Most of that seems reasonable. I'm sure they'd still be "expensive" given the location though.
House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
- Status
Most of that seems reasonable. I'm sure they'd still be "expensive" given the location though.
Why should they only be for FTBs?
Cap profits (ha, as if our government would do that), but at the end of the day the land and what have you would have been expensive to buy, so there will always be an element of location impacting cost.
Pre-select, as in, first dibs, not that they are the only ones who can buy it.
Affordability is decided by the demand. As I've repeatedly said, this country builds false demand by allowing oligarchs (and landlords) to outbid those who simply want a home to live in. It's quite an easy concept to grasp really. Remove 'demand' by that section of 'society' and the prices will fall somewhat.
They would, of course. As would most London property. But you're removing this ridiculous 'demand' boom that bears no relation to any sort of real property market and instead just caters to certain elite segments of society that only benefit when prices goes up. At the moment it's a self-fulfilling prophecy where investors want prices to go up, so they buy more, price out others, in-turn prices go up, and they make money. It's so rigged... There are of course regulation and controls that can be implemented by the government, they just don't want to.
Because they are property owners and I think the majority are. 60% ownership in the UK or something, no one's going to vote for prices to go down. As soon as you join the ladder you'll want prices to go up too.
I'm not sure that rising house prices really benefit those who just want to live in, and own, a single property.
It mostly benefits investors and those who can sell one of their (surplus) properties to realise that profit/appreciation.
If you need to buy again then surely you don't benefit (as much).
Yes, it's a pension, you can downsize when your children are older.
Lower LTV. Lower mortgage interest. More disposable income
As always there are legit reasons being abused. I am a British citizen, I own a house in Los Angeles and East Sussex. I can't be in my East Sussex house that often (especially with Covid) but I need it. If you think house prices are bad there, you should seem them around LA. Can I interest anyone in 500 sq/ft for $725k? https://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Monica/3101-3rd-St-90405/unit-4/home/6778482
I don't know much about LA, but isn't Santa Monica a fairly nice area? Plus it is very close to the beach. Still cheaper than many flats in London, and nicer than things like this:
https://www.onthemarket.com/details/8365333/
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Completely wrong.
If builders aren't currently building like you say so all the time because it's unprofitable.
How would they build at all if every home cost £50k and prices never rose at all?
To encourage development and building of more houses the prices need to go up.
What your suggesting is a paradox where you don't want house prices to increase yet you want more development. Unfortunately inflation requires prices to go up and to make building them worthwhile.
But I imagine that your solution is developers should be building houses at a loss because they own too much land. Yeah I'm sure that will be implemented tomorrow.
So if prices don't rise. Nothing gets built and then even those that can afford to buy cannot buy new homes.
So it doesn't just benefit investors at all. They actually help homes be built for buyers who will live there.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
That flat is literally next door to Holborn station, zone 1. What is wrong with it exactly?
Um, compared to the Santa Monica flat, it's a dive in an ugly council block. My point is that the Santa Monica flat doesn't seem crazily priced when looking at London in the same price range.
Regardless, half a mill for a one-bed is just stupid.
House prices rising at 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation (esp wage inflation) is completely unsustainable.
What's your solution for that? There isn't one.
Leaving house building to market forces is what a number of us are complaining about.
The solution many of us are proposing is twofold.
1. Impose restrictions on who can buy and own residential property in the UK.
2. Turn over house building to non-profits, including local councils.
Housing driven by purely market forces is not a solution, it's completely unsustainable.
These suggestions are not paradoxical; you just don't like them, because you're completely anti regulation and believe people should be just left to "do what they want", as you put it in your previous posts. Because apparently in any other system than "communism", people must be free to "do what they want" without pesky regulation.
Could not be more wrong. The developed countries that have had the most building in recent decades (e.g. Japan, Singapore) are also the countries that have had the lowest level of price increases.
Major builders in the UK all have 25-40% profit margins. Your claim that it's unprofitable is just asinine.
I think what you actually meant is: "prices going up is in my interest, so they have to go up otherwise the world will end because I'm so special to the universe"
What people are rightly suggesting is to take that 25-40% profit margin and return it back to the people, by non-profit building which has proven to be very successful in every developed country that it's implemented.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Santa Monica is a nice place to live but it isn't zone 1 central LA, is it. Hardly a fair comparison. You may as well post a castle in Aberdeen for comparison.
My understanding is that the Malibu/Santa Monica/Hollywood/Beverly Hills area is the nicest part of LA, so akin to Chelsea & Kensington, but whatever.
Downtown LA (so close to the CBD like Holborn) gets you something like this for even cheaper:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/312-W-5th-St-APT-608-Los-Angeles-CA-90013/68993659_zpid/
Still nicer than the Holborn flat.
- Status