London property madness pt 372 - the understairs cupboards being let as bedrooms...

kabayiri

As usual, the Japanese do this sort of thing better :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel

There is nothing wrong with very small living accommodation as long as it is done well. I suspect London could do with much more diverse accommodation meeting different needs.

The OP article seems like profiteering on the cheap.

mwpt

MrRee wrote: »

Those who can, buy to let - to help those who can't buy yet have a place to live, it's a social service we provide in essence.

I'm sure this must be a troll, but just in case.

So these houses you BTLers buy, what would have happened to them if you hadn't bought them? Someone would have come along and demolished them? They would have stood empty? No, someone would have lived there. You're not creating any new housing (*). You're profiteering from a constrained market. And that's good for you, but don't pretend otherwise.

(*) Since the rise of BTL, house building figures are still very low. We don't build enough. Also, most BTLers seem to buy existing quality high rental demand stock, rather than new builds.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

I'm sure this must be a troll, but just in case.

So these houses you BTLers buy, what would have happened to them if you hadn't bought them? Someone would have come along and demolished them? They would have stood empty? No, someone would have lived there. You're not creating any new housing (*). You're profiteering from a constrained market. And that's good for you, but don't pretend otherwise.

(*) Since the rise of BTL, house building figures are still very low. We don't build enough. Also, most BTLers seem to buy existing quality high rental demand stock, rather than new builds.

In my experience BTL homes are lived in at a higher density than owner or social homes

So if one home goes from owner or social who have 2 people in them, to a BTL with 4 people in them. That has helped house people

You could argue that owners or social tenants could just let out their rooms to two people, but they often dont

the private rental sector expanding is how/why we dont have people living in cars and in tents in parks. owners living 1-2 people per house being replaced by renters living 3-4 people per house (and in some cases 10 to a house)

princeofpounds

Not sure why this is news. There has been a thriving sheds-with-beds sector in areas of London for a few years now. At least this is not a shared cubby-hole with a hot-bedding system and no running water!


More seriously, this is the natural response when you have a market with plenty of demand and restricted supply. You get a grey/black market arising as an inevitable consequence.

mayonnaise

stator wrote: »

The evils of capitalism at work. Maggy T would be proud.

Time to abolish the green belts and build some real houses for people to live in.

Calm down. It's some kind of joke.
See post #2

princeofpounds wrote: »

Not sure why this is news.

It isn't.
It's a joke.
See post #2

henrik1971

I know its probably stating the obvious to some people on here, but I had a LBM a couple of years ago when someone explained the London property madness to me - and why people seem content just to swallow the ridiculous prices.
I'd asked this friend: why people are happy to pay the same for a very small flat in a good part of London with no outside space to speak of and essentially live a homelife with massive compromises, when for the same money they could have a much larger detached home with grounds in a half decent semi-rural area in the midlands or north. In other words, how extreme does the gulf need to get before people finally decide that simply 'existing' in London is a compromise too far?
He explained to me that for lots of people living and working in London, going somewhere outside the capital was like asking them to go to Mars, and it doesn't really enter their consciousness. He said it was like telling someone with a modest semi in a northern city that for the same money they could have a mansion with servants in India, and so why don't they move there instead?

padington

henrik1971 wrote: »

I know its probably stating the obvious to some people on here, but I had a LBM a couple of years ago when someone explained the London property madness to me - and why people seem content just to swallow the ridiculous prices.
I'd asked this friend: why people are happy to pay the same for a very small flat in a good part of London with no outside space to speak of and essentially live a homelife with massive compromises, when for the same money they could have a much larger detached home with grounds in a half decent semi-rural area in the midlands or north. In other words, how extreme does the gulf need to get before people finally decide that simply 'existing' in London is a compromise too far?
He explained to me that for lots of people living and working in London, going somewhere outside the capital was like asking them to go to Mars, and it doesn't really enter their consciousness. He said it was like telling someone with a modest semi in a northern city that for the same money they could have a mansion with servants in India, and so why don't they move there instead?

The question isn't why would you pay a lot for rent in London, more like why if you are young and child free, would you not want to live where the most exciting and happening parties and cultural events are happening every day and night.

Once you live here long enough it gets to the point where there are so many invites and offers, often involving free drinks and really really fun things to do, you just don't have enough time or enough liver to do it all. Yesterday I had a free bar in a box at the O2 and tomorrow a birthday party meal with a firend followed by champaign and oyster party with another. With weekend trips to hang out with best friend in Brighton available on tap and able to get to work in 20 minutes. Not sure it could get any better.

Mistermeaner

Until you have kids.

I said this in another thread and got savaged but still think it's true - unless you're seriously wealthy London is, generally, in my personal opinion, a place to be young, work hard and play hard.

onlyroz

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Until you have kids.

I said this in another thread and got savaged but still think it's true - unless you're seriously wealthy London is, generally, in my personal opinion, a place to be young, work hard and play hard.

I was a student in London and it was great. But once I was in a position of living in a crappy two bed ex-council flat with a baby I wanted to get out. So we swapped that crappy flat for a 3-bed house in Berkshire.

Carl31

MrRee wrote: »

It's simply market forces at work - if this is a true story - so all the moaning on forums like this won't change things, not one jot.

Those who can, buy to let - to help those who can't buy yet have a place to live, it's a social service we provide in essence.

If Interest Rates ever return to around >5% then we shall see a slow down of BTL purchases ..... as, if I can get 5% on cash deposit, why would I have the hassle of providing a social service for the extra few %? I wouldn't.

Everything, and I mean everything, hinges on the Interest Rate level ..... as it always has done, in truth. Just this time will be in sharper focus.

just think how many OBEs will be sent out in the next couple of years with all these saintly BTLers