please empty your brain below
|
I lived in Tower Hamlets as a student for one simple reason. It was the cheapest part of zone 2. I wonder if it still is.
It was a wonderful place to live! (Couldn’t afford it now!!)
Dan | 10.11.22 - 7:22 a.m. | #
|
|
Thanks, as ever, for the content, and the links. My borough is up by 9.2%, we're flat-building laggards by comparison with Tower Hamlets. And yet, every corner seems to have new build flats popping up.
Entertained | 10.11.22 - 7:52 a.m. | #
|
|
Will anyone find 121 people to stand on a football pitch in Tower Hamlets, to illustrate the area's population density?
Paul | 10.11.22 - 8:24 a.m. | #
|
|
Scary stuff. It is not oil that is the problem but the infestation of humans on the globe, up 50% in the last 60 years alone. Such an increase rate is not sustainable.
scrumpy | 10.11.22 - 8:44 a.m. | #
|
|
Tower Hamlets could never possibly bore me - keep the posts coming, I say! And interesting to see the value in this context of the median, of which I've never really been a fan, previously.
cau1khead | 10.11.22 - 10:38 a.m. | #
|
Fascinating stuff. I love seeing the changes from census to census.
Having East End ancestors, seeing rising and falling populations throughout the 19th & 20th centuries is nothing new.
I think of it as being like when you squeeze a balloon - as one bit decreases (in population) another bit increases!
Cornish Cockney | 10.11.22 - 11:39 a.m. | #
|
To pick a couple of places more or less comparable on the population numbers and area of Tower Hamlets, Macao has about 680,000 people on 33 sqkm - so about 20,000 people/sqkm. Double the people on 50% more area. Monaco is similar in density, just a tenth the size - about 37,000 people on 2 sqkm, so about 18,000 people/sqkm. And then an outlier - almost unbelievably, Manila has 1.8 million people on 43 sqkm, which is about 43,000 people/sqkm. Just twice the area of Tower Hamlets, with approaching six times the people.
Given changing birth rates and other demographics, it is pretty likely that the world population will top out at around 10 to 12 billion by the end of this century and then start to fall gradually. I'm grateful that there are people around who might be willing to look after me in my old age. We can't all live like many people do in the US, or probably like we've become used to in the UK, but it is possible to feed us all and live happy, healthy lives, if people are content to live more frugally and we achieve a more equable distribution.
Andrew | 10.11.22 - 12:16 p.m. | #
|
Wow, those are extraordinary numbers.
The interactive maps are fascinating, as you can the massive demographic differences between boroughs, and the major changes as you leave London.
Mikey C | 10.11.22 - 12:48 p.m. | #
|
If the population in Tower Hamlets increased by 22% over ten years, that's about 1% increase per year (not 2%) because of exponential growth
dg writes: about 1.75%
Thomas | 10.11.22 - 4:24 p.m. | #
|
|
A ‘household’ doesn't necessarily equate to a physical dwelling.
David | 10.11.22 - 4:53 p.m. | #
|
If the population each year is given by 101.75% of the population the previous year, that means the population increases by 42% (101.75%^20-100%) over 20 years
dg writes: over 10 years.
Thomas | 10.11.22 - 7:51 p.m. | #
|
|
Funnily enough I was just reading a council document about recycling rates. Who has the lowest recycling rate in London? Tower Hamlets…
Dan | 10.11.22 - 10:22 p.m. | #
|
What on earth is happening with Kensington and Chelsea!? Down 9.6%!
Maybe we need to demolish Kensington Palace Gardens and put in some social housing.
h2g2bob | 13.11.22 - 9:58 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|