This morning, Sadiq Khan said he'd like to see London increase the number of homes built every year from 29,000 to 66,000, with 65 percent of these homes made affordable, rented at no more than a third of the average income. For many young Londoners, this plan sounds great, because it's literally their only shot of ever owning a home in the capital. But how realistic is the mayor's wish, and what are the obstacles standing in his way?I spoke to Paul Swinney, Head of Policy and Research at Centre for Cities, to find out.VICE: What are your initial thoughts on the mayor's statement? Do you think this could be possible?
Paul Swinney: I don't know the exact finances behind it, but, at the moment, it's just a statement of intent, and I think that is the problem. For years, the target has been to achieve affordable homes, but this never really happens. The issue for politicians is there just aren't enough houses. House prices have continued to rise since the financial crash – house prices and rent are going up. So, the answer is to build more! Whether this will be affordable, though, that's another question. The first issue is we need to build houses. If them being affordable comes after that, then great! But the issue lies with building homes; affordability is just a bonus that could occur in result.But can 65 percent of 66,000 new-build homes really be affordable?
The question is, really, what is affordable? I don't think this new plan will bring down house prices; they have continued to rise for years, and I don't see a crash in the market happening anytime soon. But this would moderate the increase in housing. This will allow income to rise beyond the rate of housing prices, and with wages increasing gradually every year, this is the only way housing will become more affordable.Do you see any significant issues with Khan's statement?
There are risks when putting targets onto statements. Suggesting 65 percent of homes will be affordable means you must think of what that requires for those building the houses. The private sector builds homes to gain a profit in the same way shop owners sell to gain profit. Figures, such as the 65 percent mark, are released through good intentions, but they tend to restrict desire to build. If private sector building companies hear the word "affordable" they will opt out of building them because the profit will be too low. These statements may play well from a political view, but the realities differ.What are the possible environmental effects of building loads of new homes, when it comes to brownfield and greenfield land?
There are three options on where to build, and each positioning will have its own environmental impact. Firstly, there's the option to build on brownfield. This is land that has been previously built on, but no longer in use and now derelict. In London, there is a reasonable amount of that land, but this can't solve the housing crisis. Secondly, there's build-up. London has got better at this over the past 20 years, but there are issues that result from this. Due to laws and protected views that have been put in place – one of which requires St Paul's Cathedral to be seen from Richmond Park – building up is restricted, and not necessarily going to solve the housing crisis either. The third is building bigger in terms of footprint. This means a sensible conversation needs to be had in terms of the green belt. It's nice to look at, but we must talk about what this means in terms of building houses. Politicians have not wanted to have this discussion yet, so that possibility remains unknown.Why do you think Sadiq has decided to speak about it now specifically?
Housing is an ongoing issue, and the number one economic problem. The fact Sadiq Khan came out with this statement now is good, but there doesn't seem to be any reasons why now is important. Politicians always say, "The national housing crisis." But it's not; it's the crisis of the great South-East – specifically London. It's such a major issue that it's great the mayor is bringing it into front view, where it should always be.Thanks, Paul.
Advertisement
Paul Swinney: I don't know the exact finances behind it, but, at the moment, it's just a statement of intent, and I think that is the problem. For years, the target has been to achieve affordable homes, but this never really happens. The issue for politicians is there just aren't enough houses. House prices have continued to rise since the financial crash – house prices and rent are going up. So, the answer is to build more! Whether this will be affordable, though, that's another question. The first issue is we need to build houses. If them being affordable comes after that, then great! But the issue lies with building homes; affordability is just a bonus that could occur in result.But can 65 percent of 66,000 new-build homes really be affordable?
The question is, really, what is affordable? I don't think this new plan will bring down house prices; they have continued to rise for years, and I don't see a crash in the market happening anytime soon. But this would moderate the increase in housing. This will allow income to rise beyond the rate of housing prices, and with wages increasing gradually every year, this is the only way housing will become more affordable.Do you see any significant issues with Khan's statement?
There are risks when putting targets onto statements. Suggesting 65 percent of homes will be affordable means you must think of what that requires for those building the houses. The private sector builds homes to gain a profit in the same way shop owners sell to gain profit. Figures, such as the 65 percent mark, are released through good intentions, but they tend to restrict desire to build. If private sector building companies hear the word "affordable" they will opt out of building them because the profit will be too low. These statements may play well from a political view, but the realities differ.What are the possible environmental effects of building loads of new homes, when it comes to brownfield and greenfield land?
There are three options on where to build, and each positioning will have its own environmental impact. Firstly, there's the option to build on brownfield. This is land that has been previously built on, but no longer in use and now derelict. In London, there is a reasonable amount of that land, but this can't solve the housing crisis. Secondly, there's build-up. London has got better at this over the past 20 years, but there are issues that result from this. Due to laws and protected views that have been put in place – one of which requires St Paul's Cathedral to be seen from Richmond Park – building up is restricted, and not necessarily going to solve the housing crisis either. The third is building bigger in terms of footprint. This means a sensible conversation needs to be had in terms of the green belt. It's nice to look at, but we must talk about what this means in terms of building houses. Politicians have not wanted to have this discussion yet, so that possibility remains unknown.Why do you think Sadiq has decided to speak about it now specifically?
Housing is an ongoing issue, and the number one economic problem. The fact Sadiq Khan came out with this statement now is good, but there doesn't seem to be any reasons why now is important. Politicians always say, "The national housing crisis." But it's not; it's the crisis of the great South-East – specifically London. It's such a major issue that it's great the mayor is bringing it into front view, where it should always be.Thanks, Paul.