London Has Peaked

cells

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why?

If people are forced to share housing because of high prices, that is the market working exactly as it should to allocate goods in short supply via price.

The reality is that there are simply not enough houses for everyone that wants one to have one, so many people have to share housing today and that number will keep increasing.

We built just over 100K houses last year, and added 500K people to the population.

It is a mathematical certainty that more people will have to share housing every year this continues, and it's been going on for many years already....

and for more people to share housing one of the shifts has to be for less owners and more renters as renters live more dense

A shortage of housing forces to a shift in OO to Renting which at current rates is a staggering ~1% a year!

That means if the build rate does not go up, sometime around 2025 owners will become a minority at below 50%

That would be a terrible social change, one that even BTL LLs should acknowledge and push for the build rate to go up to a more acceptable level

Lizling

Physics wrote: »

Salary multiples don't have to keep up if the wealthiest are buying to rent out. Then it's about how many people you can fit in one house.

So I think prices could easily continue to go up, if people in their 40s and 50s start house-sharing.

I'd have thought we were already at that stage. Most people I know are Londoners in their mid 30s to mid 40s (and single, which makes a difference.) Plenty are sharing, and that includes buying together, not just renting.

padington

cells wrote: »

I understand historical purchases but what maintains the market is current purchases

And I also understand that there are lots of people who earn very good money doing whatever it is they do.

However surely decent homes in inner London (eg 100+sqm terrace homes) outnumber the people earning mega incomes???

I live in Wood Green in a two up two down terrace house worth half a million. The family one side is on the telly yet their teenage daughters share a bedroom so they can continue to pay for the cottage in Norfolk. The family the other airbnb their house whenever they can so its a very functional part time guest house, even though they only rent the place.

Welcome to cheaside London.

My family who live in Muswell hill are industrious house doer uppers ( took them doing up four houses to get to this point ) and teachers / lecturers and live in a two million pad near Highgate wood and always have lodgers. All their neighbours mostly work in the city, loads are bankers with porches or leading technology bods.

Welcome to rich side London.

Crashy_Time

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why?

If people are forced to share housing because of high prices, that is the market working exactly as it should to allocate goods in short supply via price.

The reality is that there are simply not enough houses for everyone that wants one to have one, so many people have to share housing today and that number will keep increasing.

We built just over 100K houses last year, and added 500K people to the population.

It is a mathematical certainty that more people will have to share housing every year this continues, and it's been going on for many years already....

How are rents in Aberdeen Hamish, crashing yet? Probably be a few house sharers ( and landlords) looking to make up the numbers if oil doesn`t boom again soon?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Crashy_Time wrote: »

How are rents in Aberdeen Hamish, crashing yet? Probably be a few house sharers ( and landlords) looking to make up the numbers if oil doesn`t boom again soon?

So so desperate Crashy! How's the crack den going? Anymore shared bog stories you want to tell us about....:D

Physics

Lizling wrote: »

I'd have thought we were already at that stage. Most people I know are Londoners in their mid 30s to mid 40s (and single, which makes a difference.) Plenty are sharing, and that includes buying together, not just renting.

Absolutely, which is why I said 40s and 50s. All the people I know in London are sharing, and it's pretty common for couples to take one room in a house share. But it's unusual for people in their 40s and 50s to share. Is that going to be the next social change?

cells wrote:

Surely after a certain age, you would think f.this and just move somewhere cheaper and not have to live 6 to a house.

Maybe. A lot of jobs are very tied to London. Where are they going to go?

This comes back to the same old story: too much focus on job creation in London and the surroundings, too little house building, while the north declines.

cells

Physics wrote: »

Absolutely, which is why I said 40s and 50s. All the people I know in London are sharing, and it's pretty common for couples to take one room in a house share. But it's unusual for people in their 40s and 50s to share. Is that going to be the next social change?

Surely the public cant be that stupid

if you have hit 35 (35 for a an 30 for a woman) and are in a HMO its time to totally re-evaluate your life.

Physics wrote: »

Maybe. A lot of jobs are very tied to London. Where are they going to go?

where are they going to go you ask? like all of us, they are going to go 6 feet under sooner or later so fek london and fek their jobs if it means living 6 to a house sharing a toilet with strangers you don't like

Physics wrote: »

This comes back to the same old story: too much focus on job creation in London and the surroundings, too little house building, while the north declines.

London does not have its fair share of jobs, unemployment is about the same if not worse in London than elsewhere

What it does have is a concentration of capital, national and international. There is no way to spread that out as rich people will only live next to other rich people.

lisyloo

Is that going to be the next social change?

Anecdotally I'd say no.
I'm 46 and married. We'd draw the line at sharing and "move north" (a metaphor for doing something else that's not London centric), even if it meant downsizing or making other sacrifices.

Surely after a certain age, you would think f.this and just move somewhere cheaper and not have to live 6 to a house.

I would agree with that even if it means other sacrifice like no second car, no holidays etc.
At the moment though although people moan about London it's STILL worth being there if there is a decent job on offer, when the sacrifices because too big, then people (or at least some) will move out and it will find a new equilibrium.

Physics

cells wrote: »

Surely the public cant be that stupid

I think a lot of economic predictions have probably begun this way.

I don't know the future of London (or the UK) and its property market. I do know that it's within current lifetimes that the housing situation in the country was much, much worse. I sincerely hope we aren't seeing a return to those times. But the economy is dangerously skewed toward London - probably more so since 2007 (surprisingly, given London is the financial hub of the country). So I'm not willing to call any bets on the direction of London's housing.

lisyloo

Although people moan about it (people like moaning), there are 4.5 million people every day use the tube, so by definition it can't be that bad (or they wouldn't be doing it and would find an alternative even if it meant being poorer).

Yes, we'd all like a decent sized house for tuppence in prime central London, but really if it was that bad, no-one would go there - ergo it's not that bad and people like whinging because things aren't ideal and on a plate.

I'm not wiling to call any bets short term, but with the population increasing and nothing to dent London popularity or share out the jobs/money then I can only see it going one way.