One Million Council Houses per year.

[danny12]

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?

 

Because their population is in decline meaning they have an over supply of housing, they also have a lower population density meaning their is more land per capita on which to build. If our population shrank every year for the next decade house prices would fall.

Edited September 14, 2015 by danny12

[tzijlstra]

Because their population is in decline meaning they have an over supply of housing, they also have a lower population density meaning their is more land per capita on which to build. If our population shrank every year for the next decade house prices would fall.

 

German population is predicted to decline, it hasn't actually been declining that much. They do have an over-supply but that is down to actually building and keeping on building. Simple fact is that Britain has not built enough houses for decades now.

 

I mentioned quality of housing-stock before, the majority of Victorian housing (think 2up/2down) in the UK wouldn't stand a chance on the Northwestern European markets without needing massive upgrading before sale. The same goes for a lot of the 50s council estate stock, that is because there is enough supply and has led to far better housing-stock in neighbouring countries than we currently have here.

 

The reason is simple: We need to build more.

[danny12]

German population is predicted to decline, it hasn't actually been declining that much. They do have an over-supply but that is down to actually building and keeping on building. Simple fact is that Britain has not built enough houses for decades now.

 

I mentioned quality of housing-stock before, the majority of Victorian housing (think 2up/2down) in the UK wouldn't stand a chance on the Northwestern European markets without needing massive upgrading before sale. The same goes for a lot of the 50s council estate stock, that is because there is enough supply and has led to far better housing-stock in neighbouring countries than we currently have here.

 

The reason is simple: We need to build more.

 

I can't find a website that claims it hasn't fallen, quite a few claim that is as declined.

 

Germany

2000....82,017

2015....80,673

 

 

2,600,000 fewer people today that in 2000.

 

UK population is over 5,000,000 higher than it was in 2000.

Edited September 14, 2015 by danny12

[tzijlstra]

I can't find a website that claims it hasn't fallen, quite a few claim that is as declined.

 

Germany

2000....82,017

2015....80,673

 

 

2,600,000 fewer people today that in 2000.

 

UK population is over 5,000,000 higher than it was in 2000.

 

It all depends on where you put the peg. Measure from 1990 and it has gone up. Either way, considering the UK population has gone up, isn't that the most significant indicator that the UK needs to build more?

[unbeliever]

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?

 

I've been saying we need to build more for many years, but it's not remotely clear to me why we don't.

I can only assume that either planning permission is not forthcoming or regulatory compliance costs are high. I don't see what else it can be.

[dangerousedd]

well there's also the cost benefit to the company in building more houses, I assume the costs may be fixed for building them but if they flooded the market in an area surely the price would go down?

[RonJeremy]

private housing is the way forward. Build more houses, convert existing empty buildings, create flats above shops. The more there are, the lower their price will be. Market forces work.

[unbeliever]

private housing is the way forward. Build more houses, convert existing empty buildings, create flats above shops. The more there are, the lower their price will be. Market forces work.

 

Why isn't it happening?

[apelike]

German population is predicted to decline, it hasn't actually been declining that much. They do have an over-supply but that is down to actually building and keeping on building. Simple fact is that Britain has not built enough houses for decades now.

 

Its been a deliberate political social policy for decades. Thatcher knew that getting people to buy their homes and encouraging people with the RTB meant getting them into debt from buying. That means also getting into debt from having loans to furnish and fill out the house. The knock on effect of that is that people then are willing to accept lower wages, worse conditions, non paid overtime and now austerity measures. Those same people are now scared to lose their home whereas before with council housing the home was almost guaranteed regardless as benefits are given. That leaves for a more stable workforce who now do not change jobs as easily.

 

Germany is not like the UK in that most people are not obsessed with home ownership and prefer to rent, and because of that they were hardly affected by the housing bubble. The same can also be said of France.

 

I mentioned quality of housing-stock before, the majority of Victorian housing (think 2up/2down) in the UK wouldn't stand a chance on the Northwestern European markets without needing massive upgrading before sale. The same goes for a lot of the 50s council estate stock, that is because there is enough supply and has led to far better housing-stock in neighbouring countries than we currently have here.

 

The reason is simple: We need to build more.

 

I agree that we need to build more but would those new builds be to rent or to buy? as you seem to be implying that they would be for sale. If they are for sale then the prices may come down affecting those people who already have a mortgage and maybe forcing them into negative equity.

 

That is not what this government want so they prefer to subsidise new mortgages with the Help To Buy scheme costing £billions and at the same time it keeps house prices high.

[RonJeremy]

Why isn't it happening?

 

I'm doing my bit - now we've dispelled the chance of rent controls for the foreseeable.