UK Housebuilding discussion

[A0]

Moderator note: split from

Have railways became too expensive to build/improve?

It seems to me in the UK construction costs for railways are now so high that there is really no benefit cost measure that will be much above 1, despite extremely aggressively hyping the economic benefits. Someone in another thread was wanting the £29bn roads plan to be cancelled (similar to...

www.railforums.co.uk

It seems impossible to get anything built in this country. Railways, houses, you name it. And yet we have grinning politicians that have somehow conned themselves to believing Britain has "world class" this and "world class that"...

What I want to know, is what on earth will happen if we actually said "sod it" and just spent money? What if we just did things like splurge on electrification, grade separate bottlenecks, reopen closed lines. What is the worst thing that could possibly happen?

It all reminds me of that American Psycho meme, to paraphrase:

"Why isn't it possible, to invest in the railways?
HMG: "It's just not."
"Why not you stupid b*****d?"

Bit in bold - except that's not true as you'll see if you travel up and down the country where many thousands of houses are being built.

The issue with house building is where do you build them ? Green field land = lots of objections about loss of habitat and environmental concerns. Extending towns = unhappiness about the impact on a town and its local services. Extending villages = unhappiness about villages being enlarged and losing their character. Old industrial sites = who wants to live on the site of an old steelworks / coal mine - add in there usually needs to be a significant amount of clean up following its industrial use.

Everybody seems to want new houses to be built, nobody wants them being built where it affects them.

 

[zwk500]

Everybody seems to want new houses to be built, nobody wants them being built where it affects them.

And this is the key factor. ESPECIALLY people don't want enough houses being built that it will affect the value of their own, grossly overvalued properties. So although it may look like vast numbers of houses are being built, we aren't even keeping pace with the amount that need to be built.

 

[A0]

And this is the key factor. ESPECIALLY people don't want enough houses being built that it will affect the value of their own, grossly overvalued properties. So although it may look like vast numbers of houses are being built, we aren't even keeping pace with the amount that need to be built.

To be fair, for a lot of people it isn't the effect on their house price that's the issue - it's the loss of local countryside, or farmland, the impact on the local roads, schools, hospitals, doctors, dentists etc.

And that's even more of an issue in areas which are already perceived as being overcrowded i.e much of London & the Home Counties, but with that spreading out into the neighbouring counties. And it's a fair criticism - why should Herts, Essex, Kent or Sussex see themselves concreted over when Durham, North Yorkshire or Northumbria aren't affected ?

 

[zwk500]

To be fair, for a lot of people it isn't the effect on their house price that's the issue

It very much is, even if it isn't 100% conscious

- it's the loss of local countryside, or farmland,

Some of the 'green spaces' people have tried to defend have included abandoned airfields, how seriously can you really take such constant protestations.

the impact on the local roads, schools, hospitals, doctors, dentists etc.

More people would make more investment more worthwhile.

And that's even more of an issue in areas which are already perceived as being overcrowded i.e much of London & the Home Counties, but with that spreading out into the neighbouring counties. And it's a fair criticism - why should Herts, Essex, Kent or Sussex see themselves concreted over when Durham, North Yorkshire or Northumbria aren't affected ?

People want to live there. But really the Green belt should be torn up and London built on before the outlying counties.

 

[A0]

People want to live there. But really the Green belt should be torn up and London built on before the outlying counties.

The Green Belt covers most of the home counties - if anything there's not much of it left in London. It's the likes of Herts, Bucks, Essex, Kent, Surrey and Berks that stand to lose out if the Green Belt is abandoned.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 May 2023 ==

More people would make more investment more worthwhile.

Which may be true - but the investment follows the houses being built which creates pressure on the local infrastructure first.

And then its the change of the character of the area which is getting the development.

 

[zwk500]

The Green Belt covers most of the home counties - if anything there's not much of it left in London. It's the likes of Herts, Bucks, Essex, Kent, Surrey and Berks that stand to lose out if the Green Belt is abandoned.

There's enough in London to make a start and other cities have green belts as well.

Which may be true - but the investment follows the houses being built which creates pressure on the local infrastructure first.

Something that could be changed, of course. 'You can only build X houses until the doctor's surgery is finished, then you can build the rest.'

And then its the change of the character of the area which is getting the development.

I absolutely hate this argument. It pretends that cities and towns haven't been constantly changing through time. Instead it tries to lock in a 'picture perfect' image of a snapshot of time. And if you try and ask people what they mean by an area's 'character' they usually give some wishy-washy excuse about a 'village feel' or something. What they mean is 'I want my house to have increased in value when choose to sell'.

For context I'm in my 20s and looking to move to Bristol in the summer. I used to own a flat in MK but sold it when I moved abroad for a year out. The amount I sold it for will barely cover a deposit in London.

 

[A0]

For context I'm in my 20s and looking to move to Bristol in the summer. I used to own a flat in MK but sold it when I moved abroad for a year out. The amount I sold it for will barely cover a deposit in London.

Don't exaggerate - the price of a flat in MK (excluding shared ownership or over 55s properties) starts at ~ £110k in the less salubrious areas, go for CMK and you're looking at £ 175k.

The average house price in London is £ 727k.

A 10% deposit on that is £ 72k. But as that's the average in London, you can obviously spend much less.

Edited to clarify average price in London is £727k.

 

[66701GBRF]

Don't exaggerate - the price of a flat in MK (excluding shared ownership or over 55s properties) starts at ~ £110k in the less salubrious areas, go for CMK and you're looking at £ 175k.

The average house price in London is £ 727.

A 10% deposit on that is £ 72k. But as that's the average in London, you can obviously spend much less.

Perhaps when he sold his flat a large proportion went to paying off his mortgage. Also, you have assumed a 10% deposit when that might not be the case.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Moderator note: split from

Have railways became too expensive to build/improve?

It seems to me in the UK construction costs for railways are now so high that there is really no benefit cost measure that will be much above 1, despite extremely aggressively hyping the economic benefits. Someone in another thread was wanting the £29bn roads plan to be cancelled (similar to...

www.railforums.co.uk

Bit in bold - except that's not true as you'll see if you travel up and down the country where many thousands of houses are being built.

The issue with house building is where do you build them ? Green field land = lots of objections about loss of habitat and environmental concerns. Extending towns = unhappiness about the impact on a town and its local services. Extending villages = unhappiness about villages being enlarged and losing their character. Old industrial sites = who wants to live on the site of an old steelworks / coal mine - add in there usually needs to be a significant amount of clean up following its industrial use.

Everybody seems to want new houses to be built, nobody wants them being built where it affects them.

I think, perhaps selfishly, as a young person I'm less forgiving about a small village becoming a slightly larger village if it means I can buy a house without my parents having to sell theirs.

 

[zwk500]

Don't exaggerate - the price of a flat in MK (excluding shared ownership or over 55s properties) starts at ~ £110k in the less salubrious areas, go for CMK and you're looking at £ 175k.

The average house price in London is £ 727.

A 10% deposit on that is £ 72k. But as that's the average in London, you can obviously spend much less.

Look at that middle line again. And understand why young people *might* be angry at housing.

 

[A0]

Look at that middle line again. And understand why young people *might* be angry at housing.

20 years ago, when I was somewhat younger, I couldn't afford to buy in London, or the town in Herts I grew up in.

It's nothing new.

 

[zwk500]

20 years ago, when I was somewhat younger, I couldn't afford to buy in London, or the town in Herts I grew up in.

It's nothing new.

At least 20 years of failure then to catch up on then. It's not good for the economy if young people can't afford to work in the country's largest, and busiest city.

 

[Speed43125]

20 years ago, when I was somewhat younger, I couldn't afford to buy in London, or the town in Herts I grew up in.

It's nothing new.

The UK House Price Index gives an average property price in London in May 2000 as roughly £141K, which according to the Bank of England inflation tool equates to £249k in current prices. The same index quotes £523k as an average today.

We all know house prices have tended to outperform inflation. But that increase is a very significant amount. Its very much a case, both perceived and, particularly in the South East, real situation that those not on the property ladder are losing out massively to those that are.

Building 130,000 homes a year to meet a (continually growing) shortfall often quoted at 4 Million clearly isn't going to cut it.

 

[A0]

At least 20 years of failure then to catch up on then. It's not good for the economy if young people can't afford to work in the country's largest, and busiest city.

The reality is they never have, unless they were happy to live in the less salubrious areas.

E.g currently, flats in Dagenham or Romford are a similar price to Milton Keynes. That's inside the M25.

Go back to the 1970s or 1980s and places like the Docklands, Hackney or Harringay were cheap. As the areas improved, the prices went up.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The reality is they never have, unless they were happy to live in the less salubrious areas.

E.g currently, flats in Dagenham or Romford are a similar price to Milton Keynes. That's inside the M25.

Go back to the 1970s or 1980s and places like the Docklands, Hackney or Harringay were cheap. As the areas improved, the prices went up.

Surely though, there's a social responsibility to correct this? Do we want whole swathes of London to cater to no one but wealthy young professionals or do we want to make sure people have the best possible choice of where they want to live? It only seems to be the free-market ideologues in The Telegraph that favour the supremacy of free free housing market and forcing people to work around it, rather than treating housing, as a public good, like it should be.

 

[A0]

Surely though, there's a social responsibility to correct this? Do we want whole swathes of London to cater to no one but wealthy young professionals or do we want to make sure people have the best possible choice of where they want to live? It only seems to be the free-market ideologues in The Telegraph that favour the supremacy of free free housing market and forcing people to work around it, rather than treating housing, as a public good, like it should be.

I don't agree - these things go in cycles. Young people gravitate to where is cheaper, improve the area, the prices go up, somewhere else becomes cheap.

And to dispel your "Telegraph, Thatcherite ideology all since the 80s" nonsense - it was the same in the late 60s early 70s. My parents were ineligible for a council house because my paternal grandparents were homeowners. So they moved a dozen miles away from the town they'd grown up in where they could afford to buy, my dad's brother had to do the same.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There is supposedly a new station going to be built called Cottam Parkway on the Preston-Blackpool line. It will probably result in closing Salwick. Just go on Google earth or similar. In a 6 mile radius there are tens of thousands of houses going up. I just cannot keep up with the changes.

 

[Ediswan]

Some of the 'green spaces' people have tried to defend have included abandoned airfields, how seriously can you really take such constant protestations.

Most smaller airfields are mainly green space. Grass runways are still common.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Old industrial sites = who wants to live on the site of an old steelworks / coal mine - add in there usually needs to be a significant amount of clean up following its industrial use.

These sites could and should be built on. Brownfield sites are prime areas for regeneration.

One major issue with housebuilding in the UK is the complete lack of common sense when it comes to listed buildings. I found an example in Kent: https://goo.gl/maps/onPLjLaBzh9Smk6G6

This should never have been turned into apartments. It should have been transformed into housing, with the surrounding gardens used to build additional housing.

 

[Yew]

These sites could and should be built on. Brownfield sites are prime areas for regeneration.

Ah, tiny inner city flats between a main road, the sewage works, and an industrial estate, truly we live in a halcyon age.

 

[Enthusiast]

Something that could be changed, of course. 'You can only build X houses until the doctor's surgery is finished, then you can build the rest.'

Or how about: You can't build any houses until the doctor's surgery is finished, and doctors are found to run it.

 

[GusB]

Ah, tiny inner city flats between a main road, the sewage works, and an industrial estate, truly we live in a halcyon age.

Some people might only need a tiny inner-city flat, particularly those who are looking for their first home. When I was younger I didn't spend all that much time at home, and either a one-bedroom or even a studio flat would have been ideal. I honestly don't see what why there's such opposition to flats anyway - they work for lots of people.

 

[alxndr]

Old industrial sites = who wants to live on the site of an old steelworks / coal mine

I live between a steelworks and a colliery. Admittedly the steelworks were closed 40 years ago and clean up work has been done, but you wouldn’t know know unless you’re into looking at old maps and photographs.

 

[Noddy]

One major issue with housebuilding in the UK is the complete lack of common sense when it comes to listed buildings. I found an example in Kent: https://goo.gl/maps/onPLjLaBzh9Smk6G6

This should never have been turned into apartments. It should have been transformed into housing, with the surrounding gardens used to build additional housing.

I agree with housing v apartments (I guess the latter are more profitable though) but one of the issues regarding listed building is that setting of listed building plays a very important consideration in development, plus all curtilage structures are also legally protected as part of a buildings listing (even if not explicitly stated in the description). In your example you can see the developers have managed to get additional houses built to the east and south-west of the apartment building, but not to the immediate north and south where the main elevations/approaches are. Given that the apartment building is actually only one of six listed buildings all related to the former hospital complex and together they form an associated group I think the developers have done fairly well to get the additional houses in, especially as the listed lodge to the east is now overlooked by new 3 storey ‘town’ houses. As with all development I suspect there was a lot of compromises made on both sides here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people might only need a tiny inner-city flat, particularly those who are looking for their first home. When I was younger I didn't spend all that much time at home, and either a one-bedroom or even a studio flat would have been ideal. I honestly don't see what why there's such opposition to flats anyway - they work for lots of people.

The big issue I have with flats is the feudal scam that is leasehold (which needs to be fully abolished for residential purposes), but you do seem to have the ownership of flats sorted in Scotland so we should just copy that.

 

[Yew]

Some people might only need a tiny inner-city flat, particularly those who are looking for their first home. When I was younger I didn't spend all that much time at home, and either a one-bedroom or even a studio flat would have been ideal. I honestly don't see what why there's such opposition to flats anyway - they work for lots of people.

Perhaps they work well for some people, not for everybody. Cramming more people into city centres is not a solution for those who are more suited to a suburban existence.

 

[Thirteen]

Some people might only need a tiny inner-city flat, particularly those who are looking for their first home. When I was younger I didn't spend all that much time at home, and either a one-bedroom or even a studio flat would have been ideal. I honestly don't see what why there's such opposition to flats anyway - they work for lots of people.

Flats seem to have a negative connotation in the UK which doesn't seem to exist elsewhere. If you look at a lot of American sitcoms and dramas, most of the characters live in apartments rather than houses.

Have to admit as someone looking to get on the property ladder, I'm more inclined to looking at flats but I want a new build rather than somewhere older and new builds tend to be more expensive.

 

[GusB]

Perhaps they work well for some people, not for everybody. Cramming more people into city centres is not a solution for those who are more suited to a suburban existence.

I think I made it clear in my post that flats aren't suited to everyone. My point is that for some people, they're fine. They don't even need to be located in inner-city areas, either. It's possible to have flats in a suburban or even a village setting if they're designed correctly.

I've mentioned the concept of four-in-a-block flats before. You have a building that has a similar footprint to two semi-detached houses, but it's split into upstairs and downstairs flats with their own separate entrances and many of them have gardens, front and back. You're increasing density without necessarily increasing the amount of land required.

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps they work well for some people, not for everybody. Cramming more people into city centres is not a solution for those who are more suited to a suburban existence.

However there is a vast amount of suppressed demand from young people who want to be living in city centres and don't mind having a smaller space as they will not be spending that much time at home for leisure.

 

[66701GBRF]

The big issue I have with flats is the feudal scam that is leasehold (which needs to be fully abolished for residential purposes), but you do seem to have the ownership of flats sorted in Scotland so we should just copy that.

Not to mention the ridiculous amounts of service charges and other fees.