Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ronnie

Property-more Than A Commodity?

Recommended Posts

i think that housing is too important to allow the market dictate who can have a home of their own.rent controls exist in america -one of the most capitalist societies in the world.rent controls would prevent houses rising excessively,obviously rent controls alone are a simplistic answer but the point is housing is one of the most important parts of life along with food water etc. just by an accident of timing of your birth you may or may not be able to buy a home in your hometown,for example if i had been born ten years earlier i could have easily afforded a nice 3 bed semi in my locality,now i live with parents as only recently finished uni and wont be able to afford in my locality for a very long time if ever unless the crash happens before then.

having capital tied up in housing is economically inefficent,investing in research development etc who be far better for the uk economy in the long run and this could be achieved if house prices were set at more fairer levels with regulations to prevent excessive house price inflation which is obviously irrational and a danger to the economy causing boom and bust scenarios depending on the vagaries of the homebuyers of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing regulation is the _problem_, not the solution. If planning laws didn't keep 93% of the land in this country undeveloped, house prices would be far lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing regulation is the _problem_, not the solution. If planning laws didn't keep 93% of the land in this country undeveloped, house prices would be far lower.

... and if the property developers who so commendably redevelop brownfield sites everywhere didn't charge so much for the pokey shoeboxes, sorry, luxury apartments, contained therein that only the privilaged can afford them :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers will always charge as much as they can. But if you could just buy half an acre of land on the edge of the town and build a house there, they'd get far less for crappy flats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Mark if housing was any more regulated than it is we would all be living in Soviet style blocks. A unregulated free market would allow decent housing in all price bands.

I wouldn't even bother with planning restraints. Anything crappy would be pulled down in a generation or two.

Edited by undeservingrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers will always charge as much as they can. But if you could just buy half an acre of land on the edge of the town and build a house there, they'd get far less for crappy flats.

What I don't understand is why planning authorities don't say "sure, you can turn that mill into apartments, but you can't sell them for more than four times the average salary of locally employed 20-30 yr olds". At first they'd snort and walk off but if this policy was adopted everywhere they'd have no choice but to accept it because they'd have no work otherwise.

There's loads of develoments around Bradford and Shipley near where I live, but noone on a Bradford wage can afford them. They all get bought up by whizz kids who work in Leeds in the legal and financial sectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modifying planning regulations may help in short-term, but more important is to put sensible controls on size of loan individuals can take out (based on income). This would fundamentally limit cash flowing into property market, and maybe this would link housing more closely with GDP. We would then have more money to put into local economies and not paying off huge loans which really only benefits the banks. It would also help if EAs signed up to some code of conduct. It's the selling process which needs control, not the building process.

You can see it written throughout all these forum topics: there's too much of a profit motive. New builds are poor quality, and everyone is just trying to max out their profit. These McFlats going up now will be demolished in 30years, just like the 70s council blocks were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You can see it written throughout all these forum topics: there's too much of a profit motive. New builds are poor quality, and everyone is just trying to max out their profit. These McFlats going up now will be demolished in 30years, just like the 70s council blocks were.

Very good point. I look at what's going up in Manchester centre, and I really do wonder this looking at some of them.

I recall in the 80's hearing radio programmes about the 60s flats, and the horror stories of the residents living in them. One of the main problems was the use of straw as insulation. This proved to be excellent breeding and housing for cockroaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modifying planning regulations may help in short-term, but more important is to put sensible controls on size of loan individuals can take out (based on income).

I couldn't agree more with that. Banks used to limit lending to 3.5x salary for singles or 2.5 x joint income for couples, but they'll lend anything to any sucker these days. The problem is that it was the banks' own policy to have these limits, so the banks could choose to relax them. The limits should be enforced by law. If they'd been unable to lend more than sensible multiples in the first place it's doubtful that this web site would exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The limits should be enforced by law. If they'd been unable to lend more than sensible multiples in the first place it's doubtful that this web site would exist.

Here's a better idea: set sensible interest rates, and then no-one will want to borrow more than 4x their salary and you won't get huge credit bubbles. Credit controls just mean that the politicos' mates get easy access to credit which is denied to the rest of us, making them rich at our expense... just as artificially low interest rates make the banks and builders rich at our expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been mulling this over and here are my thoughts.

I am of the opinion that housing development needs to have an organic aspect - i.e. the location must be right, buildings facing in the right direction, close to facilities, attractive buildings fitting the surroundings etc.

Previously I assumed that this is what planners are for - to ensure that these criteria are met. It seems to me that they are in fact useless at this. Most of the new builds are in crap locations, with pathetically small units and rooms, cheaply and poorly constructed. They really have done a dreadful job.

I think leaving it to the market would be much better. They would choose the best locations, because they stand to lose if they don't. Builders would quickly work out what works, and the quality of development in terms of location and size and appearance would improve dramatically. As it is they can throw up any old rubbish and sell it, because there is little competition.

Provisos: The only regulation should be to protect areas of natural beauty (this does not include most of the greenbelt), and to specify minimum but high standards for the quality of construction and minimum room sizes. This will ensure that what is built is actually suitable for humans to live in.

Walls must all be of solid construction.

Bedroom - minimum 15 ft x 12ft.

Kitchen - minimum 12 x 12 to allow for eating area

Storage space: must be at least 10% of overall unit size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.