Goodbye Generation Rent, Hello Generation Buy

Goodbye Generation Rent, Hello Generation Buy

Author
Discussion

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
On a technical basis, the design and construction issues resulting in the Ronan Point catastrophe and other less serious problems were resolved a long time ago. The biggest difficulty is moving the British mindset from "it's my castle on my land with my fences and my gate" to "I want to live in an apartment".

CorbynForTheBin

12,230 posts

193 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
Shelter, by their very nature are going to be biased.

Deliberately or not.

crankedup

25,764 posts

242 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The British mindset 'castle' is one of the Tory political corner stones. As for tower blocks, unless they are built to the very highest of standards and internal specifications, they represent a blight on the landscape and a Social stigma.

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's also the case that the British modality of home ownership is at odds with the idea of apartment living because of the leasehold aspect and the legal weirdness (to layman) of shared ownership of various utilities etc... Ground rents and all the malarkey. I've never owned a leasehold property, I know people do without trouble, but I don't like the idea of it, it would put me off.

kiethton

13,883 posts

179 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How would any of that be workable or even fit for purpose?

If you want to bankrupt the population, remove any sort of social or physical mobility and ruin industry and the economy for a generation this is the best way to go about it....

CorbynForTheBin

12,230 posts

193 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The fact no one has mentioned it is the reason it should be mentioned. Basing your argument on a single source like that is just a tad iffy.


Carry on.

sugerbear

3,961 posts

157 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
Call me cynical but I suspect it will end up as a give away to big developers building large developments of shoebox houses. I think it would be much better (and much more conservative if that counts for anything with CMD) to reform planning laws and make it much easier to build your own home where and how you want it.
Allowing individuals to self build where they want or allowing local councils/housing assocations to build (and get finance) where they want is pretty much the only things that are going to affect supply.

Can't see CMD's ever implementing these ideas, the party has said they have been reforming the planning system since they gained power and there has been absolutely no change in supply or the runway prices that we currently see.

Under the local plan that local authorities produce they need to provision for self builders, my own local council has been "gathering evidence" of self builds for the past three years. I have heard not a single thing from them. It's almost like they have too much vested interest in keeping things ticking over as they are without really doing anything about it.

The Telegraph suggested tearing up the planning system and allowing people to build where they want. That would be a free market, but I guess there are too many fingers in the brown paper bag shaped pies for that ever to happen.



CorbynForTheBin

12,230 posts

193 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
kiethton said:
How would any of that be workable or even fit for purpose?

If you want to bankrupt the population, remove any sort of social or physical mobility and ruin industry and the economy for a generation this is the best way to go about it....
Would agree with this. It would set us back many decades, but the rub is...

As the economy, and therefore job base falls, the tax take would dwindle.

You end up with higher state support needed, no funds, infrastructure costs rise, many other bad things happen.

turbobloke

Original Poster:

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
CorbynForTheBin said:
Posted content
PistonHeads: Name Changes Matter

thumbup

C.A.R.

3,967 posts

187 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
Surely there's more mileage in convincing single, old people occupying 2+ bedroom family homes to move into residential schemes?

Retirement homes are a big industry and lots are going up at the moment, but just how big is the problem above, with the older generation 'holding on' to the family home they have occupied for many years which is now mostly empty?

I know there is sentiimental value to sticking around and there's not a lot you can do if these old folks bought their house outright for peanuts historically, but some form of incentive to put them in more suitable accommodation would surely open up a huge number of properties nationwide? I can think of around 50% of the properties occupied as such in the street I currently rent in!

Perhaps I'm talking cobblers (no surprise) but the above seems like a much more sensible approach to sorting out this crisis - whilst I apperciate that we aren't building houses at a fast enough rate at the same time...

kiethton

13,883 posts

179 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
This is part of the solution to ease supply but again it comes down to chicken and egg.

You can't incentivise them to move if there is nowhere for them to move to and if you're going to be building them it would represent xxx houses/flats that wouldn't be built on the same plot.....if you look around (London especially) the highest demand is for small(er), low(er) cost property - if older people see their large (but often dated) house as being worth £500k and a new build, half the size for £300k they see a far higher value (rightly) in their own larger home despite under-occupancy without the further consideration of being surrounded by gardens and friends.

New build retirement living also has a stigma unfortunately, just as somewhere you go to die....again causing the older generations to avoid it for as long as possible.

CorbynForTheBin

12,230 posts

193 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
CorbynForTheBin said:
Posted content
PistonHeads: Name Changes Matter

thumbup
beer



bowtie

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
Eh? I thought all new developments already had a percentage of affordable housing available only to low/middle income earners?

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The Barbican wasn't built to a particularly high standard, but it's hardly a blight on the landscape. Social stigma associated with living in the Barbican? No.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
C.A.R. said:
Surely there's more mileage in convincing single, old people occupying 2+ bedroom family homes to move into residential schemes?

Retirement homes are a big industry and lots are going up at the moment, but just how big is the problem above, with the older generation 'holding on' to the family home they have occupied for many years which is now mostly empty?

I know there is sentiimental value to sticking around and there's not a lot you can do if these old folks bought their house outright for peanuts historically, but some form of incentive to put them in more suitable accommodation would surely open up a huge number of properties nationwide? I can think of around 50% of the properties occupied as such in the street I currently rent in!

Perhaps I'm talking cobblers (no surprise) but the above seems like a much more sensible approach to sorting out this crisis - whilst I apperciate that we aren't building houses at a fast enough rate at the same time...
I've downsized, a couple of years ago, from a large 4 bed, box room 12' x 11', to a 3 bed where the smallest bedroom could only take a bed in one direction. It's my office.

We looked at retirement homes. Ye gods, they were dismal. They were full of old people. There were notices on a cork board in the reception area for visits to a shopping centre.

Our new place has a bit over 40% floor area, and costs a bit less than 50% to heat, despite better insulation. And the problem with downsizing, as everyone who has done so will tell you, is the lack of space. We had to build a conservatory.

These retirement homes would be better suited to young couples as starter homes.


V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You have your opinion, perhaps you already have a freehold property; but for many people leasehold offers the chance to climb onto the property ladder.

speedyman

1,523 posts

233 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
edh said:
kiethton said:
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is fk all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.

Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
AFAIK 50% of land banking is done by speculators, not housebuilders (figures from a thread on here last year). Not sure if the 2-3 years is all land, or just land with planning permissions?

If inflation (RPI/CPI) is bad, why is house price inflation good?

Incentives to drive up house prices with a subsidy to a few reasonably well off people isn't going to solve the UK's housing problem. At the risk of repeating myself, Land Value Tax would.
And even the Home builders federation thinks the same.

http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/facts-statistics...

4) Land-banking is the problem, not the planning system; the top 18 house builders have 300,000 consented plots which they should be building rather than sitting on.

kiethton

13,883 posts

179 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
speedyman said:
edh said:
kiethton said:
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is fk all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.

Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
AFAIK 50% of land banking is done by speculators, not housebuilders (figures from a thread on here last year). Not sure if the 2-3 years is all land, or just land with planning permissions?

If inflation (RPI/CPI) is bad, why is house price inflation good?

Incentives to drive up house prices with a subsidy to a few reasonably well off people isn't going to solve the UK's housing problem. At the risk of repeating myself, Land Value Tax would.
And even the Home builders federation thinks the same.

http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/facts-statistics...

4) Land-banking is the problem, not the planning system; the top 18 house builders have 300,000 consented plots which they should be building rather than sitting on.
Your own link shows that 62% of the permitted but undeveloped homes are currently under construction. so only 38% of landbanked homes are not being progressed, this could be for a multitude of reasons:

Tweaking the planning permission to ensure that the correct thing gets built
Tendering for construction and waiting for work to start
Waiting on a newt/bat survey or archaeological dig to finish
Them being located in the wrong area - as I've said before, you have permission for 1,000 homes but only 2 sales a month, why would you build more than 20 houses at a time/into no demand?





010101

1,305 posts

147 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
Houses are a fundament of our society. Any intervention in house prices is social engineering.
There is a disconnect between 5 year democratic government and long term (25 year) mortgage interest rates.
Perhaps centrally planned policies are too blunt a tool, as society itself is many varied and can change rapidly. Does local society not know what is best for itself?
Maybe residents could have a regularly updated wishlist of key personnel, who are somehow given a competitive advantage when buying in the neighbourhood.
Freehold property owners must not be disadvantaged by this local and delicate socialism.

crankedup

25,764 posts

242 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
One example is not going to sway me away from my stance regarding less than the best design and spec are blots imo.