Housing Shortfall approaching 1 million

Sir_Humphrey

michaels wrote: »

Or Game On (for the 6 people who watched it)

Heh, if I got a flatmate like Samantha Janus's character in that show, I'd never want to buy! :rotfl::rotfl:

michaels

Dream on ... and go back to waxing your board

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Heh, if I got a flatmate like Samantha Janus's character in that show, I'd never want to buy! :rotfl::rotfl:

Really2

Demanufacture wrote: »

What I find sad, is you, your thankers, Hamish and the rest of the bulls were once upon a time FTB'rs, at that particular time you and the rest would have wanted to buy a house as cheaply as possible. Yet now you and your thankers call the very same people that you once were sad bast@rds, go figure.

I wouldn't call you sad b@stards, that's far too rude and I wouldn't sink there, but I would call it hypocrisy.

To be fair I thanked

b0rker wrote: »

I love the bears on this site.

One minute new builds are rabbit hutches the next minute 2 adult families should be happy to share one house.

Because it is remarkably true in general to this thread.
Not the bit you edited and quoted (why miss out the middle of the post?)
So no need to set the thanking police on me.

Really2

Demanufacture wrote: »

The simple question is Really2, when you bought you're first home, did you or did you not want the cheapest price that you could get it for, or did you feel sorry for the vendor/developer and offer them 20k+ more.

Or to put it another way, if you could have got it for 50% off you wouldn't of taken it and offered the asking price instead ?

The simple fact is every bull who owns a house was once upon a time a FTB bear who wanted said house as cheaply as possible, yet when they've bought they turn on that position and the people who try to follow them and look down on them as the scurge of society.

Every property bull (has in wanting HPI) is a hypocrite who doesn't want people to enjoy the same things they wanted when they bought, by the way I'm not saying this is you as I have no idea if you love HPI or not, but may on here clearly do.

First house purchased 2001 a paltry 2% off asking price.
Sold and then repurchased in 2008 and got 27% off.

Neither time have I talked up or down the market on the net or otherwise.

Can't say I ever set out to get one as cheap as possible, more of a case of setting a limit and getting a price that I think represents a fair market value.

I don't see the relevence of the rest of the question as the poster was stating the irony of saying new-builds are rabbit hutches but then they are OK for 2 familys to live in.

We either do or don't have enough "practical" family houses to live in this country.
I would say we are a lot nearer "don't" than "do" as house prices are very high in the UK.

Any FTB should want more new builds to be built not less.

lemonjelly

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

that may well be true but to live somewhere is a need. to own it is a want.

if there are people without the former then there is something fundamentally wrong with society. the same cannot be said about the latter.

Disagree with this. Think about it,

Both sides have pro's & con's, but buyers may want the security of not having an assured shorthold tenancy, put down roots, somewhere stable for the kids to grow up, play, evolve, go to school. Privately rented property can't give you that. There are many reasons for wanting to buy a home rather than rent.

SingleSue

In our lovely little village, we are currently fighting the building of over 1600 homes, so far they have identified several different areas where these houses could go, all with their own problems (transport, schools etc) but now, they really have gone too far.

They want to build in our most rural area of the village right the way down to our old town, destroying many miles of beautiful countryside and depriving our childrens children of the joys of feeding the ducks, going for a country drive or just enjoying the scenery.

The funniest thing? If they build the things, no begger would be able to afford to buy them anyway (the land is not cheap in the area they are thinking of), the schools wouldn't be able to cope with the additional numbers, the jobs are just not available and our transport system which is already at breaking point, will completely implode!

And all because our area has been identified as being one of those where the government says needs to be built on to help provide towards the 'shortfall' of homes.

I really can't see how building however many thousands of homes in this little corner of Suffolk will help those wanting to work in other parts of the country.....and it's still a bit of a commute to London (do able but still around a 2 hour commute to Liverpool Street by train).

Yes it would give much wanted employment to those in the trades whilst the building is ongoing but what about afterwards? Our town just could not sustain it.

the_ash_and_the_oak

lemonjelly wrote: »

Disagree with this. Think about it,

Both sides have pro's & con's, but buyers may want the security of not having an assured shorthold tenancy, put down roots, somewhere stable for the kids to grow up, play, evolve, go to school. Privately rented property can't give you that. There are many reasons for wanting to buy a home rather than rent.

But you've just said yourself there are many reasons to WANT to buy. this is not a need. There are many reasons for wanting to drive a car instead of get the bus. this is not a need

100% of people in this country should be housed. it is a need. While there are many advantages to owning, there are advantages to many things. It does not make them needs.

dgl1001

SingleSue wrote: »

In our lovely little village are you sure its a village and not a town as you refer to later on, we are currently fighting the building of over 1600 homes, so far they have identified several different areas where these houses could go, all with their own problems (transport, schools etc) but now, they really have gone too far.

They want to build in our most rural area of the village right the way down to our old town, destroying many miles of beautiful countryside [1600 new homes hardly equates to miles of countryside and depriving our childrens children of the joys of feeding the ducks, going for a country drive or just enjoying the scenery. Im sure your childrens children will still be able to feed ducks etc; 1600 units isn;t a massive development area. Your childrens children will however have greater concerns, such as the lack of housing to meet their needs.

The funniest thing? If they build the things, no begger would be able to afford to buy them anyway (so house prices are high where you are then - how will stopping development ease house prices and help first time buyers? (the land is not cheap in the area they are thinking of), the schools wouldn't be able to cope with the additional numbers schools will be expanded to cope with the additional children under the terms of the s.106 agreement, the jobs are just not available and our transport system which is already at breaking point, will completely implode! again contribution will be sought to mitigate against the impact of the development, however you should note that traffic levels are expected to rise as more and more people become mobile

And all because our area has been identified as being one of those where the government says needs to be built on to help provide towards the 'shortfall' of homes. if there wasn't a high demand for housing where you live, surely prices would be cheap and the price of land not high, as you have remarked

I really can't see how building however many thousands of homes in this little corner of Suffolk will help those wanting to work in other parts of the country.....and it's still a bit of a commute to London (do able but still around a 2 hour commute to Liverpool Street by train). the housing will not be for commuters, rather for local need

Yes it would give much wanted employment to those in the trades whilst the building is ongoing but what about afterwards? Our town (I thought it was a village) just could not sustain it how do you know it can't sustain it - have carried out research yourself? .

Im sorry, but i couldn't just read this and not respond.

chopperharris

The solution here is without any doubt satelitte towns around cities bursting at the seams.

There are plenty of areas within a decent distance to commute form , and of course investing in high speed trains and reopening old lines would help no end.

There is still towns where the decimation of housing stock has become common place ,far more than a million council homes have gone in traditional industrial towns that could be reinjected with life and employment...and all at a cheaper cost than throwing money at a problem like london only to make the problem even bigger further down the line.

Take for example the ship building and mining towns which now are a pale imitation of themselves , full of 3g long term benefits claimants as a high percentage , surely then the solution would be to introduce rate/tax free zones in these depressed areas for re industrialisation in order to compete with easter european countries or china...or would that just be silly?

treliac

Our town is under threat of expansion, despite significant housebuilding during the couple of decades we've been here, much the same as probably every other town and village in the area.

The roads are already slowed to a crawl, across much of the area, mornings and evenings. Local schools, GP, sewage services and infrastructure in general have been under pressure for some years.

Yet the cheap, short-sighted option is always pursued, irrespective of the comfort and feasibility for residents, in order to avoid proper investment in developing new areas.