11 house hunters for every home on the market

Mistermeaner

padington wrote: »

They are planning ending not for profit or subsidised tenancies if you earn over a certain wage, think they mentioned 30k.

But that won't deal with the non working and therefore the benefit cap won't necessarily sort the London issue as suggested by Michaels.

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

One can't but be amased at the ignorance and stupidity of asking why people won't raise children in London.

I'm confused. Who asked why people won't raise children in London?

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I'm confused. Who asked why people won't raise children in London?

some-one posted

Looking in from outside I've no idea why anyone would want to raise kids in London anyway, regardless of house price.

Mistermeaner

I fail to understand the link between what i posted and what you typed. Can you explain?

cells

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Not that I think it's good but that does work. London can be a place for young workers - not for families and home owners. Looking in from outside I've no idea why anyone would want to raise kids in London anyway, regardless of house price.

Part of the answer for London would be the turf out the non working and use the space to house key workers. Quite how that can be achieved I'm not sure.

Something like 4% of the social housing stock becomes vacant each year as tenants die or move.

That means if the London social stock was sold as it become vacant it would allow some 30k-35k social homes to become private homes. Along with a benefit cap for all it would mean pensioners and unemployed folk would need to move out of London (or perhaps out of inner London) allowing workers to fill that space

The sales of these properties would bring in about £8 billion a year which could do wonders for London. Use that money to build more tube lines and stations further out employing 100,000 people and put into place infrastructure to allow London to grow to 12 million

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

Something like 4% of the social housing stock becomes vacant each year as tenants die or move.

That means if the London social stock was sold as it become vacant it would allow some 30k-35k social homes to become private homes. Along with a benefit cap for all it would mean pensioners and unemployed folk would need to move out of London (or perhaps out of inner London) allowing workers to fill that space

The sales of these properties would bring in about £8 billion a year which could do wonders for London. Use that money to build more tube lines and stations further out employing 100,000 people and put into place infrastructure to allow London to grow to 12 million

Talking about infrastructure, If they would only build more secure cycling storage at underground stations (which is minimal cost), I (and probably many others) would cycle to underground stations to commute to work.

Ideally I would like to cycle to Morden underground station, it is about 15 miles from my home, so a 30 miles a day which is a reasonable work out, but nowhere to leave my bike, so I don't do it.

lisyloo

Genuine question - are the Boris bikes really that much of a problem?
Ah right 30 minute limit?
I do a much shorter journey but have to change bikes in the middle with a mandatory 5 minute wait.

lisyloo

Looking in from outside I've no idea why anyone would want to raise kids in London anyway, regardless of house price.

It's a ridiculous generalisation.
There are some fabulous upsides to London and loads of free places for kids to get fabulous extra-currrricular activities like museums.
There are also some serious downsides to London - like pollution - we all know this.

However it's still a ridiculous generalisation.

zagubov

lisyloo wrote: »

It's a ridiculous generalisation.
There are some fabulous upsides to London and loads of free places for kids to get fabulous extra-currrricular activities like museums.
There are also some serious downsides to London - like pollution - we all know this.

However it's still a ridiculous generalisation.

Cities can be great places to bring up kids. Transport and infrastructure limitations mean that swollen oversized cities aren't much better than more modestly-sized ones. Is LA a better city than San Francisco just because it's bigger?

Many countries have cracked this. The former West Germany had many great cities to live in, none of which were monstrously big.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Cities can be great places to bring up kids. Transport and infrastructure limitations mean that swollen oversized cities aren't much better than more modestly-sized ones. Is LA a better city than San Francisco just because it's bigger?

Many countries have cracked this. The former West Germany had many great cities to live in, none of which were monstrously big.

what is a 'swollen oversized city'?
is that where free people choose to live?


start off with a criteria for excellence and only then
measure and come to a conclusion