Housing Shortfall approaching 1 million

Really2

pie81 wrote: »

I think we need to distinguish between the NEED for more housing - as illustrated by homeless people, those in temporary accommodation, or those living somewhere unfit for habitation - and the DESIRE for more housing - as illustrated by the above quotes, i.e. people who have somewhere perfectly ok to live but want something better.

I am not sure which category these figures reflect.

So a couple can live separately with their parent's etc.

I am sure the figures are not done on "DESIRE" but on terms of having a normal healthy society.

Thrugelmir

vivatifosi wrote: »

Looking at the report, there are two reasons the number of houses required is growing. The first is the obvious one - if the population goes up, you need more houses. The second is a massive increase in one person households. I guess at the moment those people are sharing in some way, but their desire is to have their own property. In 2006, the number of one person households was 6.822m. In 2031 the forecast is for 10.899m (why they didn't round that when its so far into the future is beyond me).

So the answer maybe to encourage some form of shared living perhaps?

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

I bet Dopester is getting !!!!ed off living in his mums back bedroom

I am, if dopester isn't.

Cannon_Fodder

"The Empty Homes Agency estimated that in 2008 there were 943,000 empty homes across the UK, at a time when government statistics indicated one in 12 people in the UK were on social housing waiting lists."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/jul/15/community-reclaim-empty-houses


Any chance of some joined up thinking from Govt/Councils/Communities, maybe as a Job Creation scheme to reduce unemployment...?

No, I don't suppose so, either.

lostinrates

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So the answer maybe to encourage some form of shared living perhaps?

I know this is unpopular, but I think shared accomodation for young adults is, while undesirable (privacy/independence) useful for us later. In the short times I have I did enjoy living alone, BUT I knoe that the times I spent sharing encouraged me to develop skills that have served me well in marriage, (and indeed returning to my family home). Sharing with other adults means that you might not be ''indulged'' as you are at home, or fall into accostumed roles of unequal compromise...of course that does happen in shared, but you learn and you rectify it next time. a long period of living alone then getting married can be fun, but you also miss a lot of that period of learning.

For students in many other countries, they expect shared rooms in halls of residence etc, something fewer and fewer of us would consider ''acceptable''.

lostinrates

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

"The Empty Homes Agency estimated that in 2008 there were 943,000 empty homes across the UK, at a time when government statistics indicated one in 12 people in the UK were on social housing waiting lists."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/jul/15/community-reclaim-empty-houses


Any chance of some joined up thinking from Govt/Councils/Communities, maybe as a Job Creation scheme to reduce unemployment...?

No, I don't suppose so, either.

I posted yesterday that at last two of these have appeared on the market locally: described as semi derelict. Both are beautiful small three beds, and will make lovely, lovely homes. Eventually. My concern is that they are out of reach for most FTB/young families, as though they are ideal fixer uppers, they will probably be hard to mortgage.

Cannon_Fodder

The Construction sector shrunk by 60,000 jobs in the 2nd quarter. Lots of manpower being paid JSA for sitting around...why not pay them for refurbishing something...?

I don't see that we have to wait for lending to help FTBs to fund it themselves.

If we are going to indebt the nation for decades, I would like to see some biggish construction projects, refurbishing where possible, rebuilding if not practical, the empty housing stock. If an eyesore, they should be able to compulsorarily take it over at minimal cost, anyway, imo.

Then offer via Housing Associations (?) for rent, to recoup some of the expenditure, and to provide more variety of rental properties so there is not the same demand for private landlords.

Increasing the supply of rentals will help affordability for tenants, and reduce the Housing Benefit bill, presumably - good for Govt debts.

An easing of the attractiveness of BTL yields, so it becomes a long-term, professional business, rather than a lifestyle, pension-replacement, HPI-creating, free-for-all would be a good thing imo.

lostinrates

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

The Construction sector shrunk by 60,000 jobs in the 2nd quarter. Lots of manpower being paid JSA for sitting around...why not pay them for refurbishing something...?

I don't see that we have to wait for lending to help FTBs to fund it themselves.

If we are going to indebt the nation for decades, I would like to see some biggish construction projects, refurbishing where possible, rebuilding if not practical, the empty housing stock. If an eyesore, they should be able to compulsorarily take it over at minimal cost, anyway, imo.

Then offer via Housing Associations (?) for rent, to recoup some of the expenditure, and to provide more variety of rental properties so there is not the same demand for private landlords.

Increasing the supply of rentals will help affordability for tenants, and reduce the Housing Benefit bill, presumably - good for Govt debts.

An easing of the attractiveness of BTL yields, so it becomes a long-term, professional business, rather than a lifestyle, pension-replacement, HPI-creating, free-for-all would be a good thing imo.

I don't suppose we will wait for FTb to fund it themsleves, but these properties would, once have been ideal stepping stones to nice home ownership. If we pay for renovation of properties like that, not only do we have to pay the builders, but then we end up, in the same situation, lovely houses that FTBs can't afford, because the houses will be ''worth'' more, fairly, on the open market, and will need to acheive the hiher price to mke ense of the builders' work. FWIW, they will probably go to developers, which is inessence, a private funding of the construction industry.

ninky_2

michaels wrote: »

I wonder where those 1m households are at the moment - you don't see them sleeping on the street round here.

I am sure if you asked everyone whether they needed (another) car most would say yes - does this mean there is a car shortfall?

Unless the population physically can not fit in the housing stock then by definition there is no shortfall the market (ie prices) will ration property with those unable (or unwilling) to pay more living in a smaller or less desirable property than they would wish.

to take your car analogy a stage further...is this a bit like how many people can fit in a mini? how many people can live / fit in a converted victorian terrace house? yes it's certainly on the rise. wonder what the record has been set at?

Really2

To add they are usually empty for a reason and the major one is that the areas need major regeneration.

It is not just the houses the owners would need new jobs, schools, lower crime etc, erc. Without spending billions on regenerating the areas also it is fairly pointless as no one will want to live in them (like they are currently).

So overall the cost of redressing the areas to make them more sustainable would most probably make it even less financially viable.

the true viable option is building more affordable housing in the areas they are needed, this would not only help FTB's it would also stop rampant HPI on the current housing stock in those areas.