Gentrification, good or bad?

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

I know locals don’t like it but I completely understand having a second home on the coast.  Holidaying in the UK is far too expensive that it makes sense to buy a place instead of constantly paying holiday rent especially if it’s a place you frequent regularly.  

It’s yours, you can come and go when you want, as often as you want, leave all your holiday clothes and items there without no fuss.  It also means you are holding an investment rather than just lost money on holiday rent.

The locals have no more rights on the properties in that community than anybody else, doesn’t matter whether it’s a main home or second home.

 

You’re complaint is UK holidays are far too expensive? That’s the bigger issue? **** you.

 

[sne]

Was an interesting debate (at least here in Sweden) during Covid when people escaped the cities to go to their second homes to ride it out there. Those people expected to have full access to medical care and what not despite not paying tax there which led to a lot of resentment and anger from the locals since the healthcare system was already under massive stress and obviously wasn't designed to handle the influx of hundreds of outsiders coming into small villages and towns.

 

[nick76]

23 minutes ago, JB said:

I can’t imagine somebody who can afford a second home on the coast struggling too much with the occasional week’s rental. Personally, I’ve never considered money I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to afford to spend on a holiday to be ‘lost’. That’s a weird mindset IMO.

**** all those young locals who want to live near their families eh. **** the local economy in winter. **** the local kids who need a school to go to. As long as the wealthy save a few quid and don’t ‘lose’ money having to pay for a week at the beach with their family, contributing to a local business. Nice little investment, too as you watch it soar in value, making you richer and keeping the little guy down.

Quite often, even if I don’t share an opinion with someone, I can empathise. I can understand the mindset but in this case, I can’t. I won’t say much more as I’m pretty sure someone else will come along with a far better and more concise response to this, IMO, pretty **** opinion. 

Fair enough!

Guess we agree to disagree.  Given so many people have second homes this is a divisive topic and people either side of the argument have strong views of the other side.  I could come back on some of those weak arguments above but we’ll never agree so I’ll leave it there.

[nick76]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

You’re complaint is UK holidays are far too expensive? That’s the bigger issue? **** you.

 

Haha! well I am a finance guy so when you make the purchasing of the property and the pros and cons of that compared to the now cost of holiday rental fees it starts to lean towards purchasing property.  Therefore, yes, if you don’t want to attract people purchasing second homes then holiday rentals are too expensive.  It’s fairly simple really!

So now I’m going to go **** myself apparently!

Guess I might not be so welcome when I’m in Cornwall in 4 weeks time after the last two posters reacting to my post.

[chappy]

2 minutes ago, nick76 said:

 

Guess I might not be so welcome when I’m in Cornwall in 4 weeks time after the last two posters reacting to my post.

Good luck getting all that writing off your wall in St Agnes

[nick76]

2 minutes ago, chappy said:

Good luck getting all that writing off your wall in St Agnes

I’m not actually that far from there…

[icouldtelltheworld]

Really we need a boom in housebuilding similar to the one in the decades immediately after WW2. Fact of the matter is that won't happen any time soon as house prices would drop and no government can afford to rile the property owning classes. Its painfully apparent that the private sector cannot/will not provide the volume and type of housing that we really need.

Always find this graph depicting house completion rates to be illuminating. Can't help but feel issues like gentrification wouldn't be anywhere near as prominent if we hadn't had 50 years of sustained failure in housing policy.

From this report.

[Lichfield Dean]

I'm never sure what to make of things like the below. On one hand they could spark the regeneration of run-down communities and make larger areas of town attractive to visit, on the other they risk pushing out the locals who can no longer afford to live there.

Quote

Welcome to Birmingham’s most exciting place to live.

Circled by a kilometre of historic canal, Port Loop is now an established community just 15 minutes’ walk from the city centre. Proud winners of Best Regeneration Initiative at Housebuilder Awards and Placemaking Project of the Year at Midlands Business Insider Residential Awards 2020.

The Port Loop masterplan has already delivered South Loop Park; central Birmingham’s first new public green spaces in over a decade, Ladywood Leisure Centre; a new state of the art gym and swimming pool, YARD, the city's first Art House for residents and local community, plus over 100 new homes.

But we're only just getting started...

 

https://www.housebyurbansplash.co.uk/locations/port-loop

 

[El Zen]

33 minutes ago, sne said:

Was an interesting debate (at least here in Sweden) during Covid when people escaped the cities to go to their second homes to ride it out there. Those people expected to have full access to medical care and what not despite not paying tax there which led to a lot of resentment and anger from the locals since the healthcare system was already under massive stress and obviously wasn't designed to handle the influx of hundreds of outsiders coming into small villages and towns.

 

Same here. We even had an outright ban on staying in second homes in the beginning of it. 

We do have a second home, I should say. Or my mother does. It’s in a remote location, high up in the mountains, there are no permanent residency homes in the area, nor would anyone have any interest in living there permanently due to its remote location. I would argue/hope that isn’t quite the same as rich people buying up property and driving up prices squeezing locals out of their own housing markets. 

[icouldtelltheworld]

5 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

I'm never sure what to make of things like the below. On one hand they could spark the regeneration of run-down communities and make larger areas of town attractive to visit, on the other they risk pushing out the locals who can no longer afford to live there.

 

https://www.housebyurbansplash.co.uk/locations/port-loop

 

There's a few examples of this type of thing around town now. As the city centre has been revitalised its also started to extend outwards into the inner city suburbs. Parts of Highgate, Ladywood and Hockley are really changing and becoming 'trendy' places to live.

Will be very interesting to see how things develop in Brum over the next few decades, but it's not hard to imagine a situation in which some of the inner city areas completely change in character akin to what's happened in London. Somewhere like Handsworth with those Victorian houses and easy access to town is ripe for gentrification.

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, El Zen said:

We do have a second home, I should say. Or my mother does. It’s in a remote location, high up in the mountains, there are no permanent residency homes in the area, nor would anyone have any interest in living there permanently due to its remote location. I would argue/hope that isn’t quite the same as rich people buying up property and driving up prices squeezing locals out of their own housing markets. 

I think that's fine. An isolated property in a non-residential area. It's when you get villages where most of the homes have turned into holiday rentals you have a problem. 

[KentVillan]

6 minutes ago, icouldtelltheworld said:

Really we need a boom in housebuilding similar to the one in the decades immediately after WW2. Fact of the matter is that won't happen any time soon as house prices would drop and no government can afford to rile the property owning classes. Its painfully apparent that the private sector cannot/will not provide the volume and type of housing that we really need.

Always find this graph depicting house completion rates to be illuminating. Can't help but feel issues like gentrification wouldn't be anywhere near as prominent if we hadn't had 50 years of sustained failure in housing policy.

From this report.

I really enjoyed this interview with Sam Bowman, who’s a right wing economist (think part of the IEA crowd), but on housing he makes a lot of sense

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011tb7

Quote

Sam Bowman and building more houses

The Spark

Economist Sam Bowman tells Helen Lewis why he thinks building more houses will fix a surprising range of social problems. And he sets out the democratic device he thinks this can bring this about without conflict with so-called 'NIMBYs' - those who prefer not to have new building take place near their homes.

His argument is that failure to build new houses has caused economic slowdown, reduced quality of life, etc and can be solved with mid-rise blocks (say 4 storeys) in places like Cambridge, where demand is really high, but current planning restrictions and Nimbyism prevent anything new from going up.

I think what really winds people up about gentrification is that it drives home the unaffordability of well located, attractive property for most people. When that property is left empty it’s a double blow. It just feels like such a waste.

[sne]

4 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Same here. We even had an outright ban on staying in second homes in the beginning of it. 

We do have a second home, I should say. Or my mother does. It’s in a remote location, high up in the mountains, there are no permanent residency homes in the area, nor would anyone have any interest in living there permanently due to its remote location. I would argue/hope that isn’t quite the same as rich people buying up property and driving up prices squeezing locals out of their own housing markets. 

My buddy lives in a town up north that is a big tourist destination, mainly in the winter. They have 1 day a week where locals can shop groceries and stuff at a discounted price in the local stores as the prices are driven up so high due the tourist demands.

Not sure what the % is but it's generally more expensive there than in the big cities.

[icouldtelltheworld]

3 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I really enjoyed this interview with Sam Bowman, who’s a right wing economist (think part of the IEA crowd), but on housing he makes a lot of sense

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011tb7

His argument is that failure to build new houses has caused economic slowdown, reduced quality of life, etc and can be solved with mid-rise blocks (say 4 storeys) in places like Cambridge, where demand is really high, but current planning restrictions and Nimbyism prevent anything new from going up.

I think what really winds people up about gentrification is that it drives home the unaffordability of well located, attractive property for most people. When that property is left empty it’s a double blow. It just feels like such a waste.

Thanks for this mate - will take a listen later on.

You'd think that housing policy is one area that you could conceivably build a consensus across the political spectrum on. From a left wing perspective, housing inequality is a major barrier to social justice; but then it's hard to advocate for conservative values if families can't access suitable and affordable housing. All sounds so simple when you put it like that!

[nick76]

4 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I think that's fine. An isolated property in a non-residential area. It's when you get villages where most of the homes have turned into holiday rentals you have a problem. 

So which is better? Somebody like me whose thinking of buying a property in Cornwall but won’t let it out, it’ll just be for family (a”second home”) or buying an investment property and turning into a holiday rental?

I don’t see the issue because while not my main residence I would use the second home a massive amount during the year because I love it down there. I’ll probably retire down there if I don’t move back to Australia because even though I was born in Birmingham and my childhood is Brum I don’t think it’s where I want to be in 20 years time.

 

[Davkaus]

I think some of the responses to Nick are a bit harsh and unnecessary to be honest. You might not agree with him, but he's here sharing his opinion (and more importantly, reading and replying to contrary opinions) and, as far as I can tell, discussing in good faith, yet he gets insults and swearing in response.

It's no wonder most of us seem to live in political echo-chambers when that's the kind of response someone gets for engaging in a discussion.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Davkaus

[Ingram85]

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think some of the responses to Nick are a bit harsh and unnecessary to be honest. You might not agree with him, but he's here sharing his opinion (and more importantly, reading and replying to contrary opinions) and, as far as I can tell, discussing in good faith, yet he gets insults and swearing in response.

It's no wonder most of us seem to live in political echo-chambers when that's the kind of response someone gets for engaging in a discussion.

Yes fair enough that he’s sharing but we are on a forum, you share an opinion then you get responses. He is talking about a very contentious issue, he essentially agrees with turning seaside towns into empty “Airbnb” ghost towns outside of a few weeks in august. Preserves for the rich. It’s utter bollocks and the more people like him get it into their heads that this isn’t acceptable the better. Sorry not sorry. 

[Davkaus]

7 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Yes fair enough that he’s sharing but we are on a forum, you share an opinion then you get responses. He is talking about a very contentious issue, he essentially agrees with turning seaside towns into empty “Airbnb” ghost towns outside of a few weeks in august. Preserves for the rich. It’s utter bollocks and the more people like him get it into their heads that this isn’t acceptable the better. Sorry not sorry. 

All I'm saying is that in 21st Century British politics, you don't often get the chance to have an honest debate on the internet without it being railroaded by trolls, ad hominems, and diversions, on most platforms it's simply 90% of people agreeing with each other one way or another and shouting down anyone who disagrees.

Nick isn't dug in to his position and is asking questions and giving his perspective.  This is a rare occasion of an online political discussion where you might actually change someone's mind, and I reckon it'd be nice if people didn't balls it up by being unnecessarily rude and insulting.

Still, I'm sure Nick is a big boy who can defend himself. Not my website, not my rules, just my tuppence.

[KentVillan]

20 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Yes fair enough that he’s sharing but we are on a forum, you share an opinion then you get responses. He is talking about a very contentious issue, he essentially agrees with turning seaside towns into empty “Airbnb” ghost towns outside of a few weeks in august. Preserves for the rich. It’s utter bollocks and the more people like him get it into their heads that this isn’t acceptable the better. Sorry not sorry. 

Think he’s talking about a second home that you visit fairly often throughout the year, though?

[blandy]

I think blaming individuals for this situation is wrong. It’s a situation that has come about through political policy, through political inaction and through kind of pandering to supporters. At the individual level, for example, I live in a northern town popular with tourists and visitors. Next door is an Airbnb. If I, as a long time local resident sell my house to @nick76to be his second home, who’s to blame? Is it me, the local, selling up to an outsider?  Is it Nick for buying a second home, because he’s able to afford my asking price when other locals can’t?  Surely we’re just trying to have good lives? 
If the law is changed, how do you change it? If there’s nowhere for visitors to stay, other than hotels, then the hotels profiteer, or visitor numbers drop and the town fades. If tax is increased on second homes, then does that increase costs for tourists? Does it mean that instead of Nick buying a second home, Big property leasing plc buys up homes to rent out?

if the government outlaws second home ownership, do they force people to sell, or is it only “from now on”. And do they make it location specific, or nation wide?  What about housing corps in run down towns who buy up, renovate and sell or rent, to improve both the neighbourhood and lives for their buyers/ tenants?

On the flip side, how do we stop people being forced away from their home towns due to being utterly priced out? How do we get more people to holiday in the uk, instead of jetting off to Spain or wherever and emitting all those carbons?

it requires an awful lot of hard thinking and policy designed to change the situation over a decade. There is no quick fix here.  Housing is not a stand alone issue, either. Even with WFH etc people need to be where jobs, universities, facilities are, and these get concentrated in favoured areas mostly down South and a few other places.

Gentrification is good and bad. I’m not sure that keeping the good can happen easily without also having the bad. Possibly the only solution is to have local authorities much more in control, much better funded and much more capable, with the ability to really focus on looking after all aspects of their areas trading, buying, producing, owning, taxing and all the rest of it. Preston council just down the road is having a good go at that, in so far as they’re able to.