3 ms·
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not sure I agree here. It doesn't feel much different to 2006/07 - ie peak of the cycle in real estate for the City (not to say
by tomatocracy 7y ago
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not sure I agree here. It doesn't feel much different to 2006/07 - ie peak of the cycle in real estate for the City (not to say that I think the bust will be like 2008/09 but that I think there really is a clearly cyclical element to it).
The City is not a place families typically want to live because it has very little green space - and it's largely not a place marketed to families. High-end residential space in the City is essentially marketed at two groups: single people in their 20s/early 30s working nearby, and people for whom it's a second home near work. In my opinion, those markets are enough to sustain it for many years to come - they're likely to grow and what's more they have disposable income which will support the retail/etc element in a way homes for families these days don't.
The commercial real estate boom in the City is the latest in a long, long list of such. Unlike Canary Wharf, which has been very careful to manage space so that almost every square foot is always occupied except in the deepest points of recessions, real estate in the City has had a large speculative element to it for at least the time I've been observing the market (since the 90s), and I don't see anything different here.
There's a long-term growth story and a cyclical element. Long-term growth is about a move eastwards as the West End gets filled up/businesses get priced out. The cyclical part this time to me seems to combine an element of that with it being a "signalling" location for certain types of business about who/what they are.
- cm2187 7y agoPlus I believe the City of London has a policy of avoiding owner occupied apartments blocks. Once a building is owned by 600 people, there is no way you can buy it, demolish it to build something more adapted to the new demand.
- tomatocracy 7y agoI'm not sure that's true, and in any case they can't really enforce that - if a building owner wants to sell individual units, they can sell them. The obvious counterexample to your point is the Barbican. Much of the Barbican is owner occupied and the vast majority of the flats there are privately owned (ie not local authority/housing association). I'm not sure but I think the Barbican still houses the majority of residents of the City proper.
- cm2187 7y agoIt is possible that this policy didn’t exist in the 70s. To be honest I read that 10 years ago when I was looking into commercial real estate finance. They may also have evolved since.
- pjc50 7y agoInteresting, since I knew someone who lived in a City of London owned tower block (not actually in the City proper) as an owner-occupier. It was a 60s building with flimsy single-glazed windows and unreliable lifts, which made it affordably bad in the first place.