Uk 1960'S Vs 2000'S

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't either - is HB so perfectly balanced that reductions would lead to people living like cattle?

It has little to do with HB

Simple fact is the UK population is going to go up by circa 4.9 million this decade. During which the UK will build ~ 1.5 million homes which is sufficent for about 3.3m people. The remaining 1.6 million will have to be forced to go share with current renters. 1.6 million more people crammed into the existing 5m or so privately rented homes.

wotsthat wrote: »

It's not an accounting trick to suggest that increasing housing efficiency could also play a part.

It isnt an account trick its a total waste of time. Private property rights mean you cannot force those who live in single person households to go rent a bedroom in a HMO

all the "lets try everything else first" suggestions just detract from the real problem which is a lack of enough homes for the population to live as they want

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What is done is done. Extra capacity is required buying existing homes without replacing them would do little to help. Government buying new houses, creating additional capacity and supplying them for social needs wouldn't be a bad idea.

what about government building new houses so creating additional capacity and sell or renting at a going rate and using the 'profit' for further building so creating even more housing for the benefit of all the population and also avoiding creating ghettos?

Kennyboy66

CLAPTON wrote: »

well maybe you could make the point more clearly


i.e. after the war, there were lots of building plots available due to the bombing and that councils used compulsory purchase powers to clear large parts of the cities hence making large amounts of land available
then they funded the private sector to build the properties.


thereafter they introduced draconic planning rules to restrict building is large areas of the country


grizzly conclusion is that the private sector can never build sufficient houses for the expanding needs/wants of the growing population

Clearance due to bombing played very little part in post war house building outside of London

It was largely driven by expansion of existing cities and the 22 new towns created by the 1947 act.

Stevenage, Crawley, Harlow, Welwyn, Hatfield etc and later Warrington, Runcorn, Telford was where new housing was built.

cells

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What is done is done. Extra capacity is required buying existing homes without replacing them would do little to help. Government buying new houses, creating additional capacity and supplying them for social needs wouldn't be a bad idea.

the government cant buy additional new housing, that suggests that the only and main limit to more new builds is demand for new homes which is not the case.

There is demand for at least 400-500k new builds pa in the UK, supply is only about 130k as the councils limit the stamps they give out.

This is proven time and again by looking at the data for different regions and different areas. For instance the build rate between the 33 boroughs of London varies greatly. Labour and materials cost the same, the only notable difference is that the London councils who issued more stamps got more buildings. the ones that issued too few got less

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

what about government building new houses so creating additional capacity and sell or renting at a going rate and using the 'profit' for further building so creating even more housing for the benefit of all the population and also avoiding creating ghettos?

government doesn't build homes

it can pay for tom !!!!!! and harry to build them though

cells

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What is done is done. Extra capacity is required, buying existing homes without replacing them would do little to help. Government buying new houses, creating additional capacity and supplying them for social needs wouldn't be a bad idea.

your post does not make sense, what does 'creating additional capacity and supplying them' mean?

zagfles

cells wrote: »

a fool who thinks himself not a fool, now that is the :rotfl:

That is indeed "the" :rotfl:

Occupancy rate has always fallen in the UK and elsewhere for that matter, that has happened not because occupancy rates have always fallen but because of demographic changes. We need more homes per capita to cater for smaller families and people who have no families. We need more homes per capita as we as a society don’t like or want multi generational living. We don’t want two families sharing one house. We don’t want to rent out spare rooms to strangers. We need more homes as ageing means we spend more time of our lives as two persons per home (couple of pensioners) or 1 person per home (widow) than we do as a family with kids.

:rotfl:What a load of generalisations. We want... we don't want... here's a free clue. We don't all want the same things.

When I was single I wanted to live with friends, not alone. When I moved to somewhere I didn't know anyone, I chose a houseshare with strangers. Much more interesting that living alone, money wasn't the issue.

Some young adults actually want to live with their parents. Some people actually want to make a bit of money renting spare rooms out so they can do more interesting things with their lives than pay a mortgage. We don't all chase your ideal of how we should be living. We're not all clones with the stereotypically British sad obsession with the value of their house.

Your ridiculous assumption that the only reason everyone who isn't living in the way you'd choose to live, is that they can't afford to, is arrogant bullsh!t. The same as those who think people who choose to fly economy only do so because they can't afford first class.

So I don't see any inevitable rise in house prices just because occupancy rates aren't where you think they should be. Some people have more interesting things to spend their money on.

CLAPTON

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Clearance due to bombing played very little part in post war house building outside of London

It was largely driven by expansion of existing cities and the 22 new towns created by the 1947 act.

Stevenage, Crawley, Harlow, Welwyn, Hatfield etc and later Warrington, Runcorn, Telford was where new housing was built.

London a significantly sized place plus there was some building in Birmingham and Coventry

grizzly1911

cells wrote: »

your post does not make sense, what does 'creating additional capacity and supplying them' mean?

If the government pays a builder to construct new properties, that weren't there before, which are in addition to any already planned speculative builds by developers for owner occupation then they have created extra capacity and they can be supplied to needy occupants by the government "directly".

Simples but you knew that.

cells

zagfles wrote: »

That is indeed "the" :rotfl:

:rotfl:What a load of generalisations. We want... we don't want... here's a free clue. We don't all want the same things.

When I was single I wanted to live with friends, not alone. When I moved to somewhere I didn't know anyone, I chose a houseshare with strangers. Much more interesting that living alone, money wasn't the issue.

Some young adults actually want to live with their parents. Some people actually want to make a bit of money renting spare rooms out so they can do more interesting things with their lives than pay a mortgage. We don't all chase your ideal of how we should be living. We're not all clones with the stereotypically British sad obsession with the value of their house.

Your ridiculous assumption that the only reason everyone who isn't living in the way you'd choose to live, is that they can't afford to, is arrogant bullsh!t. The same as those who think people who choose to fly economy only do so because they can't afford first class.

So I don't see any inevitable rise in house prices just because occupancy rates aren't where you think they should be. Some people have more interesting things to spend their money on.

mostly fluff,vbut let me try nonetheless

of course some people like living more dense for various reaasons, simple fact is most however do not. Hence why since records began the ocupancy rate has been falling. That is about 100 years of want/need and it has been true in virtually all countries

So your story about wanting to live with your mum is neiher here nor there