Owning your own home

It's not necessarily the worst thing for Central London, where more residential and less commercial wouldn't actually be a bad thing, but overwhelmingly it'll create slums, e.g. where former commercial buildings in far-from-anywhere industrial estates are converted into shoebox-size 'flats'. In general, in an already far too developer-friendly planning system, which, as hoefla says, is in terrible disarray, removing even more safeguards against bad development is something only total idiots want.

When I was looking I saw a place that I liked but a look at the local planning website showed that next door was planning a big kitchen extension.

The estate agent's story varied between the owner didn't know about it (they'd filed an objection on the planning website), they didn't know about it, it may never happen and settled on a reality defying "we've told people who had a viewing about it".

More on the utterly, utterly nonsensical plans being announced, clearly drawn up by people who are completely clueless about planning and are trying to massage targets to make Johnson & co. look good and line his donors' pockets.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/03/up-to-45000-new-homes-to-be-green-lit-ahead-of-planning-shake-up

The constant mantra of 'we need more homes, we need more homes' is simply nonsense. There are enough homes to house everybody as it is, but hundreds of thousands are empty, either for 'buy to leave', because they're in areas where the economy has been eviscerated by decades of rubbish economic policy, because their owners can't afford to renovate them, or because people are sitting on them as second or third 'homes'. Then there are many buildings at risk whose owners have deliberately run them down because they don't care about their conservation value and want to knock them down to build some crap that pays them rent. All of these things could easily be fixed with a non-corrupt political will.

Building more all the time will only do one thing, namely to continue to overheat an already ridiculously-overheated housing market, and will (not even paradoxically) lead to more homelessness as of the housing built, almost none will be social housing, and more people will be priced out of the rush to one of the few 'secure' investments still left in this ravaged and unbalanced economy.

The constant mantra of 'we need more homes, we need more homes' is simply nonsense.

I don't think it's nonsense, but it's highly South East specific, and in particular London. If you want to buy a house in the many parts of the country, no problem. They're cheap as chips. The problem is that everyone there (well, nearly) is on the minimum wage or benefits. The places where the jobs are, particularly the well-paying jobs, are highly centralized and as a result the house prices in those particular locations are astro-fucking-nomical, with commuter belts extending up to 100 miles outwards.

I agree the problem isn't a lack of housing per se. The problem is the highly localised demand for housing. And in these Covid19 times, with remote working becoming the norm, this is the ideal time to try and reverse that. Trouble is, all the Daily Mail-reading Boomers will be up in arms if it turns out their family home that they bought for two-and-a-half shillings in the mid seventies is no longer worth a couple of mill...

Building more all the time will only do one thing, namely to continue to overheat an already ridiculously-overheated housing market

Not sure I buy this though. As far as I'm aware, prices are still fixed by supply and demand. Increase supply and prices will go down. However, I agree that building shitty little hobbit boxes in areas of high demand is not the best way of solving this issue.

Anecdotal evidence from Cornwall that places that haven’t sold for some time now are.

Chicken and egg though, in the new Covid/home-working era you need an advance party of coffee shops to precede you - otherwise you might have to buy a Nescafe and hot water, and that's unthinkable.

The problem is the highly localised demand for housing.

Well, that's one of the problems, but not the problem. All the others I've mentioned ...

hundreds of thousands are empty, either for 'buy to leave', because they're in areas where the economy has been eviscerated by decades of rubbish economic policy, because their owners can't afford to renovate them, or because people are sitting on them as second or third 'homes'. Then there are many buildings at risk whose owners have deliberately run them down because they don't care about their conservation value and want to knock them down to build some crap that pays them rent

... contribute, too. All the 'Government' is doing is to kowtow to the endless demands of developers 'to cut red tape', i.e. dismantle further what little remains of sensible planning regulations, which is, indeed, a total nonsense.

The upshot of what they're destroying of the few remaining safeguards will be luxury houses that very few can afford, rubbish housing built in the wrong areas, and a further encouraging of foreign investment in housing.

Their proposed re-classification system of land is such absolute nonsense that 'absolute' is too weak a term. Local authorities should simply designate all their land as 'protect' and tell the Government to go away (but I expect that there will be a presumption against that).

Not sure I buy this though. As far as I'm aware, prices are still fixed by supply and demand. Increase supply and prices will go down.

Nope. Yes, in theory, but not with huge foreign interest and investment. Prices will only continue to go up and up. There is an international kleptocracy to make friends with, after all.

However, I agree that building shitty little hobbit boxes in areas of high demand is not the best way of solving this issue.

I would have you know that hobbit holes and houses were generally extremely comfortable, spacious, and well-built. That they are too small for humans is neither here nor there. :)

Nescafe and hot water

Get you. It's "supermarket own brand gold roast and tepid water because you boiled the kettle but then the whirling dervish in a nappy ran head first into the door frame again so you forgot about the kettle and now have no more time to reboil it" here.

Fuck I need to move. If anything just to have an extra room that I can pad the walls, ceiling and floor of so she can be marginally unsupervised for 5 minutes.

Don't fret, by the time they are two years old you can leave them unsupervised for almost seven minutes.

Ha! Would rep...

The dream

Trouble is, all the Daily Mail-reading Boomers will be up in arms if it turns out their family home that they bought for two-and-a-half shillings in the mid seventies is no longer worth a couple of mill...

My heart bleeds...

And in these Covid19 times, with remote working becoming the norm, this is the ideal time to try and reverse that.

Recently I'm seeing a lot of stepping back from the enthusiasm for pure homeworking. Companies and commentators are recognising some things do happen better and faster face to face. I think the enthusiasm is for a hybrid model of a few days a week/month on site. That limits how far away people will base themselves by both time and travel costs.

Also, the covid experience of working from home has been abnormally quiet. As the economy starts up, so does traffic, building work, road work etc. Which will make home less conducive to conference calls or concentration.

And actually both are a good thing for people who want to stay employed, because if ones job really can be 100% remote, it very likely doesn't need a UK based person earning a UK salary.

I'm organising a safe social distancing day back in the office for as many of the team are interested. I'm over this constant WFH and don't see it having legs. It's only the out of town Superdry wearing 2.4 children types who have given up on having any sort of life who are really loving it.

I imagine we will end up having a couple of days in an office a week come next year and I'm all for that.

Which will make home less conducive to conference calls or concentration.

From a purely selfish point of view I wish the woman in the flat next door and the woman above me could get back to their offices 5 days a week so that I can get on with my caretaking/gardening stuff in peace and crank up my guitars like wot i used to.

course, if things pan out nicely with the pound, a UK based person on a UK salary might be extraordinarily cheap... assuming they can tie their shoelaces and string sentences together and didn't flounce abroad with the national exodus.

I imagine we will end up having a couple of days in an office a week come next year and I'm all for that.

Looking like this for me too. Days in the office to break the week up will be welcomed with open arms.

If social distancing becomes the norm and there are no more gigs, theatre cinema, pubs etc might as well move out of town and buy a jet ski or something

At the beginning of this year I moved in with my girlfriend who's got a flat near Wembly. I also quit my job and managed to find one within cycling commute distance so it's a nice 20-ish mins door to door. A massive change for me who's always lived in East London, only to find out almost everyone I work with has a massive commute, one even lives in Basildon, and they're all loving work from home and want it to be permanent.

London Fields is still packed as are most the pubs I've seen... all the decent food places are open again, I'm not ready to switch to Tesco's meal deals and Super hero movies or whatever the fuck they do in the provinces.

or whatever the fuck they do in the provinces

don't pretend like you don't know exactly how it goes

Yeah, that sounds mint. Can't imagine anything worse than WFH perm, I'd prob just fuck it all off and go live in Spain/France picking grapes.

I’m a borderline misanthrope so WFH generally works for me. Think I’ve reached my limit on it now though.