British Housing Stock

[jammo]

As you rightly say jammo, the video is absolutely terrifying. Re. the files you mention, they were submitted by the National Building Agency but I've had no luck finding them, however there is this debate from Hansard. System-built Houses 12 March 1984 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1984/mar/12/system-built-houses It reveals a bit more of the scale and cost of the debacle. ( I wonder how much we are still paying for it today? )

A few interesting quotes from the debate :

It's a tragedy that a major part of the debacle stemmed from what was (on the face of it ) a laudable promise, from all political parties, to build up to half a million new homes every year in the mid sixties. If those homes had been decently designed and properly constucted and the policy continued, (even at half that rate) what would house prices be today?

Thanks for the link. It seems the motivation to keep this a secret is all to do with money anyway.

"A system X house may show no defect, but because the Government have categorised that system as likely to have defects there will be a diminution of value even though there is no structural deterioration."

God forbid!

Edit: And even worse; if people start reducing the price of the defective 60s houses, a trend may catch on, and people may start to see all other houses as having a short lifespan and subject to acute depreciation in value over time (though adjusted for inflation still). That would be game over for our house price economy and must be kept from happening at all costs!

Edited January 26, 2012 by jammo

[Snugglybear]

But most of the shite housing is old council stock?

the reason they are crap is that those who would end up living in them didn't buy the damn things (except for a knock down price)

therefore the builders had no incentive to make them look nice, since the nice man from the council was the one holding the purse strings - and he didn't give a damn how they looked, only how much they cost.

the planning system is the problem, it makes building houses too expensive and slow, so there is no room in the profit margin for making them actually nice.

Actually, a lot of council houses are of far better quality and much bigger than houses built by speculators. Private housing estates of the same era certainly weren't built to Parker Morris standards.

[Freeholder]

If you want to know about defects in non traditional construction the place to look is in the reports of the Building Research Establishment. When I was at work we had them all in hard copy but some , if not all, appear to be available here. http://www.bre.co.uk/searchresults.jsp?q=lcornish&search-button=Search

I have just tried the search facility for a couple of types and got results.

None of this stuff is secret. I suspect the earlier information is unavailable not because it is secret but because it has been superceded by later, better, work.

[(Blizzard)]

500,000 houses per year is not a dificult task for a country of 60 million.

It was a disaster not in its scale or ambition but becuase it was undertaken by people who didnt understand business.

Im sure you wouldnt go to a contraactor and say...look we need to build as quickly as possible and will pay over the odds and becuase we dont know a thing about construction you can fiddle us around and we will not know any better. Thats what the councils did, so the outcome isnt suprising.

If it was done properly not only could they have built 500,000 semi pre fab houses and flats but they could have built very large homes.

Pre-fab like that dont cost much more if they are bigger, had they decided that those tower blocks should be 140 meters sq flats rather than 70 meter sq then im sure the residents would have been quite happy and it would not have cost the council much more.

Apartments (flats) are popular in a lot of countries becuase they are built much better and to a far bigger size (100-200 sq meters) rather than a typical UK house at 80 sq meters or a typical flat at 60 sq meters. Plus there is no need to have 20 story ghettos, 5 floors is ok

Why would the government build houses, or even have an opinion on the number of houses to build?

It doesn't plan the number of shoes we need, or the number of cars.

It's as if it were a nationalised industry. Odd that.

[cells]

Why would the government build houses, or even have an opinion on the number of houses to build?

It doesn't plan the number of shoes we need, or the number of cars.

It's as if it were a nationalised industry. Odd that.

you dont need to pay a bribe of £100,000 to build a shoe

If you did, i suspect only the government could build lots of shoes

and everyone but the rich would have to do with sharing and making do with the shittest shoes possible

Edited January 26, 2012 by cells

[cells]

Actually, a lot of council houses are of far better quality and much bigger than houses built by speculators. Private housing estates of the same era certainly weren't built to Parker Morris standards.

It is becuase the councils didnt have to pay government £100k bribes

If i gave you £160k worth of materials and man power you could build a nice big house

If i give you £60k worth of materials and man power you can only bild the tiniest, shittest house imagineable. Thats what we have today. When a builder needs to pay 60k for land and 40k for section 106 bribe all he has left is £60k to do the job

[(Blizzard)]

you dont need to pay a bribe of £100,000 to build a shoe

If you did, i suspect only the government could build lots of shoes

and everyone but the rich would have to do with sharing and making do with the shittest shoes possible

Yes.

Land ownership is a government permit scheme, it is a nationalised industry.

Politicians and the media admit this implicitly every time they talk about building targets, but no-one will admit it explicitly.

We don't need the government to build a single house.

We need it to stop preventing everyone else from building houses on unused land.

Edited January 26, 2012 by (Blizzard)

[cells]

Yes.

Land ownership is a government permit scheme, it is a nationalised industry.

Politicians and the media admit this implicitly every time they talk about building targets, but no-one will admit it explicitly.

We don't need the government to build a single house.

We need it to stop preventing everyone else from building houses on unused land.

That is not going to happen.

What is more likely is that the government itself takes control and builds houses (via tendors).

That way the dick heads at the council think they are in charge and press on

Else the same dick heads at the council will do everything they can to stop it, delay it, ****** it up, and get the local stupid people to back them up

[Si1]

The main thing is that she can afford to do this on a very average salary. She is a primary teacher, and her husband currently out of work (due to an injury). She probably earns more as a primary teacher would in the UK, and living costs in Austria are lower, so they they were able to save a significant amount (also from the time when her husband worked) and just need a 100,000 Euro mortgage which they can afford with just one person working if necessary. Would they live in the UK, they would probably not have been able to save anything due to lower incomes for nomal people and higher rents

primary school teachers I know in the UK earn 35k and are very well off compared to most other people, a 100,000 euro mortgage would be easy for them too

[guitarman001]

As I've said in some other threads... I've been going round some newer developments, just randomly. Rooms are absolutely tiny - I would be mortified to buy something and feel like you're stuck in a goldfish bowl. EA I spoke to said the reason was because they're new-builds (letting the cat out of the bag there, no?) and that £200k was cheap and what did people expect? The towns most decents accomodation (older properties) are in are pretty isolated. More than ever I just don't think I can commit money to this - buying is really turning me off. British housing stock is laughable (especially compared to the German housing I saw in when over there).

[Wayo]

I would add other reasons:

1. Until recently, the rich landowners intended to get the houses back after 100 years. So they would sell a leasehold for 100 years, then at the end, they would own them again. There was a whole area in Dulwich whose leases all ended recently. You can imagine how little work was done on the houses in the last 20 years of those leases.

2. British workmen are not very good. Apprentices were stopped 20 years ago.

3. British workmen are paid very badly. Their employers even begrudge having a clean overall every day.

4. The developers don't care about quality. Only about the tawdry wow factor. That's why the cupboard handles fall off in new builds.

5. A lot of Brits don't notice ugliness. They may even prefer it. Status is what counts. Hence the craving for designer, instead of an ability to judge quality.

6. A lot of Brits are very poor. They're also too tired from working overtime. So they let the houses run down.

7. Sub-dividing houses into bedsits is more profitable. Hence nice areas soon turn into rack rental areas, and go downhill.

8. The people who own the land and build on the land want maximum profit and minimum building quality. And they get given both by politicians.

9. Councils may receive money in return for allowing buildings which blight the neighbourhood. So gradually areas go downhill, with too large buildings and rental ghettos.

10. A lot of housing stock is owned by the Buy to Let brigade. Tenants on 2 months notice aren't going to spend on upkeep, and nor do absentee landlords only bothered about the bottom line.