Homes in England are more cramped than ones in New York City and offer the worst value for money in the developed world
Homes in England are more cramped than ones in New York City and offer the worst value for money in the developed world
And also offer the worst value for money in the developed world.
Homes in England are more cramped than those in New York City, according to new analysis that showed UK property offers the worst value for money in the developed world.
The Resolution Foundation found that the UK has the oldest properties in Europe and English homes have less floorspace than many international peers, notably Germany, France and Japan. With 38 square meters on average per person, London homes are even more cramped than those in New York City.
The findings, which also show UK housing costs are also more expensive relative to general prices than in any OECD country, underscore the scale of the housing crisis in Britain. Many younger Britons are struggling to get a foot on the property ladder due to soaring prices, and the issue is rising up the political agenda ahead of an election expected later this year.
“By looking at housing costs, floorspace and wider issues of quality, we find that the UK’s expensive, cramped and aging housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy,” said Adam Corlett, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation. “Britain’s housing crisis is decades in the making, with successive governments failing to build enough new homes and modernize our existing stock. That now has to change.”
The Resolution Foundation found that if all UK households were “exposed to the full brunt of the housing market, the UK would devote the highest share of overall spending to housing” to every OECD country except Finland.
Some 38% of UK homes were built before 1946, higher than the level of 29% in France, 24% in Germany, 21% in Italy and 11% in Spain. That means British properties by comparison are poorly insulated and come with higher energy bills.
Some 38% of UK homes were built before 1946, higher than the level of 29% in France, 24% in Germany, 21% in Italy and 11% in Spain. That means British properties by comparison are poorly insulated and come with higher energy bills.
I'm assuming this number is so high in the UK because the rest of Europe had much if its older housing destroyed by war and subsequently rebuilt after WWI and WWII.
Sweden has prioritized extra insulation since the oil crisis in the 70's. I think it's not only about countries being bombed in WW II, but also about bigger political decisions.
Edit: Boned? Go home autocorrect, you're drunk!
The Battle of Britain during WW2 destroyed a lot of British cities, major ports, and industrial centres, to the point that the rations system continued into the 1950s because the country was broke and rebuilding.
Oh don't think I was suggesting the UK came out of WWII unscathed. Far from it. However this article is about residential housing. Yes, there were houses destroyed, especially with V1 launches, but most of the bombing were against industrial targets. As you said, ports and industrial centers. Further, Britain never had foreign troops battling on its land in WWI or WWII, which can't be said for continental Europe.
My point was that residential housing was specifically targeted tactically with the shifting front lines in continental Europe, where that wasn't the case in the UK.
Spain was neutral during WW1 and WW2. They did have a big civil war, but that was less destructive than WW2 (still very bad though, just not nearly as bad as WW2).
For Germany it might be the reason: Lots of large German cities were mostly destroyed, some practically entirely + they had a large amount of refugees from east of the Oder that needed new places to live.
This level of destruction was not/much less the case in France and Italy. A quick google search says that France actually lost less housing stock during ww2 than Britain did. https://www.britannica.com/topic/casualties-of-World-War-II-2231003
In Germany (and other European nations) it's easier to get planning permission to demolish existing houses and then self build.
one of Kirsten Dirksen’s videos also mentioned in EU in addition to permitting, it’s often cheaper to demo and build than renovate
Old houses aren't necessarily a problem size-wise. The main problem in my town is people buying old houses, splitting them into four or six of the smallest flats imaginable, then renting them out.
Looking at my last 4 NYC apartments, how is that even physically possible?
With 38 square meters on average per person, London homes are even more cramped than those in New York City
Maybe Londoners have more roommates/family members living with them? Given the "per person" part of this statistic.
I can believe that. The last time I lived in London one of the neighboring flats had 4 young women living in a 2 bedroom apartment with a small living area and tiny kitchen.
Our housing and rental laws are almost exclusively written by landlords and property developers. With "no fault evictions" you literally can't even withhold rent for major disrepair. I mean, you can in theory but the work around makes it useless. New-builds here are far worse than the housing stock made immediately after WW2, due to the appalling standards they're allowed to build to. You just have to hope its not been covered in illegal, ultra flammable cladding that the developers don't have to pay to fix.
Older housing being smaller shouldn't surprise anyone.
Smaller and old. With modern building methods it is however possible to restore and old building up to modern standards. The question is: is there the will to do it, or are they just sqeezing any pound and pence from these properties without investing anything in return?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Homes in England are more cramped than those in New York City, according to new analysis that showed UK property offers the worst value for money in the developed world.
The Resolution Foundation found that the UK has the oldest properties in Europe and English homes have less floorspace than many international peers, notably Germany, France and Japan.
Many younger Britons are struggling to get a foot on the property ladder due to soaring prices, and the issue is rising up the political agenda ahead of an election expected later this year.
“Britain’s housing crisis is decades in the making, with successive governments failing to build enough new homes and modernize our existing stock.
While higher interest rates cooled the surge in house prices, rents in the UK and London are rocketing at the fastest pace on record.
Estimates by Capital Economics show that this now should be closer to 385,000 to bring real house price growth in line with the European average.
The original article contains 405 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I wonder how much land access affects this. It's easy to build bigger properties when you've got a lot of land. The UK has much less land area compared to the US or even France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Norway, Poland and Italy. Not all of that land is actually buildable, either.
Still not a great position to be in, either way.
The largest three cities in the UK London, Birmingham, Manchester are less than 50% white British.
That's how much immigration the country has and why there is so much demand for housing and shit housing is always rented out.
That tends to be what happens when you steal other people's resources and feed them lies about the "mother country". Eventually some of those people will follow their stolen wealth.
Most of the wealth was from trade. That's how the empire started. Money was made from trade and the industrial revolution then came empire. I guess you can say the empire started from stealing money off the Spanish but they didn't exactly follow us home.
Empire and mass imigration aren't related, unless you are talking about how brits spread to North America, Australia and New Zealand. But you aren't. Lot of men died in WW2 and labour was needed temporarily to rebuild and man the factories, there was a lot of damage in ww2. The government realised it is good for business to have cheap labour so kept the workers. Then they realised wages can be suppressed, houses prices and demand for other things can be increased, as well as gdp by importing loads of people from the third world.
By an huge amount most of the immigration has come post empire when the countries are independent.
Also the empire was expansionary in nature. It wanted to build Britain abroad, infrastructure, law, order, "civilisation". Many countries got it's independence through a vote, I think only two ever declared independence and one is very friendly with UK wouldn't be more surprised if people leave the UK more than they get back, and the other country doesn't exist anymore. Britain was never about importing people in, it was about exporting people and civilisation out.