Find a cheaper rental which allows them to save, whatever it is. Flat share, rent a bedsit, do whatever it takes. Compromise and determination. It's hardly for ever and I don't remember any generation having it easy in my life time.
So if you're a small family wishing to buy a property for you and your children you should wait around in a bedsit until you've saved up a deposit? or you should flatshare? Not practical for everyone.
We have a huge housing problem in this country being caused by too much demand and a lack of supply. Prices are getting further and further out of reach, both for buyers and renters. Unfortunately both political parties who are likely to ever be elected in this country are not willing to implement a proper solution - a MASSIVE increase in house building - the more supply in the market the lower the prices will be, and therefore the more people will have access to decent housing. This should be house building of ALL types - to buy, to rent privately, social, low cost etc.
BUT, and this is a big but, no government will ever do this because it would devalue the homes of people already on the housing ladder. As people often use their houses as investments rather than just as places to live the government would risk the wrath of millions of potential voters. Anything seen as a vote loser is almost unthinkable. Its the same reason developers limit how many new homes they build and supply to the market - profits.
Until a political party has the guts, and also enough of the public behind them to change things then nothing will change.
So if you're a small family wishing to buy a property for you and your children you should wait around in a bedsit until you've saved up a deposit? or you should flatshare? Not practical for everyone.
We have a huge housing problem in this country being caused by too much demand and a lack of supply. Prices are getting further and further out of reach, both for buyers and renters. Unfortunately both political parties who are likely to ever be elected in this country are not willing to implement a proper solution - a MASSIVE increase in house building - the more supply in the market the lower the prices will be, and therefore the more people will have access to decent housing. This should be house building of ALL types - to buy, to rent privately, social, low cost etc.
BUT, and this is a big but, no government will ever do this because it would devalue the homes of people already on the housing ladder. As people often use their houses as investments rather than just as places to live the government would risk the wrath of millions of potential voters. Anything seen as a vote loser is almost unthinkable. Its the same reason developers limit how many new homes they build and supply to the market - profits.
Until a political party has the guts, and also enough of the public behind them to change things then nothing will change.
The boat's long sailed by that stage. I was talking about single people and childless couples. They should have thought about buying long before then. Not unusual and not unique to present time. Saving for the necessary deposit was part of the reason for engagements if couples wanted to buy when they married and left home. Of course all of that's changed but saving still has to happen.
I can't see any Government risking a policy which would bring down property prices across the board to any great degree. Deliberately creating negative equity is hardly a positive move for any Government or home owners.
In this region house prices fell 8/9 years ago and since then the market's been in a state of virtual stagnation.
The boat's long sailed by that stage. I was talking about single people and childless couples. They should have thought about buying long before then. Not unusual and not unique to present time. Saving for the necessary deposit was part of the reason for engagements if couples wanted to buy when they married and left home. Of course all of that's changed but saving still has to happen.
I can't see any Government risking a policy which would bring down property prices across the board to any great degree. Deliberately creating negative equity is hardly a positive move for any Government or home owners.
In this region house prices fell 8/9 years ago and since then the market's been in a state of virtual stagnation.
However, years ago, my parents generation (they are now late 60s/early 70s) and before, the multiples of income required to purchase a house were not like they are now. For me to buy an average sized property in my area I'd need to borrow more than 10x my annual income. Most lenders will only go up to about 3.5x a couple's joint income.
In my grandparents' generation most people actually rented, and council housing was provided for working people to ensure they had decent housing at an affordable price. It changed once council housing was sold off and what came after became 'social housing'.
Obviously the multiples required do depend on where you are in the country, but for a lot of the south of England this is not unusual. If everyone in the south who couldn't afford a home there decided to move north the same thing would happen - prices would rise due to demand outstripping supply.
I class that as the countryside, but I take your point:p, but East Ham will be coming soon, Croydon is apparently the next up and comer btw, still bloody hard to afford to live in East Ham for a youngster
to me now, most of London is dead by midnight, it's become a town of oligarchs who don't live here and old farts who are in bed by 9pm, it's nice and shiny though with decent coffee
I class that as the countryside, but I take your point:p, but East Ham will be coming soon, Croydon is apparently the next up and comer btw, still bloody hard to afford to live in East Ham for a youngster
to me now, most of London is dead by midnight, it's become a town of oligarchs who don't live here and old farts who are in bed by 9pm, it's nice and shiny though with decent coffee
East Ham (E6)....countryside? There's not a sheep to be seen. 😂
Parts of central London can feel like a dead zone past midnight but actually go a bit further out east etc you can still find things going on well into the night.
Although, it is annoying when people move into an area "because of the buzz" and then decide they don't like all the noise and things that attracted them to the area in the first place so then petition the council until they start limiting opening hours or closing places down.
Its a good thing on the whole as it stops whole districts becoming slums. Look at the vast social housing estates in london in the 70s and 80s. No- go areas, etc. Now, most areas in London are a mix of people, social/private accomodation where previously it was all run down or gang warfare/QUOTE]
bit of an exaggeration? I don't remember much gang warfare where I grew up, I prefererred it, it was a bit dirtier and a bit scummier, but pretty much all young people could afford to come and rent here, so it was far more creative then because of this, it was never like New York City and Taxi Driver
It was in a couple of estates near me as a kid! ( by no means everywhere though, of course! )
Parts of central London can feel like a dead zone past midnight but actually go a bit further out east etc you can still find things going on well into the night.
Although, it is annoying when people move into an area "because of the buzz" and then decide they don't like all the noise and things that attracted them to the area in the first place so then petition the council until they start limiting opening hours or closing places down.
If I ran a council I would not acted on what newcomers want .
So if you're a small family wishing to buy a property for you and your children you should wait around in a bedsit until you've saved up a deposit? or you should flatshare? Not practical for everyone.
We have a huge housing problem in this country being caused by too much demand and a lack of supply. Prices are getting further and further out of reach, both for buyers and renters. Unfortunately both political parties who are likely to ever be elected in this country are not willing to implement a proper solution - a MASSIVE increase in house building - the more supply in the market the lower the prices will be, and therefore the more people will have access to decent housing. This should be house building of ALL types - to buy, to rent privately, social, low cost etc.
BUT, and this is a big but, no government will ever do this because it would devalue the homes of people already on the housing ladder. As people often use their houses as investments rather than just as places to live the government would risk the wrath of millions of potential voters. Anything seen as a vote loser is almost unthinkable. Its the same reason developers limit how many new homes they build and supply to the market - profits.
Until a political party has the guts, and also enough of the public behind them to change things then nothing will change.
This is the real problem, the major property developers.
It is no coincidence that they are sitting on record numbers of building plots and yet the number of houses they are building every year is, at best, static.
The major developers have no incentive to build more houses because the fewer houses they build, the higher their annual profits.
However, years ago, my parents generation (they are now late 60s/early 70s) and before, the multiples of income required to purchase a house were not like they are now. For me to buy an average sized property in my area I'd need to borrow more than 10x my annual income. Most lenders will only go up to about 3.5x a couple's joint income.
In my grandparents' generation most people actually rented, and council housing was provided for working people to ensure they had decent housing at an affordable price. It changed once council housing was sold off and what came after became 'social housing'.
Obviously the multiples required do depend on where you are in the country, but for a lot of the south of England this is not unusual. If everyone in the south who couldn't afford a home there decided to move north the same thing would happen - prices would rise due to demand outstripping supply.
When my partner, now my wife, and I brought out first house in 1988, a 2-bedroom starter home, we paid @ £36,000 which at the time was three times my income. As my partner also worked it was effectively 1.5 times our joint income and we had to provide a 5% deposit, so £1800.
Not read the full thread but I just want to make one point.
The problem of gentrification is not actually gentrification itself, but the capitalist opportunities it brings for landlords.
In many urban areas there are far too many (imho) properties that are purchased for rental opportunities. The monetisation of properties is what drives house prices up more than anything.
If an area was 90%+ made up of properties owned by the residents, gentrification would be only a positive thing. The vast majority of the residents would reap the rewards of having an nicer area to live, their house value would rise and things would be great.
When you have an area where the majority of the houses are rental properties, the landlords just see £ signs and increase the rental prices, the turnover of residents is larger and the only people that benefit are the landlords & the transient residents that move in & out with fashion or as stop gaps to to the next trendy area. They have little investment in the place and the community.
Not read the full thread but I just want to make one point.
The problem of gentrification is not actually gentrification itself, but the capitalist opportunities it brings for landlords.
In many urban areas there are far too many (imho) properties that are purchased for rental opportunities. The monetisation of properties is what drives house prices up more than anything.
If an area was 90%+ made up of properties owned by the residents, gentrification would be only a positive thing. The vast majority of the residents would reap the rewards of having an nicer area to live, their house value would rise and things would be great.
When you have an area where the majority of the houses are rental properties, the landlords just see £ signs and increase the rental prices, the turnover of residents is larger and the only people that benefit are the landlords & the transient residents that move in & out with fashion or as stop gaps to to the next trendy area. They have little investment in the place and the community.
It has been estimated that 20%, so one in every five, houses built since 2000 are now buy-to-let properties.
The other problem with "affordable" housing now is that they want cash buyers. I may be able to get a mortgage and deposit together for £160,000 but I don't have that sitting around in cash.
Why the hell do people think that they have the right to make a area to their needs when they move into an area >:(
You do know how councils work, don't you? And how they're voted in and out of power by residents of the area??
Piss enough residents off and they'll vote you out. That's how it works.
It isn't saying that you should pander to every newcomer's whim but that if a council kept going against residents' wishes as a whole, whether new or old, then you wouldn't be a Councillor for every long..
Also, as I mentioned before, a lot of what councils do is dictated by central government policy. Locally, hands are often tied.
It has been estimated that 20%, so one in every five, houses built since 2000 are now buy-to-let properties.
Most new builds are not going to be in the areas being gentrified though, these inner city, urban areas I would think have a much higher % in the existing properties.
Most new builds are not going to be in the areas being gentrified though, these inner city, urban areas I would think have a much higher % in the existing properties.
It varies. In my area, they aren't necessarily new builds but a lot of old/empty office blocks etc are being turned into flats. Not 'affordable' or social/low cost, but luxury. The new housing that is being built from scratch tends to be in-fill places rather than big estates. It also all tends to be flats.
Depends.
I live in an area in london that has been gentrified.
And for me its slightly more positive than negative.
The perks are theres a lot more money to be made and its easier to make.
We also have an increase in some of the best looking women in the world which is another good thing.
Its a safer thats also a good thing and its easier to make connections on a business level.
The bad is that its unfortunate that the government could not invest when brown people were living there. Got friends that have moved.
Another bad thing is you get these pretentious,self centred arrogant rude yuppies. Who you will probably end up giving a slap for the way they talk and look down on people. Oh yeah a lot snitch to police as well.
All in all im slightly in favour of it.
Comments
So if you're a small family wishing to buy a property for you and your children you should wait around in a bedsit until you've saved up a deposit? or you should flatshare? Not practical for everyone.
We have a huge housing problem in this country being caused by too much demand and a lack of supply. Prices are getting further and further out of reach, both for buyers and renters. Unfortunately both political parties who are likely to ever be elected in this country are not willing to implement a proper solution - a MASSIVE increase in house building - the more supply in the market the lower the prices will be, and therefore the more people will have access to decent housing. This should be house building of ALL types - to buy, to rent privately, social, low cost etc.
BUT, and this is a big but, no government will ever do this because it would devalue the homes of people already on the housing ladder. As people often use their houses as investments rather than just as places to live the government would risk the wrath of millions of potential voters. Anything seen as a vote loser is almost unthinkable. Its the same reason developers limit how many new homes they build and supply to the market - profits.
Until a political party has the guts, and also enough of the public behind them to change things then nothing will change.
The boat's long sailed by that stage. I was talking about single people and childless couples. They should have thought about buying long before then. Not unusual and not unique to present time. Saving for the necessary deposit was part of the reason for engagements if couples wanted to buy when they married and left home. Of course all of that's changed but saving still has to happen.
I can't see any Government risking a policy which would bring down property prices across the board to any great degree. Deliberately creating negative equity is hardly a positive move for any Government or home owners.
In this region house prices fell 8/9 years ago and since then the market's been in a state of virtual stagnation.
Not everyone can buy you know.
Not all of London is gentrified.
Been to East Ham?
However, years ago, my parents generation (they are now late 60s/early 70s) and before, the multiples of income required to purchase a house were not like they are now. For me to buy an average sized property in my area I'd need to borrow more than 10x my annual income. Most lenders will only go up to about 3.5x a couple's joint income.
In my grandparents' generation most people actually rented, and council housing was provided for working people to ensure they had decent housing at an affordable price. It changed once council housing was sold off and what came after became 'social housing'.
Obviously the multiples required do depend on where you are in the country, but for a lot of the south of England this is not unusual. If everyone in the south who couldn't afford a home there decided to move north the same thing would happen - prices would rise due to demand outstripping supply.
I class that as the countryside, but I take your point:p, but East Ham will be coming soon, Croydon is apparently the next up and comer
to me now, most of London is dead by midnight, it's become a town of oligarchs who don't live here and old farts who are in bed by 9pm, it's nice and shiny though with decent coffee
East Ham (E6)....countryside? There's not a sheep to be seen. 😂
Although, it is annoying when people move into an area "because of the buzz" and then decide they don't like all the noise and things that attracted them to the area in the first place so then petition the council until they start limiting opening hours or closing places down.
If I ran a council I would not acted on what newcomers want .
Unfortunately a lot of what councils can and can't do is dictated by central government.
Their hands are very often tied.
This is the real problem, the major property developers.
It is no coincidence that they are sitting on record numbers of building plots and yet the number of houses they are building every year is, at best, static.
The major developers have no incentive to build more houses because the fewer houses they build, the higher their annual profits.
When my partner, now my wife, and I brought out first house in 1988, a 2-bedroom starter home, we paid @ £36,000 which at the time was three times my income. As my partner also worked it was effectively 1.5 times our joint income and we had to provide a 5% deposit, so £1800.
And just think, that was only 28 years ago...
The problem of gentrification is not actually gentrification itself, but the capitalist opportunities it brings for landlords.
In many urban areas there are far too many (imho) properties that are purchased for rental opportunities. The monetisation of properties is what drives house prices up more than anything.
If an area was 90%+ made up of properties owned by the residents, gentrification would be only a positive thing. The vast majority of the residents would reap the rewards of having an nicer area to live, their house value would rise and things would be great.
When you have an area where the majority of the houses are rental properties, the landlords just see £ signs and increase the rental prices, the turnover of residents is larger and the only people that benefit are the landlords & the transient residents that move in & out with fashion or as stop gaps to to the next trendy area. They have little investment in the place and the community.
It has been estimated that 20%, so one in every five, houses built since 2000 are now buy-to-let properties.
Congratulations, you now have a good chance of being voted out.
Welcome to unemployment.
Why the hell do people think that they have the right to make a area to their needs when they move into an area >:(
You do know how councils work, don't you? And how they're voted in and out of power by residents of the area??
Piss enough residents off and they'll vote you out. That's how it works.
It isn't saying that you should pander to every newcomer's whim but that if a council kept going against residents' wishes as a whole, whether new or old, then you wouldn't be a Councillor for every long..
Also, as I mentioned before, a lot of what councils do is dictated by central government policy. Locally, hands are often tied.
Most new builds are not going to be in the areas being gentrified though, these inner city, urban areas I would think have a much higher % in the existing properties.
It varies. In my area, they aren't necessarily new builds but a lot of old/empty office blocks etc are being turned into flats. Not 'affordable' or social/low cost, but luxury. The new housing that is being built from scratch tends to be in-fill places rather than big estates. It also all tends to be flats.
I live in an area in london that has been gentrified.
And for me its slightly more positive than negative.
The perks are theres a lot more money to be made and its easier to make.
We also have an increase in some of the best looking women in the world which is another good thing.
Its a safer thats also a good thing and its easier to make connections on a business level.
The bad is that its unfortunate that the government could not invest when brown people were living there. Got friends that have moved.
Another bad thing is you get these pretentious,self centred arrogant rude yuppies. Who you will probably end up giving a slap for the way they talk and look down on people. Oh yeah a lot snitch to police as well.
All in all im slightly in favour of it.
And what gives you the right to demand "this is what I want, no one is allowed to think differently"?
Out of a home: The tenants forced to leave town