To be sick of hearing about 'the housing crisis'?

[GoldfinchFeather]

This is related to the thread about Angela Rayner wanting to build 1.5 million new homes. Is anyone else sick to the back teeth of hearing about the supposed housing crisis in this country?

I live in a semi-rural area, and the amount of house building around here over the last few years has been crazy. Hundreds of houses appearing on pretty much any vacant piece of land, turning what was once a small village into something that feels closer to a town in size. Roads getting busier and busier, and and all the while nothing has been done to provide any new facilities like doctors or schools.

I understand people's frustration of not being able to buy a home. But surely just concreting over more and more of the countryside is completely unsustainable?

If the housing crisis is really so bad, why isn't the Government taking more of an innovative approach? How many town centres/high streets have empty shops that could be converted to residential use? Or properties that have stood empty for years and haven't been brought back to market? Surely just through that, there would be an enormous surplus of homes available, and less need to concrete over more and more of the countryside?

Population is rising, the island isn't getting any bigger.

Why do you want to leave all this land just sitting there. New developments build new schools, ours has a school, locally owned coffee shop and a couple of other units with hairdressers, pharmacy etc. It's not only created housing opportunities (we would be in a tiny flat if we stayed in a more urban area) vs having a lovely big house with a garden for DC in an area that was once 'just land', but it's also created business and work opportunities. All the builders, electricians, plumbers having work for years, children having nice parks and families places to call home. It's a far better quality of life.

I agree Op, there are many other options outside of continuously destroying the countryside and nature.

We moved away from a council property we had for decades to purchase a home in SE. We had this when my family had nothing, us kids grew up and got good jobs, so our situation got better. Subsequently freeing up said council property for another family to move in.

It's not land just sitting there! It's nature. Why do people want the country to just be an endless view of concrete, no wildlife, no trees, polluted air, polluted water, no farmland or ability to grow our own food.

I don’t understand why there aren’t more blocks of flats being built. It’s totally normal on the continent and would be a cheaper way to house lots of people.

Yes. There is no developer interest in building modest and "affordable" property, because there is next to no profit in it.

Regulations now compel developers to build a certain number of modest properties in every single development, and every single time it's the bare minimum number which are built. It's now at the point where the developers just don't bother building actual housing, and now everything is horrible student accommodation shoeboxes, because they are cheaper, more profitable, and they don't come with the same strictures regarding Social/Affordable housing.

Expecting private developers to cater for the needs of the poorest in society is just yet more "trickle down" lunacy.

Most developments respect that nature needs to be preserved and will build parks and lakes to house local wildlife and attract new. Most land in UK is not used for farming in the first place.

The development I’m on was used to dig stuff up from the ground and once that was done the land was abandoned for decades and just left.

Yanbu!

So many second and third homes and Air BnB properties. It's absolute craziness to just build over more countryside when this situation exists. Other European countries are starting to address the problem, I have no idea why we can't.

Empty flats bought as investments in London.

Empty flats above shops (I see literally thousands of them from the top deck of the bus as I travel around London, I'm sure it's the same in many cities).

Also relationship breakdowns mean more families living in two households. I'm not sure what the solution is to this but it partly answers the question why so many new small unit homes are needed.

We can't afford to have a rising population. Why do we just shrug and try to accommodate it? we are a hugely overcrowded island as it is.

Rent controls have been proven to be ineffective by countless studies. Lots of places that have tried to introduce them have seen unintended and adverse consequences so I would be extremely reluctant about advocating them as a potential solution. We need to be realistic and focus on what could actually work in the long term.

It’s not just housing that’s the issue, it’s the knock on effect of having exorbitant housing that’s the issue!

None of my young professional friends are having kids as they don’t feel grown up enough as they can’t afford a house.

people living with their parents still struggle to form meaningful relationships.

If you do have a house you spend every waking moment earning to pay for that house. If you rent, ditto. Can’t work time or have a sahp. Too expensive. Our kids suffer from having stressed, absent parents.

Its dire for everyone’s mental health, the stress about how to fulfil your basic need of having a roof over you head, or stressing about how your kids will ever manage to do it.

You want me to pay more tax??? Can’t afford it. I spent too much on housing. And so the public services suffer.

No one buys UK shares cause all of our money is tied up in housing.

Generational inequality and the resentment this brings.

The need for a bank of mum and dad, and the resentment of those that don’t have this leg up.

All of these problems could be addressed simply by reducing the cost of housing in this country. I hope my children leave to find a better standard of living. The UK is dire.

Less than 2% of England is built on, so we're not into 'the entire country looks like a carpark' territory just yet. And there IS a crisis, whether or not you believe it. And the ways to solving it are varied and nuanced and some of it involves building a lot more houses - yes, councils absolutely could do change of use on city centre buildings and create what would inevitably be more flats, but who is developing them and paying for it? And, more to the point, who is buying or renting them? Lots of flats are not the solution you think they are - they only suit a particular type of person/family and the majority of FTBs don't want to buy flats given the horrors of leasehold and insane service charges and the cladding scandal and the fact that flats don't tend to increase in value as much as houses do. Councils also don't tend to want social housing blocks of flats in city centres - they want (and the people they're trying to house want) houses.

@insomniaclife a small percentage of houses on all new build estates have to have affordable housing. What it means is a few will be Housing association which is the ‘ new council’ and some will be available as shared ownership or as reduced housing for key workers, my friends DS has recently secured a key worker house. There was over 100 applications for 2 houses. It’s a 3 bed house and he is a single male keyworker so I have no idea what the rationale is for choosing.

2% is that true? If so that makes me feel a bit better about the volume of building

Sorry that people needing homes if bringing you down 🙄

Around here it is farmland that is being built on, we don't have any empty waste lands but that doesn't seem to be stopping them

There is a housing crisis but it won't be addressed if they don't build the right type of housing. Loads of over-priced, badly-built 'executive' homes are not the answer - we need lots of affordable flats, it's the most economic use of space and money.

I'm also worried about the countryside being absolutely fucked and the UK becoming one massive Wimpey homes estate but I think there are ways of doing this sustainably. Whether Labour will achieve this is another thing altogether - I certainly hope so.

Its certainly frustrating but its also very complex. You need a lot of capital as well as actual workers to build suitable housing for a range of needs. Realistically, Government needs to fund it - private providers exist to make a profit.

We moved to a village 25 years a go .
Since then three huge new housing estates have been built on farmers land ..I mean utterly huge .so the once lovely village is now 3 times the size it was when we moved here ..they have built one extra primary school and one extra secondary school..and no ,zero extra shops ,no extra doctors,no cinema,no bowling, nothing to do ,nowhere to go ....but oh my god ,a million and one barbers....which makes me think the men here are obsessed with short hair ,or the barbers are a front for something else ..
Village totally ruined either way

Developers would pay to redevelop older buildings if they had an economic incentive to do so. If you made it more difficult and expensive to build shiny new builds on fields then the brown field sites would become more attractive to them. It's just basic economics!

People may generally prefer houses but they inevitably would rather have a flat than no home at all. I also think you completely underestimate that our changing demographics (less people having kids, more old people and people living alone) means that flats will actually be the ideal housing stock in the future for lots of households. It makes sense to use sites that already have lots of amenities in the centres of cities and towns for housing. The infrastructure is normally already there with good access to public transport links, shops etc. It is also a way of regenerating areas that are currently run down. Your alternative or building houses on green friend land would just lead to the towns and cities essentially being abandoned which is absolute madness!

It annoys me because the solution seems building all over the place but never managing to build homes that homeless people actually need and can afford and not enough infastructure .

Just thinking out loud here as I don’t know, but surely if it’s farmland somebody owns that in the first place? Developers can’t just come in and build, they would need to purchase that land from whatever farming family was in there in the first place and felt they can no longer sustain it.

From this article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

Although this page from the Government makes it a bit clearer and is probably more accurate - it says '8.6% of land in England is of developed use, with 91.2% of non-developed use and the remaining 0.2% being vacant.', but developed use includes transport (so roads etc) and residential is just 1.2%.

You're sick of hearing about it because you have a house....
Unless people want to start using existing housing stock more efficiently (downsizing), then construction is the only solution. Don't moan if you're not doing anything to help the situation.

The same is happening where I live. In fact villages and towns are being joined up by new housing . Agricultural land is being used. It's scary. We can't rely on other countries for food, especially with Climate Change. Other counties my not ,in the end be able to feed us, just themselves. In this area the new builds are sold immediately . Builders clearly choose areas that are popular. Not Governments. The Councils just see more Council tax and never say no!

Thanks for that well considered and articulate response! 🙄