Totally agree with your ideas, I'd like to add in the idea that it would be good if to start, most of these properties were socially owned and were leased on a rent to buy basis.
Residents start by renting and were able to progressively exchange the rental portion of the property..maybe obliged depending on means testing?
You may ask the ?, why not make them all traditional social tenancies-
1)This makes this new stock of housing available to a wide range of people from a large cross section of socio-economic means.
2) it changes the relationship the residents have with their own property and the local area. I have lived a lot of my life in social housing estates either as squatter, in hard to let properties, and as a secondary market owner leaseholder. (I bought off someone who had exercised their RTB). There was nothing more depressing than a residents meeting with social tenancies who you'd think would be happy to live in good quality properties but in fact ended up feeling "trapped" by cheap rent. Resentment built as they grew to hate their powless position and neighbours who they lived next to and never felt they could move away from. This ended up being reflected in the state of the properties and Estates as a whole.
3) Great chunks of young people (especially those in socially important jobs - teaching, etc) have had their potential savings swallowed up by exorbitant rents and have not been able to build up a deposit. They will need to start by renting and perhaps gradually move to buying. We need to get to their from here and this helps make that bridge.
Thank you for your piece. I hadn't thought about this stuff for years.
I take all this in principle, but I think you have to address the issue of what might actually get built. If all that gets built on released green belt are low density car based private estates full of 4-5 bedroom executive homes, unaffordable for most who need it, I'm not sure the big issues will have been addressed. See Transport for New Homes, www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk, for research on just how car dependent most urban extensions actually are. Building real places - higher density (gentle density, copyright Create Streets), with good local services people can walk/cycle to, plus good public transport from day 1, with a range of genuinely affordable housing - will be critical if we aren't going to end up with the current situation but less green belt. Stephen Joseph
I think prioritising land next to stations goes a long way to dealing with these issues? Also the idea that "4-5 bed executive homes" are bad is nuts. We have some of the smallest homes in the world! Building decent sized family homes isn't a bad thing, if people in smaller houses move to those it frees up smaller homes for those without kids! We should absolutely engage in proper placemaking and planning, but I can't get behind that sneering campaign line at all, sorry
I'm not trying to make a sneering campaign line. We do have some of the smallest homes in the world, but that's partly because developers trade house size, gardens/green space and also room size (new houses have very small rooms, can we go back to Parker Morris standards please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Morris_Committee) for car parking. We absolutely need decent sized family homes with decent sized gardens, and good public space too - but that isn't what developers are generally building at present. All I was saying was that the new housing has to be built to much better standards, with better (some?) local services/facilities, and public transport - and yes, building round rail stations helps that, but some of the places like Cranbrook in Devon, which does have a new station, have ended up with the station outside and away from the new housing, not at its centre. As I say, I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just concerned that housing numbers will end up trumping quality, space and place, which is kind of what happens at present.
Sorry, the executive homes line is a bit of a hair trigger for me - the idea that a home big enough for a family with 2+ kids is somehow an unattainable luxury, rather than "perfectly adequate". Agree that focusing on numbers alone can have unforeseen consequences - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on numbers at all. We need 4 million more homes!
Having moved from living in piss poor private rental accommodation in the UK to European rental accommodation I can completely understand these arguments.
This stupid British obsession with only living in semu-detached suburban car hell blandness rather than living in properly structured and connected higher density housing also needs to be addressed because it won't ever be sustainable for everyone to live in a garden suburb.
You also need a way to channel pension fund capital into owning lots of housing for private rental but not interpolating some hell private equity company in the middle. This is how a lot of it is financed on the continent.
We also need to massively enhance rental regulation. The British rental sector is a disgrace.
Sure, but the land is the biggest cost of a new house, so the prices would go up.
Housing is irretrievably broken in the UK, and the developers will fight tooth and nail to keep their land banks and their tame politicians. I'm glad I'm not young any more.
The first step should be to address the fact that thousands of new housing units in British cities and towns are still being sold off-plan to investors in other parts of the world who treat them as cheap bank accounts.
This is an issue, but it's hugely over-stated - there aren't vast numbers of UK homes sitting empty (we have fewer empty homes than almost anywhere in Europe). Also if prices slide that one solves itself as UK property stops being seen as a safe investment. I suspect, given the state of the pound, it may already have done so. It absolutely isn't a reason not to build
I really like what you write and would like to read more of it. I work in the constantly underfunded NHS so can't really afford to pay for a sub at the moment. So, can I please, really nicely with sprinkles on top, request one? Thank you.
Hi Andrew - sorry to hear that! I can see on the back end that you did indeed pay, and that you've received eight emails but haven't opened any of them... Have you checked your spam? I think probably I'm ending up in there!
Already ordered
Totally agree with your ideas, I'd like to add in the idea that it would be good if to start, most of these properties were socially owned and were leased on a rent to buy basis.
Residents start by renting and were able to progressively exchange the rental portion of the property..maybe obliged depending on means testing?
You may ask the ?, why not make them all traditional social tenancies-
1)This makes this new stock of housing available to a wide range of people from a large cross section of socio-economic means.
2) it changes the relationship the residents have with their own property and the local area. I have lived a lot of my life in social housing estates either as squatter, in hard to let properties, and as a secondary market owner leaseholder. (I bought off someone who had exercised their RTB). There was nothing more depressing than a residents meeting with social tenancies who you'd think would be happy to live in good quality properties but in fact ended up feeling "trapped" by cheap rent. Resentment built as they grew to hate their powless position and neighbours who they lived next to and never felt they could move away from. This ended up being reflected in the state of the properties and Estates as a whole.
3) Great chunks of young people (especially those in socially important jobs - teaching, etc) have had their potential savings swallowed up by exorbitant rents and have not been able to build up a deposit. They will need to start by renting and perhaps gradually move to buying. We need to get to their from here and this helps make that bridge.
Thank you for your piece. I hadn't thought about this stuff for years.
Hi Jonn
I take all this in principle, but I think you have to address the issue of what might actually get built. If all that gets built on released green belt are low density car based private estates full of 4-5 bedroom executive homes, unaffordable for most who need it, I'm not sure the big issues will have been addressed. See Transport for New Homes, www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk, for research on just how car dependent most urban extensions actually are. Building real places - higher density (gentle density, copyright Create Streets), with good local services people can walk/cycle to, plus good public transport from day 1, with a range of genuinely affordable housing - will be critical if we aren't going to end up with the current situation but less green belt. Stephen Joseph
I think prioritising land next to stations goes a long way to dealing with these issues? Also the idea that "4-5 bed executive homes" are bad is nuts. We have some of the smallest homes in the world! Building decent sized family homes isn't a bad thing, if people in smaller houses move to those it frees up smaller homes for those without kids! We should absolutely engage in proper placemaking and planning, but I can't get behind that sneering campaign line at all, sorry
I'm not trying to make a sneering campaign line. We do have some of the smallest homes in the world, but that's partly because developers trade house size, gardens/green space and also room size (new houses have very small rooms, can we go back to Parker Morris standards please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Morris_Committee) for car parking. We absolutely need decent sized family homes with decent sized gardens, and good public space too - but that isn't what developers are generally building at present. All I was saying was that the new housing has to be built to much better standards, with better (some?) local services/facilities, and public transport - and yes, building round rail stations helps that, but some of the places like Cranbrook in Devon, which does have a new station, have ended up with the station outside and away from the new housing, not at its centre. As I say, I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just concerned that housing numbers will end up trumping quality, space and place, which is kind of what happens at present.
Sorry, the executive homes line is a bit of a hair trigger for me - the idea that a home big enough for a family with 2+ kids is somehow an unattainable luxury, rather than "perfectly adequate". Agree that focusing on numbers alone can have unforeseen consequences - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on numbers at all. We need 4 million more homes!
I agree - and should distinguish "Executive homes" from family homes. Actually, Rowan Moore's piece in today's Observer encapsulates exactly the points I was trying to make https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/14/no-jetpacks-or-monorails-new-towns-just-need-to-be-places-people-want-to-live. In building 4m more homes, we just need to ensure quality as well as quantity, and that’s not what the current system delivers
Having moved from living in piss poor private rental accommodation in the UK to European rental accommodation I can completely understand these arguments.
This stupid British obsession with only living in semu-detached suburban car hell blandness rather than living in properly structured and connected higher density housing also needs to be addressed because it won't ever be sustainable for everyone to live in a garden suburb.
You also need a way to channel pension fund capital into owning lots of housing for private rental but not interpolating some hell private equity company in the middle. This is how a lot of it is financed on the continent.
We also need to massively enhance rental regulation. The British rental sector is a disgrace.
But the room sizes can be *tiny*, and so are the plots.
Sure, but that's an argument to release *more land*, not to make do with the inadequate housing stock we already have
Sure, but the land is the biggest cost of a new house, so the prices would go up.
Housing is irretrievably broken in the UK, and the developers will fight tooth and nail to keep their land banks and their tame politicians. I'm glad I'm not young any more.
It is, but that's the point of using planning reform to release substantially more land. Labour hasn't committed to this, alas, but it could be done
The first step should be to address the fact that thousands of new housing units in British cities and towns are still being sold off-plan to investors in other parts of the world who treat them as cheap bank accounts.
This is an issue, but it's hugely over-stated - there aren't vast numbers of UK homes sitting empty (we have fewer empty homes than almost anywhere in Europe). Also if prices slide that one solves itself as UK property stops being seen as a safe investment. I suspect, given the state of the pound, it may already have done so. It absolutely isn't a reason not to build
Sorry to hear about the Covid - feel better soon.
Looks like this might be it
Hi Jon
I've looked in the spam folder and I can't find your email
A
Unsurprisingly, I agree with every single word of this one, and I really hope the next government does too.
Hope you feel better soon, Jonn.
Starmer Will do what Blair tells him, which won’t include building enough houses for ordinary people.
I really like what you write and would like to read more of it. I work in the constantly underfunded NHS so can't really afford to pay for a sub at the moment. So, can I please, really nicely with sprinkles on top, request one? Thank you.
Done! Will send you an email.
Thank you!
I did upgrade to paid in August, but it hasn’t opened up your blog for me (sadly).
Hi Andrew - sorry to hear that! I can see on the back end that you did indeed pay, and that you've received eight emails but haven't opened any of them... Have you checked your spam? I think probably I'm ending up in there!