House prices are close to affordable levels, reveals survey... BUY!! BUY!!! BUY!!!

Realy

carolt wrote: »

Personally, I find the maths very unconvincing; we are on far, far above average household income and would feel very uncomfortable buying at current prices, assuming we could get a mortgage (don't know - not about to try!).



Until prices have fallen considerably - or wages have risen considerably, which I think is less likely - suggesting affordability has been reached is clearly nonsense.

You should be able to get a mortgage i have been accepted for my second in 4 months.

No one as said affordability as been reached people are just debating where affordable is. Houses will probably drop below affordable for a bit so no need to find CAPS LOCK.;)

mitchaa

carolt wrote: »

But not 38K.

This misses my original point - there is no breakdown of figures from the original article as to how they came up with the figures.

Personally, I find the maths very unconvincing; we are on far, far above average household income and would feel very uncomfortable buying at current prices, assuming we could get a mortgage (don't know - not about to try!).

Without knowing on what they based their claims for relative affordability, it's just going to be one voice versus another.

Put it this way, realy - could you afford to buy an equivalent place to the place you currently own in the equivalent job you were then?

Research after research has shown that very few people could afford to buy their current properties at current prices, despite (presumably) salary increases in the meantime.

Until prices have fallen considerably - or wages have risen considerably, which I think is less likely - suggesting affordability has been reached is clearly nonsense.

The fact is, prices have gone up by 300% nationally over the last decade - and no-one is going to tell me salaries have too! In many parts of London and the SE I know of, prices have gone up 4, 5 or even more times their price a decade ago.

THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. SORRY!

I do agree with you there, and the reason as to why i think anyway the south has the hardest to fall.

Maths is a funny thing..

A £50k priced house 10yrs ago now worth £200k has risen 300%, but it only needs to drop 75% to get down to its original value.

300% up and 75% down gets you to exactly where you were to begin with.

You could possibly agree that London average would in the region of £50k allowing an average in the capital of around £195k.

We all know this is fairytale though and some 1 bed flats are still going for more than this.

London has always been an exception though, i doubt it ever will be affordable.

IveSeenTheLight

PasturesNew wrote: »

If we're manipulating data, then the average house isn't the first house you buy, but the 2nd/3rd. And into that one you're expected to have put some equity/further savings since your first purchase.

Ah, so you agree the single person average income is unlikely to be buying the average UK house.

Can I assume that the 1st house a single income person is likely to buy, would be a 1 or 2 bed property, one that falls below the cost of an average property.

Therefore, you cannot simply compare the average uk one persons wage ratio with the average uk property price

mitchaa

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ah, so you agree the single person average income is unlikely to be buying the average UK house.

Can I assume that the 1st house a single income person is likely to buy, would be a 1 or 2 bed property, one that falls below the cost of an average property.

Therefore, you cannot simply compare the average uk one persons wage ratio with the average uk property price

Exactly:T

There should not be a link.

carolt

mitchaa wrote: »

I do agree with you there, and the reason as to why i think anyway the south has the hardest to fall.

Maths is a funny thing..

A £50k priced house 10yrs ago now worth £200k has risen 300%, but it only needs to drop 75% to get down to its original value.

300% up and 75% down gets you to exactly where you were to begin with.

You could possibly agree that London average would in the region of £50k allowing an average in the capital of around £195k.

We all know this is fairytale though and some 1 bed flats are still going for more than this.

London has always been an exception though, i doubt it ever will be affordable.

I think you're showing your age!

As I can clearly remember average 2 bed flats (in perfectly nice areas in zones 2-3), going for 55-67K, and flats in Camden for 72K, for example - around 12 years ago, the idea that London has always been unaffordable, or that this is the 'typical' position is just blatant nonsense.

Growing up in London in the 70's, all my friends lived in owner-occupied housing, and the vast majority didn't have especially wealthy parents; house prices were just much more affordable. The idea that it is somehow 'normal' for all except the extremely wealthy to be priced out in London, is a very recent thing.

chucky

carolt wrote: »

Research after research has shown that very few people could afford to buy their current properties at current prices, despite (presumably) salary increases in the meantime.

Until prices have fallen considerably - or wages have risen considerably, which I think is less likely - suggesting affordability has been reached is clearly nonsense.

The fact is, prices have gone up by 300% nationally over the last decade - and no-one is going to tell me salaries have too! In many parts of London and the SE I know of, prices have gone up 4, 5 or even more times their price a decade ago.

THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. SORRY!

Carol - I agree that some areas have extremely high house prices but you've missed a couple of key factors in your arguments recently.

Affordability of a house is less irrelevant than affordability of your mortgage debt. the mortgage is what you have to worry about, not if houses prices are affordable or not.

Salary increases are very important but don't forget that your deposit is more important; so it is here that makes your affordability of a mortgage important and your ability to buy a house not that house prices have increased.

Also, comparing a price increase in cheese is a bit wide of the mark.

chucky

carolt wrote: »

I think you're showing your age!

As I can clearly remember average 2 bed flats (in perfectly nice areas in zones 2-3), going for 55-67K, and flats in Camden for 72K, for example - around 12 years ago, the idea that London has always been unaffordable, or that this is the 'typical' position is just blatant nonsense.

Growing up in London in the 70's, all my friends lived in owner-occupied housing, and the vast majority didn't have especially wealthy parents; house prices were just much more affordable. The idea that it is somehow 'normal' for all except the extremely wealthy to be priced out in London, is a very recent thing.

carol - where did you get £72k from!?!?

it just shows that you don't really know what your talking about and just making things up. Page 3 of the document.

London Boroughs – Ranked by % Change 1996 -2006

Camden
1996* Average Price* 131,029
2006* Average Price* 443,033
% change 238%

Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster and Camden were the three mostexpensive boroughs in the capital in both 1996 and 2006.*

Here is the evidence - take a look at the Halifax document for historical prices.

http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/includes/14-04-06HalifaxHousePriceSurveyLondon%20Boroughs.doc

carolt

chucky wrote: »

Carol - I agree that some areas have extremely high house prices but you've missed a couple of key factors in your arguments recently.

Affordability of a house is less irrelevant than affordability of your mortgage debt. the mortgage is what you have to worry about, not if houses prices are affordable or not.

Bit lost with the double negative - care to elaborate?

Salary increases are very important but don't forget that your deposit is more important; so it is here that makes your affordability of a mortgage important and your ability to buy a house not that house prices have increased.

Sorry - lost again - can you rephrase in normal English??

Also, comparing a price increase in cheese is a bit wide of the mark.

Which mark???

Maybe I'm being slow today, but I feel I've missed more than a couple of key factors from your post......

carolt

chucky wrote: »

carol - where did you get £72k from!?!?

it just shows that you don't really know what your talking about and just making things up. Page 3 of the document.

London Boroughs – Ranked by % Change 1996 -2006

Camden
1996* Average Price* 131,029
2006* Average Price* 443,033
% change 238%

Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster and Camden were the three mostexpensive boroughs in the capital in both 1996 and 2006.*
Here is the evidence - take a look at the Halifax document for historical prices

http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/includes/14-04-06HalifaxHousePriceSurveyLondon%20Boroughs.doc

Amazingly, chucky, I get it not from some google page, but from being alive and looking to buy in those areas at that point. Lots of friends bought at that time, at those prices. I personally viewed a number of properties.

Sorry - whatever google may tell you - I was there!

neverdespairgirl

chucky wrote: »

• Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster and Camden were the three most
  

You are using Camden in the sense of the borough, though, and Carol could well be using it in the sense of the area of London.

Camden BC covers some very expensive parts of London, such as Holborn, Bloomsbury, and Hampstead. Here is a map:

http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/global/onecolumn/camdenmap.en

Camden the place is a much smaller, and much cheaper, area.

For example, the cheapest 3 bed place in Holborn is a flat for £750K:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-22276922.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy&mam_disp=true

The cheapest 3 bed in Bloomsbury is £925k:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-18677329.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy&mam_disp=true

The cheapest 3 bed in Camden is £320k:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-20083454.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy&mam_disp=true

I live in the LB Camden, but not in Camden in the sense of which bit of London, if you see what I mean.