Do remember that - especially in expensive areas - properties vacant due to the owner's death can take a long time to sell thanks in part to probate.
Do remember that - especially in expensive areas - properties vacant due to the owner's death can take a long time to sell thanks in part to probate.
Soldato
Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand - Positive Money
The Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand
positivemoney.org
Did I read that wrong?Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand - Positive Money
The Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand
That article seems to be gross simplification of a complex market for soundbite click bait title.
Man of Honour
Completely agenda-free, this lot:Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand - Positive Money
The Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand
Our vision - Positive Money
positivemoney.org
The sort of thing that can cause issues at the local level with tackling the supply issue, even building on a carpark has people trying to obstruct the plans... complaints about traffic are a common NIMBY complaint but now building apartments without parking in order to deal with that is supposedly anti-working class! 
Of course, other common nimby complaint are but but what about schools, nurseries, doctors surgeries... etc. and here we have plans to expand a nursery:
Kinda conflating different things here:
Mark Carney was correct, there is a chronic shortage of housing supply that the Bank can't tackle directly.
That's being conflated with lower interest rates impacting prices... well yeah, of course, if you can borrow more then prices can rise. But likewise, if people can't borrow as much when rates are higher then that doesn't negate that people are still competing for homes, suppose prices fall or stagnate as a result of rate rises does that help people? Not necessarily because if you've got higher interest rates, the affordability issue can still be there despite stagnant or indeed falling prices.
Mortgage payments relative to income for FTBers seem to have bounced around for example:
Then consider that people are buying later in life, younger people are remaining living with their parents etc.. What sort of properties are they buying these days? Houses sizes have been shrinking. This also perhaps impacts things like when people have kids and how many kids they may have.
The supply issue can certainly still be there and if you look at the % of empty homes vs other countries it quite clearly is!
Of course, other common nimby complaint are but but what about schools, nurseries, doctors surgeries... etc. and here we have plans to expand a nursery:
Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand - Positive Money
The Bank of England finally admits high house prices are determined by finance, not supply and demand
Kinda conflating different things here:
Mark Carney was correct, there is a chronic shortage of housing supply that the Bank can't tackle directly.
That's being conflated with lower interest rates impacting prices... well yeah, of course, if you can borrow more then prices can rise. But likewise, if people can't borrow as much when rates are higher then that doesn't negate that people are still competing for homes, suppose prices fall or stagnate as a result of rate rises does that help people? Not necessarily because if you've got higher interest rates, the affordability issue can still be there despite stagnant or indeed falling prices.
Mortgage payments relative to income for FTBers seem to have bounced around for example:
Then consider that people are buying later in life, younger people are remaining living with their parents etc.. What sort of properties are they buying these days? Houses sizes have been shrinking. This also perhaps impacts things like when people have kids and how many kids they may have.
The supply issue can certainly still be there and if you look at the % of empty homes vs other countries it quite clearly is!
Last edited:
That graph (take home pay) needs to be aligned with "average age of FTB"
We all Know this is going up. You're now well into your 30s and it's still costing same ratio of your pay. When, typically, you'd be further in your career.
We all Know this is going up. You're now well into your 30s and it's still costing same ratio of your pay. When, typically, you'd be further in your career.
London Mayor engaging in some slopy shoulders tactics on twitter re: the housing issue:
I think I posted this second chart in this thread earlier when someone else couldn't understand that having some properties vacant is not the problem here:
In fact, you probably want to have some vacant properties at any time... having very few is symptomatic of the supply issue.
I think I posted this second chart in this thread earlier when someone else couldn't understand that having some properties vacant is not the problem here:
In fact, you probably want to have some vacant properties at any time... having very few is symptomatic of the supply issue.
Great post, sums up what has been argued in this thread and dismissed.
Soldato
If the money wasn't available then prices would drop, for years landlords had significant advantages over first time buyers in the ability to raise finance. This has to some extent been addressed, but the equity now theoretically available in these properties can be used to obtain yet more funds to expand portfolios.
I really don't know how to fix this issue, but the imbalance needs addressing.
I really don't know how to fix this issue, but the imbalance needs addressing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,214
it hasnt been dismissed by us....... (AFAIK).... it has been dismissed by government. it is all well and good saying government should buy up all landlords properties when the landlord is unable to sustain their portfolio at what it deemed a fair rent.... but you are putting the cart before the horse. So long as the government is not interested in buying back the housing (which essentially THEY sold) then its all moot........
I am a landlord, but i have no problem at all with the government setting up a huge swathe of nationalised rental housing.
whilst they are at it they can do the same with the rail network, energy, water and postal service as well if they want.
but until they want to do that then private landlords are needed. (but the slum landlords need to be stopped - along with scum tenants)
Last edited:
Don't disagree. Discussing possible solutions to the issues. I know what the current status quo is.
Soldato
Be interesting to see the average length of Mortgages as well. I would bet people are taking a lot longer terms now than back then.
Not really, the argument being made is to force Local Council to take control over the stock. Bring them up to standard and then rent them out at a fair price.
Yes, 35 years is not uncommon for a ftb these days
Give it a few more years and intergenerational mortgages will be coming
Government considering 50-year mortgages that could pass down generations to tackle housing crisis
The idea - similar to what happens in Japan - could see people passing on mortgages to their children when they die.
news.sky.com
Commissario
The problem with that is that some local criticism is justified.
For example they're planning on building a load of flats* behind some of the shops in my town centre, sounds great until you realise there is zero parking and the access road to it is just wide enough for a single car and harks back to the fact that the land they're planning on using was the yards where the shops used to unload horse drawn carts. And yet they're planning on building 100+ flats from memory, without any realistic plans for parking and no plans for access, and no way to improve it without forcing existing buildings to lose land and take down things like garden walls that have been up for 100+ years, even then I think there are a couple of houses that would need to be demolished).
Our town had massive expansions over the last 30 years, many of which were done regardless of serious complaints and criticism about the facilities, including one massive one that was opposed by everybody from the people that lived near it to all the emergency services, to the utilities and the environment agency.
There was no capacity in that area for the added load on utilities without risking service to existing places, the plans were described as a "nightmare" by the police** (the fire service IIRC raised questions about the proposed road layout and ability to access it if people parked on the road***), and the environment agency pointed out they were building on a flood plain in an area that was already prone to flooding and had put forward no viable alleviation.
That didn't touch on any of the actual non utility facility problems such as the lack of doctors, dentists, and school places.
*We're not AFAIK actually that short of 1 or even 2 bed small accommodation in the town, as they've built loads of it (probably 80%+ of new builds and conversions), what we're desperately short of are actual family accommodation in the 3 bed range, preferably with a little bit of greenery for kids to play on. But the devs can make more money building and selling say 4x 2 beds than 3x 3 beds.
**Lots of dead ends/narrow walks and poor visibility so easy for criminals to lose the police in, and hard for neighbours to keep an eye on what is going on.
***It was very similar to another development where the fire service routinely have problems.
Last edited:
How do you go about doing that + if you're going to subsidise rent how do you deal with demand/allocation?
Can I have an apartment in Regent's park? How do flat shares work? How does an Aussie backpacker get a room? How does an American Banker who wants to bring his family over for 3 years find a house?
I move abroad for a year for work or something... I can't let my apartment out otherwise the local authority will sieze it?
It just seems spectacularly dumb tbh... if you want local authorities to be bigger landlords then why not just build more local authority-owned housing, siezing existing rental accommodation is both dumb and not really addressing the underlying issue re: supply.
Last edited:
That isn't a problem, not everyone has a car - you can build a block of flats without parking, it's just NIMBYism to object to that sort of thing especially if the location is behind some of the shops and in a town centre .i.e a place with transport links and not out in the middle of nowhere!
That's the standard NIMBY excuse everywhere tbh... a single block of flats (especially if it's mostly 1 or 2 bedroom) doesn't necessarily have much impact in itself. As the population expands of course local authorities need to make sure there are sufficient facilities in the area, it's not a good reason to not increase the total sq footage of housing available for people. We've got such a shortage at the moment that increasing just about any type of housing is a good idea.
Last edited: