this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
198 points (98.1% liked)

World News

39031 readers
2365 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Homes in England are more cramped than those in New York City, according to new analysis that showed UK property offers the worst value for money in the developed world.

The Resolution Foundation found that the UK has the oldest properties in Europe and English homes have less floorspace than many international peers, notably Germany, France and Japan. With 38 square meters on average per person, London homes are even more cramped than those in New York City.

The findings, which also show UK housing costs are also more expensive relative to general prices than in any OECD country, underscore the scale of the housing crisis in Britain. Many younger Britons are struggling to get a foot on the property ladder due to soaring prices, and the issue is rising up the political agenda ahead of an election expected later this year.

“By looking at housing costs, floorspace and wider issues of quality, we find that the UK’s expensive, cramped and aging housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy,” said Adam Corlett, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation. “Britain’s housing crisis is decades in the making, with successive governments failing to build enough new homes and modernize our existing stock. That now has to change.”

The Resolution Foundation found that if all UK households were “exposed to the full brunt of the housing market, the UK would devote the highest share of overall spending to housing” to every OECD country except Finland.

Some 38% of UK homes were built before 1946, higher than the level of 29% in France, 24% in Germany, 21% in Italy and 11% in Spain. That means British properties by comparison are poorly insulated and come with higher energy bills.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen 47 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Some 38% of UK homes were built before 1946, higher than the level of 29% in France, 24% in Germany, 21% in Italy and 11% in Spain. That means British properties by comparison are poorly insulated and come with higher energy bills.

I'm assuming this number is so high in the UK because the rest of Europe had much if its older housing destroyed by war and subsequently rebuilt after WWI and WWII.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Sweden has prioritized extra insulation since the oil crisis in the 70's. I think it's not only about countries being bombed in WW II, but also about bigger political decisions.

Edit: Boned? Go home autocorrect, you're drunk!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They made sensible decisions after the oil crisis showed they could be kneecapped at any moment? What is this heresy? [Climbs up ladder into truck.]

[–] perviouslyiner 14 points 7 months ago

Same time period that the Netherlands went all-in on making it safe and popular to cycle everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The Battle of Britain during WW2 destroyed a lot of British cities, major ports, and industrial centres, to the point that the rations system continued into the 1950s because the country was broke and rebuilding.

[–] partial_accumen 6 points 7 months ago

Oh don't think I was suggesting the UK came out of WWII unscathed. Far from it. However this article is about residential housing. Yes, there were houses destroyed, especially with V1 launches, but most of the bombing were against industrial targets. As you said, ports and industrial centers. Further, Britain never had foreign troops battling on its land in WWI or WWII, which can't be said for continental Europe.

My point was that residential housing was specifically targeted tactically with the shifting front lines in continental Europe, where that wasn't the case in the UK.

[–] RunawayFixer 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Spain was neutral during WW1 and WW2. They did have a big civil war, but that was less destructive than WW2 (still very bad though, just not nearly as bad as WW2).

For Germany it might be the reason: Lots of large German cities were mostly destroyed, some practically entirely + they had a large amount of refugees from east of the Oder that needed new places to live.

This level of destruction was not/much less the case in France and Italy. A quick google search says that France actually lost less housing stock during ww2 than Britain did. https://www.britannica.com/topic/casualties-of-World-War-II-2231003

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

In Germany (and other European nations) it's easier to get planning permission to demolish existing houses and then self build.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

one of Kirsten Dirksen’s videos also mentioned in EU in addition to permitting, it’s often cheaper to demo and build than renovate

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

So many houses on the market that are essentially just ruins by modern energy standards. In many cases you have no choice but to completely start anew. The issue is that the prices don't reflect that. You have a house built in the 60s with oil heaters and no insulation going for 700k or more. So you will be out for the house/land, the demolition and then a new house as well. On the other hand trying to renovate the same house would probably be the same amount of money but you are still living in an old house.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

cheaper to demo and build than renovate

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.