Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412
12
HOLA4413

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
20
HOLA4421
21
HOLA4422
22
HOLA4423
23
HOLA4424
24
HOLA4425

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information