Would you move to a tiny home?

[Martinus]

So do you stick the poor people in council houses so nobody will build any affordable housing or does nobody build affordable housing because all their potential customers are in council flats?

Why would anyone willingly build "affordable housing" rather than market rate housing?

Probably for the same reason Ferrari has not yet cornered the car market? 

Housing is a product with inelastic demand, that is to say while most people want one, most people also do not want more than one. In a market like this, it is amore succesful economic strategy to create several versions of the product that are differently priced, to attract the broadest range of customers - as otherwise you are inefficient as you end up with a group of customers who cannot afford your product and a group of customers who would be willing to pay more.

[crazy canuck]

So do you stick the poor people in council houses so nobody will build any affordable housing or does nobody build affordable housing because all their potential customers are in council flats?

Why would anyone willingly build "affordable housing" rather than market rate housing?

Probably for the same reason Ferrari has not yet cornered the car market? 

Housing is a product with inelastic demand, that is to say while most people want one, most people also do not want more than one. In a market like this, it is amore succesful economic strategy to create several versions of the product that are differently priced, to attract the broadest range of customers - as otherwise you are inefficient as you end up with a group of customers who cannot afford your product and a group of customers who would be willing to pay more.

Exactly my point.  Why would builders build anything other than market rate housing?  Some will build to the high end and some will build to the low or middle.  But they are all building at market rates. 

Building at non market rates is an entirely different proposition.

[Martinus]

Ok this is sophistry now. It is clear what MIM meant.

In fact I would say that his adjective "affordable" is much less meaningless in this context than your "market rate", as the latter can mean virtually anything depending on how you define the market.

[Eddie Teach]

Ok this is sophistry now. It is clear what MIM meant.

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer too? 

[Siege]

My dream house have 5000 sqft air conditioned and one full acre with a 25m pool.

[MadImmortalMan]

My wife was watching HHI last night and there was this pair of gay dudes moving to London from the US. They wound up paying fifteen thousand pounds a month for a place in Islington. Come on.

[MadImmortalMan]

For 15k a month the Queen better be bringing me tea every morning. 

[Tonitrus]

I could stand living in a small space, provided the location were right.

I'd certainly be cool with living in one of these:

http://www.escapehomes.us/

All that's missing is an ideal peace of land. 

[The Brain]

For katmai security reasons I live in a <10,000 sq ft home.

[CountDeMoney]

I'd certainly be cool with living in one of these:

http://www.escapehomes.us/

All that's missing is an ideal peace of land. 

Hell, at those prices you could score a smoking fifth wheel, and then pick your ideal peace of land every day. 

[Brazen]

So do you stick the poor people in council houses so nobody will build any affordable housing or does nobody build affordable housing because all their potential customers are in council flats?

Although much council housing is occupied by people on low incomes and benefits, as per the example before many well-off people exercise their right to them and save their cash. My cousin is a police analyst and must earn £50,000, and he plans to live in council housing until he dies, which he considers his right as a taxpayer.

Boris Johnson has pledged that all new house building schemes will deliver a proportion of affordable housing, and will not grant permission to builders unless they agree, which addresses the "why wouldn't builders only build market rate homes" aspect. Of course, he's allowed too much leeway and now new-build affordable housing targets will not be met.

This has led to the scandal of blocks of flats having two separate entrance-ways so well-off people don't have to cross the paths of the poors in the hallway.

One of the things that's driving price up is private landlords buying their second and subsequent properties to rent out, including to councils. I think I might be the only owner living in my block - the woman next door is a council tenant and she and her daughter have been there since years before I moved in. Because her living costs are so low she drives a sports car. I think she won't let her daughter move our so she can keep a two-bedroom place.

Now, shall we address the spare room tax...?

[Tamas]

This has led to the scandal of blocks of flats having two separate entrance-ways so well-off people don't have to cross the paths of the poors in the hallway.

We have that 

I have more trouble with the idea that the local council should sponsor poor people living in what is prime real estate as far as its location and newly built status concerned. Social housing should be an alternative to having to live on the street, not smack in the middle of a posh town's center.

The stuff Brazen explains proves it to me that welfare states are prone to the same risks and moral hazards in every country, with the only difference of rich countries having a better way to sustain them, so they don't go the way of Greece and Hungary and most of South America (not nearly as fast, anyways).

[The Brain]

A guy once tried to sell me an apartment in a building where some apartments were rented out, sometimes even to social services. LOL as fucking if! Not paying to live with riffraff (possibly Magenta).

[Brazen]

I have more trouble with the idea that the local council should sponsor poor people living in what is prime real estate as far as its location and newly built status concerned. Social housing should be an alternative to having to live on the street, not smack in the middle of a posh town's center.

Think about it - if key workers who can't afford to buy their own homes are shunted out to the suburbs, how are they supposed to get to their jobs as teachers and firefighters etc. in the city centre when a monthly Oyster card costs £210? Even more so more for near-minimum wage jobs like cooks and cleaners.

And newness has very little draw in UK urban housing compared with location.

[Tamas]

I have more trouble with the idea that the local council should sponsor poor people living in what is prime real estate as far as its location and newly built status concerned. Social housing should be an alternative to having to live on the street, not smack in the middle of a posh town's center.

Think about it - if key workers who can't afford to buy their own homes are shunted out to the suburbs, how are they supposed to get to their jobs as teachers and firefighters etc. in the city centre when a monthly Oyster card costs £210? Even more so more for near-minimum wage jobs like cooks and cleaners.

And newness has very little draw in UK urban housing compared with location.

True enough but differentiating here should be very easy. eg. you don't want firefighters or policemen having to commute 45-60 minutes a day, so give them flats owned by the state/their employer.

For the rest? Free market would sort that one out. The local service providers would be paying enough for their employees to make them worth the effort and money getting to and from work. If they don't, then no one would take the job, and they would have to raise the salary they offer. No big drama there.