[tb]

Re: What now for the UK? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:46 pm  

Just to add to this:

Twitter wrote:

“@BBCNormanS: House building at it's lowest level since first world war - says report by IPPR. Fewer than 100,000 built last year.”

Re: What now for the UK? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:57 pm  

Weird. In today's claim of UK economic growth in the 3rd quarter being revised to 0.6%, it said:
"Growth was driven by strong performance in the service sector and construction."
WTF are they building? Bunkers, 'appen?

Re: What now for the UK? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:22 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Weird. In today's claim of UK economic growth in the 3rd quarter being revised to 0.6%, it said:
"Growth was driven by strong performance in the service sector and construction."
WTF are they building? Bunkers, 'appen?

If the slight increase in growth is attributed to housing construction then The Cabinet will be holding their heads in their collective hands after yesterdays announcement on the tightening up of the mortgage rules, "Shot our bloody selves in the foot again haven't we" will be the refrain.

Re: What now for the UK? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Weird. In today's claim of UK economic growth in the 3rd quarter being revised to 0.6%, it said:
"Growth was driven by strong performance in the service sector and construction."
WTF are they building? Bunkers, 'appen?

The Olypmic site and just about every railway station in London for a start.

Re: What now for the UK? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:38 pm  

Dally wrote:

The Olympic site and just about every railway station in London for a start.

Olympic sites, Crossrail, airport expansions, etc, etc.
ONE BILLION POUNDS ON ONE UNDERGROUND STATION - Tottenham Court Road.

Titter all you like, that is a complete disgrace.

I think Boris should be humoured and we should build another huge airport near London.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:40 am  

There is a need for social/inexpensive housing - as I see it there are some serious obstacles:
Cost/availability of land, unlike most countries in Europe this is very compact country - either we want housing or green belt
Lack of capital - where is the money going to come from?
Long term nature of the ROI especially if the properties are to rented
Would you want to invest in this type of housing if all you were going to do was create another Gipton, Bransholme or Easterhouse inner city slums where a large chunk of residents will simply trash the properties.
If we want encourage manufacturing then you cannot convert brownfield sites into housing.

If this type of housing delivered a reasonable return there would be builders supplying this market - the fact there isn't on any scale suggests the returns are small and long term if at all. This type of project is exactly what Keynes envisaged in his economic theory a stimulus with more than one benefit. Something needs to be done to stimulate the housing market, more time first buyers need access to the funds to buy houses. Most are paying rent that is more costly than their mortgage would be.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:02 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

There is a need for social/inexpensive housing - as I see it there are some serious obstacles:
Cost/availability of land, unlike most countries in Europe this is very compact country - either we want housing or green belt
Lack of capital - where is the money going to come from?
Long term nature of the ROI especially if the properties are to rented
Would you want to invest in this type of housing if all you were going to do was create another Gipton, Bransholme or Easterhouse inner city slums where a large chunk of residents will simply trash the properties.
If we want encourage manufacturing then you cannot convert brownfield sites into housing.

If this type of housing delivered a reasonable return there would be builders supplying this market - the fact there isn't on any scale suggests the returns are small and long term if at all. This type of project is exactly what Keynes envisaged in his economic theory a stimulus with more than one benefit. Something needs to be done to stimulate the housing market, more time first buyers need access to the funds to buy houses. Most are paying rent that is more costly than their mortgage would be.

To answer your questions one at a time ...

There is no shortage of land to build upon, there are plenty of brownfield sites which by complete coincidence are often exactly where the housing is required, ie inner city or in already populated areas served by community facilities (public transport, shops etc), take a look at Middleton in Leeds to find a huge mixed use private/social housing development by five different developers, this is being built on a mix of brownfield and ex-greenfield land. We are also not just speaking of new builds, some fantastic work has been done on refurbing perfectly good dwellings whether that be on traditional "estates" or in high rise buildings (or "apartments" are they are preferred to be known these days) - there is a massive stock of housing just begging for refurbishment which is often far more effective than demolishing and rebuilding.

There is capital available, the government Homebuyer scheme was an example of public/private funding from which someone somewhere is getting a return big enough to justify its involvement, this current government is re-introducing that scheme under a different banner I believe. Furthermore we missed a golden opportunity to continually invest in social housing when councils had the proceeds of their social housing stock stripped from them - any money earned from sales of existing council stock should automatically be ring fenced for further housing investment, be that newbuild or refurb.

For ROI, see above, it was extremely popular three years ago with buyers and investors alike.

As for "dumping" the socially inadequate, shared ownership can often focus the mind and the process of applying for shared ownership involves a degree of taking on a responsibility that just isn't there when you sign up for a rent book - there will always be dumping grounds for the socially inadequate but the fix is not to just dump them and leave them, but to invest.

Manufacturing businesses strangely enough don't want to be located on inner city brownfield sites any more, they want modern industrial units, custom designed for manufacturing, with excellent IT provisions, and with good access to motorway links.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:26 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

There is a need for social/inexpensive housing - as I see it there are some serious obstacles:
Cost/availability of land, unlike most countries in Europe this is very compact country - either we want housing or green belt
Lack of capital - where is the money going to come from?
Long term nature of the ROI especially if the properties are to rented
Would you want to invest in this type of housing if all you were going to do was create another Gipton, Bransholme or Easterhouse inner city slums where a large chunk of residents will simply trash the properties.
If we want encourage manufacturing then you cannot convert brownfield sites into housing.

If this type of housing delivered a reasonable return there would be builders supplying this market - the fact there isn't on any scale suggests the returns are small and long term if at all. This type of project is exactly what Keynes envisaged in his economic theory a stimulus with more than one benefit. Something needs to be done to stimulate the housing market, more time first buyers need access to the funds to buy houses. Most are paying rent that is more costly than their mortgage would be.

As McLF has pointed out, there are thousands of suitable hectares of land available, much of which is already owned by local authorities. There are also around 1 million homes standing empty that would require a damn sight less money to bring them in to use than any new build.

I provided a solution to land banking previously. If we introduced an annual land value tax, based on the theoretical maximum developed potential of the land, we'd soon see plenty of it appear on the market.

The ROI argument is spurious, once again all we have to do is look to our continental neighbours to see that they are prepared to take a long-term view when it comes to housing. Local authority land could be leased long-term to developers at a peppercorn rent, providing the low land rent was reflected in the rents charged to tenants.

An added benefit to affordable housing could also come from reductions in land/property prices that may then encourage those amateurs (and there are thousands), who got into the buy-to-rent market, to get the hell out and place their properties on the open market.

It really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp, once you accept that a home is primarily somewhere to live and not an appreciating asset.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:12 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

As McLF has pointed out, there are thousands of suitable hectares of land available, much of which is already owned by local authorities. There are also around 1 million homes standing empty that would require a damn sight less money to bring them in to use than any new build.

I provided a solution to land banking previously. If we introduced an annual land value tax, based on the theoretical maximum developed potential of the land, we'd soon see plenty of it appear on the market.

The ROI argument is spurious, once again all we have to do is look to our continental neighbours to see that they are prepared to take a long-term view when it comes to housing. Local authority land could be leased long-term to developers at a peppercorn rent, providing the low land rent was reflected in the rents charged to tenants.

An added benefit to affordable housing could also come from reductions in land/property prices that may then encourage those amateurs (and there are thousands), who got into the buy-to-rent market, to get the hell out and place their properties on the open market.

It really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp, once you accept that a home is primarily somewhere to live and not an appreciating asset.

A few thousand hectares are not going to sort this issue - it is significantly bigger than that.

As I pointed out ROI isn't spurious its real - the culture of business banking in this country is a ROI of 24 months to 60 months max we are not in Germany where banks/companies take a more pragmatic view sadly.

Introducing a land tax is would simply see a crash in the property market through a simple supply and demand curve.

The term an Englishman's home is his castle comes to mind - we are not in Europe our culture/aspiration is to own our own property. The ability to borrow is often secured on the back of home ownership etc. We want to pass something on to our offspring a house is a tangible reflection of our existence.

Your ideas are very credible but they are not realistic given the current status quo.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:36 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

A few thousand hectares are not going to sort this issue - it is significantly bigger than that.

As I pointed out ROI isn't spurious its real - the culture of business banking in this country is a ROI of 24 months to 60 months max we are not in Germany where banks/companies take a more pragmatic view sadly.

Introducing a land tax is would simply see a crash in the property market through a simple supply and demand curve.

The term an Englishman's home is his castle comes to mind - we are not in Europe our culture/aspiration is to own our own property. The ability to borrow is often secured on the back of home ownership etc. We want to pass something on to our offspring a house is a tangible reflection of our existence.

Your ideas are very credible but they are not realistic given the current status quo.

They were very realistic 30 years ago and there is absolutely nothing to prevent a return to that realism, apart from the stupidity of viewing a house as an investment. The land it sits upon may be an investment, the house itself is a depreciating asset.

Why would there be a housing market crash if suddenly houses and land were to appear on the market? If anything, it should see a housing stimulus rather than a crash. There may be a crash in values but that would be little different to a crash in stock markets. Anyone who invests in markets are warned that they may go down as well as up. Anyone investing in a house should get a similar warning.

One thing is certain, the status quo cannot continue, with ever increasing numbers being priced out of the housing market, something has got to give.