Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

How To Build 50,000 Homes A Year In London - Zac Goldsmith

Recommended Posts

One of the comments


Never mind building more houses to accommodate all those that will add to the nightmare congestion, how about reducing the numbers? move businesses out of London and spread it's congestion around the country.

Better still reduce the numbers and spread the congestion around the eu - let the rest of the eu have them. Then the rest of the eu could pay the UK an annual fee/taxes because of the (so called) benefit of having all those extra people.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never mind building more houses to accommodate all those that will add to the nightmare congestion, how about reducing the numbers? move businesses out of London and spread it's congestion around the country.

Agree with that, not only the nighmare conjestion but also the lack of good school places, everyone scrabbling for land and resources.....or else partition a one bed make it a two bed with a bunkbed, then put another bed in the hallway.....very unbalanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And note he's talking about publicly subsidised finance and investment, not lower prices. Building more houses in the most expensive places where demand is highest won't help in itself. It just leads to greater agglomeration and higher land values. There first needs to be an end to land prices being capitalised into rents/prices - the opposite of '...we should channel it so it benefits Londoners. Many overseas investors are banks and institutions wanting to deposit savings somewhere safe. They are looking for long-term, low-risk, medium-return investment...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....so it is the 'investors' home or away that are given priority, their money speaks louder than hard working Londoners that both have a need to live as well as to work......no change there then. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he wants to rip down spacious 50s/60s era ex-corpy housing and replace it with blocks like they have on the continent?

Isnt that what they've been doing the last 2 decades? Not exactly revolutionary.

How about a few thousand immigration officers to evict the probable 1 million illegals in London and then non-renewal of work permits to get rid of another 1 million. The lower housing costs will easily goad a million or so from the regions to fill those jobs. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably pinch my nose and vote for the Labour candidate. He'll almost certainly be corrupt and let developers pile on with development for a modest remittance. A rich environmentalist like Goldsmith has to set alarm bells ringing (Simon Jenkins anyone?) The article says that he is:

  1. against building on the green belt
  2. against high-rise development
  3. against 'ugly' development

To cut a long story short, he is against all development in London, and especially in his back yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with that, not only the nighmare conjestion but also the lack of good school places, everyone scrabbling for land and resources.....or else partition a one bed make it a two bed with a bunkbed, then put another bed in the hallway.....very unbalanced.

uhuh...most of the sprawling estates that havent been gentrified are in south London...no underground, zero proper road network...a few buses. Its not just the housing stock...most of London is simply not fit for purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably pinch my nose and vote for the Labour candidate. He'll almost certainly be corrupt and let developers pile on with development for a modest remittance. A rich environmentalist like Goldsmith has to set alarm bells ringing (Simon Jenkins anyone?) The article says that he is:

  1. against building on the green belt
  2. against high-rise development
  3. against 'ugly' development

To cut a long story short, he is against all development in London, and especially in his back yard.

^This. Will be voting for Sadiq Khan, warts and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhuh...most of the sprawling estates that havent been gentrified are in south London...no underground, zero proper road network...a few buses. Its not just the housing stock...most of London is simply not fit for purpose.

Have you visited other places in the UK? see the infastructure they are having to live with.......London shouldn't complain, if it were that bad why are so many wanting to invest.....they may well live elsewhere, London is a bolt hole for those that do not add productivity only raw pounds/easy money, they extract the pounds from others hard work.....that is so often how it works. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you visited other places in the UK? see the infastructure they are having to live with.......London shouldn't complain, if it were that bad why are so many wanting to invest.....they may well live elsewhere, London is a bolt hole for those that do not add productivity only raw pounds/easy money, they extract the pounds from others hard work.....that is so often how it works. ;)

Why invest in any Ponzi scheme...

Just herd mentality, thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhuh...most of the sprawling estates that havent been gentrified are in south London...no underground, zero proper road network...a few buses. Its not just the housing stock...most of London is simply not fit for purpose.

That does beg for a bit of active central control to sort out, especially where the private sector has brutally failed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e could provide that for overseas and domestic investors by setting up a pan-London investment fund that would directly finance a new generation of homes. "

PFI anyone? Sounds expensive and dangerous.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e could provide that for overseas and domestic investors by setting up a pan-London investment fund that would directly finance a new generation of homes. "

PFI anyone? Sounds expensive and dangerous.

He thinks the problem in the housing market, with rates at historic lows, is a lack of finance?!

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He thinks the problem in the housing market, with rates at historic lows, is a lack of finance?!

What?

He also implied the risk could be underwritten by the taxpayer. Err...

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   81 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.