Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Wurzel Of Highbridge

Lies, Lies And Housing Bubbles.

Recommended Posts

A five year old school kid could pull out this info in around 10 mins.

1, The UK has hardly population growth.

wjweu8.png

2, Less than 5% of the UK is built on.

4g0nl5.png

3, The UK has a massive house price bubble topping £400k+ in London.

web-house-prices-graphicv2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs lots of land when you can house many people in tall tower blocks, eg: Hong Kong......anyway why is it then that the more spacious homes with some land and the freedom to roam where you get more bedrooms a bigger garden are far more value for your money........people obviously don't want space....they would rather be living in crushed conditions all on top of one another, so it seems. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree with the general premise that we do have plenty of land to build on (perhaps not inside the M25, not sure without more looking), and house prices are stupid all over but especially in London, I think the graph of population growth is a bit misleading. After all, if I plot your heart rate on a graph going from 0 to 100,000, I can show that shooting you makes no discernible difference; but just try it in court..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree with the general premise that we do have plenty of land to build on (perhaps not inside the M25, not sure without more looking), and house prices are stupid all over but especially in London, I think the graph of population growth is a bit misleading. After all, if I plot your heart rate on a graph going from 0 to 100,000, I can show that shooting you makes no discernible difference; but just try it in court..

A quick look on google maps and i'd guess about a quarter (inside the M25) not built on, but thats mostly forest/woodlands and golf courses.

So with London House prices so high, and rich people love golf, why not build a 100 storey posh high rise in the middle? maybe several, with decent links straight in to the city centre.

Edited by motch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick look on google maps and i'd guess about a quarter (inside the M25) not built on, but thats mostly forest/woodlands and golf courses.

So with London House prices so high, and rich people love golf, why not build a 100 storey posh high rise in the middle? maybe several, with decent links straight in to the city centre.

Actually, a look on google maps does suggest some pretty substantial room..

And yes, some decent high-rise apartments would help.

In the rest of the country, land really isn't an issue..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with space is the terrible planning laws, there isn't really that much space available to build on, but that is taken as there isn't much land.

I sometimes wonder if people travel more than 5 miles from their house, there is loads and loads of space in this country. Obviously there are plenty of other issues, you need infrastructure and services etc, but that is not a space issue.

But even so, I'm sure I could identify loads of places locally in London going to waste space wise, plenty of room in my opinion to stick in a number of nice sized blocks of flats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the total amount of land built on is nearer 13-13.5% including factories. industrial roads, railways, infrastructure etc

Though quite why we have to build on flood plains when there are perfectly good fields is another matter.

But take ANY train or Motorway journey North or South. West or East, look out the windows left and right and what do you see? Yes miles and miles of fields.

OK we are more built up than say France, but if you DOUBLED housing (which no one is seriously suggesting) UK would still be mainly rural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the total amount of land built on is nearer 13-13.5% including factories. industrial roads, railways, infrastructure etc

Though quite why we have to build on flood plains when there are perfectly good fields is another matter.

But take ANY train or Motorway journey North or South. West or East, look out the windows left and right and what do you see? Yes miles and miles of fields.

OK we are more built up than say France, but if you DOUBLED housing (which no one is seriously suggesting) UK would still be mainly rural.

Yes, it is said we need another 1 million homes to cover the current crisis in housing. That's under 4% on top of existing stock. Anyone who claims that every town being expanded to the tune of 4% would create huge problems is simply not being honest in my view. Tories are pushing for brownfirled development only, there are obvious attractions to that, but a zealous protection of green belt is not really warranted on top. We have to have the flexibility to put homes close to jobs, and in some cases that means greenbelt.

The statement "I'd like to buy a piece of land and build a house on it" is taken by some as evidence of the speaker being a menace to the fabric of UK society.

edit can't type anymore.

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1, The UK has hardly population growth.

To be fair, that 1st graph is very misleading. You can't sensibly compare the population growth of different countries like that without a log scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately one of the problems isnt that there isnt enough land but just that not enough houses are being built.

housing-supply-1923-2011.png?w=580&h=264

when cities are surrounded by an artificial green belt, and there is so much nimby objection to any houses being built anywhere thats where the problems stem from.

the uk population growth of 0.6% equates to 400,000-500,000 per year however the rate of house building is 100-150,000 per year.

this has been going on for over a decade and is creating a giant bottleneck on housing availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the uk population growth of 0.6% equates to 400,000-500,000 per year however the rate of house building is 100-150,000 per year.

62 million * 0.6% = 372,000

divide by 30 years = 12,000 houses per year

What is missing in this is the number of households growing because there are more single people.

Edit: corrected population

Edited by oligotroph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is missing in this is the number of households growing because there are more single people.

Exactly!

Little old ladies to be precise, they outlive their husbands by years and are occupying family homes alone for decades. Often near good schools too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly!

Little old ladies to be precise, they outlive their husbands by years and are occupying family homes alone for decades. Often near good schools too.

I've no objection to little old ladies or anyone else staying in their home for as long as they wish (provided they have the means to do so, naturally). Often it's the best thing for them- familiar area, friends etc. But that of course means that any objections to a huge building plan raised by such people should be ignored.

We need approximately 1 million homes. I don't understand why they don't just get built pronto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my parents' village (where I grew up in the back end of nowhere) there is now a trend for building on all the lovely big gardens, sometimes cramming 4 or 5 houses onto a quarter acre (or smaller) plot. This leaves the original 4 or 5 bedroom house with barely any garden, and then slowly all the green space within the village is eaten up by (meanly proportioned) houses with no real garden of their own.

This despite the fact that there are northing but green fields for 3 miles in every direction, and it's 9 miles to the nearest town.

It's insane that this seems to be preferable to the obvious solution which would be to build out of one edge of the village another (perhaps smaller) village style estate with enough houses for a few decades, which could be built in a style in keeping with the old cottages, with decent proportions and decent gardens of their own. The people in the old village wouldn't even have to visit that part if it "upset" them too much to think about their precious village changing shape.

Also if the village was able to expand rapidly all at once (rather than a house or two at a time each year over 40 years), then perhaps there might be enough new families moving in to keep the pub going, or reopen the village shop/post office, or keep the cricket club going, or any number of village activities that are dying because 80% of the population is over 50 living alone or in a couple, in a house that is far too big for them, with a garden they have built all over, in a property "worth" half a million quid. (As far as I know the only young people living there now either have parents that didn't pop sprogs till their 40s, or have been left a house by their relatives. Nobody under 40 could even think about buying a place there.

(In fact in the village there IS a small estate of a couple of dozen houses built on the outskirts (in the 1960s I think), unfortunately they look awful as they aren't in keeping and have that very dated 60s/early 70s style, but they are surrounded by trees and there is no need to even go up there if you don't want to (it's not on the way anywhere).

It's mental that they prefer to fill in the gardens and increase the density instead rather than building out from the edges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'supposed' idea of the greenbelt was to stop urban sprawl like ribbon developments. Here in Ireland you will see that houses are built anywhere that there is a road. There are lots of lanes here and you will find some of these lanes have 20/30 houses in a ribbon along them and more often than not they are 5/6 miles from the nearest village. Splendid houses on 1/2 acre and all that but quite isolated.

Anyway, the greenbelt achieved it's original aim of controlling sporadic developments miles from anywhere. Now all the space inside the greenbelt and most brownfield sites have been used up any sensible person can see that the 'green belt' needs to be expanded by a small percentage in each town/village by a given area each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point on the 'greenbelt' I have an example sto show what I mean by expanding it.

In the first picture we have a town in Ireland where building in the 2000's was allowed uncontrolled.

the second picture is Glastonbury which the size could easily be doubled (over a period of years) without causing any problems. With Glastonbury you would just need to push the greenbelt a set amount on a set basis - the same applies for most towns in the UK.

Lack of greenbelt causes sprawl

juikqc.png

Not increasing the greenbelt causes overcrowding

xgcku0.png

More to the point the greenbelt is needed but should not be used by the old as a financial weapon against the young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.