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

cells

AG47 wrote: »

The question is will prices still defy gravity if all this new supply is added?

ken and boris both truly wanted build rates to go up but neither has managed to move it much.

goldsmith is likely to be no better imo. but even if he got to 50,000 sustained new builds per year thats still less than what the London local plan thinks is needed (from memory sixty-something thousand a year)

I don't think 50,000 new builds a year will even stop house prices going up. It might reduce HPI from 10% to 8% but prices will still be going north

kinger101

Generali wrote: »

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.

According to Wikipedia, London generates 22% of GDP, from around 14% of population. So I'm not sure that's paying for everything.

A similar report indicates the same for tax receipts;

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html

Maybe nobody is going on holiday to Wigan, but let's not forget which county the industrial revolution started in. That's what kickstarted this island.

Anyway, I thought it was all the London socialists causing the problems these days, demanding flats in Islington for anyone on housing benefit. London's inability to sort out it's housing problem means we have to transport the actual people who do the work into London at the expense of the rest of the country.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

OK, we're all being flippant here. But on a serious note, isn't this obsession with making London the capital of the world at the expenses of the rest of the UK having a serious economic consequence?

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

Do finance types see this sort of finance as not very sexy and a bit old fashioned?

Odd that the big winners in London property seem to be normal people with the odd BTL or three.

Far from it! I would think that developer finance is seen as a good growth area right now.

It is riskier than mortgage lending as if the developer goes bust before finishing the building then you will lose money most likely but as a lender you get compensated for that via a higher interest rate.

If you had a good site and a good plan then I suspect you'd have banks falling over themselves to lend at the right price.

globalds

Generali wrote: »

Londoners .

LOL

Vote for devolution or your Londoners are as British as Scots ..

Generali

kinger101 wrote: »

OK, we're all being flippant here. But on a serious note, isn't this obsession with making London the capital of the world at the expenses of the rest of the UK having a serious economic consequence?

I don't think that is what is happening though. London pays out vastly more in tax than is spent on her. People choose to set up businesses in London despite huge grants being available to set up elsewhere.

Perhaps instead of looking at London with envy people elsewhere should look at what London is doing right and try to emulate it.

princeofpounds

Where I live in Balham/Tooting/Wandsworth is fairly horrendously crowded already. Of the many thousands of roads in the UK, three of the top ten busiest are in my neighbourhood, & the little stretch of northern line tube between Tooting & Stockwell is the busiest on the entire network during the peak.

London is one of the lowest density major cities in the world. It has a density around half that of Paris, which is a perfectly decent city in many ways.


I know the area you cite well, and it could easily be far more dense. It would have to change of course, and I agree that the northern line is not of sufficient capacity, but it's exactly the sort of area that could house many more people if it was given a more urban infrastructure.


You just have to realise that the Tooting of today is not the Tooting of tomorrow. These places have no 'right' to be preserved; Clapham was once a semi-rural commuter village and I bet they too complained about increasingly busy roads with all these newcomers riding their horses and carriages around. At least with Tooting you wouldn't be losing much...

kinger101

Generali wrote: »

I don't think that is what is happening though. London pays out vastly more in tax than is spent on her. People choose to set up businesses in London despite huge grants being available to set up elsewhere.

Perhaps instead of looking at London with envy people elsewhere should look at what London is doing right and try to emulate it.

I'd like to see the figures if they're available anywhere. I'm not convinced, when you see the amount of infrastructure London has compared to even a large city like Leeds or Manchester.

It's not a case of envy. I just think that it would be better if the country wasn't so centralized around one city. It can't be good for London, now you have people in their 40s still sharing houses.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I don't think that is what is happening though. London pays out vastly more in tax than is spent on her. People choose to set up businesses in London despite huge grants being available to set up elsewhere.

Perhaps instead of looking at London with envy people elsewhere should look at what London is doing right and try to emulate it.

London isnt all that, its GDP not much more than ireland

and London GDP per capita is flattered by lots of commuters who should dilute the figure but i guess dont (not to mention the unregistered illegals who should be diluting it further)

adr0ck

Generali wrote: »

Far from it! I would think that developer finance is seen as a good growth area right now.

It is riskier than mortgage lending as if the developer goes bust before finishing the building then you will lose money most likely but as a lender you get compensated for that via a higher interest rate.

If you had a good site and a good plan then I suspect you'd have banks falling over themselves to lend at the right price.

in London & the South East I agree

anywhere else in the UK and most Banks (example Barclays) are pulling out of development finance

AG47

CLAPTON wrote: »

depends upon the demand

Real demand is only those who can realistically raise those asking prices.

You can't count demand as how many people would like to live in a certain property.

All the poor refugees coming over cant really be counted as extra demand.