Why did the London city face housing crisis ?
Answers
Answered by
0
because in London there are
small houses i.e chawls
I hope this may help you
small houses i.e chawls
I hope this may help you
Answered by
1
The capital's difficulties arise from a long-term failure to match the supply of homes to a widening spectrum of demand.
There are all sorts of places we could start. Let's choose the easiest. For years, the capital - the Greater London area to be more precise - has been failing to generate the numbers of new homes it needs to house a population that has been growing fast. According to the census, London needs at least 40,000 new homes every year just to keep pace, yet in 2010/11 less than half that number were built.
London Councils, which represents the city's 33 local authorities, has recently calculated that to clear the backlog and meet growing demand too will require more than 100,000 new homes a year from now until 2021 - 809,000 in all. It's a staggering number, and makes Ed Miliband's eye-catching pledge for the UK as a whole look rather small.
This numerical shortfall is accompanied by a growing problem of affordability. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of households in London rose by 250,000 to 3.27 million, but its percentage of home-owners plunged from nearly 60% to under 50%, reversing an upward trend that had prevailed since the 1960s.
House prices in London are now soaring above where they were before the crash, placing home ownership beyond the reach of ever more Londoners, not to mention others who would like to move here. And this is not a recent phenomenon. The days when an average sort of London wage could buy a first, modest London home in a shabby part of town disappeared more than 20 years ago.
There was a more modest percentage decline in the social rented sector between 2001 and 2011, from 25.7% to 24.1% - fewer residences, then, for people on low incomes and in great need. Meanwhile, the private rented sector has enlarged - up from just 15.3% of the London total to more than 25% in ten years. But that too has become ferociously expensive and in too many cases is badly-run (census data on London's changing balance of tenure types is summarised here).
The social implications of rising cost and under-supply are shocking and shaming for a city claiming to be the best in the world. Over-crowding is rife, with 11.6% of the capital's dwellings having too few bedrooms for their occupants - in Newham, the figure is 25.4%. The cost and insecurity of the private rented sector also fosters unwelcome population churn, with households having to move against their will, often disrupting school, work and family life for those most in need of stability.
To these long-term problems can be added the exacerbating effects of the present government's housing and welfare policies. The economics of its misnamed "affordable rent" programme are concentrating new provision for the less well-off in Outer London areas, while its benefit reforms are leading to evictions, increasing homelessness and doing little or nothing to reduce the cost to taxpayers.
The need for bold action is clear. But what forms should it take? In terms of increasing supply, Boris Johnson believes that unencumbered market forces are the key. Last week he told the London Assembly:
It's not so much a question of the type [of housing supplied] but the quantity. We must deliver more homes, all told. And that is the biggest and best solution to a lot of the controversies and the discontents around housing at the moment.
This followed the media's belated discovery that very wealthy individuals from overseas have been buying-up prime central London residential properties - often before they're even built - and so contributing to house price inflation. Having already stuck up for super-rich spenders from far-off lands in his Telegraph column, Johnson went on to defend his failure to challenge the small quantities of affordable homes in new developments approved by a range of boroughs, Labour and Tory-run alike
Let's be clear - what we're doing is allowing development to go ahead that would otherwise have been stalled. You cannot get these developers to move unless they have the funds coming in, and that very often means having market housing leading the project - that, I'm afraid, is a fact of life.
The mayor, being on close terms with the tip of his party's free market wing, was unlikely to have said anything else. He also is convinced that the basic rules of supply and demand will help stabilise house prices as long as the former isn't blocked by things like speculator taxes and over-regulating politicians.
There are all sorts of places we could start. Let's choose the easiest. For years, the capital - the Greater London area to be more precise - has been failing to generate the numbers of new homes it needs to house a population that has been growing fast. According to the census, London needs at least 40,000 new homes every year just to keep pace, yet in 2010/11 less than half that number were built.
London Councils, which represents the city's 33 local authorities, has recently calculated that to clear the backlog and meet growing demand too will require more than 100,000 new homes a year from now until 2021 - 809,000 in all. It's a staggering number, and makes Ed Miliband's eye-catching pledge for the UK as a whole look rather small.
This numerical shortfall is accompanied by a growing problem of affordability. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of households in London rose by 250,000 to 3.27 million, but its percentage of home-owners plunged from nearly 60% to under 50%, reversing an upward trend that had prevailed since the 1960s.
House prices in London are now soaring above where they were before the crash, placing home ownership beyond the reach of ever more Londoners, not to mention others who would like to move here. And this is not a recent phenomenon. The days when an average sort of London wage could buy a first, modest London home in a shabby part of town disappeared more than 20 years ago.
There was a more modest percentage decline in the social rented sector between 2001 and 2011, from 25.7% to 24.1% - fewer residences, then, for people on low incomes and in great need. Meanwhile, the private rented sector has enlarged - up from just 15.3% of the London total to more than 25% in ten years. But that too has become ferociously expensive and in too many cases is badly-run (census data on London's changing balance of tenure types is summarised here).
The social implications of rising cost and under-supply are shocking and shaming for a city claiming to be the best in the world. Over-crowding is rife, with 11.6% of the capital's dwellings having too few bedrooms for their occupants - in Newham, the figure is 25.4%. The cost and insecurity of the private rented sector also fosters unwelcome population churn, with households having to move against their will, often disrupting school, work and family life for those most in need of stability.
To these long-term problems can be added the exacerbating effects of the present government's housing and welfare policies. The economics of its misnamed "affordable rent" programme are concentrating new provision for the less well-off in Outer London areas, while its benefit reforms are leading to evictions, increasing homelessness and doing little or nothing to reduce the cost to taxpayers.
The need for bold action is clear. But what forms should it take? In terms of increasing supply, Boris Johnson believes that unencumbered market forces are the key. Last week he told the London Assembly:
It's not so much a question of the type [of housing supplied] but the quantity. We must deliver more homes, all told. And that is the biggest and best solution to a lot of the controversies and the discontents around housing at the moment.
This followed the media's belated discovery that very wealthy individuals from overseas have been buying-up prime central London residential properties - often before they're even built - and so contributing to house price inflation. Having already stuck up for super-rich spenders from far-off lands in his Telegraph column, Johnson went on to defend his failure to challenge the small quantities of affordable homes in new developments approved by a range of boroughs, Labour and Tory-run alike
Let's be clear - what we're doing is allowing development to go ahead that would otherwise have been stalled. You cannot get these developers to move unless they have the funds coming in, and that very often means having market housing leading the project - that, I'm afraid, is a fact of life.
The mayor, being on close terms with the tip of his party's free market wing, was unlikely to have said anything else. He also is convinced that the basic rules of supply and demand will help stabilise house prices as long as the former isn't blocked by things like speculator taxes and over-regulating politicians.
suvosi:
U r welcome
I m in class 10 .. u ?
Similar questions