Sellers will never drop their prices

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think I've got it... (or at least got another angle)

We may have created 100,000 new houses. But what about those large victorian or georgian houses which have been split into flats? I'm assuming these wouldn't be included in the houses we created.

What about those large mills being converted into 20, 30 apartments? What about the barn conversions? 15 homes recently created here, in last three years, from barns alone on one plot.

What about the riverside apartments being created right now near me, out of old industrial buildings?

Are these included in the "new homes" figures...as could go someway to explaining why people are falling out onto the streets. These are not new buildings.

Pretty sure it includes commercial developments of all types. Flats, mills, conversions, etc.

asc99c

Linton wrote: »

Now many more people have good office jobs and see themselves as middle class deserving of the benefits that used to be reserved for the rich. Unfortunately, relatively speaking, people with those sorts of jobs are no longer rich, they are part of the majority.

I don't see how it makes much difference for housing. As the population gets richer I think we should be able to afford better housing. The majority will never be able to afford butlers, nannies etc. because the cost goes up with average wages - you have to be rich relatively speaking to afford that sort of thing.

But better productivity, which underlies us being richer in absolute terms, does allow us to build bigger houses for ourselves. The materials technology and construction technology has improved vastly in the last 50 years. There is only land which is a limited resource, and even then IMO the problem is the planning system, rather than the land supply itself.

ukcarper

asc99c wrote: »

A lot of them are potential households. 'Children' in their 20s and 30s still living with parents. Remember rental costs have risen in line with mortgage costs. I'm not sure how you can afford any property on minimum wage, unless you can get a housing association place.

Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s want to move out but can't afford it.

You can get LHA but if you are single it will only cover a room with shared facilities. I know someone on part time minimum wage doing that.

Graham_Devon

In England, last year 128,000 dwellings were created.

Not sure what this means really, but if anyone can shed some light...

"Provisional net additions to total housing stock 2009/10 = 128,680. The remainder accounted for by conversions plus change of use minus demolitions"

In wales there were 7,600 new dwellings.

In scotland there were 16,800 new dwellings. Scotlands figures do denote they include conversions in plain English.

I make that just under 155,000 new homes. 55% more than Hamish's figures. So not sure yours include conversions Hamish.

This is all the last years figures. All time low figures.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In England, last year 128,000 dwellings were created.

Not sure what this means really, but if anyone can shed some light...

In wales there were 7,600 new dwellings.

In scotland there were 16,800 new dwellings. Scotlands figures do denote they include conversions in plain English.

I make that just under 155,000 new homes. 55% more than Hamish's figures. So not sure yours include conversions Hamish.

This is all the last years figures. All time low figures.

Fair enough.

So 160K new dwellings created including conversions.

250,000 new households.

Still a fricking huge gap between the two...

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Fair enough.

So 160K new dwellings created including conversions.

250,000 new households.

Still a fricking huge gap between the two...

Yup.

But as I say, these are the lowest figures.

For example, Scotland is 30% down from just 2 years ago. Builders are reporting they are moving away from FTB homes as they can't sell them.

If prices align properly, building will commence again. It's only really high prices stopping it. You could argue that lending could be higher, sure, but as we have seen, this only creates the problems we now see, whereas prices aligning won't create those problems.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If prices align properly, building will commence again. It's only really high prices stopping it. You could argue that lending could be higher, sure, but as we have seen, this only creates the problems we now see, whereas prices aligning won't create those problems.

And yet, as you point out, building was higher 3 years ago, and so were prices....

And so were total sales, and especially sales to FTB's. At those higher prices.

The only difference is lending....

It's a pretty basic economic principle that as prices reduce, so does supply. Can't see the housing market being an exception.

geneer

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Sellers will sell for whatever price they need to enable their next course of action, or they won't sell at all.

The only way this changes is if it's a forced sale.

Come on JoeSkampi. Theres something fishy (:)) about your reasoning.

Theres more than two reasons for selling a house.

geneer

If you look at those asking price indices which cover all house prices and not just the last 4 weeks (i.e. all but rightmove),
it does appear as if asking prices are falling.

Which kind of puts an end to the OPs assertion doesn't it.

twadge_face

I don't see how the question even needs to be debated. Sellers drop prices IF THEY WANT TO SELL.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-26446516.html