One Reason Homes Cost So Much
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 жов 2024
- Very high house prices aren’t an act of God or a fact of nature. They’re the result of all sorts of policy and design mistakes - which we should try to understand and correct.
Enjoying our UA-cam videos? Get full access to all our audio content, videos, and thousands of thought-provoking articles, conversation cards and more with The School of Life Subscription: t.ly/gt4GR
Be more mindful, present and inspired. Get the best of The School of Life delivered straight to your inbox: t.ly/0Vd9y
SOCIAL MEDIA
Feel free to follow us at the links below:
Facebook: / theschooloflifelondon
X: / theschooloflife
Instagram: / theschooloflifelondon
CREDITS
Brought to you by www.theschoolof...
Produced in collaboration with Vale Productions
www.valeproduct... #TheSchoolOfLife
I'm 34 and working class in the UK and I will never be able to afford my own house unless I win the lottery or start drug dealing. It's a crime to be working class in the uk these days.
How you getting on mate?
Yeah, I also want to hear
depends on where you live mate. Ofc you can't buy anything in London with a working salary but you can easily buy it in 3-5 years (time needed for deposit) in places further up north. Assuming you work on weekends and make around 20-25k£ a year, saving half of that will get you a house. Not pretty but can be done.
Give a reason why should someone make a house where many people are willing to pay more than you do and give it to you?just becouse you are from wirking class and they feel pitty for you is not enough
@@user-hq2is7hh1j they’re not asking for anyone to gift them a property, please learn to read before you respond. 😉
After 6 years in architecture school I came to realize that the beautiful design skills have no value in the market. The construction industry is run by developers who have the money and are not willing to care about how pretty their developments look. They just want the money in their pocket to move onto the next project. Sometimes it's builders who have no aesthetic outlook who do the designs for towers and big projects. And graduate architects are left behind closed doors, even if they hire you they want you to draft, for years before you can have a say in the design phase.
Beautiful designs don't have to be expensive, but are perceived to be pricey. Looking pleasant for new developments is not a priority, it's an option. Until we let architects who primarily care about the quality of our built spaces take charge of what gets built everyday, nothing changes.
Should have consulted people in the field. You would have been told its a dead profession.
Grzegorz Durda Unfortunately I found out a little too late. I wouldn't say architecture is dead, it just works to your favor if you stop expecting and do your own thing your way, starting a firm and all that
Parnian Be positive. Architects make tons of money if they know how to hustle. I know because id drop 10K checks to them to take a 5000 sq Vanilla box and put in simple wall divisions and bathroom layouts. Simple basic cad but the official seal of the profession is worth $$$ even when dealing with local municipalities.
Grzegorz Durda Thank you for your positive words! I won't give up architecture. You're right there are ways of making good money as an architect, it's just not earned through what typical jobs offer. But I like to think I will find a way :)
That's in your country ... See the gcc and how they really care on the design of their houses
people's income isn't matching the price of house....
Philippecr but increasing people’s income at the same rates as house prices would cause hyper inflation. Look at what happened in Germany in 1923
It's called inflation
It matches if you pay it in 40 years, banks and companys should not be able to buy houses, houses are for persons, right now they are businnes.
@@diegodeleontanner7909 40 years in housing loan debt for almost whole life.
I know man, it sucks, my worst Problem is not even understand how the prices of the houses are determined.
This was a very naive lecture. Prices of houses are kept (artificially) high. Just analyze one of the housing bubbles in the recent past.
it is not caused by immigration, it's caused by economic bubble, which also constantly based on the housing bubble. Banks and goverment fault, because they just like to earn money, who cares about people or immigrants.
Marcel Moonen While interest rates are kept artificially low in the past through QE. It is a recipe for disaster. But what you can afford but sadly people are greedy so maybe they can afford 200k but they buy 400k and lie in bed at night fearing a rate rise. Stupidity on a grand scale.
And will blow up in the next couple of years
Bad comment. Firstly he talked about the role of government in keeping prices high. Secondly, what is says about demand not being met by supply is very true. The problem is building restrictions. The solution (as per usual, even if no-one gets it) is FREE MARKETS.
@@discoboy8169 immigration..supply and demand..so I disagree. its immigrants.
Unfortunately banks and crediting has become too powerful.
Then dont use their services. If they were usless they wouldnt be too powerful. Stop crying
>Houses are ugly
>that's why houses are expensive.
uwotmate?
+Nissenerekte Not true. Houses are ugly and that contributes to the problem of expensiveness because of the lack of new development.
But that's not really scratching the surface. The issue is that land prices are high, just like he said. Land prices are high because people buy land and hold onto it while doing literally nothing with it because they want someone else to want it more so they can sell it for more than they bought it for lol
Land speculation is why housing is expensive.
How about the fact we live on a tiny island where the amount of land is extremely limited, and what little there is is all owned by farmers, the church and the government?
the video is titled ONE REASON
Quillyik people fear new housing because it's ugly which is why they don't build then which is my non home owners are mad because they want a house
+Rishi Arun yeah, it is a reason, but it's a rather small reason. I don't know about the UK, but here in the states, houses in brand new ugly developments still sell like hot cakes for A LOT more money than they're worth. The problem is the supply of housing period is low, not just the supply of good looking housing.
i am going to be homless
Mohamed Haridy same
Everybody will . I just wish it happen now
I feel like this video is missing the point. "Ugliness" is not the real issue. The issue lies with the morgages. The less houses there are, the higher the prices, the higher the prices, the more likely people need loans and morgages. That means that the only ones profiting from it are... the banks. What kind of people persue a carreer in politics? Bankers, lawyers etc. No wonder that there are more and more restrictions are implemented by politicians as to where you can or cant build houses....
i agree with you!
I agree with you, but I also agree with the video.
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much
they want to build more houses but the opposition are the protesters who don't want to destroy the land. what the video says is that we have to create housing that is as, or more beautiful then what was there before so people won't get angry. the politicians want voters. they aren't going to promote more ugly housing in place of what nature they already had.
There's a reason for the purported ugliness, and that is one of efficiency, which ironically seeks to counter the pricing issue. These houses are built in large numbers by enterprisess, with ready-made plants and materials, thus resulting in a common looking design which have made them less aesthetically desirable to those whom are used to them (this makes me recall the video on pineapples and the value of ugliness, also by the school of life, which is worth a check). As the famous Brazilian architect Oscar Niemyer used to put, "fudido não tem vez", a statement that represented his belief that architecture was a luxury which the poor or less fortunate were unworthy of. However, even if such houses were ugly, they would still be worth quite a lot if located in well positioned places, such as the surroundings of London, representing the element of demand which I believe to be the real cause for the overvaluation and which is actually associated with more practical questions, such as commute time, etc. I would love to have more beautiful and well designed cities, but that is a goal that we must put forth as a society and we must also be aware of the costs imbued in such a choice. Unfortunately, it seems short-term efficient does seem to have an upperhand, specially and once again ironically in the face of such high housing costs.
Ugliness may be one SMALL factor that contributes to the high housing costs. Unfortunately, the for-profit construction industry and developers would never "waste" money on making beautiful buildings, for one thing. In my city, the vast majority of neighborhoods are zoned for single-family houses only. Many people are opposed to even allowing duplexes and ADUs -keeping the existing houses already in the neighborhood with no demolition! Why? Because that would mean that their investment loses value. We have come to rely on home-ownership as an investment to make money on, and anything that increases the supply of other houses is seen as a threat to that investment. And the higher prices go, the worse the problem gets. As people are forced to shell out more and more money to get in on ownership, the risks of making a loss on that investment get higher.
Also, during the urbanization of the British countryside and the construction of Venice, the working poor had bigger issues than protesting ugly houses. Like, you know, not starving.
I have hard time convincing myself that they don't build more houses because of ugly.
The land in my village is very nice, and it belongs to the public. If the council wants to build on it, they would have to get approval from the public first. I can guarantee you no one would support development in my area.
Suoarski the public only own the land if the government doesn't want it
Just look at llyn celyn reservoir Liverpool want water Liverpool get water
Kesateria Matahari Have you heard of the, "Home Owners Association"? You should look it up if you have a hard time believing that.
I have reported you to you tube for your racist and offensive comments.
Better to be an Orwellian and fight for social justice than be you who obviously has a fixation with nazism. Do not keep your abuse ongoing as I am beginning to see you purely as a troll. Try to argue my points in my first posting and keep the personal insults to yourself.
Ugly doesnt come into it. The current problem in London is that developers are only building Luxury homes targeted at foreign investors. Flat blocks are sprouting up everywhere, but a cursory glance at prices is enough to realise the local populace arent the intended customers. The only good news is that 50,000 luxury flats are being built in London as i type and only 4500 "Sold" (or received deposits for) last year. when the developers go out of business they can join the rest of us, that they subjugated to a lifetime of extortionate and unstable rental accommodation, at the Lidl checkout queue.
+tomble womble He is completely wrong about ugliness of new developments lol I wish he just stuck to philisophy and literature. In his other video about London skyline, he does the exact same think by resorting to his own emotions and opinions about the architectural beauty
The amount of empty houses in London is actually criminal. Something like 80% of the building stock is empty. The majority of it being commercial space, but still. It is a huge "waste" of space that is used as a currency rather than the infrastructure it is.
In New Zealand where I live, foreigners are just flat banned from buying houses
Interesting, but it doesn't explain high house prices in USA and Canada for example, where there are efforts to preserve remaining wilderness areas and arable farm land. This restricts the availability of land that can be built on and keeps the price high. The "ugly new housing" argument doesn't apply everywhere, although I realize that this argument probably wasn't meant to apply universally.
I can sum it up in four words "the greater fool theory".
People often buy property as an investment in the hope someone else will pay more for it.
Eventually the prices get too high for the market to bare and you have a collapse and people defaulting on their mortgages.
Yeah, well honestly I think that we need food from farms and forest more than we need a house. You can live in an appartement. But you can't grow food in the streets. Let alone make photosynthesis.
www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/
Setting aside the capitalism/communism debate for the moment so we can stick to causes before jumping to solutions, this clearly shows that this isn't a supply/demand thing in the US.
I think the problem is speculation.
If you know houses are going to go up in price, you want to hang onto as many as you can while still being in the business of selling homes.
Then when you think the market's about to flip, you have more houses to sell at the inflated price.
you can buy nice homes in the us for cheap but its gonna be outside of a major city
You are lucky, you can get a house double the size of mine for the same price.
I don't think land in the US costs as much as in the UK. In the Midwestern suburb where I live, the land for our home cost $40,000 (£30,852) and our house cost $500,000 (£385,650).
I think a major problem is a couple of people living in a large family home as a status symbol/ investment making it difficult for less well off large families to find suitable housing .
Yeah, it's not even necessarily single family homes since there are many older suburbs that are filled with modest sized homes and have nearly as much yard space as the new blander developments.
I swear this is like - the 3rd video in which you literally attribute problems to pure ugliness instead of, I don't know, economic change, overpopulation, etc.
I mean...I don't know. I'd rather take an educated opinion based on various statistical factors than "houses are getting expensive because..... ugliness"
The title says "One reason"
It is not ugliness that causes house prices to soar. It's the ugliness that lead to people's objection to new housing construction projects, which in turn limit the supply of houses relative to demand, which causes price to go up.
The title is clear: *One* reason homes cost so much. And surprise surprise, there are always more than one reason for something so broad.
Ugliness can be a factor as we got objections based on ugliness. We then changed the design to match the surrounding buildings and still got objections. Ugliness was just an excuse. They just don't want more housing to keep prices high, maintain the population at current levels, don't want housing replacing existing land.
Immigration and increasing population as well as smaller households is another factor. But foreign people are buying up houses and leaving them empty as well. Insufficient supply is kind of deliberate to keep prices rising.
The government sells of public housing which is rather short sighted which makes it not worth the while building more.
They also need to build high density housing in cities. Instead I see them tear down the old high density social housing and replace it with lower density.
There's cheap housing in parts of the north but not the jobs.
Those who defend this video by saying that it only claims that ugliness is *_one_* factor are ignoring the fact that, despite the video's title, the narrator is really making ugliness the primary, if not the *_only,_* root cause. And it isn't.
I'd like to take a moment to thank the editor/s of these films. They look so crisp, entertaining and extremely fluid. And I guess we as viewers don't show enough appreciation. The film is great overall. The editors are doing a great job as always. Please keep it up
A misleading video. The cost of credit, along with the appetite for debt, is the fundamental cause of housing inflation. This in conjunction with limiting supply is toxic. Aesthetics has little to do with price.
He mentioned all those things you stated. However, the aesthetics problem is probably the effect and not the cause. Restrictions on the way things can be built probably make housing more ugly.
3:30 Those houses aren't even ugly..
***** Yes, yes they are. I wouldn't live there even if I got paid to do so.
***** they're not "ugly", they're just uglier than the landscape you would see instead of bland brick structures that all look alike.
That's what I'm saying. If the roof doesn't leek, I have running water and power then im happy. I can make the inside look nice which what really matters.
ibjackinjoe You may think that's all there is to a house, but good urban planning plays a major role in the psychological well-being of the people living in a community as well as the quality of the relations between neighbours. Nobody likes feeling "crammed" in their own house/apartment and very few people enjoy living in commuter towns practically devoid of services and cultural life.
***** They are prettier than all the houses in my neighborhood
After the recession, at least here in the USA, I remember noticing all the foreclosures were getting bought cheap by real estate investors. some flipped and others were turning them into rentals. With the down economy most families looking for a place to live were looking to rent not buy. This seemed to turn more of the market into rentals than ever before and with more people looking to rent it meant rent was going to increase and high rent makes it harder for people to later buy a home. So it seemed more often real estate investors were the only people who had the money to buy.
With rent rising, it both takes more of the average persons income and drives prices higher than the average person can afford.
This is a reason alternative living(tiny homes) became so popular. If everyone is searching for alternatives to the high price of renting\buying existing conventional housing then that would drive down their demand & value. Same with if they make it easy to build new homes, existing ones lose value. That's why it's often difficult to build a new house because of regulations as well now common opposition to tiny homes/alternative living.
Everyone that was able to keep their home in the recession wanted the property value to go back up, just as no one wants to lose money on anything they buy. That's what I see as the culprit.
I feel that high house prices stole my future :(
understandably this video is produced by designers and architects, but really it tackled on the wrong problem here. Design is hardly a factor that causes residential real estate to appreciate so much as it does in recent years. i think this video mentioned it once that it is the stakeholders, property owners, developers, millionaires and billionaires that can't afford the houses to depreciate. It's not the "people" who dont want to see ugly houses....its the developers who dont want to build large residential projects to flood the market with oversupply. Because just like any investors in any investments, they just want to see their assets go up and up constantly. Good design is never a solution to any socioeconomic issue. Speaking as a designer at gsd, i think designers at School of Life need to investigate on something more than just art and design
I am dismayed no mention of Henry George, especially given how much affect he had on England.
Beyond that, poor design is instituted by zoning laws and the need for builders to simplify construction.
It is also in part a reflection of buyers unwilling to risk unusual features, preferring bland as easier to sell later down the road.
There is also the argument that home ownership (exactly why do you need to own a home) is pushed as a means to ensnare people, insuring they are tied to crap but consistent jobs for at least 30 years. Can't risk missing a mortgage payment and lose your "investment".
***** Yes, the good ol' "invest" in yo' car and house, sure is a good thing for people to do!
Overpopulation: more people, same amount of land, less amount of land per people, land is more valuable.
No. The availability of money is a self cancelling factor. High availability = high prices, low availability = low prices.
jesperlett ignoring inflation, my argument still stands.
+Pika Zilla. I was addressing Thomas Headley's answer, not your comment.
jesperlett
ah ok
sir u got it right. its called supply and demand not some fucking rubbish about ugly houses. Do you really think homeless man or immigrants really care what their house looks like? dont be stupid, uk have probably the most ugliest houses in the world, but its expensive not because of that and I can assure you. also keep in mind the agencies that want to make the most £ of the situation and they are making billions of £££
It's not that housing prices are going up, supply production is being blocked by regulation and the dollars are becoming more and more worthless. In the U.S, housing price have only gone up by 0.2% from 1950 to now adjusted for inflation
Unusually for these videos, I think this one missed the mark. Continually turning wild lands and farms into housing is not sustainable, regardless of the architectural style.
Inflating housing prices are related to new housing construction not keeping pace with population growth, but it seems to me the true root of the problem lies on the other side of the equation.
And that is ?
In Hong Kong, no one cares whether houses look beautiful or not. There simply isnt space to build houses. 7 million people cramped in 1000 sq km space. However property prices still skyrocketed. One had to work his entire life until retirement to pay the debt of buying a small flat. And the main reason to that? Real estate companies abusing the law and foreign investers (namely Chinese) using real estate as a mean of business. How much research have you done? Are you just looking into England, but use Venice as an example to prove that England is doing it wrong? I am sure that fixing "ugliness" will not solve the problem, at least it is not the main reason.
Disagree. As architect I see it in a diffent way. Land cost of property cost 5-30% of property. Although of course there are some really expensive land in the centers of the cities, which cost more than building itself. But in other places land is not so expensive.
Main problem why houses cost so much is that people want them bigger. With lots of electronics, materials, furniture. Its not the land that makes them so expensive, it our demands.
Beautiful architecture wont help in permision. Reason why people buy houses outside the city is because they want solitude. They dont want to see other people. And houses with least people around cost the most.
In a past times, house were smaller and more people inhabited them. 100 years ago tt was normal to rent just one room in a flat. Now it is unthinkable for most people to live in a small flat, like 16m2. Modesity means austerity for most people.
More time we save by progress, more time we trying to waste on useless things. Because if we wouldnt have those things, we would have a free time, and we would start to think, read, learn, try to explain ourseves life, and thats what most people affraid of. Its better for many just to take enourmous mortgage, and work whole life from 9 to 5, and say everybody "I dont have time on enything else! I would like to do things that makes sense, but I just need to pay mortgage."
Houses are the most expensive stuff to buy. We spend 10-30 years, almost half of our live just to pay for empty spaces we realy dont need. Critic of consumer society often depicts a supermarket, cars, furniture. But it is the house that realy waste our short lives.
Summary of my opinion sung by Pink Floyd
ua-cam.com/video/CS_FCbQ-okM/v-deo.htmlm24s
Teapode
I need a garden and a jurta++!
You are right. But there is a wrong lifestyle imposed on us.
Teapode In many places people don't want them bigger, they are forced into bigger homes.
Most cities have restrictive building codes. You can't build small houses near the central city, you can't subdivide large plots into smaller ones, et cetera.
In my city, for example, there's many minimum size limits. You have to include car parks. And to top it all off banks offer worse deals for small home buyers.
Teapode "Main problem why houses cost so much is that people want them bigger."
As far as I know, Britain has the smallest homes in Europe, yet they are among the most expensive. If true, this shows that on the continent you can somehow get bigger houses cheaper, which therefore contradicts your explanation
Name Surname Nope. Page 51.
www.bmwfw.gv.at/Wirtschaftspolitik/Wohnungspolitik/Documents/housing_statistics_in_the_european_union_2010.pdf
Teapode That is 15 year old statistics and the figure is only for England, not the UK.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rabbithutch-britain-growing-health-concerns-as-uk-sets-record-for-smallest-properties-in-europe-9544450.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10909403/British-homes-are-the-smallest-in-Europe-study-finds.html
This is something I have raised with my father who is an Architect and Construction Company Ceo, I feel like you've really identified the underlying problem of the Housing problem in the 21st Century, the lack of ambition in modern Architecture is something that must be addressed. I wish that these problems could be properly addressed but I feel it may never be so which saddens me, if only more through thinkers were involved in government.
in the US the govt tries to lower the price on housing, healthcare, and education. It does nothing to try to the lower the price of electronics, food or clothing.
You should see the new developments here in Regina Canada. Buildings are wrapped with plastic vinyl, main arterial roads are so wide they're agoraphobia inducing, and green spaces? *So* 1992. People are literally chopping up their lawns for ugly full-width concrete driveways :(
I would most definitely buy one of those houses.
You should come to the UK. Cheap houses are shoehorned into ugly little estates with the absolute minimum legal required space. You'll be lucky to fit a small shed and a child's swing into the gardens
that's even better! except pave any grass with concrete/asphalt so I don't have to mow anything. Who needs sheds, swings, or a garden when really what you need is someplace inexpensive and safe to rest your head and store your food.
Zoning, especially the inclusion of building height limits, is the biggest hindrance in building new houses. In all honesty, I would rather live in an ugly building instead of not finding a place to stay at all - that's what I actually DO, currently. Despite the external ugliness of the building I reside in, my apartment looks great, has been tastefully decorated and turned into a real home.
I'm all for beautiful buildings, but they simply cost extra, since most such things are only superficial decorating elements applied on the facade. That would, in turn, increase the building price. Looking at palaces built in the late 19th century, splendid as they appear, realizing that they are build from the same type of bricks as any other building is sobering. The large stone structures on such buildings are simply decorations added as a layer in front of a normal brick wall - they serve no purpose than to be beautiful, and are expensive to make nowadays (e.g. during restorational work).
lol population limit reached, build more houses to increase population limit.
+Mukunda ieg lonewolf We must construct additional pylons.
yeah
+Mukunda ieg lonewolf You should have chosen the Huns!
memories
+Andrew Nguyen We require more overlords.
BS. People should not be able to stop development on someone else's land. I don't tell them what to do in their own home, so they can't tell me if I can build on my land or not.
I'd say people treating homes as investment is a bigger problem. Rich people with excess money tend to buy extra houses, because they are a stable investment. So a ton of buildings stay empty, while prices and demand are high.
+OceanJAl , yes, but if I could build a phone and sell it for 5x the cost but the state doesn't let me then the state is protecting your inflated price at the detriment of both me as a producer and others as potential consumers. The only ones who benefit from schemes like housing are the property owners (their investment value rises), banks (the higher the mortgage, the higher the profit) the politicians (favored by property owners as they protect their investments) and the state (the higher the value, the higher the taxes). Since those who would stand to lose the most from affordable housing are practically the same as the ones who are needed to stop preventing housing development, and since the population is growing, ending up with incredible housing price inflation is inevitable. This has nothing to do with aesthetics or anything of the sort, it's just a prime example of what happens on a market that you purposely stifle.
People treat it as an investment because prices are going up, which is down to building regulations.
Look up CIL in Uk. A tax by councils on house builders. So house builders cover their costs by raising home sell values.
The best bit is the CIL money generated can be used by the council for anything!
Sadly not while just a few large house builders own all the developable land and have our politicians in their pocket. Great video Alain x
Very clever and enticing. Very well produced. Thank you, Alain and team
How about curbing immigration and population growth? Do we really need that many people?
But the premise here is that the population of Great Britain increases by 400,000 people every year. And that there aren't enough new homes built annually to house them properly because these new people don't have the money to become valid demand for new houses at the price developers need to produce new homes. So no. There is not high demand. Armies are very expensive also. And in a Republic, they rarely earn a profit for the country that hires them. The cheap labor provided by immigrants is much more expensive than the wages for labor in the countries they come from. So it is not competitively cheap in comparison. So no. No.
If your curb population growth, then you have a stagnating economy, and dying work force. Like new housing developments, people are averse to population growth because they're scared that bigger populations means destruction of nature, more pollution, more traffic, and all sorts of bad things.
But, what if we lived in cities that were way more efficient? You didn't NEED to use a car to get anywhere, there was a network of super efficient rapid transit that spider webbed the entire dense metropolis. There wasn't much pollution because we'd developed technology that less us do away with burning of fossil fuels, and recycling was much better. Again, imagine that to house all these people we didn't plow down endless miles of nature to build puke inducing, soulless, lonely suburbs, but rather we all lived in much more pleasant, dense dwellings. Maybe you're averse to the idea of living in an apartment because you think of them as cramped, downtrodden, big towering monoliths of impersonal loneliness, and you'd rather have the space of a house. But, can you imagine the very pretty apartment that's worth 20 million in downtown Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, or whatever, it's nice isn't it? Have you ever lived in an apartment complex or dormitory where you feel a sense of closeness and community with your neighbors? The courtyard and streets are alive with children playing, people eating, drinking, laughing, working? If you think of these ideals, living in dense apartments sounds a lot better than living in a suburb, and it would preserve our nature.
So my point is that, when you think of overpopulation, you probably don't just oppose it on principle, more people. I mean really, you're okay with a country of say 55 million, but 65 is too much? I don't think anyone can really fully grasp the idea of that many people. I think what people that oppose growing populations are afraid of is all the consequences that come with mismanaged growth. What you should demand is well managed growth, NOT lack of growth. We want growth, growth brings us better stuff.
LeeFerikson Many people do not want to be crammed into little spaces like sardines. If more people are demanding less material wealth per capita, then the economy will also be stagnant. It is aggregate demand that drives economic growth. More people producing and demanding more wealth. But eventually human growth will have to slow down and stop. There are limits to what the planet can handle. Why not curb population before it gets so high that there is mass suffering? The economy can only carry the current population because of an abundance of cheap fossil fuels. This will not always be the case.
population growth certainly means a greater environmental degradation. It is short sighted indeed and somewhat grotesque to propose that we depend on an expanding population in order to feed and solve the problems of our malfunctioning economy...
Population growth isn't necessary for a good economy but it generally is connected, a stable population can achieve it, and yes population growth will generally lead to more pollution and traffic and destruction of nature. Cities do have that spider web transportation scheme right now, it's called roads, and the fast transportation method is called a car, and all that isn't very efficient, the solution instead of making a whole new infrastructure, which would take decades (and it's financially absurd), is to take advantage of the infrastructure we already have, and bolt-on what's missing, just bring in self-driving slim cars that sit one person in the back and one in the front, connect big populations with maglev self-driving trains that can also take cars, this alone will set the stage for congestion free cities for many decades (if not longer) to come.
"No one will mind the trees being cut down"
well, except anyone who has any concern about the great extinction event we're causing.
I live in London, and I did the maths. The average salary in London in 1950 was £400 and you could buy a three bedroom house for £1050, 2.5 times the average salary. Now in 2023, 73 years on, the average salary is £44,158, so by the same ratio you would expect a three bedroom house to cost £110,395, right? No, the average is around £1,000,000 now, around 25 times the average salary. It's practically impossible to buy a three bedroom house with that, so you're practically limited to flats. And those are also expensive, of course.
Now, I'm 16, and I live in a 4 bedroom house in London. My parents aren't incredibly rich, but they bought my house nearly 30 years ago, back when it was cheaper. My house cost £200,000 back then, and is worth £1,000,000 now. Basically, I can't expect to live in this area when I'm older unless I absolutely have to. Because London is just too damn expensive.
Hey anyone at school or uni wondering what life has in store for them but also want to be cripplingly depressed? 1)find out the average wage of the job you’re aiming/struggling for and will be spending the next 40 years slaving away at, 2) find the mortgage you can get 4x salary, 3) then see the palace that awaits you on right move 🤗
That was absolutely amazing - everything about it. I'm so glad your channel exists.
Crazy argument. I don't think that Britain has law against ugly buildings. Unless they really do, the opposition to ugly buildings really doesn't matter - the developer can build what building they please. With some limitations, of course.
And btw. Accordia housing scheme IS ugly, very much so. Just another pretentious "modern" architecture.
Are any of the school curriculums going to include anything about aesthetics and architecture?
Hello. I'm sorry, I meant at your physical hubs and campuses at London and Paris and elsewhere. Also, do you plan on opening a campus in NYC? Thanks for making this channel and these videos, they're great.
No. They only include socialist and left wing bullshit.
For many architecture schools aesthetics isn't ever mentioned, and for good reason. Because let's face it, 99% of new projects are ugly, because it's trying to make a fashion statement rather than being beautiful. Beauty is seen as subjective so it's never a good enough argument in our contemporary architectural world. Sometimes it feels like people are so scared of producing something beautiful because they feel that it will discredit them professionally, that they choose to design something very ugly just so people can admire them for their courage and comment on the brutal boldness of their design.
This might sound melodramatic but I've seen this happen year after year and it's quite sad really. People outside of the architectural profession and their tastes are never considered in the aesthetical decision making process.
or an architect makes an ugly basic house plan and for each house that uses it he gets lets say 1000, and that is better for both architect and the plan buyers since a 1 of a kind, non ugly,non stupid building takes much more time and the architect asks at least 10 times more money
Anne-Catherine Mulhern
You sound like you might be involved in architecture, or know some people who might be? I don't, but I had an idea for an architecture design that maybe you or someone you know would want to use. The idea is to make a building with a facade of vines, plants, and realistic artificial plants, and also slabs of rock, to make the whole thing look like an organic hill covered in plant life and rocks. Just an idea. I think that might look interesting if a building were made like that. I don't know anyone involved in architecture and I am not an architect myself so I don't know what to do with the idea, and so I just thought I would share it with you if it's of any interest or value at all.
Ugliness is certainly true, but main problem is nymbism and council workers who are restricting any form of development big or small.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" even when it comes to architecture! So while someone may think one form of architecture is beautiful another person may think it's ugly and we can't please everyone so that's another problem as well! While I agree in part with the not designing using the "Shakespearean dialect" analogy, one should also remember to maintain the integrity of a place, and remember to have a sense of history. Contemporary architecture has a place among more traditional architecture, but who is to say which is beautiful and which is not ..hence, the aforementioned famous quote says this professional artist/designer.
NIMBY-ism is the problem, but it has nothing to do with ugliness. People want to keep urban sprawl out of their cities and towns. Many city councils have passed anti-growth legislation that severely limits or even halts new housing development.
Yup.
next episode : How to build the perfect house....
it needs to be cheap but no one must lose becouse of it.
it must be efficient but beautiful.
it must be special but there need to be a lot off it.
it needs to be an idea that speaks to people, and you are the best to develop the filosophical back ground...
So please make this happen, for everyone, for youselfs even or if that doesn't work just do it for me ...
In places like Los Angeles, it's not beauty - it's TRAFFIC. More people in a neighborhood = much, much drive, park, etc
I wouldn't care how ugly a house was if It's FUNCTIONAL. It's airtight, has a mechanical HR ventilation system, is superinsulated and non-toxic. Unfortunately, as these really important things filter into the building codes, houses seem to become more expensive and architecturally fancy (except in Canada).
Why the fuck are all the houses in London 2 floors small houses instead of high buildings and skyscrapers?? This is something that I really don't get since I moved here, all housing is so expensive, and obviously land too, why not build very tall buildings then? You could fit 5 or 10 times more houses in the same area.
that is expensive and requires a lot of people with big brains and big salaries. also it might be problem of retardation, in rural areas you ussualy cant build buildings of unlimited height the height limit changes from place to place, the city,road n stuff engineer/smth people choose that (not many people) its not that unlikely that those people dont let them build skyscrapers and stuff
i study civil engineering
These are huge claims...Do you have any sources for your argument that "ugliness" explains the "home-crisis"?
It's NIMBY and artificial scarcity through zoning laws, while "ugliness" is an excuse.
""All this could be done."" that's the most painful part of a lot of these problems.
The price of houses has skyrocketed purely because it became a financial transaction. Think of House A selling at £50000, two bedrooms and small garden. To the bank that results in £150000 return after 25 years. So wouldn't it be better if the bank and therefore Estate Agents decided to increase the price of House A to return a greater profit. Now House A is today's average price of £260,000 and so the banks return is more than £1,000,000. They can sell this idea because the owner of the house has assets of "260,000"but every house n his street has this same value and those houses that they could have aspired to as a second home is now out of their reach, as it has probably increased by £100,000. The only time a houseowner benefits is when they downsize and release some finance for themselves. But even here the banks win out because by the time the occupants want to downsize there is another borrower asking for a large loan to purchase the house. For the banks and the financial world it represents the major profits of that bank. It was this greed of the "Golden Egg " that caused the bank crisis in 20018. But still we hear that more houses have to be built to reduce the house prices. But whenever have you seen a new Estate reducing the value of housing. The new houses are always priced above the average house prices of any area they are built. Sometimes I wish this country would wake up to the trickery and falseness of the profiteering of the banks to the high value of houses today.
Do I know you, because I really would love to meet up to teach you a lesson in manners,
Didn't Hitler blame the minority group for all the german failure and economic collapse and here you are blaming a minority economic group just like little people all over the world blaming minorities. I am the one indulging in conspiracy theories!!! Do you know about sub prime loans given to americans to buy all those houses. Honestly please look at yourself and clean up both your mind and personality. My answer was to show the huge profits of the banks when the housing market was given over to mortgages. I gave a good argument but you blame a minority. You really are struggling to understand basic facultie. If you are so disabled to think clearly then accept my apologies, I do not like to blame unfortunates
Well done Anthony, you must be the only person in the western hemisphere who doesn't realise or even admit that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by the big banks. Have you experience of immigrants working in your area? Mostly they congregate into lower priced flats to save money so after 3 years they have saved enough money to build a house back in their own country which is a hell of a lot cheaper than in the UK. Before you attack this as whatever your mind gurges out, I know several that I have made friends with who do this. A lovely couple came back to work here so they can have an extension and swimming pool.Did you also know that you can buy a beautiful multi -bedroomed house in Hungary for less than £20000. Keep to your opinion and keep out of step with reality if you wish, I dislike Racists and will always attack them logically and hopefully a grain of truth might pass through a closed mind
As of October 2016, home prices in Silicon Valley, California have started to stabilize. True, the typical cost of an unattached tract house on a small lot is over $1 million -- roughly 12 times the prevailing annual income of most workers, but the housing prices are not shooting up like a skyrocket at this time. What keeps most people from buying a home is the down payment requirement of usually 20% of the price. Few have been able to save up so much cash.
Most people don't understand that the land a house sits on is usually much more costly than the house itself.
I do not see the correlation between building tactfully within our idiom and cheaper housing. Surely more attractive houses would make them more desirable and therefore more expensive?
***** Why do you think humans like beauty so much? I have looked this up & I can't figure it out. From my personal experience it seems like humans even like their food made attractive. We like attractive cars, homes, food, people, and etc. Why? Why are we naturally kind of veined?
***** Maybe humans are preprogrammed to like certain general things and retrospectively we call it 'beauty'.
I'd rather have an ugly home than no home...but it doesn't matter anyway as half of my wages goes on rent for a tiny room and will never get a place of my own near my work.
Tim Rodriguez you will have no home if you loose your ugly home
How about enacting a law that limits the number of houses that can be owned by a family or individual?
Sunil Basker how about enacting a law that landlords have to pay back the money Tennant's invest in them when the Tennant/investors move or are evicted, prices would go way down.or how about a law that landlords can only charge 100 dollars per bedroom and that's all.
It's also instructive to compare house prices with car prices. I bought my first home in 1993 for £23500, the car I had at the time cost £3000. The flat would now cost around £75000, I could probably buy an equivalent car for £2000 now. Both second hand of course. Houses and cars are both manufactured, both require skill to make, both have doors and windows, ones tripled in price over 25years and ones nearly halved.
here in Brasil, the government's loans required that you bought a newly built house. So, huge condominiums were built all of them alike, regardless of where they were. Nonetheless, houses in the city center didn't have they prices lowered. Quite the opposite happened, the price of any home continued to go up.
I do agree... I live in Jamaica and it is the same houses are being made so ugly and crammed up its hard to invest in something that you are not happy with.
I don't think this video is quite right. Land is limited, and few buildings are shut down, which is necessary in order to build larger ones. That's why prices increase.
There is nearly one full acre of land for every man, woman, and child in Britain.
Yup, and according to the FAO, it takes 1.25 acres to feed one person for a year (although that could be reduced to .2 acres if everyone was a vegetarian, but a good portion of farmland is only suitable for grazing). With the UK net importing 25% of their food, the math equals out for "land is limited....that's why prices increase."
thats just inflation))) For example gold in 1971 cost only $35 per ounce, now gold costs $1343 per ounce, 1343/35=38. Very close to real estate multiplier 40 mentioned in the video)))
It’s the fiat currency deflation in value and wages not keeping up due to cheap labor
Uh? Deflation means falling prices, not rising prices.
"Community reinvestment Act" in America. Yeah that worked out pretty well.
Stay with economic fundamentals, which was abandoned after 3 minutes into the video. Ugly development is the result of the underlying cause: fixed availability of desirable land/location.
Increased demand can not evoke increased supply, so prices *must* rise. The correct response is land/location levy and no other taxes, i.e. LVT.
In Russia, there's a looot of space, so the price of the land is not so high. Nevertheless, cities mostly consist of multi-storey buildings. A one-room flat can cost you as much as 20 thousand dollars.
lol he asked........ why does land cost so much?.......short answer it's the one thing they don't make anymore of and even if you buy it you never really own it you'll have to pay taxes on it every year forever or the government will take it and resell it i feel it's a way to keep everyone a working slave if not you could just get a piece of land build a cabin grow your own food and pass the cabin down in your family and have no real need for money
Mexico doesn't tax land.
my mom and dad's house is paid off but it still cost them about 300 a month just in taxes
The solution would obviously be for everyone to own land rather than to allow individuals to own land privately with no tax burden lol
Tax all the land based on its market value so that the full rental value will be captured and then let the person paying the tax do whatever they want as long as it's not harmful. If you want to not be a slave to the system, simply don't own land that someone else wants.
+Joseph Atnip Americans really don't *own* anything. They're just given the illusion that they do.
Housing prices are skyrocketing in Canadian cities and Colorado! There is plenty of land overall. The key part of the problem is that employment is concentrated in a fraction of the cities, and those cities have effective means to regulate supply of housing.
what about the fact that i dont care about what people think and really just need a house so i can live a half decent life without forking out a lifes worth of money to a renter. \the problem is everyone wants to make money off there house, a never ending money making machine that will crush us all one day. If houses were cheap than the rich would buy them all up and sell them again for high prices, the older i get the more i see the problems with capitalism.
There is a huge market being missed... Starter houses for pragmatic (generally male) professional bachelors. Most pragmatists don't care how ugly a house is... as long as it's affordable and it doesn't turn to dust or set itself on fire after five years. And if he gets married then they can spend money to renovate the fascia, or sell the house and move to a house that their wife finds more palatable.
Another thing is that it's not a problem with capitalism. It's a problem with central planning.
Government created the mass hysteria that is locking down people, especially the lumber industry.
Government created the loss of businesses and jobs.
Government created into law mortgage forebearance in order to suppress the auction of cheaper, foreclosed housing.
And finally, the federal reserve (which circumvents capitalism with their centralized monetary policy) forced basically-negative interest rates through the FOMC, which drove up demand for purchasing.
Capitalism takes literally zero blame.
Central planning takes 100% of the blame.
@DW Washburn There are "low income housing" available, but they're usually reserved by the government through development contracts for people under some sort of welfare program.
What's needed is a Levitt-styled initiative by private industry to see the huge untapped market.
Tiny homes is trying to fill that void, but local governments have tried to fight against their presence since they were invented. It's a very NIMBY kind of thing... no town likes trailer parks, which they associate tiny homes with.
Those houses are ugly. a first grader can draw them up, they are just square blocks.
Nothing compared to the fine detailing and allure of pre-war architecture
Could be down to housing regulations, eh?
I disagree with the point that all homeowners want prices to rise. This is only beneficial if you are at the very top of the ladder AND are looking to downsize, anyone who wants to move up are in a tougher position as the gap between small and larger properties grows. I own a flat in zone 2 in London but dont want prices to skyrocket otherwise I'll never be able to afford a bugger family home.
I'm envious of homeowners who were lucky to get those large 3/4 storey £1m+ victorian (late 1800's) houses for cheap back in the 60's and 70's in UK. A lot of them were empty and neglected in the 80's especially in Brixton after the riots. All fixed up today and worth millions
I had this discussion with my long gone friend the other day and he said its cause it's a gold mine for banks , mortgagees etc so this video missing the point.
All about being controlled by system again.
how does this solve the social cleansing then that is happening in areas that I have grown up in my whole life? I'm not sure where you live but in North and East inner parts of london such as Dalston, most areas of Hackney, and Bow, it is clear that the areas have changed considerably over the last 15 years socially. Dalston is probably the greatest example of this where 'minorities' were the majority of people that made up who lived in this area, but now white, post-university 22-3 y/o and middle class families are slowly but surely going to be the majority in a minimum of ten years time. Whilst this is happening, people in council houses are being offered money as an incentive to move to areas such as Essex/Birmingham and relocate their whole families and lives in order to accommodate for this greater demand in these areas and houses in the area now being worth into the millions. You can make your own conclusions with this. I don't see what this has to do with how beautiful the area looks like whatsoever..
As time goes on I find I disagree with your videos more and more.
Right? When I discovered The School of Life, I loved it. Now I hate it, there is not a problem in this world, not a philosopher on earth, that T.S.o.L can not oversimplify
I know. This channel is so wrong on so many issues. I can't watch it.
This is the first "School of Life" video I've seen, and I already disagree with its premise.
seems every time I watch now
I completely understand your sentiment, I do, but for the sake of hope and finding a solution to move forward, I will respectfully disagree. Any shred of positivity and creative ideas helps, so I'm with SOL with this one :)
One of the few videos from your channel that I totally disagree,
Since I graduated from architecture myself,
It's now all about money, not beauty. To save cost (of construction) but keep the rent high
That's why modern architecture is about blocks / modules / repetitions - make the most use out of limited space "AKA" get rid of complexity of construction and provide many spaces (to rent) as much as possible
Only the rich needs 'architecture' (in its aesthetic/ideological sense)
Which now becomes symbol of status...
So many developers in my area have built a "concrete jungle." The houses look like grey concrete rectangle boxes. Each house is very small. Where one beautiful house with trees use to be. Is now torn down, and 4 boxes almost touching have been built with no room for plants. My whole suburb is like this. I used to not be able to hear the train. But now I can hear it several blocks away.
We need a new financial world crisis, house prices will drop by 25-50% again.
People having money will drop by the same percentage
It'll almost certainly will happen as the market is unsustainable.
you think you will even be employed so you can buy a house if we have a financial crisis ? less employment across the board, less people to even think about buying, the rich will buy cheaper houses and rent to suckers...
as soon as you are an awesome specialist, you will be ok.
party boy people in my country have always bought property this way. they could only afford to buy housing during crisis. they save money and wait.
quick answer: overpopulation. Every time when I fly over UK, I realize i'm so lucky to live in eastern Europe.
only cities are overpopulated, most of britain is empty, yeh, and we moved to Poland, millions of plots for sale here
You should try to fly over Japan. There is a blue ocean of water, then a grey ocean of buildings, and then the green mountains stick up in the middle. The first time I saw it I was shocked. Not to mention most of their modern houses are really ugly. Not that I think that's the cause of the prices..
I really want to live in Bali, the living cost so cheap!
In the USA, banks during The Housing Bubble also benefited by bundling mortgages into Collateralized Debt Obligations (which led to the 2008 Financial Crisis) , passed on those risky securities to investors, and thereafter the government bailed them out. In the meantime, homeowners (who arguably purchased more home than they knew they could afford) were left to drown during The Great Recession.
This video is very UK specific since they have a ton of government regulations to preserve their local architecture. I didn't find his "ugly houses" example very ugly, nor his "beautiful houses" example very beautiful. Architectural beauty is arbitrary and varies person to person, largely based on perceived cost of materials, perceived structural soundness, and perceived craftsmanship quality.
people move into old houses. the scarcity is a myth, 220,000 people in England in 2014-15 were housing insecure.
In England, 205,821 are classed as long-term vacant properties, defined as being unoccupied or unfurnished for a period longer than TWO years. In total there are 610,123 empty homes in England.
Conclusion there are more houses than there are homeless and wasn't it just a typical Blunt Bubble that raised the prices? and that teacher is an example of failed redistribution of wealth by the government, they need a new Robin Hood legend.
but nicer, greener, more pragmatic houses would be nice.
Yup, similar, if not worse problem in the US
www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/
What about how who controls the land in England/uk!? Didn't mention that!
If Britain would deport the foreigners, half the houses in London, Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester would be vacant. That would bring both rents and home prices down in a hurry.
and that would put businesses on hold, Son you have no idea what you're talking about, I live in a place where migration is very low and the prices are high as WTC
Immigration may or may not be a problem but the problem is building regulation.
House prices are actually falling in certain areas of the UK. What it fails to mention is snobbery around location and socio-economic divides in this country. This is causing imbalances of high demand in sought after areas and very limited demand in others.
this makes me feel so good as an architecture student...
the title says "one reason" but the video gives multiple reasons....
It's a attraction strategy. "one reason why homes cost so much" is more attractive than "a couple of reasons why homes cost so much".
Daniel Johan Leroi thank you for that very clear explanation :)
No, he gave one reason , - we want homes that replace beautiful sights, to be a beautiful sight also, and until we have that, we can not build new houses, and so inflation will occur "
It is one reason, followed by premises.
The issue is over population.
no, the issue is mismanagement of the resources and the propaganda agriculture is shameful
what the bankers are doing is forcing people out of their land. nobody owns land any more, they all want a flat in a city. the food will become more expensive and they will have nowhere to grow it themselves, so, they will only be able to afford gmo. that leads to cancer and being unable to have children/having sick children
nothing wrong with people getting populated, but overpopulation is a myth as the food supply of the world is sufficient for every person but the job may shift to more AI thus require more programming job for android.
Overpopulation is at the heart of many problems, but this is not one of them. Overpopulation is a very real problem that may kill us all, but this problem is entirely caused by the leeches in the banking business and their parasitic political sycophants.
As if people do not matter? Isn't it an issue of the wickedness of society, and in becoming anti-family, anti-child? How can we keep growing in population as we are supposed to, and think that we do not need to build anything new to provide a place for all of these additional beautiful human lives?
Overpopulation is fake science that was actually hugely based upon Nazi eugenics and racism.
Man, he really likes Venice
In Nevada,USA, old houses have a huge backyard, new houses have less backyard space... The reason is because the builders are trying to save space so they can make more houses... For them quantity > quality
this man's voice is so relaxing i would love to listen to audiobooks read by him
There are a lot of cheap land and houses in Detroit, y'all Europeans are welcome there!
+Rip Vanwinkle
That is because it is NOT an investment. It is a place to live.
+Novusod A place to live? It's a place where no one lives. That's why it's so cheap :D
Novusod , au contraire, Detroit, statistically speaking, is a place to end your life.
I imagine that even has-been Europeans are smart enough not to want to move to places ruined by evil DemocRATS. Detroit is such a poster-child of why it is that friends should not let friends vote DemocRAT.
You are joking, right?
im curious how they researched the truthfulness of this theory.
Danaya Khartchenko by searching "beautiful houses VS ugly houses prices" then wrote a script from the first article
lol at our hipocrasy, we want an affordable house, until we have one, then we want housing to be expensive, nice call out on that one!!
as much as i enjoyed the video, and found interesting what's happening in Britain, in other countries it should also be addressed issues around controlled land availability and foreign investment
Here in Aus, there's a big thing about foreign investment: both large corporations buying up land and building large developments on, as well as individuals from overseas buying up existing properties, and sometimes, keeping them empty for years - just to inflate prices by restricting supply. The ever increading populations in city centres, the inability for urban sprawl to keep up due to time for infrastructure to expand and developers waiting to develop land for housing (these days, the smallest sub divisions they can legally do) all result in small houses for a high price. many of these homes are actually quite nice looking, but are still small houses on small blocks (down to around 250m squared in NSW).
also, the farm land owners wait and demand ever higher prices for their land - everyone wants to maximise their financial benefits from sales of their assets. this translates to developers also waiting to develop, speculating that prices will continue. this had resultes in climbing land prices. those renting also faced higher payments to their landlords, with the understanding that many people were being priced out of building new or buying existing properties - with nowhere lese to go, they would just pay the rent
however... we are now seeing apartment prices falling and house price rises slowing down, even stagnating, as a result of the shheer number of developers and developments. a good sign of those qho want to live and work here. town masterplanning with an increased importance of building "hubs" to provide jobs closer to home, as well as improvements and expanaions to public transport systems may reult in more affordable housing finally available to the masses. being prices out may no longer be a thing.... at least for now
Source: Many - did a uni assignment on this. Got a HD... trust meh
using the same style and tone for philosophic, educational videos and political opinion-making doesn't seem 100% right to me !
It would be great if you argumented you opinion a bit :)
Nice Video, I researched a ton for my video to learn why construction costs the so much and found out most of the same info. I also believe that the maintenance on the equipment brings costs up a lot as well. Great video though.
Right, and low interests have nothing to do with it. Capital will move to where it stores value and gets a return. Wait until interest rates go up and you will see house prices deflate as capital is moved to less risky investments.
as long as we plant gardens and use plants in as much development as possible . then we will always have beauty and nature and resources available. plant trees and you have shade and wind protection . grow garden beds and have fresh food. grow orchards where possible and eat as much as you can.
When every new development can be mortgaged to 10x earnings and more (whether it is owner-occupied or held speculatively); houses will *always* be increasingly expensive. Easy access to ridiculous levels of leverage *allows* and even promotes *excessive* household formation rates.