Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes that is exactly what I mean, not for the country as a whole but London and the surrounding area. Out of interest how many properties do you think would need to be built in greater London to reduce rents by 60%. Your faith in private house building continues to astound me.

if London had an occupancy rate of 2.0 - 2.1 it would imo be very affordable.

So for london to BOTH grow to 10 million persons by the year 2040 and to have truly affordable homes it needs 4.7m - 5.0 million homes. Currently there are about 3.5m homes. So London needs some 1.2 - 1.5 million homes over the next 25 years

or 48k to 60k new homes per year

the GLA target for new builds is i believe 48k new homes a year.....what London achieves is less than half of that

westernpromise

The majority of those arguing that landlords are evil and BTL is bad appear in the main to be people who chose not to buy when they could have or people who have reached buying age only recently.

I don't have a lot of sympathy with either group. The former in many cases simply speculated against property price growth by waiting to buy cheap after the crash they expected. They lost and are now terribly angry and envious about their losing speculation. They attempt to dress this up as a high-minded moral objection to the current price of houses. It's not thwarted greed at all. Really. Well - I'm not fooled.

The too young to have bought type of buyer is demographically likeliest to have either voted for Blair or failed to oppose him. Many lectured their elders at the time about how we just didn't get it and voting Labour was all going to be fine.

You reap what you sow.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

this is the type of simpleton thinking that keeps us in the mess we are in

privately rented homes are lived in more densely than both owner occupied homes and social occupied homes

what this means is, if you convert 1 million privately rented homes to owner occupied homes you may find that 500k people have nowhere to live as the 3 million renters have become 2.5 million owner occupiers and the 500k people left over need to fight over park benches to sleep at night

in short, the growth of private renting was the markets and the only real solution to what is a big undersupply of new homes

I don't really buy that argument. Density of occupation is a variable and not a fixed parameter. Privately rented homes are likely more densely occupied because of the demographics (whatever) of the kind of people that occupy that property, rather than because of who owns the property.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

if London had an occupancy rate of 2.0 - 2.1 it would imo be very affordable. ....

I think you're making the same mistake by assuming that average household size is a parameter.

Some parts of London already have an average household size of 2.0. Kensington and Chelsea for example. I don't think that means that Kensington and Chelsea is somehow more 'affordable' than Tower Hamlets.:)

cells wrote: »

... So for london to BOTH grow to 10 million persons by the year 2040 and to have truly affordable homes it needs 4.7m - 5.0 million homes. Currently there are about 3.5m homes. So London needs some 1.2 - 1.5 million homes over the next 25 years

or 48k to 60k new homes per year

the GLA target for new builds is i believe 48k new homes a year.....what London achieves is less than half of that

London had a population of 8m in 3.3m households according to 2011 census data. If you wanted to accomodate an extra 2m people you would need to build another 780,000 homes, which would be 31,000 a year over 25 years. Obviously you would need to built a bit more than that to take account of dilapidations. How much more you wanted to build over that would depend on how much you wanted to effect pricing.

antrobus

.

cells wrote: »

....in short the only solution to a shortgage of homes is to build more homes

That's about it.

Anything else is simply a case of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

I don't really buy that argument. Density of occupation is a variable and not a fixed parameter. Privately rented homes are likely more densely occupied because of the demographics (whatever) of the kind of people that occupy that property, rather than because of who owns the property.

but there is a clear trend, in the UK, in europe and in THE WORLD of occupancy rates going down.

in simple terms, when a nation is poor people live 10-20 to a house and the homes are small and !!!!

as a nation develops people can afford to live in less !!!! conditions so the occupancy rate falls. go look up uk data its fallen consistently for decades from over 6 to now below 2.4

so the occupancy rate should fall it always has everywhere



as for the conversion of rental properties to owner properties lets make it simple for you again. how many renters rent with people they would not want to be owner occupiers with? how many renters want to be owners sharing with strangers living 6 to a 3 bed flat??


its a simple mathematical formula
you cant convert renters living at a higher density to owners living at a lower density without a lot of people having to live under bridges and in tents

cells

antrobus wrote: »

I think you're making the same mistake by assuming that average household size is a parameter.

Some parts of London already have an average household size of 2.0. Kensington and Chelsea for example. I don't think that means that Kensington and Chelsea is somehow more 'affordable' than Tower Hamlets.:)



London had a population of 8m in 3.3m households according to 2011 census data. If you wanted to accomodate an extra 2m people you would need to build another 780,000 homes, which would be 31,000 a year over 25 years. Obviously you would need to built a bit more than that to take account of dilapidations. How much more you wanted to build over that would depend on how much you wanted to effect pricing.

you are assuming ocupancy rate needs to stay stead which is silly

look at London, between 1961 to 1991 its population fell by 1 million people. clearly that means the occupancy rate fell greatly during those 20 years. whats more during those years london built a great many homes. my guess is that some 900,000 homes were built in london during those 30years

so you have london going from 7.8m to 6.8m
while at the same time some additional 900k homes were built

as a result London ocupancy rate has fallen and by 1991 its density was much lower than any other region of england



compare that to the same 30 years that will happen between 2000-2030

some +3 million people
and only some + 700,000 homes

cells

It is this simple


London 1961 - 1991

Lost 1 million in population
Built ~900,000 additional homes
Result: Decrease in occupancy rates and affordable prices


London estimated 2001 - 2031

GAINED 3 million in population
Built ~ 700,000 homes
Result: Increase in occupancy rate and expensive homes


it really is different this time

zagubov

cells wrote: »

what exactly do you think can be done??

is the state going to force the sale of BTLs to state hands and hence convert BTLs into council homes ?????

How do you think that will work in practise?

Do they send in the army? the navy? the air force?
Do they Buy the homes off the BTLers?
What price do they pay?
Where does the state get the money to pay for the homes?


fantasy is always simpler than reality!

I read a long time ago that Singapore did something like this when private landlords formed a cartel. The government nationalised the housing stock even though it was a pro-private business party in charge. MIght be worth checking how that all worked if we're looking for an example.

I think the state is the main property developer there now and it regulates house sales to ensure social and ethnic mixing to prevent ethnic enclaves.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I read a long time ago that Singapore did something like this when private landlords formed a cartel.

You must be thinking of a different country. That's not the history of Singapore.