Roger Chapman wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

The value of the land accounts for 2/3 of the average house price.

Dribble has been spouting this nonsense for years. Other sources have a
different take on the subject. A quick google came up with the following
quote from Self Build ABC.

"The value of plots of land for sale can be found by identifying similar
sized plots that have already been developed. The land should equate to
approximately 35% of the market value of the entire property."


snip

It's a few years ago now, but the survey on our last house gave value
and rebuild costs:

Value: 86K
Rebuild cost: 35K

so plot = 51K. Not far ofF Drivel's number. He can't _always_ be
wrong. I suspect it varies radically with area: Rebuild costs are
probably much the same across the country, and prices certainly aren't.

(prices have probably tripled since then.)

aNDY

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:03:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I'd heard a rumour that the place where I worked back in England before I
left sold off some of their land at over a million / acre, but I'm not
sure if it really was that high. It's a bunch of rabbit hutches these days...

You can get about 10 houses to the acre..sorry, rabbit hutches. So 100
grand a plaot.

Well, these were a mixture - some "traditional" (hah) two-storey hutches,
but also three and four-storey ones (so 'flats' I suppose, but when I
think of flats I think of ugly 70s tower blocks that are far higher -
maybe there's a better term for the low-down stuff).

Hard to put a number on it - but it was very dense (greenery
mostly via local parkland; the few gardens I saw were far smaller than the
footprint of the dwelling). Considering the 'flats' I'm guesstimating at
50 per acre on average, built on prime land, so a million's perhaps not
unreasonable (for the market - it certainly seems insane for a bit of open
space! :-)

cheers

Jules

"Jules" wrote in message
news
The UK has a land surplus.

Really?

Yes the figures were given. Only 7.5% of
the UK is settled. What didn't
you understand about them?

Well, presumably by 'settled' you mean 'lived on'?

I would think so, yes.

The rest isn't all
"surplus" - it's mostly used for
*something*, even if it isn't to stop
people dropping dead from concrete overdose

It is not lived on that is for sure. Much of it is subsided to lay idle.
The overall agricultural subsidy is about £4.5 billion per year, £4.5
billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry,
about 33% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture
absorbs, and about 14 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to
farming and you theoretically free up 14 million acres, which is near 22% of
the total UK land mass. This is land that certainly could be put to better
use for the people of the UK.

That was some interesting reading in your post, however. Those land
price figures are just plain scary :-( (I think it works out at about
Ã,£4000 per acre where I live for building land, although it'll
obviously be more nearer to town)

£4,000 an acre for building land. In your dreams!!!! That is what
agricultural land goes for. An acre will go for at least £500,000.

I'm not living in the UK, though

We are!!! That is why we live in hutches and others do not. The large
landowners in the UK do not live in hutches.

I'd heard a rumour that the place where I
worked back in England before I
left sold off some of their land at over a
million / acre, but I'm not sure if it really was
that high. It's a bunch of rabbit hutches these days...

About right.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very cheap,

Where?

some of them not so cheap,

Ah that is norm.

snip drivel

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Roger Chapman wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

The value of the land accounts for 2/3 of the average house price.

Dribble has been spouting this nonsense for years. Other sources have a
different take on the subject. A quick google came up with the following
quote from Self Build ABC.

"The value of plots of land for sale can be found by identifying similar
sized plots that have already been developed. The land should equate to
approximately 35% of the market value of the entire property."


snip

It's a few years ago now, but the survey on our last house gave value and
rebuild costs:

Value: 86K
Rebuild cost: 35K

so plot = 51K. Not far ofF Drivel's number. He can't _always_ be wrong.

I am always right!

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...

so plot = 51K. Not far ofF Drivel's number. He can't _always_ be wrong.
I suspect it varies radically with area: Rebuild costs are probably much
the same across the country, and prices certainly aren't.

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average is 2/3 of
a house value is the value of the land. If all towns, cities and villages
were twice as large, giving a population of 120 million, then still only 15%
of the UK would be settled and that is only 5% paved.

So why does land account for 2/3 of the value of the average home, with all
the negative spins offs, if we have all this land available?

Quite simply, the deliberate creation of an artificial land shortage, which
ramps up land prices.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:01:55 -0500 Jules wrote :
I'd heard a rumour that the place where I worked back in England before
I left sold off some of their land at over a million / acre, but I'm not
sure if it really was that high. It's a bunch of rabbit hutches these
days...

Before the economic crisis a house in Twickenham across the road from my
mum was sold for £850K or so to a couple who promptly had it knocked down
and a new one built. Site area probably 1/6 acre. New house (at the time)
probably worth £1.2m, building cost £250-300K, fees etc £50K so a small
notional profit (they built for themselves not to sell).

Similarly sized plots here in the better Melbourne suburbs sell for around
A$400 = £200K - you can get the house built fairly cheaply (as compared
with the UK) if you are happy to have a pattern book house, for example
http://www.avjennings.com.au/VIC/Hom...gleStorey.aspx (halve A$
prices to turn into £)

--
Tony Bryer, 'Software to build on' from Greentram
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average is 2/3
of a house value is the value of the land. If all towns, cities and
villages were twice as large, giving a population of 120 million, then
still only 15% of the UK would be settled and that is only 5% paved.

You do talk ********.

The urban sprawl we have now, is over conjested and you advocate the
doubling of houses and population, not to mention transport and support
staff.

Most towns and cities are already over crowded with pedestrians during
rush hour times and as for the roads we have now, we would have to
double them as well. So much for your spouting about the economy of the
Prius, we would have to double the number of them on the roads, doubling
the polution along with them.

Now come out with some eco ******** that explains how all the extra
polution, that your ideas will produce, will not be expelled by all the
extra construction of houses, roads and transport. Not to mention all
the civil servants, quango's etc that will produce excess heat and
polution by just being in existance.

Keeping the land idle has the effect of keeping the population down
along with the polution, through lack of housing. This could lead to
less immegrants wanting to come here...

You name isn't Blair, or Brown by any chance?

Dave

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very cheap,

Where?

You say what you would accept as cheap and I will point you to a few
adverts that fit.

When are you going to provide adverts that illustrate your claim?

some of them not so cheap,

Ah that is norm.

You would have it that all land is expensive, even if it is only £2-300
an acre.

snip drivel

So you have had a vasectomy but why publicise the fact?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average is 2/3
of a house value is the value of the land. If all towns, cities and
villages were twice as large, giving a population of 120 million, then
still only 15% of the UK would be settled and that is only 5% paved.

You do talk ********.

You are an idiot. They are "official figures" Reda back on the thread
dumbo, the figures are there. Dumbo!!!

Most towns and cities are already over crowded

Exactly!!

The UK has a land surplus.

We are living in crowded and dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised
country.

Despite claims of concreting over the countryside, only 7.5% of UK land is
settled.

The value of the land accounts for 2/3 of the average house price.

What don't you understand about te figures dumbo?

Keeping the land idle has the effect of keeping the population down along
with the polution, through lack of housing.

It keeps the large owners rich which you are not one being a sycophantic
exploited one.

You are so thick you can't when you are being ripped-off.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very cheap,

Where?

You say what you would accept as cheap and I will point you to a few
adverts that fit.

So there are none. This is Roger making things up again. He does this a
lot.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average is
2/3 of a house value is the value of the land. If all towns, cities
and villages were twice as large, giving a population of 120 million,
then still only 15% of the UK would be settled and that is only 5%
paved.

You do talk ********.

You are an idiot. They are "official figures" Reda back on the thread
dumbo, the figures are there. Dumbo!!!

Double dumbo jumped in and thought I was commenting about his figure
about building costs, but I had read his post to the end before I answered.

Most towns and cities are already over crowded

Exactly!!

The UK has a land surplus.

We are living in crowded and dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised
country.

Despite claims of concreting over the countryside, only 7.5% of UK land is
settled.

I wonder if you have ever thought why? There is a very good reason.

Some abuse snipped.

Keeping the land idle has the effect of keeping the population down
along with the polution, through lack of housing.

It keeps the large owners rich which you are not one being a sycophantic
exploited one.

They can only be rich if the government takes up your stance about
building. No demand, no land value.


You are so thick you can't when you are being ripped-off.

How can I have been ripped off? I have my own land, my own house and it
didn't cost me all that much in todays costs. But every house owner can
look back and say that.

I see you have conveniently snipped the bit about all the polution
created by providing roads, transport, Prius, basic services and more
importantly, the short term cost and long term payback time of the
provision of all this.

Your heart is in the right place, your brain is so far up your arse...

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average is
2/3 of a house value is the value of the land. If all towns, cities
and villages were twice as large, giving a population of 120 million,
then still only 15% of the UK would be settled and that is only 5%
paved.

You do talk ********.

You are an idiot. They are "official figures" Reda back on the thread
dumbo, the figures are there. Dumbo!!!

Double dumbo jumped in and thought I was commenting about his figure about
building costs, but I had read his post to the end before I answered.

Most towns and cities are already over crowded

Exactly!!

The UK has a land surplus.

We are living in crowded and dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised
country.

Despite claims of concreting over the countryside, only 7.5% of UK land
is
settled.

I wonder if you have ever thought why? There is a very good reason.

Prey tell. What is it? Don't bother. 66% of the population own 70% of the
land and hoard it and charge rents. And this plantpot thinks it is to stop
immigrants or something half-witted.

Keeping the land idle has the effect of keeping the population down
along with the polution, through lack of housing.

It keeps the large owners rich which you are not one being a sycophantic
exploited one.

They can only be rich if the government takes up your stance about
building. No demand, no land value.

They ARE rich because of the way the system is right now.

You are so thick you can't when you are being ripped-off.

How can I have been ripped off?

You really don't know. How sad. You are putty to those people. They love
you.

I have my own land, my own house and it didn't cost me all that much in
todays costs.

It could have cost a hell of a lot less and you could have had a bigger
house.

I see you have conveniently snipped the bit about all the polution created
by providing roads, transport,

And electric rail using kinetic reclaim supercapacitors can prevent that.
What world, are you in? Cloud cuckoo land world.

You are a brainwashed sycophant. You are so think you can't see when you
are ripped off big time - like the rest of us. You really are a thicko.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very cheap,

Where?

You say what you would accept as cheap and I will point you to a few
adverts that fit.

So there are none. This is Roger making things up again. He does this
a lot.

Dribble you are a pathological liar as well as an imbecile. You want
direction to a few adverts for cheap building plots? Just say what you
would consider cheap and I will try to accommodate you.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very cheap,

Where?

You say

This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but true.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very cheap,

Where?

You say

This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but true.


"Dribble you are a pathological liar as well as an imbecile. You want
direction to a few adverts for cheap building plots? Just say what you
would consider cheap and I will try to accommodate you."

So proof, if proof was really needed, that Dribble is incapable of
comprehending a simple question, let alone having the capacity to answer it.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average
is 2/3 of a house value is the value of the land. If all towns,
cities and villages were twice as large, giving a population of 120
million, then still only 15% of the UK would be settled and that is
only 5% paved.

You do talk ********.

You are an idiot. They are "official figures" Reda back on the
thread dumbo, the figures are there. Dumbo!!!

Double dumbo jumped in and thought I was commenting about his figure
about building costs, but I had read his post to the end before I
answered.

Most towns and cities are already over crowded

Exactly!!

The UK has a land surplus.

We are living in crowded and dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised
country.

Despite claims of concreting over the countryside, only 7.5% of UK
land is
settled.

I wonder if you have ever thought why? There is a very good reason.

Prey tell. What is it? Don't bother. 66% of the population own 70% of
the land and hoard it and charge rents. And this plantpot thinks it is
to stop immigrants or something half-witted.

Keeping the land idle has the effect of keeping the population down
along with the polution, through lack of housing.

It keeps the large owners rich which you are not one being a
sycophantic exploited one.

They can only be rich if the government takes up your stance about
building. No demand, no land value.

They ARE rich because of the way the system is right now.

You are so thick you can't when you are being ripped-off.

How can I have been ripped off?

You really don't know. How sad. You are putty to those people. They
love you.

I have my own land, my own house and it didn't cost me all that much
in todays costs.

It could have cost a hell of a lot less and you could have had a bigger
house.

What? More cleaning, more dust, more pollen and more allergies for me.
Thanks. Not.

I see you have conveniently snipped the bit about all the polution
created by providing roads, transport,

And electric rail using kinetic reclaim supercapacitors can prevent
that. What world, are you in? Cloud cuckoo land world.

I am in the world of the sane and the free.

Is this electric rail produced with a negative carbon footprint then?
And is the electric rail AC or DC? If it is AC, then the capacitors
will, indeed, be super. If the rail is DC then the capacitors will
be.... capacitors.

But once again, you have not addressed the bit about the polution
created by providing transport.

I must ask, who taught you to write pure bollockese?

You are a brainwashed sycophant. You are so think you can't see when
^^^^^^
you are ripped off big time - like the rest of us. You really are a
thicko.

Yes, I am so think. That is all I do all day: think.

Now go to mummy and get your nappy changed and don't forget to remind
her to dry behind your ears as well.

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:


"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
.. .

There is a high chance of the re-introduction of domestic rates or
similar very soon, because of the parlous state of the economy.

Again...In Ireland where land redistribution occurred, there is no council
tax.

As I've said, you thick ****, one has nothing to do with the other.

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very
cheap,

Where?

You say

This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but true.


This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but true.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average is
2/3 of a house value is the value of the land. If all towns, cities
and villages were twice as large, giving a population of 120 million,
then still only 15% of the UK would be settled and that is only 5%
paved.

You do talk ********.

You are an idiot. They are "official figures" Reda back on the thread
dumbo, the figures are there. Dumbo!!!

Double dumbo jumped in and thought I was commenting about his figure
about building costs, but I had read his post to the end before I
answered.

Most towns and cities are already over crowded

Exactly!!

The UK has a land surplus.

We are living in crowded and dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised
country.

Despite claims of concreting over the countryside, only 7.5% of UK land
is
settled.

I wonder if you have ever thought why? There is a very good reason.

Prey tell. What is it? Don't bother. 66% of the population own 70% of
the land and hoard it and charge rents. And this plantpot thinks it is
to stop immigrants or something half-witted.

Keeping the land idle has the effect of keeping the population down
along with the polution, through lack of housing.

It keeps the large owners rich which you are not one being a
sycophantic exploited one.

They can only be rich if the government takes up your stance about
building. No demand, no land value.

They ARE rich because of the way the system is right now.

You are so thick you can't when you are being ripped-off.

How can I have been ripped off?

You really don't know. How sad. You are putty to those people. They
love you.

I have my own land, my own house and it didn't cost me all that much in
todays costs.

It could have cost a hell of a lot less and you could have had a bigger
house.

What? More cleaning, more dust, more pollen and more allergies for me.
Thanks. Not.

Then you could have had a cheaper house.

I see you have conveniently snipped the bit about all the polution
created by providing roads, transport,

And electric rail using kinetic reclaim supercapacitors can prevent that.
What world, are you in? Cloud cuckoo land world.

I am in the world of the sane and the free.

You are in none.

But once again, you have not addressed the bit about the polution
created by providing transport.

Read Unaffordable Housing by the Policy Exchange. All there. Get back when
you are stuck.

snip drivel

This fool doesn't know when he is being ripped-off

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very
cheap,

Where?

You say

This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but
true.


This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but true.

Dribble, as might be expected, managed to delete all the meaningful
content of my previous post. Said content is repeated below:

"Dribble you are a pathological liar as well as an imbecile. You want direction to a few adverts for cheap building plots? Just say what you
would consider cheap and I will try to accommodate you."

So proof, if proof was really needed, that Dribble is incapable of comprehending a simple question, let alone having the capacity to answer it.

Dribble is still incapable of saying what he thinks is a cheap building
plot. Something anyone with an IQ of more than 50 should manage without
any problem.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There are plenty of building plots for sale, some of them very
cheap,

Where?

You say

This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but
true.

This is Roger making things up again. He does this a lot. Sad but true.

managed to delete all the meaningful content of my previous post.

Roger, none of your posts ever have meaningful content.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
snip

managed to delete all the meaningful content of my previous post.

Roger, none of your posts ever have meaningful content.

Think what you like but to the rest of usenet all your ravings do is
confirm what an imbecile you are.

I see you still haven't managed to work out what you think is a cheap
building plot.

Not typical, and certainly not cheap, but The Independent had a report
last week on a quarter acre building plot in London on the market for,
IIRC, £600,000 with the suggested building costs £800,000 - £1,000,000.

That looks a lot closer to the 35% I quoted earlier than Dribble's two
thirds. FWIW ISTM that it just doesn't make sense to build a rabbit
hutch on an expensive plot and that is equally valid whether the
expensive plot is £100,000 or £1,000,000.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:44:43 +0100 Roger Chapman wrote :
Not typical, and certainly not cheap, but The Independent had a report
last week on a quarter acre building plot in London on the market for,
IIRC, £600,000 with the suggested building costs £800,000 - £1,000,000.

That sounds implausible to me. IIRC the last time I checked rebuilding
costs for someone in the UK I got a figure of about £1,500/m2. Call it
£2,000 and you are talking about a house of 400-500m2, say 5,000ft2, an
awful lot of house for that size of plot. I would have expected a house
of around 2,5000ft2 max at which point you're much nearer the 35%

--
Tony Bryer, 'Software to build on' from Greentram
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:44:43 +0100 Roger Chapman wrote :
Not typical, and certainly not cheap, but The Independent had a report
last week on a quarter acre building plot in London on the market for,
IIRC, £600,000 with the suggested building costs £800,000 - £1,000,000.

That sounds implausible to me. IIRC the last time I checked rebuilding
costs for someone in the UK I got a figure of about £1,500/m2. Call it
£2,000 and you are talking about a house of 400-500m2, say 5,000ft2, an
awful lot of house for that size of plot. I would have expected a house
of around 2,5000ft2 max at which point you're much nearer the 35%

The real problem is 'what is a rebuild'

To rebuild a basic equipped shell with magnolia painted interiors and no
fitments beyond the basics given a decent foundation is about £60 /sq ft

To equip a London penthouse flat already existing *shell* to full
magazine quality bling, may be 3 times that...

Likewise its a lot cheaper to take a well equipped new build site with
decent access than it is to build in Central London, where access and is
restricted, adjacent houses are in the way of heavy equipment, parking
is a nightmare and building costs are high..