Why is the future of housing always having less?
Constant property ramping by the BBC back in the early 'oughts was the main reason I cut the cord and never looked back. They're about the only big player in UK media with no commercial interest in doing it (no ads from the property sector), but even so, they just couldn't control themselves.
Bigger houses, bigger plots, bigger garages.
At the same time, families got smaller, stay-at-home spouses (i.e. "free" upkeep) became less common, etc. Add in population growth in popular areas and the recent trend to smaller housing makes a lot of sense.
Especially so when you consider incumbent NIMBYs.
"The median estimate for future growth sees the world population reaching 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100" (2017)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
Also, from Wikipedia:
Low estimates suggest a decline
Moderate estimates suggest a plateau
High estimates suggest constant increase
Time will tell, and estimates suggest that the earth can comfortably support ~10bn
---
I don't think housing prices have much to do with population increase, but more to do with urbanization (as well as increasing wage gaps).
People are flocking to existing cities, and the more center you are the higher prices are.
This pushes people to the outskirts, which become more urbanized, which spreads urbanization through the same cycle.
But top places like London now attract from a global pool of billions.
People need to realise that a world with 10 billion does not look like a world with 2 billion.
Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.
Calling it terrorism is a bit absurd.
It's totally possible (and even likely within our lifetimes), but that doesn't mean that there aren't huge logistical issues to overcome for it to be comfortable.
One of the main problems is that the world population is so widely distributed. We can already feed and house everyone, we already have more resources than what would be required... they're just not distributed appropriately (some due to hoarding, some due to supply chain barriers, political borders, etc).
...and even if I did say it was "just fine" it wouldn't be tantamount to terrorism because I was pointing out something that is very likely inevitable.
I'm not invoking 3 billion people by assuming one day they will exist.
You don't need to weaponize "sorry" — just don't say it.
It doesn't make sense to jump to ad hominem attacks because someone's calling you out on a statement that seems completely irrelevant.
It is only 'inevitable' because no-one has cared about it and, worse because some try to downplay the issue.
I did not accuse you personally, but you also did not say that it was inevitable, you spread the opinion that it was fine.
Those who claim that it is all good are pushing us to the abyss.
Edit: Downvoting the inconvenient truth won't make it go away.
This conversation has reached the point of unproductive a while ago.
I'm sure you'll try to bait me back into it, because you fit that MO, but you're on your own.
The UKs pop should dropping, if not for immigration which the UK can control if they wanted too (being an island surrounded by rough seas and rich neighbors).
If you look at London (since that's essentially the article), population has actually only reached back to its 1950 level.
But attractive cities can now pull people and investment from a global pool of billions of people and thus the market does its thing and prices move accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...
The massive change in urbanisation is happening in developing countries. In developed countries it happened earlier and is not really a thing anymore.
We are massively overbuilding a housing type with offensive levels of resource consumption built in: single family detached.
Cap VW at 100 cars a year. Think they’re going to be Jettas or Porsche? Probably Porsche. Doing that, then getting mad that cars are unaffordable, and saying “clearly if we let the automakers make more cars they will just be more Porsches, that’s not helping” would be silly.