We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
"Any sane person should worry about what will happen when IR's rise"
Comments
-
It would be interesting to know how many are built net rather than gross.
It takes quite a few houses to replace some hideous 1960s tower block that's just been blown up.
I have indeed seen such figures but can't find them at the moment.
Given that in London, close to 100% of building in on previously developed space (brownfill) one would expect a fair amount to be ex residential property.EU tariff on agricultual product 12.2%
some dairy products 42.1% cloths 11.4%
EU Clinical Trials Directive stops medical advances0 -
False dichotomy. You could double the housing stock and have 95% of the country sans concrete.
the dichotomy was rather about what 'all things being equal' means rather than any conversion from my previous views that we only need a little bit of green belt to meet our housing needs.EU tariff on agricultual product 12.2%
some dairy products 42.1% cloths 11.4%
EU Clinical Trials Directive stops medical advances0 -
Flats in the Trellick Tower (one of the most hideous) are now fetching £400k and upwards.
It was rarely the places that were the problem, just the scum that were moved into them.
It was a million quid a few days ago.
Anyway, not all tower blocks are horrible. I lived in the Barbican and it was fantastic. I suspect that there's likely to be a correlation between tower blocks being blown up and them being hideous.0 -
if the aim is to provide better housing at cheaper cost to UK residents, then reducing demand is as effective as increasing supply.
No, it's not, as reducing demand to meet an inadequate supply necessarily means not supplying that housing.if, of course, you have a wish to see the country coated in concrete then of course the two situations aren't comparable.
I suffer terribly from hay fever.If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
It was a million quid a few days ago.
Anyway, not all tower blocks are horrible. I lived in the Barbican and it was fantastic. I suspect that there's likely to be a correlation between tower blocks being blown up and them being hideous.
Maybe even a causal link to go with that correlation?If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
Flats in the Trellick Tower (one of the most hideous) are now fetching £400k and upwards.
It was rarely the places that were the problem, just the scum that were moved into them.
there is little doubt that Trellick Tower would have been demolished if common sense had prevailed
however, as it is now a grade 11 listed building it is being refurnished
its situation in North Kensington would guarantee a high price for virtually any type of property.EU tariff on agricultual product 12.2%
some dairy products 42.1% cloths 11.4%
EU Clinical Trials Directive stops medical advances0 -
No, all other things being equal would mean that there was the same number of houses to go round. Building more houses would be required for there to be more houses to go round.
Let's be more specific as the vernacular is proving confusing -- reducing the number of immigrants would mean, other things being equal, that the number of available homes per 1000 of population would be more than it would otherwise be.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Let's be more specific as the vernacular is proving confusing -- reducing the number of immigrants would mean, other things being equal, that the number of available homes per 1000 of population would be more than it would otherwise be.
Again, no, as all other things being equal would mean an unchanging population (assuming immigration was reduced to zero) and an unchanging number of homes.
If however you are referring to reducing population (maybe by the removal of immigrants?) the number of homes per remaining population unit would increase, but therein the specificity lies the misdeed: that there is exclusion of some of the population for the benefit of others, dressed up as equivalent to increasing supply.If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
Again, no, as all other things being equal would mean an unchanging population (assuming immigration was reduced to zero) and an unchanging number of homes.
If however you are referring to reducing population (maybe by the removal of immigrants?) the number of homes per remaining population unit would increase, but therein the specificity lies the misdeed: that there is exclusion of some of the population for the benefit of others, dressed up as equivalent to increasing supply.
I am comparing, theoretically, zero immigration with some level of immigration, everything else remaining constant.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards