Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No name Wrote:

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

> edcam Wrote:

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

> -----

> But then you'd have to live in Penge or

> Beckenham.

>

>

> What's wrong with Beckenham?


I live in Shirley, very near To Beckenham, its a lovely place, and the high street is fantastic.

Dont knock it, you do not know what you are missing.

:))

Nice though Shirley is, is it not closer to Croydon than Beckenham? Either way, it's a bit of a convoluted journey to get to central London, compared to Penge, Beckenham, etc.


I'm loving Penge these days. Great new pubs, a theatre, good cafes and a real community vibe at last. The fact that many people living in Clock House are saying they are living in Penge rather than Beckenham shows the progress being made.

HappyFamily, prices can not keep rising forever faster than wages. That's the flaw in thinking that leads to bubbles. There's only so many multiples of a salary a price can be before no-one can afford it. The Bank of England has stated that interest will start to rise at the end of the year (let's remember those rates have been kept artificially low to help recovery from 2008). Interest will have a huge bearing on the property market, esp for first time buyers.

I see your angle but there is a difference between people not being able to afford it, and not wanting to pay it because its overpriced.


Again my argument is that anyone whos been in their terraced house over last few years will have seen value increase. Its a different thing altogether if an agent gets bullish with sale price.


Notwithstanding any 'special' cases then Id argue that only people who bought last year and selling now (highly unlikely and unusual) would be doing so at a loss. Others will have seen good equity increases but maybe yes due to bullish valuations beyond that, have maybe had to reduce. The bigger picture and general trend is still up! This is an ebb and flow due to demand which is pegged back on election and employment uncertainty


Re wage growth inflation, those figures are improving now but affordability will just shift first time buyers out further afield. East Dulwich is a very desirable place to live, and its still relatively cheap compared to other zone 2 family hotspots. Demand will push prices higher as with anything..

The wider picture is whether due to this the UK will see a 2 speed economy with London and SE vs rest of country. My view is yes we will but thats another argument


Also dont forget mortgage restrictions are the tightest ever for First time buyers. Many people now can afford the repayments on a FTB flat but get turned down as repayments are based on minimum 5% interest rate,and inital capital required in monstrous. Therefore the "slack" is in banks becoming more comfortable to lend and being more commercial/supportive of FTB market. That will be driven once regulations around Tier 1 ratio/BasleIII (the amount banks have to hold) etc all settle, and banker bashing driving political agenda moves on to somewhere else and we become less fearful of what is in the majority =good credit

For a well presented 3 bed Victorian house of average size (circa 1,000 sqft- 1,100 sqft) with a small garden in a central ED location that still has potential to be extended into the side return and loft, prices are circa 800-850k. See examples below:


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=18121472&sale=1411438&country=england

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=32829102&sale=1411453&country=england


Bigger garden or bigger house pushes up the price. Worse location and worse condition drops it.


4 bed Victorian houses in similar location and condition with similar or slightly larger gardens measuring 1,500 to 1,600sft (post extension work) are circa 1 million to 1.1 million. Bigger places and bigger gardens get an additional premium. The price is lower for places that need work and are further out.


Prices are far above 2013 prices still (we sold our ED flat and bought our ED House that year). However, I do think that for the early part of 2014 prices for a very few transactions went ahead of that and have come down a bit since that high.


The market is much calmer compared to 2013 and early 2014 which is definitely a good thing. I imagine prices will increase only very slowly if at all in London. ED may be boosted a bit by changes in amenities that will increase demand for East Dulwich compared to competing areas in London.


I think the opening of M&S next year will boost prices (as silly as that is) along with additional shop openings in this area. I think the knock on impact of Peckham's gentrification will actually boost ED prices as well. There are people who like ED but are so snobbish they don't want to live near Rye Lane in its current incarnation. The redevelopment of the Peckham Rye station and the continued gentrification of Rye Lane will boost price growth in ED above the London average (that's my prediction at least).

Otta Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There are people who like ED but are so snobbish

> they don't want to

> > live near Rye Lane in its current incarnation.

>

>

>

> For real?!?!?

>

> God I want to spit on those people.



Just go up to the Southbank and spit over the river....you can't miss.

I envy you that you've never met them! I agree with ???. A lot of people in north London and West London(even South West London) feel that way which is why no matter how much money I earn, I'll probably never move out of South London.


Otta Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There are people who like ED but are so snobbish

> they don't want to

> > live near Rye Lane in its current incarnation.

>

>

>

> For real?!?!?

>

> God I want to spit on those people.

Haha!


I agree that there are plenty of rough areas in North London. For some reason people in North London think our rough areas are much worse than theirs. To be honest, I find much of north London quite scruffy. Most of those who are openly hostile about South London have never been here.


I told a colleague (to be fair he was very young) that part of Brixton and Streatham have SW London postcodes and he was genuinely shocked and a little disappointed... He grew up in Barnes!


People are peculiar this way.


Another colleague from Germany genuinely asked me if Brixton was still in London. He lived in Pimlico. I really had no words. It was 3 stops away on the Victoria line from his flat...

However, as Peckham?s image continues to change into part of the East London art and music scene and the station and Rye lane are redeveloped, the view of this part of South London will inevitably change.


As high as prices are in inner areas of South London (Peckham Rye, Dulwich etc), they are still considerably lower than comparable areas elsewhere in the city. Some of that has to do with transport connections but most of it has to do with snobbery / fear.

My main worry about switching North for South was transport. It was a justified worry, but I've slowly become adjusted to the vagaries of overland rail. I suppose somewhere like ED, and definitely Forest Hill/Catford/Beckenham/Penge, feels more suburban than the zone equivalents up north. Which is all as it should be - the trade off is that it's greener, more suburban, more family oriented etc.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> HappyFamily, prices can not keep rising forever

> faster than wages. That's the flaw in thinking

> that leads to bubbles. There's only so many

> multiples of a salary a price can be before no-one

> can afford it.


I was going to say its generally only first time buyers are buying with salary, second time buyers are buying with capital on previous properties.

However thinking again, many first time buyers are not using their own money either! - its often subsidised with remortgaged money from their parents' gains.

Salary is far from being everything.

Confidence is a major factor - when it goes the market corrects significantly.

Slump in London market for larger houses worth over 1.5 million:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/stamp-duty-rise-hits-london-home-prices-with-fastest-fall-since-the-crash-10413171.html


The top of the East Dulwich market will be hit by this. Whether it spreads down to 1-2 bed flats remains to be seen, but for the now familiar mantra that large desirable houses hold value best has been turned upside down.

Pure estate agency spin. It's what I said before. They have all been talking the market up since the election desperately trying to get things on their books and now they can't sell them they start trying to shift the blame. Large houses do hold their value take a ten year cycle not an annual one.
But this is precisely what's wrong with it all. We bought a home 7 years ago, as a HOME. We have no intention of moving for at least 20 years. And I would expect our home to be comparable to whatever the market is at that time. London has this problem with people buying into growth, and therefore fuelling the growth. It's bonkers and hurts ordinary working people the most.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> But this is precisely what's wrong with it all. We

> bought a home 7 years ago, as a HOME. We have no

> intention of moving for at least 20 years. And I

> would expect our home to be comparable to whatever

> the market is at that time. London has this

> problem with people buying into growth, and

> therefore fuelling the growth. It's bonkers and

> hurts ordinary working people the most.



Totally agree. I love my flat because its my home! That is its primary function. One of the papers earlier in the week - might have been Tuesday's Metro(?) - was saying why not 'buy one and get one free' as such if you bought properties somewhere cheaper than London. Obscene when so very many can't afford the one ...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...