MSE news 'House price crash is over'

chucky

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Look I'm not trying to be a !!!! about this, but unless you are disputing my archive.org figures you have to accept that they haven't really risen in north london during that period (i just picked at random, but even if i had been looking for things to back me up - surely i shouldnt really be able to do that if they had risen with any seriousness) - these aren't 1 bed flats, they are family houses, victorian terraces (our current place is me and 2 friends, renting the house together - just as a family would).

There may well have been rent inflation elsewhere, but not really where I am tbh (where there is supposedly massive pressure in housing stock)

there are may be areas that may not have increase in rentals i London.

i've seen rentals increased for one-bedroom flats in Central/West London, there has been a massive increase in demand - in about 1995 it would have been around £175 per week, around 2003 it was about £250 now it's somewhere between £350 and £400 per week including about a 10% decrease since 2007.

two bed flat rentals have increased slightly more i believe but have no real experience of them.

i'm talking about similar properties here in a similar area btw

the_ash_and_the_oak

yeah tbf im just talking about 3/4 bed family homes in north london rather than 1 bed flat

the_ash_and_the_oak

its not as easy to do this with whole flats/house as it it with houseshares, but heres a listing from findaproperty in early 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20020223112726/www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-bin/area.pl?areaid=0256&opt=prop&salerent=1&sp=1 (around 380-550pw for 3 beds. theres a 3 bed apt on leigh rd for 400pw)

and theres another 3 bed apt on the same road for the same price today!

http://www.propertyfinder.com/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=504960795&f=10&p=10&t=ren&ty=&fmt=&header=&cc=&searchUnderOffer=1&regionid=&tb=&c=29741320&tm=1249639331

(not necessarily the same one of course, or even comparable - tho it is a v short road)

http://details.vebra.com/property/10577/17905378 3 beds 425pw
http://details.vebra.com/property/10577/17012556 3 bed house 445pw

not saying theyre all the same but it shouldnt really be possible to even attempt this if rents were rising

quite enjoyed looking this stuff up!

chucky

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

its not so easy to do with full house ones unfortunately, but heres a listing from findaproperty in early 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20020223112726/www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-bin/area.pl?areaid=0256&opt=prop&salerent=1&sp=1 (around 380-550pw for 3 beds. theres a 3 bed apt on leigh rd for 400pw)

and theres another 3 bed apt on the same road for the same price today!

http://www.propertyfinder.com/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=504960795&f=10&p=10&t=ren&ty=&fmt=&header=&cc=&searchUnderOffer=1&regionid=&tb=&c=29741320&tm=1249639331

(not necessarily the same one of course! or even comparable - tho it is a v short road)

http://details.vebra.com/property/10577/17905378 3 beds 425pw
http://details.vebra.com/property/10577/17012556 3 bed house 445pw

not saying theyre all the same but it shouldnt really be possible to even attempt this if rents were rising

quite enjoyed looking this stuff up!

this is interesting because i hear many people saying that houses are a better investment than one-bed flats and generate a better yield - according to this there not in london anyway which is what i always thought. interesting.

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

this is interesting because i hear many people saying that houses are a better investment than one-bed flats and generate a better yield - according to this there not in london anyway which is what i always thought. interesting.

I'm not sure but I feel that the majority of landlords for actual houses round here have been in it for the long term (and by long term often 3 decades plus). I know one lived in it himself with his family and moved out in 1968(!), one was in his 70s, one was a family that emigrated to aus in the 90s, current is slightly different and apparently has over 100 houses(!) but I checked back out of interest and cant find a record of any sale (online where you can go back as far as 95)

These are 500-700k houses so I think even during the bubble newer landlords would have been priced out of these anyway?

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

this is interesting because i hear many people saying that houses are a better investment than one-bed flats and generate a better yield - according to this there not in london anyway which is what i always thought. interesting.

Maybe its a question of how many room you can rent. Rather than the property itself.

Historically investment property was larger (now demolished houses). Which could be split up for multiple occupancy. Either as student or going back a number of years for air crew at say Gatwick Airport. Letting to families on a large scale wasn't as common.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Maybe its a question of how many room you can rent. Rather than the property itself.

Historically investment property was larger (now demolished houses). Which could be split up for multiple occupancy. Either as student or going back a number of years for air crew at say Gatwick Airport. Letting to families on a large scale wasn't as common.

you're right - i think all of these factors get lost when generalising about renting vs buying

abinanthanb

Really2 wrote: »

Homes includes 1 bed flats etc.

The next problem is shortages in areas where they are needed. EG London the reason London is so expensive is because it does not have enough hoses in the areas people want to live for work etc. That means the richer pay more to live nearer, that then pushes up the surrounding area etc.

nearly 10M properties are held by single people (retied or just small properties)
That is set to get more and more.


So that would give you approximatley a 2.1M shortfall of family housing.

Thanks I never knew the 17.1M family stat that proves their is a drastic under supply of family homes.

I dont know what you have arrived from the stat I have given. The total number of households (25 million) includes the 30% one person households. I cant understand where from this 2.1M shortfall came?!!
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/nikita/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]

Really2

abinanthanb wrote: »

I dont know what you have arrived from the stat I have given. The total number of households (25 million) includes the 30% one person households. I cant understand where from this 2.1M shortfall came?!!
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/nikita/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]

25-10 = 15

15 million homes, you said 17.1m familys.

It is clear on the above image multi people living together only occupy 15 million homes (in reality I was quiet tame with my view as only around 12 million of those are family's)

So does that not show you where a shortfall is or is it now wrong?

abinanthanb

Really2 wrote: »

25-10 = 15

15 million homes, you said 17.1m familys.

It is clear on the above image multi people living together only occupy 15 million homes (in reality I was quiet tame with my view as only around 12 million of those are family's)

So does that not show you where a shortfall is or is it now wrong?

So what happened to the remaining 10 million homes out of total 25 million?