Build more houses

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But we haven't built the houses for them to rent?

Good start Graham, now follow that thought to it's logical conclusion...

Shakethedisease

1. Who is going to build these houses? Afterall, the large builders we do have in the country at the moment are now swaying away from building FTB properties, as they simply can not sell them.

2. Who is going to be able to buy these houses? This relates to point 1, and the reason as to why builders are pulling out.

3. Why build more houses, when the current stock of new homes we do have, is, in many cases, unable to be sold on?

4. There seems to be a trend of stating that mortgage lending is at fault for people not being able to buy, and that prices have little to do with peoples ability to buy. Therefore, if there are mortgage problems, what is the point of building more houses which people can't get mortgages on? I ask because the same people who blame low mortgage lending, also state more houses should be built. Surely a contradictory point?

4. Is this whole "build more houses" a simple easy answer to questions, rather than a possible solution? It seems that way to me. Seems a bit like answering the peak oil question with "well find more".

1) UK plc. Take a some billions from somewhere, mabye overseas aid or defence budgets, 'big society' promotion, whatever..

2) Use them as social housing with time limited, but much longer term tenancies than private rentals. Rents flow back to state coffers. No right to buy.

3) See above

4) See above

5) See above

Sorted.

Housing shortage solved. Housing benefit bills vastly lowered with much cheaper rents. Unemployment/youth apprecticeships/workfare helped out massively as well as real trade/admin/ skills learned. All materials, Uk sourced when possible.

Any problems with the above ? Apart from getting the billions in the first place of course. But it didn't seem to be too much of a problem in the 40's and 50's when the Uk was in just as much, if not more debt ( don't have the figs to hand ).

ladylouise62

One issue is it's not just 'build more houses' but 'build more houses in the south' - and it's full enough.
Also, there are many places that have been empty for years. In the centre of my town is a row of 9 small terraces that have been empty for as long as I can remember (well, 20 years at least) and are only just being developed. They should have been forced into housing stock a long time ago.
What the government needs to do it get business to open up in places where there is already lots of unused housing (in the north?), but in ways that doesn't allow then to just take the grants then run when it stops.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not "if" but "when"....


I dunno, sounds to me more like you're trying desperately to regurgitate the same old discredited bear memes over and over again.

If you want cheaper houses, build more of them. It's that simple.

You state this, you end your post with "its so simple", yet, don't answer the questions.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You state this, you end your post with "its so simple", yet, don't answer the questions.

I answered the questions.

treliac

Seems to me that there's no point in building houses unless there are people who can afford to buy them!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

Seems to me that there's no point in building houses unless there are people who can afford to buy them!

I agree.

So whats the inevitable result of more people living in the same number of houses?

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I agree.

So whats the inevitable result of more people living in the same number of houses?

It's probably the way people used to live in my grandmother's day! Several generations could share the same house until they could afford to move on. We'd call it overcrowding these days but many people accepted it as the norm once.

Our expectations have become much too high. I would suggest that many of us are going to have to lower those expectations, for a variety of reasons, in the forthcoming months and years.

PasturesNew

We don't need more houses to be built, we need proper affordable houses. There are hundreds/thousands of houses sitting empty. New ones. Sites on go-slow and mothballed.

They're not built because people can't afford to buy them - they can't borrow enough because they'd need to borrow more than they earn.

So we need affordable houses to be built (not SO/shared equity/Section 106/special deals), proper low priced houses.

Then we can all buy a house and buy all the stuff to put in it, creating jobs for people who make/move stuff. Then with our spare money we can do activities, creating jobs in the leisure industries.

Not flats... houses. Flats are !!!!!!. Nice little insulated houses with a little driveway for our little cars and a garage and a little lovely garden.

Linton

treliac wrote: »

Seems to me that there's no point in building houses unless there are people who can afford to buy them!

Once credit loosens up there will be plenty of people who will be able to afford them. But of course it will be some time before enough new houses can be built to make any difference, so what do you think will happen? Clue - few number of houses, lots of people wanting them...