What two issues in the housing debate do you think deserve more attention than they get?

My pick would be growing inequality and poor distribution of owner-occupied housing.

There are good reasons why these two linked topics are lower down the problems-to-be-solved list than they should be. The precise effects of increasing inequality and increasingly inefficient distribution of living space are hard to nail. Worst still most of the obvious solutions to them fall into the complex, potentially uncomfortable or politically explosive categories.

So they don’t get much airtime. Good research into them tends to be scant and poorly funded. And as a focus for policy they fail to break through the cosy consensuses that have formed around the well-rehearsed arguments that all housing’s problems would be solved if we had a better planning regime, or less regulation, or more institutional funding, or (not just from the left these days) more state-funded housing.

It is hugely frustrating. Personally I suspect – and I take this view from the numbers – that growing inequality and an ever inefficient distribution of housing are in fact major problems not just in their effects on housing people, but also in thwarting the house building and regeneration needed to better house Britons. If so they should be far higher up the housing agenda.

For me this makes the release of Danny Dorling’s latest book, All that is Solid: The Great Housing Disaster, very important.

The twin themes of growing inequality and poor distribution of housing are central to the book. And, as a professor in geography at Oxford University, it is to be hoped that Dorling can promote a wider exploration of these issues and push them up the agenda.

The problems we face with housing in the UK are grave and we need to be exploring all possible causes with open minds.

Certainly the book has prompted interest. It has received many column inches and plenty of TV and radio airtime.

That’s fantastic.

However, perhaps I expected too much, perhaps I tried too hard to combat confirmation bias, perhaps I missed something. But I was disappointed.

I’ll not go into his argument. Jules Birch in his Inside Edge blog provides a good summary as well as very worthwhile comments. I will instead focus on my reservations, the first of which I think has been noted quite widely.

It’s hard not to suspect the book was rushed. There are silly factual errors, it’s overly repetitive, the chapter headings seem a bit arbitrary and, I thought, there was a heavy reliance on the Guardian and Independent as sources, which seemed a bit weak.

However, he does pretty much nail the inefficient distribution issue at an aggregate level. That’s good because it’s very much overlooked even by many who should know better.

But nailing inefficiencies in housing distribution isn’t that tricky. The data are there and, perhaps ironically given Dorling’s political positioning, the numbers on at least one aspect of under-occupancy are catching the attention of investors and private sector house builders.

The Home Builders Federation recently commissioned Demos to produce a report on the under-occupation of homes owned by the elderly. They see it as an important issue. They also see that it represents a massive market opportunity – £400 billion of tied-up equity among over 60s interested in downsizing. Similar work has been done by Neal Hudson at Savills, highlights of which were published in the Housing Market Intelligence 2013 report. (Here’s a round up of some of the thinking)

As for nailing the link between our current housing crisis and greater inequality, maybe I missed something, but Dorling doesn’t seem to do it. It is asserted rather than proved in my view.

In the broadest sense it’s obvious that greater inequality will have some effect on housing.

While it may sit outside the world view of various TV housing commentators, it is axiomatic that those that are “too poor” can’t buy a home and if more people become “too poor” fewer people can buy homes. (Can I just qualify that? Unless, of course, you create something like a sub-prime mortgage)

But what are the actual effects and what are the processes?

Providing convincing evidence and producing a model that illustrates how changes in inequality act within what is a highly complex system is extremely hard. I know. I’ve spent too many hours bothering the numbers.

Perhaps this is partly why I was disappointed. I hoped for more to help satisfy my curiosity on the effects of inequality.

But this aside, what concerned me mostly was that Dorling appears to be addressing an audience that I suspect is already conditioned to accept his view.

It would have pleased me more if he had pushed harder to engage an audience of Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph readers as much as those with a preference for the Guardian or the Daily Mirror.

Naturally the 10-point plan he presents may make a fair slice of the wealthier and more propertied classes choke over their breakfasts. But all proposed solutions should be up for discussion, without favour. And while I might quibble over some, I’m certainly in the land-value-tax camp along with the late Sir Winston Churchill and the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

The sad truth is, though, if increasing inequality is the underlying problem, even these measure, indigestible as they may seem to some, would be just 10 sticking plasters trying to hold together ever-widening gashes in the flesh of Britain’s housing system.

If, as he suggests in his book, inequality and the resultant poor distribution of living space are damaging the housing and social fabric of Britain, ultimately they disadvantage most if not all of us.

So the mission must be to increase awareness and broaden the consensus that something must be done. That, in my view, means making a convincing argument that will be heard across the political and social spectrum.

But for all my complaints, which I am sure are borne as much as anything from frustration, I hope that a wide audience does read this book.

Whatever one’s political leanings we need to do more to solve the housing crisis. Ignoring potential problems, however unpalatable they may seem to some, will not result in a lasting solution, unless we are very lucky.