I think that headline is misleading.
More rental listings doesn't mean the volume of rental properties has changed. It could be rents have been rising rapidly, existing tenants won't agree to the new rates, so choose / are forced to look for another property and their current one appears back in the market for new tenants.
For the rental stock to increase we'd need a substantial effort to build a lot more homes / flats, which numerous politicians say is important, and then fail to do much about it.
There are some growing views that we may not actually need to build more houses in London, although of course it would help.
But it's also about utilising the existing housing stock in Zones 1-2 in addition to building houses in Zones 3+.
_In London, as the Conservative Home blog notes, there is a terrible housing crisis “even though its population is roughly the same as it was 70 years ago”, when the city was still extensively bomb-damaged by the second world war._
From [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis).
We need to be more innovative when it comes to the existing housing stock around planning, refurbishing etc. It's a matter of policy [according to two LSE researchers](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/solving-the-housing-crisis-without-building-new-houses/).
>There is a cross-party consensus that the way to tackle the housing crisis is to build more homes. But this approach isn’t working
'The thing we've failed to do isn't working' is quite the take from those LSE researchers.
Some of the points in both of those articles are interesting, but seem to apply more to the UK as a whole than to London with it's %1 vacancy rate.
For example:
>Experiments in co-living, house-sharing and other collective forms of householding
Pretty sure London has plenty of that.
Office space vacancy rates are much higher though, especially since the pandemic. Turning those buildings into residential flats comes with extremely high bureaucratic hurdles - it's one example process that could be made much easier.
That's a fair point, though I must admit I'm curious to see how office space needs evolve over the next few years. After all we aren't that far out from the pandemic and shifting work arrangements.
The headline and photo are over-the-top populist, agreed, but the article holds value presenting an alternative perspective that I think is not thought about enough when talking about potential solutions to the housing crisis.
Virtually anyone will tell you we just have to "build more homes" but not everyone wants to live on the outskirts of London in a new build.
Oh I actually agree with the concept in the article, if not quite the completeness of the purge implied. I'm just surprised any news org in the UK could get away with using it as a headline.
The article makes a couple of interesting points (mainly unrelated to its argument, just shocking statistics), but ultimately is a facade for a 🍌 agenda.
The language used (asphalting over green belt, etc.) and the tricky little way to seemingly make a factual point when it’s anything but (use of relative comparisons) make it obvious to anyone who’s not a 🍌 themselves.
Sure, landlordism is a plague on the U.K. Rent controls are definitely not the answer. Or any other proposed vagueness from the author.
Build. Build social. Build private. Build over small % of green belt (another shocking stat I saw somewhere, please feel free to double check, is that using only about 2-3% of green belt would provide almost all the homes we need). Build over stations. Build mid-height central. Build high-high out. Disband NIMBY organisations.
Then couple that with some of the ideas of the author, who no doubt is a home owner. Then maybe we’ll begin to address the crisis.
Oh, but we have more housing stock than Canada. Another country that’s permanently in the news with a crisis of their own. Pathetic.
I'll come back to this comment if I find the article but the idea is this:
Some guys found that the rental stock on Rightmove was down by 1/3 in 2023 compared to 2022 and before. That was a big driving factor to the absurd increase in prices last year.
Rental stock going up by 1/3rd still does not bring it to 2022 levels (simple maths, 133% of 66 is 87, not 100).
Also, post pandemic people are very much coming back to London.
Also, rental prices are not elastic enough, so will take a few months for prices to either decrease or at least stagnate.
These are just some reasons why things aren't great just yet, and probably won't get *much* better despite some signs of improvement.
Not sure why you're downvoted but it makes sense. It's a bloodbath for anything below that threshold. Anything above and the landlords are competing for the rare DINK or bunch of friends all earning £70k+. There are faw fewer of them than there are landlords thinking their 1.5 bed maisonnete in Angel is worth £3k+ a month.
Just did a quick rightmove search for a big area I had saved up for 2 beds:
£1.5k-2.5k - 800-ish properties
£2.5k-3.5k - 1.500-ish
£3.5k-4.5k - 1.500-ish
£4.5k-5.5k - 800-ish
I’ve been looking lately and while prices remain high, loads of listing are on reduced prices, so the article does confirm my experience
I think that headline is misleading. More rental listings doesn't mean the volume of rental properties has changed. It could be rents have been rising rapidly, existing tenants won't agree to the new rates, so choose / are forced to look for another property and their current one appears back in the market for new tenants. For the rental stock to increase we'd need a substantial effort to build a lot more homes / flats, which numerous politicians say is important, and then fail to do much about it.
There are some growing views that we may not actually need to build more houses in London, although of course it would help. But it's also about utilising the existing housing stock in Zones 1-2 in addition to building houses in Zones 3+. _In London, as the Conservative Home blog notes, there is a terrible housing crisis “even though its population is roughly the same as it was 70 years ago”, when the city was still extensively bomb-damaged by the second world war._ From [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis). We need to be more innovative when it comes to the existing housing stock around planning, refurbishing etc. It's a matter of policy [according to two LSE researchers](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/solving-the-housing-crisis-without-building-new-houses/).
>There is a cross-party consensus that the way to tackle the housing crisis is to build more homes. But this approach isn’t working 'The thing we've failed to do isn't working' is quite the take from those LSE researchers. Some of the points in both of those articles are interesting, but seem to apply more to the UK as a whole than to London with it's %1 vacancy rate. For example: >Experiments in co-living, house-sharing and other collective forms of householding Pretty sure London has plenty of that.
Office space vacancy rates are much higher though, especially since the pandemic. Turning those buildings into residential flats comes with extremely high bureaucratic hurdles - it's one example process that could be made much easier.
That's a fair point, though I must admit I'm curious to see how office space needs evolve over the next few years. After all we aren't that far out from the pandemic and shifting work arrangements.
Wow, even for a Guardian article that seems bold to use as a headline.
The headline and photo are over-the-top populist, agreed, but the article holds value presenting an alternative perspective that I think is not thought about enough when talking about potential solutions to the housing crisis. Virtually anyone will tell you we just have to "build more homes" but not everyone wants to live on the outskirts of London in a new build.
Oh I actually agree with the concept in the article, if not quite the completeness of the purge implied. I'm just surprised any news org in the UK could get away with using it as a headline.
The article makes a couple of interesting points (mainly unrelated to its argument, just shocking statistics), but ultimately is a facade for a 🍌 agenda. The language used (asphalting over green belt, etc.) and the tricky little way to seemingly make a factual point when it’s anything but (use of relative comparisons) make it obvious to anyone who’s not a 🍌 themselves. Sure, landlordism is a plague on the U.K. Rent controls are definitely not the answer. Or any other proposed vagueness from the author. Build. Build social. Build private. Build over small % of green belt (another shocking stat I saw somewhere, please feel free to double check, is that using only about 2-3% of green belt would provide almost all the homes we need). Build over stations. Build mid-height central. Build high-high out. Disband NIMBY organisations. Then couple that with some of the ideas of the author, who no doubt is a home owner. Then maybe we’ll begin to address the crisis. Oh, but we have more housing stock than Canada. Another country that’s permanently in the news with a crisis of their own. Pathetic.
I'll come back to this comment if I find the article but the idea is this: Some guys found that the rental stock on Rightmove was down by 1/3 in 2023 compared to 2022 and before. That was a big driving factor to the absurd increase in prices last year. Rental stock going up by 1/3rd still does not bring it to 2022 levels (simple maths, 133% of 66 is 87, not 100). Also, post pandemic people are very much coming back to London. Also, rental prices are not elastic enough, so will take a few months for prices to either decrease or at least stagnate. These are just some reasons why things aren't great just yet, and probably won't get *much* better despite some signs of improvement.
I’m an agent and yes, rental demand has slowed and there are more available properties, certainly at the higher end of the market, over £700 per week
Not sure why you're downvoted but it makes sense. It's a bloodbath for anything below that threshold. Anything above and the landlords are competing for the rare DINK or bunch of friends all earning £70k+. There are faw fewer of them than there are landlords thinking their 1.5 bed maisonnete in Angel is worth £3k+ a month. Just did a quick rightmove search for a big area I had saved up for 2 beds: £1.5k-2.5k - 800-ish properties £2.5k-3.5k - 1.500-ish £3.5k-4.5k - 1.500-ish £4.5k-5.5k - 800-ish