Originally posted by normbenignVolume house-builders in the UK are large companies - I'm not talking about small building firms who often show pride in what they do - the volume builders care about nothing other than maximising their profits. They build blocks of flats where the interior walls dividing flats are plaster board. They'll build houses so close together that they view from the window is the wall of next doors house 2 yards away. When asked about this they'll say: "It's the market innit, they're starter flats [i.e. first rung on the housing ownership ladder]." They want to use the market to justify their own unethical behaviour. They do not want the additional costs of clear-up. They should be forced to do the clean-up. House prices are not related to the cost of building them, if they were they would be affordable.
Thanks for the added information. Still, previously developed land has to be re-purposed, and that is often costly. I know that in both Cleveland and Detroit there are a great many residential lofts created in old warehouses and such. These are usually catering to high income folks who want to be a part of remaking neighborhoods to make themselves feel ...[text shortened]... ncome housing. The cost of rehabbing and re-purposing are too high to target low income people.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThose are problems of managed economies. I presume that building trades are unionized, so costs of construction keep rising. Here labor and material costs almost make new construction almost impossible. The former mayor of Detroit, Dave Bing, was in the steel business. He built quite a few manufactured homes in a dilapidated section of town where the lots were probably almost free. Plain Jane, three bedroom colonials started at just under $180,000, with no fencing, landscaping, window treatments or finished flooring.
Volume house-builders in the UK are large companies - I'm not talking about small building firms who often show pride in what they do - the volume builders care about nothing other than maximising their profits. They build blocks of flats where the interior walls dividing flats are plaster board. They'll build houses so close together that they view fr ...[text shortened]... ouse prices are not related to the cost of building them, if they were they would be affordable.
Low income government housing is even worse, although more affordable. One relatively new government project (town houses or row houses) lasted just 7 or 8 years before it had to be gutted to replace asbestos and lead paint.
I would not be so quick to blame the builders, as they probably are given parameters they must meet to get the contract. After that, it may not be about maximizing profit as just staying out of the red.
Many homes in the Detroit area, have less insulation than a modern mobil home. The standard for new construction is R49, but many homes built during and after WWII had little or none. Oil, gas and coal were cheaper than fiberglass.
Is it economically and politically feasible to supply decent homes at affordable cost in the world's wealthiest economies? Every country has its own approach, with a lot of common ground. There are all sorts of ideas about how to go about this conundrum and, both historically and geographically, every single idea has already been tested. The fact is that we can see excellent examples of successful housing policies, and there is more than one best way to arrive at a good enough solution. We do not lack evidence and experience.
So when the UK and the USA in their very different ways apply neoliberal principles to housing policy, we already know with complete certainty that they are intentionally, wilfully and avoidably condemning significant sections of their population to a situation in which housing is not affordable and its quality is deplorable.