House Waiting Lists between 10 and 33 YEARS

dgl1001

sjaypink wrote: »

IIRC there is 1 household per 3 people in the UK? Doesn't sound like a huge shortage TBH

the average household size is about 2.4 people and is expected to decrease by 10% by about 2031. Therefore, we need to increase the housing stock by 10% just to accommodate the existing population

IveSeenTheLight

dgl1001 wrote: »

the average household size is about 2.4 people and is expected to decrease by 10% by about 2031. Therefore, we need to increase the housing stock by 10% just to accommodate the existing population

Interesting, where did you get this stat from?

sjaypink

dgl1001 wrote: »

the average household size is about 2.4 people and is expected to decrease by 10% by about 2031. Therefore, we need to increase the housing stock by 10% just to accommodate the existing population

Yes, I know that the person per household figure is falling....

....but is the answer more houses?

How about a change in how we live?

...What change and, more importantly, how, I don't know . Just a thought :cool:

adr0ck

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Interesting, where did you get this stat from?

average household size of 2.4 is on the office for national statistics website

the stat regarding household sizes getting smaller is part of the governments statement that we need to build 240000 homes a year to keep up with demand

though the government obviously havn't looked on rightmove and seen the billion trillion homes available or looked on mse and realised how many billions of homes are sitting empty

the_ash_and_the_oak

hope we don't build more homes imo (tho tbf don't really agree that there are trillions of homes in the UK)

IveSeenTheLight

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

hope we don't build more homes imo

Why?
It makes sense that if there are more properties available then there is a higher chance for property prices to become stable or even reduce.

Alternatively they could re-develop the properties that currently are not livable at present.

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why?
It makes sense that if there are more properties available then there is a higher chance for property prices to become stable or even reduce.

Alternatively they could re-develop the properties that currently are not livable at present.

Not particularly interested in wanting prices to come down tbh - more interested in a better and more efficient built environment than cheaper property prices

IveSeenTheLight

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Not particularly interested in wanting prices to come down tbh - more interested in a better and more efficient built environment than cheaper property prices

Nothing to say that newer property could not be built to be more greener or with better infrastructure.

Indeed if the population is increasing and properties aren't developed, you could see a reduction in efficiency and infrastructure

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Nothing to say that newer property could not be built to be more greener or with better infrastructure.

Indeed if the population is increasing and properties aren't developed, you could see a reduction in efficiency and infrastructure

True but that really depends if we are talking about replacing older structures or simply building more and more (not overly feeling the quality of newbuild properties either - also not really feeling the trending towards lower population density and sprawl imo - and longer commute times necessitated by that)

IveSeenTheLight

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

True but that really depends if we are talking about replacing older structures or simply building more and more (not overly feeling the quality of newbuild properties either - also not really feeling the trending towards lower population density and sprawl imo - and longer commute times necessitated by that)

Maybe you are considering this from a small local and need to open the considerations to the wider country.

Not everywhere has the same commute as you see in London