How much can house prices keep rising ?

mwpt

GreatApe wrote: »

Its something I thought about for quite some time. With autonomous cars reducing door to door travil time and costs surely people will spread out. However I dont think this anymore.

Inner London is expensive because rich people want to buy expensive property and be near other rich people.

In the same way people buy £50,000 mechanical watches that are no better at time keeping than a £5 digital casio.

Also there is probably something to do with age of having the first kid. In the past if people had a kid in the mid 20s maybe there was a bigger incentive to move to the quiet clean country. Now if they are 40 for the first kid they have already purchased in london and dont want to move out for multiple reasons

I agree with these points.

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

Its something I thought about for quite some time. With autonomous cars reducing door to door travil time and costs surely people will spread out. However I dont think this anymore.

Inner London is expensive because rich people want to buy expensive property and be near other rich people.

In the same way people buy £50,000 mechanical watches that are no better at time keeping than a £5 digital casio.

Also there is probably something to do with age of having the first kid. In the past if people had a kid in the mid 20s maybe there was a bigger incentive to move to the quiet clean country. Now if they are 40 for the first kid they have already purchased in london and dont want to move out for multiple reasons

Travelling itself takes time and costs money. We have some driverless tubes and trains in London and it hasn't made travelling better.
So large amounts (of travel time) are negatives in general in their own right.
I don't see how driverless cars could transport people more efficiently than the tube in the centre of the city where each tube has hundreds of people per minute on them.

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

Now that brexit vote has won how long do two new teacher in Hackney need to wait for the £1m terrace to fall to an affordable (for them) £150k?

Barring some black swan event (antibiotics apocalypse) - ordinary people will never be able to buy in London barring a windfall.
There are simply too many people better off from all over the world wanting to live there.

I have accepted this as a reality even though we are considerable better off than that so they should too.
There are simply too many people wealthier than me.

Unless you gave family of career reasons for being in London both of which I fully understand, then why not teach somewhere else that offers a better quality of life for two teachers?

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

HMOs exist in the cheapest parts of the country too which goes to show its not something that happens where property or rents are expensive.

I known one landlord with HMOs in the Midlands (where a decent 3 bed terrace within walking time of the town centre and offices) cost £90-110k. Most of his tenant are professionals. One particular HMO had 4 actuaries and 2 accountants in it. All of them can afford to buy a 3 bed house on their own but to date haven't. They clearly seem to find the arrangement to their liking.


Also as you probably know London is 24% social stock there aren't many doctors or judges or film starts living in a council flat in London. Why can't the 'poor but essential people' be put inside these 850,000 properties?

I live in a social housing block (my flat is rented privatly).
The reason the public ownership flats can't be let to essential workers are that many of them house economically inactive people (like pensioners or single parent families with no one working).

You would need a proposal for what to do with those people. I would say send the long term unemployed to places like blaneau gwent but there are arguments against that including funding care for those who are currently cared for by family members.
So what's your proposal for housing the current tenants?

lisyloo

Most of his tenant are professionals. One particular HMO had 4 actuaries and 2 accountants in it.

I spend a lot of time in a rented "pied a terre" in London.
No garden, property, vehicles to look after, no commitment, liabilities etc.
It fantastic, can spend every weekend entirely at leisure with no worries.
Any big problems can just walk away.

It's not luxurious but so what has all mod cons.
My point is - don't assume everyone's housing needs or desires are the same. Not everyone is after buying a decent sized family home.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

Travelling itself takes time and costs money. We have some driverless tubes and trains in London and it hasn't made travelling better.
So large amounts (of travel time) are negatives in general in their own right.
I don't see how driverless cars could transport people more efficiently than the tube in the centre of the city where each tube has hundreds of people per minute on them.

The door to door time is most important and the car is best at that unless you happen to live very close to a station and work very close to another station on the same line.

Self drive taxis have the potential to make door to door travil quicker and cheaper. Cars in London have a low average speed let's say its 15mph if that could be increased to say 30mph with better traffic control and fewer cars on the road (say 1/3rd the number of cars but 3x the passenger density) then that halves the time to do a given distance.

Also these taxi self drive fleets will number in the millions. Think uber but 20x the size. Right now it takes me very often less than 5 mins for an uber to arrive when I hit the app. With the self drive taxi fleets I suspect that will fall to 1 minute or less. So what might be for some a 15 min walk to the station or tube or bus and then a 10 min wait becomes a 1 min wait in your hallway.

Also these taxi fleets will over time become for for use. For instence right now people might buy a 4 door large car even if 99% of the time its just them in it. The future might be 99% of the fleet might be small single seated (think half a smart car) and 1% of the fleet night be larger traditional cars for the 1% of the time people need that.

We might also get to a time where the flying car becomes a reality. This sounds absurb now but the tech companies are working on delivery drones with 10 mile ranges. The next step is something larger a drone that can carry a human. If that happens it makes transport 3D which allows a huge number of lanes stacked on top of each other rather than just one road on street level.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

I live in a social housing block (my flat is rented privatly).
The reason the public ownership flats can't be let to essential workers are that many of them house economically inactive people (like pensioners or single parent families with no one working).

You would need a proposal for what to do with those people. I would say send the long term unemployed to places like blaneau gwent but there are arguments against that including funding care for those who are currently cared for by family members.
So what's your proposal for housing the current tenants?

They die off or leave at a rate of some 40,000 properties per year (this just in London).

If there is a shortage of poorly paid but vital workers (I'm not convinced we are at this stage) who can't make it without cheap housing then some of this 40,000 council homes can go to them.

Crashy_Time

padington wrote: »

The free things to do in London is like a free £20 every day you can be bothered to enjoy it.

Who would want to be unemployed on the Kent coast when you could be in London?

Kent coast would be preferable to central London IMO....:rotfl:The unemployed don`t do much of the middle class stuff like trailing round art galleries though do they, and once you have seen a few paintings or wax-works it gets stale pretty quickly? :rotfl:


London having some free "attractions" isn`t going to save Wood Green house prices mate, you have to learn to adapt to this at some point.......:rotfl:

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

, and once you have seen a few paintings or wax-works it gets stale pretty quickly?

Only if you have very limited interests or are tired of life.
There's plenty of free stuff you can do for years that doesn't involve art.

London having some free "attractions" isn`t going to save Wood Green house prices

People are in London primarily for the jobs - either the well paying ones or the large number of low paid ones.

What do you think is going to stop an increasing population or stop our economy being so London centric.
Believe me I'd like it to be less London centric but it a vicious or virtuous circle depending on your point of view.
The jobs attra t the talent which attract the jobs.
What are you predicting us going to stop high house prices?

singhini

lisyloo wrote: »

What are you predicting us going to stop high house prices?

I agree - i cant see house prices going down. The government need inflation to go up (they work towards a magic figure of 2% but its only 0.9% at the moment). If inflation increases the BOE need to put interest rates up to make sure it stays at around 2% and doesn't get out of control. Now if they don't put interest rates up high enough inflation will continue to increase and people tend to put money into property since inflation is making their money worthless (well not worthless but diminishing its purchasing power), and houses are viewed as a secure place to put your money (great example are the Russians who are buying property in the UK, they take their money out of Russia where it might not be secure and bring it to the UK where the country is secure. If they make the purchase of the property via a company they have set up, even better as it might save them some tax).

So i predict inflation will go up in 2017 to ~1.5% but interest rates wont go up immediately and this lag will cause house prices to continue to rise.
when inflation dose get to >2% BOE will increase interest rates to ~1.25% but house prices wont go down, their growth will just slow (but not go down).

but what do i know, I'm a drunk