Think the unthinkable - let's help the coalition with some blue-skies thinking...

JasonLVC

michaels wrote: »

The only way to make housing more affordable would be to build more houses where they are needed - this would probably require building on currently green land and/or increasing housing density. We all know that the UK housing density for new properties is already one of the highest in the world so it seems more land needs to be made available - not popular to those already in an area but how else can this be achieved?

It would be good if the housing demand could be spread more evenly across the UK but I don't know how this can be brought about - at the moment the ares with the good schools and good jobs are in high demand and thus expensive and thus populated by the high earners and therefore generate even more of the good jobs and the schools improve further with an opposite spiral in the less attractive areas. Any blue skies thoughts on how to reverse this effect so that the country is less starkly divided and thus land could be used more efficiently to increase the housing stock.

Keeping on topic but responding to your post.....we refer to this thing as "affordable housing" and yet from the day you own the property it gos up in value (usually anyway, not withstanding the last year). When you sell it, it is therefore no longer affordable.

We need a change in property law that designates certain homes as 'affordable' and the owner cannot sell the property for more than say 10% of the original selling price - so if they bought it at £100k, they cannot sell it for more than £110k thus retaining the 'affordable' aspect.

It's a desperatley flawed idea for millions of reasons (like who wants to buy a house and NOT make a return on it) , but its the sort of thing needed to keep cheap housing, cheap.

StevieJ

JasonLVC wrote: »

It's a desperatley flawed idea for millions of reasons (like who wants to buy a house and NOT make a return on it) , but its the sort of thing needed to keep cheap housing, cheap.

But they would never move, they may not be able to afford to if the general market has risen say 40%, you need something that achieves throughput on those houses.

JasonLVC

StevieJ wrote: »

But they would never move, they may not be able to afford to if the general market has risen say 40%, you need something that achieves throughput on those houses.

I did say it was flawed!!.;)

I guess my point really is that there's no such thing as "affordable housing". It might start off like that, but if they don't move then you need to build another house for someone else and if they do move they need to sell for more in order to afford the new house that is dearer due to inflation/time, etc.

Social housing is probably a part-solution, build social housing and deny the right to buy them forever. You can rent for as long as you want or seeing as this is a 'unthinkable' thread, maybe limit the time spent in social housing to say 15 years after which you need to move out/move on to force those who can afford to buy but choose not to, to buy houses freeing up the social house for those less fortunate.

StevieJ

JasonLVC wrote: »

I did say it was flawed!!.;)

I guess my point really is that there's no such thing as "affordable housing". It might start off like that, but if they don't move then you need to build another house for someone else and if they do move they need to sell for more in order to afford the new house that is dearer due to inflation/time, etc.

Social housing is probably a part-solution, build social housing and deny the right to buy them forever. You can rent for as long as you want or seeing as this is a 'unthinkable' thread, maybe limit the time spent in social housing to say 15 years after which you need to move out/move on to force those who can afford to buy but choose not to, to buy houses freeing up the social house for those less fortunate.

I agree on social housing but the problem with a time restriction is you could be breaking up communities, kids at school etc and where would those families go? We need cheap housing for rent for those ppeople who cannot afford to buy.

lynzpower

Definately agree with this Stevie.

Bluesky thinking - lets rewind 30 odd years or so!

Another thing I would say is that couldnt we have a situation where if you are in your rented-off-the-state home and you have more than one bedroom spare and you are in an area of high demand then you should be moved to a smaller unit within the same local authority? (empty nesters) to free up larger units where needed .

JasonLVC

lynzpower wrote: »

Definately agree with this Stevie.

Bluesky thinking - lets rewind 30 odd years or so!

Another thing I would say is that couldnt we have a situation where if you are in your rented-off-the-state home and you have more than one bedroom spare and you are in an area of high demand then you should be moved to a smaller unit within the same local authority? (empty nesters) to free up larger units where needed .

Councils try this already but most tenants are on long-term tenancies and so cannot be shifted unless they don't comply with their tenancy agreement (like not paying rent, being anti-social, etc).

But the idea remains good, if your kids have all flown the coop, then you don't need that 4 bedroom social house anymore, then again, the two bed social houses are usually the grotty ones inthe dodgy part of town - to move from a nice 4 bedder unduer duress from the Council to a crackden may not be popular either.

Perhaps we should move on from this one, housing is clearly a massive problem with massive consequences for one group, whatever you do!.

ninky_2

michaels wrote: »

The only way to make housing more affordable would be to build more houses where they are needed - this would probably require building on currently green land and/or increasing housing density. We all know that the UK housing density for new properties is already one of the highest in the world so it seems more land needs to be made available - not popular to those already in an area but how else can this be achieved?

It would be good if the housing demand could be spread more evenly across the UK but I don't know how this can be brought about - at the moment the ares with the good schools and good jobs are in high demand and thus expensive and thus populated by the high earners and therefore generate even more of the good jobs and the schools improve further with an opposite spiral in the less attractive areas. Any blue skies thoughts on how to reverse this effect so that the country is less starkly divided and thus land could be used more efficiently to increase the housing stock.

just been speaking to a friend in iran who reports that in order to create more affordable housing the government is planning a massive social housing build and also will be fining people with empty second properties who don't rent them out. there had been a recent burgeoning of buy to letting - particularly with people buying existing homes and knocking them down to build flats which then sit empty.

the majority of iranians are financially comfortable. my fairly poor mother and father in law have just helped their youngest son buy a flat for himself and his bride to be - i am shocked that they could afford to do this in one of the more 'expensive' cities.

i think it's this financial comfort which is keeping a lid on a lot of the unrest caused by the other highly unpleasant 'lifestyle controls' that are imposed by the regime.

michaels

I disagree about the affordable housing bit - if a LA builds houses 'more cheaply' it is only because it has rezoned the land and thus if the land with permission to build on was given a true market value then the houses would cost just as much.

I still claim the reason housing is expensive is because people want houses, more than in the past with smaller households, less lodgers, single households, longevity etc and there are not enough more houses so prices rise until soem of this extra demand is priced out (people decide to share not have their own flat etc)

The only way to reduce prices is to increase supply - whether you call it social housing or private housing is not the issue.

lynzpower

Councils try this already but most tenants are on long-term tenancies and so cannot be shifted unless they don't comply with their tenancy agreement (like not paying rent, being anti-social, etc).

Actually they can also take "cash incentives" from local councils as well.

sad to say its good VFM here in central london where the rent for a 2 bed is sky high