Richmond upon Thames

WhiteThierry

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Q1_2009.pdf


amazing that some areas like richmond is 85% of the price of 10 years ago whereas southwark (a similarly priced area) is 167%. Any of you londoners have any idea?

dopester

Maths really is my weak point. My mind uses different concepts beyond pure number crunching. Such as knowing house prices are very unaffordable and the whole paradigm was dangerous and ruinous for many.

Lets say you bought something for £100, and it trebled (x3) in value to £300. That would be a 200% gain on the value you bought it for. A 50% drop in value would take it back to being worth £150. That would be just 50% more than you initially bought it at. (And to get back to it being worth £300, you would need values to double. )

If you bought something for £100 and it trebled (x3) in value to £300. That would be a 200% gain on the value you bought it for. A 25% drop in value would take it back to being worth £225. A 125% gain for what you initially bought it for.

Also the percentage gain Nationwide is using is 10 years now... so back to 1999, so not including any previous gains made from 1997.

I'm not sure if you can read too much in to all of Nationwide's data for specific areas.

From the Nationwide PDF.

Richmond upon Thames
Price in 2009 Q1: £320,367
% change over 10 years: 85%
Annual Change Last quarter: -16%
Annual Change This quarter: -21%

Southwark
Price in 2009 Q1: £334,209
% change over 10 years: 167%
Annual Change Last quarter: -8%
Annual Change This quarter: -14%

What I'm try to get at, is that if Southwark (-14%) had also been hit by a -21% annual change on quarter as R-U-T did with more expensive homes taking heavier hit as sellers sold at lower prices in order to sell...... then the Southwark 167% gain versus 85% R-U-T gain over 10 years would look a bit less dramatic in comparison.

Maybe not that much, but I'm just proving how % falls have to be taken in context, when people then use data to suggest things like one area hasn't had that much HPI over they years.

Maybe someone cleverer at maths can work out what Southwark's 10-year 167% gain would have fallen to if values had also fallen by -22% annual change on quarter, instead of -14% ?

Southwark values still have medicine to take btw. If only the state of nation's finances and the banks' balance sheets rags could go back 10 years in time from where we are now.

For your 85% Nationwide R-U-T figure, you might get a different take on the picture by checking the history of what houses sold for from 2000 onwards for a few roads in Richmond-Upon-Thames at houseprices.co.uk

baby_boomer

But is the property in Southwark the same as ten years ago? It's probably the Canary Wharf effect that has led to the spectacular ten year rise.

beingjdc

baby_boomer wrote: »

But is the property in Southwark the same as ten years ago? It's probably the Canary Wharf effect that has led to the spectacular ten year rise.

Canary Wharf is in Tower Hamlets, but granted there'll be some overspill. It's riverside warehouse conversions, and the Jubilee Line extension that's done it, I reckon.

Plus in a bubble cheap housing goes up by more % than housing that's already expensive, just like poky flats crash by more % than village cottages - for fairly obvious reasons.

dopester

Richmond upon Thames
Annual Change This quarter: -21%
% change over 10 years: 85%

Southwark
Annual Change This quarter: -14%
% change over 10 years: 167%

Someone must be able to answer this question...

What would have been Southwark's
"% change over 10 years",
if Southwark's annual change had fallen not -14%, but had crashed -21% like Richmond upon Thames did?

amcluesent

>Any of you londoners have any idea?<

You've had Bankside going all trendy from Tate Modern, going around to Vinopolis and Borough Market. Then the developments like the Jam Factory, Palestra building and promise of big improvements to Elephant and Castle etc.

phead

WhiteThierry wrote: »

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Q1_2009.pdf


amazing that some areas like richmond is 85% of the price of 10 years ago whereas southwark (a similarly priced area) is 167%. Any of you londoners have any idea?

To make sure we use the same wording, it means %increase , so its 85% above the price 10 years ago, not 85% of that price.

Why is that increase less than other london areas, because they were high to start off with and Richmond has had very little building due to a shortage of space, and new builds are always more that the same old building which forced the average prices up in other areas.

chewmylegoff

phead wrote: »

To make sure we use the same wording, it means %increase , so its 85% above the price 10 years ago, not 85% of that price.

Why is that increase less than other london areas, because they were high to start off with and Richmond has had very little building due to a shortage of space, and new builds are always more that the same old building which forced the average prices up in other areas.

+1

richmond was just more overpriced than southwark 10 years ago. southwark has caught up, and now they are equally overpriced.

Generali

Southwark is a lot nicer than it was 10 years ago, Richmond is much the same as it was.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Southwark is a lot nicer than it was 10 years ago, Richmond is much the same as it was.

And yet still less, because more places are ''nice'' now. Richmond used to be oh so exclusive, and indeed, I like Richmond a lot, but it offers less that other ''nice'' ares don't now.

WhiteThierry

cheers for the replies, but on a lighter note, how can southerners ever accuse us northerners of not speaking properly. I was on the tube a few years ago and the announcement came over "next stop suffolk", i was shocked as i thought suffolk was where ipswich is, i looked up at the map and saw it was southwark, lunacy!!!!