To Fix London House Prices, We Should Learn From The 1930s

[M II A II R II K]

To Fix London House Prices, We Should Learn From The 1930s


January 29, 2021

Read More: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/op...e-1930s/29/01/

.....

The 1930s saw the largest boom in housebuilding that London has ever seen, with total new builds exceeding 80,000 per year at one point. For comparison, just 32,000 were built in 2017/18 despite the population now being 12 per cent larger. This should lead most people to question what caused this boom, and why can’t we repeat it today?

- The problems start with the green belt. Pre-WW2 Britain had no Greenbelt, nor planning permission system like today. This allowed developers to merely purchase a site, and build a house without jumping through any regulatory barriers (provided it was compliant with the bye-laws for that area). Today, the picture is very different. The Greenbelt currently takes up more than 12 per cent of the total area of England. Surrounding London entirely, it’s twice the size of Luxembourg. This is not in itself a bad thing. A huge amount of the urban growth seen in the 1930s was through low-density suburbia, which comes with significant environmental costs.

- When you combine a greenbelt with a planning system where the presumption is weighted towards refusal, substantial problems arise. When considering whether or not to allow new houses to be built, local authorities are legally required to consult the opinions of current residents in the area, taking their views on the matter into account. However, problems arise when the people who generally take part in these processes are older and wealthier homeowners who would benefit from a shortage. This is because in a shortage home prices will rise, therefore making homeowners investment more lucrative. The institutional framework is designed in a way where a refusal is often predetermined.

- You’re not allowed to build wider due to the greenbelt, and you can’t build denser because local authorities won’t let you. So, where can you build? The answer is nowhere. House building helped get Britain out of depression. In 1932, 17 of the increase in GDP came from this sector alone. When looking at how to recover from Coronavirus, London should take lessons from its older, wiser 1930s self. By building more houses, we can help lessen the largest cause of poverty in the capital and help the city recover from the economic disaster that COVID-19 has ruptured. Taking the simple lesson from the 1930s that we should allow builders to build houses would have a demonstrably positive impact on London. It would raise growth, decrease prices and poverty making London more liveable for the people who live here.

.....

[l3g0]

Wasnt that all terrible row houses for miners?

[Yuri]

I hope London authorities agree with the conclusions of the article, removing power from local owners to have a saying about new developments. They don't own their neighbourhood, only their houses.

Also, it's about time to build over some parts of the Green Belt. Population has grown since it was enacted and those people need to be housed.

Down here in Brazil, Covid-19 throw the country into recession and the Central Back brought interest rates to an all-time low (2%/year). That helped to create a construction boom from the second half of 2020 onwards, mitigating the economic impact of the pandemic.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by l3g0

Wasnt that all terrible row houses for miners?

By the 1920s and 30s, most new housing in London would have been suburban terraces and semi-detached houses in what were then far-flung garden suburbs. That was really the start of the suburban boom there (though they still sure do look better than post-war suburbs).



https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/uk...rt=mostpopular

[10023]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

By the 1920s and 30s, most new housing in London would have been suburban terraces and semi-detached houses in what were then far-flung garden suburbs. That was really the start of the suburban boom there (though they still sure do look better than post-war suburbs).



https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/uk...rt=mostpopular

And these things are absolutely hideous. Ugly and poorly constructed. The last thing London needs is more of that sort of development - or what followed the Second World War.

The problem here is that English people all want to live in houses, rather than apartments like most Europeans, and so providing enough housing units affordably means low quality construction and covering every square inch of open space with grotesque cul-de-sacs. There is a lot of London that isn’t historic housing and could and should be demolished to make way for 6-8 story apartments built up to the lot line (including most of the areas where these 1930s semi-detached houses were built).

Those houses above now line a divided motorway and would be great candidates for redevelopment:
https://goo.gl/maps/qanxxnGjrLK9EviF6

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 10023

Those houses above now line a divided motorway and would be great candidates for redevelopment:
https://goo.gl/maps/qanxxnGjrLK9EviF6

That's not those houses, they're on the other side of London. The pic above is Ilford in 1936. (I know that because I was curious enough to look it up.)

[muppet]

It's this -they were all built on traditional vernacular based on the farmhouses of East England (Suffolk, Norfolk).


Jason Hawkes, http://news.bbcimg.co.uk, www.aladyinlondon.com, http://media.rightmove.co.uk



They can be ugly AF due to owners embellishments, and the fact they strayed from the muted greys, blues and greens of the 30s era


www.economicshelp.org, https://lid.zoocdn.com

original colour


https://vice-images.vice.com/images/...put-quality=75


Or just much nicer


https://westlondonfilmoffice.co.uk/l...dor-estate-w5/


Alot are being converted back to their art deco styles:


www.wowhaus.co.uk

https://i.dailymail.co.uk

[muppet]

The 'miners houses' are the Georgian/Victorian terraces from a century earlier, which are worth a mint these days -even the ones built for the working classes


Jason Hawkes, http://travelvista.net

www.moneyexpert.com

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/G63PMD/ter...rth-G63PMD.jpg



the working class versions (read: slums) are mostly gone, the last surviving one in central London is now a popular film location. Average price is $1.7 million.

[l3g0]

Ah i see.

Yeah i cant imagine building suburban style homes will solve a housing crisis in a city.

You need nice condos, for middle class prices. Like a 2 bed for 250k. With a proper layout.

Figure out the height/lot size/floor plan setup to make that happen.

[muppet]

Yep, $250K unfortunately would be one of the cheapest properties in the city that's not shared ownership. It would be a one bed in a tower block notorious for family massacres, or a house on the edge, in the worst borough with a poltergeist, possiby a sinkhole. Post pandemic the average London property price (mostly apartments) is still $704,000, for the smallest average home sizes in the West (UK homes are 25% smaller than in Japan for example).


https://i2-prod.mylondon.news


I think London needs an even bigger reset than a global pandemic can throw (prices still going up), in order to make first time properties affordable even to doctors. Maybe a nuke would do the trick.

[Crawford]

You can't build new housing for 250k in Columbus, Ohio, so you aren't gonna be able to do it in central London, obviously.

I don't really understand the point of the article as there are obvious reasons why it was easier to build in the 1930's as opposed to today. You could never replicate that era under the current framework.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't really understand the point of the article as there are obvious reasons why it was easier to build in the 1930's as opposed to today. You could never replicate that era under the current framework.

Not to mention that the rings of low-density sprawl hemming in so many cities are part of the reason they're expensive. If London could go ahead and build actual city on the edge of the actual city, sure that would help--it puts housing where people want to live. But you can built whatever you want at the outer edge of the sprawl and it's not going to make things better for people who want to live in the city.

I guess what I'm saying is this is a hack piece. It's a cheap article that has no point but to exist.

[llamaorama]

Modern London buildings look like the same stuff being built in Toronto or Australia or parts of the US now.

Blah

Originally Posted by Crawford

You can't build new housing for 250k in Columbus.

I beg to differ, you can in fact buy new construction detached single family homes in the Houston area starting at $180k-190k. Of course these tend to be in nasty and/or inconvenient locations and are unusually small for new stuff. They might not have a garage or the garage might take over the entire front of the house with just a door on the side.

If you didn't have the ugly garage and made these semi-detached or terraces then maybe they'd work for London. Except you'd have to repeal all building codes, and bring in illegal aliens willing to work under the table. I guess that's another thing, I wonder how the cost of construction will fare with Brexit cutting off the supply of Poles and Bulgarians who'd do all the dirty work for a fraction of the cost.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Modern London buildings look like the same stuff being built in Toronto or Australia or parts of the US now.

Blah



I beg to differ, you can in fact buy new construction detached single family homes in the Houston area starting at $180k-190k. Of course these tend to be in nasty and/or inconvenient locations and are unusually small for new stuff. They might not have a garage or the garage might take over the entire front of the house with just a door on the side.

If you didn't have the ugly garage and made these semi-detached or terraces then maybe they'd work for London. Except you'd have to repeal all building codes, and bring in illegal aliens willing to work under the table. I guess that's another thing, I wonder how the cost of construction will fare with Brexit cutting off the supply of Poles and Bulgarians who'd do all the dirty work for a fraction of the cost.

You can even find some stuff like this in Houston, which is more urban in form.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8...75821067_zpid/

But I suspect perhaps it's cheap because it lies in a floodplain.

[llamaorama]

OK, so I don't totally hate "Neo-Brutalism". It does at least one thing right in contrast with generic 2010's modernism, and that is it uses normal-looking exterior materials like white or beige painted concrete as opposed to foam stucco or panels painted odd colors. It's also exhibits a little more symmetry.

My least favorite current architectural trend is when you have a building that's covered in EIFS or something with navy blue or brick red siding in certain areas. Or a building is all glass with concrete balconies and the balconies stick out different ways and the facade changes halfway up and the structure looks like it's leaning or made of boxes stacked on each other.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

You can even find some stuff like this in Houston, which is more urban in form.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8...75821067_zpid/

But I suspect perhaps it's cheap because it lies in a floodplain.

I'm unsure about the flooding potential, but that is definitely a high-crime area with bad schools and a good distance from major white-collar employment centers. A lot of people who would be in the market to buy a house could drive another 20 minutes south to League City or Pearland.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I'm unsure about the flooding potential, but that is definitely a high-crime area with bad schools and a good distance from major white-collar employment centers. A lot of people who would be in the market to buy a house could drive another 20 minutes south to League City or Pearland.

Based on this:
(from https://fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/we...06419b287e2049 )

it's less than ideal.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I beg to differ, you can in fact buy new construction detached single family homes in the Houston area starting at $180k-190k. Of course these tend to be in nasty and/or inconvenient locations and are unusually small for new stuff. They might not have a garage or the garage might take over the entire front of the house with just a door on the side.

I meant builder-grade subdivision construction, like stuff from Toll Brothers or Pulte, not one-offs in the ghetto or something. Like a new 400-home development in a decent Houston sprawlburb, with attached 2 or 3 car garage, will not have $180k homes.

Also, keep in mind that advertised new construction pricing is a joke. You'll see a sign "new homes from the mid-300's" which basically means you're gonna pay 500k. They usually don't include any upgrades, appliances, basement and the subdivision usually requires a good 50k in outside work (lawn, landscaping, patio/deck, shrubbery, lighting, fencing, etc.). So, yeah, the base for the shittiest, smallest model is 350k, but that gives you a box with next-to-nothing inside or outside.

[l3g0]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You can't build new housing for 250k in Columbus, Ohio, so you aren't gonna be able to do it in central London, obviously.

I don't really understand the point of the article as there are obvious reasons why it was easier to build in the 1930's as opposed to today. You could never replicate that era under the current framework.

You can build anything for any price.

Nationalization of construction companies might be necessary.

This seems a place ripe for elon type disruption. I am sure the people who play with real estate on this forum know of the massive con job going on.

[muppet]

Basically the article is hinting we should be allowed to build higher, and fuck what the nimby's think. Planning permission has already been relaxed in 2019 insofar as they're now allowed to 'approve' projects and consult after, rather than the other way round. This 'consultation' might be in the form of an A4 stuck to a lamp post before a pigeon eats it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by muppet

Basically the article is hinting we should be allowed to build higher, and fuck what the nimby's think.

Higher is irrelevant, it's bigger. Larger multifamily buildings. But, as has been mentioned, London is a metro of SFH. It isn't gonna adopt a Barcelona or Vienna-style vernacular.

So many of the new London towers are hideous, and look like they were deliberately intended to clash with one another. Maybe there would be less resistance to larger buildings if there were a common vernacular with some historicist bent, rather than bizarre walkie-talkie and penis buildings.