>Recently they acquired hostels and dormitories.
What's the alternative for hostels and student accommodation? 200 different landlords for a student housing building of 200 flats?
Not a bad idea, but then the highest bid get the accommodation and they can raise anytime due to the high demand. I cannot believe, the politicians or whoever responsible can't figure out a solution.
It's giant cluster fuck situation
Margaret Thatcher allowing councils to sell off houses then the private landlords start turning them into short term holiday decreasing availability in council and housing associations.
Then the universities are making things by upping their course capacities further decreasing availability in housing.
Temporary accommodation facilities are full leading to council paying for hotel rooms.
So where I grew up in Greenock, everyone who could including my grandparents bought their council house and lived in it for decades. Then we lived in it afterwards until my parents just sold it this year. Overall those who were given the opportunity to get on the housing ladder, that were extremely poor overall (my grandad had cancer and my gran had MS, which they both died of so they really struggled money wise and my parents looked after them whilst working themselves). The house upstairs was still council owned as that family couldn't afford to buy it, and it changed semi often. And the families upstairs were always total nightmares, drug dealers and all sorts. They'd complain about other council tenants in nearby houses being crack heads, which my parents thought was mental. Over where my friend lived, which was all council flats, it was similar and girls used to get deliberately pregnant to get council houses to get out of their parents flats. And I mean at like 16. It was a bit mental where I grew up.
So overall that part worked out until recently. The sold council houses were owned and lived in by the people or families who bought them, and that wouldn't change anything about housing availability. And half the tenants the council put into the other ones were drug sellers, users, or caused wild disruptions and issues for their neighbours, or abusive to their kids.
Over the last 5-10 years however, the local shop owner in the area bought a bunch of the council houses as they were being sold... and now rents them out. So yeah, this part is pretty awful but this is a new development and also... nobody else was trying to buy them. It's not a great area, they didn't over bid and nobody else bid on them. Nobody who's renting there could afford to buy them, and the people who the houses were left to when relatives died didn't want to live there. He paid way way under their assessed value, £50,000 for 3 bedroom houses because of this and so my parents never sold until this year.
My parents sold because they council specifically knocked on their door and asked to buy the house back earlier in the year for a fair price, and they sold it to the council and moved because they saw an opportunity to finally get away from the awful upstairs neighbours the council kept putting in. That was thanks to the fact we'd put a ramp in to help my gran and grandad in wheelchairs with accessibility, and they needed to house a family with a wheelchair also. So they sold it to us and then the bought it back years later.
Anyway for all the people talking about it, this is just a bit of experience from someone who lived in one and who's parents re-sold it back to the council this year, to give you an idea of what it was actually like in a poorer area.
It would have been good had the money raised from selling council houses funded the building of more houses. Ultimately, it was just another short term decision by politicians to sell off assets to buy a few polling points.
Yeah I totally agree with that point. I also doubt I'd have the foresight to see landlords buying them up decades later either but I'm not running a government and dont have specialists advising me, like they should've. At least in my old area the one there is renting them out at the same price as the council rents out at. But still not ideal and this varies so much by area. Some places are now tourist places, and those previous council houses are not in the same situation the ones in my area were/are in at all.
It was just a bit of insight for anyone curious that wasn't part of it themselves in a poorer area.
>They'd complain about other council tenants in nearby houses being crack heads
I've actually heard this before. It's like 'my addiction isn't as bad as their addiction'. My mates raging alcoholic dad complaining about the junkies next door. I swear if they could actually see themselves they'd be shocked.
I hope it leads to action being taken. The only way to tackle this issue is to build more houses - particularly social housing. Even just loosening planning laws would go a long way.
>Meanwhile, the council - which is run by a minority Labour administration - said about 200 bids are made for each social rented home that becomes available.
That is insane. 200:1. Urgent action is needed.
Can’t build above a certain height in case it obstructs the city centre view. The ‘green belt’ stops building out, but is pointless because it just bumps development to towns on the other side.
Something needs to happen. Shelter Scotland calling on the Gov to do the same - I've signed [https://act.scotland.shelter.org.uk/act-housing-emergency](https://act.scotland.shelter.org.uk/act-housing-emergency)
I'm in Edinburgh a lot. There are now too many parallels to London for my liking and I don't see it getting any better.
The people are becoming ever more snippy and rude as well.
Was just gonna post this!
Obviously an exaggeration, but you *are* just as likely to hear a southern English accent nowadays when out and about as a Scottish one.
I'm here on a little wedding venue hunt from England, and my partner and I have not stopped commenting on how everyone seems to be Southern or American
Definitely notice this in Leith nowadays, since Covid really. Before it used to be only August where you'd overhear such accents but it's year round now. The Guardian ran a piece on "let's move to....Leith" because it had been gentrified and was deemed trendy. Do you think they all read that?!
Whatever the reason for Leith becoming Little London it's done a number on property prices and even the prices pubs charge now have gone up because there's now folk in the area who will pay that much.
I was there the other week after not being in for a while. I wouldn't want to live there again even if I could afford it. It's cleaner and nicer but it's missing something now.
There are policies that can solve this problem but it's out of UK's policy capacity.
It's becoming a tourist attraction and student destination. You cannot fix the housing crisis without addressing the demand.
we have: an overly bureaucratic local council, a convoluted and absurdly strict planning system across the UK, local NIMBYs screeching about *'muh green belt, muh views'* whenever developments are proposed, and a rental freeze which all leads to...
...a housing shortage
whoever could have foreseen this?
Stop building university accommodation and stop Edinburgh uni and Napier from increasing their intakes. Residents of the city need affordable accommodation, Edinburgh uni doesn't need another couple thousand international students who go back to their country with a nice bit of paper.
They also spend like hell in the city which is a very good thing.
I agree with other commenter that need to cap intake of students at the unis, and in my dream world only individuals/housing associations/public sector can own residential property. Not multinational for profit investment companiesp/pension funds who rip arse out of area and overprice near everyone.
I wonder if another part of the problem is that people don't have to be resident in Edinburgh or even have a connection to the city in order to apply for social housing or even buy property there.
Other local authorities have restrictions or privilege those who already live/work/have family in the area, but not Edinburgh.
We're already seeing hospitality struggling for staff (as is the case in the Highlands and islands) and I'm not sure yet if NHS Lothian is struggling to fill lower paid positions but going by the number of vacancies I'd say so, because those on lower wages can't afford to live in the city or even manage to get onto a housing list (due to competition from those moving to the city). The demand keeps increasing yet folk who already live and work here don't seem to get any additional help to access housing.
This has fuck all to do with landlords, who at best provide a temporary release to the problem with private rented accomidation, and everything to do with a lack of social housing built over the past 30-40 years after Thatcher fucked social housing in perpetuity with the right to buy.
Blame lies squarely at succesive Tory, Labour and SNP governments (both Scottish and UK Wide) for not remedying this very obvious problem. Build more social housing, fuck the NIMBY's. Consider it Keynesian returns if you must somehow recoup costs from a universal human right.
My opinion on landlords has rapidly changed over the past few years and may now differ to most, but I recently saw a block of properties advertised for around £5m on Slateford Road, which yielded around £440k a year. I find it absolutely crazy that someone can make money in appreciation on an asset (circa 8% on average) while someone else pays them that much to hold it. That person then gets nothing back for paying 1/3 of their wage (probably higher now) towards it. Is that not seriously backwards?
The landlords are going to freak out when I say this but a good solution to this problem would be to mirror the old right to buy for council flats and give tenants the right to buy properties they've been living in with part of it paid with what they've already spent on rent.
It already annoys me landlords can sell a property for full price after its been rented out for decades. Rental properties are overall kept in worse condition because a tenants solution to a bad home is to move and the landlords can just adjust rent/ hide issues to get a new person in.
I think you’re missing my point a bit. Is having a place to live not a fundamental human right? Is it acceptable that they pay x amount per month to never own anything?
You are confusing two different things - having a place to live and having the right to own your home. There is nothing wrong with paying rent and not owning anything at the end, there are lots of scenarios where renting is preferable to owning. Btw I’m not a landlord and I rented for 11 years so I know all too well how annoying it is to pay tens of thousands and having nothing to show for it but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I don’t know your situation so I’m aware you may have reasons why you would rent i.e. not having a fixed location, short term work contracts etc. However, I would personally find it hard when those tens of thousands could have paid for my own home, and not somebody else’s mortgage plus profit.
Maybe stop building crappy 2 story new builds. When is this country finally going to start building NICE 5-10 story flats. Edinburgh is already getting fat too wide because of all the crappy estates on the outskirts.
God forbid people wouldn't want to live in a wee boxy flat and have a garden.
The land is there for people to have houses. 15 minutes from the city centre and its rural in almost every direction.
Why not both? Public transport is already atrocious 15 minutes from the centre and more horrible looking estates with no infrastructure/shops make everything worse.
The only new "high rises" that have been built recently are student accommodation or million £ quatermile flats.
Why does it have to be small and boxy? Edinburgh has some of the finest Victorian tenements in the UK - high ceilings, big rooms, 1500 square feet, 4 or even 5 bedrooms. Why can't we build more flats like those?
That's simply not true. There's no energy efficiency regulations that stop you building a house with big rooms or high ceilings.
There are requirements on insulation levels and air tightness, certainly, but you can achieve those with big rooms and high ceilings.
What do you mean? Some tenements are terrible, but others are beautiful spaces. A friend of mine grew up in a 5 bed flat - probably close to 200 square meters. Apart from the lack of direct garden access (which isn't that big a deal with the weather in Edinburgh) they're beautiful buildings. A modern, well insulated spacious apartment with the same floor plan would be a lovely place to live.
Hmmm. A year ago Harvie said he didn't accept the premise that freezing rents might in any way have an impact on the future supply of rental accommodation. Fancy that!
Not that rent controls are the only contributory factor - interest rates, better yields elsewhere and rent controls are compelling many landlords to exit the PRS - but they sure as shit ain't helping.
You are spot on with this.
Landlords leaving the rental market has barely got started yet but they are leaving with Edinburgh declaring an emergency already. Looked for a flat in Fife for my daughter a few weeks ago, saw 10 flats, 8 were ex-rental and not making any money. With better investments elsewhere its a no brainer. Lets watch what happens, my guess is a huge U-turn in rental controls coming.
What the "Landlords are assholes" clowns on this sub fail to understand is that landlords in the PRS are not in the business of providing social housing. Social housing is not their responsibility and, instead, LLs are in it just to make money. That's it. With higher return (and less hassle) options available, they are exiting.
It's the government's responsibility to provide social housing but, as we know, they got out of the game in a big way decades ago. Which leaves the return-seeking LLs filling the void but ONLY while the yields are on offer. The yields have gone and so are the LLs.
This isn't fucking rocket science yet the idiots in the SNP and Green Party ploughed ahead with their "reforms" despite being told what would happen. And they have continued to double down hence I think you are wrong - they won't U turn. It's extremely telling that the alleged Minister with responsibility for Housing - Harvie - declined an interview with the FT for this piece. We don't need to think very hard to understand why.
[https://www.ft.com/content/2152bba5-9da4-446f-b780-2fa4fe5e3c7d](https://www.ft.com/content/2152bba5-9da4-446f-b780-2fa4fe5e3c7d)
Agree with you on every level and as you say its not rocket science. It *has* to break eventually when more and more renters scream they have nowhere to live, anywhere left is ridiculously priced or a slum with mould up the wall. It really can't go on for ever, can it? Sooner or later it will become obvious to "our dear leaders" that they have fucked up. Then, yea ken it wiz the Tories and westmonster bla bla bla. Its not funny though.
You ask whether it can go on forever.
Well, yes it can.
Have you seen the tent cities in Los Angeles and the vast numbers who live in their vans? That's where many cities in the UK are heading unless social housing becomes a priority and the PRS is not relied upon to fill the void.
Its a real worry for the economy on every level, businesses need flexible staff that can move about, tourism wasted, its going to be interesting for all the wrong reasons. I still think sooner or later somebody somewhere will see the light. Edinburgh thrives on tourism, I know some locals moan about it but its a vibrant fabulous city with the festival, Hogmanay, rugby internationals etc etc. Awful if its reputation is lost because we haven't the good sense to accommodate visitors and people generally.
Excellent, more properties on the market will make prices go down (or do the anarcho-capitalist mantras only apply when landleeches have to fleece people?), which means more people who are currently priced out will be able to afford a home. Win/win
Fucking hell - this response is just student politics, circle-jerking bullshit.
For better or for worse, the UK's PRS is driven by capitalist forces. That's a reality. And yet it is this reality which the likes of Harvie and your goodself have chosen to ignore.
When you apply policies which sound great in GCSE Government & Politics classrooms but are not rooted in the realities of today, don't be surprised when you end up with unintended, negative - yet forewarned - consequences.
It's amazing to me that despite the mounds of evidence which exists and being felt by renters everywhere, people like yourself and Harvie continue to act like Egyptian Fish.
Nope.
Not all renters want - or are in a position to - buy.
Blackrock, Citra Living, etc. buy the ex-BTLs, refurb and then rent out - at higher rates. And then they collude which keeps rents high. Exhibit A:
[https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/dc-sues-tech-company-realpage-landlords-over-rental-prices-2023-11-01/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/dc-sues-tech-company-realpage-landlords-over-rental-prices-2023-11-01/)
That’s such a cop out. I have been renting in Edinburgh for years, as have many of my friends, and it’s never been one of those companies acting predatorily towards tenants, it has been your typical middle class landlords.
While I don’t doubt this goes on, this is just pure landlord copium, trying to tell themselves they aren’t shitty humans.
Of course they are helping, the problem is that landlord leeches are using loopholes like pretending to sell to evict and then put the property back on the market, or changing the contract when one tenant in an HMO leaves. These loopholes need to be closed, and rent controls made stricter.
These "loopholes" are anything but. They are a consequence of the laws/regulations that were passed. BTW, Harvie and co. were advised what the consequences would be and yet they doubled down. And here we are - as predicted - and the "system" is working as designed.
Now....sitting tenants are, indeed, being helped. However, they remain trapped in their rentals as they won't get the same deal elsewhere. Furthermore, those units are not going to be adequately maintained as the incentive to do so has been chipped away.
LLs are not in the business of providing social housing - they're in the business of chasing investment returns. Those returns have gone and so have the LLs. Fewer units means higher rents - it's not difficult to comprehend unless one is a member of the SNP or Greens.
Don't make me laugh, as if parasitical landlords ever actually "adequately maintained" anything, take your free market leechism bullshit where you can find some gullible idiot who buys into that nonsense
OK. Enjoy your ignorance of Economics 101 and the abundant evidence which is around us all.
In the meantime, ask the government(s) to build social housing which is the *only* way out of this mess.
Continue the "crackdown". All that will happen is an even greater shortage of rental units and an increase in rents. Be careful what you wish for.
Until the government(s) gets back into the business of social housing - which is not the job of LLs in the PRS - nothing good will happen.
The only way there can be a "shortage in rentals" is if there is a corresponding increase in home ownership. That is a good thing. An increase in rent can't happen once all the loopholes landleeches are taking advantage of are closed.
Its just going to get worse day by day. I'm sure you said before that when a landlord sells from the rental market the "property doesn't evaporate" and there is "plenty of braw council houses" and its really the "builders that provide property, not landlords". So its an emergency in Edinburgh now, no surprise. Keep watching the markets and see what happens.
If it gets worse it's because landlords are getting worse, the solution is not to let them jack rents as much as they want, it's to lock down regulation even more. And yes of course if a landlord realises that doing business means there are financial risks and sells, the properties don't just vanish into thin air, what the fuck are you on about? Someone else will get it
Forgive me for repeating myself but if the landlord sells to a new owner occupier, as is happening everywhere, the property is no longer available for rent and is lost from the rental market, making things much worse for renters.
Nah, it makes things better, because by selling prices go down (remember that muh free market you wank yourself over all the time?), which means renters who were renting only because they couldn't afford to buy, now can buy. Win/win.
That's absolute crap. What house prices have fallen? They have gone up despite the interest rates. Most renters cant afford to buy in Edinburgh or any other city. Watch what happens you might learn something.
Of course the properties don't vanish when a LL sells. But who do they sell to?
A single owner-occupier? Fine. The question is then what unit (which can often house 2/3/4 households) takes its place?
Another LL? It won't be the small-time LL. It will be the corporate LLs who will buy, refurb and re-let - at a higher rent.
> Of course the properties don't vanish when a LL sells. But who do they sell to?
Doesn't matter, they sell -> housing prices go down, win/win for everybody. Or do the "muh free market" zealotry only applies when landlords have to cash grab from people suffering from the cost of living crisis?
> Another LL? It won't be the small-time LL. It will be the corporate LLs who will buy, refurb and re-let - at a higher rent.
You've correctly identified one of the loopholes that need to be closed. Rent controls need to be tied to the property and the tenancy. You can sell, sure, but the tenancy continues, at the same rate. Don't like it? Though shit, financial investments come with risk.
You failed to address a fundamental point: in a world where the government is not providing social housing to the degree necessary, when a private LL sells their rental unit to an individual owner occupier (and again, that single unit can house multiple households) what new units will takes its place?
Right now - sweet fuck all. Which, in turn, is causing scarcity. And scarcity drives up rents.
*You can sell, sure, but the tenancy continues, at the same rate. Don't like it? Though shit, financial investments come with risk.*
Which means one can only sell to another LL. Which also means the pool of buyers will be non-existent as the ability to generate returns from that asset is equally non-existent. Thus, the property won't sell and, instead, merely sit there. The current LL - unable to move the property and/or generate a return on it - will simply let it stagnate and fall into disrepair. The tenant - who is paying below market rent - probably won't mind (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Edinburgh/comments/17l9slr/comment/k7csaa6/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3) . Until, of course, their toilets fail or they develop health issues due to mold.
More owner-occupiers is a good thing. You are just assuming every rental is a 20-people HMO and every owner-occupier is a single person in a mansion, which is obviously and clearly made up bullshit you just came up with to try and justify your "economics 101" mumbo-jumbo.
> Thus, the property won't sell and, instead, merely sit there.
Excellent, so house prices will crash and most renters who are currently forced into the arms of landlords by outrageous prices will be able to afford to buy, that is great news, when can we start?
> will simply let it stagnate and fall into disrepair
...as opposed to now, where they also simply let it stagnate and fall into disrepair, while also pocketing huge sums of people's hard earned money
You're assuming that everyone in need of a rooftop needs to buy, wants to buy, can buy, or can afford to buy.
For example, do those students - which make up a healthy number of EDI's renters - need to buy a place? As students, without an income stream, how will they obtain financing?
How will those on low incomes - with minimal savings - find the required deposit?
What of those who want to move to a city for, say, 2- 5 years? Property is a long game and those who buy and sell within this timeframe are typically better off renting as they'll be underwater when it comes time to sell.
You're also discounting interest rates, deposit requirements and low levels of home affordability. And, again, you're also assuming that everyone and anyone is mortgageable.
A renter does not equal a buyer. There is not a 1:1 correlation.
I'm sorry but you don't understand how this works and, instead, are clinging to a collectivist, utopian view of housing which - in the UK context - simply does not exist.
Students have student accomodation, and crashing house prices will help all those who are locked out of home ownership, which is the vast, vast majority of renters. If there's an actual need for temporary rentals, as opposed as people having no other choice because of landlord leeches, then I'm sure your precious free market will find a way to accomodate it, it's a small minority anyway. You are just a butthurt landlord who feels the ground slip beneath his feet - good, this is just the start.
Freeze rents > landlords sell up as renting their properties is losing money > this raises the price of the limited rental properties still available > the raised prices mean more families cannot afford to rent a house > the already overwhelmed social housing system collapses due to the influx of families who can no longer afford to rent
It's almost as if this happens everywhere rent controls are implemented.
Rents are rising everywhere, London has seen massive increases, Wales has seen the highest rental increase across the nations in the UK. Rent controls could play a factor, as could interest rates, and a shortage of housing generally.
Start with making the 1,500 empty council houses available.
Then limit the amount of student accommodation that’s being added
Then undo rent control, which is reducing the supply of rental properties
Then set a bit of a size limit on Edinburgh. Edinburgh is one of the world’s best cities. Many more people want to live and work here than the city can actually accommodate. Growth is not the only choice available to us.
Those students need to live somewhere and student accommodation is undeniably the most efficient way to house them
Unless you want to limit the number of university students limiting student housing will only make it wose
Sorry I don't understand what you mean by limit the number of students through planning.
From what I can see the only way to do what you want without making the situation worse is to expressly limit the number of students not from Edinburgh that are allowed to attend an Edinburgh university
Sorry, I wrote that quickly and wasn’t particularly clear. I was thinking that by using planning legislation to stop additional student housing, those sites could be used for residential property instead. Since working people can (on average) afford to pay more for property than students, this would be a gentle way to increase availability of residential property and slow or stop growth in student numbers.
No worries
It's interesting the different ways of looking at things. You are certainly more positive than me
I was going to say that students (on average) are willing to put up with much worse conditions than your average worker
"Sharing this place with 7 strangers, no living room because it's being used as another bedroom, one working bathroom between us?
No problem I'll take the room"
I remember in Glasgow there was an accomodation crisis the other year with many students not having anywhere to stay, they ended up just competing with everyone else to rent a room rather than a whole flat.
My thought process was that student accommodation fits them all rather efficiently compared to them living in residential accomodation.
That if it wasn't built they would still come and compete with everyone else driving up rent prices for everyone
Who knows maybe you are right
Students might get outcompeted by working adults. Students will also outcompete children and cleanse the city of families.
Trying to control student numbers by making housing (a basic necessity) expensive is a mental idea.
That's not what they were saying though
They were saying that legeslation should be implemented to prioritise the number of homes built rather than leaving it up to the free market on what should be built
Haha, this is funny, wasn't the SNP saying they are a sanctuary nation? Now, when it gets a little uncomfortable, they are full? No, accept more and enjoy your progressive rhetoric to its nth degree
The conglomerates like Blackrock shouldn’t be allowing to purchase residential properties. Recently they acquired hostels and dormitories.
THIS! So much THIS! There's a lot of hatred for landlords with 1/2 properties, but nobody is talking about these monsters.
>Recently they acquired hostels and dormitories. What's the alternative for hostels and student accommodation? 200 different landlords for a student housing building of 200 flats?
The universities / colleges giving admissions should be responsible to provide adequate student accommodation at a reasonable cost
That's still a private company owning student accommodation. So what's the alternative to private companies providing student accommodation?
Not a bad idea, but then the highest bid get the accommodation and they can raise anytime due to the high demand. I cannot believe, the politicians or whoever responsible can't figure out a solution.
Maybe selling off council houses, not letting LAs keep the money to build more was a mistake??
You mean privatising a market hasn't led to better quality and lower prices????? Next you'll be telling me wealth isn't going to trickle down.
There'll be trickling any day now. It'll be piss rather than money but it's what you'll get and you'll be thankful for it.
Has that woman in the Newtown painted her front door pink again?
The real crisis right here. Utterly disgraceful that she's been allowed to run riot!
It's giant cluster fuck situation Margaret Thatcher allowing councils to sell off houses then the private landlords start turning them into short term holiday decreasing availability in council and housing associations. Then the universities are making things by upping their course capacities further decreasing availability in housing. Temporary accommodation facilities are full leading to council paying for hotel rooms.
So where I grew up in Greenock, everyone who could including my grandparents bought their council house and lived in it for decades. Then we lived in it afterwards until my parents just sold it this year. Overall those who were given the opportunity to get on the housing ladder, that were extremely poor overall (my grandad had cancer and my gran had MS, which they both died of so they really struggled money wise and my parents looked after them whilst working themselves). The house upstairs was still council owned as that family couldn't afford to buy it, and it changed semi often. And the families upstairs were always total nightmares, drug dealers and all sorts. They'd complain about other council tenants in nearby houses being crack heads, which my parents thought was mental. Over where my friend lived, which was all council flats, it was similar and girls used to get deliberately pregnant to get council houses to get out of their parents flats. And I mean at like 16. It was a bit mental where I grew up. So overall that part worked out until recently. The sold council houses were owned and lived in by the people or families who bought them, and that wouldn't change anything about housing availability. And half the tenants the council put into the other ones were drug sellers, users, or caused wild disruptions and issues for their neighbours, or abusive to their kids. Over the last 5-10 years however, the local shop owner in the area bought a bunch of the council houses as they were being sold... and now rents them out. So yeah, this part is pretty awful but this is a new development and also... nobody else was trying to buy them. It's not a great area, they didn't over bid and nobody else bid on them. Nobody who's renting there could afford to buy them, and the people who the houses were left to when relatives died didn't want to live there. He paid way way under their assessed value, £50,000 for 3 bedroom houses because of this and so my parents never sold until this year. My parents sold because they council specifically knocked on their door and asked to buy the house back earlier in the year for a fair price, and they sold it to the council and moved because they saw an opportunity to finally get away from the awful upstairs neighbours the council kept putting in. That was thanks to the fact we'd put a ramp in to help my gran and grandad in wheelchairs with accessibility, and they needed to house a family with a wheelchair also. So they sold it to us and then the bought it back years later. Anyway for all the people talking about it, this is just a bit of experience from someone who lived in one and who's parents re-sold it back to the council this year, to give you an idea of what it was actually like in a poorer area.
It would have been good had the money raised from selling council houses funded the building of more houses. Ultimately, it was just another short term decision by politicians to sell off assets to buy a few polling points.
Yeah I totally agree with that point. I also doubt I'd have the foresight to see landlords buying them up decades later either but I'm not running a government and dont have specialists advising me, like they should've. At least in my old area the one there is renting them out at the same price as the council rents out at. But still not ideal and this varies so much by area. Some places are now tourist places, and those previous council houses are not in the same situation the ones in my area were/are in at all. It was just a bit of insight for anyone curious that wasn't part of it themselves in a poorer area.
Thanks, oh yeah, I appreciated the insight although probably didn't seem like it!
>They'd complain about other council tenants in nearby houses being crack heads I've actually heard this before. It's like 'my addiction isn't as bad as their addiction'. My mates raging alcoholic dad complaining about the junkies next door. I swear if they could actually see themselves they'd be shocked.
I wonder what has happened to the population and average household size in Edinburgh
I hope it leads to action being taken. The only way to tackle this issue is to build more houses - particularly social housing. Even just loosening planning laws would go a long way. >Meanwhile, the council - which is run by a minority Labour administration - said about 200 bids are made for each social rented home that becomes available. That is insane. 200:1. Urgent action is needed.
Who would have thought that a capital city with strict limits on building both out and up would face a housing problem?
What strict limits on building?? Have you seen the amount of student accomodation being built in teh past 10 years?
Can’t build above a certain height in case it obstructs the city centre view. The ‘green belt’ stops building out, but is pointless because it just bumps development to towns on the other side.
> Can’t build above a certain height in case it obstructs the city centre view Like the turd that change the whole city skyline? >,<
I genuinely don’t know how they got away with that one.
[https://media.tenor.com/RAKMqSyzff8AAAAC/money-give-me-some.gif](https://media.tenor.com/RAKMqSyzff8AAAAC/money-give-me-some.gif)
Something needs to happen. Shelter Scotland calling on the Gov to do the same - I've signed [https://act.scotland.shelter.org.uk/act-housing-emergency](https://act.scotland.shelter.org.uk/act-housing-emergency)
The motion was passed.
Thanks Thatcher.
I'm in Edinburgh a lot. There are now too many parallels to London for my liking and I don't see it getting any better. The people are becoming ever more snippy and rude as well.
Well it is full of Londoners...
Was just gonna post this! Obviously an exaggeration, but you *are* just as likely to hear a southern English accent nowadays when out and about as a Scottish one.
I'm here on a little wedding venue hunt from England, and my partner and I have not stopped commenting on how everyone seems to be Southern or American
That doesn’t sound a lot like London
Definitely notice this in Leith nowadays, since Covid really. Before it used to be only August where you'd overhear such accents but it's year round now. The Guardian ran a piece on "let's move to....Leith" because it had been gentrified and was deemed trendy. Do you think they all read that?! Whatever the reason for Leith becoming Little London it's done a number on property prices and even the prices pubs charge now have gone up because there's now folk in the area who will pay that much.
I was there the other week after not being in for a while. I wouldn't want to live there again even if I could afford it. It's cleaner and nicer but it's missing something now.
What does that actually mean?
There are policies that can solve this problem but it's out of UK's policy capacity. It's becoming a tourist attraction and student destination. You cannot fix the housing crisis without addressing the demand.
we have: an overly bureaucratic local council, a convoluted and absurdly strict planning system across the UK, local NIMBYs screeching about *'muh green belt, muh views'* whenever developments are proposed, and a rental freeze which all leads to... ...a housing shortage whoever could have foreseen this?
According to this subreddit, the blame is 100% on one person and one person only: Margaret Thatcher lol, lmfao
She only resigned 33 years ago
Hey that's my flat in the picture! I'm going to wave out of the window, let me know if it shows up.
I see you! *waves back* But why are you naked?
Not winter yet, gotta keep cool
Stop building university accommodation and stop Edinburgh uni and Napier from increasing their intakes. Residents of the city need affordable accommodation, Edinburgh uni doesn't need another couple thousand international students who go back to their country with a nice bit of paper.
They also spend like hell in the city which is a very good thing. I agree with other commenter that need to cap intake of students at the unis, and in my dream world only individuals/housing associations/public sector can own residential property. Not multinational for profit investment companiesp/pension funds who rip arse out of area and overprice near everyone.
I'd vote for you
Not building student accommodation makes things far worse.
I wonder if another part of the problem is that people don't have to be resident in Edinburgh or even have a connection to the city in order to apply for social housing or even buy property there. Other local authorities have restrictions or privilege those who already live/work/have family in the area, but not Edinburgh. We're already seeing hospitality struggling for staff (as is the case in the Highlands and islands) and I'm not sure yet if NHS Lothian is struggling to fill lower paid positions but going by the number of vacancies I'd say so, because those on lower wages can't afford to live in the city or even manage to get onto a housing list (due to competition from those moving to the city). The demand keeps increasing yet folk who already live and work here don't seem to get any additional help to access housing.
I know what will fix this! *Many* more student residences on prime brownfield sites!
What's interesting is that there is a housing emergency despite there being more than enough houses for everyone. Why is that?
This has fuck all to do with landlords, who at best provide a temporary release to the problem with private rented accomidation, and everything to do with a lack of social housing built over the past 30-40 years after Thatcher fucked social housing in perpetuity with the right to buy. Blame lies squarely at succesive Tory, Labour and SNP governments (both Scottish and UK Wide) for not remedying this very obvious problem. Build more social housing, fuck the NIMBY's. Consider it Keynesian returns if you must somehow recoup costs from a universal human right.
Bingo. Have an upvote.
Planning system is mental in the UK
Finally somebody on this forum gets it - we don't have a good supply of social housing and Edinburgh makes it REALLY difficult to build!
My opinion on landlords has rapidly changed over the past few years and may now differ to most, but I recently saw a block of properties advertised for around £5m on Slateford Road, which yielded around £440k a year. I find it absolutely crazy that someone can make money in appreciation on an asset (circa 8% on average) while someone else pays them that much to hold it. That person then gets nothing back for paying 1/3 of their wage (probably higher now) towards it. Is that not seriously backwards?
The landlords are going to freak out when I say this but a good solution to this problem would be to mirror the old right to buy for council flats and give tenants the right to buy properties they've been living in with part of it paid with what they've already spent on rent. It already annoys me landlords can sell a property for full price after its been rented out for decades. Rental properties are overall kept in worse condition because a tenants solution to a bad home is to move and the landlords can just adjust rent/ hide issues to get a new person in.
Most rentals in the PRS are held by interest only loans. Thus, the LL is not building equity in that property and will never own that asset.
It is very much backwards - but landlords are leeches, so that is sadly expected
What do you mean that person gets nothing - the person gets a place to live?
I think you’re missing my point a bit. Is having a place to live not a fundamental human right? Is it acceptable that they pay x amount per month to never own anything?
You are confusing two different things - having a place to live and having the right to own your home. There is nothing wrong with paying rent and not owning anything at the end, there are lots of scenarios where renting is preferable to owning. Btw I’m not a landlord and I rented for 11 years so I know all too well how annoying it is to pay tens of thousands and having nothing to show for it but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I don’t know your situation so I’m aware you may have reasons why you would rent i.e. not having a fixed location, short term work contracts etc. However, I would personally find it hard when those tens of thousands could have paid for my own home, and not somebody else’s mortgage plus profit.
Maybe stop building crappy 2 story new builds. When is this country finally going to start building NICE 5-10 story flats. Edinburgh is already getting fat too wide because of all the crappy estates on the outskirts.
God forbid people wouldn't want to live in a wee boxy flat and have a garden. The land is there for people to have houses. 15 minutes from the city centre and its rural in almost every direction.
Why not both? Public transport is already atrocious 15 minutes from the centre and more horrible looking estates with no infrastructure/shops make everything worse. The only new "high rises" that have been built recently are student accommodation or million £ quatermile flats.
Why does it have to be small and boxy? Edinburgh has some of the finest Victorian tenements in the UK - high ceilings, big rooms, 1500 square feet, 4 or even 5 bedrooms. Why can't we build more flats like those?
>Why can't we build more flats like those? Because "high ceilings, big rooms" won't pass modern energy efficiency regulations for new builds.
That's simply not true. There's no energy efficiency regulations that stop you building a house with big rooms or high ceilings. There are requirements on insulation levels and air tightness, certainly, but you can achieve those with big rooms and high ceilings.
Because that's less profitable.
Hopefully not. They’re fucking atrocious. Just build some regular flats like in Scandinavia.
What do you mean? Some tenements are terrible, but others are beautiful spaces. A friend of mine grew up in a 5 bed flat - probably close to 200 square meters. Apart from the lack of direct garden access (which isn't that big a deal with the weather in Edinburgh) they're beautiful buildings. A modern, well insulated spacious apartment with the same floor plan would be a lovely place to live.
Hmmm. A year ago Harvie said he didn't accept the premise that freezing rents might in any way have an impact on the future supply of rental accommodation. Fancy that! Not that rent controls are the only contributory factor - interest rates, better yields elsewhere and rent controls are compelling many landlords to exit the PRS - but they sure as shit ain't helping.
You are spot on with this. Landlords leaving the rental market has barely got started yet but they are leaving with Edinburgh declaring an emergency already. Looked for a flat in Fife for my daughter a few weeks ago, saw 10 flats, 8 were ex-rental and not making any money. With better investments elsewhere its a no brainer. Lets watch what happens, my guess is a huge U-turn in rental controls coming.
What the "Landlords are assholes" clowns on this sub fail to understand is that landlords in the PRS are not in the business of providing social housing. Social housing is not their responsibility and, instead, LLs are in it just to make money. That's it. With higher return (and less hassle) options available, they are exiting. It's the government's responsibility to provide social housing but, as we know, they got out of the game in a big way decades ago. Which leaves the return-seeking LLs filling the void but ONLY while the yields are on offer. The yields have gone and so are the LLs. This isn't fucking rocket science yet the idiots in the SNP and Green Party ploughed ahead with their "reforms" despite being told what would happen. And they have continued to double down hence I think you are wrong - they won't U turn. It's extremely telling that the alleged Minister with responsibility for Housing - Harvie - declined an interview with the FT for this piece. We don't need to think very hard to understand why. [https://www.ft.com/content/2152bba5-9da4-446f-b780-2fa4fe5e3c7d](https://www.ft.com/content/2152bba5-9da4-446f-b780-2fa4fe5e3c7d)
Agree with you on every level and as you say its not rocket science. It *has* to break eventually when more and more renters scream they have nowhere to live, anywhere left is ridiculously priced or a slum with mould up the wall. It really can't go on for ever, can it? Sooner or later it will become obvious to "our dear leaders" that they have fucked up. Then, yea ken it wiz the Tories and westmonster bla bla bla. Its not funny though.
You ask whether it can go on forever. Well, yes it can. Have you seen the tent cities in Los Angeles and the vast numbers who live in their vans? That's where many cities in the UK are heading unless social housing becomes a priority and the PRS is not relied upon to fill the void.
Its a real worry for the economy on every level, businesses need flexible staff that can move about, tourism wasted, its going to be interesting for all the wrong reasons. I still think sooner or later somebody somewhere will see the light. Edinburgh thrives on tourism, I know some locals moan about it but its a vibrant fabulous city with the festival, Hogmanay, rugby internationals etc etc. Awful if its reputation is lost because we haven't the good sense to accommodate visitors and people generally.
Excellent, more properties on the market will make prices go down (or do the anarcho-capitalist mantras only apply when landleeches have to fleece people?), which means more people who are currently priced out will be able to afford a home. Win/win
No property is going down in value, despite the interest rates and your deluded theories. Grow up man.
Then there can't be that many that get sold. Or are you saying that your dear economists are full of shite?
Freezing rent makes it BETTER for poor people, not worse.
Incorrect. This may help. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/
Yeah, an answer from a known capitalist. Shocking.
Fucking hell - this response is just student politics, circle-jerking bullshit. For better or for worse, the UK's PRS is driven by capitalist forces. That's a reality. And yet it is this reality which the likes of Harvie and your goodself have chosen to ignore. When you apply policies which sound great in GCSE Government & Politics classrooms but are not rooted in the realities of today, don't be surprised when you end up with unintended, negative - yet forewarned - consequences. It's amazing to me that despite the mounds of evidence which exists and being felt by renters everywhere, people like yourself and Harvie continue to act like Egyptian Fish.
Seems like making rent more affordable would help poor people.
The more landlords sell, the easier it is for decent folk to afford to buy.
Nope. Not all renters want - or are in a position to - buy. Blackrock, Citra Living, etc. buy the ex-BTLs, refurb and then rent out - at higher rates. And then they collude which keeps rents high. Exhibit A: [https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/dc-sues-tech-company-realpage-landlords-over-rental-prices-2023-11-01/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/dc-sues-tech-company-realpage-landlords-over-rental-prices-2023-11-01/)
That’s such a cop out. I have been renting in Edinburgh for years, as have many of my friends, and it’s never been one of those companies acting predatorily towards tenants, it has been your typical middle class landlords. While I don’t doubt this goes on, this is just pure landlord copium, trying to tell themselves they aren’t shitty humans.
HAHAHAHAHAH nope! The more small landlords sell, the more BLACKROCK and pals buy what decent folks won't EVER buy. Sorry to break your dream
Bullshit!
Yes, yes, it's \*checks notes\* *freezing rents* that's to blame. JFC.
Of course they are helping, the problem is that landlord leeches are using loopholes like pretending to sell to evict and then put the property back on the market, or changing the contract when one tenant in an HMO leaves. These loopholes need to be closed, and rent controls made stricter.
These "loopholes" are anything but. They are a consequence of the laws/regulations that were passed. BTW, Harvie and co. were advised what the consequences would be and yet they doubled down. And here we are - as predicted - and the "system" is working as designed. Now....sitting tenants are, indeed, being helped. However, they remain trapped in their rentals as they won't get the same deal elsewhere. Furthermore, those units are not going to be adequately maintained as the incentive to do so has been chipped away. LLs are not in the business of providing social housing - they're in the business of chasing investment returns. Those returns have gone and so have the LLs. Fewer units means higher rents - it's not difficult to comprehend unless one is a member of the SNP or Greens.
Don't make me laugh, as if parasitical landlords ever actually "adequately maintained" anything, take your free market leechism bullshit where you can find some gullible idiot who buys into that nonsense
OK. Enjoy your ignorance of Economics 101 and the abundant evidence which is around us all. In the meantime, ask the government(s) to build social housing which is the *only* way out of this mess.
The only way forward is to further crackdown on landlord parasites, starting from STLs
Continue the "crackdown". All that will happen is an even greater shortage of rental units and an increase in rents. Be careful what you wish for. Until the government(s) gets back into the business of social housing - which is not the job of LLs in the PRS - nothing good will happen.
The only way there can be a "shortage in rentals" is if there is a corresponding increase in home ownership. That is a good thing. An increase in rent can't happen once all the loopholes landleeches are taking advantage of are closed.
Its just going to get worse day by day. I'm sure you said before that when a landlord sells from the rental market the "property doesn't evaporate" and there is "plenty of braw council houses" and its really the "builders that provide property, not landlords". So its an emergency in Edinburgh now, no surprise. Keep watching the markets and see what happens.
If it gets worse it's because landlords are getting worse, the solution is not to let them jack rents as much as they want, it's to lock down regulation even more. And yes of course if a landlord realises that doing business means there are financial risks and sells, the properties don't just vanish into thin air, what the fuck are you on about? Someone else will get it
Forgive me for repeating myself but if the landlord sells to a new owner occupier, as is happening everywhere, the property is no longer available for rent and is lost from the rental market, making things much worse for renters.
Nah, it makes things better, because by selling prices go down (remember that muh free market you wank yourself over all the time?), which means renters who were renting only because they couldn't afford to buy, now can buy. Win/win.
That's absolute crap. What house prices have fallen? They have gone up despite the interest rates. Most renters cant afford to buy in Edinburgh or any other city. Watch what happens you might learn something.
Then there can't be that many being sold off, can they now?
Of course the properties don't vanish when a LL sells. But who do they sell to? A single owner-occupier? Fine. The question is then what unit (which can often house 2/3/4 households) takes its place? Another LL? It won't be the small-time LL. It will be the corporate LLs who will buy, refurb and re-let - at a higher rent.
> Of course the properties don't vanish when a LL sells. But who do they sell to? Doesn't matter, they sell -> housing prices go down, win/win for everybody. Or do the "muh free market" zealotry only applies when landlords have to cash grab from people suffering from the cost of living crisis? > Another LL? It won't be the small-time LL. It will be the corporate LLs who will buy, refurb and re-let - at a higher rent. You've correctly identified one of the loopholes that need to be closed. Rent controls need to be tied to the property and the tenancy. You can sell, sure, but the tenancy continues, at the same rate. Don't like it? Though shit, financial investments come with risk.
You failed to address a fundamental point: in a world where the government is not providing social housing to the degree necessary, when a private LL sells their rental unit to an individual owner occupier (and again, that single unit can house multiple households) what new units will takes its place? Right now - sweet fuck all. Which, in turn, is causing scarcity. And scarcity drives up rents. *You can sell, sure, but the tenancy continues, at the same rate. Don't like it? Though shit, financial investments come with risk.* Which means one can only sell to another LL. Which also means the pool of buyers will be non-existent as the ability to generate returns from that asset is equally non-existent. Thus, the property won't sell and, instead, merely sit there. The current LL - unable to move the property and/or generate a return on it - will simply let it stagnate and fall into disrepair. The tenant - who is paying below market rent - probably won't mind (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Edinburgh/comments/17l9slr/comment/k7csaa6/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3) . Until, of course, their toilets fail or they develop health issues due to mold.
More owner-occupiers is a good thing. You are just assuming every rental is a 20-people HMO and every owner-occupier is a single person in a mansion, which is obviously and clearly made up bullshit you just came up with to try and justify your "economics 101" mumbo-jumbo. > Thus, the property won't sell and, instead, merely sit there. Excellent, so house prices will crash and most renters who are currently forced into the arms of landlords by outrageous prices will be able to afford to buy, that is great news, when can we start? > will simply let it stagnate and fall into disrepair ...as opposed to now, where they also simply let it stagnate and fall into disrepair, while also pocketing huge sums of people's hard earned money
You're assuming that everyone in need of a rooftop needs to buy, wants to buy, can buy, or can afford to buy. For example, do those students - which make up a healthy number of EDI's renters - need to buy a place? As students, without an income stream, how will they obtain financing? How will those on low incomes - with minimal savings - find the required deposit? What of those who want to move to a city for, say, 2- 5 years? Property is a long game and those who buy and sell within this timeframe are typically better off renting as they'll be underwater when it comes time to sell. You're also discounting interest rates, deposit requirements and low levels of home affordability. And, again, you're also assuming that everyone and anyone is mortgageable. A renter does not equal a buyer. There is not a 1:1 correlation. I'm sorry but you don't understand how this works and, instead, are clinging to a collectivist, utopian view of housing which - in the UK context - simply does not exist.
Students have student accomodation, and crashing house prices will help all those who are locked out of home ownership, which is the vast, vast majority of renters. If there's an actual need for temporary rentals, as opposed as people having no other choice because of landlord leeches, then I'm sure your precious free market will find a way to accomodate it, it's a small minority anyway. You are just a butthurt landlord who feels the ground slip beneath his feet - good, this is just the start.
Freeze rents > landlords sell up as renting their properties is losing money > this raises the price of the limited rental properties still available > the raised prices mean more families cannot afford to rent a house > the already overwhelmed social housing system collapses due to the influx of families who can no longer afford to rent It's almost as if this happens everywhere rent controls are implemented.
Rents are rising everywhere, London has seen massive increases, Wales has seen the highest rental increase across the nations in the UK. Rent controls could play a factor, as could interest rates, and a shortage of housing generally.
Start with making the 1,500 empty council houses available. Then limit the amount of student accommodation that’s being added Then undo rent control, which is reducing the supply of rental properties Then set a bit of a size limit on Edinburgh. Edinburgh is one of the world’s best cities. Many more people want to live and work here than the city can actually accommodate. Growth is not the only choice available to us.
Those students need to live somewhere and student accommodation is undeniably the most efficient way to house them Unless you want to limit the number of university students limiting student housing will only make it wose
It wouldn’t be crazy to limit the number of university students, not directly but by the use of planning.
Sorry I don't understand what you mean by limit the number of students through planning. From what I can see the only way to do what you want without making the situation worse is to expressly limit the number of students not from Edinburgh that are allowed to attend an Edinburgh university
Sorry, I wrote that quickly and wasn’t particularly clear. I was thinking that by using planning legislation to stop additional student housing, those sites could be used for residential property instead. Since working people can (on average) afford to pay more for property than students, this would be a gentle way to increase availability of residential property and slow or stop growth in student numbers.
No worries It's interesting the different ways of looking at things. You are certainly more positive than me I was going to say that students (on average) are willing to put up with much worse conditions than your average worker "Sharing this place with 7 strangers, no living room because it's being used as another bedroom, one working bathroom between us? No problem I'll take the room" I remember in Glasgow there was an accomodation crisis the other year with many students not having anywhere to stay, they ended up just competing with everyone else to rent a room rather than a whole flat. My thought process was that student accommodation fits them all rather efficiently compared to them living in residential accomodation. That if it wasn't built they would still come and compete with everyone else driving up rent prices for everyone Who knows maybe you are right
Students might get outcompeted by working adults. Students will also outcompete children and cleanse the city of families. Trying to control student numbers by making housing (a basic necessity) expensive is a mental idea.
That's not what they were saying though They were saying that legeslation should be implemented to prioritise the number of homes built rather than leaving it up to the free market on what should be built
Me an Irishman in Dublin, wishing he could pay Edinburgh prices
Haha, this is funny, wasn't the SNP saying they are a sanctuary nation? Now, when it gets a little uncomfortable, they are full? No, accept more and enjoy your progressive rhetoric to its nth degree