teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, people are choosing the wrong points to argue on.
The housing crisis (London and beyond)
- Thread starter pbsmooth
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It's not really relevant to the central argument which is that "NIMBYism" is the primary constraint on supply. Even if you somehow made use of those empty homes, there would still be a substantial shortfall, and you'd still have people claiming that everything could be easily solved if only it weren't for the nimbys.
This says, London is 30k homes short per year
30k extra homes is still a rounding error.
Alex
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
Do you understand what social housing is? Are the rents in social housing set at the average market rate for the area, or are they charged at a different amount?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Of course if supply and demand was the only factor then if you build lots more houses then the cost of building materials would go up as demand would outstrip supply. What would that do to house prices?
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
I do. It's the latter.
I think the point you're trying to make is that a reduction in the price of housing won't affect 'social' tenants.
Two points:
1. Social housing providers have no minimum rents, so are allowed to reduce rents easily. They could choose to do this in a falling property market.
2. Social tenants are usually able to move out of their property, so would be able to access market rate properties if they were cheaper.
There is a long term question of the viability of social housing providers in a rapidly falling market, but I think they'd be quite robust compared with most landlords.
Last edited:
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Indeed! You're quite right!Of course if supply and demand was the only factor then if you build lots more houses then the cost of building materials would go up as demand would outstrip supply. What would that do to house prices?
However, building materials make up only a small part of new housing costs. The effect wouldn't be much, and in the longer run building supplies manufacturers would chase profits and increase supply, bringing the price down again.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
The profits would already be up due to the higher demand so basically greed.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
The beauty of our capitalist system is that you don't need to depend on the virtue of others. We gain from the self-interest of (in this case) building supplies manufacturers. It's why people risk their lives in small boats to come here.The profits would already be up due to the higher demand so basically greed.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
But, but, I thought rents/prices just reflected the relationship between supply and demand and there was nothing else to understand. Now you're telling me there's other factors that can affect rents/prices as well?
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
All landlords, including social landlords set the level of rent, but if tenants can get something cheaper elsewhere the properties will remain empty. Landlords would have to respond to rapidly falling property prices otherwise they'd go bust. That's why social rents in the North off England are lower than in the South East.But, but, I thought rents/prices just reflected the relationship between supply and demand and there was nothing else to understand. Now you're telling me there's other factors that can affect rents/prices as well?
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Hi Nagapie. I've read your comments and I'll take them seriously.
Your first argument seems to be that the poor in London serve the rich, and that this benefits only the rich. I see little evidence for this. Most low paid employment serves a variety of people from broad socio-economic backgrounds. The cashier in Lidl serves rich and poor alike, as does the cashier in Waitrose. Low paid carers and social workers care for people from all walk of life - even the very poorest get some care when they need it. You could argue that a Ferrari salesman serves only rich people, but I think jobs like this a few and far between, and furthermore being a Ferrari salesman is probably more prestigious than selling cheaper cars. I think that most Londoners are happy to serve all other Londoners without regard to their economic backgrounds - and this is especially true of new Londoners. I don't think poor people move here from across the world, and then want nothing to do with rich people. Quite the opposite. Ethics aside, most Londoners try to get the best job they can to make a living. Dividing the world into 'victims' and 'elites', as the populists do, is unhelpful and divisive.
Your second point seems to be that new, unregulated housing would be a bad thing - that it would create Dickensian slums and lead to generally lower welfare standards. To emphasise your point you included a picture of Gustave Gore's 1872 'London: a pilgrimage'. You believe this shows undesirable low-quality housing. The engraving shows brick terraced housing with small gardens. GARDENS! Today about 22% of Lambeth properties don't have a garden. The picture shows arched windows in brick, upstairs and downstairs. There's all sorts of decorative brickwork. Today these are considered high quality features. Nagapie, you've posted a picture of luxury accommodation, by today's standards. If these were built today people would be trying to get them listed. Many Londoners would be very satisfied with a small two up two down terraced house like these. Especially single people.
Opposing new housing development denies people choice. Giving people choice allows them to choose what's best for them. People know their own circumstances better than you or the government. They should be the ones to make that decision. Not you and not the government. Other people's right to housing is more important than your right to a nice view out of the train window. As the woke people say, maybe you need to check your privilege.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
They aren't gardens they are yards, no grass or soil insight.
Just what everyone wants, homes with no insulation, cold, draughty, no electrics or indoor plumbing.
Tulster218 , my main point was that unregulated building leads to poor quality housing, which it will.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
No builder would try to sell houses without basic utilities, and even if they tried, building regulations already prohibit this.
I don’t think anyone is proposing unregulated housing, people are proposing to not listen to NIMBYs.
Yes he is. Do you not read his posts in the Brixton forum. He believes the free market solves everything. So called NIMBYs evoke the regulations.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
All of the housing built before 1947 was built without planning permission. Most of it is listed nowadays, and considered desirable. We have more building regulation than we've ever had, and modern builds are mostly poor quality.
You have no right to tell people where they can and can't live, or what type of house they are allowed to buy. You aren't a better judge of their circumstances than they are. You have no moral right to oppose new housing developments just because you don't want to look at the poor people in their poor people housing.
And if you weren't complaining about the poor people in their poor people housing, you'd be complaining about the rich people in their rich people housing. You just don't want anymore people to be allowed to live here unless the government builds them the particular housing you approve of.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Oh I see. An ad hominem insult.
You hadn't posted on this thread before, and now you followed me here to post thoughtless insults. I should be flattered I suppose, but instead I'll gently drop you into the ignore pot, with the rest of them. Toodle pip.
This is disingenuous housing has been regulated for centuries.
Eg Rebuilding of London Act 1666
( from Wikipedia )
Among other things, the Act added or modified regulations to:[1]
Architectural styles of buildings on designated High Streets Heights of private homes
Building materials (brick and stone preferred)
Wall thicknesses
Street widths
Buildings within 40 feet of the Thames Jetties and similar overhangs (banned)
The overall effect was meant to be “harmonious and orderly, [but] without excessive standardization.”
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Unless they want to choose for their home not to be overshadowed by a 20 storey tower that will reduce the daylight they get each day. If they want to try and exercise that choice, that's different.
Even if they actually have a rather tiny ability to exercise that choice, but try to have some very small influence on what happens, by objecting to a planning application, then no, it's not that they want to choose, or know their own circumstances, they are NIMBYs and awful people, awful selfish people.
If the home they live in is the one they live in because that's what they can afford, and if the tower is being proposed next to low-cost rather than high-cost housing, well that's just their choice, it's just choice, choice choice. Any attempt to interfere with the proposals can only ever be selfish meddling. Even giving them the opportunity to object to something, even if one person's objection is very rarely actually going to prevent anything, even if the planning system has built into it a presumption in favour of development, this is all a bad and horrible system with no purpose.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
And yet you want more poor quality homes.
This is the best way to go with this poster, pretty soon he'll have everyone on ignore and he can talk his crap to himself.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
Sure, but that seems to me to be what we now call building regulation, not planning. It's about making sure things don't fall over or burn down. But anyway, I think the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act is generally considered the start of national planning in this country.
My argument is about a shift in public opinion towards less regulation of new buildings. I'd prefer no regulation, but any move in that direction would be worthwhile.
Here's a great suggestion from Policy Exchange
(from their excellent Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Century report).
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
No. Just more homes. All tenures, all sizes, all densities.And yet you want more poor quality homes.
We’d end up with huge quantities of very ugly, very poorly insulated homes.
Tulster218
Well-Known Member
No. By 'no regulation' I was refering to regulation of the tenure, size and density of new buildings. I don't mean we should do away with 'Building Regulations" which, as I've previously stated, cover basic standards like insulation.
With more sites available for development, developers would have a greater incentive to compete on beauty, not less. At the moment there is no incentive for developers to build beautiful homes, which is why so many new ugly buildings.
Similar threads
