Why are property prices so different in the north?

zagubov

GreatApe wrote: »

London homes are not smaller than the national average

Why do you think they are?

You are making a mistake, which is thinking X pounds rents or buys a smaller place in London.
But that is not the same as saying Londoners live in small homes. We dont!

Average London homes are more or less the same size as rUK
What you are failing to see or understand is that....Londoners can afford to pay more for housing so while yes an individual might be able to afford less space in London, as a whole...Londoners do not have less housing space

Fair enough, I might be wrong, though having lived here for 35 years, I find Londoners on standard incomes can rarely afford houses as big as their compatriots in the rest of the UK. I hardly know anyone here who can afford to have or house a third child. Three beds is a kind of maximum for houses and two-up two-down houses seem ubiquitous.

It's quite normal for people to be spending at least half their income on accommodation.

Houses seem more frequently subdivided into flats than elsewhere. Extensions have eaten up gardens (but these never seem to be used much anyway). Flats rarely seem to have been designed to be flats. More people seem to be lodgers or have lodgers than elsewhere.

An architect friend told me that there are now guidelines to mitigate this by enforcing minimum living area rules in London and that's because London is more prone to living area shrinkage than everywhere else.

We live in a relatively spacious house that uses up a huge bit of our incomes. Our nest isn't empty because our next generation can't afford to live anywhere else on a young persons income.

The house is fully occupied as are all our neighbours.

Private letting agencies canvas us all the time to take in foreign students, overseas businesspeople, and the council keeps checking for unoccupied houses to house tenants in.

This might all be an illusion; i'll admit I've never seen a city-buy-city breakdown of the rooming/housing/ floorspace patterns of London and other cities. I'd be intrigued to know more.

jonnygee2

But that is not the same as saying Londoners live in small homes. We dont!

Not everyone, but there are a lot of people living in <50sqm apartments in London and that's not common across the country. Many people in my area live in very small spaces - families of 5+ in two beds etc. And renters or lodgers renting tiny rooms etc.

It's pretty normal in a big city, but the fact that space is at a premium does mean a lot of people have to live in cosier conditions than people in lower density areas.

GreatApe

zagubov wrote: »

Fair enough, I might be wrong, though having lived here for 35 years, I find Londoners on standard incomes can rarely afford houses as big as their compatriots in the rest of the UK. I hardly know anyone here who can afford to have or house a third child. Three beds is a kind of maximum for houses and two-up two-down houses seem ubiquitous.

It's quite normal for people to be spending at least half their income on accommodation.

Houses seem more frequently subdivided into flats than elsewhere. Extensions have eaten up gardens (but these never seem to be used much anyway). Flats rarely seem to have been designed to be flats. More people seem to be lodgers or have lodgers than elsewhere.

An architect friend told me that there are now guidelines to mitigate this by enforcing minimum living area rules in London and that's because London is more prone to living area shrinkage than everywhere else.

We live in a relatively spacious house that uses up a huge bit of our incomes. Our nest isn't empty because our next generation can't afford to live anywhere else on a young persons income.

The house is fully occupied as are all our neighbours.

Private letting agencies canvas us all the time to take in foreign students, overseas businesspeople, and the council keeps checking for unoccupied houses to house tenants in.

This might all be an illusion; i'll admit I've never seen a city-buy-city breakdown of the rooming/housing/ floorspace patterns of London and other cities. I'd be intrigued to know more.

You are simply wrong. The average occupancy rate of London is quite close to the average of the UK which is 2.35 persons per property

Average property size is very similar. Inner London properties are smaller but that is because there are more flats but that are made up mostly by having less dead space in the form of stairs

Plus 1 person households are quite common nationally and in London. iirc its something like a quarter of all homes nationally are lived in by just 1 person. And I know a number of people who live by themselves to their own flats in London. Not everyone is on poverty wages

Plus as I keep saying, only 3% of people pay todays rents or mortgages most pay prices of many years ago. Plus nearly a quarter, 24%, of London are social properties who pay little to no rents at all

GreatApe

jonnygee2 wrote: »

Not everyone, but there are a lot of people living in <50sqm apartments in London and that's not common across the country. Many people in my area live in very small spaces - families of 5+ in two beds etc. And renters or lodgers renting tiny rooms etc.

It's pretty normal in a big city, but the fact that space is at a premium does mean a lot of people have to live in cosier conditions than people in lower density areas.

Poor people can afford less housing but even then their housing costs are not that high

For instance I have a group of renters that rent a 100 sqm house and 4 of them share this and it costs £2,200 per month. Fairly typical in this area of zone 2

Add in ~£150 for council tax £150 for gas/eletric/water/internet and they are paying ~£2,500 or about £625 per person and most of them are able to walk/cycle/scoot to work so no travel costs

10 years ago I was paying not much less than that up north in Middlesbrough.
I was renting a 2 bedroom flat with a friend which was perhaps 50-60 sqm
It cost £650 rent + ~£200 bills = £425 each
Now £425 is cheaper than £625 but that £425 was a decade ago when prices were lower. I think in todays terms the two are not far off each other

Plus I had huge transport costs. >£1000 for insurance. Depreciation. Fuel. etc
One of the big positives of inner London living is you rent somewhere close to work and can avoid transport costs and save time too.

---

But that is the lower end private renters and only represent about 25% of the city

24% are social rents on very cheap or free rents

~50% own and paid mostly prices that were much much lower and in fact their housing costs have been free...more than free....they paid negative housing costs

westernpromise

Homes need to be bigger in the north because, seeing as how there's nothing to do if you go out, you have to stay at home more.

Londoners are hardly ever home because they live in London. So they don't really notice the size of their houses. Without digging out the survey I couldn't even tell you for sure how many bedrooms my house has, nor who lives there.

zagubov

GreatApe wrote: »

You are simply wrong. The average occupancy rate of London is quite close to the average of the UK which is 2.35 persons per property

Average property size is very similar. Inner London properties are smaller but that is because there are more flats but that are made up mostly by having less dead space in the form of stairs

Plus 1 person households are quite common nationally and in London. iirc its something like a quarter of all homes nationally are lived in by just 1 person. And I know a number of people who live by themselves to their own flats in London. Not everyone is on poverty wages

Plus as I keep saying, only 3% of people pay todays rents or mortgages most pay prices of many years ago. Plus nearly a quarter, 24%, of London are social properties who pay little to no rents at all

You must have more detailed sources than I've found. I've found the English Housing Survey and the mayor's evidence base for his housing strategy seem to support my claims (e.g about household sizes increasing faster than numbers) although I'll admit I'd prefer more direct data.

If you've more precise sources than these it would be useful to see them.

Zero_Sum

GreatApe wrote: »

London homes are not much smaller than the national average

So we do not live more dense than elsewhere

Private renters might...actually probably do...but the 75% or so that own or are in social have more or less the same amount of space

In fact I would wager Londoners have the same or slightly more space. So many London homes have been extended or had a loft conversion done.

Plus beyond a certain point more space typically just means more junk. I have a room which is just an ironing room where the ironing board sits open all the time...do I need that, is my life so much better for not having to open and close an iron once a week...no

You've not provided a link to back that up. Another poster has provided a link to the contrary.

Here's the thing, London is a city of 2 extremes. It has the most mega rich than anywhere else in the country who live in £60m mansion, and some of the most deprivation in the country. So in terms of house size, they cancel each other out. Thats how averages work.

However for someone earning a local average wage, the size of property you can afford is a lot less in London. As I said before, my brother earns double to me but he cant afford a house anywhere near the size of mine. London has a higher proportion of flats than anywhere else in the country, this actually makes London house prices look smaller than they really are.

The other thing you dont take into account of people living there. More HMO's in London

Zero_Sum

westernpromise wrote: »

Homes need to be bigger in the north because, seeing as how there's nothing to do if you go out, you have to stay at home more.

Londoners are hardly ever home because they live in London. So they don't really notice the size of their houses. Without digging out the survey I couldn't even tell you for sure how many bedrooms my house has, nor who lives there.

You're like a Man Utd fan who signs upto a Liverpool forum pretending to be a Liverpool fan. Then trots out sterotype cliches than Man Utd fans mock Liverpool fans for to somehow try and embarrass Liverpool. But they actually embarrass themselves as everyone can see through it as its obvious theyre Man Utd.

So i wager you really live up north and just pretending to be arrogant & unfriendly to mock Londoners. But actually just making a fool of yourself.

lisyloo

Zero_Sum wrote: »

You're like a Man Utd fan who signs upto a Liverpool forum pretending to be a Liverpool fan. Then trots out sterotype cliches than Man Utd fans mock Liverpool fans for to somehow try and embarrass Liverpool. But they actually embarrass themselves as everyone can see through it as its obvious theyre Man Utd.

So i wager you really live up north and just pretending to be arrogant & unfriendly to mock Londoners. But actually just making a fool of yourself.

I think there’s a serious point behind it.
I have 2 homes, one in central london.
We live different lifestyles in both and I think this applies to families as well as couples and singles.

For example if there are new films out in London we’ll go to the cinema because there are great cinemas, some in historic buildings, some state of the art, biggest IMAX etc. Plus the choice of any cuisine you choose to mention from street food to Michelin stars.
In my market town I’d probably stay at home and watch Netflix.

That’s an example but also applies to outdoor exercise, shopping, food buying, so it’s a bit more like Europe where we spend a great deal more time out on the streets rather than at home.

Perhaps there some cause/effect here but people adapt to a smaller space without it being a massive issue.

I think it’s a good thing that people want to live in different places.
If we all wanted to live up north then we’d have a big issue.
I think we should celebrate the diversity rather than trying to argue one is better.

I experience both and I don’t think one is better, it’s just different.

Zero_Sum

lisyloo wrote: »

I think there’s a serious point behind it.
I have 2 homes, one in central london.
We live different lifestyles in both and I think this applies to families as well as couples and singles.

For example if there are new films out in London we’ll go to the cinema because there are great cinemas, some in historic buildings, some state of the art, biggest IMAX etc. Plus the choice of any cuisine you choose to mention from street food to Michelin stars.
In my market town I’d probably stay at home and watch Netflix.

That’s an example but also applies to outdoor exercise, shopping, food buying, so it’s a bit more like Europe where we spend a great deal more time out on the streets rather than at home.

Perhaps there some cause/effect here but people adapt to a smaller space without it being a massive issue.

I think it’s a good thing that people want to live in different places.
If we all wanted to live up north then we’d have a big issue.
I think we should celebrate the diversity rather than trying to argue one is better.

I experience both and I don’t think one is better, it’s just different.

Possibly. Of couse London offers a different lifestyle, but this WesternPromise character is like a WUM/Paradoy account.. We can debate & joke about stuff, but he's just plain rude.

Its also worth noting that in a recent report stating that record numbers of over 30's are leaving the capital. This would back up my point that its not really suitable (or rather unaffordable) for families