phil752 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 We just need to build more public housing, I dont mean the type of crap estates that the dick head planner built in the 60's 70's and 80's but regular houses. Im sure it costs no more to build. It just takes some one who we haven't had yet to have the strength. to release land to do it, they seem to find it for HS2 or Heathrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 We just need to build more public housing, I dont mean the type of crap estates that the dick head planner built in the 60's 70's and 80's but regular houses. Im sure it costs no more to build. It just takes some one who we haven't had yet to have the strength. to release land to do it, they seem to find it for HS2 or Heathrow I completely agree Phil. Mixed estates of private and social housing, crime designed out as it is these days, not inadvertently designed in like in the 60s and 70s. The more social housing we have, the more people have to spend on other things, the more jobs in construction, the lower the housing benefit bill and the lower the private sector rents will be because of greater supply. The only people who will lose is some private landlords, everyone else wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 We just need to build more public housing, I dont mean the type of crap estates that the dick head planner built in the 60's 70's and 80's but regular houses. Im sure it costs no more to build. It just takes some one who we haven't had yet to have the strength. to release land to do it, they seem to find it for HS2 or Heathrow Totally agree with this. Not only more houses though. The new houses need to be strategically planned. Close to where workers are needed and close to transport links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 That's not the only solution. You can either increase supply or reduce demand. We live in a beautiful but small country that cannot sustain the population growth we're experiencing, so do we really want to see more of our countryside concreted over and turned into housing estates? One way of lowering the demand for affordable housing would be to reduce immigration, as that's where the vast unsustainable population growth is coming from. Wouldn't that be preferable to building more houses? 99% of the country is not built on. Just to put it in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 99% of the country is not built on. Just to put it in perspective. Not quite that high. According to the article phil752 posted earlier the actual area of land that is built on in the UK is 2.27%. However, the amount of land classed as 'urban' (which includes gardens, parks etc) is around 7% of the UK, and 10% of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 There is no incentive to increase the rate of new builds going up. The more constrained the supply of homes is more money can be made on per home. There is nothing else other than serious involvement from the government to mandate the building of new homes with hard numbers. Simple market forces are not going to remedy the housing issue on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 There is no incentive to increase the rate of new builds going up. The more constrained the supply of homes is more money can be made on per home. There is nothing else other than serious involvement from the government to mandate the building of new homes with hard numbers. Simple market forces are not going to remedy the housing issue on its own. This is true - one only has to look at house building figures for the last 10 years or so, it's completely inadequate, the market has failed to provide even though the house builders are sitting on plenty of land with planning permission. State intervention is needed and would benefit almost everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Tax on land banking ought to shake things up. Ie owning land in a designated development area and not developing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Tax on land banking ought to shake things up. Ie owning land in a designated development area and not developing it. And streamlined compulsory purchase of land for the state to build on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorberman Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 i have not read all about this. does it mean that a couple who breed loads of children on the lookout for a free big house and benefits whilst staying at home watching television may stop? OR does it mean that they will have to set their alarm clock and go to work like the rest of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now