5 ms·

Mandating a large proportion of units constructed to be high density 3 bedroom would change the London housing market. Currently young couples get a 2 bed (with

by sgt101 7y ago

Mandating a large proportion of units constructed to be high density 3 bedroom would change the London housing market. Currently young couples get a 2 bed (with one bed being a box room) and have to move out once the second baby comes (the pressure when a first baby gets to three is high as well). Three beds would make for long term family viability and would knock the pressure out of the housing market.

eru 7y ago
Why do there need to be mandates? The article itself mentions that mandates themselves made the low density configuration persist.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Those mandates persist because people don't want flat, and flats tend to be low quality. There needs to be a change of perception, expectations, and better flats.
  - sgt101 7y ago
    Also a low density unit commands such a premium and so is cheaper to build than several high density units that would sell for a similar price. Developers would far rather build a couple of "Exclusive Modern Mansions" rather than two blocks of four three bedroom flats. They make more money, but create far less value.
    - ovi256 7y ago
      >make more money, but create far less value. If the market structure doesn't allow reaping profit proportional to the value you create, the less profitable thing doesn't get done, even if it creates more value for society. It's a market failure. The implications of that for progressive personal income taxation are left as an exercise for the reader. They're usually not explored for ideological reasons.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        > The implications of that for progressive personal income taxation I don't think there are any. An individual doesn't get to choose between a high tax job and a low tax job. The only way to get more money in your pockets is to get paid more money, regardless of whether you're taxed at 15% or 50%.
        ovi256 7y ago
        >more money in your pockets is to get paid more money Sure, I agree with you on that. You have to consider the effects on an additional unit of effort put in at that job. Progressive taxation sets up steeply diminishing returns on that marginal effort. And incentives to spend that effort on alternatives with better returns, like shopping for tax-sheltered investments. Because a salary's not the only income professionals have. So you can effectively make tradeoffs between revenue streams with different tax rates, one of which happens to be your job. This clearly disincentivizes creating additional value for society through an additional unit of effort at that job, and it's a result of market structure.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        What revenue streams does someone have that don't count as income and take a notable amount of time input? Most investments don't take any significant amount of time to set up. And it's likely that whatever they're doing to get money should simply be counted as income too. > This clearly disincentivizes creating additional value for society through an additional unit of effort at that job Whatever they do instead might create less value for society, or it might create more value for society. I have no idea what the average is. Also we have to look at the opportunity cost. By taxing one person with a huge income more, you can tax dozens of people with lower incomes less. In most cases that's a huge boon for society. > Progressive taxation sets up steeply diminishing returns on that marginal effort. Steeply? Bah. When you're talking about millions of dollars, removing 37 percent (or 50 or 70) still leaves an enormous incentive. The thing that actually causes significant diminishing returns is that every dollar you earn benefits your life less than the previous dollar.
    - eru 7y ago
      I don't think that's true. In places like London it's not construction costs, but land, that really determines overall costs.
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
    People don't want flats because of leasehold.
  - downtide 7y ago
    I think some of the earlier built flats are really good quality. With thick floors between too. Modern flats and houses in Britain can be built to very low standards. I watched a terrace go up near Bradford, with timber and stud walling between properties. Our bricked terrace is a nightmare with noise, but in those they must be able to hear each other fart.
  - eru 7y ago
    If people don't want flats, why do they need a mandate against them? I'm a bit confused. Just don't rent nor buy them, if you don't like them?
rwmj 7y ago
These houses already exist, so without going back in time this isn't possible. However it's very easy to add a third bedroom either at the back or in the loft which is what many owners do. Would recommend this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn
mytailorisrich 7y ago
A big issue in London and the UK is that everyone wants a house and garden, and flats are usually poorly designed and poor quality. One reason many couples move out of London when they have children is that it is impossible for most to afford such a house in London. This also makes housing quite low density, which leads to longer commute and more expensive public transport.
- Findeton 7y ago
  Housing is low density because you can't build higher by law, in most cases. It's one of the socialist aspects of the UK.
  - sgt101 7y ago
    That was true in the last century, but it just isn't the case now. It's rather the structure and economics (artificial) of the market that are creating this particular inefficiency.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Could you point out what law you're referring to? Some early 20th century (and some earlier) housing in my UK city is 3 or 4 storeys. Many of the newer buildings are 4 storey, a few tower blocks (60s/70s).
    - michaelt 7y ago
      National laws, not so much that I know of. But if you read through The London Plan [1] policy 7.6 says: "Buildings and structures should [...] not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. This is particularly important for tall buildings" So if you're filling in a gap in a Victorian terrace, planning officers will be checking whether you're going to be able to see into your neighbours' gardens more than existing buildings can, or cast shadows onto other homes. Meanwhile, policy 7.7 calls for "tall and large" buildings to "generally be limited to sites in the Central Activity Zone, opportunity areas, areas of intensification or town centres that have good access to public transport" and to "only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building" And as some sources describe a tall building as "1½ times or more the height of their context" [2] tall building rules are easily activated in a two-storey area. Of course, it's not completely restrictive - if an existing Victorian terrace has two-storey buildings with lofts, I've seen people get permission for a building with a basement, three above-ground stories and a flat roof - and if it's a house rather than a block of flats, that's a lot of stairs already. [1] https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2016_jan_2017_fix.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_pla... [2] https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485.1/PDF/-/Building_Height_in_the_Royal_Borough_SPD__Adopted_September_2010.pdf https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485...
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
>Currently young couples get a 2 bed (with one bed being a box room) and have to move out once the second baby comes // I guess you've never heard of bunk beds?
- PaulRobinson 7y ago
  Which are unsuitable for very young children? Yes, we have those in England, we just don't put toddlers in them. What sort of monster are you? :)
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Precisely that sort of monster! You got me ;o) "We" clearly do. [I'm also in UK, fwiw]
- downtide 7y ago
  'Legislation states if children over the age of 10 of the opposite sex are sharing a bedroom they should have their own rooms – otherwise this is considered overcrowding.' https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/sharing-a-bedroom/ https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/s...
  - gambiting 7y ago
    Even the website you linked says explicitly that it's not illegal for children to share a bedroom, even if they are over the age of 10 and of opposite sex. It's considered overcrowded for purposes of various statistics but it's not illegal in the slightest.
    - downtide 7y ago
      I didn't say it was illegal.

by sgt101 7y ago

eru 7y ago

Why do there need to be mandates? The article itself mentions that mandates themselves made the low density configuration persist.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
Those mandates persist because people don't want flat, and flats tend to be low quality. There needs to be a change of perception, expectations, and better flats.
- sgt101 7y ago
  Also a low density unit commands such a premium and so is cheaper to build than several high density units that would sell for a similar price. Developers would far rather build a couple of "Exclusive Modern Mansions" rather than two blocks of four three bedroom flats. They make more money, but create far less value.
  - ovi256 7y ago
    >make more money, but create far less value. If the market structure doesn't allow reaping profit proportional to the value you create, the less profitable thing doesn't get done, even if it creates more value for society. It's a market failure. The implications of that for progressive personal income taxation are left as an exercise for the reader. They're usually not explored for ideological reasons.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      > The implications of that for progressive personal income taxation I don't think there are any. An individual doesn't get to choose between a high tax job and a low tax job. The only way to get more money in your pockets is to get paid more money, regardless of whether you're taxed at 15% or 50%.
      - ovi256 7y ago
        >more money in your pockets is to get paid more money Sure, I agree with you on that. You have to consider the effects on an additional unit of effort put in at that job. Progressive taxation sets up steeply diminishing returns on that marginal effort. And incentives to spend that effort on alternatives with better returns, like shopping for tax-sheltered investments. Because a salary's not the only income professionals have. So you can effectively make tradeoffs between revenue streams with different tax rates, one of which happens to be your job. This clearly disincentivizes creating additional value for society through an additional unit of effort at that job, and it's a result of market structure.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        What revenue streams does someone have that don't count as income and take a notable amount of time input? Most investments don't take any significant amount of time to set up. And it's likely that whatever they're doing to get money should simply be counted as income too. > This clearly disincentivizes creating additional value for society through an additional unit of effort at that job Whatever they do instead might create less value for society, or it might create more value for society. I have no idea what the average is. Also we have to look at the opportunity cost. By taxing one person with a huge income more, you can tax dozens of people with lower incomes less. In most cases that's a huge boon for society. > Progressive taxation sets up steeply diminishing returns on that marginal effort. Steeply? Bah. When you're talking about millions of dollars, removing 37 percent (or 50 or 70) still leaves an enormous incentive. The thing that actually causes significant diminishing returns is that every dollar you earn benefits your life less than the previous dollar.
  - eru 7y ago
    I don't think that's true. In places like London it's not construction costs, but land, that really determines overall costs.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
  People don't want flats because of leasehold.
- downtide 7y ago
  I think some of the earlier built flats are really good quality. With thick floors between too. Modern flats and houses in Britain can be built to very low standards. I watched a terrace go up near Bradford, with timber and stud walling between properties. Our bricked terrace is a nightmare with noise, but in those they must be able to hear each other fart.
- eru 7y ago
  If people don't want flats, why do they need a mandate against them? I'm a bit confused. Just don't rent nor buy them, if you don't like them?

rwmj 7y ago

These houses already exist, so without going back in time this isn't possible. However it's very easy to add a third bedroom either at the back or in the loft which is what many owners do. Would recommend this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn

mytailorisrich 7y ago

A big issue in London and the UK is that everyone wants a house and garden, and flats are usually poorly designed and poor quality. One reason many couples move out of London when they have children is that it is impossible for most to afford such a house in London. This also makes housing quite low density, which leads to longer commute and more expensive public transport.

Findeton 7y ago
Housing is low density because you can't build higher by law, in most cases. It's one of the socialist aspects of the UK.
- sgt101 7y ago
  That was true in the last century, but it just isn't the case now. It's rather the structure and economics (artificial) of the market that are creating this particular inefficiency.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Could you point out what law you're referring to? Some early 20th century (and some earlier) housing in my UK city is 3 or 4 storeys. Many of the newer buildings are 4 storey, a few tower blocks (60s/70s).
  - michaelt 7y ago
    National laws, not so much that I know of. But if you read through The London Plan [1] policy 7.6 says: "Buildings and structures should [...] not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. This is particularly important for tall buildings" So if you're filling in a gap in a Victorian terrace, planning officers will be checking whether you're going to be able to see into your neighbours' gardens more than existing buildings can, or cast shadows onto other homes. Meanwhile, policy 7.7 calls for "tall and large" buildings to "generally be limited to sites in the Central Activity Zone, opportunity areas, areas of intensification or town centres that have good access to public transport" and to "only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building" And as some sources describe a tall building as "1½ times or more the height of their context" [2] tall building rules are easily activated in a two-storey area. Of course, it's not completely restrictive - if an existing Victorian terrace has two-storey buildings with lofts, I've seen people get permission for a building with a basement, three above-ground stories and a flat roof - and if it's a house rather than a block of flats, that's a lot of stairs already. [1] https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2016_jan_2017_fix.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_pla... [2] https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485.1/PDF/-/Building_Height_in_the_Royal_Borough_SPD__Adopted_September_2010.pdf https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/276546/18804485...

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

>Currently young couples get a 2 bed (with one bed being a box room) and have to move out once the second baby comes // I guess you've never heard of bunk beds?

PaulRobinson 7y ago
Which are unsuitable for very young children? Yes, we have those in England, we just don't put toddlers in them. What sort of monster are you? :)
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Precisely that sort of monster! You got me ;o) "We" clearly do. [I'm also in UK, fwiw]
downtide 7y ago
'Legislation states if children over the age of 10 of the opposite sex are sharing a bedroom they should have their own rooms – otherwise this is considered overcrowding.' https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/sharing-a-bedroom/ https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/s...
- gambiting 7y ago
  Even the website you linked says explicitly that it's not illegal for children to share a bedroom, even if they are over the age of 10 and of opposite sex. It's considered overcrowded for purposes of various statistics but it's not illegal in the slightest.
  - downtide 7y ago
    I didn't say it was illegal.