To solve the housing crisis, we need a National Housing Fund

Some houses, of exactly the sort that you will never own. Image: Getty.

Welcome to the housing crisis, part 4526. So far this month, we have learnt that planning permission has been granted for 320,000 homes but they have not been built; the housing market is slowing down; and people are spending more of their incomes on housing than ever before. But even with the scale of the problem, and a hamstrung government, things don’t have to be this way.

Housing is a significant challenge for our cities, a major solution to which is getting more homes built. It’s not surprising that all of the newly elected metro mayors are prioritising it – from Ben Houchen in Tees Valley, who wants to build a new small town to meet local housing demand, to James Palmer in the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, who put affordable housing at the centre of his manifesto, and Andy Burnham, who is refocusing the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework to tackle the housing crisis. Efforts by the new mayors are welcome – and if central government gives city regions more powers and flexibility, they will be able to make a much bigger contribution to meeting local housing needs.

But all cities exist within a wider national context. Planning permission is being granted but homes are not being built in all parts of the country. Giving local authorities the powers to deal with that is likely to take years, especially when no party has a majority in parliament to drive through new legislation.

The business model of private housebuilders does not vary from city to city: homes will only be built at the rate at which developers think they will be able to sell. Moreover, a market downturn that starts in London is likely to mean fewer homes are built in all parts of the country.

What we urgently need from government is action at the national level to, first, speed up new development: those 320,000 phantom homes would make a real difference around the country if they got built. Second, investment needs to be focused on getting the market working better over the long-term. That means supporting smaller builders so that we have a more diverse marketplace with more people in the business of building.

Third, we need to build the right types of homes. Building more homes for sale won’t help those who will not be able to afford a deposit anyway. Building more homes at reasonable rents will help people more quickly.


That’s where ResPublica’s new report comes in. Working with leading housing associations, we are proposing a National Housing Fund that would invest substantially (£10bn annually for ten years) in new homes for rent: we project at least 40,000 new homes a year could be built. These would be available under family friendly long-term tenancies, at reasonable and predictable rents.

It could buy homes on existing planned but stalled developments to reduce that number of phantom homes; and would support small developers to bring forward plans for more new homes by providing them with certainty of sale. Each year some tenants, enabled to save by paying reasonable rents, would be offered opportunities to buy their homes; proceeds would be reinvested in building replacements.

How can we afford this major new investment? After the 10 years of investment, housing associations would start paying back off the government’s investment.

In the meantime, our research finds that an investment of this kind is not only realistic: it’s highly desirable. The fund itself could be self-sustaining. Rents would more than cover costs of the borrowing and of managing the properties. And there would be significant wider social and economic benefits – 180,000 new jobs and £3.4bn in tax increases and welfare savings per year.

This is all about adding to existing housebuilding and policy initiatives. If cities or local authorities wanted to work with private sector developers, or build homes themselves, the fund would be there to fund it. With all parties in their manifestos committed to investing in new housing, parliamentary arithmetic need not get in the way of delivering this much-needed and overdue investment in housing.

Edward Douglas is policy & projects manager at the think tank Respublica.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

How can we stop city breaks killing our cities?

This couple may look happy, but they’re destroying Barcelona. Image: Getty.

Can’t wait to pack your bags and head off on holiday again? It used to be that people would look forward to a long break in summer – but now tourists have got used to regular short breaks through the year. We love to jet off to the world’s glittering cities, even if only for a day or two. The trouble is, binge travelling may be killing the places we visit.

You may even have seen some “tourists go home” graffiti on your last trip, and it’s not hard to see why. Barcelona is a good example of how a city can groan under the weight of its popularity. It now has the busiest cruise port, and the second fastest growing airport in Europe. Walking through the Barcelona streets at peak season (which now never seems to end) flings you into a relentless stream of tourists. They fill the city’s hot spots in search of “authentic” tapas and sangria, and a bit of culture under the sun. The mayor has echoed residents’ concerns over the impact of tourism; a strategic plan has been put in place.

It is true though, that cities tend to start managing the impact of tourism only when it is already too late. It creeps up on them. Unlike visitors to purpose-built beach destinations and national parks, city-break tourists use the same infrastructure as the locals: existing systems start slowly to stretch at the seams. Business travellers, stag parties and museum visitors will all use existing leisure facilities.

‘Meet the friendly locals’, they said. Image: Sterling Ely/Flickrcreative commons.

Barcelona may only be the 59th largest city in the world, but it is the 12th most popular with international visitors. Compared to London or Paris, it is small, and tourism has spiked sharply since the 1992 Olympics rather than grown steadily as in other European favourites like Rome.

Growth is relentless. The UN World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) even speaks about tourism as a right for all citizens, and citizens are increasingly exercising that right: from 1bn international travellers today, we will grow to 1.8bn by 2030, according to UNWTO forecasts.

Faced with this gathering storm, just who is tourism supposed to benefit? Travellers, cities, residents or the tourism industry?

Market forces

Managing the impact of tourism starts by changing the way destinations market themselves: once the tourists arrive, it’s too late. Tourism authorities need to understand that they are accountable to the city, not to the tourism industry. When the city of Barcelona commissioned the University of Surrey to look into how it might best promote sustainable development, we found a series of techniques which have been incorporated, at least in part, into the city’s 2020 Tourism Strategy.

In the simplest terms, the trick is to cajole tourists into city breaks which are far less of a burden on the urban infrastructure. In other words, normalising the consumption of sustainable tourism products and services. In Copenhagen, 70 per cent of the hotels are certified as sustainable and the municipal authority demands sustainability from its suppliers.

Higher than the sun. A primal scream from the world’s cities? Image: Josep Tomàs/Flickr/creative commons.

Destinations must also be accountable for the transport impact of their visitors. The marketing department might prefer a Japanese tourist to Barcelona because on average they will spend €40 more than a French tourist – according to unpublished data from the Barcelona Tourist Board – but the carbon footprint we collectively pay for is not taken into account.

Crucially, for the kind of city breaks we might enjoy in Barcelona, most of the carbon footprint from your holiday is from your transport. Short breaks therefore pollute more per night, and so destinations ought to be fighting tooth and nail to get you to stay longer. It seems like a win for tourists too: a few extra days in the Spanish sun, a more relaxing break, and all accompanied by the warm glow of self-satisfaction and a gold star for sustainability.


Destinations can also target customers that behave the most like locals. Japanese first-time visitors to Barcelona will crowd the Sagrada Familia cathedral, while most French tourists are repeat visitors that will spread out to lesser-known parts of the city. Reducing seasonality by emphasising activities that can be done in winter or at less crowded times, and geographically spreading tourism by improving less popular areas and communicating their particular charms can also help reduce pressure on hot spots, much like Amsterdam is doing.

Turnover is vanity, and profit margins are sanity. No city should smugly crow about the sheer volume of visitors through its gates. If tourism is here to stay, then the least cities can do is to sell products that will have the greatest benefit for society. Whether it’s Barcelona, Berlin, Bologna or Bognor, there should be a focus on locally and ethically produced products and services which residents are proud to sell. Tourist boards should work with small businesses that offer creative and original things to do and places to stay, adding breadth to the city’s offering.

The ConversationWhether Barcelona will introduce these ideas will depend on the bravery of politicians and buy-in from the powerful businesses which are happily making short-term profits at the expense of residents and the planet. It is possible to do things differently, and for everyone to benefit more. It may be that the tipping point lies in the age-old mechanics of supply and demand: bear that in mind next time you’re booking a quick city break that looks like it’s only adding to the problem.

Xavier Font is professor of marketing at the University of Surrey.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.