How do we deliver affordable housing to young people and not destroy our environment?

[Lat-Literal]

For them as well as us........I don't think it is possible.

[teamsaint]

https://fullfact.org/news/there-enough-brownfield-land-15-million-new-homes/

1.5 m units would make a dent in it.
Lots of vested interests , resource issues etc to overcome though.#

And of course having housing within touching distance of jobs which pay enough to cover rent/mortgage and transport would be a help.

[Lat-Literal]

https://fullfact.org/news/there-enou...ion-new-homes/

1.5 m units would make a dent in it.
Lots of vested interests , resource issues etc to overcome though.#

And of course having housing within touching distance of jobs which pay enough to cover rent/mortgage and transport would be a help.

Thank you - and to an extent it's persuasive. However, we need to address the aspirations of the early 20 somethings and their parents for an average priced home. It's wholly unprecedented and symptomatic of a spoiled generation (not them but professional class parents and media not able to contemplate that a hovel with gas light is a reasonable first).

We need to ask why living an hour and a quarter from Central London is beyond the pale when for most of us it wasn't so. This when IT should reduce the need for central housing and most people ride horses on their days off - whoops - are allowed to work from home. We need to ask why nearly one million properties are uninhabited and what anyone is going to do about that outrage. We need to ask how people on nine quid an hour are ever likely to be leaving their Mums and Dads even with so-called affordable homes. They wont do.

We need to discover what is, actually, the appetite for new council housing. I detect none. We need to assess how any lowering of house prices generally on account of a massive house building programme (and I don't believe for one moment, and I can prove it, that house building operates in the normal economics of supply and true demand) will or will not be to the detriment of younger generations as their parents' property values plummet if it occurs. And we need to ask if a social security system in 2117 merits a population size of 120 million then and where next it will lead to. Plus, we need to seriously ask whether any of us in the future including us should live beyond the age of 85 - and say no, altering policy.

On the plus side we save our great coast and our countryside free at use for anyone on whatever income desperate to escape and given the ability to enjoy a true quality of life.

(Is it me or is Tracey Ullman looking younger?)

[Quarky]

For them as well as us........I don't think it is possible.

This is one answer:

http://www.herts.ac.uk/cubeproject/qb2

Of course, the construction industry will sit on it. Hungry mouths to feed!

[Lat-Literal]

This is one answer:

http://www.herts.ac.uk/cubeproject/qb2

Of course, the construction industry will sit on it. Hungry mouths to feed!

That would suit me actually.

Ultimately I want to downsize to a one bedroom property that is wholly detached.

I have often joked that it would not need to be much more than a shed as long as it had a bit of a garden and a nice view.

The current options are very, very limited - it is almost impossible to get something like that.

[Serial_Apologist]

Only Cubists may apply...

[Dave2002]

https://fullfact.org/news/there-enou...ion-new-homes/

1.5 m units would make a dent in it.
Lots of vested interests , resource issues etc to overcome though.#

And of course having housing within touching distance of jobs which pay enough to cover rent/mortgage and transport would be a help.

Maybe this idea would help - https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_for...e_without_jobs

I haven't actually seen this one, but I have read this book - Utopia for Realists, by Rutger Bredman - https://www.theguardian.com/profile/rutger-bregman

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Utopia-Realists-Universal-Borders-Workweek/dp/9082520303

The concepts of jobs and work need to be reevaluated, and hopefully changed. Some work and jobs are obviously necessary, but others are really less essential for society as a whole. For many people work and jobs are a means to an end - getting sufficient money to survive on. Not everyone obtains money in that way - some have inherited wealth, and retirees no longer work, though may do voluntary work. The function of work is not only to generate wealth, and to provide a means of financial exchange, but also to reduce social isolation, and enhance community cohesion, while some people (perhaps not too many) actually find what they do as work interesting.

Social attitudes also come into play. There is no automatic right to stay in the same area - it is possible to move into areas where there is cheaper housing. Unfortunately in the UK the over development in the south east means that many people choose to move there and live there because pay is higher even though housing is expensive. It would be possible to house fairly large numbers of people in other areas, if they could be persuaded to live there - though admittedly that might spoil other parts of the UK. To a large extent allowing people to choose how they live is contributing or has contributed to the problems.

[Lat-Literal]

Maybe this idea would help - https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_for...e_without_jobs

I haven't actually seen this one, but I have read this book - Utopia for Realists, by Rutger Bredman - https://www.theguardian.com/profile/rutger-bregman

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Utopia-Realists-Universal-Borders-Workweek/dp/9082520303

The concepts of jobs and work need to be reevaluated, and hopefully changed. Some work and jobs are obviously necessary, but others are really less essential for society as a whole. For many people work and jobs are a means to an end - getting sufficient money to survive on. Not everyone obtains money in that way - some have inherited wealth, and retirees no longer work, though may do voluntary work. The function of work is not only to generate wealth, and to provide a means of financial exchange, but also to reduce social isolation, and enhance community cohesion, while some people (perhaps not too many) actually find what they do as work interesting.

Social attitudes also come into play. There is no automatic right to stay in the same area - it is possible to move into areas where there is cheaper housing. Unfortunately in the UK the over development in the south east means that many people choose to move there and live there because pay is higher even though housing is expensive. It would be possible to house fairly large numbers of people in other areas, if they could be persuaded to live there - though admittedly that might spoil other parts of the UK. To a large extent allowing people to choose how they live is contributing or has contributed to the problems.

Thank you for a good post.

IT - which has been with us for at least 20 years - should have led to a home working revolution. The economic case for businesses not housing large numbers of staff in city centre buildings is so strong that it is businesses that are remiss for its absence. Culturally, we need to get in line with 21st Century truths about the cities, especially Greater London. The assumption in many aged 16-35 and often their parents and their grandparents that they are "the place to be" needs to be radically shaken up. Entertainment in the bright lights is increasingly unaffordable, along with the housing; the density of the population is greater and hardly aligns with youthful leanings towards expansion and exploration; the commuting is worse than it ever was; there is the additional worry about terrorism; and it isn't as if the free spirited even really want that life deep down. The emphasis today is much more on travelling the world or if not on cycling and other physical/health based pursuits.

We need to rejuvenate more than a thousand towns up and down the country which are essentially ugly along with their environs. It is there that any additional housing should be built; schools improved so that they are not subjected to a postcode lottery; and health provision boosted in line with the tentative return to moves for decentralizing that service. I do not think that it is desirable to have major rural regeneration. Most rural areas would benefit from a major drive to improve the smaller, anodyne towns. We all need to accept that there are pluses and minuses with living in rural areas. The main plus is environmental, that is, they are pleasantly rural. If people want services, bring those services - and them if that is what they want - to the nearby vastly improved towns. None of this requires a flashy Northern Powerhouse - jobs for the well-paid talkers if ever there was one - or even regionalism/devolution. It would be a modern approach to the country as a whole.

[Dave2002]

None of this requires a flashy Northern Powerhouse - jobs for the well-paid talkers if ever there was one - or even regionalism/devolution. It would be a modern approach to the country as a whole.

However a Midlands Engine or a Northern Powerhouse could still be good things. Relatively speaking the midlands and the north are still very poorly served in some respects - particularly rail transport. Where I live there are generally 4 trains an hour into London, and most trains are 8 carriages long. In areas like Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield there are fewer cross country trains between cities, and often they are only 3 or 4 carriages long. I have seen ridiculous overcrowding on trains between Sheffield and Manchester Airport - there really ought to be better services. It has been very funny when the man with the tea trolley tries to get on the train! One could laugh if it wasn't so tragic!

Other factors - lifestyle. For people who like theatre, opera, concerts it is not enough to have a "box" in which to live, or a nearby supermarket to buy food. There needs to be cultural life. Some of the cities I've already mentioned have a cultural life, but it's not as comprehensive as London - though some do have good attractions - art galleries etc. Many people who have lived in, or near, a cultural centre will not want to go and live in a pleasant enough rural or semi-rural area if they can't get even occasionally to cultural events in an accessible town or city. Planners just don't seem to get this at all, hence the disaster of Ashford (as an example) - supposedly a developing town on the fast railway line to France. I have known people move to Ashford, but then move back to the outskirts of London because there isn't (AFAIK) a significant cultural life in Ashford.

As I wrote a few sentences back, it's not just about having a box to live in.

[oddoneout]

Removing the deadhand of the big developers would be a start. I'm not talking about nationalisation, but the unhealthy power that they wield to force councils to alter planning applications or part completed developments, or approve developments on unsuitable(for the local community and the potential new occupants) sites etc, combined with the equally unhealthy level of influence at parliamentary level, does nothing to deliver imaginative, appropriate good quality housing solutions. They claim 'uneconomic' when required to develop brownfield sites, awkward sites, deliver social or discounted housing(but still manage to post double digit profits). They also effectively prevent access to land for selfbuilders(of whatever type).
As mentioned earlier there is a large quantity of empty properties that could and should be brought back into use, but again vested interests block progress in many cases.The large tracts of housing that were deliberately run down, and in many cases demolished, supposedly because they were 'unsuitable' for renovation, have not been replaced and are not being released for individuals to renovate. The cuts to local government grants have done nothing to help the situation as funds for Empty Housing officers are increasingly constrained, and access to central funding for projects seems to have disappeared as well.
Any consideration of the housing problem should also recognise that what happens in London is not automatically what happens in the rest of the country, and in large measure its problems are not solvable so long as it continues to suck people into its vortex.
The refusal to look at, and learn from, how our near neighbours address the issues does nothing to help. Holland comes up with imaginative ways to provide good quality social housing, Germany seems to have most of its houses built by the individuals who are going to occupy them at a sensible build cost, and yet this country continues to cover the countryside in poorly designed, insulated and constructed rabbit hutches because that is what the likes of Wimpy etc are prepared to build and can get away with.

[Lat-Literal]

Removing the deadhand of the big developers would be a start. I'm not talking about nationalisation, but the unhealthy power that they wield to force councils to alter planning applications or part completed developments, or approve developments on unsuitable(for the local community and the potential new occupants) sites etc, combined with the equally unhealthy level of influence at parliamentary level, does nothing to deliver imaginative, appropriate good quality housing solutions. They claim 'uneconomic' when required to develop brownfield sites, awkward sites, deliver social or discounted housing(but still manage to post double digit profits). They also effectively prevent access to land for selfbuilders(of whatever type).
As mentioned earlier there is a large quantity of empty properties that could and should be brought back into use, but again vested interests block progress in many cases.The large tracts of housing that were deliberately run down, and in many cases demolished, supposedly because they were 'unsuitable' for renovation, have not been replaced and are not being released for individuals to renovate. The cuts to local government grants have done nothing to help the situation as funds for Empty Housing officers are increasingly constrained, and access to central funding for projects seems to have disappeared as well.
Any consideration of the housing problem should also recognise that what happens in London is not automatically what happens in the rest of the country, and in large measure its problems are not solvable so long as it continues to suck people into its vortex.
The refusal to look at, and learn from, how our near neighbours address the issues does nothing to help. Holland comes up with imaginative ways to provide good quality social housing, Germany seems to have most of its houses built by the individuals who are going to occupy them at a sensible build cost, and yet this country continues to cover the countryside in poorly designed, insulated and constructed rabbit hutches because that is what the likes of Wimpy etc are prepared to build and can get away with.

I agree with almost all of your post.

Plus I think with the rapid growth in internet shopping, the out of town shopping centres will disappear as fast as they arrived. Which is to say the shops will close and the buildings will remain. To avoid the American situation of them turning into derelict areas full of homeless people and gangs, there will need to be a fast tracking of housing there with that expectation factored in now to determine where building will not as a consequence always be necessary in the short to medium term.

But as for increased supply, the massive expansion of housing for multi-millionaires and millionaires in Central London has not led to a decrease in prices of such housing, nor has it simply kept the cost of such housing down from where it would otherwise be. Rather it has dramatically increased the international demand for such housing as an investment. If increased supply had meant prices were tumbling, there would not be such an increase in demand. Similarly, the mass building of so-called affordable homes which in truth would only be affordable for some will merely increase demand among those who still fall short of that line while believing that buying isn't now entirely beyond them. Exhibit A - The massive growth in so-called affordable homes during part of the 1950s and all the 1960s was accompanied by a rise in house prices of 6-10 times.

Still, I have just watched C4 news about the Ineos injunction at Woodsetts - no doubt housing would be preferable there to fracking.

I predict scenes in the coming years akin to those during the Miners' Strike - and the police have far fewer resources in 2017 to cope.

(As it pans out nationally in the media and elsewhere, with horror extending to the blue rinses, it will also guarantee that there is (a) a PM Corbyn and (b) Scottish independence).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I fear the boat has been missed on this one. When I look at my family tree, I can see why. My grandparents were mostly from families with around 10 children. Even though fewer people have families of this size, there are still many who boast "and I've got four children" as though it's a badge of honour.

For each mouth to feed is needed approximately an acre of land (much less for vegans). Each extra mouth contributes to the demand for space for new houses, which may deplete agricultural land. Hardly a win-win situation. As long as we can import food from other countries, we can gradually fill up the countryside with bricks, mortar and concrete, but with world population continuing to increase at an alarming rate, we cannot take food imports for granted.

And then there's the question of flooding. Climate change is not a figment of the imagination. Our weather is becoming more extreme, and flooding of populated areas has increase dramatically in the last few years. In many areas, it is on the flood plains where most of the space for new housing is.

Until we are prepared to discourage population growth as national/international policy, things will only get worse.

[Lat-Literal]

I fear the boat has been missed on this one. When I look at my family tree, I can see why. My grandparents were mostly from families with around 10 children. Even though fewer people have families of this size, there are still many who boast "and I've got four children" as though it's a badge of honour.

For each mouth to feed is needed approximately an acre of land (much less for vegans). Each extra mouth contributes to the demand for space for new houses, which may deplete agricultural land. Hardly a win-win situation. As long as we can import food from other countries, we can gradually fill up the countryside with bricks, mortar and concrete, but with world population continuing to increase at an alarming rate, we cannot take food imports for granted.

And then there's the question of flooding. Climate change is not a figment of the imagination. Our weather is becoming more extreme, and flooding of populated areas has increase dramatically in the last few years. In many areas, it is on the flood plains where most of the space for new housing is.

Until we are prepared to discourage population growth as national/international policy, things will only get worse.

That thoughtful reply by implication raises a number of matters far too complex for me to be able to have a view on. For example, the notion that in order to maintain social services we need more people to do more work and pay more taxes - a recipe as I see it for never ending population growth which is no more appetizing in my humble opinion than the phasing out of such services which I would oppose. To have one's cake and eat it. I am not sure how it is done or could be done. However, I am very sure that gradualism is by far and away the best policy approach to any necessary change rather than any sudden or uncontrollable ratcheting. That requires skillful management. Of course, technological change, which is often unexpected, can alter the entire terrain very quickly but even then I would argue for caution if not in its advancing then its political implementation in our society at large.

Much has already changed. I am an only child from parents of larger families. They decided that they couldn't afford to have more children - or until late in their thirties a car, central heating and holidays. This was passed on to me as the responsible way. Certainly it was wholly expected that this would be the favoured way by those in power ie the mortgage aside, not being on credit, not being on benefits and spending "within one's means". Either side of the turn of the century, the message appeared to be from many that we were the ones who had been a drain on society. The responsible ones were those who boosted the economy by spending like there was no tomorrow and also producing as many children as possible so hopefully they would grow up to be productive machines. That, I have to say, has increasingly felt like a slap in the face but mainly now one's shoulders are just shrugged.

When I look at historical buildings that are now in the hands of the National Trust, I am aware that they were in earlier centuries passed down to the eldest child of what was often large offspring. There is probably an unwritten study to be undertaken of what happened to the other five, six, seven or eight siblings in terms of housing in their adulthood. I find it hard not to believe that in many instances there wasn't a vast scaling down. If so, there is probably a lesson from history here that no one in these times is even half prepared to hear because once home ownership for the masses got going in the 1950s the idea of a mansion for all in the future was believed by almost all. Clearly in some current housing there is overcrowding (though nowhere near the levels that existed in the 1950s and the 1960s) while the very unfortunate who are homeless are still just a small minority although one person in that situation is one too many. Perhaps we need to start addressing that issue first - that's get everyone under a roof and then consider how short of houses we really are.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But if were the dictator tyrant, I wouldn't allow anyone to own more than one home.

[Lat-Literal]

But if were the dictator tyrant, I wouldn't allow anyone to own more than one home.

I would permit people to own two homes and the trade off might be some means testing on the state pension and perhaps a cap on rental charges.