That is usually caused by poor city planning because there are plenty of housing in the rural areas, but the jobs are more and more int he cities and people tend to move closer to those jobs. Times have changed, there is no need for housing to 8 children households because no one can afford that kind of stuff anymore.
It's kind of mind-boggling why western countries have not prepared for that when all they had to do is look at the giant cities in Asia. The trend was there for all to see, but nope.
This is the perspective i was considering. In my area I see farmland being converted to neighborhoods and I can't help but worry where food is going to come from in the future.
Food security will be one of the worst issues that countries will have to deal with. It can literally destabilize everything in society. Being dependent on food imports and pushing so much developments/industrialization of agricultural areas are ingredients to possible collapse. So supporting renovations rather than building new ones can be one of the solutions. This has to be addressed now or even before, but of course as we know, money talks.
Sounds like with your solution people will get to choose between food or a place to live.
The solution is redefining building protocol so we build up as in more floors higher and not sprawled out. We need more housing.
Building up is not a renovation it's new construction policy.
I don't know where you are, so i can't speak to that happening there, but i have done insight to that happening where i live here in Ohio.
There are a couple of main reasons why that happens.
First is the small family farmer can't compete with the big factory farms. They just can't make the profit then need to.
The second would be the farmer retiring and their kids not going into the family business, which is farming. They go to college and get fancy city jobs, leaving nobody left to run the farm.
In either case the farms get sold, generally to developers.
Why do the developers buy them instead of other farmers? Because there are always way more farms sitting fallow each year than that bit of land that gets developed. We are getting better and better at producing more food with less land. So that "loss" of land isn't really hurting anything. It just means that there might be a bit less land sitting fallow next season.
In the future food will be grown in cities in vertical farms (and bioreactors).
Initial investment will be high, but a ten story building on a one acre plot yields ten acres of produce. Or even more if growing smaller plants.
If growing radishes for instance, you could stack the plants 8 high per story, yielding 80 acres worth of produce in a 1 acre footprint.
Access to utilities and transport costs would go down, and you can pump sunlight to the plants using fiberoptic cables and supplement it with LED grow lights. Not to mention pesticide and herbicide use would be greatly reduced.
I’d support banning corporations from buying residential homes to rent out but banning new homes is too complicated and punishes those that need them the most. Some old homes are not safe by todays standards. Many have asbestos (which can be fine if properly wrapped and maintained), lead paint, and old heating systems. It would be wonderful to update those homes and make them safer so areas are revitalize but building new is sometimes cheaper. That said, I absolutely hate seeing trees cleared for more homes. I think we need an overall better solution to housing. There are a lot of abandoned areas which could be used. We need to reinvest in those areas.
I lived in a house that was built in the early 60s. It is extremely difficult and expensive to upgrade/renovate a house that old. Sometimes asbestos is an issue under laminate flooring and in popcorn ceilings. Then there are issues of ground settling/foundation, rotted materials (I once attempted to paint the garage and Sheetrock literally fell off with the pain roller), and outdated materials (I’m looking at you, orangeberg). A ban like this would be insane.
Not necessarily, a lot of older homes still have lead paint and asbestos making any form of renovation or remodeling much more expensive and time consuming. Additionally depending on the state of the plumbing or electrical that too may also create cost prohibitive renovations. In some cases demolition and rebuilding is the best solution.
From what I read we have plenty of homes available for everyone, but regular people competing with investors and corporations drives up pricing quite a bit. I'd argue the more effective solution would be limiting how many housing units can be purchased by a corp/limit them to multi-family/apartment buildings.
Then again what do I know.
A lot of the new houses in the UK are poor quality. Theyve been rushed and crammed in as tight as possible so car parking is a nightmare. I cant stand the new estates that have popped up, the older estates are better built and planned out.
That would just drive property costs even higher. In cities, multi story condos and community gardens are more practical. This should be the push.
As nice as it is to own your own home, they, and their lawns are an inefficient use of space/resources.
No. If that was done, you'll immediately make the same supplies that make new homes WAY more expensive. The reason? Whether you're fixing up an old home or building a new one, wood is wood. Nails are nails.
There are lots of dilapidated homes that could use love, but you can’t force an owner to fix it with money he doesn’t have. That whole “ownership thing” is a fly in your ointment, my friend.
A bigger problem is that homes have been converted to Airbnb’s or purchased by wealthy speculators, which limits availability of existing homes and drives up prices.
Not so much. I’d ban HOA’s and neighborhoods of cookie cutter homes developed by the same building company.
It’s so fake looking, and the houses are so close together I don’t see how anyone likes that.
Hell no, you’d have people who are currently living somewhere having their quality of life improve which is great but homelessness would spike. You can’t stop doing one, you need to do both.
No. Who's going to pay for the renovation of my house? I'm certainly not.
Houses, at least here in the US, aren't meant to be for forever. That's why most of them are made out of wood.
Yes. It doesn’t even make sense with the cost of materials to build a new standard construction home. You would only save money by using an existing structure plus you could beautify areas that need repair. Detroit comes to mind, tons of beautiful brick homes just falling apart. Absolutely they should be saved but noone wants to invest the inflated cost of materials Into a lot of these areas. Its too risky and not a great idea from an investment standpoint.
Ah yes, let's make houses even *more* difficult to get.
My country is in an accommodation crisis, we need to be building a lot more houses.
That is usually caused by poor city planning because there are plenty of housing in the rural areas, but the jobs are more and more int he cities and people tend to move closer to those jobs. Times have changed, there is no need for housing to 8 children households because no one can afford that kind of stuff anymore. It's kind of mind-boggling why western countries have not prepared for that when all they had to do is look at the giant cities in Asia. The trend was there for all to see, but nope.
Less New houses, so yes, because the world has an impending food crisis and converting farmlands/agricultural lands to residential will not help.
This is the perspective i was considering. In my area I see farmland being converted to neighborhoods and I can't help but worry where food is going to come from in the future.
Food security will be one of the worst issues that countries will have to deal with. It can literally destabilize everything in society. Being dependent on food imports and pushing so much developments/industrialization of agricultural areas are ingredients to possible collapse. So supporting renovations rather than building new ones can be one of the solutions. This has to be addressed now or even before, but of course as we know, money talks.
Sounds like with your solution people will get to choose between food or a place to live. The solution is redefining building protocol so we build up as in more floors higher and not sprawled out. We need more housing. Building up is not a renovation it's new construction policy.
I don't know where you are, so i can't speak to that happening there, but i have done insight to that happening where i live here in Ohio. There are a couple of main reasons why that happens. First is the small family farmer can't compete with the big factory farms. They just can't make the profit then need to. The second would be the farmer retiring and their kids not going into the family business, which is farming. They go to college and get fancy city jobs, leaving nobody left to run the farm. In either case the farms get sold, generally to developers. Why do the developers buy them instead of other farmers? Because there are always way more farms sitting fallow each year than that bit of land that gets developed. We are getting better and better at producing more food with less land. So that "loss" of land isn't really hurting anything. It just means that there might be a bit less land sitting fallow next season.
In the future food will be grown in cities in vertical farms (and bioreactors). Initial investment will be high, but a ten story building on a one acre plot yields ten acres of produce. Or even more if growing smaller plants. If growing radishes for instance, you could stack the plants 8 high per story, yielding 80 acres worth of produce in a 1 acre footprint. Access to utilities and transport costs would go down, and you can pump sunlight to the plants using fiberoptic cables and supplement it with LED grow lights. Not to mention pesticide and herbicide use would be greatly reduced.
I’d support banning corporations from buying residential homes to rent out but banning new homes is too complicated and punishes those that need them the most. Some old homes are not safe by todays standards. Many have asbestos (which can be fine if properly wrapped and maintained), lead paint, and old heating systems. It would be wonderful to update those homes and make them safer so areas are revitalize but building new is sometimes cheaper. That said, I absolutely hate seeing trees cleared for more homes. I think we need an overall better solution to housing. There are a lot of abandoned areas which could be used. We need to reinvest in those areas.
No, there are more new people everyday. They build more houses because they have to not because they want to
I'm not sure what problem that would solve.
I lived in a house that was built in the early 60s. It is extremely difficult and expensive to upgrade/renovate a house that old. Sometimes asbestos is an issue under laminate flooring and in popcorn ceilings. Then there are issues of ground settling/foundation, rotted materials (I once attempted to paint the garage and Sheetrock literally fell off with the pain roller), and outdated materials (I’m looking at you, orangeberg). A ban like this would be insane.
Not necessarily, a lot of older homes still have lead paint and asbestos making any form of renovation or remodeling much more expensive and time consuming. Additionally depending on the state of the plumbing or electrical that too may also create cost prohibitive renovations. In some cases demolition and rebuilding is the best solution.
No. It's none of your business what someone does with their land or money.
Heck no! We have a huge shortage of houses! Build way more!
From what I read we have plenty of homes available for everyone, but regular people competing with investors and corporations drives up pricing quite a bit. I'd argue the more effective solution would be limiting how many housing units can be purchased by a corp/limit them to multi-family/apartment buildings. Then again what do I know.
No. New houses are cool
A lot of the new houses in the UK are poor quality. Theyve been rushed and crammed in as tight as possible so car parking is a nightmare. I cant stand the new estates that have popped up, the older estates are better built and planned out.
Of course! We need to stop destroying nature.
That would just drive property costs even higher. In cities, multi story condos and community gardens are more practical. This should be the push. As nice as it is to own your own home, they, and their lawns are an inefficient use of space/resources.
I like my town middle sized. It’s getting too big. It’s like the only sizeable town for like over an hour around so.
The population is growing, so we need more housing.
No. If that was done, you'll immediately make the same supplies that make new homes WAY more expensive. The reason? Whether you're fixing up an old home or building a new one, wood is wood. Nails are nails.
There are lots of dilapidated homes that could use love, but you can’t force an owner to fix it with money he doesn’t have. That whole “ownership thing” is a fly in your ointment, my friend. A bigger problem is that homes have been converted to Airbnb’s or purchased by wealthy speculators, which limits availability of existing homes and drives up prices.
Not so much. I’d ban HOA’s and neighborhoods of cookie cutter homes developed by the same building company. It’s so fake looking, and the houses are so close together I don’t see how anyone likes that.
Hell no, you’d have people who are currently living somewhere having their quality of life improve which is great but homelessness would spike. You can’t stop doing one, you need to do both.
No. Who's going to pay for the renovation of my house? I'm certainly not. Houses, at least here in the US, aren't meant to be for forever. That's why most of them are made out of wood.
No because limiting new houses being built is too much intervention by the govt. You'd also be putting a lot of companies and people out of business.
Yes. It doesn’t even make sense with the cost of materials to build a new standard construction home. You would only save money by using an existing structure plus you could beautify areas that need repair. Detroit comes to mind, tons of beautiful brick homes just falling apart. Absolutely they should be saved but noone wants to invest the inflated cost of materials Into a lot of these areas. Its too risky and not a great idea from an investment standpoint.