17 ms·

The point of this piece is not that living in Barcelona and commuting to London is sensible -- it's that the North London property market has gone totally batsh

• gaius 13y ago
  Not the only thing. The other major factor is housing benefit, in which a landlord can charge well over the odds, and the govt just pays it. They are trying to cap it, to howls of outrage but from whom? Not the tenants, they never see the money. But from well-heeled buy-to-let landlords whose cash-cow is about to be slaughtered. That's why papers like the Graun oppose it - that's their readers!
  • cstross 13y ago
    I think you're making a correlation/causation error here. Housing benefit has crept up over the years because the property market was inflating steadily and no government dared bring it back down (middle-class home owners vote to punish governments who hit them in the wallet). Housing benefit rises stuck a plaster on the chest wound by allowing low-income workers (bus drivers, shop assistants, nurses) to live in places where they were needed but could no longer afford to rent or buy.
    • ronaldx 13y ago
      Here's a causation argument: Considering that housing benefit was set for a long time at the median market rate, this surely drove rental prices upward. If landlords know they are guaranteed the median by way of housing benefit, they set their rents at the median (given a housing shortage, they can guarantee to rent out any old dump at the housing benefit rate with no disadvantage: and this is evidenced pretty well by distribution of rent prices), which has driven the median upward - a vicious circle of rent increases.
  • DanBC 13y ago
    You know there's something called a local housing allowance, which sets maximum rates for housing benefit, right? And that's been in place for years? There are rules about ages and size of accommodation. There are strict rules about over-accommodation too. The bedroom tax has been operating for many years for everyone except those in council houses and housing association properties.
    • cabalamat 13y ago
      > There are strict rules about over-accommodation too. Not sure what you mean there > The bedroom tax has been operating for many years for everyone except those in council houses and housing association properties. Or there
    • gaius 13y ago
      The "bedroom tax" operates on private sector renters too, in the sense that you rent what you can afford.
  • randomhunt 13y ago
    Really? I would have thought the group of people taking this rather capitalist route would not be reading a left leaning newspaper like The Guardian. For example its obvious you don't, otherwise you would realise The Guardian has been banging on about the cost of London for donkey's years (at least 20) and against the bubbles of buy to let. I remember lots of stories flogging against it as the journalists were complaining they couldn't afford to live in London. Their also complaining against the current schemes the UK Government which Gideon is pushing regarding mortgage guarantees and everybody (whether in the UK or not, whether working in banking or not) is saying will just create another bubble along the lines of buy to let.
    • gaius 13y ago
      Well, left and right is pretty meaningless these days. That's why the Graun is owned by a holding company offshore in the Caymans where it pays no tax. Your typical reader of it was a "proper" left-winger once, back when they were a student, but now they are well-off, highly paid jobs in law, the media and the civil service, and they'd like to stay that way thankyouverymuch. When they say they care about cause X, they really mean, bung my PR agency a million quid to raise awareness of this, oh and hire my mates as spin doctors, ifyouwouldn'tmind.
      • rmc 13y ago
        Champagne socialist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_socialist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_socialist
      • gjm11 13y ago
        The Guardian is owned by Guardian Media Group plc, which is a UK public limited company headquartered in London. GMG plc is owned by The Scott Trust Ltd., another UK public limited company. So far as I can tell, it is not true that the Guardian is owned by a holding company offshore in the Caymans, nor that the Guardian is owned by a company that pays no tax. (Except that GMG has made a loss in many recent years and therefore paid no corporation tax. So far as I can tell, these are genuine losses and it seems reasonable not to pay corporation tax if you are not making a profit.) It does appear that in 2008 the Guardian Media Group bought a magazine company called Emap, and set up a company in the Caymans as part of some (allegedly quite standard) scheme to avoid some of the stamp duty they'd otherwise have paid in the acquisition. Maybe that's dodgy or maybe it's just standard operating procedure (in which case something is dodgy but it might not be in any useful sense GMG's fault), but it's a very different matter from what you claimed. I am in any case unable to follow your logic at one key point. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the Guardian is owned by a tax-avoiding holding company. What exactly is the connection between that and the statement that "left and right is pretty meaningless these days"? (Full disclosure: I read newspapers seldom but the Guardian less seldom than others. I do not work in law, the media, or the civil service, I do not have a PR agency or any mates who are spin doctors, and I would hazard a guess that my pay is within a factor of two of yours one way or the other. So far as I know, I have no financial or professional interest in the success of the Guardian or its allied companies.)
  • 6d0debc071 13y ago
    > They are trying to cap it, to howls of outrage but from whom? Not the tenants, they never see the money. Universal Credit will cause tenants to be paid their housing benefit directly. http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare-reform/universal-credit/direct-payments-to-tenants http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare-reform/universal-cr... There are a number of different approaches to addressing the extra risk this will introduce to rents, with things like Jam-Jar accounts, but it's generally expected to introduce more insecurity and thus limit the amount that can be spent on new housing.
    • DanBC 13y ago
      > Universal Credit will cause tenants to be paid their housing benefit directly. Housing benefit gets paid directly to the tenants. Many years ago you could ask for it to go direct to the landlord, but organised gangs set up claims in the names of dead people.
      • 6d0debc071 13y ago
        The gov is looking at changing how housing benefit is paid, from directly to the landlord to directly to the tenants, they've been running the pilot schemes for it quite recently in fact. You can find loads of reports on the things with a quick search, some from quite reputable sources. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756567 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756567 I suppose it's possible you and I are talking about different kinds of tenancy, but I don't think that the numerous news stories on this can just be hand-waved away either.
        • DanBC 13y ago
          > Bron Afon community housing > Southwark Council > Minister Steve Webb said: "We currently pay housing benefit directly to one million people in the private sector and that works pretty well. > "We are trying to treat people in council houses the same way, but we want to get it right." That change is for people living in council housing or housing association properties. It hasn't been possible to get HB for a regular property paid direct to the landlord for many years.
  • vidarh 13y ago
    If this was such a massive cash cow, it should still be driving property sales prices through the roof, and banks should be lining up to find ways to shift their loan books towards the buy to let market. The real issue is a lack of properties in the places people want to live.
  • dreamfactory 13y ago
    The idea that housing benefit is driving the rental market is total nonsense. a) it forms a minority of the market and b) the majority of landlords won't let to people on housing benefit.
    • mseebach 13y ago
      a) There are ~850k housing benefit claimants in Greater London[1], out of a total population of just under 5mm.[2] That's ~17%. Not a majority, to be sure, but also not small enough to discount entirely. b) Just because some landlords do not want to deal with non-claimant tenants doesn't mean that non-claimant tenants will only want to rent from such landlords, if it means cutting themselves off from lower rents. Theoretically removing those 850k people from the housing market would undoubtedly make the prices fall, if only for a while. 1: http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/receiving-non-work-benefits/housing-benefit-caseload/ http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/re... 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London#Population_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London#Populati...
      • dreamfactory 13y ago
        Interesting. This is more than I'd have thought but you can't just remove them from the supply/demand picture and say they are driving prices up by their very existence. The OP's point I was addressing was that housing benefits being paid were above market rates (not true as they are capped) and this was pushing the whole market.
• mjw 13y ago
  Yes the London market is a bit nuts, but if you're paying anything close to 25k/year (that's 480/week!) for a 2 bed in a "not great" part of London then either you have very high standards or you're being seriously ripped off. For example see what this gets you N1, a pretty central and desirable postcode: http://www.nestoria.co.uk/n1/property/rent/bedrooms-2/maxprice-500/minprice-450/maxbed-2 http://www.nestoria.co.uk/n1/property/rent/bedrooms-2/maxpri...
  • csomar 13y ago
    The links you suggested are as much expensive. I think the OP didn't mean a miserable appt but just not a great one considering the money paid. Don't forget there are other costs that the OP might have added to equation: water, ec, internet, phone...
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  • corin_ 13y ago
    No - he's saying it's cheaper, he isn't saying that he would (or will) chose that cheaper option.
  • andyakb 13y ago
    What? The author never actually said they were going to do this, it was just to make the point of how expensive London is, which is what the parent comment said.
  • ronaldx 13y ago
    > The point of the piece is that the author is a cheapskate(nothing wrong with that) and they would rather save the extra 387 quid/week. No - the author does not suggest that he plans to carry this out: note that he uses only hypothetical averages. He only points out that it is theoretically possible, which is outrageous enough in itself. I object to the idea that people in general have the simple option to "work harder" to make up 387 difference. In truth, that amount is enough to legally employ 1.5 people. Poor people (up to and beyond median earners) are excluded from options that you describe as investments precisely because they are investments - if you need to spend your labour and capital on survival, you can't afford to "spend it in smart ways".
• hackerboos 13y ago
  London needs rent control.
  • fennecfoxen 13y ago
    Rent control? Geez. If it's the destruction of the city you're after, you could just bomb it, you know. :P (Oh! Or are you one of those denialists who thinks rent control isn't actually destructive, and prefers your own vision of reality to what the consensus among economists has to say about the matter? because if so I've got some people you should meet who don't believe climate scientists on global warming, or the medical establishment about things like homeopathy, and i think you can all be friends)
    • hindsightbias 13y ago
      Rent control has so destroyed San Francisco.
      • kansface 13y ago
        Is this sarcasm?
      • fennecfoxen 13y ago
        I know!! Have you tried to get an apartment there recently? I swear, there'll be something like 50 couples standing in line to view a rickety, old, drafty, minuscule 1-bedroom, at a price that they can barely afford even if they are working for Google. It's INSANE.
        • cmccabe 13y ago
          Yeah! We should artificially push the price of rentals down, so that there will be no incentive to increase supply, ever. I can't see any problems with this plan.
          • spiek 13y ago
• frank_boyd 13y ago
  > The point of this piece is not that living in Barcelona and commuting to London is sensible -- it's that the North London property market has gone totally batshit insane. That's not the only point. The other point is that flights are still much too cheap: And that is because airline companies/consumers are still allowed to externalize the insane environmental costs. Meaning: we are allowed to pollute, without having to pay for it. That means, a) we promote pollution (the externalized costs) and b) these costs are paid for by the entire world population (1st, 2nd and 3rd world, even if the latter have never ever polluted in the slightest way).
  • j2d3 13y ago
    This seems more like your observation rather than a point of the article, but I agree 100%
    • collyw 13y ago
      I have observed this as well. And airlines are not the only industry getting away without compensating for the effects they have on the environment.
  • qwerta 13y ago
    Perhaps better way is to promote telecommuting. My emissions on the way from bedroom to office room are zero if do not fart.
• notahacker 13y ago
  In fairness, comparing the property prices in a fashionable London district with those in a lower income country in deep economic trouble after its property bubble burst (and Ryanair's loss-leader headline fares) isn't the best illustration of how expensive London is. I mean, you can match those Barcelona prices in nice market towns a short train ride from central London (probably a similar door to door time to many parts of central London to commuting from West Hampstead), which many London workers actually do. They can think about buying in those areas from £75k as well. But the investment bubble at the high end of the property market is a largely separate phenomenon; middle-class renters are more likely to take advantage of cheap rents from a lazy letting agent managing the investment property of a foreign owner who's not too savvy about what their buy-to-let income should be than they are to be affected by the unoccupied flats in Belgravia not being on the market. For that reason, for £28000 a year I got five large bedrooms, two reception rooms and a garden in a desirable south London suburb three years ago, so I'd expect a pretty impressive[ly located] 2 bed flat for £25000....
  • tekacs 13y ago
    £25k/yr is ~£480/wk - student accommodation at Imperial College (this is South Kensington) goes up to ~£250/wk for a living room and bedroom. Taking a cursory look at the (current) prices in the area, Chelsea and similar areas look like you might find a single place or perhaps two at those prices, but it won't be terribly appealing - attempting to actually rent for £480/wk looks like it gets you a studio/1bed flat. Edit: So essentially, £25k/yr will get you almost nothing in upscale areas, a hell of a lot in downscale areas.
    • notahacker 13y ago
      Using Chelsea as a reference point for London prices is akin to using Rolls Royce as a reference point for car prices. Yes, you have to pay more to show off if the BMW isn't upscale enough for you. There's plenty of choice of central locations with good housing, transport, reputations and nightlife where £25k per annum gets you a very nice flat indeed.
      • 13y ago
• djhworld 13y ago
  Rental is insane across the entirety of Zones 1-3, not just in the north of the city
  • Swannie 13y ago
    Right, and if you want to live in a "leafy green" part of zones 4, 5 and 6, with good transport into central London expect to pay close to zone 2 prices (e.g. Richmond, Wimbledon, even Beckenham, etc.). A 2 bed in Richmond will set you back £1400/month +. And that's a slightly amazing 40min commute (via Waterloo).
    • vidarh 13y ago
      Only if you are really selective about wanting to live in the expensive leafy green areas. There are plenty of "leafy green" parts of Croydon, for example, where prices for a 2 bed is more in the 800-1000/month range. 1400/month will give you a large house with a garden many places here. Heck, if I could get 1400/month to rent out my 3 bedroom house with a garden, I'd have enough left after paying my mortgage to rent a 2 bed flat nearby (though that admittedly is because I struck it lucky with a very favorable tracker mortgage).
• rmc 13y ago
  However build too many houses and you have the opposite problem. Just look at Ireland.
  • legutierr 13y ago
    The problem in both cases being over-investment in the real estate market as a result of too much cash chasing too few investment opportunities.
• vidarh 13y ago
  Or you could rent in Croydon, a suburb with below average crime (for London), a population earning above the London average, and pay more like 11,000 per year for a 2 bed flat, within 15 minutes on the train from London Victoria and (EDIT: I left out the rest of the sentence) <20 minutes from London Bridge. 25k/year here will give you an upscale serviced short-let apartment, or a 5 bedroom, 3 reception room house with a large garden. In other words, the prices you give are based on assumptions about living in a really expensive part of London.
  • Stately 13y ago
    Yeah but Croydon... ugh
    • vidarh 13y ago
      ... is something pretty much only people who haven't actually spent time living in the nicer parts of Croydon says, and presumably a large part of the reason why it's so cheap. (and for the record, the prices I cited are for some of the nicer parts of Croydon - in the (few) shit holes you'd pay much less) Frankly, I'm not moving anywhere else in London again. If I ever strike it rich, I'll still stay here, because what you get for your money here is insane compared to elsewhere in London. Up to and including huge mansions off private roads (Croydon is home to one of the wealthiest areas in the UK, in parts of Purley) of a size and with gardens that require "staff", that go for less than what many people pay for tiny flats in Central London. If it's worth thousands a year to avoid having a Croydon post code, I have no sympathy.
    • brackin 13y ago
      Croydon is really improving and there's actually a pretty cool surging tech scene there. As they have a lot of fibre, cheap commercial property, support from council and transport links. Not that I'm saying people should work in Croydon just yet as there aren't enough tech companies but there are quite a few medium sized ones and some startups.
      • mattkevan 13y ago
• Pxtl 13y ago
  It's not just London, it's everywhere. Every successful first-world major city has this crazy housing price thing happening. Toronto is the same, as is Vancouver, and I'm sure Americans can list more than a few towns with freakish condo markets.
  • Swannie 13y ago
    Right. Add on places such as Moscow, Sydney, Zurich, Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong - and you have some of the worlds most expensive cities (when converted to USD, not considering the relative costs of living). Even with the relative costs of living taken into account, some cities are more expensive that others - London & Sydney are still right up there.
    • te_chris 13y ago
      Don't forget Auckland, housing market is insane here and the residents are destroying the city through single dwelling zoning all the good, close to the cbd land.
      • toomuchtodo 13y ago
        There goes my plans to expat it in Auckland.
        • billforsternz 13y ago
          Wellington is much nicer anyway :-)
  • collyw 13y ago
    It was outrageously easy to get credit, which let to the prices going up, and then the crash. Now the answer to the problem seems to be more of the same.
  • lobster_johnson 13y ago
    Berlin is still extremely cheap. You can get fairly large 1BRs in nice, central areas neat Mitte for 400-500 EUR or even less. Larger apartments are not much more expensive. You can still find a largeish 2BR below 1000 EUR.
• cromulent 13y ago
  Makes sense. Isn't this part of London part of the Grosvenor Estate? No wonder it is expensive- I believe they keep the freehold and only give 100 year leases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosvenor_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosvenor_Group
• Swannie 13y ago
  I know a number of colleagues (I work for a large global corp) who have moved to Spain from the UK for many of these reasons. We heavily embrace remote working through the use of online meetings and video-conferencing. If you need a high quality meeting, they go to the office for 52"+ HD telepresence. They regularly fly into London because it is not cost prohibitive to do so - even on their own budget. And their salary in Spain? Good. Not quite as good as London, but good. I also know people who work in this style from Newcastle and Manchester - though the train tickets are often more expensive than flying, there is the added benefit of power, space, and being able to arrive ~5 mins before your train departs. EDIT: Currently attempting the same from 1hr outside of Paddington, where my rent is less than 50% of my London rent. Though it's certainly a lot more dull than living in Zone 2!! I wouldn't advise it :-(
• quarterto 13y ago
  I live in a relatively nice bit of South London. My rent is £1250/mo. It takes me 15 minutes to cycle to work in the centre (the Tube is 30 minutes by virtue of the nearest station being 15 minutes away, but closer to the stations is still the same rent). North London rent is insane.
  • e12e 13y ago
    One or two bedroom apartment? It's still a pretty crazy rent from what I've seen of (advertised) London salaries (it's almost as expensive as here in Bergen, Norway -- but here you almost have to make an effort to make less than £32 247/year if you work full time).
• jlees 13y ago
  As a Brit living in Silicon Valley, I look at these numbers and think that perhaps I should move back to London. I'd certainly save a lot of money on rent. (But, of course, the income scales are very different!)
• zaidf 13y ago
  Finding a decent true 2 bed room apartment in Manhattan will cost you $4,000 too.
  • timr 13y ago
    See also: San Francisco. The average for a one-bedroom here just crossed the $3,000 mark.
  • Crake 13y ago
    I'm in a 3bd apartment on Manhattan that costs less than $2000/month. Articles always cherrypick luxury apartments in the most expensive areas.
    • schrodinger 13y ago
      I live here, and that sounds really unlikely to me. Where are you? Is there any subsidy involved?
      • Crake 13y ago
        No subsidy. Most of my non-wall street friends pay in the $600-800 range as well. Among this subset, the farthest one to the south is on 106th, and the farthest one north is on 160th. I'm 1/2 a block from the nearest A/C/E station and about 4 streets/a 5 minute walk from the 1.
        • e12e 13y ago
          600-800 per bedroom/month? (Ie: 1200-1600 for a 2 bedroom apartment)? Or did you mean something else?
          • Crake 13y ago
            Yes, per bedroom per month. It's more like $1800-2400 for a 3br though, because those appear to be the most cost-efficient. Off the top of my head, I remember visiting one place that was a 2br for $900/person (including utilities) around 140th which I liked, as it was quite spacious, but it was a bit out of my price range. IMO, if I had $1100/month or so I could have found a place in a great 2br pretty easily though. Quality seems to vastly improve with each additional $200/month. Oddly, Brooklyn and Queens were not cheaper.
• lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  just to note I did a mental exercise on this recently: affordable home is supposedly 2.5 times yearly income (if you earn 50k do not buy a home worth more than 125k). the upshot of this is for the average income in London (28k) the affordability limit is 70k. And there were last month 66 properties advertised for sale in London at 70k or less - for a city of 8milllion just agreeing with the parent post here
• ChuckMcM 13y ago
  The crash, when it comes, is going to be epic. Yup, that is the whole point of market economies, they self correct eventually. I totally sympathize with the folks in London it sucks not being able to find an apartment, so you end up either in a horrible commute or working elsewhere. That makes it harder to find people to work there, so if the imbalance persist the jobs move elsewhere, and the revenues go down, and the economy cools off. So if you're in your 20's today, something to think about is how this might self correct. Either telecommuting could take off, or something like Musk's Hyperloop dropping off people from one urban center into another. Ask yourself what is it about London (other than the job) that makes it a desirable place to live. Can those things be replicated outside of London? Can you build an urban 'night life' center and split the night life from the work life? What is it going to do to the cost of businesses that have to be in London? Can those businesses be made more efficient or profitable by enabling them to minimize their local footprint? On and on. It really isn't sustainable, and as Charlie points out the crash is going to be pretty epic. So think about how you might turn that to your advantage in 10 years.
  • cstross 13y ago
    Musk's hyperloop might or might not be workable in the right place, but it's simply not going to work in London. (Cost of new construction: prohibitive. Also, London's transport infrastructure is groaning at the seams -- it dates to the 19th century or earlier (road layout mostly dates to the 1670s) and it's simply overloaded. Hyperloop seems to be a high-speed low-numbers solution; what London needs is relatively low-speed but extremely high volume transport.
  • d4nt 13y ago
    When it happens I think it'll look like an explosion in semi-telecomute jobs. All those people who spend weekdays away from their families at the moment will find they really only need to be in town for 1 or 2 days per week, and companies will realise that this is a great way of opening up the talent pool while keeping wages low. So, building lots of co-working spaces in England's market towns and regional cities seems like a sensible move right now.
    • 13y ago
• JonoBB 13y ago
  London is expensive, and West Hampstead is one of the more expensive areas in Zone 2. However, there is much better value to be if you move out a bit. I rent a 3 bed double story semi-detached house in zone 5 NW London in an awesome residential area. Its located in a cul-de-sac, we have a proper front and back garden, no 1950's council flats anywhere nearby, near a great high street and lots of green spaces around. Rent is £1350 per month. Oh, and there is a fast train (no stops) to Euston which takes only 12 minutes.
• fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  I don't think there will be an epic crash in London any time soon, if ever. There is no excess supply, no overbuilding. It's completely unlike the Spanish or Irish property market in that regard. London property prices will decline if and when London loses its role as an important financial center. Maybe if the UK leaves the EU, Singapore's gravitational pull increases, or some important regulatory changes take place.
  • twic 13y ago
    I'm not sure that a decline in the financial industry would have that effect. I don't think such a decline would have any effect on the supply side; it won't suddenly create more houses, or release more houses from ownership to rental. What effect would it have on the demand side? Well, people in the financial industry who could move to Singapore or Zurich or whatever might well do that, and so stop wanting to rent houses. But there are vanishingly few such people - you're talking about the elite. Their loss (if we call it a loss) wouldn't have much impact on demand. The kinds of stupendous penthouses and townhouses they rent mean they're not even competing in the same market as the normal middle-class mugs. The majority of people in the financial industry - from bank apparatchiks down to post-room clerks - aren't about to up sticks and migrate to a tax haven. If their jobs go away, they will be looking for other jobs in London. Even if they decide to give up and go and become shepherds in the Dales or something, how many of them are there? Finance is big in London, but it's far from being a dominant employer. There are huge numbers of people working in all the other sectors of a post-industrial economy too - law, media, IT, corporate head offices of all sorts, academia, healthcare, culture, not to mention all those civil service jobs. If we accept the (forecast) 2013 numbers in http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wp51.pdf http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wp51.pdf then finance employs 357 000 people, out of a total of 4 859 000 - 7.3%. Significant, but not enough that anything short of a collapse of the industry will have a significant effect.
    • fauigerzigerk 13y ago
      I think you grossly underestimate the importance of the financial sector for London's economy. I've been watching the IT jobs market there for a long time. My estimate is that at least half of all IT jobs are directly or indirectly related to finance. I'm sure it's even more extreme in legal and some professional services. Property prices do not simply depend on the number of people looking to buy. They are also determined by how much people are willing and able to pay. If you strip out the inflated salaries they pay in finance, it's going to trickle down to all other salaries and prices. The financial sector employs large numbers of foreigners. If they leave, demand gets crushed. Also, let's not forget that London property isn't just bought to live in. It's also an investment for rich people from all around the world. If finance moves on, these investors will follow suit.
• grey-area 13y ago
  That's a bit misleading, the cheapest 2 bed flat for say nw6 is £13k a year from a quick search and the cheapest in London is probably around 10k, things are overpriced and finding quality housing in a nice area is hard (as it is in most large cities), but there is a broad range of properties available, and rental costs vary from £200 a week or less to over £7,000 a week for 2 beds in different areas just a few miles apart.
• chrisgd 13y ago
  I love these comments about a bubble in one of the most coveted cities in the world when interest rates have been at their lowest ever. What is causing this bubble that prices would decline so much that they would match Barcelona, a great city but not one desired by people all over the world in the center of the financial capital of Europe.