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

61–70 of 202 posts

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

#61

Post by milesrout »

scotty79 wrote: post #54
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?

A bank would be mental to commit to a fixed interest rate on a mortgage for 30 years. Economic conditions change.

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

#62

Post by thisisnotauser »

globular-toast wrote: post #27
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…

> If houses ever return to good affordability I'm screwed. Uhh, why? Unless you were planning on selling up and spending it all on a cruise or something house prices are immaterial to home owners. > I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. This is the real problem. It's partly our fault, of course, for agreeing to a mortgage which we couldn't afford if…

Housing is a huge cut of your salary. If housing were affordable, that money could be saved for retirement. Instead, it's paid toward a mortgage by necessity. So there is little room for savings other than hoping the house sells when you retire.

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

#63

Post by DrQian »

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?

The three main important ones:

1) Green belt policies prevent the expansion of cities outwards. Compare the footprint of London to other major European cities and you'll see it's barely moved at all for decades.

2) Discretionary planning policies that mean local councils can turn down development, even when it adheres to stated rules. See for example this brownfield development in Brighton, a city that has one of the worst housing delivery records in the country: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygkz57k1vo

The professional planning board recommended it for approval, but it was turned down by the political committee because of local complaints. A well specified zoning system would avoid this. Reduced uncertainty would make it possible for smaller builders to enter the market

3) affordable housing mandates (known as Inclusionary Zoning elsewhere). These specify that some amount of the new building must be offered at below market rates. Although there's a strong moral case for capturing some of the value produced by giving planning permission, this effectively acts as a tax on building homes in places with shortages. Ideally, people would be most incentivised to build where prices are highest, but this policy removes that incentive.

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

#64

Post by hnthrow90348765 »

globular-toast wrote: post #27
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…

> If houses ever return to good affordability I'm screwed. Uhh, why? Unless you were planning on selling up and spending it all on a cruise or something house prices are immaterial to home owners. > I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. This is the real problem. It's partly our fault, of course, for agreeing to a mortgage which we couldn't afford if…

Interest rates for individuals buying homes should be near zero. This needs to be subsidized by higher interest rates or taxes-on-businesses elsewhere.

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

#65

Post by tarkin2 »

petesergeant wrote: post #45
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.

100%, and it’s not clear there’s any solution to that, because voters will punish anyone who tries to fix it.

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.

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

#66

Post by brutus1213 »

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…

Did you buy a home > 10 years ago? Given inflation, isn't your mortgage not easy to pay off at this point (even if you did pay the minimum?). I can imagine one of two scenarios: (a) at the start, you really stretched and got a nice place to live (bravo!! in hindsight that was a genius move as you enjoyed many years of good quality living) or (b) your income has been stagnant (sorry :( )

I got a place 5 years back and did not overstretch at all ... now, the biggest challenge is our place is too small and has other inconveniences (lack of commute) that is painful. Selling and rebuying is trauma I don't want to inflict again.

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

#67

Post by hnthrow90348765 »

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.

Making prices stagnant over 10-20 years would allow wages to catch up. This hurts speculators and finance way more than individual families and allows for a more gradual transition.

It's probably only something you can fix across generations.

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

#68

Post by petesergeant »

whatever1 wrote: post #5

We had a chance to defuse the housing crisis with remote work and we blew it. Opportunities are concentrated and building in concentrated areas is inherently hard. We still don’t know how to scale mega cities fast while still operating them at capacity. So the problem will not go away anytime soon.

> We still don’t know how to scale mega cities fast while still operating them at capacity.

I think Dubai is a counter-example to that.

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

#69

Post by milesrout »

mschuster91 wrote: post #37
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…

> 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.

Post reply on HN