What do you do if..

[Super Hans]

This is the worst thread in the world. Not even a proper title, what a mess.

[barleycorn]

Wouldn't that just increase the demand for building land, building materials and builders, which in turn would increase the price of land, building materials and wages, it would also reduce the availability of land for growing food which will increase food prices and also contribute to increased flooding.

There is plenty of land available for building on without encroaching upon farmland. By lifting the restrictions on brown belt land and making the process of obtaining the relevant permissions simpler and more transparent there would be no long term increase in the price of land.

 

jb

[kaylee1]

You should look up the figures for how much land is actually built up, how much brown space is available for redevelopment and so on.

 

And an increase in the building trade would probably be good for employment, it might temporarily cause a spike in rates, but people would rapidly join the industry to take advantage and the price spike would flatten out.

 

I know how much land is built on and I know how much is farmed, I know that many housing estates build over the past several decades have been build on farm land and that the amount of farm land as reduced. I know that when demand increases the price also tends to increase so building material prices will increase. I also know that a building boom would encourage more immigration into the UK meaning more houses will be needed to accommodate the immigrants. I know that building over the land contributes to increased flooding and contributes to the increased environmental problems. I know that it isn't in a builders interest to build more houses than are needed because they want to be able to sell them for a profit.

 

I'm also sure that Irelands gigantic building boom didn't result in prices falling, prices quadrupled in a decade and now they are demolishing new houses. I think Spain, the USA, China also had a building booms and prices continued to rise, many of the properties built are still unoccupied.

[Cyclone]

So in % terms, how much farmland have we lost to housing?

And in comparison, how much brownfield land exists that could be built on?

 

Yes, increased building would increase building material prices, but without increased building the demand for housing keeps house prices rising.

 

I fail to see how an increase in building would fuel an immigration boom. Housing is not restricting immigration at the moment. A lack of affordable housing is harming the economy and an entire generation of young adults who can't leave home.

 

'Need' is a subjective measure, but given how high demand is at the moment, it's not a lack of need that is constraining house building.

 

That's an interesting assertion. Prices in the US fell through the floor over the past decade. They suffered a far larger price correction than we did. But even were I not disputing that. You're apparently claiming that the supply side of the equation is not having the expected affect, and that over supply (you claim) didn't result in a price reduction.

 

Are you actually arguing that not building houses is a good thing, and that the (still) increasing house prices that this results in are somehow a good thing?

[kaylee1]

There is plenty of land available for building on without encroaching upon farmland. By lifting the restrictions on brown belt land and making the process of obtaining the relevant permissions simpler and more transparent there would be no long term increase in the price of land.

 

jb

 

There can be huge cost implications of developing brownfield sites because of the industrial contamination, and the government already have a target of 60% of new housing being developed on brownfield sites.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2014 at 14:57 ----------

 

So in % terms, how much farmland have we lost to housing?

And in comparison, how much brownfield land exists that could be built on?

 

Yes, increased building would increase building material prices, but without increased building the demand for housing keeps house prices rising.

 

I fail to see how an increase in building would fuel an immigration boom. Housing is not restricting immigration at the moment. A lack of affordable housing is harming the economy and an entire generation of young adults who can't leave home.

 

'Need' is a subjective measure, but given how high demand is at the moment, it's not a lack of need that is constraining house building.

 

That's an interesting assertion. Prices in the US fell through the floor over the past decade. They suffered a far larger price correction than we did. But even were I not disputing that. You're apparently claiming that the supply side of the equation is not having the expected affect, and that over supply (you claim) didn't result in a price reduction.

 

Are you actually arguing that not building houses is a good thing, and that the (still) increasing house prices that this results in are somehow a good thing?

 

More than we can afford to loose.

 

Not enough.

 

The only thing that is increasing demand for housing is rapid population growth and that is very easy to control, and won't result in higher food prices, increased congestion, increased environmental problems including flooding.

 

Increased building will result in increased demand for workers associated with the building industry, and there will be many willing to move to the UK for work.

 

Prices fell through the floor after the economic crash and not because they increased the supply of houses.

 

No I don't think I am.

[barleycorn]

There can be huge cost implications of developing brownfield sites because of the industrial contamination, and the government already have a target of 60% of new housing being developed on brownfield sites.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2014 at 14:57 ----------

 

 

More than we can afford to loose.

 

Not enough.

 

The only thing that is increasing demand for housing is rapid population growth and that is very easy to control, and won't result in higher food prices, increased congestion, increased environmental problems including flooding.

 

Increased building will result in increased demand for workers associated with the building industry, and there will be many willing to move to the UK for work.

 

Prices fell through the floor after the economic crash and not because they increased the supply of houses.

 

No I don't think I am.

Only 2.2% of the land in the UK is built upon. Surely there must be some spare form the remaining 98% for a few more houses without bothering with using contaminated land.

 

The issue of flooding due to urbanisation is an interesting one, and one that can also be overcome with a comprehensive overhaul of our flood defences and water management plans... something the government keeps brushing under the carpet.

 

jb

[Anna B]

Wouldn't that just increase the demand for building land, building materials and builders, which in turn would increase the price of land, building materials and wages, it would also reduce the availability of land for growing food which will increase food prices and also contribute to increased flooding.

 

I've heard, ( but I can't be sure) that a lot of land is bought by companies for building on (supermarkets are a prime example) just in case. Then the supermarket is never built, but the land is not released (this stops competitors building in prime locations,) Same with other large organisations, so there is a shortage of land.

 

Single building plots for people to build their own house on are particularly rare and therefore very expensive.

[Cyclone]

 

The only thing that is increasing demand for housing is rapid population growth and that is very easy to control, and won't result in higher food prices, increased congestion, increased environmental problems including flooding.

I think you have the timeline or cause/effect confused.

 

There is already a large unsatisfied demand (unsatisfied because prices are too high).

Population control can't have any effect on this in the short term, nor I suspect even in the longer term. (The reason I suspect that is that the change in demand is driven partly by a change in household composition, not just increasing population).

 

Increased building will result in increased demand for workers associated with the building industry, and there will be many willing to move to the UK for work.

Perhaps, but these workers tend to leave again when the work dries up.

These workers also do NOT buy new build (or even existing stock) housing, because they have no long term plan to stay.

 

Prices fell through the floor after the economic crash and not because they increased the supply of houses.

So you don't think that supply is important in the housing market then. It has somehow transcended the basic fundamentals of economics?

 

No I don't think I am.

 

What are you arguing then? Because you are arguing against house building as a way of controlling house prices, so far without proposing an alternative.

[jfish1936]

The answer is to drive down house prices and rent. This could be accomplished through a several pronged approach:

1) Massive increase in the number of houses being built

2) Abolishment of RTB

3) Regulation of the private housing market

4) Lower HB caps

5) Legal requirement for the provision of assured long term tenancies in the private housing market for a certain percentage of properties within any one landlords housing stock (say 33%)

6) Lower mortgage caps

 

jb

 

2 and 5 seem to call for the return of rent control. We found it difficult to obtain rented housing before rent control was abolished; why would anyone (not the movie villain "landlord", but an ordinary family who had invested in a house or two) rent the house, with no way ever to get it back from the tenant and his/her descendants, no way to increase the rent to cover increasing costs, and don't forget the killer blow of that era -- death duty charged at the vacant possession valuation of a house which would only sell for a fraction of that with a sitting tenant!

Not surprisingly, the only hope was to sell to one of the racketeers, who had ways to remove the tenants and make the houses more profitable.

You might wish to see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman

as a start

 

There seems no way to solve this problem in a country with expanding population; accepting a lower standard of housing might give a temporary improvement -- smaller rooms, only one bathroom for family homes, get rid of garages and gardens, encourage young marrieds to make a home with their parents, etc.

The ultimate answer is depopulation -- stop increasing the number of people to be accommodated.

Don't like your chances at that; even the Chinese can't do it!

[Cyclone]

I've heard, ( but I can't be sure) that a lot of land is bought by companies for building on (supermarkets are a prime example) just in case. Then the supermarket is never built, but the land is not released (this stops competitors building in prime locations,) Same with other large organisations, so there is a shortage of land.

 

Single building plots for people to build their own house on are particularly rare and therefore very expensive.

 

I think there are plans under consideration to make this behaviour financially unpleasant.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2014 at 15:18 ----------

 

2 and 5 seem to call for the return of rent control. We found it difficult to obtain rented housing before rent control was abolished; why would anyone (not the movie villain "landlord", but an ordinary family who had invested in a house or two) rent the house, with no way ever to get it back from the tenant and his/her descendants, no way to increase the rent to cover increasing costs, and don't forget the killer blow of that era -- death duty charged at the vacant possession valuation of a house which would only sell for a fraction of that with a sitting tenant!

Not surprisingly, the only hope was to sell to one of the racketeers, who had ways to remove the tenants and make the houses more profitable.

You might wish to see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman

as a start

 

Rent control doesn't have to mean those things. It exists in a lot of europe, it doesn't guarantee permanency of tenancy, and it doesn't stop controlled and contractual increases in rent.