Building Our Way Out Of Recession

[chris25]

Great post.

Don't be discouraged by the NIMBYs and shortage-denial fruitbats. Even with no shortage, more building would only help bring prices down, so it's win win.

Remember, only 10% of British land is built on. That leaves 90% of mostly agricultural fields that get EU subsidies to remain unused. Beauty spots are not under threat. It's a myth perpetuated by rather selfish people. Frankly I'd expect more from posters on this board too.

My video covered the subject

Idiot.

Where does the water/electricity/food come from these houses?

What do we do about flooding due to the increased surface run-off?

What about traffic?

What about infrastructure?

What happens in the event of a crisis when we have to grow our own supply of food and all the farmland has been converted to concrete?

What about the environment/animal habitats?

And Re: the EU paying for land to be left. Its called set-aside. Traditionally done every 1 out of 4 years to ensure the soil does not loose fertility and structure.

You try farming a field for year after year and it will turn to dust.

[Guest sillybear2]

+1

All these new build faux villages are terrible. We need to empower individuals whilst at the same time disincentivising large scale companies who are run solely for short term profit. A few years back I spoke to a workman who was sent round to fix one of the many problems with my mum's new build house. He had just been to a meeting between workers and a company bigwig. All the talk was of selling as many "units" as possible. I would imagine this is great business sense, but could also exlain why my mum's house is crumbling, half the houses are rented and cars are parked all over the interconnecting roads. All this squashing people into as smaller space as possible in cheap badly built housing doesn't make for a particularly pleasant society does it?

But it makes for huge profits baby, screw the people who have to live there, they were stupid enough to buy in and besides they get what they're given when quality is limited by law, it's not like anybody is offering anything better. Within weeks a site is all forgotten about by the developers and the locusts move on to their next field. The nimbies lobbied to make ever increasing 'density targets' the law and the corporate builders suddenly recalculated the value of their landbanks and thought it was a jolly good idea too, it's like an ever increasing aspiration, the higher the density (the more cattle in a field) the better.

If you too loved the environment like the corporate building lobby then you would understand their deep caring. Self-build is a dirty word now, there was a time when local authorities would buy up land, zone it and sell off individual plots but obviously that cuts out a whole load of parasites and social engineers so you only see that sort of thing in other countries now.

Edited May 28, 2010 by sillybear2

[chris25]

But it makes for huge profits baby, screw the people who have to live there, they were stupid enough to buy in and besides they get what they're given when quality is limited by law, it's not like anybody is offering anything better. Within weeks a site is all forgotten about by the developers and the locusts move on to their next field. The nimbies lobbied to make ever increasing 'density targets' the law and the corporate builders suddenly recalculated the value of their landbanks and thought it was a jolly good idea too, it's like an ever increasing aspiration, the higher the density (the more cattle in a field) the better.

If you too loved the environment like the corporate building lobby then you would understand their deep caring. Self-build is a dirty word now, there was a time when local authorities would buy up land, zone it and sell off individual plots but obviously that cuts out a whole load of parasites and social engineers so you only see that sort of thing in other countries now.

High density is alright in this scenario:

Poundbury.

[Guest sillybear2]

Poundbury.

Charlie's toy town

The twee car free potemkin village wears thin after a while, compare Fireman Sam's lair at Poundbury to Weil am Rhein, Germany :-

Edited May 28, 2010 by sillybear2

[billfunk]

High density is alright in this scenario:

Poundbury.

Did Prince Charles get Persimmon in to build Poundbury? If so, is it all falling down yet?

[Guest sillybear2]

Did Prince Charles get Persimmon in to build Poundbury? If so, is it all falling down yet?

Looks like it :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/17/prince-charles-dream-village-poundbury

[billfunk]

Looks like it :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/17/prince-charles-dream-village-poundbury

Interesting.

I wonder if the average quality of a self-build (self-project managed) house is higher or lower than the average persimmon/barratt etc home.

My Granddad helped my dad to build our family home in the early eighties. I would happily wager a house-worth of money that the house is still structurally sound, and has needed little money spent on repairs since.

Edit: ["than" for "of" in the first sentence]

Edited May 28, 2010 by billbill81

[Guest sillybear2]

Interesting.

I wonder if the average quality of a self-build (self-project managed) house is higher or lower than the average persimmon/barratt etc home.

I'd imagine so, the incentives are clearly hugely different given that an OO thinks about 10 years into the future instead of 10 weeks.

[erranta]

+1

All these new build faux villages are terrible. We need to empower individuals whilst at the same time disincentivising large scale companies who are run solely for short term profit. A few years back I spoke to a workman who was sent round to fix one of the many problems with my mum's new build house. He had just been to a meeting between workers and a company bigwig. All the talk was of selling as many "units" as possible. I would imagine this is great business sense, but could also exlain why my mum's house is crumbling, half the houses are rented and cars are parked all over the interconnecting roads. All this squashing people into as smaller space as possible in cheap badly built housing doesn't make for a particularly pleasant society does it?

Never forget, they too have what they call "LAND BANKS" ie they are building land 'hoarders' and release/build on chunks when it suits them, to maximise their profits!

[libspero]

Just for the record, not everyone who is opposed to development of the green belt is a NIMBY.

I have no property interest (other than to own one in due course). I wouldn't choose to sacrifice green belt areas simply because it is a short term solution to a wider issue. I don't think many people wake up in the morning thinking "what this country needs is more people", nor do they sit on the M60/M25 in the morning and think "If only there were more other drivers here to keep me company".

Building houses is a quick fix, but it's not the right answer. We need to take social responsibility for managing our population through a combination of managed migration and natural population decay.

If we do go down the quick fix route we need to do it properly with serious investment in roads, reservoirs and power (electricity) production.

All IMHO, of course.

[tim123]

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 think that you will find that the vast majority of voters like the green belt rules and that getting rid of it will be political sucide.

tim

[geoffk]

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

some went to auction in chester fetched 5k for 3acre plots on old farmers fields...wife stopped me from bidding.. i will see if i can find the auction link.

here is the link i will get you the prices http://searcha.primelocation.com/dkgr/html/templatesDEV/details.cfm?id=DCCH171049

Edited May 28, 2010 by geoffk

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Just for the record, not everyone who is opposed to development of the green belt is a NIMBY.

I have no property interest (other than to own one in due course). I wouldn't choose to sacrifice green belt areas simply because it is a short term solution to a wider issue. I don't think many people wake up in the morning thinking "what this country needs is more people", nor do they sit on the M60/M25 in the morning and think "If only there were more other drivers here to keep me company".

Building houses is a quick fix, but it's not the right answer. We need to take social responsibility for managing our population through a combination of managed migration and natural population decay.

If we do go down the quick fix route we need to do it properly with serious investment in roads, reservoirs and power (electricity) production.

All IMHO, of course.

Yerp, I'd go with that.

The term NIMBY is too often bandied around for those opposing development of any sort.

[Darkman]

-1

Idiot.

Oh dear. I think we hit a nerve

[Guest sillybear2]

some just went to auction in chester fetched 5k for 3acre plots on old farmers fields...wife stopped me from bidding.. i will see if i can find the auction link.

That's wise, what sodding use is it without a permission slip from the government? Unless you plan on getting a donkey or something, your wife probably thinks one is enough

[geoffk]

That's wise, what sodding use is it without a permission slip from the government? Unless you plan on getting a donkey or something, your wife probably thinks one is enough

It was in the middle of fields that as a kid growing up i would never of dreamt that they would become 4.5 bed executive houses,,hundreds of them,,,,literary two miles to go before they join...maybe

[Guest sillybear2]

It was in the middle of fields that as a kid growing up i would never of dreamt that they would become 4.5 bed executive houses,,hundreds of them,,,,literary two miles to go before they join...maybe

Unless you're a big corporate house builder and can slip brown paper envelopes into the right pockets, and donate to the right political parties, forget it.

[scepticus]

Build more houses in Britain and end the Recession

this is a stupid, short sighted idea.

what happens as the population ages and demand for housing falls?

A: we get lots of abandoned concrete where we once had green fields.

[Darkman]

We need to take social responsibility for managing our population through a combination of managed migration and natural population decay.

Yes. Absolutely right, that would be preferable to building more. But what is the probability of it happening? China is seen as the great satan because they limit families to one child.

[Tired of Waiting]

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

Excellent post behr. Welcome to the forum. I'll come back to this thread as soon as possible. It deserves more attention.

[Tired of Waiting]

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

Intellectually dishonest argument - distorting the other's argument.

And very badly done too, as so obvious. (Meaning, it was also very very stupid.)

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.

(...)

There are more British people living and working abroad, than foreigners living here.

In the past 40 years the size of the British population changed very little. Check the numbers. Only between 2003-08 we had a significant net immigration. And now it is already going down. There are more eastern Europeans leaving Britain than arriving. It is over.

[Tired of Waiting]

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.

1) It was both, demand boosted by too much and too cheap credit, and supply restricted by planning.

2) There are more British people living and working abroad, than foreigners living here. Besides, net immigration is already going down. There are more eastern Europeans leaving Britain than arriving. It is over.

[Tired of Waiting]

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?

Exactly!

Breath of fresh air.

Weird as even in this forum people still buy the old myth that we can't build more houses. Why is that?!

[Tired of Waiting]

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.

+ 1

Exactly! In Germany they develop many "green suburbs", with lots of gardens, as they are much better for wildlife than agriculture monoculture fields.

And we have plenty of space. Here in West Sussex less than 2% is built up. More than 98% is empty. And the British average is similar. Only in London land scarcity is real.

[Tired of Waiting]

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.

Good post Ken.

And good question: "Why all these lies?"

Though I think they honestly believe in it . Most of the British population does. The "we don't have much space left" malarkey.