London property market bubble?

cells

Generali wrote: »

So your argument is that for all of history houses in London have been undervalued, only finding the right level in 2016.

It seems unlikely to me.

That's because you have made up your mind its a bubble and are ignoring the very good evidence I put forward to you

Also clearly be definition I am correct. Prices are higher now in London than they were 10,000 years ago. I know you are suggesting prices have overshot a bit but worse case I'm right for 9,997 years.

Anyway why I feel London is fair prices now is vecuase London has finally recovered in population to have a persons per house density a little over rUK. 5 years ago 10 years ago 15 years ago London had less people per house than rUK so clearly it was underpriced back then as how can you justify a capital city having less people per home than the rest of the nation

padington

chucknorris wrote: »

I really like cycling, I want to ride proper bikes, and get some serious exercise using the same bike that I use anyway, not cycle using those daft things.

There is nothing faster than a small wheeled bicycle for short distances. It's one of the fastest vehicles you can get in stop start traffic. A precision piece of engineering. Also if you want to get fit, you'll get much fitter on a Brompton.

It's more than a proper bike, it's genius.

chucknorris

padington wrote: »

There is nothing faster than a small wheeled bicycle for short distances. It's one of the fastest vehicles you can get in stop start traffic. A precision piece of engineering. Also if you want to get fit, you'll get much fitter on a Brompton.

It's more than a proper bike, it's genius.

Dorking to Morden isn't a short distance, it is 15 miles (so a 30 mile round trip) also with at least one decent hill. I am fit! This would form part of my ongoing triathlon training, I want to maintain/improve my current times.

padington

chucknorris wrote: »

Dorking to Morden isn't a short distance, it is 15 miles (so a 30 mile round trip) also with at least one decent hill.

Try it on a Brompton if you want some real exercise. Large wheels are for the lazy.

chucknorris

padington wrote: »

Try it on a Brompton London to Brighton if you want some real exercise. Large wheels are for the lazy.

Now you are just being an idiot, please stop. I really don't think that you are anything near a serious cyclist. Most Sundays I ride my hybrid bike against my friend's (decent/expensive) road bike, that is far from lazy, but I suspect the subtlety of that will be lost on you.

cells

I could write a lot about London and why its so different I will try to keep it short as I can

London declined from 1951-1991 by about 1.3 million. Most of this decline was inner London. At the same time London went on a massive council house building program with more building in inner London than outer London and overall more council homes in London 24% than rUK 17%.

The result was lots more supply and lots less demand so that by 1995 house prices in London were dirt cheap. Also we can further see the evidence of inner London being hit harder and having more supply via the land registry prices.

Jan 1995 average price
Hackney £74,632
Enfield £82,445

So in 1995 we have the very odd situation whereby hackney right next to the city of London and close to westminster the two biggest employment areas of London was 10% cheaper than enfield on the edge of London. And the reason is as noted above a bigger population decline in inner London and more house building leading to London but especially inner London becoming extremely cheap

Since 1995 things have changed. London has grown more than rUK and inner London has grown in population more than outer London. Prices in inner London have rocketed far more than outer London due to this.


So its not hard to say that in the mid 1990s London and especially inner London was extremely cheap. Of course its difficult to put an exact date on when things went from very cheap to cheap, and then cheap to affordable and then affordable to ok and then ok to expensive and then expensive to luny.

Personally I think we are at about a 'fair' price now. 25% up in real terms here would be expensive 25% down a good price.

padington

chucknorris wrote: »

Now you are just being an idiot, please stop. I really don't think that you are anything near a serious cyclist.

I don't think you are anything other than a self obsessed bore but most of the time I keep it to myself.

I gave you some friendly advice, your responses warranted this retort and some.

PS Re-editing responses at this late stage is no defence.

chucknorris

padington wrote: »

I don't think you are anything other than a self obsessed bore but most of the time I keep it to myself.

Thank you for confirming that you are indeed an idiot, are you now distancing yourself from the inevitable race? Where we use both our own and the other person's bike? I'd like to see you try and prove that 'lazy' comment.

Self obsessed? Does Wood Green ring any bells?

EDIT: In answer to your later edit, I'm a keen cyclist (see my signature) suggesting I am lazy, isn't friendly advice.

chucknorris

padington wrote: »

PS Re-editing responses at this late stage is no defence.

I am not defending idiot, I am attacking.

padington

chucknorris wrote: »

I am not defending idiot, I am attacking.

Oh Jesus, you really are a horrible piece of work.

Bore on.