12 ms·

I walked from Kings Cross to Marylebone at dusk recently - half way, I took the road up from the main Euston Road - walking through mostly residential - barely

by mtkd 10y ago

I walked from Kings Cross to Marylebone at dusk recently - half way, I took the road up from the main Euston Road - walking through mostly residential - barely an apartment window with a light on - it's just money parked in property - the parks don't have kids playing in them any more The recent Vancouver tax changes have worked, I suspect/hope we'll start seeing that repeated in every city thats had it's life sucked out

thruflo 10y ago
You were walking past student accommodation in the summer holidays.
yodsanklai 10y ago
I suspect it's a pretty common phenomenon. I recently visited Venice with a Venetian friend of mine. He mentioned that most of the apartments in the historical center were empty.
- emmelaich 10y ago
  Yes, I rented a flat in Rome right near the Trevi fountain, in a beautiful old stone two storey building with a lovely courtyard. There would have been somewhere between 20 and 40 apartments there. There was a software / techical business of some sort in one corner, but I don't think I saw anyone else. (Thank you AirBNB)
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Did you rent the flat from AirBnB then? I'm not understanding your comment.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      Why the down vote? seriously? I am asking for clarification because I am interested if you were speaking about the upside or the downside? Its not at all clear.
      - emmelaich 10y ago
        I didn't downvote you. The thanks to AirBNB was as an aside. I think we rented AirBNB but to be honest not sure; might have been one of the many other under the radar holiday house schemes available in Italy and other places. However the phenomenon under discussion clearly makes something like AirBNB possible -- and good luck to them. Whether it is an upside or downside overall -- I do not know. (I have now upvoted both of your comments)
- flycaliguy 10y ago
  I think Venice is a unique situation. It's due to the difficulty and cost involved in the maintenance of buildings which are partially underwater and can not be accessed by a van or truck. Fair amount of stubborn older people living their, not much ability for a young Italian to take on the task of buying a residence. I spent time there, in a house that reminded me of Fightclub, mostly with Iraqis. No Italians.
rconti 10y ago
So... how long before property values collapse because it's no longer a desirable place to live, and the foreign money tries to get out as quickly as possible before values drop further?
- Asooka 10y ago
  My gut instinct says "never" because those aren't places to live, they're places to park your money. They are pricey because they're pricey, kind of like how a 10$ banknote represents 10$ of value because we say it does. London will remain an important and populous town even if some of its areas turn into money lots with no people living in them.
bogomipz 10y ago
Yeah thats oddly dystopian. Can you elaborate on the Vancouver tax change? I have not heard about this.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  "Foreigners [not permanent residents] who buy residential property in the Vancouver area will have to pay an extra 15-per-cent tax as part of a B.C. government plan to slow the foreign speculation that many blame for making the region’s homes the most unaffordable in Canada." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-to-target-foreign-real-estate-buyers-with-new-tax/article31096550/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-to-t... The tax is new and was enacted just before August so the impacts are still uncertain.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? The "foreigner exclusion" sounds like fighting a symptom. Simply require proof of residency in the property (or an active lease agreement / market listing) to qualify for a tax break. Otherwise, if you're parking-and-holding-without-using, you get slapped with a higher tax rate.
    - aianus 10y ago
      > Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? That would be much more difficult to enforce. You'd have to hire people to walk around knocking on doors or have neighbours snitching on each other. No thanks.
    - Tiktaalik 10y ago
      Something like this was suggested by economists at the local university. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-professors-call-for-property-surtax-on-vacant-vancouver-housing/article28235302/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-prof... The Mayor of Vancouver is also interested in taxing non-occupancy and in the same special session of the legislative assembly that passed the 15% foreign buyer tax the Province granted the City of Vancouver (but not others) the powers to tax non-occupancy. It can be pretty involved to find out occupancy and the City has limited means so it'll be interesting to see if that goes anywhere.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
I think it remains to be seen whether the Vancouver tax changes have worked. There's been a bit of a slowdown in sales, but that could just be investors taking a brief pause to evaluate the new situation.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  They really need it to be an ongoing annual tax increase (ex: vacancy tax). It's like a capital gains tax versus a wealth tax. The latter has way more impact then the former.
grey-area 10y ago
8 million people live in London, and the centre is full of people at most times of day, hundreds of thousands of people still live near the areas you're talking about, I went for a picnic in Regent's park last weekend and it was full of kids. Characterising it as an empty city full of vacant units or one in which professionals or parents can't afford to live and parks are empty of children is absurd.
tetraodonpuffer 10y ago
with real estate going up the way it's been going up, do you think 15% really that big of a deterrent?
randyrand 10y ago
Foreign investment money is a good thing for a city and country. Empty buildings are not ideal though (though its still better than less investment). I think maybe there should be a requirement to rent out your investments if it's in a high density area.
- ferentchak 10y ago
  I guess I am confused why they would not want to collect the money from renting the buildings out. Any ideas?
  - largote 10y ago
    A lot of these cities have renting laws that basically give the renter more rights over the property than the owner. This causes it to make more sense to not rent it out.
    - hanoz 10y ago
      > A lot of these cities have renting laws that basically give the renter more rights over the property than the owner. Situated as it is, in Britain, London is a long way from being such a city. More's the pity.
  - sparklesunshine 10y ago
    I believe they keep them empty so they can visit at any time. They are their holiday homes. Some investors buy flats and keep them empty and in bubble wrap for a couple of years until prices increase, then sell. Not "buy-to-let" investors, but "buy-to-sell"!
  - ddalex 10y ago
    They don't care. When you have billions in the personal bank accounts, the few tens of thousands you would collect per month from a luxury house in London means nothing. It would be more of a nuisance - the tenants need registering, then you have to pay taxes, for what gain?
dagw 10y ago
On the other hand i recently walked through Notting Hill and South Kensington and it wad full of life, with all the flats and houses feeling very much lived in.
jlebar 10y ago
In the US, the federal government has acted in a big way to prop up home prices when they threatened to fall. It's hard to imagine how we can have it both ways: If the government effectively insures real estate against loss, then investors (i.e., people with money) will take advantage of that, increase demand, and raise the price of the investments (i.e., houses you and I want to buy).
- pen2l 10y ago
  hkmurakami made a very astute comment a few days ago about this: > It seems that we made a pact with the devil by positioning housing as an > investment asset. By doing so, we've encouraged people to commit a very large > fraction of their net worth into a rather illiquid asset, tying their financial > fates to the future assessment of that asset. As a result, protecting the price > and appreciation of this asset has come to overshadow the other crucial roles > that housing plays in our society. > If I bought shares in AAPL at $50 (now > $100+) and someone comes along asking that AAPL let them buy some shares for > say, $65, I'm obviously not going to be happy since the value of my investment > is under threat. This is the kind of reaction we've unfortunately promoted for > ourselves. It didn't have to be this way, as other countries have shown us. > But now that we're here, it's hard to imagine a way to turn back time. I live in Boston. My peers and family are pouring out their savings of the last 10 years to buying property in Quincy and Jamaica Plains because they feel it'll gentrify soon and in another 10 years they'll be making good money from it (by either renting or selling). I feel extremely conflicted about this. I think they're probably right. This housing situation is the most fucked up thing I know of, and I just cannot think of any happy answers to solve these problems for the benefit of everyone in society - it seems any and every decision will favor one party and fuck the other.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    It sounds like we're well balanced then. Markets are efficient.
    - 001sky 10y ago

by mtkd 10y ago

thruflo 10y ago

You were walking past student accommodation in the summer holidays.

yodsanklai 10y ago

I suspect it's a pretty common phenomenon. I recently visited Venice with a Venetian friend of mine. He mentioned that most of the apartments in the historical center were empty.

emmelaich 10y ago
Yes, I rented a flat in Rome right near the Trevi fountain, in a beautiful old stone two storey building with a lovely courtyard. There would have been somewhere between 20 and 40 apartments there. There was a software / techical business of some sort in one corner, but I don't think I saw anyone else. (Thank you AirBNB)
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Did you rent the flat from AirBnB then? I'm not understanding your comment.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Why the down vote? seriously? I am asking for clarification because I am interested if you were speaking about the upside or the downside? Its not at all clear.
    - emmelaich 10y ago
      I didn't downvote you. The thanks to AirBNB was as an aside. I think we rented AirBNB but to be honest not sure; might have been one of the many other under the radar holiday house schemes available in Italy and other places. However the phenomenon under discussion clearly makes something like AirBNB possible -- and good luck to them. Whether it is an upside or downside overall -- I do not know. (I have now upvoted both of your comments)
flycaliguy 10y ago
I think Venice is a unique situation. It's due to the difficulty and cost involved in the maintenance of buildings which are partially underwater and can not be accessed by a van or truck. Fair amount of stubborn older people living their, not much ability for a young Italian to take on the task of buying a residence. I spent time there, in a house that reminded me of Fightclub, mostly with Iraqis. No Italians.

rconti 10y ago

So... how long before property values collapse because it's no longer a desirable place to live, and the foreign money tries to get out as quickly as possible before values drop further?

Asooka 10y ago
My gut instinct says "never" because those aren't places to live, they're places to park your money. They are pricey because they're pricey, kind of like how a 10$ banknote represents 10$ of value because we say it does. London will remain an important and populous town even if some of its areas turn into money lots with no people living in them.

bogomipz 10y ago

Yeah thats oddly dystopian. Can you elaborate on the Vancouver tax change? I have not heard about this.

Tiktaalik 10y ago
"Foreigners [not permanent residents] who buy residential property in the Vancouver area will have to pay an extra 15-per-cent tax as part of a B.C. government plan to slow the foreign speculation that many blame for making the region’s homes the most unaffordable in Canada." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-to-target-foreign-real-estate-buyers-with-new-tax/article31096550/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-to-t... The tax is new and was enacted just before August so the impacts are still uncertain.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? The "foreigner exclusion" sounds like fighting a symptom. Simply require proof of residency in the property (or an active lease agreement / market listing) to qualify for a tax break. Otherwise, if you're parking-and-holding-without-using, you get slapped with a higher tax rate.
  - aianus 10y ago
    > Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? That would be much more difficult to enforce. You'd have to hire people to walk around knocking on doors or have neighbours snitching on each other. No thanks.
  - Tiktaalik 10y ago
    Something like this was suggested by economists at the local university. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-professors-call-for-property-surtax-on-vacant-vancouver-housing/article28235302/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-prof... The Mayor of Vancouver is also interested in taxing non-occupancy and in the same special session of the legislative assembly that passed the 15% foreign buyer tax the Province granted the City of Vancouver (but not others) the powers to tax non-occupancy. It can be pretty involved to find out occupancy and the City has limited means so it'll be interesting to see if that goes anywhere.

Tiktaalik 10y ago

I think it remains to be seen whether the Vancouver tax changes have worked. There's been a bit of a slowdown in sales, but that could just be investors taking a brief pause to evaluate the new situation.

hkmurakami 10y ago
They really need it to be an ongoing annual tax increase (ex: vacancy tax). It's like a capital gains tax versus a wealth tax. The latter has way more impact then the former.

grey-area 10y ago

8 million people live in London, and the centre is full of people at most times of day, hundreds of thousands of people still live near the areas you're talking about, I went for a picnic in Regent's park last weekend and it was full of kids. Characterising it as an empty city full of vacant units or one in which professionals or parents can't afford to live and parks are empty of children is absurd.

tetraodonpuffer 10y ago

with real estate going up the way it's been going up, do you think 15% really that big of a deterrent?

randyrand 10y ago

Foreign investment money is a good thing for a city and country. Empty buildings are not ideal though (though its still better than less investment). I think maybe there should be a requirement to rent out your investments if it's in a high density area.

ferentchak 10y ago
I guess I am confused why they would not want to collect the money from renting the buildings out. Any ideas?
- largote 10y ago
  A lot of these cities have renting laws that basically give the renter more rights over the property than the owner. This causes it to make more sense to not rent it out.
  - hanoz 10y ago
    > A lot of these cities have renting laws that basically give the renter more rights over the property than the owner. Situated as it is, in Britain, London is a long way from being such a city. More's the pity.
- sparklesunshine 10y ago
  I believe they keep them empty so they can visit at any time. They are their holiday homes. Some investors buy flats and keep them empty and in bubble wrap for a couple of years until prices increase, then sell. Not "buy-to-let" investors, but "buy-to-sell"!
- ddalex 10y ago
  They don't care. When you have billions in the personal bank accounts, the few tens of thousands you would collect per month from a luxury house in London means nothing. It would be more of a nuisance - the tenants need registering, then you have to pay taxes, for what gain?

dagw 10y ago

On the other hand i recently walked through Notting Hill and South Kensington and it wad full of life, with all the flats and houses feeling very much lived in.

jlebar 10y ago

In the US, the federal government has acted in a big way to prop up home prices when they threatened to fall. It's hard to imagine how we can have it both ways: If the government effectively insures real estate against loss, then investors (i.e., people with money) will take advantage of that, increase demand, and raise the price of the investments (i.e., houses you and I want to buy).

pen2l 10y ago
hkmurakami made a very astute comment a few days ago about this: > It seems that we made a pact with the devil by positioning housing as an > investment asset. By doing so, we've encouraged people to commit a very large > fraction of their net worth into a rather illiquid asset, tying their financial > fates to the future assessment of that asset. As a result, protecting the price > and appreciation of this asset has come to overshadow the other crucial roles > that housing plays in our society. > If I bought shares in AAPL at $50 (now > $100+) and someone comes along asking that AAPL let them buy some shares for > say, $65, I'm obviously not going to be happy since the value of my investment > is under threat. This is the kind of reaction we've unfortunately promoted for > ourselves. It didn't have to be this way, as other countries have shown us. > But now that we're here, it's hard to imagine a way to turn back time. I live in Boston. My peers and family are pouring out their savings of the last 10 years to buying property in Quincy and Jamaica Plains because they feel it'll gentrify soon and in another 10 years they'll be making good money from it (by either renting or selling). I feel extremely conflicted about this. I think they're probably right. This housing situation is the most fucked up thing I know of, and I just cannot think of any happy answers to solve these problems for the benefit of everyone in society - it seems any and every decision will favor one party and fuck the other.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  It sounds like we're well balanced then. Markets are efficient.
  - 001sky 10y ago