This is just head-in-sand territory. For starters people like and enjoy open space, I for one don’t wish to see Britain built over.
Secondly we already seem to be running into problems with the existing housing stock. Lots of social housing in poor condition, perhaps bordering on dangerous. Fancy living in a tower block with a single escape stairwell whose fire safety philosophy has been compromised?
Meanwhile these last couple of week have shown us that we also have a problem with properties prone to flooding. For how long can we keep refitting some of these after they suffer a repeat flood? This is probably something which is only going to get worse over time if climate change is real. We already have Fairbourne which is looking like it might be allowed to be reclaimed by nature.
It’s all very well saying there’s places that can take development, but once you’ve ruled out places where development is physically difficult (and presumably a lot of Scotland will fall into that category to some extent), you’re left with places people don’t really want to be, for one reason or another. No problem providing housing in areas where there’s a shortage of well-paid work prospects. The increasing shift to city-based employment is already causing transport overcrowding, and we on this forum should know more than most that providing extra rail capacity is difficult and expensive once the low-lying fruit “quick win” schemes are done.
All this for what? Just so a few people can enjoy freedom of movement?
It saddens me to see the quality of life that my parents generation were able to enjoy relatively easily, yet meanwhile young people today can barely afford a shoebox flat. Thank goodness for Farage.
Britain won't be built over. Currently 5.9% of land in the UK is built on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901294
Green belt restrictions are in place to try and limit urban sprawl, so I doubt this percentage will increase much in years to come. This is also why I am for sensible planning policies, so we can add more people to our cities, without them feeling overcrowded.
Ultimately though, migration can be very economically beneficial, when managed correctly and when the housing market isn't allowed to become the train-wreck it is in the UK. We have an aging population and require labour from working age folks to help support our retirees. The majority of low-wage, unskilled labour is actually pretty beneficial to the UK. In fact, one could argue we get the better end of the deal, countries people typically migrate from are left with few working-age people to help support their aging populations!
If I can bring the arguments about migration to an end with the fact that, for the most part we will soon have control over migration to the UK. The government will be able to dictate how many come in and ensure that every new person added is of benefit to the UK economy. In this case, if we are unable to house those who benefit our economy once this happens, does this say more about migration, or the housing market itself?
I could also play devil's advocate in pointing out many UK citizens move abroad at some point in their lives either for a short period, or permanently, so ending freedom of movement may not be the golden apple it is made out to be...
There has been a definite shift towards city-based employment and one that has been gradual since industrialisation. Less workers on farmland, then less workers in industrial sectors and now more workers in offices, with the supporting service sector to boot. I think resolving transport overcrowding is definitely an issue, and one with multiple solutions;
- Cars are a good form of transport outside of urban environments, however, within them, not so good. Even in countries with almost unlimited space, such as the US, over reliance on sprawling car-based development has proved to have detrimental effects to the economy and personal wellbeing. Terms such as 'food deserts', 'soccer mums' and 'super-commuters' are a result of spreading out cities in order to accomodate the car as a primary form of transportation. Moving towards better walkability/transit availability has proven to be great at improving people's wellbeing and the local economy, even when space isn't such a priority. Totally recommend this TED talk on the walkable city by Jeff Speck: Reducing reliance on cars within our urban areas will free up more space to run trams, trains, buses, etc or give people the opportunity to walk/cycle.
- Giving people homes near to work/recreation. This ties into the above point somewhat, but simply reducing the distance people have to travel is great for increasing living standards and overcrowding on transport networks. The solution to that really is to provide larger residential buildings within cities. To respond to your point about the tower block fire safety, it is unfortunate that this type of housing has been marred by bad fire safety practice. We should really be having more than one stairway, along with active fire safety systems, including sprinklers. The cost would probably not be too bad, once the standard set of designs has been adapted to include these standards. For example, many developments have sections of buildings that share walls, yet the other stairways are not accessible. Simply moving the rooms/corridors around could quite easily accommodate better evacuation procedures.
- Mixed use development also ties into walkability. Urban areas for years had shops, restaurants and places of work mixed in with residential. We have moved more towards separating these out, increasing the distances people have to move to get to stuff. There's no reason offices need to be seperated from housing on an 'industrial park', as there isn't exactly much pollution generated by an office that you would want to keep away from people!
- There is a fair amount of low hanging fruit to be addressed on the UK's rail network outside of London. Things like short platforms and 2-carriage trains are relatively easy fixes compared to your crossrail-type projects. Outside of rail, cities like Manchester are working quite well on cost effective light rail such as the ever expanding Metrolink network. The construction costs are manageable, projects typically completed on time and the trams, whilst not the fastest things ever, are effective enough in rattling past the traffic jams in the morning to get people on them! Not to forget about buses either, schemes involving guided busways and bus rapid transit have proved themselves quite successful too!
Oh, and reducing the amount of roads, car parks and suburban sprawl can really help in reducing surface runoff, a big contributing factor to many of the floods we currently see.
Quite. Immigration is not the cause of the issues, primarily. The primary cause is more single-person households with more suitable properties not being built - yes, guilty!
Ahh the single person household...not the most efficient use of land, but I can't blame you really, as it makes up the majority of our housing stock.
I have heard that this has been an increasing trend over recent years. The road I live in has 35 properties, each having either 2 or 3 bedrooms. At least 8 of the properties have a single occupant (including mine, so also guilty).
Yeah, this is why I'd like to see more flats or smaller homes available. Whilst the 2-3 bed single family home will always have a place in the UK market, even if I become a new urbanist dictator, it should make up part of the housing market, not almost all of it! Always frustrates me to see politicians laying bricks on exactly this kind of development, when it is completely out of touch with what we actually need most as a country.
Indeed it has. So we need more one and two-bedroom flats in tenement type blocks (5 floors at most, say) with decent balconies for outside space (where bedroom two is more a box room with a spare bed and mostly used as an office for those who work from home; these needn't be much bigger than one bedroom properties) - and we need a solution to the problems of leasehold so people aren't put off buying them.
But that isn't as profitable, so the 3 and 4 bedroom executive homes keep going up.
These would be nice, we see a lot of these style flats on the continent and a lot of people are happy living in them!
The 4.5m homes were sold, not demolished - so makes no difference to the number of homes (in fact it increases the number available to buy.
If it is sol then clearly the public sector has made some of the profit
i do agree with this. Get the investment vehicles with loads of cash to build mid sized blocks of flats to rent. Have a ladder of standards (1-5 stars like hotels? Re soundproofing, response times for faults etc) so people can be confident what they are getting, and have standard terms so no surprises.
And facilitate the pension funds wanting to build loads of retirement homes, so old folk clear vacate of family homes.
Nationalise social care so run down seaside and rural councils actually want to attract old people rather than seeing them as a budget burden.
Due, mostly, to all the "good" jobs having been moved to London. Kids go to Uni, and never go back home because there are no jobs in their home areas. We've been doing Uni open days for my son - he's wanting to do the "year in industry" within his degree course. We've looked at Newcastle, Leeds, Durham, etc - all have said most students have to move to London to do their placement year as there are virtually no "local" jobs for them. That's crazy and just shows the London centricity of the country.
We desperately need to get big employers back out into the regions. It's not long ago that you'd have pension/insurance/bank head offices in small northern towns, each employing hundreds/thousands of local people and keeping amenities/services available - now most of that has gone. Places like Kendal are little more than retirement villages for retired staff from Provincial and Provincial. Their children have moved down to London.
Yeah, unfortunately the network effect may have sealed the fate for many industries. Prices are starting to pinch though, and some companies are taking the risk and moving out.
Yes, that is by far the biggest problem.
While there's already a fair bit out there, we could start by moving all Government offices to the regions - and not Manchester, as that's already becoming London-up-North with house prices to match.
Haha, you're right, I feel the pain living in Manchester. We'll be alright, we've got a decent bit of the BBC/ITV operations up here. Manchester has had a good boost in recent years, no reason why areas like Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle and Liverpool shouldn't see some love too! If the rail network wasn't so awful, getting between them wouldn't be too much of a hassle either
You're in for one hell of a shock if you think Farage and leaving the EU is going to alleviate any of the problems the UK housing market/ stock has
Add that people keep block paving their gardens, leaving less soil and earth for rainwater to soak into, which runs off onto streets
Yeah, I have my doubts this will solve much. Cannot deny migration will inevitably be a contributing factor, but it is far from the only one. Even if we cut it off tomorrow, with all the economic damage that could bring, many will be surprised to see that prices continue to rise and the issues worsen.
So we are back to free houses for all are we? I am more worried about the level of unsecured personal debt people carry. Mortgage debt is long term and manageable through sensible planning. It isnt being offered to you at 18/20/35%+ Mine is at c. less than 2% fixed for 5 years.
No, my point was that I'd like to see more housing stock available, which will slow price growth, or hopefully reduce it so the mortgages people have to take out won't be so big.
The OP wonders about people's say on the housing issue. My thoughts are simple, most housing is too expensive & is becoming more so at a rate higher than most people can keep up with. This is evidenced in the fact that the average age of the first time buyer is getting older. Sooner or later the number of people coming in at the bottom of the housing ladder, and the capital available to BTLers will run out, and something will have to give. I wouldn't want to be depending on capital locked into property when that happens.
This seems true, there's only so much new cash in the economy, in some areas I wouldn't be surprised if homes appreciate in value almost as quickly as the average yearly wage.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling young people who have managed to get on the housing ladder will suffer most from this. They'll buy and take out a mortgage when homes are at their most expensive, just to see the value drop. People who've owned homes for 10-20 years will have paid less on their mortgage than the property is worth anyway.
Yet look at all the new student accommodation blocks in virtually every university town/city. All one beds, often clustered around communal kitchens, etc. They must be very attractive to developers/investors, so why not for the residential market? Maybe that kind of thing is the way forward - i.e. university style rooms for single workers/low income workers rather than single people paying through the nose for 1/2 bed basement or attic flat conversions?
I have wondered about companies "building to let" student type accommodation for young professionals rather than students. I'm sure there would be a market, particularly in London, and I think it exists on a fairly small scale.
This kind of accommodation is more space-efficient (and so more profitable) than one-bed flats, FWIW, because of shared kitchens etc.
When I first moved down South for my job just out of university I'd have considered it.
Modern housing is not well designed at all.
We are simply building smaller versions of the semi-detached houses we were building in the 70s.
These are not efficiently designed.
For example, with advances in lift technology, you could probably deisgn a "tower" house, that is much more vertical and thus uses up much less ground area.
For example:
1. Basement - Utility Room
2. Ground Floor - Garage
3. First Floor - Kitchen-Living Area
4. Second Floor - Bedroom 1/ensuite
5. Third Floor - Bedroom 2/ensuite
6. Fourth Floor - Bedroom 3/ensuite
7. Fifth Floor - Bathroom
Three bedroom house on a very small footprint.
Spiral emergency staircase, small interior lift and a large external goods lift.
Goods lift would deposit on the balcony that would be fitted on each floor.
Interesting ideas!
I definitely think some form of 'co-living' for young professionals would go down well. Many already have house/flat shares, but this could have the benefits of them having an en-suite, slightly more spacious room and bills included. I wouldn't be surprised if accommodation builders manage to exhaust the student market (which may be a while yet), they may move on to young professionals. To be fair, some people do stay over summer whilst they start in a new job as well. At least the current growth in student accommodation provision will help to put less stress on the nearby housing rental market, so that's something!
The above idea for a 'tower house' could be kind of cool, perhaps like a compact version of the townhouses we're used to seeing! Perhaps 5-7 floors may be a bit much, but 3-4 could be manageable. Honestly though, I'd love to see more quirky, interesting designs for homes that increase space efficiency. Current new-build single family dwellings are often cramped and overlooked, working on ways to perhaps open it up, bring in more light whilst reducing the amount of land occupied would be interesting!
Aight, I think I've half murdered myself trying to respond to all of these posts lol, might just do one or two next time, not that many of y'all will want my opinion anyways
