London property set to collapse?

Really2

Niv wrote: »

So whats your point? That the house that was built in the 1800's that is still there is a better investment than the one just built as the 'new' one is more likely to need to be pulled down and replaced as the 1800's one has past the 100year mark and is 'stable'?

No houses from the 1800s have been pulled down also, only a small amount of the ones built survive today.

Like I said many have have been supported all ready and have all ready moved.

Upkeep on old houses is a lot higher also, that is because they are still moving also. Ask my brother in his 17th century farm house.

Just because some houses have moved on floodplains (due to clay contraction no doubt) does not mean every new build will move does it really?
All houses will move and fall down at some point.
As a percentage of stock more old structures will fail in some way than new ones in an earth quake etc.

Really2

michaels wrote: »

and sewerage and utilities - were seriously comprised thereafter.

what you mean that 1800s sewerage network could fail.;):)

Niv

Really2 wrote: »

No houses from the 1800s have been pulled down also, only a small amount of the ones built survive today.

Like I said many have have been supported all ready and have all ready moved.

Upkeep on old houses is a lot higher also, that is because they are still moving also. Ask my brother in his 17th century farm house.

Just because some houses have moved on floodplains (due to clay contraction no doubt) does not mean every new build will move does it really?
All houses will move and fall down at some point.
As a percentage of stock more old structures will fail in some way than new ones in an earth quake etc.

I dont need to ask your brother, my house was built in the 1800's and needs no extra maintenance than the modern house I sold bar painting the window frames, but it was a personal choice to have wood frames opposed to plastic, this could easily be changed as it was in the modern house which was built with wooden framed windows. I cant say what will happen in teh future regarding maintenance though ofc, but then again I cant say what additional maintenance is/has been required on my old new house since I moved.

I also do not think that all new houses will fall down or all old houses will last forever. It is very much a personal choice. My last response was more to try and get your thoughts on the matter.

Niv

Really2 wrote: »

what you mean that 1800s sewerage network could fail.;):)

Touche .

Really2

Niv wrote: »

Touche .

It was good for a joke

Really2

Niv wrote: »

I

I also do not think that all new houses will fall down or all old houses will last forever. It is very much a personal choice. My last response was more to try and get your thoughts on the matter.

I think all housing costs money, most likely to move 1920-1970s IMHO
Most older houses will have moved and will have had wall ties etc.
If I was in an earth quake I honestly would go for a newbuild. (simply due to foundations and more so flexible, stronger materials like steel lintels etc.)

tomterm8

It's hard to get excited by a warning of something that may, or may not, happen at some point in our lifetime, when I don't even live in london, and a 5.5 earthquake isn't that impressive anyway.

GDB2222

tomterm8 wrote: »

It's hard to get excited by a warning of something that may, or may not, happen at some point in our lifetime, when I don't even live in london, and a 5.5 earthquake isn't that impressive anyway.

London's not on a fault line. Where do you live?

Sir_Humphrey

BTW, I was not trying to raise a worry with this thread, 'twas simply a light-hearted Friday thread.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

BTW, I was not trying to raise a worry with this thread, 'twas simply a light-hearted Friday thread.

Well it may of started off light hearted, but now look what you have done.