The housing crisis (London and beyond)

[Tulster218]

so how come we now have more houses per person yet the price is higher?

Oh I see. Your twitter post wasn't showing when I replied. It seemed like you were agreeing with me.

There are more people choosing to live in smaller housholds now. Londoners have less floor space than the rest of England, and only half the floorspace of the US. Splitting a family home into flats makes more dwellings, but no extra space.

The error comes from not understanding that price is a better metric for demand than dwellings per capita. We don't have to worry about people's motivations. Price is the result of when demand and supply meet. That's all you need to know. If the supply is constrained and the price is too high (which it is) we need to either reduce the demand or increase the supply. And I'm saying increase supply - all sizes, all tenures all densities.

 

[Tulster218]

credit supply drives house prices.

It's one of the factors which affect demand, but if supply weren't constrained then it wouldn't make a jot of difference.

 

[WouldBe]

Why would drugs be more expensive in prison than outside, if not for demand and supply?

Risk

Why are aeroplane tickets less expensive off peak, if not for demand and supply?
Why does Uber have surge pricing, if not for demand and supply?

Greed. If you can cover your costs at the lower price then increasing the cost is due to greed.

 

[Tulster218]

Risk

A higher risk makes people less willing to sell drugs leading to a lower . . . supply

Greed. If you can cover your costs at the lower price then increasing the cost is due to greed.

Then why not charge higher prices all of the time? Because there'd be no . . . demand

Prices are determined by supply and demand. Building more houses will reduce the price.

 

[WouldBe]

A higher risk makes people less willing to sell drugs leading to a lower . . . supply

There are extra costs as neither the prisoner or dealer can simply walk into/out of prison to get them. Extra 'employees' = extra cost.

Then why not charge higher prices all of the time? Because there'd be no . . . demand

You'd be right if there wasn't an alternative.

Prices are determined by supply and demand. Building more houses will reduce the price.

And the cost of materials and wages. Older properties, like the Victorian terrace you posted earlier, have already had those costs covered. You couldn't build a new property for the cost it cost to build older properties.

My granddad's house cost £350 brand new in 1935 you'd be lucky to get a shed for that sort of price these days.

 

[Tulster218]

There are extra costs as neither the prisoner or dealer can simply walk into/out of prison to get them. Extra 'employees' = extra cost.

Then why don't drug dealers outside prisons raise their prices? Because there'd be no . . . demand

You'd be right if there wasn't an alternative.

The availability of an alternative reduces the . . . demand

And the cost of materials and wages. Older properties, like the Victorian terrace you posted earlier, have already had those costs covered. You couldn't build a new property for the cost it cost to build older properties.

My granddad's house cost £350 brand new in 1935 you'd be lucky to get a shed for that sort of price these days.

Because price is determined by . . . demand and supply.

The only solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing - all sizes, all tenures, all densities. Keep building until there's no more demand.

 

[Sue]

This is tedious. Tulster218, building more housing and using existing housing that's lying empty isn't a radical or controversial view round here.

What people think is nonsense is your insistence that we can rely on the market to provide and your proposal that developers can build what they like, where they like.

 

[Tulster218]

This is tedious. Tulster218, building more housing and using existing housing that's lying empty isn't a radical or controversial view round here.

What people think is nonsense is your insistence that we can rely on the market to provide and your proposal that developers can build what they like, where they like.

You want more housing, but just not in your back yard. Is that what you're saying? It sounds like it.

 

[Tulster218]

A chap called Russell Curtis reckons we could have an extra million houses or so (898,776 to be precise) just by increasing density by 25% within ten minutes walk of all London railway stations. It would be better than nothing I suppose.

Towards a Suburban Renaissance – Russell Curtis

 

[Sue]

You want more housing, but just not in your back yard. Is that what you're saying? It sounds like it.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

 

[WouldBe]

Then why don't drug dealers outside prisons raise their prices? Because there'd be no . . . demand

So in your weird world addicts would just stop using.

The availability of an alternative reduces the . . . demand

If 1000 people want / need to travel from A to B on a certain day the demand stays the same regardless of how many alternative routes / modes of transport there are.

Because price is determined by . . . demand and supply.

So again in your weird world if supply and demand remain the same but materials and wages double then the price of a house stays the same.

 

[WouldBe]

A chap called Russell Curtis reckons we could have an extra million houses or so (898,776 to be precise) just by increasing density by 25% within ten minutes walk of all London railway stations. It would be better than nothing I suppose.

Towards a Suburban Renaissance – Russell Curtis

And to increase density by 25% you'd have to demolish what's already there to squeeze the extra housing in which would decrease the amount of housing while the work goes on unless you know a magician that can do it at the click of their fingers.

 

[teuchter]

This is tedious. Tulster218, building more housing and using existing housing that's lying empty isn't a radical or controversial view round here.

What people think is nonsense is your insistence that we can rely on the market to provide and your proposal that developers can build what they like, where they like.

That's the bit they keep dodging. They are here to make their lecture on supply and demand, possibly because they know there are plenty here who will take that bait.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the simple "building more housing = cheaper housing" claim is true. I don't think it's worth arguing about that.

The fundamental problem is where and how to build it.

Question Tulster218 on whether there should be planning restrictions or not and you get a load of incoherent stuff about design codes, as if it were an easy thing to do, to just write a prescriptive code that said what was and wasn't OK. Like many people with this view they like to talk about Poundbury and various other very conservative/traditionalist approaches to design codes, ignoring how incompatible they are with building high-density, high-rise, which is the claimed "solution".

Also, they need to demonstrate that NIMBYism actually is preventing stuff from getting built, that would have got built otherwise. They seem to be choosing to ignore my requests for the evidence of that, and the scale of it.

 

[Tulster218]

So in your weird world addicts would just stop using.

If 1000 people want / need to travel from A to B on a certain day the demand stays the same regardless of how many alternative routes / modes of transport there are.

So again in your weird world if supply and demand remain the same but materials and wages double then the price of a house stays the same.

WouldBe, I think I'm just going to have to give up on you. I've been very patient, but for whatever reason you're simply not getting it.

I can assure you that demand and supply is real. It's not something I've made up. The National Crime Agency literally use illegal drug wholsale prices as a measure of availability, plane tickets really do cost more in the school holidays, and estate agents don't care how much it cost to build your house when they value it. These are three examples of demand and supply actually working in the real world. There are numerous others.

 

[Tulster218]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Oh but you are. You're saying more housing is a good thing but you want to have the final say on what type of housing is built and where.

Nobody self-identifys as a NIMBY, it's just that there's always a particular reason why a building development near them shouldn't go ahead.

 

[klang]

Nobody self-identifys as a NIMB

I do

 

[klang]

You are such a twat

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Not many people self identify as a liar either but anyone who claims they'd welcome a twenty story block of flats being built two feet from their house ...

 

[WouldBe]

WouldBe, I think I'm just going to have to give up on you. I've been very patient, but for whatever reason you're simply not getting it.

It's you that's not getting it.

I can assure you that demand and supply is real.

Of course it is. It's just not the only thing that you think it is.

estate agents don't care how much it cost to build your house when they value it.

Right so if it costs £300k to build a house and demand drops do you seriously think the builders are going to sell it at a loss? Muppet.

 

[yield]

Land banking is one of the main constraints on home building.

Wonder if Tulster is anything to do with anti-planning lobby group, Centre for Cities?

Land banking: what’s the story? (part 1)

At Shelter we argue consistently that the best long term solution to England’s housing crisis is to increase housebuilding: especially homes which are affordable for low earners to rent or buy. So when it seems that developers are sitting on land – often with planning permission – and not...

blog.shelter.org.uk

Labour must tackle land banking to have any hope of solving UK's housing crisis

Housing developers have been allowed to practice land banking for too long, Labour must deal with the problem if they get into power.

www.bigissue.com

 

[Tulster218]

Land banking is one of the main constraints on home building.

Wonder if Tulster is anything to do with anti-planning lobby group, Centre for Cities?

Land banking: what’s the story? (part 1)

At Shelter we argue consistently that the best long term solution to England’s housing crisis is to increase housebuilding: especially homes which are affordable for low earners to rent or buy. So when it seems that developers are sitting on land – often with planning permission – and not...

blog.shelter.org.uk

Labour must tackle land banking to have any hope of solving UK's housing crisis

Housing developers have been allowed to practice land banking for too long, Labour must deal with the problem if they get into power.

www.bigissue.com

Land banking is one of those conspiracy theories that refuses to die. The Competition and Markets Authority has investigated it and found no evidence of land banking.

The reason builders hold large amounts of land is because it takes so long for planning applications to be approved. If we reformed planning then the problem would disappear.



https://assets.publishing.service.g...d/Housebuilding_market_study_final_report.pdf

 

[Tulster218]

I do

I'm sorry. Let me correct that.

Most people would be too ashamed and embarrassed to self-identify as a NIMBY, given the harm it does to society. Most people at least pretend to be decent citizens.

 

[klang]

To claim that nimby's are to blame for the severity of our housing crisis is like stating that the cranberries are a top 50 band.

 

[zedr]

Not sure there's any point taking seriously someone who badgers on about 'supply' but rejects the most obvious, and quickest form of supply: 30 odd thousand empty homes. Doesn't matter how it compares with other countries, it matters how it compares (in your ideology) with the demand.

 

[klang]

Not sure there's any point taking seriously

No-one here is guilty of that

 

[Tulster218]

To claim that nimby's are to blame for the severity of our housing crisis is like stating that the cranberries are a top 50 band.

I don't have a view on the Cranberries, but a radical change in public opinion in favour of more housing would lead to abolition of the laws which prohibit new homes being built. The NIMBYs oppose this. They are wrong for at least four reasons, namely:

1. NIMBYs cause wealth to be spent on housing and not other more productive uses.
2. NIMBYs make it much harder for workers to move closer to jobs, making them less productive
3. NIMBYs increase wealth inequality by making home owners much wealthier, at the expense of non-homeowners.
4. NIMBYs are to blame for families living in overcrouded and unsuitable accommodation.

We need more housing. It's always going to be in somebody's 'back yard', we just have to accept that.

 

[alex_]

Not sure there's any point taking seriously someone who badgers on about 'supply' but rejects the most obvious, and quickest form of supply: 30 odd thousand empty homes. Doesn't matter how it compares with other countries, it matters how it compares (in your ideology) with the demand.

Various organisations have said the U.K. is short of over 4m homes, or we need to build an extra 100k per year.

30k homes extra, once is a rounding error - so ignoring it seems fair.

Alex

 

[Tulster218]

Various organisations have said the U.K. is short of over 4m homes, or we need to build an extra 100k per year.

30k homes extra, once is a rounding error - so ignoring it seems fair.

Alex

Exactly.

Assuming a Price Elacticity of Demand as being between about 0.7 and 1.0, it would bring house prices down by less than 1%. That's not nothing, but as a once off event it's not really significant.

Leaving properties empty is only a moral outrage when there aren't enough properties for everyone else.

 

[Tulster218]

No-one here is guilty of that

Ahh! Okay. I see what's going on. I thought you were just a bit thick. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But no worries, I'll just pop you in the ignore box. See ya.

 

[zedr]

Various organisations have said the U.K. is short of over 4m homes, or we need to build an extra 100k per year.

30k homes extra, once is a rounding error - so ignoring it seems fair.

Alex

the 30k is a reference to empty homes in London (think someone up thread mentioned 36k) not the UK. the number of people who are homeless or in temp accommodation in London is around 165k (according accordingly to shelter). I'm not suggesting by any means making these homes available will solve the housing crisis, but it will ease some of the burden.