Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Don't believe I didn't notice it before but... National Conservatives.
Nat Cees for short.

The Tory MP admits there is a housing shortage but wants to 'build the right homes in the right places' rather than more concrete tower blocks

Funny. Build the right homes in the right places is what housing associations and progressives have been shouting out for for a while....
With more tower blocks and a thriving local culture and good transit, ala East Berlin, being the stuff to make us mess our pants.

Seems like British construction companies and developers should get their shit together and astro-turf some "we need to build to fix housing" movements.

Trouble is what they want to build isn't what we need. The money is in shitty 600k each, technically detached but 50cm from the neighbour, built in an isolated farmers field estates.
Not small flats targeted at low earners built within walking range of transit near jobs.

[Sheilbh]

Seems like British construction companies and developers should get their shit together and astro-turf some "we need to build to fix housing" movements.

Yes.

It's funny (or, maybe, so frustrating you have to laugh) - the Greens and other NIMBYs pushed the idea of basically local referendums/votes by residents on estates being redeveloped because they assumed that most people would reject them. Developers actually have a strong success rate because social tenants of dilapidated and dated housing estates actually quite like the idea of the area being rebuilt and them getting a brand new flat (either on the estate or in another area).

But even with that sort of evidence of local support an organised minority can make councillors, MPs and the media pitch it as a people v developers fight. I think developers tend to do a lot of work to evidence that they've done loads of consultations and listening sessions with local communities because it helps assuage those concerns.

But more broadly it's a vicious cycle - Villiers would like more of a competitive market and less dominance by big developers. Problem is her policies and others like them increase the cost, risk and uncertainty of actually trying to build so much that to an extent only big developers can afford to do it. It'd be great to have more small builders and competition in that market, but it requires a more stable, certain and cost effective environment.

[Sheilbh]

Funny. Build the right homes in the right places is what housing associations and progressives have been shouting out for for a while....

And it's always been a trap

Trouble is what they want to build isn't what we need. The money is in shitty 600k each, technically detached but 50cm from the neighbour, built in an isolated farmers field estates.
Not small flats targeted at low earners built within walking range of transit near jobs.

This reminds me slightly of Gaby Hinsliff's column last week on the problem of what is built:

Labour's proposal to give first-time buyers first dibs on new homes locally and curb sales to overseas buyers is an appealing start. But what communities often want to see is tighter controls on developers ensuring that what they actually favour – cheap starter homes their own children could buy one day – bears some resemblance to what actually gets built. In rural communities that's all too often four-bedroom executive homes that can fetch a fat profit and in cities it's flats being sold off as buy-to-lets. Guarantees that new GP surgeries, school places and bus routes will actually be built alongside new houses, rather than endlessly promised but not delivered, would also help.

I just find it slightly mad that a house that would allow most families to have a spare bedroom is somehow "executive" as opposed to a perfectly reasonable aspiration

There is a side of the left on this that reminds me of reading social history of the UK in the post-war and the UK was a very late adopter of domestic refridgeration (only got over 50% of households owning  fridge in the late 60s). There was a consistent line of articles on left and right that basically saw it as dangerously Americanising and somehow indulgent. I think there is still an annoying streak of "discomfort is character-building" in this country

Edit: On the other hand The Times just published an interview with Starmer. I think this is true, exactly the sort of line Labour should take - and politically I think the party that gets young people into home-owning will get a lot of political reward from that generation's votes, just as the Tories did with right to buy:

The Labour leader sees housebuilding as the key to unlock "the sort of growth we need in this country".

?

[Josquius]

And it's always been a trap

Not necessarily. One HA I know shifted onto this after it's dabbling with typical half a million + fancy greenfield houses in Yorkshire and instead redoubled it's focus on stuff more befitting a HA

This reminds me slightly of Gaby Hinsliff's column last week on the problem of what is built:

Labour's proposal to give first-time buyers first dibs on new homes locally and curb sales to overseas buyers is an appealing start. But what communities often want to see is tighter controls on developers ensuring that what they actually favour – cheap starter homes their own children could buy one day – bears some resemblance to what actually gets built. In rural communities that's all too often four-bedroom executive homes that can fetch a fat profit and in cities it's flats being sold off as buy-to-lets. Guarantees that new GP surgeries, school places and bus routes will actually be built alongside new houses, rather than endlessly promised but not delivered, would also help.

I just find it slightly mad that a house that would allow most families to have a spare bedroom is somehow "executive" as opposed to a perfectly reasonable aspiration

There is a side of the left on this that reminds me of reading social history of the UK in the post-war and the UK was a very late adopter of domestic refridgeration (only got over 50% of households owning  fridge in the late 60s). There was a consistent line of articles on left and right that basically saw it as dangerously Americanising and somehow indulgent. I think there is still an annoying streak of "discomfort is character-building" in this country

American style suburbia is a blight on the planet. The 20th century's great mistake. We should be retrofitting what of it we do have rather than building more of it.

It's not that having a spare room is a problem in itself. It's where building these homes is being prioritised over a greater number of smaller cheaper properties. This is where we have a big shortage with trends showing a rise in small households.

The discomfort is on those single 20 and 30 somethings who have decent jobs and want to get on with life but live in HMOs.

[Barrister]

American style suburbia is a blight on the planet. The 20th century's great mistake. We should be retrofitting what of it we do have rather than building more of it.

It's not that having a spare room is a problem in itself. It's where building these homes is being prioritised over a greater number of smaller cheaper properties. This is where we have a big shortage with trends showing a rise in small households.

The discomfort is on those single 20 and 30 somethings who have decent jobs and want to get on with life but live in HMOs.

Nothing wrong with "American-style suburbia" in the right locations and circumstances.

Or even when we need to increase density it doesn't mean you need to start building tons of high rise buildings.

Edmonton is trying to increase density but what we're seeing are lots more townhomes, duplexes (or more), lanehomes, basement suites, etc. but all while mostly maintaining a suburban, rather than urban, feeling.

[Tamas]

If the UK started building even smaller houses then, well, IDK. They would be Hong Kong flats, probably.

[Sheilbh]

American style suburbia is a blight on the planet. The 20th century's great mistake. We should be retrofitting what of it we do have rather than building more of it.

It's not that having a spare room is a problem in itself. It's where building these homes is being prioritised over a greater number of smaller cheaper properties. This is where we have a big shortage with trends showing a rise in small households.

The discomfort is on those single 20 and 30 somethings who have decent jobs and want to get on with life but live in HMOs.

But it's also on families and people trying to have a family where housing is definitely a constraint.

This is one of those areas where I'm a bit of a market fundamentalist. In the long-run we ma be able to change our economic and society around where and how people want to live - in the meantime we should build the houses people want in the places they want them.

It's a bit like the argument I always find myself having on climate change - it would be nice if our response also led to a widespread social transformation and the end of capitalism, but there is a lot we could get on with now

If the UK started building even smaller houses then, well, IDK. They would be Hong Kong flats, probably.

Yes. Sure I've posted this before but, again, really struck by Japan because I think the popular image here is that Japan's got tiny homes that are wildly unaffordable - but here we are

[Josquius]

But it's also on families and people trying to have a family where housing is definitely a constraint.

This is one of those areas where I'm a bit of a market fundamentalist. In the long-run we ma be able to change our economic and society around where and how people want to live - in the meantime we should build the houses people want in the places they want them.

It's a bit like the argument I always find myself having on climate change - it would be nice if our response also led to a widespread social transformation and the end of capitalism, but there is a lot we could get on with now

Families lose out because of HMOs. Those buildings already exist. Let them reclaim their true purpose in their already good location by moving the people currently there into fit for purpose homes of their own.
We've seen this in practice in Newcastle this past devade with a lot of purpose built student housing going up.

Having lived in Japan I'm firmly against the popular online idea that we just get rid of planning laws and things will sort themselves out. Yes, many of our current problems would be solved... But a whole host of new ones would emerge. The market can't be trusted to do what's best for society unless kept on a tight lead and threatened with a stick.

American style suburbia is a blight on the planet. The 20th century's great mistake. We should be retrofitting what of it we do have rather than building more of it.

It's not that having a spare room is a problem in itself. It's where building these homes is being prioritised over a greater number of smaller cheaper properties. This is where we have a big shortage with trends showing a rise in small households.

The discomfort is on those single 20 and 30 somethings who have decent jobs and want to get on with life but live in HMOs.

Nothing wrong with "American-style suburbia" in the right locations and circumstances.

Or even when we need to increase density it doesn't mean you need to start building tons of high rise buildings.

Edmonton is trying to increase density but what we're seeing are lots more townhomes, duplexes (or more), lanehomes, basement suites, etc. but all while mostly maintaining a suburban, rather than urban, feeling.

American style suburbia is always wrong. It's an unsustainable ponzi that has so many negative impacts on people and the planet.
Suburbia in general... It has its place but it needs to change drastically. More small towns with good links to the main cities than sprawling identityless fields of houses.

And yes. It need not mean high rise. Mid rise is often more efficient.

[Admiral Yi]

American style suburbia is a blight on the planet. The 20th century's great mistake. We should be retrofitting what of it we do have rather than building more of it.

It's not that having a spare room is a problem in itself. It's where building these homes is being prioritised over a greater number of smaller cheaper properties. This is where we have a big shortage with trends showing a rise in small households.

The discomfort is on those single 20 and 30 somethings who have decent jobs and want to get on with life but live in HMOs.

Nice use of the passive voice.  Builders don't set national building policy and they don't set local zoning rules.  If you want more snug but classy flats built in densely populated areas lobby your government for that activity to be subsidized.

[Sheilbh]

Worth noting the UK basically doesn't have zoning laws - that's one of the reasons that the planning process is expensive and unpredictable for smaller builders. I think the government gestured towards something like zoning and then immediately retreated in the face of fierce backbench opposition.

Although for all the issues I feel like the quality and aesthetics of new builds have improved a lot in the last 10-15 years.

[Admiral Yi]

You have zoning adjacent stuff.  Green belt, height restrictions, etc.

[Gups]

Seems like British construction companies and developers should get their shit together and astro-turf some "we need to build to fix housing" movements.

Yes.

It's funny (or, maybe, so frustrating you have to laugh) - the Greens and other NIMBYs pushed the idea of basically local referendums/votes by residents on estates being redeveloped because they assumed that most people would reject them. Developers actually have a strong success rate because social tenants of dilapidated and dated housing estates actually quite like the idea of the area being rebuilt and them getting a brand new flat (either on the estate or in another area).

That's extraordinarily unfair and inaccurate. The introduction of ballots for residents on estate renewal schemes has led to developers/Councils having to massively improve their offering to tenants and right to buy leaseholders in order to secure approval. Before that requirement was introduced, in most cases residents were being absolutely shafted with no right to live in the improved estate and in some cases being made homeless or having to move to another part of the country. Ballots were introduced to protect tenants not to prevent redevelopment/renewal.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting - happy to shift on that, although I think they are generally a good idea anyway.

But was that all because of estate ballots - I know the "decanting" to housing miles away (although always within London) was a huge issue on the estates demolished near me as part of the Elephant and Castle/Heygate/Aylesbury redevelopment. But my understanding was that councils had to provide alternative housing and the controversy was people in Elephant being offered places in Norwood. Those problems don't seem to have been an issue in the redevelopments on Old Kent Road in anywhere near the same way. Is that because of estate ballots? To be honest I wasn't sure it was London wide and just thought Southwark had experienced too much pushback.

I agree on quality of redevelopment too - I didn't think it was necessarily linked to estate ballots but even in Elephant you can see the difference between some of the earlier stage don't look great (even after only being up for 5 years) and have lifeless ground level space. But what's been built later seems to look better but also have far better street level life. I was slightly won over having signed lots of petitions against that redevelopment () when I walked through a year or two ago and there's parks with loads of kids running around and it felt really good/community.

[Gups]

For Aylesbury, the main problem/controversy was with RTB leaseholders who were offered the existing value of their flats  on a dilipidated estate. This led to the CPO being rejected by Javid although he backed down on judicial review by Southwark. Not sure what the values were but sub £100K I think. They had no way of purchasing anything in the area (or even in London) and were not offered any sort of rehousing. Best practice now is to offer a flat as a tenant or shared equity or similar.

Ballots are only required in London and only as a condition of GLA funding although I think they are becoming good practice now nationwide. In my view, ballots are part of a much improved approach to renewal through more meaningful consultation, a less confrontational approach and better outcomes. I've definately seen a shift in the culture and approach of my developer clients, although those tend to be the blue chip FTSE 100 developers. 

[Josquius]

A vague idea I'm increasingly wondering about is some sort of arrangement with local groups where upon selling they get the difference in value vs. if the construction had never gone ahead (worked out via some complex formula).
Thus these poor people in areas that are gentrified can afford to stay whilst the NIMBYs moaning about new homes in Leafington on the Ouze get their primary argument knocked out from under them and suffer no loss.
Only 4% thought out and not an area in which I have any expertise of course.