House Building everywhere, Can it Continue?

Mistermeaner

lisyloo wrote: »

Why are you amazed that people don't want traffic congestion, not being able to get a doctors appointment, not being able to park etc.


I think those are genuine concerns.

The people buying the new houses clearly think the infrastructure where they are buying is ok or they wouldn’t buy there. In a world of scarce resource there’s only so much stuff around so for those with good infrastructure around them already being asked to share it with new residents isn’t unreasonable

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

So your position is that everyone should be able to get lucky as your parents did. That's not what lucky means.

No my position is that since house prices have outstripped wage growth over the last 30 years, it's harder for people now to get an equivalent house to that which they grew up in without an inheretence. But that's been done to death on here.

Most people who think they should be able to buy a similar house to their parents are not at an equivalent age / job / salary. Or they are not actually looking at a similar house to their parents (i.e. one which requires significant costly upgrades to the central heating, insulation, kitchen etc etc to bring it up to 2018 standard).

I kind of assume that any house that's not a new build will need expensive upgrades to everything. Over the time I've lived in this one I've replaced pretty much everything that's not part of the structure.

Nasqueron

triathlon wrote: »

What the UK does not need is more housing, if we start building too many we will crash the UK economy. I do not know anyone that does not have at least one spare bedroom, many have two. I have seen Polish with double the occupants in a property than any Brit would stand for and they seem to lead happy comfortable and civil lives.

We do NOT have a housing crisis in the UK, we probably do have delusional expectations though. Property has never been more plentiful and comfortable and the choice of high quality rental is huge, please folks, just open a history book and see how some people lived in the recent last century.

While there undoubtedly is an issue with people insisting on having a house rather than renting, at the same time there is also an issue with people basing their income/economy on the idea you buy a house and it automatically becomes more valuable every year and anything that slows that rise in value is to be prevented.

The house I live in was bought in 2002 iirc, £99500 or £98500, houses on the row (a shortish terrace of largely identical houses in terms of garden, house plan (I think 1 has an attic conversion) etc) have sold for ever increasing prices. Next door down sold for 220k last year and ours would no doubt fetch similar - yet our house is absolutely not worth over double what was paid for it just because it's 16 years older, aside from some paint and the odd tweak inside it's the same as it was when bought, how on earth can we operate an economy where that is the model - appreciation of asset based on nothing but age

thickasabrick

We need to build about 170,000 additional private sector houses and 75,000 social sector houses each year in total, an extra 240,000-250,000 houses each year, excluding any reductions in the existing housing stock according to a study by Dr Alan Holmans done in 2014.
Figures estimate 184,000 homes were built in 2016/17 so there is a shortfall.
https://fullfact.org/economy/house-building-england/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-household-projections

This article "UK House Price to income ratio and affordability" has some suggestions on why the new houses you are seeing are staying unsold.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/
The final statement in that article re-iterates that there is a shortfall.

"A startling statistic is the projection of 250,000 extra households a year until 2033. Yet, the UK is only building 150,000 to 200,000 per year."

mateyboy wrote: »

Do we need all these houses that are being built ?

I am concerned about the new dwellings that are being built and not sold, There are loads of properties in the south east that have been built in the last year and are ready to be sold, but are still empty.

Some say they are putting off buying until Brexit sorts itself out.

I think we are heading for a new property crash like they had in the Costas a few years, I realise that was second home holiday properties and they overbuilt on borrowed money.

The new properties in some areas are not selling whether its flats or houses and that's the bottom line.

What we need is affordable social housing not overpriced private housing.

I wonder how this is going th pan out in the next 2 to 3 years

bertiewhite

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The people buying the new houses clearly think the infrastructure where they are buying is ok or they wouldn’t buy there.

Of course they will - if the work is here, and the houses are priced correctly then the other factors are further down the list.

Mistermeaner wrote: »

In a world of scarce resource there’s only so much stuff around so for those with good infrastructure around them already being asked to share it with new residents isn’t unreasonable

Are you saying it's ok to keep building more houses and increasing the population without investing in more infrastructure?

andrewf75

Nasqueron wrote: »

While there undoubtedly is an issue with people insisting on having a house rather than renting, at the same time there is also an issue with people basing their income/economy on the idea you buy a house and it automatically becomes more valuable every year and anything that slows that rise in value is to be prevented.

The house I live in was bought in 2002 iirc, £99500 or £98500, houses on the row (a shortish terrace of largely identical houses in terms of garden, house plan (I think 1 has an attic conversion) etc) have sold for ever increasing prices. Next door down sold for 220k last year and ours would no doubt fetch similar - yet our house is absolutely not worth over double what was paid for it just because it's 16 years older, aside from some paint and the odd tweak inside it's the same as it was when bought, how on earth can we operate an economy where that is the model - appreciation of asset based on nothing but age

Spot on. Its utter madness and basically separates the country (mostly unfairly) into the haves and have nots. I'm fortunate to be on the side that benefits, but inhabiting the real world rather than a bubble like triathlon you see that its doing incredible damage to the country. Houses should be for people to live in, not to make money from.

Mistermeaner

bertiewhite wrote: »

Are you saying it's ok to keep building more houses and increasing the population without investing in more infrastructure?

are you saying its possible to ride a unicorn but only if you are wearing your magical pants?

I dont think you are as thats not what you typed but always best to check

sevenhills

lisyloo wrote: »

Why are you amazed that people don't want traffic congestion, not being able to get a doctors appointment, not being able to park etc.
I think those are genuine concerns.

So we should wait until we train more doctors and untill more roads are built? How long should we wait?
Maybe it would be quicker if we brought in some foreign doctors and contruction workers :mad:

Pennywise

The real problem is the huge amount of unused/underused properties. Just continually building more is foolish. In my local town, a run down seaside resort, there are whole blocks of empty houses, some streets where nearly half the houses are derelict - they either need renovating or need demolishing and new estates built instead. Same in town centres - not just the empty shops that could be converted into homes, but the empty floors above shops where people used to live which are now just dusty storage areas for old shopfittings and damaged stock. These are ideal places for new homes as the infrastructure is in place, i.e. water/sewage, electrics, telecoms, etc and are usually on good public transport routes. Councils really do need to take advantage of the powers they already have to bring these empty/derelict properties back into use. Then we have the issue of second/holiday homes - when we have a national home shortage, there's no justification for people having 2 or more homes - they need to be much more heavily taxed, i.e. instead of council tax discounts, charge 5 times the normal amount for a home that isn't habitually occupied - that would put people off - also take away tax breaks for homes later being rented out - if you move out and don't sell immediately (say within 2 years) you pay full CGT when you sell it. So many ways to get more use out of the existing stock of homes and infrastructure - just need politicians with the balls to do it.

Mistermeaner

Maybe no one wants to live there because there are no jobs

House builders tend to be pretty good at building where there is demand otherwise they go out of business

If where you are is such a great opportunity that everyone else is missing why not start a business doing as you suggest ?