Property values in Sydenham

[Tim Lund]

Yesterday's FT had an interesting piece comparing property prices in different world cities with length of commutes and cost

Commuting times and housing costs compared in eight major cities

There's probably a pay wall there, and in any case, Sydenham doesn't appear on the graphic they have for London, so I thought I'd add it



It's not quite right - size reflects cost of commute, and with some of Dulwich in Zone 2, the circle for Sydenham should be the same size or bigger than Dulwich, and I think it should be directly under, since commute times are I think the same - at least they were when I checked with CityMapper.

But the big difference, of course is price. For this, I measured the floor space of my house, which I'd never done before - I'd be interested to know how many other people know their floor space, rather than just how many bedrooms, and took the current price estimate from Zoopla, and current $ exchange rate to get $579 per sq. foot.

So property in Sydenham still is a bargain compared with the rest of London.

Existing SE London property owners, fed up with disappointing returns on their investment, can do something about it while simultaneously signalling how virtuous they are, by signing this 38 degrees petition to stop a proposed high rise development in Catford

STOP 19 STOREY TOWER ON CATFORD GREEN

[sparticus]

[quote]Existing SE London property owners, fed up with disappointing returns on their investment, can do something about it while simultaneously signalling how virtuous they are, by signing this 38 degrees petition to stop a proposed high rise development in Catford
[quote]

I assume you are employing irony Tim.

I can't see how anything could be an eye sore in the vicinity of the horrible Laurence House and the mess that is the Broadway refurbishment. Anyway, we need to build at much higher densities in London. It's mad. A house in Kingsthorpe Road, unmodernised, is on the market for £930k. Means I'm a millionaire on paper. Bit of an embarrassment for an old anarcho-syndicalist like me.

[Tim Lund]

Existing SE London property owners, fed up with disappointing returns on their investment, can do something about it while simultaneously signalling how virtuous they are, by signing this 38 degrees petition to stop a proposed high rise development in Catford

I assume you are employing irony Tim.

Yup.

I can't see how anything could be an eye sore in the vicinity of the horrible Laurence House and the mess that is the Broadway refurbishment. Anyway, we need to build at much higher densities in London. It's mad. A house in Kingsthorpe Road, unmodernised, is on the market for £930k. Means I'm a millionaire on paper. Bit of an embarrassment for an old anarcho-syndicalist like me.

Don't worry - the main embarrassment round here is 38 degrees.

[broken_shaman]

I'm not sure I really have an issue with a tower in Catford. But have you seen it?

Over in Croydon, they built a huge tower that can be seen for miles around. It's quite an impressive beast. Whereas it looks like Catford will be getting something that looks like student accommodation.

The stuff they've already built on the Catford Stadium site isn't too pretty either. imo.

[monkeyarms]

Anyway, we need to build at much higher densities in London.

Even if we did, so long as the majority of new buildings are just plonked straight onto the open market, it won't make a real social difference.

With no controls over how much of a new block of flats becomes rental accommodation, and with the risible current definition of what constitutes "affordable" housing, it doesn't matter how many tower blocks are built: they'll all just get snapped up by developers, the wealthy young offspring of millionaires, and professional landlords who of course wish to maximise their return.

Without (significant) changes in policy, building more apartment blocks is not going to help the people who need help; it's going to fatten the investment portfolios of the wealthy, while reducing the available physical space in London for building social housing.

[Tim Lund]

I've seen the architects' impressions, and as always, they look nice enough.

Any such development needs to be well planned, and the general public have to be allowed their say, but I don't like the lazy assumption that all tall buildings are bad.

Personally, I'd prefer it to be easier for existing sites to be developed one or two storeys higher than existing roof lines, so allowing more habitable rooms here in London, where demand is so high, but achieved by the efforts of a wider range of smaller developers than those, such as Barratts, with the capacity for developments of this size.

[Tim Lund]

Even if we did, so long as the majority of new buildings are just plonked straight onto the open market, it won't make a real social difference.

With no controls over how much of a new block of flats becomes rental accommodation, and with the risible current definition of what constitutes "affordable" housing, it doesn't matter how many tower blocks are built: they'll all just get snapped up by developers, the wealthy young offspring of millionaires, and professional landlords who of course wish to maximise their return.

Without (significant) changes in policy, building more apartment blocks is not going to help the people who need help; it's going to fatten the investment portfolios of the wealthy, while reducing the available physical space in London for building social housing.

I don't agree. People can and do move between social and private housing, and housing stock moves from one form of tenure to others and back. What matters fundamentally is how much housing stock there is in an area, and how many people want to live there.

Some private sector investors will be purely speculative, and not bother maximise income by renting properties out, but not many. Some rich individuals will also buy property for their own use, but under use it by the standards of those who cannot afford a second home, a little place in London for the kids to stay in while at uni, etc.

It is overall supply that matters - the rest is distraction.

[admin]

All,

This discussion is going off the rails. I have moved the wider, London and National debate to the Pub.

Admin

[alywin]

Yesterday's FT had an interesting piece comparing property prices in different world cities with length of commutes and cost

Commuting times and housing costs compared in eight major cities

There's probably a pay wall there

No paywall that I can see - although even if there is, a Google search restricted to site:ft.com may well get round it.