Cereal cafe: Owner tells of 'witch hunt' that pelted windows with cereal/paint

[Ideologue]

Also Anti-gentrification is abhorrent.  It's the romanticism of poverty and slums.

Yeah, I don't get this.  Heaven forbid we try to redevelop a section of town and make it safe and pleasant.

I.e., raise rents and purchase values so high that poor people can't live there, including the poor people who already do.  You don't get this because you don't want to get it.

[Ideologue]

Anyway, I have no particular opinion on the cereal cafe, although it does fit in with my general anti-cafe animus.  I mean, at least $10 for a big-ass bowl of cereal involves some nutritional value.  Where did the $11 I spent on fancy bullshit coffee yesterday go?  My beleaguered pancreas, mainly.

[jimmy olsen]

As ever we return to the basic problem, in the UK household formation is running at something like 250,000 a year and house building barely exceeds 100,000 units a year. This causes moderate problems in provincial places like Preston but is horrendous in London and the South-East. Lefties can blame gentrification and the right can blame immigration, but the essential problem is insufficient construction.

Why hasn't the market responded to the demand anf built more?

[Tamas]

As ever we return to the basic problem, in the UK household formation is running at something like 250,000 a year and house building barely exceeds 100,000 units a year. This causes moderate problems in provincial places like Preston but is horrendous in London and the South-East. Lefties can blame gentrification and the right can blame immigration, but the essential problem is insufficient construction.

Why hasn't the market responded to the demand anf built more?

Too strict building permit laws?

[Martinus]

As ever we return to the basic problem, in the UK household formation is running at something like 250,000 a year and house building barely exceeds 100,000 units a year. This causes moderate problems in provincial places like Preston but is horrendous in London and the South-East. Lefties can blame gentrification and the right can blame immigration, but the essential problem is insufficient construction.

I used to live in that area back in the late 1970s with a couple of nurses  , my share of the rent was £5 a week. But at the time the cockneys were making their way north-eastwards, the Jews had long gone, the Bangladeshis had not yet arrived and London had a declining population. It is a brilliant area to live in btw, I could never fathom its lack of popularity back then.

Is there some sort of a "communal flats" programme in the UK, where the municipalities build cheaper flats for rent? I am not talking necessarily about "council flats" for the very poor but more of subsidised flats for lower middle class people and the like.

[Gups]

As ever we return to the basic problem, in the UK household formation is running at something like 250,000 a year and house building barely exceeds 100,000 units a year. This causes moderate problems in provincial places like Preston but is horrendous in London and the South-East. Lefties can blame gentrification and the right can blame immigration, but the essential problem is insufficient construction.

Why hasn't the market responded to the demand anf built more?

Who knows? Some blame the green belt (land around big cities which can't be built on), some blame the developers for land banking, others the fact that property in London is seen as a safe haven so that when housing does come on line its bought by Asians and Russians as an investment - they don't even rent the property. The Economist had an article about it recently.

[garbon]

Anyway, I have no particular opinion on the cereal cafe, although it does fit in with my general anti-cafe animus.  I mean, at least $10 for a big-ass bowl of cereal involves some nutritional value.  Where did the $11 I spent on fancy bullshit coffee yesterday go?  My beleaguered pancreas, mainly.

Rate is only about 1.5 dollars to £ right now.

[Eddie Teach]

Rate is only about 1.5 dollars to £ right now.

Which are you paid in?

[garbon]

poundage

[Richard Hakluyt]

Link to an article on the subject in The Economist :

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21667973-britain-has-one-booming-market-could-do-crash-through-roof

There is one big plus, much of the countryside has been preserved, but apart from that it is a mess.

[Martinus]

As ever we return to the basic problem, in the UK household formation is running at something like 250,000 a year and house building barely exceeds 100,000 units a year. This causes moderate problems in provincial places like Preston but is horrendous in London and the South-East. Lefties can blame gentrification and the right can blame immigration, but the essential problem is insufficient construction.

Why hasn't the market responded to the demand anf built more?

The demand is much greater than the market's ability to supply (newsflash: land is a limited good), so in the absence of regulation there is really no point in reducing the price.

It is a classic example of a good fulfilling an important social role, where lack of regulation leads to a complete mess.

[Valmy]

As ever we return to the basic problem, in the UK household formation is running at something like 250,000 a year and house building barely exceeds 100,000 units a year. This causes moderate problems in provincial places like Preston but is horrendous in London and the South-East. Lefties can blame gentrification and the right can blame immigration, but the essential problem is insufficient construction.

Why hasn't the market responded to the demand anf built more?

The demand is much greater than the market's ability to supply (newsflash: land is a limited good), so in the absence of regulation there is really no point in reducing the price.

It is a classic example of a good fulfilling an important social role, where lack of regulation leads to a complete mess.

Um building is heavily regulated. That is why nothing gets built.

[Martinus]

By regulation I meant the requirement to build a given number of affordable flats rather than leaving everything to the most expensive / profitable land development.

This can be achieved in a number of ways, e.g. by doing it the way NYC is doing it, so requiring developers to dedicate a portion of flats to lower rent; or having the local and national governments actively involved in building affordable flats for rent.

[Gups]

By regulation I meant the requirement to build a given number of affordable flats rather than leaving everything to the most expensive / profitable land development.

This can be achieved in a number of ways, e.g. by doing it the way NYC is doing it, so requiring developers to dedicate a portion of flats to lower rent; or having the local and national governments actively involved in building affordable flats for rent.

Yes, we've had that for years. Mayoral policy is that at least 35% of units in any development over 10 (I think) units must be affordable. However, there are a number of ways that developers can get past this, generally on the basis of viability.

[Ideologue]

Iirc London has very stupid requirements re: height of buildings and obstructed views.