The housing crisis (London and beyond)

[Gramsci]

Whilst I'm at it

Building heigh isn't necessarily building more.

Local council estate near me. Built post war is tower blocks. They are spaced out so each flat gets a lot of light.

On the footprint of land it's not necessarily building more than a low rise development would go have

Building high is ok . If it's done in way that gives people light and space.

Some of this post war design was to get away with what was seen as low rise Victorian built slums.

The blocks near me are the streets in the sky model of post war design.

Surrounded by a lot of green space.

 

[WouldBe]

The point is that we need more housing. Millions of new homes.

How do you propose we build all this housing?

We don't have enough builders and housing that is being built can have hundreds of faults with them so trying to get them to build faster won't work either.

 

[Gramsci]

It works fine in Poundsbury. It's not to everyone's taste, but the principal shows that a clear design code can work. It's popular too, at least with the people who live there.

My own views have been shaped by Ruben Hanssen's blog. He says:

• Organise your facade in a clear, readable way, so people can make sense of how load bearing features connect to each other
• Apply some form of ornament to connect separate parts of the building and to offer the fractal & symmetrical qualities people subconsciously connect to
• Prevent the creation of large blank walls or glass facades at eye level. Glass is hard to ‘read’ – people can’t focus their eyes well on it as it is partly reflective, partly translucent.
• Apply (local) symmetry in your design. The building can be asymmetrical if building volumes on both sides of a central axis are ‘balanced’
• Richly detail the facade if possible, with details on various levels of scale, or utilise materials with some pattern to offer fractal qualities in the surface
• Build according to local preferences, history, culture – study the ‘Genius Loci’.
• Use curves in your design wherever possible

I would write a design code, like Poundsbury's but using these ideas. My design code would allow for skyscrapers, obviously.

But although beautiful housing is better than ugly housing, any housing is better than no housing, and at the moment there is almost no new housing being built where it's needed, and that needs to change.

"My design code would allow for skyscrapers" You add to your saying you would use the design principles from this blog/ website.

Looking at the website you quote from this view of yours seems at variance with the tone of the website. Which is a return to traditional methods of building and rejecting modernism.

Building design to fit in with existing streetscape using traditional materials.

From the website.

Don’t build buildings that contrast sharply with their neighbours. Respect local inhabitants, traditions and history & adapt to local circumstances.

So where does building skyscrapers fit with this?

Website seems to me to be small c conservative as far as planning / architecture are concerned.

 

[Dystopiary]

I'm a bit of an anarchist at heart. I see favelas and slums in some countries, and they have a certain appeal.

 

[teuchter]

That's not what I said at all.

What I said that the design code for Poundbury seems to work okay, and I'd use that system for a design code, which would be much more liberal than Poundbury and our present system. I'd include skyscrapers.

The point is that we need more housing. Millions of new homes. People like you quibbling over the minutia of the design is part of the problem. It's because of people like you that we have a housing shortage.

OK so you'd create a design code, a code that sets objective requirements for beauty, for example like the Poundbury one, except not like the Poundbury one at all because it would include skyscrapers, and it would also draw from the ideas of Ruben Hanssen, who expounds the architectural traditions of the pre-modern age, but you'd just add in skyscrapers, and that should work fine, because whatever.

Having created this design code, you'd then accuse anyone who tried to follow it of fussing over design minutia[sic] when it turned out that there was a conflict between the code and achieving ultimate potential density of housing units.

 

[teuchter]

"My design code would allow for skyscrapers" You add to your saying you would use the design principles from this blog/ website.

Looking at the website you quote from this view of yours seems at variance with the tone of the website. Which is a return to traditional methods of building and rejecting modernism.

Building design to fit in with existing streetscape using traditional materials.

From the website.



So where does building skyscrapers fit with this?

Website seems to me to be small c conservative as far as planning / architecture are concerned.

I'd not waste too much time arguing with this, other than to amuse yourself.

 

[Elpenor]

Irrelevant (even if it's really true).

Saying we need to build more houses but that the quality of these houses is irrelevant doesn’t make your argument very convincing

 

[xenon]

what’s the point of building more if the buildings are just going to be used as empty investment vehicles by investors.

 

[teuchter]

what’s the point of building more if the buildings are just going to be used as empty investment vehicles by investors.

This problem does appear to be overstated. People always say it but never really back it up with anything. How many potential homes sit empty for this reason, in reality? What's the evidence? What are the numbers, and how do they relate to the scale of demand?

 

[oryx]

. How many potential homes sit empty for this reason, in reality?

Over 263,000 as at October 2023, according to Action on Empty Homes.

Empty Homes Data — Action on Empty Homes

www.actiononemptyhomes.org

 

[bcuster]

Looks like there is little appreciation

UK Homes Have Worst Value For Money In The Developed World: Study - Forbes India

The Resolution Foundation think-tank, publishing its quarterly outlook for the UK housing market, slammed the quality of UK homes as expensive, small, ageing and energy-inefficient

www.forbesindia.com

 

[teuchter]

Over 263,000 as at October 2023, according to Action on Empty Homes.

Empty Homes Data — Action on Empty Homes

www.actiononemptyhomes.org

About 36k long term empty in London.

But about ten times that number on social housing waiting lists.

London has the most households waiting for social housing

London remained the region with the highest social housing waiting list in England in 2023, according to Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government data.

www.swlondoner.co.uk

So even if you were to use those empty properties you still have a large shortfall. Therefore the idea that we don't need to build more homes doesn't seem to add up.

 

[Tulster218]

How do you propose we build all this housing?

We don't have enough builders and housing that is being built can have hundreds of faults with them so trying to get them to build faster won't work either.

I don't think is an insurmountable problem at all. Construction workers don't cease to exist when there's a decline in house building. many will still be available when needed.

Greater certainty in the planning system would encourage small and medium sized businesses back into construction. I don't have up-to-date figures, but there has been a huge decline in recent years.



Also using modular construction. It has come a long way since the post war prefabs. Nowadays modular construction can provide low energy high quality buildings, and has great potential for increased speed and quality of build. It also has the effect of bringing more women into the construction industry - working in a factory is very different from working on a building site. There's a huge potential to increase building rates using modular construction. There's a skyscraper in Croydon, South London which went up recently, at an astonishing speed. More of that sort of thing is a part of the solution.

And the third point is increased immigration. I know immigration isn't popular with lots of people, but with an increase in housing it would be less unpopular. The NIMBY agenda and the anti-immigration agenda are closely aligned. Allowing more foreign workers to come here and build houses seems an obvious next step to me, but it probably won't be needed.

 

[Tulster218]

OK so you'd create a design code, a code that sets objective requirements for beauty, for example like the Poundbury one, except not like the Poundbury one at all because it would include skyscrapers, and it would also draw from the ideas of Ruben Hanssen, who expounds the architectural traditions of the pre-modern age, but you'd just add in skyscrapers, and that should work fine, because whatever.

Having created this design code, you'd then accuse anyone who tried to follow it of fussing over design minutia[sic] when it turned out that there was a conflict between the code and achieving ultimate potential density of housing units.

Set a clear design code and let builders get on with it. I don't know why you can't understand this. It's how practically every other planning system in the world works, bar Ireland.

 

[WouldBe]

Allowing more foreign workers to come here and build houses seems an obvious next step to me, but it probably won't be needed.

We had lots of foreign builders here previously, most went home due to Brexit.

 

[Tulster218]

I'd not waste too much time arguing with this, other than to amuse yourself.

Oh I see. That's what's going on. I thought you were just thick. I'll just pop you in the ignore bin then, to keep Gramsci company.

 

[Tulster218]

Saying we need to build more houses but that the quality of these houses is irrelevant doesn’t make your argument very convincing

We need more houses. There are people in London spendng more than 50% of their income on rented housing, other multi-generation families living in small two bedroom flats. I'm saying the key to changing all of this is for ordinary people to change their attitude to new builds away from a NIMBY mindset and to a more positive attitude which recognises that there is a huge benefit to new housing. It's natural to want things to stay the same, and to believe that opposing new development is somehow making the world a better place, but my point is that new development makes the world a better place. The size and the tenure doesn't matter, we just need more housing. The only reason people are stuck living in overcrowded accommodation is because of the NIMBYs, and a planning system which panders to them.

You're complaint alleging poor build quality in Dorset isn't relivant.

 

[klang]

What are you arguing for, against or with?

 

[Gromit]

Not only do we have a shortage...
... the ones we have are a bit rubbish.

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Less average floor space than Japan?!
Yes Japan, the country notorious for tiny living.

 

[Tulster218]

what’s the point of building more if the buildings are just going to be used as empty investment vehicles by investors.

Investors are an easy scapegoat. It's easy to look at what someone has and say I want that, but ask yourself why you're not as easily worried about investors buying up large amounts of jewelry or sportscars. The reason is that other commodities are abundant. There's no shortage. If they sell out then they make more. If new housing was as easy to make as cars or gold necklaces then you wouldn't be worried how much other people owned.

I think this is the third time I've posted this graph, but here it is again. It shows that compared with other countries we have very little empty housing. The problem is trivial. It's a political smokescreen to cover up a lack of new house building.

 

[Tulster218]

What are you arguing for, against or with?

More housing.

 

[Tulster218]

Not only do we have a shortage...
... the ones we have are a bit rubbish.

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Less average floor space than Japan?!
Yes Japan, the country notorious for tiny living.

Yup. The NIMBYs have a lot to answer for.

 

[teuchter]

Is Hong Kong one of the places with the least affordable housing in the world, due to NIMBYs?

 

[Gromit]

Yup. The NIMBYs have a lot to answer for.

View attachment 417463

I'm not saying NIMBYs don't have a part in it but it's far from just them.

The government had to pass regulation about developers sitting on land to pick the most profitable time to build and inflate the worth of their existing projects (by squeezing supply at a time of high demand).

That piece of the puzzle always get overlooked.

 

[A380]

So, my guess is either

Media contacts

Media contacts

www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk

Or

https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/support/media-contacts

But could be Kier…

 

[Crispy]

Also using modular construction. It has come a long way since the post war prefabs. Nowadays modular construction can provide low energy high quality buildings, and has great potential for increased speed and quality of build. It also has the effect of bringing more women into the construction industry - working in a factory is very different from working on a building site. There's a huge potential to increase building rates using modular construction. There's a skyscraper in Croydon, South London which went up recently, at an astonishing speed. More of that sort of thing is a part of the solution.

Modular/prefab building companies keep going out of business (please pretend I * clapped * on * each * word from "keep" and also each word links to a separate news story backing up my claim, which is something I could totally do if I could be bothered, but you can google yourself).

The reason being that running such a business has high fixed costs in terms of facilities, equipment, training etc. but demand is incredibly spiky and is hard to match. If the job is too small, you have to pay the overheads on the unused capacity, wiping out the supposed saving. If the job is too big, you can't take it. Mass production of housing only makes sense in the context of a planned large-scale building program, which explains why so much council housing was built with "large panel" systems in the 60s. Yes, the Ronan Point collapse stuff, but you're correct that it's much much better today.

On the supply/demand question, while it's undeniable that we need more (population and urbanisation rising) it's not quite so simple because housing now derives most of its value from being an asset, not from being a useful good. The demand is not just for homes, it's for a supply of assets for the rich to sink their outrageous wealth into, effectively without limit. So any increase in supply has to be tied to mechanisms to break this link, or all you do is end up creating more landlords. Landlords are a parasitic drag on an economy.

How to solve the housing crisis

1. Build lots of new council housing
2. Legislate existing rentals out of landlords' hands and into public ownership (multiple direct/indirect ways of doing this)

This will also reduce the price of for-sale housing becuase its value as an asset will fall.

Yes the planning system could be streamlined, but this would just be grease on the wheels.

 

[Tulster218]

I'm not saying NIMBYs don't have a part in it but it's far from just them.

The government had to pass regulation about developers sitting on land to pick the most profitable time to build and inflate the worth of their existing projects (by squeezing supply at a time of high demand).

That piece of the puzzle always get overlooked.

It doesn't get overlooked. That accusation is repeated ad nauseum.

It's in government's interest to blame developers. It's just scapegoating. We build on 9% of the UK. There's plenty of room to build more if we wanted to, but we can't because of the NIMBYs.

Anyway, the government Competition and Markets Authority has been investigating land banking and has found no evidence of a market failure.





Source

 

[A380]

Modular/prefab building companies keep going out of business (please pretend I * clapped * on * each * word from "keep" and also each word links to a separate news story backing up my claim, which is something I could totally do if I could be bothered, but you can google yourself).

The reason being that running such a business has high fixed costs in terms of facilities, equipment, training etc. but demand is incredibly spiky and is hard to match. If the job is too small, you have to pay the overheads on the unused capacity, wiping out the supposed saving. If the job is too big, you can't take it. Mass production of housing only makes sense in the context of a planned large-scale building program, which explains why so much council housing was built with "large panel" systems in the 60s. Yes, the Ronan Point collapse stuff, but you're correct that it's much much better today.

On the supply/demand question, while it's undeniable that we need more (population and urbanisation rising) it's not quite so simple because housing now derives most of its value from being an asset, not from being a useful good. The demand is not just for homes, it's for a supply of assets for the rich to sink their outrageous wealth into, effectively without limit. So any increase in supply has to be tied to mechanisms to break this link, or all you do is end up creating more landlords. Landlords are a parasitic drag on an economy.

How to solve the housing crisis

1. Build lots of new council housing
2. Legislate existing rentals out of landlords' hands and into public ownership (multiple direct/indirect ways of doing this)

This will also reduce the price of for-sale housing becuase its value as an asset will fall.

Yes the planning system could be streamlined, but this would just be grease on the wheels.

An easy (which will never happen) policy start would be to align tenant buying policy across public and private sectors. So either extend the current right to buy policy to private rental property (ha ha) or stop selling social housing unless you do it like any other property sale (so the owners have to want to sell and can set the price).

A halfway slightly less Utopian dream would be to extend right to buy to any property that was originally built as social housing. So people could buy and live in their council houses just like the propaganda implied, but there would be no viable business model for people hoovering it up and then re letting it ( for more than the social housing rents, although often paid for by public money...)

 

[Tulster218]

Modular/prefab building companies keep going out of business (please pretend I * clapped * on * each * word from "keep" and also each word links to a separate news story backing up my claim, which is something I could totally do if I could be bothered, but you can google yourself).

The reason being that running such a business has high fixed costs in terms of facilities, equipment, training etc. but demand is incredibly spiky and is hard to match. If the job is too small, you have to pay the overheads on the unused capacity, wiping out the supposed saving. If the job is too big, you can't take it. Mass production of housing only makes sense in the context of a planned large-scale building program, which explains why so much council housing was built with "large panel" systems in the 60s. Yes, the Ronan Point collapse stuff, but you're correct that it's much much better today.

On the supply/demand question, while it's undeniable that we need more (population and urbanisation rising) it's not quite so simple because housing now derives most of its value from being an asset, not from being a useful good. The demand is not just for homes, it's for a supply of assets for the rich to sink their outrageous wealth into, effectively without limit. So any increase in supply has to be tied to mechanisms to break this link, or all you do is end up creating more landlords. Landlords are a parasitic drag on an economy.

How to solve the housing crisis

1. Build lots of new council housing
2. Legislate existing rentals out of landlords' hands and into public ownership (multiple direct/indirect ways of doing this)

This will also reduce the price of for-sale housing becuase its value as an asset will fall.

Yes the planning system could be streamlined, but this would just be grease on the wheels.

You forgot to mention the massive tax rises needed to pay for "council houses". If your assumption is unlimited government spending then it's a whole different conversation.

They've tried (effectively) banning landlords in Rotterdam. It's not gone well.



The only way to solve the problem of a shortage of housing is to build more housing.

 

[Tulster218]

An easy (which will never happen) policy start would be to align tenant buying policy across public and private sectors. So either extend the current right to buy policy to private rental property (ha ha) or stop selling social housing unless you do it like any other property sale (so the owners have to want to sell and can set the price).

A halfway slightly less Utopian dream would be to extend right to buy to any property that was originally built as social housing. So people could buy and live in their council houses just like the propaganda implied, but there would be no viable business model for people hoovering it up and then re letting it ( for more than the social housing rents, although often paid for by public money...)

Neither of these ideas would produce any extra housing, it would just transfer ownership to different people, and reduce incentives to build new housing.