Why I would be celebrating if Brexit led to lower house prices

lisyloo

Sapphire wrote: »

I have to go in to central and other parts of London quite often. Over the last couple of years, it has become noticeably overcrowded when you look at what is on the streets and on public transport. The air is becoming more and more foul, and there are far too many cars and vans on the roads – the place is gridlocked, with the consequent detriments to the population. It's also really hot and muggy (particularly on public transport), even when the weather isn't particularly hot, as now.

I can foresee a time when people will want to rapidly exit London – there's only so much overpopulation that is sustainable before a place becomes too unpleasant to live in. The changes in London will also affect the tourist market, and all this will affect the economy.

In a way, I suppose London is a victim of its own success…:cool:

I don't agree with you entirely (and I live here).
The tubes can be hot but the introduction of air conditioning has improved things and there have been improvements.
There are lots of quiet roads (I cycle), a lot of people could alter their commutes e.g. Go earlier, if it was important enough. I get the tube but it's not bad enough to make me get up earlier.
I agree about the air being foul and the roads being gridlocked, fortunately there is underground, walking or cycling options.
Talking to people I know and those I don't e,g. Hairdresser, some people love London despite it's faults. It's very possible to have either a nice walk to work and it's also possible to have a not nice commute but worth it for career reasons.
My immediate colleagues says he wouldn't go back up north becuase there isn't enough interesting work (even in Manchester) and much more to do in London.
So au contraire people love it even despite it's faults.
Infrastructure in some places has improved and some areas have been gentrified.

Some of us (and to a point include myself) don't really mind that much living in crappy/small accomodation. It's not important.
Yes if you have 6 kids it's important, but to young people or couples working it's not such a big deal.
I'd liken it to having a tiny cabin on the QE 2 - most people enjoy the good bits of the whole experience and don't care that much about the bad bits.

There is no dispute about air quality.
Would we leave our jobs and be unemployed instead? No.

lush_walrus

Sapphire wrote: »

I have to go in to central and other parts of London quite often. Over the last couple of years, it has become noticeably overcrowded when you look at what is on the streets and on public transport. The air is becoming more and more foul, and there are far too many cars and vans on the roads – the place is gridlocked, with the consequent detriments to the population. It's also really hot and muggy (particularly on public transport), even when the weather isn't particularly hot, as now.

I can foresee a time when people will want to rapidly exit London – there's only so much overpopulation that is sustainable before a place becomes too unpleasant to live in. The changes in London will also affect the tourist market, and all this will affect the economy.

In a way, I suppose London is a victim of its own success…:cool:

Not sure I entirely agree either. London is a big place, transport was equally as busy in the 60s as now. In fact back to pre the great fire of London and there are reports of a very dense centre to London all low level timber buildings but no gaps between and no green spaces.

If you look at other world cities London is no where near as dense and their popularity continues.

If you are talking about tourist areas the city or Oxford Street then yes it's very busy. But London is very different in density one street to the next. Angel is busy and heavily trafficked as is City Road go 2 minutes away to regents canal and its peaceful and quiet. Marylebone road and Baker Street are busy as is Camden High Road, a short distance away to Belsize Park and Primrose hill and the density is low and very quiet leafy streets bound by parks.

We all judge busy differently we have friends who live on Shetland and whenever they head down to the highlands they talk about how much traffic noise and pollution there is!

lisyloo

I can foresee a time when people will want to rapidly exit London

You're overlooking a very important fact - that there aren't 10 million jobs elsewhere.
How many do you think could realistically find work elsewhere? 100,000?
I live in modest accommodation however it's a million times better than being unemployed and unable to pay the bills.

there's only so much overpopulation that is sustainable before a place becomes too unpleasant to live in

You seem to be judging it by what you see on your commute and that's nothing like what it's like to live there once the commuters have left.

The changes in London will also affect the tourist market

There are 3 "Londons" here (maybe more).
Commuter London that you see.
Residents London after the commuters have left
and Tourists London - the museums and main tourist traps (tower of London) have always been exceptionally busy and it doesn't see to put tourists off at all, why do you think that would start now? It seems to be even more popular in recent years.

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

There are 3 "Londons" here (maybe more).
Commuter London that you see.
Residents London after the commuters have left
and Tourists London - the museums and main tourist traps (tower of London) have always been exceptionally busy and it doesn't see to put tourists off at all, why do you think that would start now? It seems to be even more popular in recent years.

Yes. Currently, people are still moving to London despite the crowding, costs and so forth. I don't see why people will en masse decide in a couple of years time that they were all wrong and start vacating. Particularly since all major cities around the world exhibit the same trait of becoming more dense. Many are much more dense than London currently.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Yes. Currently, people are still moving to London despite the crowding, costs and so forth. I don't see why people will en masse decide in a couple of years time that they were all wrong and start vacating. Particularly since all major cities around the world exhibit the same trait of becoming more dense. Many are much more dense than London currently.

the vast majority of people that are moving to cities are in the third world and represents the move of 'country' people to the city as mechanisation removes jobs in the countryside :
it is the result of extreme poverty and one can see this clearly looking at the megacities, most of which are in third world countries and are for the most part, squalid and dangerous.

London is NOT growing because the UK countryside is being emptied but because of the abject failure of the EU to provide jobs for its young people due to the dogma and politics. Obviously there is also immigration from non EU countries that has some of the same characteristic as the third world migration.

There are a massive differences in the (low) grow of population in most of the 1st world cities and the high growth in the third world.

In the UK London would not grow significantly (and might even decline) if immigration was reduced to 10s of thousands.

westernpromise

Sapphire wrote: »

I can foresee a time when people will want to rapidly exit London – there's only so much overpopulation that is sustainable before a place becomes too unpleasant to live in.

If London were a horrible palce to live and work property would be dirt cheap. The price of property tells you the whole, different, story: it's a very, very desirable place to live and to work.

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Why didn`t you research it (well we know you researched it, just didn`t post it) in relation to the credit boom years 2001 - 2008?

I've shown you that starting from 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, property there has depreciated versus general inflation. I get that you don't want to hear this. We've previously established that up there in the Gorbals or wherever you need prices to fall by 130% in nominal terms to get out of the hole you're in. I'll repeat that: you need prices to fall by 130% in nominal terms to get out of the hole you're in.

But you're being shown that even in the grottiest armpit of a place the UK has to offer, they've gone up 49%. In your shoes I wouldn't want to hear this either.

You're the one making the mysterious claims about Burnley, not me. Why don't you articulate them and then substantiate them (whatever you claims actually are) rather than muttering in a corner?

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

he wouldn't go back up north becuase there isn't enough interesting work (even in Manchester)

I found that very, very funny, for some reason.

Filo25

westernpromise wrote: »

If London were a horrible palce to live and work property would be dirt cheap. The price of property tells you the whole, different, story: it's a very, very desirable place to live and to work.

I live there because I love the place personally, and I've loved it pretty much since I moved there in 1996.

The fact that I earn about 40-50% more than I would elsewhere in the UK helps obviously

westernpromise

Filo25 wrote: »

I live there because I love the place personally, and I've loved it pretty much since I moved there in 1996.

The fact that I earn about 40-50% more than I would elsewhere in the UK helps obviously

I reckon I probably earn 500% more than I'd earn elsewhere. In what I do, there is London and there are the sticks, and all the jobs are here in London.