Coalition Government want lower house prices

julieq

Generali wrote: »

Over here the land is released to a company that has the right to sell on plots of land in return for building roads, schools etc that the community will require.

That's pretty much what's starting to happen here, but it tends to be for brownfield redevelopment - there were quite a number of town redevelopment plans in the SE based on this sort of thing just prior to the crisis. The biggest nimby rallying call for brownfield sites is always "The local infrastructure won't take it", so it's a very sensible way around objections.

julieq

He's not exactly covering himself with glory at the moment, see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-12104475

As much as I like the Beatles, you woudn't exactly say the slum the drummer lived in for three months as a baby is exactly something worth preserving over a redevelopment for general benefit. But hey ho.

Linton

Generali wrote: »

Over here the land is released to a company that has the right to sell on plots of land in return for building roads, schools etc that the community will require.

That's fine for towns miles from anywhere else. But that's not the infrastructure I am talking about. The SE of England as a single conurbation will need new motorways and railway lines giving access to the centre and to the smaller scattered focal points, a large increase in reservoirs and sewage works etc. Developments of this scale have always needed state management and finance as they are unaffordable by small scale individual developments.

Generali

Linton wrote: »

That's fine for towns miles from anywhere else. But that's not the infrastructure I am talking about. The SE of England as a single conurbation will need new motorways and railway lines giving access to the centre and to the smaller scattered focal points, a large increase in reservoirs and sewage works etc. Developments of this scale have always needed state management and finance as they are unaffordable by small scale individual developments.

It works for land being released in Sydney. I don't see why a town like Guildford or Sevenoaks would need unaffordable amounts of investment in order to build a few thousand homes in each. Especially if it was also made easier to build office space outside of the Centre of London.

globalds

The infrastructure that is overloaded in the South east isn't just small local roads.it is the major systems , Motorways , rail , water.
A reverse osmosis plant was built for London this year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Water_Desalination_Plant .This really can't be seen as an advancement in a country with as much water as we have.

Our geography is comparable with other European countries and the high density of Asian cities is not needed here.

The problem we seem to have is the people who the market is really designed for ,genuine home owners,especially first time buyers are facing too much competition for access.

A result of the property market becoming an investment and speculative market.

Maybe making this market a bit harder for speculators and a bit more punitive for investors who are not home owners would reduce some of the long term pressure that built this bubble up.

abaxas

globalds wrote: »

The infrastructure that is overloaded in the South east isn't just small local roads.it is the major systems , Motorways , rail , water.
A reverse osmosis plant was built for London this year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Water_Desalination_Plant .This really can't be seen as an advancement in a country with as much water as we have.

Our geography is comparable with other European countries and the high density of Asian cities is not needed here.

The problem we seem to have is the people who the market is really designed for ,genuine home owners,especially first time buyers are facing too much competition for access.

A result of the property market becoming an investment and speculative market.

Maybe making this market a bit harder for speculators and a bit more punitive for investors who are not home owners would reduce some of the long term pressure that built this bubble up.

If we build greater than we need, it removes all speculation and investment from the market.

You cant invest when there is a massive oversupply.

globalds

abaxas wrote: »

If we build greater than we need, it removes all speculation and investment from the market.

You cant invest when there is a massive oversupply.

keep building them and you will get more and more of this at the bottom end



There needs to be a housing strategy and there needs to be restrictions on people taking advantage of the market for individual (or corporate) gain, at the expense of all others involved.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

des_cartes wrote: »

Anyone still believing that house prices can only go up better start thinking again. The only way is DOWN.:money:

False.

In fact, he specifically stated the opposite. That he wants both house prices and wages to rise.

It's clear the government have no desire to see house prices fall, but don't mind if they rise less than wages for a while.

Thats just fine with me, as it means both my house and wages increase in value compared to my mortgage.

It's of no use at all for those wanting a crash though.

And little short of disastrous for anyone, like des_cartes, who STR-ed and now need a nominal terms crash to break even.

ukcarper

des_cartes wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-12104094

Mr Shapps said it was "horrendous" that house price growth had outstripped earnings since the 1990s.
"This government absolutely supports peoples' aspiration to own a home," he said.
"But we also believe that (property) should be primarily thought of as a place to be your home."
The MP for Welwyn Hatfield told the paper he wanted people to look to investments that are supposed to offer security in old age, rather than rely on housing.
'Basic need'
He described the rise in prices between 1997 and 2007 as a "crazy period", which had left many younger people struggling to buy a home.
"I think it is horrendous that a first-time buyer would need to be 36 on average if they do not have the support of mum and dad," he told the paper.
"The main thing everyone requires for their subsistence is a roof over their head and when that basic human need becomes too expensive for average citizens to afford, something is out of kilter.
"I think the answer is house-price stability."
He spoke of a "rational" market in which house prices fell in real terms, by increasing by less than earnings.


Anyone still believing that house prices can only go up better start thinking again. The only way is DOWN.:money:

He was on LBC at lunchtime waffling on all very good but no concrete proposals I wouldn’t hope for too much if I were you.

Housebear51

des_cartes wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-12104094

He spoke of a "rational" market in which house prices fell in real terms, by increasing by less than earnings.


Anyone still believing that house prices can only go up better start thinking again. The only way is DOWN.:money:

This is the key `real terms`.

I can see the prices we see on right move not going down that much next few years. But inflation will be going up a lot.

In real terms house prices will be crashing.