Housing shortage

[ivanava]

It contributes to housing shortages for people who want affordable housing.

 

It also makes it harder for people to get the right property. A council or housing association would at least put some effort into getting people into properties of the right size. Private landlords wouldn't care as long as the rent was paid.

 

No it doesn't contribute to housing shortages, increasing the population faster than housing supply cause housing shortages, which in turn causes housing costs to increase because of increased demand.

 

Changing the ownership of an house plays no part in reducing supply, unless the new owner leaves it empty.

[psynuk]

No it doesn't contribute to housing shortages, increasing the population faster than housing supply cause housing shortages, which in turn causes housing costs to increase because of increased demand.

 

Changing the ownership of an house plays no part in reducing supply, unless the new owner leaves it empty.

 

True, but a bit disingenuous, as that does happen so cannot be dismissed.

I've known a few landlords who have multiple properties, In some cases the property has been unavailable to rent/buy for various reasons for various lengths of time thus reducing the available supply directly due to new ownership.

 

Your right though, with the main point that population increase leads to shortage, which is what we have happening.

It's not as straightforward an answer as that though.

 

If there was a million houses and a million prospective inhabitants you'd still have a shortage as not all houses are suitable or fit for purpose and you need some extra to facilitate movement.

 

I'd rather live somewhere slightly different to where I am. But if where I want to be has been converted to mostly HMO to service an increasing population of 'transient' students then I can't. I'm not really sure that I'd consider those houses to be 'available' to be included in the list of housing stock, if you get my drift.

 

Its not just about immigration either, be it inward or internal migration south.

But also about changing values wrt single parents and an aging population.

Families do split more often now than in the 30s/40s/50s when the majority of 'family'council housing was built. The 60's and 70's saw a lot more council 'singles' accommodation built flats/maisonettes since which a lot has been pulled down, in tandem with many estates which also increases the strain.

 

A really good example is Hyde park, it replaced a slum of 'family' housing with the best intentions, was used for years by families and singles alike, It was removed from housing stock for ages (4,5,6 years??) now is back on the market being touted towards singles.

Thats like a thousand 'properties' in and out of circulation and is still not considered suitable by a lot of people.

Then theres the aging population staying put for longer..

 

and that's only scratching the surface of the reasons why there is a suitable housing shortage.

[ivanava]

True, but a bit disingenuous, as that does happen so cannot be dismissed.

I've known a few landlords who have multiple properties, In some cases the property has been unavailable to rent/buy for various reasons for various lengths of time thus reducing the available supply directly due to new ownership.

 

It's always happened, there have always been unoccupied houses for various reasons, councils have unoccupied houses for various reasons, and in many cases when an unoccupied house is sold to a new owner it is refurbished and brought back into use.

 

Your right though, with the main point that population increase leads to shortage, which is what we have happening.

It's not as straightforward an answer as that though.

 

If there was a million houses and a million prospective inhabitants you'd still have a shortage as not all houses are suitable or fit for purpose and you need some extra to facilitate movement.

 

I'd rather live somewhere slightly different to where I am. But if where I want to be has been converted to mostly HMO to service an increasing population of 'transient' students then I can't. I'm not really sure that I'd consider those houses to be 'available' to be included in the list of housing stock, if you get my drift.

 

Its not just about immigration either, be it inward or internal migration south.

But also about changing values wrt single parents and an aging population.

Families do split more often now than in the 30s/40s/50s when the majority of 'family'council housing was built. The 60's and 70's saw a lot more council 'singles' accommodation built flats/maisonettes since which a lot has been pulled down, in tandem with many estates which also increases the strain.

 

A really good example is Hyde park, it replaced a slum of 'family' housing with the best intentions, was used for years by families and singles alike, It was removed from housing stock for ages (4,5,6 years??) now is back on the market being touted towards singles.

Thats like a thousand 'properties' in and out of circulation and is still not considered suitable by a lot of people.

Then theres the aging population staying put for longer..

 

and that's only scratching the surface of the reasons why there is a suitable housing shortage.

 

There have always been a shortage of suitable houses in various areas for various reasons. Its simply not possible to have an house that is suitable for everyone in every area. Most people have always had to compromise when it comes to the size of house and the area they would like to live in. Selling the council stock might have reduced the amount of suitable houses for some people, but it also increased the supply of suitable houses for other people, overall there was no change in the amount of suitable houses.

[Cyclone]

Wasn't some of the council stock demolished?

[Penistone999]

Wasn't some of the council stock demolished?

 

All the Falstaff area of Parson Cross was demolished and new houses are being built on there at present , but ive no idea if the new housing is council / housing association or private . There are other areas in sheff where council housing has been demolished too. No idea of the actual number of stock demolished though.

[I1L2T3]

All the Falstaff area of Parson Cross was demolished and new houses are being built on there at present , but ive no idea if the new housing is council / housing association or private . There are other areas in sheff where council housing has been demolished too. No idea of the actual number of stock demolished though.

 

Just thinking of other very obvious ones since I've lived in Sheffield. Kelvin, the taller bit of Hyde Park, towers at Norfolk Park and Jordanthorpe.

 

Anybody who used to drive regularly on the M6 in the 1980s will remember hundreds of tower blocks as they drove past the edge of Birmingham. Many of them since gone.

[Dromedary]

Wasn't some of the council stock demolished?

 

 

Several thousand properties have been demolished since the 80's and SCC are still at it in Arbourthorne.

 

Their big plan was to set up a partnership called Sheffield Housing Company, formed by Sheffield Council, builder Keepmoat and Great Places Housing Group. They then plan to have a few hundred new properties under council control over 5 years!

 

They seem a bit reluctant to give out many details as to how SCC benefit from this partnership. It might be like they did in Norfolk Park where most of the land was given away to developers.

[salsafan]

...

 

Its not just about immigration either, be it inward or internal migration south.

But also about changing values wrt single parents and an aging population.

Families do split more often now than in the 30s/40s/50s when the majority of 'family'council housing was built. The 60's and 70's saw a lot more council 'singles' accommodation built flats/maisonettes since which a lot has been pulled down, in tandem with many estates which also increases the strain.

..

 

Then theres the aging population staying put for longer..

 

and that's only scratching the surface of the reasons why there is a suitable housing shortage.

Or unless we become like the US ? Main major city hubs are where most of the jobs are. Then you have the suburb where there are houses, and families, and now oddly, even in some areas of the US, there is an entire retirement village, area, housing and so forth.

 

I am not sure if I want to see areas to be like that too. I find it odd, if we grow and live in an area without mixed age of people.

[Cyclone]

We already have suburbs, I guess the primary difference with the US is that they aren't so far away (because that would often put us in the next city) and they still have local services in most cases.

[handypandy]

To answer a few queries on here, builders and developers may create the houses but they rarely, if ever, finance them. In general, as with most things, the banks control the supply. Banks have a vested interest in keeping the housing stock under the level that is actually required. Build too many and the value begins to level or fall, which may lead to the collateral they hold, slipping into neg-eq. Banks and large corporations control the supply and demand of everything, from houses to your cup of coffee, its the system.

 

 

 

.