Thursday, Apr 15, 2010
Another storming result for the Home-Owner-Ists
Evening Standard: Young people must wait until middle-age to buy first home
"Young Londoners are giving up hope of buying a property before middle-age with prices up to 30 times average income, a survey reveals today. More than half of first-time buyers in London expect to wait at least 10 years before investing. A further six per cent — one in 12 — say they will not be able to afford to buy before 2030, according to the YouGov survey of Londoners aged 18 to 30. As the political parties pledge to support home ownership, 37 per cent of young Londoners said they would delay starting a family if they c ould not buy a home, and 22 per cent said they would put off getting married... Affordability is particularly acute in the capital with house price to earnings ratio ranging from 8.5 in the cheapest borough, Barking & Dagenham, to 29.5 in Kensington and Chelsea."
9 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. tenant super said...
Anyone who wants to save until middle age to take on a colossal mortgage to buy a one bedder in Shepherd's Bush needs psychiatric intervention. As a bear who has been driven to fits of bullish angst by the government intervention, I rather like news articles like this. Brings out my bear-ish streak as I really wonder how this situation could possibly persist.
2. Shuffles said...
Nothing short of a revolution could fix this compounding problem. I hardly doubt some gov support will make much of a difference. Anyone who owns more then 2 properties should have their additional properties stripped from them and put on the market at realistic rates, sounds crazy I know but it happened to my mother in Malta and our family has accepted it to some degree (it was the second property she owned not the 3rd)
3. Bulboy said...
"...More than half of first-time buyers in London expect to wait at least 10 years before investing..." says it all me thinks.
I am waiting to see the wind direction after the elections and will be buying a house to live in quiet town close enough to London to be there in 30 minutes on the train and far enough to have a local accent
4. rumble said...
London's positive aspects might justify a day trip in, but not living there, the quality of life is low.
5. tenant super said...
That depends on how you measure that quality and your age. I admit it has deteriorated since I moved to London in 1994 but growing up in a suburban town and moving to London at the age of 18 I would say my urban life was better as a young person. Even now when I visit my parents in their very nice patch of Surrey I despair at the lack of transport (car essential), the lack of interesting social spaces which lead to a concentration of bland bars, chavvy clubs and thuggish throngs in town centres. I have lived in London for 16 years and have not once been mugged (my brothers have been mugged in lovely Surrey). I have been burgled once (my parents have been burgled twice in that same period). Belonging to a number of societies and organisations and availing myself of the vast array of galleries and museums on a weekly basis, I would find life outside the city a big adjustment.
If you have children, the problem in London is the lack of freedom for them (mainly due to the danger of traffic) but then I was watching this TV prog where the family live like they were in the seventies and the overbearing hyper-parenting mother went spare because her son who looked about 13 rode his bike into town. Big deal, when I was that age, I cycled 12 miles into the next county sometimes. Since today's parents seem to keep their children on a leash, the benefits I enjoyed as a kid living in a semi-rural area are lost.
6. rumble said...
Yeah, it's not fit for children, I think that indicates tolerance. Your crime stats sample size needs increasing! I've enjoyed attempted mugging, as have friends and colleagues, as well as the full workover experience. I'll stick to my day trip theory, more than covers museums and galleries.
7. tenant super said...
"Your crime stats sample size needs increasing!" LOl, of course!
London has high crime but if you take the high profile teen knife crime or gun crime, a lot of it is, in my opinion, "live by the sword, die by the sword". Of course there have been shocking cases like Ben Kinsella, Ryan Bravo, Tom ap Rhys Pryce, Richard Whelan and the two French students who were killed in their flat in Peckham but considering the population size of London, these are thankfully not common occurances. although there is no denying that London has a higher crime rate per capita than many other regions this is generally true for dense urban areas. Generally, young people are happy to accept the small risk of living in the city until having a family when other concerns kick in.
8. doomwatch said...
I support tenant super. London is probably the safest place in the UK. It's just full of miserable mortgage slaves and teenagers who
have had poor education. I lived in London for 16 years thtrough my mid 20s and 30s, and it was a great place, apart from the commoditization of property to the rich. No place to bring up children [regardless of wealth], so I left. People who bring up children there
are conning themsleves, and worst their children.
This is why the UK needs to encourage commerce outside of the South East. Dare I say it, Land Value Tax would do this ?!!
Only the Lib Dems are willing to entertain such thoughts.
9. rumble said...
@Shuffles, you still around? When did that happen in Malta?