'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff
Comments
-
As I understand it was created to curb the urban sprawl, so still performs a useful function. Sure, it can be changed to degree but scrapping it would seem unwise.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What a convincing argument...
You are either being naive and/or are getting a bit over excited about your new leftie heroes.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rick, do you do Telegraph cartoons as a sideline? 😉
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah they’re not gonna build enough but at least they understand that planning is really the brake on growth.
All that money we could be spending that goes on rent or massive mortgages.
0 -
Point taken but you do realise that rent and massive mortgages money doesn't simply disappear. It gets spent elsewhere.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nope. Have already commented elsewhere but a different topic. Gotta be easier than building Hinckley C.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It’s a very unproductive use of capital, and we’re asking either renters to transfer a huge amount of their wealth, or homeowners to lock up vast amounts of wealth.
new homeowners who say take out a £500k mortgage will spend a lot of their lives paying into a house. That house is no more or less productive than if it were less rare and worth less, and the service the bank provides is the same just likely over a longer time.
The houses aren’t doing anything different or more effective as they get more expensive but that is where more and more of our investment or wealth ends up.
It could be spent on so many more productive things!
Plus, it’s making everyone miserable!
0 -
All that money being locked up in houses just because we can’t build more. Your life savings not invested in anything. Just in the house.
0 -
...and yet still one of the best investments it is possible to make.
I have been saying for years that houses are vastly overpriced and there has to be a price crash but it is not going to happen while most (and especially those directly involved) have so much at stake. Building houses will not reduce house prices the way you think it will.
Small sample example. Our village has doubled in size over 8 years, prices are still rising.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
stop thinking in terms of personal finance and think about the big system.
If your average family needs to lock up, say, £400k of the wealth in their house, that money isn't then being used to do other things. Whether that's spend on things like healthcare, or if they want to invest invest in something productive like a company that needs the capital etc etc.
The only reason the house investment makes sense on a personal finance level is because we are making it a rarer and rarer good. That is not economically productive. No-one is creating anything with that.
The economic use of the house is fixed.
0 -
You work in recruitment for the financial sector, right? All that money loaned to buy houses is flowing back into that sector and indirectly to you.
Besides, the UK is not unique in terms of property prices and housing crises, so it isn't what is making us uncompetitive. Possibly an over reliance on one city and generations of under investment elsewhere is a bigger issue.
0 -
Thanks for rephrasing what I said. Prices are not going to drop.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
West has a growth problem in general right?
And the city would be making more money and more margin on investments of other kinds that isn't individual residential houses.
It also makes sense that you will have sclerotic growth when most under 40s are spending an extremely high % of their income on keeping a roof over their head. That % has steadily increased over the last 40 years. Locking up all that money just to keep a roof over your head is mad. It's not doing anything productive.
0 -
I quite like having a roof over my head. 😂😂😂
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
sure but why make it more expensive than it needs to be? Beyond the bricks and mortar, the cost is about scarcity. That's not productive.
0 -
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
How expensive should it be?
0 -
-
Mmm. But what does that look like and how do you get there? Do you think that house building will do that, or just slow or stall the rise.
I think the latter, meaning it's a looong process.
0 -
I agree with Rick on this. Part of the problem is that housing is seen as an investment, it's one of the issues why you get NIMBYism (there is also the problem that people use a house as a status symbol). That said I really don't think building more is going to have a significant impact on house prices especially when there are always places that are considered more desireable than others as you'll never be able to build as many houses as people want in the most desireable locations.
0 -
Sure. So why wait?
I think the planning system favours those already resident but is not really able to account for the cost to those who could do with more housing or cheaper houses.
There is no easy way to do that other than lessen the importance of existing resident's views.
The other issue is that building a tonne of new homes in say, Cambridge centre, wouldn't necessarily change the market that much in Cambridge centre, but would for say, a village down the road where people who were otherwise priced out would end up buying.
So it's not evenly distributed.
I do think that allowing more freedom to build & destroy would allow a more efficient distribution of properties and housing. Like any market.
It is a supply and demand issue. Britain's population has consistently risen faster than the number of abodes being created.
0 -
I think you would be surprised how much it costs to build a house even if the land is free.
0 -
And will become more expensive if there's a sudden upsurge in demand for materials and labour. Hopefully, going forward the planning system can be opened up enough that there is sufficient confidence and cash flow to make off-site fabrication viable. In the last couple of years some of the biggest companies in the sector have failed but they are going to be needed if anyone is really serious about cutting the housing shortage.
0 -
A lot more than the equivalent existing house costs in some areas I imagine
0 -
New builds tend to be more expensive
0 -
That's fine. If it's more costly to build housing than the housebuilder can make, we can't really justify building houses there, right? As long as it's not unnecessary paperwork and regulations that are driving up the cost.
A quick skim read says for a 4 bed house the costs is anywhere between £200k and £400k to build - before you add in the land.
In the big development behind my parent's house in Cambridge, the 4 bed newbuilds are going for between £800k and £1.2m so, assuming they're high quality builds and the cost of land isn't outrageous, they should be making a decent profit on that.
0 -
If the houses are that expensive, the cost of the land probably is outrageous - otherwise another developer would offer more. I would be very surprised if the developer is making 200% profit (and there are costs besides the actual house building)
0 -
A quick Google search of developers in Cambridge came up with Hill.
According to their company accounts their profit margin is 9.16%.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Meh, that's how much a well built 4 bed goes for tbh. I don't think it is the cost that is setting the price.
0 -
There are load of other costs as well. For example, developments need sewers, electricity, schools and road upgrades.
But yes, the landowner will be doing well in that particular Cambridge development.
1
