Cornwall's broken housing market

[Quartz]

If climate change makes Scotland a bit drier (unlikely) I'd love to live there.

You'd be surprised. It's the west coast that's wet. Here in Aberdeenshire we get 753mm per year, less than Brighton's 850mm.

Don't forget that the UK population grew slower over the past 40 years than it did the preceding 40.

Absolutely to both. I expect planners looked at population growth curves and decided that more new homes weren't a priority but neglected to account for increased immigration and increased lone living.

Edit: And second homes.

 

[moon man]

I do watch a fair bit of BBC alba and BBC Scotland and it looks very appealing (maybe not the midges) I could see myself on a wet coast island tbh

 

[FoxEye]

Because you have citizenship of a country, not a county.

Yes, in the sense that it's already been this way for some time, so is at least "slightly" sustainable. To me it's more sustainable to have a [moderately] free market than imposing some arbitrary constraints to keep prices low in popular parts of the country with limited supply, resulting in everyone living on top of each other in concentrated sections of our limited land space. What should happen is that equilibrium factors start to apply thus raising the desirability of other areas. London is sort of an advanced microcosm of this situation, central areas grew too expensive so people moved further out, driving big regeneration and gentrification schemes. Places that were once deemed cesspits are now places people are happy to live.

If we are talking sustainability, with a growing population, we have no option but to expand our pool of living spaces, not just sustain piling everyone into your childhood hamlet at rock-bottom prices.

1. The people "piling in" to Cornwall are the people coming in from outside Cornwall. Hard to blame the people born here for that. Is it better than people born here are evicted to make way for rich people from up country?
2. Market forces *aren't* working. More and more housing stock is becoming 2nd homes and holiday lets. Essential workers can only exist here when heavily subsidised by the government in terms of benefits.

If you want to see market forces at work, remove housing benefit and the like.

Already tourists themselves complain of overcrowding. They complain of a lack of shops and basic amenities. Of deteriorating roads and services being mothballed. Whilst at the same time pricing those workers out of the county that they say they want to see more of.

Remove all housing benefits and see your market forces at work. I'd actually love to see that. I don't believe in housing benefits being paid to private landlords. It's a system that entrenches misery for many.

 

[413x]

You'd be surprised. It's the west coast that's wet. Here in Aberdeenshire we get 753mm per year, less than Brighton's 850mm.



Absolutely to both. I expect planners looked at population growth curves and decided that more new homes weren't a priority but neglected to account for increased immigration and increased lone living.

Edit: And second homes.

Its the west coast that's the really. Nice bit unfortunately. I mean I haven't been to Aberdeen, but it's the west coast that grabs me.

I do watch a fair bit of BBC alba and BBC Scotland and it looks very appealing (maybe not the midges) I could see myself on a wet coast island tbh

Yeah id love to live on the west coast main land. Kayak and explore islands as they are so close it would be easily doable to hop between them. And legal too with Scotlands amazing "free to roam" laws

 

[dowie]

You have it the wrong way around the talent isn't in London forcing companies to be there, the companies were encouraged to move their forcing the talent to move.

There is no law against a bank opening an office in say Manchester or Birmingham, plenty of them have regional offices. Staff are far cheaper to employ there too in general.

Even the shard in London was harder to fill with tenants as it was not in the city but south of the river. What exactly is stopping banks from moving elsewhere in your mind? The EU likewise would love for them to move too.

 

[ColdAsIce]

That’s an obsolete ideal. So because everyone I know lives in Kensington I must live there too?

It should not be so different to grasp that you don’t get to live in an area that you cannot afford.
The attitude among so many is a bit like- I want to fly first class because my mate does all the time. Because there will be no first class for me, there will be no first class for anyone.

Way to put words in my mouth... YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY but for a lot of young families etc leaving parents, grandparents, close life long friends can be a big decision

 

[413x]

Way to put words in my mouth... YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY but for a lot of young families etc leaving parents, grandparents, close life long friends can be a big decision

That was only hard bit about moving to Wales. Friends.
But definitely glad I did it. Friendship groups change all the time. Bit different for family I guess

 

[Sythe79]

There is no law against a bank opening an office in say Manchester or Birmingham, plenty of them have regional offices. Staff are far cheaper to employ there too in general.

Even the shard in London was harder to fill with tenants as it was not in the city but south of the river. What exactly is stopping banks from moving elsewhere in your mind? The EU likewise would love for them to move too.

Because the government have decided to pump all the money into London and the south-east for thing like infrastructure for 40 odd years why does the most densely packed city in the country have the highest per capita spend on transport for example that makes no sense.

It's pretty simple, government spends money on infrastructure in an area, business moves where the facilities are, people are forced to move where the work is... it was all planned to be that way.

 

[dowie]

That’s an obsolete ideal. So because everyone I know lives in Kensington I must live there too?

Indeed, in fact that's the farcical aspect of council housing being organised by local boroughs.

In a place like London with plenty of public transport this notion that growing up in a particular area of that city should mean you then get housed there at the taxpayer's expense if you're poor/unemployed is bizarre in the case of places like Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea.

Plenty of people move from elsewhere in the UK to London, or indeed form overseas and they're having to make large mortgage or rent payments. In many cases they perhaps can't afford to live in Westminster of Kensington and Chelsea but Daz and Shazza happened to grow up there and therefore a flat work 800k+ needs to be provided for them and their kids?

 

[dowie]

Because the government have decided to pump all the money into London and the south-east for thing like infrastructure for 40 odd years why does the most densely packed city in the country have the highest per capita spend on transport for example that makes no sense.

Why doesn't that make sense? Of course, a big city is going to have lots of public transport.

Also, why is that a reason why an office can't be opened in Manchester or Birmingham? You realise they have office blocks in those cities with various companies operating there... but somehow you've vaguely pointed at investment in public transport as a reason why front office banking activities can't take place there?

Also why not Amsterdam or Frankfurt or other European cities? Are you under the impression that London has the best public transport infrastructure of all of Europe?

The City is just over one square mile + we have Canary Wharf... there are no practical reasons in terms of infrastructure preventing people from being employed elsewhere, the staff in the front office roles only make up a small portion of people employed in those offices too.

The reality is London is a global city and has been for some time, long before big US banks opened up here. The financial services industry has grown here over a long period of time, shifting that elsewhere isn't simple. There's nothing in terms of physical limitations or legal issues to stop a bank from deciding their trading floor will now be in an office in Manchester, the issue for them will perhaps be that a lot of the talent they might want to recruit works in London and they'll have to persuade people to move. People move jobs between these firms and with many of them located in the same place that's hard to replace.

 

[Sythe79]

Why doesn't that make sense?

Also, why is that a reason why an office can't be opened in Manchester or Birmingham? You realise they have office blocks in those cities with various companies operating there... but somehow you've vaguely pointed at investment in public transport as a reason why front office banking activities can't take place there?

Also why not Amsterdam or Frankfurt or other European cities? Are you under the impression that London has the best public transport infrastructure of all of Europe?

you have think about why it doesn't make sense and why it actually is that way, I'm not spelling it out for you.

there is no reason other than AGAIN business goes where the government decides to invest money not just transport it was one very obvious (not to some) example.

The government spent a lot of money maintaining London as the financial capital of Europe at the expense of the rest of the country

 

[dowie]

you have think about why it doesn't make sense and why it actually is that way, I'm not spelling it out for you.

Because you don't have an argument, you've just made some general hand-waving gesture about public transport. Even though lots of other companies and offices can exist in Manchester and Birmingham banks, specifically, can't because they need public transport?

there is no reason other than AGAIN business goes where the government decides to invest money not just transport it was one very obvious (not to some) example.

The government spent a lot of money maintaining London as the financial capital of Europe at the expense of the rest of the country

So other European governments haven't invested in public transport then?

 

[Quartz]

Its the west coast that's the really. Nice bit unfortunately.

I beg to differ. NW Scotland is pretty bleak. Sure it's nice to visit, but it's also nice to leave. Whereas NE Scotland is totally different, especially the Aberdeenshire / Angus plain. You have umpteen castles to prove it.

The big problem hereabouts is that big companies are scared to invest because of the SNP and the issue of Scottish independence. They can cope with windfall taxes etc, but not the uncertainty.

 

[Sythe79]

Because you don't have an argument, you've just made some general hand-waving gesture about public transport. Even though lots of other companies and offices can exist in Manchester and Birmingham banks, specifically, can't because they need public transport?



So other European governments haven't invested in public transport then?

No, because it's such an obvious point that I would expect a child to understand why it doesn't make sense, that lots of people in a small area should be cheaper to move around than a smaller number of people in a big area. unless of course you are favouring one group of people over another, which is the point.

what have other European countries got to do with where the UK allocates its public spending ? sounds like some general hand waving because you don't have a point

 

[dowie]

what have other European countries got to do with where the UK allocates its public spending ?

Nothing, that was the point; that's the flaw I'm highlighting in your own argument!

Your argument is that London is the financial capital of Europe because of where the UK government chose to invest in transport infrastructure...

So no other European cities have good public transport?

 

[jaybee]

My parent's first house was a 3 bed semi, link detached house with tiny 3rd bedroom, was probably bought for about 10-20k in the early 70s. Sold in 2014 for 350k. This is in Surrey. Another sold recently in 2022 for 550K but that has had a ground floor extension out the back. I would therefore say it's maybe worth 450k.

 

[nightwish]

My parent's first house was a 3 bed semi, link detached house with tiny 3rd bedroom, was probably bought for about 10-20k in the early 70s. Sold in 2014 for 350k. This is in Surrey. Another sold recently in 2022 for 550K but that has had a ground floor extension out the back. I would therefore say it's maybe worth 450k.

These numbers really all need to be inflation-adjusted. I have no doubt that house-price inflation has out-stripped regular inflation/wage growth, but *not* accounting for inflation is even more misleading.

£10000 in 1970 is worth £198000 today, believe it or not.

 

[MissChief]

So when everyone that can't afford a house in Cornwall has moved away to areas where they can afford a house or flat, who does all the retail work? Who mans the tills or works at the petrol station or serves at the local pub or restaurant? Who works at the Council offices around the county? Collects the rubbish? Sweeps the streets? All these jobs that need doing, that don't pay well enough to live in the area they serve.

I watched a documentary on Monaco a couple of years ago and the local government runs around a hundred subsidised flats in the Principality for use by those employed there for a nominal sum. It's getting to the point that some Councils in some areas are going to have to do the same.

 

[dod]

I beg to differ. NW Scotland is pretty bleak. Sure it's nice to visit, but it's also nice to leave.

Subjective, but I tend to agree. And the midges.

Please don't make it sound too good, I kinda like the peace up here

 

[dowie]

I watched a documentary on Monaco a couple of years ago and the local government runs around a hundred subsidised flats in the Principality for use by those employed there for a nominal sum. It's getting to the point that some Councils in some areas are going to have to do the same.

They already do, they're called council flats/council houses and we've had them for several decades.

The problem is a big chunk of them got sold off thanks to Thatcher's right to buy and we're not really building many more (though in the latter case that's an issue with housing in general).

That's the crux of this problem, we're simply not supplying anywhere near enough housing (for rent, for purchase or for social rent) for our population. The other issue re: areas like Cornwall or former pit villages etc.. is unemployed people not being prepared to move even a little for work.

We could do with some reform re: council housing like means testing it (we don't need some union boss famously living in a council house while earning six figures etc..), adjusting rules re: passing it on to relatives (if there's a waiting list of people in need then "inheriting" your mum's council flat lease in say a fancy area of London is very dubious) and stop people from being able to buy it at a big discount, or sell on the rest of the valuable blocks that have already had lots of units sold and use the revenue to build far more in a cheaper area.