7 ms·

My entire time in the UK I've lived in flatshares - out of sheer necessity due to the ridiculous rent prices. This "co-living" space is no exception in that res

My entire time in the UK I've lived in flatshares - out of sheer necessity due to the ridiculous rent prices. This "co-living" space is no exception in that respect. Only somehow they manage to spin it as "hip" to live in a shoebox for 1000£ a month. This is just making money off of the dire housing situation, imho, by squeezing the maximum amount of people into a building. It's probably fine for short term tennants who just need a place to sleep after work ("bedsits" that are being offered in the city are at least as expensive). Now, mind you, having lived in flatshares for over 12 years, I've grown to hate it with a passion, so maybe I'm totally wrong here (doubt it).

marcoperaza 8y ago
>This is just making money off of the dire housing situation, imho, by squeezing the maximum amount of people into a building. Could you clarify? As opposed to landlords in other cities, who house people out of the kindness of their hearts? I’m just not sure what the argument you’re making really is.
- bitL 8y ago
  Germany seems to be doing way better.
  - vazamb 8y ago
    Flatshares ("WG" , Wohngemeinschaft) are extremely common in Germany. For anyone under 30 living in a major city it is absolutely normal to share a flat with 1-3 other people.
    - dx034 8y ago
      For students a flatshare is normal but all Germans I know that work full-time live in their own flat. In London, living on your own after university is basically impossible (unless you live very far out).
      - mayniac 8y ago
        > In London, living on your own after university is basically impossible (unless you live very far out). Disagree, since I'm doing it right now 3 years after uni. I'm not paid amazingly, below average salary for London but above average for the rest of the UK. However half my paycheck goes on rent. My commute is about 45 minutes by tube or 20 minutes by motorbike so it's not too far out. The trick is to find an area that's stabby enough to be cheap but hipster enough that there's decent bars in the area to help you forget. However I definitely got lucky, my rent is a few hundred pounds below market value.
        csomar 8y ago
        > However half my paycheck goes on rent. My commute is about 45 minutes by tube or 20 minutes by motorbike so it's not too far out. I don't know how you manages your finances but for me anything above 25% of your income going for rent is absurd. And you are not making it up in distance, either. 45 minutes by tube is a lots of time. (I assume motorbike is not a favorable option given London weather).
        mayniac 8y ago
        My choice is between living close to work, living alone, or cheap rent. I can pick two. All three if I choose to live in a room which fits no more than a single bed. I'm counting 45 minutes tube/20 minutes motorbike as close because for London that's honestly quite good. About half of the people I know have commutes over an hour each way, at least one above two hours, and I can cut my public transport commute to 35 minutes if I time everything right. Biking is actually the favourable option but not possible if I'm drinking, and the miserable weather doesn't bother me. I would love to cut my rent down to 25% of income but it's honestly not possible without increasing travel costs and time. Plus I work in computer security, London is one ofthe few places in the UK with any job mobility in my field.
        dx034 8y ago
        25% for rent in London means you'll have a lot of money to spend. If you spend 25% of your salary of $2000 on rent on the countryside you'll live off $1500. If in the city you can make $5000 but spend 50%, you'll still have more, even after higher other costs in the city. Sounds like an extreme example but in the UK, London vs. countryside further North has those differences.
    - m_t 8y ago
      Here's one big difference: it's also common in London for people over 30. Which in other European capitals is an age where you would more likely live with your partner and start a family, rather than live like a student.
  - dx034 8y ago
    That is because it's less focused on one city so that demand is a bit better distributed. Zoning law is also more helpful than in London, where laws prevent from building on one of the numerous golf courses in the city.
    - Symbiote 8y ago
      I have no interest at all in golf, but I'd like London to keep the green space it has. London just needs to build taller. It happens, but very slowly. Middle class British people don't like anything other than houses, so compared to any German city there are very few 4-6 story apartment blocks in London.
      - dx034 8y ago
        The green belt is not about green spaces. Only 10-20% of the protected spaces are actually parks or forests. Much is unused land or agriculture. No one wants to get rid of Hampstead Heath or Richmond Park.
- gambiting 8y ago
  No, it's just that the market is more realistic elsewhere. No one is squeezing 12 people into a 3-bed flat in Newcastle, because there are no people who want to live in such conditions in Newcastle - £300 a month gets you a private room with all utilities and council tax included. But if in London people pay £1000+ for just one room or similar amounts to share, then suddenly it becomes a much more lucrative market.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
  I realize that most landlords consider themselves as doing a service but sometimes they don't seem much different from domain squatters. It's not really a service, what would happen if they didn't exist? Everyone only buys homes for living in as needed, drastically lower prices, more innovation based businesses that actually contribute to making the world a better place?
  - ghaff 8y ago
    So if you can't afford or don't want to buy a place, you shouldn't have a roof over your head?
    - mayniac 8y ago
      We had a decent council housing system in the UK which provided affordable rents. That and housing cooperatives/housing associations replacing landlords would be ideal. I agree with the person you're replying to, the vast majority of landlords don't contribute anything to society and the idea that housing is an investment should be stopped.
      - isostatic 8y ago
        I was a landlord -- I bought a flat in 2007, the day later Northern Rock went bust, and 6 months later the identical flat below mine sold for 60% of the total -- I was in £60k negative equity. Fortunately I resisted the mortgage sales guy and went for a tracker, so paid very little in mortgage (The interest part was about £150pcm). Fast forward 5 years, still £30k of negative equity, however SWMBO is pregnant so we need to move. Rented out our place, rented somewhere near Manchester, moved, then told my boss at the time I'd moved. Over the next 4 years we rented out, and between various repairs, service charges, etc made an average £500 a year profit, patently not worth the stress - especially if the tenants had moved out. My half of the £500 a year was taxed in the final year at 60%. So all that's left to make it 'worth' buying a house is the increase in house price, which in England has averaged about 3% pa over the last 13 years. If you want to form a housing cooperative, nobody will stop you. If you want to live in the centre of London you're going to be spending a lot of money though - it's supply and demand. If you want to rent or buy somewhere cheap, move further away, plenty of choice to buy a house for under £100k, in some really nice places, not far from Manchester or Leeds. Don't blame the landlords though.
mcjiggerlog 8y ago
Having to share a flat in London was a good 50% of the reason for me moving to Madrid. Wanting to live in your own home is not so much to ask. Sadly, this seems to be a trend in many other places too - even in Madrid itself it's not that realistic to live alone if you are young and on a local wage.
- magic_beans 8y ago
  It’s helpful to live with a significant other. Splitting rent for an outrageous 1-bedroom in a big city is basically the only option...
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago
  Shout out to Madrid. Lived there for 5 years, loved it. Very under appreciated city.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  Same here. I realized I needed a big pay rise to continue living in London, given what living alone costs. With the other 50% of my reasons, I ended up moving to Copenhagen. The choice in London seems to be between a tiny, grotty apartment within 45 minutes of the centre, or something a bit nicer but also further out. Friends with the former had no money left to go out. Friends with the latter couldn't be bothered to travel the longer distance to come out.
- jxub 8y ago
  Well, in Valencia you can still rent a 1 bed for around 500 euro in the centre or a 3 bed for 700 euro near a metro station. Madrid and Barcelona are another story though.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Back in 2003 I managed to find a tiny bedsit, with a shower in one corner, sink + countertop oven in another, and bed in the third. It was a shared toilet, and cost half my take home wage. I couldn't afford a proper 1 bed studio for £800 (with a separate bathroom), nor could I afford to commute on tube (I found one 35 minute walk from work), but it did the job. I couldn't abide living in a house share, however somewhere that's effectively a hall of residence, with a kettle and microwave in my room, would be far more preferably than a house share. 18 months after my salary had increased enough that I could afford a 1 bed flat in Twyford and the commuting cost (cheap car, free parking due to shift work, 7 days a fortnight), which was great My mortgage in 2018 on a 4 bed house in Cheshire is less than I paid for the rent on that flat in Twyford in 2004.
csomar 8y ago
Indeed. There are many other options for social living without compromising on the space aspect. Condo living is one. You get your own kitchen (albeit small), a small bedroom, a small living room and your own shower and toilet. Then there are several amenities: Pool, Gym, Library. In the Condo you can find a coffee shop, 7/11, etc... So you can be either social, or not. But if you pick "I socialize with my condo tenants", you still have the option at 8PM to sneak to your apartment at xx Floor and have your own moments.
Reason077 8y ago
I actually stayed in this building (Collective Old Oak) briefly a couple of years ago while I was waiting to move into a new flat. It's pretty awful, to be honest. I was aware of the small room size and didn't mind that too much. The real problem is that the building seems very cheaply constructed. Poorly ventilated, no air conditioning, and very noisy due to cheap (non-acoustic) glazing units that don't seem to seal properly, and non-existent soundproofing between rooms. It's also a rather scummy part of London with tons of traffic, noisy industrial neighbours, and generally run-down, heavily littered environs (but I did enjoy riding my bike down the adjacent canal towpath route into central London!). In a decade or so this might improve as the area is planned to be redeveloped with the HS2 interchange station etc. On the other hand, there were some genuinely interesting people and events going on at the time I was there. They did seem to have succeeded in creating a nice community feel. But if people are really paying £1000/month for a room here, they're being ripped off! There is much better quality accommodation, in better neighbourhoods, available for that sort of money.

marcoperaza 8y ago

>This is just making money off of the dire housing situation, imho, by squeezing the maximum amount of people into a building. Could you clarify? As opposed to landlords in other cities, who house people out of the kindness of their hearts? I’m just not sure what the argument you’re making really is.

bitL 8y ago
Germany seems to be doing way better.
- vazamb 8y ago
  Flatshares ("WG" , Wohngemeinschaft) are extremely common in Germany. For anyone under 30 living in a major city it is absolutely normal to share a flat with 1-3 other people.
  - dx034 8y ago
    For students a flatshare is normal but all Germans I know that work full-time live in their own flat. In London, living on your own after university is basically impossible (unless you live very far out).
    - mayniac 8y ago
      > In London, living on your own after university is basically impossible (unless you live very far out). Disagree, since I'm doing it right now 3 years after uni. I'm not paid amazingly, below average salary for London but above average for the rest of the UK. However half my paycheck goes on rent. My commute is about 45 minutes by tube or 20 minutes by motorbike so it's not too far out. The trick is to find an area that's stabby enough to be cheap but hipster enough that there's decent bars in the area to help you forget. However I definitely got lucky, my rent is a few hundred pounds below market value.
      - csomar 8y ago
        > However half my paycheck goes on rent. My commute is about 45 minutes by tube or 20 minutes by motorbike so it's not too far out. I don't know how you manages your finances but for me anything above 25% of your income going for rent is absurd. And you are not making it up in distance, either. 45 minutes by tube is a lots of time. (I assume motorbike is not a favorable option given London weather).
        mayniac 8y ago
        My choice is between living close to work, living alone, or cheap rent. I can pick two. All three if I choose to live in a room which fits no more than a single bed. I'm counting 45 minutes tube/20 minutes motorbike as close because for London that's honestly quite good. About half of the people I know have commutes over an hour each way, at least one above two hours, and I can cut my public transport commute to 35 minutes if I time everything right. Biking is actually the favourable option but not possible if I'm drinking, and the miserable weather doesn't bother me. I would love to cut my rent down to 25% of income but it's honestly not possible without increasing travel costs and time. Plus I work in computer security, London is one ofthe few places in the UK with any job mobility in my field.
        dx034 8y ago
        25% for rent in London means you'll have a lot of money to spend. If you spend 25% of your salary of $2000 on rent on the countryside you'll live off $1500. If in the city you can make $5000 but spend 50%, you'll still have more, even after higher other costs in the city. Sounds like an extreme example but in the UK, London vs. countryside further North has those differences.
  - m_t 8y ago
    Here's one big difference: it's also common in London for people over 30. Which in other European capitals is an age where you would more likely live with your partner and start a family, rather than live like a student.
- dx034 8y ago
  That is because it's less focused on one city so that demand is a bit better distributed. Zoning law is also more helpful than in London, where laws prevent from building on one of the numerous golf courses in the city.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    I have no interest at all in golf, but I'd like London to keep the green space it has. London just needs to build taller. It happens, but very slowly. Middle class British people don't like anything other than houses, so compared to any German city there are very few 4-6 story apartment blocks in London.
    - dx034 8y ago
      The green belt is not about green spaces. Only 10-20% of the protected spaces are actually parks or forests. Much is unused land or agriculture. No one wants to get rid of Hampstead Heath or Richmond Park.
gambiting 8y ago
No, it's just that the market is more realistic elsewhere. No one is squeezing 12 people into a 3-bed flat in Newcastle, because there are no people who want to live in such conditions in Newcastle - £300 a month gets you a private room with all utilities and council tax included. But if in London people pay £1000+ for just one room or similar amounts to share, then suddenly it becomes a much more lucrative market.
ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
I realize that most landlords consider themselves as doing a service but sometimes they don't seem much different from domain squatters. It's not really a service, what would happen if they didn't exist? Everyone only buys homes for living in as needed, drastically lower prices, more innovation based businesses that actually contribute to making the world a better place?
- ghaff 8y ago
  So if you can't afford or don't want to buy a place, you shouldn't have a roof over your head?
  - mayniac 8y ago
    We had a decent council housing system in the UK which provided affordable rents. That and housing cooperatives/housing associations replacing landlords would be ideal. I agree with the person you're replying to, the vast majority of landlords don't contribute anything to society and the idea that housing is an investment should be stopped.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      I was a landlord -- I bought a flat in 2007, the day later Northern Rock went bust, and 6 months later the identical flat below mine sold for 60% of the total -- I was in £60k negative equity. Fortunately I resisted the mortgage sales guy and went for a tracker, so paid very little in mortgage (The interest part was about £150pcm). Fast forward 5 years, still £30k of negative equity, however SWMBO is pregnant so we need to move. Rented out our place, rented somewhere near Manchester, moved, then told my boss at the time I'd moved. Over the next 4 years we rented out, and between various repairs, service charges, etc made an average £500 a year profit, patently not worth the stress - especially if the tenants had moved out. My half of the £500 a year was taxed in the final year at 60%. So all that's left to make it 'worth' buying a house is the increase in house price, which in England has averaged about 3% pa over the last 13 years. If you want to form a housing cooperative, nobody will stop you. If you want to live in the centre of London you're going to be spending a lot of money though - it's supply and demand. If you want to rent or buy somewhere cheap, move further away, plenty of choice to buy a house for under £100k, in some really nice places, not far from Manchester or Leeds. Don't blame the landlords though.

mcjiggerlog 8y ago

Having to share a flat in London was a good 50% of the reason for me moving to Madrid. Wanting to live in your own home is not so much to ask. Sadly, this seems to be a trend in many other places too - even in Madrid itself it's not that realistic to live alone if you are young and on a local wage.

magic_beans 8y ago
It’s helpful to live with a significant other. Splitting rent for an outrageous 1-bedroom in a big city is basically the only option...
fwdpropaganda 8y ago
Shout out to Madrid. Lived there for 5 years, loved it. Very under appreciated city.
Symbiote 8y ago
Same here. I realized I needed a big pay rise to continue living in London, given what living alone costs. With the other 50% of my reasons, I ended up moving to Copenhagen. The choice in London seems to be between a tiny, grotty apartment within 45 minutes of the centre, or something a bit nicer but also further out. Friends with the former had no money left to go out. Friends with the latter couldn't be bothered to travel the longer distance to come out.
jxub 8y ago
Well, in Valencia you can still rent a 1 bed for around 500 euro in the centre or a 3 bed for 700 euro near a metro station. Madrid and Barcelona are another story though.
isostatic 8y ago
Back in 2003 I managed to find a tiny bedsit, with a shower in one corner, sink + countertop oven in another, and bed in the third. It was a shared toilet, and cost half my take home wage. I couldn't afford a proper 1 bed studio for £800 (with a separate bathroom), nor could I afford to commute on tube (I found one 35 minute walk from work), but it did the job. I couldn't abide living in a house share, however somewhere that's effectively a hall of residence, with a kettle and microwave in my room, would be far more preferably than a house share. 18 months after my salary had increased enough that I could afford a 1 bed flat in Twyford and the commuting cost (cheap car, free parking due to shift work, 7 days a fortnight), which was great My mortgage in 2018 on a 4 bed house in Cheshire is less than I paid for the rent on that flat in Twyford in 2004.

csomar 8y ago

Indeed. There are many other options for social living without compromising on the space aspect. Condo living is one. You get your own kitchen (albeit small), a small bedroom, a small living room and your own shower and toilet. Then there are several amenities: Pool, Gym, Library. In the Condo you can find a coffee shop, 7/11, etc... So you can be either social, or not. But if you pick "I socialize with my condo tenants", you still have the option at 8PM to sneak to your apartment at xx Floor and have your own moments.

Reason077 8y ago

I actually stayed in this building (Collective Old Oak) briefly a couple of years ago while I was waiting to move into a new flat. It's pretty awful, to be honest. I was aware of the small room size and didn't mind that too much. The real problem is that the building seems very cheaply constructed. Poorly ventilated, no air conditioning, and very noisy due to cheap (non-acoustic) glazing units that don't seem to seal properly, and non-existent soundproofing between rooms. It's also a rather scummy part of London with tons of traffic, noisy industrial neighbours, and generally run-down, heavily littered environs (but I did enjoy riding my bike down the adjacent canal towpath route into central London!). In a decade or so this might improve as the area is planned to be redeveloped with the HS2 interchange station etc. On the other hand, there were some genuinely interesting people and events going on at the time I was there. They did seem to have succeeded in creating a nice community feel. But if people are really paying £1000/month for a room here, they're being ripped off! There is much better quality accommodation, in better neighbourhoods, available for that sort of money.