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.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. 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
Building on greenbelt
Comments
-
So basically, there ARE enough homes, they're just not realistically priced? So how will building a whole shedload of new homes on greenbelt land solve the problem?
More supply apparently means that prices fall.
However, if I look about a number of developments near me, itr hasnt happened at all, if anything prices have gone higher as new develpments "set new ceilings":beer: Well aint funny how its the little things in life that mean the most? Not where you live, the car you drive or the price tag on your clothes.
Theres no dollar sign on piece of mind
This Ive come to know...
So if you agree have a drink with me, raise your glasses for a toast :beer:0 -
Gives people homes that they want rather than "luxury" apartments.So basically, there ARE enough homes, they're just not realistically priced? So how will building a whole shedload of new homes on greenbelt land solve the problem?"Mrs. Pench, you've won the car contest, would you like a triumph spitfire or 3000 in cash?" He smiled.
Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it all? Not that it's any of my business," he giggled.
"I think I'll become an alcoholic," said Betty.0 -
More supply apparently means that prices fall.
However, if I look about a number of developments near me, itr hasnt happened at all, if anything prices have gone higher as new develpments "set new ceilings"
Thats pretty much my view. Do people honestly think that if hundreds of thousands of new homes are built prices will naturally fall? Perhaps if they were all suddenly built at once and there was true supply outstripping demand but thats not whats being proposed...0 -
no whats being proposed is for supply to almost keep up with demand
which from a price issue is better than supply being nowhere near enough and hence forcing prices up further (as we have see for the last 10 yrs)
anyways don't worry about building too many homes when the new building regs come in house output will fall by about 50% from todays levels
therefore putting even more pressure on house prices to keep going up and up (which incidently will be the only way to pay for the improvements required in the new building regs.......goodbye all affordable homes)0 -
To many people. simple.0
-
david29dpo wrote: »To many people. simple.
I dont think its too many people at all.
I think more like theres too few people that can afford whats being built. Or dont want to raise thier kids in what is essentially a high rise flat made out of paper.:beer: Well aint funny how its the little things in life that mean the most? Not where you live, the car you drive or the price tag on your clothes.
Theres no dollar sign on piece of mind
This Ive come to know...
So if you agree have a drink with me, raise your glasses for a toast :beer:0 -
No doubt we've all heard the reports in todays news regarding the supposed necessity to build on greenbelt land to meet the number of new homes targets set by the government.
I've had a heavy week and my reason isn't as sharp as usual. Why do we need so many new homes? Do we need them now or are we predicted to need them due to rising population and immigration? Would building the number of homes to meet these targets REALLY help bring prices down and facilitate FTBs as is claimed? I don't really get it... I'm not making a particular point with this post, I'm just genuinely in the dark about why so many new homes are needed.
Opinions?
Doesn't the last 5 years of silly house prices not tell you that we needed them 5 years ago? We certainly need them now and in the years to come.
Apparently immigration is a small part, but very small, but if you think about it, it's exteremly small for the simple fact they come from poor countries so have no money or real proper jobs to get mortgages with.
The bigger part of housing needs is more people being single till later in life so using up more homes along with more people seeing buy to lets as a better long term nest egg than a pension fund. Both of which reduce the number of houses available.
Its too late to bring house prices down with new homes, but it certainly will help having more houses (not flats).
No doubt the tree huggers will start ranting about it, but in reality, only something like 30-40% of britian is actually built up on. So we can afford to lose 10% or so without affecting too much of the evironment.0 -
Don't they all have to be 'carbon-zero' soon as well?0
-
Thats pretty much my view. Do people honestly think that if hundreds of thousands of new homes are built prices will naturally fall? Perhaps if they were all suddenly built at once and there was true supply outstripping demand but thats not whats being proposed...
They can't all be built at once for the simple fact that they can't do it. The only option is to build as many as they can without taking loads of skilled labour away from other areas such a commercial builds etc which if they did do, they'd naturally increase the salary of builders so would in turn have to pay the home builders more to stay.0 -
going2die_rich wrote: »
No doubt the tree huggers will start ranting about it, but in reality, only something like 30-40% of britian is actually built up on. So we can afford to lose 10% or so without affecting too much of the evironment.
Err 8-10% is built on, I would be happy to sacrifice another 2-3% for some better houses for people."Mrs. Pench, you've won the car contest, would you like a triumph spitfire or 3000 in cash?" He smiled.
Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it all? Not that it's any of my business," he giggled.
"I think I'll become an alcoholic," said Betty.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards