|
Zephro posted:The South West is very unaffordable (source: I lived there). Local wages are low (according to this the median income is between £17k and £20k) and prices are very high compared to those wages (£239,371 is between 12 and 14 times the median wage quoted by that map). Prices are bid up by people from the South East retiring down there or buying holiday houses. jBrereton posted:It's also worth pointing out that house prices in Yorkshire are very variable. A three bed with a garden can set you back £300,000 or more in York, which will buy you about two streets in Hull. Better to reign in Hull, than serve in Devon. e: 1845 - The Andover workhouse scandal is exposed. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Feb 7, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I went to the national railway museum recently - that's in York. It's really good. I hope you enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Cerv posted:It's really good. I hope you enjoyed it. I did. I did enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Better to reign in Hull, than serve in Devon. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Zephro posted:The South West is very unaffordable (source: I lived there). Local wages are low (according to this the median income is between £17k and £20k) and prices are very high compared to those wages (£239,371 is between 12 and 14 times the median wage quoted by that map). Prices are bid up by people from the South East retiring down there or buying holiday houses. As I said, even when prices are much lower than London that doesn't mean people can afford to buy a home. Therefore, the answer is to find other ways of providing housing (eg social housing), not to think you'll solve the problem by somehow reducing the cost of buying a home. House prices in the West Country are half those in London, based on the figures I posted. Even if you somehow got them down by another £100,000, there would be plenty of people who couldn't afford to buy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Yes, I lived in Hong Kong and had the same experience. For some reason Britain is Soviet-Union-level bad when it comes to doing high-rises well, though that's staritng to change in central London. You can put swimming pools and gyms in pretty much every tower block because the density is high enough to support them, and having them encourages socialising. You can put parks everywhere in all the space you save, and you can run cheap public transport without subsidy in your cities because again, the population density is high enough to support it. Absolutely. You must have good public services when you build apartment blocks. Cramming that many people together without anything to do, proper health or police services and you're just writing a recipe for a dismal existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
quote:Thank you very much for that wonderful reception. Theresa May
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Don't worry chaps, the housing market will collapse at exactly the same time as people in this thread start inheriting houses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Thirty years of booms have convinced everyone that "house prices will always rise" is like Newton's Fourth Law of Motion or something, just a fundamental physical constant of the universe. Lots of people have planned their lives around that supposed fact and so there's a huge amount of resistance to the idea of doing anything that can change it. Not to mention that people are living longer while pensions aren't getting larger and savings interest rates are rubbish, meaning that people turn to buying property as a way to ensure they can afford to be looked after when they are elderly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Paxman posted:As I said, even when prices are much lower than London that doesn't mean people can afford to buy a home. Therefore, the answer is to find other ways of providing housing (eg social housing), not to think you'll solve the problem by somehow reducing the cost of buying a home. First, more people buying means less renting means less demand for the supply, meaning the rental prices drop. Secondly, the main point being made about house building is that the councils aren't doing it anymore. Council built houses are typically built for social housing, with perhaps some percentage sold off in the short term. So if we encourage more house building, we will attack both aspects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
The first concession is in https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/828978130912235523 But didn't May already promise to do this in her speech?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
mehall posted:First, more people buying means less renting means less demand for the supply, meaning the rental prices drop. Yes, I started off by saying we need to build more homes. I'm saying we need to use those homes for social housing rather than putting them up for sale and imagining that market forces will then somehow make housing affordable for everyone. As you've raised it, it's worth saying that ending right-to-buy would help too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
I thought the green belt was a product of the utopian ideas of amateur urban planners like Ebenezer Howard and his bullshit ""garden cities of tomorrow"" ideas, which definitely had an effect on house prices (because cities can't expand outside the limits imposed by the greenbelt) and the dormitory-suburb phenomenon, which leads to a vast increase in commuter behaviour, which has knock-on effects on pollution, worker income, etc, etc, etc... Cover the lot of it in poured concrete and delicious low-cost, high quality housing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Are there really no other ways to tackle the housing crisis other than destroying green belts? Everyone is very flippant about them but I don't see the UK turning into megacity 1 being a very good solution. Especially in terms of mental health.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Are there really no other ways to tackle the housing crisis other than destroying green belts? Land devs are apparently sitting on loads of unused plots that already have planning permission granted so they can trickle out new homes and keep the prices high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Are there really no other ways to tackle the housing crisis other than destroying green belts? Well all you'd need is to find a way to replace suburban housing with one of higher density. It might be possible through incentives and such, but there'd be untold amount of screeching about England's character. Even though doing so would just mean going back to 1960s in a way, it would be a very hard sell and most people probably wouldn't see it like that. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Won't covering the lot in concrete and building houses also lead to people wondering why their house floods everytime it rains quite hard?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Paxman posted:That's obviously not remotely what I said (though we could have another debate about whether New Labour was really that bad one day if you like) I don't think you really need to have that debate with jBrereton, who is very much in the mould of your New Labourite, judging by his posts here. I think he's more expressing frustration with the current successors to Blair's mantle who seem to be completely bankrupt of ideas. Oberleutnant posted:I thought the green belt was a product of the utopian ideas of amateur urban planners like Ebenezer Howard and his bullshit ""garden cities of tomorrow"" ideas, which definitely had an effect on house prices (because cities can't expand outside the limits imposed by the greenbelt) and the dormitory-suburb phenomenon, which leads to a vast increase in commuter behaviour, which has knock-on effects on pollution, worker income, etc, etc, etc... I think you can probably look at developing the vast swathes of brown belt sites first before getting in a panic about paving the countryside tbh. And we should probably keep some fields for collective farms to benefit the nation. The solution seems to be high quality, high density, low cost housing, which isn't just left to neglect like so many tower blocks created in the 1960s & 70s which have already been blown up, with planning ensuring that you aren't just building ghettos to shove the poor out of sight and then forgetting about them, which seems to be where it all went wrong as far as your traditional "rough" housing estates go (the Scottish examples that come to mind being Castlemilk, Easterhouse, Govanhill in Glasgow, Niddrie & Craigmillar type spots in Edinburgh, the Raploch in Stirling). A lot of people, little in the way of services aside from pubs, little in the way of parks. But pave over Rannoch Moor at your peril. (Honestly, it'd not be worth the expense. It's vast, no oval office lives there, there's barely any existing roads, just the West Highland railway between Glasgow & Fort William. If we get to a point where we're concreting that then Scotland's population is going to have to be at least 10 times what it currently is.) I don't think you need the massive circles of greenfield surrounding cities that we have now, but just having some park areas which are well looked, & ideally well lit at night time after would go a long way. Though I am not an urban planner so what the gently caress do I know? Oh yeah, and maybe build less houses in flood plains. Seems a plan. Living by the water is really nice, but clearly it has its downsides. forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
jabby posted:Fields are great when they're growing crops or full of cows/sheep/etc. Most green belt land isn't like that. Those fields are only good for food, they are terrible for wildlife and people (except landowners). The UK is already one of the most environmentally depleted countries in the world. We need to keep the rest of the land green, where things can actually grow. jabby posted:middle-class pastimes learnincurve posted:I'm not if sure a nice middle class couple having to drive little Joshua and Henry for an extra 10 mins before they hit miles and miles of countryside is a priority for the homeless tbh. And gently caress right off with this classist poo poo. I'm poor, I live in a tumbledown mouse-infested caravan with no prospect of getting anywhere else to live, and the countryside is one of the few things I can afford to enjoy. Seeing it get slowly destroyed all around me has been a major source of depression for me. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:It's also worth pointing out that house prices in Yorkshire are very variable. A three bed with a garden can set you back £300,000 or more in York, which will buy you about two streets in Hull. If you want the most extreme example of price differences that is probably Skipton and Nelson. Small towns 10 miles apart but one is in Yorkshire other is in Lancashire, one will set you back almost Harrogate prices for houses while the other has some of the cheapest houses in the UK e.g. you can get a 3 bed Terrace for £35,000 in Nelson. Nelson also has great transport links around Lancashire and its slightly pretty, but its suffered extreme white flight, hence why house prices are so low. ukle fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:And gently caress right off with this classist poo poo. I'm poor, I live in a tumbledown mouse-infested caravan with no prospect of getting anywhere else to live, and the countryside is one of the few things I can afford to enjoy. Seeing it get slowly destroyed all around me has been a major source of depression for me. I don't think it's really classist. Most poor urban people don't really spend much time out in the countryside. Maybe in days of old, before cheap airfares became a thing, you'd have hordes leaving Glasgow in summer for spots like Great Cumbrae, Arran, Loch Lomond & the like, but now it is probably cheaper to go to Spain for 2 weeks than Balloch for the same time, certainly not much more expensive. Obviously it differs based on what part of the country you are in (if you live in Inverness there's a higher chance than if you live in Glasgow because there's gently caress all to do in Inverness as it is, and the nearest cities are hours away on the train), and I don't think "the poor don't use it much so we can just get rid of it" is very sound from an ecological standpoint, but I don't really think it's a classist view just because you are a poor person who likes the countryside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
jabby posted:Fields are great when they're growing crops or full of cows/sheep/etc. Most green belt land isn't like that. Agriculture is hugely damaging to the environment. The best, and most sustainable, method of sharing environments with nature and people is probably the Satoyama Initiative. Just from the wiki: quote:"The vision of the Satoyama Initiative is to realize societies in harmony with nature, comprising human communities where the maintenance and development of socio-economic activities including agriculture and forestry align with natural processes. The Initiative is based on the idea that by managing and using biological resources sustainably and thus properly maintaining biodiversity, humans will be able to enjoy a stable supply of various natural assets well into the future." Satoyama is actually the subject of my thesis so I know an inordinately large amount about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Land devs are apparently sitting on loads of unused plots that already have planning permission granted so they can trickle out new homes and keep the prices high. it is an entirely predictable outcome if planning permission is cheap, but takes long time to grant, and land prices exhibit some volatility it is then entirely the public policy planner's policy problem if the policy planner rations itself based on the number of lots granted permission, rather than the number of lots actually U/C. the impact is, really, entirely foreseeable. anyway the country probably doesn't need to set fire to the green belt, but I can see it easily being the path of least resistance, especially if it lines up along partisan lines rather than a mix of CPRE and Green types
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Obviously it differs based on what part of the country you are in Thus we come to the crux of arguments like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:36
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
Everybody in Teesside has walked up the local mountain Roseberry Topping at some point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Everybody in Teesside has walked up the local mountain Roseberry Topping at some point. having just looked it up on wikipedia, i can confidently state that Roseberry Topping is not a mountain
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
ukle posted:If you want the most extreme example of price differences that is probably Skipton and Nelson. Small towns 10 miles apart but one is in Yorkshire other is in Lancashire, one will set you back almost Harrogate prices for houses while the other has some of the cheapest houses in the UK e.g. you can get a 3 bed Terrace for £35,000 in Nelson. Nelson also has great transport links around Lancashire and its slightly pretty, but its suffered extreme white flight, hence why house prices are so low. Wait, what? £35k for a 3 bedroom house? In 2016? But you aren't even kidding, just had a look & found one for exactly that, which has clearly been recently renovated. Right. I know where I'm moving to. Housing boom just makes me mad. My parents have lived in the same place since 1990, 3 bedroom, semi-detached ex-council house with a pretty decently sized garden, in a cul-de-sac off the main road through a village 10 miles from Inverness. House opposite it was sold for £23,000 in 2003. 8 years later it went for £120,000. The area has definitely gentrified somewhat in the time they've been there, Highland Council stopped using it as a dumping ground for troublesome families from Merkinch & Hilton eventually, but the idea of paying six figures to live here is mind boggling. It's got rubbish public transport, there's a pisspoor jobs market in Inverness & the surrounding towns, I just don't get it. It's just stupid. It's not a bad place by any stretch and it definitely is a nicer place than it was when I was growing up, but Inverness isn't exactly overflowing with jobs, never mind decent paying ones. For a while it seemed to be a hotspot for call centre work but a lot of that seems to have drained to Poland & India. LemonDrizzle posted:having just looked it up on wikipedia, i can confidently state that Roseberry Topping is not a mountain This is like people where I grew up calling the local hill Cromal Mount. It's about 150 feet above sea level. forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Sorry, yes, I know Aberdeen is not the absolute cheapest place, but it's the cheapest reasonable sized city with reasonable facilities and services with a good quality of life. I imagine I can get much cheaper property in rural nowhere, but that doesn't seem too appealing, and it's not even up on the online listings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I don't think it's really classist. Most poor urban people don't really spend much time out in the countryside. Of course they don't, because it's been very effectively taken from them, and that is a monstrous crime, not something we should continue to do. Nevertheless poor rural people still exist and poor urban people who enjoy the countryside when they can still exist, and implying it's exclusively the interest of Tarquins is as poo poo as when they do that to museums and libraries and other public goods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Sorry, yes, I know Aberdeen is not the absolute cheapest place, but it's the cheapest reasonable sized city with reasonable facilities and services with a good quality of life. No, people have explained to you that Aberdeen is an expensive city. It is more expensive than Glasgow, Birmingham, probably some others because it is ridiculous. The oil boom was crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Guess who: Tory MP wants to axe ‘Women’ from Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Guess who: Tory MP wants to axe ‘Women’ from Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:having just looked it up on wikipedia, i can confidently state that Roseberry Topping is not a mountain If you look at it from a distance it looks bigger than it is. Also I would like to push Phillip Davies off it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:York is one of the places outside London that is allowed to have nice things. Liverpool has a bunch of Museums and fantastic architecture*, is cheap as chips, and contrary to how it's portrayed on TV, lower crime than most other big cities. I get paid the same in a development job as I was in London, and my nice house cost under 100k. *thanks slave trade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
York is also horrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Are there really no other ways to tackle the housing crisis other than destroying green belts? Well, no. Mega-City One is located on the east coast of North America, from Ottawa and Montreal down to Florida, though much reduced after the Apocalypse War. What you're thinking of is Brit-Cit. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Well, no. Mega-City One is located on the east coast of North America, from Ottawa and Montreal down to Florida, though much reduced after the Apocalypse War. What you're thinking of is Brit-Cit. point of interest - there's a Dredd comic drawn by Alex Ronald that features 'Strath-Meg' which is full of highlanders and vikings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Sion posted:point of interest - there's a Dredd comic drawn by Alex Ronald that features 'Strath-Meg' which is full of highlanders and vikings. Based on my time spent with the scots and scandinavians, I'd move there in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:OK so which is it, cramming the poor together is offensive, or cramming the poor together is actually good, and cool, if it prevents there being BOURGEOIS green spaces? High density housing is fine when it's done well, which this government will not be doing. And even when it's done well living in an apartment block in the city centre isn't ideal for everyone from large families to disabled grannies. Some people want to live in a house in a suburban area, and it shouldn't be the preserve of the rich. Oh dear me posted:Of course they don't, because it's been very effectively taken from them, and that is a monstrous crime, not something we should continue to do. Nevertheless poor rural people still exist and poor urban people who enjoy the countryside when they can still exist, and implying it's exclusively the interest of Tarquins is as poo poo as when they do that to museums and libraries and other public goods. I'm not saying the countryside is exclusively of interest to the rich, I'm saying that prioritising how nice the green belts look over actual housing for the homeless is poo poo. Hierarchy of need being what it is the only reason people get to complain about their rambling being ruined is because they already have somewhere to live. Besides, don't conflate the green belt with every bit of countryside in the land. That's exactly the kind of slippery slope argument the Tories want people to use. Expanding cities into the green belt would mean more housing and less people commuting in from miles away. As people have pointed out, there's still plenty of countryside elsewhere for people who want to go see it. Tories want to protect the green belt because they're rich and they get to enjoy it regardless of the cost to others, not because it's the last remaining bit of countryside in Britain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Based on my time spent with the scots and scandinavians, I'd move there in a heartbeat. There's a Russian ballet troupe that land and are assaulted in a variety of hilarious ways. It's not very funny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:47
|
|