davieG Posted 9 September 2005 Posted 9 September 2005 It seems to be a modern trend for politicians at National and Local level to go on about Affordable/low cost housing - could some explain this to me. Especially as buillders/converters of inner city apartments have to, by planning law include such properties as part of their development. How are they low cost, do they only one electric socket, or maybe cardboard walls, perhaps they have no heating/ventilation, could it be they have hardboard thin doors with no handles on, ah perhaps they have outside/communal toilets/washing facilities, I guess the might have bedrooms you can't fit a bed in - just what makes say 10 apartments in a block of 50 low cost. Another thought, if they are low cost and inferior are they going to be the slums we need to pull down in 2030, 40 or 50. I'm confused.
Katy Posted 9 September 2005 Posted 9 September 2005 Tis affordable to Tony Blair and his cronies and thats about it Basic housing that can cost from about £80000, cheap at half the price.
davieG Posted 10 September 2005 Author Posted 10 September 2005 Tis affordable to Tony Blair and his cronies and thats about it Basic housing that can cost from about £80000, cheap at half the price. What do they leave out to make it that price, surely the land costs the same?
Katy Posted 10 September 2005 Posted 10 September 2005 What do they leave out to make it that price, surely the land costs the same? Basically, I guess the building materials cost a certain price and there is going to be a substantial mark up on that, maybe the Government make the difference up and the people who buy them will pay for it (in more ways than one) at a later date. You are right though they do have to be of a certain standard or people wont buy them and they will get their asses sued if anything happens to them.
The People's Hero Posted 10 September 2005 Posted 10 September 2005 Smaller, inferior building materials. Still probably perfectly functional , just perhaps not as luxurious??
Babylon Posted 10 September 2005 Posted 10 September 2005 If you built a block of appartments in town you do have to include a small percentage of "Affordable low cost housing". I believe they are exactly the same as the normal flats but you can buy them as shared ownership. You buy 50%, the developers own the other 50%, so for a £120000 flat you only need a mortgage of £60000. You do have to pay the developers rent on the 50% they own though. I might be wrong though.
The People's Hero Posted 10 September 2005 Posted 10 September 2005 Sounds more convincing than my explanation!
davieG Posted 10 September 2005 Author Posted 10 September 2005 If you built a block of appartments in town you do have to include a small percentage of "Affordable low cost housing".I believe they are exactly the same as the normal flats but you can buy them as shared ownership. You buy 50%, the developers own the other 50%, so for a £120000 flat you only need a mortgage of £60000. You do have to pay the developers rent on the 50% they own though. I might be wrong though. You could be right although it's still puzzling, surely the rent you pay on the developers 50% wouldn't be too different from paying the extra mortgage? And if you can't get the extra £60000 from your mortage lender how come they are lending you the first £60000 if you've got to pay rent for the second £60000?
cisono Posted 10 September 2005 Posted 10 September 2005 This shared ownership stuff was already commonplace in Milton Keynes a few years back (tried to buy a house there in 2001, God knows why! ). The other owner(s) can be a financial institution, developers or another person like you. Cannot say that I find the idea very attractive, I guess people are just pushed into it by financial constraints. The real winners (to me) seem to be the very people who are already making money: i.e. banks and developers! I can also think of several things that could go wrong with these schemes...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.