Why London Should Stop Trying to Be New York and Start Trying to Be Paris

[Warspite]

London does not have the problems of New York or Paris, and neither does it necessarily need the solutions of New York or Paris - it needs solutions that will work for its own economic, demographic legal and geographical context.

For what it's worth, I think one of the solutions is to remove the obstacles local borough councils face in erecting public housing (they are, from what I understand, basically forbidden from doing so) and let them produce simple but solidly built housing blocks (the sort you find in Pimlico, for instance). But I doubt central government wants to let go of this level of control.

[Gups]

Central London isn't booting them all out. There are thousands of properties owned by local councils and social housing providers available at low rents for those who qualify. Any new development of any size has to provide 35% of the units as affordable housing (although recently that definition has been stretched). It's the middle classes (even the quite rich) that have been squeezed out of central London. If you want to live in Chelsea you better have an income higher than £500k pa or lower than £15K pa (or have owned for a long time).

[Valmy]

The issue is that there are too many political restrictions on building for public projects to go forward and the land is too expensive for private projects.  Is that about right?  It is odd to me there is not extreme pressure on the government to step in and fix the crisis.

However, I see bizarre comments by British people about how we need to protect nature in Britain and as soon as all the people die there will be no more housing problem...but surely those are just internet nutcases.

[Valmy]

Central London isn't booting them all out. There are thousands of properties owned by local councils and social housing providers available at low rents for those who qualify. Any new development of any size has to provide 35% of the units as affordable housing (although recently that definition has been stretched). It's the middle classes (even the quite rich) that have been squeezed out of central London. If you want to live in Chelsea you better have an income higher than £500k pa or lower than £15K pa (or have owned for a long time).

Ah ok.  That is not an unusual urban phenomenon.

[Gups]

For what it's worth, I think one of the solutions is to remove the obstacles local borough councils face in erecting public housing (they are, from what I understand, basically forbidden from doing so) and let them produce simple but solidly built housing blocks (the sort you find in Pimlico, for instance). But I doubt central government wants to let go of this level of control.

No, that's not true. Councils have the powers to construct new housing (Southwark is doing a lot) but generally don't want to use it. They prefer to work in partnerships with existing developers and housing associations like the Peabody Trust (who happen to run most of those very nice blocks in Pimlico and Victoria). Quite often they don't have the financial muscle to do it by themselves. One of the worst things about right to buy is that the Government prohibited the use of receipts from the sale of the housing stock for constructing new housing.

[garbon]

Central London isn't booting them all out. There are thousands of properties owned by local councils and social housing providers available at low rents for those who qualify. Any new development of any size has to provide 35% of the units as affordable housing (although recently that definition has been stretched). It's the middle classes (even the quite rich) that have been squeezed out of central London. If you want to live in Chelsea you better have an income higher than £500k pa or lower than £15K pa (or have owned for a long time).

Ah ok.  That is not an unusual urban phenomenon.

Indeed, it is what is happening in many major cities. It needs to be made sexy to care about the Middle class.

[dps]

One of the worst things about right to buy is that the Government prohibited the use of receipts from the sale of the housing stock for constructing new housing.

Why? 

[CountDeMoney]

I've always mixed feelings about public housing. While it is good to make sure that service workers, that cities need to function, don't have to spend an arm and a leg getting to work, it seems to have a pernicious effect on continuing the escalation of housing prices for everyone else. Which, of course, hits the middle class the most.

The projects continue the escalation of housing prices for everyone else?

[Gups]

One of the worst things about right to buy is that the Government prohibited the use of receipts from the sale of the housing stock for constructing new housing.

Why?

Why is it bad or why did they do it? If the latter, it was the Thatcher government and it was (a) a piece of social engineering aimed at establishing a property owning democracy by allowing the right to buy a council owned property if you had rented it for more than 2 or 3 years at around half the market price. If those properties were replaced by more council housing, the engineering would not be successful (b) Mrs Thatcher deeply disliked many local authorities, sometimes with good reason, and did not trust them.  She thought that the receipts should be used to reduce local taxation.

[Duque de Bragança]

London doesn't have Paris's problems (such as the central/periphary division) and so doesn't need its solutions. London's primary problem is excessive housing costs which its government has no powers to do anything about.

While the Greater London is already a reality, unlike the Groß Paris, Paris also has the excessive housing costs which its government has no powers to do anything about. Hidalgo as a mayor is a joke, only good for bobos.

[Warspite]

For what it's worth, I think one of the solutions is to remove the obstacles local borough councils face in erecting public housing (they are, from what I understand, basically forbidden from doing so) and let them produce simple but solidly built housing blocks (the sort you find in Pimlico, for instance). But I doubt central government wants to let go of this level of control.

No, that's not true. Councils have the powers to construct new housing (Southwark is doing a lot) but generally don't want to use it. They prefer to work in partnerships with existing developers and housing associations like the Peabody Trust (who happen to run most of those very nice blocks in Pimlico and Victoria). Quite often they don't have the financial muscle to do it by themselves. One of the worst things about right to buy is that the Government prohibited the use of receipts from the sale of the housing stock for constructing new housing.

Sorry, my point was badly phrased. They are legally permitted to build, but as you say their financial muscle to do so is denied. I can't remember where but I read an article recently lamenting how councils' hands are still tied in this regard.

[garbon]

I've always mixed feelings about public housing. While it is good to make sure that service workers, that cities need to function, don't have to spend an arm and a leg getting to work, it seems to have a pernicious effect on continuing the escalation of housing prices for everyone else. Which, of course, hits the middle class the most.

The projects continue the escalation of housing prices for everyone else?

Unless built on land that was vacant and not going to be developed(?), they take away from potential housing for anyone that isn't poor enough to qualify for it. Hence continued or increased scrambiling for what one is eligible for.