The Housing Surplus Timebomb

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but doesn't that figure I've quoted for 1990 reflect the cost of servicing the mortgage as a % of household income ? And that is a valid comparision to the one I quoted for 2010 ?

you're not being thick at all - the average interest rate repayment on a mortgage now is about the same cash amount as the 1990s. it's the capital repayment piece that needs to be compared as separate parts, it's obviously higher now - both show different things.

stueyhants wrote: »

Anyway, comparing % of household income on mortgage costs over time is a bit pointless because other factors such as the cost of food/cars/electronics have a hugh impact. You can afford to spend more of your income on mortgage costs if the cost of food, fuel etc is cheaper.

spending habits and culture are different - it's easier to commute now, do people drive more. comparing doesn't give you much info.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mr.Brown wrote: »

So are there hundreds of thousands of homeless people? Are we expecting hundreds of thousands of homeless? I mean forget your blessed HPI mantra for a moment - if there physically are not enough houses then doesn't matter what price they are, there will be a lot of homeless people.

There are hundreds of thousands living with friends, hundreds of thousands staying with parents or relatives, and hundreds of thousands of new people being added every year.

There are not enough additional houses being built to accomodate the population increase, or at least, not without additional stock becoming more densely populated too.

Existing stock will get more overcrowded. Increased density will allow for more earners per household, and thus allow for higher rents. Higher rents will drive up yield, and allow prices to increase.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mr.Knightley wrote: »

When does the housebuilding programme need to stop Hamish?
Is it right for the UK to lobby Brazil about protecting the rainforest whilst the UK concretes over everything?

I couldn't care less if you never build another house. It suits me just fine to have explosive HPI.

The only way to avoid massive HPI is to build a few million more houses. And the only way to avoid housebuilding on a massive scale is to avoid population growth. But population growth is only partially from immigration, and the other part from increased life expectancy and birthrate. So to avoid it, you need to force people to die sooner, and breed less. Not to mention, without population growth, taxes would need to double to fund the pensions liability.

So I guess you could have cheaper houses, if you were willing to ban immigration, euthanise the old, sterilise the young, and pay twice the taxes you do now. Which all seems a bit self defeating, really.....

Mr.Brown_4

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There are hundreds of thousands living with friends, hundreds of thousands staying with parents or relatives, and hundreds of thousands of new people being added every year.

There are not enough additional houses being built to accomodate the population increase, or at least, not without additional stock becoming more densely populated too.

Existing stock will get more overcrowded. Increased density will allow for more earners per household, and thus allow for higher rents. Higher rents will drive up yield, and allow prices to increase.

I've just checked all our rooms and there's no one extra moved in. No one in our garden either. Still can't quite understand why new build flats fell so dramatically if all this new stock was needed.

Thrugelmir

exil wrote: »

And the empty houses are largely where no-one wants to live. The demand is for houses in leafy villages in the South East - where the locals are prepared to stage a coup against any government that dares lay a brick anywhere in the neighbourhood.

London area - identified November 2009 - 75,706

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm unsure what the relevance is to whether people can afford to buy or not. As surely this slack will be taken up by the private rental market.

The point is thats its cheaper to refurbish an existing building than build from new.

and all of the properties are in one location aren't they :beer:
can you explain why they're empty?

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

and all of the properties are in one location aren't they :beer:
can you explain why they're empty?

I'll throw that right back at you... There are some right shyteholes in the UK, can you explain why they're NOT empty.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

London area - identified November 2009 - 75,706

so why aren't people living in them?

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

I'll throw that right back at you... There are some right shyteholes in the UK, can you explain why they're NOT empty.

quite simple - because people want to live there and do. they're the ones that decided to either rent or buy that property

fc123

abaxas wrote: »

I'll throw that right back at you... There are some right shyteholes in the UK, can you explain why they're NOT empty.

More because if you live in Shytesville, you don't know it's shytesville until you move to Niceyniceyville...then you realise how shytey it really was when you go back to visit.