Housing Crisis by Design

[DoorWasAJar]

Does anyone else think the housing ‘crisis’ is by design or AIBU? People die in the tens of thousands every year due to damp cold uninsulated housing they cannot afford to heat, what does the government expect to happen to them now, when the fuels prices are getting out of control? Why is it so hard for the government to do the most basic of things, people need proper shelter for God’s sake, not these vile new builds developers are vomiting in dribs and drabs while they hoard the development land. Then they use the guidelines for minimum room sizes as maximums. It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me that we’re not building at the proper rate we should be building at, to ensure the population have shelter.

Sorry for my incoherent rant, I’m just upset about this, many many children are growing up with a terrible quality of life due to this. We should be looking at countries where they’re getting right and learning from them. Off topic but Japan spend the same as the UK on healthcare but are 11 places ahead of us in quality of care.

www.dezeen.com/2016/09/30/phineas-harper-opinion-on-the-uk-housing-crisis-that-isnt-a-crisis/

@MysteryFog60

There needs to be a cap on how many houses one person owns. Nobody needs 10 houses.

Yep, this. Landlords hoarding property need to get a real job.

@bellamountain

If you drive on any motorway in this country, all you do is pass by miles and miles of fields. We have plenty of land but it seems planning developers want to destroy what is left in already over populated towns and cities by cramming in flats and tiny homes.

Where do you think your food comes from?

Government - both Tory & Labour would love to solve this. Think how much the Tories crowed about the really successful vaccination project, if they could solve it - they would and it would be in every election leaflet.

Why don't they then ? Bunch of reasons... it's all very well building a set of homes in one the 'miles and miles of fields' as one poster put it - but that is not enough, you need to run electricity, gas, water, sewage, phone, internet to this field.

You need to consider the water table in that field, where will rain water drain to.
You need to consider where they will get food and supplies.
You need to consider schooling for kids who grow up there.
You need to consider medical needs (hospital provision, GPs, chemist, dentist, carers, adult social services).
You need to consider the number of cars they will own and therefore the size and safety of the roads to the site, these also add to drainage issues as you link it to the main road.
You need to consider how the site will be governed (i.e. New local government ? Join with existing authority).
You need to consider how the site will be served by public transport (buses ? trains ?)

Probably much more that I haven't mentioned.

Once you have done that. you need to consider jobs - some jobs can be done remotely but most cannot and people seem to think it is the governments job to ensure them.

Once you have planned all this, be prepared for the vast number of objections from nearby residents, environmentalists and a host of other special interests. Be prepared to be taken to court... multiple times.

I'm not in the home building industry or government, so I am sure there is even more to it. Plonking down bricks is the easy part.. making it a livable home that meets modern needs is crazy hard.

@Findwen

Government - both Tory & Labour would love to solve this. Think how much the Tories crowed about the really successful vaccination project, if they could solve it - they would and it would be in every election leaflet.

Why don't they then ? Bunch of reasons... it's all very well building a set of homes in one the 'miles and miles of fields' as one poster put it - but that is not enough, you need to run electricity, gas, water, sewage, phone, internet to this field.

You need to consider the water table in that field, where will rain water drain to.
You need to consider where they will get food and supplies.
You need to consider schooling for kids who grow up there.
You need to consider medical needs (hospital provision, GPs, chemist, dentist, carers, adult social services).
You need to consider the number of cars they will own and therefore the size and safety of the roads to the site, these also add to drainage issues as you link it to the main road.
You need to consider how the site will be governed (i.e. New local government ? Join with existing authority).
You need to consider how the site will be served by public transport (buses ? trains ?)

Probably much more that I haven't mentioned.

Once you have done that. you need to consider jobs - some jobs can be done remotely but most cannot and people seem to think it is the governments job to ensure them.

Once you have planned all this, be prepared for the vast number of objections from nearby residents, environmentalists and a host of other special interests. Be prepared to be taken to court... multiple times.

I'm not in the home building industry or government, so I am sure there is even more to it. Plonking down bricks is the easy part.. making it a livable home that meets modern needs is crazy hard.

All good points, I'd just add that no matter how many houses we build, it's unlikely we are going to match supply to demand any time soon due to the huge population increase over the last 40 years.

Oh, and the increase in single person living and so on.

You can have lots of houses or you can have "decently sized" housing, you can't have both.

The only way that the crisis can be averted is to build large scale numbers of social housing (that either being for housing associations or council), it needs to be let at the housing benefit rate for the particular area.

However the public will to fight for that or even agree to that is missing and thats the problem.

For private rentals, you either cant afford them if you are solely on benefits because of the benefit rate for housing and/or you need a huge deposit and first months rent up front and a guarantor which many dont have (and shouldnt need but its become a thing now)

So social housing should remove those obstacles to housing

@Graphista

Read the report!

It explains a lot of things strangely enough , including the issues you raise. It even addresses the issue of powerful interests who are at the root cause of the problem, some of whom you guess but not for the reason you state.

The entire report is about how to build homes for those in most desperate housing need, like OP.

@bellamountain

If you drive on any motorway in this country, all you do is pass by miles and miles of fields. We have plenty of land but it seems planning developers want to destroy what is left in already over populated towns and cities by cramming in flats and tiny homes.

@bellamountain - the alternative to urban extensions (building in/adjacent to existing towns) is:

• building on a small scale on these fields you see in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure (besides roads), facilities (shops, community buildings, schools, public transport, etc) meaning everyone is reliant on their cars and nearby town/village facilities,( hint - this is the very definition of unsustainable development), or

• new towns / entire new settlements on green fields - which deliver lots of homes and all the infrastructure to be self-sufficient and "consume their own smoke". These don't impact on as many people but GOOD LUCK getting community support from the wealthy nearby home owners posing as conservationists, organisations like CPRE who seem to think we can solve the housing crisis building on brownfield sites (hunt - we can't)

@MintJulia

You talk about damp, uninsulated housing and then talk about new builds. New builds are dry & insulated but they are small, making them less expensive to heat. Larger houses cost more to heat.

But home owners (and landlords) must take some responsibility for the poor condition of some of Britain's housing. People buy houses and don't budget for ongoing maintenance or learn how to maintain them. Then when something goes wrong they either ignore it, move or bodge it.

The conflict between "were running out of space and homes" and "new homes are too small" is an interesting one too. How much space do we really need? Japan has been mentioned upthread as a good solution. Tokyo development is extremely high density - small, compact, high-rise. Less space means less time/money spent filling rooms with furniture and other "stuff". So how much space do we need?

Our current planning system requires "best use of space" so the density is required to be a high as possible to avoid sprawling detached houses with huge gardens in urban areas, for instance. This isn't a bad idea as long as storage (inside and for cars, bins, bikes) and pavements etc are provided

We are witnessing the risks of relying too heavily on another country for basic needs like heat. Russia has too much control of Europe's gas supply.
The same can happen to countries that cannot produce their own food. The U.K. currently produces about 50% of our food (and we throw about a third of our food away). If we keep building on farmland, we reduce our ability to feed ourselves. A year ago that didn't seem important but now it does.
So using brownfield sites, as effectively as possible is not only environmentally sound, it's strategically sensible as well.

Mint "A year ago that didn't seem important but now it does."

How could it not seem important a year ago?

That said, I'm astounded by a lot of what is on this thread.

PS not having a go at you Mint.

Just really befuddled by the lack of basic general knowledge here.

Props to you and other posters who can be arsed to address it.

@MysteryFog60

There needs to be a cap on how many houses one person owns. Nobody needs 10 houses.

Tell that to the overseas investors with their portfolios. I had a foreign investor landlord, they were useless landlords and they don't care because they don't see you- just a name on a contract

Homes in the is country are shit, please explain to me how the coldest city on earth manages with its soviet housing with triple glazing, the entire house heated by GSH altho different looking heating units to ours, which maintain the house to at least 20 degrees.

but I am sitting her in front of a fan heater in london in our mild winters because I cant get my 1 bed flat to be more then 10 degrees warmer then outside, and thats with bubble wrap on the windows etc

everything is moldy anyway and damp, even with air bricks, our homes are just shit, poor standards very poor and backwards in every way, too cold in winter, too hot in summer, shitty old fashioned bathrooms and kitchens, lack of storage, no solar or wind etc on new builds no real energy efficient heating systems etc, no storage, no space your lucky if the builders even factored in how large a bedframe is before buildind, and insanely over priced to boot so no one can afford them or they get trapped paying for them for the rest of their life until they have to sell them to pay for care.

government and builders are taking the piss, thats what happens when you vote in tories decade after decade, nothing ever improves theres very little difference between a house built now and one 200 years ago except size, we are way behind, yet no one cares so they keep building crap as some one will buy it for an investment.

I hope the entire housing market implodes massively leading to a great depression and a total crumbling of the current neo lib capitalist system, its long over due.

Mentioning Japan as an example is futile. They do something really smart that we would never be able to because of the unproductive, hard of understanding blue haired nimby protestors. They knock down older housing stock and build new. Anything older than 30 years is not seen as fit for purpose. We, on the other hand, are so wedded to older, badly insulated, high maintenance relics because they have ‘character’. Doesn’t matter about affordability and functionality, especially for those on low incomes - character is more important. The political narrative is overwhelmingly occupied by leftie middle class public sector types who are hell bent on avoiding progress at any cost. No matter how much hardship it brings for others. The political spectrum of full of people like these.

this....wouldn't work here in the UK if you had to sell your flat screen TV before you could claim UC

Just that one sentence can be so revealing about a person's political leanings, can you buy TV's that aren't flatscreen anymore?

The problem is our housing stock/expectations hasn't caught up with the culture shift of the last 50 years or so.

It used to be that most people lived with family until they got married and started their own families which meant there were fewer households and young people had time to save up, now people act like anything other than kicking your kids out at 18 and making them pay into private rent is infantilising so there are lots of single person households requiring whole houses/flats plus young people quickly get stuck in the rent trap.

Reading report now.

Very pleased to see what I long suspected - that home building stimulates the economy - is true and acknowledged

Glad to also see housing associations referred to as businesses as they are, rather too many view them and believe them to be altruistic entities which they are not

a market dominated by a small number of large companies

Agree with that

Is "affordability" defined and by whom/how?

Housing "need" v housing "demand" hmmm I'm not sure that's accurate. I've been looking for a 1 bed myself recently and the problem hasn't been me being "fussy" it's the lack of 1 beds available at all! This has been a big issue bedroom tax wise too. Ludicrous to penalise the poorest and most vulnerable for something outside their control! Most common size available in my recent experience? 3 beds and poor quality 3 beds at that

I agree the 2nd homes situation needs close analysis

I agree simply gradually increasing supply only slowly brings prices down - but it all helps

I agree that demand - but more in the form of those buying in order to profit rather than those seeking actual homes - drives higher prices

Regarding there being more housing need in London/south east that seems unwise to me in terms of failing to invest in other towns and cities around the uk - well England based on this report - to create jobs and communities so people aren't having to live in London/south east for work reasons they are inextricably linked I think

This would also have the effect of reducing London/south east prices making them more affordable for those born and bred there who want to live there for family reasons not just work ones

This is somewhat recognised in the paragraphs re "weak demand" I live in one of those areas now and even though supposedly an area of "weak demand" housing is still hard to come by and what is available isn't of the type required

The report notes a decline in local authority building in the 1970's and 1980's without mentioning "right to buy" and the legislation around that which PREVENTED local authority building

Housing affordability has worsened in the age of Covid-19 for many households - but more for income than for price and rent reasons

I think that's somewhat disingenuous income isn't the sole factor or even main one imo

I'm only at page 30 will read and comment more later have something I need to do right now

@sst1234 you really think left wing are where the blue haired nimbys are found?! I think not! They're more likely to be right wingers who are "protecting their investment" at the expense of those on lower incomes in desperate need of actually affordable homes both in terms of rent costs (because buying is a pipe dream) and in terms of the cost of bills - particularly energy costs at the moment!

@JustAnotherPoster00 I agree re the comment making clear where political opinion lies

@nosyupnorth it's not just youngsters needing single person dwellings, it's older people too.

I'm 50 this year divorced, never remarried or similar, disabled and need a one bedroom as I am struggling to maintain a 2 bed (both financially and practically)

My mother is in her mid 70's and recently widowed she is in a 2 bed house that she is now struggling to maintain herself ideally she needs a ground floor flat with no stairs to get into or a bungalow - nothing like that exists where she lives and she also needs to maintain her support network

This idea that it's mainly traditional nuclear families that require housing most urgently seems mistaken and outdated to me

Our housing crisis dates back to Thatcher bribing council tenants to vote Tory with right to buy, then not allowing local authorities to use the proceeds to build more stock. What we need is more high quality social housing with a repeal of right to buy legislation.

Part of the problem is low interest rates from banks - so where's the most profitable and safest place to put your money?? Property.
On top of that Airbnb allows owners of second homes to make lots of money so it's resulted in nowt for first time buyers.

Inflation is due to start rising - once mortgage rates rise more properties should come on the market.

@sst1234

Mentioning Japan as an example is futile. They do something really smart that we would never be able to because of the unproductive, hard of understanding blue haired nimby protestors. They knock down older housing stock and build new. Anything older than 30 years is not seen as fit for purpose. We, on the other hand, are so wedded to older, badly insulated, high maintenance relics because they have ‘character’. Doesn’t matter about affordability and functionality, especially for those on low incomes - character is more important. The political narrative is overwhelmingly occupied by leftie middle class public sector types who are hell bent on avoiding progress at any cost. No matter how much hardship it brings for others. The political spectrum of full of people like these.

In Japan character is valued just as much as we value it here, but unlike Japan we value material as well. In Japan they tend to demolish heritage architecture then rebuild it to look identical but using more modern materials.

Demolishing and rebuilding is not simple - there is embedded carbon in old buildings (in their construction) then again in rebuilding. That's why there is debate around the value of demolishing vs retrofitting

Are you sure there are "tens of thousands" dying of cold in this country every year? Do you have the stats?

[quote Graphista]@sst1234 you really think left wing are where the blue haired nimbys are found?! I think not! They're more likely to be right wingers who are "protecting their investment" at the expense of those on lower incomes in desperate need of actually affordable homes both in terms of rent costs (because buying is a pipe dream) and in terms of the cost of bills - particularly energy costs at the moment!

@JustAnotherPoster00 I agree re the comment making clear where political opinion lies

@nosyupnorth it's not just youngsters needing single person dwellings, it's older people too.

I'm 50 this year divorced, never remarried or similar, disabled and need a one bedroom as I am struggling to maintain a 2 bed (both financially and practically)

My mother is in her mid 70's and recently widowed she is in a 2 bed house that she is now struggling to maintain herself ideally she needs a ground floor flat with no stairs to get into or a bungalow - nothing like that exists where she lives and she also needs to maintain her support network

This idea that it's mainly traditional nuclear families that require housing most urgently seems mistaken and outdated to me [/quote]
Yes I do think the left have a propensity to create ‘I’m alright, Jack’ outcomes. More so than they right. Virtuous intentions and bad results is what the left is all about.

Costs are indeed rising. The world over. Problem we have now is that our economy has been structurally weakened by people who have only opinions but no ideas. Examples are opposition to Fracking and nuclear power. For years now anyone with a placard with not two brain cells to rub together can turn up and start disrupting projects which would give us some security against the kind of inflation we are seeing. And other virtuous club members start clapping and shrieking ‘won’t someone think of the children’. Newsflash, your children will pay for your short sightedness and you saved about 2 ounces of carbon - relatively speaking when compared with what China and US produce every year. Well done. Gun, foot, straight shot.

Yes I do think the left have a propensity to create ‘I’m alright, Jack’ outcomes. More so than they right. Virtuous intentions and bad results is what the left is all about

In my experience - living in a rural area where Tory votes are weighed, not counted - Graphista is spot on. Blue rosettes and obsession with property values go hand in hand.

@Graphista - this is how the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines affordable housing:

Affordable housing: housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership and/or is for essential local workers); and which complies with one or more of the following definitions:

a) Affordable housing for rent: meets all of the following conditions: (a) the rent is set in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for Social Rent or Affordable Rent, or is at least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable);

(b) the landlord is a registered provider, except where it is included as part of a Build to Rent scheme (in which case the landlord need not be a registered provider); and (c) it includes provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. For Build to Rent schemes affordable housing for rent is expected to be the normal form of affordable housing provision (and, in this context, is known as Affordable Private Rent).
b) Starter homes: is as specified in Sections 2 and 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and any secondary legislation made under these sections. The definition of a starter home should reflect the meaning set out in statute and any such secondary legislation at the time of plan-preparation or decision-making. Where secondary legislation has the effect of limiting a household’s eligibility to purchase a starter home to those with a particular maximum level of household income, those restrictions should be used.

c) Discounted market sales housing is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households.

d) Other affordable routes to home ownership: is housing provided for sale that provides a route to ownership for those who could not achieve home ownership through the market. It includes shared ownership, relevant equity loans, other low cost homes for sale (at a price equivalent to at least 20% below local market value) and rent to buy (which includes a period of intermediate rent). Where public grant funding is provided, there should be provisions for the homes to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for any receipts to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision, or refunded to Government or the relevant authority specified in the funding agreement.