There is talk of what I have called ‘ the Dutch House sickness ‘ , a collection of conflicting qualities that Dutch people like to look for in a house:
- Must be affordable.
- But not too many affordable homes in the same district.
- Must be an investment vehicle.
- May not be too high, because the Dutch have fear of heights (due to lack of mountains).
- Must have a backyard where concrete tiles can be in.
- Must have a driveway, and several parking bays in front of the door.
- Must be near the parents.
- Must be near work.
- Social rent is not just for the poorest.
- Must contain bricks.
If you do not consider at least five of the preceding properties as a deal-breaker, it is not impossible to find a property.The solution for the housing shortage is of course more building, but then we come to the following barriers:
- With the exception of the big city, it is not-done to build a building higher than the church tower.
- To build in width, nature and farmland must be sacrificed.
In essence, this is a generational conflict. Mondige, and numerically large numbers of elderly people prefer not to have modern residential towers in their urban or village view (because Church tower rule).In addition, they are afraid that this affects the value of their homes negatively (because investment vehicle). At the administrative level, this is well seen:
- Municipality: “We would like to sacrifice 100 hectares of nature and farmland in order to build a Vinex district with medium-priced rentals and houses for sale.
Then our children can continue to live in the village. “
We see that you have just demolished the farmer’s Bond in the village, that land plus the parking lot is a whole hectare where you could put a 80 meter residential tower with hundreds of apartments, parking garage, buy, medium-priced rent and social rent. “
Yes, our children will live in another commune. ” There are several reasons but this one is by far the most important: the government makes too little land available for building homes.
Zoning plans: the culprit
In the Netherlands, land use is subject to zoning plans.To quote Wikipedia :
A zoning plan determines which use and the building possibilities of the grounds are permitted.
The realisation of the destination given to the grounds cannot be enforced, but realization of other destinations can be avoided.
It is therefore in advance administrative law whether land can be used for, among other things, agriculture, residential construction, company site, sports facilities.This is all very detailed.
This is a good thing to some extent.It prevents very pernicious situations such as the uncontrolled establishment and construction of a pig farm in the middle of a residential area.
It becomes a problem when zoning plans limit the availability of land for residential construction so that the number of homes that can be built is under pressure.
This is exactly what happens in the Netherlands.The housing stock in the Netherlands is artificially too small by zoning plans. This leads to a housing shortage, or, as economists call it: scarcity.
Those who have had a little economy realise what this means: if the demand exceeds the supply then the prices rise.At that time, the weasts in our society fall outside the boat. The weasts are in this case the people who do not deserve enough to pay independently rent or mortgage.
The scarce Premium
To give an image, let’s compare land prices in the Netherlands.The analyses below have also been recapulated in a table at the end of this paragraph.
In 2018, the average price of agricultural land in the Netherlands was almost EUR 64,000 per hectare.That is EUR 6.40 per m2.
For building plots -land for dwellings -in 2016 the average price level per province of EUR 165 per m2 in Groningen to EUR 555 per m2 in North Holland.With others, the price per m2 is for construction lots 26 to 87 times higher than for farmland. This is the effect of artificial scarcity of land created. The difference between the price of a building lot and agricultural land is the scarce premium, a price storage that is the result of the scarce housing supply and a growing number of housing seekers.
Imagine that in Noord-Holland you have a house bordering on agricultural area.At the above average prices the ground under a house can be 87 times as expensive as the ground of the farm adjacent to this House. In Cash, you pay at the average price for Noord-Holland at EUR 82.000 more for a building plot of 150 m2 than for an equally large piece of agricultural land. This is the scarce premium for a piece of land for a typical terraced house.
But it does not stop there. Existing dwellings have a higher scarcity premium.The average price for a terraced house in the Zaanstreek was EUR 302.000 in the 3rd quarter of 2019. The average construction costs of this are EUR 186.000. This means that the scarce premium is further up to EUR 116.000. This is at the expense of the buyer’s purchasing power.
If we analyse the impact of the scarce premium on our purchasing power, it creates a dishearting image.
For a buyer of a dwelling, the scarce premium means increased financing costs. In the example of the terraced house in the Zaanstreek, it means that the purchaser has to borrow EUR 116.000 extra. The analyses below have also been recapulated in a table at the end of this paragraph.
Let us deal with this scarce premium of EUR 116.000 for the joke as a mortgage loan.We are going out of a 30 year loan at 2.5 percent per year.
In 2019, net modal income per month is EUR 2.179.This means that the abovementioned scarce premium increases the net residential expenses for a buyer with a modal income with an amount of EUR 383 per month. That is 18 percent of net modal income per month.
There is nothing funny about that.
The buyer with a modal income -the ZG. Jan Modaal -Sees thirty years, month in month out, almost one fifth of his net monthly income evaporate because the government makes insufficient land available for building homes.And the less you deserve, the higher the proportion of your income spent on financing an artificially cultivated scarce premium.
All this is practically never explained to the public.
But that we pay too much everyone feels at his water. We do not understand it, but we need a scapegoat.
The most important is, of course, ever again market Force.No critica who will fail to denote it as a bogeyman. What makes this accusation so credible is that it is also correct in the most superficial way. But it is a half truth, and that works about as disastrous as a lie.
What we are aware of is that this market operation is perverted by the government’s offer restriction .The Netherlands sighs permanently under a regime of artificial supply restriction by the government. As a result, we have learned to experience market operation in the housing sector only as a burden-aggravating phenomenon -and thus a negative fact.
In the housing sector, the Dutch citizen market has never been able to get to know as a welding-illuminating instrument -or positive.
Our government and the media can, on Prinsjesdas -and beyond -endlessly and by cutting over a percentage of points on purchasing power plates.What everyone is passing on is the thousands of euro’s purchasing power which is caused by the artificial supply restriction.
What the Netherlands needs is that the rise in housing prices and rents is brought to a halt or even driven down.This can be achieved through the easing or widening of destination plans with the aim of building more housing. This would help more housing seekers than any contribution through the budget.
Extending the supply of land for residential construction and eliminating the scarce premium has several positive effects.The most important of these is a wider range of properties at a lower price. The lower price leads to lower residential expenses and rents. This is good for all households but especially for Jan Modaal and less earning.
But more is happening.The lower price, for example, leads to a structural widening of purchasing power. More purchasing power decreases among other things structurally the pressure to higher wages. This makes the Netherlands competitive on labour costs. This strengthens the foundations of the Dutch economy. Lower house prices in the long term also reduce the collective indebtedness (the sum of the debts of all households). The Netherlands becomes less sensitive to debt crises. This also strengthens the foundations of the Dutch economy.
In short, the Netherlands has a lot to gain from a more generous spatial policy.
This is a simplified partial declaration of a complex problem on the basis of one aspect.This excludes part declarations on the basis of other aspects. Keep any comments friendly and relevant. I reserve the right to remove inappropriate and irrelevant comments.
How much does a lot cost.iTX Bouw Consult gives answers.
Trouw-The Doorsun house is pass茅.It’s now time for a ‘ terraced castle ‘
Calculate property value?| The Hypotheker
The problem is easy to understand when you pick up the numbers.I will do my best to briefly explain my vision.
- New construction production has fallen
This problem comes back in multiple replies.
In the years 60, 70 and 80 the housing associations ensured almost all new constructions in the Netherlands. Nowadays, most housing corporations mainly have portfolios with outdated dwellings from these construction periods. New construction with them has almost completely fallen silent.
The Government felt that the private sector had to take over the baton of the corporations.Only the private sector prefers to build only expensive dwellings. These are the most common ones. Municipalities are often involved in this, because they prefer to attract wealthy households. (Just briefly said)
- Households are getting smaller, so more homes per 100 inhabitants are needed.
Size of Dutch households:
At the moment, households are only 2.10 people in size.The decline is no longer so fast, but it is not unlikely that we will get under 2 people in the Netherlands. The population projections state that the number of singles explosively grows. This is mainly due to single elderly people.
- Dutch people live Well, so there is little influx space for starters.
More than half of the Dutch people have space in their homes.
The average Dutchman has about 65 m2 living space.
The European average is closer to 45 m2 per person.
This is strange, quite when you consider that the Benelux is the densely populated area of Europe.
The Dutch apparently live very much like in single-family homes.
In most European countries, relatively many people live in apartments.
These usually have less living space than for example a terraced house.
The image below shows that singles in the Netherlands have an average of 3.42 rooms in the house.
This already gives this target group more living than the expected need. This also applies to couples without children. They have an average of 4.54 rooms.
What is the solution for the housing shortage?
- Housing corporations have been fully built.
Preferably sustainable social apartments, suitable for singles and couples. A large proportion of these homes should be aimed at the growing older target group, so that they can live smaller and more flow into the housing market.
But it could also be that the housing shortage will be solved by itself.Elderly people in the Netherlands often live in large dwellings. In the coming years, the post-war generation of elderly people will reach the age in which most want to live smaller. If this happens, a lot of square meters of house space will be released.
This potential influx of large dwellings can sometimes cause a surplus of too large single-family homes.
This offers opportunities for small households to split these large dwellings.
For example in the upper/lower housing form or in the form of residential groups. The latter is especially popular with lone elderly who suffer from solitude.
It is of course just a thought and the figures never tell the complete story.However, it is interesting to think about the implications of these changes.
More high-rise buildings.Many people hate this, but I love high-rise. It exudes prosperity, modernity, luxury and size. It makes me feel like I am in the middle of the world, and not in a secluded spot.
Before you say I’m stuck a rich urbanist or so, I grew up on a farm.And that’s nice too. The Netherlands is really not as full as you think, there is still sat nature and farmland. If we want to keep it, and at the same time collect the housing shortage, we need more high-rise sites. It saves so much horizontal space.
I travel every day for over 2 hours (with the public transport) up and down to my work.One way.
I can tell you: we do not have a housing shortage.
Still, people are not willing to live where I live because < fill a reason in >.Either, we choose to whine and nag about housing shortage instead of going to a different place to live.
As a result, a colleague bought a small flat for a price almost as high as the price of my detached house with huge backyard.Choices, choices, choices.
When I was working in the home care, I came to many people who only lived in a large house.Many of them did want to move to smaller spaces but could not because first, there was a long waiting list and second, there were not many options and not enough nice apartments where they could live in. The big problem was that a whole house was too much work to manage independently and they really needed the help. It is of course easier to live in an apartment especially if you are older and not so mobile.
Here in the Netherlands, I see that many of the apartments are all low-built and of course that not so many people can live there.
I think that a solution can take my homeland as an example.
I’m from Singapore and there are many people in such a small place so 90% of our homes are all in high apartments. We have so many types of apartments and you also get discounts if you live within a certain radius of your parents. The apartments built in 1990 were (in my opinion) the best in size and design. And they are really high!
So high doesn’t have to, but three/four floors is really too low and has too few apartments especially for such a small country like the Netherlands.
One can encourage people to live higher with a system where the lower floors for the elderly are reserved. Older people can then leave their large houses so that families with children can live there. This way there is a lot more space for families, and the seniors also get a more suitable space for them.
The basic problem in the Netherlands, and especially in the Randstad, is overcrowding.There are just too many people for current housing stock and infrastructure. The result is housing shortages, congestion and overcrowded trains.
Since the song “15 million people” in the years ‘ 90, two million people have been added again.Against such an assumption (4 times a city like The Hague or Utrecht!) is not to build with houses, roads, railways, workplaces, schools, shops and hospitals.
In a free market, prices for housing, parking and transport would increase until people leave for inaffordability and find more affordable places for migrants and people with a child’s desire.Companies would therefore leave. All this would continue until a balance has been reached again. Now the cost of population growth is not borne by the people themselves (migrants and people with children). So there is no incentive to stay away or leave or not to take children.
In the current system, housing needs will continue to exist.The population is still growing faster than it can build. If one would like to build all the green in full.
In order not to underestimate the severity of the problem, I would like to dwell on the fact that millions of people have been working upwards over the past centuries from bitter poverty by moving to regions that offer better career opportunities.In a large part of the Western world, however, this has become very difficult due to high housing prices in promising regions. In the meantime, the lucky ones who possess a lot of real estate have gone much ahead. Housing distress therefore gives an explanation for the elephant curve.This graph shows that the western middle class has barely participated in the global progress of past decades:
This housing emergency is almost everywhere a consequence of the policy of the governments, which by laws and rules prevent more houses from being built.
There are many opportunities to accommodate more people and there is a lot of money to be made, but it should not or at most be under conditions that are very unfavorable to those who could bring homes.
To give an example of how governments are getting in the way of creating new homes.Suppose you have an empty office building on an industrial estate in the Randstad of which you want to make a residential flat.
Issue 1: Provinces impose a quota on municipalities to keep a percentage of their land free for industry and your office building is on such a plot of land.Politicians will argue that it is necessary to get jobs to the region. If that works, then the Randstad will draw jobs from other parts of the country without making room for the housing of the workers: housing needs guaranteed.It is, of course, the question of how many jobs your empty office building generates.
Problem 2: Counties have a zoning plan, which says that your office building does not have a living destination.So you are the owner, but you have limited right to use your property as you would like. Politicians will argue that without the zoning plan katastrophes will happen like heavy industry next to a playground or a brodeel opposite a primary school, but best possible to fight out while property owners usually Determine the destination of their property.
With a little lobbying work you can change the destination of your office building.Of course they are cost-related and you need friends in the right places. If you have all of that with you, you are against the following problems.
Problem 3: There are rural building regulations for homes, so before people get into your building, you need to do an expensive renovation first.Politicians will argue that this is necessary to protect the inhabitants of the future. However, expectant residents have a responsibility not to do stupid things. Only a few things that residents cannot reasonably control -risk of collapse or so -benefit from inspections.
The most damaging consequence of building regulations is that much less high is being built.High-rise would be a way to use land more efficiently if governments did not cross it. The economic damage that is being done with this is at the moment greater that the damage we can expect from climate change. However, this is not yet the dumbest measure.
Problem 4: The Netherlands has rental ceilings.It is not easy to earn back the lobby and renovation costs by making the rent higher. This is why your bank does not want to give you a loan for your plan to make rental properties in your office building and recommends to leave it empty.
Markets use prices to align supply and demand.Surpluses lead to lower prices that provide less supply and demand, until the surplus disappears. Shortages lead to higher prices that provide less demand and more supply, until the deficit disappears. If a rental ceiling has effect, it is a shortage of rental properties. It doesn’t seem difficult to understand, but some politicians have been suspicious of much effort with it.
There is still more policy such as welfare supervision, social housing, tenants ‘ rights and construction workers, taxes, whose effect is not clear, but probably not favourable to the housing distress.Everything must be directed to the details without good reason. It plans beaches to make more homes.
If the government were to withdraw and liberate the real estate markets, the house would necessarily decline.Perhaps governments can in theory do something that generates extra housing, but in practice they have proven to be far too stupid for them. That is why laissez-faire is the best way to remedy the housing shortage in the Netherlands.
There is a housing shortage due to different causes.You must first look at the causes before you can come up with solutions.
- First of all, too little is built.
Cause: Construction costs have become higher due to land prices, increased wages and a shortage of building workers.
Starters and middle incomes cannot buy houses and are therefore designated on social rental homes or free sector rent. Then you still have the so-called ‘ scheefwoners ‘ that with a now ‘ too high ‘ income continue to live in their cheap social rental house.
Since the new law of 2015, the housing corporations have to pay a landlord levy: tax on the rental income of their housing stock. This ensures that housing corporations often have a shortage of money and resources to build or purchase homes. In fact, they are forced to sell a part of their homes often, to be able to invest in new construction or renovation.
That is unwise considering that the prices of the rents are huge, m driving up in areas where the WOZ value rises sharply (coupled with the rising house prices so). Often you see this in places where many people want to live and expensive houses are sold (the big cities and the Randstad).
Social rental properties do not usually bring much up, certainly not in places with expensive building land. However, they are needed to promote flow. Municipalities often choose to build on expensive land dwellings that thus bring a lot of money in the last in a direct or indirect way.
This DEPRIWS affordable housing for the housing market, especially for starters and middle incomes.
More and more elderly people continue to live independently and redundancies from psychic institutions are put into social rental homes. Add to this the still growing population, immigration and workers from Eastern Bloc countries who work here (and therefore also have to live).
If you have a small income from a WIA benefit or WW/assistance BV and your 18 year old son lives at home, but has a job, then you will be cut off on your allowance. However, the son cannot find a house and must remain in need of living at home.
I am currently finding out how the house needs to wreaks itself in my city, Rotterdam.Rotterdam has developed the so-called ‘ residential vision ‘ in which it is decided that 20,000 social rental homes should be against the plains. There, social rental homes, free rental sector homes and houses for sale are being rebuilt. The number of social housing will therefore greatly decrease in the city. The consequences are already visible and it is poignant: by now half (!) of the House seekers in the city have a so-called urgency statement, because their houses have been demolished or renovated for new ‘ capital powerful ‘ Tenants. In Some cases it has become self-buying homes. So these people cannot return to their homes and are forced to move. Often they are in the outskirts of the municipalities or end up in the worst cases in holiday parks or on the street.
I live in a social rental house in a beloved district in Rotterdam.A lot is bought by young starters/couples and rented out to students. Now the housing corporation also wants to turn our houses off. Because our homes could be perfectly rented for much higher rents to starters and the middle incomes. Unfortunately it is at the expense of lower incomes. This way the house need is very close.
- Disconnect rented properties from the WOZ value.
That lowers the rents and makes them more affordable for a larger target group.
Change the zoning plan. There are a lot of commercial buildings empty, where nothing is done with it.
Of course, we should not ignore the fact that one of the major causes of housing distress is that the population continues to grow.There are just too many people and the Netherlands is a densely populated country.
Suggestions I see over here to build the empty stretches of land or to put up skyscrapers like in Singapore are really no solutions in my opinion.Firstly, the cause of the problems is not addressed. Secondly, you do not want such extreme high-rise buildings in the Netherlands. In addition the soil is often not suitable for. There is enough height built-in where you can. And I believe that you have to take into account the landscape and the culture and not everything but to build up endlessly. There is a limit to growth, also to population growth.
I think that with the above mentioned possible solutions a very large part of the housing emergency can be remedied, without extreme measures and without the last leftovers to build empty landscape.