|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 11, 2023 18:45:10 GMT
Well quite a few ex remainers claim that there are not enough farm workers . Let’s build more houses for rent or sale in rural areas. Or commuter towns for cities, especially as many more people work from home. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 11, 2023 18:45:58 GMT
I am not clear in what you are saying, is that we should build more houses and stop immigration? I suspect rather the converse. Zany wants you to subsidise raising immigration further with a massive house building program that you and your family will likely be excluded from benefiting from I have a park home in Shropshire, a really pretty county. Housebuilding is destroying much of the area with as many little boxes as possible being squeezed into some very small plots. If we regard a house as a home then many people both now and in the future will be very disappointed. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 11, 2023 18:49:32 GMT
The two are not linked in my argument. We already need new houses as of this second. Stopping immigration would not change that. Of course we need new houses, how many now and into the future is undoubtedly linked to immigration. No point in pulling out the stops to bring down prices when the population increase due to immigration keeps demand for houses high. You cannot unlink that which is the primary driver of the shortage. Take most years we are building about 200,000 houses (I know not how many are lost). Yet net migration was more than three times that and it drives a shortage. There is no clearer cause and effect. I don't want another thread on immigration its been done. So if we invite another 500,000 people to live here we need an extra X,000 houses. If we don't we don't. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 11, 2023 19:04:05 GMT
I suspect rather the converse. Zany wants you to subsidise raising immigration further with a massive house building program that you and your family will likely be excluded from benefiting from I have a park home in Shropshire, a really pretty county. Housebuilding is destroying much of the area with as many little boxes as possible being squeezed into some very small plots. If we regard a house as a home then many people both now and in the future will be very disappointed. Most of Britain is beautiful. Us lucky enough to have a nice home with lovely views or nice walks nearby need to share this with those who don't have a home at all. Sure we don't build in front of the pretty woodland or the reservoir but there's plenty of sugar beat fields that could be replaced with a bit of woodland and a village. I agree we need to stop squeezing ticky tacky boxes into tiny pieces of land while those of us born 60 years ago got nice houses with a bit of garden. We need to give up some farm land to do this properly. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 11, 2023 19:10:54 GMT
Building enough homes to bring prices down... Will never work because as soon as a house is built it becomes worth the market value. Yes, in theory, flooding the market could work for a time but in practice you can't build them fast enough. Besides, as Orac says, housing is required in places - which mostly have as much as they can fit already. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 11, 2023 19:16:35 GMT
Of course we need new houses, how many now and into the future is undoubtedly linked to immigration. No point in pulling out the stops to bring down prices when the population increase due to immigration keeps demand for houses high. You cannot unlink that which is the primary driver of the shortage. Take most years we are building about 200,000 houses (I know not how many are lost). Yet net migration was more than three times that and it drives a shortage. There is no clearer cause and effect. I don't want another thread on immigration its been done. So if we invite another 500,000 people to live here we need an extra X,000 houses. If we don't we don't. Of course you don't however you said will building more houses save Britain. The answer is no as more houses will always be needed and will always be highly priced if an artificial shortage is created.. You may not want another thread on immigration but mass immigration is the legacy of NewLabour that is destroying the country. It creates shortages of infrastructure, it drives down wages, it changes communities very quickly, it brings with it a multitude of petty and insurmountable feuds and antipathies the evidence for which is currently walking the streets of Britain and taking up valuable police time. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 11, 2023 19:20:31 GMT
I don't want another thread on immigration its been done. So if we invite another 500,000 people to live here we need an extra X,000 houses. If we don't we don't. Of course you don't however you said will building more houses save Britain. The answer is no as more houses will always be needed and will always be highly priced if an artificial shortage is created.. You may not want another thread on immigration but mass immigration is the legacy of NewLabour that is destroying the country. It creates shortages of infrastructure, it drives down wages, it changes communities very quickly, it brings with it a multitude of petty and insurmountable feuds and antipathies the evidence for which is currently walking the streets of Britain and taking up valuable police time. Yes. Contrary to the OPs wishes, these factors cannot be separated.
We don't have a housing problem. We have an over population problem and we can't build our way out of it.
And even if we could, we couldn't do it while meeting all of our environmental and other obligations.
You can't have it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 11, 2023 19:24:41 GMT
Building enough homes to bring prices down... Will never work because as soon as a house is built it becomes worth the market value. Yes, in theory, flooding the market could work for a time but in practice you can't build them fast enough. Besides, as Orac says, housing is required in places - which mostly have as much as they can fit already. Market value is what you can get for a house in a location. More houses lowers competition and therefore market value. I live in Cambridge, you couldn't get a bigger growth area. We have millions of acres of land not built on. Look how much is urban.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 11, 2023 19:26:27 GMT
I don't want another thread on immigration its been done. So if we invite another 500,000 people to live here we need an extra X,000 houses. If we don't we don't. Of course you don't however you said will building more houses save Britain. The answer is no as more houses will always be needed and will always be highly priced if an artificial shortage is created.. You may not want another thread on immigration but mass immigration is the legacy of NewLabour that is destroying the country. It creates shortages of infrastructure, it drives down wages, it changes communities very quickly, it brings with it a multitude of petty and insurmountable feuds and antipathies the evidence for which is currently walking the streets of Britain and taking up valuable police time. If you build houses faster than population growth then you catch up with the short fall. What's done is done. I'm looking forward. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 11, 2023 19:32:48 GMT
Market value is what you can get for a house in a location. More houses lowers competition and therefore market value. I live in Cambridge, you couldn't get a bigger growth area... Yeah, nice area. I used to know it fairly well.
Now, how many houses would you need to build (and where) in order to significantly lower prices? And how long would that last before people in other areas went: "It's cheap there, I'll go there" and push the prices back up? You see, I live in London and I've watched the "Ripple" effect happen in real life: Thirty or forty years ago there were cheap places in London. So everyone went there and now they're not cheap anymore. So people went to the cheap towns just outside London. And now they're not cheap anymore. 25 years ago lots of my family, friends and colleagues went down to Brighton, when it was cheap, but it ain't cheap now. Indeed, nowhere within striking distance of London is cheap nowadays. And you will never build enough houses to make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 11, 2023 19:35:19 GMT
Perhaps a better approach might be building houses (or rather apartments) to rent. That’s an approach, but housing of all types appears to be required. But the rules of renting also need to be updated — not only for tenants, but also for those letting… |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 11, 2023 19:36:37 GMT
Just think.
No more fuel poverty, food banks. Low pay would become normal pay. People on ordinary wages could have an actual holiday and the only cost is the value of the land owned by the rich.
Now then Ricky, that's levelling up.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 11, 2023 19:37:04 GMT
I have a park home in Shropshire, a really pretty county. Housebuilding is destroying much of the area with as many little boxes as possible being squeezed into some very small plots. If we regard a house as a home then many people both now and in the future will be very disappointed. Most of Britain is beautiful. Us lucky enough to have a nice home with lovely views or nice walks nearby need to share this with those who don't have a home at all. Sure we don't build in front of the pretty woodland or the reservoir but there's plenty of sugar beat fields that could be replaced with a bit of woodland and a village. I agree we need to stop squeezing ticky tacky boxes into tiny pieces of land while those of us born 60 years ago got nice houses with a bit of garden. We need to give up some farm land to do this properly. Much of the pretty woodland and reservoirs are already built on, some of it many years ago. Some examples Dunblane, passing through on the old A9 bypass going south the Roman Way hill is built up to the skyline some 200ft above the town. Portsmouth to Southampton including Fareham's Western wards effectively becoming Solent City and swallowing numerous small villages, Mold, Dumfries, Shrewsbury bypasses all enclosing new builds both industry and homes where the bypasses were built well into the country. There are many villages throughout the country being forced to host large estates that are both characterless and bleak. Charterhall on the M8 has expanded massively from a bleak industrial landscape to a bleak new homes landscape. Carlisle is expanding to the M6 with several new estates bordering the motorway with what looks like a new estate crossing over the M6 into the green lands beyond. These are just the areas I see/have seen. In reality it is a disaster at least in teh 20s and 30s we could say we were building homes fit for heroes now we are building homes fit for whoever can get here. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 11, 2023 19:43:52 GMT
...Low pay would become normal pay... And I'm sure you'd love that. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 11, 2023 19:44:43 GMT
Will never work because as soon as a house is built it becomes worth the market value. Yes, in theory, flooding the market could work for a time but in practice you can't build them fast enough. Besides, as Orac says, housing is required in places - which mostly have as much as they can fit already. Market value is what you can get for a house in a location. More houses lowers competition and therefore market value. I live in Cambridge, you couldn't get a bigger growth area. We have millions of acres of land not built on. Look how much is urban. This is why Britain needs a proper look at its rail infrastructure. The promise of the doomed HS2 encouraged companies to look at setting up in areas needing jobs. Now that HS2 is so truncated, it’s time to look at upgrading the transport to connect needy areas and encourage employers to set up or re-locate there, so that currently £3000 houses (or under) can once again become the heart of thriving communities. We need to stifle the cries of those wanting high profile prestige projects and object to more useful transport, so that more useful transport can be built and so that people can earn a living and house themselves… |
|
