Why are property prices so different in the north?

westernpromise

Zero_Sum wrote: »

My brother actually lives in London & pays 4 times as much in rent for a bedroom than I do on my mortgage for a 3 bed semi with garage, drive & ensuite bedroom

But you're going to die poor. He isn't.

zagubov

Mistermeaner wrote: »

increases in londons house prices have been good for those that were in the right place at the right time

They've only really been good for people who do the sensible thing and move north to bigger better housing.

chelseablue wrote: »

Today I cant wait to move, the thought of another 29 years of £800 a month mortgage (and that's if we stay in this house) is filling me with dread


If we stay here I'll be 66 by the time its paid off ...

Same here. But the way society is going, early retirement is looking less practical anyway. Wonder if we're heading towards the kind of 100 year mortgages they have or had in Japan and Sweden.

Zero_Sum

westernpromise wrote: »

But you're going to die poor. He isn't.

Well im not, but as ill be dead why would i care?. When im in my late 80's or 90's i dont want to be wealthy as i wont be able to enjoy it. Or even government take it in care home fees.

Ill be mortgage free well before my brother has even bought a property.

Kim_kim

GreatApe wrote: »

Well if I was in power and my aim was to reduce prices in London I would do as follows

1: As social tenants vacate or die sell off the homes
Aprox 33,000 such homes would be vacated and sold off
No one is kicked out

2: Set a cap on housing benefits for new claimants of for example £1,000 per month. Not enough for most of London but plenty enough for rUK

The result over a period of 10 years would be roughly as follows.
London would see its social stock decline from 24% to 15% which is closer to the national average. So London has no less social housing than the average in the UK it goes form having more than the average to having the average

London population growth of +100,000 a year is reduced to roughly 0 population growth
rUK population growth goes from ~400,000 a year to ~500,000 a year

Result is cheaper London house prices and rents (same population but circa 300k-500k new builds built over the decade) and marginally more expensive house prices and rents in rUK. But the differential is lower because you shift 500,000 people in London with a housing stock of 3.5 million properties to 500,000 people in rUK with a housing stock of 27 million properties

Additional benefits are less congestion and less need to spend on public transport upgrades in London since there are 500,000 fewer people than there otherwise might be


For those that hate the idea of the government selling off social homes. Instead they could be sold to a private company who could rent them out on normal ASTs for 12/24 months at full going rate. The government can then retain 90-100% of the shares of said company. If they shifted 300,000 properties to said company and say this company charged £10,000 more per property than the council where charging that means said company would make a profit of £3 billion a year which would go 90-100% to the government which could use it to buy rainbows and pomchis for orphan kids

Or they could build social housing stock outside London with the funds raised, like they did with Crawley, Milton Keynes, etc.

zagubov

I think we need to realise that foreign investors are already starting to snap up property in the north, as London prices can't keep rising forever and other places like Manchester can be more profitable.

lisyloo

Zero_Sum wrote: »

My brother actually lives in London & pays 4 times as much in rent for a bedroom than I do on my mortgage for a 3 bed semi with garage, drive & ensuite bedroom

We spend on rent in London, but it’s a relative small amount compared with what we’re able to make i.e. the 6 figure jobs that are barley present elsewhere in the country which will enable us to retire at 55 rather than 67.

Do I begrudge a relatively small amount in rent?
No.

Would I be rather doing lower wage toil in a difference part of the country?
No, but if I did what makes you think I can’t make that decision?

We don’t know your brothers reasons, but I suspect he has a good job or career rather than just being an idiot who doesnt realise there are cheaper rents available.

lisyloo

zagubov wrote: »

They've only really been good for people who do the sensible thing and move north to bigger better housing.

Why do you think everything in life revolves around people’s housing?

I don’t, I think most people’s happiness revolves around their family, friends and the work they do.

Same here. But the way society is going, early retirement is looking less practical anyway.

Plenty of people in London jobs are going to have an early retirement.
I’m not saying one is better, but theres a trade off here.
I’m very happy to be retiring early and I can manage compromising on my accomodation for a period of time.
We have plenty of places to go in London so it’s more of a continental life where we spend more time outside the house e.g. more likely to go to the cinema that watch a Film at home.
The compromise on accomodation affects us less because we have fabulous places to be many of which are free e.g. British museum.

lisyloo

zagubov wrote: »

I think we need to realise that foreign investors are already starting to snap up property in the north, as London prices can't keep rising forever and other places like Manchester can be more profitable.

That will push up prices and price out locals.
You think you’ve done some smug point scoring but you’re just wishing people out of a home - nice.

seven-day-weekend

Come to the West Midlands. It's easy to get to everywhere. Birmingham has all the facilities. Shropshire/Staffordshire/Worcestershire/Warwickshire countryside on your doorstep. Coast a couple of hours away. Peak District/Cotswolds about an hour. Even London (assuming you wish to go) easily done on the train.

Housing much cheaper than London.

Zero_Sum

lisyloo wrote: »

We spend on rent in London, but it’s a relative small amount compared with what we’re able to make i.e. the 6 figure jobs that are barley present elsewhere in the country which will enable us to retire at 55 rather than 67.

Do I begrudge a relatively small amount in rent?
No.

Would I be rather doing lower wage toil in a difference part of the country?
No, but if I did what makes you think I can’t make that decision?

We don’t know your brothers reasons, but I suspect he has a good job or career rather than just being an idiot who doesnt realise there are cheaper rents available.

He went for career reasons & also in part to live the London lifestyle.
He's earning double to me & has a very good deposit & would still struggle to get anything decent. He actually nearly bought something a couple of years back before the vendor tried to pull a fast one. It was basically nothing more than a self catering hotel room which cost the same as a 4 bed detached witj double garage up here. (And it was a do-er uper). Its just crazy.

For me the trade off just isnt worth it. As you spend the best part of 35-40 years working, to compromise on living standards that long doesnt work for me. Yes there are opportunities to earn good money but with that comes more stress, more responsibility, more unpaid overtime. Life is too short for that.

The hustle & bustle on the tubes at rush hour (or more like rush 3 hours) is absolutely horrific. I just prefer a more chilled out lifestyle.