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.
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.
Colonialism is a fancy word for armed robbery. It’s not trade if it’s done at the end of a barrel. The Indians could have easily grown and then manufactured their own cotton and kept the proceeds, if it was just about “trade”. Furthermore, much of that “trade” came about from the proceeds of slave labor on land that had been stolen. The important words in all of this are - theft, stolen, force and violence. That doesn’t sound much like trade to me.
And yes, empire and mass population movements do tend to be related. Creating instability and then taking credit for quelling the disquiet that they caused or blaming some third agencies for the anarchy caused by the empire is what empires tend to do.
Tell the Brits to suck it up. They made their flea ridden bed and now it’s time to take a nap in it.
Think the stability came from the empire, countries did a lot worse of the stability front post empire.
Britain spent an awful lot of money ending slavery and spent a lot of money policing the ocean.
IAre you saying Indians in UK are the “flea ridden bed. They can sleep in it”
Britain ending slavery after they used the proceeds of their criminality to build up a technological advantage is not the noble feat that you’re making it out to be. The fact that the British government elected to compensate the criminals and not the victims of that evil trade should tell you everything that you need to know about how Brits viewed enslaved Africans at the time and arguably how they continue to view their descendants (see the offer to build a prison in Jamaica in lieu of reparations). The money spent on the navy was to protect the British monopoly and destroy competition, let us not deceive ourselves. If Britain was really as offended by slave labor as you claim they would not have replaced enslaved Africans with indentured Indians whose life chances were just as bleak on those British owned plantations - 10 years to win your freedom doesn’t mean much if the life expectancy on a plantation is only 5.
As for your claims of stability. That is pure nonsense. The Brits are the ones who fomented anarchy in much of the world by imposing leaders upon the people of faraway lands who would do their evil bidding. They further compounded their evil by forcing peoples who had no legacy of unity into faulty systems that would inevitably fall apart. The only thing that united the peoples of the areas we now know as India, Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria was their disdain of an invading and exploitative force.
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!
They made sensible decisions after the oil crisis showed they could be kneecapped at any moment? What is this heresy? [Climbs up ladder into truck.]
Same time period that the Netherlands went all-in on making it safe and popular to cycle everywhere.
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
So many houses on the market that are essentially just ruins by modern energy standards. In many cases you have no choice but to completely start anew. The issue is that the prices don’t reflect that. You have a house built in the 60s with oil heaters and no insulation going for 700k or more. So you will be out for the house/land, the demolition and then a new house as well. On the other hand trying to renovate the same house would probably be the same amount of money but you are still living in an old house.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
cheaper to demo and build than renovate
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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
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.
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?
Eh you can do the the energy part at great difficulty but you can’t fix the size or layout.
Of course, I meant the energy efficiency. No way to get any more space beyond what they have there.
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.
Withholding rent isn’t that common in my experience. I learned this while watching a French roommate in Argentina nearly get evicted and while being shocked that it could happen.
I mean, in eroupe its usually accepted that landlords need to be forced into making the properties fit for human habitation.
Youre right of course that its all relative but yeah, it’s something you’d expect from a country that bangs on about “fair play” as much as we do.
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.
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.
