Guest Cletus VanDamme Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 So assuming this crash does occur at some point, which areas do people think will be relatively unaffected - I'm talking about no nominal falls here, rather than real falls. Here's my list for London - these are broad areas, I'm not going to name individual roads, there will be some parts of the areas below on the boundaries that may fall: Highgate Village Hampstead Barbican Notting Hill Kensington and Chelsea (parts of - I don't know the area well) Chiswick Richmond Kew What about the rest of the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PropertyGuru Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 mars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 mars? *snickers* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 IMCO, nowhere will escape unscathed from Great Crash 2. Everywhere has suffered unprecedented and unsustainable inflation ranging upward of 400% since Gordon began working miracles in 1997. In Great Crash 1 Scotland got off relatively Scot free because they did not see much irrational exhuberance. This time, to escape with much less that 30% damage will require the luck of the Irish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The nice parts of the South West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neitherbullnorbear Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 So assuming this crash does occur at some point, which areas do people think will be relatively unaffected - I'm talking about no nominal falls here, rather than real falls. Here's my list for London - these are broad areas, I'm not going to name individual roads, there will be some parts of the areas below on the boundaries that may fall: Highgate Village Hampstead Barbican Notting Hill Kensington and Chelsea (parts of - I don't know the area well) Chiswick Richmond Kew What about the rest of the country? I think what your trying to say is prime inner London. Indeed, I think I'm correct in saying that Ken & Chelsea didn't go down in nominal terms during the crash of the early 1990s (but stand to be corrected). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cletus VanDamme Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 mars? D'ya reckon? It's only £19.99 an acre! It's the next boom area surely http://www.moonestates.com/cat_Mars.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bambam Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I think what your trying to say is prime inner London. Indeed, I think I'm correct in saying that Ken & Chelsea didn't go down in nominal terms during the crash of the early 1990s (but stand to be corrected). Indeed, in fact over the London decline which continued from 88 to 95, Kensington went up quite a bit, despite massive falls in shittier areas. I think there were very small rises in Richmond as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its time to buy Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) jersey, guensey? Edit - ok i tell a lie -- just done a rightmove search and theres also new builds there http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-130...=3&tr_t=buy crumbs Edited September 8, 2006 by notanewmember Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) So assuming this crash does occur at some point, which areas do people think will be relatively unaffected - I'm talking about no nominal falls here, rather than real falls. Here's my list for London - these are broad areas, I'm not going to name individual roads, there will be some parts of the areas below on the boundaries that may fall: Highgate Village Hampstead Barbican Notting Hill Kensington and Chelsea (parts of - I don't know the area well) Chiswick Richmond Kew What about the rest of the country? I live in (own) and am looking to move within Hampstead. Prices are ludicrous for just about anything even in relation to average salaries for the postcode (about £60,000 I think). The prices may be higher than elsewhere and relatively they will remain so probably but this hardly precludes prices falling in real terms. Right now, not much seems to be selling in NW3 and a lot of aspirationally priced crap is sticking for months or in some cases years. I bought in 1995 and I am pretty sure that prices fell in real terms in period to around 1992-1997. S. Edited September 8, 2006 by Scooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cletus VanDamme Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The prices may be higher than elsewhere and relatively they will remain so probably but this hardly precludes prices falling in real terms. Right now, not much seems to be selling in NW3 and a lot of aspirationally priced crap is sticking for months or in some cases years. I bought in 1995 and I am pretty sure that prices fell in real terms in period to around 1992-1997. S. I think I probably didn't express myself very well. What I meant is that I believed in these areas we wouldn't see much in the way of nominal falls, but obviously in real terms they will fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenroom Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I think what your trying to say is prime inner London. Indeed, I think I'm correct in saying that Ken & Chelsea didn't go down in nominal terms during the crash of the early 1990s (but stand to be corrected). I remember seeing two bed flats in Notting Hill going for £95K and North Kensington at £75K in '95 That wouldn't buy you a matchbox now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I think it is not areas but good properties which might crash less. Ie studios etc will be more affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I think I probably didn't express myself very well. What I meant is that I believed in these areas we wouldn't see much in the way of nominal falls, but obviously in real terms they will fall. I am not sure. The valuations are so stretched even for "wealthy" areas that you still might see nominal falls. When I talk to my neighbours, many of whom would like to move to family sized homes and are high earners by most standards, they cite unaffordability. This leads me to expect more than nominal stagnation and inflationary (deflationary?) real falls. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1 Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) Its obvious! The places where we live. Everywhere else is bound to be affected though. Init? Edited September 8, 2006 by jp1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AuntJess Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The nice parts of the South West. I agree. I think as long as there is a dearth of properties and a larger than average regional immigration, then SW prices will stay relatively stable, which is bad news for the FTBs in that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cletus VanDamme Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Its obvious! The places where we live. Everywhere else is bound to be affected though. Init? Not true. I am sure the area of North London where I live (Enfield) will be very affected. Prime London won't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Steve Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Everywhere will fall IF there is a crash. The better areas already mentioned will fall less obviously. The crux though is that the better areas always recover quickest - buying at the bottom is almost impossible to time. I think prime inner London will fall 10% and recover in 1 - 2 years. "Stoke" etc will fall up to 70% (in a range 20% - 70%) and take 5 - 10 years to recover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enworb Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 London is outperforming everywhere else because of the amount of work available. Yes there are nice houses with nice period features but you can get that elsewhere. Then there's the lifestyle. It's not for me btw, but it is for a lot of single professionals. Anywhere with plenty of opportunities for work or good transport links to said areas will fair better than others. And yes I live in Slough, only 20 minutes away from the city by train, and itself a town offering plenty of work and amenities, Heathrow only 10 minutes away, almost every major company has offices here etc, etc. That's why I laugh when anyone takes the michael out of Slough. It has far more to offer than many realise. Regards Mayor of Slough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bambam Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 London is outperforming everywhere else because of the amount of work available. Yes there are nice houses with nice period features but you can get that elsewhere. Then there's the lifestyle. It's not for me btw, but it is for a lot of single professionals. Anywhere with plenty of opportunities for work or good transport links to said areas will fair better than others. And yes I live in Slough, only 20 minutes away from the city by train, and itself a town offering plenty of work and amenities, Heathrow only 10 minutes away, almost every major company has offices here etc, etc. That's why I laugh when anyone takes the michael out of Slough. It has far more to offer than many realise. Regards Mayor of Slough it's not really 20 minutes though. It's 24 minutes on the fastest train to Paddington. But most trains take 30 minutes+ So you can leave 8:03 arrive 8:39, or 8:18 arrive 8:42, then 8:25 arrive 8:58 Then Paddington is *not* the City. You have to take another 20 minutes on the Hammersmith & City line to get there. So you are really looking at 1 hour+ door-to-door, with connections, train delays, etc. So um, not really what single professionals earning £100k+ in the city want. And that's before you start on the friendly bombs, chav shopping centre, and impoverished ethnic minorities in the area. Face it mate, Slough is shit. Crossrail isn't going to happen either.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bajista Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 So assuming this crash does occur at some point, which areas do people think will be relatively unaffected - I'm talking about no nominal falls here, rather than real falls. I think there are two parts to this question:- 1) which areas will continue to be or become desirable 2) how much of this is already priced in/or even overpriced in due to the fact that speculating investors have already asked part 1 of the question. It is much harder to answer the question when looked at in this way. Certainly the London areas mentioned are desirable - but how much overspeculation is involved already? As for the South West and other rural/coastal areas- yes but only the best properties - Rich boomer Londoners selling up and moving out are not going to be buying tacky terraces; they will want detached/views/gardens -so I think there will be more polarisation of the market in these areas. It really will come down to individual streets and individual properties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachman Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 it's not really 20 minutes though. It's 24 minutes on the fastest train to Paddington. But most trains take 30 minutes+ So you can leave 8:03 arrive 8:39, or 8:18 arrive 8:42, then 8:25 arrive 8:58 Then Paddington is *not* the City. You have to take another 20 minutes on the Hammersmith & City line to get there. So you are really looking at 1 hour+ door-to-door, with connections, train delays, etc. So um, not really what single professionals earning £100k+ in the city want. And that's before you start on the friendly bombs, chav shopping centre, and impoverished ethnic minorities in the area. Face it mate, Slough is shit. Crossrail isn't going to happen either.... And let's also be honest, it's a chavvy town with high immigrant populations, drug problems and no discernible 'safe' places in it. Time to London is about the same - Guildford, Sevenoaks or Slough..... let me see, will it be a town that's only ever on the telly for police reality shows and is a concrete 1950's dive or a town with a centre, real shops and a core of areas of good schools, good housing stock and not full of chavs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1 Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 London is outperforming everywhere else because of the amount of work available. Yes there are nice houses with nice period features but you can get that elsewhere. Then there's the lifestyle. It's not for me btw, but it is for a lot of single professionals. Anywhere with plenty of opportunities for work or good transport links to said areas will fair better than others. And yes I live in Slough, only 20 minutes away from the city by train, and itself a town offering plenty of work and amenities, Heathrow only 10 minutes away, almost every major company has offices here etc, etc. That's why I laugh when anyone takes the michael out of Slough. It has far more to offer than many realise. Regards Mayor of Slough Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough It isn't fit for humans now, .... Slough. John Betjeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancypants Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Slough. More appropriately pronounced to rhyme with "rough" "enough" etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuckoo Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Places which will see large falls will be the ones which depend on one large local employer or one industry which suffers particularly badly in a recession, places with less diverse variety of trades will suffer. e.g like Swindon did in the early 90's, or Newbury if Vodafone left. In hard times there is a "flight to quality" amongst investors so core areas and markets will do better, and the last up and coming place will be first to slide back down the dumper. clapham will also be f****ed because it's rubbish (see other posts!) and of course those who don't need to sell won't lose anything! its all paper money anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.