Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Side order of little-England too.
Made me laugh way too loudly
We're off to a better start than yesterday already fella - must be the sunshine.
Yesterday I learned about evolution. I'm going to ask you lot how capitalism works later on...
I can't see that crashing the market by raising interest rates would force foreign investors to stop buying.
I'd guess maybe: an aggressive social housing build to recreate Council housing, thus taking the bottom out of the rental market. Combined with (and I hate this shit) some kind of protectionist bullshit to prevent non UK (or at least non EU) purchases of housing stock, but I have no idea if that's even workable.
Otherwise, I guess if you COULD permanently crash the housing market somehow so that prices couldn't rise, you'd rob people of the incentive to own in the first place and then they'd sell, but that would probably rip society in two and might really harm the poorest.
you'd end up pushing a load of people into negative equity
if so, here is the face i pull at the housing market http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/8/12/1344790628251/Scott-Overall-of-Team-GB--009.jpg
As in `the value of peoples' properties being lower than the amount outstanding on their mortgage`? Or the more modern, slightly misleading, meaning `peoples' properties merely being worth less than when they bought them`? Because the latter isn't as much of a problem as the former...
Also - genuine negative equity is getting rarer these days I'd wager. Most mortgages are at 90%+ LTV and given how expensive most property is, people need to get down to 80% LTV to get a mortgage they can afford. For many - getting the deposit from their parents' bottomless pits of equity isn't a problem - but the mortgage repayments are.
crashing the housing market isn't an option. Too many pensions tied up with it.
Yeah more social housing obvs and I wouldn't have a problem with banning rich foreign investors but that sounds like a really hard policy to sell/implement/make legal.
wouldn't even really be protectionism would it? Just a sort of capital control? Dunno.
Anyway, don't know why you're so cautious about it, Theo.
Or rather it has the potential to be.
And because what I've read in the past has implied that law-backed campaigns to keep a population buying home-grown goods and avoid imports don't tend to end up making the nation much better off, so I don't know that this sort of move would be to everyone's advantage in the main.
The problem with massive economic changes to try to help the poorest is they're also the ones least able to ride through those sorts of changes. Rich bastards can always afford to lose a few million.
...that a tax on imports does almost always equal a tax on exports, property is quite a different type of investment to most given it's stick nature and high transaction costs.
Although, given that it wouldn't be possible to regulate EU-based investment anyway this would be a virtually pointless measure.
I want to, but I don't.
when it's just a symptom of the failure of the system.
it was the rest of Theo's post I wasn't sure about
what might imploding look like?
"Implosion? I thought you said..."
People trapped in mortgages with monthly repayments which are >50% of their disposable income, in a property they are unable to shift.
That's about it.
The worst case scenario is all the foreign investors pulling out, flooding the market with cheap(er) property, but the amount of demand so vastly outstrips supply it won't be an issue.
There might be a longer term net negative migration in London but that will be a slow burning issue rather than an implosion.
having to prove he's not a terrorist or something
I hope his City-worker son gets what he wants
is reaching the affluent children of Senior Telegraph writers you know it's all gone fucking mental.
hey guys we all knew this was bad but now MY SON wants to buy a flat
*nothing* can be done about it. Nothing. And anyone says they know they answer is either lying or deluded.
There is simply not enough space to fill the demand. You can bang on about a house building programme all you like, but there's nowhere to put them (in zone 1-2). You can spend 12 months building a new development of 50 flats in somewhere like Hackney and they'll all be sold/rented by the end of the week, whilst not even denting the level of demand for housing in the area.
The only places where there might be space to build a decent number of new flats/houses are in the areas further out (zone 4-6) which isn't really seen as 'London' by most people that move here . They might do in time as the center becomes more and more expensive, but for the moment there aren't huge swathes of people clamouring to live in these places.
I fail to see how something like rent control would have any affect on the supply-demand conundrum either. If anything it would only make the situation worse as it would increase demand due to properties being more affordable to a larger group of people.
In short, suck it up and pay the high rents, or leave. No one's forcing you to stay, and whilst there might be rights around housing and shelter, there aren't (or shouldn't be) an rights over where that housing is - certainly not on the basis of where you'd like to live anyway.
I didn't read what he wrote but it's 5 paragraphs so I'll chalk that up as an 'irked' and we can shut this down.
High fives all round...
I like it. It's sexy.
The common theme in all these articles is London is seen as a ‘safe haven’ for foreign investment. That’s the problem. If DiSers really care about property prices, they need to kick off their own Arab Spring-style revolution.
Possibly followed by a brutal counter-revolt with the Mayor crushing Sean in a Barclays-sponsored Boris Tank somewhere in Leytonstone.
The big developments around Elephant & Castle and Lewisham are using land right on top of existing transport hubs. There's still space to be discovered for packing more folk in...
The problem is that it's used very poorly if you have regard for this issue.
Let's take the Heygate estate, for example. About 1800 privately owned and socially rented homes demolished, replaced with around 3000 homes to be sold on the open market and 79 socially rented units. A massive increase in density, a massive decrease in the number of units that could actually make a difference.
There are plenty of other estates of similar sizes across zones 1/2 that will likely be for the chop over the next 10-15 years ('unlocking the value of public assets', I mean). It represents a pretty huge opportunity if done properly, but if they're handled as piss-poorly as the Heygate, well...
if you're end goal is to cram in as many people as possible so that everyone lives in houses that feel like this http://www.exploringtokyo.com/images/photos/articles/full/sleep_capsule.jpg then fine.
I don't believe, given the level of demand to live in the capital, that there is a feasible cost-size-location ratio to be hit in zones 1-2.
And in some respects, building more and more housing in this area just feeds the beast - drawing more people into it and leaving the rest of the UK even more remote and cut off than it was before.
won't 'feel' that much more dense than then previous estate, because it'll be designed along different principles to the 1960s tower-in-the-park style of what was there.
(also, lol, 'lives in houses', good language checking, you in-denial suburbanite)
I don't think either you'll likely never be able to fully sate demand, but that doesn't mean we should continue to allow the market to make such utterly inefficient use of land as we do now.
And while I don't disagree with your last point, it's only relevant if you've got comparable economic policies to encourage growth elsewhere, and, uh, we don't.
the London-centric view of the economy:
(in all seriousness it seems like an interesting prospect and could go some way to sorting this out in the long term)
b) I wouldn't trust most local councillors to run a piss up in a brewery.
an ambitious goal! I'm glad that we agree
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and offered one to the North East?
...the payment Southwark Council got for selling the Heygate Estate was about the same as it cost them to move the residents out. Great victory.
and a cool £200m expected profit to Lend Lease.
I'm going to do my dissertation on it I think. It's an absolute scandal on almost every level.
If you're happy to share I would be interested to read it when you're done. Southwark Council have got form for botched clearances in the past.
Ask me again in a year's time ;)
has been very good on the Heygate. She'd probably be a good source of information/minutes if you do choose to use that as a topic.
massive wage increases and free transport for people who do low paid jobs in London like hospital workers, cleaners, shop workers... I wonder what London would be like if all the low paid workers you rely on suddenly moved to South Shields.
Whilst demand will always massively outstrip supply in Zones 1 and 2 of London, and whilst the reduction of `cheap` areas in the city is an inevitable consequence of its popularity - to say that nothing can be done to so much as EASE the pressure on prices in Central London is simply incorrect.
I accept that demand > supply but, even still, nah.
there's plenty of things to be done. Islington are investigating fees for unused properties. Buy to let could be regionally taxed (is that legal?). Affordable housing targets could be reinstated (and revised as to what they mean to be actually affordable). There could be more lenience to build higher and in accordance with space standards (no-one's suggesting we live in capsules).
it's pointless trying. See below.
You can meet demand for Xbox Ones at christmas: you can't meet it for a cheaper version of stock that everyone wants as a basic demand. That's a [does raise the roof dance] straaaawww maaaaan.
This is about easing pressure on a market in crisis.
More and more middle class people are buying ex-council flats on the 8th floor after all (and banks are starting to lend on them and not see many negative consequences).
will only lead to an *even greater* demand, meaning that demand will outstrip supply even more so than it does at present.
at least it'll be cheaper
You could apply it to anything precious and scarce as a reason why we shouldn't be looking at reasons to make it more available. It's almost as if you're one of the incredibly lucky individuals who has the precious and scarce thing and simply don't want others muscling in on that sweet precious and scarce action, or something.
Nice try, but you've not got a proper grasp on the issues. It's not just about finding space to build new homes.
- Zones 1&2 stretches from Willesden to Lewisham and Clapton to Putney,
- It's not just about new properties but also unoccupied and underoccupied homes,
There is actually still quite a fair bit of capacity in the central areas of London.
There's no simple, one-tactic fix, but a whole raft of measures that could be introduced and which would ease the problem. It's just that finding a solution to the problem is not in the interests of those that hold power (politicians, landowners, the 1%-ers) and those that decide elections (baby-boomers) and those that determine the framework of debate (newspaper owners).
and everything to do with trying to ensure that a city functions properly. Price all but the wealthiest out of all but the furthest regions of a city and it starts to stop functioning.
arcologies are the answer
seriously, the way high rise living has gone in this country makes me super-sad. it could, if it worked, be a heck of a good solution, and work without pissing off the provinces overly. but it hasn't worked anywhere near as well as you'd hope. there must be a way for strong communities in high-rise living to form. there must be
Like how the rest of Europe has been quite happy with 5/6 storey urban living for about a hundred years now...
maybe we can take a step from that to high-rise next
move from 5-10 storeys to 20-30 storeys as a common everyday thing
from someone who lives in Glasgow, is that it is a very hard sell after the bitterness and disaster that was the 1960s high rises. i mean, my family grew up in them, and they hate them with a passion. my dad actually videoed them tearing apart his bedroom in his old block out of vengeance for hating it so much.
that being said, the development of the "high rise flats" at Glasgow Harbour are a good example of this not coming to pass.
it was done so badly first time, the general thinking that it's shite as a matter of course is understandable
BUT, looking at it dispassionately, it's the best way to fit a large number of people in an increasingly small finite space. the challenge is to create high-rise living with good quality of life. and that's what there MUST be a way of doing. there just isn't the space to fit that many million people all in family houses in the burbs without having Houston-esque sprawl and sod-all green belt
thus lessening the demand. Leaving the EU would help with this.
The main determinate for housing need is the number of households. This is related to - but not determined by - the level of population. It is also related to a wide variety of other factors, most of which have proven more important in real terms.
but births are the main thing driving long-term population growth in London.
I agree with you, if I didn't make that clear.
has anyone tried making the people really small?
that "fact" about the current generation of Japanese being several inches taller than their parents because their parents had no red meat
is that legit? or just apocryphal and possibly racist?
...it is quite easy to observe the generational difference in height in fairness.
You massive fucking racist.
So my biologist friend told me, anyway. I don't really know what the Japanese diet was like previously but the implication was that there is simply a lot more varied diet eaten in Japan now than there was.
I certainly think that there's scope for increasing the density requirements of the suburbs, but only up to a point. I'm sure you know this anyway, but there are optimum densities for different types of housing and for different locations that encourage economically and socially sustainable communities and encourage public transport use and social interaction. I'd be wary of exceeding those.
First come first served, not merit or status.
Shotgun Buckingham Palace!
And as such its general thrust is really boring. Two things stand out though:
1. It implies that there was no problem until upper-middle class people weren't able to buy in zones 1&2.
2. He deliberately uses the word immigrant rather than migrant.
At least he demonstrates that he knows who his readership is here: entitled, un-empathetic, selfish, xenophobic I'm-all-right-Jack-types.
Everyone's already trolled out I think.
said that bloke who owns Proud in Camden.