http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/sell-crap-pay-debt-love-makes-possible.html (http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/sell-crap-pay-debt-love-makes-possible.html)
Extract:
Quote
Sell Your Crap, Pay Off Your Debt, And Do What You Love! This Makes It All Possible!
There's something strange happening around the globe... but it's awesome!
Lifestyles and needs are changing, and consequently, our houses are shrinking. The tiny house movement has blown up in the past few years, shifting the traditional North American housing models towards a more practical, finance-friendly blueprint. The movement is garnering attention from people fed up with the current consumerist/utility-based lifestyle which has placed millions of people in debt. Now, the idea of living your dream is no longer a cliché.
The typical American home is around 2600 square feet, while the typical small or tiny house is around 100-400 square feet. These tiny houses come in all shapes, sizes and forms, focusing on smaller spaces and simplified living. Jay Shafer, tiny house advocate and founder of Four Lights Tiny House Company, says that, unlike sprawling houses, tiny houses demand that their dwellers downsize to the essentials. Shafer states that tiny houses are undiluted reflections of the people who live in them.
"A tiny house is any house in which all the space is being used well," he says. "When my friends and I founded the Small House Society...that was our definition and we're sticking to it."
I know you USAnians are obsessed by house size while the average Brit has no idea how big theirs is, we just count bedrooms and reception rooms. Fortunately, a flat below mine is for sale so I checked the details and found out it's 548 sq ft, or 50.9 sq m.
I feel no urge for a bigger living space, though I do miss having a bit of outside to myself, and I'm sure the cats would appreciate it. God knows I'm short on storage space, though. I'm in desperate need of a new bathroom and kitchen, and lots of fitted units in the bedrooms. When I mysteriously have some money to spare.
However, I wish there were a service that would sweep into your home, identify the crap you'd never miss and sell/recycle/chuck it for 20% of the profit.
Would you significantly reduce your personal goods for a much smaller property, and end to your mortgage and more cash in hand? And perhaps more temptingly, a much simpler, clutter-free lifestyle?
I'm at ca. 50 m² myself, and while not huge it's comfy for a single; not too large or too small. My previous apartment was ten m² larger, and a lot of that was storage space. Moving to my new place made me sort out A LOT of crap and wardrobe, and I'm glad about it. My new place is lean, free of clutter, and almost entirely devoid of dust catchers.
Unfortunately I spent the first 30-odd years of my life in a quite spacious house. I want to return to that. Space=good and relaxing.
An actual tiny home? No, that looks like a studio apartment. I don't want a bedroom in my kitchen.
Quote from: Brazen on October 22, 2014, 04:47:48 AM
USAnians
Don't do that. :(
Anyway, it's not about the size of the thing for me but the functionality. Can I have a workroom for pickling and brewing? Can I have an office where I can work and not bother people? Where will I store my wine?
I could do a tiny house under specific circumstances, but not forever and not as a main thing.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2014, 06:12:11 AM
An actual tiny home? No, that looks like a studio apartment. I don't want a bedroom in my kitchen.
Cant do studios that small at all.
I like my space. Need to have different rooms for different pursuits.
Maybe I could get by with one bathroom, but I need two bedrooms.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 22, 2014, 06:40:02 AM
Can I have a workroom for pickling and brewing? Can I have an office where I can work and not bother people? Where will I store my wine?
:lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 22, 2014, 06:40:02 AM
Don't do that. :(
The Economist approves:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/12/what_call_americans (http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/12/what_call_americans)
What is North Americans who aren't Canadians' preferred term for themselves?
Quote from: Brazen on October 22, 2014, 06:55:23 AM
What is North Americans who aren't Canadians' preferred term for themselves?
Americanos?
I like USanians. Lulz, Soviet Canuckistan.
I gotta say ever since I moved, I just can't stress enough how important for your psychological and emotional well-being is to have a flat which has several rooms in it. You need one living room, one bedroom and one room for junk at least (in addition to obvious other stuff such as a kitchen and at least one bathroom - but two are much better as you need a separate bathroom for a cat :ph34r:).
Quote from: Brazen on October 22, 2014, 06:55:23 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 22, 2014, 06:40:02 AM
Don't do that. :(
The Economist approves:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/12/what_call_americans (http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/12/what_call_americans)
What is North Americans who aren't Canadians' preferred term for themselves?
Canadians
Americans
Mexicans
Fuck that tiny living Bullshit, we're not chinese ant people. I like my 7000 sqfeet yard, thank you very much.
Quote from: Syt on October 22, 2014, 04:58:57 AM
I'm at ca. 50 m² myself, and while not huge it's comfy for a single; not too large or too small. My previous apartment was ten m² larger, and a lot of that was storage space. Moving to my new place made me sort out A LOT of crap and wardrobe, and I'm glad about it. My new place is lean, free of clutter, and almost entirely devoid of dust catchers.
I think for me the sweet spot would be around 70-80. Currently I have 100 which is a bit too big (although I manage to use all of it).
I just need more fitted storage then I'd be cushty.
Another attempt to destroy the American dream.
There is no such thing as too much living space.
Having a house extension & refurb done right now. We are crammed into the upstairs along with most of our possession ad it's doing my head in. I definately need space.
I've no idea how big the house is, maybe 200 sqm
Quote from: Ender on October 22, 2014, 08:19:37 AM
Another attempt to destroy the American dream.
I think the police are managing that successfully enough on their own.
I have living room+integrated kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and a smaller room that I fill up with junk. It's around 70m2 and excellent for a single person like me.
I have lived in a number of studios, particularly when I was a student, and I agree that sometimes you just need some place to move around within your home.
I'm thinking of annexing my neighbor's property.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2014, 09:19:54 AM
I'm thinking of annexing my neighbor's property.
Well you need your Lebensraum for all the kinder.
Quote from: Brazen on October 22, 2014, 04:47:48 AM
Would you significantly reduce your personal goods for a much smaller property, and end to your mortgage and more cash in hand? And perhaps more temptingly, a much simpler, clutter-free lifestyle?
After doing some conversions from square feet to square meters, my answer would be no.
While the American 2600 sq.feet house seems ok for a family with a couple of kids, as a single person I am quite comfortable with my 100 sq meters house. It is just right.
I would not like to live in half that space; it just would not hold the things I require for a balanced life.
I agree with Martinus that a decent living space is needed for a good living. Though I would add that two bathrooms are a must (because I like the privacy of having a bathroom for myself, so I can spare the other to visitors and not bother they contaminate my precious personal hygiene area).
Also, when having non-intimate guests, a decent sized house is a must: you can isolate your 'living and sleeping' area from the dining/tv/kitchen rooms [usually separated by the entry Hall], which can be useful to preserve your privacy.
As for use of space, it just gives you more options. I have a games room, for example, where I can set up easily boardgames to play with large groups of friends, or paint minis at leisure. And I most certainly need an office separated from my bedroom [some friends have large houses, but only for their wives to hog all the space with tons of needless 'living rooms' and force them to put their PC right next to their bed].
I will say that one of those tiny houses would be cool to have as a mini-cabin out in the woods somewhere. Except that you can't really have guests stay with you.
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 09:24:11 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2014, 09:19:54 AM
I'm thinking of annexing my neighbor's property.
Well you need your Lebensraum for all the kinder.
The Kampfgruppe needs a barracks.
I could never do tiny.
Friday I'm moving from a 3100sf home to a 3700sf home. We need the extra bed room for the brady bunch gig I now have going. That being said I suspect in ten years we'll go down to 2000sf on the water somewhere.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 22, 2014, 10:24:44 AM
I could never do tiny.
Friday I'm moving from a 3100sf home to a 3700sf home. We need the extra bed room for the brady bunch gig I now have going. That being said I suspect in ten years we'll go down to 2000sf on the water somewhere.
Yeah, of course for a family with kids you need more. I live alone (we considered moving in together with my partner but we decided that each of us prefers to have his own flat) and 100 sq. m. (app. 1000sf) is about right for me.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2014, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 22, 2014, 10:24:44 AM
I could never do tiny.
Friday I'm moving from a 3100sf home to a 3700sf home. We need the extra bed room for the brady bunch gig I now have going. That being said I suspect in ten years we'll go down to 2000sf on the water somewhere.
Yeah, of course for a family with kids you need more. I live alone (we considered moving in together with my partner but we decided that each of us prefers to have his own flat) and 100 sq. m. (app. 1000sf) is about right for me.
we have five, my three and her two, so neither one of us had sufficient bedrooms for all of the kiddos
Quote from: Brazen on October 22, 2014, 04:47:48 AM
Would you significantly reduce your personal goods for a much smaller property, and end to your mortgage and more cash in hand? And perhaps more temptingly, a much simpler, clutter-free lifestyle?
No, no and no. :P
I have a small cape. Four rooms downstairs and bathroom and two rooms upstairs, plus an unifinished cellar with a half bathroom. It's just me and it's more than enough for me, I could make do with a smaller house, but still it's a smaller house compared to the larger homes that are usually built. I'm fine with the size as it takes less to heat and cool the home, less to keep clean. I also have two sheds out back that contain the various gardening tools, outdoor stuff, snow blower and lawnmower. So I do need a good amount of storage space but I'm also constantly getting rid of stuff, though it's too easy to add more stuff too.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 22, 2014, 10:24:44 AM
I could never do tiny.
Friday I'm moving from a 3100sf home to a 3700sf home. We need the extra bed room for the brady bunch gig I now have going. That being said I suspect in ten years we'll go down to 2000sf on the water somewhere.
My parents were planning to downsize once their nest got all empty, but it never quite happened. They insist on being able to host multiple families even though mom gets all dramatic when it happens. Also mom apparently still needs her sewing room even though she doesn't sew anymore.
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 22, 2014, 10:24:44 AM
I could never do tiny.
Friday I'm moving from a 3100sf home to a 3700sf home. We need the extra bed room for the brady bunch gig I now have going. That being said I suspect in ten years we'll go down to 2000sf on the water somewhere.
My parents were planning to downsize once their nest got all empty, but it never quite happened. They insist on being able to host multiple families even though mom gets all dramatic when it happens. Also mom apparently still needs her sewing room even though she doesn't sew anymore.
I need a billiards room although I play only once a quarter...I like the look.
We are in about 5400 square feet. At first it felt monstrously big but now it seems about right. When we were first married we had a 500 square foot condo. That also seemed about right for that age and stage. Not sure what will seem right in my next stage of life.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 10:59:11 AM
We are in about 5400 square feet. At first it felt monstrously big but now it seems about right. When we were first married we had a 500 square foot condo. That also seemed about right for that age and stage. Not sure what will seem right in my next stage of life.
Did you keep the downstair kitchen afterall?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2014, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 10:59:11 AM
We are in about 5400 square feet. At first it felt monstrously big but now it seems about right. When we were first married we had a 500 square foot condo. That also seemed about right for that age and stage. Not sure what will seem right in my next stage of life.
Did you keep the downstair kitchen afterall?
Yeah. It seemed too much bother to rip it out just to save the extra property tax for having a "suite". Plus having it there will probably make it easier to sell to someone who needs to use the suite as a mortgage helper.
Yeah, that's probably sensible.
100 square feet sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not ideal, but perfectly liveable. Fairly similar to 6 tatami mats which describes a lot of 1 person flats in Japan. Some are smaller.
Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
100 square feet sounds pretty reasonable to me.
A 10' by 10' room sounds reasonable to you? For what?
Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
100 square feet sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Just about room for a bed if the door opens outwards. Not much else.
Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
100 square feet sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not ideal, but perfectly liveable. Fairly similar to 6 tatami mats which describes a lot of 1 person flats in Japan. Some are smaller.
:lol: I couldn't even fit all my camping stuff in that space.
Quote from: KRonn on October 22, 2014, 10:39:47 AM
I have a small cape. Four rooms downstairs and bathroom and two rooms upstairs, plus an unifinished cellar with a half bathroom. It's just me and it's more than enough for me, I could make do with a smaller house, but still it's a smaller house compared to the larger homes that are usually built. I'm fine with the size as it takes less to heat and cool the home, less to keep clean. I also have two sheds out back that contain the various gardening tools, outdoor stuff, snow blower and lawnmower. So I do need a good amount of storage space but I'm also constantly getting rid of stuff, though it's too easy to add more stuff too.
This does seem to be a problem with a lot of people as they near our ages; where does all this stuff come form ? :hmm:
I really do need to have a clear out, Again. <_<
Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
100 square feet sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not ideal, but perfectly liveable. Fairly similar to 6 tatami mats which describes a lot of 1 person flats in Japan. Some are smaller.
But in Japan it's nice and cheap to eat out almost anywhere. Not so much anywhere else on earth, people need kitchens.
Quote from: Liep on October 22, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
100 square feet sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not ideal, but perfectly liveable. Fairly similar to 6 tatami mats which describes a lot of 1 person flats in Japan. Some are smaller.
But in Japan it's nice and cheap to eat out almost anywhere. Not so much anywhere else on earth, people need kitchens.
What he is talking about is a place to sleep but no toilet, washroom, shower/bath, or kitchen.
I like how the rest of the civilised world uses a measurement of area to measure the area of a property, whereas in the UK we have to bloody well guess on the basis of the number of bedrooms, which are often a larger room that has been cut in two to inflate the number of "bedrooms". <_<
Quote from: Warspite on October 22, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
I like how the rest of the civilised world uses a measurement of area to measure the area of a property, whereas in the UK we have to bloody well guess on the basis of the number of bedrooms, which are often a larger room that has been cut in two to inflate the number of "bedrooms". <_<
We did have a civilised measure once, when my old man was building estates of houses the expectation was to design for 9 or 10 houses per acre. Now I think 14 houses is very common/the norm and some 'developers' are pushing it to 16. And God only knows how many flats they cram into those edge of city/town centres flat complexes.
I think in England we have some of the worst designed, smallest new built homes/flats in Western Europe.
I don't think I want to live in a house on stilts. Or one that can be stolen.
This is all extremely dependent on family size. 100 feet seems ridiculous no matter what (that's smaller than our very small camper!), but I could see 500-800 sq feet for one or two people. Mrs B was living in a rented post-war bungalo that wasn't any more than 800 sq feet, and it had everything that you would need.
But ours is a family of five. We have I think 2000 sq feet (and that again in the basement), but divided by 5 is only 400 sq feet per person.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2014, 01:23:10 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 22, 2014, 10:39:47 AM
I have a small cape. Four rooms downstairs and bathroom and two rooms upstairs, plus an unifinished cellar with a half bathroom. It's just me and it's more than enough for me, I could make do with a smaller house, but still it's a smaller house compared to the larger homes that are usually built. I'm fine with the size as it takes less to heat and cool the home, less to keep clean. I also have two sheds out back that contain the various gardening tools, outdoor stuff, snow blower and lawnmower. So I do need a good amount of storage space but I'm also constantly getting rid of stuff, though it's too easy to add more stuff too.
This does seem to be a problem with a lot of people as they near our ages; where does all this stuff come form ? :hmm:
I really do need to have a clear out, Again. <_<
Hehe, stuff just accumulates from the family over the years. Now it's only me and just yesterday I was looking at some more stuff in the cellar that I can get rid of. And as I get more into gardening I keep adding other stuff. Well, need to keep clearing out the old and unused stuff! It never ends! :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 10:59:11 AM
We are in about 5400 square feet. At first it felt monstrously big but now it seems about right. When we were first married we had a 500 square foot condo. That also seemed about right for that age and stage. Not sure what will seem right in my next stage of life.
that is pretty big :)
£275,000 for a 200sq ft property where you have to climb over the kitchen surfaces to go up to bed? ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804826/Well-s-definitely-cosy-Britain-s-tiniest-home-sells-275-000-despite-200-feet-square.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804826/Well-s-definitely-cosy-Britain-s-tiniest-home-sells-275-000-despite-200-feet-square.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F10%2F23%2F1414064762864_wps_51_The_tiny_one_bed_flat_in_.jpg&hash=aad6a0de6a881e3ffea53691ca7acd0bba8b44c5)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F10%2F23%2F1414064758735_wps_50_The_tiny_one_bed_flat_in_.jpg&hash=759e5641bb03c208b857a577f1d79a0d5cde7010)
The fuck is wrong with you people and the lack of living space in that country. Been around for centuries, figure you'd have the concept grasped by now. 275k lbs. for that is obscene, not like it comes with its own royal or anything.
Where's the bathroom :unsure:
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2014, 08:44:44 AM
Where's the bathroom :unsure:
There's a perfectly good sink ... ;)
[But seriously - probably behind that door]
In Toronto, a converted garage that had no bathroom and no running water sold for some $165 K.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-estate/210-sqft-toronto-home-sells-for-165000---and-sorry-no-bathroom/article14272205/
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2014, 08:44:44 AM
Where's the bathroom :unsure:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F10%2F23%2F1414071210131_wps_25_Is_this_Britain_s_smalles.jpg&hash=536adbc5bfccec29246f923e89feba41b5aa9e5b)
Convenient - you can shower and poop at the same time. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2014, 08:24:04 AM
The fuck is wrong with you people and the lack of living space in that country. Been around for centuries, figure you'd have the concept grasped by now. 275k lbs. for that is obscene, not like it comes with its own royal or anything.
There are way too many people wanting to live here, there are way too much one or two level buildings around (I figure flat complexes got associated with council estates here which equals lower class which equals ewwww). So you have the combination of extreme number of people living in an extremely underutilised living space as far as verticality is concerned. Which means prices through the roof.
I am assuming that all of this must be accompanied with very strict laws on erecting new properties, otherwise investors would be all over the place building new houses.
Malthus: It also makes cleaning the toilet a breeze. Just run the shower head over it. :P
What IS that green stain?
Quote from: Brazen on October 23, 2014, 09:02:56 AM
What IS that green stain?
non-slip pad. Only need one :D
I read the other day that Vienna is one of the fastest growing urban areas within the EU at +9.3$ from 2002-2012 (behind Brussels, London, Copenhagen and Stockholm who are all in the double digits).
Increase in housing capacity is not keeping pace. Just last year prices for apartments increased by over 12% (which is half of what it was the previous year, so things are getting "better"). Between 2007 and 2013 prices for residential properties rose by over 80% in the city (60% after inflation). Rents have gone up by less than half that amount.
One contributing factor is probably that the city stopped all public housing projects (which was a city staple since the 1920s) in 2004.
Found the ad with other views. That's no way for grown-ups to sit. I can feel my legs going numb just looking at it.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32174040.html (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32174040.html)
How about this one? For just £73,000 you can have a teeny house that has that real "murder house" feel about it.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44508635.html (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44508635.html)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2014, 08:24:04 AM
The fuck is wrong with you people and the lack of living space in that country. Been around for centuries, figure you'd have the concept grasped by now. 275k lbs. for that is obscene, not like it comes with its own royal or anything.
To be fair, I think that's in a quite exclusive area, the property looks familar could be in Belgravia, think foreign embassies and Charles Saatchi.
edit:
I've now looked at the dailyfail article, it's only in Islington. :hmm:
Oh lookie, a cool million for a studio flat:
http://blog.zoopla.co.uk/2014/10/02/britains-smallest-1m-studio-is-for-sale/ (http://blog.zoopla.co.uk/2014/10/02/britains-smallest-1m-studio-is-for-sale/)
Quote from: Brazen on October 23, 2014, 09:09:11 AM
Oh lookie, a cool million for a studio flat:
http://blog.zoopla.co.uk/2014/10/02/britains-smallest-1m-studio-is-for-sale/ (http://blog.zoopla.co.uk/2014/10/02/britains-smallest-1m-studio-is-for-sale/)
I wonder if London's going to implode in a property price fuelled gravity wormhole, like in some cheap Dr.Who episode ?
Heh, Washington DC is dealing with a glut of condos after a building frenzy the last 10 years; unfortunately, the sellers wont adjust the pricing to reflect it, so there's a shitload of empty condos in DC nobody can afford. Hence, 90 minute commutes from the hinterlands.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2014, 09:27:02 AM
Heh, Washington DC is dealing with a glut of condos after a building frenzy the last 10 years; unfortunately, the sellers wont adjust the pricing to reflect it, so there's a shitload of empty condos in DC nobody can afford. Hence, 90 minute commutes from the hinterlands.
You know there was a time when our government had a national housing policy. :wacko:
That smells of socialism and teachers' unions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2014, 09:46:11 AM
That smells of socialism and teachers' unions.
Easing of regulations and tax incentives should be more than enough in an area like SE England. Then again, those are WAY harder to embezzle than direct government spending on housing.
Do you know there's no limit on household income to get a council house, officially known as social housing (under which you pay a nominal rent subsidised to market rate by the local council)? Ministers originally suggested a limit of £100,000. Why the hell would you want a council house if you earn that much?
The late Bob Crow, the leader of the RMT union who was paid more than £100,000 a year lived in a social housing in London with rent reported to be around £150 a week. Labour MP Frank Dobson lived in a council property while he was a Cabinet minister earning more than £100,000 a year.
More recently a cap of £60,000 was suggested but proved controversial because it could affect couples composed of two public sector workers: teachers, police officers and senior nurses can all earn more than £30,000.
Surely it shouldn't be a factor? If you earn that much you can afford market-rate rent or a mortgage.
Can you?
You barely can't here & I live in a City with a sane housing market.
Quote from: Brazen on October 23, 2014, 10:54:56 AM
Do you know there's no limit on household income to get a council house, officially known as social housing (under which you pay a nominal rent subsidised to market rate by the local council)? Ministers originally suggested a limit of £100,000. Why the hell would you want a council house if you earn that much?
The late Bob Crow, the leader of the RMT union who was paid more than £100,000 a year lived in a social housing in London with rent reported to be around £150 a week. Labour MP Frank Dobson lived in a council property while he was a Cabinet minister earning more than £100,000 a year.
More recently a cap of £60,000 was suggested but proved controversial because it could affect couples composed of two public sector workers: teachers, police officers and senior nurses can all earn more than £30,000.
Surely it shouldn't be a factor? If you earn that much you can afford market-rate rent or a mortgage.
We have a similar problem here. Although there are caps on first acquiring the property once in the cap no longer applies. And so we have a situation where a lot of people entered things like coop housing as students or workers just starting out but have remained there while earning multiples of the cap.
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 08:54:57 AM
There are way too many people wanting to live here, there are way too much one or two level buildings around (I figure flat complexes got associated with council estates here which equals lower class which equals ewwww).
My understanding is that's a function of the building code.
In London yeah. Landowners worried about their views/property values are a big part of stopping there being so many tall buildings.
In the UK in general though....crappy 50s/60s concrete blocks that were allowed to fall into decay and became dumping grounds for the worst council house tenants have given flats a major image problem
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?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2014, 04:45:56 PM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 04:51:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2014, 04:45:56 PM
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? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2014, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 04:51:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2014, 04:45:56 PM
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? :huh:
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2014, 05:57:17 PM
Ok this is sophistry now. It is clear what MIM meant.
Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer too? :huh:
My dream house have 5000 sqft air conditioned and one full acre with a 25m pool.
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.
For 15k a month the Queen better be bringing me tea every morning. :P
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. :)
For katmai security reasons I live in a <10,000 sq ft home.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 23, 2014, 06:45:49 PM
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. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2014, 04:45:56 PM
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...?
Quote from: Brazen on October 24, 2014, 03:46:33 AM
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 :yeah:
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).
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).
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 04:40:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Brazen on October 24, 2014, 05:04:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 04:40:13 AM
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.
Lots of people of various income levels have to commute. BFD.
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2014, 05:37:35 AM
Lots of people of various income levels have to commute. BFD.
I know someone who commutes to work from Paris to Warsaw on a private jet. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 06:05:34 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2014, 05:37:35 AM
Lots of people of various income levels have to commute. BFD.
I know someone who commutes to work from Paris to Warsaw on a private jet. :hmm:
That's inhumane. The Polish government should pay for his flat in Warsaw.
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 05:16:46 AM
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.
But there is no free market in housebuilding, and it is very difficult to ensure one, at least in a major city in the civilised world. This leads to a problem when demand heavily outstrips supply and the lower-middle and poor suffer disproportionately as they are forced to move away from their jobs, their existing support networks (e.g. a grandmother who takes the kids on holidays so the parents can both go work) and concentration of crime and other social problems. Ask a Londoner and most will be proud that most parts of it are actually quite socially mixed. I certainly am - on one side of me are estates, on the other are Georgian terraces.
Quote from: Warspite on October 24, 2014, 06:10:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 05:16:46 AM
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.
But there is no free market in housebuilding, and it is very difficult to ensure one, at least in a major city in the civilised world. This leads to a problem when demand heavily outstrips supply and the lower-middle and poor suffer disproportionately as they are forced to move away from their jobs, their existing support networks (e.g. a grandmother who takes the kids on holidays so the parents can both go work) and concentration of crime and other social problems. Ask a Londoner and most will be proud that most parts of it are actually quite socially mixed. I certainly am - on one side of me are estates, on the other are Georgian terraces.
I am fine with crime concentrating as long as I am not where it is concentrated :P I fail to see the appeal of crime being spread equally with the help of tax money.
But hey, it is your country, I am just a guest here.
Tamas, the inventor of an idea that something may simultaneously be concentrated equally everywhere.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 06:40:49 AM
Tamas, the inventor of an idea that something may simultaneously be concentrated equally everywhere.
:huh:
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 06:16:54 AM
I am fine with crime concentrating as long as I am not where it is concentrated
Incidentally, this is something I don't even know how to call. If Ayn Rand invented the concept of "enlightened self interest", perhaps this is what "unenlightened self interest" looks like.
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 06:55:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 06:40:49 AM
Tamas, the inventor of an idea that something may simultaneously be concentrated equally everywhere.
:huh:
You do realise that if something is spread equally it is no longer concentrated, right? And if crime is not concentrated, it becomes much easier to eradicate.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 07:03:41 AM
And if crime is not concentrated, it becomes much easier to eradicate.
How so?
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 07:03:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 06:55:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 06:40:49 AM
Tamas, the inventor of an idea that something may simultaneously be concentrated equally everywhere.
:huh:
You do realise that if something is spread equally it is no longer concentrated, right?
This is a very odd line of attack. Tamas said nothing about it being concentrated if it is spread evenly around.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2014, 07:28:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 07:03:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 06:55:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 06:40:49 AM
Tamas, the inventor of an idea that something may simultaneously be concentrated equally everywhere.
:huh:
You do realise that if something is spread equally it is no longer concentrated, right?
This is a very odd line of attack. Tamas said nothing about it being concentrated if it is spread evenly around.
As if that has stopped anyone around here.
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 05:16:46 AM
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.
That doesn't happen though; there are always people willing to live in appalling conditions and work for minimum wage - and even less in the case of illegal immigrants and people on student visas - even in the most expensive areas of the city.
Quote from: Brazen on October 24, 2014, 08:09:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 05:16:46 AM
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.
That doesn't happen though; there are always people willing to live in appalling conditions and work for minimum wage - and even less in the case of illegal immigrants and people on student visas - even in the most expensive areas of the city.
Well. Illegal immigrants are a criminal problem. The solution should be to spend the money on getting rid of them, not on legals to be able to compete with them.
Same goes for student visa abuses.
For legals living in appaling conditions and working minimum wage. That is sad but still the state shouldn't try to stop that. Or might as well embargo China and the rest of the third world because otherwise all efforts to stop people working shitty jobs is just exporting jobs abroad. Or in other words, getting it out of our sight so we can feel better about ourselves.
Supplementing an enforced London living wage so people can afford to live and work in London would be cheaper in the long run. Many people, have more money to eat and heat their homes with benefits rather than paying to commute to work, get childcare etc. so it's worth their while not to work.
Quote from: Brazen on October 24, 2014, 09:09:23 AM
Supplementing an enforced London living wage so people can afford to live and work in London would be cheaper in the long run. Many people, have more money to eat and heat their homes with benefits rather than paying to commute to work, get childcare etc. so it's worth their while not to work.
Well yeah it is a different story altogether when benefits are so that it is a viable economic choice not to work. That shouldn't be the case. I understand it is hard drawing the line between letting people starve and encouraging them to find jobs, but an earnest attempt should be made at doing it, at least. (which the UK maybe already doing, I do not know).
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 09:15:56 AM
Well yeah it is a different story altogether when benefits are so that it is a viable economic choice not to work. That shouldn't be the case. I understand it is hard drawing the line between letting people starve and encouraging them to find jobs, but an earnest attempt should be made at doing it, at least. (which the UK maybe already doing, I do not know).
The Daily Mail likes to say this but it really isn't a viable choice to choose not to work when you're able to work. Unemployment benefits are very low. So low in fact that if you're living on your own then every penny has to go towards getting enough calories to stay alive- forget going to job interviews, even I found that tough despite not having to spend anything on basic living.
So who is right, Brazen or Tyr?
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2014, 08:41:08 AM
For legals living in appaling conditions and working minimum wage. That is sad but still the state shouldn't try to stop that. Or might as well embargo China and the rest of the third world because otherwise all efforts to stop people working shitty jobs is just exporting jobs abroad. Or in other words, getting it out of our sight so we can feel better about ourselves.
:huh:
They don't have to live in appalling conditions if you get them housing...and doing so won't cause jobs to leave. :P