3 ms·

So the article claims that the housing construction boom that ended at the second WW led to a massive stock of housing, which has since declined due to planning

by Joeri 3y ago

So the article claims that the housing construction boom that ended at the second WW led to a massive stock of housing, which has since declined due to planning issues, leading to a shortage of housing and therefore a rise in prices. This does not hold up statistically. 1939: 11.3 million dwellings in the UK, population 47.9 million people = 4.2 people per dwelling today: 27 million dwellings in the UK, population 67.7 million people = 2.5 people per dwelling A thought occurred: maybe there are now fewer people per household. This however does not hold up to scrutiny either. The number of UK households rose 19% in 27 years, a rate comparable to the increase in housing stock. If anything there is more housing than ever in the UK relative to population size. If prices have risen, it's not because of a lack of housing.

rcxdude 3y ago
> A thought occurred: maybe there are now fewer people per household. This however does not hold up to scrutiny either what do you mean? it makes perfect sense given the definition of household that it'll be extremely similar to the number of houses. The ratio you're talking about is exactly a reduction in the average number of people per household.
kieranmaine 3y ago
My understanding is it's because of lack of house in the places with highest demand. The article gives the following example: "The economist Paul Cheshire notes that between 1980 and 2018 the declining industrial areas of Burnley and Doncaster built 56,340 houses while adding 22,796 new residents. By comparison, the high-wage university towns of Cambridge and Oxford built just 29,340 houses for a combined population growth of 95,079"
dignick 3y ago
Housing stock is growing faster than population. There are other more complex issues behind our inflating housing market than just ‘not enough homes’, but nobody seems to want to talk about them: https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-houses/ https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-hou...

by Joeri 3y ago

rcxdude 3y ago

> A thought occurred: maybe there are now fewer people per household. This however does not hold up to scrutiny either what do you mean? it makes perfect sense given the definition of household that it'll be extremely similar to the number of houses. The ratio you're talking about is exactly a reduction in the average number of people per household.

kieranmaine 3y ago

My understanding is it's because of lack of house in the places with highest demand. The article gives the following example: "The economist Paul Cheshire notes that between 1980 and 2018 the declining industrial areas of Burnley and Doncaster built 56,340 houses while adding 22,796 new residents. By comparison, the high-wage university towns of Cambridge and Oxford built just 29,340 houses for a combined population growth of 95,079"

dignick 3y ago

Housing stock is growing faster than population. There are other more complex issues behind our inflating housing market than just ‘not enough homes’, but nobody seems to want to talk about them: https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-houses/ https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-hou...