Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Middle-Aged - But Having To Share A Flat With Strangers: It’S A Symptom Of Our Bonkers Property Market

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3314369/Middle-aged-having-share-flat-strangers-s-symptom-bonkers-property-market-high-earning-professional-women-living-like-students.html

  • Tessa Cooke, 49, shares a Marylebone flat with three other professionals
  • 42-year-old Hannah Davidson had to rent when her relationship ended
  • Clare Pryke, 44, from Kent lives with a flatmate she met on a website
  • Professionals are living with strangers, rather than setting up on their own
  • Astronomical property prices and a consequent hike in rents are to blame

Tucked away in the heart of one of London's most desirable enclaves is the elegant Georgian townhouse Tessa Cooke calls home. With high ceilings and sash windows, the spacious property in sophisticated Marylebone oozes period charm and is surrounded by stylish shops and cafes. It's an enviable place to live - if only Tessa actually owned it.

Though she is a well-paid professional in her 40s, Tessa has never set foot on the property ladder. She is one of a growing number of mid-lifers still living in shared rental accommodation, well beyond the days of Pot Noodle and student house parties.

Tessa, 49, shares the flat with three other professionals - one man and two women, aged 52, 45 and 32. They all earn good salaries, but can't afford to buy, or even rent, alone.

I bet the Wail journo who wrote this won't be popular in the office today. Normally astronomical property prices are welcomed in the Wail for boosting wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the DM hack will be sent for re-education.

The commentards are busy having a go at the women as opposed to the real problem - house prices are too high. I bet at least one has probably said these women have too many iPads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expected to see the Peep Show link.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34775063

Bag him!

The flatmate comedy Peep Show is ending as its lead actors approach middle age. Why are fortysomethings in shared accommodation still seen as unusual when their numbers are rising so dramatically?

The rows over washing up. The raised eyebrows if you bring someone home. The Post-It notes that scream: "JOSHUA'S MILK, HANDS OFF!!"

Once sharing houses with people who aren't your partner or your offspring was a phase that most expected to be mercifully brief. Who in their right minds would endure cleaning rotas and awkward chats in the shower queue with your flatmate's latest partner any longer than necessary?

"Two middle-aged men sharing a flat like that, that's too sad," said 41-year-old David Mitchell ahead of the final series of Channel 4's Peep Show, in which Mitchell stars alongside Robert Webb, 43, as his lodger. "It's got to stop, because we've got older."

He may not be alone in considering their characters, Mark and Jeremy, a bit pathetic, but - thanks to rising house prices and social change - their living arrangements are increasingly common.

_86614438_hi004631596.jpg

Edited by R K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation does not establish causality.

True but normally if a product's consumption reduces and its price continues to go up people think there is a shortage. If car prices were going up despite more and more people car sharing we would say there is a shortage of cars even though a few people had 2 car families. Normally when a good's price goes up more of it is produced and then it's price goes down - sadly the planning system etc stops that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazingly people still say there is no housing shortage.

Its because their minds are not capable of grasping the economics at play, namely that a price boom requires both a supply shortage and a credit expansion but rather they insist that only one of these conditions can exist at a time i.e. the completely flawed inference that the presence of credit expansion/price correlation somehow rules out the possibility of a supply shortage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the article is that thy have chosen the wrong example. This is a house share in a very expensive part of London and most people will just assume that they could move out a few zones and rent a flat of their own (they probably could).

It would have been much better to concentrate on the ones living in cheaper areas who aren't as well paid but still have to share houses well into middle age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowt new here. Happens to most of us at some time of life. Happened to me most recently in my late 30s.

Lifelong friend-of-the-family, older than my parents, was in that kind of digs all his life - into his late nineties. That was before the BBB[1] HPI.

[1] Big Blair-Brown.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunday nights should be fun. I can imagine all those middle-aged sharers jostling for a spot on the communal sofa to watch Antiques Roadshow..

Edited by juvenal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they're highighting that highly qualified professionals can't afford London housing even in Marylebone. It's not as if it's Mayfair..


A highly qualified hospital pharmacist, Tessa might have reasonably assumed that, by middle age, she would have owned her own property.

She likes living in London and doesn't want to move out. Highly qualified professionals will just have to accept not owning property in London if that's where they want to live - unless prices come down to a reasonable level. It would have been interesting if they had gone into who does "own" property in nearby areas.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazingly people still say there is no housing shortage.

There isn't a housing shortage. There are more bedrooms per person in the UK than there have ever been before (see Danny Darling's book, ​All That Is Solid). The issue is not the quantity of housing, it's the distribution.

It's much like the global distribution of food. There is more than enough food in the world for nobody to starve. In fact, there's enough for everybody to eat more than they need. However, it is not well distributed, meaning that many people (probably everybody on this forum) have access to far more than they need, while others (most obviously much of Africa) don't. Same with housing within the UK: many have far more space and quality than they need, others have barely any at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but normally if a product's consumption reduces and its price continues to go up people think there is a shortage. If car prices were going up despite more and more people car sharing we would say there is a shortage of cars even though a few people had 2 car families. Normally when a good's price goes up more of it is produced and then it's price goes down - sadly the planning system etc stops that happening.

if food prices were going up 10% per year,people would be screaming their heads off that it's not right and they were being exploited.

so what difference with a staple of human survival, like shelter?

watch the subliminals in "a design for life" video by the manic street preachers.

somebody knows what's going on.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if food prices were going up 10% per year,people would be screaming their heads off that it's not right and they were being exploited.

so what difference with a staple of human survival, like shelter?

watch the subliminals in "a design for life" video by the manic street preachers.

somebody knows what's going on.

House /rent price rises only affect a minority of the population and the rest don't care about us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if food prices were going up 10% per year,people would be screaming their heads off that it's not right and they were being exploited.

so what difference with a staple of human survival, like shelter?

watch the subliminals in "a design for life" video by the manic street preachers.

somebody knows what's going on.

That's because most people don't sign up for a life time of debt to buy food. However, 85% of bank money creation is against property and there has been nothing to stop them creating as much as they want. It really is that simple. Restrict mortgages to twice annual income and see how much houses cost then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because most people don't sign up for a life time of debt to buy food. However, 85% of bank money creation is against property and there has been nothing to stop them creating as much as they want. It really is that simple. Restrict mortgages to twice annual income and see how much houses cost then.

Were do you imagine the resulting *surplus* savings would end up?

Clue: Property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were do you imagine the resulting *surplus* savings would end up?

Clue: Property

Not if there were policies designed to make property undesirable as an investment. It would be halfway there with restricted lending and stable prices,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people make money for others...other people take money from others......some are bad apples that on the surface look fine....you touch them could easily become rotten to the core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if there were policies designed to make property undesirable as an investment. It would be halfway there with restricted lending and stable prices,

Youre missing the point Im afraid. higgest bid wins. In your scenario nothing much changes. Cash will always outbid 2x (or whatever multiple you decide) earnings. Thus, with limited supply the wealthiest will still own all the property. example: bidder 1 bids 2x earnings, bidder 2 bids 2x earnings + £100 cash. Who wins? Bidder 2. Restricting multiples simply means more people will outbid with cash.

Its a supply problem not a credit/multiple problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.