This is one of those moments where I’d ask you to tell me where those units are and who owns them, because it seems the City cannot find anything close to a significant number. Find me the story where it says it IS a problem with anything near the level of study.
I mean, science didn’t reach the same sort of exacting conclusions that widespread speculation offers? Shocking, that. Maybe we need a branch of science that’s as blustery and absolute and which rejects new evidence as absolutely peoples ‘gut feels’ and preconceptions do?
Nah, I’ll stick to documented evidence. I’ve shown mine, I’d like to see the evidence to the contrary.
I’m not making any claims about the London housing market. I’m just saying that the last article you linked to doesn’t seem me to address what i’ve understood to be the “empty houses problem” and i’m, henceforth, asking for clarification.
So to separate the questions, in case you feel like answering any of them:
Am i misunderstanding the use of “[new-build]” in the article?
Have i misunderstood what the claimed problem is, i.e. has it long been claimed that the problem is people building and leaving vacant new housing is what people have been complaining about?
Do i have a deeper misunderstanding of the situation?
Global warming research also leaves room for such doubts.
I dunno. I haven’t seen evidence of what you’re referring to. Just what I presented.
1 - not the use of, but the implication of, yes I think so.
2 - I do not know, see 3.
3 - you have yet to explain you understanding of the situation outside of the study - and the mayors opinion goes beyond the study in question. The study seems to be -part- of the mayors office opinion - which is good because it is a study of -part- of the question. There are two conclusions offered, The study seems in assonance with the greater conclusion of the mayors office.
Nah, Frankfurt is too boring even for “Batemen”. It’s all about Paris, which Macron is blowing open for them; or Berlin for the ones with more art-inclined wives.
But yeah, London is cooked. A Norway-style agreement would suit finance but trigger riots in the streets; the other way around will see a lot of people flee with their money.
That could happen if people could easily access credit for other investments as they do for houses. Until that happens, buying your own house and buy-to-let one or two other houses, are basically the only investments the lower-middle class can make.
This is why I personally don’t have a problem with the explosion of personal credit, and I think we’ve actually not gone far enough. Change the rules for credit at significant level, and you can really change capitalism (and its expression, liberal democracy) forever. Gordon Brown had a fantastic chance to do that when he was forced to temporarily nationalize the banks, and he blew it. Jeremy Corbyn’s and John McDonnell’s proposals for a “people’s bank” go in the right direction, but they have to get in power first - and they will be fought tooth and nail by established interests.
The report found that the most expensive homes (those in council tax bands G & H) were more likely to be empty (i.e. unfurnished and unoccupied for more than six months).
Cute but nonsense. People hate new construction for several other reasons, but primarily aesthetic. It usually increased density and changes the character of the neighborhood, and it brings in people of different class or race. Suburbs often have restrictions even on basement or garage apartments and density restrictions even in the town center near the commuter rail, because no one there wants people around who can’t afford a house, even if it’s their own kids.
The most insightful comment in there was incumbents homeowners outnumber those looking and like the high prices. The stupidest was the development they showed as “attractive”, I thought it was hideous.
City AM - It’s the Qataris, or maybe soon the Chinese.
Propertyweek - This is by floorspace, not value so isn’t really relevant.
Telegraph - makes an interesting point that it’s now mainly SE Asian middle classes buying to let. This suggests to me that the Russians, Qataris, Chinese crooks oligarchs have already had theirs vand we’re seeing the next level of the pyramid scheme cranking up.
I also can’t find a link to the report itself so it’s not clear if the <1% of properties left empty is a proportion of new builds, or of the whole property market. The Guardian suggests that there’s a problem with under-occupancy.
Also bear in mind that a lot of these properties are owned by shell companies so identifying the true owner is difficult. Private Eye did some splendid work on this, though.
What a load of old wank. House prices are high because of basic economics. Supply is less than demand so prices rise.
I also noticed that they didn’t mention that the gap between how many houses we currently build and how many we need is about how many council houses used to be built before the Tories killed that off.
I’m not sure why it’s interesting, the Tories did kill off building council houses because they stopped councils from reinvesting the money they got from right to buy back into the housing stock. It’s a big reason why the property market is so screwed now.
The City is totally woke, which is why it argued for Remain. It’s those cheering the departure of imagined Patrick Batemans who haven’t woken up to the reality of what’s happening.
That Property Week article puts Canary Wharf Group as the biggest property owner with 21.5m sq ft.
London has 8.6m residents with 2.5 per average household. Assuming a mean 500 sq ft per household there’s 8.6m / 2.5 * 500 sq ft ~ 1,720m sq ft of just residential property (while the Qatari number includes office space.)
So let’s consider some more: who owns most of the real estate in London?
