Where Can You Afford to Buy a House? Interactive Map

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

True but pretty meaningless

Only if you ignore the meaning. It's meaningless to say that it's not a measure of affordability because a certain type of property is more affordable in one area than the overall affordability of the area shows. If it was the affordability of a given type of property it would show those different affordability levels, but it's not, it's affordability of all properties in an area.

If you want to know the affordability of different areas with respect to a particular type of property that you are interested in then you are welcome to do the legwork to figure that out. That this hasn't done that doesn't invalidate it or make it meaningless, no matter how much you want it to have.

jimibaboza

All they tall stories on this site actually actually prove that houses were more affordable. these people had next to nothing in the seventies, not even enough money to go to the pub apparently, but they could afford to buy a house.

Very interesting article which sums this up.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/02/property-millionaires-why-cant-child-get-on-housing-ladder

This couple were able to buy a place with only a 2X multiple in 1985. I feel pretty safe saying that there is no way anyone can buy a studio flat in London with that today (with a normal income), never mind a semi detached house.

and that is the problem, yes you may have had to work your !!!! off to get the place, yes you may have have had to go without luxuries to be able to put a new bathroom in. But you were able to buy the house outright as a first time buyer, which is becoming harder and harder.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

Only if you ignore the meaning. It's meaningless to say that it's not a measure of affordability because a certain type of property is more affordable in one area than the overall affordability of the area shows. If it was the affordability of a given type of property it would show those different affordability levels, but it's not, it's affordability of all properties in an area.

If you want to know the affordability of different areas with respect to a particular type of property that you are interested in then you are welcome to do the legwork to figure that out. That this hasn't done that doesn't invalidate it or make it meaningless, no matter how much you want it to have.

Perhaps meaningless is not the right word not very usefull might be better.

martinsurrey

jimibaboza wrote: »

All they tall stories on this site actually actually prove that houses were more affordable. these people had next to nothing in the seventies, not even enough money to go to the pub apparently, but they could afford to buy a house.

Very interesting article which sums this up.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/02/property-millionaires-why-cant-child-get-on-housing-ladder

This couple were able to buy a place with only a 2X multiple in 1985. I feel pretty safe saying that there is no way anyone can buy a studio flat in London with that today (with a normal income), never mind a semi detached house.

and that is the problem, yes you may have had to work your !!!! off to get the place, yes you may have have had to go without luxuries to be able to put a new bathroom in. But you were able to buy the house outright as a first time buyer, which is becoming harder and harder.

you forget 12% base rates in 1985 as well

assume mortgage rates now are 4% for a first time buyer
assume mortgage rates in 1985 were 15% for a first time buyer.

15% of twice your salary is 30% of salary
4% of six times your salary is 24% of salary

so the interest of a mortgage on the house in 1985 at 2 times salary and 12% base rates was MORE burdensome than a 4% loan at 6 times salary.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mortgage-rates-history-0112.aspx

perfect quote

"But if it’s a choice between squirrelling away a hundred or so a month and having a drink with a mate, when the money involved is so far removed from what I’d actually need to get on the property ladder ... There doesn’t seem a lot of point"

she earns about £2k after tax, rent of £620, so almost £1400 a month for food bills and saving,but she'd rather go for a drink

while her mum at her age

"Glanville from her share of an all-but-uninhabitable five-bed wreck in Clapton, east London, that she had moved into and done up with friends"

kabayiri

mystic_trev wrote: »

You were lucky, we used to dream about living in a Council House...



http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-four-yorkshiremen.html

The other good version of that is Peter Kay, where in 15 years time he tells his kids.

"You think you've got it tough? We had to make do with one telly in every room! Yes....just one!!"

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps meaningless is not the right word not very usefull might be better.

Or, more logically, very useful if you want to know where you weren't excluded from buying 50% of the properties on offer based on your salary, a decent metric for the many and varied people who will be interested in a guide on where is affordable to them and the many types of properties they will be interested in. If you want a specialised version that tells you which areas you can afford at least 23.7% of bungalows then you're free to run the numbers yourself. Specialisation is for insects though.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

Or, more logically, very useful if you want to know where you weren't excluded from buying 50% of the properties on offer based on your salary, a decent metric for the many and varied people who will be interested in a guide on where is affordable to them and the many types of properties they will be interested in. If you want a specialised version that tells you which areas you can afford at least 23.7% of bungalows then you're free to run the numbers yourself. Specialisation is for insects though.

Who wants to know that, most people know that they want say a 3 bed semi and they can be the same price in adjorning post codes but because of mix on area is shown as affordable while the other is not.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Who wants to know that, most people know that they want say a 3 bed semi and they can be the same price in adjorning post codes but because of mix on area is shown as affordable while the other is not.

Yeah, and the area is less affordable, in that they can afford less of the properties in that area. It's exactly what it says on the tin.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

Yeah, and the area is less affordable, in that they can afford less of the properties in that area. It's exactly what it says on the tin.

As I said not very usefull

ukcarper

martinsurrey wrote: »

you forget 12% base rates in 1985 as well

assume mortgage rates now are 4% for a first time buyer
assume mortgage rates in 1985 were 15% for a first time buyer.

15% of twice your salary is 30% of salary
4% of six times your salary is 24% of salary

so the interest of a mortgage on the house in 1985 at 2 times salary and 12% base rates was MORE burdensome than a 4% loan at 6 times salary.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mortgage-rates-history-0112.aspx

perfect quote

"But if it’s a choice between squirrelling away a hundred or so a month and having a drink with a mate, when the money involved is so far removed from what I’d actually need to get on the property ladder ... There doesn’t seem a lot of point"

she earns about £2k after tax, rent of £620, so almost £1400 a month for food bills and saving,but she'd rather go for a drink

while her mum at her age

"Glanville from her share of an all-but-uninhabitable five-bed wreck in Clapton, east London, that she had moved into and done up with friends"

I don't think it's as simple as that I first bought in 70s when prices were quite high in relation to earnings and up to a year or two ago using today's lending criteria I could have bought same house, but now I would not be able to borrow enough. I do live in Surrey and I don't think it would be so bad in other parts of the country.