
Britain's housing crisis is a human disaster - design-of-homes
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/14/britain-housing-crisis-10-ways-solve-rowan-moore-general-election
======
Tiktaalik
_The underlying belief is that the market will provide, if only it were
properly stimulated and enticed, but it is one unsupported by evidence. At no
time since the second world war has the private sector built at the rate now
required, and usually it has fallen a long way short._

Worth noting for folks who think that supply is the only problem. Similarly in
my home of Vancouver the construction of towers has been constant for decades
and prices have only skyrocketed in response.

Certainly if you stopped building completely you'd eventually have a real
problem, but the evidence is clear to me that you'll never reach the
incredible supply levels that would cause prices to drop (why would builders
do this anyway?).

 _There is also what Ebenezer Howard, the inventor of garden cities, called
the “unearned increment”, which is the uplift in value when land becomes
available for housing. It was the basis on which postwar new towns were built.
Currently it is being squandered – when the government, for example, relaxes
planning constraints on certain properties, or makes it easier to convert
offices or shops into homes they drench the lucky owners of such places in
cash, without asking for much in return._

Vancouver captures this. It goes toward community centres, the arts and
increasingly housing. [http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/community-benefits-
from-de...](http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/community-benefits-from-
development-improving-neighbourhoods.aspx)

~~~
jseliger
_Worth noting for folks who think that supply is the only problem. Similarly
in my home of Vancouver the construction of towers has been constant for
decades and prices have only skyrocketed in response._

Orangecat's comment is appropriate:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207631](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207631)
but I'll note too that Vancouver, like other cities, is probably substantially
_still_ underbuilding the market—which high prices reflect. Houston, on the
other hand, is not doing that:
[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/hou...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/houston-
v-california.html) :

 _Unlike most other big cities in America, Houston has no zoning code, so it
is quick to respond to demand for housing and office space. Last year
authorities in the Houston metropolitan area, with a population of 6.2m,
issued permits to build 64,000 homes. The entire state of California, with a
population of 39m, issued just 83,000._

Which is why so many people are moving to Texas.
[http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2014/12/23/big-tex-
in...](http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2014/12/23/big-tex-indeed-texas-
added-more-residents-than-any.html?page=all) is one link.

~~~
bbanyc
Although Houston doesn't have zoning, it does have development regulations in
place that mimic the density restrictions of cities with zoning - lot sizes,
parking minimums, etc. In effect the entire city is one big zone.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/11/30/the_myth_of_z...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/11/30/the_myth_of_zoning_free_houston.html)

------
biscotti
I've a one bedroom in a flatshare in east london, its nothing special & costs
north of £1k / month. If a political party outlined how they'd fix spiralling
house prices they'd get my vote.

~~~
jseliger
_If a political party outlined how they 'd fix spiralling house prices they'd
get my vote._

It's really not that hard: remove height limits and parking minimums, per
Yglesias in _The Rent Is Too Damn High_ : [http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-
Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0...](http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-
Matters-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO). Glaeser's _The Triumph of the City_ is also good
on this subject and discusses the UK more: [http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-
City-Greatest-Invention-Health...](http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-
Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549). This is a simple issue of supply
and demand: rising demand in the face of limited supply means higher prices.
Want lower prices? You need more housing or fewer people who want it. The
former is easy to accomplish with century-old technologies, like steel and
elevators.

~~~
twic
What do you mean by 'parking minimums'?

FWIW, the London Plan currently contains restrictions on the _maximum_ amount
of parking provided:

[http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08_ann...](http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08_annex04.pdf)

    
    
      table A4.2 Maximum Residential Car Parking Standards
      
      Predominant housing type   4+ bed units   3 bed units   1–2 bed units
      Car parking provision      2–1.5 spaces   1.5 – 1 space 1 to less than 1
                                 per unit       per unit      space per unit*
    
      * All developments in areas of good public transport accessibility and/or
      town centres should aim for less than 1 space per unit.

~~~
rogerbinns
Parking minimums are fairly common in the US, and cause problems especially in
cities because they take up so much land. Here is one random article about
them, and how inconsistent they are:
[http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/08/exposed-americas-
tota...](http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/08/exposed-americas-totally-
inconsistent-minimum-parking-requirements/6598/)

Brazil has problems too - [http://cities-today.com/2014/07/finished-brazils-
largest-cit...](http://cities-today.com/2014/07/finished-brazils-largest-city-
eliminate-minimum-parking-requirements/)

------
ChainsawSurgery
Obviously also applicable to SF and Manhattan/Brooklyn.

It's interesting to compare this to other cities: a cursory glance at LA
craigslist shows some apartments in nice areas that would easily cost twice as
much in SF/Manhattan. Same with Chicago.

Is it really just population density? A cursory google search says that SF's
population density is about 17,000 people per sq. mi, which is about the same
as West Hollywood. Yet looking at apartments in West Hollywood, I see
apartments much nicer than I would in SF for the price. Maybe I'm grossly
oversimplifying though.

But then is the answer really just 'sprawl'? Are Chicago and LA only
'reasonably priced' because they're so expansive? Is that how our cities have
to move lest they suffer some sort of housing implosion?

As it is, I don't understand how anyone earning minimum wage lives in
SF/Manhattan - or why they'd even want to commute in to Manhattan to work for
Chipotle if they don't.

~~~
fennecfoxen
The answer isn't _just_ sprawl, it's "lots of housing", which can mean more
tall apartment buildings on a little land instead of individual homes on a lot
of land.

Unfortunately, San Francisco proper is very very hostile to real estate
development for a variety of reasons and is trapped in a steadily worsening
local maximum. A large part of that is policies like rent control, which
bestows a sort of quasi-ownership of an apartment that may be even more
effective than real ownership at spreading around the benefits of what the
article calls a "tax by the haves on the have-nots, and by the old on the
young."

Building out the suburbs could also be an answer if you could trust the
region's government agencies to provide decent transit options, whether public
transit or highways. You can't. At least if you're commuting to work in
Manhattan you have a cheap $2.50 subway ride into town from many places that
are much further away than you do in San Francisco.

------
Animats
"Another reason is that inflation in housing – so taboo when it comes to other
commodities – has since the 1980s been celebrated by governments and
encouraged by policies on taxation and borrowing."

Right. Rising house prices are just runaway inflation. If inflation indexes
include housing (which, in the US, they did until the 1980s) inflation is much
higher.

~~~
dasmoth
UK too:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_Price_Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_Price_Index)

For most purposes, the UK now uses a measure (CPI) which excludes housing
costs. However, RPI is still used when calculating changes to the state
pension.

------
tsotha
I'm always amazed to see the same people who place all sorts of statutory
restrictions on new housing blame the free market when there's not enough
housing.

~~~
nickstefan12
Exactly! How can we say the free market isn't keeping up when it's hardly
free? California has an insanely slow build rate because of how much red tape
sits in front of it. This slow build rate leads to less housing which gives us
high prices. And then people seem to think we somehow need even more red tape
to save the day.

------
raverbashing
British isles urbanism is a joke

Terraced houses? In a place with high housing demand? Really?

You don't need to go to NYC heights, just look at what France and Germany do

They seem to hang on their historic buildings, with cramped accommodations
that cost an arm an a leg to follow current regulations.

It's similar in Ireland, really.

~~~
design-of-homes
_" Terraced houses? In a place with high housing demand?"_

What's wrong with terraced housing? It is more suitable for high-density
developments than detached or semi-detached housing. A mixed development of
houses and flats brings in a variety of different households and people. This
makes a place much more attractive to live in than a place with only one type
of dwelling. Well-planned terraced housing doesn't have to lead to sprawl.

In the UK, families with growing children have an aversion to flat living. It
may be irrational, but this attitude hasn't changed in decades and is unlikely
to change in the future.

~~~
raverbashing
> What's wrong with terraced housing?

It's less dense than apartments.

> In the UK, families with growing children have an aversion to flat living.

Maybe because of the abysmal quality and ridiculous size of most
accommodations.

Brought to you by people that think carpet in a bathroom is acceptable.

~~~
twic
We have separate taps for hot and cold water, and you think the _carpet_ is
the problem?

~~~
rogerbinns
It makes a lot of sense having them separate. Tom Scott explains
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA)

Here in California showers and much other plumbing are required to have
backflow valves so that hot and cold don't cross contaminate.

~~~
needacig
Not from a usability point of view.

~~~
rogerbinns
Given how important water is, the consequences of contamination etc, safety
was given first priority, then simplicity. How would you have done better?

~~~
needacig
Mixed taps are all over the US and many other places in the world and have
been for a while and we have no water safety issues from this. Water safety
has nothing to do with it:

"Most bathroom sinks in Britain still have separate hot and cold taps today,
60 years after Mr. Churchill’s conversion and decades after nearly all dual
taps were scrapped in the U.S. and most vanished from continental Europe. For
reasons of thrift, regulations and a stubborn attachment to tradition, the
British have resisted the tide of plumbing history. Even when they renovate
old homes, many choose two-tap systems, and builders often install them in
new, low-end housing. Separate taps account for an estimated 40% of all
bathroom-faucet sales in the U.K."

From:
[http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/mhillebrandt/entry/british_peculi...](http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/mhillebrandt/entry/british_peculiarities_i/)

------
guard-of-terra
In Russia there is a popular family of conspiracy theories where UK is the
driving force behind most events of the last 100 years, including rise and
fall of the USSR.

If so, it doesn't look like UK is able to extract much for its own citizens
from said world domination.

~~~
leaveyou
The UK middle and upper classes are doing fine (although the castle
development sector has slumped this century). The UK poor on the other hand,
yes, they fail to extract enough welfare in order to keep up with the new
middle class of landlords.

~~~
twic
I'm not sure i'd say the middle class is doing fine. The older part of the
middle class is largely okay. The junior division, though - anyone who doesn't
already have a house and a good pension - has a pretty bleak outlook. Unless
they're making Google/stockbroker money, or live in the North.

The working class certainly have it much worse, though.

------
richardwigley
So, taking the office of national (UK) statistics - in 2013 the growth rate of
the population is 0.6%, on 64 million. Giving you 384,000 extra per year -
about half of the growth is (births - deaths) and the other half is net
migration [1].

Meanwhile from 1990 onwards we're seeing an average of less than 200,000 [2] -
In the last few years the rates are the lowest for the time period on the
graph (back to the 1970s).

[1] [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-
estima...](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-
for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/2013/sty-population-
changes.html)

[2]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306)

------
gopi
I think UK needs US style property taxes to discourage this 'housing as
investment' behavior. Yes, UK has council tax but from what i understand its
not that high.

In most US cities (except SF, LA, NYC) the ratio of average house price to
median income is very reasonable (about 2.6). One main reason is the high
property taxes which average about 1.5 to 2% of the house value. The tax also
increase substantially for second homes. This discourages using a second house
as investment/store of value.

------
leaveyou
"When asked about the poor, the Market Economy raised one finger of the
Invisible Hand and whispered.. f __k the poor "
youtube.com/watch?v=eBuC_0-d-9Y

