One Million Council Houses per year.

[tzijlstra]

The country need to build a million houses a year, not a million council houses. In fact, we should get shut of council houses altogether as a long term aim.

[unbeliever]

The country need to build a million houses a year, not a million council houses. In fact, we should get shut of council houses altogether as a long term aim.

 

Why?

I know you have related expertise. Do you have an alternative means in mind of providing housing for those who cannot afford it on the open market?

[Ms Macbeth]

I do think some housing should be built, but as well I'd like to see empty properties brought into use. There's a house near us that used to be a shop, it houses a family, and looks decent. The three adjoining shops are empty, and look really run down although the upstairs appear to be occupied. There's an opportunity there to develop three downstairs flats. Not only would that offer housing, it would improve the general look of the place. That must be the case in many areas, not just here, but nationwide.

 

It's also worth knowing that in Sheffield there are council and housing association properties available. Any family desperate for affordable housing should check out this website, on the Lettings band 'First Come First Served'.

 

http://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/227.aspx

[tzijlstra]

Why?

I know you have related expertise. Do you have an alternative means in mind of providing housing for those who cannot afford it on the open market?

 

Supply and demand, supply more houses and you create a cheaper market. The UK housing market is one of the most price-inflated in the world. In general the housing stock is poor and because there is a lack of investment in new-builds it isn't going to get better any time soon.

 

Providing council housing is a nice idea, but show me a council estate that is better than what is available on the open market? What could possibly work is more mixed development where the new houses are partly sold on the market and partly rented out by the building contractors or a sub-company. What doesn't work is expecting a council to take the lead. All a council should do is provide a site and the required infrastructure (and it should be paid for doing that, councils need to be rewarded for actively investing in the housing stock available.)

[El Cid]

Supply and demand, supply more houses and you create a cheaper market. The UK housing market is one of the most price-inflated in the world. In general the housing stock is poor and because there is a lack of investment in new-builds it isn't going to get better any time soon.

 

 

And all the previous governments have stoked the flames by helping people get a mortgage.

[unbeliever]

Supply and demand, supply more houses and you create a cheaper market. The UK housing market is one of the most price-inflated in the world. In general the housing stock is poor and because there is a lack of investment in new-builds it isn't going to get better any time soon.

 

Providing council housing is a nice idea, but show me a council estate that is better than what is available on the open market? What could possibly work is more mixed development where the new houses are partly sold on the market and partly rented out by the building contractors or a sub-company. What doesn't work is expecting a council to take the lead. All a council should do is provide a site and the required infrastructure (and it should be paid for doing that, councils need to be rewarded for actively investing in the housing stock available.)

 

 

Surely regulations arising environmental concerns severely limit the supply.

Or is it something else?

[tzijlstra]

And all the previous governments have stoked the flames by helping people get a mortgage.

 

Yes, but that would not have been the case had there been a sufficient supply of new homes.

 

Surely regulations arising environmental concerns severely limit the supply.

Or is it something else?

 

Presumably you are talking about the green-belt regulation? It urgently needs to be amended, you can build new homes in harmony with nature. The Dutch have had a policy whereby new developments have to comply with pre-set criteria: Amount of green space (ie. garden/grass: not paved/asphalted), the amount of surface water storage (to help stop flooding), the amount of trees (to help stop flooding/stabilise the ground) and so on. Despite these rules the Dutch managed to build around 50% more homes per 100,000 inhabitants than the British (And even then the Dutch are worried about a lack of new homes).

 

Also take into account that it isn't just green-belt, there are massive areas in the Netherlands that have been reinvigorated, old council stock (post-war) areas have been completely renewed, taking out the poor housing stock, clearing sites and building a new, mixed, stock on those sides. The first road where I used to live after getting my degree in Groningen some 15 years ago (Grote Beerstraat) was a very bad area, junkies everywhere, people under the poverty line, I'd compare it with the rougher parts in Parson Cross.

 

Now it is an area that has both affordable housing and higher price housing, due to good architecture the total housing stock has gone up in the area by 20% yet there is more public green space and the problems that affected the area have largely been eradicated. The same needs to happen in the countless poor (ex) council estates here but due to a lack of initiative from both councils and large building contractors it seems to be impossible.

 

In the mean-time the average houseprice for the Grote Beerstraat has stabilised at a time when the market was crashing 30% so it was worth the investment and the temporary (The whole masterplan took 5 years, tackling different streets as a whole at a time) upheaval.

[unbeliever]

Yes, but that would not have been the case had there been a sufficient supply of new homes.

 

 

 

Presumably you are talking about the green-belt regulation? It urgently needs to be amended, you can build new homes in harmony with nature. The Dutch have had a policy whereby new developments have to comply with pre-set criteria: Amount of green space (ie. garden/grass: not paved/asphalted), the amount of surface water storage (to help stop flooding), the amount of trees (to help stop flooding/stabilise the ground) and so on. Despite these rules the Dutch managed to build around 50% more homes per 100,000 inhabitants than the British (And even then the Dutch are worried about a lack of new homes).

 

Also take into account that it isn't just green-belt, there are massive areas in the Netherlands that have been reinvigorated, old council stock (post-war) areas have been completely renewed, taking out the poor housing stock, clearing sites and building a new, mixed, stock on those sides. The first road where I used to live after getting my degree in Groningen some 15 years ago (Grote Beerstraat) was a very bad area, junkies everywhere, people under the poverty line, I'd compare it with the rougher parts in Parson Cross.

 

Now it is an area that has both affordable housing and higher price housing, due to good architecture the total housing stock has gone up in the area by 20% yet there is more public green space and the problems that affected the area have largely been eradicated. The same needs to happen in the countless poor (ex) council estates here but due to a lack of initiative from both councils and large building contractors it seems to be impossible.

 

In the mean-time the average houseprice for the Grote Beerstraat has stabilised at a time when the market was crashing 30% so it was worth the investment and the temporary (The whole masterplan took 5 years, tackling different streets as a whole at a time) upheaval.

 

What's the minimum cost of such a "harmonious" house?

 

I was also considering modern building standards which increase the up-front cost of house building.

Edited September 14, 2015 by unbeliever

[TJC1]

Housing wouldn't be so expensive if the public had a stake in it..That's why QQ is a great idea.

[tzijlstra]

What's the minimum cost of such a "harmonious" house?

 

I was also considering modern building standards which increase the up-front cost of house building.

 

Let me ask you a question: How come my nephew just bought a very nice and brand new (but small and basic, 2&1/2 bedroom, living room and kitchen) terraced house in Paisley (not exactly the finest part of Glasgow) for a price that equals the price of the house that my cousin in Germany paid for a brand new 4 bedroom detached house with over 800 sq.m garden on the outskirts of Cologne?

 

The reason is simple: In Germany they build enough new houses in areas where there is demand and because they do, the price of materials and labour is coming down. Land is also cheaper because it is more readily available: the councils actively develop new sites and attract investment in doing so.

 

I have probably mentioned this here before, but my old home-city Groningen (half the size of Sheffield on an optimistic count) developed 4 entirely new neighbourhoods, with over 5000 houses in the time since I left, they used that money to invest in a new ring-road and schools and other public services. In the same time Sheffield has seen... no large developments.

 

What is more, the council just approved the redevelopment of two other former council estates, like the one where I used to live and a large scale development with over 400 apartments and 300 houses (all mixed prices and sizes) because the Universities are growing and there is not enough room to house new staff and students in the city.

 

I started by mentioning Paisley by the way, the interesting thing is that in Scotland there is a decent amount of housing development going on, so why not in England?