A cry of anguish

homelessskilledworker

ILW wrote: »

Very nice, but what has it to do with this thread which is about home ownership?

Your generalising about todays young adults

homelessskilledworker

What is it about some people that they only aspire to the next generation living in pig stys and shoeboxes because "thats the way its always been" or "my Granny lived in a coalshed".

I aspire for the next generation to live in roomy comfortable homes that are high tech and easy to heat, or to put it another way I want to advance.
There are so many property investors who actively want to stay in the dark ages because quite simply they are profiting from it and to hell with anyone that gets in the way of that.

This Government need to release somehow another 10% or 20% of Land at rock bottom prices to individual people looking to(not investors and speculators) willing to invest, build and graft their own homes.

And the release of that land would hardly be noticed when it would probably only increase the land built on by about 0.5% in the UK today.

ILW

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Your generalising about todays young adults

Only the ones that keep on moaning that they cannot buy a big house.

Half never will, some will get there with struggle and some will get there with little effort. Always been the same.
Why do you feel that any generation should be "entitled" to a higer living standard than the one before. I was not raised to believe that.

homelessskilledworker

ILW wrote: »

Only the ones that keep on moaning that they cannot buy a big house.

Half never will, some will get there with struggle and some will get there with little effort. Always been the same.
Why do you feel that any generation should be "entitled" to a higer living standard than the one before. I was not raised to believe that.

What I am saying is that it is no worse today, and you seem to be saying it is.
One of the most aspirational periods was the massive house building policies of the 50's. Good quality homes were built for British working nationals, there was a massive improvement in living conditions. I believe the phrase "you never had it so good" came from this era.

Maybe if we had good quality affordable state housing where you had rights, rather than todays spiv run BTL mess, you do what you are told, no pets kids or smokers, I can kick you out of your rented with 2 months notice society then maybe the majority of the people you say are whinging would stop whinging.

Generali

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

What I am saying is that it is no worse today, and you seem to be saying it is.
One of the most aspirational periods was the massive house building policies of the 50's. Good quality homes were built for British working nationals, there was a massive improvement in living conditions. I believe the phrase "you never had it so good" came from this era.

Maybe if we had good quality affordable state housing where you had rights, rather than todays spiv run BTL mess, you do what you are told, no pets kids or smokers, I can kick you out of your rented with 2 months notice society then maybe the majority of the people you say are whinging would stop whinging.

I'm not sure why the state should be building more houses. Their track record in the UK at building property and more importantly in looking after it is abysmal.

The nice 3 bed semis that were built by councils were appallingly maintained. As for the tower blocks....

Simply free up more land for housing and give permission to build 3 bed semis with decent gardens as that is what people want to live in. A house costs roughly £1,000/m^2 to build (link) so a 90m^2 house (a decent sized 3 bed) would cost of the order of £90,000 to build including profit.

This guy is selling 9.5 acres of land in Bromley for £120,000 (link). If each house gets 450m^2 of land (a very decent sized plot for the UK) then you could build 60 houses on there easily once you've allowed for roads, a park for the kids etc. so the land would cost £2,000 per house.

You're looking at £92,000 per house plus roads, utilities and street lighting for what would be big houses with very large gardens. The problem is you can't build them because of the Atlee Government's single biggest policy failure that hasn't been subsequently reversed: the Green Belt aka The Town and Country Planning Act 1947.

Make the council every town and village in the South East identify a 10 acre site for 50-60 houses or explain why it impossible to build in that area. Buy the land from farmers and sell it at a small mark up to cover costs in single parcels to individuals that wish to build with a proviso that construction must start in a year and be completed in 3 years or the land will revert to the council for resale.

antrobus

ruggedtoast wrote: »

..I have copied the post but not linked to it to protect the privacy of the OP...

Why? It's just copy and paste off the HPC forum. It's not like it's some big secret. God gave us Google for a reason, you know.

P.S. The OP sounds like an utter twonk to me.

doubleJackD

if we're debating all the big injustices in the world why don't we discuss the starving children

some of the whingers here could show some solidarity with the starving masses of the world by selling their computers and giving the money to oxfam. after all what is more important, a starving kid getting some food or coming on here spouting drivel about the big bad landlords not giving their tenants free houses.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure why the state should be building more houses. Their track record in the UK at building property and more importantly in looking after it is abysmal.

The nice 3 bed semis that were built by councils were appallingly maintained. As for the tower blocks....

Simply free up more land for housing and give permission to build 3 bed semis with decent gardens as that is what people want to live in. A house costs roughly £1,000/m^2 to build (link) so a 90m^2 house (a decent sized 3 bed) would cost of the order of £90,000 to build including profit.

This guy is selling 9.5 acres of land in Bromley for £120,000 (link). If each house gets 450m^2 of land (a very decent sized plot for the UK) then you could build 60 houses on there easily once you've allowed for roads, a park for the kids etc. so the land would cost £2,000 per house.

You're looking at £92,000 per house plus roads, utilities and street lighting for what would be big houses with very large gardens. The problem is you can't build them because of the Atlee Government's single biggest policy failure that hasn't been subsequently reversed: the Green Belt aka The Town and Country Planning Act 1947.

Make the council every town and village in the South East identify a 10 acre site for 50-60 houses or explain why it impossible to build in that area. Buy the land from farmers and sell it at a small mark up to cover costs in single parcels to individuals that wish to build with a proviso that construction must start in a year and be completed in 3 years or the land will revert to the council for resale.

you haven't put the link in for the land - but surely the only reason that 9.5 acres can be bought for £120,000 is because there is no prospect of ever being able to get planning permission to build houses on it. therefore it's a bit of a flaw to suggest that land costs £2k per housing plot - because if it did have planning permission its value would be a lot more. supposing you can build a house for £90k, but you can sell it for £200k, then the land is going to have a market value more in the region of £100k per plot than £2k.

michaels

Except if all land could be built on....

chewmylegoff wrote: »

you haven't put the link in for the land - but surely the only reason that 9.5 acres can be bought for £120,000 is because there is no prospect of ever being able to get planning permission to build houses on it. therefore it's a bit of a flaw to suggest that land costs £2k per housing plot - because if it did have planning permission its value would be a lot more. supposing you can build a house for £90k, but you can sell it for £200k, then the land is going to have a market value more in the region of £100k per plot than £2k.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

Except if all land could be built on....

true, although if all land could be build on, and as a result the land cost £2k per plot, then house prices would presumably collapse.