Are new houses really needed ?.

CLAPTON

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Pointless as I find new gadgets, the purchase of these is providing jobs and contributing tax. As do most luxury items.

Second homes don't benefit the economy in the same way; they certainly don't help the local community much. They are luxury items that have a social cost.

I went to the Windmill Museum on Wimbledon Common yesterday (very cute, run by enthusiastic volunteers). I learnt that a couple of centuries ago the local toff proposed turning Wimbledon Common into a private park (for his own enjoyment of course) and flogging off Putney Heath for housing. An act of parliament was forced and the land became "common" and managed for the benefit of the local community. There needs to be a sensible balance between individuals spending as they please and a harmonious society.

I was down in the west country recently and there was quite a lot of building going on.
How does this not help the local community?

IveSeenTheLight

The-Joker wrote: »

In London now there are new blocks of flats going up all over. Also plans for some high rise blocks of luxury flats.

Going to be a glut on the next downturn.

I'm a joker, I'm a smoker
I'm a midnight toker

Midnight Toker
A person that consumes cannabis late at night. Usually someone who doesn't want to get caught by others, most likely parents. These people will sometimes invest in a vaporizer, for more stealth toking.

Says a lot really

Cornucopia

There is pent-up demand for housing - perhaps to the order of 300,000 homes required.

At the same time, there are structural, regional problems.

We know all about London.

But there is also the South West, where competition for second homes has pushed up prices in some areas to the extent that even very small properties are no longer affordable to those earning locally.

And there are the Northern cities and mining towns where whole streets (neighbourhoods even) of small terraced houses sit empty, often owned by public bodies, and awaiting demolition. Some isolated projects have successfully rehabilitated some houses (often by knocking two into one), but it's a fairly small number.

cakeforbrains

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is pent-up demand for housing - perhaps to the order of 300,000 homes required.

At the same time, there are structural, regional problems.

We know all about London.

But there is also the South West, where competition for second homes has pushed up prices in some areas to the extent that even very small properties are no longer affordable to those earning locally.

And there are the Northern cities and mining towns where whole streets (neighbourhoods even) of small terraced houses sit empty, often owned by public bodies, and awaiting demolition. Some isolated projects have successfully rehabilitated some houses (often by knocking two into one), but it's a fairly small number.

BIB: I live in the south west in a coastal town on a brand new estate. In fact, so new that it's still being built.

Quite a large section of it is social housing (flats and small houses) which is occupied by a variety of families and single people.

The rest of it is full-price. Three and four beds ranging from about £250k to £400k. All-but-one of these houses has been bought by retired couple or retired single person. They are the only people round here who can afford them.

We rent one of the four beds from a (lovely) couple who have bought it as a home to retire into in a few years.

I feel like living here is a daily reminder of the generational differences in housing, ie. that young people pay too much for houses while older people sit on the 'profits' they've made from housing bubbles. At least, that's how it is down here.

CLAPTON

cakeforbrains wrote: »

BIB: I live in the south west in a coastal town on a brand new estate. In fact, so new that it's still being built.

Quite a large section of it is social housing (flats and small houses) which is occupied by a variety of families and single people.

The rest of it is full-price. Three and four beds ranging from about £250k to £400k. All-but-one of these houses has been bought by retired couple or retired single person. They are the only people round here who can afford them.

We rent one of the four beds from a (lovely) couple who have bought it as a home to retire into in a few years.

I feel like living here is a daily reminder of the generational differences in housing, ie. that young people pay too much for houses while older people sit on the 'profits' they've made from housing bubbles. At least, that's how it is down here.

yes, you have correctly identified that, in general people who have worked 30-40 years tend to have more wealth than those who have only worked a few years.

sadly you have failed to identify the solution to a shortage of housing : build more

Cornucopia

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes, you have correctly identified that, in general people who have worked 30-40 years tend to have more wealth than those who have only worked a few years.

Part of the issue is that this wasn't always the case for the majority of older people - many of them lived in relative poverty in rented accommodation.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

could you post a little more detail

like where are they geographically?
what sort months or perties; size, condition, ownership
how long have they been unoccupied
etc etc

Its not true his 2 million figure I don't know wstructurally I it from but its not right

In the uk they record empty homes in 2 ways. First all empty homes and secondly homes that have been empty for 6 months or more.

the important number is that 6 months number as a house empty for say 8 weeks isn't empty like the way we are discussing.

and in the UK the empty for over 6 months is about 0.25 million homes. That isn't a lot of homes its less than 1% of the stock. Also of those 0.25m empty over 6 months many will be dilapidated and unusable. Eg once at auction a house was sold that was structurally unsafe and needed everything doing and im sure the the person who baught it will fix it and bring it into use.....but at the same time there is another house somewhere falling into such a state of disrepair. This is like you say churn and an indication of a market in shortage not in excess.

Now if we had say 5-10% empty for over 6 months. Ie 1.5-3.0 million then maybe the OP could claim no shortage but not with 0.25m

TheFactory

mobfant wrote: »

Because a property/secure housing is among the most important thing's for an individual/family's happiness. You probably know that as you have one yourself. You have a choice for where to invest your remaining funds.

It is not fair, and it is selfish, to deprive someone else of the chance of home ownership for the benefit of an investment. If there were enough houses at an affordable for everyone who wanted to buy one, then it wouldn't be an issue; there is a need for lettings for those who cannot yet afford or do not wish to buy. Life isn't fair, though, and so selfish people use buy-to-let as an investment in the same way bankers used complex financial instruments to make a profit in 2008. The latter group survived largely unscathed, and I'm sure buy-to-letters will as well.

How do you know im depriving anyone of a home? There are currently 60 2 bed properties for under £70,000 within 3 miles of where I invest, im not stopping anyone buying those am I?

The problem is not that there is not enough affordable housing, its that people have a sense of entitlement that they should be able to live in an area that is suffering from too much demand and not enough supply. The cold hard facts are if you can't afford to live somewhere you have to move to somewhere you can afford to live.

I was watching a programme (name escapes me) where people are on a 10 year waiting list for a council house in Tower Hamlets, I was screaming at the TV "why don't you move somewhere else!?" Who in there right mind would wait there? People who think like you I suppose, I should be able to live in one of the most expensive areas in the country because there shouldn't be so much demand....

Deal with it!

cakeforbrains

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes, you have correctly identified that, in general people who have worked 30-40 years tend to have more wealth than those who have only worked a few years.

sadly you have failed to identify the solution to a shortage of housing : build more

I didn't 'fail to identify a solution'. I agree with building more. I was simply offering a real-world snapshot to assist the conversation.

Seesh!

patman99

I got my figures from a series on C4 last year which highlighted the number of empty houses in England and Wales. They even had an app that allowed you to take a photo of an empty property and add it to their map.

In Colchester they are building new homes like there is no tomorrow. Trouble is, the vast majority of 1, 2 and 3 bed properties are being snapped-up by large buy-to-letters.
Also, 30% of the houses being built are for social housing (according to a site manager fr a major house-builder that I know, social houses have to meet strict minimum floor sizes for each room and are thus bigger than the ones built for the private market).

Having worked on one major site in the Town, I can safely say that with small rooms and gardens the size of postage stamps, these houses are smaller than the Victorian terraces they knocked-down to build them. In fact, I would go as far as to say they represent moden-day slum housing.