We need more articles like this to get it through to people that we'll be richer and better off as a country when we stop preferring unearned wealth over earned wealth.
It's quite remarkable if you drive around Silicon Valley, just how many bungalows there are. The standard housing unit historically seems to have been the detached bungalow (or sometimes the 1.5 story house you see in the US, Australia and New Zealand). There may well have been reasons for doing this in the past (earthquakes), but it's quite a ridiculous use of scarce land. And London is indeed expensive in part for similar reasons - the switch to one and two story housebuilding for most of the 20th century.
It's probably better not to complicate the argument here with any discussion of taxation. But the tax advantages of land speculation are also a major factor here.
socialism always fails.. its easy to deliver more and cheaper housing, we need to relax planning and fine council that don't pass planning. cut all the red tape and needless environmental regulations and lower ...yes lower taxes on land make its 10% CGT flat rate . much more land will come to market and much more competition = better outcomes for all. fixing the market and centralisation is what brought down the Soviet Union only morons try to emulate it. read Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Airey Doughty Policy Exchange for guidance
An interesting gallop around the issue from one perspective only.
In respect of the higher price of land in City centres, the author believes this to be an unatural excess over the price in the coiuntryside. Rural dwellers might think the same aboutWestminster salaries compared with their own or the salaries of luvvies and PR people.
As to the cost of land for housing and its relative scarcity the acticle can only be one sided if it ignores the effect of demand. HMG has been driving up demand for some decades now. A huge increase in population on one hand and taxes which make downsizing or even just moving so costly.
The elephant in the room is oppression. Incomes are skewed to an absurd extent. This happened in the 1920S. It's happened again from the 1970s.
In the Weekend Australian Newspaper March 9-10th. 2024. Bernard Salt wrote that he was born into a family of six children. His mother recorded income and expenses in her diary. In 1959 his father worked as a shop assistant on a weekly wage of 15 pounds, working five and a half days. The family rented a housing commission home at 3 pounds, that absorbed 20% of his fathers after tax pay. Mum looked after the house and the children. By the early 1970s the rent for the same house was 10 pounds, then just 14% of his father’s take home pay. For women who choose to be mothers, god bless every one of them, this was the golden age.
The need for both partners to work has been sold as 'women's liberation'. Today, if the incomes of both man and wife are at the average, not the first and second quartile, to commit to financing a home is to deny oneself the opportunity to have and raise children.
I suggest that if a town was based on mixed use zoning that allowed everything that you required to be available within walking distance prices would be bid up as the convenience and amenity of the town was established. It might take 20 years. The population could finish up at 20,000. Then lets say you stopped it expanding at the margin.
To get back to the same price that reflects just the cost of supplying the land and the house you would have to step out to a location that was sufficiently far away to start the process again. Distance would tend to protect the start ups in the new location. I describe a scenario like this at my substack.
You may get your wish sooner than you think. While every thing you need or want will not be available, 15 minute cities are likely to limit the ability to travel unless you have a big employer or a public authority to pay the access fees.
An excellent and very interesting article.
We need more articles like this to get it through to people that we'll be richer and better off as a country when we stop preferring unearned wealth over earned wealth.
It's quite remarkable if you drive around Silicon Valley, just how many bungalows there are. The standard housing unit historically seems to have been the detached bungalow (or sometimes the 1.5 story house you see in the US, Australia and New Zealand). There may well have been reasons for doing this in the past (earthquakes), but it's quite a ridiculous use of scarce land. And London is indeed expensive in part for similar reasons - the switch to one and two story housebuilding for most of the 20th century.
It's probably better not to complicate the argument here with any discussion of taxation. But the tax advantages of land speculation are also a major factor here.
socialism always fails.. its easy to deliver more and cheaper housing, we need to relax planning and fine council that don't pass planning. cut all the red tape and needless environmental regulations and lower ...yes lower taxes on land make its 10% CGT flat rate . much more land will come to market and much more competition = better outcomes for all. fixing the market and centralisation is what brought down the Soviet Union only morons try to emulate it. read Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Airey Doughty Policy Exchange for guidance
An interesting gallop around the issue from one perspective only.
In respect of the higher price of land in City centres, the author believes this to be an unatural excess over the price in the coiuntryside. Rural dwellers might think the same aboutWestminster salaries compared with their own or the salaries of luvvies and PR people.
As to the cost of land for housing and its relative scarcity the acticle can only be one sided if it ignores the effect of demand. HMG has been driving up demand for some decades now. A huge increase in population on one hand and taxes which make downsizing or even just moving so costly.
Samuel, what do you make of this comment:
The elephant in the room is oppression. Incomes are skewed to an absurd extent. This happened in the 1920S. It's happened again from the 1970s.
In the Weekend Australian Newspaper March 9-10th. 2024. Bernard Salt wrote that he was born into a family of six children. His mother recorded income and expenses in her diary. In 1959 his father worked as a shop assistant on a weekly wage of 15 pounds, working five and a half days. The family rented a housing commission home at 3 pounds, that absorbed 20% of his fathers after tax pay. Mum looked after the house and the children. By the early 1970s the rent for the same house was 10 pounds, then just 14% of his father’s take home pay. For women who choose to be mothers, god bless every one of them, this was the golden age.
The need for both partners to work has been sold as 'women's liberation'. Today, if the incomes of both man and wife are at the average, not the first and second quartile, to commit to financing a home is to deny oneself the opportunity to have and raise children.
I suggest that if a town was based on mixed use zoning that allowed everything that you required to be available within walking distance prices would be bid up as the convenience and amenity of the town was established. It might take 20 years. The population could finish up at 20,000. Then lets say you stopped it expanding at the margin.
To get back to the same price that reflects just the cost of supplying the land and the house you would have to step out to a location that was sufficiently far away to start the process again. Distance would tend to protect the start ups in the new location. I describe a scenario like this at my substack.
You may get your wish sooner than you think. While every thing you need or want will not be available, 15 minute cities are likely to limit the ability to travel unless you have a big employer or a public authority to pay the access fees.