Do we really need more affordable housing 'starter homes'?

lisyloo

LHW99 wrote: »

Wouldn't these just be more basic versions of mobile homes?

So what?
Would be great for working people in London who just need somewhere to kip in the week.
A local solution and not a panacea for permanent family homes, but this is what we need local homes for local issues.

Or maybe move some of the jobs? (But where?).
I!!!8217;m not hopeful as I know my company is becoming more London centric not less, but it would be beneficial if some companies moved out.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

So what?
Would be great for working people in London who just need somewhere to kip in the week.
A local solution and not a panacea for permanent family homes, but this is what we need local homes for local issues.

Or maybe move some of the jobs? (But where?).
I!!!8217;m not hopeful as I know my company is becoming more London centric not less, but it would be beneficial if some companies moved out.

Somehow you need to deflate the cost of a dwelling.

Well, there isn't really that much we can do about land prices, so that's a fixed item at the moment.

To me, there are 2 key ways to reduce costs :-

a) turn the dwelling into more of a commodity. Generic living units, pre-assembled; pre-built; using cheap labour; become commodity items and the price falls. We see this with our tvs and laptops.

b) dramatically increase the turn-around time on a potential home becoming an actual home. Quicker assembly times translate into lower production costs. Labour costs when it comes to the building trade are not cheap, and in times of high demand these trades people will try to cash in, obviously.

To your second point, companies are becoming more centralist, full stop. It could be the pull of London; the pull of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds etc.

Move further afield from these places, and when the transport connectivity options worsen, so does the local economy. We have places in the NW which are effectively in long term decline.

PasturesNew

It's complex.... there are loads of bungalows where I live, but they're "family sized bungalows", not "sole/older people" bungalows.

There are 2-bed houses specifically for over 55s too, but then there are peculiar/limiting life-leases on those and they're more expensive than buying an identical house over the road that's not over 55s.

The trouble isn't that these things couldn't be built, but the people doing the planning/designing are thinking the way they're always thought - and private developers building for the "over ....." market have the greedy eye on ways to stiff people.

The fact is, if you have a square of land and you put a cheaper house on it, the developer feels they've "missed out" as they could've squeezed on more/another storey, etc and made more profit.

The whole market/building is entirely profit driven, it's not about creating good homes, or what's needed, it's all about how the developer can make the most profit.

Where I live, say, instead of building two 3-bed family homes with dinky gardens ... they could've put in a quadrant of four 1-bed corner bungalows I bet ... but as that's not the sort of thing those builders usually build, it probably didn't even occur to them.

PasturesNew

When I was looking with a budget of £200k for a 2-bed house, there were plenty of 2nd hand bungalows on the market - all "needed doing up", requiring heating, new windows, new bathroom, new kitchen, redecorate, etc. Typical "Somebody over 80 lived here and last decorated in 1971" style.... but they were about £260k. So the idea that you can buy a "do-er-up-er" cheaper and have it how you want it doesn't work everywhere.

Most tend to be bought by people who then rip them apart, rebuild or extend and put them back on at £400-500k. Or like my neighbours - buy two at about £400k each, then demolish the two and build 9 new houses there.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I think we need to look at high tech solutions which can create dwellings within weeks, not many months.

Here's an example of the new era.

https://www.legalandgeneral.com/modular/

An older story as well.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/19/chinese-state-owned-construction-firm-signs-25bn-deal-build/

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Here's an example of the new era.

https://www.legalandgeneral.com/modular/

An older story as well.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/19/chinese-state-owned-construction-firm-signs-25bn-deal-build/

This is an area where I believe the state can take a lead, in promoting R&D into really cutting edge housing development.

They seem happy enough to subsidise a few solar panels on houses for those lucky enough to afford them.

Time to show true ambition.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

This is an area where I believe the state can take a lead, in promoting R&D into really cutting edge housing development.

There's sufficient tax breaks for those willing to take the commercial risk of such a venture.

michaels

kabayiri wrote: »

Somehow you need to deflate the cost of a dwelling.

Well, there isn't really that much we can do about land prices, so that's a fixed item at the moment.

To me, there are 2 key ways to reduce costs :-

a) turn the dwelling into more of a commodity. Generic living units, pre-assembled; pre-built; using cheap labour; become commodity items and the price falls. We see this with our tvs and laptops.

b) dramatically increase the turn-around time on a potential home becoming an actual home. Quicker assembly times translate into lower production costs. Labour costs when it comes to the building trade are not cheap, and in times of high demand these trades people will try to cash in, obviously.

To your second point, companies are becoming more centralist, full stop. It could be the pull of London; the pull of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds etc.

Move further afield from these places, and when the transport connectivity options worsen, so does the local economy. We have places in the NW which are effectively in long term decline.

I disagree, there is loads of land, we just choose to fix our development footprint at some arbitrary point in history - why was it ok in 1930 to turn fields into the road I now live on but now identical fields a few hundred yards further from the town centre are sacrosanct.

I think the problem of building the wrong homes is political, it is much easier to build hundreds of apartments on small parcels of land and claim you are doing something useful than build the larger houses and bungalows on decent plots that are actually needed.

Plus all the extending, whilst a much less efficient way to add property square metres than new build it does keep a lot of people employed....

GreatApe

There isn't much of a housing problem in the UK. We have more space than ever per capita and most the country a home can be had for near build cost.

The new build mix has already gone towards more homes and less flats since the 2008 crash

Extensions are primarily due to people getting richer.
If people earn more or get a windfall eg say a gift or inheritance the smart thing to do is seen as improving or extending your home rather than say buying a £30k new car that will be worth £10k in five years time. Many people extend homes who dont need more space they just want it.

One of the problems is the 'affordable housing' which actually means council housing.
If builders are giving half their stock to the council to let for below market rents there is an infinite demand for them especially if the council also pays the housing benefits for them. So while London may be building 30,000 new homes a year half go to the council and are not sold on the open market which if they were would depress prices relative to what they otherwise are.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

I disagree, there is loads of land, we just choose to fix our development footprint at some arbitrary point in history

Now (20+ years) councils and the government dont want to build roads schools hospitals tube stations etc and they push this onto the developers to provide via additional taxes contributions and levies.

I believe in the past this must have not been the case. Say in the early part of the 1900-1950 I assume the new builds were not contributing to roads hospitals schools etc that those things were built by government and not the developers.

What this means is that when you buy a new house today you are not just buying a new house you are buying infrastructure too often infrastructure you probably wont be making use of. For instance an area I know there are some new builds as part of the conduction they had to pay for a new motorway junction. Some of the residents will of course use it but of all the vehicles who do make use of it only a fraction will be from that development. The council/government/lefties will argue this is just a way to claw back the land value gain but the end result is fewer marginal plots will be developed

There was also some irregularities/subsidies with the nationalized utilities. Eg a developer I know spent the best part of £100,000 paying for gas/water/telecoms onto a back garden development of just four homes. I assume had the same thing been done 50 years ago the state utilities would have done it for much cheaper?

I am not sure if it is necessary but if the government wanted new build rates to go up a lot they would probably have to go to greenfield and put in the connecting roads and not ask for levies and contributions for schools/hospitals etc. Give itself planning permission and sell it off in chunks of 5-50 units to the highest bidder.

Wont work in London for London they need to turn zone 1-2 into high rise city.