Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

architectsjournal.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 202 posts

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#131

Post by iamacyborg »

milesrout wrote: post #69
mschuster91 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if they are built, the entire insurance system post-Grenfell is causing absolutely insane service charges for residents. If it's building insurance hikes, for fucks sake it should not be allowed to roll these over to the renters - they have had zero say in shoddy construction, the developers should be the ones held liable.

Not allowed to roll over to renters? What does that mean? How would it work? Money is fungible. Why should the owner of a unit be expected to absorb the cost? It isn't like they chose the cladding. People obviously do go after the developers but it isn't like they are picking and choosing from materials lists during construction either.

Renters in this case probably means leaseholders. Under leasehold, the owner of the unit is effectively a renter.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#132

Post by adammarples »

tareqak wrote: post #93
nly wrote: post #6

Over the last 50-70 years the UK made the choice to stop building social housing and to sell off the existing stock with aggressive government subsidies. Complaining now is a bit like complaining there's no milk after you sold the dairy farm to build a casino. I read TFA but I'm not seeing anything but useless outrage that would have been better placed 20-30 years ago I became a first time property owner at 36 and it…

It doesn’t have to be this way. Mainstream media made fun of China for building “ghost cities” in the middle of nowhere. Now, those cities are full of people. “Chinese ghost cities are finally stirring to life” https://norcalapa.org/2021/09/chinese-ghost-cities-are-final... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-01/chinese-g... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoccupied_developments_in_... First Edit: remov…

"Now", it is 2025, not 2021, and there are one billion empty apartments in China, and the local government selling land to developers magic money tree ponzi scheme is running out of road.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#133

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #112
thrance wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing I never see addressed. Wouldn't fixing the housing crisis necessarily involve slashing down property values? Which are for a lot of people their only form of savings? Genuine question by the way, I would like an answer.

> Which are for a lot of people their only form of savings? It's fake savings unless you are speculating on properties. Most people only own the place they actually live in and only resell to buy another place. A general property market crash doesn't affect the value of your house compared to other house so it's mostly neutral in this regard. Of course people who borrowed before the crash will be in debt for longer t…

A case where it isn't fake savings is where people who work and live an a very expensive urban area, like london, may use the home as a retirement investment. So when they retire they move to a less expensive area and can use the difference in housing costs in the two areas as a retirement nest egg.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#134

Post by adammarples »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #28
daedrdev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not even that, the restrictions on new homes in the UK make it impossible to build any significant amount of housing, social or not.

Be specific - what restrictions are these and how do they affect building?

In short, the Town and Country Planning Act

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#135

Post by truculent »

thrance wrote: post #49
graemep wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If houses ever return to good affordability I'm screwed. Which creates a huge pool of people who are opposed to making houses more affordable.

This is the thing I never see addressed. Wouldn't fixing the housing crisis necessarily involve slashing down property values? Which are for a lot of people their only form of savings? Genuine question by the way, I would like an answer.

A nominal increase in value, while becoming more affordable in real terms might be feasible.

However to do this would require inflation of other goods, matched by wage rises, which would require actions that the British political establishment is not willing to take.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#136

Post by [deleted] »

baxtr wrote: post #99
bwb wrote: post #2

IMO... one of the most important benchmarks for judging the effectiveness of a government is the cost of housing. Cheap and basic housing is so key for economic well-being. I would love to see very basic, small, apartments created by governments on a mass level to try to overcome the current situation. Like persistently have a department of government just building to meet needed demands in economic centers. What oth…

And the best way to do this imo is to have the right incentives for investors to build affordable homes.

[deleted]

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#137

Post by bendigedig »

milesrout wrote: post #57

You don't have to wait 100 years for a home, though. You might need to wait 100 years for a free home. You can buy one straight away or rent one.

Free home? What are you on about? You still have to pay rent in social housing.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#138

Post by tarkin2 »

floydnoel wrote: post #79
tarkin2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the renters will reward any government that pushes down house prices i.e. builds more houses. And I assume there are more renters than home owners.

but which group is more active in voting and politics?

I would assume home owners are more likely to vote. But even with a lower voter turn out, there could still be more voting renters.

A sibling post has stats from 15 years ago but a lot has changed since then. My gut feeling is that more people are struggling to buy than to pay back mortgages but I have no stats to back that up.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#139

Post by YouWhy »

lazide wrote: post #85
YouWhy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people in more precarious circumstances have more kids. I don't know why. Did you consider that the judgement of precariousness of the people's situation is in your value system, and does not necessarily transfer to their value system? Especially this could be due to you having access to more information than them

isn’t your comment doing literally the same thing?

Actually I do not see the similarity. However it appears that you see disrespect where only respect was intended - could you propose how should I have conveyed the message in a way that would appear more respectful in your eyes?

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#140

Post by lazide »

YouWhy wrote: post #139
lazide wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn’t your comment doing literally the same thing?

Actually I do not see the similarity. However it appears that you see disrespect where only respect was intended - could you propose how should I have conveyed the message in a way that would appear more respectful in your eyes?

Huh?
Post reply on HN