3 ms·

What? London is full of new housing under construction. Many of the flats will be tiny as well. The problem (for those trying to live in the city) is that the h

What? London is full of new housing under construction. Many of the flats will be tiny as well. The problem (for those trying to live in the city) is that the houses will be hugely expensive. For London in particular, the problem is that there are too many people who want to own a house there. That's why the prices are high. You can't call the place underdeveloped, it's not a lack of supply due to regulations. If you want the prices to be lower, you need to reduce the demand.

irremediable 12y ago
As I understand it, the problem is that new construction is outstripped by increasing demand. Hence the increasing prices. I read an article in The Economist's recent suburbs/cities issue where they said a lot of the problem lies in how people are prevented from developing the green belt.
- joosters 12y ago
  And rightly so, IMO. At some point you have to accept that you aren't in London any more, and the green belt is as good a point as any to do this. Much better than an interminable urban sprawl.
  - irremediable 12y ago
    I don't know. I know a few people who live in green belt areas and commute every day to work in central London. Clearly, in some sense, London doesn't end there; and it drives up costs for them and many others. At the same time, I agree that it would be terrible to lose all the countryside vaguely near London. Perhaps your top-level comment was right: London has just reached capacity. But I'm not convinced of that, either; there are plenty of bigger megacities.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>What? London is full of new housing under construction. It's full of empty housing too. This happens when people try to use housing as a means to store their unimaginable wealth.
Brakenshire 12y ago
It's a matter of perspective. On the one hand you're right that it's sheer demand that is a big part of the problem in London. On the other hand it is obvious that everywhere in the UK has serious restriction of supply, because house building has been less than half of what's necessary for many decades, house prices are spiralling, and median house price to income ratios are double now what they were 15 years ago (again, that applies to all parts of the country, even unfashionable places far away from the capital [1]). Obviously there's the issue with green belts, but even beyond that there's massive potential for increasing the housing density of outer London. Both because of its current low density, and because a lot of the existing housing stock is made up of grey suburban estates which would be more or less unmourned if redeveloped. Look up 'densification' for more information. Also, of course, it is important to try to reduce demand by making the Northern cities an alternative centre of gravity (HS2, HS3, new local powers for unified city mayors in Manchester and Birmingham, and so on). [1] - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321015/Chart_576.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

irremediable 12y ago

As I understand it, the problem is that new construction is outstripped by increasing demand. Hence the increasing prices. I read an article in The Economist's recent suburbs/cities issue where they said a lot of the problem lies in how people are prevented from developing the green belt.

joosters 12y ago
And rightly so, IMO. At some point you have to accept that you aren't in London any more, and the green belt is as good a point as any to do this. Much better than an interminable urban sprawl.
- irremediable 12y ago
  I don't know. I know a few people who live in green belt areas and commute every day to work in central London. Clearly, in some sense, London doesn't end there; and it drives up costs for them and many others. At the same time, I agree that it would be terrible to lose all the countryside vaguely near London. Perhaps your top-level comment was right: London has just reached capacity. But I'm not convinced of that, either; there are plenty of bigger megacities.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>What? London is full of new housing under construction. It's full of empty housing too. This happens when people try to use housing as a means to store their unimaginable wealth.

Brakenshire 12y ago

It's a matter of perspective. On the one hand you're right that it's sheer demand that is a big part of the problem in London. On the other hand it is obvious that everywhere in the UK has serious restriction of supply, because house building has been less than half of what's necessary for many decades, house prices are spiralling, and median house price to income ratios are double now what they were 15 years ago (again, that applies to all parts of the country, even unfashionable places far away from the capital [1]). Obviously there's the issue with green belts, but even beyond that there's massive potential for increasing the housing density of outer London. Both because of its current low density, and because a lot of the existing housing stock is made up of grey suburban estates which would be more or less unmourned if redeveloped. Look up 'densification' for more information. Also, of course, it is important to try to reduce demand by making the Northern cities an alternative centre of gravity (HS2, HS3, new local powers for unified city mayors in Manchester and Birmingham, and so on). [1] - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321015/Chart_576.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...