A housing crisis in Glasgow is preventing individuals from living independently. A 37-year-old woman, Liz Davidson, has moved in with her grandmother due to the inability to afford housing in the city. She states that new developments in her area are unaffordable, with a one-bedroom flat requiring approximately 75% of her wages.

Campaign group Living Rent claims that planning permissions for build-to-rent and student accommodation significantly outnumber those for affordable housing in Glasgow, with a ratio of 23 to one. Between February 1, 2023, and March 1, 2025, only 447 units of affordable housing were approved, while 53.7% of all granted planning permissions were for purpose-built student accommodation. The group also notes that most of these developments lack affordable housing units.

Glasgow City Council declared a housing emergency in November 2023, citing an increase in homelessness. As of September 2024, over 7,000 people, including 3,100 children, were in temporary accommodation, costing the city £36 million annually. Homelessness applications have risen by 22% in the past year, and private rental prices have increased by 81.8% since 2010.

A spokesperson for Glasgow City Council disputes these figures, stating that about half of all homes built annually are affordable or social housing. The council also argues that comparing student rooms to homes with bedrooms is not a like-for-like comparison and that planning applications do not always result in development, unlike social housing projects. Living Rent maintains that the council's planning approvals favor unaffordable housing, which will lead to rising rents and displacement. They advocate for the strict implementation of the 25% affordable housing requirement in all developments.

Original article (glasgow) (homelessness)

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided for individuals to directly address the housing crisis. The article describes the problem and the differing viewpoints on its causes and solutions but does not offer steps a person can take.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by presenting statistics on housing approvals, homelessness, and rental price increases. It also highlights the differing perspectives between a campaign group and the city council, explaining the council's arguments against direct comparisons of student accommodation and housing. However, it does not delve deeply into the systemic causes of the crisis or provide a comprehensive understanding of the housing market's complexities.

Personal Relevance: The topic is highly relevant to individuals in Glasgow, particularly those struggling with housing affordability. The story of Liz Davidson illustrates the direct impact of the crisis on personal lives, forcing people to compromise their independence. The statistics on homelessness and temporary accommodation also highlight the severity of the issue for a significant portion of the population.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public service function by raising awareness about the housing crisis in Glasgow and the associated issues of homelessness and affordability. It presents data that informs the public about the scale of the problem and the ongoing debate surrounding it. However, it does not offer official warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts.

Practicality of Advice: No direct advice or steps are given to individuals, so the practicality of advice cannot be assessed. The article focuses on reporting the situation and the arguments of different parties.

Long-Term Impact: The article's long-term impact is primarily in raising awareness and potentially influencing public discourse or policy. By highlighting the discrepancy in housing development and the rising costs, it could encourage greater scrutiny of planning decisions and advocacy for affordable housing. However, it does not offer individuals strategies for long-term financial planning or housing security.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article may evoke feelings of concern, frustration, or even helplessness for those affected by the housing crisis. While it highlights a significant problem, it does not offer solutions or a sense of hope for immediate improvement. The contrasting viewpoints might also lead to a sense of uncertainty about effective solutions.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The language used is factual and reportorial, without employing dramatic, scary, or shocking words solely to grab attention. It presents claims and counter-claims in a balanced manner.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed opportunities to provide more practical guidance. For instance, it could have included information on: * Resources for individuals facing housing insecurity in Glasgow, such as contact details for housing charities or advice services. * Information on tenant rights or advocacy groups that individuals can join or seek help from. * Guidance on how citizens can engage with local council planning processes to voice their concerns about affordable housing. * More detailed explanations of the factors contributing to the housing crisis, such as construction costs, land availability, or economic policies.

This text shows bias by using strong words to make one side seem bad. It says that planning permissions for build-to-rent and student housing "significantly outnumber" affordable housing. This makes it sound like the council is deliberately ignoring people's needs. The words "significantly outnumber" create a strong negative feeling against the council's actions.

The text also uses a trick by presenting one group's claims as facts without full proof. It states, "Campaign group Living Rent claims that planning permissions for build-to-rent and student accommodation significantly outnumber those for affordable housing in Glasgow, with a ratio of 23 to one." This presents Living Rent's opinion as a definite truth. It helps Living Rent's side by making their argument sound more convincing.

There is also bias in how the text presents the council's response. The council spokesperson's statement is followed by "Living Rent maintains that the council's planning approvals favor unaffordable housing." This directly contrasts the council's defense with Living Rent's accusation. It makes the council's explanation seem less important than Living Rent's continuing criticism.

The text uses a form of bias by selecting specific numbers to support one viewpoint. It highlights that "only 447 units of affordable housing were approved, while 53.7% of all granted planning permissions were for purpose-built student accommodation." This focuses on the low number of affordable units approved. It makes the situation seem worse by comparing a small number to a large percentage, even though the total number of all permissions isn't given.

The text also uses a trick by framing a difference in opinion as a factual dispute. The council says comparing student rooms to homes is "not a like-for-like comparison." The text then immediately follows with "Living Rent maintains that the council's planning approvals favor unaffordable housing." This makes the council's point seem like an excuse. It hides the possibility that the council might have a valid point about how different types of housing are counted.

The text conveys a strong sense of frustration and concern regarding the housing crisis in Glasgow. This is evident in Liz Davidson's personal story, where she is forced to move in with her grandmother because new housing is too expensive, taking up a significant portion of her earnings. This situation evokes sympathy for individuals like Liz, highlighting the difficulty of living independently. The campaign group Living Rent expresses outrage and disappointment through their stark statistics, revealing a severe imbalance in planning permissions that favor unaffordable housing over affordable options, with a ratio of 23 to one. This data is presented to create worry and alarm in the reader, emphasizing the scale of the problem.

The declaration of a housing emergency by Glasgow City Council, coupled with the high numbers of people in temporary accommodation, including many children, and the substantial annual cost, generates a feeling of urgency and distress. The significant rise in homelessness applications and private rental prices further amplifies this anxiety. The council's spokesperson attempts to counter these claims, suggesting a more balanced view of housing development and questioning the comparison of student accommodation to family homes. However, Living Rent's firm stance that the council's decisions lead to rising rents and displacement reinforces the initial anger and frustration.

The writer uses emotional language to persuade the reader by focusing on the human impact of the crisis. Liz's personal story serves as a powerful tool to build empathy, making the abstract problem of housing affordability relatable and emotionally resonant. The use of statistics, such as the 23-to-one ratio and the number of children in temporary accommodation, is intended to shock and create a sense of injustice, prompting the reader to question the current policies. The repetition of the core issue – the lack of affordable housing and the prevalence of unaffordable developments – reinforces the message and emphasizes the severity of the situation. By presenting the council's response as a dispute of these figures, the text subtly positions Living Rent as a more trustworthy source, aiming to shift the reader's opinion towards their perspective and inspire action for stricter affordable housing requirements.