Average asking prices pass 300k!!!

cells

mwpt wrote: »

No, you're talking medium term. The very long term the trend will be toward zero as we reach post scarcity and work becomes optional.

this is possibly true for the 80-90% of locations. The major cities however will command high prices not for the homes they offer (which will be nearly free) but for the proximity to other rich folk and the distance from the poor folk and their free homes

also we do not really know what the future holds. a pill that extends life expectancy to 1000 years and the world will go towards 100 billion people.

GunJack

cells wrote: »

its the additional taxes. they pay all the normal taxes plus they need to sell upto 50% of the new builds to the local council or HA at a price where they can rent it out to a homeless mother with 9.7 kids.

do you have a source for that, I can't see one...

westernpromise

I don't know about 50% but someone I know who was thinking of knocking down 2 houses in Barnet to put flats on them didn't bother when it turned out that more than 10 flats would trigger an obligation to build 2 or more affordable flats as well. Affordable meant "you will sell them far below market value". So none will now be built.

cells

GunJack wrote: »

do you have a source for that, I can't see one...

The London plan is for 50% of all new builds to be subsidized. My local London council last year managed to get 49.9% of all the new builds in the area as subsidized.

Each council sets its own figure it can be from 0pc to 50pc

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

I don't know about 50% but someone I know who was thinking of knocking down 2 houses in Barnet to put flats on them didn't bother when it turned out that more than 10 flats would trigger an obligation to build 2 or more affordable flats as well. Affordable meant "you will sell them far below market value". So none will now be built.

Its 50% for most of London. Before the government exempted developments of fewer than 10 homes from the contribution however some socialist council took it to court and won and since then even developments of 2 need to contribute eg give up half their units at below build costs. Some councils even seek a single new build to contribute a sim of money in place of giving 50% up as social as you can't device the one house. I recall someone telling me for their new build they had to pay up over 40 grand for the social homes contribution

westernpromise

cells wrote: »

Its 50% for most of London. Before the government exempted developments of fewer than 10 homes from the contribution however some socialist council took it to court and won and since then even developments of 2 need to contribute eg give up half their units at below build costs. Some councils even seek a single new build to contribute a sim of money in place of giving 50% up as social as you can't device the one house. I recall someone telling me for their new build they had to pay up over 40 grand for the social homes contribution

Which is just utter lunacy. Every decision taken in relation to housing seems calculated to discourage adding to it.

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

I know a couple who recently spent £70k renovating a 2.5 bed house which they say looked like no work was done to it in over 50 years.

They spent a lot of money on it and the pre and post product is not really comparable.

Did you watch the first episode of the Channel 4 programme Ugly House. Couple had a budget of £120k to refurbish their 1920's ex council house. Ended up spending £200k. Of which £25k was for the kitchen and £21k the glazing (interior walls were also glass). Sheer madness. Still a 3 bed house at the end of the day.

The couple must be seriously in debt.

Nor did the architect charge for her time.

mwpt

cells wrote: »

The London plan is for 50% of all new builds to be subsidized. My local London council last year managed to get 49.9% of all the new builds in the area as subsidized.

Each council sets its own figure it can be from 0pc to 50pc

Absolute madness. The way to get more affordable housing built is to build more housing. The new houses can be expensive if that's what they choose to build, the existing units at the bottom of the ladder will be the affordable ones.

mwpt

cells wrote: »

The London plan is for 50% of all new builds to be subsidized. My local London council last year managed to get 49.9% of all the new builds in the area as subsidized.

Each council sets its own figure it can be from 0pc to 50pc

Oh and where is the source? I'm taking this at face value but I also remain sceptical. I'd like to see a source.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Absolute madness. The way to get more affordable housing built is to build more housing. The new houses can be expensive if that's what they choose to build, the existing units at the bottom of the ladder will be the affordable ones.

Exactly, but the current system is such that existing units are upgraded like the example I gave about a couple spending £70k on the house and another poster talking about a £200k renovation on an ex-council house. What that does is remove the bottom of the stock.

A simple 2 up 2 down at cheap prices becomes a very expensive 3 bed with extension and loft conversion and nice internals. The 2 up 2 down is gone, and the new builds are half given to social tenants via the council and the half that can be sold can only be sold at high prices to cover costs. So the bottom of the market is disparaging for private buyers.

The tory plan for councils to get rid of the social rented quota and instead force builders to sell at a discount is a step in the right direction.

But the best of all the worlds would be to increase build rates and to have an interim period where there are special taxes on builders by region which should keep falling until the build rate goes up towards 400,000 a year