Why do people say there is/will be shortage of house?

Running_Horse

barnaby-bear wrote: »

No *really* this is a town with a hugely skewed - young demographic, never had many homes anyway, very few old people - this town desperately does have a physical shortage of houses. There isn't accommodation badly allocated there simply isn't enough.

How much countryside would you be willing to sacrifice to meet the demand? Would you still want to live in your town if it became a small city?

Round here the small villages have become large suburbs, and the large villages have become small towns, while some towns want city status.

carolt

Where do you live, barnaby-bear, if you don't mind my asking?

I absolutely agree - I was talking generally but certainly there will be pockets where there simply isn't sufficient suitable housing - possibly 'the market' will step in if there is all that pent-up demand (isn't the market wonderful? :rolleyes:) or maybe a few of the government's promised 3 million homes will have to be focussed in areas like yours.

Also totally agree about the work/home balance - all those who say if there's no suitable accommodation people should just walk away from the jobs don't live in the real world. Clearly the homes have to where the jobs are not the reverse. Maybe as technology improves and more jobs can be done from home or local offices via hi tech connections, that will improve, but obviously some jobs will always need to be done in situ.

SquatNow

Running_Horse wrote: »

How much countryside would you be willing to sacrifice to meet the demand? Would you still want to live in your town if it became a small city?

Round here the small villages have become large suburbs, and the large villages have become small towns, while some towns want city status.

So your saying you happy for people to live on the street in order that you can live in a nice little villages.

Sums up this country doesn't it.

tr3mor

epz wrote: »

funny, i didnt realise living in london made you intellectually superiour to other parts country.

you couldnt pay me to live down there, well you could but the pay would have to be enough for me to maintain the same standard of living i have in scotland and compensate for the extra hassle of living down there, that would have to be a LOT.

ive several mates with the same attitude one graduated as a top phd chemist but point blank refused to consider any jobs in the south east, the pay is little better but with the cost of housing it makes you worse off overall.

I agree. :T

Running_Horse

SquatNow wrote: »

So your saying you happy for people to live on the street in order that you can live in a nice little villages.

No I'm not saying that, and didn't say that, so please don't put words into my mouth. I asked the question, how much countryside would you be willing to sacrifice to build the number of homes required?

Take for example Dartford and Gravesend, two separate towns with several villages between them. Not chocolate box villages, but mostly Victorian terraces for working people. Now most the land in between has be built on with soulless housing estates, in the name of "regeneration". And still they want to build more £400,000 boxes that no locals will ever be able to afford.

If such urban sprawl is the answer, then the wrong question is being asked.

Running_Horse

epz wrote: »

ive several mates with the same attitude one graduated as a top phd chemist but point blank refused to consider any jobs in the south east, the pay is little better but with the cost of housing it makes you worse off overall.

He was lucky. I work with a "top phd chemist" from Scotland, and several others from the regions, who just couldn't get any work up there. So all the jobs, and all the housing pressure get concentrated in one corner of the country.