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

51–60 of 202 posts

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

#51

Post by jstanley »

serial_dev wrote: post #48
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…

I’d add fertility rate as another powerful metric: when people feel safe, supported, and optimistic, they have kids. So if housing, income stability, healthcare, and trust in the future are in place, you’ll usually see that reflected in birth rates. All this only makes sense in the context of large groups; at the individual level, many factors determine whether someone has children. What the puppet masters will tell…

> when people feel safe, supported, and optimistic, they have kids.

I actually thought that wasn't the case. Across the entire world, people in more precarious circumstances have more kids. I don't know why.

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

#52

Post by lores »

wruza wrote: post #32
globular-toast wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it does. UK population growth is due to immigration.

More grass -> more rabbits -> less grass -> less rabbits -> (loop). You can mix different rabbits in, but the cycle is fundamental.

Humans aren't rabbits. Humans tend to have children in inverse proportion to the amount of grass, poorer people having more children than richer ones. Of course it's not a direct correlation, or a simple one, but the effect is there.

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

#53

Post by iamacyborg »

mrspuratic wrote: post #44
iamacyborg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they are built, the entire insurance system post-Grenfell is causing absolutely insane service charges for residents. Mine are up >50% since 2018, that’s despite gaining no new services and work on the building being put on hold due to it not being essential. The fact that it’s a relatively new build (about 12 years old) is almost irrelevant as construction is shoddy. Putting new buildings up is only part of…

Double whammy: spray foam attic insulation (aided by goverment grants!) causing sale & mortgage problems. https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/i-am-improvi...

We had our cladding replaced but now our fire safety certificate is invalid.

The replacement was done so poorly that panels come loose and we have to request the building management company sort it out.

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

#54

Post by scotty79 »

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…

> I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed.

Could anyone explain why is that the case? If the mortgage is till 70 then why are you forced to remake the agreement every 5 years? Can't you stick to original one?

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

#55

Post by gonzo41 »

westmeal wrote: post #8
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…

Its kinda funny you mention this because a lot of communist countries did pretty much this with high rise apartments. They're still there too.

And that's kind of the dream TBH. Every private dollar that goes into housing is a dollar taken away from people who could be building businesses themselves or investing. Having cheap, plentiful housing provides a base that people can build from. There's other benefits too, say your relationships explodes and you need a new place, the last thing you want to do is be living with your ex, or couch surfing with friends.

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

#56

Post by Elte »

red369 wrote: post #34
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…

I much prefer the system the US, where you know your rate for longer. Some other countries, I think the Netherlands is one, also let you fix for longer than 5 years. But why are you, and other people in your position, screwed if the prices return to affordability? High Loan-To-Value ratio so if the prices fall, the bank would force a sale?

Germany here, I have a fixed rate for 30 years.

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

#58

Post by Gigachad »

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…

I’ve been told in China they have dirt cheap small units available for people who would otherwise be homeless. They aren’t flashy, but they are absolutely better than letting people be homeless.

Not sure why this kind of housing just doesn’t really exist elsewhere.

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

#59

Post by bingo3131 »

red369 wrote: post #34
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…

I much prefer the system the US, where you know your rate for longer. Some other countries, I think the Netherlands is one, also let you fix for longer than 5 years. But why are you, and other people in your position, screwed if the prices return to affordability? High Loan-To-Value ratio so if the prices fall, the bank would force a sale?

I would assume it would be because the poster would find themselves in negative equity (depending on how much was left to repay on the mortgage) with all the potential pitfalls that come with it, such as if you want to borrow further money against the value of the property or if you want to sell up and move.

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

#60

Post by jodrellblank »

red369 wrote: post #34
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…

I much prefer the system the US, where you know your rate for longer. Some other countries, I think the Netherlands is one, also let you fix for longer than 5 years. But why are you, and other people in your position, screwed if the prices return to affordability? High Loan-To-Value ratio so if the prices fall, the bank would force a sale?

If they put 1M into a house, then sell it and buy a 500k bungalow at retirement age, that unlocks 500k living/care money.

If they put 1M into a house, prices fall, they sell it for 100k and buy a bungalow for 50k, that unlocks only 50k to live on.

They lose decades of saving/investment money even though they can still sidestep one house to another.

Post reply on HN