.t building new towns, I once spent an embarrassingly long time looking at this map and wondering why no town exists between the vast gap between Preston and Newcastle.
Then I realised that’s the Yorkshire Dales. There’s a whole damn forest with mountains there.
Build houses on the mountain peaks and treehouses in the forests, all linked together with a series of zip wires. I see no downsides to my plan.
I mean you joke, but the entire south of Germany is a bunch of (quote unquote) “towns” tenuously linked together through the mountaineous black forest, with broken train lines and excellent roads. They make it work by convincing themselves that a weekend cycle up a mountain with bouts of skiing in winter is what every person should do. And I agree.
If this isn’t the next Far Cry game, then Ubisoft deserves to go bankrupt.
w.r.t?
it’s a abbreviation of “Worcester”, e.g. w.r.t to sauce
Thats an unusual definition. WRT has long meant “with regards to” or “with respect to”
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/wrt_prep?tl=true
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/WRT
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/with_regard_to
https://english-grammar-lessons.com/wrt-meaning/
I can’t quickly find an authoritative source other than OED which is paywalled. But in short it’s an abbreviation that dates back to the 50s
That clears things up, cheers!
Although the government is using the phrase “new towns”, most of them likely won’t be: they’ll instead be extensions of existing settlements, not so much new towns as new suburbs.
Ah, so we won’t be building more actually livable spaces, just tacking on house building to already stressed developments. Gotcha.
I’m all for more home building, but this isn’t the answer, at least not without sensible planning (which doesn’t exist because “it takes too long”).
What would actually make sense would be to build actual new towns which can be done, and done well, but it’s obviously a bigger commitment. It seems like they’re taking the wrong lessons from Milton Keynes. As much as it pains me to admit, Price Charles’ new town is a great example of what can be done if the will is there to do it.
deleted by creator
