Topic: | Re:Financial Times article | |
Posted by: | Kathleen Healy | |
Date/Time: | 09/01/15 21:18:00 |
This is a report on the housing UK housing market by the Halifax. It is from 2010, so a bit out of date, but still interesting http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/documents/media/press-releases/halifax/2010/50_years_of_housing_uk.pdf It says that the "The decline in house building has been driven by a fall in public sector completions" in 2009 there were 156,000 houses built, compared to 281,000 in 1960 and 425,000 at the peak in 1968. I found this report whilst looking for an article I read in the Economist a year or so ago. That article had tables going back to the late 70's. They showed the steep and sudden decline in house building around 1981 when it just about halved from around 400,000 to 200,000 a year and never recovered. Prior to then around half new house builds were public and half private. Housing Associations became a new provider, but in very small numbers, much smaller than the previous public level. The fall was due to Local Authorities being barred from house building. In the early 80's there was a surplus of housing in London, as people who prospered chose to move out. Also, up till then as part of the post war consensus, it had been a point of pride with parties of all colours to build as many houses as they could. It must have been apparent though, every year, that house building had more than halved, particularly as the slack was take up and the shortage emerged. Yet we've still been building at half and some years a quarter the pre 1980 levels. The missing homes are public sector ones. No private builder is going to build houses for people on even average earnings, they'd go bust if they tried to. Also, for commercial reasons private builders, understandably, build where they have a high confidence of getting a good return. Public housing was often built in locations too high risk for private builders. If you drive around the outskirts of London, there are still old industrial areas unattractive to private house builders. Private builders can't afford to spend much beyond the cost of building the houses to clean up and regenerate areas, but that could make sense for a public sector builder. Particularly if you take the view that housing is part of our infrastructure, like roads, to house people who keep cities working. I don't suppose that too many people, who weren't council tenants, paid much attention to the end of council house building in 1981. It is, however, now effecting those people and certainly their children, as it created a housing shortage that has pushed up the cost of buying or renting privately.It has created winners and losers, largely around generational lines. One example I suppose of how connected we all are. |