House prices divide the nation between old and young, haves and have-nots

shortchanged_2

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The issue how much does society want to see of urban sprawl, and concretisation of the countryside ?

The problem is at what point does want actually become need?

We are constantly being told there is a severe shortage of housing in the UK, so why the lack of building if the demand is there?

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

Can you explain how you come to that conclusion from the above survey

So it seems that bricks and mortar will continue to divide the nation into haves and have-nots. Perhaps the only surprise is that house prices have been transformed from the typical bore’s idea of a boring topic – let’s face it, it’s not a very original opinion, is it? – to the subject that dare not speak its name when parents or grandparents talk to adult children or grandchildren, for fear of causing offence.

"Tags: Beresfords, bricks and mortar, capital gains, children, divided nation, families, grandchildren, grandparents, haves and have-nots, house prices, housepricecrash.com, , mortgage famine, Nathalie Hirst, old, parents, property, tax-free, young, boomers, selfish, plundering, locusts, bedroom, blocking, grey, intifada, revolution"

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

"Tags: Beresfords, bricks and mortar, capital gains, children, divided nation, families, grandchildren, grandparents, haves and have-nots, house prices, housepricecrash.com, , mortgage famine, Nathalie Hirst, old, parents, property, tax-free, young, boomers, selfish, plundering, locusts, bedroom, blocking, grey, intifada, revolution"

We all know what you think but the article is basically just about the fact that older people are more pessimistic about house prices (substitute optimistic if you want falls).

　

GeorgeHowell

shortchanged wrote: »

The problem is at what point does want actually become need?

We are constantly being told there is a severe shortage of housing in the UK, so why the lack of building if the demand is there?

That's a fair point, and describes a dilemma which has not really been resolved. One of the problems I think has been the desire to use new build housing for social engineering purposes. For example there have been cases where for a development close or adjacent to an established, well-kept owner-occupied area, planning permission is conditional on a substantial proportion of so-called affordable housing and even social housing being included. Of course this leads to objections and protest campaigns because the people already living there can see their property values going down and their quality of life deteriorating. There are many sites, especially brownfield where this is not so much of an issue, and a happy medium has to be found between excessive nimbyism and the opposite extreme of forcing inappropriate developments wherever developers want to put them.

Having said all that even a substantial increase in land available for new build would not necessarily cause a drastic reduction in house prices. Land itself is still expensive, new builds tend to be priced at a premium, and the likely clamour of demand for the new properties would tend to support relatively high prices.

CLAPTON

land is cheap

building land is expensive only because the government limits it's supply

GeorgeHowell

CLAPTON wrote: »

land is cheap

building land is expensive only because the government limits it's supply

True. But I'm still pleased that Prescott was not in office long enough to turn the whole of the south east of England into a contiguous 21st century equivalent of Basildon or Stevenage.