The 50 year bubble

Really2

PasturesNew wrote: »

2000 square feet... is it a town house?
Can we play 20 questions?

I was looking at new flats yesterday that have come to market where I moved from.

£405k would buy you 1500 square feet and a balcony.

I think the average salary in the town is allegedly £20k, although I never encountered many people who earnt more than £12k.

Just found another. 2-bed flat, 950 square feet, £410k... the town's full of them... all empty though.

No it it is a traditional single story (I don't like town houses as they just compromise downstairs living space)

I must admit after being on this forum I do feel a lot more for the people in areas that just went mad.
I used to live in an area that was reasonably pricey but even that was maximum £200K for a 3-4 bed semi.
What the hell hapened in the south it cant all be down to wages surley?

Really2

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Do you mean middle class homes - there are countless houses in this country that are turn of the century or older that may have small yard at the back and open on the street. Towns in the North are full of them.

I was going to say the same most old town houses have virtually no garden.

You can buy a £XM house in notting hill and still have less garden than a new build semi.

Small gardens have been the norm really it was only the Victorian houses - 1920 houses which "were" on the edge of towns and villages that had 100ft gardens.

Or Manor houses, but I presume we are not saying a stately home is your average house.:D

JonnyBravo

My first house, (now my BTL) is a Victorian terrace. Tiny back yard. Streets and streets of them..... not even up north.... this is in the Midlands.
I think, as pointed out by baileysbattlebus, you're stereotyping on the type of property that used to be built and only thinking of the larger/more expensive stock.

JonnyBravo

macaque wrote: »

Yesterday I posted a link which quiety died (as often happens).
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1565687
For me however, it was an extrodinary report. It turns out that many house sellers have convinced themselves that it is only a matter of time before the perpetual motion machine of ever rising house prices will return to test new highs. Have they not heard about changes to lending rules, the credit crunch, unemployment, the loss of industry, falling salaries, overmanning in the public sector and chronic debt? We are rapidly becoming the sickest member of a fairly sick developed world. The housing bubble has gone on for so long however that people's belief in patterns now overrides rational thought and common sense.

Or, as often happens, your lack of understanding of statisitics has led you to place too much importance on one months data.

ess0two

Same can be said for mars bars,they were bigger and cheaper when i was a kid.

Radiantsoul

macaque wrote: »

We are rapidly becoming the sickest member of a fairly sick developed world.

If the developed world is sick would you rather we be more like Sierra Leone? Afganistan? Or even China or India?

Really2

ess0two wrote: »

Same can be said for mars bars,they were bigger and cheaper when i was a kid.

What about Curly whirly's.:eek:

Radiantsoul

I am not sure as your argument.
The factors you document seem to be a consequence of increased demand for housing. So as houseprices rise people rationally convert more none house space into housing. The surge of buyers bids up prices and so people need to borrow more. Land is converted to residential use and profits reintroduce the private letting sector.

The casual factors are probably immigration, changes in family size and increased living standards encouraging people to divert more income into housing.

I guess your argument is that somehow people have been tricked into spending so much on housing and prices will collapse to a level you believe is fundamental. But it is hard to see what fundamental is in housing. At the moment demand has undoubtably fallen, but not by as much as might be imagined really. I can't see housing cost falling from 15% of income to the 5% for example. Most people if they experienced such a fall would choose to spend the extra 10% on a better house imho. I think only higher interest rates will choke house prices to the degree you imagine.

macaque_2

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Or, as often happens, your lack of understanding of statisitics has led you to place too much importance on one months data.

I'm shocked! Three people have thanked you for having a go at me. I thought I was the most loved and respected member on this forum. I earned this for my fair minded and moderate views. I also happen to have the most kissable lips. Check these out:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/photogalleries/best-animal-wildlife-photos/photo6.html

macaque_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Is there a point to your post? Apologies, but I can't really see what there is to discuss about a number of factors detailing what has happened in the property market over the past x years.

Is the point, "the housing market will always evolve and have good points and bad points along with ups and downs?".

Good grief! 7 people have thanked you for hosing me down. Clearly some contributers to this forum are revolting.