The solution for the current housing market: am I now going to come up with the concrete answer? All problems gone? No, of course not. That's impossible!
Contents
- Solutions that aren't so popular:
- The battle for the city
- What could the solution for the housing market be?
- We have it good
My blogs are full of inspiration, frustration and ideas. Often a bit critical, and usually about subjects that really occupy my mind. But things have been quiet for a while lately. My health isn't exactly anything to write home about. I did, however, go to Provada in October. Apart from the fact that it was really nice to see lots of people again for the first time in ages, and lovely to have drinks with a big crowd again, it was also super interesting. Having so many property professionals together makes for interesting conversations. Every subject is looked at from many different angles. New developments, surprising gadgets and lots of different perspectives.
Solutions that aren't so popular:
Vastgoedmarkt wrote that the following solutions are easy to apply, but that they aren't very popular.
- We accept that the teacher and the firefighter can no longer live in a prime location in the city, but have to travel further to get to work.
- We accept smaller (rental) homes in prime locations. An average price per square metre of between 6,000 and 10,000 euros and a BAR (gross initial yield) of 4 percent means that an affordable rental home at 750 euros can have a living area of between 23 and 38 square metres. That's not attractive for the police officer with two children, but it might be for the single teacher (or police officer).
- We accept that the whole of the Netherlands has to help pay for affordable homes in the big city. But even with a subsidy rate of 50%, the affordable living space in the city remains small.
- We stop linking parking to housing. With an average land value per parking space of between 60,000 and 100,000 euros, scrapping the mandatory parking space could make homes some 10 to 20 percent cheaper.
I attended a debate: 'Investors in a better light: from incident-driven politics to inclusive housing policy'. At the table were Frank van Blokland, director of the Association of Institutional Investors in the Netherlands (IVBN), Gert-Jan Bakker, consultant at the Amsterdam housing platform !Woon, and also Jack de Vries, former MP for the CDA and former State Secretary for Defence. Since 1 July he has been chair of Vastgoed Belang. This is the association of private property investors.
It was a fierce and heated debate. Gert-Jan mainly cited the excesses in the capital, while Jack & Frank mainly tried to look at the bigger picture.
The battle for the city
Expats have been laughing at us for a very long time. In practically every country, the big cities are for the rich. Only we Dutch feel that we all have a RIGHT to an affordable home in the city. Pretty strange, isn't it? I also know I'm not making myself very popular with these statements. But should we really all be able to live inside Amsterdam's ring road for next to nothing? At the moment, the only people living in the city are those with really deep pockets or those on a very small budget. The middle group has nowhere to go and will really have to live outside the city. In the audience at the debate on 'The battle for the city: how does it remain a place for everyone' were students, first-time buyers, and some older people too.
What you mainly heard were young people who were worried. But who then also turned out to be a bit spoilt. Granted, they lived with three friends and shared the rent of an apartment of more than 80 m2 in De Pijp. But their requirements for a next home were enormous too. At least two bedrooms, a large living room with an open-plan kitchen, good outdoor space and preferably in Oud-Zuid or De Pijp. Above all, the location was very important, and they wanted a home that was already completely finished. There was also someone who said: 'I actually live in a really lovely house, big enough, a nice garden and beautifully finished. Our neighbours live in similar homes. We're comfortable and we fit easily into our house. However, given the low interest rates, we could easily live in an even nicer, more luxurious and larger house for the same money, less money, or just a little more. That's how the people in the street move house, because on average people are getting more square metres per person.'
We also saw a short film with various questions put to residents. Everyone wanted affordable, attractive housing for their children, preferably within the city. However, in the follow-up questions, these homes above all mustn't block their view, mustn't cause extra parking pressure in their neighbourhood, no little parks could be sacrificed, and no extra roads or public transport could be built in their neighbourhood. Pretty odd, isn't it? It all has to be available and accessible, but not 'in their back garden'. Preferably it mustn't be high-rise either, but large family homes with front and back gardens. Unfortunately, we can't have it all.
What could the solution for the housing market be?
It could be one of the solutions mentioned at the top of this post. Still, I personally think there are other good solutions too. We shouldn't just look in the city, but above all at the areas outside the city. A good example: Gé's parents lived for a long time, just the two of them, in a home with 320 m2 of living space, plus sheds on top of that. A very large plot and the possibility of turning it into several homes. Lindy's parents live, just the two of them, in a home of approx. 180 m2, with two driveways, and next to the house is a large detached garage with room for 4 cars and an entire upper floor. That garage now mainly holds bikes and some old junk. Otherwise, the garage is empty. Gé's parents recently moved to a smaller home, closer to amenities, with a smaller garden. But there still had to be a decent garden, and the car had to be parked on their own property. Lindy's parents spend a lot of time on the boat. A big garden, a big garage and a spacious house aren't really needed any more. But all the apartments either have (too) small outdoor space, or they're so expensive that they'd have to pay a lot extra. So they stay where they are.
So what are the solutions?
- In villages and rural areas, make splitting homes and plots easier. This creates more homes. Old plots are relatively large, and many homes are big enough for two families, especially old farmhouses
- Build large senior housing complexes above shops. It's important here that there is good outdoor space and good facilities. The outdoor spaces must be large enough for a family to eat there. So that, especially in the transition period from about 60 to 70, they can still have barbecues there with the family. But perhaps also shared facilities in the complexes and villages, such as a gym, swimming pool and wellness area. That way you keep older people fit and active, and they can move on to a next home
- Let interest rates rise. Quite honestly, if interest rates rise and homes for people moving up the ladder are no longer dirt cheap, people will stay where they are and be content with what they have. Then the number of square metres per person won't rise so fast.
We have it good
Finally: I feel sorry for first-time buyers. But everyone moving up the housing ladder has it incredibly good. Relatively speaking, at current interest rates we pay little for our homes. It's just that our perception of money isn't always right. Factually speaking, our house prices ought to be much higher still if you look at all the data and at the affordability of homes. The solution for the housing market isn't simple. But I do think we need to be very aware that we're living in luxury. First-time buyers' wish – wanting a large home with a vtwonen-style interior – is unrealistic. We've elevated owning a home to the highest attainable goal, and you're a loser if you rent. But you can't have everything.
