Land Is Free ...

[Tired of Waiting]

Sure, the UK could support a larger population, (...)

Nobody suggested a higher population.

There's hardly anywhere in England that actually feels quiet and remote.

(...)

Flying over England, especially at night, I see an almost continous collection of towns, with not that much space in between them, at least from the Manchester area southwards.

Now this is just not true, at all.

[Riedquat]

Nobody suggested a higher population.

Then what's the fuss about? We're supporting the current one already. House price problems have been driven by credit availability and the "must buy at any cost" sentiment; get rid of that and there wouldn't be a housing issue in most of the country (although there are some areas that are exceptions).

Now this is just not true, at all.

I'm pretty sure that I wasn't hallucinating.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Riedquat

[Tired of Waiting]

Then what's the fuss about? We're supporting the current one already.

Badly. Very very very badly.

(I guess you are not very familiar with housing standards in other developed countries. Am I right?)

House price problems have been driven by credit availability and the "must buy at any cost" sentiment; get rid of that and there wouldn't be a housing issue in most of the country

Prices are affected by both supply and demand, remember? You've spotted half of the problem.

(although there are some areas that are exceptions).

Exactly my point. I only want more supply in these areas of the country - areas that have housing shortage.

I'm pretty sure that I wasn't hallucinating.

I didn't think you were hallucinating.

[Riedquat]

Badly. Very very very badly.

(I guess you are not very familiar with housing standards in other developed countries. Am I right?)

I lived in France for a while, and have relatives in Canada. Both places with a lot more land per head of population. With much fewer people (per area) they can provide more without as much negative impact. That said, appartment living seems to be very common in France. Also, with towns and cities spread further apart there isn't as much longer-distance commuting bringing the (very expensive to use in France) motorway system to a grinding halt.

Prices are affected by both supply and demand, remember? You've spotted half of the problem.

Yes, because only half of those are the problem. They're not simply a function of each other. Cheap credit has stoked demand even though the supply has remained largely sufficient.

Exactly my point. I only want more supply in these areas of the country - areas that have housing shortage.

Which are generally fairly localised, and localised in the middle of large cities which don't have much actual space to build on anyway.

I didn't think you were hallucinating.

Well, it looked like lots of largish collections of lights not really that far from other largish collections of lights. Admittedly this was between Manchester and London, and not over Northumberland or Cornwall, but even so... I've never found anywhere in England that feels at all remote. Cumbria doesn't, even somewhere like Alston isn't all that far from a city. For the UK you have to go up to Scotland for that.

[Tired of Waiting]

I lived in France for a while, and have relatives in Canada. Both places with a lot more land per head of population. With much fewer people (per area) they can provide more without as much negative impact.

Germany proves you wrong.

That said, appartment living seems to be very common in France. Also, with towns and cities spread further apart there isn't as much longer-distance commuting bringing the (very expensive to use in France) motorway system to a grinding halt.

And not because our transport system is cr@p?

I'll give up replying to your posts after this one. You don't make sense, and can't learn either.

Yes, because only half of those are the problem. They're not simply a function of each other. Cheap credit has stoked demand even though the supply has remained largely sufficient.

See above.

Which are generally fairly localised, and localised in the middle of large cities which don't have much actual space to build on anyway.

Rubbish.

I can't "bover" anymore. You won.

Well, it looked like lots of largish collections of lights not really that far from other largish collections of lights. Admittedly this was between Manchester and London, and not over Northumberland or Cornwall, but even so... I've never found anywhere in England that feels at all remote. Cumbria doesn't, even somewhere like Alston isn't all that far from a city. For the UK you have to go up to Scotland for that.

Total rubbish, again. You have no idea know what you are talking about. This country is much bigger than you think. You have swallowed propaganda. Space is NOT, NOT the problem. Land access is, blocked by planning controls. Even between greater Manchester and greater London I doubt that more than 2% or 3% of the land in this "corridor" is actually built on. And the rest of the country is even emptier. Even "large" cities such as Newcastle are actually tiny when seen from the air.

[dissident junk]

There are too many people in the UK relative to the infrastructure.

There's also an issue with habitable land. Just because lots of England looks vacant from the sky doesn't mean it can be built on.

For example, ten minutes from my house is acres upon acres upon acres of empty land, but it is moorland and cold swamp and it is very difficult to build on. Even if you managed to sink down enough to support a structure, it would be very uncomfortable to live there because it is so exposed, cold and windswept, and the area is very unhealthy -- and that is before you've considered electricity supplies, gas, sewage, water.

It is actually rather surprising how much land can't be built on. We've a few fields near us where the rock formation and soil level means you can't really do anything with it.

I agree with TOW in the respect that what I suspect we need are some "new towns", but they are very pricey to construct.

[dissident junk]

And not because our transport system is cr@p?

True, but the other issue here is that, in many expanding areas, old transport routes are either very over capacity or have been sold off so you can't actually implement a better scheme because the land to provide links is no longer there. A lot of old rail route land was sold off after Beeching, and, in many areas, there is simply nowhere to build another route without compulsory purchasing thousands of houses and knocking them down (same goes for roads).

To be honest, planning in Britain since the end of the second world war has been a disaster. No one ever seems to consider the medium to long term effects of decisions at all.

[Tired of Waiting]

There's also an issue with habitable land. Just because lots of England looks vacant from the sky doesn't mean it can be built on.

For example, ten minutes from my house is acres upon acres upon acres of empty land, but it is moorland and cold swamp and it is very difficult to build on. Even if you managed to sink down enough to support a structure, it would be very uncomfortable to live there because it is so exposed, cold and windswept, and the area is very unhealthy -- and that is before you've considered electricity supplies, gas, sewage, water.

It is actually rather surprising how much land can't be built on. We've a few fields near us where the rock formation and soil level means you can't really do anything with it.

I agree with TOW in the respect that what I suspect we need are some "new towns", but they are very pricey to construct.

I am more familiar with the south, say the triangle between Brighton, Southampton and London. Most cities, towns and villages around here could easily expand by more than we would need - say by 10 or 20% - much more than what is necessary to bring all prices down to affordable levels. And new towns were also proposed (Ford). All blocked by selfish NIMBYs b@astrds.

All the building costs, including land developments, could easily be paid for by the buyers, via builders. Even land is really very very cheap, virtually free. The absurdly unaffordable is the price of land with that precious (because rationed) commodity: planning permit.

[Tired of Waiting]

True, but the other issue here is that, in many expanding areas, old transport routes are either very over capacity or have been sold off so you can't actually implement a better scheme because the land to provide links is no longer there. A lot of old rail route land was sold off after Beeching, and, in many areas, there is simply nowhere to build another route without compulsory purchasing thousands of houses and knocking them down (same goes for roads).

To be honest, planning in Britain since the end of the second world war has been a disaster. No one ever seems to consider the medium to long term effects of decisions at all.

Yep. I agree that the political system has not been able to plan for the long term. There is also an anti-development frame of mind, "you can't build your way out of problems"... Of course you can! It is just the civil service preferring to harvest all the taxes in salaries instead.

Down here there are lots of traffic bottle necks that would require very little investment. But they just don't care. Bad governance. Simple. The "national interest" and economic efficiency is not even in the horizon of our local government officials and politicians. Shameful.

[angrypirate]

You are correct, forecasting a stable population for western Europe, and probably Britain as well.

And if you think our UK housing stock is already good enough, both in terms of quantity and quality, then we would not need any improvement.

Do you?!

If it wasnt for immigration and births to immigrants then the UK population WOULD be in decline

[Tired of Waiting]

If it wasnt for immigration and births to immigrants then the UK population WOULD be in decline

Immigration and emigration practically balance each other out.

There are some numbers about it here: LINK: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=153649&view=findpost&p=2765859

.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Riedquat]

Total rubbish, again. You have no idea know what you are talking about. This country is much bigger than you think. You have swallowed propaganda. Space is NOT, NOT the problem. Land access is, blocked by planning controls. Even between greater Manchester and greater London I doubt that more than 2% or 3% of the land in this "corridor" is actually built on. And the rest of the country is even emptier. Even "large" cities such as Newcastle are actually tiny when seen from the air.

Can't you have a debate with someone who doesn't share your opinion without being rude? Your replies to my other points were even worse. Do you always sneer at anyone who doesn't agree with just what you want?

I am fully aware how big the country is. I'm fully aware that there is a lot more land that's not been built on than has been built on. I have never claimed that there is insufficient actual space. All I've said is that it's undesirable to build over that land, even putting the food issue aside (agricultural land is not unused land). Always having a town less than 10 miles away is, in my opinion, heavy development. So seeing lots of not massively separated towns is, to me, depressing, and something that I don't want taken any further. Sure, there are no real practical constraints to further building. The price is it being even harder to get away from it. I find always having a town around the corner no matter where I go a miserable experience. The less development the higher the quality of life. There is no real need to make it worse.

I recall somewhere a figure of about 10% of land being built on. I can't remember if that's for England or the UK as a whole (if it's the UK then the figure for England will be noticeably higher, with most of Scotland not being at all densley populated). That, in my opinion, is a very high level of building.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Riedquat

[Tired of Waiting]

Can't you have a debate with someone who doesn't share your opinion without being rude? Your replies to my other points were even worse. Do you always sneer at anyone who doesn't agree with just what you want?

I am fully aware how big the country is. I'm fully aware that there is a lot more land that's not been built on than has been built on. I have never claimed that there is insufficient actual space. All I've said is that it's undesirable to build over that land,

That is even worse then! cant you fecking see it?! It is not possible virtually impossible not to be rude with you.

"Undesirable"?! For who?! Who decides that?!

You?!

Pastures are a very very unproductive use of land, and most of the UK land is used for pasture. Much more than agriculture.

1 acre can sustain either 1 cow, or house 10 families.

Which one do you chose?

(...) even putting the food issue aside (agricultural land is not unused land). Always having a town less than 10 miles away is, in my opinion, heavy development. So seeing lots of not massively separated towns is, to me, depressing, and something that I don't want taken any further.

So you don't want it.

Plenty of couples living in privately rented flats, dreaming with a little terraced house, to start a family, but let's not do it, because fecking Riedquat doesn't want it.

Sure, there are no real practical constraints to further building. The price is it being even harder to get away from it. I find always having a town around the corner no matter where I go a miserable experience. The less development the higher the quality of (your!) life. There is no real need to make it worse. (for you!)

I recall somewhere a figure of about 10% of land being built on. I can't remember if that's for England or the UK as a whole (if it's the UK then the figure for England will be noticeably higher, with most of Scotland not being at all densley populated). That, in my opinion, is a very high level of building.

Complete and utter rubbish, again.

[Riedquat]

That is even worse then! cant you fecking see it?! It is not possible virtually impossible not to be rude with you.

Simply because I hold completely different values than you. Yes, my points are my opinions, and yours are simply your opinions too. Apparently I'm not entitled to them because they contradict yours. I held them when I was renting a bedsit wanting something bigger, I hold them now that I'm still renting albeit somewhere larger. You put more value on bigger houses. I put more value on more countryside, but because that contradicts your values I appear to be worthy of ridicule to you. You also appear to have entirely made up your mind about what the problem and solution are, and get angry with any difference of opinion on that.

If you're not prepared to accept that people have different opinions than you do and to discuss it politely then you have nothing worth saying. You appeared to be doing so up until the last post but one.

I've been trying to find some figures. All I've found so far is "Domestic buildings and gardens occupied a third of land in the capital, compared with just 5 per cent for England" (from gov. statistics site). I've not found anything yet showing how much more is for non-domestic buildings and infrastructure, other than one which seemed to be suggesting 40%, which I must've misunderstood because not even I think that it's anything like that.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Riedquat

[Meat Puppet]

I have been steadily coming around to the opinion that a housing market needs a decent amount of slack in it to function more normally. The government planners with their house building targets have been trying to match the number of dwellings to the number of households and that has proven woefully inadequate.

I think about 5% (or maybe more) of the housing stock needs to be empty at any one time and in places with very limiited interference by government, say in Texas, the market provides even more vacant properties.

[Tired of Waiting]

Simply because I hold completely different values than you. Yes, my points are my opinions, and yours are simply your opinions too. Apparently I'm not entitled to them because they contradict yours. I held them when I was renting a bedsit wanting something bigger, I hold them now that I'm still renting albeit somewhere larger. You put more value on bigger houses. I put more value on more countryside, but because that contradicts your values I appear to be worthy of ridicule to you. You also appear to have entirely made up your mind about what the problem and solution are, and get angry with any difference of opinion on that.

If you're not prepared to accept that people have different opinions than you do and to discuss it politely then you have nothing worth saying. You appeared to be doing so up until the last post but one.

I've been trying to find some figures. All I've found so far is "Domestic buildings and gardens occupied a third of land in the capital, compared with just 5 per cent for England" (from gov. statistics site). I've not found anything yet showing how much more is for non-domestic buildings and infrastructure, other than one which seemed to be suggesting 40%, which I must've misunderstood because not even I think that it's anything like that.

You think it is just "opinion", I think it is ethics. Lets see:

1 acre is enough to keep 1 cow, or 10 families.

Which one do you favour?

[Riedquat]

You think it is just "opinion", I think it is ethics. Lets see:

1 acre is enough to keep 1 cow, or 10 families.

Which one do you favour?

I think that's over-simplifying it because we're not at the point where that decision is needed. If it was a choice between the field or them living on the street then I would agree with you. If it's a choice between the the 1 acre or one of those families having a mansion instead of a decent 4 bed detatched house I would completely disagree. We're not at either of those extremes. If the population of the UK was 1000 then I would be fine with the mansion too. It's opinion because where you draw the line between those extremes is a matter of opinion, even if the facts and ethics of the extremes are accepted by everyone.

Ideally I would prefer a much smaller population, but there's no ethical way of deliberately making that happen so I have to dismiss that.

Meat Puppet makes a good point about slack.

[Tired of Waiting]

I think that's over-simplifying it because we're not at the point where that decision is needed. If it was a choice between the field or them living on the street then I would agree with you. If it's a choice between the the 1 acre or one of those families having a mansion instead of a decent 4 bed detatched house I would completely disagree. We're not at either of those extremes. If the population of the UK was 1000 then I would be fine with the mansion too. It's opinion because where you draw the line between those extremes is a matter of opinion, even if the facts and ethics of the extremes are accepted by everyone.

Ideally I would prefer a much smaller population, but there's no ethical way of deliberately making that happen so I have to dismiss that.

Meat Puppet makes a good point about slack.

You see why I get angry? Because you are not being honest: 10 houses in 1 acre are not "mansions". You are distorting my question, on purpose, using rhetoric. This is not on.

I'll be more clear now. Case: 10 young couples living in small ugly privately rented flats, with unsecured tenancy, frustrating, frustrated, don't even feel like starting a family (close to our personal case here). These 10 couples would love to bunch together, buy 1 acre of pasture adjacent to their village, and build 10 terraced houses, with their own money. 1 cow would have to go. They would cover the costs of installing/extending the utilities to the land.

Would you NIMBY them off?

Edited November 1, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[plums]

I have been steadily coming around to the opinion that a housing market needs a decent amount of slack in it to function more normally. The government planners with their house building targets have been trying to match the number of dwellings to the number of households and that has proven woefully inadequate.

I think about 5% (or maybe more) of the housing stock needs to be empty at any one time and in places with very limiited interference by government, say in Texas, the market provides even more vacant properties.

Meat Puppet – Are you a subgenius, a follower of ‘Bob’? A devout believer in ‘slack’?

[Riedquat]

You see why I get angry? Because you are not being honest: 10 houses in 1 acre are not "mansions". You are distorting my question, on purpose, using rhetoric. This is not on.

No, I don't see why you get angry, because I was merely trying to indicate that you were giving one extreme, which is just one point on the line at which the mansion example was the other. I don't know how you jumped from that to thinking that I was claiming that that was what you were suggesting. In fact I even said that depending upon the circumstances I might fully agree with you. Your question implied that the alternative was them living on the streets, at which point I would agree with you, but that's purely academic unless that's the actual situation that we're faced with. Given that reality is shades of grey, not black and white, where do you draw the line?

I'll be more clear now. Case: 10 young couples living in small ugly privately rented flats, with unsecured tenancy, frustrating, frustrated, don't even feel like starting a family (close to our personal case here). These 10 couples would love to bunch together, buy 1 acre of pasture adjacent to their village, and build 10 terraced houses, with their own money. 1 cow would have to go. They would cover the costs of installing/extending the utilities to the land.

Would you NIMBY them off?

Possibly. There are a lot of other factors I would consider - is there accommodation in another nearby village that they could move to, could they move to another part of the country where there's work and a housing surplus and so on, is this a small localised issue? Narrowing the scope too much can be misleading. What's fine for one person, or ten, to do isn't fine for millions to do. So I would be quite happy for them to build there houses if there weren't millions of others doing likewise and leading to a mushrooming of urban land all over the country. If their existing accommodation was that bad and there was no viable alternatives I would accept it as the lesser of two evils - within reason, so building a terrace yes, building huge houses no. In general I look at any development being something to be avoided unless it meets the "lesser of two evils" criteria. That's the best it can ever be, at least on undeveloped land, which is why I take a general "against" view unless persuaded by the merits of a particular scheme - which also has to be put into context against all other proposed schemes.

NIMBY isn't anything to do with it - who says that it's my village we're talking about?

[Tired of Waiting]

No, I don't see why you get angry, because I was merely trying to indicate that you were giving one extreme, which is just one point on the line at which the mansion example was the other. I don't know how you jumped from that to thinking that I was claiming that that was what you were suggesting. In fact I even said that depending upon the circumstances I might fully agree with you. Your question implied that the alternative was them living on the streets, at which point I would agree with you, but that's purely academic unless that's the actual situation that we're faced with. Given that reality is shades of grey, not black and white, where do you draw the line?

Possibly. There are a lot of other factors I would consider - is there accommodation in another nearby village that they could move to, could they move to another part of the country where there's work and a housing surplus and so on, is this a small localised issue? Narrowing the scope too much can be misleading. What's fine for one person, or ten, to do isn't fine for millions to do. So I would be quite happy for them to build there houses if there weren't millions of others doing likewise and leading to a mushrooming of urban land all over the country. If their existing accommodation was that bad and there was no viable alternatives I would accept it as the lesser of two evils - within reason, so building a terrace yes, building huge houses no. In general I look at any development being something to be avoided unless it meets the "lesser of two evils" criteria. That's the best it can ever be, at least on undeveloped land, which is why I take a general "against" view unless persuaded by the merits of a particular scheme - which also has to be put into context against all other proposed schemes.

NIMBY isn't anything to do with it - who says that it's my village we're talking about?

I'll reply later to your other points. I don't have much time now. But I think I found out the mistaken single image that is behind all of your arguments: "mushrooming of urban land all over the country".

And I have a mathematical way to show you that your have been mislead: remember we talked about terraced houses above? So, what percentage of the country's surface would be "built up" if we allowed 1 million of these houses? Or even what percentage of England, if we allowed all of them here.

Let's say each plot is 5 x 25 metres. Just multiply that by a million, and convert into sq.km. We should even double that total then, allowing for streets and "community" stuff. Then compare that total with Britain's' surface. Do the maths. It is easy. And it will change your world views.

( Just before you do the maths, what percentage do you "feel", guess, would be covered? 5%? 10%? Or 2%? Make a note of it please. Just for yourself.)

[Saberu]

Yes this is propaganda and it is well propagated by the elitists, there is plenty of land, plenty of food plenty of carbon energy, we can all get on with things if only they would let us.

Try flying over Japan which is one third more densely populated that the UK all you can see is wooded land with the odd little microcosm of human live.

Good post, Japan is well known as being one of the most densely populated places on the planet I think Tokyo may even be the most. And yet as you say it's probably still mostly countryside.

I think land prices are just another tax on top of income tax, except a much bigger one so when we pay our rent or mortgage it's effectively a second tax. In a globalized economy if it's fair to move most of our jobs to China then I think it's also fair to complain that in China you can rent an apartment in most places for 50 pounds/ month and demand it should be the same in the UK.

Then we could remove minimum wage and get a lot of jobs back to the UK and unemployment would be less than 1% as suddenly it would be worth working even on a low wage and benefits could be reduced below that wage even for people with children. Then income tax could be cut in half. It's good to dream.

[Tired of Waiting]

Good post, Japan is well known as being one of the most densely populated places on the planet I think Tokyo may even be the most. And yet as you say it's probably still mostly countryside.

I think land (with planning permit) prices are just another tax on top of income tax, except a much bigger one so when we pay our rent or mortgage it's effectively a second tax. In a globalized economy if it's fair to move most of our jobs to China then I think it's also fair to complain that in China you can rent an apartment in most places for 50 pounds/ month and demand it should be the same in the UK.

Then we could remove minimum wage and get a lot of jobs back to the UK and unemployment would be less than 1% as suddenly it would be worth working even on a low wage and benefits could be reduced below that wage even for people with children. Then income tax could be cut in half. It's good to dream.

Very good post. (See my sig.)

[Riedquat]

Reply deleted - we're never going to convince each other and it'll just get nastier the longer this continues. Let's just call it a day.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Riedquat

[northwestsmith2]

The land looks nice but immigration is very tight in the USA, only 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas are issued each year.