Under occupied housing in London

[Tim Lund]

There are so many cool graphics possible these days with Geographic information systems. Here's a screen grab from a link someone sent me today,



which shows the extent of the empty super rich ghettos in Kensington and Chelsea. Elsewhere in Central London, however, under occupancy is much lower than the national average, which is to be expected ...

[maestro]

Clearly not the case with this place...............

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/lewis ... 27_people/

[Eagle]

Tim

Just saw report on Al Jaz about empty property in China. There are whole towns empty. Estimated 50 million empty homes.

[Tim Lund]

Clearly not the case with this place...............

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/lewis ... 27_people/

Not sure that Lewisham normally seen as a super rich ghetto ...

Meanwhile, here's where there's over occupancy - a.k.a. congested districts



But that's just what is picked up by the Census. The worst goes unreported, until it appears in police stories such as this.

[hairybuddha]

Some really fascinating conclusions can be drawn from that site, although they are often just visualising what we already knew to be the case.

Very interesting to compare the maps for "Travel to Work" by "car", "bike" and "public transport".

[Tim Lund]

Tim

Just saw report on Al Jaz about empty property in China. There are whole towns empty. Estimated 50 million empty homes.

It's a similar story to rural Ireland where a bubble caused unwanted properties to be built where there's not the demand.

But that is not what's happening here in London, or in Dublin, as commented on here.

Just did this screen grab from Google Street View, somewhere in Kerry



Here we do have those empty super rich ghettos, but that's not the sort of lack of real economic demand associated with bubbles. It's demand, but just not as ordinary people know it. The London property market is overpriced because there is a lack of supply, not because there is misguided excess demand.

[maestro]

Not sure that Lewisham normally seen as a super rich ghetto ...

I don't suppose it is but the thread has been posted in the 'Town Hall' section which is reserved for topics specifically relating to Sydenham, or at least Lewisham Borough. My link would have more relevance in here than debates regarding housing in the likes of Kensington, Chelsea, Dublin or indeed China.

[Tim Lund]

Not sure that Lewisham normally seen as a super rich ghetto ...

I don't suppose it is but the thread has been posted in the 'Town Hall' section which is reserved for topics specifically relating to Sydenham, or at least Lewisham Borough. My link would have more relevance in here than debates regarding housing in the likes of Kensington, Chelsea, Dublin or indeed China.

Fair enough. Ask Admin to move it there if you want.

[Tim Lund]

There's some idiot on Radio 4 at the moment saying the way to deal with the problem in London is to raise property taxation. Not a bad idea, but completely ignoring the larger problem of lack of supply.

Sir John Gieve.

Why they give these people knighthoods I have no idea.

OMG, he read PPE at Oxford. 'Nuff said.

Here's another one - Ed Balls, writing in the Evening Standard

Ed Balls: A mansion tax will make the housing market fair for all

He pays lip service to the need for more houses, but seems more interested in complicated new schemes and taxes, and scoring points off the Lib Dems on the details of a Mansion Tax. He also shies away from saying what these new tax rates will be, but hastens to assure the grey vote that special measures will be taken to ensure they won’t really hurt.

Housing is simply too expensive, but Ed Balls still peddles the language of helping the “aspirational majority who want to own their own home to get on the ladder” – with all the financial risks that entails. Progressive taxation of wealth in property would be good, but is irrelevant to getting more houses built when developments, where people actually want to live, are so profitable. Relaxing the constraints on London Councils building more social housing, which can easily pay for itself, would be more helpful.

High rents in London, especially nearer the centre, is the market’s way of saying where young people want to live - not in a new generation of new towns. The cost of housing cannot come down without a period in which buying a house proves not to be such a great long term investment. Politicians of all parties have to decide if they are on the side of the haves of the have-nots. Ed Balls, like all of them, is evading the issue.

[Eagle]

Tim

I missed your idiot talking about property taxation .

However surely an anomaly that Capitol Gains not paid on all dwellings.

We know there are either too many people or too few homes in London , or of course a combination of both.

[Tim Lund]

There are all sorts of CGT anomalies. In fact the tax itself is an anomaly - it should just be a schedule within income tax. But going on about it in the context of London property is just displacement activity.

[Tim Lund]

Ed Balls might not be sure about whether he is for the haves of have-nots, but in today's Evening Standard the ludicrous Diane Abbott breaks Labour ranks to warn against mansion tax in London.

So good to know where she stands on this particular side issue. Nothing to say about overall supply - there's a surprise - but instead she would

target wealthy foreigners investing in London homes they do not live in

which would tend to reduce supply.

Meanwhile dodgy landlords put beds in sheds.