Census 2011: UK at 63.1 million, up 4 million in 10 years

Nikkster

kabayiri wrote: »

I doubt they will do a Census2021 in the same format. There are people inside the ONS who think it's just too expensive now.

I think the newly formed coalition had the same thoughts too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10584385

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Does not accurately track new household formation, as a blunt average cannot account for the increase in single person households.

The household formation estimates for the last decade were 235,000 per year.

For the next decade they estimate 270,000 per year.

Not once in the last decade, nor likely in the next, have/will we build enough houses to keep up.

How do you think that the average number of people per household can possibly fall if the number of houses is not being built at a fast enough rate to accommodate the new households?

Anyway, with the ONS stating that the AVERAGE household has 2.4 persons and the rate of house building for 10 years has been at 1 house for every 2.3 increase in population, you can emit hyperbole all you like, but you are just arguing with the stats which contradict you.

Graham_Devon

Just for reference...



The housebuilding thing has been hampered by the recession, along with many many other things. We DO need more housing, but Hamish is being somewhat disingenuous at times.

chewmylegoff

Yes, the issue is the house building rate vs. the population growth right now, not over the last 10 years. If the current trend continues there really is going to be a problem - and I suspect the rate for this year might fall below 100,000 as the new starts rate has collapsed IIRC.

John_Pierpoint

Originally Posted by kabayiri
I doubt they will do a Census2021 in the same format. There are people inside the ONS who think it's just too expensive now.

Nikkster wrote: »

I think the newly formed coalition had the same thoughts too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10584385

Good way of burying bad news?

In this census I was sent two sets of forms [Legally in one borough, post wise in another]. The second set of forms had to be collected manually to avoid possible hanky panky on my part. I was able to tell the enumerator of two other ghost households, one in a "Portacabin" and the other in a "shed". With council tax at current levels do you blame them?

Personally I would prefer to live in my own shed or demountable building than in one of those flats.

No discussion of housing can be complete without a definition of "overcrowding" - here is the latest definition, which has inbuilt complexity and fudge factor:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/home_safety/overcrowding#0

I think I would prefer to live here, though not try to raise 7 children in the same two room structure with shoulder high walls, built like a wigwam.



[If you follow the link you will find misplaced comments from modern people who fail to realise that the owner of this property was on the make and enjoyed healthier living conditions than those available in the towns.]

At two persons per habitable room, my self build "palace" could take 14:eek: :rotfl:

Soviet system here we come - let us move to Havana

wotsthat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Yes, the issue is the house building rate vs. the population growth right now, not over the last 10 years. If the current trend continues there really is going to be a problem - and I suspect the rate for this year might fall below 100,000 as the new starts rate has collapsed IIRC.

This data release seems to pose more questions than answers.

One of the arguments against immigration in the recent past was that there wasn't anywhere for these people to live. It looks as if housing supply more than kept up as average occupiers per dwelling seems to have been diluted. Are we seeing the average number of people per house fall but seeing the range widen? i.e. increased trend towards sole occupiers and, with an aging population, less houses with children in them. At the other end are we seeing more houses with, say, 6 or more people in them.

The other question is whether there has been a housing shortage, as generally assumed, or whether, as per Graham's graph, this is a more recent trend of the last 3 - 4 years.

John_Pierpoint

wotsthat wrote: »

At the other end are we seeing more houses with, say, 6 or more people in them.

"Hot Bedding" in a determination to pull themselves up by their own boot straps.

Would you put this on a census form if it were true?

If you have done any "genealogy" you will have found "mistakes" on the forms and they were filled in face to face with the enumerator, because the majority of the population was illiterate [and in some cases in "my" village - the enumerator was too].

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

This data release seems to pose more questions than answers.

One of the arguments against immigration in the recent past was that there wasn't anywhere for these people to live. It looks as if housing supply more than kept up as average occupiers per dwelling seems to have been diluted. Are we seeing the average number of people per house fall but seeing the range widen? i.e. increased trend towards sole occupiers and, with an aging population, less houses with children in them. At the other end are we seeing more houses with, say, 6 or more people in them.

The other question is whether there has been a housing shortage, as generally assumed, or whether, as per Graham's graph, this is a more recent trend of the last 3 - 4 years.

i think probably the biggest problem with the data is that it is not granular. i have no doubt that there are housing shortages in certain parts of the country, certain parts of london in particular.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

How do you think that the average number of people per household can possibly fall if the number of houses is not being built at a fast enough rate to accommodate the new households?

Once again, the blunt average of people per house is no indication of shortage or otherwise as it masks an increase in single person households at the one end, and an increase in high occupancy households at the other end.

Anyway, with the ONS stating that the AVERAGE household has 2.4 persons and the rate of house building for 10 years has been at 1 house for every 2.3 increase in population,

And at the same time, the number of empty houses has fallen, the number of single person houses had risen, and the number of HMO's has risen.

You can't possibly assume we are building enough houses because we have built 1 house for every 2.3 increase in population, just because the average is 1 house for every 2.4 people.

What if the segment of population that is increasing is not inclined to live with a distribution that matches the average?

For example, single adult immigrants, or old widows.... If the majority of population increase is from such segments of the population (and I think it is) then you'd need more than 1 house for every 2.3 people.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i think probably the biggest problem with the data is that it is not granular. i have no doubt that there are housing shortages in certain parts of the country, certain parts of london in particular.

And I have no doubt that there is a surplus of housing in certain parts of the country. But that surplus does no good to the areas with a shortage.

You can't just pick up a house and move it to where demand is today, rather than keeping it where demand was 100 years ago. And we've had limited success at best with moving the employment to areas with a housing shortage.