Do people think native English people will be forced to move to out of London?

Sapphire

westernpromise wrote: »

I think the tacit admission from TFL is that schemes to accommodate that are what slow the traffic down. If you reversed everything done to manage traffic in London over the last 40 years, you'd have more traffic flowing faster. The air quality issue is mainly a diesel issue, so take buses off the road and it's job done. Pedestrian safety would be a concern, but deaths on the road have been falling or flatlining secularly for years, so I suspect there'd be no effect.

I have generally always used buses in London (I find Tubes very claustrophobic and avoid them when I can, though they've improved vastly over the last few years). The things that have held up traffic the most are those narrow blue bike lanes – from experience, they really snarl up traffic.

I don't go into the Covent Garden/Trafalgar Square area regularly any more because I tend to work from home, but when I do go there I notice there is far more traffic, all snarled up everywhere, and far more people in general. The air quality is also noticeably very poor, especially where vehicles of all types are standing still or barely moving for ages. I don't know why central areas of London could not be allocated only to public transport (and possibly bikes). Vans and other commercial vehicles could perhaps use these areas out of hours, if they needed to. I think this has happened in cities in other European countries. Just don't think we can continue like this. The entire traffic situation needs a big rethink.

cells

Sapphire wrote: »

I have generally always used buses in London (I find Tubes very claustrophobic and avoid them when I can, though they've improved vastly over the last few years). The things that have held up traffic the most are those narrow blue bike lanes – from experience, they really snarl up traffic.

I don't go into the Covent Garden/Trafalgar Square area regularly any more because I tend to work from home, but when I do go there I notice there is far more traffic, all snarled up everywhere, and far more people in general. The air quality is also noticeably very poor, especially where vehicles of all types are standing still or barely moving for ages. I don't know why central areas of London could not be allocated only to public transport (and possibly bikes). Vans and other commercial vehicles could perhaps use these areas out of hours, if they needed to. I think this has happened in cities in other European countries. Just don't think we can continue like this. The entire traffic situation needs a big rethink.

You can't really solve the traffic problem.
You need to solve the housing problem in a way to solve the long term traffic problem.

In London there are approx 500,000 jobs in Westminster 300,000 in the city and 200,000 in docklands. That's a million jobs right in the centre. And future job growth is still concentrated there as that's were all the big offices are being built.

What needs to be done is to build apartments within zone 1 and 2 (the parts of z2 close to z1) at very high density so people can walk to work and other amenities. Places like hackney Islington tower hamlets and Southwark need to be knocked down and rebuilt at 3 x the density. Then get rid of cars (not taxis) altogether (maybe also auction a few off Singapore style for £100k a pop) from z1 and possible inner z2

That way long term you put people close to work so they can walk to work rather than let London grow more uniformly and require a cross rail 2 3 4 5 and more and more congestion

cells

ElsieMonkey wrote: »

Thank you, I agree. Right to Buy concerns me for the reasons you say, it does seem very unfair, but also where do those seriously in need then get housed if the council houses are gone? It just doesn't make any sense to me on all levels.

Yes there are a lot of families enjoying summer days along the Thames, I used to live 5 mins walk from Tower Bridge and saw it myself. But I would argue these are families with more money than the average, or those making big sacrifices in order to fund their lifestyle (working all hours god sends, mortgaged to the hilt, paying full-time child care costs, only seeing their child for 1 hour before bed time on a weekday then being exhausted from the weeks work/juggling to have the energy for quality/enjoyable time at the weekend). These are families that who eventually too will think, is this worth it? And move away.

I'd like to think one day London will have affordable homes for the average hard working person (currently affordable housing requires earning a higher than average salary more often than not - how on earth is this then affordable)?! That council homes are truly for those in need (sorry, I don't care if you're family have lived in the area for generations. If you can't afford it or don't want to work for it, you have to move - like I have to), and we have space to take in those from war torn countries truly in need rather than filling our homes with EU economic migrants or to the other extreme selling properties to rich foreign investors which sit empty as investments. It really is a city of extremes and anyone in the middle is stuck or forgotten about.

The problem with the idea of average earnings buying an average house is that

1 people underestimate full time average earnings. Eg often quoted at £26k but locally for London a full time male wage is closer to £40k

2 lots of people get inheritance monies. They will be able to bid and acquire more property than just income bidders. So it's not only income that is vying for limited property it's also inheritance and gift money fighting for London property.

3 London is 24% social so if average earning bought the average private residence who lives in the social homes? Leave them empty?

4 people bid as couples and they will win against singletons unless we are going to build and maintain one house per adult? Clearly not

5 London is a big place and prices in outer London have not boomed as much as inner London. Looking at the average is misleading. Outer London has traditionally been owners and inner London renters. Outer London is more affordable and price rises have been more modest.


So although I understand why lots of people think and make the comment 'average person should be able to buy the average home' its just economically and mathematically impossible. This will be true in cheaper countries or towns too.

Or maybe to put it another way the average Londoner earns as a hypotetical £40k per year and recievea a £300k inheritance and gets hitched to another average Londoner earning £30k per year who receives a £100k inheritance and gifts. That average London couple should be able to afford the average London house and guess what...they can.

Looking at what is not an average Londoner. Someone on £26k with no inheritance or support and expecting them to be able to buy the average property across London is the mistake most people make.

duchy

sulkisu wrote: »

Does this mean that you are including yourself in the group of slum-making foreigners that have taken over the Borough?

Does this mean you are the sort of person who thinks you have to be white to be British ?

cells

ElsieMonkey wrote: »

I was born in and have always lived in London. Born in Hammersmith and have lived all over London - Acton, Ealing, Harrow, Southwark. But I am selling up and leaving London. It took me a long time to get my head around this since being a Londoner feels like a massive part of my identity. For ages I refused to be one of those statistics, one of those left little choice but to be priced out of their home town.

I don't believe anyone has the right to live anywhere in particular - if you can't afford it you have to move. So, it does annoy me when I hear of council Right to Buy schemes in areas of London where me and my partner, both as full time average/above average workers have no chance in hell of ever being able to afford to live in even if we wanted to. Why should those in council properties have the "right to buy"? I thought the point on council properties was to help those in need have a roof over their heads? If they can afford to buy then they shouldn't be in a council house! Being given the chance to buy in prime location at a reduced price and pocket the difference when selling on in future is just down right unfair when others work, scrimp and save to have a property anywhere in London - their home town.

So anyway, we're fed up, priced out (unless we want to be mortgaged up to our eyeballs and have 0 quality of life/no space) and are cashing in and moving away. We feel very lucky to have been born here, have got on the property ladder when we did, and benefit from the rising prices in order to fund our move away. However, we have not been born in to money, have been forever scrimping and saving and have made calculated strategic decisions about what we bought when and where property wise which has got us to this point.

I'm 34 and London is a vastly different place than it was just 10 years ago. I know cities are always evolving but London isn't evolving for the better as far as I'm concerned. The suburbs, like where I live now in the Harrow borough, is full of people who just use it as a base to commute to the city, like most of London suburbia. You get as close to the city as your money will allow. Living in no man's land. Always on the outside looking in. The area and circumstance picked you, you didn't pick it, and as a result no one gives a s**t about who and what is on their doorstep. There's no sense of community.

Unless you rely on the council to fund your existence, are rich, or are happy to live a million to one bedroom, there really is no longevity yo your existence in London. We want to start a family, and have to move away from our home town to do so, in order to afford it.

You should be greatful that London has gifted you a bag of equity cash which will make your life a lot more comfortable in another region of the UK. It didn't kick you out it wrote you a cheque

Also people were moving out of London in the 1990s a time when London property was dirt cheap. The reason then was crime (for the many I knew who moved).
What would you rather, moving away with quarter of a million in equity mostly gifted via HPI or moving away because you were sick and tired of being burgled and mugged.

People want a return to cheap prices but they don't want a return of the reasons prices were cheap.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say actually.

Particularly about the right to buy. It is about as unfair a policy I can think of. Homes that were meant to house people in bad situations but turned into a lotto ticket for the select few at the expense of the tax payer while we still can't house the lower paid properly.

Council homes were not built for just people in bad situations the council stock grew to over 30% of all homes at one point. it was done so the state could be the landlord and get that industry into state socialist hands.

There is nothing wrong with RTB the only complaints people can make is that the discount might be too generous. Personally I would give a 3% discount to a sitting tebant if they bought from me as it would save voids and a revamp and agent fees. So I thinknat least a 3% discount is justified.

Thinking logically and economically on some cases a 70% discount is justified as the NPV of the net rent from the social tenant in some cases is below 30% of the value of the property.

On a political and social side of a right to buy helps a person improve their and their families lot then there is a benefit there too


Overall i think the RTB is a good policy.
If it is to go I would want to see the council stock sold off to the highest bidder until the stock was around 10% rather than the current 18% it is (Stoll over 40% in some councils!!)

duchy

I spent last Sunday showing a recently discovered long lost cousin around London on his first visit.

As well as the obligatory sites he also wanted to see where my grandparents had lived. I showed him their homes in Holland Park and Clarendon Cross - both homes would sell for millions today and explained to him that when my aunts and uncles got married and left home all six needed to move further out to afford their own homes (the eldest ones married just before WW2 the youngest in 1950 -there's a big age spread).

Holland Park was relatively inexpensive when my grandfather moved there - as an immigrant tailor forced to flee his home country as those of his religion were murdered on a large scale he certainly couldn't afford to live in an expensive area -but he started his own business and was moderately comfortable despite working very long hours. His kids were all bar one born here - and left school and went into professional jobs like insurance.

They too grumbled at having to move further out- so what exactly has changed ? Nothing ! Unless you were lucky enough to qualify for social housing you had to move further afield for comparable housing..... just like today !

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

You should be greatful that London has gifted you a bag of equity cash which will make your life a lot more comfortable in another region of the UK. It didn't kick you out it wrote you a cheque

Also people were moving out of London in the 1990s a time when London property was dirt cheap. The reason then was crime (for the many I knew who moved).
What would you rather, moving away with quarter of a million in equity mostly gifted via HPI or moving away because you were sick and tired of being burgled and mugged.

People want a return to cheap prices but they don't want a return of the reasons prices were cheap.

London doesnot gift anything

young, poorer people have to give older richer people bags loads of money.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

London doesnot gift anything

young, poorer people have to give older richer people bags loads of money.

But don't you keep telling us how London is full and filling up with immigrants. So its thebimmogrant kids paying the way of the older Londoners and the kids of the older Londoners so a win win win

Sapphire

cells wrote: »

You can't really solve the traffic problem.
You need to solve the housing problem in a way to solve the long term traffic problem.

In London there are approx 500,000 jobs in Westminster 300,000 in the city and 200,000 in docklands. That's a million jobs right in the centre. And future job growth is still concentrated there as that's were all the big offices are being built.

What needs to be done is to build apartments within zone 1 and 2 (the parts of z2 close to z1) at very high density so people can walk to work and other amenities. Places like hackney Islington tower hamlets and Southwark need to be knocked down and rebuilt at 3 x the density. Then get rid of cars (not taxis) altogether (maybe also auction a few off Singapore style for £100k a pop) from z1 and possible inner z2

That way long term you put people close to work so they can walk to work rather than let London grow more uniformly and require a cross rail 2 3 4 5 and more and more congestion

I agree with most of this. In the past (Victorian times, etc.), where the affluent lived was built accommodation for poor people as well, who worked for the affluent. They were cheek by jowl, which (I think) is a good idea, given that they depended on each other. I also think that all this throwing up of ugly 'luxury apartments' in London for companies and people to use as investments rather than as housing, then leaving them empty, is a really bad idea – they should be used to alleviate the housing shortage. London property should be lived in, not used as a store of (often dodgy) cash by wealthy individuals and companies.

Perhaps there should be special accommodation for key workers like nurses (flats at discounted rates, with measures to avoid abuses of the system). This did exist in the past, but I believe doesn't any longer.

I do also believe that we need to restrict the influx of migrants to those who will fill vacant jobs during the time when this is needed, then return to their countries – if only because our infrastructure will collapse if we don't. We need a visa system, in my view. And we need to encourage some native English people to have a better attitude to work – the generous benefits system has discouraged some people from looking for work, something that didn't happen in the past because people had to work to survive.