I really enjoyed this episode, as always. I live in a draughty old Georgian house, which we cannot insulate for fear of being shot by the Grade 2 listing bureaucrats on the council. But we chose this house (vs a new build) because (a) it's much more centrally located, whereas new build estates tend to be out of town with no nearby shops etc. (b) it has character, its beautiful and has high ceilings. All things new builds don't have - in general.
It's obviously worth keeping in mind that many people base their idea of the quality of "new builds" on the state of the market at the point they were buying a house. Given your very specific dates on the improvement of new builds based on legislation and enforcement then it's not surprising that people who bought a house when new builds were bad, think that new builds are bad.
Our 2019 Redrow is pretty good albeit a tad drafty for some reason (I think the massive holes in the walls for extractor fans and window vents) - £160 a month for energy though which by your numbers sounds a lot! Having come from another new build that had MHRV that house was amazingly cosy - I would definitely like to see it in all new houses.
As for the when people hate on new builds certain builders can make estates that come across as a bit soulless, with too many houses that look all the same jammed together and not enough parking so an abundance of oversized SUVs hanging off the pavement. Then a little square of a back garden with 6 other neighbours all overlooking it.
Hi, love the show! Really interesting interview this week. Particularly interested in how too much affordable housing can stop a project from being "viable". In our wildly-overpriced housing market does it really cost more to build an affordable house than you can get from selling it? Or is "viability" about more than that? Asking for a friend on Edinburgh council, which has a 35% affordable-housing target in new builds at the moment.
So with the huge caveat that I'm not an expert - I think in most cases the 'affordable' homes in a given development are basically sold to the council (or a housing association) at below market rate. It's more like a way for the developer to buy off the council to get planning permission - a bit like how big developments will often offer to pay for new infrastructure like a train station.
(I'm sure actual housing experts will explain why I'm wrong here, or why it is more complicated.)
Is the volume of affordable housing not circling back into land values?
The cost of the land itself is a huge portion of the housing costs. While land bought years ago as part of a pipeline is sunk costs, any new land should have it's value reduced if the proportion of affordable housing (with it's lower profit margin) is increased, right?
Yes, but I'm not sure how clean or simple that feedback is. Affordable housing is used to calculate the GDV (gross development value) of a site, and that informs the ultimate land value. But that calculation is quite complex depending on the exact nature of the scheme, the money comes back at different rates (as it does for buy-to-rent as well), and obviously there's still a big upward pressure on land values anyway. So it probably limits land values a bit, but I'm not sure how noticeable it would be in the grand scheme of things.
Oooooh audience trollbait. I’d argue but I’m busy shoveling cash into the boiler of my 110 year old house.
I really enjoyed this episode, as always. I live in a draughty old Georgian house, which we cannot insulate for fear of being shot by the Grade 2 listing bureaucrats on the council. But we chose this house (vs a new build) because (a) it's much more centrally located, whereas new build estates tend to be out of town with no nearby shops etc. (b) it has character, its beautiful and has high ceilings. All things new builds don't have - in general.
It's obviously worth keeping in mind that many people base their idea of the quality of "new builds" on the state of the market at the point they were buying a house. Given your very specific dates on the improvement of new builds based on legislation and enforcement then it's not surprising that people who bought a house when new builds were bad, think that new builds are bad.
Our 2019 Redrow is pretty good albeit a tad drafty for some reason (I think the massive holes in the walls for extractor fans and window vents) - £160 a month for energy though which by your numbers sounds a lot! Having come from another new build that had MHRV that house was amazingly cosy - I would definitely like to see it in all new houses.
As for the when people hate on new builds certain builders can make estates that come across as a bit soulless, with too many houses that look all the same jammed together and not enough parking so an abundance of oversized SUVs hanging off the pavement. Then a little square of a back garden with 6 other neighbours all overlooking it.
Hi, love the show! Really interesting interview this week. Particularly interested in how too much affordable housing can stop a project from being "viable". In our wildly-overpriced housing market does it really cost more to build an affordable house than you can get from selling it? Or is "viability" about more than that? Asking for a friend on Edinburgh council, which has a 35% affordable-housing target in new builds at the moment.
So with the huge caveat that I'm not an expert - I think in most cases the 'affordable' homes in a given development are basically sold to the council (or a housing association) at below market rate. It's more like a way for the developer to buy off the council to get planning permission - a bit like how big developments will often offer to pay for new infrastructure like a train station.
(I'm sure actual housing experts will explain why I'm wrong here, or why it is more complicated.)
Is the volume of affordable housing not circling back into land values?
The cost of the land itself is a huge portion of the housing costs. While land bought years ago as part of a pipeline is sunk costs, any new land should have it's value reduced if the proportion of affordable housing (with it's lower profit margin) is increased, right?
Yes, but I'm not sure how clean or simple that feedback is. Affordable housing is used to calculate the GDV (gross development value) of a site, and that informs the ultimate land value. But that calculation is quite complex depending on the exact nature of the scheme, the money comes back at different rates (as it does for buy-to-rent as well), and obviously there's still a big upward pressure on land values anyway. So it probably limits land values a bit, but I'm not sure how noticeable it would be in the grand scheme of things.