-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
Housing crisis solutions
- Thread starter ChroniC
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,474
- Location
- Rugby
Move anywhere with 30-50 miles or more round near me and the prices don't change on average.
Take a guess at the price on this.
3 bed small terrace ex council house, on a not particularly nice estate being it used to be a huge council estate. Average amenties all round the area.
Guess.
In one of the towns/villages within 10 miles of oxford where I live, you be looking the upper end of £250-300k at least maybe more. tiny studios you are looking at £165k-£200k.
If your single you are screwed if your a couple both earning in the £20k's its just hard.
Something is going to have to give sometime.
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with renting, as long as there is enough protection for both the tenant and the landlord.
I agree that Germany should be held up as a fantastic example of a working rental market. Very long leases and most come unfurnished (including no kitchen equipment) so you really get to make the home your own. Typically there is no problem with repainting or drilling or anything like that. As long as you have taken good care of it and can bring it back to the standard when you started you'll be fine. We need that in the UK.
Those terms sound fine to me. As long as I was given sufficient notice of a tenant's wish to terminate his or her tenancy I would have no problem. As long as it gave adequate time to remarket there really is no problem.
Renovation is usually a sticky point and I tend to do it when there is a tenant change. I usually have a small window of around 5 to 6 days to get repainted, replaced etc. In my experience tenants normally don't want this mid tenancy and I understand this.
In respect to a 'right' for everybody....I agree. Everyone needs a home the issue is the lack of social housing ( there needs to be a whole lot more of it) which forces people into a private market they can't necessarily afford. Perhaps if there was a whole lot more it would force a change in the private market from a rent price perspective.
Wages are so out of keel with most 'necessities' in the UK, there are a whole lot of underlying problems which contribute to the housing market issue aside from landlords.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,599
This is how trackers work
http://moneyfacts.co.uk/guides/mortgages/what-is-a-tracker-mortgage/
You would never get a mortgage company paying you. I have had tracker mortgages before and they are always rate plus.
I can't remember details but I seem to recall some situation where people who had paid a lot off early and they could essentially "loan" a certain amount at some point in time without actually increasing what they paid off subsequently or something like that. Only half remembering details though so might be way off.
Move anywhere with 30-50 miles or more round near me and the prices don't change on average.
Take a guess at the price on this.
3 bed small terrace ex council house, on a not particularly nice estate being it used to be a huge council estate. Average amenties all round the area.
Guess.
£220,000, +£10000 if it has dedicated parking
I'm aware of how they work thanks (I've got one myself) I was asking the other poster for a source for his claim.
The last part of your post is incorrect; below base rate trackers were available previously - the question was whether any of these paid when technically in negative interest territory. I don't believe they did but the other poster claims otherwise.
One near me like that at £110K but its "offers of around" and I know the owners are hoping for more - the rest start at 125K and go up steeply from there.
EDIT: LOL found one at 460K they must be having a laugh - it is in a "desirable" location but still.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
What I think is missing from this debate is the discussion of the question "What do we actually need to build?" Pretty much everyone seems to agree that we need to build more, although some are unwilling to actually fund it, but there's no agreement over what it is we actually need to build, where, and how to best suit the different needs and purposes in various different areas.
The majority of new builds just seem to be bog standard estates, which are essentially just a slightly updated version of the 1940s model and depending on where they are you'd have to already be on the housing ladder to hope to afford. What happened to all the grand visions of modern architecture we used to hear about? Designs intended to appeal psychologically to be nice places to be? Designs that aim to make the best use of limited space without ruining the landscape with massive high rises?
Did we just do brutalist architecture and Milton Keynes a bit too early and then everyone decided to throw the whole thing in the bin, rather than actually trying to learn the lessons and move forwards?
The majority of new builds just seem to be bog standard estates, which are essentially just a slightly updated version of the 1940s model and depending on where they are you'd have to already be on the housing ladder to hope to afford. What happened to all the grand visions of modern architecture we used to hear about? Designs intended to appeal psychologically to be nice places to be? Designs that aim to make the best use of limited space without ruining the landscape with massive high rises?
Did we just do brutalist architecture and Milton Keynes a bit too early and then everyone decided to throw the whole thing in the bin, rather than actually trying to learn the lessons and move forwards?
I'd love to see some forward thinking dwellings - I'm kind of fascinated by stuff like the Makoko floating school - not to the extent of going all hippy but better eco consideration and resistance to climate change (flooding, etc.) designed in maybe with external space specifically accommodating solar and/or wind generation and integrated garden space within the structure (additional to any garden).
You get what's most profitable for the developer, not what you might want to live in.
They are expanding my city a lot in the next few years - 7,000 new houses by 2030. This is a sizable expansion as my city is not very big in the first place.
The existing housing stock, a lot of it built in the 70s, are reasonably sized three bedroom places, with a good-sized master bedroom, two small bedrooms, and a nice sized garden. There are parks and many green spaces around and about.
I've looked around some of the new houses being built, and boy, what a step backwards...
1. No gardens - at all. The properties back onto one another to get more profit.
2. No garages. Means you can get more houses in.
3. Tiny, tiny rooms. So you can... you guessed it... get more houses in.
4. No green spaces. No grass, no trees, nothing.
These are not places you'd actually want to live in. Unless, that is, you're used to the terraces in industrial revolution cities. But even they have gardens, don't they?
They are basically cramming in as many people as they can, with absolutely no thought to the quality of life, or making them fit with their surroundings. Always the cheapest construction they can get away with.
This is race-to-the-bottom stuff. But why should anyone be surprised?
This is *exactly* what you expect when you refuse to regulate the market in any way, and give property developers total free reign to act as they please.
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,512
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
Developers clearly can't just do what they like. You undermine your whole argument with such an emotional incorrect statement.
Two big developments near me with quite a bit of contrast - one is mostly detached and semi-detached they have gardens and garages and enough drive space to park an additional vehicle without blocking the garage - however the build quality while not terrible is obviously to maximise profits, the houses are 2/3rds the size of existing dwellings and the gardens half the size there is however a fair amount of green space within the development.
The other has terraced houses crammed in of dubious workmanship, no garages, the front opens directly onto the street, the rear garden is basically twice the size of the average garden shed and they've left no space for any green areas within the development.
There is pretty much no price difference between roughly equivalent bedroom houses between the two developments so it isn't even like you can say the second one is more affordable housing.
Round here they nigh on can.
We've had a recent development where the builder has infringed dozens of points on the agreed plans.
Examples include extending and adding an extra floor on to an existing property. Installing a kitchen in to a property that is supposed to have no domestic or commercial use. Installing a ticket hut. Erecting two layers of fencing around the area. Erecting lighting that is of excess height, excess quantity (six light stands instead of four) and excess luminosity. Destroying protected trees.
Oh and before any work was to commence they were to develop the existing car park in to a permanent one. That still hasn't been finished.
When these infringements were taken to the council the first thing they did, the council, not the developer, was deny it! They were shown photographic evidence and still denied it. It was only when legal action was threatened that they conceded.
Wanna know what their action was?
Retrospective planning permission.