How will we afford houses in the future?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

brainhuman

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Exactly.

I see your posts are still the best on here. What are you up to these days?

Reply 61

Reue

Original post by 0to100

Portsmouth? Brum?

Probably not

Reply 62

RosaA

You could buy a 'shed' in London -Which is probably going to cost you at least £300'000 +
OR... You could by a decent 3-5 bedroom house for the same price in say Nottingham, Cornwall, Loughborough etc

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 63

mojojojo101

Original post by MagicNMedicine

I think government is sleepwalking in to this a bit - at the moment they don't need to do anything because the skilled labour is sucking up the miserable renting conditions and paying 50 to 60 per cent of their wages in rent, but as the rent keeps rising (its about 10% a year at the moment), unless wages keep pace with that then people will just say it's better to earn a lower wage in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol etc.

This is the only part of your post I disaree with, I don't think they are sleepwalking at all, I think they just don't care or see it as a worthwhile trade off. The massive, unceasing increase in house prices is doing a huge amount to prop up the governments economic figures and any real attempt to lower the prices may just make them look bad. Yes, another housing bubble will cause yet another recession but I reckon Osbourne and co think they can delay it long enough that it will cease to be their problem.

Reply 64

Observatory

Original post by brainhuman

That is exactly the definition you gave when you said "living in the 30th floor is no different than living in the third".

This is the definition I gave: "Yes it is pretty objective - how much living space and how far is it from where you want to be?"

For someone who wants to be near Z1 stuff, a 30th floor apartment in Z1 is more liveable than a house in Doncaster, and barely less than a 3rd floor apartment in Z1 (arguably more, since cool view).

Reply 65

Observatory

Original post by MagicNMedicine

However we're approaching a point where young professionals just find it uneconomic to live there and they will start moving away to other cities. Once the skilled labour goes, businesses will relocate quickly because it's much cheaper to operate out of another city. This could trigger quite a rapid downsizing of the city as businesses will respond quickly to the actions of their rivals so as not to be caught paying higher costs than them and becoming uncompetitive.

If that's the case, why didn't it happen before? This should have gradually happened as costs rose, rather than building up to a critical point then happening all at once.

London is held up by two things: management and managements' wives. Management wants to be close to government, managements' wives want to be close to Harrods.

First could be fixed to some extent by a "bonfire of the regulations"; the latter... not so sure.

Really, though, most of those professionals are not in London because they need to be. A lot of back office banking, for instance, is already done outside London. They are in London because they want to be in the running to become management lobbying government with wives who shop at Harrods. Although the vast majority of these people will fail to achieve that, only the no-hopers seem willing to accept it and not try.

Frankly similar mindset underpins the popularity of the university system.

Reply 66

brainhuman

Original post by Observatory

the liveability difference between a 3rd floor and a 30th floor apartment is pretty much zilch

You also said that. For one that is totally subjective, and more importantly it completely ignores the consequences. A city is not the same if it's houses are 30 stories rather than 3.

Completely different. I for one already find it too much. I wouldn't even want to know what it's like if things were changed as you proposed.

Reply 67

Observatory

Original post by brainhuman

I think you are talking about aesthetic sense of the city, and not liveability. Liveability means how easy a city is to "use", not how nice it looks. Some people like tall buildings and others don't and that is basically just a matter of opinion, but a 3rd floor flat is not substantially easier to "use" than a 30th floor flat and that is fairly objective.

What is not a matter of opinion is that a lot more people want to live near Zone 1/Zone 2 stuff than can live near that stuff. Either we have to ration that option by price or we have to increase the number of housing units in that area.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 68

Smack

Volunteer Team

Housing is expensive in this country (to varying degrees depending on location) due to artificial restrictions placed on new supply.

Eventually, when the generation who are feeling the negative effects of high house prices the most, generation rent, make up a large enough proportion of the voter base, the policies that keep housing artificially high will likely be repealed.

A solution in the mean time is to only live in places where you can afford. That means that the vast majority of people should avoid London, but it seems that huge amounts of people would rather live in London, albeit in very expensive and low-quality accommodation, than elsewhere.

Reply 69

brainhuman

Original post by Observatory

Who said that that is the definition of livability? Lol. Wtf.

Reply 70

Sandtrooper

Volunteer Team

We won't. Not in London, anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 71

Bang Outta Order

Original post by Reue

Probably not

Lol not a fan?
You can figure out affordability for yourself here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23234033
There's an interactive calculator you fill in and it brings results up for renting or buying. Then it shows a map with pricing in each area, and you click the area you like.
Brum, Newcastle/Tyne, Hull, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool...some others seem to have cheaper renting and housing just from what I know though