Build 50k Houses in London Plus.....

Generali

We're getting a bit fed up of bank rolling the rest of the country:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11897033/How-to-build-50000-homes-a-year-in-London.html

50k houses:

There is no shortage of land. For one thing, a large portion of the Fifties and Sixties housing estates in London are reaching the end of their lives. There are 3,500 such estates in the capital: if only a fraction were redeveloped to produce low-rise, high-density streetscapes we would generate enough new housing to cater for our needs for many years. It would take time, and existing communities would need to be thoroughly on-board and protected.

But that’s just a start. The Mayor and Government have launched a land commission for London, to identify all publicly owned brownfield land. It is expected to uncover vast swaths of the capital that could be developed. We know, for example, that Transport for London alone owns the equivalent of 16 Hyde Parks.
Which leaves finance. The one thing we all realise about London and the South East is that people want to invest in it – particularly in property. In a frighteningly volatile and unstable world, London’s property market is seen as a safe bet. Homes are being snapped up by overseas buyers, sometimes with no intention of living in them, and resentment is building.

But the answer is not to rail against investment; we should channel it so it benefits Londoners. Many overseas investors are banks and institutions wanting to deposit savings somewhere safe. They are looking for long-term, low-risk, medium-return investment.

We're not just a money tree thanks:

And London needs greater powers. New York retains half the taxes it raises, while London holds on to just 7 per cent. We generate funds, hand them to government and then beg for some back. The capital needs to be given more responsibility to turn its strengths to the advantage of those who make it, and the UK, strong.

If you live outside of the SE, SW and London, better hope Zac isn't next Mayor of London!

Mistermeaner

We all own London (apart from Scotland), it's just where we happen to put the big buildings with the bankers in so I'll keep taking my taxes if that's ok? (From a grim northern hell hole)

michaels

All sounds good until the nibyism gets a name check and you know nothing will actually happen. For example the land owned by tfl is covered with train tracks, stations, depots etc....

The current trend of hideous developments built with scant regard to neighbours can’t continue,

lonestar1

not to mention the thames barrier holding back the floods

Generali

michaels wrote: »

All sounds good until the nibyism gets a name check and you know nothing will actually happen. For example the land owned by tfl is covered with train tracks, stations, depots etc....

Not in my goods yard!

Mummyisbeauty

any chance people can get any money back for things like crossrail too please?

Generali

Mummyisbeauty wrote: »

any chance people can get any money back for things like crossrail too please?

What you want Londoners to pay for everything rather than just most things? Seems harsh.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

What you want Londoners to pay for everything rather than just most things? Seems harsh.

Ambitious perhaps?

See SNP rule #1. If you don't ask (over and over again) you don't get.

Isn't it Chinese and Russian and Arab money paying for everything anyway? Who else is fuelling the London boom?

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

All sounds good until the nibyism gets a name check and you know nothing will actually happen. For example the land owned by tfl is covered with train tracks, stations, depots etc....

I can see the headlines now ..

Read all about it !!

Man buys house : turns out to be disguised railway carriage!

His partner was quoted as saying : "It did seem a bit narrow, but we were told that it's all down to new building regs".

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Ambitious perhaps?

See SNP rule #1. If you don't ask (over and over again) you don't get.

Isn't it Chinese and Russian and Arab money paying for everything anyway? Who else is fuelling the London boom?

Londoners working in banking, hedge funds, media, advertising, professional services, tourism and law.

Not many people go on holiday to Britain for a holiday for the beaches or to visit Wigan.:rotfl:

People can like it or lump it but the fact is that the highly productive services industries of London and to a less extent the SE subsidises most of the UK north of a line you can draw from The Wash to The Bristol Channel.

London has had a highly successful economy for centuries. The socialists wore it down a bit after WW2 but she bounced back.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...New York retains half the taxes it raises, while London holds on to just 7 per cent....

That might well be true, but then NYC also has to bear some significant costs that the GLA does not directly pay for. Health care would be one of them.

I suppose someone could go through the NYC budget;

http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/erc6_15.pdf

and compare it in detail to the GLA's

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2015-16%20Final%20Budget.pdf

On first glance, it looks like NYC spends $78.5 bn, or £52bn, compared to London's £11.5bn, despite having a slighly lower population. (8.4m vs 8.6m).