Go Boris Go

[bogbrush]

That's why they want to load the dice.

p-o-p

But I thought they were already "their type"?

Do you live in London?

[piece of paper]

But I thought they were already "their type"?

Do you live in London?

Voting Boris in isn't enough for the Tories when it comes to London.

They want it secured forever.

Yes.

p-o-p

[bogbrush]

Voting Boris in isn't enough for the Tories when it comes to London.

They want it secured forever.

Yes.

p-o-p

I'm just interested that anyone thinks London is covered in Tories, or the "type" of Tories, whatever that means.

[piece of paper]

I'm just interested that anyone thinks London is covered in Tories, or the "type" of Tories, whatever that means.

London has an electoral split. The politicians need the waiverers. They are happy with the votes of the waiverers but don't much care for their interests. They have and will continue to persist with Shirley Porter's concepts working out from Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea.

p-o-p

[okaycuckoo]

The only problem with this is that you are increasing the development cost per unit.

That means that either you will see less homes being built, or they will be more expensive, or both.

I suppose the argument for removing minimum area requirements was to reduce development cost per unit. Didn't help much with prices, did it?

Housing market is weird. London probably the weirdest of the lot. Ever stayed in one of those two bed shoeboxes? Shudder.

[Oliver Sutton]

I think this is wrong.

If people want to pay good money to live in a pokey box, it's their business. The market should decide how big accommodation is, not a bureaucrat.

Exactly, or we'll all end up living in top-quality accomodation like they do in Germany.

Much better allow cardboard shitholes to be built that will only last about 30 years.

[Fairies Wear Boots]

I think this is wrong.

If people want to pay good money to live in a pokey box, it's their business. The market should decide how big accommodation is, not a bureaucrat.

Fcking hell. If the government don't govern, then we end up with the shit situation that we have now. W*nk developers realising that they can take a nice house turn it into four shitty flats and turn a 150K profit and then doing so.

[erranta]

What is really needed is a legal requirement to state full height usable, naturally illuminated, area in square metres in all sales literature.

In the UK we boast about the 'number of bedrooms', hence the race to the bottom. In the rest of europe they compare square metres.

That is why the typical UK two bed flat is smaller than the typical continental one bed flat.

Another CON the builders played over past few decades is they reduced the height of houses to maximise profits on bricks and building time.

Loads of newbuilds have bedrooms built into the roof space and those poxy non sound insulating 'plasterboard' internal walls.

So they build up 'landbanks to make housebuilding land scarce & release for highest profits

Shoddy workmanship - workers paid more to put houses up in least amount of time.

Smaller houses on smaller areas of land

Help force houseprices go to 10-12 times poorest workers wages whilst giving you less and less for your money. (A perverse alice in wunderland 'drugged' world - whilst getting less, for more)

So they ripped everyone off

1. Cramming more houses in less area.

2. reduced size of houses/rooms/ceilings - ripping people off on materials.(more profit)

3. Build minimal internal brick support walls leaving un sound insulted, crappy, cheap plasterboard walls.(more profit)

4. Stick bedrooms in what used to be useful storage space in roof area!

5. Build garages which are too small to take a medium size car like mondeo & get out of the damn thing.

Just shows what 'unregulated' leads to with these ******* big companies (directors of which lobby their pals in Westminster to ensure they get their way!)

Edited August 18, 2010 by erranta

[tahoma]

Fcking hell. If the government don't govern, then we end up with the shit situation that we have now. W*nk developers realising that they can take a nice house turn it into four shitty flats and turn a 150K profit and then doing so.

No, the government deliberately facilitated a property bubble because the resulting fat tax returns allowed them to indulge their main ambition, the expansion of the state and the legions of those dependent on it in one way or another.

As for us enjoying accommodation similar to Germany's, their government went out the way to avoid a bubble. Capital there flows into productive investment, not speculation and the state.

[Oliver Sutton]

As for us enjoying accommodation similar to Germany's, their government went out the way to avoid a bubble. Capital there flows into productive investment, not speculation and the state.

Nothing to do with higher building standards, then?

So once the uk boom is over uk new uk property will miraculously start climbing to German standards.

[Tiger Woods?]

The only problem with this is that you are increasing the development cost per unit.

That means that either you will see less homes being built, or they will be more expensive, or both.

No, what it will do is push down land prices. The price of a house has little to do with the cost of building one.

[tahoma]

Nothing to do with higher building standards, then?

So once the uk boom is over uk new uk property will miraculously start climbing to German standards.

In the current environment, if developers are made to build bigger they will just want even more money and/or find even cheaper ways to build - prefab, anyone? With a brochure chock full of photos of urbanista hipsters holding a glass of red wine surveying their new kingdom, of course. City living, and that.

WHEN prices drop, and property is finally not seen as a one way path to riches, people will turn their nose up at the boxholes thus punishing the developers who build them and those stupid enough to buy.

I do agree that square footage should be clearly stated on details though.

[Oliver Sutton]

WHEN prices drop, and property is finally not seen as a one way path to riches, people will turn their nose up at the boxholes thus punishing the developers who build them and those stupid enough to buy.

But those crappy shoeboxes will have been built, taking up precious land. Most building gets done in the boom years.

[Pindar]

The market would normally decide what the acceptable minimum size is for a new house or apartment. Unfortunately this assumption is based on the theory that there's free and fair competition - i.e. the equal granting of planning permission to small scale builders as is available to building corporations such as Wimpey, Barratt etc. and an equally free availability of finance to fuel growth. Since we live in a world where this isn't the case, I think it's necessary to legislate for minimum size when it comes to housing. Otherwise, the monopolies will build whatever they can get away with and desperate buyers will be practically forced to accept what's offered.

We've heard of numerous cases where the big players are able to negotiate favourable terms with local councils for new housing. They promise to build an "arts centre" or some other communal facility in return for planning permission to throw up 100 new rabbit hutches on a playing field. What chance would a small developer or self-builder have of securing such ease of access to new land?

Edited August 19, 2010 by Pindar

[Blod]

I think this is wrong.

If people want to pay good money to live in a pokey box, it's their business. The market should decide how big accommodation is, not a bureaucrat.

The market is run by estate agents and we all know how honest they are.

Sadly without some form of regulation homes have shrunk, near me they are building 4/5 bed houses. The floor plans of the bedrooms only allow on average a third of the bedroom having space for a cupboard. I've no idea how they think executives live, maybe the whole family lives out of suitcases.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Blod