CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"Young couples 'trapped in car dependency'"

(25 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. unhurt
    Member

    Steve Gooding, director of the motorists’ RAC Foundation, supported the research. He told BBC News: "We need new housing developments with a genuine mix of transport options, which may include the private car but not exclude other ways of getting around.

    “It’s not much fun in one of these new estates where there’s nowhere to park out front, so there are cars all over the pavements. You have to ferry your kids everywhere, and then you drive straight into a traffic jam.

    “The government has got to think about this properly – we don’t just need new homes anywhere we can put them – we need quality homes. Places like Poundbury (the Prince of Wales’ development) show it is possible to get this balance right."

    Sad that this still seems to be news to some people, but encouraging that even (a - but perhaps soon "some"?) motoring groups are starting to get it?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  2. neddie
    Member

    We need new housing developments with local shops, local schools, local leisure centres and local places of employment included from the outset.

    Instead of featureless copy & paste houses, built in voids, forcing all to drive everywhere.

    FTFY

    Posted 5 years ago #
  3. crowriver
    Member

    Wait a minute. Are we seriously buying this "forced" line?

    People have choices. These people chose to move to these places, to buy a home there. Buying a home is not like buying a snack in a supermarket: it's complicated, time consuming, and so on. These people knew exactly what they were doing.

    You can argue these places were all they could afford, so it was not a real choice. I'm not falling for that ruse. They could afford to live there because they already had a car and probably drove most places. Now, having decided to move to a car dependent location with no amenities, they complain they are forced to drive everywhere. They presumably made this compromise in order to get the extra bedroom, or the garden, or garage, or whatever it was they wanted from their home that their previous home did not have. So what folk are really saying is they want the extra bedroom, garden, garage, etc. and want amenities, etc. so they don't have to drive everywhere. We may say to that "fair enough", but of course others, probably a minority, have foregone the extra bedroom, garden, garage, etc. so that they have access to amenities and don't have to drive everywhere...

    Yes, planners and developers are culpable here, but so are the people who choose to live in these places.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  4. chdot
    Admin

    “Yes, planners and developers are culpable here, but so are the people who choose to live in these places.“

    Well yes but.

    It’s convenient for developers to say ‘that’s what people want’.

    It’s convenient for developers.

    Of course some/many people want what IS on offer.

    Detached (just) house or semi or even terrace with ‘manageable’ amount of garden, somewhere for the car.

    Developers externalise too many cost - infrastructure, amenities, costs of congestion etc.

    The planning system is somehow expected to deal with all of this.

    Developers are better at lobbying than the ‘GREAT Bike Lobby’.

    *Everyone* says ‘we need more houses’. Nearly everyone says ‘we need more “affordable” houses’.

    And ‘don’t build on the Green Belt or in my back yard - and with perfect facilities from day one.

    Etc.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  5. Baldcyclist
    Member

    City living is financially out of reach of most of society. I remember trying to buy a flat in Edinburgh at 20, even then, before the crazy inflation of the past 30 years it was out of reach.

    I could get a mortgage of £22K, and I remember looking at flats in Dalry / Leith etc at £28K and thinking one day...

    They just grew even more out of reach over time.

    Now, in middle age I earn a pretty good salary, more than around 85% of the population - you'd be surprised at how modest that actually is - and would I now make a decision to buy a 2 bedroom flat somewhere in Edinburgh? Of course not, and even now I'd struggle to finance a 2 bed flat in a decent area.

    Of course it's about choices, but for most people the choice of city living isn't even on their radar. Actually for most now, they are still living at home at 30 struggling to save for a deposit...

    Posted 5 years ago #
  6. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I'd struggle to finance a 2 bed flat in a decent area

    When I am Dictator Benign of all Caledonia all areas of all cities will be 'decent'.

    I think it was @Arellcat who pointed out that our mad transport policies are just sticking plaster for our could-only-have-been-conceived-after-a-six-day-peyote-binge housing policies.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  7. neddie
    Member

    @crowriver

    You can't judge the need for a bridge by counting the number of people trying to swim across the river.

    Similarly, you can't judge the need for "housing with amenities included" by counting the number of people buying houses without any.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  8. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @neddie

    Nicely phrased. I like that.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  9. PS
    Member

    I think it was @Arellcat who pointed out that our mad transport policies are just sticking plaster for our could-only-have-been-conceived-after-a-six-day-peyote-binge housing policies.

    This is spot on. HS2 stage 1 and Crossrail are very expensive ways of dealing with London’s overheated property market. Although I’d argue that problem stems from the UK’s over-centralisation problem. There are more affordable houses in the north of England.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  10. crowriver
    Member

    "I remember trying to buy a flat in Edinburgh at 20, even then, before the crazy inflation of the past 30 years it was out of reach."

    I've no idea how you were earning a living at that point, but the notion of buying a flat at 20 years old seemed fanciful to me even back in the mid-1980s. I was a full-time student, even working part-time at evenings weekends wasn't going to cut it.

    I bought relatively late, at age 33, because by then I had reasonably stable employment and little remaining debt. Deposit requirements less onerous than post-2007 of course. Relatively affordable but small 2 bed flat, reasonably central, where I still live. If I'd been able to buy four years earlier, it would have been a fifth cheaper. On the top floor so was able to extend into the loft to create additional rooms when kids got a bit bigger.

    Okay,, not everyone had or has those options. Edinburgh prices have now gone silly, a neighbouring one bed flat is asking three times what I paid for a small two bed 18 years ago. There are still options and choices, especially for dual income "young couples" as per the article above. Yes, if folk want 3+ bedrooms, a garden, garage, etc. then realistically it's Fife or Midlothian, or a less glamorous former social housing property in Edinburgh somewhere.

    "struggle to finance a 2 bed flat in a decent area"

    Depends on the definition of "decent" I suppose. Newington, Marchmont, Bruntsfield, Stockbridge, etc. were already out of reach on a single modest salary 20 years ago. Less "decent" areas are still relatively affordable in comparison, assuming deposit, finance, etc. are available.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  11. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "but the notion of buying a flat at 20 years old seemed fanciful to me"

    I forgo the University education, and went to work at 17. Was lucky enough to get a good trainee technician position at what was Moray House college back then.

    The decision for me was give £120 to the council for a 1 bed flat, or £113 to the bank for the same 1 bed ex council flat, even with the 9% interest rate for the 100% moetgage.Seemed like a no brainer at the time.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  12. crowriver
    Member

    "The decision for me was give £120 to the council for a 1 bed flat, or £113 to the bank for the same 1 bed ex council flat"

    Similarly at 33 I faced the choice of paying £350 a month rent for a 2 bed flat in Leith, or the same £350 a month for a mortgage on a slightly bigger flat in Abbeyhill. Interest rates have plummeted since then so the original mortgage is much cheaper. Private rents have mysteriously skyrocketed over the same period. £350 monthly might get you a room in a shared flat, if you're lucky.

    However at current interest rates that neighbouring one bed flat (that has trebled in price in 20 years) would still be cheaper to mortgage than renting the equivalent property.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  13. acsimpson
    Member

    I am convinced that the property market is entirely setup to make the rich richer. Rising property prices helps no-one except those with multiple properties to sell. The solution is to increase supply but supply is controlled by those who have multiple properties to sell. The government can't/wont force developers to build or build itself so we are stuck with the status quo where demand outstrips supply and prices continue to rise.

    Add to that the prohibitive tax burden on averagely priced city properties and you have a lot of people unwilling to move unless they have a very good reason. So instead of downsizing for a few years and moving to properties which suit their current needs you have people living in properties with surplus space. This in itself increases demand and continues to drive prices up.

    The fact that so many of our politicians own more than one property and are therefore personally enriched by the system hasn't gone unoticed.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  14. mgj
    Member

    Alternatively we could reduce demand, but you saw how well someone suggesting that the state should encourage smaller families went down yesterday (not least because the person saying it has six children)

    Posted 5 years ago #
  15. crowriver
    Member

    "Add to that the prohibitive tax burden on averagely priced city properties"

    In what sense? Council Tax? Cheaper proportionally than the old Rates used to be for larger properties; more expensive for smaller properties.

    LBTT (formerly Stamp Duty)? 0% up to £145k, 2% up to £250k. So only "prohibitive" (i.e. 10% or more) on properties sold for more than quarter of a million. If you ask me it's a reasonable way to tax unearned income and accrued value through price inflation, far less "prohibitive" than the taxes on earned income for most people.

    Apparently the average house price in Edinburgh is nearly £300k, though the median is £255k. However the largest number of properties for sale is in the price range £100k-£200k.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  16. crowriver
    Member

    "Alternatively we could reduce demand, but you saw how well someone suggesting that the state should encourage smaller families went down yesterday"

    The problem in cities is not children: people under 16 are a lower proportion of the urban population than they used to be historically. The flight to the suburbs for families is still a thing.

    When those suburban, dormitory town and rural children grow up they become the "problem": most cities have relatively large numbers of young people (18-34), many of whom come from elsewhere to find work, study, etc. That's where much of the housing demand is coming from.

    Housing supply is also restricted by AirBnB and short term lets removing housing from the long term private rental market, with Edinburgh being one of the worst affected cities in Europe.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  17. Snowy
    Member

    2 bedroom flat on the market near me is offers over £440,000. Something has gone seriously bonkers. I would have said it's surely got to reset at some point, but the example of London unfortunately suggests otherwise.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  18. steveo
    Member

    "Add to that the prohibitive tax burden on averagely priced city properties"

    Solicitors fees make the tax load look tiny. It cost us a fair percentage of our sale price for both sides of the transaction.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  19. acsimpson
    Member

    I was specifically thinking about LBTT.

    Using a hypothetical city resident owning an average (mean) £300K family property but working outside the city for my example.

    If they were to move house closer to their work they would stump up just short of £5000K LBTT. If a couple of years later they were to change job again and move back to the city or to another satellite location that is another £5000K.

    I have no issue with taxing accrued wealth (especially when it is being turned into liquid assest) but LBTT is a tax on mobility rather than wealth.

    If our example family were to work in an industry with frequent revocations then there is a risk that they could be spending 5-10% of their income on LBTT.

    I would personally prefer that a form of capital gains tax was applied to main residences. Or indeed that council tax was proportionate to property value.

    Similarly LBTT is being used as a way to discourage people buying investment properties but it also discourages people selling investment properties as there is a financial penalty for re-entering the market.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  20. crowriver
    Member

    "I would have said it's surely got to reset at some point"

    30 March 2019 maybe? File under "no deal Brexit cliff edge".

    Posted 5 years ago #
  21. acsimpson
    Member

    @crowriver. That is all hypothetical. If London empties rapidly then there is a risk all the money will move north.

    @snowy, Cala seem to be avertising properties for double that price at the moment. Half a million per bedroom surely isn't affordable to 99% of the population.

    edit, snowy not steveo

    Posted 5 years ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    @asimpson, I'd have thought RBS and HBOS more vulnerable in a no deal scenario than HSBC or Santander.

    Not hypothetical either:

    Banks lay out plans to move jobs from UK as prospect of no-deal Brexit looms

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/uk-banks-brexit-jobs-no-deal-move-eu-city-london-a8416506.html

    Posted 5 years ago #
  23. acsimpson
    Member

    If I understand the theory correctly RBS and HBOS both have the UK as their primary retail market. Although they could move some parts of their business overseas they would struggle to take it all. HSBC meanwhile could move a larger part and leave a tiny fragment here.

    I realise there is a clear and present danger that it will not pan out like this but the truth is that until next September we probably wont know.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  24. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    RBS has the UK as its primary owner If they offshore it....

    Posted 5 years ago #
  25. crowriver
    Member

    "If I understand the theory correctly RBS and HBOS both have the UK as their primary retail market."

    Which is precisely why they're vulnerable in the event of no deal. The other threat is exporting of jobs due to loss of passporting rights in the EU single market. That would mean job losses in the UK as banks operating mostly in the non-retail side move their currency trading, fund management, etc. elsewhere (mainly Frankfurt and Dublin). Might also include merchant banking arm of RBS?

    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin