Shoebox studio flat in London snapped up within 16-hours.

I think it's quite cute, wouldn't mind living somewhere small like that if I was single (if I was working crazy hours that meant I had to live in London and couldn't commute)

Probably ditch the bed though that thing is ugly and far too large

I really don't know why someone would choose to live in conditions like that just for the sake of living in London. Always puzzles me. I appreciate that work opportunities are greater, but if you're only earning enough to rent that thing, you might as well live somewhere else and be a little more comfortable.

It'd make a reasonable second property for someone who commutes in (a friend of mine works in London Monday - Friday, but comes back to Yorkshire at the weekend; his London 'flat' isn't much larger than that shoebox) but the idea of living in something like that all the time must be incredibly depressing.

The obsession with London must stop.

Actually now I think of it the better option is for London to discard it's obsession with it's skyline and decrepit old buildings and either build upwards with lots of multi-story block buildings and skyscrapers or give up being a 'global' city.

You cant be a global city and continue to pretend that you're some small twee quaint little home-counties town.

Silly London.

Also this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/newhomes/9795268/To-solve-Britains-housing-crisis-we-must-build-up-not-out.html

The obsession with London must stop.

it's time to spread out the investment and use money where it's most needed. I've also noticed a trend that if money isn't spent in London it's spent in Manchester and then MPs and business leaders use that to argue they care about investment in the north as a whole. Manchester isn't a struggling area.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Hence HS2, but then people complain about that costing money (as if anything could not cost money)..

The problem is that London is the UK's international city - to 99% of the globe, London is England/the UK (they are interchangeable to most people) - if you 'give up' on that, you give up on an absolutely massive financial boon for the entire country. The costs of that would be catastrophic.

It's not really a boom for the entire country if it only benefits London and the adjoining counties.

Still I'm not one for shouting against the wind, if anything I am saying London should go full-hog tilt at being the Global City it claims to be and own that title by building and looking and functioning like one.

Big global reach cities build up. They need to to provide enough cost-effective and affordable housing to people within reasonable walking/transport distance of their places of work and leisure.

It'd serve to take cars off the streets, protect the countryside, and generally be satisfying to everyone but the most selfish more interested in some view or twee looking decayed structure.

So yes I agree, London is important. It deserves to start looking the part.

Hence HS2, but then people complain about that costing money (as if anything could not cost money)..

The problem is that London is the UK's international city - to 99% of the globe, London is England/the UK (they are interchangeable to most people) - if you 'give up' on that, you give up on an absolutely massive financial boon for the entire country. The costs of that would be catastrophic.

HS2 will only benefit London. Just look at Doncaster. That town is lucky to have a fast and direct line to London but it is still one of the poorest towns in Britain.

What's the point if most of the population are priced off the thing?

But then you have the problems of building a 21st century city out of one with the heart from the 16th century.

Hell, even some of the most modern/important bits are relics of 200 years ago. Without utterly ginormous investment (that's almost guaranteed to not come from within the country) there's no way that level of competition is possible.

You'd be surprised at how quickly London can shoot up if given the chance.

Every other global city once grew out of more modest origins after all. We just have to stop acting as if it's of vital importance to preserve every brick that happened to be laid just outside and more from living memory. We don't need to bulldoze St Paul's cathedral obviously but large swathes of London have clearly outlived their usefulness, and even the more important famous structures (the above mentioned included) aren't so sacred that views to them from other parts of the city need be kept sacred.

Living cities need to change and grow, and it's unrealistic to keep building outwards because that will only add to traffic and transportation woes.

Plus modern realities mean we cant wait for another World War to flatten the place and make the decision for us.