#a well integrated railway doesn't need to be that different

[myothertardisisonthemun]

15 minute cities aren't bad as a thought bubble, but we've got to remember to design cities for how people actually live, want to live, and that take into account what's actually there. That means we still need a mix of housing styles, where possible.

I've noticed that at the moment, where I live at least, they're pretty good at local detail, but less so at integrating different places.

A little community on a rail line where you've got shops, offices and apartments all next to one another is all well and good, but if that's all you've got near all the stations, then any time someone wants to go out to an entertainment venue, community centre, etc, they've still got to hop in the car, or navigate a much slower bus route.

As an idea, it's incomplete unless combined with bigger picture thinking.

[sbenvs3000w24]

Blog 6

This week we look at the quote from Edward Hyams, "There is no peculiar merit in ancient things, but there is merit in integrity, and integrity entails the keeping together of the parts of any whole, and if these parts are scattered throughout time, then the maintenance of integrity entails a knowledge, a memory, of ancient things. …. To think, feel or act as though the past is done with, is equivalent to believing that a railway station through which our train has just passed, only existed for as long as our train was in it." In simple terms, this quote is saying that being old doesn't automatically make something valuable or special. What really matters is integrity, which means keeping all the important parts of something together. Imagine if these important parts are like puzzle pieces scattered across different times in history. To maintain integrity, we need to know and remember these pieces from the past. At the heart of historical interpretation lies the crucial notion of remembering both the positive and negative aspects of the past. This is essential for extracting valuable lessons and insights, allowing us to learn from our historical experiences (Beck, 2018). Highlighting the importance of both the negative and positive aspects of past events serve as a reservoir of knowledge in order to improve the present and future. 

I think this quote mainly focuses on focusing on the bigger picture. By looking at every aspect of the past, positive and negative, we are able to see a positive impact by learning from past mistakes and see consequences from the past. With regards to nature, I think focusing on the crisis of honeybees is a great example. As a child, I have always been terrified of bees. After the twelfth time of being stung, I stopped keeping track! Although I did not let this fear affect the ‘bigger picture’. In the past ten years, we have seen a decline in the honeybee population. Honeybees are vital to our ecosystem as they play a crucial role in pollinating plants, ensuring the reproduction of numerous crops that contribute to global food production.Pesticides have significantly contributed to the decline of honeybees by posing various threats to their health and overall well-being. Despite my fear for honeybees, I knew that I needed to do something to help. In elementary school, I created a fundraiser with a few of my friends to raise money in order to sell wildflower seeds to plant. I also gave my family members seeds to plant for their own homes. Last year, I took the Honeybee Biology course and my fear for bees basically disappeared, I learned to appreciate all that they do for ecosystems. The quote from Edward Hyams emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and learning from the past. “History serves us in many ways. It can delight and enrich us, inspire and caution us, inform and educate us, help us to make thoughtful decisions, enlarge and intensify the experience of being alive” (Hooykaas, 2024). The Canadian government has banned pesticides that are linked to the decreasing numbers of pollinators, especially honeybees (Canada takes action to save the bees). The Canadian government along with many other countries have learned, after extensive research, that pesticides that may have been praised in the past, have negative impacts on ecosystems, leading to the ban of them. While this example could be considered a small-scale example, it clearly shows how we must learn from past mistakes, in order to better the future. 

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., and Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage: For A Better World. Sagamore Publishing.

Canada takes action to save the bees. Home. https://www.wildernesscommittee.org

Hooykaas, A. (2024). Unit 06: Nature Interpretation through History. [Lecture notes]. ENVS3000 Nature Interpretation. University of Guelph.

I don't know why this picture looks so blurry, but here are some of the wildflowers I planted in my backyard a few years ago!

[inesrseo]

India Multi Modal Logistics Park - ESR India

 The ESR India Multi Modal Logistics Park is a prime location for logistics and transportation companies in India to set up their operations. The park offers a wide range of infrastructure and facilities, making it an ideal location for companies looking to establish a logistics hub. The park also has access to major highways and railways, making it easy for companies to transport goods.

What is the India Multi Modal Logistics Park?

The India Multi Modal Logistics Park is a strategic initiative by the Government of India to develop an integrated logistics system for importing and exporting goods. The project will be implemented in two phases and is expected to be completed in 2020. Phase I of the project will focus on development of infrastructure, including a port, airport, and rail link; while Phase II will focus on developing market-oriented logistics solutions. The park is designed to provide access to multiple modes of transportation for import and export cargo, as well as offer facilities for storage, warehousing, and distribution.

The India Multi Modal Logistics Park is a proposed logistics hub in India that would be located in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The park would be designed to improve the flow of goods across India by increasing the efficiency of transportation modes. The park would include a network of roads, railways, airfields, and ports. It would also include facilities for freight handling, warehousing, and distribution. The goal of the park is to create a platform for businesses in India to connect with suppliers around the world.

Benefits for businesses:

The benefits of establishing a business in India's Multi Modal Logistics Park (MMLP) are numerous. The MMLP provides an ideal environment for businesses to do business with India's growing middle class and burgeoning economy. Additionally, the park offers a wide range of services and amenities that can be beneficial to businesses, including world-class infrastructure, skilled labour force, and competitive terms of trade. 

The MMLP also has the potential to support the growth of Indian companies by providing them with access to global markets. In addition, the park can help businesses reduce costs associated with shipping goods overseas or transporting goods domestically. Finally, the MMLP can provide companies with valuable insights into the Indian market that they may not be able to obtain elsewhere.

Challenges for businesses:

A report on the challenges faced by businesses in India Multi Modal Logistics Park was released recently. The report, which is authored by the Berlin-based think tank, CSCS, has highlighted various challenges that businesses face when operating in the park. These include weak infrastructure and an unreliable transportation system. In addition, there is a lack of skilled workforce, which can be a major constraint for companies looking to set up operations in the park. Another challenge is the high cost of doing business in the park. This is due to both higher labour costs and transportation costs.

There are many challenges that businesses face when trying to do business in India. The country is huge and has a diverse population with different languages and cultures. It also has a lot of infrastructure needs that need to be addressed before businesses can expand. Another challenge is the fact that the country is still developing, which means there are a lot of opportunities but also more risks. Finally, there are regulatory issues that can be difficult to navigate, especially if a business doesn't have experience dealing with them.

Conclusion

The India Multi Modal Logistics Park is a great example of how to bring together the best of both worlds when it comes to logistics. It not only provides a place for businesses and organisations to share resources and collaborate, but it also gives them the opportunity to learn from each other and improve their operations.

[sapphiresonstrings]

I don't answer all your points because you keep bringing in random facts that don't relate in any way to the discussion. Here, I'll go through these ones right now:

1)

...the differing social and political climate of Ulster relative to the rest of Ireland, nor how that impacted the effects of the Famine.

Ulster was also affected by the Famine. The differing social and political climate amounted to a 15% drop in population in Ulster versus a 19% drop in population across Ireland. That's not nothing, but obviously the Famine wasn't caused by any difference between Connaught and Ulster.

Actually, you can't even chalk the whole 4% up to social and political climate. Ulster was much richer than the rest of Ireland in part because Huguenots fleeing persecution in Catholic France settled in Ulster en-masse and turbocharged the local economy, which probably accounts for a big chunk of the difference.

2)

...the economic impacts of foreign landlords draining money out of the Irish economy.

What economic impacts? For that matter, what Irish economy? As I pointed out a while ago, the products of Ireland were often sold in England. The UK, being an island chain, was famously extremely economically integrated. That's why London got so big; it could economically dominate every square inch of the isles from Connaught to Kent to Cornwall to the Firth of Forth. (It's also why the UK's second-biggest city has never been as important to it as the second biggest city in France or Germany; the UK doesn't need regional capitals because you can board a boat anywhere in the UK and get to London in half a day).

Ireland had the same relationship to London as Lancashire had. There was no separate Irish economy. When the Irish left their farms to work in the cities, they went to Liverpool or London as often as Dublin or Belfast.

3)

...how living in Britain affects the availability of information about Britian, compared to how not-living in Ireland affects the availability of information of Ireland, and what impacts this has on governance.

?????? idk what this even means

Anyway, back to my question and your answer:

The plots in England were more expensive for two reasons: one, proximity to trading opportunities; two, investment of the landowners. The land in Ireland was much farther from good trading hubs, and thus intrinsically less profitable.

Interesting idea, but no. Sea travel trumped overland travel by an overwhelming factor (and always has, and still does). As an island, in terms of travel time and cost of transportation, Ireland was pretty much as close to London as you can get. In fact, when I consult my sources, I can't find any relationship between distance to a major port and land rent.

Kent, which is just southeast of London on one side and northwest of the Netherlands on the other, probably the most convenient-to-a-major-port place in England, averaged a rent of £1.12/acre in 1820-24, well below England's average of £1.3/acre. It then proceeded to skyrocket to £1.71 by 1842, after the widespread introduction of railways would make you expect distance to matter less.

Lincoln, which is in the Midlands, a bit inland and much farther away from London than Kent is, averaged £1.62 in 1820-24 and dropped to £1.53 by 1842, again, after railways would have made the distance-to-London thing less important.

Cheshire, which is in the North and on the west coast of Great Britain, meaning to get to London you have to sail all the way around Great Britain, farther than you would if you were starting in the east or south of Ireland, had an average rent of £1.99 in 1820-24, dropping to £1.75 in 1842.

Ireland averaged something like £0.70/acre.

Well, I'll tell you the real answer to my question:

...what is unusual about English agriculture compared to other European economies in 1860 was precisely the very high labor productivity of England. Thus in the mid nineteenth century output per acre in England was similar to output per acre in the Netherlands and Belgium, and only about 20% greater than output per acre in France and Ireland. But output per worker in England was double or more output per worker in all these other countries. In particular output per worker in France is estimated at only 44% of its level in England in 1851.

In England, a very small number of farmers produced massive surpluses of food, which meant landlords could take a much bigger cut in the form of rent. That's why rents were higher in England.

In Ireland, yields were lower per acre and much lower per worker, so the farmers ended up eating more of their harvest. In fact, in the case of many Irish cottiers, they ate all of their harvest and paid rent with pigs, wages from seasonal labour, and labour (conacre).

If you aren't paying rent with your harvest, then adding more acres does not translate into being able to pay more rent.

In order for it to be possible that dividing land into smaller plots leads to higher rent, the rent before division has to be even less. If you seriously think about it, there's no reason why a landlord would make less money renting 1/4 acre plots at £0.70/acre than he would renting full acre plots at £0.70/acre or 5 acre plots at £0.70/acre.

In fact it's worse, because as the landlords knew perfectly well, having lots of financially unstable tenants is awful, all else being equal. It means you're more likely to not get paid at all, because it was customary for tenants to be six months in arrears at all times, which means you lose half a year's rent if you evict someone who has no money to pay his debt. This happened a lot during the famine, and led to the bankruptcies of many landlords in Ireland. It's much better to rent to a large farmer who can consistently pay his rent every six months for fifty years, than it is to rent to twenty cottiers who periodically go bankrupt. Not to mention it's less work to keep track of a hundred tenants than a thousand.

It's only if the rentiers can't afford a full acre at £0.70/acre, but can afford 1/4 acre at that rate, that it makes sense to subdivide into tiny plots. Which is exactly what happened.

That's why landlords in Ireland divided their plots. They were trying to bring Irish rents up to the level of English rents, but Irish agricultural productivity was too low to pay that rent from the harvest alone. That's why the English spent so much time and energy trying to export English agriculture to Ireland (up to and including disposing of the Irish and replacing them with English and Scottish farmers). English farming methods produced more food, so landlords could charge higher rents, and they wanted to be able to charge those rents in Ireland, too. Greed alone explains everything.

@sapphiresonstrings

Please for the love of God read something other than that one Wikipedia article. In Ulster, the English literally tried to get rid of the Irish and replace them with loyal English and Scottish Protestants. That’s why Ulster is full of Protestants. That’s why Northern Ireland is still part of the UK.

So, the one Irish province with the fewest Irish in it, just so happens to be the one Irish province where the citizens are afforded more rights, and just so happens to be the Irish province least devastated by the Famine. But obviously nothing about the political and social landscape caused the economic situation that led to the Famine.[/sarcasm]

I’m not seeing anything that contradicts my analysis. You say you believe that the Irish were discriminated against, in law and practice, and yet you don’t believe that discrimination had any impact on the economic conditions that led the to Great Famine. You assume that the Irish tenant farmers had the same bargaining position as the English tenant farmers, the same ability to demand large parcels of land, and that it was Irish choice to subdivide, not something afflicted upon them by distant overlords who were too busy looking after their local assets to give a shit about investing time and resources to develop foreign ones. Nevermind that the rapid subdivision came AFTER the land was taken away from Irish landowners and given to foreign lords. You assume that the Irish had the same opportunity to move to cities, despite the absentee landlords living outside Ireland and thus not spending money in Ireland to fuel the Irish economy; by all accounts, the Irish suffering paid for those very English opportunities you cite against them. You don’t think that English lords living in England might be more cognizant of negative externalities their behaviors create in England, and thus more responsive to fixing them.

It looks like a damned shallow belief to me.

Of course English land had a higher rent per acre. It was more profitable land (location, location, location)! Of course the English moved to the ENGLISH cities: that’s where the money was! That the English had these opportunities does not mean the Irish did. Especially once you consider whether those darned discriminations, in practice and law, might possibly have shifted a bunch of those opportunities away from Catholics and towards Protestants. Or if the subsistence-level poverty of the Irish meant that they literally could not afford to purchase those opportunities.

No, no, it was those foolish Irish, who did it to themselves despite Britain’s attempts to save them.