How to solve the housing crisis?

[idahoblues]

The UK has quite a high % of social housing. There is no need to increase that %. What is needed is more houses and better use of current housing stock.
New houses need to be quality houses, not the crap that was built post war. The green belt needs scrapping and also as an earlier poster said, unproductive farmland should be released for housing.
There should be no caps. Let market forces loose. If you free up enough land for developers to build at decent prices they can make money without building homes no one can afford.
More reasonably priced homes will bring down the price of current stock again making it more affordable.

Let the market work instead of pricing builders out.
I would also prohibit non residents from owning more than one dwelling and also restrict the number of unoccupied dwellings any individual can own.

Would you suggest 'eminent domain' to claim all that land back?

 

[york away to this!]

Any thread that includes development and Dead Kennedys is a winner.

The idea of the govt having a house builder is potentially a sound one (council houses anyone?) - they have lots of land assets and could set op as a non-profit organisation.

Very back of a fag packet is that the land is one third, the build one third and the profit one third - clearly many, many variables in this.

The trouble with the land coming in for free and the profit being wiped off is that the land is the asset that the govt would want to maximise in terms of any disposals - in order to generate funding for other items. A sustained focus on master planning and community provision needs to sit hand in hand here. This is why the idea of mixed communities and affordable housing provision via the experts in the house building industry (pretty much at zero cost) is a sound one. The issue is, though, that this in turn reduces return on the overall scheme, pushes up values of the market open stock and on occasion reduces the appetite of the landowners to sell who may wish to land bank until policy changes in their favour.

The PRS model is booming in town as some of you will be more aware that others, though seems to be predominantly driven by overseas and significant fund investment, with no real grasp of the consequences when the bubble bursts or over supply of flashy new stock drives the margins down to unsustainable levels. There are only so many beardy hipster types that will live in town in a formulaic two bed box and the future key will be investment in infrastructure to support a more diverse resident demographic. Perhaps only when Manchester reaches saturation point will this model start to take off in other major cities, as it barely works at the moment anywhere other than London or Manchester. Some say partly because of restricted knowledge of the uk's cities by the foreign investor market. - Good the see the likes of Renaker and others flooding the market whilst they still can and recent new-build starts with a 4 year programme to completions keep me enthused that there isn't a crash round the corner just yet. I guess when the crash comes we can just stick all of the homeless in unrentable towers like the olden days.

The real key to affordable housing provision is of course supply and demand. More sites need to be released for housing more quickly. Well designed, mixed tenure communities with great facilities and infrastructure comes at a substantial cost and whatever the govt they will look for easy wins in terms of income generation. The Barbican in London was designed and built for council flats. The city of london then jumped ship and sold off as they realised the intrinsic value that could pay for more homes in other areas. It's a rich man's ghetto with bland public space and no cohesive community - just they all pay an exorbitant service charge and don't have a total disregard for their own environment. I wonder what it would look like today if it was an "affordable" community with a different type of resident group as it's original intention? This is edging on to social engineering, though this is all part of the melting pot.

We do still deliver "affordable homes" via the RSLs (registered social landlords) - in most instances not for profit developers borne from the council housing management departments - which in essence do what WW is suggesting. They have the ability to develop market housing too, as long as the profit from that is driven back in to more affordable housing provision.

Perhaps they need a wider remit for land acquisition and relaxations or more efficiency in the ludicrous planning system - and more funds.

It is a far, far more complex issue than "build more homes" - though if WW has a couple of sneaky sites up his sleeve I'll get the consents and the great and good of BM can build them - we'll be billionaires before the end of the year!

 

[Kompany Car]

It's all about the postcode fella

Pretty much the correct answer. Some of it is around postcode snobbery, there are a number of Grads who I work with who complain about the costs of houses, yet only want to buy in the very best areas.
Its not that there isnt afordable housing its that the afordable housing is no where near the jobs. Loads of cheap houses in the North East and North West but they are not near good schools or work.
Travel costs are too high so geting people to commute is a no, regardless of the governments vanity HS2 project.
The solution is a more even distibution of industry and well paying jobs across the UK and to put transport back in the public sector.
This however would also require people to accept that house prices dont just go up and may in fact reduce in some of the more afluent areas as the demand flattens out.
On the whole redistribution of the high value industry would be good for the UK, considering the world we live in. The over reliance on london as the wealth creator means that if someone should decide to do some henious act in London the whole economy would be screwed.

 

[hilts]

Pretty much the correct answer. Some of it is around postcode snobbery, there are a number of Grads who I work with who complain about the costs of houses, yet only want to buy in the very best areas.
Its not that there isnt afordable housing its that the afordable housing is no where near the jobs. Loads of cheap houses in the North East and North West but they are not near good schools or work.
Travel costs are too high so geting people to commute is a no, regardless of the governments vanity HS2 project.
The solution is a more even distibution of industry and well paying jobs across the UK and to put transport back in the public sector.
This however would also require people to accept that house prices dont just go up and may in fact reduce in some of the more afluent areas as the demand flattens out.
On the whole redistribution of the high value industry would be good for the UK, considering the world we live in. The over reliance on london as the wealth creator means that if someone should decide to do some henious act in London the whole economy would be screwed.

People on the whole just want a better day to day life and are willing to pay for it, if someone is on a good wedge working in town and settles down with a family he could move to Beswick as it's pretty close but we know the likes of bramhall is were he would head even with a longer commute. Now someone may have the balls to put a load of social housing in the middle of bramhall but people will move.

10 years down the line people will be saying remember when bramhall was posh. Dead heads and greedy twats have a lot to answer for but I'd rather live next to a greedy twat as you can just ignore them and they will be less bother to your standard of living.

The anti social fuckers end up with the decent less well off in our society and it's not fair but that's life I'm afraid.

 

[KnaresboroughBlue]

A couple of thoughts, if I may.

First, the cost of a house is hugely influenced by the cost of the land it sits upon. You could think that your average £300,000 house on a new housing estate costs perhaps £150,000 or less to build, and the rest is the cost of the land. (Made up figures, but the principle holds.) Farm land, without planning permission for houses, is about £10,000 / acre. With current densities, you get about 10 houses (on average) in an acre of land. i.e. £1,000 per house if built on farm land.

It is entirely within local authorities control, to buy up farm land at £10,000 / acre, grant itself planning permission on that land. And sell it to builders at £1,000 / house, with a contractual agreement on the retail prices the builder can charge. At a stroke, this could halve the cost of new builds across the country.

My second point relates to young people's (in)abiltity to buy houses. When my mum and dad were young, you had to save with a building society for years, in order to earn the privilege to meet the building society manager, and beg for a mortgage. Only to be told "come back next year and we'll see". This was the norm. People got married and lived in the spare room upstairs at their mums and dads, or their aunties or whatever. When they finally did manage to buy a house, they had no car, no TV, no fridge, no furniture. I was born in 1961 and we didn't have carpet until I was about 10. When I bought my first house in 1988, we sat on deck chairs in the lounge for 2 years watching TV on a 19" portable borrowed off my father-in-law, since we could not afford a TV or any furniture.

Kids today expect (or want) everything on day one. Now I do not resent them doing that, but I do think this idea that it is terrible on young kids today, is overplayed. Times were hard in the past too. These things go in cycles. At the moment house buying is out of the reach of many young people. A few years of house price stagnation (or even another crash) and a few years of wages growth, and they will be more affordable again. I am not saying there is no problem, merely wishing to put this into context. Life, and making ends meet, is a struggle for most young people, but it always has been.

Spot on.

 

[Kompany Car]

People on the whole just want a better day to day life and are willing to pay for it, if someone is on a good wedge working in town and settles down with a family he could move to Beswick as it's pretty close but we know the likes of bramhall is were he would head even with a longer commute. Now someone may have the balls to put a load of social housing in the middle of bramhall but people will move.

10 years down the line people will be saying remember when bramhall was posh. Dead heads and greedy twats have a lot to answer for but I'd rather live next to a greedy twat as you can just ignore them and they will be less bother to your standard of living.

The anti social fuckers end up with the decent less well off in our society and it's not fair but that's life I'm afraid.

Don't disagree that everyone wants to better themselves, but reality is when people first get on the housing ladder they shouldn't complain that they cannot afford the best location. Apart from those who are born into wealth, most people who live in the best areas are there because they have taken a risk, be it taking a financial risk to set up their own business or taken on significant responsibility in a business.
That doesn't however alter the fact that there is something seriously wrong with wealth distribution and much of that is driven by the lack of high quality jobs which in turn means you only have pockets of affluence. What we don't want in the UK is a Detroit situation where you have entire cities left to go to ruin due to poor industrial policy.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Pretty much the correct answer. Some of it is around postcode snobbery, there are a number of Grads who I work with who complain about the costs of houses, yet only want to buy in the very best areas.
Its not that there isnt afordable housing its that the afordable housing is no where near the jobs. Loads of cheap houses in the North East and North West but they are not near good schools or work.
Travel costs are too high so geting people to commute is a no, regardless of the governments vanity HS2 project.
The solution is a more even distibution of industry and well paying jobs across the UK and to put transport back in the public sector.
This however would also require people to accept that house prices dont just go up and may in fact reduce in some of the more afluent areas as the demand flattens out.
On the whole redistribution of the high value industry would be good for the UK, considering the world we live in. The over reliance on london as the wealth creator means that if someone should decide to do some henious act in London the whole economy would be screwed.

???? Plenty of good schools and well paid jobs in both areas - do you live south of Watford perchance?

 

[hilts]

Don't disagree that everyone wants to better themselves, but reality is when people first get on the housing ladder they shouldn't complain that they cannot afford the best location. Apart from those who are born into wealth, most people who live in the best areas are there because they have taken a risk, be it taking a financial risk to set up their own business or taken on significant responsibility in a business.
That doesn't however alter the fact that there is something seriously wrong with wealth distribution and much of that is driven by the lack of high quality jobs which in turn means you only have pockets of affluence. What we don't want in the UK is a Detroit situation where you have entire cities left to go to ruin due to poor industrial policy.

Absolutely fella

 

[Kompany Car]

???? Plenty of good schools and well paid jobs in both areas - do you live south of Watford perchance?

Don't think I said that, if you read my post it says not near.
To answer your other question no, the other side of the pennies (only just though) these days but still have to commute to London regularly to get a good salary.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Don't think I said that, if you read my post it says not near.
To answer your other question no, the other side of the pennies (only just though) these days but still have to commute to London regularly to get a good salary.

not sure of you point - I was aware of the word near having been used but I was just stating there are schools and jobs in ( or near ) both areas. Presume you mean Pennines? Whereabouts - West Yorks? As has been pointed out elsewhere on BM today you travel to London to work out of choice.........not a real answer though is it?