Building more and more expensive houses is not going to reduce house prices to a level where most people can afford them. What we need is more social housing, paid for by the government rather than contracted out to some incompetent, private company.
Anti-gentrification campaigns in UK?
- Thread starter Kevicious
- Start date
Fixed
Very funny.
I agree that the government should provide more "social housing".
But: more housing is needed at ALL levels.
More people chasing fewer houses = higher prices.
More people chasing more houses = lower prices.
I still don't get this opposition to building more houses, and this bizarre thing about people "defending" "their" areas against newcomers. People *don't* have a right to keep the social make-up of an area the same.
Giles..
I find it ridiculous when tedious Tebbity twats claim to misunderstand something that's really not too tricky.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That'd depend almost entirely on whether the houses were realistically-priced, and whether they were built in a volume great enough to make a dent on demand, wouldn't it?
That being the case, and the reality of house construction and availability currently being that supply doesn't even make a dent in demand, price reduction through supply is vanishingly unlikely.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
^^^^This, and we need it in volume.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's what the standard economic model tells us.
The problem with standard economic models is that they can't and don't factor in "real life", so can't be made to take into account the plethora of unique factors that influence construction from town to town, region to region.
They do have an intrinsic right to resent the fact that financial factors decide the social character of an area, though.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Especially not too tricky if you've lived through it over and over again, from the late 1970s onwards, as me and many of my w/c peers have done.
october_lost
It's not hip any more...
boohoo
No.
boohoo
No.
I whince at alot of regeneration - I accepted many years ago thyat I'd be outpriced from owning a property in my hometown -Brixton. But I also dislike the idea that property ownership is the only option for living. This ties people to large debt and being 'owned' by the banks and having to tow the lines for the rest of their lives.
However, I don't like an anti-gentrification attitude just for the sake of it. If we allow this, then Brixton would never have been allow to improve after the riots in the 80s when for many years, nothing would come to the area.
The problem is when it seems to go beyond improving areas to providing places which are only affordable to a particular level of wage earners.
However, I don't like an anti-gentrification attitude just for the sake of it. If we allow this, then Brixton would never have been allow to improve after the riots in the 80s when for many years, nothing would come to the area.
The problem is when it seems to go beyond improving areas to providing places which are only affordable to a particular level of wage earners.
Seems like everyone agrees that we need loads of new houses in Britain, but is that actually the case? How about reassessing what is already out there and is being unused or underused? Examples:
1.) Investing heavily in areas with neglected / derelict housing, eg. cities in the north of England. Encouraging individuals and businesses to relocate there with the incentive of low start-up costs, but provide good quality public services and suchlike as well. Not everyone can live in their ideal location, but every location should have a good standard of opportunities for all. If you really wanted your own home, there should be no reason not to live anywhere in this country.
2.) Banning second homes (or third or fourth, depending on how radical you feel), unless they are permanently occupied (ie. rented out). If there is a shortage of housing, there is no justification for the rich to own loads and leave them empty until they need a holiday. Housing is a right not a privilege, no-one needs more than one. Increased taxation for second homes is simply not enough, the rich will pay it and leave them empty anyway.
3.) The explosion of holiday rental properties (cottages, barns, etc). Great for a few months of the year, but empty a lot of the time. This market needs to be highly regulated as it is destroying communities in some areas (eg. Cornwall).
4.) Under occupation of private housing. 2 people don't need a 5 bed house, these extra rooms should be made available to people who need to rent a room. If you don't want to share with strangers, buy a smaller house.
5.) The national obsession with owning your own house (and the idea that renting / sharing / living with family is a failure) needs to be re-evaluated. Most of the world lives in shared housing, there's no reason other than our own individualism (and wealth) why we can't in this country.
Overall, a fairly radical agenda compared to the free market free-for-all that we have now, and it would clearly be unacceptable to all those who feel that their individual rights outweigh the common good. But the reality is that we can't go on the way we are. There is no way that every adult in the world who wants their own house can have their own house. There is not enough natural resources to sustain such a situation. What we need is less selfish individualism, and a drive towards simple, adequate housing for everyone. Meeting everyones basic needs, not their ultimate desires. Smaller properties and 100% occupation would drastically reduce the supposed need for more homes, more concrete, less green space, etc, etc...
