The true insanity of London's housing market

BillJones

mayonnaise wrote: »

Floorplan says 91 sq.m.
Which is about the average floor space for a property in England.

The chair in picture 4, I assume is the dining room, measuring 16' by 13'. How large is your (share of) dining room, then?

Speaking as a Londoner, the house dooes seem to be pretty optimistically priced. It's not a vast amount cheapper than my flat, which is in a lovely building on a waterfront, and which is more than twice the size.

I know that Docklands is less desirable (to some) that North London, but it's hard to imagiine who would be happy to pay that sort of money for what is not reallly a very nice place.

mayonnaise

BillJones wrote: »

Speaking as a Londoner, the house dooes seem to be pretty optimistically priced. It's not a vast amount cheapper than my flat, which is in a lovely building on a waterfront, and which is more than twice the size.

I know that Docklands is less desirable (to some) that North London, but it's hard to imagiine who would be happy to pay that sort of money for what is not reallly a very nice place.

Agreed, it's not a nice place, my point was simply it's not that ridiculously small - for the area.
I wouldn't be surprised if they get more than asking price.

CLAPTON

according to rightmoves up to £1m there are 63 properties in N6 of which only 9 are houses

it will probably sell

DaveTheMus

purch wrote: »

You can get this 6 bed 6 bath beauty even cheaper. :eek:

And just as relevant to the price of property in London as your brilliant example.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3545-Lincoln-Place-Dr-Des-Moines-IA-50312/795351_zpid/

Comparing house prices in a major city in UK to the UK's capital city is irrelevant?

mayonnaise

DaveTheMus wrote: »

Comparing house prices in a major city in UK to the UK's capital city is irrelevant?

Comparing Glasgow to London is a bit silly, yes.

BillJones

DaveTheMus wrote: »

Comparing house prices in a major city in UK to the UK's capital city is irrelevant?

Yes. Although London is geographically in the UK, it is so vastly different in so many respects that it makes little sense to compare with anywhere else. You are better off comparing it with Tokyo or New York than with most other British towns.

Important differences include the fact that the investment banks are here, we've most major company headquarters, and we are currently a very attractive tax haven to billionaires for all over the globe.

zagubov

mayonnaise wrote: »

Comparing Glasgow to London is a bit silly, yes.

I don't know. If London developed homes bigger than rabbit hutches, roads wide enough for more than two lanes of cars, some nightlife, some livelier pubs, affordable music venues and a decent city centre then it could turn into a proper little Glasgow.

antrobus

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

There is sadly a small issue with defining the word 'foreigner'.

Of course one definition might surround where an individual was born. But it's when we try to go back to parentage as well that the real problems begin. Because not a single one of us comes from England originally. We all have the same single male ancestor who was, I believe, from the continent of Africa, some 15,000 years ago or something like that. Hence we are all related by blood to each other.

To me, it's a frightening thought that you can point to someone as far away as, say, in Devon, and know that you are an 'nth' cousin (maybe once or twice removed), the 'n' being the unknown number of generations ago that one shared an ancestor. I have lost sleep over that one!

Statistcally speaking, the number of potential ancestors doubles every generation. So if you're talking about (say) 30 generations, roughly a 1,000 years, that's just over a billion potential ancestors. Since that's about three or four times what the total world population was a 1,000 years ago, that tells you two things; (a) there must be a considerable amount of duplication in those potential ancestors, and (b) there's a pretty high probability that we're all related in some way.

Loughton_Monkey

antrobus wrote: »

Statistcally speaking, the number of potential ancestors doubles every generation. So if you're talking about (say) 30 generations, roughly a 1,000 years, that's just over a billion potential ancestors. Since that's about three or four times what the total world population was a 1,000 years ago, that tells you two things; (a) there must be a considerable amount of duplication in those potential ancestors, and (b) there's a pretty high probability that we're all related in some way.

Indeed there is a lot of duplication.

Superficially, the 'doubling up' effect as we go back totally contradicts the fact that all living males relate directly to the same man not too many years ago. This can be reconciled by understanding that this single ancestor was not the only male around at the time. There were millions more men on the planet at the same time. It's just that their 'male lines' eventually died out due to having no children, or only daughters.

So it's not "high probability" that we are all related to one man, it's fact. [And it wasn't Adam].

antrobus

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...So it's not "high probability" that we are all related to one man, it's fact. [And it wasn't Adam].

A probability of one is what I would call a "high probability".:)