Prince Charles wades in

Bantex_2

BillJones wrote: »

And yet, strangely, the towers round Canary Wharf go for an absolute fortune.

It's almost as though tall residential towers are great places to live as long as the residents are the right sort of people...

I would suspect OK as long as the places have expensive 24 hour security, etc. This in not viable for teh low cost sector.

BillJones

Bantex wrote: »

I would suspect OK as long as the places have expensive 24 hour security, etc. This in not viable for teh low cost sector.

No, you are probably right. Head half a mile South of Canary wharf and the ex-council high-rises are still not the sort of places that you'd be happy to walk around at night.

On the other hand the council low-rise estates are little better.

AndyGuil

mayonnaise wrote: »

Good point Graham.



I'd dispute that.
Compared with other European major cities, London has a low density on the outer suburbs.
At my end of London (west) for example between Staines and Hounslow, Bedfont, West Drayton, further up towards Uxbridge there is immense capacity. This is not green belt.
Furthermore these places have - or could have - easy commuting into Central London.
Come off the M23 and drive towards Croydon, mile after mile of emptiness dotted with the odd miserable retail park. This is not green belt.
The argument that we need to touch green belt in order to massively increase London housing stock is a false one.

London is full of houses that is why it is low density. Greenbelt won't be touched. The existing houses won't be touched. The space that is remaining isn't much.

You would be suprised at the amount of greenbelt in London. Especially in the outer boroughs it consumes half of the land in many of them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9708387/Interactive-map-Englands-green-belt.html

Graham_Devon

Daily Mail front page today...



Comes as the head of the Office of Budget Responsibility suggested Britiain is on the edge of a dangerous housing bubble.

Regardless of what you think of the mail, it get's a big enough circulation.

And apparently on Sky News, they are discussing how the government have intentionally ioncreased house prices to win the next election with Help to Buy. JP Morgan have also released a statement that they are investing heavily in the market as Help to Buy underpins house prices and subsidises demand.

Seems the Prince Charles thing is mentioned on every media outlet, bar the beeb

AndyGuil

Demand is rising greatly which suggests otherwise. It is simply lack of supply rather than a bubble.

Bantex_2

Interstingly, Adair Turner was on R4 the morning saying that current levels of house prices had now become a problem to the economy. I found that rather surprising.

Graham_Devon

Bantex wrote: »

Interstingly, Adair Turner was on R4 the morning saying that current levels of house prices had now become a problem to the economy. I found that rather surprising.

I think this links to the OBR report which includes a piece on First Time Buyers.

The average price a FTB now pays is £190,000.

Which is at all time records. This average has shot up nearly 8% since HTB was launched.

ruggedtoast

He's still living at home isn't he?

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

I would suspect OK as long as the places have expensive 24 hour security, etc. This in not viable for teh low cost sector.

it's completely affordable and indeed saves lots of money in reduced vandalism

Bantex_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's completely affordable and indeed saves lots of money in reduced vandalism

Try telling that to the local council or BTL landlords.