Millipede promises to drive stake through heart of Middle England support base

cells

N1AK wrote: »

This is one point I actually completely agree with. You could certainly add a couple of hundred thousand houses to inner London if we wanted to. At the same time we need to look at spreading the work out over a wider area rather than being so focused on the centre of inner London which is causing the transport bottlenecks.

I'd much rather that we made better use of the land we're already using, remaining brown field sites etc than just pave over the countryside because it is is easier; that said, being pragmatic means accepting that we'd still see hundreds of thousands of houses built near London as well.

The uk will likely need 40 million homes by the time it hits 80 million population which could be by 2045

That means the uk needs about 12.5 million more homes by 2045 or about 405k homea a year every year for the next 31 years.

London cannot take all those homes. At an upper limit maybe you can double Londons houaing stock from 3.5m to 7m and the population increase from 8.5m to 15m

That still leavea 9 million homes and 10 million people to put elsewhere.

Hence most the new builds will have to be outside London and will have to be on Greenfield.

There is no other way to acomidating 16.5m people
There is no other way to building 12.5m mire homes


Well acrually there is. We could knock down 2.5 million homes and revert them to green fields and have 80 million people live in 25m homes or an occupancy rate of just 3.2 persons per home..........

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Nothing to do with the fact that the house market was in the biggest slump it has been in since war.

Go back to 1985 and the same applies

London had the most homes of all the regions and it was affordable becuase supply was good.

Today london would need about 750,000 more homes to match the homes per capota it has in 1985

You think these missing 750k homes has no impact on prices?

cells

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Knock down 2 or 3 storey buildings that have been converted to housing and put up high rise purpose built apartments (and not the cheap, crappy stuff built in the 70s which gave them a bad name).

I'm talking about buildings of the same quality as Beetham_Tower in Manchester. £165k for a 1 bedroom apartment in there:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38286104.html

This is part of the solution

My parents live on a road in London where 12 pairs of semi detached homes could be knocked down and replaced by either about

50 terrace homes or about 250 flats.
The location is ideal as there is a strip of land in front of the homes the other side of the road which is too small for housing but would be sufficient for hundreds of cars to park.

So 24 homes could become 250 low rise flars (4-5 story max)
And that is juat one small street in one amall part of London.

However that cannot be the inly solution
The uk will likely need 10-15 million homes by 2050
There is no way at all you could build thatany by just building more dense.
Yo will need to allocate 1% of the empty fields to be converted to housing

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Go back to 1985 and the same applies

London had the most homes of all the regions and it was affordable becuase supply was good.

Today london would need about 750,000 more homes to match the homes per capota it has in 1985

You think these missing 750k homes has no impact on prices?

Keep picking slumps it wasn't in 1973 and it wasn't in 1990

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Keep picking slumps it wasn't in 1973 and it wasn't in 1990

Keep picking the very tops of markets

And yes I think you will find London was far more affordable even in 1990 than it is today. Ie at the top of the market in 1990 vs 5 on from the 2008 recession

Road_Hog

N1AK wrote: »

It does have to be cunning, because invariably the simple ones turn out to be obviously flawed. In this case a prime example of the third option I mentioned in the same post and you seem somehow to have missed.


Our entire economic model is based upon expanding the number of workers by immigration.

Do you know what a Ponzi scheme is? Do you know what happens when there are no new people to add to the scheme?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Keep picking the very tops of markets

And yes I think you will find London was far more affordable even in 1990 than it is today. Ie at the top of the market in 1990 vs 5 on from the 2008 recession

Prices in London are higher now than when they peaked 89 but whether they are more affordable is debatably because of interest rates. But you seem very blinkered and do not want to accept that other things impact on housing prices.

Between 1983 and 1989 the population increase slightly but prices in relation to earnings increased almost 50%.

MFW_ASAP

cells wrote: »

This is part of the solution

My parents live on a road in London where 12 pairs of semi detached homes could be knocked down and replaced by either about

50 terrace homes or about 250 flats.
The location is ideal as there is a strip of land in front of the homes the other side of the road which is too small for housing but would be sufficient for hundreds of cars to park.

So 24 homes could become 250 low rise flars (4-5 story max)
And that is juat one small street in one amall part of London.

However that cannot be the inly solution
The uk will likely need 10-15 million homes by 2050
There is no way at all you could build thatany by just building more dense.
Yo will need to allocate 1% of the empty fields to be converted to housing

The fields are usually not empty though, they are used for growing crops or as grazing for cattle. The solution isn't to make the UK even more reliant on imported food, the solution is to start looking at how we manage population growth. Many of our financial systems are set up as Ponzi schemes, especially state and public sector pensions, that rely on an ever increasing population. We need a government that is willing to break away from this model before it's too late.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

We need to look at how we use the limited land on our small island. Not just in terms of building houses, but for food production, biodiversity, infrastructure, the water table etc.

cells

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The fields are usually not empty though, they are used for growing crops or as grazing for cattle. The solution isn't to make the UK even more reliant on imported food, the solution is to start looking at how we manage population growth. Many of our financial systems are set up as Ponzi schemes, especially state and public sector pensions, that rely on an ever increasing population. We need a government that is willing to break away from this model before it's too late.

The food argument is a red herring

We already produce virtually all the food that we eat and can be grown here.
Some ignorant people will point out that only 65-70% of the food we eat is grown here but they dont realise that you can not hit 100% without making it illegal to eat foods that wont grow here or are not in season here. As such we grow virtually all the food we eat tjat is growavle and in seasoon

But most importantly of all there are 60 million acres in the uk. If you give up 0.2m of those (about 0.3% of the land) you would have space to build 10 million homes at an average 50 an acre. So it takea veey little land to build lots ans lots of homes