UK housing: The £24bn Property puzzle

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

I wonder how HMOs are counted there has certainly been an increase in the number. Does an HMO with say 4 people living in it count as 1 or 4 households also how do bed and breakfasts fit in.

I've never seen a comprehensive answer, and different organisations tend to use different ways of measuring.

In reality though an HMO with 4 unrelated young professionals living in it is ultimately going to be a short term staging post for most people.

To my mind that is 4 households forced to share one house temporarily, as the market has rationed short supply through price, and they will eventually need or want more houses to live in a less crowded situation as they form relationships, gain families, or settle down.

Where the "no shortage" brigade go wrong IMO is in counting an HMO with 4 or 6 or even 10 unrelated single people living in it as one household.

It's not.

It's 4 or 6 or 10 households sharing one house.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As I said, there is no shortage of bedrooms...

What the stats maybe doesn't reflect is whether the number of "singletons" are living in 1 bedroom places.

My first rental place was a 1 bed, I rented on my own.
I then bought a 2 bed with my girlfriend (now wife), so didn't alter the 1 bed per person ratio.

It seems the rise in Singletons from the census is in line with the rise of the population over the same period.

Would that not then indicate that the other end of the spectrum is lowering in the bedroom ratio?

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Where the "no shortage" brigade go wrong IMO is in counting an HMO with 4 or 6 or even 10 unrelated single people living in it as one household.

It's not.

It's 4 or 6 or 10 households sharing one house.

I understood a household to consist of one or more people who live in the same dwelling and also share at meals or living accommodation, and may consist of a single family or some other grouping of people.

Essentially, the easiest way to measure is the number of people per property

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Essentially, the easiest way to measure is the number of people per property

No it really isn't.

Take 3 houses, each with 2 pensioners living in it. The average is two. The need for new housing is zero.

Then assume one pensioner dies in each of two of the houses, both pensioners die in the third house, and the third house is converted to an HMO where 4 young professionals are forced to share as there aren't enough houses for them to live in one each.

The average is still two...

But we now need additional houses as well.

Generali

One of the criticisms in the article is that successive Governments, with the exception of the last one, has almost entirely focused on demand side measures whilst the problem lies on the supply side.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No it really isn't.

Take 3 houses, each with 2 pensioners living in it. The average is two. The need for new housing is zero.

Then assume one pensioner dies in each of two of the houses, both pensioners die in the third house, and the third house is converted to an HMO where 4 young professionals are forced to share as there aren't enough houses for them to live in one each.

The average is still two...

But we now need additional houses as well.

I am in no way suggesting that the measurement could not break down across all of the spectrum.
I'm suggesting that we measure the household per property and this could be broken down the the property size as well.

Your example is to heavily weighted to one specific scenario.
You could have equally said that all the pensioner pass on, One becomes a 4 person HMA, the other two is bought by couples who release their individual flats / properties (4 in total for the next generation)

Incidentally, the 4 person HMA may not be "forced" but actually preferred as a cheaper means of living i.e. students

cells

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Fully agree.
For the population to have increased without the sufficient properties being built, I would expect to see an increase in people per household, however between 2001 and 2011 the rate reduced from 2.4 to 2.3



Are we saying the shortage of properties is as a result of only the last 4 years?

Mr Light,

You need to factor in the fact that the people per household has been falling for all of living memory and in every country you can possibly name

So for the UK to stay at the same figure, while france ireland germany spain italy china india ........all reduce the number is in itself proof that we have quite the problem

We should now be near a figure of 2.1 or lower not at 2.3-something


France is a very close match to the UK in populaton and population growth and wealth and types of construction etc. The UK has 28 million homes, France has 34 million. That difference is our shortage of homes

cells

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I understood a household to consist of one or more people who live in the same dwelling and also share at meals or living accommodation, and may consist of a single family or some other grouping of people.

Essentially, the easiest way to measure is the number of people per property

also you are probably unaware but in London the figure has increased and for a long time

In the year 2000 it was close to 2.2, now it is over 2.4

These figures 2.2 and 2.4 sound such a small trivial difference but what it means is a difference of about 360,000 homes in London had we kept at the 2.2 figure rather than be forced to live more dense. 360,000 extra homes in London im sure you can agree is no trivial difference

Also as I pointed out before, the norm is not that the figure stays the same, the norm is that the figure should fall. So London should really be at 2.1 or even 2.0 to be comparable to the 2.2 of London in the year 2000

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cells wrote: »

the norm is not that the figure stays the same, the norm is that the figure should fall. So London should really be at 2.1 or even 2.0 to be comparable to the 2.2 of London in the year 2000

Absolutely, the ageing population, falling birthrate, rising immigration and increased divorce rates over the last 50 years should have led to really significant change in how we use the housing stock.

Using blunt averages really tells you nothing about the need for more housing.

michaels

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Incidentally, the 4 person HMA may not be "forced" but actually preferred as a cheaper means of living i.e. students

Nice little definitional argement, as long as no one is homeless on the street then there is no housing shortage, HMOs, people living with their parents, people living in garden sheds or kitchens or leaky bedrooms are merely choosing 'a cheaper means of living'.

Of course the corollary to this is that houses prices can not be too high, high prices are merely dictating to what extent people on different income brackets need to opt for 'a cheaper way of living'