Back to the Eighties?

I think it will be a temporary crisis since estate agents are hyping up private rents to survive and fundamentals should lower them when the hysteria passes. Purchase prices will have fallen to a more sane level by the time the mortgage market un-freezes. ABN AMro produced a report that indicates the supply-demand argument is at least partly fallacious. I just think we are in for a very, very ugly 2-5 years... although it will pass Hope I am right jude

I am reticent about building lots of new social housing. Some for key workers, the disabled and so on is good but I think the squeeze on subsidised housing is in one sense a good thing. If we gave every single family who may struggle with rent or mortgage a house, then people would have families before they are financially fit to do so as a means to securing accomodation. A small minority do this already, but I think building new houses would mean less people like me who delay having children will continue to do so. The houses built would quickly fill up, the backlog of need would build up again ... we would be running forward to stand still, eventually running out of brownfield and creeping outward into greenbelt. In one sense, we need our population to grow to support the ever growing number of pensioners but this is unsustainable. We need to rethink our economic structure and pensions policy, not encourage population growth. The universal declaration of human rights talks about the right to housing. I believe this means that conditions prevailing should enable the average working person to rent or buy housing for themselves. This is where the government has failed. I like many others got it totally wrong in thinking the financial market would regulate itself best. Retrospectively, it seems obvious that the government with the FSA should have stopped the banks lending people insane multiples of their salary which would have prevented the ludicrous boom and many of the current problems. The 'right to housing' should not mean the government should bail out all those who fail to house themselves.

I'm not really talking about teenage pregnancies. That will always be a fact of life. I'm talking about people like me who wouldn't bring children into the world unless I could guarantee them a good school, housing and a generally good quality of life. Our current plan is for P (with some cash contribution from me) to sell his place in London and buy a nice semi in Petts Wood in the next year or two, where the Catholic primary school is outstanding in all respects and many pupils secure a place at St. Olave's grammar which in turn has a 32% Oxbridge hit rate. I plan to have my first child whilst studying at London law school ... at that point I will be 33-34 and P will be in his forties. We may have another child but the chances are, we will only be able to afford one. If we had been handed a council house like my grandad's ... a three bedroom semi in a beautiful Surrey Village (Pyrford) we may have had three kids already! There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that young people are delaying starting families and having smaller families because of living costs. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"I waited until there was about five properties and went for the one in the worst state, knowing that others would go for the better places." I employed a similar strategy. We have a banding system rather than points. I was on Band 3 for medical reasons. Band 4 have no hope of getting anything, Band 3 get the grottier dwellings, Band 2 get semi-reasonable and Band 1 have the pick. You can make 1 bid per week. I went for a grotty estate that I knew Band 1 and 2 wouldn't want but was being demolished and I only had to wait 8 months on the housing list. I realised that tenants who are moved as part of a redevelopment scheme get either a new Housing Association property or are put in Band 1 to choose another place. I also ensured I went for the first building in phase 1 of the redevelopment so I'd be rehoused soonest. So after a three year stint on the estate (and I am more than halfway through!) I will be rehoused to a nice flat or even house in a much nicer area. Life on the estate has been okay, other than the minor flooding from some idiot leaving their tap on and a rather creative burglar nicking my electronics. I'm blessed with quiet neighbours and I have actually grown rather fond of the sorrowful landscape. I wouldn't send my children to local schools but statistics show GCSE results have improved and are above borough average. I understand the issues about social hosuing raised on this thread but in our borough 80% of people live in social housing as opposed to 20% in the country as a whole. Private housing is needed to redress the balance. I am in favour of encouraging more social housing from housing associations but it should be an intermediate remedial action to clear some of the existing shortage. It shouldn't be a move towards the endless provision of subsidised housing to all who want it. jude

I like the idea of tenant managed co-operatives like the Oxo Tower wharf. I also like the idea of tenants being able to buy shares in their co-operative so in a communal sense and a management sense they do 'own' their homes. I think this kind of thing is quite common in Germany. I think one of the problems with new build is that they are popular so with choice based lettings, homes will go to those highest up the housing list who are more likely to have multiple social problems. This can cause friction with the leaseholders in the same development. Housing associations should interview prospective tenants and allocate homes themselves instead of defering to the council. This would ensure more balanced communities. jude

"I feel so lucky to be out of all this. .." Well, as secure council tenant I'm out of it too. And my better half bought his house when they were cheap as ninepence and has a tiny mortgage on it so he's going to take advantage of the coming slump to trade up to the nice Petts wood semi but I feel sorry for my younger brothers , all bright young well paid professionals (or will be after graduation) who are priced out. The problem is as Buk points out, space but also planning restrictions. But those restrictions are necessary. When we move to Petts Wood I shall be joining the residents association whose main task is to try to block developers getting their hands on Petts Wood Land for private housing, which would destroy the character of the village and put too much pressure on the currently 'outstanding' schools. Having grown up in a nice mid-sized commuter town that was totally ruined by the expansion of a private housing estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldsworth_Park) I think there is a need to protect the character of towns and villages. I completely confess to being a NIMBY. So the solution should be more new towns with supporting infrastructure and perhaps less people. I am not going to go back to wearing glittery leggings though. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I do realise you weren't implying that you don't care about others. I was just trying to emphasise that it is a collective problem. No ill feelings intended! New towns should be an expansion of existing small towns which don't have any satellite villages worth preserving. Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Letchworth, Milton Keynes ... there must surely be areas similarly suitable for new towns. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I think they're a solution if done well. I wouldn't live in one either given a choice but then again I wouldn't choose to live on the Estate I live in, if money wasn't an issue. It's a means to an end. I consider a successful New Town to be reasonably pleasant with good schools. Goldsworth Park (and I lived on it for 5 years) would have been excellent as a stand alone town. It has a lake, sports facilities, a supermarket, mobile library, church and so on. My gripe is that it spilled over into Horsell Village and didn't have a shopping centre, secondary school or train station of its own piling pressure onto the Woking infrastructure. I remember Woking as a small affluent commuter town. It had a few council housing areas (where both my parents grew up) so it wasn't an exclusive enclave. Sadly, it has been destroyed by this enormous shoebox housing development. Living in a new town may not be as nice as living in a small village but then driving a Metro isn't as nice as driving a Mercedes but not everyone can buy a Merc and nor is it a universal entitlement. I believe New Towns can provide an acceptable standard of living for a person earning the average wage and that's what has been unavailable in the last 5 years of the ridiculous boom. Some of the mistakes of the old new towns can be avoided I would hope! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Agree about the SE. Government response to this has partly been to try and stimulate business and investment in other towns and cities elsewhere with varying success. But it isn't just about schools and employment... social ties and family are important as you rightly point out. Even if I had a perfect job in Derby, I don't want to live in Derbyshire since all my friends except one in Rotherham have settled in the SE and my family except one brother in Cardiff are also in the SE. In addition, I would want my child(ren) to have a soft RP or the better end of the estuary accent. The only serious consideration I have given to leaving the SE would be to move to Ireland and may apply for training contracts over there as well as here when I graduate. This is for various reasons: because it would be cheaper to fly back to the SE to visit than get a train from a remote part of England and P is Irish so I have friends and inlaws over there already. Ireland has a population just over half that of London so overcrowding isn't such a problem but in 50 years time it will be a different story. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net