Where are we all going to live?

[Hickory]

A genuine question away from the other thread which has moved on to Queston Time.

With economists saying the overheated housing isn't going away any time soon, seriously, where the heck is everyone going to live?

It's absolutely bonkers. A very senior, successful colleague was in tears yesterday as she simply cannot find anywhere to upgrade her small family from their 2 bed flat to (without compromising hugely on safety and living standards).

It's so sad and scary. The future looks bleak for many.

.. Optimists, feel free to correct me.

[Jeremy]

But we all make compromises when finding a place to live... always have done.

[Loz]

The whole issue is that more people want to live in London than it can hold. Reducing house prices by some unnatural mechanism won't change that fact.

So, the most obvious answer is 'not London'.

[charlesfare]

Born here, know here, work here and met all my friends here. Not leaving london until I'm good and ready. the people putting the rent and house prices up are the ones who should have to compromise, cause i wont. The whole situation is beyond depressing.

[GinaG3]

Dulwich park, I'll be pitching my tent soon as landlord is selling imminently.

[Robert Poste's Child]

In the late 80s / early 90s a lot of people I knew bought with a friend or group of friends first time but you don't hear so much of that now.

[Jah Lush]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the late 80s / early 90s a lot of people I knew

> bought with a friend or group of friends first

> time but you don't hear so much of that now.

Funny you should say that as that is the theme for a novel I'm trying to write. Two couples buy a house together at the end of the last boom thinking if they pool their resources together things will be fine. They can make a quick buck after a few years and move on but it all goes tits up.

[PokerTime]

The good news is that seeing as 90% of us live on just 5% of the land there's always scope (with the right legislation) to do something.

[SteveUK1978]

We need a new 'mega city' that genuinely competes with London. Planning legislation stops the growth of attractive, affluent cities like Cambridge which could expand much further if allowed to. I'm london born and bred and can't imagine living anywhere else....but we need an alternative City that sucks in people and investment, we are too London-centric right now. We will have to give up green belt though which is the current stumbling block.

[Blackcurrant]

When the government stops using unnatural mechanisms to prop up the market, prices will at least stall.

http://www.mjmortgages.org.uk/images/p012_1_00.jpg

[Salsaboy]

Surely the actual problem is the physical lack of property? In which case does it not make sense to build upwards rather than outwards. Not the tower blocks of the 1960's but 4 or 5 storey properties that can house 3 or 4 families.

[clockworkorange]

Woh there Steve- planning is a system put together by civil servants and politicians. Looks a bit closer. There's people have no interest in lowering prices.

I have no issue whatsoever of releasing green belt land around London Oxford Cambridge etc. put its such an unpopular thought it won't happen until those who a vested interest in keeping it are either out of power or more likely dead.

Another issue of course is in the northern cities there isn't the demand for homes- demand is London focussed. In my view much much more needs to be done to drive demand up north. That means infrastructure, incentivising businesses to go there and working on ensuring the skilled workforce which businesses want is there in plentiful supply.

It may have unnoticed but govt is proposing/supporting the idea of new garden cities around Home Counties. Maybe that would work?

[intexasatthe moment]

" We need a new 'mega city' that genuinely competes with London "

Birmingham ? Manchester ? ....

[TheArtfulDogger]

Apparently there are lots of houses available in places like Romania where the prices are cheaper then here.

Artful

[????]

Prices are expensive because there is not enough housing in places where people want to live as we have the most restrictive planning laws in Europe. It is as simple as that and doesn't require another 40 page thread of crap....but I'm not holding my breath

[Loz]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The good news is that seeing as 90% of us live on

> just 5% of the land there's always scope (with the

> right legislation) to do something.

Not inside the M25, where 100% of the people are living on about 90% of the land.

You want a house are a decent price? There are plenty in the UK. Hell, they can barely give them away in parts of Liverpool and Manchester.

But quids is right - this got done to death in the other thread, with no real answers to what should/could happen in London.

[SteveUK1978]

"Birmingham, Manchester"

Hard to say they really compete with London.

Both B'ham and Manchester are still small compared to London and confined to some extent by 100s of years of history and old infrastructure. Much easier to let a smaller city like a Cambridge or Oxford grow unchecked. They are centres of lost of investment potential and R&D built around the world class academic institutions and they have attractive city centres that would also be good for tourism and leisure, not sure B'ham can claim that (I lived there for 3 years).

I am no planning expert but there was a very interesting show about this on BBC2 a while back. The bloke from Dragons Den was hosting it and it made a lot of sense. You wouldn't need to build so many new houses in London if one or two other cities actually were attracting 100,000s of new residents.

It won't happen, but it's an interesting theory.

[Jeremy]

Manchester and Liverpool are close enough together to become a single metro area. Still much smaller than London, but maybe 1.5 million or so, which would be a respectable size for a second city.

[SteveUK1978]

This theory suggests a credible second city would need to be 4m+ people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26472423

Think it loses an element of credibility by referencing US sitcom Frasier but there we go.

So I take the points and my conclusion to this is invest heavily in Manchester as a new NW hub with Cambridge allowed to become a major City too.

[PokerTime]

There is lots of housebuilding going on at the edges of Cambridge, in plain view to anyone who drives there. That's obviously a sign of a town that wants to grow. It seems mad to limit growth (which is also emanating from economic growth) for the sake of keeping Cambridge a small quaint enclave. Cambridge is the centre of some of the worlds leading research, including genetics and stem cell technology and could become the silicon city equivalent of the UK, if only we let it. At present, leading scientists and graduates are taking jobs with research bodies in Europe because the equivalent bodies in Cambridge can't grow enough within the space they have.

Ultimately, most people will live where they can find work. Proximity to family and friends is also often a consideration, but primarily people build their lives around a job that pays enough to provide certain things, like a home for their family. There are many prettier, and safer places to live than London and the SE but they have a dire shortage of jobs/ decent jobs. And that has been going on for decades. The free market has exercised it's right to not invest in those places, with the exception of essentials, like retail, public services etc.

[uncleglen]

Friends of the Earth did a study and they reckon that the UK can sustain 30 million people. (I was shocked to discover that there are 5 million people in Leeds!)

[red devil]

Must be a typo ug...http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/Leeds-population.aspx

[PokerTime]

The UK is already sustaining 60 million on just 5% of it's land.

[uncleglen]

What a relief- That had been bugging me and I haven't had time to check it out..thanks rd

[numbers]

"It seems mad to limit growth (which is also emanating from economic growth) for the sake of keeping Cambridge a small quaint enclave."

What are you going on about Pokertime? That doesn't make sense. Nor does much of the rest of your post ("could become silicon city if only we let it"). I'd imagine there's a few leading academics and research institutions that may feel you've forgotten they exist.

You've been to Cambridge and the surrounding area I take it? Plenty of growth, building or otherwise.