"Young professionals" to infest flats above Iceland

[FridgeMagnet]

Without the yups to sell to, the property speculators would not have created that market.

Which is a result of the rich-poor divide and the general lack of housing. It's not like people said "oh please, charge me 200 grand for a pokey flat, I need some way to get rid of my money!" The fact that there *are* people who can afford it who don't have any other choice if they want a house helps perpetuate the property spiral.

I mean, do you really expect people who can afford to buy a house or flat not to do so? The advantages are clear, why else would it matter for everyone? Nobody's going to get very far saying "don't buy property" at the moment. You'd need a lot more to stop that happening.

 

[IntoStella]

Which is a result of the rich-poor divide and the general lack of housing. It's not like people said "oh please, charge me 200 grand for a pokey flat, I need some way to get rid of my money!" The fact that there *are* people who can afford it who don't have any other choice if they want a house helps perpetuate the property spiral.

I mean, do you really expect people who can afford to buy a house or flat not to do so? The advantages are clear, why else would it matter for everyone? Nobody's going to get very far saying "don't buy property" at the moment. You'd need a lot more to stop that happening.

As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.

 

[tommers]

As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.

so... why do you choose to live there? and what makes your reasons different to somebody else's?

 

[hendo]

If they are struggling so hard, why buy a place in cool, vibey Brixton that represents rotten value for money, rather than something that is better value in a less trendy area?

You know perfectly well that this process goes on. Look at downtown Manhattan -- some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Why? because it became cool and trendy in the 60s/70s. Who can live there now but the astronomically rich?

Brixton represents excellent value for money, for all the reasons that people write about here. When you're buying you look for somewhere which is affordable, as well as likely to keep its value.

As for Manhattan, it's like some areas in London - in the eighties, and to a lesser extent in the nineties, a small group of people earnt a lot of money in bonuses in the financial sector. They wanted to live near their work, and they wanted to make personal investments which they could fall back on if it all went tits up (which it did) - kicking up the rents and land values.

If you want to rail at anyone, rail at the buy to let merchants. These are the people who have forced up prices and kept them high. But if the housing market takes a hit, they'll be crying loudest, and that looks as if it might well happen, so cheer up.

 

[magneze]

*stumbles into thread*

So, as someone asked many pages ago, did anyone go to the council meeting last night where this development was discussed? Did anything happen?

 

[LDR]

As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.

We brought our place because we felt it was a more interesting place for us and we could afford it, not to make money. We have always thought of it as a home rather than an investment.

I do understand that by doing so would push prices up but I do not really see what the alternative was for us other than to stay in a place we wanted to and pay exorbitant rents or buy somewhere cheaper that we did not feel comfortable in.

Even though we may be better off that some, does that mean we should give up our dreams of living where we want and can afford? If so, fair enough if you think like that, but I am going to disagree. Would you give up your home to someone just because you had more than they did?

 

[hendo]

We brought our place because we felt it was a more interesting place for us and we could afford it, not to make money. We have always thought of it as a home rather than an investment.

Well that's just it. Doesn't make us insects does it?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.

I don't agree. Different areas in London becoming popular is just the cycle that results from the insane prices set by developers. I've seen it so many times - somewhere becomes the area of choice to move to for young people with salaries who can afford property, some people get in before prices go silly and the word gets round, the prices start to go up, it gets trendy, and then the area moves somewhere else. Brixton is on the end of that cycle IMO.

If there wasn't a situation where some people had the income to buy property and others didn't, it wouldn't happen so much, but they don't move there to be "vibrant", they move because the property is affordable and the place is worth living in. Now that Brixton is so expensive you'll get less and less of that sort of thing happening and people will look elsewhere. I wouldn't look in Brixton myself if I was in a position to buy property, much as I like the place.

 

[newbie]

We brought our place because we felt it was a more interesting place for us and we could afford it, not to make money. We have always thought of it as a home rather than an investment.

Yet it is an investment. Few people have any faith in the pensions system any more, many focus their long term prosperity their house ownership increasing in value.

 

[LDR]

Yet it is an investment. Few people have any faith in the pensions system any more, many focus their long term prosperity their house ownership increasing in value.

I do not think that is wise. What happens if the market crashes? Or if their area becomes undesirable? I am not planning to retire for a good 30 years yet and a lot can happen in that time.

Having said that I suppose that’s the nature of investment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't agree. Different areas in London becoming popular is just the cycle that results from the insane prices set by developers. I've seen it so many times - somewhere becomes the area of choice to move to for young people with salaries who can afford property, some people get in before prices go silly and the word gets round, the prices start to go up, it gets trendy, and then the area moves somewhere else. Brixton is on the end of that cycle IMO.

IMO it's a bit more complex than that, in that the cycle of property acquisition by the m-c (or whatever epiphet you wish to apply) tends to follow certain types of m-c employment. The decampment to the suburbs from the early 20th century until the 1970s was closely tied to the movement of manufacturing and the light industrial sector from the inner city to suburban industrial estates, taking a large amount of middle-management positions with it. With the "death" of industry and the "opening up" of "the service industries" those middle-management and supervisory jobs (as well as media and advertising jobs) have retrenched in the cities to some extent, creating a pull on the available housing stock. My own opinion is that competition for "urban" housing will become more fierce rather than less.

If there wasn't a situation where some people had the income to buy property and others didn't, it wouldn't happen so much, but they don't move there to be "vibrant", they move because the property is affordable and the place is worth living in. Now that Brixton is so expensive you'll get less and less of that sort of thing happening and people will look elsewhere. I wouldn't look in Brixton myself if I was in a position to buy property, much as I like the place.

Ah, but some people DO move to places because they're "trendy" or "vibrant", and there only need be one or two prominent meeja whores to do it and you get the whole Hoxton thing occurring.

 

[editor]

Ah, but some people DO move to places because they're "trendy" or "vibrant", and there only need be one or two prominent meeja whores to do it and you get the whole Hoxton thing occurring.

I always though that Brixton's peak as a 'vibrant' and 'trendy' area was actually a few years ago when papers were bigging up the place al the time and there were queues outside the Dogstar almost every night.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

IMO it's a bit more complex than that, in that the cycle of property acquisition by the m-c (or whatever epiphet you wish to apply) tends to follow certain types of m-c employment. The decampment to the suburbs from the early 20th century until the 1970s was closely tied to the movement of manufacturing and the light industrial sector from the inner city to suburban industrial estates, taking a large amount of middle-management positions with it. With the "death" of industry and the "opening up" of "the service industries" those middle-management and supervisory jobs (as well as media and advertising jobs) have retrenched in the cities to some extent, creating a pull on the available housing stock. My own opinion is that competition for "urban" housing will become more fierce rather than less.

I don't think this has changed a lot recently though, at least not in the last fifteen years. Industrial estates and business parks are moving out of London, but most of the ones who will leave have left already, and the social housing dynamic still seems the same.

Ah, but some people DO move to places because they're "trendy" or "vibrant", and there only need be one or two prominent meeja whores to do it and you get the whole Hoxton thing occurring.

Yeah, but where does this start? It used to be Camden, but why did people start moving there? It was cheap beforehand and it happened that artists with no money were arriving.

There are all sorts of reasons why one particular area becomes popular, and in the final stages, "trendy" is significant, sure, but by that stage prices have already gone up, because the idea of an area being "trendy" takes some time to get out and be noticed by those who aren't connected to the particular type of trendiness. By the time I knew that Hoxton was trendy, prices were already far more than I could afford. That can't be what drives things. As I've already said, I think it's a sign that the peak is being approached and that a place will go down in price soon.

 

[editor]

By the time I knew that Hoxton was trendy, prices were already far more than I could afford. That can't be what drives things. As I've already said, I think it's a sign that the peak is being approached and that a place will go down in price soon.

Hoxton was a slightly different case in so much as it was strongly associated with the whole dotcom gold rush, with the trendy bars popping up to service the massive flux of new noo meedja businesses springing up.

I always thought it was a bit of a shit place for a night out but I guess 15,000 fin-toters can't be wrong.

 

[Giles]

Yeah, but where does this start? It used to be Camden, but why did people start moving there? It was cheap beforehand and it happened that artists with no money were arriving.

There are all sorts of reasons why one particular area becomes popular, and in the final stages, "trendy" is significant, sure, but by that stage prices have already gone up, because the idea of an area being "trendy" takes some time to get out and be noticed by those who aren't connected to the particular type of trendiness. By the time I knew that Hoxton was trendy, prices were already far more than I could afford. That can't be what drives things. As I've already said, I think it's a sign that the peak is being approached and that a place will go down in price soon.

This always happens:

The cycle:

cheap, rundown but fundamentally beautiful, convenient, city-central area, becomes "noticed" by artists and other bohemian types, attracted by the relatively huge amount of space in nice old buildings that can be cheaply had to live and work (and party) in.

so many of these people move there that they begin to take over the area in terms of bars, cafes, clubs, shops etc that are opened / relaunched to cater to them. Although these people are not rich by the average, they aren't as poor as they like to think that they are either, so their concentration in this area makes it more wealthy than it ever was.

the area becomes a trendy "destination" for people who don't live there, but who aspire to the lifestyle apparently enjoyed by the new people who have moved there. Some of them, in more "conventional" and by nature higher-paid jobs, begin to move there, amazed by how they can buy or rent a big place in this trendy area for SO LITTLE money. Prices for accommodation to live and work in rocket.

the area becomes a "tourist destination" within its city, first for a small number of "stylish" people then by more and more mainstream tourists and other visitors. Two things:

* the people who were there before it became trendy come to resent the increased prices and changed amenities, also feeling that the area is not "theirs" any more, and start to leave, sometimes cashing in on the mad prices of their old home.

* the early-arriving "bohemians" start to resent the newer arrivals who have too much money, don't understand "what the area is about", and are spoiling the "originals" little secret hang-out.

the area becomes so expensive that no-one with the lifestyle of the "original newcomers" could afford it, and fills up with the far more traditional careerist-focused people, who are doing well-paid traditional professional jobs, but who aspire to something a bit "trendy and alternative".

Repeat until (you run out of places like Camden, Brixton, Hoxton/Shoreditch ..........)

What to do? Have I missed anywhere? Where's next?

Giles..

 

[Giles]

You're at least lilac then mate.

Think of it this way; there's around about 160,000 (and rising) 2nd homes in England and Wales (not including chalets and static caravans). How much presure would be taken off the housing market if people hadn't indulged their whim for a second home (although I'll acknowledge that half a dozen of that number do belong to our sainted Prime Minister)?

Lilac Tommers indeed!

I think that second homes have a pretty minor impact on the overall situation, especially in London. In some villages in Devon and Lake District, its more of an issue, but a few holiday cottages, already in beautiful country areas far from the cheap end of the housing market, is nowhere near a major cause of the stupidly high general price of houses in England / Wales.

Giles..

 

[FridgeMagnet]

No, you're quite right. It takes a certain critical mass for an area to get like that, but once it reaches it, the cycle is always the same. There doesn't seem to be any real predicting it, but once the signs start it seems inevitable under the current system.

 

[gaijingirl]

Did anyone else see the BBC news tonight which had a feature on the Paris mayor who is looking to instill measures to prevent the "Londonisation" of Paris.... basically covering many of the points covered in this debate...

also an article here

 

[Giles]

It's greedy and irresponsible, IMHO, to knowingly push up property prices (by buying into 'luxury apartment developments') in poor areas simply because they are 'cool' and 'edgy'. Besides, the value for money argument doesn't wash. Property in Brixton is not good value for money at all. By buying into that trendiness premium, they make ever more remote the possibility for most people of ever buying a place or even of being able to continue to rent one. let's not forget that that is a significant consequence of property price rises. It's not just about home ownership.

Brixton is still actually on of the cheaper places in London to buy in terms of its "centralness" - places are more expensive further to central London that you go.

People buy in areas like Brixton, Brixton Hill, Camberwell because its one of the few places that they can afford thats fairly central, not cos they are paying a trendiness premium.

Giles..

 

[Pickman's model]

Giles..

Giles..

is there an echo in yr post?

 

[Giles]

is there an echo in yr post?

Not any more!

 

[Pickman's model]

Not any more!

nevermore

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Brixton is still actually on of the cheaper places in London to buy in terms of its "centralness" - places are more expensive further to central London that you go.

People buy in areas like Brixton, Brixton Hill, Camberwell because its one of the few places that they can afford thats fairly central, not cos they are paying a trendiness premium.

Giles..

Stockwell's cheaper than Brixton. But not by that much. I don't know whether that's because of "trendiness" or because Brixton has better facilities or both or one leading from the other....

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think that second homes have a pretty minor impact on the overall situation, especially in London. In some villages in Devon and Lake District, its more of an issue, but a few holiday cottages, already in beautiful country areas far from the cheap end of the housing market, is nowhere near a major cause of the stupidly high general price of houses in England / Wales.

Giles..

I think you're missing the point, mate, "a few holiday cottages" is not what I'm talking about.
160,000 homes is what, twice what the govt says needs to be built per year in order to meet demand, and you're saying that those 160,000 homes (or a combination of singletons, childless couples and families totalling 160,000 households) wouldn't make a difference, wherever they're located? Have you given any thought to the fact that people being able to afford to buy in their own area might possibly ease pressure up and down the housing chain because you wouldn't have the need for quite so much mobility in order to find any sort of housing?

 

[oryx]

I think that second homes have a pretty minor impact on the overall situation, especially in London. In some villages in Devon and Lake District, its more of an issue, but a few holiday cottages, already in beautiful country areas far from the cheap end of the housing market, is nowhere near a major cause of the stupidly high general price of houses in England / Wales.

Giles..

It depends if you include buy-to-let properties as second homes. In many inner city areas, ex-council homes are bought up under the RTB, then the owner moves elsewhere & rents the ex-council home to a housing association who use it to temporarily house homeless families! Oh, the irony, especially as the flat used for a homeless family will be more than twice the rent of a similar home, in the same block, lived in by secure council tenants.

I think your analysis of how an area becomes gentrified is pretty accurate, though.

 

[Giles]

I think you're missing the point, mate, "a few holiday cottages" is not what I'm talking about.
160,000 homes is what, twice what the govt says needs to be built per year in order to meet demand, and you're saying that those 160,000 homes (or a combination of singletons, childless couples and families totalling 160,000 households) wouldn't make a difference, wherever they're located? Have you given any thought to the fact that people being able to afford to buy in their own area might possibly ease pressure up and down the housing chain because you wouldn't have the need for quite so much mobility in order to find any sort of housing?

Well then the government should either build more houses, or allow more to be built, shouldn't they?

The idea that people owning a seaside cottage etc, causes homelessness, is rather like the "lump of labour" fallacy in economics - the idea that if the "work to be done" was shared out more fairly, then unemployment would disappear.

In a free society how could you stop people from owning more than one house or flat? Would married couples only be allowed one between them? What about buying places for sons/daughters, or other relatives?

Would you ban buy-to-let as well? Or just holiday homes?

Giles..

 

[detective-boy]

Engage irony function before reading ...

I think [Giles'] analysis of how an area becomes gentrified is pretty accurate, though.

What? People buying property because it is near transport links, handy for work, handy for the centre of town, near shops, restaurants, etc., etc., etc. AND is just about affordable compared to the alternative areas with similar benefits?

Haven't you been paying any attention at all to what you have been told on this thread?

People only buy property in Brixton because it is trendy / edgy. And that is the only reason.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

In a free society how could you stop people from owning more than one house or flat?

In a free society there are many things that the legally constituted authorities can do to restrict all sorts of activities. This process is called "law" which involves, in practice and at root, stopping people doing things which are considered socially damaging. This is actually the very basis of a free society.

Economic activities and even property ownership may be regulated, limited and controlled in all sorts of ways if the consequence of not doing so is to damage the fundamental freedoms of other citizens.

If you want to rail at anyone, rail at the buy to let merchants. These are the people who have forced up prices and kept them high. But if the housing market takes a hit, they'll be crying loudest, and that looks as if it might well happen, so cheer up.

I'm not at all sure this is right. If you're buying to let, then you will surely be able to keep on letting regardless of any collapse of prices for property to sell. Obviously the paper value of your property assets will fall steeply, but does that matter if you are neither seeking to required to make asset sales?

This whole thing isn't really helping, is it? I mean, is there really anyone here who thinks that whether "young professionals" are lovely or horrible is at all significant compared to the fact that new housing is being specifically targeted for that subsection of society, whilst other people are unable to afford it?

Certainly not me. I agree very much with most of FM's analyses on this thread.

[In addition: it strikes me that SS owes an apology for her use of racist terminology, and Rabbie owes one for his completely inappropriate and calulatingly offensive Holocaust comparison.]

 

[Yossarian]

Well you lot seem to have really wound each other up
and i sincerly hope you all can kiss and make up afterwards

but the sollution to it as i see it is if they been empty for so long why not SQUAT THE LOT
and then invite the locals who couldnt ever afford to buy them to move in rent free
it would fuck up the property speculators somewhat
all u need it a crowbar and a few good locks

That's the most sensible post on this thread by a mile. There wasn't going to be much hope of any other reasonable discussion after somebody started comparing yuppies to Holocaust victims...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

That's the most sensible post on this thread by a mile.

You didn't mean to employ detective-boy's irony warning?