Housing Crisis - a novel idea

[AHPP]

10 minutes ago, Dan said:

I can read it and haven't paid 

To each according to his needs.

Edited December 3, 2023 by AHPP

[Stere]

100 Years of Urban Housing Success

REASONSTOBECHEERFUL.WORLD

---

Around the world, the cost of housing is destabilizing cities. In Europe, low interest rates meant to spur growth have caused...

 

[Big J]

On 03/12/2023 at 15:52, sime42 said:

 

Regardless of how people want to define it, the nordic model seems to work. Those countries consistently appear in the top ranks of the various surveys that are done every year; happiness/well-being/quality of life/health/blah blah blah. Equality is key, they also tend to be very equal societies, I'd suggest that is what leads all the aforementioned positive metrics. We on the other hand in the UK are one of the most unequal countries in the world, second only to the US, in the so called developed world. With the gap between obscenely rich and poor growing ever wider, especially rapidly over the last 13 years or so. Go figure.

 

Coming back to housing - I wonder how the house building industry and housing market is set up in the Nordic countries. I don't know, but I'm guessing they don't have a monopoly of just three big, bloated private companies like we have here. Pretty sure new developments will be more people/community/planet friendly as well in terms of green space, flood mitigation measures, not car centric, (cycle and pedestrian infrastructure), easily accessible community amenities, shops and all that good stuff.

 

 

I've been very happy so far to live in Sweden. Society seems a whole lot more cohesive and equal than what we experienced in Scotland and England. 

 

We live in a middle sized village (1700 people) in a very low population area of the south east. I cannot comment on how it is in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö or any of the other larger cities.

 

Here, the average family house is between £60-80k. And the average family house is about twice the size of the average family house in the UK. There is a lot of space (average plot is about 800-1000 square metres) and nothing feels crowded. Wages are similar to the UK and our area has a lot of primary and secondary industry.

 

The socialist nature of society here is something that I generally enjoy. I value the fact that regardless of a parent's financial background, all children have essentially the same opportunities. I also like the fact that having a child isn't going to financially cripple you (as it does in the UK).

 

As regards the housing issue in the UK, I struggle to see a likely outcome that is going to be satisfactory. 90% (or more) of houses are built (badly) by mass developers for whom quality comes a distant second to profit. Basically, they build badly designed houses badly, in neighbours that lack even the most basic of planning considerations or amenities. They make vast profits, whilst all the while convincing (through marketing and lack of choice) the public that what everyone should aspire to is their very own house with postage stamp garden, garage you can't park a car in and bedroom you can't fit a double bed in. 

 

Given the desity of the population in the UK, it would be prudent to think about building more vertically, with high quality, spacious apartment with extensive green space and cycle/foot networks. Many suburbs in Sweden are similar to that now. We visited friends in Uppsala who lived in a huge, ground floor flat, where the kids had immediate access to a large playground and it was only 5 minutes of traffic free paths to get to their leafy, suburban school.

 

I really do think the public wouldn't be as resistant to new development if the development wasn't so shit. It's almost impossible to find anything positive to say about your average Persimmon development. 

[GarethM]

Do agree Sweden has it right to a degree, but at the same time it's paid for through government owned infrastructure.

 

Vatternfall being an example, 21 million SEK operating profits.

[john87]

On 29/11/2023 at 12:40, sime42 said:

Wowsers!. It was neither an April fools nor bear baiting.

 

Why's it such a bad idea, why are golf courses so great? Or are there just more golfers than I realised? If we've got to build more houses I'd rather they were built on golf courses or brownfield sites rather than farmland.

 

 

I think golf courses are about the ugliest most un-natural looking things you could imagine. I would much rather nice smooth tarmac and a Kart racing track.

 

john.

[doobin]

1 hour ago, GarethM said:

Do agree Sweden has it right to a degree, but at the same time it's paid for through government owned infrastructure.

 

Vatternfall being an example, 21 million SEK operating profits.

You mean…like a nationalised company? 
 

I thought socialism never works?

Edited December 4, 2023 by doobin

[GarethM]

It's an international company, which you can't buy shares in even though they own 10 of our wind farms.

 

Granted you'd say it's socialism helping it's population, yet the Chinese state much of our infrastructure, yet their country is still classed as developing world. So that falls a little flat.

Edited December 4, 2023 by GarethM

[Steven P]

3 hours ago, doobin said:

You mean…like a nationalised company? 
 

I thought socialism never works?

 

I can't understand why governments can't own a company out right, but why they can't own that company as a profitable company.

 

Lets say they bought all of National Grid, it makes a profit, keep the regulators with the same power... and the profits... straight back to the treasury instead of to some rich American insurance company. Could do the same and set up a wind farm company, profits back to the us, or perhaps set up a solar panel manufacturer, make no profit but we can buy them cheap for our homes (and with that, deliver their net zero carbon stuff)

 

 

I don't understand why they can't use our taxes as investments and make more money

 

[doobin]

9 hours ago, Steven P said:

 

I can't understand why governments can't own a company out right, but why they can't own that company as a profitable company.

 

Lets say they bought all of National Grid, it makes a profit, keep the regulators with the same power... and the profits... straight back to the treasury instead of to some rich American insurance company. Could do the same and set up a wind farm company, profits back to the us, or perhaps set up a solar panel manufacturer, make no profit but we can buy them cheap for our homes (and with that, deliver their net zero carbon stuff)

 

 

I don't understand why they can't use our taxes as investments and make more money

 

That’s basically Nordic socialism as I understand it. 
 

We sold our North Sea oil rights. Gone. Norway created a sovereign wealth fund with theirs and reap the benefits to this day. 

[Big J]

51 minutes ago, doobin said:

That’s basically Nordic socialism as I understand it. 
 

We sold our North Sea oil rights. Gone. Norway created a sovereign wealth fund with theirs and reap the benefits to this day. 

 

And the income from the north sea that was taken was used to fund tax cuts. Typical British short-termism 😞