SkyscraperCity banner

1741 - 1754 of 1754 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,409 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,741
Bit rich of the Tories to talk about the affordability of housing isn’t it?


Well apart from giving millions the ability to own a home through right to buy since the 1980's then I guess your right.

(although right to buy is well past its sell by date and arguably making the situation worse these days)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
An average of 37,000 per year is well up on what either the previous two mayors achieved (not that the numbers are really a result of what the mayor does):



You'd probably need to go back to 1970s to see similar figures. An average of over 50,000 isn't realistic imo, there are too many constraints in terms of land availability, building standards and regulations and labour supply,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,077 Posts
An average of over 50,000 isn't realistic imo, there are too many constraints in terms of land availability, building standards and regulations and labour supply,
But those constrains are not result of laws of physics but of policy choices.

So, if there was political will to increase supply there is no reason why we couldn't go over 50k completions a year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,409 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,745
But those constrains are not result of laws of physics but of policy choices.

So, if there was political will to increase supply there is no reason why we couldn't go over 50k completions a year.
Private developers build the vast majority of housing. They won't and do not build more housing that would cause decrease in prices.

The only way housing is going to increase if councils build a lot more than they have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
Private developers build the vast majority of housing. They won't and do not build more housing that would cause decrease in prices.

The only way housing is going to increase if councils build a lot more than they have.
If developers don’t have market power they lose this incentive. Maybe the developers need to be split up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
But those constrains are not result of laws of physics but of policy choices.

So, if there was political will to increase supply there is no reason why we couldn't go over 50k completions a year.
Well available land is finite while policies are at the mercy of politics.

If we averaged around 45,000 net new dwellings for a decade I think that might be enough, depends on other factors. Each unit has dwellings for something like 2.4 people. I don't think we'll maintain a population increase of 100k annually for the next 10 years myself. Landlords, who used to crowd out home occupiers for existing properties due to the ability to put down large deposits and a favourable borrowing market for BTL, are now melting away. This should increase the churn of the secondary market in the coming years since home occupiers keep hold of their property for a shorter periods; FTBs especially often sell on after maybe 5 years or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,409 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,748
New London housing targets fall short of true housing needs
By Graham LanktreeFri 20 March 2020

London’s new housing targets do not reflect the capital’s true housing needs and, despite a rise in the number of planning consents, development will peak soon, suggests new data from Savills.

The latest London Plan, drafted by mayor of London Sadiq Khan, sets a target of 52,000 homes per year. This falls far short of the government’s 72,000 calculation of London’s housing need, and Savills’ 95,000 figure for uncapped housing need – a calculation of the level of housing supply needed to bring down prices to a more affordable level.

Although housing consents have been rising in recent years — jumping 42% between 2015 and 2018 — Savills expects completions to peak in 2021 and 2022 before tailing off in 2023.

This is due to “a significant slowdown in starts” between 2017 and 2019. On top of this, a significant number of homes being finished will be prime – not affordable – homes costing more than £1,000/sq ft.

“The headline is the real mismatch between assessment of need and what’s being delivered,” says Emily Williams, associate director of residential research at Savills in London.

Last week, in a scathing letter to the mayor, Robert Jenrick, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, took Khan to task for setting targets in the London plan that fell below the government calculation of London housing needs.

Williams admits that it would be hard to boost London’s supply of housing to meet Savills’ figure for uncapped housing need.

She adds: “It’s hard to see how London can meet its needs within its own boundaries. That means considering releasing land in London’s green belt to help tackle the problem. There’s lots of potential around train stations in the green belt. It could support more housing.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
^^
I don't know about government planning, but the current pandemic shows that a lot of people can work effectively from home. Many companies were reluctant to allow that until they had no choice. If they continue to allow it in the long term, or government mandates it, then the London housing crisis is solved. Huge numbers of people who had to move to London for a job wouldn't need to. It would take a lot of pressure off public transport too, and save billions on future upgrades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
I wouldn't say that the London housing crisis is 'solved' as such, but I do see that things are going to potentially change with regards to the way housing is seen by Londoners. We're going to see a massive rise in home working over the long term, less usage of public transport in the medium term and the need for more space in the streets in the short term. I expect we will see the end of these 'shoebox' apartments springing up, with more buyer focus on space, individual rooms for privacy and even the 'office room' becoming a norm. Developers will have to start factoring this into their designs. Couple this with the need for more street space, and we're going to see a conflict between squeezing this extra space into housing yet the need for streets to be wider.

WeWorks and shared office space have had their day. People will hopefully use their local neighbourhoods more for relaxing and 'getting out'. We'll see an increase in home deliveries, but for 'big shops', once a week, therefore buyers will demand more storage space in their kitchens and larger kitchens for food prep. Eating out will decrease as social distancing means endless queuing, or having book ahead weeks in advance. Even eating out itself and take away deliveries will decrease as the recession takes it toll on personal finances.

There will be more demand for private gardens. I can't imagine we will see the end of residential towers, but there will be a push for more 'individual' amenities- private roof gardens, private swimming pools in luxury builds, private gyms, etc. All these will cost space. Developments will need to become bigger and blockier to fit all this in. What the wealthy want the wealthy get.

We can still live densely in cities but the argument for density as a default will be argued against. I imagine there'll be an increase in people leaving London for smaller cities and the country, but London will still grow. Maybe less of a housing crisis and more of a housing reset will be the order of the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
The end of the office is being greatly exaggerated imo. Of course wealthy CEOs and corporate directors, with their large gardens and multiple rooms, are happy WFH. Ditto those middle-age workers who commute 90 mins each way from the Shires and beyond. But for younger people packed into house shares the experience is far more mixed, not to mention the ease of meeting people outside of work across London is part of the attraction of living here, not staying in all day. Similarly, urban childless couples (regardless of age) made their living choices on the convenience of locally accessible facilities and services at the expense of space. Many ethnic minorities also don;t have the luxury to move out to somewhere with more space either (the need to be close to extended families and the wider community network for example0. In cities like Paris and NYC the attraction of WFH is even less than in London (smaller flats and less likely to have private outdoor space, esp. a garden).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,077 Posts
There is one more thing...

Well, brutally speaking, there will be more properties on the market due to more deaths, mostly of older home owners. We will see how this will pan out but I would guess we will see at least 10k excess deaths in London, mostly among the older home owners.

Others from that demographic might be more willing to sell and move out of London, leaving "risky" city living to the younger folks.
 
1741 - 1754 of 1754 Posts
Top