House Building
 

I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand (bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

House Building
 

John wrote:

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand (bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

First house was by Barrats (shudder) in 1998 but although they seemed a
bit flimsy they were nothing like Taywood on the opposing site. They
seemed to build a skeleton of scaffolding which was then clad in various
layers of sheet material before having a brick wall built up the
outside. Didn't inspire confidence at all.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

House Building
 

On Apr 30, 9:36*am, "John" wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

Apparently there are 300,000 empty houses in Eire as a result of a
property boom/crash that dwarfed what has happened in the UK. Whole
estates, some admittedly unfinished, with only a few occupied houses.

MBQ

House Building
 

On 30 Apr, 09:36, "John" wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

I think the mortage and insurance companies are part of the problem.
They look unfavorably on anything non-standard. Also, system-built
houses in this country do not have a good reputation. And most houses/
plots are too small to allow thick ultra-insulated walls. Interior
size is always at a premium.

And its well known that planning departments often get in the way of
new types of build which look different.

As an aside, the method of waterproofing houses always seems strange
to me. Make the outer skin out of something porous and then think how
to deal with the damp that comes through !
Why not clad the whole outside in huge plastic panels - they could be
made with a nice finish.

Simon.

House Building
 

Huge
wibbled on Friday 30 April 2010 09:57

On 2010-04-30, John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way
we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses.

Of course there is. Look at this for a rather upmarket version;

http://www.huf-haus.com/gb/intro.html

I'd cheerfully live in a Huf house.

The problem is that the Brits have been put off such things (and rightly
so in these cases) by the memories of pre-fabs and the vile "system-built"
housing put up by local authorities in the 60's.


What about:

a) Log cabins - those can be produced in a factory, then assembled on site.
Slotting on 1 log has to be quicker than laying a row of bricks???

b) "A robot shat my house" system (will find links if asked) - basically a
3D "robot" that extrudes a clay like mix in strips to lay down walls. Site
prep is foundations and concrete slab floors, then put up robot frame and
feed with "clay". Cavity walls are possible of course, as is more
interesting shaped houses - curves are no more difficult than straight
walls. That leaves the roof, internal upper floors and fitting out.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

House Building
 

On 30 Apr, 10:17, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:36*am, "John" wrote:

I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

Apparently there are 300,000 empty houses in Eire as a result of a
property boom/crash that dwarfed what has happened in the UK. Whole
estates, some admittedly unfinished, with only a few occupied houses.

MBQ

Sounds like Detroit and shown in a recent documentary. The vast tracts
of inner city land are becoming farms, leading to an inside-out city.
Simon.

House Building
 

John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand (bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.


What, and throw thousands of brickies out of an honest job?


Actually, houses can and are prefabbed, but there is a problem. A prefab
looks like the next pre fab. People don't like that.

Another problem is weight. A house weighs a hell of a lot. Even a room
weighs a hell of a lot. you can't transport more than 30 tons on most
roads, and that's going some.

If you use lightweight insulated style construction, it can be done, but
again., thermal mass is nice, inside a house, to moderate temperature
extremes. And mass itself gives a house a solidity that a braced frame
does not.

So, while there is room for larger lumps thatn a single brick, there
isn't MUCH room for more than a certain amount.

you are limited to about 25-35kg for manual lifting, and 20-30 tonnes
for a deliverable load. That's not even enough to pour the strip
foundations of an average house.

Likewise, the sort of strength needed to - say - make a chimney that you
could lift in position is WAY more than it needs to just stay up when
built in place.

House Building
 

Tim Watts wrote:
Huge
wibbled on Friday 30 April 2010 09:57

On 2010-04-30, John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way
we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses.
Of course there is. Look at this for a rather upmarket version;

http://www.huf-haus.com/gb/intro.html

I'd cheerfully live in a Huf house.

The problem is that the Brits have been put off such things (and rightly
so in these cases) by the memories of pre-fabs and the vile "system-built"
housing put up by local authorities in the 60's.


What about:

a) Log cabins - those can be produced in a factory, then assembled on site.
Slotting on 1 log has to be quicker than laying a row of bricks???

b) "A robot shat my house" system (will find links if asked) - basically a
3D "robot" that extrudes a clay like mix in strips to lay down walls. Site
prep is foundations and concrete slab floors, then put up robot frame and
feed with "clay". Cavity walls are possible of course, as is more
interesting shaped houses - curves are no more difficult than straight
walls. That leaves the roof, internal upper floors and fitting out.

That is a far more interesting possibility. CNC controlled 3D 'printing'
of a house..

There is, however, a difference between low labour content and off-site
prefabrication.

House Building
 

"John" wrote in message
...
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

I think the problem is that the reason houses are "unaffordable" is because
of the cost of the land.

Even if we halved the build cost they would still be unaffordable.

tim

House Building
 

On 30 Apr, 09:36, "John" wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

Indeed. Isn't it old Kevin McCloud that said house construction should
be like car construction - and you wouldn't try and build a modern car
in the middle of a field.

Actually one of the main reasons why house-building is slow to change,
is the make- up of the industry.

50% of building companies are 5 people or less, 90% are 12 people or
less.

Larger projects often involve several layers of subcontractors.

Every subcontractor is out to maximise their takings, whilst
minimising their costs - i.e. the contractor takes the lowest quote,
and the subcontractor delivers the minimum specification.

It's not a recipe for quality, or innovation.

And as they all do it, there's little reason to change.

Add to that, that many builders are self-taught and/or learned on the
job, with only the younger ones with some college training - there
isn't likely to be a culture of innovation. Most builders will find
what works and stick to it.

But I think the considerably larger factor is that *almost all house-
building is completely hamstrung by the cost of building land* - and
if there's one thing we can do to stimulate a more competitive and
innovative industry - it's make land available at more reasonable
prices and with a small set of reasonable restrictions on what can be
done with it - no further permissions required.

*That* way it would become economic to produce quality prefabs,
knowing that buyers would have a reasonable choice of suitable sites,
at reasonable prices - and not have to go through the lottery of
planning permission.

I found it very noticeable that not one of the party leaders mentioned
the lack of availability of building land - instead choosing to blame
builders for the collapse of their own industry.

If the government chose to create reasonable market conditions, then
there would be much greater competition from builders/manufacturers -
and we might see something like the modern car industry where
businesses *have* to keep with improvements their competitors make.

House Building
 

On Apr 30, 10:23*am, sm_jamieson wrote:
On 30 Apr, 10:17, "Man at B&Q" wrote:



On Apr 30, 9:36*am, "John" wrote:

I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

Apparently there are 300,000 empty houses in Eire as a result of a
property boom/crash that dwarfed what has happened in the UK. Whole
estates, some admittedly unfinished, with only a few occupied houses.

MBQ

Sounds like Detroit and shown in a recent documentary. The vast tracts
of inner city land are becoming farms, leading to an inside-out city.
Simon.

Forgot to mention, the ones in Eire are brand new houses, result of
unfettered speculation.

MBQ

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand (bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.


What, and throw thousands of brickies out of an honest job?


Actually, houses can and are prefabbed, but there is a problem. A prefab
looks like the next pre fab. People don't like that.

Another problem is weight. A house weighs a hell of a lot. Even a room
weighs a hell of a lot. you can't transport more than 30 tons on most
roads, and that's going some.

If you use lightweight insulated style construction, it can be done, but
again., thermal mass is nice, inside a house, to moderate temperature
extremes. And mass itself gives a house a solidity that a braced frame
does not.

So, while there is room for larger lumps thatn a single brick, there
isn't MUCH room for more than a certain amount.

you are limited to about 25-35kg for manual lifting, and 20-30 tonnes
for a deliverable load. That's not even enough to pour the strip
foundations of an average house.

Likewise, the sort of strength needed to - say - make a chimney that you
could lift in position is WAY more than it needs to just stay up when
built in place.


Funny how there is always an obsession in Britain with making houses
cheaper to build, when the major part (often the majority) of the
purchase price of a house is actually what is being paid for the land.

Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

House Building
 

On 30 Apr, 11:14, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher



wrote:
John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

What, and throw thousands of brickies out of an honest job?

Actually, houses can and are prefabbed, but there is a problem. A prefab
looks like the next pre fab. People don't like that.

Another problem is weight. A house weighs a hell of a lot. Even a room
weighs a hell of a lot. you can't transport more than 30 tons on most
roads, and that's going some.

If you use lightweight insulated style construction, it can be done, but
again., thermal mass is nice, inside a house, to moderate temperature
extremes. And mass itself gives a house a solidity that a braced frame
does not.

So, while there is room for larger lumps thatn a single brick, there
isn't MUCH room for more than a certain amount.

you are limited to about 25-35kg for manual lifting, and 20-30 tonnes
for *a deliverable load. That's not even enough to pour the strip
foundations of an average house.

Likewise, the sort of strength needed to - say - make a chimney that you
could lift in position is WAY more than it needs to just stay up when
built in place.

Funny how there is always an obsession in Britain with making houses
cheaper to build, when the major part (often the majority) of the
purchase price of a house is actually what is being paid for the land.

Our land is ridiculously expensive. *It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. *They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. *When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. *Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. *Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.

House Building
 

On 30 Apr, 10:43, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

What, and throw thousands of brickies out of an honest job?

Actually, houses can and are prefabbed, but there is a problem. A prefab
looks like the next pre fab. People don't like that.

Another problem is weight. A house weighs a hell of a lot. Even a room
weighs a hell of a lot. you can't transport more than 30 tons on most
roads, and that's going some.

If you use lightweight insulated style construction, it can be done, but
again., thermal mass is nice, inside a house, to moderate temperature
extremes. And mass itself gives a house a solidity that a braced frame
does not.

So, while there is room for larger lumps thatn a single brick, there
isn't MUCH room for more than a certain amount.

you are limited to about 25-35kg for manual lifting, and 20-30 tonnes
for *a deliverable load. That's not even enough to pour the strip
foundations of an average house.

Likewise, the sort of strength needed to - say - make a chimney that you
could lift in position is WAY more than it needs to just stay up when
built in place.

I realize this is not your point, but some housebuilders are using
fibreglass chimneys. They are far enough away from most viewpoints to
look like brick.
Simon.

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:34:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 30 Apr, 11:14, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher



wrote:
John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

What, and throw thousands of brickies out of an honest job?

Actually, houses can and are prefabbed, but there is a problem. A prefab
looks like the next pre fab. People don't like that.

Another problem is weight. A house weighs a hell of a lot. Even a room
weighs a hell of a lot. you can't transport more than 30 tons on most
roads, and that's going some.

If you use lightweight insulated style construction, it can be done, but
again., thermal mass is nice, inside a house, to moderate temperature
extremes. And mass itself gives a house a solidity that a braced frame
does not.

So, while there is room for larger lumps thatn a single brick, there
isn't MUCH room for more than a certain amount.

you are limited to about 25-35kg for manual lifting, and 20-30 tonnes
for *a deliverable load. That's not even enough to pour the strip
foundations of an average house.

Likewise, the sort of strength needed to - say - make a chimney that you
could lift in position is WAY more than it needs to just stay up when
built in place.

Funny how there is always an obsession in Britain with making houses
cheaper to build, when the major part (often the majority) of the
purchase price of a house is actually what is being paid for the land.

Our land is ridiculously expensive. *It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. *They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. *When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. *Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. *Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.


Totally agree.

But while all political parties still welcome funding from
housebuilders, I doubt that anything will change.

House Building
 

But I think the considerably larger factor is that *almost all house-
building is completely hamstrung by the cost of building land* -

Indeed spot on!..

and
if there's one thing we can do to stimulate a more competitive and
innovative industry - it's make land available at more reasonable
prices and with a small set of reasonable restrictions on what can be
done with it - no further permissions required.

As long as its not in my backyard;!..


*That* way it would become economic to produce quality prefabs,
knowing that buyers would have a reasonable choice of suitable sites,
at reasonable prices - and not have to go through the lottery of
planning permission.

I found it very noticeable that not one of the party leaders mentioned
the lack of availability of building land - instead choosing to blame
builders for the collapse of their own industry.

C'om on, their politicos, what do they know other than bull****?..

If the government chose to create reasonable market conditions, then
there would be much greater competition from builders/manufacturers -
and we might see something like the modern car industry where
businesses *have* to keep with improvements their competitors make.

Now we know thats not going to happen don't we;!..

Not that theres anything wrong with brick built houses they do if
designed right look good and last well in the main..
--
Tony Sayer

House Building
 

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article
,
" wrote:

On 30 Apr, 11:14, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Our land is ridiculously expensive. *It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. *They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. *When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. *Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. *Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.

The main problem is over-population. That causes shortages of
everything. I know you could concrete over most of the countryside, but
you'll end up with catastrophic congestion, pollution, and a very
fragile infrastructure.

Driving through France you get an idea of what it's like to be somewhere
where the population density is about half of ours. Really, the UK
population should be no more than 30 million.


OK your first in the camp then.. any other volunteers;?..
--
Tony Sayer

House Building
 

I realize this is not your point, but some housebuilders are using
fibreglass chimneys. They are far enough away from most viewpoints to
look like brick.
Simon.

LOL I've got a piccy of one thats on the lean, but the owners like the
look of it;!..
--
Tony Sayer

House Building
 

"John" wrote in message
...
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the
concept of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand
(bricks, tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved.
Wiring could be pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

John Prescot tried to get the big builders prefab a lot of their
construction, as other countries do. They can only operate on cheap
labour - they know no better. Whoever tries to get them to build cheaply and
quickly has little impact.

Look at Structural insulated panels (SIPs). They are gaining ground in a
small way. Very popular in the USA. You do not need heating system with
them and the weatherproof shell can be up in a few days for the finishing
trades to move in.

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:49:45 +0100, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:34:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 30 Apr, 11:14, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher



wrote:
John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. Â*Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. Â*Any savings are more

Pop over to Spain and have a look at the houses they have built there. Hardly
any have thermal insulation and a large majority leak like a seive whenever
it rains. This is in comparatively new builds (the past 10 years), too. I would
expect that a lot of other european countries have the same low standards.

likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

Well, yes. You could easily build cheap houses on cheap land. But no-one
would buy them. The trick is to have cheap land near major centres of
employment (i.e. cities). That's something we as a country don't do well.
For a start, there's the green-belt policy which restricts the amount of
outward expansion. Secondly there's a lot of NIMBYism for building transport
links so people could live further out. Finally, (and probably most
significant) is the huge vested interest that all home owners have in preserving
the high price of houses. Otherwise their mortgages become higher than the
property is worth: foreclosure, bankruptcies, financial losses. No-one with
a house would ever vote for that.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.


Totally agree.

But while all political parties still welcome funding from
housebuilders, I doubt that anything will change.

The only solution I can think of is to stipulate a minimum size for new builds.
If regulations were created to require a minimum size of 100sq m. of living space
then any new property would have to comply. Older. smaller houses could still
be lived in, bought and sold, but they value would decline over time.

House Building
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

Funny how there is always an obsession in Britain with making houses
cheaper to build, when the major part (often the majority) of the
purchase price of a house is actually what is being paid for the land.

Spot on!!! About 2/3 of the price on average.

Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

Look up Land Value Tax, which stops speculation of land and land price hypes
which have caused two financial crashes, 1929 and 2008. Vince Cable is a big
fan. It also keeps land prices low so homes are highly affordable - more
money can be spent on the structure, not the land. Land plots will be larger
as well. A win, win for all. The LVT movement is very big in the USA.

Only 7.5% of the UK is settled. We have a land surplus. Tory propaganda says
otherwise, like concreting over the countryside.

Permison is owned by a well connected in the landed gentry Hooray Henry.
They make their money in LAND not building houses. They buy agricultural
land and then get PP which hypes the prices to silly levels. They always
seem to know where to buy the land, to the point it indicates insider
dealing.

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

Our new homes are a disgrace with egg-shell walls upstairs. The Labour
party have made matters better by increasing the insulation levels and
reduced carbon footprint working up to 2016.

House Building
 

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 9:36 am, "John" wrote:

Apparently there are 300,000 empty houses in Eire as a result of a
property boom/crash that dwarfed what has happened in the UK. Whole
estates, some admittedly unfinished, with only a few occupied houses.


The Celtic Tiger fell flat on its arse. Those homes will be occupied in
time. That is not a problem.

House Building
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Actually, houses can and are prefabbed, but there is a problem. A prefab
looks like the next pre fab. People don't like that.

Total tripe! SIP panels come in whole sides with doors and windows cut out.
You order from a catalogue and they lock together like a house of cards. Any
shape can be had and the exterior roof finished any way you like. What it
Tudor? You got it.

If you use lightweight insulated style construction, it can be done, but
again., thermal mass is nice, inside a house, to moderate temperature
extremes. And mass itself gives a house a solidity that a braced frame
does not.

Thermal mass can be incorporated inside a SIP panelled homes, by having the
internal non-structural walls dense concrete blocks. Ceiling can have sand
in the voids called pugging. Also the concrete slab can be masonry covered
and no wood or carpets which add in a lot of thermal mass.

House Building
 

Only 7.5% of the UK is settled.

I thought it was 5%.

Whichever - it's small.

The UK now produces 80% of it's own food - much of the remainder being
stuff that can't realistically be produced here.

(Domestic food production was 50% in wartime - modern farming methods
produce more food with 10% of the workforce).

In fact there's plenty of space left - if it seems overcrowded, it's
because were not building the infrastructure needed.

We could *double* the amount of the country that's built on, whilst
only reducing the available agricultural land by 5%.

House Building
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

Funny how there is always an obsession in Britain with making houses
cheaper to build, when the major part (often the majority) of the
purchase price of a house is actually what is being paid for the land.

High prices for very small high density homes are the norm in the United
Kingdom. UK house prices are amongst the highest in the world in comparison
to comparable countries. The more land is a greater part of the total house
price the higher house prices become. An acre of agricultural land can be
purchased for £2,000, an attrcative, complete eco kit home for £20,000, yet
the average price of a house in the UK is near to £200,000. Obtaining
planning permission to erect a house in the countryside in a country with a
land surplus will be near impossible. Few realise that the high land value
is the reason why their homes are so expensive.

In the United Kingdom the average home costs seven times the average annual
income. In the U.S.A. the average person pays three and a half their annual
income on a home. In the United Kingdom the average size of the home will be
330 square feet per person, while Americans occupy 750 square feet per
person. In the UK, on average, homes cost twice as much and are half the
size as in the U.S.A.

LAND VALUE TAX (LVT)
The 1929 financial crash and 2008 Credit Crunch crash, were land fuelled as
land and house prices spiraled out of control. When the economy expands
demand for land increases, LVT prevents this occurring. LVT is a silver
bullet to prevent booms and busts. Henry George, an American, devised LVT.
The precursor of the board game Monopoly, was the Landlord's Game, named
'Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit' in the UK. The board game was designed to teach
people the theories of Henry George. LVT is one tax, a tax on the value of
land, no personal income tax, no Council Tax. LVT taxes only the "value" of
the land based on the current market value, not the building on the land or
any improvements. Someone in northernScotland on one acre will pay very
little as the land is not worth so much. Someone in central London with one
acre pays substantially more. A larger house will not be penalised, unlike
the current Council Tax system.

Henry George initially proposed government ownership of all land, as the
population, the state, owned it anyhow. Getting it across and accepted would
have been virtually impossible. Redistribution of land, many view as
Communism, and would accuse the state of taking away from them what is
theirs. Henry George realised that the population will not accept that you
cannot own land. It is in the psyche of the western world, especially the
Anglo Saxon world. That is where LVT excels. Own land by all means, but if
you own half of Scotland just to shoot birds on, tax will be due on that
land, which currently is not the case. LVT will force large landowners to
sell and not hoard land. It will also encourage them to make productive use
of the land; if they cannot then they sell it to someone who can make
productive use of it. It prevents land hoarding and encourages development
in urban areas.
LVT does not tax an individuals labour, and hence their productivity and
personal growth, which the current system does, holding back advancement.

House Building
 

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

The main problem is over-population.
That causes shortages of everything.
I know you could concrete over most
of the countryside, but you'll end up with
catastrophic congestion, pollution, and a very
fragile infrastructure.

Not this propaganda again.

Relevant Facts on land

ONly 7.5% of the UK land mass is settled.

The UK has 60 million acres of land in total

70% of the land is owned by 1% of the population.

Just 6,000 or so landowners - mostly aristocrats, but also large
institutions and the Crown - own about 40 million acres, two thirds of the
UK.

Britain's top 20 landowning families have bought or inherited an area big
enough to swallow up the entire counties of Kent, Essex and Bedfordshire,
with more to spare.

Big landowners measure their holdings by the square mile; the average Briton
living in a privately owned property has to exist on 340 square yards.

Each home pays £550/ann. on average in council tax while each landowning
home receives £12,169/ann. in subsidies. The poor subsidising the super
rich. In Ireland where land redistribution occurred, there is no council
tax.

A building plot, the land, now constitutes between half to two- thirds of
the cost of a new house.

60 million people live in 24 million "dwellings".

These 24 million dwellings sit on approx 4.4 million acres (7.7% of the
land).

Of the 24 million dwellings, 11% owned by private landlords and 65%
privately owned.

19 million privately owned homes, inc gardens, sit on 5.8% of the land.

Average dwelling has 2.4 people in it.

77% of the population of 60 million (projected to be more in new census)
live on only 5.8% of the land, about 3.5 million acres (total 60 million).

Agriculture only accounts for 3% of the economy.

Average density of people on one residential acre is 12 to 13.

10.9 million homes carries a mortgage of some kind.

Average value of an acre of development land is £404,000. High in south east
of £704,154, low in north east of £226,624. London is in a category of its
own.

Of the world's 15 most expensive prime commercial property locations, five
are in England.

London West End occupation costs of £98 per square foot are the most
expensive in the world. They are around 40 per cent more than any other city
in the world, and double that of Paris, the next most expensive European
city.

Prime site occupation costs in Manchester and Leeds are around 40 percent
more than mid-town Manhattan.

Reservations of land have been placed by builders to a value of 37 billion
to build the 3-4 million homes required. The land reserved is almost wholly
owned by aristocrats; with none of it on the land registry. This land is
coming out of subsidised rural estates, land held by off-shore trusts and
companies and effectively untaxed.

Tony Blair ejected from the House of Lords 66 hereditary peers, who between
them owned the equivalent of 4.5 average sized English counties.

Driving through France you get an idea
of what it's like to be somewhere
where the population density is about half of ours.
Really, the UK population should be no more
than 30 million.

The UK can support quite easily a population wice what is is. The UK has
the same population desity as Germany. Over a period of thirty years, real
house prices in the UK rose up by around 3% per annum while remaining stable
in Germany and Switzerland.

The averaged sized new home in the UK is a paltry 76 square metres, while in
Germany with a similar population density new homes are 109 square metres,
nearly half as much again in size. German homes are also have far, far
superior build in qualities.

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:36:17 +0100, John wrote:

I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way
we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way
of 'productionising' the building of houses.

It's interesting watching them in countries (such as where I am) making
them from wood - they go up *fast*. Takes very little time to prep the
site, get the foundation/subfloor in, then put the framework up. Trusses
can be pre-assembled elsewhere and brought in if needed, speeding things
up further. It's common for people here to buy some land and just have a
house built on it to their spec, because it's the land that's expensive,
not the house that sits upon it.

Perhaps the key for the UK is to not use brick for the low-cost stuff?
The climate seems OK for it (wood-framed structures are used in plenty of
areas with more extreme climates), and there's no seismic aspect to worry
about.

Over longer timescales there are longevity issues - but it's probably
still good for 100 years *if maintenance is kept up with*, and I'm not
certain that the typical Barratt shed is designed to last much beyod
that, either.

cheers

Jules

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:36:17 +0100 John wrote :
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the
way we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a
way of 'productionising' the building of houses.

Back c.1980 a small development of back-to-back starter homes in New
Malden was done using volumetric units, basically container sized timber
framed boxes all finished internally, craned into place, services hooked
together, brick veneer facing and roof tiling. In Building Control our
initial reaction was negative, but our tame structural engineer said he'd
much rather see the majority of the work done in a warm dry factory with
proper supervision.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Sm_jamieson wrote :
As an aside, the method of waterproofing houses always seems strange
to me. Make the outer skin out of something porous and then think how
to deal with the damp that comes through !

No, wear a plastic mac and all the rain runs straight down and soaks the
bottoms of your trouser legs. Similarly an impervious cladding will
result in water running down the facade where wind will drive it through
any imperfection. Brick cladding is much more forgiving.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:04:01 +0100 Tim.... wrote :
I think the problem is that the reason houses are "unaffordable" is
because of the cost of the land.

Not exactly, because you value land by doing a residual valuation:
value = SP of house - (build cost + fees + finance costs + required
profit). The planning system chokes the supply of new housing which
makes it more expensive, which in turn makes land more valuable
/expensive.

In my old home of LBRuT various politicians of all persuasions have
pledged to fight against 'garden grabbing'. The reality is that more
intensive use of land that is within walking distance of shops and
existing PT is something that should be actively encouraged. Instead
new housing is built in areas that have neither leading to ever
increasing car use.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

House Building
 

"pete" wrote in message
...

Look at this site:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html

Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

Well, yes. You could easily build cheap houses
on cheap land. But no-one would buy them.

They would. They would line up to buy them. We have an artificial land
shortage. There is an abundance of land to build homes on. No shortage of
skills and labour to build them. No shortage of construction companies ready
to build them. Yet we have a housing shortage.

Land Valuation Tax and a relaxation of planning is the answer.

The trick is to have cheap land near major centres of
employment (i.e. cities). That's something we as a country don't do well.
For a start, there's the green-belt policy which restricts the amount of
outward expansion.

Greenbelts, extensively introduced in the 1950s, were intended to be narrow
and primarily used for recreation by the inhabitants of the towns and cities
they surrounded. The belts were expanded in width, but continued to be used
for farming. The shire counties used greenbelts to hold back the disliked
populations of nearby towns and cities. Recreational uses disappeared and
the greenbelts became green barriers to keep large numbers of urban
inhabitants from mixing with a very small number of rural residents. This
is a clear case of the few exercising their will over a massive majority.
Often these greenbelts were not even green, containing industry and
intensive industrial agriculture.

Instead of being a sports jacket they ended being a straight jacket.

Secondly there's a lot of NIMBYism for building transport
links so people could live further out. Finally, (and probably most
significant) is the huge vested interest that all home owners have in
preserving
the high price of houses. Otherwise their mortgages become higher than the
property is worth: foreclosure, bankruptcies, financial losses. No-one
with
a house would ever vote for that.

Unless there was fund from Land Value Taxation to bind people over from
negative equity in a transition. That is workable.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.

Or introduce Land Value Taxation across the board. LVT also funds
infrastructure, as US cities are doing right now. Hong Kong built as metro
out of it.

Totally agree.

But while all political parties still welcome funding from
housebuilders, I doubt that anything will change.

The only solution I can think of is to stipulate a
minimum size for new builds. If regulations were
created to require a minimum size of 100sq m. of
living space then any new property would have to
comply. Older. smaller houses could still
be lived in, bought and sold, but they value would
decline over time.

That should help, but nor much. Minimum sizes is essential in the pokey
hutches on offer.Also the sound transfer properties should be very high
which would make the homes more substantial.

House Building
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:22:35 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:
As an aside, the method of waterproofing houses always seems strange to
me. Make the outer skin out of something porous and then think how to
deal with the damp that comes through ! Why not clad the whole outside
in huge plastic panels - they could be made with a nice finish.

I suppose that's essentially what they do this side of the Pond - wood
frame, wood sheets over the top, plastic sheet over the top of that to
act as moisture barrier, then siding (wood/vinyl/metal) over the top to
deflect serious amounts of moisture (aka. rain).

cheers

Jules

House Building
 

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Relevant Facts on land

ONly 7.5% of the UK land mass is settled.

The UK has 60 million acres of land in total

60 million people live in 24 million "dwellings".

These 24 million dwellings sit on approx 4.4 million acres (7.7% of the
land).

So the 50M in England live in 20M dwellings on about 3.7M acres. England
is 50,300 sq mi which is just over 32M acres. So for England alone its
more like 11.5%

And that's without counting the land occupied by roads, factories and
other places of work, public buildings, shops, national parks, etc.

And the land needed to feed all these people.

You still can't comprehend and still think the UK is short of land.

Contrary to popular belief, the UK has approximately only 7.5% of its land
settled upon. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK
actually has a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the South
East of England, only 7.1% is settled with the Home Counties being
underpopulated. The North West of England is densest with 9.9% settled (Kate
Barkers report). Road and other uses account for littyelin the scale of
matters.

Even that 11% figure you gave, if right of course which I doubt, it is still
only a small figure.

The food?

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over
subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used economically
in commerce and for much needed spacious higher quality homes for the
population. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of our taxes. The UK
could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of its food, as
food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers
in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and
distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt
having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the
greater good of British society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We
also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel
industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and
especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an
economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly
could be better used? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5
billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry,
about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture
absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real
economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which
is near 27% of the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of
the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is
highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower
house prices which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be
within reach of much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large
recreation and construction industries, and keeping the population in touch
with the nature of their own countryside. In Germany the population have
access to a large forests which are heavily used at weekends. Forests and
woods are ideal for recreation and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere.
Much land could be turned over to public forests.

The UK has imported most of its cereals from the US for the past 130 years.

Cheap fast transportation (the steam ship and trains) had meant food could
be transported between continents from the mid-1800s. This prevented
European famines. The USA and Canada were pouring out cereals super cheap.
Global food production was in the hands of the USA and UK using the UKs sea
lanes and massive merchant fleet to transport food - animal and human
consumption. Liverpool was a massive grain importing and processing port.
40% of the world's trade at one time moving through the port.

Food transportation between continents did not apply only to cereals. For
e.g., Liverpool companies owned vast tracts of Argentina processing beef and
transporting it to the UK and other European ports. The Vesty empire owned
massive ranches, processing plants and the shipping fleets to transport the
meat products - total vertical integration to the point they owned the shops
it was sold in - Dewhursts. Only oil companies ever achieved such total
control of their products.

House Building
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...


Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

That does not make economic sense.
You want to buy something, increase its value and sell it as soon as
possible so you can get on with the next bit.
Remember that they will have to pay the going rate for their next plot so
the "gain" is eaten up by the next purchase.


So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries.

Well buy one that isn't cheaply built then.
There are self build plots available now the big builders are struggling.

Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

House Building
 

wrote in message
...

Only 7.5% of the UK is settled.

I thought it was 5%.

Whichever - it's small.

Too small. The urban footprint could be twice the size and it would not
make an impact at all.

The UK now produces 80% of it's own food - much of the remainder being
stuff that can't realistically be produced here.

See my recent post on agriculture.

The UK is 60% self-sufficient in food overall, and around 74%
self-sufficient in the types of food that can be grown.

In fact there's plenty of space left - if it
seems overcrowded, it's because were not
building the infrastructure needed.

It is not that at all. It is self-interest by large landowners, mainly
aristocrats. 0.66% of the population own 70% of the land. They mainly take
in rent being non-productive. It is breaking this monopoly on land that
will improve matters. The monopolies commission does not appear to apply top
land.

We could *double* the amount of the country that's built on, whilst
only reducing the available agricultural land by 5%.

We could just stop this rural and urban nonsense and treat the lot as one.
The autonomous house is virtually here. Superinsulation, septic tanks,
combined heat & power units, grey water re-cycling, rainwater harvesting,
wireless communications, mobile phones, amongst others, are all here. These
houses have a low impact on the environment. Connection to urban utilities
is no longer necessary.Locating homes with all modern conveniences, just
about anywhere in the UK is now feasible. Herding the population into urban
communities because they offered basic utilities no longer need be the case.

Many eco minded people would emphasise that more transport journeys would be
needed if the population are more evenly spread amongst the land. Great
leaps in battery and supercapacitors which promote electric hybrid and full
electric cars is now a reality. These products are on sale with more
constantly coming onto the market with increasingly advanced designs.
Supercapacitor technology, clawing back and storing normally wasted braking
energy and light-rail trains, have reduced the running and maintenance costs
of electric trains. Electric vehicles have zero emissions creating a clean
air environment.

A farmer can build a 40 foot ugly concrete barn structure without planning
permission. The agricultural industry in some areas has blotted the
landscape as far as the eye can see with polythene tunnels to grow fruits of
which some are not native to the UK. If a good looking house was built to
the local vernacular visually enhancing the countryside, without planning
permission, it would be pulled down by the authorities. Houses are deemed to
blot to the countryside and undesirable, yet raw concrete and polythene is
not, and is accepted.

We should be living amongst nature, not having to drive out to see it.
Walking on land is another matter, as most of it is fenced off, stolen under
the enclosures.

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their
native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads"
- Henry George.

House Building
 

tim.... wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

I think the problem is that the reason houses are "unaffordable" is because
of the cost of the land.

Even if we halved the build cost they would still be unaffordable.


absolute rubbish

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Its just another Labour bit of spin.

What people do not appreciate is the fact that fundamentally a house
represents about 5-8 man years of labour - productive labour - to build.

How can that ever be affordable by someone who has never had a job and
is only 22 years old?

In a FAIR society, (where you get back what you put in). That is.

Basically a house represents 10% of your working life in (someone's)
labour costs.

Think about it.

How can that EVER be anything other than 10% of your income, plus
interest, for all your working life?

House Building
 

House Building
 

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Bruce" wrote in message
...


Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

That does not make economic sense.

It does. That is whay they do it. They can buy land at say a million and in
5 years it will be worth 10. Where can you get that return from doing
NOTHING. They pay no tax on that land. Land value Taxation will cut all
that out. Speculators are a curse. hey caused financial crashes.

House Building
 

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:

On 30 Apr, 11:14, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.
Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.

The main problem is over-population.

In a nutshell, yes.


That causes shortages of
everything. I know you could concrete over most of the countryside, but
you'll end up with catastrophic congestion, pollution, and a very
fragile infrastructure.

Driving through France you get an idea of what it's like to be somewhere
where the population density is about half of ours. Really, the UK
population should be no more than 30 million.


Yes.

And that's why Gordon Brown needs to be hung for telling a woman she is
a bigot, when immigration of EVERY sort has trebled under Labour, and
all the 'new jobs' created by labour have gone to educated immigrants on
account of Brits being too stupid, badly educated and lazy to do them,
when the dole is simply a better option.

House Building
 

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article
,
" wrote:

On 30 Apr, 11:14, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries. Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.
Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.
The main problem is over-population. That causes shortages of
everything. I know you could concrete over most of the countryside, but
you'll end up with catastrophic congestion, pollution, and a very
fragile infrastructure.

Driving through France you get an idea of what it's like to be somewhere
where the population density is about half of ours. Really, the UK
population should be no more than 30 million.


OK your first in the camp then.. any other volunteers;?..

I've no kids. I am exempt.

In fact the only people I know with more than 2 kids, are on the
dole...or Catholics..so that defines the general area for deployment of
the machine guns then ;-)