Shoreditchification

JoeV

I make less than you and I'm doing fine and don't feel I'm leading a life of fruitless existence - but that's me. You're different. If I said to you why do you want to move to a Northern hellhole I think you may take issue, and rightly so, with that description? Choice of words.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

NorthNineteen

Move a bit further out along the Victoria line? Plenty of cheaper options around Walthamstow.<br>

NorthNineteen

@sutent I work in what is best described as strategic (mainly long term) transport (and a bit of land-use) planning.<br>

andy

I've said this before, but I find @misscara';s position completely reasonable and rational. <div><br></div><div>Where you live and how you live are the trade-offs we all make. Your accommodation, your commute, your proximity to family and friends, your job, what you do and how you do it. It's all up for grabs. </div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Wanting to leave London to improve one's quality of life is hardly radical, because wage prospects are poor, costs are high and other places are cheaper is hardly unreasonable, is it?</span></div>

NorthNineteen

Not at all, and I will almost certainly have to leave London entirely if Mrs N19 and myself decide to have a family.  Alternative would be to go east (Forest Gate/Manor Park).<br>

JoeV

@Andy no it's not unreasonable, not at all. Maybe I missed something. I didn't read every post but has any one been actually hostile to that position? or is the tension, if any, related to something other? 

Sutent

@N19 - your input is fascinating. 

NorthNineteen

Thanks! I just generally like facts.... bore my wife silly with them.<br>

Papa

The London bubble will end one day - potentially killing itself off.<br><br>London prices itself out of the market at the same time as the economies it drags in from improve - from Newcastle to Paris, Milan, Madrid and beyond.<br><br>Enough people decide London is simply too expensive and the pressure eases.<br><br>Chuck in the end of cheap (free) money and some kind of Black Swan surprise event and you have the recipe for <br><br>Of course, it won't be that orderly. I suspect there will be a large pop followed by a property crash made worse by all the attempts to prop up the market in recent years.<br><br>When prices are diving, everything seems as awful as it could be and you think only a lunatic would buy something as awful as a home in London - that's the time to buy.<br>

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

NorthNineteen

I don't see it unless there is a dramatic change in how the UK government thinks of London - would require the removal of all London government and policy (like in the 60s) to depopulate London through forcing businesses to move out of London and banning all new employment in the city (this is what they actually did in the 60s). And even then, extreme dystopian measures coupled with the worst performing economy in the western world didn't kill London.<br><br>Obviously, the kind of Black Swan event you speak of could have an impact but for it to have the impact you predict on London I would expect there to be far greater things to worry about.<br><br>I can't see anything in the medium term (nexst 20 years or so) which will diminish London's role as one of the most important cities in the world, and if it has that position people will want to live here.  This isn't to say that I don't think there will corrections in the property market, but not to the level you seem to hope/predict.<br>

andy

I agree with North Nineteen. Best case is that air is taken out of the top top end of the market, buy-to-let is made a bit less attractive and supply is increased. This won't do much to the long-term trend, but will improve affordability for people who aren't oligarchs parking their wealth in one hyde park.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

dion

I think that the only things that will correct the housing market in London, given the fact that its population seems to be growing consistently, that there are plenty of jobs and that it is a nice enough place to live, are: large interest rate increases similar to the Lawson bubble popping with rates going sky high (though this could be quite low in relative terms given the low base we would be rising from) and its subsequent mass evictions and reposessions<span style="font-size: 10pt;">, or a similarly vast increase in supply to not only cover the increasing population, but to oversupply the market and bring prices down.</span><div><div> <div>I think that any buy to let control is a bit of a red herring, as is any right to buy debate - these do not increase the net supply of housing or do anything to demand. </div></div><div><br></div><div>If I were in charge, I would make every house in London convert its loft into a bedroom and force people to rent them out to all the new Londoners.  This would be very cost effective, with a great tax free (rent a room scheme) return on investment (say a five year cash payback), would boost the building trade significantly and would give householders more disposable income. There would be no opt out except for me and houseboats as there might be a capsize risk. </div></div>

dion

I also think that, as Northnineteen intimated, there was depopulation in london since the second world war, and no one really wanted to live here. Similarly, after the Lawson bust the Docklands developments, for example, were extremely undesirable, and with good reason, Canary Wharf didn't have the jobs that it has now.  With hindsight and a load of capital, my ten year old self would have coined it and I would be living in a Thames penthouse apartment. 

miss annie

Last year my uncle sold his house in Docklands that he bought for not much thirty five years ago. He made an enormous profit and wanted to buy a small two bed or bungalow in a nice bit of Essex to be nearer the rest of our family but there were none! He has ended up in a three bedroom house that is much too big because there are no small houses to buy. Seems daft.

andy

Buy to let controls reduce the attractiveness of property as an asset class relative to other investments. Money pours into property because money pours into property. It's a vicious (or virtuous) cycle (depending on what side of it you're on). 

dion

Andy. I take your point in terms of a radical redistribution/sell off of btl properties. though wouldn't the councils all selling off their stock as right to buy increase supply and therefore reduce prices too?

andy

No, and you know it wouldn't.<div><br></div><div>I don't think it's that radical. I just want to swing the balance back in favour of people who own zero or one house, and away from people who own 2+ houses. Current incentives are massively loaded in favour of people owning 2+ houses. This is about looking at housing as somewhere to live, rather than a one-way bet investment class.</div>

miss annie

Caitlin Moran wrote a good column about a house being a home and not just money in the Times recently.

Sutent

All very noble ideas. But do you really think the Eaton boys who run this country will screw their mates over who own multiple properties. Inequality is massive at the moment and is rising significantly. I cant see it changing unless we adopt the "spirit of 1945"

JoeV

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">If they build it they will come:</font><div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2014/02/expensive-london-still-uks-top-destination-young-people/8287/</font></div>;

Papa

Ultimately your home is an investment. Probably the best you will ever have, as long as you have a repayment mortgage, which means you end up with an asset worth hundreds of thousands that you own outright and no longer have any need to pay a monthly bill to put a roof over your head.<br><br>...but that doesn't mean massive house price inflation is a good thing. It has crippled our economy. <br><br>Sutent, it may be worth remembering that it was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who encouraged the worst of the house price boom from 1997 to 2007, not the current lot.<br>

yagamuffin

And before Blair and Brown it was Thatcher who encouraged Council's to sell off their housing stock without building any new replacements.<div>Apportioning blame at this stage is pointless. Learn from it and move on.</div>

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Ali

<P>Sounds like there is a cost of living crisis in London</P> <P>You get your say next year</P>

Papa

@yagamuffin, agreed, we've had a 30 year lesson in how to mismanage an economy in relation to the property market - and yet still we never learn.<br><br>The current lot hinted at learning from the mistakes, then ditched that plan in the desperate hunt for economic growth at any costs.<br>

miss annie

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/san_franciscos_rightward_turn_why_it_may_no_longer_be_americas_iconic_liberal_city/ Interesting stuff about my favourite city in all the world. Includes the term 'hyper-gentrification'