HPI estimates over the next two years

cells

10% to 20%

padington wrote: »

Why are they getting so congested then ? I would argue because we can get more done closer we are to others. The digital revolution has freed people up to be more able to move around and less restricted to having to work near widely distributed resources and they are choosing to be near each other.

Now there is less reason to live near the docks or the mines or the farms and people are voting with their feat

Cities with larger population become more effecient. Less energy is required for a greater outcome and your chances of finding a good mate is increased. The economy of scale means things like the tube can be created. Formation of crack teams to conquer certain service industries become possible. The best parties can be held with the minimum of fuss getting home for all.

Have you noticed how no one wants to talk on the phone any more? Everyone wants to 'have coffee'. We are social beings. We like to be in a really big tribe and really big tribes empower everyone in them.

We shake hands to partially get the feel of someone and show others our own character. We build trust through touch. A supportive squeeze of the shoulder by a good boss can be enough to keep a worker feeling happy for the rest of the day. The thrill of what may happen after work with the pretty colleague keeps the young and some of the old feeling alive.

We'll learn to love virtual reality but never more than meeting our favourite people in the same bar (or beach) in real life.

This is why Facebook, Twitter and Skype and !!!!!! are so successful, they tap into the key emotional needs gained by sharing intimate time with others. They often don't truelly satiate those emotional needs as well as they should though. Often they give us a feeling that we are missing out on something we can't put our finger on (real life).

It is down to the character of the individual, life is what you make of it you can be center stage doing stuff with lots of different groups, or a loner, in any town or city in England.

so I feel most of the post above is nonsense.

London is different from the other cities in that it has higher paid jobs and more full time positions however that is not even fully accurate. Its probably better to say westminster the city and docklands with their 1,000,000+ jobs are well paid and a lot of 'normal' London is paid pretty much the same as rEngland

cells

10% to 20%

padington wrote: »

Why are they getting so congested then ?

because of migration.

if 10 million UK residents go to live in the rest of the world and 10 million world residents come to live in the UK what happens is that those leaving are a more equal spread yet those coming will very disproportionately opt for the capital city as its the only one they can name (and also often the national hub airport is in or near the capital city). so worldwide there is migration to capital cities from all over the world

Probably university education also plays a part. In London there are lots of universities whereas in no-where-town there isnt a single one. So if you expand university admission to 50% of the population what will happen is that no-where-town will experience less growth and university cities will grow. Also once a kid has already lived and possibly worked for 3-4 years in the university city they are a lot more likely to stay there (had they not gone to university they may have remained in their towns). This creates internal migration to London.

that be my two pence on the subject.

padington

10% to 20%

Generally bigger groups of cooperating tribes are more powerful than smaller ones. Different groups have different alluring reasons to join. London has many ( history, culture, language, networks etc). Hence why London is a powerhouse and will continue to out compete most other places and the gravitational force will only grow as long as it continues to be more attractive than it was.

The only thing constraining London house prices is the above statement. All things equal house prices will remedy themselves back down because higher prices make the city less attractive. However all things are not equal, the growing efficiency of super cities make them increasingly attractive and the price generally keeps growing as long as there is the available capital in the global marketplace and the city increases the attractive pull it had before.

London is well posed to do this. It's soft power is only going to grow from what I can tell (and I'm betting on lots more cheap money yet to come).

http://www.wealthandfinance-intl.com/london-tops-list-of-attractive-cities-for-business

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/low-interest-rates-are-here-to-stay

http://secretldn.com/2015/12/london-set-to-have-the-tallest-and-longest-slide-in-the-world-in-2016/

http://www.portland-communications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The-Soft-Power-30_press-release.pdf

Naturally there are threats to this assumptions, the Economist naming ...

' ... many of the assets that pushed Britain to the top of the soft-power table are in play. In the next couple of years the country faces a referendum on its membership of the EU; a slimmer role for the BBC, its prolific public broadcaster; and a continuing squeeze on immigration, which has already made its universities less attractive to foreign students. Much of Britain’s hard power was long ago given up. Its soft power endures—for now.'

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21657655-oxbridge-one-direction-and-premier-league-bolster-britains-power-persuade-softly-does-it

House prices beyond the credibility of the world favourite city status being another. The only question is, are we there yet ?

I think not. Economy of scale because of growing mega city status together with cultural pull has still just too many benefits.

Wednesday2000

5% to 10%

I voted 5-10% up in the next two years.

padington

10% to 20%

cells wrote: »

It is down to the character of the individual, life is what you make of it you can be center stage doing stuff with lots of different groups, or a loner, in any town or city in England.

The single property owning loner probably won't be as emotionally satisfied or be in the best position to maximise their potential as there property owning city peers. They may become less likely to remain a loner and eventually get pulled back into the city because of this or their earning potential will be trumped by their city peers. They will probably buy into a much less dynamic environment and will pay significantly for this at the end of their life as they realise their lifestyle was much less profitable even though it may have been much less interesting. This will partly be because they failed to leverage the advantage of cooperation that they could have obtained in a city ( or from living within thriving distance of a good city ).

mwpt

5% to 10%

padington wrote: »

The single property owning loner probably won't be as emotionally satisfied or be in the best position to maximise their potential as there property owning city peers. They may become less likely to remain a loner and eventually get pulled back into the city because of this or their earning potential will be trumped by their city peers. They will probably buy into a much less dynamic environment and will pay significantly for this at the end of their life as they realise their lifestyle was much less profitable even though it may have been much less interesting. This will partly be because they failed to leverage the advantage of cooperation that they could have obtained in a city ( or from living within thriving distance of a good city ).

No offence paddington, I know you're just expressing a view, but most of that is almost unintelligible to me. It's basically putting a bunch of dots on a piece of paper and drawing lines through them in your own manner such that the lines spell out "HPI" in 5 year old script.

EDIT: I do understand the benefits for a city but you're basically extrapolating out all the things that suit your view into more things that suit your view. We have no idea how tech is going to manifest and I don't believe anyone can comfortably predict that distributed tech, automation, driverless cars, greener homes, etc definitely translate into more crowded cities. I'm really hoping for the opposite but I just don't know.

chucknorris

Flat (-5% to +5%)

padington wrote: »

The single property owning loner probably won't be as emotionally satisfied or be in the best position to maximise their potential as there property owning city peers. They may become less likely to remain a loner and eventually get pulled back into the city because of this or their earning potential will be trumped by their city peers. They will probably buy into a much less dynamic environment and will pay significantly for this at the end of their life as they realise their lifestyle was much less profitable even though it may have been much less interesting. This will partly be because they failed to leverage the advantage of cooperation that they could have obtained in a city ( or from living within thriving distance of a good city ).

I must be a bit slow today, I have read your post several times, and I can't even guess what point you are trying to make, what are you saying?

padington

10% to 20%

Cities become about 15% more efficient every time they double in size and 15 % more industrious. This means they out compete smaller settlements. In a world where there is no need to have to spread out population anymore and with a natural human tendency to live a social life with others, this dynamic is finally working on full cylinders. In London this dynamic is made even more acute by the fact it's the world favourite city.

The result is and will continue to be a huge increasing demand to live in cities, especially in London. This will mean house prices in cities will vastly outpace prices elsewhere like never before, all things equal.

In my opinion of course. Everyone to their own.

chucknorris

Flat (-5% to +5%)

padington wrote: »

Cities become about 15% more efficient every time they double in size and 15 % more industrious. This means they out compete smaller settlements. In a world where there is no need to have to spread out population anymore and with a natural human tendency to live a social life eith others, this dynamic is finally working on full cylinders. In London this dynamic is made even more acute by the fact it's the world favourite city.

The result is and will continue to be a huge increasing demand to live in cities, especially in London. This will mean house prices in cities will vastly outpace prices elsewhere, all things equal.

In my opinion of course. Everyone to their own.

But you don't need to live in London to benefit from it, it is very unlikely that we would move back there (or even to a larger town). My ideal home would back onto countryside or a bridleway that would allow me to run, cycle and/or walk with my dog off lead (away from traffic), that by far is my most important criteria.

padington

10% to 20%

chucknorris wrote: »

But you don't need to live in London to benefit from it, it is very unlikely that we would move back there (or even to a larger town). My ideal home would back onto countryside or a bridleway that would allow me to run, cycle and/or walk with my dog off lead (away from traffic), that by far is my most important criteria.

I just said house prices will continue to go up in cities if cheap money continues to be available and explained why and said that people who buy properties in cities in cheap money environments in a digital world especially in cities like London will do well and people that utilise the networks in a city will thrive and explained why.

Nothing new, nothing profound.