Alternative ways of housing / living

duplicate deleted.

Edited by FiL

FiL said

K-arl said

FiL said

K-arl said

FiL said

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

"something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most"

I can't see even a significant increase in social housing stock having a marked impact on the values of non social housing stock. Some localised impact possibly where new social housing abuts. They're quite different. Consequently I doubt your self-interest argument has any real impact on government policy, at least not here in the UK.

Edited by FiL

Enough social housing would reduce the value of owned houses as there would be less demand. One of the reasons for increase in house prices is the lack of social housing. As with anything, satisfy the market demand and prices fall. People have grown up since the 80s believing houses are an investment, not so much a home. It was the sale of social housing that was the election bribe that took Thatcher to power and Tory governments have been aware of that ever since. A future housing crisis was actually predicted and its mechanism understood back in the 80s when the social housing sale was first proposed. The lack of building of social housing has perpetuated the housing crisis. There is a reason governments don't solve the crisis because they could solve it and for the benefit of the economy as a whole, which is the madness of not doing it.

Yep, I don't disagree with most of that, but my point is that the people creating a demand for social housing aren't the same people creating a demand for non social housing. Satisfying the demand created by the former, by building more social housing, doesn't impact the demand for the latter except for a very narrow margin at the cusp.

But they are the same because there is no real alternative. Private renting is expensive and BTL takes houses out of the private market into the private renting market but also costs the tax payer millions in housing benefit which could be invested in social housing with lower rents. It is all linked. There is a hidden benefit in lower rents in social housing and cheaper houses in the private market, it would release income to use in other parts of the economy, creating more economic activity.

As I said, that's true for a very narrow margin at the cusp. And on the point I was actually addressing, which is your assertion that self interest drives government policy, it makes sod all difference.

No it isn't. The mechanism is fully understood, it's simple supply and demand which is not being addressed. Too few houses at an affordable price or rent and too many people wanting them but I'm leaving it here. 

My freind has just sold his dilapidated house for 60k, he bought a luxury coach from a company that has gone bust for 6k, it has battery suuply throughout and a working toilet/bathroom.

Its in a secure car park while he renovates it, insulates, stud walls etc then he's free to roam the British isles where ever he likes. That's my dream

YorVikIng said

Carlos my point is simply that it is easy to understand why people get living in relatively poor areas get angry when they see rich outsiders come in and drive up house prices so that their own children will never own a house. It is also easy to understand why some of that anger, rightly or wrongly, gets pointed at said outsiders. And when rich bastard blame them for shopping the only places they can afford, it’s likely to make thyme more angry.

Normally you come across as being both intelligent and smart. But your last post is as tone deaf as Marie Antionette suggesting that the starving masses should just book a table at The Ritz.

I, too, usually find your interjections balanced and well-thought out.  I reacted this time as your post seemed to be on a par with ‘life’s not fair’.  

Let me be clear.  I believe that room over one’s head is an inalienable human right.  However, I don’t believe that right can be extended to et al: having a right to ‘inherit’ the social house you grew up in, or a social house in the town you grew up in, or your own house if you are single and could live with your family, or to buy your own house anywhere.  These are all nice things to have but they are not ‘human’ or even ‘civil’ rights.  Society in the UK in the past and societies now elsewhere have provided perfectly adequate ‘housing’ for people short of the ideals being promulgated now here.  It’s not ideal - I get that - but what is?

I grew up in a poor multi-generational household as did my wife.  The idea of us getting a ‘home of our own’ social, private rented or owned was not possible for a long time.  In fact, as I have suggested to the OP, we had to move, first abroad then back in the UK but well away from extended family.  We had to sacrifice lifestyle for a long while but eventually moved out of rentals into owned and haven’t looked back.  We never sat back and moaned that we couldn’t stay in our home town with our community, we got on our bikes (as one maligned politician put it) and made our own future, instead of waiting for it to come to us.

 ‘Life isn’t fair’, but it is what you, yourself, make it.

Everly Rose said

My freind has just sold his dilapidated house for 60k, he bought a luxury coach from a company that has gone bust for 6k, it has battery suuply throughout and a working toilet/bathroom.

Its in a secure car park while he renovates it, insulates, stud walls etc then he's free to roam the British isles where ever he likes. That's my dream

The last times  that we had economic conditions comparable to now was in the early 1980’s and then the 2008 crash.  On both occasions a fair few people took very similar approaches.  I still have a large group of friends who live full time in narrow boats, converted busses or converted horse boxes.  Those larger vehicles can be converted quite cheaply and can have log burners etc fitted.

Add a decent bank of leisure batteries and solar panels on the roof and you are virtually self sufficient.  Your only needs are a water source and the ability to empty your toilet.  If they are static over the winter it’s easy enough to build a composting toilet similar to those used at Glastonbury and a growing number of festivals.  It’s an incredibly cheap way to live.  I tried to talk Shirley into doing it for a couple of years but she was having none of it 😂

Alan Ewart said

Everly Rose said

My freind has just sold his dilapidated house for 60k, he bought a luxury coach from a company that has gone bust for 6k, it has battery suuply throughout and a working toilet/bathroom.

Its in a secure car park while he renovates it, insulates, stud walls etc then he's free to roam the British isles where ever he likes. That's my dream

The last times  that we had economic conditions comparable to now was in the early 1980’s and then the 2008 crash.  On both occasions a fair few people took very similar approaches.  I still have a large group of friends who live full time in narrow boats, converted busses or converted horse boxes.  Those larger vehicles can be converted quite cheaply and can have log burners etc fitted.

Add a decent bank of leisure batteries and solar panels on the roof and you are virtually self sufficient.  Your only needs are a water source and the ability to empty your toilet.  If they are static over the winter it’s easy enough to build a composting toilet similar to those used at Glastonbury and a growing number of festivals.  It’s an incredibly cheap way to live.  I tried to talk Shirley into doing it for a couple of years but she was having none of it 😂

But look where you are now in Bonny Scotland! I'll be bothering you in July as I have tickets to see Gerry Cinnamon in Glasgow and doing a mini tour of the mother land first, hope you don't mind a invasion by a loud scouser :P 

Alan Ewart said

The last times  that we had economic conditions comparable to now was in the early 1980’s and then the 2008 crash.  On both occasions a fair few people took very similar approaches.  I still have a large group of friends who live full time in narrow boats, converted busses or converted horse boxes.  Those larger vehicles can be converted quite cheaply and can have log burners etc fitted.

Add a decent bank of leisure batteries and solar panels on the roof and you are virtually self sufficient.  Your only needs are a water source and the ability to empty your toilet.  If they are static over the winter it’s easy enough to build a composting toilet similar to those used at Glastonbury and a growing number of festivals.  It’s an incredibly cheap way to live.

This goes back to my question of what the OP is trying to achieve.  There are definitely cheaper ways to live than owning bricks and mortar, but that won't give you an investment to pass onto your offspring.  It's also worth noting that the idea of owning, rather than renting, a house is a fairly recent concept.

Everly Rose

It's my dream too.

To have a home on wheels and travel the UK sounds ideal to me.

After I watched the Oscar winning film Nomad last year, it has inspired me to hope for the same lifestyle potentially.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iav0krRqURY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj19r7uBtxo

Edited by Womanly

Edited by Womanly

After my comment on your Facebook yesterday about house boats/narrow boats, I coincidently met someone at a networking event last night who has a friend who did the same thing and loved it and so much cheaper.

The person I met was also showing me a price of land he bought in Cyprus and is eventually having a house built there for when he retires. Not saying that's an easy option of course haha but perhaps these things are cheaper to do in other countries?

I can't speak from any experience myself as I am like you, me and my husband have both rented since we were 18 (I'm now 31 and he's 33) we could have stayed at home, but we wanted our independence. We could have scrimped by and saved and had a mediocre life but we love our lifestyle. Holidays, eating out etc, living in the jewellery quarter which is pretty pricey rent!

The point is for us, we only live once, we never know how long we are here. We eventually have an aim to save and own a larger apartment especially if we have a child one day, but the thought of living a restricted life for a few years just to save up an amount to deposit for a mortgage that will take most of our lives to pay off just didn't seem appealing to either of us (even many years before we met, we just have the same views on this) we're also pretty flexible, I lived in Dubai for a year for example, and we havnt ruled out living in another country again one day.

I dunno, we're just not that bothered, I feel like a lot of people our age feel so much pressure to be homeowners and have the same things as everyone else.

Hope you are feeling okay anyway, and all the best for your future goals!

If you can work up north and survive on the wage...go north haha. Anywhere in the south...is a joke. I bought years ago...and property prices now are insane

Consider shipping containers. You can bolt them together and pile them on each other like bricks.

Serious need for very good insulation but a very quick and simple way of creating a dwelling to which you can add as time goes on.
There would need to be sound advice on ventilation but they have been very successfully used as single person accommodation for homeless people

Planning would be your problem.

I think that the resentment shown against incomers is much more aimed at second home owners.
Rather than people moving in to reside in the area.
A friend of mine bought in Greece. When he told the islanders that he and his wife were intending to live there full-time and work and pay Greek taxes, the islanders loved them to bits.

When I bought my house, in mid-Devon, at the time I could afford a house in Devon or a dustbin space in London.
I was extremely lucky which was only luck. Nothing clever or down to hard work. Pure luck and I never stop being glad about it.

I don't wish to sound patronising, I'd like to point out that the Lady magazine and other websites and publications, advertise for staff for the the rich and famous.

For example, a friend of mine was a house keeper to a famous retired writer who lived in the Cotswolds.

She had her own little cottage on their estate. She eventually married a local man who became their chauffeur/handyman.

A colleague of hers, another friend of mine, she traveled the UK doing 24hr care/housekeeping work which took her all over the world with the people she worked for.

Meanwhile she was paying for a small mortgage.

There are jobs which come with accommodation which would allow you to save for your own house.

It's whether you want to do those jobs.

The biggest threat to affordable and enough housing is holiday/multiple home ownership and buy to let.

During the lockdowns of the pandemic, when holiday rentals couldn't earn any money, the owners went cap in hand to the government for money to house the homeless. Often trying to sound philanthropic.

Yet they had no difficulty throwing these people out once they were able to use their premises for what they had previously been used for.

Disgusting behaviour, in my opinion. And not philanthropic at all but sponging from the state when all their income disappeared.

Edited by Womanly

Gothic Image said

Alan Ewart said

The last times  that we had economic conditions comparable to now was in the early 1980’s and then the 2008 crash.  On both occasions a fair few people took very similar approaches.  I still have a large group of friends who live full time in narrow boats, converted busses or converted horse boxes.  Those larger vehicles can be converted quite cheaply and can have log burners etc fitted.

Add a decent bank of leisure batteries and solar panels on the roof and you are virtually self sufficient.  Your only needs are a water source and the ability to empty your toilet.  If they are static over the winter it’s easy enough to build a composting toilet similar to those used at Glastonbury and a growing number of festivals.  It’s an incredibly cheap way to live.

This goes back to my question of what the OP is trying to achieve.  There are definitely cheaper ways to live than owning bricks and mortar, but that won't give you an investment to pass onto your offspring.  It's also worth noting that the idea of owning, rather than renting, a house is a fairly recent concept.

And has never been wholly embraced by the Celtic nations, more interested in social cohesion.  When I was last involved in ‘housing’ as an issue in the late noughties Scotland was still a majority rental economy.  I suspect the same for NI and Wales.  The obsession with owner-occupation is an English thing.  It’s certainly not continental.  I remember asking a German colleague if he owned his flat.  He replied that in Germany if you owned one property then you owned many.  (No problem there with BTL!). And added that he had no ambition to own, with all the outgoings and problems that status brought.  And he was a university qualified, senior engineer.

Jerome Razoir said

Consider shipping containers. You can bolt them together and pile them on each other like bricks.

Serious need for very good insulation but a very quick and simple way of creating a dwelling to which you can add as time goes on.
There would need to be sound advice on ventilation but they have been very successfully used as single person accommodation for homeless people

Planning would be your problem.

I think that the resentment shown against incomers is much more aimed at second home owners.
Rather than people moving in to reside in the area.
A friend of mine bought in Greece. When he told the islanders that he and his wife were intending to live there full-time and work and pay Greek taxes, the islanders loved them to bits.

When I bought my house, in mid-Devon, at the time I could afford a house in Devon or a dustbin space in London.
I was extremely lucky which was only luck. Nothing clever or down to hard work. Pure luck and I never stop being glad about it.

 There is a container city in Amsterdam with 1,000 container homes. Not far from where I live is a manufacturer of container homes. Of course, you need a plot of land and have planning mission to connect them to utilities.  I am pretty sure there is a company in the Uk that converts containers into homes. The fly in the ointment is planning permission as always.

Carlos said

Gothic Image said
This goes back to my question of what the OP is trying to achieve.  There are definitely cheaper ways to live than owning bricks and mortar, but that won't give you an investment to pass onto your offspring.  It's also worth noting that the idea of owning, rather than renting, a house is a fairly recent concept.

And has never been wholly embraced by the Celtic nations, more interested in social cohesion.  When I was last involved in ‘housing’ as an issue in the late noughties Scotland was still a majority rental economy.  I suspect the same for NI and Wales.  The obsession with owner-occupation is an English thing.  It’s certainly not continental.  I remember asking a German colleague if he owned his flat.  He replied that in Germany if you owned one property then you owned many.  (No problem there with BTL!). And added that he had no ambition to own, with all the outgoings and problems that status brought.  And he was a university qualified, senior engineer.

Until fairly recently, home ownership was also an American thing, part of the so-called "American Dream". For many, it still is, but it's out of reach for many who might want it, and not as many younger people are buying into the concept in general.