Housing allocation

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

As it stands today we are building around 100,000 houses a year, but creating north of 250,000 additional households a year.

Those houses are currently allocated through price, those that can afford a house get one, and those that can't are forced to share with others.

If prices fall dramatically then in theory* more people could afford them, but there will not be any more houses available for them to have.

How do those posters who wish to see lower prices propose housing is allocated if not through price?

Lottery draws? Waiting lists?

And if not then what?











*I mention "in theory" because in reality less people have been able to buy since prices fell than were able to buy before, but that's not the point of this thread.

ILW

Why not adjust poulation to match available resources?
It's the way nature works.

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

*I mention "in theory" because in reality less people have been able to buy since prices fell than were able to buy before, but that's not the point of this thread.

Well of course they are because there is still a void in between what the banks are willing to lend with sensible, prudent lending compared to the unrealistic prices most people still want to sell for.

The housing market needs a correction from the boom prices we had in the previous decade and this could take many, many years to happen. As I have stated before a slow gradual decline of prices over a long period may be the best outcome for everyone. We need to get back to sensible income multiples and 10%+ deposits again.

Emy1501

If house prices fall it will be due to the lack of peoples ability to get credit or desire to buy. There is little evidence of an actual housing shortage as if there was there would be loads of people living on the street.

System

Emy1501 wrote: »

There is little evidence of an actual housing shortage as if there was there would be loads of people living on the street.

Real life face palm.

chewmylegoff

This is pretty similar to wotsthat's thread which in itself was pretty similar to Generali's thread from the other day. I think what you're supposed to do is put posts related to the same subject in the same thread. HTH.

wotsthat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

This is pretty similar to wotsthat's thread which in itself was pretty similar to Generali's thread from the other day. I think what you're supposed to do is put posts related to the same subject in the same thread. HTH.

Actually my thread was based on a comment by ILW in a different thread asking how housing could be allocated if not by price. I expanded that comment into it's own thread. I think Hamish copied my thread idea TBH and I don't remember the one by Generali although I suspect it was better worded and thought out than mine.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As it stands today we are building around 100,000 houses a year, but creating north of 250,000 additional households a year.

Those houses are currently allocated through price, those that can afford a house get one, and those that can't are forced to share with others.

If prices fall dramatically then in theory* more people could afford them, but there will not be any more houses available for them to have.

How do those posters who wish to see lower prices propose housing is allocated if not through price?

Lottery draws? Waiting lists?

And if not then what?











*I mention "in theory" because in reality less people have been able to buy since prices fell than were able to buy before, but that's not the point of this thread.

Seems a really uninteresting question to me.

Builders and owner-occupiers sell their houses to [broadlyspeaking] whoever will pay them the highest price.

Landlords rent their houses to whoever offers them the bestcombination of agreeing to pay high rent, reliably paying rent on time, notsmashing the place up, etc.

Councils allocate council housing based on [actually I won’tgo there]

I don’t think I’ve any real objection to these rules of thumb,not once. Which makes me kind of reluctant to enter into debate.

toby3000

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As it stands today we are building around 100,000 houses a year, but creating north of 250,000 additional households a year.

I don't understand HOW these statistics can be true, unless until a few years ago we had hundreds of thousands (more) houses standing empty.

Or is it based on the assumption that households like mine of 4 single adults would want to be 4 seperate hosueholds if we could? Because I've no desire not to live in a houseshare, and I imagine most people my age feel that same

Graham_Devon

toby3000 wrote: »

I don't understand HOW these statistics can be true, unless until a few years ago we had hundreds of thousands (more) houses standing empty.

Or is it based on the assumption that households like mine of 4 single adults would want to be 4 seperate hosueholds if we could? Because I've no desire not to live in a houseshare, and I imagine most people my age feel that same

More based on the assumption that there will be more elderly people living singularly in larger homes.

The 2008-based household projections show that there will be an extra 2.4 million households in
England in 2018 from the 2008 baseline of 21.7 million households and an extra 5.8 million by 2033.
This is equivalent to an average rate of growth of 232,000 households per annum over the 25 year
projection period (Table 3.1).
The long-term projections are for the number of one-person households to increase at a greater rate
than other household types (see Figure 5). Many of these households will be elderly persons, who may
not downsize to a property more suitable to their household size. This could put further strain on the
demand for larger ‘family-sized’ dwellings if the projections were realised.

ruggedtoast

Much of the reason prices are as high as they are is down to government policy distorting the housing market.

SMI, buy-to-let, ZIRP, restricting planning permission for new builds, shared ownership, tenancy law that vastly disadvantages tenants over every chancer want-to-be landlord with a few grand in the bank, ludicrous housing benefit payments into the pockets of said chancers for housing the poor.

They're all methods which contribute to higher than necessary house prices. It would be nice if house prices were determined solely by price, like they used to be, rather than all this nonsense.