London Banter - View Single Post

Robin9 · January 25th 16, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim.....

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in
order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to 200K
(other price bands are available)

There is no silver bullet. It will take time for the free market to
find its equilibrium.

well yes

that is why I said they were failing to solve it.

It will take a big crash with a lot of casualties to get back to
equilibrium. I thought 2007 was it, but no the Tories managed to magic up a
new boom (as the only way that they were going to get re-elected)

On the basis of past evidence, I don't expect it in my lifetime (not my
problem)

Because the private sector will have to build at today's land prices of
100K
per plot, plus 100K per build and be left with zero profit and zero
overhead for financing and sales costs. End result - bankrupt private
builder.

We have to break the high land costs before we can ask the private sector
to
get involved. Nothing else will work (IMHO)

Then I have bad news for you: They are not making any more land. Its
price will rise.

As I said previously, I don't care

They may not be making any more land but they could double the amount that
is built on and only the Nimbies would notice

And, tenants tend to respect another person
property, more so than public property.

I don't see how the builder of the property changes the owner/tenant
relationship

To be clear I was referencing the property owner. People tend, only
tend mind, to respect private property above public property. Not
saying that is right. It is the way it is.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating sale or rental, just an increase in overall
supply

We should be looking at a new crop of new towns.

That doesn't negate from my proposal

These could be at
key nodes on the East-West Rail link, extending down to Didcot at one
end and towards Felixstowe at the other.

But:

Nimbies!

I'll give you one example. I have just moved from a town that is about
one
notch up from "you really don't want to live here unless you have to" and
the only reason people do live there is because it is "affordable" and has
excellent rail connections (to London). The town council have planes for
a
20,000 estate on the edge of town.

And all the nimbies complain, "we don't want out town to get any bigger",
"it would change the character of the town" (like it had one to lose)
etc...
None of the complaints are about "genuine" concerns like the towns
facilities couldn't cope, because they can, but that would be a major
concern in many places

That is an issue. But look at the original Garden Cities, and the
post WWII New Towns. They have worked pretty well. And they coped
with London's overspill.

and look at all the shouting from the Nimbies when they proposed a dozen new
locations for the incorrectly names Ecotowns

The London Boroughs should be looking at densification around key
transit nodes with high rise developments for singles and empty
nesters.

High rises are the pits.

You think so?

Sure.

tim

High rises work well only if the tenants are educated, civilised,
responsible people. If the tenants are the slob/yob element,
the shared sections like the lifts, stairs and doorways, become
"polluted" - I won't go into details - and the other tenants stop
caring and the whole building, indeed estate, becomes a slum.

Blocks of flats in Kensington are immaculate and much sought
after because of the people who live in them.