Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
behr

Building Our Way Out Of Recession

Recommended Posts

Build more houses in Britain and end the Recession

We all want lower house prices for our children as well as ourselves and there is no reason other than political excuses for us not having them. The Green Belt is simply a 60 year old law that has prevented 90% of Britain from being built on. This has artificially forced up house prices. If we reduced this 90% stock of 'virgin' land to 80% there would be a plentiful supply of land, in fact double the existing space for housing. This would make houses much much cheaper! Land designated Green Belt is currently worth only about £3000/acre and could be compulsorily purchased at this price. An acre supports up to 10-20 houses depending on size, in other words a land price of £150-300 per house.

It only costs about £70 per square foot to build a decent house taking into account economies of scale. So the average new 1000 sq foot 3 bedroom house only costs around £70,000 to build so add the above £150 and we are there. The stupidly high jacked up prices in outer London and other places are simply artificially maintained by years of outdated government policy which only benefits banks and property speculators. This is why all around london the price of a 1000 sq foot house costs a ridiculous £350,000. We are all paying banks huge amounts of interest and taking on debt when there is no need at all. We are paying up to 5 times the build cost for a place to live for no good reason.

If enough of us do something the law will be changed and we will be able to build on just a little bit of The Green Belt around our cities. There will ultimately be twice as many homes and yet we can maintain 80% of our land as virgin undeveloped land - this means we will all be able to buy our own houses without paying exhorbitant fees and interest to the bankers.

I have posted this here because I think you are concerned folk who might be able to help, if you want to become more directly involved please contact me jph1@buildmorehomes.org.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'd love to see the greenbelt covered in horrible modern builds.

A bit negative, why would they have to be horrible! and modern. They could equally be fabulous 4 bed houses that would become affordable thanks to the massively reduced land costs. Are you a supporter of high house prices then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic idea. Why don't we concrete over the Lake District as well? Plenty of room for houses there. :rolleyes:

The problem is inward migration, at 0.5 million per year. Without it our population would actually be reducing at quite a significant rate, and housing would be dirt cheap.

But of course its waycist to say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House prices are high in the south of England because of low interest rates and easy credit availability, not because there are not enough homes. Most demand is for social housing at the bottom of the market, driven by recent migrants and their offspring. These people will also require schools, hospitals, food, water, drainage and transport infrastructure. In case you haven't been reading the press lately there is something you need to know… this country is broke!

c.f. Easter Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a supporter of high house prices then?

No. I'm a supporter of sound money. Without the currency debasement that has gone on in the last 40 years house prices would still be at a reasonable level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

behr - great post and great ideas. Building on the green belt is a win-win-win situation. A win for people hoping for economic opportunity. From good trades jobs to all sorts of opportunity to start their own businesses.

A win for middle Britain who is priced out of the expensive real estate markets, but who could get a chance to buy a property of their own. And get a real stake in the community.

A win for young adults and immigrants who could get their foot in the door and have a chance to buy a home and start a family.

A win for all with new build houses including the latest technology, like more durable materials enabled by advances in material sciences.

I also think if development is done on the mass scale they could make parts of the green space into beautiful walking trails and public parks. It doesn't do much good if it is a fenced off property that one person owns a few hundred acres to themself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why all these lies?

Ah yes if we loosen green belt building it will cause all the land in the UK to be covered in houses...

I'm going to kill this with a nuke.

Hong Kong has phenominal 6200people per 1sq km density.

And yet only 6% of the land is used for residential and a further 10% industrial use. The rest is country park, you want more land to build on you reclaim it out of the sea.

It surprises most people my dad's home in HK is surrounded by fields to one side (it backs onto a mountain), it becomes so over grown sometimes you need a flame thrower to get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

A bit negative, why would they have to be horrible! and modern. They could equally be fabulous 4 bed houses that would become affordable thanks to the massively reduced land costs. Are you a supporter of high house prices then?

You know full well building family homes is now unlawful thanks to density targets, ironically that's why so many people oppose development, because it's like a packed shanty town being dropped into a location, totally unsympathetic to the existing architecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

behr - great post and great ideas. Building on the green belt is a win-win-win situation. A win for people hoping for economic opportunity. From good trades jobs to all sorts of opportunity to start their own businesses.

A win for middle Britain who is priced out of the expensive real estate markets, but who could get a chance to buy a property of their own. And get a real stake in the community.

A win for young adults and immigrants who could get their foot in the door and have a chance to buy a home and start a family.

A win for all with new build houses including the latest technology, like more durable materials enabled by advances in material sciences.

I also think if development is done on the mass scale they could make parts of the green space into beautiful walking trails and public parks. It doesn't do much good if it is a fenced off property that one person owns a few hundred acres to themself.

Ok. What happens when we've built 2 million new homes and they are all filled up with inhabitants?

Then what do we do as the population grows? Build even more houses? Build on the sea? Build mile high tower blocks?

Where does it stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For friends and family:

- Most young families in their own homes (big mortgages)

- Old ladies rattling around 3/4 bed homes homes (bought long ago so cheap relative to wages)

- Single, divorced people in 3/4 bed homes (bought long ago so cheap relative to wages)

- BTL'rs with 5+ property renting out to young families (so bought in credit boom) <- *** spot the problem ****

- Unemployed youngsters(<21yrs) getting housing benefit to live in rented rather than living with Mum and Dad.

There doesnt seem to be much overcrowding, in fact quite the opposite as far as I can see (which ain't far).

I'd say the problem has been BTL hoarding via easy credit forcing prices up and elderly owners hanging on. I think the elderly should keep the house they paid for so that leaves the BTL hoarders. There are around 1 million BTL properties and 6-800,000 empty properties.

I think that should be addressed before launching a mass house building programme.

Funny how you dont get much support for house building on an HPC site.

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total b*ll*cks. Build a load more houses, using money from where, exactly? Of course we'll printy printy so we can buy all the materials, labour, etc etc to build all these houses. Then the banks will create a load more credit to buy them. Prices won't fall because the supply/demand theory is a broken reed based on the myth of a "free market". Import a load more migrant workers from elsewhere to build them, then what? Five years down the line and they're all finished. Five years after that let's start a new campaign, 80% of the UK isn't built on an house prices are rising - because of credit availability and because the economy needs to generate growth to pay for the debts accrued from the last lot of building - let's build on another 10%! Easy innit.

Problem with construction is simple; once you've done it, it's done. It only creates short-term employment. You then need long-term employment to pay the bills from construction, only we haven't got enough of that to go round. More construction would be fine if we had an infinite supply of land.

This is a vain attempt to tackle a symptom while totally ignoring the cause. It is the obsession with growth, productivity, output, with creating ever more for the greedy b*st*rds who run the financial system and have captured governments with the belief that there is no other way. Predict and provide worked really well for the M25 - yeah right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stupidly high jacked up prices in outer London and other places are simply artificially maintained by years of outdated government policy which only benefits banks and property speculators. This is why all around london the price of a 1000 sq foot house costs a ridiculous £350,000.

The major factor for high house prices was the credit boom, not the lack of building (an effect, but secondary).

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. What happens when we've built 2 million new homes and they are all filled up with inhabitants?

Then what do we do as the population grows? Build even more houses? Build on the sea? Build mile high tower blocks?

Where does it stop?

If the population is growing I think we have an obligation to make housing available for everyone. I prefer building increasing density, including condo towers.. and taking the extra land that leaves open and having vast walking trails and public parks open to all.

I think if people support mass immigration they should also support large scale development to accomadate the growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between protecting high quality urban buffers enjoyed by many people for relaxation and recreation, and some random patches of low quality rural scrubland that was incorporated by a planner using a pen and a map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. What happens when we've built 2 million new homes and they are all filled up with inhabitants?

Then what do we do as the population grows? Build even more houses? Build on the sea? Build mile high tower blocks?

Where does it stop?

yup, it is exactly what has happened in Shenzhen and Hong Kong, old low rise (<10 floor) council housing is being knocked down and built higher and higher, council flats and low income housing used to be called Tong flats no more than 5 floors high no lifts so stairs was the only option they were cheap to build and bad quality. HK's building firms are tearing them down and building massive Y shaped council flats which can fit 1100 families (3 bed flats) into the same foot print.

To ease pressure on Kowloon the MTR was rejigged so thet have cross platform exchanges, where to change line you just need to walk directly across the platform. and 4 different routes into Kowloon exist. And 3 routes to HK Island itself.

With a combined public transport infrastructure like this you can get ANYWHERE in HK to ANYWHERE bar the islands and South Lantau in 45 minutes. Fanling where my dad lives sort of nearby is right next tot he CHinese border he can get to Kowloon in 32 minutes, trains are this includes a bus a train and a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why all these lies?

Ah yes if we loosen green belt building it will cause all the land in the UK to be covered in houses...

I'm going to kill this with a nuke.

Hong Kong has phenominal 6200people per 1sq km density.

And yet only 6% of the land is used for residential and a further 10% industrial use. The rest is country park, you want more land to build on you reclaim it out of the sea.

It surprises most people my dad's home in HK is surrounded by fields to one side (it backs onto a mountain), it becomes so over grown sometimes you need a flame thrower to get in.

Maybe so, but the land use issue is only part of the problem. The elephant in the room is the resources needed for all this building, all of which has to be paid for. The UK is insolvent at the levels of government, corporate, and household. We are being brought to our knees by debt from over-consumption and over-promising (healthcare, pensions). Construction at the level suggested cannot be paid out of income so it can only be funded by creating more debt, to create infrastructure that can only be paid for out of future income - which isn't there and won't be there. There's enough land that isn't being built on as it is because we are insolvent.

Wake up, people. The west is insolvent. BAU isn't coming back. We need to think a whole lot more creatively about the sort of world we want to live in. We could start with an inter-generational defaulting on "liabilities", to bring about a redistribution of housing wealth (real wealth, quality of life wealth) from those who have more than they need (single wrinklies in family homes) to those who are in need and would, if prices weren't absurdly high because of credit, not supply, be able to buy space for their families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For friends and family:

- Most young families in their own homes (big mortgages)

- Old ladies rattling around 3/4 bed homes homes (bought long ago so cheap relative to wages)

- Single, divorced people in 3/4 bed homes (bought long ago so cheap relative to wages)

- BTL'rs with 5+ property renting out to young families (so bought in credit boom) <- *** spot the problem ****

- Unemployed youngsters(<21yrs) getting housing benefit to live in rented rather than living with Mum and Dad.

There doesnt seem to be much overcrowding, in fact quite the opposite as far as I can see (which ain't far).

I'd say the problem has been BTL hoarding via easy credit forcing prices up and elderly owners hanging on. I think the elderly should keep the house they paid for so that leaves the BTL hoarders. There are around 1 million BTL properties and 6-800,000 empty properties.

I think that should be addressed before launching a mass house building programme.

Funny how you dont get much support for house building on an HPC site.

VMR.

Thats because owning a concrete slavebox that has permanently changed part of the green landscape into more grey

will not give them what they want. There are already cheap houses in Slough and Scunthorpe but that doesn't make them desirable places to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, that those who don't have a house will say 'yes let's build into the greenbelt' and think it's great... whereas those who have secured their dream place overlooking fields will fight tooth & nail to protect it, claiming that if you budge an inch the countryside will be concreted over by the end of the year.

Clearly both positions are nonsense...

The answer may be to build, but with conditions:

1. Only by selfbuilders, with the condition that those houses have to be owner-occupied by the people who got the planning permission for at least 5 years.

2. Any sales before the 5 year period attract a 50% stamp duty levied on the seller, with 5% reductions per year after that (e.g. 6 years = 45%, 7 years = 40% etc etc) to ensure that it's not worth it for developers

3. only houses which have been individually designed to a high environmental standard by approved architects, can be built - i.e. no more identikit developer sprawl

Just with these three rules, you'd get to release the pressure of housing stock. And the people who already had thier houses (who granted, might still be a bit miffed) would be better off than if the whole situation boils over into anarchy and they find themselves needing to buy shotguns and a couple of alsations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build more houses in Britain and end the Recession

We all want lower house prices for our children as well as ourselves and there is no reason other than political excuses for us not having them. The Green Belt is simply a 60 year old law that has prevented 90% of Britain from being built on. This has artificially forced up house prices. If we reduced this 90% stock of 'virgin' land to 80% there would be a plentiful supply of land, in fact double the existing space for housing. This would make houses much much cheaper! Land designated Green Belt is currently worth only about £3000/acre and could be compulsorily purchased at this price. An acre supports up to 10-20 houses depending on size, in other words a land price of £150-300 per house.

It only costs about £70 per square foot to build a decent house taking into account economies of scale. So the average new 1000 sq foot 3 bedroom house only costs around £70,000 to build so add the above £150 and we are there. The stupidly high jacked up prices in outer London and other places are simply artificially maintained by years of outdated government policy which only benefits banks and property speculators. This is why all around london the price of a 1000 sq foot house costs a ridiculous £350,000. We are all paying banks huge amounts of interest and taking on debt when there is no need at all. We are paying up to 5 times the build cost for a place to live for no good reason.

If enough of us do something the law will be changed and we will be able to build on just a little bit of The Green Belt around our cities. There will ultimately be twice as many homes and yet we can maintain 80% of our land as virgin undeveloped land - this means we will all be able to buy our own houses without paying exhorbitant fees and interest to the bankers.

I have posted this here because I think you are concerned folk who might be able to help, if you want to become more directly involved please contact me jph1@buildmorehomes.org.uk

If ou can find me agricultural land at three grand a acre i will take a hundred acres please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic idea. Why don't we concrete over the Lake District as well? Plenty of room for houses there. :rolleyes:

The problem is inward migration, at 0.5 million per year. Without it our population would actually be reducing at quite a significant rate, and housing would be dirt cheap.

But of course its waycist to say so.

you are being silly, my suggestion is to use another few percent of the 90 percent existing virgin stock. The problem is ultimately lack of supply in the southeast and its not just due to inward migration albeit that this would make little difference. The point is that the price of small 3 bed semis has risen to £350,000 more than 4 times the build cost because of inflated land values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are being silly, my suggestion is to use another few percent of the 90 percent existing virgin stock. The problem is ultimately lack of supply in the southeast and its not just due to inward migration albeit that this would make little difference. The point is that the price of small 3 bed semis has risen to £350,000 more than 4 times the build cost because of inflated land values.

Yet you faithfully ignore the evidence that tells you the true reason why. You are either a prize fool or you have vested interests in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...The problem is ultimately lack of supply in the southeast ....

That's easily cured by moving jobs and opportunities elsewhere. Building more rabbit hutches in the South East just makes the problem worse. Even arch non-interventionist Maggie Thatcher tried to address the problem that the UK is too London-centric.

There is no shortage of housing in the UK. We don't need to build "thousands" of new houses and we certainly don't need to build them in the green belt in the South East. Even net inward immigration is a non issue because the numbers will fall over time as the UK becomes a less attractive place to be, plus the demographic time bomb means the longer term issue is a declining population.

The main issue with Britain's housing stock is that a great deal of it is crap quality. Most of the new build I have seen does nothing to address that issue and indeed if anything seems to exacerbate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build more houses in Britain and end the Recession

We all want lower house prices for our children as well as ourselves and there is no reason other than political excuses for us not having them. The Green Belt is simply a 60 year old law that has prevented 90% of Britain from being built on. This has artificially forced up house prices. If we reduced this 90% stock of 'virgin' land to 80% there would be a plentiful supply of land, in fact double the existing space for housing. This would make houses much much cheaper! Land designated Green Belt is currently worth only about £3000/acre and could be compulsorily purchased at this price. An acre supports up to 10-20 houses depending on size, in other words a land price of £150-300 per house.

It only costs about £70 per square foot to build a decent house taking into account economies of scale. So the average new 1000 sq foot 3 bedroom house only costs around £70,000 to build so add the above £150 and we are there. The stupidly high jacked up prices in outer London and other places are simply artificially maintained by years of outdated government policy which only benefits banks and property speculators. This is why all around london the price of a 1000 sq foot house costs a ridiculous £350,000. We are all paying banks huge amounts of interest and taking on debt when there is no need at all. We are paying up to 5 times the build cost for a place to live for no good reason.

If enough of us do something the law will be changed and we will be able to build on just a little bit of The Green Belt around our cities. There will ultimately be twice as many homes and yet we can maintain 80% of our land as virgin undeveloped land - this means we will all be able to buy our own houses without paying exhorbitant fees and interest to the bankers.

I have posted this here because I think you are concerned folk who might be able to help, if you want to become more directly involved please contact me jph1@buildmorehomes.org.uk

would just mean britain would import even more of it's food and have an even worse trade deficit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would just mean britain would import even more of it's food and have an even worse trade deficit

The counter-argument to this is that the average (young) households' food bill is trivial compared to their housing bill.

Reducing the cost of housing will enable people to live on lower wages which will enable us to start competing with China which will reduce the trade deficit which will etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.