House Prices Up....

ukcarper

p1212 wrote: »

What small amounts, just check the areas I've linked in.

If you move jobs and people to somewhere else, you still need to build infrastructure and transport there.

N1AK wrote: »

The only definition you seem to be using is that it must be bigger than anything they suggest as otherwise you'd have to admit your original assertion was wrong and we know that isn't going to happen.




You may be able to come up with other reasons why the land shouldn't be built on but it doesn't make your original false claim that it didn't exist seem an less ill-informed.

As to your point about transport... Are you serious? You think agricultural land should be ignored for potential housing use because for some reason it doesn't already have major transport links :rotfl:

This map shows urban areas in grey, now considering the remaining area is not all agricultrial and not all of that is suitable for building on i.e flood planes steep slopes on north downs etc in my opinion what remains is not vast.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt#/media/File%3ALondon_Commuter_Belt_map_no_TTW.svg

I've never said that there is no land available for building. Also I never said that if land has bad transform links or infrastructure it shouldn't be built on just that they would need to be improved before the land was used.

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

I've never said that there is no land available for building. Also I never said that if land has bad transform links or infrastructure it shouldn't be built on just that they would need to be improved before the land was used.

You'd probably have to build houses on the land before people could live in them as well... It is sufficiently obvious that transport would need to be built for land to be used for housing that your noting of it added nothing. When people bring up inane points to support their position it generally implies they didn't have any insightful ones, otherwise those would have been deployed instead.

I'm not even going to try and debate quantity of land available with you as it is already apparent that you'll stick to your vague definition regardless of whatever evidence of whatever quantity of land was provided.

p1212

http://static.halifax.co.uk/assets/pdf/mortgages/pdf/August-2016-Halifax-House-Price-index.pdf

"House prices declined by 0.2% between July and August."

wotsthat

p1212 wrote: »

http://static.halifax.co.uk/assets/pdf/mortgages/pdf/August-2016-Halifax-House-Price-index.pdf

"House prices declined by 0.2% between July and August."

Did you provide the links to those multiple properties sold last year with a current asking price £50 - £100k less now?

It's just that your link seems to show house prices have crashed by only £448 in the last month and increased by c£8500 in the last year

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

You'd probably have to build houses on the land before people could live in them as well... It is sufficiently obvious that transport would need to be built for land to be used for housing that your noting of it added nothing. When people bring up inane points to support their position it generally implies they didn't have any insightful ones, otherwise those would have been deployed instead.

I'm not even going to try and debate quantity of land available with you as it is already apparent that you'll stick to your vague definition regardless of whatever evidence of whatever quantity of land was provided.

The transport links in that area south east of London are not very good at all and infrastucture not only includes roads but sewage farms, water supply's etc. It's not good identifying land on Google Earth and say build there without paying any attention to infrastructure and transport links.

There is no easy solution to the shortage of housing in London and glib suggestions like build on vast amount of agriculturial and pointless.

My suggestion is vague but vast amounts is not. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vast

MobileSaver

p1212 wrote: »

"House prices declined by 0.2% between July and August."

Great! So you just need the exact same thing to happen every single month for the next 28 years and the HPC dream of a 50% price crash will be a reality!

The fact that most mortgages are less than 28 years and so most people would have paid their mortgage off before anyone from HPC ever gets around to buying anything is just a minor snag. :shhh:

Of course, sadly for Crashy Time, he's been out of the home owner club for so long that he actually needs this price reduction to happen every month for the next 66 years just to break even! Whoops...

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver wrote: »

Great! So you just need the exact same thing to happen every single month for the next 28 years and the HPC dream of a 50% price crash will be a reality!

The fact that most mortgages are less than 28 years and so most people would have paid their mortgage off before anyone from HPC ever gets around to buying anything is just a minor snag. :shhh:

Of course, sadly for Crashy Time, he's been out of the home owner club for so long that he actually needs this price reduction to happen every month for the next 66 years just to break even! Whoops...

.... but as everyone (except you) knows that is not how markets and sentiment work, they don`t take 30 years to move, they can move overnight, and many who bought into the bubble will be deep in negative equity long before they have any chance of paying their property debt off.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-house-prices-fell-in-august-as-market-continues-to-cool-a7230661.html




:rotfl: Where`s Sibley when you need him?

Crashy_Time

ukcarper wrote: »

The transport links in that area south east of London are not very good at all and infrastucture not only includes roads but sewage farms, water supply's etc. It's not good identifying land on Google Earth and say build there without paying any attention to infrastructure and transport links.

There is no easy solution to the shortage of housing in London and glib suggestions like build on vast amount of agriculturial and pointless.

My suggestion is vague but vast amounts is not. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vast

The solution is less people, and that is the outcome the electorate are moving towards.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

will be deep in negative equity long before they have any chance of paying their property debt off.

Not if prices decrease at just 0.2% every month they won't! :rotfl:

Of course the likelihood is that prices will simply fluctuate between plus or minus a few percent over the next few years...

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

that is not how markets and sentiment work,

I keep forgetting you are a financial expert; you have been educating us all on "sentiment" for more than two years now... can you remind everyone again how house house prices have fared over the last two years?