The silver bullet to fix the housing market

cells

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK already spends billions a year on fooonly a portation..........

What an empty statement

Bulk base foods are very cheap. Eg sugar flour corn rice etc they cost only around 20-30p a kilo which means to import the base food calories a person needs costs in the region of 10-15p a day. A virtually insignificant import bill of close to £1B can feed 30 million people continuously with food imports.

Also by comparison UK imports are closer to £200B

So land for food arguments simply don't add up

cells

Out of interest Hamish have you revised you theory that the builders are not building cos mortgages are hard to obtain?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cells wrote: »

Out of interest Hamish have you revised you theory that the builders are not building cos mortgages are hard to obtain?

Mortgage availability has increased significantly over the last year, thanks to a concerted effort from the BOE and Treasury to repair the dysfunctional lending market.

New housing starts are up nearly 40% Year on Year as a result, and now at the highest level in 6 years.

So obviously I have no need to revise the theory, as it's correct.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

To serve what purpose? The UK has a finite amount of growing capacity.

the reason we don't produce more food is not because we lack the land but
-because people like foods that don't grow here
-like to buy non seasonal foods all the year round
-the Eu pays farmers not to grow
-many foods can be produced cheaper elsewhere so it's not economic to grow them here

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a poor argument.

We have flood plains, marsh, bog, mountains, moorland.

You can't reasonably build on these areas, which means the 96% talked about is reduced drastically.

Spend some time in the Heathrow stack and you'll be amazed at the amount of green space that isn't a wilderness of bogs, mountains and moorland in the South-East.

alberty

Generali wrote: »

This already exists: there is a pretty decent train service running to many places outside London: Kent, Surrey, Essex, Hertfordshire etc. The only trouble is you aren't allowed to build new houses there.

Trains are expensive and can barely handle the strain of the London population, anyone who commutes knows that. Affordable high speed rail to midlands and wales would solve the housing crisis better than concreting over all of the green belt or building slums in the sky.

CLAPTON

alberty wrote: »

Trains are expensive and can barely handle the strain of the London population, anyone who commutes knows that. Affordable high speed rail to midlands and wales would solve the housing crisis better than concreting over all of the green belt or building slums in the sky.

if trains are expensive then how could we have 'affordable' high speed rail links to midlands and wales? Unless of course you rich people being heavily subsidised by taxpayers?

we don't need to concrete all over the green belt: just a modest few percent.

high rise flats are very popular : try buying a penthouse in London.

alberty

CLAPTON wrote: »

if trains are expensive then how could we have 'affordable' high speed rail links to midlands and wales? Unless of course you rich people being heavily subsidised by taxpayers?

we don't need to concrete all over the green belt: just a modest few percent.

high rise flats are very popular : try buying a penthouse in London.

I don't believe given a choice anyone would prefer a shoebox size flat to a traditional house. London prices are based on the idea that we all have to stuff into a small economic area because noone will ever invent a way for us to move large distances quickly and cheaply. That's probably not true, although it probably is true in our lifetimes.

CLAPTON

alberty wrote: »

I don't believe given a choice anyone would prefer a shoebox size flat to a traditional house. London prices are based on the idea that we all have to stuff into a small economic area because noone will ever invent a way for us to move large distances quickly and cheaply. That's probably not true, although it probably is true in our lifetimes.

well, if you do the simply arithmetic required, you will see there is plenty of opportunity to build larger shoeboxes and houses in the London area.
We don't because of the mad government restrictions.

Having recently been to Wales I was appalled by the shoe box sized houses and so don't see that as a solution to London's solvable housing problems.

Bantex_2

chucknorris wrote: »

We don't have any children so that wouldn't be any use to us, (or to be exact to our non existent heirs).

I could be up for adoption.