Leave a comment
‘Building more houses’ in ‘successful’ cities is not practical, otherwise it would have happened to tap the demand.
A better solution would be to reduce unaffordability by diverting the maximum number of jobs to the very affordable cities, thus providing the income to enable housing demand to increase. This is also in line with reducing the north-south divide and increasing equality. This policy used to be applied in the period when new towns were being built, but doesn’t happen now. Of course, it is not in line with free market theories, but you can’t have it both ways!
isn’t this just a function of an imbalanced economy and the over heating of the south east. So the housing debate like so many others (yawn..) is what I call an Evening Standard debate.those who read that paper think it is vital, those of us who I’ve elsewhere have different issues. Like e.g. collapsed housing markets with no demand, lack of supply , especially social housing but with no necessary link to affordability per se (that is to say scarcity is not in itself pushing up prices), bedroom tax a key issue as more people in social housing than many parts of the south east……The measures we see announced and proposed are all abut ‘fixing’ the south east not fixing the UK….twas ever thus…
Hi Mike thanks for commenting. I completely agree that the housing crisis does not look the same across the country, one of our key points. In many areas house building is being incentivised despite not being a local priority due to national policies.
For example Burnley must build new homes to get central government grants (through the new homes bonus) at the cost of other local priorities (e.g. skills) despite housing being relatively affordable there. In and around the most successful cities housing is a serious issue and by not building there we are constraining not only these cities’ economies but the national economy.
Housing policies must reflect this differing geography but this is being missed ahead of the General Election.