A change in the way people own property?

Cakeguts

ukcarper wrote: »

How many and how relevant is that to under occupancy. My house and others in road have 4 reasonable size bedrooms plenty big enough for a family of 5 and most are occupied by 2 people infact a couple are occupied by 1 person. Bedrooms in a family house do not have to be huge.

But how many single people are living alone when they could share with another single person?

You can't decide who should live where by the size of the house they have got. If you start to go down this road you start to discriminate against people who are unable to or who have chosen not to have children. This is all about choice. If you choose to have children then you have to also choose how you house them. It isn't up to the person who doesn't have any children to hand over their 5 bed house to you to house your children. It is quite possible that the couple with the 5 bed house wouldn't have been able to afford it either if they had had 3 children.

ukcarper

Cakeguts wrote: »

But how many single people are living alone when they could share with another single person?

You can't decide who should live where by the size of the house they have got. If you start to go down this road you start to discriminate against people who are unable to or who have chosen not to have children. This is all about choice. If you choose to have children then you have to also choose how you house them. It isn't up to the person who doesn't have any children to hand over their 5 bed house to you to house your children. It is quite possible that the couple with the 5 bed house wouldn't have been able to afford it either if they had had 3 children.

I’m not advocating forcing people to move to smaller properties I’m advocating encouraging them to by providing suitable properties. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would be very happy to downsize given the right properties to downsize to.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Where do you get your figures, want does not mean it’s necessary.

Do you not think it’s an inefficient use of existing housing stock if many houses that can easily accommodate a family of 5 (not necessarily to your standards but standards many people have found acceptable) are accommodating 1 or 2 people.

Inefficient by what metric?

No its not inefficient if someone is able to buy or build a house then they are free to use it as they please.

If its efficiency you hold as your Logos then that road is one that leads to rationing command and control

GreatApe

zagubov wrote: »

Everybody's got more housing space than us!

That doesn't mean they don't need more space.

Nobody's going to think "I can't complain - at least I've got more floorspace than the Brits in their ridiculous sardine-tin houses!"

Frankly we could do with (low-rise) flats with lifts and stairs being built all over London to start with. Nobody thinks "I need to move to London to garden". Certainly not the people from all over the world that come to live in London. It imports young people and exports old people. It needs a stock of housing that suits single people and maybe couples. It's not (well most of it) a place where you'd think it smart to bring up kids.

In other cities, with smaller populations it might be sensible to have family homes but it's important to make sure public transport's functional as we'd be mad to replicate the car-reliant urban sprawl that the rest of the anglosphere seems to be copying from America.

What is the advantage of having 20 million single person households like the Germans?

These are the disadvantages

Larger gas and electric bill
Size of cities and towns needs to expand for the same number of people
Lower marriage and fertility rates
Larger maintiance bill
Larger interest bill
£2 trillion cost to build out the additional 10 million homes
Likely larger healthcare costs from single occupancy


I am not sure London needs many more homes it probably needs much fewer social tenants. Why does inner London have 40% of it's housing stock as social tenants a lot of them pensioners or unemployed? Sell that down to 10% social as the tenants die or move and cap hosuong benefits to no more than £1000pm and suddenly the London hosuong problem is solved.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Inefficient by what metric?

No its not inefficient if someone is able to buy or build a house then they are free to use it as they please.

If its efficiency you hold as your Logos then that road is one that leads to rationing command and control

Some being able to buy house and using it as they please as nothing to do efficiency, I can easily afford to live where I do but that doesn’t alter the fact in could comfortably house more people.

Also you could increase the efficiency of the housing stock without rationing and there is no way rationaing of private homes will be rationed.

SingleSue

LydiaJ wrote: »

I hope your parents remain healthy for while yet, Sue, but if and when you do get your third of their estate, what would you do with it? Might it be enough to give you a chance of buying somewhere, or would you remain in rented? Or don't answer if you'd rather not, obvs.

Obviously it would be nice to buy something but even that amount is not enough to buy anything around here, not even a studio flat. A caravan/lodge type property is possible and would give me some security, one level living, socialisation and leave enough in the bank to ease financial worries.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

What is the advantage of having 20 million single person households like the Germans?

These are the disadvantages

Larger gas and electric bill
Size of cities and towns needs to expand for the same number of people
Lower marriage and fertility rates
Larger maintiance bill
Larger interest bill
£2 trillion cost to build out the additional 10 million homes
Likely larger healthcare costs from single occupancy

Little of those really need to apply if single occupation homes are built properly. It does apply if you're talking about single occupation of 2+ bedroom homes.

I am not sure London needs many more homes it probably needs much fewer social tenants. Why does inner London have 40% of it's housing stock as social tenants a lot of them pensioners or unemployed?

How much of the social stock is pensioners or the unemployed?
I bet a lot of it are the low paid earners that keep the city running.

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

How much of the social stock is pensioners or the unemployed?
I bet a lot of it are the low paid earners that keep the city running.

What makes you think inner London could not cope without having ~3x as many social homes as rUK?

What is the percent of social homes needed in inner London?
Its lazy and stupid to just assume the figure we have today is exactly the perfect number by chance

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

What makes you think inner London could not cope without having ~3x as many social homes as rUK?

I don't. I'm not comparing London to rUK.

What is the percent of social homes needed in inner London?

No idea, but there's (IIRC) an 11 year waiting list for social housing, so we have nothing like enough of it. Moving it all to private housing will do nothing for the house price but push those on social housing (way more than the retired, infirm and lazy) out of London.

We need a massive overhaul of social housing, and easily a doubling in the number of 'units' available. I don't really care about percentages; they don't actually mean anything in this context.

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't. I'm not comparing London to rUK.

No idea, but there's (IIRC) an 11 year waiting list for social housing, so we have nothing like enough of it. Moving it all to private housing will do nothing for the house price but push those on social housing (way more than the retired, infirm and lazy) out of London.

We need a massive overhaul of social housing, and easily a doubling in the number of 'units' available. I don't really care about percentages; they don't actually mean anything in this context.

Waiting lists exist up and down the country from councils at 4% social to councils at >40% social

All waiting lists show is that there is an unlimited demand for free and subsidised housing