They could but it is an appreciating asset with little to no expenses.
General UK politics
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
It's not as if they're making new land, there'll always be demand for land. Not all land is suitable to be built on, some of it is in flood plains, some on the side of a mountain, etc. We can't just keep building new towns either as there is the need for farmland. Also, those new developments that are put up are shite, tiny gardens, tiny roads, all designed to squeeze in as many houses as possible which means you can't walk anywhere as they don't bother leaving space for shops or other 3rd places.
If there was endless cheap land then just sitting on a field would not make sense because the next field is just as good.
In practice though, once you get close to a city there is always a big difference between a serviced, well-located plot and one far out with no roads or schools. And land is finite, you can't create more of it.
Even if you look at places with light planning like parts of Texas or before zoning in US cities, developers still built in phases because releasing too many homes at once lowered their selling price. The pace of building was managed for their own profitability.
I've yet to see any example in a developed economy where letting the market sort itself out, actually working over a sustained period. And that should tell you something. Japan is maybe the best, or only, example where it does work, but they have vastly different circumstances where they rebuild houses every generation, have massive transport infrastructure to have much more serviced land, they don't speculate in property as much due to bubbles bursting that has meant prices don't increase, and they have that large amount of small builders too.
In practice though, once you get close to a city there is always a big difference between a serviced, well-located plot and one far out with no roads or schools. And land is finite, you can't create more of it.
Even if you look at places with light planning like parts of Texas or before zoning in US cities, developers still built in phases because releasing too many homes at once lowered their selling price. The pace of building was managed for their own profitability.
I've yet to see any example in a developed economy where letting the market sort itself out, actually working over a sustained period. And that should tell you something. Japan is maybe the best, or only, example where it does work, but they have vastly different circumstances where they rebuild houses every generation, have massive transport infrastructure to have much more serviced land, they don't speculate in property as much due to bubbles bursting that has meant prices don't increase, and they have that large amount of small builders too.
8.7% of land in England is developed according to Govt data.
One of my mates works as a HSE and was last year at one of the big house building firms. He said a lot of the new builds are fucked cos the directors and seniors get bonuses for every completed house with no KPIs tied to how well it lasts or defects (of which there are loads). The houses being built are also often shit.
The free market doesn't work if a load of knobheads want to abuse the system with no or limited checks and balances
The free market doesn't work if a load of knobheads want to abuse the system with no or limited checks and balances
Isn't that the percentage of land that is brownfield land?
If so, much of the rest of it is probably used for something else or not suitable for development.
If that 8.7% is brownfield land though, then it's likely there's a lot in there that is not used currently but can be.
Info from:
Land use statistics: England 2022
Also according to CPRE:
England has potential to build over 1.2 million homes on its brownfield sites, with a 2022 report from the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) finding space for homes on over 23,000 sites covering more than 27,000 hectares. While brownfield development can address housing needs, it can only be part of the solution, as suitable land may not be in areas where there is the greatest need for new homes.
The very fact that housing is an issue in somewhere as sparsely populated as the US should tell you everything you need to know. There are very few places in the world where there's an actual absolute shortage of good land for building. Obviously there's always a shortage of *prime* land, but that's true by definition. Generally you can always build at one remove, on cheaper land, which results in cheaper housing, which compensates the ultimate resident for the poor location. And that's before you even get into the possibility of just building up.
One needs to consider the externalities involved in continually building on open land without restriction or regulation.
There's a need for building, servicing, and maintaining infrastructure such as roads, sewers, schools, recreation centres, etc.
Then there's the indirect impacts such as increased car dependency, with its own secondary impacts on carbon output, road fatalities, wildlife and wildland depredation, etc.
Building up will certainly be more expensive in the short term but likely to mitigate many of these externalities in the long term. But in North America, there is a strong cultural aversion to density in all but the largest urban centres. Having a big house on a big lot is part of the American/Canadian dream and that drives a continually expansion into the exurbs. I get that culturally it may be different in the UK and Europe.
Yeah there's a need for some co-ordination, obviously. But that stuff's really a drop in the ocean compared to the fundamental issue that existing home owners have too much power to veto building they don't want.
That's created an awful vicious circle because it's created ever worsening shortages, which has driven up prices, which has turned housing into by far the biggest asset class in the country (probably every country?). So now home owners are not just incentivised against new housing because they don't like people they don't know yet or might lose a somewhat nice view or whatever, but they've actually got all their fucking money tied up in maintaining the shortage!
In a functioning market housing probably wouldn't even be a store of value, let alone an investment. It'd be more like a slowly depreciating asset like a static caravan or a boat or something.
I mean indirectly. There's a general presumption against building. Ask an average voter if they think building on the greenbelt is a good idea. Maybe I should've said voters rather than homeowners, but it's the sort of voters who ARE homeowners I'm talking about.
Ah okay, I see.
Yeah, that essentially stops an application going in in the first place. The blocker is with local authorities who are led by the exact attitude that you suggest.
We hear a lot about government housing targets etc, but there are authorities around the country that simply don't want any development and always seem to get away with it.
Completely agree with much of that. Very reflective of the Canadian housing market, which is one of the most over inflated ones I'm aware of.
Homes are seen as investment vehicles and their prices are typically far in excess of the underlying value.
Our economy is stagnant and unproductive overall, outside of a few sectors, including an overly financialized real estate industry.
Canadians can't afford to buy homes but the needed price correction would destroy the wealth of the previous generation and crater the economy.
This is above and beyond - but also ties into - the NIMBY mindset that restricts certain types of development in certain areas. Wealth preservation plays into it, as potentially does fears of immigration and crime.
There is a sweet spot between over regulation and under regulation to help create the mass amounts of new housing required to address needs without either destroying the current market or causing other long term damage.
As far as I understand, the registering of complaints and their due process etc is almost always not covered in contingency budgeting and it spirals projects over budget (see HS2).
That said, there are housing shortage issues even in countries not filled with nimbys, so maybe there's multiple factors going on
Lucas
