So what have we learnt from the recession?

thriftybabe

purch wrote: »

That most people don't have the foggiest clue whats happening, and why......and in most cases if it's not directly affecting them, they don't care either !!!!!

I agree. Speaking to people at the school run and they are carrying on as normal. A lot of people we know are still going their 4 holidays a year - yes I know! Places like Dubai, New Jersey etc - not cheap!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucky wrote: »

i thought that you were stuck with this one Hamish...

don't these negative people understand the above :rotfl:

Typical Graham argument.

Accuse, distract, obfuscate, run away, ignore.

Or rather.... "LOOK!!!! Shiny Thing........":rolleyes:

dgl1001

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

LOL..... Not.:rolleyes:

“The central assumption from the Department of Communities and Local Government is that long term net
migration will be 171,500 per year, resulting in an annual increase in the number of households in England of
252,000 once other factors are taken into account. Even if one were to assume zero net migration, however, the
number of households is still projected to expand by an average of 153,000 units per year through to 2031.
Whatever the true number is, it is almost certain that current levels of housing construction have fallen far below
future levels of household formation (chart 3). Based on recent levels of housing starts, it looks likely that only
around 100,000 homes will be built during 2009, which would represent by far the lowest level on record
(chart 4). As it is likely to take time for the economy and housing construction to recover to pre-crisis levels, the
potential exists for a considerable housing shortfall to develop over the next few years. This would be on top of
the shortfall that already started to develop in 2004, when even boom-time levels of construction failed to keep
pace with household growth.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Jul_2009.pdf

And the latest RICS report revised the housebuilding down to 80,000, but you can google that if you want it.

Hamish - good post representing the main thrust of the "bulls" argument of HPI .i.e. that the undersupply of housing will sustain house prices. I think the main bear argument is that prices are high and must therefore come down based on average indicators, such as wages/ income multiples (i think). I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others, people should be aware of the following:

• The undersupply of housing is not a recent problem, however it is only recently (the last 6 - 7 years) that the Government has acknowledged the issue.
• In fact, we have been under-providing new homes since the early 1990's (with the introduction of the local plan system) - with evidence to suggest undersupply even before this period.
• People should therefore comprehend that the high demand for housing has been building up for decades and not recent years
• Household projections are only one side of the story, we have an exiting housing stock which is getting older and in need of renewal. When housing targets are set, it is on the assumption that each house will last a 1000 years. The only building in England a 1000 years old is Warwick Castle. New homes have a design life of 80 years.
• The 252k build target set by the Government is meant to stabilise prices and NOT reduce them. To reduce housing prices we need to be building 350k homes per anum (see the Barker Report)
• There is no way we can build 250k homes per annuam because of a) the planning system won't allow it b) politions won't allow it c) we can't afford the infrastructure to provide it and d) we haven't got the resources to build them

While this may seem like great "bull" material; it will have a devistating impact on socierty; which shall make rich people richer (namely home owners with increasing assets) and poor people poorer (non home owners paying rent for longer and longer periods). Already, good hardworking people and couples on a good wages are unable to purchase a house. If you think its bad now, give it 10 or 20 years. Our children will be left with this mess

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dgl1001 wrote: »

Hamish - good post representing the main thrust of the "bulls" argument of HPI .i.e. that the undersupply of housing will sustain house prices. I think the main bear argument is that prices are high and must therefore come down based on average indicators, such as wages/ income multiples (i think). I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others, people should be aware of the following:

• The undersupply of housing is not a recent problem, however it is only recently (the last 6 - 7 years) that the Government has acknowledged the issue.
• In fact, we have been under-providing new homes since the early 1990's (with the introduction of the local plan system) - with evidence to suggest undersupply even before this period.
• People should therefore comprehend that the high demand for housing has been building up for decades and not recent years
• Household projections are only one side of the story, we have an exiting housing stock which is getting older and in need of renewal. When housing targets are set, it is on the assumption that each house will last a 1000 years. The only building in England a 1000 years old is Warwick Castle. New homes have a design life of 80 years.
• The 252k build target set by the Government is meant to stabilise prices and NOT reduce them. To reduce housing prices we need to be building 350k homes per anum (see the Barker Report)
• There is no way we can build 250k homes per annuam because of a) the planning system won't allow it b) politions won't allow it c) we can't afford the infrastructure to provide it and d) we haven't got the resources to build them

While this may seem like great "bull" material; it will have a devistating impact on socierty; which shall make rich people richer (namely home owners with increasing assets) and poor people poorer (non home owners paying rent for longer and longer periods). Already, good hardworking people and couples on a good wages are unable to purchase a house. If you think its bad now, give it 10 or 20 years. Our children will be left with this mess

Thanks for that, great post.

This is the sort of thing that housing bears completely ignore. They seem to take the perspective that because they want cheaper houses, or because house prices used to be cheaper, then prices must fall.

Which is obviously not the case.

Supply and demand sets the long term price of anything. There is clearly a supply shortage of houses in the UK.

As the shortage has reached such a critical level, with only enough house being built to house 33% or so of new households, then if only the top earning 35% or 40% of households can afford to buy, prices will keep rising.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether or not this is good or bad for society.

But it is absolutely inevitable that prices will rise dramatically unless we build more housing.

Really2

dgl1001 wrote: »

Hamish - good post representing the main thrust of the "bulls" argument of HPI .i.e. that the undersupply of housing will sustain house prices. I think the main bear argument is that prices are high and must therefore come down based on average indicators, such as wages/ income multiples (i think). I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others, people should be aware of the following:

• The undersupply of housing is not a recent problem, however it is only recently (the last 6 - 7 years) that the Government has acknowledged the issue.
• In fact, we have been under-providing new homes since the early 1990's (with the introduction of the local plan system) - with evidence to suggest undersupply even before this period.
• People should therefore comprehend that the high demand for housing has been building up for decades and not recent years
• Household projections are only one side of the story, we have an exiting housing stock which is getting older and in need of renewal. When housing targets are set, it is on the assumption that each house will last a 1000 years. The only building in England a 1000 years old is Warwick Castle. New homes have a design life of 80 years.
• The 252k build target set by the Government is meant to stabilise prices and NOT reduce them. To reduce housing prices we need to be building 350k homes per anum (see the Barker Report)
• There is no way we can build 250k homes per annuam because of a) the planning system won't allow it b) politions won't allow it c) we can't afford the infrastructure to provide it and d) we haven't got the resources to build them

While this may seem like great "bull" material; it will have a devistating impact on socierty; which shall make rich people richer (namely home owners with increasing assets) and poor people poorer (non home owners paying rent for longer and longer periods). Already, good hardworking people and couples on a good wages are unable to purchase a house. If you think its bad now, give it 10 or 20 years. Our children will be left with this mess

I agree 100% with your post. Many people have taken my moaning of not enough houses as being pro HPI.
It is not, it is just an observation of the market. I want stability but all the crash as done is make the problem worse.
We still have a growing population and even less houses being built.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Really2 wrote: »

I agree 100% with your post. Many people have taken my moaning of not enough houses as being pro HPI.
It is not, it is just an observation of the market. I want stability but all the crash as done is make the problem worse.
We still have a growing population and even less houses being built.

Indeed. Bulls are looking at the situation objectively. There is a huge shortage of housing. Prices will rise.

Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant. It's inevitable, unless we build more houses.

Of course the genuinely amusing thing is that if all the bears on here and hpc spent even half the time they currently do concocting elaborate fallacies about why prices will drop, writing, lobbying and campaigning for more housebuilding, they'd probably have a real impact.

Really2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed. Bulls are looking at the situation objectively. There is a huge shortage of housing. Prices will rise.

Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant. It's inevitable, unless we build more houses.

I would say they will find a sustainable level, the more house that are built the lower that level will be.

Did we see the news the other day they are going to build 2,000 council houses. Like come on, that is nothing.

Like some have said viable alternatives will have to come up with HA's presumably building more.
But also perhaps people will have to get use to smaller houses or paying for space as a premium.
Their is only so much building land on this island. We still need to be food self sufficient (which we could be if we ate seasonal) so a limit of population will have to be met at some time I believe.

baileysbattlebus

Agree with the above posts. IMHO - we can't and won't have a stable housing market until there are enough houses for people to live in - be it to rent or to buy, until that happens we will continue having housing bubbles and crashes.

And to get to that state we need to have less restrictive planning regs - and try and get rid of the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Well, as long it's not in my backyard!!!

Where we live in the southeast - our little Reading satellite has no land to build houses - they are and have been for several years been built by utilising some of the large back gardens. A couple of years ago a pub was demolished and about 6 terraced houses were built there. And recently a small commercial site was developed into a few small houses. More recently a delapidated bungalow on a large plot was given planning for a couple of large detached houses - they are in the process of being built. Yet within a few minutes you are in the middle of open countryside.

Lots of villages throughout the country suffer from the same problem - no more land for houses - in the future something has got to change.

IveSeenTheLight

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Agree with the above posts. IMHO - we can't and won't have a stable housing market until there are enough houses for people to live in - be it to rent or to buy, until that happens we will continue having housing bubbles and crashes.

And to get to that state we need to have less restrictive planning regs - and try and get rid of the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Well, as long it's not in my backyard!!!

Where we live in the southeast - our little Reading satellite has no land to build houses - they are and have been for several years been built by utilising some of the large back gardens. A couple of years ago a pub was demolished and about 6 terraced houses were built there. And recently a small commercial site was developed into a few small houses. More recently a delapidated bungalow on a large plot was given planning for a couple of large detached houses - they are in the process of being built. Yet within a few minutes you are in the middle of open countryside.

Lots of villages throughout the country suffer from the same problem - no more land for houses - in the future something has got to change.

I don't fully subscribe to the lack of houses argument.
I think it is the lack of houses or in areas that people do not want to live in.
I see many properties that could be done up and lived in but its the snobbery (for want of a better word) of todays culture that we choose not to.

I don't however see a way of changing the culture, so maybe the answer is to get the whole areas redeveloped as I doubt it will happen on an individual purchase basis

P.S. I worked down in Maidenhead a few years ago (can it be described as a satellitte of Reading?) and I saw many areas of green that could be developed into housing estates if truly required.
As you say "Yet within a few minutes you are in the middle of open countryside.", so there are areas if planning will allow it.

the_ash_and_the_oak

dont think there is a shortage of houses in uk tbh (admit homeless situation isn't great but think this is mainly down to other factors)

there may be a shortage of houses for SALE in the uk. pretty sure this isn't the same thing imo