Finally, there is some kind of recovery in the air. House prices are edging up, shares are moving and consumer confidence is improving
at last. People are beginning to experience more certainty about their lives in post-recession Britain.

It may seem ridiculously early to ask this, but are we at risk of being suckered into another boom-bust cycle? This is not implausible. When I was a housing editor in the early 1990s, ROOF magazine ran a special issue on the fallout of the last housing crash. The cover had a photo of a couple regretting their binge the night before, waking up with the consequences of the housing boom. The headline read: Never again? The homeownership hangover.

Well, it did happen again. Almost no lessons were learned from the last boom that turned to bust. Then, we had the housing market package, today we have kick-start. And again, short-term government spending on new homes will be followed by deep cutbacks.

But despite the déjà vu, I do think something is different this time, and I am not sure the housing world has quite got its head round it yet.

Show restraint

My theory is that people don’t actually want things to boom again. Many are scaling down their pre-2008 spending/borrowing habits, not because they have to, but because they want to. This recovery is different to 1992 because we now have global warming to contend with.

True, not everyone cares about carbon yet. But there is a growing sense that the planet has to start living within its means. Excessive indulgence is frowned upon, hence the fury over MPs’ expenses and a growing backlash against celebrity lifestyles. Restraint, simplicity and ‘making do’ are back in fashion.

And these values don’t look like going away just because a recovery is under way.

What has all this got to do with the housing world? Well, like most families, it also has to recalibrate its values for the low-carbon economy. New housebuilding was too much of an obsession in the boom years - the equivalent of buying the latest HD plasma TVs, iPods or enormous American fridge freezers.

I am not against new housebuilding and certainly have little time for the NIMBYs. But I doubt I am the only one who is sceptical about growth zones such as the Thames Gateway. Does London really need further stoking up with huge soulless commuter estates built on a flood plain to support the City’s claim to be the world’s financial powerhouse? What exactly is sustainable and low-carbon about this idea, dreamt up in the boom years?

I suspect housing associations (and wannabe council estate builders) are going to have to do a major rethink. Like many British families, they will have to overcome their addiction to the big, the shiny and the new and instead start valuing what they already own. The housing sector has spent years devoting huge amounts of staff, energy, conference time and trade press coverage to the new homes they build. Yet each year these represent only about 0.05 per cent of existing stock.

The men (and it is often the men) who have a ‘thing’ about new development allow this obsession to dominate their organisation’s priorities. The number one task should instead be improving the life chances of those they already house.

With capital budgets for new homes likely to be reduced significantly, now is the time to ensure this change and a new set of priorities are created that suit the low-carbon era. Many families are looking to save more, to value what they already own, to spend more of their time and money on productive things with long term value, to buy new less often, recycle more and throw away less. It’s time the housing world did the same.

It won’t do to just to add the word ‘eco’ to new homes. There needs to be a debate about what we do with existing property. Retrofitting must surely be the next big thing, yet it is hardly mentioned.

Multi-use buildings

Smarter use of property is going to be a priority too. How can we make best use of council offices, libraries, derelict pubs, empty shops? Why is
it that so many schools shut at 4pm and are empty every weekend and all through the holidays? Can places like this be brought into 24/7 use,
for example as hub facilities to support local businesses and reduce employers’ reliance on inefficient offices?

Why do we keep assuming we need to construct (and fuel) separate properties for working and for living? That thinking belongs in the old era, the high-carbon office/commuter economy. Millions in the UK already reject this and work from home - but how is the housing world responding to this trend?

There needs to be a much stronger commitment to exploring how new technology and broadband can enhance people’s employment and learning prospects. That means, perhaps, helping tenants get spare rooms and access to the decent computers and broadband that middle class people take for granted. This is arguably much more important than new homes.

There are going to be some tough issues to tackle in years to come. There will have to be some sense that having too many children is a carbon issue - perhaps rewards for those who use less space? We will all need to play our part in making much smarter use of what we already have at hand.

I am not suggesting that new homes don’t matter. They do. But the housing world needs to show the next government and its own tenants that it doesn’t just care about the next housing scheme it builds. It’s time to look long and hard at what it already has - and treat this with a great deal more intelligence and respect.

Tim Dwelly is director of Live/Work Network www.liveworknet.com

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment