Rents are like to spiral going on this.

westernpromise

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Property is very much a UK trait. No interest in real wealth generating assets.

Just shows your insularity. The sort of people who spout this guff are almost always the kind who get all their information from the Daily Mail and who've never set foot outside the country or, if they have, outside a capsule tourist resort in somewhere like Porchickle.

The USA, Singapore, Hong Kong, UAE, Australia etc are all very interested indeed in property as an asset class.

You are perhaps thinking we should be more like Germany, because Germany has lots of happy smiling renters. But Germany has a falling population, a housing surplus, and a rental market of mediocre stock tied up by corporates trading their properties - hundred-flat blocks - back and forth among one another for the tax breaks (you can write property depreciation off against your tax bill in Germany just like car rental companies can write off car depreciation; it's a f*cking scandal this isn't permitted in the UK).

The quality of the housing stock in such countries is so homogeneous that it's hard to get excited about any of it.

Thrugelmir

westernpromise wrote: »

But Germany has a falling population,

A problem that will challenge the developed world. Spain's has been falling since 2012. Japan's since 2011. Be no shortage of cheap property for people to go and live in.

The quality of the housing stock in such countries is so homogeneous that it's hard to get excited about any of it.

While the UK has an ageing housing stock supplemented by in general a poor quality new build culture. If Graven Hill were the benchmark them matters would be very different.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Just shows your insularity. The sort of people who spout this guff are almost always the kind who get all their information from the Daily Mail and who've never set foot outside the country or, if they have, outside a capsule tourist resort in somewhere like Porchickle.

The USA, Singapore, Hong Kong, UAE, Australia etc are all very interested indeed in property as an asset class.

You are perhaps thinking we should be more like Germany, because Germany has lots of happy smiling renters. But Germany has a falling population, a housing surplus, and a rental market of mediocre stock tied up by corporates trading their properties - hundred-flat blocks - back and forth among one another for the tax breaks (you can write property depreciation off against your tax bill in Germany just like car rental companies can write off car depreciation; it's a f*cking scandal this isn't permitted in the UK).

The quality of the housing stock in such countries is so homogeneous that it's hard to get excited about any of it.

They are less interested now in Hong Kong.

Malthusian

Thrugelmir wrote: »

While the UK has an ageing housing stock supplemented by in general a poor quality new build culture.

In a hundred years time' our "poor quality" new builds will be high-quality desirable Elizabethan properties. Because all the bad ones will have been knocked down, just like all the bad Victorian properties were knocked down decades ago, meaning that Victorian is now assumed to mean high-quality due to survivorship bias. People in 2119 will look at the few high-quality Elizabethan houses that are left standing and moan "why can't we build houses like they did in the Elizabethan era".

The handful of high-quality Victorian-era properties that have survived into 2019 aren't "aging", they're tried-and-tested. All of them have been upgraded massively which means they don't deserve the tag of "aging". Grandfather's axe is now a chainsaw.

If Graven Hill were the benchmark them matters would be very different.

If everyone wanted to build their own home the nation would be considerably poorer, thanks to the time inefficiently wasted by inept amateur builders building rubbish.

90% of people would be crap at building or designing a house even if they put their mind to it (Sturgeon's Law) and it is economically more efficient for a crap housebuilding company to build an identikit crap home for them to live in, than to waste their time randomly building a crap home themselves. The homeowners can then use the tens of thousands of pounds the housebuilding company has saved them to buy more crap. The 10% who want something better are well-provided for.

Thrugelmir

Malthusian wrote: »

The handful of high-quality Victorian-era properties that have survived into 2019 aren't "aging", they're tried-and-tested.

Plenty of other property is around that was built in that era. Guess you don't visit the "old" industrial towns very often.

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Plenty of other property is around that was built in that era. Guess you don't visit the "old" industrial towns very often.

Around 10% of the current housing stock is Victorian whether anyone has personally visited them or not. It's not a crazy to assume that these would have been viewed by Victorians as the better end of the market at the time.

Thrugelmir

Sailtheworld wrote: »

It's not a crazy to assume that these would have been viewed by Victorians as the better end of the market at the time.

I'm unsure why the assumption. Poor quality housing abounded. In many cases no housing at all, hence the requirement to build. Was the era of Upstairs Downstairs.

BikingBud

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Around 10% of the current housing stock is Victorian whether anyone has personally visited them or not. It's not a crazy to assume that these would have been viewed by Victorians as the better end of the market at the time.

Is that because all those that were built back to back and 2up 2 down were considered to be slums when our "wants" demanded inside toilets and seperate bathrooms and GFCH and other things.

Whereas the larger houses had space to accommodate these changes and were not consigned to the wrecking ball. These solidly built houses have mostly been replaced by disposable housing that will not be fit for purpose in a fraction of the time.

Sailtheworld

BikingBud wrote: »

Is that because all those that were built back to back and 2up 2 down were considered to be slums when our "wants" demanded inside toilets and seperate bathrooms and GFCH and other things.

Whereas the larger houses had space to accommodate these changes and were not consigned to the wrecking ball. These solidly built houses have mostly been replaced by disposable housing that will not be fit for purpose in a fraction of the time.

Yes. The surviving Victorian houses of today were the best of all the Victorian houses built. Thrug doesn't like the assumption for reasons unknown.

In 100 years time only the best of today's houses will survive too.

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm unsure why the assumption. Poor quality housing abounded. In many cases no housing at all, hence the requirement to build. Was the era of Upstairs Downstairs.

The poor quality Victorian houses that abounded have been demolished. Therefore the Victorian houses that are left represent the better end of the quality spectrum available at the time.

A number of posters have tried to lead you to this obvious assumption. If you're still unsure I'll walk in front of you at 4mph with a red flag just in case this is all going a bit fast.