Houses needed for additional 239,000 people

Batchy

Everyone in my age group seems to be buying houses at the moment.

It used to be earlier, now its later, its a shame, but the good thing is people are buying for cheaper, and instantly getting some equity too.

Its not a bad thing, its bad for current owners, or owners from the past who were selling up, but for the rest its cheaper up the chain...

Is it a good time to die or emigrate or go into a care home ... NO... otherwise, stop worrying guys!

Pimperne1

Batchy wrote: »

Everyone in my age group seems to be buying houses at the moment.

It used to be earlier, now its later, its a shame, but the good thing is people are buying for cheaper, and instantly getting some equity too.

Its not a bad thing, its bad for current owners, or owners from the past who were selling up, but for the rest its cheaper up the chain...

Is it a good time to die or emigrate or go into a care home ... NO... otherwise, stop worrying guys!

Would have been even cheaper if they had bought about 2.5 years ago though.

Its not really that bad for most current owners as they either have loads of equity already or they are selling up and buying a larger home which is cheaper too.

buglawton

Numerous European countries have solved this by building upwards. Not London 1960s tower block style, but 4 storey buildings with underground car parks, nice landscaping, good local facilities and public transport. In most cases (notable exception some older French suburban developments), they just don't get the inner-city style blight that frightens UK NIMBYs.

In Europe, building regulations about minimum liveability specifications are much much tighter so people really do get a liveable quality of apartments and surrounding environment, even on social projects. IT DOES NOT COME CHEAP. And it is not attractive to quick-fire builders focussed on big margins and quick returns. The funding is often a partnership with low interest long term loans and hefty local authority funding.

Will European style solution ever arrive here?
Looks like no UK politicians have the gumption to address this.

dazeruk

Net migration rose by 21% last year, with 239,000 more people arriving in the UK than those leaving, the Office for National Statistics has revealed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14663354

Road_Hog

Generali wrote: »

The solution seems obvious to me. Allow more houses to be built.

The price of a house in general = cost of land + cost of house + premium for being allowed to build.

The last part is the big negotiable and it's the bit that is skewed by the Government. Let people build houses and the builders make money and buyers save money. It sounds like a winner to me.

The obvious fly in your ointment, is that they no longer build land anymore, we have a finite supply of it. England is already the most densely populated country in Europe, we need land to grow food, for the increased population. If we concrete everywhere over, the plants and vegetation that currently 'purify' our air supply, won't exist, we'll suffer more problems, like flooding and drainage, traffic congestion, pollution, not to mention more unemployment.

There are also the social and cultural problems that come with it, especially when you start living cheek by jowl, people need their personal space. A simpler solution would be to stop immigration, then demand on homes would ease up, we would be left with some greenery and perhaps employers might have to start employing some of the 2.5 million unemployed instead of importing labour on the minimum wage.

I know which of the two solutions sounds better to me.

oldtractor

theres plenty of houses. if old property was renovated. if unused shops were concverted into houses. if prices dropped so people could aford them. if second home ownership was banned.

Loughton_Monkey

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Because you misread the thread title?

No. You misread my post. That's why I referred to the 'equivalent' number of houses - meaning "as many houses as 239,000 people need" as opposed to 239,000 extra houses.

Loughton_Monkey

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3444599

Pimperne1

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

No. You misread my post. That's why I referred to the 'equivalent' number of houses - meaning "as many houses as 239,000 people need" as opposed to 239,000 extra houses.

Oh, okay then.

Mrs_Arcanum

Generali wrote: »

The solution seems obvious to me. Allow more houses to be built.

The price of a house in general = cost of land + cost of house + premium for being allowed to build.

The last part is the big negotiable and it's the bit that is skewed by the Government. Let people build houses and the builders make money and buyers save money. It sounds like a winner to me.

Not forgetting the employment this provides - so a real win win situation.

The total land in the UK built on is only 9% so we still have room to build, yet still the UK has the smallest living space per person.