I've written a new piece for the @IIPP_UCL blog: Meeting housing needs within planetary boundaries requires opening the black box of housing "demand" 1/8

@kymeriandawn @jryancollins A problem is that under-occupiers are subsidised already. Adding more carrots, like waiving stamp for downsizing or encouraging the monetisation of large properties through accessory dwellings is giving more to those who have. But I agree, it requires both sticks and carrots.

@beatrismouse @jryancollins Nothing wrong with gyms. The point here is that gyms are functionally different to rooms that meet someone's housing needs. We propose that housing policy should prioritise meeting housing needs.

@kymeriandawn @jryancollins Where do you see the stick prioritised? In my view both have to come hand in hand. At the moment investment demand in housing is subsidised while downsizing is discouraged and rarely given support.

@CnnmnSchnpps @jryancollins No disagreement about that. The main point here is that housing space is not particularly well allocated because of investment demand for housing. You do need viable alternatives before you can discourage under-occupation.

@DrCameronMurray How does it compare to median income and alternative investments, like government bonds or equities?

@holz_bau How does this compare to popular historical neighbourhoods, like the West Village in New York?

@SimonInmania @StatisticUrban Yes though tricky to tell from the averages. If you're stretched you'll likely reduce your space requirements to the minimum acceptable. If many households are stretched then only wealthier households will benefit from all the extra space that is available.

@thomasforth I would want to look more into the data. According to the 2022 census, Germany has a long-term vacancy rate (>6 months) of around 3% vs 1% in England. Densely populated W Germany is closer to 2%. Berlin has a LT vacancy rate of 1%, the same as London.

@SimonInmania @StatisticUrban Broadly in line with California and New York.

@SustainableTall All to such high standard, near/net zero carbon timber, etc? I know that there are fairly strict rules about carbon emissions in construction in France now, but I wonder to what degree these are lighthouse projects or representative of typical stock additions.

@thomasforth Same discussion as we had about the railways. Germany stopped investing after building the tram (and electrifying large parts of the railways). The UK stopped investing before even those got built.

@benjit14 @thomasforth Well yes you'd have marginal tickets (land) far away from the event priced a near zero. I guess we already have that in the form of live streaming and houses in peripheral locations. But that does not typically count as resolving the ticket/housing crisis.

@thomasforth The two are not so comparable. Houses (and land) are long-lasting assets and there is very limited declining net marginal utility from owning additional housing. Concert tickets ultimately depreciate to zero and I doubt most people go to the same concert more than a few times.

@actsmaniac @bizimkiez Oder Leerstand

@danielmgmoylan @PickardJE The price of a property is the capitalised value of the flow of future rent. The more a property is taxed the lower the flow of rent and hence the lower its price.

@AlastairParvin @PhinHarper Phin, I think the thread below answers some of your questions. @ThomasAubreyCCA may be able to help.

@AlastairParvin @PhinHarper Would have to distinguish CPO for infrastructure (motorways, etc). Also I think tricky as the role of CPO depends on the strength of other planning instruments. Perhaps there is a literature on international "varieties of land value capture regimes"?