Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[SteveUK1978]

Don't mention Iceland?.....it was their banks that caused this whole damn mess.

[spider69]

No. Shortsighted greed was the cause.

[danrees]

Well as an interesting anecdote - after renting for years in East Dulwich I have bought a 3 bedroom Victorian terrace house in Hither Green for ?470k. It is around 1300sq ft.

Not sure what that would be in East Dulwich but thinking at least ?650k.

From my experience SE23 / SE4 has rapidly made some ground vs East Dulwich but still about 15% cheaper. Prime spots of Hither Green are around 10% cheaper than ED but there is much more local variation - i.e. places around Manor Park command a massive premium compared to others.

[DaveR]

It's worth pointing out that almost all the bubble-like increases in London prices in recent times have been in inner London i.e. zones 1-3, and the effect has been to reverse the previous price relationship between inner city and suburbs. ED is now more expensive than huge swathes of suburban north and west london, which would have been unimaginable 20 years ago. There are 1000s of comparatively affordable homes in outer zone suburbs that prior generations of young middle class families fell over themselves to buy into, but are now regarded as being irredeemably dull compared to say, Clapton, despite the fact that Clapton is a toilet (no offence to any Clapton natives).

[Saila]

Perhaps that's because london schools are so much better, relative to 20yrs ago. Family life in London is hard to match. Much less lonely being a mum here, tons to do and great schools. Plus its so much easier for the mother to go back to work.

This might be compounding things for family friendly areas?

[Mick Mac]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When I was told tonight that Finsbury Park was

> more expensive than East Dulwich, I knew ED was

> nothing special and that this thread was

> pointless.

>

> It's the market stupid.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bit callous mick

>

> I wonder what, say, your mortgage is like compared

> to people buying a house now

>

> Of course north london and other areas are

> significantly more expensive but that's missing

> point a bit. If houses in an historically cheap

> part of town are out of reach for most people just

> saying "it's the market" doesn't solve anything

Callous SJ? eh? Not sure what my mortgage has got to do with anything - its an objective opinion being expressed.

It's the market stupid - ie like "It's the economy stupid" - Point being 1) East Dulwich is nothing special and 2) East Dulwich is not particularly expensive, its just the market and as dreary Finsbury Park demonstrates it hasn't affected ED in any special way.

Hence trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible ..... well, buying a house in any other area bordering zone 2 or closer, is even more impossible, which cuts to the heart of this thread.

As regards, being out of reach of most people - "most" people don't set the prices, the prices we see are set by those who can afford to move and actually do move. I'm not one of those.

If everyone was moving, the prices would reflect what everyone can afford to pay. The trouble is that the people who can't afford to move are looking at prices set by those who can, and there is obviously going to be a mis-match.

[JohnL]

The logical answer would be for employers and employees to move somewhere other than London in the future.

Not that it is happening yet.

[Mick Mac]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The logical answer would be for employers and

> employees to move somewhere other than London in

> the future.

>

> Not that it is happening yet.

Yes - in fact its the opposite, London becoming more attractive.

[????]

Saila and DaveR touch on something as important in the price rises. From the 40s to the 80s, even into the 90s the overall trend was for most middle class people (infact most people) to aspire to move away from inner city London, the ideal was to move out. It's a simplification of course but it was the underlying aspiration for many. In the 90s suddenly City life became seen as more hip again, there were more singles, people not getting married as early, the emergence of a more confident and out gay culture (which is pretty city focussed; inner city infrastructure and life had a linked rennaisance. I also think that changes in the work place including more woman, including mum's, in full time 'career' type jobs and dad's actually wanting (or being allowed/expecting) to see and help with their kids than in the past combined with job pressure meaning longer hours at work meant that commuting longer distances looked more impratical/infexible. So many of us embrace the urban - with smaller more expensive living rather than the beefeater and golf course life. The return of the city being popular for families again has driven prices; educational improvement; and gentrification of the inner city.

Simplistic bit of Socioology but so what

Comparing SE22 now to 1981 just highlights a London trend - In 1981 half the Kings Road was squats; places like Queens Park/Holloway/Kentish Town/Tufnell Park and Islington were largely dumps. Full of cheap rented housing - even places like West Hampstead; Notting Hill; were pretty decaying down at heal areas.

[LondonMix]

Also underlying this trend is school places. Now that families are staying in London, the pressure on school places is tremendous with shortages very common place.

By contrast I remember reading somewhere that pupil numbers were falling in the Home Counties.

[Hickory]

I'm genuinely frightened. This must be close to hyper inflation?! I heard an agent friend bragging about 3 bed houses in Nunhead climbing from ?450k to ?700k in 18 months.

What kind of future will there be for couples on the first rung who need a family property soon but cant afford even an ex council house in zone 3? Do the home counties become super-suburbs and we all pi** our salaries up the wall on train fares instead?

At what point do policy makers have to step in and make a London-specific controls?

[lane lover]

Hyperinflation? Are you a journalist?

And an estate agent bragging about house prices? Never heard that before.

Do check the actual sold prices on websites like Zoopla. Of the last two houses sold on my street, both went for well below asking price (one was ?50k below).

I would be surprised if the same house was bought and sold for a ?250k gain in 18 months. There is a big difference between an estate agents price expectations and reality. But I am sure you knew that already.

[joshR]

Honor Oak Park rather the ED, but we bought a Victorian 2 bed half house for ?320k less than 2yrs ago and now there are 3 properties, near identical to ours, that went on the market a week or two ago for ?550k and all are now under offer.

Obviously I don't know the level of these offers are but you'd imagine not that far under asking given the speed of acceptance... all 3 in good condition but no obvious major work done to them... Even a sale price of ?50k under asking, so in the region of ?500k, would be a 55% increase - similar to the Nunhead example given above. Offers at asking price would be more like 65% increases!

It's a frightening pace of change but in comparison to other local areas e.g. ED, Nunhead, Peckham, HOP seems relatively good value even at these new higher prices and it seems there's no shortage of people prepared to pay them.

[LondonMix]

I wouldn't say ED has increased 55% in two years. Prices only started going up in 2013 and I would say increased 30% between end of 2012 and end of 2013. That's a large increase in 1 year and well above the London average.

[strae]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saila and DaveR touch on something as important in

> the price rises. From the 40s to the 80s, even

> into the 90s the overall trend was for most middle

> class people (infact most people) to aspire to

> move away from inner city London, the ideal was to

> move out. It's a simplification of course but it

> was the underlying aspiration for many. In the 90s

> suddenly City life became seen as more hip again,

> there were more singles, people not getting

> married as early, the emergence of a more

> confident and out gay culture (which is pretty

> city focussed; inner city infrastructure and life

> had a linked rennaisance. I also think that

> changes in the work place including more woman,

> including mum's, in full time 'career' type jobs

> and dad's actually wanting (or being

> allowed/expecting) to see and help with their kids

> than in the past combined with job pressure

> meaning longer hours at work meant that commuting

> longer distances looked more impratical/infexible.

> So many of us embrace the urban - with smaller

> more expensive living rather than the beefeater

> and golf course life. The return of the city being

> popular for families again has driven prices;

> educational improvement; and gentrification of the

> inner city.

>

>

and MickMack wrote:

-----------------------------------------------

As regards, being out of reach of most people - "most" people don't set the prices, the prices we see are set by those who can afford to move and actually do move. I'm not one of those.

If everyone was moving, the prices would reflect what everyone can afford to pay. The trouble is that the people who can't afford to move are looking at prices set by those who can, and there is obviously going to be a mis-match.

__________________________

Completely agree with both views:

- ED is nothing special, no more or less outrageous than other similar areas in London

- "Similar" meaning: Victorian housing stock, village feel, proximity to schools and green spaces, transport into town

- "Above" market percentage price increases in ED are simply a catch-up, comparing to Clapham, Wandsworth etc (and without even needing to go North) ED is still less expensive and sadly probably has room to rise further (check out house prices in the above and you will see what I mean), provided that the folks who buy in Clapham are ultimately the same type of folks who would buy in ED...

- Re ????'s observation, commuter villages have not experienced the same level of increase, despite arguably benefitting from the same economic drivers (low rates, London economy) probably at least partly because of the change in living patterns you describe: living in family-friendly zone 1-3 London is now more attractive for the average family than it was previously.

On another note, wanted to make a counter-factual argument which I think is seldom made on these forums:

1. We have lots of people who long for the sepia-toned past where we are told ED was in its heyday (for newcomers like me, understand this completely but honestly hard for us to relate to because we simply weren't there)

2. Lots of people who wish prices were more affordable in ED (me too, and this is up there on my list along with wealthier, taller and more attractive to both sexes, this is 2014 after all, why shouldn't we have it all?)

But imagine the scenario where ED was not participating in what is otherwise a London wide phenomenon? One that saw Peckham and Brixton house prices rocket away while ED languished... Would folks in camps 1 and 2 still be pleased then? Because clearly if that were true, we'd probably have bigger problems to worry about than rising houses prices...

Not suggesting that the answer is that we all stop worrying and learn to love the Bubble - just saying other side /= greener grass.

[LondonMix]

Agree house prices in and around ED are catch up. The market is equalizing with other more affluent areas that are growing more slowly.

I would say there is very little difference between ED and Clapham now. Clapham houses sell for me in general as they are larger (many have had basement conversions). However, when you have two houses of equal size they are marketed more or less for the same price in both ED and Clapham. In fact, ED is more expensive strictly speaking on a psm basis.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42743275.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29061372.html

[DaveR]

I'm not surprised that prices are rising steeply in Nunhead and HOP; spillover demand from ED for similar, proximate housing with the belief that the area is on the up = self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Mick Mac]

What strae says. Much wisdom.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> I would say there is very little difference

> between ED and Clapham now.

Don't believe it LM. Looking at rightmove :

16 flats in SW4 currently marketed at 700k or greater.

1 flat in SE22 currently marketed at > 700k

ED is significantly "less expensive/less inflated" what ever way you want to phrase it.

[LondonMix]

It's not quite as dramatic as that-- if you look at your search a lot of the flats are 4 bed and 3 beds which ED doesn't have because the houses (and therefore the flat conversions) are smaller.

I do agree that there is a premium for flats in Clapham though whereas for houses the premium has disappeared. That probably has something to do with Clapham appealing to a younger demographic more so than ED. Also, Clapham has virtually no small houses which again pushes up the costs of flats.

In ED there are still 3 bed houses. Clapham has been affluent for so long now that everyone has extended their homes (loft, side return, basement) and its hard to find something that's small and therefore more afforable. There is only ONE 3 bed period house on the market in Clapham at the moment at is 1,625 sft (larger than most 4 beds in ED). In ED there are 18 (13 of which are period properties).

Buying a house in ED isn't really value for money compared to Clapham but it is more affordable given the current state of the housing stock.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not quite as dramatic as that-- if you look

> at your search a lot of the flats are 4 bed and 3

> beds which ED doesn't have because the houses (and

> therefore the flat conversions) are smaller.

No - my search was for 2 beds only - there are 16 of them over ?700k in SW4. ED has one.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E2517&minPrice=700000&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=2&displayPropertyType=flats&oldDisplayPropertyType=flats&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on&index=10

[HelenJase8]

hi

I am new here so please helpme ad some tell about this site.

Thanks

[HelenJase8]

I saw that place on Whateley a couple of weeks ago - surely it's just adventurously-priced in the hope of a high offer ?

There's better deals, even in ED.

[LondonMix]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were included sold flats.

I have already said that flats in Clapham trade a premium to those in ED anyhow and why.

For houses however, that simply isn?t the case anymore for a variety of reasons.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's not quite as dramatic as that-- if you

> look

> > at your search a lot of the flats are 4 bed and

> 3

> > beds which ED doesn't have because the houses

> (and

> > therefore the flat conversions) are smaller.

>

> No - my search was for 2 beds only - there are 16

> of them over ?700k in SW4. ED has one.

>

> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.

> html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E2517&minPrice=70

> 0000&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=2&displayPropertyTy

> pe=flats&oldDisplayPropertyType=flats&includeSSTC=

> true&_includeSSTC=on&index=10

[Mick Mac]

LM - I still disagree I'm afraid.

This 2155 sq feet 5 bed http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42774250.html is 1.675m and would I reckon be 1.2/1.3 on a normal ED road http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44716583.html this ED one 2142 sq ft for example

On this basis ED is a good 15%+ lower than Clapham prices. That's what I have been told a number of times recently and it seems to be the case.