Flamin' 'Eck, English House Prices Are Cheap.....

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

And there is me thinking that 'historically' most of the best paying jobs were created in the North due to the Industrial revolution, climate, railway and Canal network etc I admit sadly no more

Apparently the interweb economy in the UK is worth more than construction at £100,000,000,000 (link). Online jobs, are ideally suited to cheaper areas and they don't all have to be high pay/high skill jobs.

quantic

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Is that apart from them being like little tiny shoe boxes,having paper thin walls and having absolutely no character at all :rotfl:.

I was simply illustrating that homes for 100k and less are perfectly suitable for purpose, low maintenance, high energy efficiency and affordable. I'm sure if I could be bothered I could find many nice 2/3 bedroom houses which are not new build and have a little more character for under 100k in the North East.

LilacPixie

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Is that apart from them being like little tiny shoe boxes,having paper thin walls and having absolutely no character at all :rotfl:.

Surely that just moves us back to the question/statement that homes are not really 'unaffordable' just the some peoples tastes or wants are above what their income allows for in their own area.

I hate new builds with a passion for the reasons you listed but just because I wouldn't buy or live in one it doesn't mean that i could deny that that a 2 bed rabbit hutch for a single person or couple of FTB's looks pretty affordable to me.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

It's depressing, but the older I get, the more my Nan and parents become right about everything (Radio 1, tattoos, men with long hair etc). I was brought up to be sniffy and suspicious of things that are surprisingly cheap.

So should I leave my secure London job and go and pick up one of these Northern bargains?

N1AK

Cleaver wrote: »

Correct. It might be a bag of sh*t, as might that house, but it's affordable. Affordable and desirable / quality are two different things aren't they?

Affordable as in 'can be afforded' then yes it is. When people discuss whether housing is affordable that is not the definition to which they are referring.

If you try and define housing affordability on the grounds that some form of roof with 4 walls exists at a price someone on a low wage can afford then housing has never been unaffordable. Doing so also makes the metric entirely pointless because most people consider quality when defining whether to buy or not.

If someone was to build pod style houses in London, with an internal area approximately equivalent to a prison cell, and sell them for £70k it would by the definition you propose mean that they were affordable. Again, you'd be right by the definition that they could be afforded. Virtually no one else would think they were a shining example of 'affordable housing' however.

quantic

I think the point people are trying to make (well at least me) is that the average wage can buy you just as nice of a house now as it ever could. If your prepared to make some choices and not expect everything, which has always been the case. People expect a lot more now and are not prepared to wait for it either.

ultrawomble

PasturesNew wrote: »

Not entirely true.

Perfectly good 5 bed house £89,950
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27361309.html

Train station close by taking you into Cardiff (where apparently there are 400 jobs) - and a University round the corner so you could even get a lodger or two easily enough.

LOL! I lived near there as a student in the late 80's at the Poly of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan :rotfl:). They're certainly not 5 bed houses. That's only a 5 bed house if you convert the dining room and lounge into bed rooms for students.

Percy1983

I can confirm in my part of the northwest the quoted price gets you a 3 bed semi.

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

mmm, I moved 10 miles away from my birth town and see my parents more often than when I had a house there.

Which is fine so long as they are fit and well and not in need of care and assistance daily. When they are that 10 miles can become a very long trip backwards and forwards, especially should you have to carry on working at the same time and perhaps juggle children and so forth as well. 10 miles would gain you nothing at all around here.

I hardly think 10 miles is really that far? do you really think it is, many boomer relocated a lot further than that.

It isn't a long distance at all, and as a boomer (just) I indeed relocated much larger distances. However, this was for well paid jobs which made the travelling time and cost worthwhile. I am not at all certain I would have been so willing to do that for a wage that would not even keep a roof over my head. I pretty certain that those that insist they would would have a change of heart were they to find themselves in that situation.


Not really, I have lived in one of the most rural and sparcly populated countys in england. So I know what it is like to get stuck behind a tractor, jcb etc on a b road.
But I am more than aware during commuting hours they do try to keep off the roads.

Well, perhaps the farmers in your area are more accomodating than they are around here, but milking times (or at least the return to the fields after milking) frequently coincide with peek travelling times around here and hold ups for large herds either travelling in front of you or crossing roads/lanes are common-place.

As to keeping off the roads during commuting hours, I do so wish:D

If your area is like you say daily, what is there to stay for, owning and work in such areas is never going to happen unless you run a farm.

Why do I stay? Main reason because my children have extended family here. However, I wasn't bemoaning my lot: I am in the fortunate position of owning my own home (outright) here and having flexible work that I can do from home. That puts me in the minority though and I do not judge others by my own good fortune: I open my eyes and try to make a fairer assessment of the problems experienced by others;):D

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In that case, I conceed. It really doesn't matter why the price is what it is, it's affordable, end of.

I know a guy that bought a 2 bed flat for £5k, about 10 years ago.
The place was uninhabitable. the who place was gutted internally and replaced (new wiring, replaster plaster & lathe with platsterboard, new floorboards, new kitchen / bathroom etc)
He spent about £30k doing it up and made it into a really nice place.

All in it cost him £35k but it was then worth close to £100k.

My point is that properties that may not be habitable and reduced in price accordingly, could be very MSE if your prepared to out a bit of work into it.