Housing Futures 2024

1 The present shortage of housing is the consequence of decades of neglect and underinvestment in the social and physical infrastructure of our towns and cities.

2 We need to be clearer about the social mix we're trying to create. A single allocation process could deliver public rental, shared ownership or owner-occupier properties from the same sales outlet.

3 The physical attributes of the built environment are key considerations. To achieve a high-quality living environment at medium to high densities will require the very highest standards of layout and architecture for buildings and public spaces.

4 The integration of public buildings such as schools and healthcare facilities in the physical core of new neighbourhoods in order to bring people together would underpin the viability of local retail and leisure facilities.

5 In the future, new forms of localism may emerge. There may be a clear and permanent link between apartment or street management and the local democratic and administrative systems. Unified estate administration structures are one way to achieve this, allowing owner–occupiers and public sector rental residents to participate equally in the management of the community.

6 Crime and anti-social behaviour must to be tackled. Topical proposals such as tagging, the use of CCTV, zero-tolerance and "broken window" policies are considerations, But so is the issue of civil liberty. There are a number of ways to tackle social exclusion, some of which are self-evident but expensive, such as free pre-nursery education, whereas others, such as instruction in civic responsibility, are open to abuse.

7 Costs and viabilities are essential to the process of regeneration and serious proposals need to be made now to maximise the market value and yield of urban regeneration projects through the concept of "rolling forward" value.

Regeneration (extract)
the nettle grasped
A foreword by Charles Braeforth, secretary of state for urban regeneration, 12 March 2024
In the first decade of this century, domestic policy became sharply focused on the need to increase the housing supply through urban regeneration rather than edge-of-town or greenfield development. The principal barrier to the immediate and widespread implementation of this policy was that most of the population regarded cities as highly unattractive places in which to live and bring up a family.

Britain is a land with a long heritage of neglect and deprivation a land of debt and welfare with an occasional interest in social justice here are the pressures And the possibilities of resistance

At the urban fringe and in provincial towns and cities, planning authorities tried to use the planning system to resist the encroachment of these estates, which they believed would destroy the heritage and character of their communities. The government launched initiative after initiative, spending billions of pounds for regeneration and new settlement – yet the problem persisted.

The solution was clear – make cities the locations of choice for a much broader section of society and ease the many problems caused by urban flight. Although the proposition sounded simple in theory, in practice it represented the most daunting challenge of the time. There was no easy fix.

We estimated that it would take decades to repair the damage that generations of neglect had wrought on our cities and their most vulnerable inhabitants. Alternatives such as the widespread release of greenfield land or the relaxation of design and quality standards – a "dash for trash" – would only postpone the crisis. The nettle had to be grasped.

The range and complexity of issues that had to be tackled was daunting and demanded an unprecedented level of intergovernmental and public–private co-operation. As the first steps of implementation were set in train, issues came to the fore that tested our legislative, administrative and judicial processes.

The single largest disincentive to city living was anti-social behaviour and fear of crime. In the short term, our policy was containment and deterrence. For the longer term, we began to address the root causes: social exclusion and under-achievement. Although there was no disputing the need for additional, cost-effective investment in basic social services, such as universal free nursery education and better schools and hospitals, our educational programmes in personal and civic responsibility were more controversial.

Cost quickly became the major issue. The level of public investment required for improved services, combined with subsidies for affordable housing, was so large that hard choices had to be made between infrastructure for new settlements and sustainable urban regeneration. Notwithstanding this, the greater part of the management and financial resources needed for project implementation had to be sourced through the private sector.

Finally, the most valuable and expensive lesson we learned still guides us: it is not for government, developers, architects or construction engineers to impose solutions.

Topical proposals such as tagging, the use of CCTV, zero-tolerance and ‘broken window’ policies are considerations, But so is the issue of civil liberty

The groundbreaking Berry Trees regeneration project began 20 years ago, in 2004, with a young couple peering through park railings in an unfamiliar neighbourhood, hoping for a better life for themselves and their unborn child. Until we learn to listen, understand and meet their aspirations, there can be no urban regeneration, sustainability or social justice.

John Callcutt is chief executive of Crest Nicholson

Paper #4 economic possibilities
Christine Whitehead
Here are three possible scenarios for the future of housing economics – one is good, one is bad and one in between. The last one has the best chance of coming true.

The optimistic scenario stresses the reality of economic growth. There will be more households to be housed, greater demand from each household and the capacity to adjust to that demand without incurring significant social costs. However, the most important point about this optimistic scenario lies in the capacity of the planning system and the construction industry to reduce the costs of building and to make new and existing housing cheaper to run and more environment-friendly, and provide more of it.

The pessimistic scenario depends on what happens to the world's economies, in particular the USA's. If there were to be a large-scale world recession, the problems of falling confidence in the housing market, indebtedness and the need to maintain a reasonably operative housing market would become significant. Supply would dry up and price differentials would increase significantly. The government's capacity to assist the market to adjust to lower levels of investment and demand would become extremely limited.

Under the most likely scenario, higher income households still generate significant demand for housing in already pressured areas. On average, confidence remains high in the prosperous areas but it becomes increasingly difficult to support housing in poorer neighbourhoods, leading to greater segmentation of markets and households. Housing conditions for most do improve, households probably pay a little more for their housing and there is greater flexibility in the use and tenure of the existing stock. But the housing system's difficulty in adapting to economic and social change remains.

Economic possibilities (extract)
we must maintain the welfare state
There are many factors that are unlikely to change. First, most of the housing decision-makers in 20 years' time are already born — and most of them are already living in this country. Second, most of the housing stock in 20 years' time is already in place. Third, if personal incomes increase, the demand for housing will rise roughly in proportion to that income. And fourth, housing aspirations will almost certainly increase over time – although, for those with lower incomes, this will not necessarily be backed by the capacity to pay.

So what will happen by 2024?

Under the most likely scenario, there will be considerably increased demand for housing, concentrated among higher income households and in already pressured areas. In 20 years, the demand will have expanded perhaps 40% – but prices will also have increased.

The government’s capacity to assist the market to adjust to lower levels of demand will become extremely limited

On average, confidence will remain high in the prosperous areas but it will become increasingly difficult to support housing in poorer neighbourhoods. Government will have some capacity to address these issues through policies to further restructure the social rented sector and to increase investment in regeneration areas. However, these will be at the expense of more general investment strategies that could help maintain and improve inner suburbs where older, poorer households are concentrated.

Pressures to develop a small number of new areas will have been successful in their own terms but many of the pitfalls related to single tenure and badly designed housing will have resurfaced in a slightly different format.

In some areas, the social sector will be more closely integrated into the local housing markets. However, more difficult areas with inflexible built form and limited economic opportunity will continue to be a drain on the exchequer.

So, although major problems will remain, housing conditions for most people will improve, households will probably pay a little more for their housing and there will be more flexibility in the use and tenure of the existing stock. However, the housing system will find it difficult to adapt to changes in the economic environment.

What is required?

First, adequate housing will continue to be unaffordable for a significant proportion of the population. We must therefore maintain the principles of the welfare state by ensuring that all households can achieve adequate housing and that these standards will increase with general income levels.

Second, the government must maintain its commitment to act as the residual funder to produce the necessary supply of affordable housing. The cost to government of this commitment can be reduced both by increasing the flexibility of land and housing supply and by improving financial mechanisms.

Third, individual households must have some choice over their accommodation, tenure and location, and landlords must have some freedom to compete with one another. Only then will the social sector be properly integrated into the overall housing system and current investment in existing stock be effectively supported.