Housing, the economy and growth : Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:57 pm  

In a single graph.



As good a point at which to start a discussion as any.

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:38 pm  

Its a great shame to see how the local authority building program falls off and then disappears off the graph in the 1990s - the peak that you see in the 1970s is when I was employed in the building trade and a huge percentage of our work was on local authority new build schemes - times were hard in the 1970s, 3 day week, power blackouts, recessions, wage freezes, etc etc etc, and yet money was found for social housing by both flavours of government - also surprising to see that the level of private home building has barely changed at all since the 1960s.

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:45 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Its a great shame to see how the local authority building program falls off and then disappears off the graph in the 1990s ...

... and it's pretty clear to see that nothing has replaced it ... so prices rocket.

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:08 pm  

Why does the housing association line track so closely to the private market line?

Is the availability and therefore price of land not a factor in the reduction in the amount of homes built?

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:17 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

... and it's pretty clear to see that nothing has replaced it ... so prices rocket.

It's also pretty clear under which government the supply was restricted. Why did they do that? Let's think what else happened - oh, yes a credit bubble (based on rising property prices to underpin borrowings) to create a feeling of rising wealth in order to mask the reality of economic decline.

Still don't think Labour got us into this mess?

Therein as I have been saying for ages also lies the difficulty in finding a solution through mass construction. If house prices decline then borrowings won't be covered by asset prices and banks will collapse.

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:45 pm  

Dally wrote:

If house prices decline then borrowings won't be covered by asset prices and banks will collapse.

Bullshit

House prices would have to decline to 20% of their current value to cause anything like a genuine problem.

Notwithstanding that, there could still be a privately-funded, mass housebuilding programme that would provide a real stimulus to the economy, there's absolutely no reason for those houses to be built to sell. There's plenty of demand and a concommitant wish to fund, long-term rental properties

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:44 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Why does the housing association line track so closely to the private market line?

Is the availability and therefore price of land not a factor in the reduction in the amount of homes built?

The rapid decline in local authority funded house building was taken up by housing associations - back in the 1970s when all local authorities received budget allocation or central government loans to build rental homes the housing association was a fairly rare animal, usually restricted to building and running old folks homes (RBLHA for instance), the company iw roked for did work for a handful of housing associations but most of our income was from local authorities and private housebuilders.

I personally don't believe that there has ever been a shortage of house building land, just a lack of imagination and finance for rental properties, it took a tightening of green belt useage in the late 1980s for the private sector to turn towards inner city brownfield sites and slowly realise that a sector that they had ignored to date was the next golden goose - one and two bed apartments built in tower blocks on cheap brownfield sites, you'll also note in every city centre just how many of those apartment blocks were not rented out direct from the developer but sold to private landlords, the developers made their money and moved on and hardly any of them were built for social housing simply because the local authorities were not allowed to build by that time and the associations either had a complete lack of foresight or no access to cheap funding due to political will which prefered to encourage individuals to sponsor rental properties rather than central government.

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:50 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Bullshit

House prices would have to decline to 20% of their current value to cause anything like a genuine problem.

Notwithstanding that, there could still be a privately-funded, mass housebuilding programme that would provide a real stimulus to the economy, there's absolutely no reason for those houses to be built to sell. There's plenty of demand and a concommitant wish to fund, long-term rental properties

If it were so easy and not reliant on public money why is the mass housebuilding programme not underway - surely if you are correct it is a no brainer and every commercial builder would be clambering to get on board?

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:59 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If it were so easy and not reliant on public money why is the mass housebuilding programme not underway - surely if you are correct it is a no brainer and every commercial builder would be clambering to get on board?

My way doesn't require one single penny of public money, unfortunately neither does it provide massive profit margins for avaricious speculators.

I've detailed it often enough on here, do a bit of work and find it for yourself

Re: Housing, the economy and growth : Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:22 am  

cod'ead wrote:

My way doesn't require one single penny of public money, unfortunately neither does it provide massive profit margins for avaricious speculators.

I've detailed it often enough on here, do a bit of work and find it for yourself

Quite clearly your theory is just that theory - simply not workable in the economic climate in which we find ourselves in. Businesses are not charities, they require profits/cash flow to keep functioning - even the Quakers who you so admire did their charitable deeds from positions of wealth unimaginable to us. Businesses are not going to undertake huge projects for little return, the risks are too high even you can surely see the flaws in your argument?