Why are house prices in London so more expensive than the north

dinsdale_

renegadefm said:

I wouldnt live in London if you payed me. Probably the worst city in the UK. 

I guess it depends on the criteria. I would argue that the job opportunities, schools, parks, nightlife, shops, restaurants, and museums are better than many other cities in the UK.
In other areas such as congestion, crime, and cost of living it would do less well.
In terms of worst city in the UK, I would disagree when taking in all aspects of a city.

scaredofdebt

Wages - I live in the North East, average wage around £20k.  Average wage in London around £50k.

Word "average" can mean a lot of things but you get the idea.

Lots of contracting jobs around London doing what I do for about £5-600 a day.  In this area very few and far between and usually only around £2-300 a day.

zagubov

Now I'm retired in London I'm doing the tourist thing and exploring its parks and museums, watching TV shows being made. But apart from a few things like that I'd never kid myself there's nowhere else as good. There's not that much more to do than in other big cities up and down the UK with loads going for them, including better state schools, less crime and greater affordability of pretty much everything.

Plus greater accessibility; London's like 5 or 6 Manchesters or Glasgows  all joined together, far too big to be accessible; I'm in the SW; I can get to Central London, but SE, West, North and East London are a real expedition.

dinsdale_

zagubov said:

Now I'm retired in London I'm doing the tourist thing and exploring its parks and museums, watching TV shows being made. But apart from a few things like that I'd never kid myself there's nowhere else as good. There's not that much more to do than in other big cities up and down the UK with loads going for them, including better state schools, less crime and greater affordability of pretty much everything.

Plus greater accessibility; London's like 5 or 6 Manchesters or Glasgows  all joined together, far too big to be accessible; I'm in the SW; I can get to Central London, but SE, West, North and East London are a real expedition.

I agree about accessibility, London is more like several areas joined together. Apart from visiting the centre, I would bet  residents spend 95% of the rest of their time near where they live (at least I do!). When I lived south of the river, most of my friends in the North found the visit a step too far!
Staying in other cities (in the north), it was refreshing to see people with a bit more time on their hands, probably due to less time commuting and recovering from working all the time.

In terms of museums and galleries, I would argue London will always have a slight edge (British Museum, Tate, National gallery etc) although museums keep getting better and better in other cities. Was recently in Liverpool, was very impressed and can see why more and more people are leaving London to move to other cities.

It is a shame most of the highly paid jobs are concentrated in London, am sure the government could have been better in this regard. Hopefully this will balance out more in the future...

John_

renegadefm said:

I wouldnt live in London if you payed me. Probably the worst city in the UK. 

It’s paid, and I can hear the lamentations of the top law firms and investment banks from here.

Kim_kim

Surrey is the best :-)
London is close if you need it, but I can drive to work behind a tractor in the
morning (not all the way, but the first few miles, till I hit the main roads).
The weather is colder the more north you go, that for me is a real deal breaker!
handy for the ferry ports, couple of airports handy.  Bluewater not too far, what more could you want :-) 

zagubov

dinsdale_ said:

zagubov said:

Now I'm retired in London I'm doing the tourist thing and exploring its parks and museums, watching TV shows being made. But apart from a few things like that I'd never kid myself there's nowhere else as good. There's not that much more to do than in other big cities up and down the UK with loads going for them, including better state schools, less crime and greater affordability of pretty much everything.

Plus greater accessibility; London's like 5 or 6 Manchesters or Glasgows  all joined together, far too big to be accessible; I'm in the SW; I can get to Central London, but SE, West, North and East London are a real expedition.

I agree about accessibility, London is more like several areas joined together. Apart from visiting the centre, I would bet  residents spend 95% of the rest of their time near where they live (at least I do!). When I lived south of the river, most of my friends in the North found the visit a step too far!
Staying in other cities (in the north), it was refreshing to see people with a bit more time on their hands, probably due to less time commuting and recovering from working all the time.

In terms of museums and galleries, I would argue London will always have a slight edge (British Museum, Tate, National gallery etc) although museums keep getting better and better in other cities. Was recently in Liverpool, was very impressed and can see why more and more people are leaving London to move to other cities.

It is a shame most of the highly paid jobs are concentrated in London, am sure the government could have been better in this regard. Hopefully this will balance out more in the future...

Problem is, the higher salaries don't make up for the higher prices. You end up paying top dollar for what outsiders would be too polite to point out are quite underwhelming homes.
It steals the space you need to live in comfortably and the time you waste getting to where you earn your money or get your entertainment.
 I'm sure that plenty of people in other big cities don't know how good they've got it.

MalMonroe

I blame the Queen and her family you know. I reckon wherever she lived in the UK, house prices would be higher. And I, for one, would definitely live there if somebody paid me! Fabulous place. 

fred246

I have got a lovely house up North with lovely countryside views. Would cost a good few £million in London. I used to go to London conferences. I would squash into the tube. Hardly able to breathe with squashed commuters. The words "it's grim up North" kept repeating themself in my head. Where I worked the women all went on theatre weekends. One knew how to book the cheapest trains in advance and then they would book hotels and the the theatre. I always thought they probably enjoyed London more than people that lived there. They had plenty of cash because they spent relatively little on housing.

dinsdale_

zagubov said:

Problem is, the higher salaries don't make up for the higher prices. You end up paying top dollar for what outsiders would be too polite to point out are quite underwhelming homes.
It steals the space you need to live in comfortably and the time you waste getting to where you earn your money or get your entertainment.
 I'm sure that plenty of people in other big cities don't know how good they've got it.

I don't see it as 'stealing' or 'wasting', these are trade-offs that people factor into deciding where they live.

The high housing cost buys you a lot of opportunities (especially if raising kids here), and the cost is a smaller house. If you are lucky enough or able to get a London property, once you retire or kids move out, then you can get a bigger place further out (many of my colleagues have done this, and work remotely most of the time). Personally I think of it as investing in my children who will live in a smaller place, but have greater opportunities as a result, and can then decide to move out one day to a bigger place if they wish.

Some people favour house size over location and vice versa. Personally I prefer location, but I totally get why some want more space and a large garden.