Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France. 🧵
The UK has very low speed limits — the top one is only around 110kmh, and these are enforced aggressively with radars and cameras to make sure few die on roads. By contrast the top French speed limit is about 82mph, and it is rarely enforced. The priority is on speedy movement.
You actually reach these speeds because motorways are tolled. I spent €60 on tolls today; in exchange I put the cruise control on at 130kph for hours at a time. French attitude to paying for good things is relaxed. In egalitarian UK, the public prefers equal traffic for all.
This extends to infra like tunnels. I went about 10km underneath Paris today, part of the A86 (one of Paris’s three ring roads) — for which I paid €9, reflecting the more ruggedly individualistic, swashbuckling attitude the French have. No traffic. Wish we had same in London!
This is also reflected in attitude to risk vs progress. In the UK we shy away from things considered ‘risky’ like nuclear power, preferring higher electricity prices and lower energy consumption. France is a ‘more more more’ country, willing to take disruptive risks.
The same attitude is clear with growth. The UK has a strong view to protect its countryside and prevent industrial and residential growth. London has grown around 2% in extent since 1938. Paris has tripled. This is visible everywhere.
As an Englishman, I am obviously biased and have a soft spot for our conservatism and social solidarity, but my trip makes me wonder whether we could learn from the French and their individualistic, libertarian national ethos, and by being slightly more relaxed about risk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Cars use a lot of land. Despite this, many cities depend entirely on the car and get by fine. This can all be explained with one 1963 paper by RJ Smeed, the British transport planner who invented 'Smeed's Law'. This paper shocked me and changed my worldview! 🧵
Start by assuming *everyone* commutes to work by car. This is the land-hungriest option possible. Going by rail, because it is faster than walking, uses the least – 1 sqft. Then walking. then a bus. All the way to a car with driver only which needs up to 100 sqft.
Let's assume that everyone works in the city centre, which is a circle, and lives in the suburbs, which are a doughnut around that circle.
Since 1990, France has built more motorway than the entirety we have in the UK. None of this has cost the French government a centime – private companies fronted the capital, and those driving pay for them through tolls. And their top speed limit is 11mph higher!
This relentless drive to build is why France is more productive than the UK per hour, and approximately as rich as the UK, despite regulation, taxes, and unions
Toll roads are not foreign to Britain. In 1600 Britain’s roads had deteriorated so far that they were worse than during the reign of King Alfred. By 1750 we had the finest roads in Europe. All due to tolling.
Before 1940, housing in the UK got cheaper like any other good, as technology made land more productive (steel frames, reinforced concrete, electric lifts), and more interchangeable (buses, trams, cars, roads, railways). That all stopped after the Second World War. 🧵
In 1938, local councils had the power to plan, and the right to refuse any development they liked, just as now. But after the Second World War, two things changed. Both dramatically reduced the incentive for councils to grant permissions. The results are famous.
Before 1938, councils were obliged to pay compensation if they reduced development rights below the national standard of (roughly) development. They could do this in the country, where land was inaccessible and low value, but it was expensive to refuse permission near cities.
In just five years, the UK's Central Electricity Board built the National Grid, with 4,000 miles of cables, and 26,000 pylons. In 1937, a group of impatient, rebellions engineers switched the connections on without permission. The price of electricity collapsed.
By 1932 our government scrapped mortgage regulations and First World War-era rent controls, leading to ourmost dramatic ever housing boom. Growth was so rapid (and America's Great Depression so deep) that for one year, we were the richest country in the world again.
During the same time we built an enormous number of new roads, extended tubes and railways, and more.
The main two ways that cities have expanded in history are speculative outward growth, and steady urban and suburban intensification. But there is a third way: masterplanned new towns. If done well, new towns can be a brilliant way of growing cities. 🧵
Everyone is familiar with speculative developer-led outward growth, of which there are thousands of acres around all major cities, from London’s Victorian and Edwardian railway suburbs to American ‘sprawl’.
Urban and suburban intensification are familiar too, having created the revered apartment blocks of New York’s Upper West Side, the mansion apartments of Chelsea and Marylebone, and these pictured blocks in Vienna.
In the 2000s we discovered an amazing tool to literally bring inventions from the far future forward to the present, or near future. Despite its huge power we have barely used it since. So Works in Progress has produced a practical easy-to-follow guide that anyone could copy. 🧵
In 2007, Gavi, funded by the UK govt and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, promised Big Pharma that if they invented a vaccine for pneuomococcal disease they would buy it. By 2011, GSK and Pfizer had met their specifications. So far this vaccine has saved 700,000 lives.
This mechanism to buy inventions from the future is called an 'advance market commitment'. Basically, you say you'll buy something if companies or scientists can invent it and produce enough for you. It's part of a broad range of 'market-shaping mechanisms'