Build more houses

WhiteHorse

Linton wrote: »

But I fear too many FTBers have delusions of grandeur and see themselves as 4 bedroomed detached sort of people.

Very true.

treliac

Linton wrote: »

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...

I don't share your optimism. Too many people hanging on thinking things will improve. IMO too much in the way of correction is needed, it's taken a long time to reach this point and unwinding the problems will take a lot longer.

The mismatch between average pay and house prices is too great, lending to people who can't afford what they are buying has had to stop, more jobs to be lost in both public and private sectors, cost of living rocketing. I can't see the optimism. We're going to be at standstill for a long time.

Linton

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.

Houses priced below an open market rate only work if they are available to a small number of people (essential workers or whatever). If they are available to all, and they are easily affordable what will happen?

The number which can be built in a few years will be far less than the number of people who want them. These people will outbid each other to get their nest. So prices will rise until only a few (oddly enough a number which more or less equals the number of houses available) can afford to buy them. So we are back to where we were.

Or are your low price houses to be allocated by some other mechanism than highest bidder? Perhaps under the Big Society we can have a volunteer group
of local worthies who decide who is most deserving.
Is that what you want?

Linton

treliac wrote: »

The mismatch between average pay and house prices is too great, lending to people who can't afford what they are buying has had to stop, more jobs to be lost in both public and private sectors, cost of living rocketing. I can't see the optimism. We're going to be at standstill for a long time.

Do you have any evidence that people cant afford what they are buying? High numbers of defaults and repossessions perhaps? As Hamish has pointed out, the constraint now is the deposit. Once you have that, the repayments are easier than they have been for many years.

As to optimism - its neither optimism nor pessism, just a logical application of supply and demand on the situation.

But I do agree it will take some time for the current situation to unwind. The unwinding will be a lower price for the relatively few number of forced sales, but otherwise stagnation until firstly credit becomes available pushing up prices strongly and a year or 2 later when increased building can satisfy some of the demand.

Coeus

Building more houses was an established labour policy to ease population housing concerns to 2020. How far this policy would have been enacted throughout another labour government is another matter.

The coalition, much to my short-term disadvantage, devolved responsibility for housing issues to local councils rather than a regional set parameters set on economic targets. Unfortunately most local councils have little incentive to fund new builds, especially given (i) current budget restraints and (ii) unwillingness to encroach on 'greenbelt' area. In fact the 'greenbelt' issue was one of the primary reasons to devolve responsibility to local councils so as not to tarnish the green image of the coalition government.

I am a conservative supporter and as such support the coalition however I pride myself on being able to step back and analyse a problem from a bias-free and logical viewpoint. It does seem possible, or at least did in 2010, for a government to push a housing build programme on a national level - however politics has played a role in preventing this it seems.

diable

Nikel wrote: »

Im interested in self build. But wow, land is so pricey.

Land is the new gold, silver, oil and everything else on the up rolled in to one.

treliac

Linton wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that people cant afford what they are buying? High numbers of defaults and repossessions perhaps? As Hamish has pointed out, the constraint now is the deposit. Once you have that, the repayments are easier than they have been for many years.

I'd like to think that people are generally no longer being allowed to over-extend themselves.

But the much needed FTBs are not out there. My children are facing a tougher time than I did in simple terms of affordability and the ratio between earnings and house prices, which are now so out of sync that the market has stalled.

It was obvious that this was coming years ago but we kept on sleep-walking into it. And we were led by a government that seemed perfectly comfortable with high levels of debt.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I agree.

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

So you agree that there is no point building more houses....but answer every inconvinient truth you come across on this forum with "build more houses".

This was the point of my post. I didn't actually believe you thought building houses was actually a viable solution. Which is why I was asking questions, which you didnt answer, based on your repetative solution for housing problems we face.

Rather it's an easy answer, or soundbite, to answer any inconvinient post that puts you in a position.

But you agree, it's not a solution. Not one that would work anyway.

In the meantime, we are still faced with all the problems we face. People unable to buy. People unable to move because people are unable to buy.

And no, it doesn't all simply end in "house prices up". You know that, we all know that....and that is why you use a solution thats not actually viable, and now you agree it's not viable, to divert the focus away from the inconvinient truth that there ARE problems with current house prices, in terms of people being unable to buy them, at the prices currently demanded.

Theres also the inconvinient truth that you know full well the lending multiples required to allow people to buy at current prices are not coming back. Not any time soon, if ever.

So if the solution isn't build more, as it's not viable....what is the solution? It's certainly not house prices up, as prices are the problem now. If prices were not as high as they were, people WOULD be able to afford the deposits and would get lending.

Graham_Devon

Linton wrote: »

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...

Answer....desire.

Not demand. You say yourself in your opening sentence people can't afford them. Lending aint going back to 125% mortgages. So all we are left with is desire.

Londonsu

Its not just a case of building more housing but where they build them.

Here on the Isle of Wight over 800 new homes are being built on the outskirts of Newport, 70% will be housing association and 30% 'affordable' I have seen the first phase being built usual story tiny little boxes with postage stamp size gardens

We have been assured that these homes will only be made available to Islanders or people with close island ties, despite rumours that these homes will be made available to mainlanders on other areas housing waiting lists.

There is no talk about extra services like schools or GPs

Most people living there will have to drive due to an ever decreasing bus service and ever increasing fares - a weekly
bus pass is £22.00. Most people will have to take at least two buses to get to areas like Cowes and Sandown people on min wages cant afford that

If they do import mainlanders - where will they work? The island is an unemployment black spot due to get worse when 500 council workers lose their jobs this year - there are very few vacancies apart from cleaners, care home staff and the odd seasonal work.

The affordable housing is a bit of a joke - most young people leave the Island due to lack of jobs not lack of affordable housing, those who commute to the mainland want to live in Cowes or Ryde not stuck in the middle of the island.

The cynics amongst the Islanders are looking forward to a whole estate filled with benefit claimants and unemployed
and since the new project is an extension of a notorious (by Island standards) estate I can only agree with them.

It would have been a whole lot better to spread these 800+ homes throughout the Island where there are existing facilities but that would have been too easy.