Can you imagine the destruction in the UK if the property market crashed

Herzlos

I agree, sort of. Schools have a reasonable catchment area (particularly high schools) so moving house within a town isn't a big deal. In some cases it may actually be beneficial to rent, as it means you can move next to the nursery you want, then move to the primary you want and secondary you want.



Plus not all buyers are renters - there are plenty people who'd like to upsize when the prices are right.

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

Unfortunately renters don’t have security if tenure i.e. the landlord can give notice when the landlord chooses.
This might not make too much difference when you have babies but when they start school and even nursery then most people aren’t going to want to be moving schools let alone moving house.

You’ve made compromises on space but you are secure in location which is what most people want.

So I agree you can have kids in rented but most people will aspire to own their own home and paint their own bedrooms for their kids and stay in the same place where they can build connections with friends/school not to mention links with jobs and grandparents (who might be offering free childcare).

It’s called nesting.

I think this is the reason for the political pressure against private BTL.
In the past (30 years ago), families were mostly owner occupiers and council tenants - who both had security of tenure. Private sector renters were mostly students and the transient young adults.

Once this insecurity started spreading to the young working / middle class families the government started to take notice - as these people vote more than the transient young.

It will be interesting to see how far the anti private LL / BTL legislation goes. It could have peaked - or we could see rent control, compulsory secure tenancies, etc.

andrewf75

AG47 wrote: »

I couldn’t be more right then in that case.

I’m saying that the uk and Japan have about the same amount of land, and the uk has half the population

If your saying that Japan has more uninhabitable mountains range than the uk, ok yes I didn’t think of that, thanks you are making my case even stronger:T:T

Yes, you were more right, norsefox was more wrong

AG47

andrewf75 wrote: »

Yes, you were more right, norsefox was more wrong

The perma prop bulls hate it, they want us all to think we live on a small island and we are running out of land:rotfl::T

Anyway brexit uncertainty has now been extended so look out bellow when it comes to property prices and rents.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

AG47 wrote: »

The perma prop bulls hate it, they want us all to think we live on a small island and we are running out of land

We do live on a small island, and there is limited land when you factor in:


-proximity to jobs
-environmental protection (how much ancient woodland, rare heathland, seasonal wetlands etc do we build over?)
-agricultural self-sufficiency (is there an appetite for intensive farming?)
-flood plains (there are a lot of rivers on this small temperate island on the edge of an ocean)
-housing density (how many people want to live in tiny, garden-less apartments like in Tokyo and Singapore?)



I'm awaiting the impending rent/house price crash with interest. If prices plummet I'll just buy a bigger, better property.

AG47

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

We do live on a small island, and there is limited land when you factor in:


-proximity to jobs
-environmental protection (how much ancient woodland, rare heathland, seasonal wetlands etc do we build over?)
-agricultural self-sufficiency (is there an appetite for intensive farming?)
-flood plains (there are a lot of rivers on this small temperate island on the edge of an ocean)
-housing density (how many people want to live in tiny, garden-less apartments like in Tokyo and Singapore?)



I'm awaiting the impending rent/house price crash with interest. If prices plummet I'll just buy a bigger, better property.

I'm expecting around 30% crash in real terms over the next half a decade or so. Meaning inflation adjusted a crash down around 30% but possibly more.

The small island argument is nonsense. There is a lot of unused land that could have new towns an even citie built on, without any environmental effects to speak of.

Take Milton Keynes for example, a relatively new town/city. Plans were for a 'new city' for 250,000 people. Next few new cities could each be for 500k people and still the small island argument is nonsense.


There could be many new MK small cities built with all the supporting infrastructure schools shops hospitals shopping centres ect.. These cities could be built all over the country and not bring any noticeable overcrowding because the small island argument is nonsense. Each new city could provide enough new jobs and business to support the growing population.

Future governments would get the majority of votes if they promise such developments and promise adding millions of properties every year instead of the current small number of thousands every year.

by all means print billions of pounds out of thin air, but spend it on infrastructure,mthis would mean even more jobs and good for the economy. Yes property prices will fall but this is going to happen anyway, no point restricting the number of home that need to be built jut to keep the property bubble inflated.

triathlon

AG47 wrote: »

I'm expecting around 30% crash in real terms over the next half a decade or so. Meaning inflation adjusted a crash down around 30% but possibly more.

The small island argument is nonsense. There is a lot of unused land that could have new towns an even citie built on, without any environmental effects to speak of.

Take Milton Keynes for example, a relatively new town/city. Plans were for a 'new city' for 250,000 people. Next few new cities could each be for 500k people and still the small island argument is nonsense.




There could be many new MK small cities built with all the supporting infrastructure schools shops hospitals shopping centres ect.. These cities could be built all over the country and not bring any noticeable overcrowding because the small island argument is nonsense. Each new city could provide enough new jobs and business to support the growing population.

Future governments would get the majority of votes if they promise such developments and promise adding millions of properties every year instead of the current small number of thousands every year.

by all means print billions of pounds out of thin air, but spend it on infrastructure,mthis would mean even more jobs and good for the economy. Yes property prices will fall but this is going to happen anyway, no point restricting the number of home that need to be built jut to keep the property bubble inflated.

And I am expecting prices to double in several years. And as much as I keep pointing out how the diehard doomsters have got it wrong 100's of times, I have got it wrong a few times myself, I have been far too conservative with my increase predictions, they were far bigger than I thought.

AG47

triathlon wrote: »

And I am expecting prices to double in several years. And as much as I keep pointing out how the diehard doomsters have got it wrong 100's of times, I have got it wrong a few times myself, I have been far too conservative with my increase predictions, they were far bigger than I thought.

If house prices double from here do you think everything else will double? Do you think a loaf of bred will double as well?

My prediction is 30% crash in real terms. Yes propert may well double but if we have large inflation and property only doubles and everything else goes up more then we are still looking at a 30% real term crash.

The system is so unstable at the moment, anything looks probable

Sibbers123

The problem with the housing market at the minute is that it is being propped up by low interest rates, buy-to-let investors, tax breaks for first time buyers, lack of supply and help to buy.

House prices have stabilised as things stand (going down in london due to lack of foreign investment now), but I see interest rates being the biggest potential problem - they can't get any lower. If they go up a couple of %, people can't pay their mortgages, investors aren't getting the yields that could get investing their cash elsewhere and as a result, you'll see a lot more properties on the market.

It is the large investors which are exposed most to an interest rate rise (https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2019/3/controversial-landlord-to-feature-on-bbc-panorama-tonight).

The saving grace is that everyone needs a roof over their heads. Just need wages to keep going up inline with house prices.

Also, a Jeremy Corbin government and his rent caps will squeeze the market some more.

There is no way property prices are going anywhere fast.

Sibbers123

AG47 wrote: »

I couldn’t be more right then in that case.

I’m saying that the uk and Japan have about the same amount of land, and the uk has half the population

If your saying that Japan has more uninhabitable mountains range than the uk, ok yes I didn’t think of that, thanks you are making my case even stronger:T:T

Japan is 54% bigger than the UK.

You also need to mention, most of the UK population is in England (55m out of the 65m) and England is approximately half of the total land mass of the UK.