How we can fix the 'housing crisis'?

AlexMac

A great idea, but it faces problems of political and institutional will... or lack of it.
As someone said, lenders would probably fail to co-operate given their present risk averse culture - fearing they wouldn't be able to sell on the individual room in the event of a default whereas they always get their cash back if they re-possess and sell a house or flat subject to a conventional mortgage.

Political will is even less likely. I think it's a scandal that whereas, when I was in my 20's, government bodies - at regional or local level - (in my case the Greater London Council and my local Lambeth) would not only:

- help you to buy a wreck (in my case a £10k, 4-bed Victorian terraced dump in Brixton) to help you out of a Council flat (remembr them?), but would also
- help you do it up; we put on a roof that didn't leak, remedied damp and put in heating, via a "Home Improvement Grant " (remember them?) administered by Environmental Health professionals who cared passionately and took pride in their jobs as slums were turned into homes...

that seems a dangerously Bolshevik strategy in today's realpolitik

As mid 20th Century concensus and political considerations such as collectivity and redistribution of opportunities to the Underclass became less the norm, and the nation shifted to the Right, this was legislated out (literally in some cases- the Government abolished the GLC).

so I wouldn't hold your breath while waiting for Government encouragement..

And revolution, while quite trendy in some quarters in the 18th, 19th and even the 20th Centuries, seems unlikely in the UK in the 21st?

(by the way; that £10k Brixton wreck which I left in much better nick in the 1980's is now worth £1mil. Who's going to rock that boat once they've a slice of the action?)

Maybe someone should move this over to the debate forum?

moneyistooshorttomention

I think this is the correct forum for it personally.

This way - the greatest number of minds are working on it/thinking around it (ie as to how feasible it is, etc, etc).

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

marksoton wrote: »

As to housing shortage...

Why in this day and age do blue chip companies require their employees to commute. Email, video conferencing etc mean it's not needed in many cases.

Less offices would free up property and land for conversion to residential. Not to mention massive overhead savings for business and a stronger economy.

And the brucie bonus? Vastly reduced traffic and pollution. Win win.

I don't work for "blue chip" any more, but.....

There is still no substitute to working face to face. In the service industry, everything is relationship driven. 99% of the time I can look at the to leading UK story on BBC News, and think - there will be many many lawyer and accountant hours spent on that.

Today - "Rail Dispute Ends With No Deal". Southern will have Clifford Chance/KPMG (other lawyers/accountants are available) holding their hands every step of the way, and then they will each go back to the office to knock heads. Over the years I've always heard that technology will mean the end to "traditional" ways of working. I'm yet to see it, and I doubt I ever will.

phoebe1989seb

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes - you and a group of like-minded friends can group together and buy a house that you can live in. The advantage of that (rather than something bigger, organised by someone else) is that you can make your own arrangements for sharing and ultimately disposing of the property. If it were purchased by you as members of a company created for the purpose, it would be possible for shares to be traded i.e. for people to come and go.

DS did this with his girlfriend and her two younger sisters. In 2011 - when he was 21 - they pooled resources (inheritances mainly) and bought a rundown two-bed flat for c£230k in SW London. He did most of the renovations on a very small budget whilst working in a graduate job for a law firm.

Only one of the GF's sisters lived at the flat with DS and his GF. However, even though they all got on well, issues still arose after the sister's boyfriend moved in and failed to a) get a job and b) contribute in any way to the household finances. This was the cause of all kinds of aggro between the housemates.

By the time they sold in late 2014 the value had risen to £385k and they were able to split the funds 50/50 so he and his GF could buy a flat in Brighton while the two sisters bought a BTL flat in Bournemouth. Had they kept it, the original flat would now be worth close to £500k :eek:

Rosemary7391

Gorecki wrote: »

It's best not to think of them as a house/housemates, more a building of apartments (similar to how most accommodation is in large American cities) and purchasers/other home owners.

The difference is the apartments are much smaller than normal (typically one room), and typical individual services (washing machines, lounges, etc) are much nicer but communal and central to the building (hence much cheaper to build/sell).

How another purchaser (they're not renters/housemates) behaves in their room shouldn't affect you.
Communal areas are cleaned and monitored as in a hotel, so bad behaviour shouldn't be an issue there.

I'm not defending the scheme, just mentioning it (personally I think landlords are kidding themselves if they think they're being moral and it's the rise of the buy-to-let industry which has largely caused this issue), but I can see why it would be attractive for lots of people.

How much would those services cost though?

I have to admit, I'd prefer my nearest neighbour to be a field's length away, so I'm already biased against it. I suppose it could work for those who like the bustle of the city and don't have home based hobbies. I'd had enough of that not long into my first year of uni though!

agrinnall

In some ways buying a room in a house is not that different to the schemes that were around for investing in a hotel room, except the buyer would occupy it full time. This article is from 2008, whether such investments are still around I don't know.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1632020/Should-you-invest-in-a-hotel-room.html

SG27

To fix the housing crisis is pretty simple. Build more houses. There is no shortage of land. It's not even difficulties in getting planning permission. It's because builders land bank, they own thousands of acres of land with planning permission but hold off building to maximise prices.

Cakeguts

Do you really only earn about 15K a year?

surfer9

ORIGINAL POSTER HERE.....

Thanks for the great input everyone - good to hear your views. It's just an idea that came to me and not something I have thought about too much in terms of wider implications, possibilities etc....

But I'll try to reply to some of the comments left.....


1. I think some posts referred to the rent I am paying now and rent in general. I never said the rent I am paying now is too much, or disproportionate, or a burden, etc etc. I understand the benefits of renting. I am not saying that is an issue. I am saying there is 100% an issue in terms of getting onto the property ladder, and it would be good if there was a smaller step between renting and buying. ie. Buying a room, and a room only - with a bed and bathroom facilities within a communal apartment block. Similar to Halls. I have nothing against renting, but surely it would be better if you could go straight into buying.

2. Some people are saying yes these types of things exist they are called Flats. No, this is nothing like flats, this is a room (a bed and a bathroom) that you'd purchase and you'd have access to communal kitchen, lounge etc facilities. So it will effectively should be much much much more affordable that purchasing a flat.

3. It could be made very affordable if the Government committed to a scheme like this. If the Government made it affordable - and even lent some of the money to the buyer - then banks wouldn't be risking too much and would also commit.

4. Someone mentioned needing a £10,000 deposit. Not sure you would necessarily need that much, but surely there are young people out there who dream of owning their own home and would be able to save a lot of money by living with parents for a few years whilst working. I'm sure a lot of parents stump up a few thousand or more to help their kids get on the ladder anyway, so surely there's be plenty of young people motivated to save a small deposit to get on the ladder.

5. Someone mentioned worrying about who you will be living with, as well as someone mentioned that it wouldn't be a place people would want to live. It's the same with renting. When I moved into this house I didn't know the people and around 10 people have come and gone since I moved in. Some people you get on with, some you don't - that's life. It's a pretty common thing to live with people you don't know. People do it at Uni as well as professionals renting in house-shares. I think thousands if not millions of young people would want to live somewhere like this where you can meet 10's, if not 100's of new people, young people want to socialise. It won't be for everyone, but I'm sure it would be popular.

6. Someone mentioned that this idea is actually in action. After a Google I found that there are things like this, but from the quick research I have done (A few minutes worth) it seems these are rented rooms within a communal apartment block. Not rooms you can buy. We need rooms you can buy, tonnes of them. Put giant blocks of rooms in every major town.


I don't see why the government couldn't make something like this work.

marksoton

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

I don't work for "blue chip" any more, but.....

There is still no substitute to working face to face. In the service industry, everything is relationship driven. 99% of the time I can look at the to leading UK story on BBC News, and think - there will be many many lawyer and accountant hours spent on that.

Today - "Rail Dispute Ends With No Deal". Southern will have Clifford Chance/KPMG (other lawyers/accountants are available) holding their hands every step of the way, and then they will each go back to the office to knock heads. Over the years I've always heard that technology will mean the end to "traditional" ways of working. I'm yet to see it, and I doubt I ever will.

Nope, agree completely.

During construction phase i have to travel to site because:

I'm installing a physical asset that needs management

I have a duty under H&S law to do so

Like you say i need face to face with stakeholders to negotiate compensation/access etc etc

However in the new year i have a new project that will require a year and a half of up front works to satisfy around 40 landowners/councils/[STRIKE]other self important entities..[/STRIKE]

As most of that is email and conference calls i'll work from home at least 50% of the time. The benefits to both me and my employer are self evident. For starters i don't sit in a shed load of traffic each day and my employer doesn't pay the diesel bill for me doing so.

I take your point, but i'd argue there are still tens of thousands of employees who do not need to commute.

But you're right, it won't happen. For one simple reason. Employers do not trust their employees.