Channel 4 tonight

ukcarper

shortchanged wrote: »

I would say that probably isn't far off when you include the price of the plot of land it's built on.

Obviously it's the price of land that drives house prices and how much someone is willing to pay for that piece of land.

It's probably based on averages so to build a 4 bed house in the south east will be far more than elsewhere because the plot of land is probably £150,000+.

The house was in Birmingham and quick look on rightmove showed up plenty of new 4beds less than £200k in fact they started at £160k

Flight2quality

Stephen_Leeb wrote: »

Over a MILLION empty homes that they know about, if everyone reported empties it could be millions more. I know of a few empty flats and houses round my way. Not to mention all the empty commercial buildings that could be turned into residential now without the need for planning.

The answer is to keep building new homes as planned but AS WELL keep getting people into all the empty buildings commercial as well as residential.

Hope most of this can happen before property prices correct down to where they should be, but then they may over shoot on the way down.

Yes if prices stay propped up a little longer and they do indeed build all the new properties they say they will. And they sell off a !!!!!! load of council houses for 50% of todays price, on top of getting people into all the millions of empty properties at the same sort of time as interest rates go back up. Mortgages repayments are getting more expensive any way as well as base rates going back up soon.

Auction houses will be full of repossessed houses as people can not afford to keep up with their monthly payments because cost of living is going up just as average wages and benefits are all going down down deeper and down...........

wotsthat

Flight2quality wrote: »

Auction houses will be full of repossessed houses as people can not afford to keep up with their monthly payments because cost of living is going up just as average wages and benefits are all going down down deeper and down...........

It sounds like you are really really trying to convince yourself.

Sapphire

wotsthat wrote: »

If it's just a makeover show where we see some family with a hard luck story crying at the end because they've got a house it'll be a waste of time watching - there's plenty of that stuff on already.

The clip I saw showed George walking down a brick strewn street wondering why the housing wasn't in use. It seemed obvious to me - the street was derelict, looked like it had been hit by the Luftwaffe, and was probably in an area where there were no jobs to support the rental or mortgage payments.

It'll be interesting to see how it's done. I bet it's not as controversial as the word 'scandal' in the title might suggest - George has never struck me as being particularly hard hitting.

What amazed me was that he seemed to be under the impression that 'families' need 3-, 4- or even 5-bedroom properties. Ridiculous, given that the people he was discussing are living off taxpayers who themselves often do not live in such properties!

Whatever happened to flats such as the one I lived in when I was a child (three to a small bedroom in one place and perfectly happy), or like the ones enjoyed by many continentals?
:mad:

It's that sense of entitlement in our society (again), which is ultimately harming hard-working people who are often themselves quite hard-up, and our economy in general.

Graham_Devon

What I don't get about this programme, and it may have been answered, but have been busy while watching.

If these empty streets are a result of labours pathfinder scheme, which seems to be the reason, and the councils have no money....howcome the council was so eager to buy the one remaining inhabited house on the empty street?

Where has that money come from? Why are they so keen to buy it, and not only that, be round physically boarding it up before he's even moved out?

Where does the money come from to buy the house? All of a sudden, there is taxpayer money to buy a home and do absolutely nothing with it, but absolutely no money for any repairs?

Not sure the full story is coming out.

Graham_Devon

Another point....350,000 empty homes.

But theres also 300,000 empty spaces above shops not used....Phil Spencer will be taking this one on, in terms of trying to house the homeless in these empty spaces.

toby3000

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I don't get about this programme, and it may have been answered, but have been busy while watching.

If these empty streets are a result of labours pathfinder scheme, which seems to be the reason, and the councils have no money....howcome the council was so eager to buy the one remaining inhabited house on the empty street?

Where has that money come from? Why are they so keen to buy it, and not only that, be round physically boarding it up before he's even moved out?

Where does the money come from to buy the house? All of a sudden, there is taxpayer money to buy a home and do absolutely nothing with it, but absolutely no money for any repairs?

Not sure the full story is coming out.

If it was Gateshead (I think they just said 'North East') then the council do seem to have a developer on-board to rebuild the areas, so there might be some money about. Or maybe once the council have made the offer to buy they're obliged to stand by it?

Either way, the house can't have been worth more than £40,000, so in the long run it'd be wise for the council to buy it.

sjaypink

Sapphire wrote: »

What amazed me was that he seemed to be under the impression that 'families' need 3-, 4- or even 5-bedroom properties. Ridiculous, given that the people he was discussing are living off taxpayers who themselves often do not live in such properties!

:mad:

It's that sense of entitlement in our society (again), which is ultimately harming hard-working people who are often themselves quite hard-up, and our economy in general.

It didn't state, as far as I'm aware, that the potential new tenants are living off taxpayers?

And the problem is not a sense of entitlement - whether or not one may exist is a different matter - the problem is the housing standards the local authorities need to adhere to, what constitutes overcrowding etc

Running_Horse

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Another point....350,000 empty homes.

But theres also 300,000 empty spaces above shops not used....Phil Spencer will be taking this one on, in terms of trying to house the homeless in these empty spaces.

I have mixed feeling about that programme (and not just because it was presented by a man who has encouraged 2nd home ownership on his shows).

Assuming 300,000 new homes at an average £20,000 renovation cost. That is £6 billion. But that is only the beginning of the costs. Both the men housed were presumably on benefits. An average rent of say £100 pw means over one and a half billion pounds per year from the taxpayer into the pockets of private landlords. That is assuming private landlords would be willing to rent to 300,000 unemployed, which experience suggests they wouldn't.

Housing both men by Christmas made good telly, but the graduate didn't just wake up lucky one morning with a flat and TV crew in tow. It would have taken years of work to sort his problems and get him from park bench to cosy flat. I can't help thinking Mr Spencer was exploiting both men to make himself look good. Maybe Channel 4 should do a follow up 12 months from now to see how it worked out.